Not what I expected. I've always derided the conspiracy theories and theorists, but this is thought provoking.

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf

From the article's bio:

Steven Jones is a former full professor
of physics at Brigham Young University.
His major research interests have
been in the areas of fusion, solar energy,
and archaeometry. He has authored
or co-authored a number of papers
documenting evidence of extremely high temperatures
during the WTC destruction and evidence of unreacted
nano-thermitic material in the WTC dust.

Would you like to give a quick summary?

From the paper's conclusion:

It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total
collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11.
Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate
times on September 11, 2001? The NIST [U.S. National Institute
of Standards and Technology] reports, which
attempted to support that unlikely conclusion, fail to persuade
a growing number of architects, engineers, and
scientists. Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly
to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed
by controlled demolition.

Dr. Steven Jones is correct. There is no reason for thermitic material to be in the WTC dust unless it was a controlled demo. He as well as a domolition expert from the largest domolition company in the world made this point in an interview I watched a few days ago.

Truth is 911 was an inside job. I spent considerable time looking into this over the years. I have had several people accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist for believingt this so I began to question them about some of the facts surrounding 911. I found out they knew nothing about these facts. I responded that perhaps they hold their opinion in too high regard for someone that doesn't know anything about it.

The retired BYU Physics Prof shouldn't have been teaching Physics! It's no small wonder he worked for BYU where he had to have been a TR holder to hold a teaching position. He thinks and reasons like a Mormon. He's also articulated in his other life why the BoM is true and all the other nonsense that goes with that.

I get sick and tired of American homegrown conspiracy theorists trying to blame the WTC collapse on a demolition theory of government or an inside job. It's as plain as day what happened. All you have to do is see the terrorists fly into the building that started the domino effect leading to the collapse of the towers (and the 3rd bldg.)

Here's one report published in 2008 to lay to rest any speculation and address why the towers collapsed due to the high heat and fires inside the towers: (more to follow)

GAITHERSBURG, Maryland -- The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released its long-awaited report on the collapse of World Trade 7 following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "Our take-home message today is that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told journalists at this morning's press conference in Gaithersburg, Md. "WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from diesel fuel fires."

Conspiracy theorists have long pointed to the collapse of the 47-story structure as key evidence that the U.S. government orchestrated or abetted the 9/11 attacks. No planes struck the building, and the commonly available views of the exterior didn't show significant damage. Yet, at 5:20 pm, 7 hours after the collapse of the Twin Towers (WTC 1 and 2), WTC 7 rapidly fell in on itself. Since WTC 7 housed Secret Service and CIA offices, conspiracy theorists claimed that the building was destroyed in a controlled demolition in order to obliterate evidence of the U.S. government's complicity in the terrorist attacks. "It is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved," stated actress and TV personality Rosie O'Donnell of ABC's The View in March 2007. "For the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible," she said.

Today's report confirms that a fire was, indeed, the cause. "This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires," Sunder told reporters at the press conference. "What we found was that uncontrolled building fires--similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings--caused an extraordinary event, the collapse of WTC7." The unprecedented nature of the event means that understanding the precise mechanism of the collapse is important not just to answer conspiracy theorists' questions, but to improve safety standards in the engineering of large buildings.

The final report describes how debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7 at the western half of the south face. Fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 burned out of control, because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system had failed. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply. Those water lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. These uncontrolled fires in WTC 7 eventually spread to the northeast part of the building, where the collapse began.


After 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, a steel girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to one of the 81 columns supporting the building. Floor 13 collapsed, beginning a cascade of floor failures to Floor 5. Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what's known as a "progressive collapse"--that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure.

The report clarifies a number of widely debated issues concerning the collapse, particularly the role of the building's many diesel fuel tanks and the importance of structural damage from falling WTC 1 debris. Both of those factors have been cited by investigators as possibly contributing to the collapse; the 2006 Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts mentions both hypotheses. However, the final NIST report downplays both scenarios, concluding that the diesel fuel stored in tanks (and intended to power backup generators) did not burn long enough or hot enough to account for structural failures. And, while debris damage to WTC 7's southern exterior was considerable (and initiated the destructive fires), the collapse originated in the northeast portion of the building. In fact, the report concludes: "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires."

The report determines that the actual culprit in the collapse was the combustion of ordinary building furnishings: "These uncontrolled fires had characteristics similar to those that have occurred previously in tall buildings." If the sprinkler system in WTC 7 had been working, it is likely that "the fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented." The report also suggests that current engineering standards for coping with fire-induced thermal expansion need to be re-examined, particularly for buildings like WTC 7 that have long, unsupported floor spans. A key factor in the collapse, NIST concluded, was the failure of structural "connections that were designed to resist gravity loads, but not thermally induced lateral loads." According to Sunder: "For the first time we have shown that fire can induce a progressive collapse."

Spurred by conspiracy theorists' questions, investigators did look specifically at the possibility that explosives were involved. "Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7," the report states, adding that investigators "found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse.

NIST will accept public comment on the final report until Sept. 15, 2008.

Read more: World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics
http://video.popularmechanics.com/services/player/bcpid1745093293?bctid=1745050112

that man is an idiot.
It's no wonder people think mormons are morons.

Such an ironic statement.....

stupid BoM fantasy.

I've always assumed that the collapse of the WTC was the fault of RMs.

Since I started pointing this out to missionaries who come knocking, they don't come knocking as often.

Try it! You'll thank me.

"Its dramatic collapse several hours after the Twin Towers fell triggered a decade of conspiracy theories.
Those who believed that the September 11 attacks on America were not carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists pointed to the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 as proof of their wild claims.

But a newly released video appears to finally prove once and for all that Building 7 was brought down by the intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center - and not explosives, as conspiracy theorists claim."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html#ixzz4K8pVRTzt
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

How long does it take for fire to melt over 70 stories of steel, two hours or less?

Ex-Mormons.....

And who the hell are you?

Why is an ex-Mormon who's not a conspiracy theorist less than Mormons?

Sounds like someone has a bug up her ass.

Who the hell am I?
Someone who doesn't take bullshit, whether it's religious peddlers, cultists, or those not involved in religion.

At least I'm consistent on that part.

Maybe you should spend more time reading the reports by those who are civil engineers than reacting from your emotional base for a change.

Ex-Mormons are in as good a place as anyone to be objective as to the terrorist attack of 9/11.

Anyone who would ascribe it to a government conspiracy has rocks in place of brains.

To insult the intelligence of ex-Mormons makes you a curiosity. Lumping ex-Mormons into a pool of skeptics because we're "ex" hardly gives credence to the weight and plenty of it evidence that exists supporting the events of 9/11 as a terror attack, and nothing less.

Fire doesn't have to melt over 70 stories of steel for a building to come down.
It only has to weaken 1 story worth.

Conspiracy folks are strange people. And largely uninformed.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Conspiracy folks are strange people. And largely
> uninformed.

Exactly.

But let's keep straight who the conspiracy folks are and who are the skeptics.

The official narrative is an assertion of a conspiracy. The sceptics are those who lack belief in that official narrative.

Human, sceptic.

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But let's keep straight who the conspiracy folks
> are and who are the skeptics.
>
> The official narrative is an assertion of a
> conspiracy. The sceptics are those who lack belief
> in that official narrative.

And the conspiracy folks are those who *claim* that the events were the direct result of a planned, secret operation by the government.

Nothing wrong with being a skeptic, as long as you're an informed one. If you just run around saying "I don't believe it" without facts, and then making counter-claims with no evidence, you're not a skeptic.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> And the conspiracy folks are those who *claim*
> that the events were the direct result of a
> planned, secret operation by the government.

And that's a strawman.

No need to assert who or why.

It is needed that those who assert the conspiracy, the government and all those who believe it, demonstrate their claims, which they never did do.

And besides:

http://youtu.be/bWorDrTC0Qg

(I love the one about the "raging fire". Hilarious. All those supports giving out with such exquisite timing. Magic.)

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And that's a strawman.

How so? There are people right here doing just that.

> No need to assert who or why.

Steve Jones is one. Others here on this post.
Why? Irrelevant.

> It is needed that those who assert the conspiracy,
> the government and all those who believe it,
> demonstrate their claims, which they never did
> do.

They have, you just don't accept their evidence.
The reasonable thing to do, in that case, is to demonstrate why their evidence is flawed. Steve Jones and others have not done so. The unreasonable thing to do is to a) claim their evidence is flawed, but not be able to show why, and then b) claim that because their evidence is flawed, it's a government operation, an assertion for which there is no evidence.

> And besides:
>
> http://youtu.be/bWorDrTC0Qg
>
> (I love the one about the "raging fire".
> Hilarious. All those supports giving out with
> such exquisite timing. Magic.)

Your personal incredulity is only evidence of your personal incredulity. It's not evidence of "problems" with a fire, nor of a government operation.

Heh.

Believe how you wish to believe, -ifi. Whatever gets you through the night.


I'm just gonna leave this one more time:

http://youtu.be/bWorDrTC0Qg

Such exquisite timing, all at once. Not a little here, a little there, just right to fall into its own footprint. Like magic.

Cheers ifi-. Per usual, the last word is yours.

Human

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Heh.
>
> Believe how you wish to believe, -ifi. Whatever
> gets you through the night.

"Belief" isn't involved in my case. Those who "believe" it was a government operation -- it is.

> Such exquisite timing, all at once. Not a little
> here, a little there, just right to fall into its
> own footprint. Like magic.

Once more: you seem to be asserting that you can't believe the "timing" is so perfect unless it was intentionally blown up. That's an argument from personal incredulity. Things can and do LOOK like that without being intentionally blown up. If you want to claim it was intentionally blown up, you need to show evidence that it was intentionally blown up, not just that you can't believe it wasn't.

Right.

That's why when you ask questions like why did buildings not hit by anything suddenly collapse, you're labeled a cuckoo.\

Okay.

"But let's keep straight who the conspiracy folks are and who are the skeptics.

"The official narrative is an assertion of a conspiracy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks

"Two weeks after the September 11 attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation connected the hijackers to al-Qaeda,[1] a global, decentralized terrorist network. In a number of video, audio, interview and printed statements, senior members of al-Qaeda have also asserted responsibility for organizing the September 11 attacks.[2][3][4] It is believed that Osama Bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and Mohammed Atef were the ones who plotted the attacks after meeting together in 1999.[5] It is also believed Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was the one who planned the attacks[5] and that Atef was the one who organized the hijackers.[5]"

"The FBI investigation into the attacks, codenamed operation PENTTBOM, was able to identify the 19 hijackers within days, as they made little effort to conceal their names on flight, credit card, and other records.[6] By checking flight manifests and comparing them with other information, like watch lists, customs officials were able to find the names of all 19 hijackers quickly.

"Passengers and crew aboard the flights provided information about the hijackers while the hijacking was in progress. Two flight attendants on American Airlines Flight 11, Betty Ong and Madeline Amy Sweeney, contacted airline personnel on the ground. Sweeney provided the seat numbers of the hijackers, and descriptions of the men, identifying Mohamed Atta as one of the hijackers.[7][8][9] A flight attendant on United Airlines Flight 175 called a United Airlines mechanic and reported that hijackers had killed the crew.[9] While the hijacking was in progress on American Airlines Flight 77, several passengers, including a flight attendant, Renee May, contacted and reported details of the hijacking to persons on the ground.[10] Sales clerks identified two individuals to whom they sold tickets on Flight 77 as the hijackers Hani Hanjour and Majed Moqed.[9] During the hijacking of United Airlines Flight 93, Jeremy Glick identified the hijackers as Arabic-looking and carrying box-cutters.[11]

"Mohamed Atta's luggage did not make the connection from his Portland flight to American Airlines Flight 11. In his suitcase, authorities found a handwritten letter in Arabic. As well, a handwritten letter was found at the crash site of United Airlines Flight 93 near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and another in Hazmi's vehicle.[12] When examining Mohamed Atta's left-behind luggage, the FBI found important clues about the hijackers and their plans. Atta's luggage contained instructional videotapes for flying large aircraft, a fuel consumption calculator, and a flight plan, along with a copy of the Quran.[13] His luggage also contained papers that revealed the identity of all 19 hijackers, along with a copy of Atta's last will and testament.[14] The passport of hijacker Abdulaziz Alomari was also found in Mohamed Atta’s left-behind luggage.

"Various items of evidence were found in vehicles left behind at the airports, in luggage that did not make it onto the flights, and at the crash scenes. A rental car belonging to the hijackers was found at Boston's Logan International Airport, which contained an Arabic language flight manual and documents from Huffman Aviation in Florida. There, investigators were able to find Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi's previous address in Hamburg, Germany.[15] Nawaf al-Hazmi's 1988 blue Toyota Corolla was found on September 12 in Dulles International Airport's hourly parking lot. Inside the vehicle, authorities found a letter written by Mohamed Atta, maps of Washington, D.C., and New York City, a cashier's check made out to a Phoenix flight school, four drawings of a Boeing 757 cockpit, a box cutter-type knife, and a page with notes and phone numbers.[16]

"In New York City, a passport belonging to Satam al-Suqami was found by a passerby before the towers collapsed, and given to a NYPD detective.[17][18] The passports of two of the hijackers of Flight 93 were also found intact at the crash site."

Huh?

You are confusing.....

The steel didn't have to melt. All it needed was to get really hot and lose its structural integrity.

And yet everything after the disaster was more than rubble - it was mostly dust and ashes. Some beams lay in the ruin, otherwise most of the structure was incinerated, including some of the steel.

Rusty Shackleford Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The steel didn't have to melt. All it needed was
> to get really hot and lose its structural
> integrity.


All at the exact same time.

Exquisite, really. So magical.

So why is jet fuel still being used, if it so dangerous it could melt the steel frame of a 100-story skyscraper in less than an hour?

That would put it as dangerous as a nuclear bomb, with the danger it could do.

Plus, why did the two towers collapse straight down, very cleanly, without tilting to its side or otherwise degenerate into a million pieces?

Jet airliners are not designed to be used as bombs, for one.

It didn't take two hours for the towers to collapse from the burning buildings. It took ALL day before they collapsed from the fire and smoke.

Read the reports on this thread for the 7th tower. They're already posted, as to why it collapsed, and from professionals not skeptics, as you allege.

My brother is a civil engineer who was very familiar with the design and construction of the World Trade Towers and had studied the towers extensively.

On 9/11, he was at work when the first plane hit. After seeing the plane hit and the fires that were ignited, he told his assistant, "That tower is coming down. It's only a matter of time. Let me know when it falls."

Mormons are known for believing in crazy things. The 9/11 conspiracy theory is just one more example.

What about the 1993 bombing?

In the 1993 bombing, did they have a jet full of fuel hitting the upper stories? No, that's why it's not comparable.

Yet it was at the BOTTOM.

The planes hit the middle-to-upper floors of the towers.

If you build a tower made of dominos (or Jenga pieces), and you removed the bottom pieces, what will happen to it?

The bomb in 1993 was a truck bomb driven in underneath to the parking garage. It wasn't anything near as strong as the jets that flew into the towers on 9/11.

It was a very small bomb by comparison. It barely damaged the parking garage.

I was there that day. It sounded like a big explosion, like a heavy thunderbolt, and my office building shook. Other than that we observed nothing until the news reports hit the fan, and downtown Manhattan was evacuated for the rest of the day.

My office was two blocks and kitty corner from where the WTC stood. We could see it from my office windows - that's how close it was. Other than a loud explosion, that's all it was in 1993.

Some cars were destroyed and 3 people were killed. Nothing at all similar to 9/11.

Steven Jones book based on a conspiracy theory premise of what really happened 9/11 represents one of three things to me.

Either he is A) Completely off his rocker and devoid of the understanding of the thermal laws of science (or physics,) that could result in the towers collapsing from sheer weight and heat of the infrastructure caused by the planes flying into the twin towers. Or,

B) He is intellectually lazy. Or,

C) He is outright dishonest, and only intent on making a buck off of those who will buy his book to enrich his bank accounts because of the many conspiracy theorists who will pay to read such nonsense.

Knowing how leading authority figures inside Mormonism have been intellectually dishonest for eons, my guess is choice #3. He sees a way to make a "killing" to pad his retirement account.

The fact he was a tenured prof at BYU indicates to me the guy isn't a complete idiot or devoid of some intellect. So instead he uses the talents he's been given to prey on suckers like PT Barnum did.

However I don't give him any credibility, based on his premise alone.

BYU put Jones on paid leave in 2005 because of his "controversial" (which actually meant "nuts") 9-11 "truther" views. In 2006 he took retirement from BYU in an agreement that spared him an official academic review.

When you're too crazy for BYU, you're really out there.

"[T]he debunking911.com website, which dispute the conspiracy theories, said it had been proved the collapse was caused by the two main buildings being destroyed.

In an article, it said: "Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by airliners and only had a few fires. "They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he "pulled" it.

"But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse.

"It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7.""

http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/709000/Was-9-11-an-inside-job-Call-for-TRUTH-over-Building-7-collapse-on-eve-of-15th-anniversary

Those buildings stood closely connected to each other on the WTC concourse. There were 7 buildings inside that concourse, connected by walkways, corridors, underground subways, and a main concourse.

What happened to the Twin Towers didn't stay in the Twin Towers. Many structures near WTC were destroyed or severely damaged because of the events of 9/11. It wasn't limited to only those two buildings.

I thought only two planes were involved, each flying into each of the two Twin Towers.

I have a college educated friend who should know better who is a WTC-7 conspiracy theorist. "Buildings just don't fall like that?"

There was an uncontrolled fire in the building for 7 hours. Maybe that in fact is how buildings with uncontrolled (i.e. no sprinklers cooling the fire) fires fall. What other examples are there where a fire raged for 7 hours?

Much was made of the fact that a normal fire does not get hot enough to melt steel. True, but it does get hot enough to weaken steel considerably. That's what blacksmiths do for a living.

And while a fire won't melt steel, explosives in a fire for 7 hours is something else entirely. Explosives by their nature do not do well in fires. They are all flammable, most are explosively flammable. Not only that, but the devices that trigger explosives (radio receivers, or physical wire connecting the detonator to a switch) DO melt in a regular fire. No explosive or detonator would survive being in a raging fire for 7 hours and still work at all, much less work perfectly in concert with a bunch of other explosive charges.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson has an interview where he explains that it would be much easier to actually go to the moon than to fake a moon landing.

Same thing here. It would be much easier to destroy a building like WTC-7 with a fire than to fake destroying it with a fire.

As was pointed out above, if you are too crazy for BYU, you are too crazy.

Ex-Mormons are a strange people.

I know! You just can't get them to believe in fairy tales, no matter how hard you try.

This is an argument I just can't get my head around.

Either it was a terrorist attack or it was a false flag operation.

Who cares? The result was the same either way. I'd be living my life the same either way.

I wouldn't be any more or less fearful if some shadow government emerged and admitted to the whole thing. I'd still go to work in the morning.

Seems like a lot of time and money spent pursuing something that doesn't change anything.

It may be 10 years since the attacks in the US on 11 September, but conspiracy theories have not faded over time, says Mike Rudin.

Numerous official reports have been published since the Twin Towers fell, but just when a piece of evidence casts doubt on one theory, the focus then shifts to the next "unanswered question".

"Here are five of the most prominent 9/11 conspiracy theories circulating in online communities.

1. Failure to intercept the hijacked planes

The question: Why did the world's most powerful air force fail to intercept any of the four hijacked planes?

Conspiracy theorists say: The then US Vice President Dick Cheney ordered the military to stand down and not to intercept the planes.
File photo of a F-15 fighter Fighter jets failed to intercept the hijacked planes

Official reports say: This was a highly unusual multiple hijacking with violence on board, and where the transponder, which identifies the plane, was turned off or changed.

What is more, a routine military training exercise happened to be taking place that day at US air defence command.

Air traffic controller Colin Scoggins was in constant contact with the military and did not see any lack of response. There was confusion and a lack of communication between the civilian air traffic control (FAA) and the military.

The military's equipment was also outdated and designed to look out over the ocean to deal with a Cold War threat.

2. Collapse of the Twin Towers

The question: Why did the Twin Towers collapse so quickly, within their own footprint, after fires on a few floors that lasted only for an hour or two?

Conspiracy theorists say: The Twin Towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions. Theories relate to the rapid collapse (about 10 seconds), the relatively short-lived fires (56 minutes in World Trade Center 2 or 102 minutes in World Trade Center 1), reports of the sounds of explosions shortly before the collapse, and the violent ejections that could be seen at some windows many floors below the collapse.

Official reports say: An extensive inquiry by the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that the planes severed and damaged support columns and dislodged fire-proofing.

Around 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were spewed over many floors starting widespread fires. Temperatures of up to 1,000C caused the floors to sag and the perimeter columns to bend, causing the sounds of "explosions".

The massive weight of the floors dropped, creating a dynamic load far in excess of what the columns were designed for. Debris was forced out of the windows as the floors above collapsed.

Controlled demolition is nearly always carried out from the bottom floors up, yet this collapse started at the top.

No evidence has ever been found of explosive charges despite the extensive hand searches and there is no evidence of any pre-cutting of columns or walls, which is routinely carried out in a controlled demolition.

3. Attack on the Pentagon

The question: How could an amateur pilot fly a commercial plane in a complicated manoeuvre and crash it into the headquarters of the world's most powerful military, 78 minutes after the first report of a possible hijack and leave no trace?

Part of the outer wall of the Pentagon collapsed after Flight 77 crashed into it A memorial in the grounds of the Pentagon marks the deaths of those who died when Flight 77 crashed

Conspiracy theorists say: A commercial Boeing 757 did not hit the building but instead a missile, a small aircraft or an unmanned drone was used. But since evidence has increasingly shown that the American Airlines Flight 77 did hit the building, the emphasis has shifted to questioning the difficult approach manoeuvre. It is argued it was not under the control of al-Qaeda but the Pentagon itself.

Official reports say: Airplane wreckage, including the black boxes, were recovered from the scene and they were catalogued by the FBI.

Although some early video did not show much wreckage, there is a good deal of video and still photography which shows plane wreckage and evidence of the flight path, such as broken lamp posts.

The remains of crew and passengers on the plane were found and positively identified by DNA. Witnesses also saw the plane strike the Pentagon.

4. The fourth plane - United Airlines flight 93

The question: Why was the crash site at Shanksville, Pennsylvania, so small and why was the aircraft debris not visible?

Conspiracy theorists argue: United Airlines flight 93 was shot down by a missile and disintegrated in mid air, scattering the wreckage over a large area.

Official reports say: There are clear photographs showing aircraft wreckage and the cockpit voice recorder, which showed there had been a passenger revolt and the hijackers had deliberately crashed the plane.

Initial theories that heavy debris was scattered many miles from the main crash site turned out to be false. In fact the wind had blown light debris such as paper and insulation just over a mile.

Another theory was based on a misquote from the local coroner, Wally Miller, who said he stopped being a coroner after about 20 minutes because there were no bodies. What he also said was that he quickly realised it was a plane crash and there would have to be a large funeral service for the many victims.

In addition, the military never gave orders to the air force to shoot the commercial airliner down.

5. Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7

The question: How could a skyscraper, which was not hit by a plane, collapse so quickly and symmetrically, when no other steel-framed skyscraper has collapsed because of fire?
The remains of World Trade Center Building 7 Offices for civil emergencies, the CIA and the Secret Service were based in World Trade Center Building 7

Conspiracy theorists say: The World Trade Center Building 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition using both explosives and incendiaries.

Initially the focus was on the phrase "pull it" used by the owner, Larry Silverstein, in a TV interview. But in fact he was talking about pulling firefighters back. (Demolition experts do not use the term "pull it" as slang for setting off explosives.)

Now the focus has shifted to the speed of the collapse which reached near free fall for 2.25 seconds. It is argued only explosives could make it collapse so quickly and symmetrically.

Some scientists, who are sceptical of the official account, have examined four dust samples from Ground Zero and claim to have found thermitic material which reacts violently when heated up. They claim tonnes of thermite and conventional explosives were rigged inside, not just WTC7, but also the Twin Towers.

Official reports say: A three-year investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that the building collapsed because of uncontrolled fires, started by the collapse of the nearby North Tower, and which burnt for seven hours.

The mains water feeding the emergency sprinkler system was severed. No evidence has ever been found of explosive charges and there are no recordings of a series of very loud explosions that would have been expected with controlled demolition.

Furthermore, there is an alternative explanation for the "thermitic material" the sceptical scientists found in the dust - it is just a type of primer paint. It's calculated 1,200,000 tonnes of building materials were pulverised at the World Trade Center and most minerals are present in the dust (not necessarily in a large quantity). More extensive sampling of the dust has not found any evidence of thermite or explosives, says a report from the US Geological Survey and another from RJ Lee." author Mike Rubin

Chomsky Dismisses 911
Conspiracy Theories As 'Dubious'
12-13-6
Noam Chomsky
Avram Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, logician, historian, political critic, and activist.

The following is an exchange between a ZNet Sustainer and Noam Chomsky, which took place in the Sustainer Web Board where Noam hosts a forum...

ZNet Sustainer: Dear Noam, There is much documentation observed and uncovered by the 911 families themselves suggesting a criminal conspiracy within the Bush Administration to cover-up the 9/11 attacks (see DVD, 9/11: Press for Truth). Additionally, much evidence has been put forward to question the official version of events. This has come in part from Paul Thompson, an activist who has creatively established the 9/11 Timeline, a free 9/11 investigative database for activist researchers, which now, according to The Village Voice's James Ridgeway, rivals the 9/11 Commission's report in accuracy and lucidity (see,
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0416,mondo1,52830,6.html,
or www.cooperativeresearch.org).

Noam Chomsky: Hard for me to respond to the rest of the letter, because I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission.

ZNet Sustainer: A question that arises for me is that regardless of this issue, how do I as an activist prevent myself from getting distracted by such things as conspiracy theories instead of focusing on the bigger picture of the institutional analysis of private profit over people?

Noam Chomsky: I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. How do you personally set priorities? That's of course up to you. I've explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments.

ZNet Sustainer: In a sense, profit over people is the real conspiracy, yes, yet not a conspiracy at all ­ rather institutional reality? At the same time, if the core of conspiracy theories are accurate, which is challenging to pin down, though increasingly possible, does it not fit into the same motivations of furthering institutional aims of public subsidizes to private tyrannies? I mean, through the 9/11attacks, Bush Et Al. has been able to justify massive increases in defense spending for a "war without end," and Israel has been given the green light to do virtually whatever it wants since now 'the Americans are in the same fight.' Furthermore, there has been a substantial rollback of civil rights in our nation, with the most extreme example being strong attempt to terminate habeas corpus.

Noam Chomsky: Can't answer for the same reasons. I don't see any reason to accept the presuppositions. As for the consequences, in one of my first interviews after 9/11 I pointed out the obvious: every power system in the world was going to exploit it for its own interests: the Russians in Chechnya, China against the Uighurs, Israel in the occupied territories,... etc., and states would exploit the opportunity to control their own populations more fully through "prevention of terrorism acts" and the like. By the "who gains" argument, every power system in the world could be assigned responsibility for 9/11.

ZNet Sustianer: This begs the question: if 9/11 was an inside job, then what's to say that Bush Et Al., if cornered or not, wouldn't resort to another more heinous attack of grander proportions in the age of nuclear terrorism ­ which by its very nature would petrify populations the world over, leading citizens to cower under the Bush umbrella of power.

Noam Chomsky: Wrong question, in my opinion. They were carrying out far more serious crimes, against Americans as well, before 9/11 -- crimes that literally threaten human survival. They may well resort to further crimes if activists here prefer not to deal with them and to focus their attention on arcane and dubious theories about 9/11.

ZNet Sustainer: Considering that in the US there are stage-managed elections, public relations propaganda wars, and a military-industrial-education-prison-etc. complex, does something like this sound far-fetched?

Noam Chomsky: I think that's the wrong way to look at it. Everything you mention goes back far before 9/11, and hasn't changed that much since. More evidence that the 9/11 movement is diverting energy and attention away from far more serious crimes -- and in this case crimes that are quite real and easily demonstrated.

ZNet Sustainer:Considering the long history of false flag operations to wrongly justify wars, our most recent precedent being WMD in Iraq, The Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam, going back much further to Pearl Harbor (FDR knowingly allowing the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor ­ which is different from false flag operations), to the 1898 Spanish-American War, to the 1846 Mexican-American War, to Andrew Jackson's seizing of Seminole land in 1812 (aka Florida).

Noam Chomsky: The concept of "false flag operation" is not a very serious one, in my opinion. None of the examples you describe, or any other in history, has even a remote resemblance to the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. I'd suggest that you look at each of them carefully.

ZNet Sustainer: Lastly, as the world's leading terror state, would it not surprise anyone if the US was capable of such an action? Would it surprise you? Do you think that so-called conspiracy theorists have anything worthy to present?

Noam Chomsky: I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests, and do not think that serious evidence has been provided to support claims about actions that would not only be outlandish, for their own interests, but that have no remote historical parallel. The effects, however, are all too clear, namely, what I just mentioned: diverting activism and commitment away from the very serious ongoing crimes of state.

http://blog.zmag.org/node/2779

"I mean, through the 9/11attacks, Bush Et Al. has been able to justify massive increases in defense spending for a "war without end,"

That's as goofy as theorizing that FDR orchestrated the Pearl Harbor attack to justify massive increases in defense spending.

DUH, when a nation is attacked, it has no choice but to increase defense spending. WWII required spending 40% of US GDP on the war effort.

I was hoping that some astute debunker could splain why the south tower fell before the north which was hit first.

Perhaps I should just take comfort that it will all be plainly spelled out in the next life by someone more eloquent than Dr Jones.

Wasn't the South Tower hit lower than the first? The plane seared into it closer to its mid-section, whereas the first one near the top of the tower.

The towers were designed to withstand winds and storms, not commercial airlines flying into them at high speeds. That was another explanation for their collapsing. The reason they fell was not the rationale they were designed for.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2016 12:49PM by Amyjo.

They might have survived the plane crash, but they could not survive the plane full of jet fuel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Steven Jones is neither stupid nor crazy. He's actually a very competent physicist who did work on muon-catalyzed fusion (sometimes still referred to as "cold fusion", however this one is a genuine effect that is impractical for energy generation).

A better word to describe him might be "deluded". He is a classic example of what happens when you abandon scientific principles -- where conclusions are based on evidence -- and instead go looking for evidence to support conclusions that you already believe. This is the same disease to which Mormon apologists are prone, and I think Jones' Mormon background and beliefs have contributed to his current situation.

Before BYU "encouraged" Jones to retire, he was giving seminars on 9/11 conspiracy theories that included Mormon code words such as "Gadiantons". His views about what happened that day are tightly intertwined with his religious beliefs.

This is a cautionary tale for those who believe in empiricism and the scientific method.

CZ

Arguing about 911 is like arguing with Mormons. Most of the time they just unreasonably refuse to see your point about evidence and even when you do prove a point, it's like cutting off the head of a hydra, another 10 points are made for you to disprove. You can see they are ridiculous, but try proving it to someone who is motivated not to believe you.

Or the original point is changed and they deny ever saying what they said.

Big secrets don't stay secret for very long. People talk. Adversaries would have exposed it. It would be impossible for the U.S. Government to keep a secret of this magnitude.

And there was no reason to create a fake terrorist plot.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2016 01:27PM by anybody.

"Big secrets don't stay secret for very long. People talk. Adversaries would have exposed it. It would be impossible for the U.S. Government to keep a secret of this magnitude."

Not only that, it would have been impossible to set the amount of explosives to bring down the WTCs without being detected. We all know that when a structure is demolished by implosion, it takes weeks for demolition experts to set the explosives. Because Muslim terrorists had already tried and failed to bring down the WTCs in 1993 via underground explosives, security had been tightened up since then. If any Americans had been behind the attacks, someone would have spilled the beans by now.

The Muslim terrorists' twisted reasoning was that if they brought down the WTCs, they could damage the USA's financial foundations. The only way they could have even attempted to bring them down was the way they did---jetliners with full fuel tanks. The USA already had intelligence which hinted that Muslims might try an attack using airplanes. See

http://911proof.com/8.html

We know who the attackers were, and we knew their agenda even before 9/11. As Occam's Razor states, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. There's no need to introduce any conspiracy theories about US government leaders being responsible for the 9/11 attacks. It's just plain silly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2016 02:55PM by randyj.

+1.0x10^9

You guys have it all wrong. The disaster was caused by indiscriminate use of priesthood power. A couple of missionaries were kicked out for tracting in the WTC. They dusted off their feet and the rest is history. Either that or somebody rubbed one out in the men's room.

Well, the thermite came from a certain glacial morraine

How short is short?

Building 7's collapse from multiple angles:

http://youtu.be/bWorDrTC0Qg

"Are you gonna believe your lying eyes, Margaret, or are you gonna believe me?"


Sometimes the obvious is just too crazy to believe; but there it is, obvious as obvious is. Just like mormonism's falsity.

And yet, there are still Mormons, and apologists, and etc, struggling so hard not to see the obvious.

Human

Even the hyperannuated sorts at #47 E.South Temple aren't that nutso...

I also liked the one group of scientists who demonstrated it waa logistically impossible to plant enough explosives to bring down the tower.

Jones is a headcase, and anyone who believes his droolings needs some serious cognitive restructuring.

BTW, if you want to "Keep up with the Jones," he's a fisture on ldsfreedomforum.com...

Be careful however; a number of posters who visited that reported lost days or even weeks as well as possible distortions in the space-time continuum...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2016 03:14PM by SL Cabbie.

https://www.amazon.com/Them-Adventures-Extremists-Jon-Ronson/dp/0743233212

The thing is the kooks might be right, and if you don't test their theories you'll never know. I agree with a couple of people who have asked, what is more likely. But then again how am I supposed to know? Since I'm not even close to an academic so I don't think I could figure it out myself even if I tried.



For the record. I choose the path that gives me the most comfort given my limited knowledge. That's what I did with Mormonism when I shoved it to the side. What little I knew caused me a great amount of discomfort. In this case, I know enough to know that I would be really uncomfortable knowing more. Probably a bit naive but then again can it be naive if it is willful?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2016 03:25PM by jacob.

Ghosts planted the explosives AFTER the planes hit. They had to wait because there wasn't any certainty that the two planes would hit, much less which floor would be hit.

But once the impacts occurred, the ghosts started with the last tower hit, just because...

Thus both the conspiracy AND ghosts are confirmed.