Check out the new book by Dr. David Ray Griffin “Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory”

http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X/sr=1-4/qid=1168895874/ref=sr_1_4/102-3028549-2492937?ie=UTF8&s=books

-

Also, check out the Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, Government Officials, Professors, 9-11 Survivors and Family Members who have expressed significant criticism of the 9-11 Commission Report and/or allege government complicity in 9-11:

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com

-

Conspiracy theories are what happens when tragedies are used for political ends and the real truth is mishandled. It may not be mishandled deliberately, in fact I'm willing to bet that incompetence by a number of people is responsible for much of it. But one thing is obvious, the events have been used to justify a wide range of responses that have severely limited general freedoms including the right to privacy and freedom of movement and invading and occupying another country that had nothing to do with the original event. If you combine these events with the shrillness of patriotism and the vindictive and aggressive rhetoric that was hurled at a number of people that disagreed with the establishment you cannot in all seriousness wonder why people are questioning everything and everyone. Especially when there are a lack of open and honest answers from the American administration and others, whether deliberate or not.

Steve, I'm still not sure whose side you are on, since you have provided so many fine links. Anyway, maybe it's un-academic to take sides at all - so this article is a good stimulus, no matter.

Maybe it's time to re-define this twee little label - Conspiracy Theory - maybe retire it altogether. It's no use to us, because our governments own the rights to it, lock, stock and barrel.

Example: Some famous conspiracy theories -

1. The Vietnam War was necessary to prevent the fall of a mythical row of geopolitical dominos. As a result, 3.5 million Vietnamese, 58,000 American and 520 Australian human beings were needlessly murdered. Yep, seems reasonable to me. Gulf of Tonkin anyone?

2. Refugees throw their kids into the sea, in order to curry sympathy. 'Nuff said about that one!

3. Blair's Dodgy Dossier, and Powell's lies before the UN are, and were, known to be LIES. Our government KNEW they were liars, but joined the fray anyway, saying it was the "right" thing to do. Our government did their best to propagate that conspiracy theory. Chalk up over 600,000 deaths, and give yourselves a pat on the back. What's a little AWB conspiracy theory, compared to that?

4. None - absolutely none of the happenings in East Timor have anything to do with the oil and gas deposits in the Timor Gap. Anyone who says otherwise is a conspiracy theorist - right?

5. Urged on by an obscure mastermind in a non-existent cave complex, a bunch of brown-skinned Bigglesworths armed with plastic Stanley knives, manage to pull off the most remarkable maiden aeroplane flights in history. Thanks to the legendary architectural abilities of said mastermind, the stupendously skilled kamikazies know EXACTLY where to surgically hit the towers, in order to defeat the inconvenient laws of physics and reduce 3 buildings to dust and scrap.

In order to believe this baloney, you have to be a slavish follower of Coincidence Theory.

- my advice: Go to the doctor and get your nose checked out - as a matter of urgency!

Dutch tv show Zembla did a show on the 9/11 conspiracies. They are far less contaminated by the American style of news so one would think more impartial. And while they side with the 9/11 commission report on many issues, concluding they are plausible, they find that they cannot refute the conspiracy theory of the collapse of Building 7 or all of the evidence of prior knowledge by elements within the American government. See here:

http://tinyurl.com/2anafm

http://tinyurl.com/ypfh2m

"Conspiracy theorists" shouldn't be expected to provide a complete history of what really happened. What we can do is look at all the evidence, and there's plenty that the official story is a lie. Consider:
- no plane found at Pentagon
- Pentagon employees smelled explosives
- towers exploded after fires were out
- explosions in towers basement, simultaneous with planes
- air defence routinely intercepts in 5-6 minutes
- controlled demolition of WTC 7
- Bush's brother in charge of WTC security
Also, who stood to gain? The military-industrial complex, the only folks with the capability to pull such a stunt. They needed a war, and the power and money that go with it.

Some of my favourite conspiracy-related websites:

http://www.informationliberation.com/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
http://www.projectcensored.org/
http://www.zmag.org/
http://www.alexansary.com/
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/
http://www.accesscardnoway.net/
http://www.richardneville.com/
http://www.fairgofordavid.org/
http://www.resist.com.au/
http://www.johnpilger.com/
http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/
http://www.anarchistmedia.org/weekly.html
http://www.countercurrents.org/
http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/
http://seekingasylumdownunder2.blogspot.com/
http://kurtnimmo.com/
http://www.carnicom.com/
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

More conspiracy-related websites can be found here:

http://www.resist.com.au/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2224

The problem with the internet as far as governments are concerned is that it can't be controlled.

Information can be shared instantly, unedited and openly discussed.

Like the graphic images of the Vietnam War that fuelled public protests, what would have happened if Germans knew more about the Reichstag fire when it happened?
Would WW2 have been prevented?

If we knew then what we know know about about such things as the Tonkin incident, the sinking of the Lusitania or the attack on Pearl Harbour, the world today could have been a far different place.

Oliver Stone's other film "JFK" led to the release of a lot of classified material, including (by mistake)the Northwoods document that showed the world how far governments are willing to go to provoke phoney wars. The similarities with 911 are more than interesting and this document was no conspiracy.

The problem with 911 is that the official story is far more unbelieveable than the alternative conspiracy theories.

You have to accept that it is 100% correct because if you doubt any single part of it, the rest simply doesn't fit and the whole thing falls apart.

It's like a Hollywood script, from the spectacular opening explosions, to the "let's roll" catchcry from the valiant doomed heroes, the flag raising (Iwo Jima style) on top of the rubble and the "mission accomplished" finale with GWB (as John Wayne) on the aircraft carrier. Real B-Grade movie stuff.

No mention in the media however, of the rampant looting that was going on at the site or the conflicts between Guiliani and the Fire Department afterward. No, that would spoil the publicity campaign.

On the other hand, much of what is out there is still conjecture or outright lies.

There is a also real "disinformation" strategy at work, where you create a phoney site, load it up with 99% absolute fact and then include something obviously ridiculous that makes the whole thing suspect.

The alternative is that you forget the internet and rely totally on TV, radio and newspapers for all your information and view of reality.

Yeah, sure.

What I'm wondering is whether there are more kooks around now, or whether it is just that the internet has enabled them to come out of the shadows?

"Thank God for the Internet, or we wouldn't know anything, and we would already be a fascist state."
- Cindy Sheehan

Where the Hell Is YOUR 9/11 Proof?
http://tvnewslies.org/html/where_the_hell_is_your_9_11_pr.html

In defense of conspiracy theories:

They make people question how wise it is to accept everything they're told by the powers that be.

They're entertaining.

They encourage imagination.

They are occasionally right (tobacco industry fibs, WMD)

They at least attempt coherence, unlike many implausible official versions (Saddam did it, they hate us because we're so nice).

They give us something to talk about other than Paris Hilton or Australia's Funniest Idols.

They keep history alive because they keep us talking about events much longer.

And, they make life more interesting.

"Apart from that the controlled demolition theorists have produced nothing. Not a skerrick of evidence of preparations for a demolition"

They are not omniscient! Being conspiracies they are BOUND to get something wrong. Look at what they could have right first and start there.

Where does the writer think the word conspiracy orginated? Hint: It wasn't Hollywood.

True historical accounts such as the slaughter from the air of five thousand Iraqis who began to protest against the British occupation of Iraq after WW1, can now be regarded as either conspiracy theory or Marxian twisting of history.

Further, Iran, who has never attacked another country for hundreds of years, has since WW2 been occupied by the US in the 1950s with the implanting of the Shah, was able to throw out such occupation - but with the US standing by was attacked by Iraq in 1981, and after eight years with resultant shocking casualties, was still able to throw off the invaders.

Even among many of our Onliners, much of the above is regarded as un-needed OLD PAP similar to the way most Western history contained in recommended study volumes is treated.

Similar to Mr Howard's projected plan to lower the importance of the Schools of Humanities, similar to his discardance of the importance of much of our Aboriginal history, replacing it with persistent replays of the deeds of us white Australians as with Gallipoli. So ultra-conservative, in fact, sounds like Shades of the Nazi Party.

The intelligent maturity of almost all the posts on this forum so far – something the original essay lacks – belies any prejudice that those who doubt the official 911 story are gullible, paranoid whackos.

It’s not gullibility or paranoia for the public to want a more comprehensive, believable explanation of what really happened on 911 than what they have received to date.

According to what I’ve read, estimates of the official amount spent on the 911 investigation vary between about $20 million and $50 million. Yet the investigation that led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton over his affair with Monica Lewinsky cost over $100 million before it even got to court.

Considering the power of the United States, the massive loss of life, and the worldwide catastrophic consequences of 911, the people of the entire world – not just the United States – deserve a much more extensive and open presentation of all the evidence at hand.

Hiding this evidence from the public – in the so-called interests of national security – not only fuels conspiracy theories, it also pours contempt on the entire Western legal process.

Conspiracy: A combination of men for an evil purpose; as agreement, between two or more persons, to commit a crime in concert, as treason; a plot.

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=conspiracy

Zogby Poll: Over 70 Million American Adults Support New 9/11 Investigation
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=11269

BUT THE 9/11 COMMISSION SHOWED THAT SEPTEMBER 11TH WAS A REAL TERRORIST ATTACK, RIGHT?
http://911proof.com/6.html

Tracking the 19 Hijackers
What are they up to now?
At least 9 of them survived 9/11
http://www.welfarestate.com/911/

Complete 911 Timeline
http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/project.jsp?project=911_project

250+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns' Found in the Mainstream Media
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/911smokingguns.html

The Fake 2004 Bin Laden Video Tape
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape2.html

9/11 Videos: THE CONTROLLED COLLAPSE OF WTC 7
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html

What Was In Building 7?
http://wtc7.net/background.html

Online Video: Banned Fox News Video: 9/11 The Israeli Connection
http://www.veoh.com/videos/v552406rYaXEFgw

Slip of the tongue? Rumsfeld admits that "Flight 93" was shot down
VIDEO Footage and transcripts
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5626

Missing Gold
A King's Ransom in Precious Metals Seems to have Disappeared
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/gold.html#ref4

The 1975 World Trade Center Fire
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_1975_fire.html

Further information can be found here: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wrhmt/mt/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=9%2F11&x=30&y=19

I am often called a conspiracy theorist.

I have made formal allegations against the NSW Department of Education as there is a conspiracy against gifted children in Education and a conspiracy to cover up formal allegations of systematic bias, victimisation, vilification, bullying, fraud, corruption, misconduct, discrimination, manipulation of test scores/documents and a conspiracy to cover up - just to name few.

My experiences, and the documents we have show, that what the system does is that those responsible are permitted to handle complaints about themselves and they present submissions to different Ministers detailing the tale that they want to present together with prepared documents and a draft response. The draft response is accepted on face value by the Ministers/bureaucrats and noted as fact. That response then gets sent off to the next person you complain to and presented as evidence that there is no truth in your complaint. The system presents it like all these people investigated the evidence/matter and came to the same conclusion, when in fact they only looked at the lies told by those you accuse and signed the draft responses prepared by those you allege are responsible and moved it on.

The matter is then closed and correspondence filed without acknowledgement. If you complain you are deemed vexatious and vilified.

Jolanda – Education – Keeping them Honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/

Here's a pretty good piece (I think) that illustrates the dilemma:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17850.htm

Extract: "War without cause is murder, not war."

Extrapolating that to our own government's actions and activities, what are WE going to do about cleaning up this mess? I think we are all culpable, because a critical mass of us swallowed the government's conspiracy theory too easily. So we are obliged to do something concrete about this great crime, not only for the (immediate) sake of the Iraqis, but also for the sake of our grandkids the world over.

Never again! (where have I heard that before?)

What about The Coconut, Ol' Fishnets, Gabby Cadaver, The Monk and Ol' Bat Ears? (nicknames used here for purely vexatious reasons). They sneaked our armed forces to war during parliamentary recess and made hostages out of us and them - that's true.

And let's not forget Hill, who must have been in it up to his neck. Then there's Senator Awful, who jammed his boot on the ABC's neck at the first sign of deviation from the official conspiracy theory. Perhaps these characters feel a little more insulated on the other side of the planet.

Any time soon, we will have to have a little "truth and reconciliation" session with these blokes. No maybes - it will HAVE to be. What does the future hold for them? Surely the choice is between genteel retirement in a gated estate, or a trip to the gulag via The Hague.

Questions: What might they do to stay in power, with so much to lose? If they can't hold on to power, will Little Kev let them off the hook, and if so, why?

If we keep our wits sharpened in the run-up to the election, we just might get a clue as to who has been running this country for the past decade or three.

Here's a great website that uncovers a conspiracy by unionists to destroy Australia's economy and take us back to the dark ages:

www.liberal.org.au

Another website has also fearlessly exposed this nefarious plot:

www.theaustralian.com.au

Despite only having the resources of a multi-billion dollar global media empire with which to defend Australia against the wealthy and powerful forces of working men and women, this brave cadre of noble journalists refuse to be intimidated.

Let us pause and give thanks that these intrepid souls will never be silenced.

I will put this bluntly. Conspiracy theories are for dunces unable to cope with the world as it is. Conspiracy theorists, especially, 9/11 CTers, tend to display a discouraging lack of understanding about basic principles of math, science, engineering and human behavior.

The truth is simple.

Planes hit buildings

Buildings burn

Buildings fall down.

All the CTer hand waving over trivial minutiae can not erase those simple facts.

There were no bombs in the buildings. A couple of smart, fanatics, well financed by a multi millionaire managed to find a chink in our defenses by exploiting the very thing they hate, our freedoms.

Every single CTer claim has been debunked over and over, yet the CTer’s persist in their rabid protestations.

It makes you wonder what their real motives are. It certainly isn’t to find the “truth’ as they claim.

How come Mr. "Anon E. Mouse" doesn't sign his own name?

Hi night-owls. A fine commentary by Prof MacQueen of McMaster Uni, Ontario (YouTube):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwQa5eokieY

And as for the perpetrators, this fine piece throws some light:

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2006/12/somewhere_a_ban.html

- enjoy this stuff and have a good long weekend!

Cheers

I have wearily grown tired of this paticular deabte, in my mind the debate is well and truly over. What I have been intersted in lately is how human beings, presented with the same simple set of circumstances can come to such a drastically different interpretation of events.

On the one hand there are people such as Mr. Anon E. Mouse, who I am sure is an intelligent, politically aware, rational human being, certain in his own mind of the logic of his arguement.

I am equally as certain in my mind that Mr. Anon E. Mouse is a sucker, and for reasons I don't understand he cannot even consider the glaringly obvious facts about 9/11.

Who had the motive? who had the means? who has benefited the most?

Like I said, its glaringly obvious to me, but probably thouroughly ridiculous to Mr. Anon E. Mouse.

Is it any wonder the world is so f**ked up??

P.S I knew I'd see you here Chris, keep up the great posts!

To me, the biggest suckers are those that ignored science classes in school, derided students who studied math and engineering subjects as “nerds,” yet tsomehow think that they are qualified to present expert opinions on those very topics.

So tell me. How many on you support the “no planes” version with the spaced based ray guns as put forth by Judy Wood?

Are you at least going to admit that she is an obvious wack job?

It is simple.

Planes hit buildings
Buildings burn
Damaged and burning buildings fall down.

End of discussion.

People like Carl above, come to conclusions based on their political viewpoints FIRST, then they seek to cherry pick for evidence that supports their predetermined conclusion, while ignoring the preponderance of data that refutes them.

I also find it rather amusing that the first post after mine is nothing more than a veiled ad-hominem attack.

It comes down to your interpretation of how things work.

For example, do light bulbs emit light or do they absorb darkness? The closer you get to the bulb, the less darkness there is. Eventually they fill up and stop working.

Nevertheless, steel skyscrapers are designed NOT to fall down in this manner and Building 7 in particular had no reason to collapse.

As somebody explained in one of the docos I saw, "I have a theory that I may win the lottery one day. If I never buy a ticket it remains a theory. As soon as I buy a ticket, the theory becomes a possibility."

All it takes is to disprove a single item in the entire scenario and the whole thing becomes invalid.
If everything else was true except that WTC7 was brought down by a controlled demolition, how does this fit in? It can't.

To Mr. "Anon E. Mouse",

Modern steel skyscrapers DON'T FALL DOWN DUE TO FIRE. There are only 3 recorded cases in history of steel skyscrapers that have fallen down "due to fire" and they were World Trade Centers 1,2 & 7. If that doesn't raise alarms in your head then I can't help you with life.

Mr. Gmamal, You seem to be forgetting that all three buildings suffered severe structural damage prior to the fires. Two buildings were hit by airplanes traveling at hundreds of miles per hour and the third was struck by the debris from the collapse of WTC 1.

Furthermore, in all three cases, the passive and active fire suppresion systems designed to protect the buildings from fire were completely compromised.

The standpipes were knocked out in the sprinkler systems of the towers and the water mains and power systems were off line in WTC 7. Firewalls were breached in all three buildings. These things make a huge difference. in addtion, all three buildings had unique strucutral designs that are not commonly found in most other modern structures.

There is credible evidence that the emergency generator fuel supply system in WTC 7 suffered a fatal flaw that made it particulary vulnerable to the type of damage that the builind suffered when it was struck by the debris from WTC 1.

How many real strucutral engineers support this theory?

Ignoring these facts will not make them go away.

They invalidate your entire theory.

Ask yourself this: "who has the most to gain from promitng the "9/11 was an inside job" hoax?

look at who is pushing this.

What is their political philosophy? Do they promote other "theories" as well?

Just for the record Mr Anon, within days of 9/11 people told me it was an inside job, I brushed them aside as conspiracy wackjobs for the next five years. It was only after my own reading on the topic did I come around.

I have no agenda. I mourned the victims of those attacks the same as you did. Please don't tar us all with the same brush.

Mr. Anon.

You list off unseen "structural damage", bad sprinklers, magical disappearing asbestos, and the incredible uniqueness of these building as proof. Thats a lot of special circumstances at once!

But you offer no reason why I should take your word seriously. What kind of engineer, architect, or expert are you? Do you have any sort of special knowledge that we should be aware of?

WTC 1 & 2 really were pretty unique. They were specifically designed to withstand a fully loaded jet airliner crashing in to them! That was always the fear with those buildings. WTC 7 can be seen falling like a controlled demolition. The Dutch demolition expert Jawenko in my original post confirms that it looks exactly like a controlled demolition.

At some point you have to accept the most obvious explanation and stop looking for magical solutions like flying disappearing asbestos, revolutionary pancake collapses that look like explosions and *pulverize* a steel building down to the basement, office furniture that turns into rivers of molten metal, the most sophisticated air defense system in the world standing down for 2 hours failing to stop the planes...

Well I wouldn’t exactly call the structural damage “unseen.” Are you denying that there was any structural damage to the buildings?

I never said that the sprinklers were “bad.” Building fire sprinkler systems are only designed to handle typical office fires that start small. They simply do not have the pressure or capacity to operate if all of the heads on one floor are open.

The same holds true for WTC 7. After the collapse of both of the towers, the water supply in that area was severely compromised.

As for your comment on the disappearing asbestos, As I understand it, the area where the planes impacted the building had only limited use of asbestos based fireproofing. The towers were built when asbestos was being phased out. The replacement materials of that era have a reputation for not being of the best quality. In any case, it doesn’t matter, as the force of the impact breeched the drywall core enclosures and knocked the friable sprayed on material off the thin floor trusses.

You could call this a sequence of special circumstances, if you want, but then again, every great disaster is marked by sequences of special circumstances.

The buildings were specifically designed to stand up. They were no more “specifically” designed to withstand the impact of a jet airliner as they were specifically designed to withstand the impact of a runaway steam train.

AFTER, and only after the building structural designs were completed did Robinson look at the effects of an impact on the structure. He only evaluated the effects on the structural design, he DID NOT include any evaluation of any subsequent fires in that analysis.

Thus to claim that the building was “specifically” designed to withstand the impact of the planes is at best being intellectually dishonest.
At some point you have to accept the most obvious explanation and stop looking for magical solutions like top secret space based ray guns, and super secret, radio controlled, nano-thermite carrying cockroaches that crawl up behind the drywall and link their little arms and legs together to form a cutting charge

Mr. Anon,

The buildings, like all modern skyscrapers, were intentionally over-engineered.

Some quotes:

(from http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html )

John Skilling :

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or McDonald Douglas DC-8.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there."

White Paper:

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

Frank Demartini's Statement:

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

Leslie Robertson: “One of my jobs was to look at all of the possible events that might take place in a highrise building. And of course there had been in New York two incidences of aircraft impact, the most famous one of course being on the Empire State Building. Now, we were looking at an aircraft not unlike the Mitchell bomber that ran into the Empire State Building. We were looking at aircraft that was lost in the fog, trying to land. It was a low-flying, slow-flying 707, which was the largest aircraft of its time. And so we made calculations, not anywhere near the level of sophistication that we could today. But inside of our ability, we made calculations of what happened when the airplane goes in and it takes out a huge section of the outside wall of the building. And we concluded that it would stand. It would suffer but it would stand. And the outside wall would have a big hole in it, and the building would be in place. What we didn't look at is what happens to all that fuel. And perhaps we could be faulted for that, for not doing so. But for whatever reason we didn't look at that question of what would happen to the fuel.”

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/filmmore/pt.html

Frank DeMartini, from the upper floors shortly before he was killed in the collapse of WTC 1:
"Construction manager to base, be advised that the express elevators are in danger of collapse. Do you read?"

"Relay, that, Chris, to the firemen that the elevators — "

"Express elevators are going to collapse."

He did not give his location, but Gerry Drohan, a colleague who was outside the building, said he also had a radio conversation with Mr. De Martini about the conditions on the 78th floor. Mr. De Martini wanted structural engineers brought up to the floor to look at steel, Mr. Drohan said, but police officers would not let them back into the building.

http://www.mishalov.com/wtc_portauthoritytranscrip.html

Your own quote by engineer Leslie Robertson says" But inside of our ability, we made calculations of what happened when the airplane goes in and it takes out a huge section of the outside wall of the building. AND WE CONCLUDED THAT IT WOULD STAND."

The fact that he mentions not looking at what happened to the fuel is contradicted by head structural engineer John Skilling - "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... THE BUILIDNG STRUCTURE WOULD STILL BE THERE."

In your previous post you claimed that "They were no more “specifically” designed to withstand the impact of a jet airliner as they were specifically designed to withstand the impact of a runaway steam train." Why did you lie? Was it intentional? Are you just misinformed and making reckless remarks?

Also, DeMartini's claim that an elevator would collapse does not imply the entire building would explode into dust and molten metal. Where did that energy come from? Although you and I might be able to visualize the question, we're not qualified to answer it with the needed authority. The U.S. government should be settling this question. They are the ones with the access and authority to calm people's fears. Unfortunately they can't be trusted to do this as we can see from the 9/11 Commission fiasco. The movie 9/11 Press for Truth examines how they misled the investigation and overlooked key evidence. What are they hiding? Shouldn't we be concerned? Someone should! An empire that covers up this crime and uses it to justify wars of conquest will eventually threaten the entire world. I urge everybody to please visit 911research.wtc7.net and read up on the evidence.

“Still, he recalls that he addressed the question of an airplane collision, if only to satisfy his engineer's curiosity. For whatever reason, Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow. Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study. But the Port Authority, eager to mount a counterattack against Wien, seized on the results -- and may in fact have exaggerated them. One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour. That was perhaps three times the speed that Robertson had considered.”

http://scott-juris.blogspot.com/The%20Height%20of%20Ambition%20Part%20Four.pdf

Please note that the buildings DID withstand the impact of the planes.

They probably would have withstood the fires ALONE.

They could not withstand BOTH. There is no way anyone could have possibly designed for that.

DeMartini was talking about the elevator hoistways IN THE CORE.

The energy that drove the collapse is the oldest and most powerful one in the universe. GRAVITY!

Given the posting limitations here, I doubt I will pursue this any more with you. Let’s just agree to disagree.

I know I said that I was going to walk away from this thread, but I found this site that I thought I would share with you.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/06/some-journal-papers-about-wtc-on-911.html

Interesting that an anonymous little mouse should be so informative.

It seems a lot of people have their opinion on conspiracy theories, post about them here:

http://a.parsons.edu/~tiffanywu/fall07/corestudio1/projects/post911

This website is a school project and a work in progress. There are a few articles that you can post your opinions on or rate currently, but more will be added soon.