"cut at an angle?" We're not taking about shape <cough> charges?

Could it possibly be that they cut some of the wrecked beams to be able to lift and transport them? One would think it hard enough to move steel as a single piece, let alone one bent and twisted about other pieces of debris.

If it is that you're insinuating a use of demolition charges caused such geometries... can it please be shown, anywhere, how explosives cut metals in straight lines?

lol sacred grounds, The spiritual aircraft hanger. bloody hell some amercans are so far gone. its a shame that the trade center wasent full of all the retards usa has then whoever did the attacks would have done the world a huge favor.

I KNOW why it fell down the iron work had cross,s carved out of it and stars of David.

westy, back on yer meds, dude...
boneyd, shaped Thermite charges are placed that way on supports to control the direction of the collapse. One can wrap a piece of thermite cord around a tree, and bring it down-check some structural demo play-by-plays, there are many on the web. The clean-up, and the news coverage that followed, was controlled as well.
Television: The Drug of the Nation.

The only way to test these crazy conspiracy theories is to nuke mecca.

now watching this piece, those they allowed to be filmed, do look as if they were cut that way, unlike the ones that can be seen, from the one or two, leaked shots of the ones at GZ, those are all over the web, and they appear cut, not mechanically...

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

It's disappointing (if, by now, not entirely surprising) to see Choggie recycling the same old lies he's previously seen refuted. Demolition companies simply do not use thermite to cut large support beams (or anything else for that matter). Yes, the beams shown in the video (and in the supposedly leaked photographs he mentions) have been cut -- by oxyacetylene torches during the clean-up efforts. Have a look at the following photograph:

Clean-up workers cutting columns with oxyacetylene torches. Take special note of the incisions halfway up the column on the right.

yes, that is the exterior column.. the main interior column photos that have been seen by many people show absolutely no sign of welders in a cleanup operation and there is lots of debris around that interior column and no sign of the "other piece" that would have been cut from it. This leaves the question if whether the patented thermate cutting method was used.

I have yet to see any images of interior main columns being cut after the fact. One of the problems with this is that only one photographer was allowed in the restricted zone to take some photos during the cleanup process and the CIA had the "authority" to keep many photos from this photographers collection from reaching the public.

I find it amazing that the core structure was obliterated.

So, we have photographic evidence that columns were being cut with oxyacetylene torches during the clean-up operation. We also have photographic evidence that cutting metal with oxyacetylene torches results in the exact same cutting effects as those depicted in the pictures that you claim to be evidence of thermite. But because we don't have any photographic evidence specifically of those interior columns being cut with touches, you're claiming it's more rational (or at least not irrational) to believe they were cut by thermite during a controlled demolition. Also, I would have thought that the "other halves" of the columns are not still in the pictures because they have been transported away. That was the reason for them having been cut, after all.

Further, you seem to be implying that the photograph in question was supposed to have been officially repressed, but has somehow slipped though the net. In fact, it's been taken from a publically-available collection of hundreds of photographs which document the clean-up operation.

No, I'm saying that no photographic evidence of the interior columns being cut seem to exist (to the public).. specifically the one that is most known that we're referring to, it leaves one to wonder about it.

Par:
"Also, I would have thought that the "other halves" of the columns are not still in the pictures because they have been transported away. That was the reason for them having been cut, after all."
Then where is the crane that would have lifted the other piece... it's now shown and there was no sign of any scaffolding material or other equipment near the center column that the welders would have used because there was still too much debris all around that column when the photo was taken.

Par:
"Further, you seem to be implying that the photograph in question was supposed to have been officially repressed but has somehow slipped though the net In fact, it's been taken from a publically-available collection of photographs which document the clean-up operation."

Well that's your interpretation, not what I said. The photo in question does not clearly indicate that it was cut by welders after the fact or by thermate since they would look similar.. what I said is that they DID have to approve such photos from hitting the public. It's no secret that that specific photo and the other close up photos were taken by a limited number of photographers and the photo's WERE screened before their release.

While the steel was being removed from the site of the three largest and most mysterious structural failures in history, even the team FEMA had assembled to investigate the failures -- the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) -- was denied access to the evidence. The Science Committee of the House of Representatives later identified several aspects of the FEMA-controlled operation that prevented the conduct of an adquate investigation:

The BPAT did not control the steel. "The lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for investigation before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence."
FEMA required BPAT members to sign confidentiality agreements that "frustrated the efforts of independent researchers to understand the collapse."
The BPAT was not granted access to "pertinent building documents."
"The BPAT team does not plan, nor does it have sufficient funding, to fully analyze the structural data it collected to determine the reasons for the collapse of the WTC buildings."
Gene Corley complained to the Committee that the Port Authority refused to give his investigators copies of the Towers' blueprints until he signed a wavier that the plans would not be used in a lawsuit against the agency.

There SHOULD have been more photographs and immediate investigation of 9/11 - one of the most profound events in our history is my main point here. I don't know for certain one way or the other if the official story is true yet. The government has a known history in maintaining secrets from the public, blocking investigations, censoring information, subversion, intimidation and gag-ordering whistleblowers. With all of this going on it's no wonder that the evidence that does exist yet neither proves anything one way or the other becomes controversial.

"its a shame that the trade center wasent full of all the retards usa has..."

It couldn't hold them all.

Constitutional_Patriot, consider the following thought experiment:

On your way to work one morning you drive passed a row of ten trees. There's a tree-felling operation underway. Five of the trees have already been felled. One of the loggers is busy cutting a sixth down with his chainsaw. Later that day, on your way back from work, you notice that all the trees have gone and only stumps and sawdust remain. On closer investigation, you notice that all of the stumps show similar cutting effects to the one you saw being cut with a chainsaw.

Here are two of many possible explanations for what has happened:

A: Even though you didn't see it happen or document it in any way, the loggers cut down all of the remaining trees with chainsaws and transported them away.

B: Some other unseen device was used to cut the remaining trees down -- a device that, usually, would simply never be used for logging purposes. This device was used to fell the trees as part of a nefarious conspiracy.

Which of those explanations do you consider the most rational -- which of those explanations is the only one that is sane?

Even if what you say about photographs having been screened before being released to the public is true (some evidence for this claim would be appreciated), it doesn't constitute evidence of thermite. The lack of evidence is not itself evidence. Further, the National Institute of Standards and Technology was charged with carrying out the final, authorized investigation of the collapses. They have not complained of insufficient access to the evidence. Lastly, I'm not saying there is no conspiracy because I have complete trust in the government. (In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.) I'm saying that it's irrational to believe that there was a conspiracy because there's absolutely nothing in the way of compelling evidence.

"The only way to test these crazy conspiracy theories is to nuke mecca.

That'd just create a larger piece of obsidian to circumambulate.

Your last doesn't make sense. You don't have to believe in a conspiracy, you can just think that something smells fishy. You first have to have doubts and then you can go and search for evidence. Don't you agree that there is, at least, a basis for some doubts?

Come on, at least the insider trading thing?

I'm not claiming that people shouldn't form alternative hypotheses or question the official account of the attacks. If the validities of these inquiries are not borne out by the evidence, however, then it would seem decidedly irrational to persist with them.

I'm not sure what you mean when you mention "the insider trading thing."

the 9/11 Commission:

"A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10, the Commission said. Similarly, the Commission said, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, that recommended these trades"





article published in The Journal of Business in year 2006 provides with statistical claims of unusual option market activity days before 9/11:


" A measure of abnormal long put volume was also examined and seen to be at abnormally high levels in the days leading up to the attacks.
Consequently, the paper concludes that there is evidence of unusual option market activity in the days leading up to September 11 that is consistent with investors trading on advance knowledge of the attacks."

http://www.business.uiuc.edu/poteshma/research/poteshman2006.pdf

Your first quotation is taken from a passage that explains that the supposedly suspicious trading activity was thoroughly investigated and found, ultimately, to be innocuous. In light of this, it's difficult to see how it could do anything other than refute the argument for foreknowledge-based trading. Here's the quotation in more context:

Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options- investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price-surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10-highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.

From the second quotation, one might well be forgiven for assuming that the paper in question drew stronger conclusions than it actually did. In reality, it was far more reserved. Here are some further quotations qualifying the issue:

Despite the views expressed by the popular media, leading academics, and option market professionals, there is reason to question the decisiveness of the evidence that terrorists traded in the option market ahead of the September 11 attacks...

On the basis of the statements made about the links between option market activity and terrorism shortly after September 11, it would have been tempting to infer from this put-call ratio that terrorism probably was the cause of the November 12 crash. Subsequently, however, terrorism was all but ruled out...

[T]he article notes that the heaviest trading in the AMR options did not occur in the cheapest, shortest-dated puts, which would have provided the largest profits to someone who knew of the coming attacks. Furthermore, an analyst had issued a "sell" recommendation on AMR during the previous week, which may have led investors to buy AMR puts. Similarly, the stock price of UAL had recently declined enough to concern technical traders who may have increased their put buying, and UAL options are heavily traded by institutions hedging their stock positions. Finally, traders making markets in the options did not raise the ask price at the time the orders arrived as they would have if they believed that the orders were based on adverse nonpublic information.

Appreciate par. Choggie thrives on the predictable. One can always expect, from the pool of domesticated primates, representatives of the finite number of responses to information, stimulation, or instigation.

9/11 evokes these-

Denial/rebuttal-There will always be a preponderance of evidence in both camps, both sharing the same fervor for their position-as more knowledge becomes available on a subject, both camps, adopt it for their own, to support their conclusions, which, they have already established prior to any real evidence at all on the subject in question. Kinda like seminarians, who can all agree on one verse in scripture, but who all have their own, predisposed ideas on another.
... occasionally I hear someone say you're one of those "conspiracy theories" nuts... that term was created by a government think tank back in the 60's to berate and ridicule anything not broadcasted by the official news media on the evening news ... there was a famous man that once said ... "never attribute to a conspiracy that which can amply be attributed to the actions of a bunch of greedy stupid self serving men in power" ... I would add to this ... " and the majority of people who are fooled into believing these men are honest and have the interests of the populous at heart" ... Prof. James McCanney M. S.

Then you got yer flat-out denial types-"It should not, therefore, could-nots"....these folks are the real idiots of the pack, who would faint at the sight of their own blood from a splinter, or write a fucking cereal company a long letter, about how their quality control sucks at the factory, cause they dinna' get their toy, at the bottom of the box. Choggie calls these folks out, tries to comfort them, by beating them to death with their delusions.

If these types continue in their abject refusal to see any other scenario except the "everything is fine, no problem here, move along scenario", we call these types, "To stupid to live."

You have your agnostics, who leave room for all possibilities, and take no side one or the other, until the facts are in, scrutinized, etc. (choggieland, though he is obviously, predisposed, to calling foul, anything stamped official, and anything involving, money, power, politics in the U.S., furries, off-pitch singing, female drivers or beets.)

then...., you got yer assholes. Forget a description for this type, if you are a dynamic individual, you have been this person before, as well as the others. There is a time for everything, and when it comes to this subject, choggie is the biggest, boldest, and most cavernous of sphincters.

One must bend as tree, or a Trade Center Tower in the wind, to allow for growth, development, change, and evolution of self.

Par-it appears to this sifter, that further discussion on this topic with you, is like arguing which mayo is better, when the real question is, What's yer favorite of these, when you've only had three types.....you just haven't tasted the available varieties out there yet, cause it is either unknown, or inaccessible- ....this amount to drawing a conclusion, from incomplete information.


"Why is there a pathological obsession in this country with putting the words "theory and "theorist after "conspiracy? There are, at least, two possibilities that come to mind. The first is that the word "conspiracy is like a Rorschach test. It inherently comes with a variety of psychological responses upon hearing the very word - the primary reaction (so far) being closed-mindedness. The second possibility would, indeed, suggest a conspiracy. This severe skepticism (or pathos) by most against anything that challenges traditional lore is in place by design and derived from years of indoctrination through a carefully conceived program within mainstream education, politics and media for the purpose of social, financial, political and intellectual control of the masses. Most recently, this ideology was supported (and even demanded) by George W. Bush who, after 9-11, stated publicly, "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories..."-Brian William Hall

"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories???" Fuck you , George, your fucking Reptillian father, your cunt whore drunks for daughters, and your hag-ridden, man-lookin', pearl necklace wearing mother.......(choggie has a pearl necklace for you, but first we must remove those nasty teeth, with this pipe wrench)how's that for some ad-hominim....just a sec, someone in a black suit, is knocking on the door......

I'll point this out again: I'm not claiming that because the government (or anyone else, for that matter) says the attacks were carried out by nineteen Islamic fundamentalists, any other theory is necessarily wrong. I'm saying that the attacks were carried out by nineteen Islamic fundamentalists because there's overwhelming evidence to support the idea and absolutely no compelling evidence either to exonerate them or to implicate (other al Qaeda members, etc. notwithstanding) anyone else.

I'm neither interested in your ridiculous lizard-fantasies nor in indulging you in your seemingly pathological narcissism. So, do you actually have any evidence or do you not?

Par:

You've asked exactly the right question with your thought experiment above. Some of us--unlike choggie--appreciate your clear thinking on the matter. Methinks you have taken some philosophy courses?

I'm not certain whether the above post has moved down the thread due to some kind of error or whether it's been resubmitted. Either way, I address it in the two posts above.

It was fixed by videosift

Tofumar:

I dabble
: )

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by jonny.