Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Jack White]

I do not have time to research demolitions to the point of finding a building of equivalent height (i.e. 47 stories) that was felled inside of seven hours, which could take days of research....

The original 7 World Trade Center building was 570 feet tall. The tallest structural steel building ever imploded was the Hudson Building in Detroit, according to Controlled Demolition Inc:

CDI’s implosion of Hudson’s set three new records:

At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest building ever imploded, eclipsing the record held by CDI since 1975 with the felling of the 361 ft. tall Mendez Caldiera Building in Sao Palo, Brazil.

At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest structural steel building ever imploded, eclipsing the record CDI set in 1997 with the felling 344 sq. ft. tall #500 Wood Street Building in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

At 2.2 Million square feet, Hudson’s is the largest single building ever imploded.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030225133807

Thanks Mike. I recall now that I misremembered the local stories on the implosion

of Fort Worth's 30-story LANDMARK TOWER. They said it was the tallest building

imploded WEST OF THE MISSISSIPPI.

Thanks.

Jack

[Jack White]

Here is another good website for building seven.

http://www.groundzerospirit.org/story_091301.html

Note particularly the condition of the building at 3 p.m.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

I just made up the 9/11ers. "truthers" normally refers to those people who claim to seek the 'truth' about 9/11 (but only accept their own versions of it) and normally consider themselves part of the "truth movement".

Not everyone belongs in that category. Nothing wrong with questioning or doubting aspects of the official 9/11 story. I, for one, believe there has been a certain amount of 'covering up' with regard to 9/11 and don't say the official report is "100% accurate". Not in what happened, but how people reacted to events. I think there were intelligence failures, poor judgment, and even incompetence in some aspects. People who should have been fired - or possibly even face criminal prosecution - have been protected.

On the other hand, I have no doubts that aircraft were hijacked and flown into the respective buildings (or crashed), and that buildings collapsed because of damage sustained by the impacts or from collateral damage from other building collapses.

[Michael Hogan]

Not everyone belongs in that category. Nothing wrong with questioning or doubting aspects of the official 9/11 story. I, for one, believe there has been a certain amount of 'covering up' with regard to 9/11 and don't say the official report is "100% accurate". Not in what happened, but how people reacted to events. I think there were intelligence failures, poor judgment, and even incompetence in some aspects. People who should have been fired - or possibly even face criminal prosecution - have been protected.

I'm not sure anyone could dispute the above statement. Even the staunchest defenders of the government version would probably concede those things happened. It is easily demonstrated that the report was not 100% accurate, nor was it complete.

I'm not badgering you Evan, just trying to understand your views. If I read your statement right, you are saying that there was a certain amount of covering up, but not in what happened, just how people reacted to events.

Does it bother you that the 9/11 Commission never mentioned WTC 7 and its collapse? Was it relevant? Does it bother you that the Commission never published Norman Mineta's testimony in its report? Was it relevant?

Does it bother you that the Commission claimed Mohammed Atta was the mastermind of the plot, but devoted only a few cursory paragraphs to his life and background?

According to its preface, the 9/11 Commission was written "to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11." Do you think they achieved that, or came close?

If one suspects that there may be sinister explanations for why the Commission failed to address (among other things) the things I mentioned, does that brand them as a "truther?"

[Evan Burton]

That's quite alright, Michael - badger away!

Does it bother you that the 9/11 Commission never mentioned WTC 7 and its collapse? Was it relevant?

No, it doesn't bother me because it was collateral damage, not caused directly by the aircraft impacts. NIST is now preparing the report on its collapse, which includes an investigation of the controlled demolition claims.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html

Does it bother you that the Commission never published Norman Mineta's testimony in its report? Was it relevant?

Again, no, it doesn't bother me. His testimony was given in a public hearing, and his testimony is available online.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hear..._2003-05-23.htm

Does it bother you that the Commission claimed Mohammed Atta was the mastermind of the plot, but devoted only a few cursory paragraphs to his life and background?

Cursory? I disagree. A page or so on him directly, plus his contacts with the other hijackers, plus numerous mentions about his movements leading up to 9/11 (see section 5.3 of the report)

According to its preface, the 9/11 Commission was written "to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11." Do you think they achieved that, or came close?

I think they came pretty close.

If one suspects that there may be sinister explanations for why the Commission failed to address (among other things) the things I mentioned, does that brand them as a "truther?"

Possibly. If they are unaware of various data, then probably not. If they are aware of various data but choose to disregard it - particularly if the basis is simply a mistrust of the government - then yes, I would call them a truther. It's what many of them call themselves, by the way.

[Ron Ecker]

Does it bother you that the Commission never published Norman Mineta's testimony in its report? Was it relevant?

Again, no, it doesn't bother me. His testimony was given in a public hearing, and his testimony is available online.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hear..._2003-05-23.htm

Mineta's testimony was not included in the Commission's report because it's a smoking gun. The Commission didn't know what to do with his testimony, so it simply ignored it. The Commission couldn't very well delete Mineta's testimony from the other published testimony, since that would only draw attention to it. They could only hope that if they ignored it, others would ignore it too, and that is what has happened. As far as I know, no one has had the cojones even to interview Mineta about what he told the Commission. Or perhaps it has been made clear to Mineta that he shouldn't grant interviews.

[Michael Hogan]

No, it doesn't bother me because it was collateral damage, not caused directly by the aircraft impacts.

Some would see it as an event surrounding 9/11, of which the Commission promised "the fullest possible account."

Not even a sentence or a paragraph mentioning it seems at odds with that promise to me.

NIST is now preparing the report on its collapse, which includes an investigation of the controlled demolition claims.

Six years after the fact. If it was not worthy of mention in the Commission's report, one wonders why they are even bothering with something that was only collateral damage.

Again, no, it doesn't bother me. His [Mineta's] testimony was given in a public hearing, and his testimony is available online.

Of course it is available online. Why do you think the Commission failed to include it in their report?

Cursory? I disagree. A page or so on him [Atta] directly, plus his contacts with the other hijackers, plus numerous mentions about his movements leading up to 9/11 (see section 5.3 of the report)

Section 5.3 contains exactly 3 paragraphs on Atta's background and possible motives. This was the alleged mastermind of the plot.

It certainly fits my definition of cursory.

Possibly. If they are unaware of various data, then probably not. If they are aware of various data but choose to disregard it - particularly if the basis is simply a mistrust of the government - then yes, I would call them a truther. It's what many of them call themselves, by the way.

You left out at least one group; Those that are aware of various data, and choose to question it. You make it seem as if there is something inherently wrong in mistrusting the government in matters that involve national security. In my opinion, given the government's track record, such mistrust is justified in certain circumstances.

It's one thing when someone refers to themself as a liberal. It's another when a right-winger attempts to paint someone that disagrees with them with a broad brush by calling them a liberal.

At any rate, thanks for sharing your views, Evan.

Edited June 30, 2007 by Michael Hogan

[Michael Hogan]

As far as I know, no one has had the cojones even to interview Mineta about what he told the Commission. Or perhaps it has been made clear to Mineta that he shouldn't grant interviews.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A-IMHuhcyk...ted&search=

[Evan Burton]

I think that Norman Mineta is simply mistaken about the time he arrived. His testimony said he arrived at 0920 and that he heard the conversation with Cheney about 6 minutes later. The Secret Service logs, however, show Cheney was not evacuated until 0936 and entered the tunnel to the shelter at 0937.

I suspect that what he heard was actually the discussion about UA93:

At 10:02, the communicators in the shelter began receiving reports from the Secret Service of an inbound aircraft —presumably hijacked— heading toward Washington. That aircraft was United 93. The Secret Service was getting this information directly from the FAA. The FAA may have been tracking the progress of United 93 on a display that showed its projected path to Washington, not its actual radar return. Thus, the Secret Service was relying on projections and was not aware the plane was already down in Pennsylvania.(217)

At some time between 10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice President and others that the aircraft was 80 miles out. Vice President Cheney was asked for authority to engage the aircraft. (218) His reaction was described by Scooter Libby as quick and decisive, “in about the time it takes a batter to decide to swing.” The Vice President authorized fighter aircraft to engage the inbound plane. He told us he based this authorization on his earlier conversation with the President. The military aide returned a few minutes later, probably between 10:12 and 10:18, and said the aircraft was 60 miles out. He again asked for authorization to engage. The Vice President again said yes. (219)

(9/11 Report, page 41)

[Len Colby]

The point that 'amazed' me was that with all the hoopla concerning the planes a very simple and efficient way to reveal the planes reported to have crashed did indeed do so would be to publish bona fide information regarding the planes serials, recovered debris etc. irrespective of whether there is a legal requirement to do so or not in crash investigations.

I agree with Evan that doing this is unlikely to satisfy the people who refuse to believe that that the hijacked Boeings were the planes involved in the respective crashes. I infact had made a similar point earlier. It would be one thing is the government had not followed standard procedure as has been falsely alleged, it is quite another to suggest they should do something they rarely if ever do.

Even if let’s say the government to the extreme step of putting several serial numbered parts from each plane on public display alongside original paperwork from Boeing and the airlines demonstrating that the s/n’s match and made high resolution images of them available on the Net. The “no planers” would either claim that the paperwork and/or parts were fakes or that the parts had been removed from the planes beforehand.

Not that I like the people currently running it but I don’t think the government should be expected to ‘jump through hoops’ to satisfy a small number of people who believe improbable theories whose minds are unlikely to be changed anyway. In a Scripts-Howard poll taken a year or two ago only 6% of respondents said they thought it was “very likely” the Pentagon wasn’t hit by a 757 and another 6% said it was “somewhat likely”, I imagine the numbers if they’d asked about the Shankville (flt. 93) crash would be similar and the numbers for the WTC would be even smaller.

As for Mineta’s testimony, I think it would more appropriately should be discussed in another thread.

[Len Colby]

Does it bother you that the 9/11 Commission never mentioned WTC 7 and its collapse? Was it relevant?

No on both counts. Did you actually read the report?

If one suspects that there may be sinister explanations for why the Commission failed to address (among other things) the things I mentioned, does that brand them as a "truther?"

This is what they call themselves, though I agree with Kevin Barrett I prefer "9/11 revisionist".

[Len Colby]

Why, if their 'official' version happened as they say it did do they keep vidoes of the planes hitting the Pentagon secret?

Provide evidence on one of the appropriate threads that unreleased videos exist.

The debris secret?

Already explain crash debris is not normally publicly available provide examples of when it has been previously and that peple have asked for and denied such access.

The NORAD facts secret?

What facts?

...hasty removal without forensic analysis of the twin towers steel and debris.....but...no video of the 'thing' hitting the pentagon....no anti-aircraft missiles fired at the 'thing' that hit it!....no interception and delayed and confused orders to intercept....twin towers that collapse with no resistance and #7 without any hit or major fire-damage; find 'terrorist passports of paper, but not plane parts...liquid steel and molten steel seen; reliable reports of expolosions before the strikes of planes on the towersand more

All BS claims as indicated elsewhere on this forum

[Ron Ecker]

As far as I know, no one has had the cojones even to interview Mineta about what he told the Commission. Or perhaps it has been made clear to Mineta that he shouldn't grant interviews.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A-IMHuhcyk...ted&search=

Michael,

Thanks for the link. Mineta stands by his story, with the added info that Lynn Cheney was already there. That was some family affair.

Ron

[Michael Hogan]

As for Mineta’s testimony, I think it would more appropriately should be discussed in another thread.

Nice syntax. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Did you actually read the report?

I'd rather keep you guessing.

This is what they call themselves, though I agree with Kevin Barrett I prefer "9/11 revisionist".

Some do. More often it is people like Len Colby that have a penchant for putting everyone with disparate views in a group, then labeling them.

All BS claims as indicated elsewhere on this forum

Funny, one could say the same thing about most of Len Colby's posts.

[Ron Ecker]

I think that Norman Mineta is simply mistaken about the time he arrived. His testimony said he arrived at 0920 and that he heard the conversation with Cheney about 6 minutes later. The Secret Service logs, however, show Cheney was not evacuated until 0936 and entered the tunnel to the shelter at 0937.

Mineta's testimony is corroborated by a White House photographer who says that Cheney was evacuated right after the second tower was hit, not half an hour later. I'll believe these two men, innocently recounting what they remember, over Dick Cheney and company. See also the link provided by Michael of Mineta confirming that this was before the Pentagon was hit and thus had nothing to do with Flight 93.