From the neutral country - Switzerland

[greatcalgarian]

Can you explain that sentence?

Wherever America put her feet or fingers into a country, that country is doomed to suffer. When people being treated badly or being exploited, they tend to come up with the story to describe the bad deeds this big brother (America) is doing to them. In order to appear good, the big brother will then use the media to tell all types of stories. When that happend, no body know what is true and what is not true, and then the real original story became branded as conspiracy, and those telling the story become conspiracists.

Make sense?

 

[greatcalgarian]

So in other words, this MIHOP bullspit started with Clinton around since Bin Laden was doing things back then, or is the all-powerful Bush Administration able to hack into Al-Jazeera and other Arab stations to leak video of Bin Laden? Were they also able to doctor video that showed Arabs boarding the planes in question that craqshed into the Twin Towers.

There is absolutely no credible evidence to support a MIHOP scenario, and anything you've pointed to is NOT credible.

You just have to wait for 50 years, when the current secrecy act expires, and America citizen will then have the right to obtain and read all the evidences. There is no point in argueing now, as we do not have the facts in front of us, except what I called circumstantial evidences, which I put some belief in those evidence, but you prefer just to throw away those evidences, and burried your head in the sand like ostrich, and refuse to see the story from the other side.

For example, the currently released CIA documents, do you think those people in the 1950 to 1970 would have thought of what the government could have done?

We are not talking about doctoring of any evidences, those are the red herring, the patsy, the strawmen, whatever you like to name them, the government purposely created and let off to let some people to make a story out of it, and hence can be made to look like a stupid 'conspiracy' advocate, and hence even when someone pointed to some evidence which could be the truth, then the government can group them with the first group and discredit them.

Clinton and bin Ladin are making use of one another. Clinton, at least, was honest with Ladin. Bush conduct business with Ladin, but stabbed him at the back, without even him realizing it. Ladin has to use every skill he has to remain alive, partly also Bush allowing him to live, or else there will be no more target of head of terrorism for Bush to direct the fight against.

Actually I have not seen the video of Arabs boarding the 4 planes. Could you provide me with the link? Was it broadcast on any of the major media like CNN, Fox, or BBC? Are these videos still available on the u-tube?

I am not sure what you are talking about hacking into Arab station by America. The doctored video is the fat bin Ladin, broadcast by the US, not by the Arab station.

 

[greatcalgarian]

I'm only going to address this statement as I can't stomach much else. When the engineers got together and started planning the construction of the WTC buildings in 1966, I don't think they were worrying about large planes slamming into them.

You are absolutely wrong. The designer has stated very clearly that this has been designed for multiple large planes slamming into them. This designer was killed in the WTC on that day.

Let me look for the link to let you read it yourself.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Well said! I couldn't have put it better myself. What does upset me at times is the thought that, even through her Neutrality, Switzerland is forever willing to accept funds that they must think are not "morally earned".

Most African leaders have Swiss bank accounts.

Are you British jealous of the money the Switzerland is handling for all the bad guys in your country?

Without those bad guys with all the bad money, Swiss bank will not have any business. Please remember that those bad guys are not just those uneducated ruthless 3rd world country dictators. That is what your government wants you to believe. Those money are from bad guys from all walks of life, including those 'gentlemen' that frequented Oxford street high class departmental stores.

 

[greatcalgarian]

There are conspiracy theorists and then there are just plain whackos. I give credit that theorists at least try to give rational examples and tie them to the events.

If that isn't happening, then, well.....

A very fair observation. What the US government and MSM are trying hard to do is to make most people believe that ALL 9/11 theories/stories other than government story are created by whackos.

 

[greatcalgarian]

I'm only going to address this statement as I can't stomach much else. When the engineers got together and started planning the construction of the WTC buildings in 1966, I don't think they were worrying about large planes slamming into them.

A quick search find this one, not very good one, but relevant to your question:

Engineers have long anticipated the scenario of planes crashing into tall buildings. In 1945, a USAF bomber crashed into the 79th floor of the 102-storey Empire State Building in Manhattan. The crash occurred during a misty night, and the damage was restricted to the impact area. There have also been a number of near misses.

One of the criteria used in the design of the World Trade Centre was that if a Boeing 707 should hit either of the towers, then it would go right through without damaging the other storeys. This would be like punching a hole through the wall of a hollow tube without making the tube collapse. Calculations can easily show that such an impact will have little or no effect on the overall structural integrity of the building because the mass of the plane is very small compared to the mass resistance of the building. In a similar manner, the explosion of a terrorist bomb in the north tower basement during 1993 created a large hole, but did no real damage to the overall structural integrity of the building.

However, the Boeing 767s that hit the towers were much larger than expected, and had much greater fuel capacities. The impact of the fuel explosion and the ensuing fire was not considered in the building design.

http://www.bc.cityu.edu.hk/wtc/content.html
Note that this author try to create a view that is propagated by the US government, which is, plane can actually bring down the WTC, by harping on the point that Boeing 767 were much larger than expected. Please note that if you are a civil engineer or structural engineer, you will know that there is always a safety factor of 6 or more when designing anything. 767 is not more than 20% larger than that used in the original design.

Anyway, the government story now is that the slamming will not bring the tower down. The story now propagated by the US government with some of her conspiring Scientists and Engineer, (one of whom is this Eduardo Kausel, the MIT professor who is the first one who stick his head out to spread the conspiracy around), is that the large amount of plane kerosene fuel burned and produced enough heat to soften the steel column or truss whatever is convenient to the government story, and lead to spontaneous collapse of the building.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Try reading this in between the lines as well:

Official Story

"It was the combination of the impact load doing great damage to the building, followed by the fire, that caused the collapse (W. Gene Corley, Ph.D, American Society of Civil Engineers)."

Unofficial Story

Les Robertson, a structural engineer who designed the streamlined steel frames in the 1960's, stated that the designers of the Twin Towers kept in mind that there may one day be a plane, lost in the fog, crashing into one of the Towers. Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Program Management states, "The building was designed to have a fully loaded, 707, the largest plane at that time, crash into it. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jet liners."

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=26773

 

[greatcalgarian]

More relevant information for you to digest:

1993

“[Building designer] John Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.”[4]

“The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.”[5]

Please go and read the ENTIRE article.
http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/06/world-trade-centre-collapse.html

 

[greatcalgarian]

After 9/11

“The engineer who said after the 1993 bombing that the towers could withstand a Boeing 707, Leslie Robertson, was not available for comment yesterday, a partner at his Manhattan firm said. ‘We're going to hold off on speaking to the media,’ said the partner, Rick Zottola, at Leslie E. Robertson Associates. ‘We'd like to reserve our first comments to our national security systems, F.B.I. and so on.’”[10]

“The building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access—and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access—to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns.”[11]

“[The] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in 2005 state that it has been ‘unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.’”[12]

“In 2002, Leslie Robertson wrote: “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.”[13]

Who is conspiring? Obviously Leslie Robertson. He some how has been coerced into changing his story (he is just the junior partner in the design, the original designer was killed in WTC, perhaps planned by the conspirator).

There are various techniques that CIA and FBI can make people change their story.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Actually, there should still be the design blue print of the Tower. Any qualified engineers can easily take up the blue print, and do some calculation to see whether WTC can stand the slamming of an airplane or not.

I do not think the Tower cannot stand it. And I do not think the amount of plane kerosine is enough to cause the steel structure to soften to collapse.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Narration: Yet, 56 years ago, a near neighbour of the world Trade Centre, withstood another aerial attack. On 18 July, 1945 a B25 bomber flew into the Empire State building in heavy fog.

Dr Andy Davids: It was a much smaller aircraft, a World War two bomber and it weighed about 10 tonne as compared to the 767 as I understand hit the World Trade Centre, which weighed probably to the order of 100 to 150 tonnes.

Karina Kelly: So 10 times bigger - but the Empire state building is still standing today - why is that?

Dr Andy Davids: Yes the structural system of the Empire State is similar in one way to the World Trade Centre in that it is a steel frame, however on the Empire State those steel beams and columns had all been in filled with heavy masonry panels so the building was a very stiff building; a very dense building; had a lot of mass in which to absorb the inertia of the aircraft striking it and limit the damage.

Let us evacuate Empire State and the surrounding, and remove some of the heavy masonry panels in the two floors, and the use remote control to fly two fully loaded with fuel no people 767 into the Empire and see whether it will collapse after 1 hours. If it did not, let us round up all those conspiracy and crucify them. This is a very scientific way of proving a point.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Actually, there should still be the design blue print of the Tower. Any qualified engineers can easily take up the blue print, and do some calculation to see whether WTC can stand the slamming of an airplane or not.

Countless experts have already done this, but because they don't see any evidence that the buildings were brought down by explosives, they must all be "in on it".

So thousands of scientists at civil engineering departments and at NIST and Scientific American and Popular Mechanics and Skeptic are all "in on it". Wow, that's a huge conspiracy. It's amazing that the godlike, all-powerful entity you refer to as "the government" can cover all this up but they can't conceal it when the President has oral sex with an intern in the oval office, or when the President's daughters go on a drinking binge out of the country. What's even more amazing is that you can believe it without the testimony of any whistle-blowers, without any incriminating documents or recordings, without any explanation of how the "black-op" of 9/11 was physically carried out, and by whom, or how many.

You can't even refer to any of the credible hardworking investigative reporters who have uncovered political scandals in the past (oh wait, I forgot, every news outlet including the NY Times, the Washington Post, the BBC, CNN, are "in on it" too....none of those outlets would EVER fault the American government for anything, would they? What would they have to gain, other than selling an unimaginable number of newspapers?)

Instead you simply link to a bunch of websites that posit a "conspiracy-of-the-gaps" that presumes to answer any unexplained aspect of the incredibly complex event that was 9/11. It's almost all hearsay and wild speculation without any actual evidence.

Recall lesson #1 from the Evolution vs. "Intelligent Design" controversy: the inability to explain something is not evidence for something.

I do not think the Tower cannot stand it. And I do not think the amount of plane kerosine is enough to cause the steel structure to soften to collapse.

With all due respect, at which university did you get your doctorate in civil engineering?

Here are a few questions to consider for any 9/11 theory involving anything other than planes taking down the WTC:

If bombs were used to take down the towers, why all the effort to make it look like planes did it? Why not just use bombs, and blame it on Bin Laden? The WTC was even bombed by Bin Laden before.

Who's that guy in all those videos claiming to be Bin Laden and claiming responsibility for the attacks?

Many previous government scandals have been uncovered in recent years. These include the death of that special forces guy in Afghanistan who used to be an NFL player (what was his name again?), the Jessica Lynch controversy, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo abuses, CIA kidnapping people and sending them abroad to be tortured, secret CIA prisons in Europe, the massacre of an Iraqi family in Haditha by Marines, the lack of proper care at a large U.S. Army hospital for vets, etc. etc. These have been revealed by internal government investigations (congressional, military, etc), government whistleblowers, classified documents being leaked to the media, credible investigative journalists, public hearings, and so on. These activities produced lots of evidence in the form of documents and testimony for the scandalous activities. Where is the evidence that 9/11 was perpetrated by people in the government?

What were the 9/11 hijackers doing in the U.S., going to flight school, practicing martial arts, and so on? What happened to them?

I know some firefighters in Dayton, and they took 9/11 very seriously. I can only imagine how emotional firefighters, police and rescue workers in New York must feel. If they thought there was no way the planes could have been responsible for bringing down the buildings, why aren't they angrily speaking out in droves?

These are just a few of many many questions any government conspiracy 9/11 theory would have to explain by invoking the evidence (not by invoking ad-hoc hypotheses that just keep expanding the size and scope of the conspiracy exponentially).

You can't just ask questions that most unqualified people can't answer, and then when you don't get an answer you interpret that as "evidence" for a government coverup, as if that were the default explanation. It most certainly is not the mainstream explanation among those engineers and scientists qualified to analyze the collapse. It isn't the mainstream explanation among investigative journalists with their "inside" gov. sources. It isn't the explanation of independent investigations by Congress, which have uncovered mischief in the executive branch in the past.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Let us evacuate Empire State and the surrounding, and remove some of the heavy masonry panels in the two floors, and the use remote control to fly two fully loaded with fuel no people 767 into the Empire and see whether it will collapse after 1 hours. If it did not, let us round up all those conspiracy and crucify them. This is a very scientific way of proving a point.

What is scientific about that?
There is no design equivalence between the buildings. Nor in the quality of the materials used.

 

[FatMan]

You just have to wait for 50 years, when the current secrecy act expires, and America citizen will then have the right to obtain and read all the evidences. There is no point in argueing now, as we do not have the facts in front of us, except what I called circumstantial evidences, which I put some belief in those evidence, but you prefer just to throw away those evidences, and burried your head in the sand like ostrich, and refuse to see the story from the other side.

For example, the currently released CIA documents, do you think those people in the 1950 to 1970 would have thought of what the government could have done?

We are not talking about doctoring of any evidences, those are the red herring, the patsy, the strawmen, whatever you like to name them, the government purposely created and let off to let some people to make a story out of it, and hence can be made to look like a stupid 'conspiracy' advocate, and hence even when someone pointed to some evidence which could be the truth, then the government can group them with the first group and discredit them.

Clinton and bin Ladin are making use of one another. Clinton, at least, was honest with Ladin. Bush conduct business with Ladin, but stabbed him at the back, without even him realizing it. Ladin has to use every skill he has to remain alive, partly also Bush allowing him to live, or else there will be no more target of head of terrorism for Bush to direct the fight against.

Actually I have not seen the video of Arabs boarding the 4 planes. Could you provide me with the link? Was it broadcast on any of the major media like CNN, Fox, or BBC? Are these videos still available on the u-tube?

I am not sure what you are talking about hacking into Arab station by America. The doctored video is the fat bin Ladin, broadcast by the US, not by the Arab station.

What an illogical rant. You do realize that Bin Ladin was seen in footage on Arab stations well before the US stations, after 911. They had the videos of him praising the hijackers and they had video of him claiming responsibility for the attacks. Unless the US somehow controls the Arabic Media, then how could Bin Ladin have been seen making these claims if it was the US that did it to themselves??

And I won't even touch the debate about the towers. I personally know people who inspected those towers and I have two relatives who are FBI agents who sifted through the rubble of the towers after the fact and should I now believe that all of them are "in on it"??

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Fatman--

I know people who worked at NIST. I guess they're "in on it" too.

 

[greatcalgarian]

What is scientific about that?
There is no design equivalence between the buildings. Nor in the quality of the materials used.

It is cheaper than my other proposal, build another WTC and ramp the plane into it.

However, we may not be able to duplicate "the quality of the materials used", as the original one may be short change by the contractor, and no body have the proof now, as everything is destroyed......another conspiracy theory.

 

[greatcalgarian]

What an illogical rant.

This sentence does not mean anything in a scientific investigation, when some one has no evidence, no fact, they resort to this mean, GC.

You do realize that Bin Ladin was seen in footage on Arab stations well before the US stations, after 911. They had the videos of him praising the hijackers and they had video of him claiming responsibility for the attacks

If I am not mistaken, this has to be the fat bin Ladin you are talking about GC

. Unless the US somehow controls the Arabic Media, then how could Bin Ladin have been seen making these claims if it was the US that did it to themselves??

And I won't even touch the debate about the towers. I personally know people who inspected those towers and I have two relatives who are FBI agents who sifted through the rubble of the towers after the fact and should I now believe that all of them are "in on it"??

Give me the web link, or at least quote me your source.

Please stop using the quote by Mr. Spinkles, "in on it". This is the strawmen used very effectively. Make anything said by anyone who disagreed with what you say, and labelled them "in on it", or even those kept quiet is also grouped in as "in on it", then it will make them become very smalland likely to chicken out of the debate.

Let me in on with your first hand knowledge. Tell me your two relatives who are FBI agents, what, when, how, where they did it in details. If they have not been blackmailed into becoming part of the "in on it", then their story will be invaluable. If they are already "in on it", let me read their story, and I can tell you which part is likely have been censored and which part is likely made up for them to tell etc. Trust me. I am a counter-counter-counter triple agent for the FBI and CIA.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Fatman--

I know people who worked at NIST. I guess they're "in on it" too.

Name and address? Rank and file? Did Bush place a tracing device on them using the Patriot Act? Are their telephone taped? WHOOO, very scary.

No wonder Mr Spinkle is in the denial mode all the time, supporting the government story. He must be "in on it"

 

[greatcalgarian]

With all due respect, at which university did you get your doctorate in civil engineering?

I thought old man like me is forgetful. Have you forgotten what doctorate degree I have? If you do not know, that means you have not read all my threads. So please go back, click on GC, read all threads post by GC to find out who I am, before honoring me with a doctorate in civil engineering.

This is part 1 of my answer to your long post. It might take me a few weeks to answer all your question, because you do not read the web link I provided, so I either have to cut and paste, or rephrase many of the answer provided by others on the web to your questions. Be patient with me.

 

[FatMan]

Why do you deserve any acknowledgement of what the people who have done yeoman's work???

For somebody with as idiotic as your views, you deserve to have as little information as possible.