Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Peter McKenna]

The saintly folk at News Hounds, who watch FOX so the rest of us don't have to, have been keeping an eye on campaigns to have Rosie O'Donnell fired from the ABC's The View show.

See John Gibson and Michelle Malkin Whip Up Frenzy Over Rosie O'Donnell and ABC

163 comments have been posted to this article and counting. A hot topic!

I couldn't resist re-posting this comment here. IMO it puts the CD argument clearly, in relatively few words.

One either has to believe in the laws of physics relative to linear motion, namely, conservation of momentum, or trust that the official narrative of the 911 atrocity is true. They are mutually exclusive.

Objects or buildings that fall at a free-fall rate fall with no resistance. Discounting air resistance, this is the case with WTC1, 2 and especially building 7. The widely trumpeted "pancake collapse theory" would introduce significant resistance as upper floors would have to crash through many tens of stories of undamaged structure. The actual rate of the collapse of these three structures as corroborated by unspinnable video evidence, exposes the fallacious nature of the official explanation. A free-fall rate of collapse is only possible if all structural integrity is eliminated just ahead of the collapse wave. This set of parameters can only be accounted for by the controlled demolition of these buildings.

Every American has to decide whether to trust this government and corporate controlled news media or whether to apply some critical thinking skills in the evaluation of widely disseminated information concerning the 911 atrocity. Since my government has a long history of protecting me from the truth “for my own good”, I'll stick with Newton and Galileo.

brisa

Sid,

Is this a quote from Rosie O'Donnell? Or are you re-posting the '9/11 truther's' Theory?

[Len Colby]

I couldn't resist re-posting this comment here. IMO it puts the CD argument clearly, in relatively few words.

One either has to believe in the laws of physics relative to linear motion, namely, conservation of momentum, or trust that the official narrative of the 911 atrocity is true. They are mutually exclusive.

Objects or buildings that fall at a free-fall rate fall with no resistance. Discounting air resistance, this is the case with WTC1, 2 and especially building 7. The widely trumpeted "pancake collapse theory" would introduce significant resistance as upper floors would have to crash through many tens of stories of undamaged structure. The actual rate of the collapse of these three structures as corroborated by unspinnable video evidence, exposes the fallacious nature of the official explanation. A free-fall rate of collapse is only possible if all structural integrity is eliminated just ahead of the collapse wave. This set of parameters can only be accounted for by the controlled demolition of these buildings.

Every American has to decide whether to trust this government and corporate controlled news media or whether to apply some critical thinking skills in the evaluation of widely disseminated information concerning the 911 atrocity. Since my government has a long history of protecting me from the truth “for my own good”, I'll stick with Newton and Galileo.

brisa

The author claims that the collapse theory violates the laws of physics but no qualified engineers or demolitions experts and only a couple of particle physicists agree. Once again the claim is made that the collapses occurred at close to free fall rate but that claim is simply false as has been pointed out repeatedly on this forum the took far longer than free fall time. The author is also presumably un aware of the two studies one by two professors of structural engineering from Northwestern University and the other by one from MIT that close to free fall time collapses were possible. Hand-waving by misinformed ignorant people proves nothing.

[Sid Walker]

The saintly folk at News Hounds, who watch FOX so the rest of us don't have to, have been keeping an eye on campaigns to have Rosie O'Donnell fired from the ABC's The View show.

See John Gibson and Michelle Malkin Whip Up Frenzy Over Rosie O'Donnell and ABC

163 comments have been posted to this article and counting. A hot topic!

I couldn't resist re-posting this comment here. IMO it puts the CD argument clearly, in relatively few words.

One either has to believe in the laws of physics relative to linear motion, namely, conservation of momentum, or trust that the official narrative of the 911 atrocity is true. They are mutually exclusive.

Objects or buildings that fall at a free-fall rate fall with no resistance. Discounting air resistance, this is the case with WTC1, 2 and especially building 7. The widely trumpeted "pancake collapse theory" would introduce significant resistance as upper floors would have to crash through many tens of stories of undamaged structure. The actual rate of the collapse of these three structures as corroborated by unspinnable video evidence, exposes the fallacious nature of the official explanation. A free-fall rate of collapse is only possible if all structural integrity is eliminated just ahead of the collapse wave. This set of parameters can only be accounted for by the controlled demolition of these buildings.

Every American has to decide whether to trust this government and corporate controlled news media or whether to apply some critical thinking skills in the evaluation of widely disseminated information concerning the 911 atrocity. Since my government has a long history of protecting me from the truth “for my own good”, I'll stick with Newton and Galileo.

brisa

Sid,

Is this a quote from Rosie O'Donnell? Or are you re-posting the '9/11 truther's' Theory?

Not a Rosie O'Donnell quote. What I quoted was a comment to the News Hounds asrticle (I did explain this). It was, I thought, a succinct and fairly accurate account of 9-11 sceptics' essential problem with the official story of the WTC collapses. It was written by someone called "brisa".

[Peter McKenna]

The saintly folk at News Hounds, who watch FOX so the rest of us don't have to, have been keeping an eye on campaigns to have Rosie O'Donnell fired from the ABC's The View show.

See John Gibson and Michelle Malkin Whip Up Frenzy Over Rosie O'Donnell and ABC

Sid,

Is this a quote from Rosie O'Donnell? Or are you re-posting the '9/11 truther's' Theory?

Not a Rosie O'Donnell quote. What I quoted was a comment to the News Hounds asrticle (I did explain this). It was, I thought, a succinct and fairly accurate account of 9-11 sceptics' essential problem with the official story of the WTC collapses. It was written by someone called "brisa".

It wasn't clear. It is now. Thank you.

[Peter McKenna]

I looked up Rosie O’Donnell’s web site to see what she had to say about 9/11. It’s a very busy site.

There was a “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” link, which was mostly composed of Steven Jones, Jim Fetzer, and David Ray Griffin’s sites. I followed a link to Steven Jones site and was directed to the “Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth” or “MUJCA-NET”.

Mujca-net had another link entitled ‘Scientific Panel on 9/11: “Terror Attacks of 9/11 Were Faked”’ which I accessed and lo and behold it was an article by Dr. Steven Jones “Physicist Says Heat Substance Felled WTC”, postulating that Thermite-sulfur was used to destroy structural steel in the WTC, beginning ~ 30 minutes after the plane(s) struck. I didn’t see any “Scientific panel”, though.

Below the main article were several donation requests and mission statements, et al. A couple of statements were particularly interesting:

“MUJCA-NET can help arrange for a 9/11 Truth outreach person to speak to a priest, imam, rabbi or minister in your area. We can also help arrange for a speaker to visit your church, synagogue or mosque and/or meet with members of your religious group (all religions welcome). We can also provide 9/11-related educational materials as finances permit.”

“MUJCA-NET needs your support. We are a non-profit organization and the scale of our activities depends entirely on your generosity. We would like to get copies of David Griffin's two 9/11 books (see above) into the hands of every religious leader in America. And we would like to push 9/11 truth onto the front pages of every newspaper in America. But we can't do it without your help. If you would like to donate to MUJCA-NET, CLICK HERE.”

“Jews, Christians and Muslims from around the world are uniting to pray for 9/11 truth every Friday afternoon. (Muslim congregational prayer occurs shortly after noon on Fridays)…”

“David Griffin, one of America's most eloquent and influential theologians, has summed up the overwhelming evidence for US government 9/11 complicity in in his bestseller The New Pearl Harbor. Dr. Griffin's follow-up book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, demolishes the last shreds of doubt that 9/11 was an inside job, and the official story a transparent cover-up.

It’s a welcome site to see an argument established on its own merits without having to rely on the endorsement of religious organizations.

I really don’t get the religious overtones …Why are Dr. Jones, et al, so hot for religious endorsements? Is it me or does this seem ridiculous?

[/Quote]

The saintly folk at News Hounds, who watch FOX so the rest of us don't have to, have been keeping an eye on campaigns to have Rosie O'Donnell fired from the ABC's The View show.

Edited April 3, 2007 by Peter McKenna

[Peter McKenna]

I looked up Rosie O’Donnell’s web site to see what she had to say about 9/11. It’s a very busy site.

There was a “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” link, which was mostly composed of Steven Jones, Jim Fetzer, and David Ray Griffin’s sites. I followed a link to Steven Jones site and was directed to the “Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth” or “MUJCA-NET”.

Mujca-net had another link entitled ‘Scientific Panel on 9/11: “Terror Attacks of 9/11 Were Faked”’ which I accessed and lo and behold it was an article by Dr. Steven Jones “Physicist Says Heat Substance Felled WTC”, postulating that Thermite-sulfur was used to destroy structural steel in the WTC, beginning ~ 30 minutes after the plane(s) struck. I didn’t see any “Scientific panel”, though.

Below the main article were several donation requests and mission statements, et al. A couple of statements were particularly interesting:

“MUJCA-NET can help arrange for a 9/11 Truth outreach person to speak to a priest, imam, rabbi or minister in your area. We can also help arrange for a speaker to visit your church, synagogue or mosque and/or meet with members of your religious group (all religions welcome). We can also provide 9/11-related educational materials as finances permit.”

“MUJCA-NET needs your support. We are a non-profit organization and the scale of our activities depends entirely on your generosity. We would like to get copies of David Griffin's two 9/11 books (see above) into the hands of every religious leader in America. And we would like to push 9/11 truth onto the front pages of every newspaper in America. But we can't do it without your help. If you would like to donate to MUJCA-NET, CLICK HERE.”

“Jews, Christians and Muslims from around the world are uniting to pray for 9/11 truth every Friday afternoon. (Muslim congregational prayer occurs shortly after noon on Fridays)…”

“David Griffin, one of America's most eloquent and influential theologians, has summed up the overwhelming evidence for US government 9/11 complicity in in his bestseller The New Pearl Harbor. Dr. Griffin's follow-up book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, demolishes the last shreds of doubt that 9/11 was an inside job, and the official story a transparent cover-up.

It’s a welcome site to see an argument established on its own merits without having to rely on the endorsement of religious organizations.

I really don’t get the religious overtones …Why are Dr. Jones, et al, so hot for religious endorsements? Is it me or does this seem ridiculous?

The saintly folk at News Hounds, who watch FOX so the rest of us don't have to, have been keeping an eye on campaigns to have Rosie O'Donnell fired from the ABC's The View show.

Here's the link to the MUJCA - NET site:

http://www.mujca.com/wtcfires.htm

[Len Colby]

Were the fires on the east side of the 80th and 81st floors of the South Tower too weak to have weakened the floor trusses?

Sid seems to think so. Perhaps then he can explain these photos from the NIST report and stills from a video, which show a lot of smoke and some flames coming out the windows and the perimeter columns noticeably bowing in.

The bowing of the columns on the east face of the South Tower can be seen even more clearly in this video clip shot from in front of Trinity Church about 200 feet from the base of the doomed building, heavy smoke and some flames can be seen as well.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546

This is a still from the video linked above

So much for the ‘the South Tower fires were weak/going out theory’.

Bowing also occurred in the North Tower as can be seen in the NYPD aviation unit video I mentioned previously. Clips of the video can be seen in this excerpt of a documentary (starting 3:34 from the beginning). Not only can we hear them giving a warning that the top of the building was tilting and buckling a few minutes before the building collapsed but one of the cops on board and Jim Dyer who spoke to some of the others are interviewed and discuss what they saw, the cop said he could see “red hot” metal in the tower.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAy9oe1snbU...ted&search=

I guess the red hot steel 20 minutes before collapse, smoke, flames and bowing of the columns was caused by “super (duper) therrmate”.

Edited April 3, 2007 by Len Colby

[Peter McKenna]

Were the fires on the east side of the 80th and 81st floors of the South Tower too weak to have weakened the floor trusses?

Sid seems to think so. Perhaps then he can explain these photos from the NIST report and stills from a video, which show a lot of smoke and some flames coming out the windows and the perimeter columns noticeably bowing in.

The bowing of the columns on the east face of the South Tower can be seen even more clearly in this video clip shot from in front of Trinity Church about 200 feet from the base of the doomed building, heavy smoke and some flames can be seen as well.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546

This is a still from the video linked above

So much for the ‘the South Tower fires were weak/going out theory’.

Bowing also occurred in the North Tower as can be seen in the NYPD aviation unit video I mentioned previously. Clips of the video can be seen in this excerpt of a documentary (starting 3:34 from the beginning). Not only can we hear them giving a warning that the top of the building was tilting and buckling a few minutes before the building collapsed but one of the cops on board and Jim Dyer who spoke to some of the others are interviewed and discuss what they saw, the cop said he could see “red hot” metal in the tower.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAy9oe1snbU...ted&search=

I guess the red hot steel 20 minutes before collapse, smoke, flames and bowing of the columns was caused by “super (duper) therrmate”.

Steve Ulman,

Could you do me a favor?

I wrote the following just as am alternative POV for the WTC Twin Tower collapse. Would you mind checking it and making corrections (if needed) please?

I would appreciate it.

This is only a point of view of how the Twin Tower collapse was possible, as seen on TV and subsequent videos.

Response to 9/11 CT on the twin tower collapse:

There are suspicious, inconsistent, and unusual facts to the 9/11 events and the events leading up to them. It would be even more suspicious if there were no inconsistencies or unusual facts associated with the building collapse on 9/11.

There has been considerable conjecture concerning the twin tower collapse, much of which has been passed off as fact, simply because there is no available contradictory evidence. So far, I have read nothing which convinces me that the twin tower collapse was rigged, the result of a controlled demolition, or the result of inside jobbers ‘working’ on the building prior to the crash of 9/11 (including the theories presented by the conspiracy theorists).

As to the twin tower collapse, the building failure seems as likely to have been caused by the airplane collision and the resulting damage from the collision and fuel, as anything else.

Collision of the falling floors with floors below and possible mode of floor loading failure:

There are two types of collisions, elastic and inelastic. If a collision is elastic, some of the impact may be absorbed, and much of the force reflected and will remain as kinetic energy in the material (“bounce”). In this type of collision, there is considerably less force imparted to the object struck than in an inelastic collision.

In an inelastic collision, practically all of the force is absorbed by the object struck. This object will translate the forces to the connecting structure while some amount is translated to elastic behavior (like a guitar string, a span will resonate some).

In a frame structure the weakest points are typically at the connections (welded type connections are typically stronger than bolted or riveted) and at drastic changes in geometry (such as at “T” or “L” intersections).

Failure of structural steel frame structures could be due to excessive bending stress, shear stress, or torsional stress. Since the falling floors would have spanned the floor section below, the failures were likely due to shear, and some torsion (but mostly shear failure), and either ductile failure or fracture (complete break) would result.

If the failure were due to shear, the breakage would be almost instantaneous, since the steel would not deform (any significant amount) prior to failure. As the falling mass was increasing as it fell, the force would increase a corresponding amount (F=MA). Due to the size of the mass, the air resistance would be negligible, and have little effect on the speed of descent, or the impact.

The forces between the floor trusses and the center columns (at the building center, around the elevator shafts) was also translated to the center columns (and center framing), and apparently, a sufficient amount of force was translated to the center to result in the collapse of the center steel, also. The center steel was significantly weaker than the perimeter steel, as the WTC twin towers were “Curtain Wall” design, and the live load was almost entirely supported by the exterior wall. This design approach was used to maximize the building’s resistance to wind loading, an extremely high load in comparison to the dead load or “Weight” load for tall (1300+ feet tall) buildings. Using the perimeter wall maximizes the ‘moment of inertia’ of the building, however, the building was not designed for the 9/11 event.

Some torsional failures likely occurred due to some degree of eccentric forces as the center mass fell, but the majority of floor and floor truss failures were apparently due to shear. Structural failures that were the result of torsion (which would slow the collapse) likely occurred at the onset, prior to the falling mass reaching a significant amount. Once the collapse of the building internals had developed significantly, lack of stability, and the downward force of the floor materials pulling on the walls, resulted in a collapse of the tower perimeter walls. This would account for the speed of the collapse.

If the floor loading failures, esp. the lower floors (below the ~60th/70th floor), were due to shear stress failure, the falling mass would fall quickly. Time would be added if the floor failures occurred from ductile failure due to bending and/or torsional stress, in which case the structural steel would behave like taffy and it would take time to be “pulled” apart.

Minor ductile failures, where the loading due to the falling mass exceeded the strength of the connections, which failed under bending or torsion, by a significant amount and where the falling mass resulted in primarily shear failure in the floors below, would also fail quickly, since the resistance to the falling mass would be insignificant. This may account for the interior “core” steel both being pulled down with the flooring and the speed of collapse of the interior steel.

With respect to the lack of availability of the damaged building materials; Some reticence on the part of officials and building owners to provide the “evidence” for scrutiny by any person who asks (if anyone is even asking) should be expected as there are billions of dollars at stake and there were thousands of lives lost, so may be a tangible fear of a challenge to liability, in the building design, vulnerability of the airlines, security, municipal and state government liability, etc. (e.g. The blueprints had to be approved by the City, and the buildings had to be inspected). In the Hyatt Skyway collapse in Kansas City (1983), Civil and Criminal investigations were performed and a public furor was raised. The question of liability focused on the Structural Engineers responsible for specifying the bolting. Per the New York Times,

“ …. It will be months before the results of almost a score of investigations begin to emerge, and they are virtually certain not to agree.”

“What is just as certain is that litigation will follow. All of the principal figures involved in the construction of the year-old Hyatt Regency, the architects, the contractors, the engineers and the owners, have refused to speak publicly about the hotel, its design or its construction, and city officials responsible for building codes have also been silent.“

Source: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...754C0A967948260

Also, much of the information stored in these buildings was probably highly confidential so there was likely reticence about the “Cleanup” and how it was approached.

The planes were loaded with fuel when they struck the towers. Fuel is stored in the wings. Since much of the fuel could not be ignited prior to leaking/flowing into the floors below the strike point, and as there was damage occurring, including fire, much of the fuel could have been heated to its vapor state, making it highly volatile.

A Fuel-air bomb is one of the most powerful explosives used by the military. Relying on aerosolized diesel fuel, it has tremendous explosive power (for example, the explosive used in the movie “Outbreak” to destroy villages and towns was a fuel air bomb).

The ejection of structural steel referenced on the 9/11 CT forums can have been caused by an aerosolized fuel - air mixture explosion.

A fuel-air explosion would create a large concussive force upon detonation. Also, the concussive force from falling mass can create what appears to be an explosion.

It should be noted that structural stell, likely ASTM specification A-36 type, would lose significant strength when heated in excess of 700 degrees, which would contribute to the failure of the steel near the fire(s).

The “puffs” of smoke, or “squibs” visible in the video from the top few floors may have been caused by the falling floors and the concussive force blowing out the side of the building. The “puffs” didn’t appear as violent explosions.

If a “controlled demolition” were to have been used to help the collapse, and the location or direction of the explosives were projected outwards to the outside of the building, it seems that the observed effect should have been more violent then the images pointed out by the “truthers” as indicating a controlled demolition.

These are just some thoughts on the collapse of the twin towers. There may be some inconsistencies between what I have written and information presented in the CT sites or even with the NIST report. I am not trying to pass this off as some kind of comprehensive study (I have not performed a comprehensive study), just some ideas on the twin tower collapse to stimulate thought. Nothing I have yet read convinces me that the twin towers were brought down by anything other than the observed plane collisions, and while I must admit that other reasons for the collapse are possible, other, less controversial reasons seem more likely.

Edited April 6, 2007 by Peter McKenna

[Steve Ulman]

Peter-

I think its a good overview explanation of the collapse of the Towers. I haven't been able to really go through it in detail (maybe this weekend). One quick item - I'm not sure how much weaker the central core columns were compared to the outer columns, especially considering they acted as a system because they were tied together at each floor by the concrete slab. You may want to elaborate on that.

As for the Kansas City Hyatt - IRRC the structural engineer of record lost his PE license because of the collapse. What has always shaken me up about that incident is how obvious the mistake was once its been pointed out, and the realization of how easy of a mistake it was to make. I think about it often when I'm reviewing shop drawings.

A bit off topic but some thoughts on the 9-11 truth movement in general:

<get on soap box>

I've come to the conclusion that the truth movement is divided primarily into two camps - one out to make a buck / or get their 15 minutes of fame and couldn't care less about the truth and the second camp believe the nutty CT's simply because they want / need to. There is a third group, people that truly think we haven't been told the whole truth and really want to know what happened - this group is relatively small and many believe the Towers collapsed due to the impacts and fires - they're just not sure of the specifics of who flew the planes, who they worked for - etc.

I've decided to stop debating this with people I perceive to be members of the two primary camps because the 9-11 attacks still evoke great emotion for me and I find it too frustrating when one side appears to simply make things up and refuses to answer simple questions while I'm trying to deal with real life engineering, science and demonstrable facts. Besides, no mater what I or anyone else says, they don't really want the "truth" - just your money or your confirmation of their preconceived notions.

<step down from soap box>

[Peter McKenna]

Peter-

I think its a good overview explanation of the collapse of the Towers. I haven't been able to really go through it in detail (maybe this weekend). One quick item - I'm not sure how much weaker the central core columns were compared to the outer columns, especially considering they acted as a system because they were tied together at each floor by the concrete slab. You may want to elaborate on that.

As for the Kansas City Hyatt - IRRC the structural engineer of record lost his PE license because of the collapse. What has always shaken me up about that incident is how obvious the mistake was once its been pointed out, and the realization of how easy of a mistake it was to make. I think about it often when I'm reviewing shop drawings.

A bit off topic but some thoughts on the 9-11 truth movement in general:

<get on soap box>

I've come to the conclusion that the truth movement is divided primarily into two camps - one out to make a buck / or get their 15 minutes of fame and couldn't care less about the truth and the second camp believe the nutty CT's simply because they want / need to. There is a third group, people that truly think we haven't been told the whole truth and really want to know what happened - this group is relatively small and many believe the Towers collapsed due to the impacts and fires - they're just not sure of the specifics of who flew the planes, who they worked for - etc.

I've decided to stop debating this with people I perceive to be members of the two primary camps because the 9-11 attacks still evoke great emotion for me and I find it too frustrating when one side appears to simply make things up and refuses to answer simple questions while I'm trying to deal with real life engineering, science and demonstrable facts. Besides, no mater what I or anyone else says, they don't really want the "truth" - just your money or your confirmation of their preconceived notions.

<step down from soap box>

Thank you Steve

[Michael Hogan]

I've come to the conclusion that the truth movement is divided primarily into two camps - one out to make a buck / or get their 15 minutes of fame and couldn't care less about the truth and the second camp believe the nutty CT's simply because they want / need to. There is a third group, people that truly think we haven't been told the whole truth and really want to know what happened - this group is relatively small and many believe the Towers collapsed due to the impacts and fires - they're just not sure of the specifics of who flew the planes, who they worked for - etc.

Many people from the third group probably wouldn't claim to be part of any truth movement. Many of them have limited faith in the completeness of government disclosures and findings. Instead of being relatively small, I believe that the third group is the largest of the three.

[John Geraghty]

I would tend to agree with Mike. Personally, I feel that there are quite a few unanswered questions about 9/1 and they do not fall into the category of physical evidence. My main qualms are about the war games and who knew what and when.

John

[Peter McKenna]

I would tend to agree with Mike. Personally, I feel that there are quite a few unanswered questions about 9/1 and they do not fall into the category of physical evidence. My main qualms are about the war games and who knew what and when.

John

I had questions about the behavior of the hijackers prior to 9/11. Moussoui was picked up due in large part to a flight instructor complaining to the FBI about the possibility of terrorists using a jumbo jet as a weapon. Why wouldn't this lead The FBI to question other foreign nationals in flight training?

I also had read somewhere that intelligence reports on the hikackers had some of them "Partying" in Florida, including Mohammad Atta, including drinking heavily.

I never got much of an answer to these questions.

They were drowned out by the issues of the WTC building collapse, the Shanksville crash site, and the Pentagon, all arguments over physical evidence.

There is heated debate over the mode of the WTC bldg. collapse, esp. the twin towers. Why are these issues pivotal to any conspiracy theory?

Edited April 7, 2007 by Peter McKenna

[Sid Walker]

I would tend to agree with Mike. Personally, I feel that there are quite a few unanswered questions about 9/1 and they do not fall into the category of physical evidence. My main qualms are about the war games and who knew what and when.

John

I had questions about the behavior of the hijackers prior to 9/11. Moussoui was picked up due in large part to a flight instructor complaining to the FBI about the possibility of terrorists using a jumbo jet as a weapon. Why wouldn't this lead The FBI to question other foreign nationals in flight training?

I also had read somewhere that intelligence reports on the hikackers had some of them "Partying" in Florida, including Mohammad Atta, including drinking heavily.

I never got much of an answer to these questions.

They were drowned out by the issues of the WTC building collapse, the Shanksville crash site, and the Pentagon, all arguments over physical evidence.

There is heated debate over the mode of the WTC bldg. collapse, esp. the twin towers. Why are these issues pivotal to any conspiracy theory?

I think you just got confused by a few early reports in the mass media, Peter.

They were soon fixed up, as the following article explains: September 7, 2001: Story of Hijackers Drinking Alcohol Changes Over Time

Apparently, the vodka that Attta allegedly drank was really cranberry juice It's a mistake any bar-tender could make.

Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by aeroplanes, a third collapsing in sympathy), media reports of a towerblock collapse 20 minutes early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc... it's good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account.

From little things, big things grow

Edited April 7, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Bernice Moore]

Peter-

I think its a good overview explanation of the collapse of the Towers. I haven't been able to really go through it in detail (maybe this weekend). One quick item - I'm not sure how much weaker the central core columns were compared to the outer columns, especially considering they acted as a system because they were tied together at each floor by the concrete slab. You may want to elaborate on that.

As for the Kansas City Hyatt - IRRC the structural engineer of record lost his PE license because of the collapse. What has always shaken me up about that incident is how obvious the mistake was once its been pointed out, and the realization of how easy of a mistake it was to make. I think about it often when I'm reviewing shop drawings.

A bit off topic but some thoughts on the 9-11 truth movement in general:

<get on soap box>

I've come to the conclusion that the truth movement is divided primarily into two camps - one out to make a buck / or get their 15 minutes of fame and couldn't care less about the truth and the second camp believe the nutty CT's simply because they want / need to. There is a third group, people that truly think we haven't been told the whole truth and really want to know what happened - this group is relatively small and many believe the Towers collapsed due to the impacts and fires - they're just not sure of the specifics of who flew the planes, who they worked for - etc.

I've decided to stop debating this with people I perceive to be members of the two primary camps because the 9-11 attacks still evoke great emotion for me and I find it too frustrating when one side appears to simply make things up and refuses to answer simple questions while I'm trying to deal with real life engineering, science and demonstrable facts. Besides, no mater what I or anyone else says, they don't really want the "truth" - just your money or your confirmation of their preconceived notions.

<step down from soap box>

***********************

Steve:

This photo showing below in reference to your comment "" - I'm not sure how much weaker the central core columns were compared to the outer columns, especially considering they acted as a system because they were tied together at each floor by the concrete slab. You may want to elaborate on that.""

Photo from Jack White

B...