The mastermind of 9/11

[americanwoman]

Ok so I am not about to go through pages and pages of junk but I want to know from all those who support the theory that 9-11 was an inside job who orchestrated it? I know you believe it was the U.S. government but who (naming names) is the mastermind behind the plan? Why do you belive it was this person who did it and what evidence do you have to lead this person to such a hideous act?

 

[ashurbanipal]

Before I answer this, let me provide an example, and ask your reaction to it:

Suppose that you get put on trial for the murder of some person that you may or may not know. It turns out you have a rock-solid alibi, but the prosecution goes forward with the case. Your attorney presents your alibi to the jury--and let's say it's truly rock solid, whatever that takes. In closing arguments, the prosecution makes the claim "I acknowledge that the defendant has a good alibi. She can prove she was elsewhere at the time the murder was committed. I nevertheless insist that you find her guilty because she cannot provide the name of the person who did the murder."

Does that argument hold water?

 

[americanwoman]

Before I answer this, let me provide an example, and ask your reaction to it:

Suppose that you get put on trial for the murder of some person that you may or may not know. It turns out you have a rock-solid alibi, but the prosecution goes forward with the case. Your attorney presents your alibi to the jury--and let's say it's truly rock solid, whatever that takes. In closing arguments, the prosecution makes the claim "I acknowledge that the defendant has a good alibi. She can prove she was elsewhere at the time the murder was committed. I nevertheless insist that you find her guilty because she cannot provide the name of the person who did the murder."

Does that argument hold water?

No it doesn't. But if that's the way the prosecutor is going to argue I would probably be forced to counter that and hire a private detective to find the name out. If I absolutely could not find who did the murder, which in this day and age can be easy -trust me I am forced to watch forensic files alot- I would have to argue that I am they would have to prove me guilty because that's the way our legal system works. I would be guilty only if they could find me guilty without a reasonable doubt.

But I mean if there really is a conspiracy wouldn't that be a goal of the people trying to uncover it, is to find out who is behind it. Or don't they care, only that it was done by someone other than what we are being told?

 

[ashurbanipal]

Yes, that is our ultimate goal. What I am trying to lay the groundwork for, though, is to make sure that everyone understands that we don't know for certain who did it. That doesn't mean we can't provide reasons (hopefully good ones) that the official version is not correct.

I have my suspicions about who was involved and who was the ultimate mastermind--namely, Dick Cheney. But I do not believe enough evidence exists to convict him. Rather, what I think needs to happen is an honest investigation--and whoever is implicated in that investigation should then stand trial. And if a truly honest investigation happens and the official version holds up, I'll be happy. I believed the official version for two years after 911, and only came to the conspiracy side after a lot of reading.

So at this point, naming names is little more than speculation. What isn't so speculative is that there are serious enough holes in the official version to warrant skepticism.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Before I answer this, let me provide an example, and ask your reaction to it:

Suppose that you get put on trial for the murder of some person that you may or may not know. It turns out you have a rock-solid alibi, but the prosecution goes forward with the case. Your attorney presents your alibi to the jury--and let's say it's truly rock solid, whatever that takes. In closing arguments, the prosecution makes the claim "I acknowledge that the defendant has a good alibi. She can prove she was elsewhere at the time the murder was committed. I nevertheless insist that you find her guilty because she cannot provide the name of the person who did the murder."

Does that argument hold water?

AQ doesn't have an alibi, infact they have made a confession, you people haven't even come close to challenging the fact that 9-11 was perpetrated by AQ.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yes, that is our ultimate goal. What I am trying to lay the groundwork for, though, is to make sure that everyone understands that we don't know for certain who did it.

Yes we do, there are reams of evidence that it was perpetrated by AQ, and OBL has infact confessed.

I have my suspicions about who was involved and who was the ultimate mastermind--namely, Dick Cheney.

That's a serious charge sir and I really hope the people you start accusing start suing you for slanderous libel. Furthermore; what the hell would Cheney have to gain by murdering 3000 of his fellow citizens?

 

[Chanda]

OBL has infact confessed.

Experts have said the "fat" OBL confession tape is a hoax.

That's a serious charge sir and I really hope the people you start accusing start suing you for slanderous libel.

Would that require court testimony under oath by the plaintiff? Don't hold your breath.

Furthermore; what the hell would Cheney have to gain by murdering 3000 of his fellow citizens?

The Bush administration has certainly exploited 9/11 for years, and still does, to promote its agenda. Bush and Cheney had no qualms about sending thousands of Americans to die in a war based on lies.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Experts have said the "fat" OBL confession tape is a hoax.

A) No CIA forensic experts have comfirmed its authenticity, kids in a basement with a laptop say that it's a hoax.

B) When you look at other frames from the tape it is clearly OBL.

Here's the single frame of distortion that you'll find on truther sites:

And here are other angles where the view isn't distorted by angle and shadow that you will not fight on the truther sites:

C) He confessed on video to 9-11 twice, the 2nd time was just before the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections:



2004 Osama bin Laden video: Information from Answers.com

Would that require court testimony under oath by the plaintiff? Don't hold your breath.

Why? Because the people you accuse of conspiring to murder 3000 of their fellow citizens would have qualms about committing perjury?

The Bush administration has certainly exploited 9/11 for years, and still does, to promote its agenda. Bush and Cheney had no qualms about sending thousands of Americans to die in a war based on lies.

A) The Democrats voted for this war as well.

B) What lies? Be specific.

 

[bhkad]

Ok so I am not about to go through pages and pages of junk but I want to know from all those who support the theory that 9-11 was an inside job who orchestrated it? I know you believe it was the U.S. government but who (naming names) is the mastermind behind the plan? Why do you belive it was this person who did it and what evidence do you have to lead this person to such a hideous act?

This shows just how brazen some people can be.

(bhkad at a predominantly Muslim website) "Can someone please tell me who is the leading Muslim behind the Minnesota Bridge collapse?"

 

[Jerry]

Ok so I am not about to go through pages and pages of junk but I want to know from all those who support the theory that 9-11 was an inside job who orchestrated it? I know you believe it was the U.S. government but who (naming names) is the mastermind behind the plan? Why do you belive it was this person who did it and what evidence do you have to lead this person to such a hideous act?

Roswell!

Roswell!

 

[Chanda]

A)No CIA forensic experts have comfirmed its authenticity

And the CIA has been so reliable regarding Iraq intelligence...NOT.

kids in a basement with a laptop say that it's a hoax.

Hardly. The Lausanne-based Dalle Molle (Swiss) Institute for Perceptual Artificial Intelligence, Bruce Lawrence, Duke professor of religious studies, 9/11 Scholars for Truth, and anyone who has seen a comparison of photos:

Here's the single frame of distortion that you'll find on truther sites...And here are other angles where the view isn't distorted by angle and shadow that you will not fight on the truther sites

Both pictures have angles and shadows. What makes one of them distorted and the other one not? I'm not even sure these pictures are from the same video. The position of the hat is different. BTW, I find it ironic that Bush defenders try to disparage those who are seeking answers about 9/11 by calling them "truthers." Truth is a good thing. Blind faith is not.

He confessed on video to 9-11 twice, the 2nd time was just before the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections:

Three days before, in fact. How conveeenient...

Why? Because the people you accuse of conspiring to murder 3000 of their fellow citizens would have qualms about committing perjury?

I don't know why, but I guess they have their reasons. Cheney and Bush refused to testify under oath to the 9/11 Commission. Did you not find that at all troubling?

A) The Democrats voted for this war as well.

Time to put this piece of spin to rest. The Washington Post analyzed this claim and found:

“Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence
information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the
administration to provide the material…Bush does not share his most
sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers.
Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence
community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just
days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country. In
addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included
in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used
publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had
not been cleared for release.” (Washington Post, 11/13/05)

Furthermore, the US and UK were secretly bombing Iraq before Congress ever voted on the war.

B) What lies? Be specific.

Any claim that Saddam was a threat was a lie. Colin Powell said in February 2001 that Saddam was contained and not a threat:

“He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.”--Colin Powell, February 24, 2001

The Memory Hole > 2001: Powell & Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat (video)

Many statements were made that connected Iraq to 9/11. Even though it wasn't directly stated, the implication was definitely there, and so misleading that a large percentage of Americans believed Iraq/Saddam responsible for 9/11.

 

[NguyenRhymesWithWin]

Same Subjects in Different Capture Devices running through Different Receivers are like Snow Flakes. Very similar but not always the same and sometimes very different.

I rarely run into this "inconsistent pictures of Osama = 9/11 hoax" theory because, come on, who will be convinced by this enough to buy all the neat books and dvds about 9/11 being an inside job because of all the portable holes the Conspiracy Theorists found and claiming that the Official story doesn't take certain things into consideration when this theory has more holes like a block of Swiss Cheese and puts it quite bluntly without taking so many things into consideration.

At least the Controlled Demolition Segment of Loose Change 2nd edition (which is being revised because of Conspiracy Theory debunking) and WTC7 theories had be scared enough to do research.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

And the CIA has been so reliable regarding Iraq intelligence...NOT.

There's a difference between testimonial intel and forensic intel.

Hardly. The Lausanne-based Dalle Molle (Swiss) Institute for Perceptual Artificial Intelligence, Bruce Lawrence, Duke professor of religious studies, 9/11 Scholars for Truth, and anyone who has seen a comparison of photos:

"9-11 Scholars for Truth" lmfao You're serious right? Tell me which one of your scholars has a degree in criminology and forensics?

Both pictures have angles and shadows. What makes one of them distorted and the other one not?

One was a digital camera kid genious look at other clips and compare:

I don't know why, but I guess they have their reasons. Cheney and Bush refused to testify under oath to the 9/11 Commission. Did you not find that at all troubling?

Ya the Executive was concerned about the fact that a very important non-elected committee with extraodinary power no longer fell under the jurisdiction or the responibility of the Congress, thus violating the Constitutional mandated separation of powers on several levels.

Time to put this piece of spin to rest. The Washington Post analyzed this claim and found:

“Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence
information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the
administration to provide the material…Bush does not share his most
sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers.
Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence
community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just
days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country. In
addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included
in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used
publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had
not been cleared for release.” (Washington Post, 11/13/05)

Yes let's, if the Democrat party was not in favor of the war and considered it only but a poker chip in their hand of real politic then they would have voted for the following bill:

The Senate’s Forgotten Iraq Choice

By LINCOLN D. CHAFEE

Published: March 1, 2007
Providence, R.I.

AS the presidential primary campaigns begin in earnest, the Iraq war is overshadowing all other issues, as it did during the midterm elections. Presidential candidates who were in the Senate in October 2002 are particularly under the microscope, as they are being called upon to justify their votes for going to war.

As someone who was in the Senate at the time, I have been struck by the contours of the debate. The situation facing the candidates who cast war votes has, to my surprise, often been presented as a binary one — they could either vote for the war, or not. There was no middle ground.

On the contrary. There was indeed a third way, which Senator James Jeffords, independent of Vermont, hailed at the time as “one of the most important votes we will cast in this process.” And it was opposed by every single senator at the time who now seeks higher office.

A mere 10 hours before the roll was called on the administration-backed Iraq war resolution, the Senate had an opportunity to prevent the current catastrophe in Iraq and to salvage the United States’ international standing. Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, offered a substitute to the war resolution, the Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act of 2002.

Senator Levin’s amendment called for United Nations approval before force could be authorized. It was unambiguous and compatible with international law. Acutely cognizant of the dangers of the time, and the reality that diplomatic options could at some point be exhausted, Senator Levin wrote an amendment that was nimble: it affirmed that Congress would stand at the ready to reconsider the use of force if, in the judgment of the president, a United Nations resolution was not “promptly adopted” or enforced. Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America’s right to defend itself if threatened.

An opponent of the Levin amendment said that the debate was not over objectives, but tactics. And he was right. To a senator, we all had as our objectives the safety of American citizens, the security of our country and the disarming of Saddam Hussein in compliance with United Nations resolutions. But there was a steadfast core of us who believed that the tactics should be diplomacy and multilateralism, not the “go it alone” approach of the Bush doctrine.

Those of us who supported the Levin amendment argued against a rush to war. We asserted that the Iraqi regime, though undeniably heinous, did not constitute an imminent threat to United States security, and that our campaign to renew weapons inspections in Iraq — whether by force or diplomacy — would succeed only if we enlisted a broad coalition that included Arab states.

We also urged our colleagues to take seriously the admonitions of our allies in the region — Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. As King Abdullah of Jordan warned, “A miscalculation in Iraq would throw the whole area into turmoil.”

MichaelBalter.com
The Senate’s Forgotten Iraq Choice - New York Times

Furthermore, the US and UK were secretly bombing Iraq before Congress ever voted on the war.

Every shot fired was retaliatory in nature, every shot fired into the no-fly by Saddam was an act of war.

Any claim that Saddam was a threat was a lie. Colin Powell said in February 2001 that Saddam was contained and not a threat:

A) All 16 members of the intelligence community concluded with "high confidence," that Saddam had WMD and was expanding his WMD programs, B) we actually found WMD and so has the insurgency infact they have used them against U.S. troops in the form of binary sarin filled artillery shells with indefinate shelf lives retro-fitted into IED's, C) Saddam had a long and ongoing deep relationship with AQ he had met directly with AQ's number 2 Zawahiri, OBL met directly with ISI operatives, and they agreed on a non-aggression pact, to give OBL safe haven in Iraq, and for Iraq to aid AQ in bio/chemical weapons production, which they infact did, D) Saddam was harboring known AQ members for example he gave safe haven, a salary, and a house to one Abdhul Ramin Yasin who along with KSM's nephew Ramzi Yousef built the bomb detonated in the '93 WTC attack, and E) the DOCEX release proves conclusively that Saddam was recruiting suicide volunteers from the Iraqi airforce . . . gee what would suicide volunteers with flight experience be useful for???

“He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.”--Colin Powell, February 24, 2001

The Memory Hole > 2001: Powell & Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat (video)

Many statements were made that connected Iraq to 9/11. Even though it wasn't directly stated, the implication was definitely there, and so misleading that a large percentage of Americans believed Iraq/Saddam responsible for 9/11.

Present one quote by the executive or that of his constituency in which they blame Saddam for 9-11.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

And ifa you're going to sit here and lie that the Democrat party was not privy to the same intel as the all members of the Congress and that of the Executive then I will now demand you to present that information not heard by the Coingress before the choice for war.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Sorry if the air temps were measured at 1000 degrees F then the steal was obviously exposed to temperatures exceeding the 700 degrees Celsius needed to weaken their structural integrity to the necessary point.

Yeah, but get this: NIST did not measure air temps. How could they? No one was up there with a thermometer while the buildings were still standing. The only measurements taken were by looking at samples of steel and determining what temperatures they had been exposed to. And all but one had gone no higher than 250 C. That one had gone no higher than 600 C.

Their saying that the air was at 1000 C was an assumption on their part--their thinking seems to have been that it had to be that hot since the buildings collapsed. Again, that's obviously circular.

Not when your hypotheticals stretch rationality past the point of credulity.

OK, so pick one, and show me why you think that.

Schippers said he knew of an attack that was planned in 1995 so that couldn’t have been the 9-11 attacks.

Yeah, he had that, but he also had warnings in July of 2001 from two unnamed FBI agents who tried to push the case in their department and were rebuffed. They then appealed to Schippers (presumably they knew him) to go to John Ashcroft.

In any case, even according to the official version, 911 planning began in 1993, after the failure of the first bombing. By 1995, Al Qaeda was funding KSM's and Atta's plan.

Bush did not oppose a 9-11 investigation he opposed it not being conducted by the Congressional intelligence committees.

Then why, once it was set up (he did, after all, appoint the commissioners), did he continue to fight it?

Is that what you call not returning his phone call? Just what red tape?

He didn't just not return his phone call. He had an aide tell Schippers that investigations should start at the bottom, indicating that Schippers had to work up the chain. Keep in mind that Schippers is one of the principle attorneys who saw to Clinton's impeachment. He'd been friends with Ashcroft. This response was not remotely what he expected, and the subsequent events are what has led him to believe that some parts of the government are actively covering something up and may have been complicit.

Furthermore; no one is denying that their were intelligence failures but that does not prove an inside job, it proves negligence and incompetence.

This goes way beyond failure.

Just how did he not cooperate?

He fought several requests for documents, including some formal subpoenas. He fought Condi Rice's subpoena. He absolutely refused to answer his and Cheney's subpoena, finally only appearing off the record, not under oath, and testifying in private together with Cheney.

I don’t see how you have disproven that the “official version is not correct.

I'm not trying to prove that the official version is correct.

Sorry but the coroner has made it perfectly clear that no human remains were found at Indian lake.

He's made it perfectly clear that's what he thinks, probably because he's aware of what that would mean. But that doesn't explain why the people at the marina said they saw human remains, and other heavy debris. To be clear, I am saying there's a reason to question the coroner's assertion, without thinking that the coroner is in on any kind of conspiracy. This is not something you have answered yet.

It’s not speculative the NIST has concluded that the Temps got as high as 1000 Degrees C

Yeah, they concluded that by speculation.

Because explosives melt steal thus the temps recorded by the NIST would have to exceed a recorded 1500 degrees Celsius and you have admitted that the steal has only been tested to show temps of 600 degrees C.

No, explosive do not melt steel in appreciable quantities. Some steel very local to where the charge is placed probably does melt--indeed, it vaporizes. But it would be very easy to miss that in a sample. On the other hand, if fires were responsible for weakening the steel, then large portions of a given column would weaken. That would be much harder to miss while taking samples.

Sorry the temps the steal was exposed to exceeded 1000 degrees C.

Then why didn't they find any evidence that was the case?

Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit)

Again, they could not have measured air temperatures. They could measure how hot the steel itself got, which they did, and they found exactly what I've said a few times now. If the steel got hot enough to weaken, they didn't find any evidence of it.

So what? If the air temp exceeded 1000 degrees Celsius then obviously the steal was exposed to high enough temperatures in which they would lose the structural integrity called for in the experimentation.

No--it's right there in the NIST report. They had to keep the heat at 850 C for 30 minutes after an hour at 600 Cbefore the steel began to sag. The air temp was that hot immediately. It took 90 minutes total for the steel to get that hot, and that was a partial model of a floor. If it had been connected to a massive steel structure that could have wicked some of the heat off, it would have taken longer.

They were exposed to these temperatures for a long time, just because the tested steel didn’t show these temps doesn’t mean they did not occur.

No, but especially considering that they tested a wide range of samples from the impacted floors, it does mean there's no evidence they did. Moreover, their computer simulations show that the steel didn't get that hot--indeed, could not have gotten that hot. Despite these findings, they simply assume that it did.

The problem here is quite obvious: the data does not support the conclusion.

You’re making positive claims not negative claims you can prove a positive statement.

How is that a response to what I said?

Comparative audio analysis.

The way you seem to be thinking of it, that would be a verification, not a falsification.

You can prove that someone else was responsible.

That wouldn't show that Al Qaeda wasn't also responsible. No observation you could ever make would show that Al Qaeda wasn't a participant. Ergo, the claim that Al Qaeda was responsible is not a falsifiable claim.

No you were asserting that because there were the sounds of explosions that there was a controlled demolition.

I believe that's what you think, but I'm telling you that's not what I meant. My point was twofold: the sound has the characteristics of a demolition charge to the exclusion of other possible sounds and since we can rule out other sounds, the sound had to be a bomb.

That is precisely what you argued, you argued that because you heard explosions in the video that it was smoking gun evidence of a controlled demolition, but you didn’t prove that they were infact shape charges rather than other sources for the sounds of explosions which is why you affirming the consequent.

No, I argued that the sound was characteristic of a demolition charge going off and not characteristic of a diesel tank exploding. I also argued that NIST and FEMA both said that no Diesel tanks or generators exploded that entire day. I further argued that it did not have the characteristics of bolts snapping or beams cracking--a fact that is completely obvious to me and would probably be obvious to anyone who had heard a demolition (I've heard more than a couple, one from very close).

Doesn’t windows media player convert sound files into wave form?

I don't know, I use Steinberg Wavelab for a mastering and analysis tool. My point was that you posted a sine wave, which is misleading.

Bombs, gunshots, waves crashing against rocks, people coughing, dogs barking, someone slapping a table, thunder, balloons popping, etc. all have the same kind of waveform--namely, noise. A noise waveform looks like this:

http://www.evaluationengineering.com/archive/articles/0506/images/emc_fig3.jpg

Note the irregularity of the peaks and troughs. Note also that this is the result of equipment damage--two identical overload pulses sent to a speaker, causing noise. While the second is clearly not as loud as the first, the thing to note is that despite the fact that these are essentially the same sounds, even the patterns of the crests and troughs are different. Follow them carefully from one to the next and you'll see this easily.

Note also that even if you stretched this pattern out to a much greater horizontal resolution, you'd see all sorts of spikes and jags along the main line of the wave form. This is characteristic of noise, and is what we'd see if we looked at any of the sources you're talking about.

Audio analysts have been able to determine shots fired during the Kennedy assassination from echoes of those shots from a motorcycle officers CB radio so don’t tell me it is out of their capacity to determine if what we hear in that video is a shape charge or the other things that I have listed.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Yes the collapses were unique but so were the reasons for the collapse.

Well, at a certain resolution, so are the reasons for anything. But I don't think your line of questioning is legit--I guess we'll see.

It seems to me that if we're comparing, say, two fires, one that caused a collapse and one that didn't, it wouldn't be legitimate of someone to jump up and say that we couldn't compare the two because one was caused by arson, another by a faulty water heater. Yes, airplanes caused the fires in this case. But the fires caused the collapses--a point I can easily demonstrate by reference to the two questions I've been posing for a while now. Of course, you'll continue to insist that we can't separate the two causes. I say we can, and we do it all the time--a point you have yet to answer.

In general, I bet we would agree that if we took out all the columns on a given floor of a building, no matter the design or the cause of the damage, that floor at least would collapse. So your challenge seems unfounded, whereas mine does not--and here I predict is yet another point you will never answer. If fire could weaken the columns on a standing building of this particular design to the point they couldn't take the weight, then it should do the same to any columns arranged in any configuration.

Audio analysts have been able to determine shots fired during the Kennedy assassination from echoes of those shots from a motorcycle officers CB radio so don’t tell me it is out of their capacity to determine if what we hear in that video is a shape charge or the other things that I have listed.

Yeah, but that's a whole different ball 'o wax. The way they were able to do that analysis was by obtaining accurate measurements of Dealey Plaza and environs, making an assumption (that was apparently wrong) about where the microphone was, and then looking at the initial impulses and the subsequent echoes. For each shot, based on time between initial impulse and echoes as they reached the mike, there was a finite 3-D curve running through Dealey Plaza that would have yielded those exact results. Once that curve is superimposed onto Dealey Plaza, most of the locations can be ruled out because they are either in mid-air or somewhere else completely implausible.

They determined that the impulses were gunshots because a) they knew that gunshots occurred in Dealey Plaza during that time and b) by comparing the echo patterns to recordings of shots fired from the knoll and the sixth floor window, they were able to rule out other possible explanations and c) the voice chatter on the tape shows that the impulses occurred at the time of the shots. They could not compare waveforms because of the reasons given above.

It's the same basic principle for how sonar works. The same technique would be no use in the problem you're proposing.

But I can think of a different example you might have given: it turns out we can tell the difference between someone's voice and someone doing a very good impersonation, such that even an audiophile such as myself couldn't tell the difference by listening. So how do we do that, and why is that technique no good here?

Well, on this page is an example of a waveform of a synthesized human voice (sorry, couldn't find the real thing with good horizontal resolution but this is pretty close):

Allpass paper by WB6BLD

Notice that the waveform is regular, and the line is smooth. Each person saying this same thing (Ohhhh...) would generate a slightly different pattern. The crests would oscilate at slightly different frequency relative to some of the harmonic frequencies (see those smaller crests in between the larger ones?). Even if we adjusted for pitch (frequency--how often the crests and troughs come), the relative distance would be the same. And there would be other peculiarities that would be different for each person.

But to know that, we have to have controlled recording conditions. If we let the mic pick up a lot of background noise, it all gets mixed in with the sound we're trying to record and there's no easy way to separate it out. There are algorythms that you can run, but they're never 100%. In the case of a noise waveform, however, the sound is just, well, noise. It's jagged spikes all over the place, no pattern to it.

Why would this be? Well, think about what sound is, and what an explosion is. Sound is just a series of waves in the air. An explosion is a violent and (when slowed down enough so that you can hear and see it in slow motion) apparently random expansion of material. Thus, each explosion creates essentially random waves, and that's why the waveform is no help in figuring out exactly what kind of noise we're examining.

But, as I have hinted (I know this is getting long--I'm trying to help you out here--no sarcasm intended), all is not lost. There is a way we can distinguish between different kinds of noise. We can look at the envelope and the relative amplitude (loudness) of the initial impulse and the reverberations. Especially with regard to the latter, we need to know approximately how far away the source of the sound was and what kind of environment we're in.

Let's think about a conventional bomb. Huge bang. A bomb is usually designed to release all its pent-up energy all at once. So the overall shape of the sound looks something like a triangle pointing to the right. Big initial impulse with practically no leadup, and a fairly short tail. The sound is like a big punch. However, there will be some reverb. In comparing how loud the reverb is to the original impulse, and especially how loud the second and third impulses are to each other, provided we know how far away from the source of the impulse we were, we can make a very good guess about how much energy was expended--which in turn tells us what the likely source of the noise was.

Now let's think about a diesel tank blowing up. I don't know if you've ever heard a diesel tank blowing up (I have), but the difference between that and a bomb is that a tank of fuel is designed not to explode. So when it does, it does so in several blasts that are close together. The sound doesn't look so much like a triangle laid on its side as a crude cutout of a christmas tree. There will be a little bit of leadup as initial gasses are released, then a main impulse, and then a few other impulses that are not reverb. The reverb will be a lot more complex. The sound isn't so much like a single punch.

The point I'm getting to here is that the two sounds are very different. There's a good reason they're different. And they are distinguishable by the human ear, especially if you train yourself to listen to such things.

The NIST report also makes it clear that the way the planes impacted at an angle and took out lots of support columns contributed heavily to the collapse.

Well, they made the collapse happen faster, but NIST would nevertheless be committed to the position that fires without impacts would still cause collapse.

The problem is that they are not yes or no questions they are complex questions that require an indepth response

No, they don't. If you think that both factors were responsible in a combined manner, you would answer no to both. But if you do that, you must then answer why (in regard to fire only) fire wouldn't also affect the columns that were severed. I really can't believe you don't see this point. It's absolutely crystal clear.

BTW: I responded to the other thread now and am working on the responses in the "retaliation" thread.

OK. With regard to this thread: do we really need two separate 911 discussions? If you want to keep both up, I'm game, but we're just going over the same ground, it appears.

 

[ashurbanipal]

That would be my first response-
"And "free fall speed" is a measure of SPEED einstein, not time."

I thought you were saying something to the effect that we couldn't derive a time, even knowing speed and distance--thus my lecture. My claim was perfectly clear to me, though I admit I did not phrase it correctly. It seems to me that if you'd wanted me to take note of an error in what I said, you would have been much more clear to state that explicitly: "1.5 times freefall speed would be greater than free fall speed, einstein," or something like that. To which, I would have replied something like "Correct. I meant it should take 1.5 times what free-fall speed would dictate."

to which you responded with a lecture on what anyone with an 8th grade education would know.

I don't think I was the first one in this thread, or in our discussions in the other thread, to start bringing out the rhetorical barbs. In fact, I bet I could show I was fairly slow to do so.

Because "There is no historical analog of the WTC that has ever existed, let alone collapsed", burned for an hour OR impacted by a passenger airliner traveling at cruising speed. And I dont recall anything in the NIST that claims the fire would have collapsed the WTC without the impacts.

No, but it's obvious from an understanding of their paper. NIST says (and I agree) that the fires wouldn't have started without the impacts. But the mechanism they point to for the collapse is a softening of the steel both on the columns and the floor trusses. As the trusses sagged, they pulled the exterior columns towards the core, essentially destroying the exterior columns' ability to carry weight. This led to collapse as the softened interior columns simply couldn't take the weight.

From that explanation, it's pretty clear that fire was the main culprit according to NIST. They're very careful to avoid making the statement that fire is what caused the collapses, as they know what that would invite. But it's nevertheless what they mean. Moreover, if they would answer the two questions posed in the negative, they run into the problem I describe below.

They're under no particular obligation to answer my questions or anyone else's for that matter, so no one is probably ever going to compel them to clarify their position in this regard. But the questions I have posed are nevertheless valid, and they should be made to answer them.

I suspect not in either case, assuming your fires dont continue any longer than in the case of the WTC.

OK--perfect. Thank you for answering honestly. If this is the case (i.e. that a similar fire wouldn't have caused collapse on its own), then why would the fire have not damaged the columns that did happen to be damaged by the impacts? Why would it have weakened only the columns that happen to have been left intact, while leaving untouched those that were severed? And is it even conceivable that, were those columns to remain untouched, they'd have somehow held the weight of the buildings as the other columns failed?

 

[ashurbanipal]

Dixon, TOT,

It appears I posted these in the wrong thread. I can either re-post in the correct thread or continue discussion here, per your preferences.

 

[dixon76710]

No, but it's obvious from an understanding of their paper.

LOLOLOLOL!!!! As I thought. Your claim was bullshiite.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yeah, but get this: NIST did not measure air temps. How could they? No one was up there with a thermometer while the buildings were still standing. The only measurements taken were by looking at samples of steel and determining what temperatures they had been exposed to. And all but one had gone no higher than 250 C. That one had gone no higher than 600 C.

Their saying that the air was at 1000 C was an assumption on their part--their thinking seems to have been that it had to be that hot since the buildings collapsed. Again, that's obviously circular.

No they are not: it was not an assumption it was a measurement garnered through scale experimentation see pg. 195 of the following PDF for how they came to their scientifically based conclusions:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5.pdf

Yeah, he had that, but he also had warnings in July of 2001 from two unnamed FBI agents who tried to push the case in their department and were rebuffed. They then appealed to Schippers (presumably they knew him) to go to John Ashcroft.

Let’s see some quotes by Schipper and the actionable intelligence he brought to Ashcroft.

In any case, even according to the official version, 911 planning began in 1993, after the failure of the first bombing. By 1995, Al Qaeda was funding KSM's and Atta's plan.

The actual hijackers were not tapped by the ringleaders or in the country until very much later and the plan evolved from one of blowing up planes to one of ramming them into buildings much later as well; furthermore, if Schippers is claiming he got a warming from the FBI then what the hell does that have to do with KSM? You haven’t shown even a scrap of evidence that the attacks Schippers is referring to was the planes operation. And if what you are saying true why is it that the FBI and CIA were going after Ramzi Yousef who actually thought up the plan and passed it onto his uncle KSM who later went to OBL to get it financed? And what’s more if KSM was working at the direction of the CIA why in the hell are we keeping the one man who can blow the lid off the conspiracy alive and infact granting him a trial by military tribunal? You may be able to say that the hijackers themselves could have been ignorant of the fact that they were working for the U.S. conspirators, however, how can you claim that of the two men who actually planned the attacks themselves IE KSM and his nephew Ramzi Yousef who we are keeping alive presumable just so they can blow our whole inside job conspiracy wide open? Sorry but your theory does not jive with the facts.

Then why, once it was set up (he did, after all, appoint the commissioners), did he continue to fight it?

Because the Democrat party was trying to use 9-11 as a political poker chip the same way they do from any national tragedy IE Katrina, the bridge collapse, the mine collapse etc.

He didn't just not return his phone call. He had an aide tell Schippers that investigations should start at the bottom, indicating that Schippers had to work up the chain.

Ya and???

Keep in mind that Schippers is one of the principle attorneys who saw to Clinton's impeachment. He'd been friends with Ashcroft. This response was not remotely what he expected, and the subsequent events are what has led him to believe that some parts of the government are actively covering something up and may have been complicit.

Quote:
Where does he say that he thinks the government is covering something up? Tell me what actionable intelligence did Schippers bring to Ashcroft? Just what leads Schippers to believe that the attack he was supposedly informed about from an FBI agent of unknown identity was in actuality the attack that occurred on 9-11?

This goes way beyond failure.

You have not shown any evidence of that.

He fought several requests for documents, including some formal subpoenas. He fought Condi Rice's subpoena. He absolutely refused to answer his and Cheney's subpoena, finally only appearing off the record, not under oath, and testifying in private together with Cheney.

Yes now we get to the heart of the matter you are now interpreting normal power struggles between the legislature and the executive as something nefarious, just what documents are you referring to, ; furthermore, why should the President have testified under oath? Was he being investigated for some sort of a crime? The only people who believe that are the truthers. And regardless how is not testifying under oath proof of an inside job? Are you asserting that perjury is beyond the moral character of a man whom you claim plotted to murder 3000 of his own citizenry? The reason why executive privilege was cited in these cases was not because 9-11 was an inside job, but because the Democrat party began using 9-11 as a political football at that time and were trying to assign blame for the intelligence failures on the Bush administration.

He's made it perfectly clear that's what he thinks, probably because he's aware of what that would mean. But that doesn't explain why the people at the marina said they saw human remains, and other heavy debris. To be clear, I am saying there's a reason to question the coroner's assertion, without thinking that the coroner is in on any kind of conspiracy. This is not something you have answered yet.

What I have made clear is that Indian Lake is very close to the crash site and that no human remains were found there, this has been confirmed by the one person who would know for sure IE the coroner, end of story.

Yeah, they concluded that by speculation.

No sir they did not they were recorded temperatures, through scientific experimentation.

No, explosive do not melt steel in appreciable quantities. Some steel very local to where the charge is placed probably does melt--indeed, it vaporizes. But it would be very easy to miss that in a sample. On the other hand, if fires were responsible for weakening the steel, then large portions of a given column would weaken. That would be much harder to miss while taking samples.

Lmfao, you have been asserting that thermate was used and that “thermate cuts through steal like a hot knife through butter” sorry but you “missed it” assertions apply equally to the steal that was heated by the fires, anyways the point is moot as it has been shown that there were temperatures exceeding the 750 degrees necessary.

Then why didn't they find any evidence that was the case?

They reported temperatures exceeding 1000 degrees C through scientific experimentation end of story. Why haven’t they found the steal heated to 1500 degrees C that were necessary for your controlled demolition hypothesis? Regardless steal loses appx. 50% of its integrity at the temperatures that were found in the steal that was tested.

Again, they could not have measured air temperatures.

Again, its called science, it is undisputable scientific fact that the temperatures were of atleast 1000 degrees C.

No--it's right there in the NIST report. They had to keep the heat at 850 C for 30 minutes after an hour at 600 Cbefore the steel began to sag. The air temp was that hot immediately. It took 90 minutes total for the steel to get that hot, and that was a partial model of a floor. If it had been connected to a massive steel structure that could have wicked some of the heat off, it would have taken longer.

No, but especially considering that they tested a wide range of samples from the impacted floors, it does mean there's no evidence they did.

Then I guess they should have found the steal that exceeded temperatures in excess of 1500 degrees C, oh wait they didn’t find that, so I guess if we use your standards of proof then controlled demolition is equally impossible, unless of course you are going to admit that the steal did exceed 850 degrees C but they just didn’t find any in their sample size.

Moreover, their computer simulations show that the steel didn't get that hot--indeed, could not have gotten that hot. Despite these findings, they simply assume that it did.

That’s a total load of horseshit, they concluded through scientific analysis that the temperatures exceeded 1000 degrees C, it’s not a debatable point it is proven scientific fact.

The problem here is quite obvious: the data does not support the conclusion.

The data does support the conclusion and the data in no way what so ever supports the conclusion of a controlled demolition. Even your own data that you claim proves that the fires were not hot enough through your line of reasoning, +proves that controlled demolition would be equally impossible.

 

[americanwoman]

So for people who don't believe it was Bin Laden or AQ, then do you still think they threaten us as a nation? As in, does AQ has some sort of vendetta against the US?

 

[ashurbanipal]

I think that absolutely Bin Laden and Al Qaeda don't particularly like America. I think Bin Laden was offered a chance by conspirators on the inside to perpetrate a massive terrorist attack, and he took it. Interestingly, the conspirators and Bin Laden both want the same thing but believe in two diametrically opposed results. Both want war in the Middle East. Bin Laden thinks it will galvanize the Muslim world against both America and Israel. The conspirators think we'll end up owning the Middle East, which is the only way to continue to control the world. Both sides think they'll win that war. It remains to be seen who comes closer to being correct.

So the answer, IMO, is much more complex than most people think. Did Al Qaeda commit 911? Yes, they did--and Bin Laden probably believes he was the mastermind, the one who carefully manipulated a few insiders to carry out his jihad. Did conspirators carry out 911? Yes, they did--and they probably believe they've played Bin Laden for the scapegoat while they were the prime movers of the crime. In truth, they're both half-right. From Bin Laden's point of view, he takes too much credit for what happened; 911 could never have been done without inside help. We've lost a bunch of freedom and our society has greatly changed, but it hasn't all been the demoralizing time Bin Laden thought it would be.

On the other hand, the conspirators were probably not counting on how much currency this would purchase Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. A formerly splintered terrorist world is now united, and Al Qaeda is growing stronger. It may actually be possible for them to carry out a terrorist attack in America without inside help now, and that scares the living bejesus out of anyone who set Bin Laden loose. Nor were they counting on so many people questioning the official version of 911. Not that we've had that much impact, but I'm sure they'd rather everyone believe their version.

One thing I caution anyone thinking about conspiracies to not do is attribute unreasonable power to the conspirators. It's never the case that conspiracies are carried out by large groups of people, or that those people are in control of everything. They always risk getting caught or failing in their objectives.

Before anyone jumps my case, I admit that this is complete speculation on my part. However, given that there was an inside conspiracy, I think this scenario makes the most sense.

 

[dixon76710]

I don't think I was the first one in this thread, or in our discussions in the other thread, to start bringing out the rhetorical barbs. In fact, I bet I could show I was fairly slow to do so.

No, you would be the one "to start bringing out the rhetorical barbs" and you did so fairly quickly.

Anyone with their faculties intact enough to read and do simple math should have known that.

Finding time when distance and force are known, and vice-versa, is a problem that was solved in the late 1600's, and is generally taught to anyone who makes it to the 8th grade.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I think that absolutely Bin Laden and Al Qaeda don't particularly like America. I think Bin Laden was offered a chance by conspirators on the inside to perpetrate a massive terrorist attack, and he took it.

LMFAO yes OBL was offered a chance to perpetrate a massive terrorist attack but that offer came from KSM, OBL didn't plan 9-11 he just financed it. First the idea was formed by Ramzi Yousef ('93 WTC bombing) and after he was captured KSM took it over and brought the idea to OBL. Now just where in the hell does the U.S. come into that sequence of events? You people can't even come close to challenging the facts behind the planes operation and you don't even try you just choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence that proves conclusively that 9-11 was not an inside job but rather another in a long line of AQ attacks against the U.S. and her interests. What's really funny is that we have the masterminds behind the attacks in custody IE KSM and Ramzi Yousef and for your conspiracy theories to be valid you would have to believe that we are keeping the only two men who could blow the lid off the inside job alive just for the hell of it.

 

[Richard Nixon]

Yes. A group of men from caves with knives hijacked a commerical air line, flew into the most well-defended air space in the world, managed to stay in that air space without getting shot down, then managed to take down a building that, by two of the designers admissions, was built to withstand "multiple plane shots from multiple places".

And fairies exist.