Molten metal! Motlen metal! Molten metal!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKQJdf8HeUw

FRONTLINE ~ "The Interrogator"
An extended conversation with Ali Soufan, an FBI agent who was at the center of the 9/11 investigations
Chapter 1: Could 9/11 have been prevented?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-interrogator/

FRONTLINE: "The Man Who Knew"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/

April 12, 2004: In the week that the 9/11 Commission holds hearings scrutinizing the FBI's actions in the years prior to the terrorist attack, FRONTLINE rebroadcasts the remarkable story of John P. O'Neill, the FBI's counterterrorism expert who long warned of Al Qaeda's threat. A summary of this FRONTLINE report follows:

When the Twin Towers fell on Sept. 11, 2001, among the thousands killed was the one man who may have known more about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda than any other person in America: John O'Neill.

The former head of the FBI's flagship antiterrorism unit in New York City, O'Neill had investigated the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa and the USS Cole in Yemen. For six years, he led the fight to track down and prosecute Al Qaeda operatives throughout the world. But his flamboyant, James Bond style and obsession with Osama bin Laden made him a controversial figure inside the buttoned-down world of the FBI. Just two weeks before Sept. 11, O'Neill left the bureau for a job in the private sector -- as head of security at the World Trade Center. He died there after rushing back into the burning towers to aid in the rescue efforts.

An interesting theory - aluminum + iron oxide reaction is a classic thermite reaction:

Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn well while wet and cannot be easily extinguished with water, from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

(One local sheet metal shop that sanded both steel and aluminum on the same machine had this reaction cause a fire.)

thanks
JK

I just like to point out that aluminum dust is a major component of most solid rocket fuels: the solid-fuel rockets on the space shuttles were effectively aluminum dust and synthetic rubber in a steel casing. Considering that iron dust and fragments readily combust themselves, I'm not surprised in the slightest. (One of the biggest issues with the current Constellation boosters for moon and Mars missions is that they're using liquid fuels. In an emergency, rocket engines using those can be turned off once ignited. As the Challenger disaster demonstrated, because the aluminum combustion keeps going, solid-fuel boosters have to be fitted with remote explosive charges, in case one goes out of control and threatens populated areas.)

Doesn't explain the sudden collapse of Building 7 hours later, which was not hit by an aircraft.

Building 7 was engulfed if fire. I saw a documentary on the recent anniversary and a segment had a man in the lobby of building 7 towards the end of it's life. He was a building security/staffer and he was discussing with a police officer that he had just finished a sweep of the building and was confident everyone had gotten out. The two of them were then leaving the building being the last out.
Unless they were actors and participants in the deed there was nothing going on in the building. No covert people setting charges or anything else imagined by so many.
The building fire raged until it collapsed, period.

People hearing noises that sound like "explosions" is not an indication of deliberate demolition. Rather it is the sounds of a rupturing structure under enormous weight.

As for the towers, it doesn't matter much if the aluminum was key or not. The fact is the location of the unchecked raging fires weakened the structures enough that the immense weight above buckled the weakening.
As that story says, the weight was simply too much for all of the structure below to handle. It was like dropping an aircraft carrier on the buildings.
Also, as the collapse ensued more weight was quickly added with each floor buckling. Turning it all into dust and ruble.

Ben - Lol. WT7 was engulfed in a fire 2 blocks away? And it remains the only steel structure in the world that ever collapsed due solely to fire?

Never mind. So, this is the version you believe?

Look, I don't have a single solitary theory about who did what or how it all came down, but I don't believe we got the truth. I don't think it was the CIA or "the Jews" or whatever. But to just believe what they've told us is too far a stretch for me given the extent to which they went to obfuscate what happened, like confiscating all security tapes of the pentagon and only releasing three frames from that gas station that don't show anything? Or whitewashing the report to the point where those on the commission don't believe they got the whole set of facts out there? If it went down like they say, great, show us and put this to bed.

I've been doing a delayed 9/11 thing the last 24 hours, consisting mainly of watching Ryan Adams's "New York, New York" video around 5 times.
It was shot on September 7th, 2011 and features many haunting views of the Twin Towers.

"And love won't play any games with me
Anymore if you don't want it to
The world won't wait and I watched you shake
But honey, I don't blame you
Hell, I still love you, New York
Hell, I still love you, New York
New York"

It struck me that I want to know what happened in the same emotional way that loved ones want to know what happened to a family member who gets killed.

I knew at a certain point we'd really start looking at this. It's not going away and the official story never added up. The heat causing the steel to sag leading to a pancake collapse in near freefall? I don't care how many Popular Mechanics pieces there were. It doesn't make sense.

Now we have a theory that acknowledges explosions. It's a start. Let's investigate this thing. I'll always love you, New York.

Make that "the video was shot September 7th, 2001."

After working in an Aluminum foundry for a number of years I know that water and molten aluminium are a deadly combination. Put all the water you want on top of molten aluminium but don't ever get it underneath it. I've seen a couple of explosions (small in scale) up front and I've seen the aftermath of an explosion (not so small in scale) at a similar plant in the US after a worker dumped aluminium baseball bats into the well of a furnace that had liquid aluminium in it. Not pretty. Many dead and the only thing left standing were the furnaces and the support beams of the factory.

My point being, that we don't know all that happened and the general public may never know...ever.

Those of us who have worked in the federal government find the conspiracy theories amusing -- mostly for the opposite reason West Wing was so popular in DC. We all knew that's not what it was really like in the White House, but we hoped that it was: intellectual, funny, fast-paced, with participants who strive to do the right thing in the face of difficult odds.

The American public, however, tend to think the government is all powerful, with shady participants who have immediate access to perfect information and a cabal of tight-nit supporters who can pull strings anywhere, anytime, to make things happen. Just like 24.

Reality: the federal government at the highest levels is full of normal people -- some good, some bad -- who are striving to implement their vision in their particular area (health care, national security, education, whatever). They are isolated in silos and subject to incredible infighting, and have to fight for months or years just to make the smallest change.

Conspiracies entice us because they bring order to an otherwise chaotic series of events. But they don't exist at the level being discussed here.

Way, way too many abnormal, physics-defying events on 9/11. I know it is really tough to imagine that people could be so evil to sacrifice their fellow humans to further imperialism, but this has happened over and over in history.

Check out Operation Gladio, where NATA (read the US military and CIA) set up right-wing secret armies in Europe. They did many false-flag terrorist bombings and blamed them on the Left. The Italian government was completely reordered to the right because of these events. Every NATA member had their own secret army and even today, most of the information is top secret.

Well, to be fair, the Italian government has been "reordered" about 50 times since WWII, so who knows how much any alleged secret armies held influence in a given year.

Ralph-

Can you describe in detail one single "abnormal, physics-defying event" that occurred on 9/11. Just one event that defied physics, please.

Thanking you in advance.

Don Smith
I don't know what your LOL is all about but WTC 7 was indeed engulfed in fire.
There are many videos like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzVlSnFsn9A

I don't know what you are watching in that link of yours.
It's a collection of somewhat interesting things. That's it.
The absence of belief that fire could be the primary cause for the building 7 collapse is not an indication of another mysterious cause.
The fact is there is nothing indicating another cause or that anyone had reason or anything to do with any deliberate
demolition.
There was no one in the building prior to or when it collapsed.
No setting of charges or any other activity. None.
So for the non-believers of the fire causing the collapse it will remain a permanent suspicion of something else.
That is all. And there will never be any progress towards any other conclusions.

Truly. Physics-defying implies we're talking about advanced aliens from other universes or supernatural forces. .

Miles,
You say, "Those of us who have worked in the federal government find the conspiracy theories amusing."
That's a pretty sweeping statement. I read that there are 2 million civilians working for the federal government, and that's not counting the post office.
I doubt you all think alike about anything.

Doesn't explain the sudden collapse of Building 7 hours later, which was not hit by an aircraft.

But burning debris from one of the towers did fall onto the roof of building 7, (even 2 blocks away, they were very tall, no?) causing fires that lasted for hours unchecked, as everyone was tending to the main towers since #7 had been evacuated.

And Don...."WT7 was engulfed in a fire 2 blocks away? And it remains the only steel structure in the world that ever collapsed due solely to fire?"

Did you not see the overpass in California a couple years ago that collapsed in minutes after a tanker fire? Intense heat weakens metal. After all, that is how you form it into different shapes.

For WTC 7, just try to keep an open mind while examining this from "debunking911.com."

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

Now I realize some folks don't believe this to be a valid site. In fact, in an earlier discussion, "The Other White Meat" claimed to have researched the origins of this site, yet never produced any evidence of his or her discoveries as to the implied nefarious source. So I find it hard to validate OWM's claim.

Frankly, I think the only "conspiracy" going on here is that Jack has discovered a topic that draws large numbers of commenters and hits to his site. 65 comments on the original 09/11/11 entry alone, 30 on 09-14/11, and at lease 20 so far today.

All these hits and comments means more advertising potential and greater revenue. Makes sense to me, so it has to be true- right?

Conspiracies entice us because they bring order to an otherwise chaotic series of events. But they don't exist at the level being discussed here.

Watergate. Ever read the complete history of it? There are STILL swaths of people who think Nixon was framed.

Iran-Contra. Ever read the complete history of it? There are STILL people who think Oliver North was a witless victim of framing, and that the US government never, ever, ever engages in toppling governments, using covert action to invoke revolutions, assassinations, etc.

Nope. Any view that expresses doubt about large events is "conspiracy". Yep, that must be it.

And seriously: give me a break with the petulant dismissiveness of labeling unpopular views as "conspiracies" and popular views as "truth". If there's anything that history has shown conclusively, repeatedly, and forecefully, it's that that point of view is bullsh*t.

Frankly, I think the only "conspiracy" going on here is that Jack has discovered a topic that draws large numbers of commenters and hits to his site. 65 comments on the original 09/11/11 entry alone, 30 on 09-14/11, and at lease 20 so far today.

Nice to meet you, Frankly. The people that own and promote "debunking911" are known to anybody with Google and 15 minutes to spare. Do your own homework.

Here's a 9/11 miracle I've always failed to understand--if an open air fire can "weaken" or "melt" steel girders in a skyscraper and cause to neatly pancake, how in the world do those airplanes with aluminum and steel engines keep the poor engines from melting right off the wing? Aluminum melts at a temperature less than half that of steel, and steel melts at typically something close to 2800 degree Fahrenheit.

And even better, both WTC towers miraculously collapsed straight down. Both of them. I say "miraculous" because there's no example in the history of engineering where that happens accidentally to a large skyscraper.

What nearly always happens, you ask? Enormous chunks break off and fall off. Or the building keels over. Or the bulk of the building remains, a charred hulk.

But not BOTH WTC towers. They collapsed neatly, straight as an arrow, and not a single large piece going more than a block away.

But hey--it's not a popular view, so it's a conspiracy.

Here's a thought--how about you prove that it's TRUE? Since when does an unpopular view have the burden of proof? I know the answer--since Americans became as dumb as a box of rocks, apparently. And fearful as a mouse in a cat's den.

I say "miraculous" because there's no example in the history of engineering where that happens accidentally to a large skyscraper.

I don't think there is an example in the history of engineering where one was hit by a 737 either.

Dear PDXLifefer:

I could give you many, many details that defy science, but I really don't think you want it.

If you do want the truth, then get busy.

Ralph, you're correct, I don't want many details. I ask for only one "physics (now "science") defying event."

Just one.

I don't think there is an example in the history of engineering where one was hit by a 737 either.

No, but a ten-ton bomber hit the Empire State Building in 1945 and its fuel exploded. (Hint: jet fuel doesn't "burn hotter" than prop engine fuel). Structural damage? Almost none.

A plane hit a skyscraper in Madrid, and the entire building was consumed by fire. It didn't collapse, or move an inch.

Several light aircraft have hit skyscrapers and caused fuel fires. Not a single one cause one bit of structural steel damage, strangely.

But hey--if there are no examples of 737s, then it's a conspiracy.

OWM, are you seriously comparing the B-25 crash into the Empire State Building with crash of 737s into the World Trade Center buildings?

"B-25: loaded weight 33,500 lb, fuel capacity 670 gallons, hit ESB at approx 150 mph.

The 767s that hit the WTC weighed about 280,000 lbs and held over 10,000 gallons of fuel each. They hit the World Trade Center with over 200 times the kinetic energy of the B-25 that hit the ESB."

Again:

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html

for more relevant facts, not fantasy.

Part two of my conspiracy theory is that Mr. Bogdanski is actually commenting under the pseudonym " the other white meat" just to lure more commenters to his blog. After all, has anyone ever seen Jack Bogdanski and "the other white meat" in the same place at the same time? Huh? No? Then I rest my case.

"You can't explain X, I can't explain X, therefore the explanation is it's a conspiracy."

OWM, are you seriously comparing the B-25 crash into the Empire State Building with crash of 737s into the World Trade Center buildings?

I am. Are you seriously telling me it's not a valid example? Then tell me why, or else it's valid.

Part two of my conspiracy theory is that Mr. Bogdanski is actually commenting under the pseudonym " the other white meat"

My conspiracy theory is that you sit at home a lot with no pants on and surf the web a lot while unemployed. I haven't seen you with pants on, so I can only assume you persist in going pantsless.

OK - I'll bite.

The official NIST report says that building 7 fell the first 100 feet at free-fall speed. Free-fall implies that the building is falling with zero resistance.

A steel-frame building cannot fall as free-fall speed unless it no longer has ANY support. A fire cannot completely destroy ALL of the structures of the building at the exact same time- especially the small size of the fire in building 7.

Go watch the video put together by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. It consists of experts that have many, many years of experience and research into structural integrity and fire damage to buildings.

Ralph,
Don't forget that the NIST originally tried to use a longer time frame to hide the free fall portion of Building 7, until a high school science teacher called them on it. Indeed, one reason they took so long with their report was because they had a lot of trouble explaining 7 in a way that makes sense with the collapse theory. They still haven't convincingly explained the free fall part.

The main problem with all the collapse theories is that these buildings have load carrying capacity throughout. Not just enough to hold the weight above any one point, but with a big margin for safety described as 3 to 5 times what they would have to bear.

So there has to be a significant force pressing downward to overcome that. Now, a big piece of building falling through the structure below makes sense. But how can you explain falling through this gigantic structure below as if it wasn't there? What happened to the upward force? Did it all just disappear during the same 12 or 15 seconds at every point in the building? That's the mystery of 9/11.

At least this new theory attempts to explain it. It finally deals with the idea of explosions eliminating the structural integrity of the massive beams below. So in that sense, it takes care of the biggest mystery that dooms the original pancake theory.

Now the really fascinating part would be if this theory is true.
Because suddenly, you would have a way for the officials who put out the BS story, to show they weren't complicit after all. Maybe they were frightened and latched onto it not knowing someone would eventually figure out a relatively innocent - for them anyway - explanation for what we saw.

So then they would be trapped between their lies and their new best friend: The truth.

This could go several ways. If they know they're innocent and at long last they have a way to show it - they'll jump on this new theory. Could you imagine the apologies the 9/11 Truth movement would owe Cheney, etc? They'll be screaming for a new investigation. Wouldn't you? it's a Matlock moment. Eureka! We've finally figured it out! The aluminum in the planes caused the explosions. It's so obvious now!

Or it could go another way: They know they're complicit so they certainly won't want to check out this new theory and prove it isn't true.

Let's see what they do.

"Those of us who have worked in the federal government find the conspiracy theories amusing."

That's a pretty sweeping statement. I read that there are 2 million civilians working for the federal government

Fair point, Bill. Those that I know, which is a very small subset of the 2 million, find the conspiracy theories amusing. I would add, however, that I do know some people pretty high up in both D and R administrations. Of course, they could be part of the conspiracy. [BTW, I thought the West Wing analogy might appeal to you, specifically. Was I right?]

Watergate. Iran-contra. Any view that expresses doubt about large events is "conspiracy". Yep, that must be it.

That kinds of proves my point, though. You've cited two large attemps at conspiracy, which succeeded for a time, and were discovered and outed by sloppy behavior and whistle-blowers. The 9/11 conspiracies being discussed here would be of such a scale as to dwarf either of those. And now, 10 years later, not a peep from anyone? Seriously, how is that possible?

Here's the thing about conspiracy theories -- no one ever backs down from one. Has anyone who believes a particular conspiracy, when faced with factual evidence, ever backed down and said "Oh, yeah, I was probably wrong." Ever? Once Obama's long-form birth certificate was released, what was the response? "It took so long so they could create a fake one." Those who believe that global warming is a hoax -- put on by climate-scientists trying to get research grants in cahoots with liberals trying to destroy the economy and modern society -- will never believe anything different, even when they're taking their beach vacation in Antarctica.

In general, the most parsimonious theory is the right one. In this case, terrorists flew some large planes into some really big buildings, and they collapsed.

The Loons The Loons....
Katherine Hepburn in "On Golden Pond"

Miles,
The West Wing analogy was nice. Incidentally, I met several of the cast back in the day: Martin Sheen, the woman who played the press secretary, and the young African American who was the President's aide. I also was at a banquet once and saw a disheveled Aaron Sorkin walk by. He definitely had that troubled brilliance vibe going. Hard to believe in a few short years we've gone from that show to Jersey Shore.

I'll defer to your knowledge of the federal government, and I even sense some Washington tactics at work:

For example: Framing the issue. Don't engage in the specifics here, but redirect the debate to a discussion of conspiracies in general.
Then we get to the idea - as you mention - that it's usually the most parsimonious theory that is correct.
So suddenly we've gone from debating how a pancake collapse motion could occur in a virtual free fall, to another discussion altogether.
You're right. You do have some expertise in this field.

What I think happens a lot of times, is that the truth is there if you want to see it or search it out, but the apparatus of government suppresses it through ridicule and spin or by just turning our attention somewhere else. In this case, it was Iraq.

Iraq certainly illustrates how a BS story can be sold to the public, doesn't it? The science of molding popular opinion is very advanced and most people are all too willing to get in line and stay there once the official story has been presented to them.

Finally, there's something illogical about thinking we always find out about conspiracies and then listing the ones we know about. (Incidentally, Iran-Contra just broke because the other side in the deal discussed it in some Lebanese newspapers. That wasn't exactly whistle-blowing or sloppiness.)

Let me put it this way: We've all seen stories in the papers where somebody finds money and turns it in. You could argue that in every story we see about this, they turn the money in so it always happens.
But isn't it really that you just don't hear about the other times? Nobody calls the paper and says, "I just found 50 grand in a duffel bag and I'm keeping it."

There are some vast ugly conspiracies like radiation experiments by the U.S. government on unknowing pregnant women, that were secret for a lot longer than 10 years. They only came out decades later when the government decided to announce it.

So to assume we would have heard by now because we always hear, is bad logic. As Rumsfeld said, "It's not what you know you don't know. It's what you don't know you don't know."
God, what an idiot.

Oh, and by the way, there are some on the inside who have begun talking. You just have to look. Start with Susan Lindauer. She knows people way up in the federal government too. Her second cousin is Andrew Card, and she was a CIA asset handling Libya and Iraq prior to 9/11. Check her story out.

I don't know how she feels about West Wing, but she's definitely not merely "amused" by these conspiracy theories.

I have to say, Bill, I love your stuff. I come here as much to read your comments as Jack's posts. (Dick Cheney opening a water park may be one of my all-time favorites.)

You'll get no argument from me that the government engages in misinformation and suppresses the truth. (And it happens at all levels. I had a book review that I wrote once for a small graduate journal that made a passing factual (but negative) reference to one of Clinton's policies. I was told by White House counsel I had to remove it or risk losing my job. The circulation of this journal was approximately 15 copies -- 10 of which went to those who wrote something in it.) But misinformation and information suppression is a far cry from engaging in treasonous acts. And again, the misinformation is generally known, eventually.

As to the specifics, I'm not engaging in discussions about freefall and pancake collapse because I don't know anything about physics and how buildings do or don't fall down. What I do know is that your theory of a controlled demolition involves multiple actors, with orders from the highest level of government, acting invisibly and with incredible efficiency, blowing up at least one, and maybe three, buildings in downtown Manhattan. And none of those actors, or those who knew about what they were doing, or those who gave the orders, have since had a change of heart and come clean. Is all of this possible? Yes. But it's as likely as me becoming a comedy writer.

Here's another story about federal government efficiency. On 9/11, after the plane crashed into the Pentagon, the Secret Service evacuated the entire White House complex. Kind of. The systems and protocols that were in place either failed or were not followed (or both). This led, after a significant delay, to Secret Service agents literally running down the halls of the new and old executive office buildings, shouting "Get out! Get out now!" That's not exactly the picture that most Americans have of the Secret Service. Is there another Secret Service -- a secret Secret Service -- where they put the smart, talented agents who carry out the conspiracies outlined here and elsewhere? Maybe. But if I knew, and was going to post that information to a blog, I'm sure they would get me befo...

Thanks for the kind words, Miles. I enjoy the company here on this site...and speaking of the other Company(CIA):

I wonder what your assessment of Susan Lindauer's credibility would be. That is a fascinating case. She's careful to point out the stuff she learned firsthand and the stuff that she just heard, but I know how old government hands communicate. My father was in government relations for an oil company in Arabia, and I spent my childhood listening to conversations with diplomats, etc...They trade information as a sign of respect. Most of it is off the record.

My dad had a great gift for analyzing the Middle East. He would sometimes make a statement and I would wonder how he could know that. Then later it would come true. He always hoped that the generals wouldn't get their hands on the Middle East. I'm sure he'd be quite heartbroken at how this has all turned out.

Anyway, Susan sounds like someone who is plugged in with some serious federal employees. I really don't know. She says there was foreknowledge of the attack.

Here's one of her answers from an interview:

"While I was writing my book, I had a high-ranking State Department official, who has a very very high, top-top-top security classification, and I cannot name him for you because I don't want to hurt his reputation. He's close to retirement, he's going to have a pension--they would crush him if he was ever exposed, I suspect. He thinks it too. He says that a couple of weeks before 9/11, at the end of August, for about two weeks, strange vans were arriving at the World Trade Center at three o' clock in the morning. They were staying from about three o' clock to about four-thirty or five. They were coming in for a brief period. And he swore to me that he personally had investigated the janitorial services, and he said "I know first hand how many employees the janitorial service had, what their trucks looked like, what their revenues were like, where they lived." He said "we know the addresses." We are confident that none of the people from the janitorial services were tied to these trucks. It had never happened before, it was a unique thing. This was not a constant thing like over a six month period. It was a strange anomaly right before (the attack on) the World Trade Center. And he was convinced that this was government-level thermite, government-level weapons, that had been put into either the stairwells or the elevator shafts. And he is convinced that this is when it happened."

Ah, the never-ending crematorium reconstruction in myriad alternative realities....

Might I suggest that the exercise is an unfortunate distraction from the reality at hand, which is perfectly enshrined in the following video. Beware, psychically sensitive persons. Please take any happifying medication you may be in the habit of using, before watching, or you may be bedridden for some time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGFjkfKoECc

Around second 40 all things will be clear to you. Then you can go back to less depressing, and more interesting, cool, scientifically mesmerizing speculations about why the towers fell.

I googled Lindauer last night after you mentioned her, and read through a portion of an interview. To be honest, she didn't strike me as credible. I can't say exactly why, except that she reminded me of people I know (in my family, in fact) who have an intrinsic psychological need to be part of the larger discussion. If you mention something that your kid did in school, they talk about how when they were teaching they helped implement that activity into the curriculum. When you talk about visiting a winery, they talk about growing up next door to the winery in question and helping to pick the grapes. There's always an element of truth (e.g., this person actually was a teacher, and lived in McMinville at some point), but everyone in the room knows it's embellished.

Look at that paragraph closely. Lindauer doesn't just say she talked to a high-ranking State Dept. official who she can't name. She says he's close to retirement, has a pension, and she suspects they would crush him if exposed. Oh, and he agrees with her assessment (of course). And now it's not Lindauer making up stories about trucks, it's a high-ranking State Dept. official relaying the stories. And he "swears" that he personally investigated the janitorial services, he knows "first-hand" how many employees they had. Of course, does she ask why a State Dept. official is observing comings and goings at WTC, or investigating a domestic janitorial company? Doesn't the whole thing just seem a bit over-the-top and too convenient for you?

But look, I'm going on feeling here, as are you. Neither of us knows if Lindauer was actually a CIA resource, of if she is credible in any way. Here's my real problem with the 9/11 conspiracies: they take away attention from the real issues. Bush should be forever damned by history for using 9/11 to take us into a war of choice against Iraq -- a war that he clearly wanted to have ever since the assassination attempt against his father. We should be focusing on proving and documenting these actual, treasonous events. But for some reason, that's not enough. People are spending time trying to link Bush to a much larger conspiracy that involves actually blowing up the buildings -- not content with the horrendous actions he actually committed, but needing to show that he might rank up there with the most horrific people of all time. Meanwhile, he and his cohorts are busy putting out their own white-washed version. If I were really conspiracy-minded, I might come to the conclusion that you and others pushing these theories are moles put here to distract us from the real truth. Can you prove that you're not?

Oh, that's a good one: Accusing dissatisfaction and naysaying of the USGovt Official Nine-Eleven Op Legend as being 'paid moles.' Humankind's human nature -- especially where working as a dedicated idealist giving self-sacrifice like a sociobiologic (human-natured) 'Samaritan' for some 'issue' in government (i.e., politics workers), but EVERYone knows not to point a finger because the accusing point has three fingers pointing back. So you (accuser) are the 'paid mole' three times as suspect.

This is the incessant trick, apparently favorite of Rash Lamebrain -- accusing targeted foils of what he is guilty of. (His greatest line: "liberals are MEAN.")

BTW, the 'paid mole' stalking the web for Nine-Eleven Op 'truthers' in order to cognitively infiltrate such discussions with vapid disinformation, is a bygone model; it's been done; behind the curve -- considered passé.

The new model currently playing is the 'paid choir voice.' For those (such as Lars Larson) who imagine themselves preaching to the choir, now there are hired choir voices responding anonymously (calling-in to be in the hate-talk programming) who are 'planted' (simulated) to convince those (Larson-ists) that a 'choir' is actually there, in attendance, listening in agreement ... and (often) subtley urging The Preacher to further excess (or remove, into remoteness) of rightwing hate-talk. (Strategy: Governors guilty of injustly not-confronting the crime of hate-talk broadcasting sedition, can finesse their negligence by having the hate-talk broadcasters self-destruct in overreach.) An example of the new model 'paid choir voices' is the T.Party.

Miles, can you prove you are not paid or coerced to recite the Official Legend conclusively -- 'nothing to see, move along, drop it, faggedaboudit' -- because you don't know or don't care what (the) truth is, by your own reasoning, so whatever lyric you are required to sing is fine for surrogacy for you for your pay?

So the Greek dramatization of human-natured Life continues, in its three elements:
Protagonist: rightwing Supremacist fascist
Antagonist: Nine-Eleven Op 'truther'
Disembodied chorus responding as the Fates (public opinion 'gods'): phony adorers phoning it in, mercenary mouths without meaning or substance. ( See also: "firing an empty cannon."

Who the gods would destroy, first they raise up. Up up up high, celebrated, such as Lamebrain and Larson. Heed the plummeting fall ... like skyscrapers exploded.

For someone? seeking one single solitary "abnormal, physics-defying event" in the Official Legend of Nine-Eleven Op. Here's one. Sorry it is not "abnormal"; it is IMPOSSIBLE.

Stipulate that:
you 'believe' for every Action there is an equal and opposite Reaction.
Measured ("equal") numerically, as 1 = 1, in units of Force or Work or Energy.

In the Official Legend of N.E.O., Reaction Force was at least 100 TIMES GREATER (quantitatively) than the Action Force.

Is that "physics-defying" enough for you? How do you justify that true while it contradicts your 'belief' that Action and Reaction are always, eternally, ever-was ever-will-be evermore equal? (numerically)? Granting that 'Energy' is a fuzzy abstract concept, totally invisible and therefor an article of faith to 'believe' or 'not believe' ... and is in the question.

"... that true"? Yes, as you do the math.

Before you look at the calculation which shows Proof (admissible as Science-expert testimony in Court, and in public opinion of 'reasonable' persons), that less than 150,000 units of Action Force were IN the (Official Legend) of a Nine-Eleven Op Tower, yet more than 10,000,000 (same) units of Reaction Force resulted OUT (measureably) actually, indeed, in point of fact, witnessed by all and recorded manifest; and respecting your right of (admitted) ignorance about science, physics, icky math, 'fuzzy' to you beyond what you can exact; now a simple primer glossary is in order for you to verify your own understanding of (how) the math is done by those who do it.

The object for measurement is the dust cloud of concrete. Because it is a essentially a gas. It was a solid, then ker-blooey it became a gas. And as floating dust particles, neither was it a liquid. Therefor, for the most part the dust cloud looks like a gas, acts like a gas, and obeys the physics of the (Ideal) Gas Law. So we agree it must be either solid, liquid, or gas, and the cloud was NOT a solid and was NOT a liquid; therefor it was a gas ... in its physical properties.

Gas Law states that a collection of gas molecules keeps a constant (measure) of the Pressure and Volume (product) divided by the Temperature in the collection. That is: PV/T = konstant (value measured). If you subtract molecules you have a different collection than you started with (and measured the 'konstant value' in). If you add molecules you have a different collection. For a particular, specified, certain collection of molecules in gaseous state, the Pressure times the Volume divided by the Temperature remains numerically konstant, after whatever changes you make to the quantities of its Pressure or Volume or Temperature.

So, real life example: When you discharge a pressurized spray can you feel it get cooler. The Volume of the can is the same value before and after you release the contents, (the Volume number 'cancels out'). The Pressure in the can decreases its numeric value as you 'release' the contents. Therefor, the numeric value of Temperature decreases also, in proportion to Pressure decrease, so that Pressure divided by Temperature is, maintains, and remains the same (fraction) konstant.

When you inflate a tire you feel it get warmer. Again, same Volume bounded by the tire, before and after; Volume 'cancels out.' Pressure is increased, so Temperature is increased -- the two factors in konstant ratio.

(In such cases), the Pressure doubled Proves the Temperature doubled. The Pressure halved Proves the Temperature halved. And also, doubling the Temperature (by heating the can, tire, solid container full of molecules) Proves the Pressure inside doubled. And cooling the container decreases its pressure ... or depressurizing it cools it.

Directly measure one factor and you Prove what the other factor is, if (and when) you measure the other factor.

Okay, so the Nine-Eleven Op calculation using photographic records goes like this: The air Pressure (at sea level) was the same numeric value before and after the Tower imploded that day -- in this case, Pressure 'cancels out'. Thus, the expanded Volume of the dust cloud (gas) Proves the (proportionally) increased Temperature of it.

The dust cloud of gaseous concrete expanded at least 4 times the Volume of the Tower in which it was solid concrete.

Therefor, the Temperature of the concrete-particles gas was 4 times as much (after Action, in Reaction) as the morning's ambient Temperature, of the Tower, (before explosions ... 'pancaking' ... whatEVer). 70 degrees that sunny morning, (see weather records), became at least 280 F. degrees in the gas cloud of ultrafine, (average 60-micron size in measured samples), pulverized, lung-infiltrating, caustic concrete powder.

Ya' know how when the midday temperature gets up to 100 F. degrees you feel hot and uncomfortable? Okay, take that up to 280 degrees ... for a roiling cloud of gas (pyroclastic flow) coming at you (victim) as it's barreling and rampaging and burning along the canyons of Manhattan. (Water boils at 212 F. degrees -- presto Energized from liquid form to gas form.) [Whatever water was in the sprinkler pipes was steam before it could be reagent (liquid) for 'thermite'. Which is totally beside-the-point irrelevant anyway; sprinkler-pipe water was completely inconsequential.]

The point, and The Question is: How much Energy/Work/Force are we talking about, displayed as a Tower's Reaction?

Well, start with measured numeric values (of the collection of molecules) for the standing Tower -- its enclosed Volume, at sea-level air Pressure, at ambient Temperature. These data are public information. (someone? commented the mass was "enormous" like "an aircraft carrier." someone else? recited that a 737 was 280,000 lbs. (140 Tons) and carried 5 Tons of kerosene (jet fuel). Sorry, not even close, not even a bubblegum cigar.) These are MEGO numbers, a scale size incomprehensible, ungraspable, unfathomable for non-scientists in icky math -- "at such big numbers
My Eyes Glaze Over."

The TOTAL POSSIBLE PHYSICS Force of gravity in Action on a Tower was less than 150,000 units (KWH) of Potential Energy. Official science:

"Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4 x 10^11 joules of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure." That is equal to about 111,000 KWH (kilowatt hours) per tower.

It is well documented that nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine powder. The largest of these constituents by weight was the concrete that constituted the floor slabs of the towers.

It is an accurate estimate of 90,000 tons of concrete per tower, based on FEMA's description of the towers' construction.

It is closely estimated that the amount of energy required to crush concrete to 60 micron powder is about 1.5 KWH/ton.

That estimate implies the energy sink of concrete pulverization was on the order of 135,000 KWH per tower ...

[Compare Tower mass of 90,000 Tons (counting only concrete, not counting steel beams), with 140 or was it 300 Tons of airplane, fuel, passengers, baggage, 500mph, yadda yadda yadda all sorts of micro-mind-management distractions. Just see that 200 Tons of airplane is piffle 'rounding-error' compared with over 100,000 Tons of Tower. "I see nuhthing," says MEGO. Notice also the Towers stayed standing, after a pesky airplane impact. See news on Valentine's Day, 1975, reporting the fire in the South Tower overnight was still burning after 24 hours and the Tower still standing as 3 lower floors were completely gutted, incinerated, with 90 floors of 'enormous' weight pressing down on the charred infrastructure.]

It is unmeasureable and NOT informative to examine N.E.O. Action floor-by-floor, truss bolt-by-truss bolt, soft-vs-severed steel beams, all to frame a get-your-head-INSIDE-the-building 'human'-scale of unimaginable panic and terror and awful shock. There's nothing to see by being figuratively inside the building. Same as focussing on (inside) a 200 T. puny airplane: there is no information in there to tell you what happened ... you are flying along in Coach seats and then wham-o you fly into a Tower: you're dead without knowing what happened.

We (survivors) can see and measure full-scale Big Picture ...

... and we can Prove that where a 100,000-Ton Tower is blown to smithereens and talcum powder spread citywide, gravity did NOT do it.

It is simple math, but the Official Legend in the massmedia did NOT do it. (But media do report Force of eruption for volcanoes and tectonic Force of earthquakes -- how do 'they' get those numbers?)

[They caught the guy who blew up Mt. St. Helens, by the way ... a security camera at the National Park gate recorded the license plate on the pickup full of dynamite he drove in with, two days before the explosion. Get it? A piddling pickup full of dynamite was not enough to do what we witnessed (and recorded) Mt. St. Helens did -- it DEFIES Physics. It's a joke. Here's another one: Gravity pancaked WTC skyscrapers into a 280-degree cloud of 90,000 Tons of pulverized concrete dustpowder ... and with 10- or 20- or 50-thousand gallons of kerosene, too, and, and, and, it was flying at 500 or 700 wompin'on miles-per-hour huzzah huzzah. Oh, and there was standing water in the sprinkler pipes .... It's a joke. Get it?]

SO here's the link to one single solitary science fact that Proves the Official Legend conspiracy theory is the LIES, defying Physics of Nine-Eleven Op.
http://www.tinyurl.com/2p8kep

Now, (as you are probably still reading here instead of there at the link, because you can't read what is Proved there), being offered just one "physics-defying event" you sought, are you going to change your mental dogma to correct your hoaxed (victim) misperception of N.E.O.? We doubt it. But let's see.

I, for one, 'believe' you are not here to see true facts. You only come in and speak out to dispute and distract from discussion ... of the Bushies' massmurder. You must hew to and spew the Official Legend of N.E.O. because you're paid to, or coerced by threat of losing your government-job responsibility, your 'credible reputation,' your social standing. (pssst!, in your life, you can't lose what you don't have any of)

Tensky,

You've lost it.

What you declare is "science fact that Proves" is nothing but some guy
who made some "Estimates for these energies" and then speculates that the "The official explanation that the Twin Tower collapses were gravity-driven events APPEARS insufficient to account for the documented energy flows."

Your verbose & ridiculous embellishment is nothing but your usual mental masturbation.

Have e beer.