Whew, so much to quote.
What would be the USG's motivation? Five years later and very little has worked out for them:
1. Almost everyone worldwide hates George Bush, who will probably go down as the worst President since James Buchanan.
2. Less oil is coming out Iraq now than before the war began.
3. Constitution is still in effect.
4. Even the ACLU dropped it's lawsuit against the Patroit Act.
5. No oil pipeline has been built.
6. Heroin prices keep falling but without creating a big upsurge in the number of new users.
I don't think I have the burden to specifically mention all their motives just yet. I've said that, in general, the government has taken advantage of it, the war on terror. If this kind of thing is still debatable, I'll just give up talking about it here, because it's obvious how they mention 9/11 for every stuff they do (except the war on Iraq, but still).
Should have, would have, I'm glad to see you are conscious that this is not evidence of anything. 9/11 was a complex event, to say the least, and some of the information is critical to the US national security. I don't expect the FBI and CIA to give out information to the public right-away. I'm sure they haven't made public all of the available data, and I think that's OK.
Yeah, it's barely even evidence of cover up.. they have the rights to withhold the evidence.. but still, I feel that if they're going to use it in so many ways in their new "post-9/11 policies", they should at least make it clear what happened in that day, to the people. Thats just a matter of opinion of course. I'll stop mentioning it.
In addition, the victims have a right to some degree of privacy. At least the photos of bodies that were evidence in the Moussaoui trial were not identifiable.
What makes these creey CTers think THEY have the right to see the photograhs of the dead?
I don't want to see the corpses pictures, I just want to see things like, the security cameras at the pentagon, the NIST computer model, etc.
Oh, you were saying the CTers, not me... Well, i don't know. Necrophilia, maybe?
Yurebiz, remember, WTC 7 was built over a ConEd substation. Consequently, it has some unorthodox long spans which made it vulnerable.
That's interesting. I couldn't find the ConEd being mentioned on the NIST interim report on the 7' though, so I guess it wasn't such a big deal? If it was, I'm sure they would (or will) mention it.
Hi, Yurebiz. You misunderstand NIST's working hypothesis on the WTC 7 collapse. If you haven't read their interim report on that building, you should:
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
The east mechanical penthouse collapsed
after massive internal collapses propagated to the roof from the lower levels. You're thinking that the penthouse collapsed for some reason and then damaged the structure below. NIST says the opposite: the damaged structure on the lower levels caused the penthouse to collapse. NIST's hypothesis makes sense when you look at diagrams of the building's structure.
I see. That was really naive of me, then. It's certainly obvious it collapsed because of the damage below, but I somehow thought the weight of the east penthouse was the one responsible for it (Damn those top-bottom collapses, they twist my mind).
Still, there's nothing much to account for damaging those columns. I agree where it says that it would be necessary only one (out of six) of those to destabilize the structure (or a conjunction along with the trusses), but according to the reports, none of these were hit (and that is based on approximate estimative) by the debris from the North Tower. Columns from below, which hadn't had their fireproofing removed, were weakened merely with fire? I find it hard to believe so. The only way I could see it is if the Truss #2 or the East Transfer Girder were damaged by the debris (talking about figure L-29), but still it's a long shot, because the estimative damage doesn't quite reach the girder, and barely hits the truss #2. I can't help but believe it's a low chance of being so.
Though I don't mind waiting for the final report, where they'll certainly further elaborate on the possibilities.
Wellll.... I always found it suspicious that cheney was wearing socks that day.
But it might have been just a coincidence.
That is a serious accusation. Can you provide proof/source? I think it's fairly obvious that if Cheney was wearing sock on that day, and only on that day, was because he knew something was going to happen. He knew it was his special day. Therefore, it can't be a coincidence that 3,000 Americans died on the same day he puts his socks on.
I for one believe most aspects of the official story but some things about it leave me at loose ends and not overwhelmingly convinced.
I would like to know if any of the regulars here (whose posts I've been reading for a few weeks now) are not 100% on any aspects of the official story pertaining to 9/11.
Hey, welcome bernit. You better take a standpoint fast because they're gonna shred you to bits if you don't.
Most of them know about flaws in the commission report, but they believe It's only the government trying to cover their back, after failing miserably at intercepting a hijacked plane. Ehm, I mean, three. Four? Well whatever. IMO, I could be so, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be signs of an Inside Job either. Overall it's not evidence for any account at all. If anything, it's indicates how they lie in our faces, and get away with it. But that it's a behavior well known for ages, I guess.
including somebody telling me I don't belong here.
YOU DONT BELONG HERE
