TerrorStorm: Free movie

[Wilber]

The Iraq fiasco for one. Diminishing the esteem much of the world held for the US for one more.

It seems like things are going tickety-boo for the Bush-anti-terror camp what with this new anti-habeas corpus law.

If you consider Bush and his bunch to be the same thing as the United States that may be so. My concern is that the US will be weaker both economically and in the moral authority it can command in the rest of the world at the end of his term.

[Charles Anthony]

If you consider Bush and his bunch to be the same thing as the United States that may be so.

No. I do not consider them to be the same at all.

My concern is that the US will be weaker both economically and in the moral authority it can command in the rest of the world at the end of his term.

I agree. However, I think it is wise to put yourself in the shoes of the Bush administration and ask yourself if you are successful or competent at achieving your own selfish goals.

The entire Iraq War from day one, Katrina, North Korea, Afghanistan, etc. The Bush administration is perhaps the most incompetent gov't that Americans have ever had.

I will not question any of that. I despise the Bush administration for any single one of those examples, let alone all of them.

However, from their own selfish stand-point, they seem to be somewhat "competent" at getting what they want.

[Riverwind]

However, from their own selfish stand-point, they seem to be somewhat "competent" at getting what they want.

They are very good a playing the 'fear' card and exploiting other divisive issues like SSM. That said, the idea that the Bush administration could have flawlessly staged 9/11 is simply laughable when you look at their record. It is possible that they are hiding something but that is likely more incompetence - not some Machiavellian master plan.

[Wilber]

The entire Iraq War from day one, Katrina, North Korea, Afghanistan, etc. The Bush administration is perhaps the most incompetent gov't that Americans have ever had.

I will not question any of that. I despise the Bush administration for any single one of those examples, let alone all of them.

However, from their own selfish stand-point, they seem to be somewhat "competent" at getting what they want.

They have been pretty good at getting what they want from Congress but woefully incompetent when it comes to stuff that really counts, as pointed out by Riverwind.

[Michael Hardner]

The official story is rediculous. First they had no idea that this would or could happen, then it happens and a few days later they know exactly who it was with virtually no supporting evidence. The official story hasn't really changed since except for many different explanations about how wtc7 collapsed. A completely incompetent intelligence service that allowed this to happen then suddenly they become the Dick Tracy of the modern era in a matter of a few days.

Bin Laden was a suspect in the early stages, but it wasn't sealed until they got his confession on tape.

I remember reading interviews with intelligence personnel who speculated that the group acted independently.

[PolyNewbie]

The Iraq fiasco for one. Diminishing the esteem much of the world held for the US for one more.

Don't forget the economy. They are selling off the US manufactering capability, driving up the debt through screw ups and no bid contracts.

Also a big chunk of their land in the mid west has been turned over the the UN. Secret things going on in those parts - Americans not welcome.

[Led Boots]

What "officials" have the authority to decide upon and the power to execute the destruction of evidence at a crime scene?

Granted, there may be a lot of bizarre theories out there but saying evidence from a crime scene was destroyed is not a conspiracy theory -- it is the truth.

Whoever they may be, such "officials" have a callous disregard for justice and a horrifying amount of power in Manhattan. If it was a mistake to cart off the scrap metal, it is mistakenly done quite fast. Non-conspiracy theoricists "add fuel to the conspiracy fire" by letting such "officials" off sooooo easily.

Charles,

they didn't just throw out all of the evidence, samples of critical sections were kept and studied in order to better understand what caused the collapse. Here is the Fema report explaning what they found.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apb.pdf

[Charles Anthony]

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apb.pdf

This is the most detail that document provides:

B.2 Mechanical Properties

Nearly all of the steel plate was produced in Japan to ASTM standards or their equivalent. None of the mill test reports were available that describe the mechanical properties and chemical composition of the steel used in the WTC structures. Approximately 100 potentially helpful steel pieces were identified at the four salvage yards that had contracts to obtain and process the WTC steel debris. These pieces have been removed and transported to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Gaithersburg, Maryland, for storage and further study. No coupons were taken or tested to check material conformance with specification of any plate, rolled section, bolt, weld, reinforcing steel, or concrete. Visual examination of the debris did not identify any apparent deficiencies in the structural materials and connectors.

In lieu of actual WTC steel properties, typical stress-strain curves characteristic of 3 of the 12 steels used in the design and construction of the WTC complex are shown in Figure B-2 for three ASTM-designation steels with minimum specified yield strengths of 36 ksi (A36), 50 ksi (A441), and 100 ksi (A514).

None of that answers my questions but rather stil leaves those questions open.

they didn't just throw out all of the evidence, samples of critical sections were kept and studied in order to better understand what caused the collapse.

No, they did not just throw out all of the evidence, they just selected some of it and threw out all of the rest.

I want to know: Who exactly are "they" that have the power to make such decisions? and to make them happen?

[Michael Hardner]

CA:

Who exactly are "they" that have the power to make such decisions? and to make them happen?

Who knows ? Walk down the street and take a look around. You're looking at hundreds of decision made by faceless people you don't know. Street sign locations, traffic lights, road paving...

Somebody made a decision to delegate a decision, then that decision was delegated and eventually it landed on sombody's desk. There's nothing any more mysterious about it than any other decision, except this decision has more attention on it because it involved a high-profile terrorist attack.

[Charles Anthony]

There's nothing any more mysterious about it than any other decision, except this decision has more attention on it because it involved a high-profile terrorist attack.

Let me remind you that it was a crime scene. You are fueling the conspiracy theories.

[Michael Hardner]

That doesn't change what I wrote. A decision was made - you can research who made it if you like. But it's probably as difficult to track down the source of that decision as any. That doesn't make it an 'inside job'.

[Charles Anthony]

That doesn't make it an 'inside job'.

It certainly makes it a cover-up.

[Michael Hardner]

It certainly makes it a cover-up.

Not at all. Do you expect organizations to record and publish the thousands of decisions made when something like this happens ? I'm sure if you researched it, you could find out the rationale for steps taken - at a high level. But what are you looking for - a name ?

[Charles Anthony]

Do you expect organizations to record and publish the thousands of decisions made when something like this happens ?

At a crime scene, yes.

Unless, of course, we are at war. At which point the state can suspend such obligations.

I'm sure if you researched it, you could find out the rationale for steps taken - at a high level. But what are you looking for - a name ?

I can not find it. That is the thing.

Yes, I want a name. I realize that it is an extreme demand but that is my point: unnamed people with extreme power are something to fear. It seems to go hand in hand with the anti-habeas corpus crowd.

[Michael Hardner]

At a crime scene, yes.

Unless, of course, we are at war. At which point the state can suspend such obligations.

The officials processed the scene, then ordered it cleared. What's the big mystery ?

I can not find it. That is the thing.

Yes, I want a name. I realize that it is an extreme demand but that is my point: unnamed people with extreme power are something to fear. It seems to go hand in hand with the anti-habeas corpus crowd.

Unnamed people everywhere affect your life in every respect, so I expect you should stay indoors from now on.

Maybe this will assauge your fears somewhat:

Some descriptions of the FEMA investigation...

911 Myths

[Charles Anthony]

The officials processed the scene, then ordered it cleared.

Actually, no. That is not what happened.

The "officials" processed the scene, then ordered it cleared and THEN the investigators were allowed in to investigate. BIG DIFFERENCE. Your links even corroborate that.

What's the big mystery ?

The mystery is why people are allowed to salvage wreckage from a crime scene before investigators get access to it.

Here is an other mystery: how can so many sheep accept the "official" story?

Maybe this will assauge your fears somewhat:

Some descriptions of the FEMA investigation...

911 Myths

That link does not answer my question. I read every secondary link on that site and stopped because I found nothing. I was considering reading through the tertiary links but then I stopped.

How about YOU quote for me what is in those citations that address (hopefully answer) my question instead of sending me on a wild goose chase?

From your citations:

Besides asbestos dust and bio-contamination, the investigators faced physical dangers in the unstable buildings. On a walk-through of Building 5, Barnett's group noticed that the floor slab beneath them was severed. When they checked from below, they discovered that they had been standing on unsupported rubble. Later, while taking measurements in the building's subterranean parking garage, the roof started to collapse, and they fled to safety.

In addition to his work at Ground Zero, Barnett drove to the Fresh Kills Landfill with teammates Marrion, Venkatesh Kodur and Saw-Teen See (wife of the towers' designer, Leslie E. Roberston, and a partner in Robertson's firm) to see the steel recovered from the Trade Center. After showing his pass to the guard at the gatehouse, Barnett was directed to the appropriate area, where he parked his two-week-old Acura.

"I've been to landfills," he says, "and this one didn't smell right to me." Knowing that the rubble brought to the site contained human remains, he quickly urged See back into the car, and when Marrion and Kodur resisted, Barnett insisted that he was getting his car and his teammates out of there, right away. As they closed the doors, a dozen workers in full Tyvek biohazard gear walked by. "See that?" said Barnett, feeling vindicated. "I think maybe we're underdressed for the occasion."

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/fall.html

The wreckage contained corpses. The desparate and eager need to move the wreckage from the crime scene sounds worse than a mystery -- it sounds horrifyingly pathetic.

[M.Dancer]

The worst part about free movies is trying to get your time is money back

[Michael Hardner]

Actually, no. That is not what happened.

The "officials" processed the scene, then ordered it cleared and THEN the investigators were allowed in to investigate. BIG DIFFERENCE. Your links even corroborate that.

Point out where that is, please.

QUOTE(Michael Hardner @ Oct 18 2006, 11:29 AM) *

What's the big mystery ?

The mystery is why people are allowed to salvage wreckage from a crime scene before investigators get access to it.

Here is an other mystery: how can so many sheep accept the "official" story?

If you mean - the official story that there wasn't 'inside involvement', then I'd say because the alternative is too fantastic, and the evidence presented so far amounts to little quirks and anomalies that happen all the time. Look at how big a deal people make over Silverstein's comments about 'pulling them'. That was one little quirk of a phrase he used, and they try to build an entire plot around that.

That link does not answer my question. I read every secondary link on that site and stopped because I found nothing. I was considering reading through the tertiary links but then I stopped.

How about YOU quote for me what is in those citations that address (hopefully answer) my question instead of sending me on a wild goose chase?

I read about how fires were burning until December, about how there were ongoing rescue operations as well. I also can appreciate the chaos that was happening at the scene, so I don't expect every decision made to be traceable or even understandable.

The truthers try to build every little anomaly into a plot.

Why linger on every little detail, every little misspoken word, every strange picture ? They should just come out and accuse the president of murdering his own people, that's what they're saying.

It's pretty disgusting, actually.

The wreckage contained corpses. The desparate and eager need to move the wreckage from the crime scene sounds worse than a mystery -- it sounds horrifyingly pathetic.

Or incompetance maybe.

But still not a plot.

[Led Boots]

No, they did not just throw out all of the evidence, they just selected some of it and threw out all of the rest.

I want to know: Who exactly are "they" that have the power to make such decisions? and to make them happen?

Charles,

While I can only guess at who made the decision/s on what samples would be kept and what wouldn’t be kept, I would imagine the end decision/s would be made by the experts in each individual discipline that were involved in the investigation. This would be a good place to start if you really want an answer to your question. I also searched for a written procedure (FEMA) that would be followed in a case like 911 but didn’t find anything worthwhile.

Would it really make that much of a difference to you if you knew the persons name that made the decision to keep certain samples and discard the rest? If 6 billion people witnessed some guy pull out a gun and shoot another guy in the head would you worry about who conducted the post mortem autopsy? I think this is a very similar situation but differs in the sense that the institutions making the decisions never expected the grassy knoll crowd to kick up such a fuss.

[PolyNewbie]

Valid evidence is pointed out in FEMA, section 8 yet not addressed by NIST. This is the sulfidization of the metal and super hot pools of metal that were there months afterward. These point directly to CD which is why they are not addressed in NIST.

FEMA had to track down samples from disposal sites. Disposal trucks were closely observed using satallite tracking to make sure that wreckage metal got to china and was melted down.

[Michael Hardner]

Valid evidence is pointed out in FEMA, section 8 yet not addressed by NIST. This is the sulfidization of the metal and super hot pools of metal that were there months afterward. These point directly to CD which is why they are not addressed in NIST.

FEMA had to track down samples from disposal sites. Disposal trucks were closely observed using satallite tracking to make sure that wreckage metal got to china and was melted down.

Could you provide a source for super hot pools of metal there for months afterward ?

[Charles Anthony]

Your links even corroborate that.

Point out where that is, please.

You want me to point it out to you in YOUR own references???? Did you read your own citations???

Let me get this straight:

1) you refer me to a link to prove YOUR point but you do not quote anything

2) I give you the benefit of the doubt and read everything on YOUR link and the multitude of back-links on YOUR link

3) I find nothing that proves YOUR point

4) in fact, I find something else in YOUR link that proves MY point

5) I quote directly from YOUR citation to illustrate MY point

6) you now want me to "Point out where that is, please." in YOUR link

?????

While I can only guess at who made the decision/s on what samples would be kept and what wouldn’t be kept, I would imagine the end decision/s would be made by the experts in each individual discipline that were involved in the investigation.

Get something straight: your "decision or decisions on what samples would be kept and what would not be kept" were NOT made as part of the investigation but BEFORE the investigation started. Who made that decision is important and the answer to that question can not be found.

This would be a good place to start if you really want an answer to your question.

Now YOU are going to send me on a new wild goose chase???

Please! How about you find a quote that answers the question????

FEMA had to track down samples from disposal sites. Disposal trucks were closely observed using satallite tracking to make sure that wreckage metal got to china and was melted down.

Could you provide a source for super hot pools of metal there for months afterward ?

Yeah, me too, and please quote the relevent text. No wild goose chases!

[Michael Hardner]

You want me to point it out to you in YOUR own references???? Did you read your own citations???

Let me get this straight:

1) you refer me to a link to prove YOUR point but you do not quote anything

2) I give you the benefit of the doubt and read everything on YOUR link and the multitude of back-links on YOUR link

3) I find nothing that proves YOUR point

4) in fact, I find something else in YOUR link that proves MY point

5) I quote directly from YOUR citation to illustrate MY point

6) you now want me to "Point out where that is, please." in YOUR link

?????

A simple " I don't remember " would suffice. Or you could just explain what you mean:

"The "officials" processed the scene, then ordered it cleared and THEN the investigators were allowed in to investigate. "

I didn't read all of the links off the main site, I'll admit.

The articles that I've read have shown me that all of the evidence in favour of an inside job is hearsay, or distorted. But let's continue.

[Led Boots]

Get something straight: your "decision or decisions on what samples would be kept and what would not be kept" were NOT made as part of the investigation but BEFORE the investigation started. Who made that decision is important and the answer to that question can not be found.

I disagree. The investigation started when the investigators showed up to process the scene, which of course would include deciding what samples would be sufficient in answering the question of why the towers fell and not if thermite explosives were used in a controlled demolition.

Now YOU are going to send me on a new wild goose chase???

Please! How about you find a quote that answers the question????

Hey, if you want a drink then head up to the bar and get it yourself dude.

Ahhh to hell with it here’s your beer.

Researchers also began to respond immediately. Among the first were National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded social scientists and engineers who arrived at the WTC site within 48 to 72 hours after the tragedy to begin collecting data. Similarly, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) formed a Disaster Response Team within hours of the first plane strike. On September 12th, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and its contractor, Greenhorne and O’Mara, Inc., located in Greenbelt, Maryland, commenced the development of a Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT; explained more fully on the next page) to conduct a formal analysis of the progressive collapses and produce a report of its findings. A variety of other engineering researchers and professionals, including members of the Structural Engineering Association of New York, also engaged in the monumental task of collecting data that could lead to a better understanding of the collapse of the buildings themselves and to the development of mitigation strategies to prevent a similar tragedy in the future.

It doesn’t give the names and phone numbers of the individual investigators but do you really need to know that it was Stanley Wickenhouserson from Boise Idaho with blah blah credentials that collected x sample?

It does point out that mistakes were made and the incompetence that characterized much of the governments response to events leading up to and including September 11 2001 was also present during the investigation (Warning subliminal message: Katrina).

No clear authority and the absence of an effective protocol for how the building performance investigators should conduct and coordinate their investigation with the concurrent search and rescue efforts, as well as any criminal investigation: Early confusion over who was in charge of the site and the lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for examination before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence that were destroyed early during the search and rescue effort. In addition, a delay in the deployment of FEMA’s BPAT team may have compounded the lack of access to valuable data and artifacts.

FEMA f*#ked up.

Does this automatically discredit the data collected from the chosen samples? Would the additional “important pieces of evidence” that were discarded prove the demolition theory or advance the engineering technologies related to the building of steel structures? If I were to prove to you that the moon was not made of green cheese could I just bring back a few chunks of it or do you want the whole damned moon Charles?

Answer my questions Charles, it your turn to buy.

[Charles Anthony]

Or you could just explain what you mean:

"The "officials" processed the scene, then ordered it cleared and THEN the investigators were allowed in to investigate. "

It is in the complete quote below.

I didn't read all of the links off the main site, I'll admit.

This is as delicate as I can be: it is unfair to refer me to a multi-page citation to prove your point if you did not read yourself. That is a wild goose chase or it is similar to the little boy who cried "Wolf!" too often.

Answer my questions Charles, it your turn to buy.

My round. Before I buy, I will point out that you selected too little from your citation. I will quote more relevent text from your citation to prove my point. Here is what should also be quoted:

In the wake of the collapses, search and rescue workers launched an around-the-clock recovery effort to find and recover survivors and victims who perished. To make way, literally tons of twisted steel and fractured concrete were removed from the rubble pile and loaded onto convoys of bulldozers and flatbed trucks to be carried away to recycling plants and landfills.

Researchers also began to respond immediately. Among the first were National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded social scientists and engineers who arrived at the --- YADDA YADDA YADDA FLUFF FLUFF FLUFF YADDA YADDA YADDA --- lead to a better understanding of the collapse of the buildings themselves and to the development of mitigation strategies to prevent a similar tragedy in the future.

all of my beer

Now, I will answer your questions.

Does this automatically discredit the data collected from the chosen samples?

Yes, it automatically discredits the evidence.

Would the additional “important pieces of evidence” that were discarded prove the demolition theory or advance the engineering technologies related to the building of steel structures?

I never said they would and that is not my point. [Personally, I am starting to no longer give a damn. If the American population permits their new Anti-Habeas Corpus law, I am starting to think that there are even more terrifying things to fear from the American bureaucracy in the future.] My point is that some unknown "officials" are able to filter evidence at a crime scene and get away with it. We are expected to sweep that under the rug.

I disagree.

How can you disagree?? Your own citation and your own statement proves otherwise. You are floating in The Nile.

It doesn’t give the names and phone numbers of the individual investigators but do you really need to know that it was Stanley Wickenhouserson from Boise Idaho with blah blah credentials that collected x sample?

I am not talking about "collected x sample" for the public relations exercise. I am talking about the vultures who first sifted through the debris (and dead bodies, I would like to remind you) and chose to send stuff to the scrap yards, the recycling depots and the landfills BEFORE your "investigators" started. I can not find anything that identifies who or how but your citations said it happened.

It does point out that mistakes were made and the incompetence that characterized much of the governments response to events leading up to and including September 11 2001 was also present during the investigation (Warning subliminal message: Katrina).

No clear authority and the absence of an effective protocol for how the building performance investigators should conduct and coordinate their investigation with the concurrent search and rescue efforts, as well as any criminal investigation: Early confusion over who was in charge of the site and the lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for examination before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence that were destroyed early during the search and rescue effort. In addition, a delay in the deployment of FEMA’s BPAT team may have compounded the lack of access to valuable data and artifacts.

FEMA f*#ked up.

That is not a good enough excuse.

Somebody did it and they did not do it by accident. Those "officials" who sent stuff to scrap yards are likely still alive today. It has only been 5 years. The answer is out there and we just brush it under the rug.

Sorry guys but everybody should get to the bottom of this -- non-conspiracy theorists and conspiracy theorists alike.