There are stages of grief, and some folks get stuck in one stage or the other, depending on the gravity of the loss. In a relationship, the gravity depending on attachment and intensity, and time passed. If enough time passes with this event, with masses of people stuck in what should be a passing denial stage, you tend to get seriously fucked-up ways of thinking, as most who are interested in meaning and substance beyond some addictive chemical release of dopamine, or a Levi-rise, have seen here on the Sift, as your reliable nay-sayers, pop in and out with some cut-and-paste-, parroted, explanation, as to why it is absurd to believe conspiracies, yadda yadda yadda, ad infinitum, go fuck yerselves.

Proximity and vested interest also plays a part in the denial. This is why people in other countries, pretty much overwhelmingly side with those who say 9/11, was a carefully orchestrated, take-down of the towers, and WTC 7, for political, and financial gain. So, some of the pseudo-intellectual twits among us, would do well with a simple translation: THE DESTRUCTION OF THESE SYMBOLIC STRUCTURES, THE TIMING, THE "OFFICIAL", SO-CALLED, INVESTIGATION, THE OVERWHELMING AMOUNT OF CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE TO THE "OFFICIAL" STORY, ALL POINT TO ONE THING-THE "TERRORISTS", ARE NOT WHO YOU THINK THEY ARE, THE U.S. GOVT. IS NOT WHAT YOU IMAGINE IT TO BE, AND SOME PEOPLE, ARE MAKING AN AWFUL LOT OF MONEY, BY CONSIDERING THE MASSES IDIOTS....which, unfortunately for us masses, is predictably true.

When history is re-written concerning these events, and school children in 2025, remember some imaginary buildings called the Worldwide Trade Center (name changed to further re-program the meatbot) they will understand that no matter what happened on that day in 1999, it is much better to sit quiet and still, take what you are given, remain calm, and return to their regularly, programmed, schedule.

*eternal upvote

rougy has been awarded an eternal upvote, for keeping the events of this day, in front of the sea of bullshit, in which most domesticated primates, chose to swim in.
-siftblot

snipe???
*emotional down vote

The "truthers" movement: a small core of sincere mentally ill people square-dancing with people seeking their fifteen minutes of f(l)ame. Surrounded by hordes who should know better but don't.

Remember: NO evidence supporting the nutjob theories is PROOF of HOW CLEVER the conspirators ARE!

Thanks choggie.

QM - the evidence was destroyed, and investigations were blocked by the Bush administration.

Go back to sleep.

define, mentally ill....

It's a good thing no politicians of any importance buy this crap.

Rethink that comment Doc, and think about the crap they do buy. Wake up.

Sure politicians buy a bunch of crap, but thank god they don't buy this particular pile of it. No one would ever vote for them anyway. And I'm quite awake thanks. More awake then people who have fallen into the unreasoning group-think that is 9/11 conspiracy, I'd argue. I know there are a lot of them on this site. Makes sense since people keep posting the videos here. And I expect to keep getting flamed for not buying what they're selling. Oh, well. I know I'll never convince any of them of anything anyway, so why deny that I think it's an incorrect conclusion.
I'll just take comfort in the fact that basically all of congress, all the presidential hopefuls, all the judges on the supreme court, the 9/11 commission, NIST, basically all of the scientific and engineering community, and basically all of the media are on my side... at least for the time being. That's good enough for me I guess.

It's also kinda obvious at this point that the same people up-vote and down-vote these 9/11 videos every time they're posted. Every 9/11 conspiracy video gets through the sift and only 1 in 5 of the videos debunking or offering criticism of them and/or evidence to the contrary get through.

have their been developments with any 9/11 conspiracy theories in terms of any investigations? they should have some end in sight...

With all due respect Rougy, I submit my following observations for your comment and rebuttal.

I cannot over emphasize how important it is to verify the credentials of people who claim to be scientists.

I have found nothing to confirm that Jeff King graduated from MIT. After an extensive literature search, I have also found it difficult to find any peer reviewed articles that can be traced to his name, which calls into question his claim that he is a research scientist at MIT or any other university/institution. If his website to be believed, he is currently not practicing Engineering and is a Family Physician. There also appears to be no evidence that he has any expertise in Civil, Structual, Fire Protection, or Metallurgical Engineering or Physics. A weaker point because things change, but I think I should also note that although his claim is that he studied electro-mechanical engineering there is no department at MIT, which grants such a diploma.

According to Ref. 1, it appears that a considerable amount of research from a multitude of distinguished scientists has been put into investigating the World Trade Center.[1,2] I could not confirm the $600,000 amount stated. I found a statement on Ref. 3, which said that 16 Million was granted to NIST to investigate the WTC.[3]

I am reminded of a quote.

“How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”

Unfotunately, for select few the impossible is that two planes hit two buildings.

[1]http://wtc.nist.gov/
[2]http://www.enfp.umd.edu/faculty-profiles/baum.html
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#_note-20

Sincerely,

MH

While I disagree with just about everything Bush stands for, I can't see the American government being responsible for this tragedy. Yes the official account is flawed. No that doesn't mean the government did it.

There is evidence that it goes far deeper than just the government and Bush being behind this. I heard on Art Bell's show that "The Greys" are behind this all, including the Bush presidency.

All the evidence was easily covered up because The Greys technology is far superior to our own and they are also able to wipe people's memories. The reason of course that WTC 7 was destroyed is because it housed physical evidence of The Grey's involvement in many of the worlds affairs. Choggie, even though he's impossible to understand in any meaningful way because of his head injury, is on top of things here.

For every one fake expert in one of these videos there's hundreds with real credentials saying controlled demolition is bull. Science and facts says it's bull. If you deny science for your beliefs that makes you a religious nut. You've abandoned pro-Bush crazy for conspiracy theory crazy. With all the "Osama is about to attack" intel flying around before 9/11, it was much easier for the Bush administration to just sit and wait then to do something. Clinton launched missiles against Osama's camps before 9/11 and Bush didn't.

And every piece of "evidence" in this video has been debunked previously:

The color of smoke doesn't tell you anything about the fire.

The building collapse was explained in detail (including core columns) in a previous video here on the sift that showed close up video debunking controlled demo theories. Many scientific publications have also done a much better job then this video shows explaining the science of the collapse.

Plane crash investigations are held when you don't know what part of it malfunctioned or if the pilot was a drunk git. TWA 800 exploded in mid-air so they didn't know why it exploded. After investigation it turned out to be a short circuit that ignited the center wing fuel tank. The 9/11 planes were hijacked by members of Al Qaeda (according to mountains of evidence) and flown into buildings. Flying jets at high speeds into very large buildings tends to make 'em get "blowed up real good". And if you want a conspiracy theory to think about, ask yourself why so many Republicans help fund these Loose Change videos.

The owner's of the Great American Plantation had very much to gain by the events of September 11, 2001. Namely, more power, more control and more money. Keep the people in constant fear, and they'll pray to their gods in government to protect them. So, sad! Too much TV and they cannot think for themselves. I saw Superman fly around the sun on TV. Many people still believe that man has walked on the moon. If you believe that, I have some ocean front property in Nebraska you need to see!

I do not see the correlation between the moon and 9/11.

The correlation is they were both shown to the world on TV.

"Unfotunately, for select few the impossible is that two planes hit two buildings."

I'm not going to bother with a long, drawn out counterpoint.

I couldn't find Jeff King at MIT, either. Good work.

Nothing I say - no source that I post - will ever convince you that what happened in New York City on September 11, 2001 was anything other than what you've been told by the Bush administration.

If you think that two buildings can fall as fast as those fell without some sort of demolitions, fine. If you think WTC7 fell like it fell without demos, fine.

I wash my hands of you, and everybody like you.

Lets say that it was done by Bush. Why? What did he gain from it? He put us in a war that's going horribly....there's certainly no big oil coming out of Iraq at the moment. The "powers that be" are dropping like flies out of the administration. The House and the Senate are both controlled now by "the enemy" (Democrates). The press...while they went to sleep basically after 9/11, are VERY much awake now and hounding these people left and right.

So what exactly did they gain by blowing up the WTC and the Pentagon? To create fear in everyone so they can control us? Um...ok...how exactly are they controlling us now as we're all calling for their heads?

I think it goes without saying that if you say we never landed on the moon, no one will listen to a word you say after that. That is just about the single most debunked conspiracy theories in history. Holding on to that one is like saying the earth is really flat.

Oh, and fyi, it was 2001 choggie, not 1999. Little typo.

I see now that my closing remark could be interpreted as a personal attack. My hope is that you do not hold that against me, accept my apology if you interpreted it that way, and that you seriously consider my other observations.

1) "I have also found it difficult to find any peer reviewed articles that can be traced to his name"

2) "he is currently not practicing Engineering and is a Family Physician."

3) "There also appears to be no evidence that he has any expertise in Civil, Structual, Fire Protection, or Metallurgical Engineering or Physics"

4) "According to Ref. 1, it appears that a considerable amount of research from a multitude of distinguished scientists has been put into investigating the World Trade Center.[1,2] I could not confirm the $600,000 amount stated. I found a statement on Ref. 3, which said that 16 Million was granted to NIST to investigate the WTC.[3]"

I am open to your ideas. In my heart I am a scientist, and with rigorous proof I will believe anything. Unfortunately, in science the burden of proof is on the believer. Hence, it is necessary that you test your theory with sufficiently rigorous experiment and simulations to prove your opinions true and then show them to people like me, the skeptic. In my opinion, a video of a seemingly unaccredited (and I could be wrong about this) source is not sufficient. After reading the report form NIST and attending a lecture on the simulations and analysis of the data, I believe that the majority of the evidence present suggests that the towers were hit by two planes. This is conditional though, if I could be shown equally rigorous explanations to the contrary I would believe them as well.

Lastly,

"If you think that two buildings can fall as fast as those fell without some sort of demolitions, fine."

Although, for some reason I cannot find a specific number, I seem to remember that from the time of impact to collapse being a number measured in minutes, implying to me that the time was not remarkably short.[1]

However, these issues do not address my primary concern that Jeff King may not be a credible source, and that the amount spent on the investigation of 9/11 was signifactly more than $600,000. These points I ask to be addressed.

I would deeply regret it if either of us would resort to personal attacks, or name calling, which I feel would demean our discussion.

Thank you for considering my arguments.

MH

[1] http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

PS. If you would prefer a profile reply instead please let me know.

I found some research papers on the collapse for some reading.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20did%20%26%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It%20-%20Revised%206-22-0
7.pdf
(this is a technical document. it may be at least helpful reading the abstract, conclusions and figures)

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf
(another technical document explaining the collapse dynamics)


http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
(This is the 9/11 commission's excellent study of the WTC7 collapse)

Give them an honest shake and I think you'll have a better understanding of where us "non-believers" are coming from.

very nice papers.

This is another one of those global warming debates:
people on either side have proof, One side using unproven and incomplete data but has the means to get their message to the masses. the other using science, math and physics to prove a point, with no real way to get people to hear their proof.

"our govt. would never do that". sad part is, it did. and i Really wanted it to be the terrorists. i really do, just wish the guys they jailed over this weren't already out.

I think you've got your groups mixed up there chief, unless I read you wrong. See above references of math, engineering and physics accepted by the scientific community at large. Also see extremely enormous pile of proof all over the place the terrorists were responsible, not our government.
See NIST,
See popular mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html),
see countless responses to "loose change" and "9/11 mysteries" plainly demonstrating where they warp data and misquote witnesses.
http://video.google.com/url?docid=-6243624912447824934&esrc=sr5&ev=v&len=9347&q=9%2F11%2Bmysteries&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3F
docid%3D-6243624912447824934&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-6243624912447824934%26q%3D9%252F11%2Bmysteries%26total%3D456%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3
D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D4&usg=AL29H229GHp75clrj-RJw-uJTDSWZzxkCQ
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1528112867012290801&q=screw+loose+change&total=67&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
http://www.debunking911.com
http://www.911myths.com
(first 2 links at google are a little tongue in cheek, so expect it.)

We've watched your videos and considered your theories. Watch ours.
If you really wanted to believe that the terrorists did it, well rest at ease. They did.

The really simple point that everyone seems to be missing is that the US government LIED about what happened on that day.

People are trying to figure out what really did happen, but nobody is asking the question 'WHY ARE WE BEING LIED TO ABOUT THIS"

That one single fact implicates the US government in the events of 9/11 and that is really all you should need to know. Everything else is just causing endless arguments, debate and speculation. It is surely now time to rally around the one single fact that the government lied, regardless of your opinion or beliefs on what really happened.

I can't imagine a single poster on here disagreeing with that.

Sorry, what did they lie about?

If you mean destroying evidence, I believe that the structures of the planes were unlikely to survive the collapse of buildings of this height and magnitude. They didn't destroy evidence. They cleaned up a freaking huge mess... and terribly slowly I might add. People were endlessly complaining about how slowly even. There was much more examination done of the plane fragments from the pentagon crash
From the popular mechanics debunking page:
"Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

This has to be my last post here on account of time. Have fun if it continues.

"Lets say that it was done by Bush. Why? What did he gain from it? He put us in a war that's going horribly...."

For whom? Haliburton, KBR, Boeing, and all of the war profiteers are doing quite well, thank you.

"If you mean destroying evidence, I believe that the structures of the planes were unlikely to survive the collapse of buildings of this height and magnitude."

I mean, that the buildings were more than capable of withstanding the alledged "pancake effect."

When mass falls and encounters more mass, it slows, it does not accelerate; we witnessed an accelleration in all three towers.

WTC7 has still not been explained. It was not hit by a plane, nor was it significantly damaged, yet it fell in a matter of seconds down upon itself.

It's no use. 9/11 was an inside job.

Nothing will change your mind, and I really don't give a fuck any more.

If you are my countrymen, I want a new country.

Mycroft,

"I am open to your ideas. In my heart I am a scientist, and with rigorous proof I will believe anything."

No, you're not, and you won't: you'll lay claim to anything that you think your superiors will approve of.

The "rigorous proof" that you pride yourself in, was given to you by the Bush administration. Why did they block so much of the investigation into 9/11?

I really don't give a shit what you think of me, but I think very little of you. I've gone around the rosy with this too many times.

I'm glad you pointed out Jeff King's discrepancies, and 9/11 people must be more careful of the people they associate with.

Two buildings were hit in NYC on 9/11 - three fell.

The Pentagon was hit by something that flew half-way across the country without any navigational assistance from ground-control, did a 280 degree turn as it decended thousands of feet, and slammed into the one wing of the building that was under construction.

And all they gave us as proof, after seizing every surveillance tape in the area, were a frew frames of a fuzzy "plane" and a fireball. Proof. Ha!

Que bono?

I've honestly come to despise my country, America, largely because of people like you.

Like the Texas A&M engineer who told me he thought Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks - the educated idiots and the idiotic conservatives have turned everything I once loved to shit.

When mass falls and encounters more mass it slows down?
This is true, but only when it doesn't have the added acceleration of gravity pulling it down. I see your point, but it doesn't hold up when you include gravity and the sheer mass of the top of the building, and especially since each new colapsing floor adds to the mass. These things have been calculated and even in the primary sources I linked above. You make a lot of statements you claim to be pure fact, but you don't support them with evidence. You're positing hypotheses as facts and conclusions as data. That just doesn't work in an argument. Yet you never fail to name-call. If you can't stand to hear views that oppose your own, you'll only find anger and frustration on internet forums.

And if you want a new country, there's the door dude.

Hopefully this will be my final post on this page.

Rougy,

I very disappointed that you did not address my observations specifically about the funding of research into the collapse of the WTC. I am also disappointed that you feel I am not open to your opinion. I can only tell you that I am. However, before you can convince me, you need to show me data and analysis.

Briefly, you mention the Pentagon attacks. While I think that is a non sequitur, I will humor some discussion. The standard frame rate of most cameras is 32 frames per second. Say the distance the plane traveled in the picture was approximately 100-50m, and the speed of the plane was 600-800mph(270-360m/s). This assumes constant velocity, which is wrong but for our purposes it is close enough. At 32 frames per second that means anywhere from 11 to 4 frames, which means a very spotty video. And even if you double this distance you are still talking about less than 30 frames. That is not a lot, and hardly enough to make a video. I would agree that it would seem to me that there had to more than one camera pointed in that direction. But the closer you are the harder it is to capture the plane, because it would mean fewer frames. Secondly, the only way a closer camera would catch a better view would be if it was pointed in the direction of the attack, which might be possible and a valid point.

I would like to conclude with some comments on our discussion. There are some key features that I believe are strong indicators of a bad argument or at least a losing one.

1) Personal Attacks

2) Comparisons to Totalitarian Regimes\Evil Dictators

3) Inventing Vocabulary

4) Non sequitur

5) Gross Extrapolation

If at the very least these do not indicate a bad argument, then they do demean it. They devalue our discussion and make it useless. In the end you walk away thinking what you thought in the beginning and so do I, which is contrary to the heart of debate and discussion.

I think it is funny that you say,

"I've honestly come to despise my country, America, largely because of people like you."

The fact that people like you can speak freely is precisely why I love America.

Anyway, I harbor no hatred towards you.

Sincerely,

MH

"Haliburton, KBR, Boeing, and all of the war profiteers are doing quite well, thank you."

Ah, so they're behind the attacks too are they? Tie in the Cubans and the Mafia and you've got yourself an Oliver Stone movie!

the hijackers were definitely islamic fundamentalists, lets not lose sight of that. so what would these attacks result in for whoever orchestrated them? paranoia, and a jihad that some relatively small muslim factions believe they are destined to win. but also to avenge countries that are being occupied by american troops.
it's possible it was allowed to happen by the american government so that america could go to war for oil, but the elite members of the american government are unlikely to actually initiate that scenario, but who knows. the whole inside-job thing is simplifying the matter a bit, some crazy (CIA trained?) muslim men did it! they were brainwashed though, obviously, they always are in these large scale suicide arrangements. perhaps the american government had some bit part in allowing it to happen, but that is not an inside job. perhaps it's more complicated than this but we just dont know...

*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 NordlichReiter.

Awarding EndAll with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.