JoshEspi.Sonicworx

Conspiracy Theory: Will it forever remain a theory? (Remembering 9/11)

Its been five years now.. I still remember I was sitting by the sofa.. eating some junk food.. and i thought my folks were watching an action film or something..




A number of people have expressed skepticism about the official account of events surrounding the 9/11 attacks Various consperacy theories have been suggested to explain the events.

In an address to the U.N. on November 10, 2001, President Bush denounced the emergence of "outrageous conspiracy theories ... that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists." Since that time, a number of websites, books, and films have emerged in support of various theories, largely dependent on the Internet for promotion and distribution.

Although these theories received little attention in the major media following the attacks, by September of 2006, two major polls had indicated that half of New Yorkers believed US Leaders had foreknowledge of the attacks and "consciously failed" to act, and that one third of all Americans suspected a 9-11 government conspiracy. Consequently, just prior to the 5th anniversary of the attacks, a flurry of mainstream news articles on 9-11 conspiracy theories were released. In its coverage of the theories, Time Magazine stated, "This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality." Mainstream coverage generally presents these theories as a cultural phenomenon and is often very critical of their content.

At the same time, similar efforts were made by government agencies and the Bush Administration to refute 9/11 conspiracy theories, including a formal response by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to questions about the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers, a new State Department webpage to debunk the theories, and a strategy paper reference by George Bush in a September 6th speech which declares that terrorism springs from "subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation," and that "terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda."

Some have argued that the origin of the conspiracy theories is the official account itself since it involves more than one person in the planning and execution of crime. But for the purposes of this article it will be useful to distinguish the popular sense of the term from the legal sense. While al Quaeda did "conspire" to carry out the attacks according to the official version, the essential element of the popular sense of "conspiracy theory", which will be used here, is the presence of a network of powerful figures, working within the US government.

Since belief in the existence of such a network predates the 9/11 attacks, it may be argued that 9/11 conspiracy theories originated before the attacks themselves. Independent journalists like Alex Jones and Michael Ruppert, for example, who were already reporting on the covert operations of government agencies against US citizens, were not disposed to blaming an independent al-Qaeda for the attacks. Indeed, Jones says he predicted both the attacks themselves and the use of Osama bin Laden as "bogeyman" in July of 2001.

9/11 conspiracy theories generally start with dissatisfaction with the official explanation of 9/11. But criticism of the official story does not in and of itself constitute a conspiracy theory.

One non-conspiratorial set of criticism suggests merely that government agencies, including the military and intelligence communities, dealt incompetently with the 9/11 attacks. Such criticism may go as far as suggesting that the 9/11 Commission was a "cover-up" of those alleged incompetencies. Where claims are made that government agencies responded ineptly to prior warnings of the attacks, and that individuals responsible subsequently have attempted to gloss over these failings, no conspiracy to do so is necessarily implied.

While 9/11 conspiracy theories do often begin with similar indications that individuals within the government knew of the attacks before they happened, such theories then go further to suggest intentional activities that either facilitated or directly caused the attacks. There are two main categories of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

1. Key individuals within the government and defense establishment "let it happen on purpose" (LIHOP). That is, they knew the attacks were coming (though there is a range of opinion about how specific their knowledge was) and undertook to weaken America's defenses sufficiently to ensure a successful major terrorist attack on home soil.
2. Key individuals within the government and defense establishment "made it happen on purpose" (MIHOP). That is, they planned the attacks (and here there is a range of opinion about what the plan was) and ultimately carried it into action.

Some theories go on to identify the people who had the power to either make it or let it happen purposefully. This list of suspects also varies considerably across theories.

Shortly after the attacks, David Schippers, the chief prosecutor for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, stated that the government had been warned in 1995 about a future attack on a government building and that later he was contacted by three FBI agents who mentioned uncovering a possible terrorist attack planned for lower Manhattan.

• According to the story, as the agents informed their superiors they were briefed not to pursue the issue and threatened with prosecution. David Schippers declared, "Five weeks before the September 11 tragedy, I did my best to get a hold of Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft with my concerns." According to Mr. Schippers, Ashcroft responded that they do not start investigations at the top.
• Mr. Schippers has said the information dated back to a 1995 warning that indicated a possible terrorist attack planned for lower Manhattan using a nuclear device.
• Author William Norman Grigg furthered the Schippers story in his article "Did We Know What Was Coming?" According to the article, three unnamed veteran federal law enforcement agents confirmed "the information provided to Schippers was widely known within the Bureau before September 11."

Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) has asserted that over a year before the 9/11 attacks, a classified US intelligence unit known as " Able Danger" identified Mohammed Atta and three other future 9/11 hijackers as likely members of an Al Qaeda cell operating in the US. (Able Danger was a SOCOM exercise.)

• The team recommended that the information be shared with the FBI, but the military's Special Operations Command rejected the recommendation. (New York Times, Four in 9/11 Plot Are Called Tied to Qaeda in '00, 8/9/2005)
• Pentagon officials said they have found three more individuals who recall an intelligence chart identifying Mohamed Atta as a terrorist one year prior to the attacks.
• FBI agent and Al-Qaeda expert John P. O'neal warned of an Al-Qaeda threat to the United States in the year preceding the attacks. He retired from his position in mid 2001 after an undisclosed source leaked information to the New York Times about an investigation into an incident that had occurred 13 months earlier. He was then recruited to be chief of security at the W.T.C. His body was found in a staircase inside the south tower rubble.

• On September 12, 2001, The San Francisco Chronicle reported that San Franscisco Mayor Willie Brown may have gotten an early warning of the attack, because Brown had said a phone call from his airport security eight hours before the attacks advised him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel. He did not cancel his flight plans until he became aware of the attacks.
• Of the call, Brown said it "didn't come in any alarming fashion, which is why I'm hesitant to make an alarming statement. It was not an abnormal call. I'm always concerned if my flight is going to be on time, and they always alert me when I ought to be careful."

Allegations of insider trading by people with foreknowledge

News accounts in the aftermath reported a suspicious pattern of trading in the options of United and American Airlines as well as Morgan Stanley and other unusual market activity.

• In a statement to the 9/11 Commission in 2003, Mindy Kleinberg, of the 9/11 Steering Comittee said:

"Never before on the Chicago Exchange were such large amounts of United and American Airlines options traded. These investors netted a profit of at least $5 million after the September 11th attacks. Interestingly, the names of the investors remain undisclosed and the $5 million remains unclaimed in the Chicago Exchange account."

However, according to the 9/11 Commission, the SEC and FBI examined each trade, the trades were innocuous, and no evidence of a connection was found:

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, that recommended these trades.

• Numerous conspiracy theorists express doubts that the Commission was actually able to explain worldwide trading patterns around the 9/11 attacks.

World Trade Center towers

Overview

The the collapse of the World Trade Center was a surprise to the engineering community. "No experienced structural engineer watching the attack," wrote Zdenek P. Bazant and Mathieu Verdure, "expected the WTC towers to collapse. They also noted that no skyscraper had ever before collapsed due to fire. Osama Bin Laden has also said the best he had hoped for was the collapse of floors above the point of attack. The task for engineers has been to explain how the local damage caused by the airplanes was able to bring on a global progressive collapse.

While an explanation has now been "generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering," Bazant and Verdure also identify a dissenting view, which is held by "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives". Indeed, the "controlled demolition hypothesis," which was explicitly rejected by the official NIST report, plays a central, albeit not essential, role in the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11.

Van Romero, a demolitions expert in New Mexico, at first said that the collapses looked "too methodical" to have been brought on by the impacts and subsequent fires and proposed explosives in the building to account for the images he saw on television. He later retracted his suggestion and insisted elsewhere that he had "only said that that's what it looked like." Jeff King and Jim Hoffman were early defenders of the controlled demolition hypothesis and published their observations online. David Ray Griffin included it in his comprehensive survey of anomalies in the official story. It received its most notable proponent to date in early 2006, when Steven E. Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University, argued that a "gravity driven collapse "(i.e., one without explosives) would , according to him, defy the laws of physics and fail to account for the full range of available evidence.

There is a range of opinion about the most likely sort of explosives, the way they were distributed, and how they were successfully brought into the building. Proponents of the hypothesis sometimes cite reports of unusual power outages, maintenance work and emergency drills in the weeks leading up to 9/11. Like any controlled demolition, the role of the explosives would have been to remove the main structural supports in order to let gravity and the weight of the building do the rest. Many today follow Steven Jones in suggesting thermite perhaps in combination with other devices.

Proponents of the controlled demolition hypothesis argue that it better explains the data than the official account, as presented in the NIST report and various engineering papers. They often emphasise the speed (near freefall), symmetry and completeness of the collapses; the reported sounds of explosions going off before the collapses began; the shooting out of debris and smoke (so called "squibs") in the videos of collapses; and reports of molten metal. They also argue that the fires were not hot enough, and did not burn long enough, to significantly weaken the steel in the buildings to a point of collapse. Finally, they say that WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane, also collapsed on that day, displaying many of the features of a controlled demolition.

The total progressive collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 have not been modelled with the intention of either refuting or proving the controlled demolition hypothesis. The NIST report provided a finite element analysis of the structural response of the building up to the point of where "collapse was inevitable" due to the "enormous" weight of the buildings above the damaged floors, but did not similuate the structural response of the lower floors, which are of primary interest to supporters of the demolition theory. Bazant and Zhou had provided some rough estimates to support this characterization, concluding that the weight was at least an "order of magnitude" over that required to occasion total collapse. This was then reaffirmed by Bazant and Verdure. Alternative calculations of the forces involved have been produced to suggest the oppositive conclusion, namely, that the structure underneath the impacts should have easily withstood the failure of the top floors, stopping the progress of the collapses, in which case the tops of the buildings would have, at most, 'fallen off' the towers, rather than straight through them.^[40] Such analyses have not found their way into any academic engineering discussions.

There is widespread agreement, however, about the significance of the controlled demolition hypothesis, even among those who don't endorse it specifically or conspiracy theories in general. The necessary explosives could only have been planted well in advance of the September 11 attacks and would have required extraordinary access to three highly secured buildings. These housed not only some of the most important financial infrastructure in the United States, but offices of government agencies. If it were to be demonstrated that the collapses were in fact demolitions, it would give much credibility to the idea that 9/11 was an "inside job".

Much of the support for the controlled demolition theory comes from interpretations of videos and photographs. Some eyewitnesses also reported seeing, hearing and feeling multiple explosions, and explosions in sequence. Many conspiracy theorists have highlighted the following as evidence for the theory that planted explosives brought down the WTC towers:

New leaseholder

Building 7 owner, leaseholder, insurance policy holder for the remainder of the WTC Complex Larry Silverstein has come under scrutiny by 9/11 conspiracy theorists for at least two reasons. One being a statement he made in a documentary which conspiracy theorists say is suggestive of the intentional demolition of Building 7, and one being the timing of his bids and potential financial gains he was likely to make with the loss of the buildings.

Financial gains from Towers' destruction

As stated on the Larry Silverstein page:

In January 2001, Silverstein, via Silverstein Properties and Westfield America, made a $3.2 billion bid for the lease to the World Trade Center. . . . Silverstein's bid for the lease to the World Trade Center closed on July 24, 2001, just seven weeks before the buildings were destroyed in the 9/11 attacks.

The insurance policy also contained a clause that in the event of a terrorist attack, the partnership could collect the insured value of the property and be released from their obligations under the 99-year lease.

Controlled-demolition theory

The NIST reports did not analyze the actual pattern of the WTC's collapse; the scope of the investigations was limited to the events leading up to the collapse: "The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. [This report] includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable." The FEMA Report some say, also did not analyze the actual pattern of the collapse.

Skeptics of the progressive collapse, or "pancake" theory, say that there is ample evidence that the towers collapsed due to the systematic destruction of internal supports. Jim Hoffma, a conspiracy theorist and software engineer, says that the telltale signs of controlled demolition, present in the WTC collapse, are:

Radial symmetry: The Towers came straight down, blowing debris symmetrically in all directions.

• Rapid descent: The Towers came down just slightly slower than the rate of free fall in a vacuum.
• Demolition waves: The Towers were consumed by synchronized rows of confluent explosions.
• Demolition squibs: The Towers exhibited high-velocity gas ejections well below the descending rubble.
• Pulverization: The Towers' non-metallic components, such as their concrete floors, were pulverized into fine dust.
• Totality: The Towers were destroyed totally, their steel skeletons shredded into short pieces, most less than 30 feet long.
• Molten metal: A stream of liquid metal was videotaped flowing out of the corner of 2 WTC moments before collapse, and eyewitnesses observed and reported pools of molten metal in all three rubble piles.
  

Steven E. Jones, a physics professor at Brighham Young University, and Judy Wood, a mechanical engineer at Clemson University, say that without the use of explosives to destroy the buildings' internal support structure, the fall of the towers violates conservation of momentum. In addition, Dr. Jones says the angular momentum of the top of the South Tower as it began to collapse could not simply disappear, unless the center of mass of the top was somehow shattered and destroyed. In addition, he says that the collapse of the towers at near free-fall speed indicates that the central core below the impact zone had lost its structural integrity and provided almost no resistance to the falling debris. The theory is also advocated by Jones's group, Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

The NIST responds that they do not support the Pancake Theory either. Rather, the

"WTC towers collapsed because:

"(1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and

"(2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower."

The NIST also concludes that the momentum of the upper level structures was so large that the lower level structures would offer little resistance and therefore the building would fall at nearly the free fall rate. The building's structure was only designed to support the static load, not the dynamic forces of collapse.

Molten metal

In the weeks and months after the collapse, there were reports of workers pulling steel beams from the burning rubbles of the WTC, dripping with molten metal. According to reports by FEMA and NIST, molten metal dripped out of the South Tower just before it collapsed. Having analyzed the color of the molten metal,Steven E. Jones believes the metal was at least 1000°C. Others claim the molten metal may simply be aluminum from the aircraft, which melts at about 650°C. Jones has rejected that theory, as according to him molten aluminum is a poor emitter of black body radiation and should appear silvery-gray under daylight conditions. According to Jones, the presence of molten metal at 1000°C would contradict the mainstream collapse hypothesis, according to which that fires in the buildings reached temperatures high enough to weaken the steel, but not to melt it.

In addition to the molten metal, the initial FEMA investigation team found sulfur on parts on the structural steel in the towers and 7 WTC.FEMA was unable to find the source of sulfur, and the NIST report does not mention it. Conspiracy theorists including Steven Jones believe this sulfide may have been caused by the use of a thermite reaction to melt and destroy the steel within the structure. Others have suggested the sulfur originated from gypsum wallboard.

Thermite reactions can reach temperatures of up to 4500°F (2500°C), well beyond the temperature (approximately 1500°C) required to melt structural steel, and with the addition of sulfur can cause an eutectic reaction within such steel. Such a eutectic reaction was observed at WTC and according to professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. was "capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." Thermite could explain the presence of the aforementioned molten metal seen dripping out of the South Tower. Steven E. Jones believes this metal is actually molten iron, a byproduct of the thermite reaction.

The NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning. Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. According to NIST, the apparent color could have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

In response to NIST, Steven E. Jones says he conducted experiments to test NIST's "orange glow" hypothesis. He says that by using several different approaches to mixing organics into molten aluminum, he found that organic material refused to mix and, instead, floated to the top. He says when the mixture was poured, the molten aluminum remained silvery, not orange (with the exception of rougue embers). He claims the outcome of these experiments directly contradict what he describes as NIST's theory that the molten metal seen pouring from the World Trade Center consisted of aluminum alloys.

Symmetry and Squibs

1, 2, and 7 WTC also fell straight down with, according to 9/11 conspiracy theorists, remarkable symmetry. Without explosives, they say, this symmetry would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. 9/11 conspiracy theorists of the collapses also point to photographs and videos of what they believe are demolition "squibs", which are tightly focused horizontal plumes of smoke and debris being ejected from the twin towers during the collapse. The official theory is that the squibs were merely the ejection of material due to the evacuation of air as the floors collapsed; the plumes, however, appear approximately 10 stories below the area of main destruction and are ejected only from the centers of the towers. These plumes appear in both towers, at regular intervals, and from multiple camera angles. Conspiracy theorists say the presence of these squibs indicate secondary explosive devices, activated just ahead of the collapsing material, removing the structural support and allowing total collapse. Some 9/11 conspiracy theorists also believe that squibs were seen in the destruction of 7 WTC, running rapidly up the Southwest corner of the building. They argue that while a possible theory is that the 7 WTC squibs simply result from the floors collapsing, the time between the events is much too rapid to be due to gravitational acceleration.

Ejected debris

Griders of weight up to 4 tons each were ejected sidewards and found 600 feet from the WTC2. A calculation of ejection speed needed for girders to land so far away is used as an argument for explosives blowing up inside.

Oral History Support for Demolition

As evidence of controlled demolition, some 9/11 conspiracy theorists point to eyewitness descriptions of the events before the collapse of the towers which appeared consistent with explosives, such as "It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions," and "You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down," etc.

In addition, William Rodriguez, a high profile survivor was located in the basement of the North tower, when he reported a large explosion on Sublevel B3, before the plane impacted. Rodriguez escaped the building, and escorted several people to safety.

His testimony was told to the 9/11 commission, but no explanation was ever given for the explosions.

Molecular and Chemical Support for Demolition

Recently, Professor Steven Jones conducted molecular analyses to ascertain the presence of explosive residues on steel samples from Ground Zero and in the released dust and indicates that chemicals consistent with thermate are present. Other environmental studies have been done on the particulate matter and dust released by the collapse (including a study by the DELTA group at UC Davis), and none have indicated the presence of explosive residue.

Pulverization

Software engineer Jim Hoffman suggests that gravity alone exerts too little energy to explain the pulverization of non-metallic building contents into fine powder, or to explain the yroclastic flow-like cloud of dust which billowed down the streets of lower Manhattan in all directions.

Lack of Collapse Precedents

Furthermore, since no steel high-rise building has suffered a total collapse as the result of fire before or since the 9-11 attack, theorists allege the collapse of 1, 2, and 7 WTC are anomalies. The WTC towers burned for less than 102 min (1 WTC) and 56 minutes (2 WTC), during which both towers were stable after the impacts. Theorists consider the following hi-rise fires to be the most similar for comparative purposes:

• 1 New York Plaza (1970) - burned for more than 6 hours, no collapse.
• First Interstate Bank (1988) - burned for 3 1/2 hours, gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower, no collapse.
• One Meridian Plaza (1991) - burned for 18 hours, gutted 8 floors of the 38 floor building, no collapse; later had to be demolished.
• Torre Este de Parque Central (Venezuela) (2004) - burned for more than 17 hours, spread to over 26 floors, no collapse.
• The Madrid Windsor Tower (2005) - a partial collapse of some steel sections building while the concrete framework prevented a complete collapse.

Some 9/11 conspiracy theorists say these fires are particularly relevant to WTC which was not struck by planes and which suffered damage only from fires and falling debris from the collapse of 1 and 2 WTC.

The Caracas Tower, First Interstate Bank and 1 New York Plaza were constructed using the conventional steel girder system consisting of a grid of steel columns and trusses connecting the columns. The Windsor Tower, however, was constructed with concrete columns and a concrete core for the first 16 floors, steel girder and concrete core for the floors above that, and two additional concrete slabs to provide additional strength.

Steel temperatures

Conspiracy theorists have compared the heat of the fires in the twin towers and the fires' effect on steel to actual fire tests in open sided car parks carried out by steel manufacturer Corus (formerly British Steel) on unprotected steel beams. The highest recorded steel temperatures in open sided car parks when exposed to the hydrocarbon-fuelled fires was 360°C, well below the estimated 800°C temperature of the steel supports in the twin towers (which were not open sided car parks) at the time of the fires.

Several studies made by NIST also showed that temperatures were relatively low. Paint study show that neither perimeter, nor core columns were exposed to temperatures exceeding 615°C for longer than 15 minutes and mostly temperatures were below 250°C.

Independent experiments and fire models (or "standard fires") used to evaluate the integrity of structural components demonstrate that hydrocarbon fuels are capable of producing temperatures of 1100°C, and even more when a mix of flammable materials such as office furniture is present. However, these tests do not necessarily duplicate the conditions of real fires, or the behaviour of materials exposed to real fires, and are used primarily as a means of rating materials by using a standardised testing procedure.

Attempts to Debunk Conspiracy Theories

Those attempting to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories have compared the WTC collapses to the Ronan Point disaster, in which one corner of Ronan Point collapsed after a gas explosion. Although Ronan Point was found to be structurally unsound (unsafe), the building did not totally collapse. 9/11 Conspiracy theorist Jim Hoffman has said that the section of the Ronan Point building that collapsed were nonstructural - the short cantilever sections were supported by the building's main structure, making any comparison with the WTC towers unsound. Hoffman states, "The problem with the progressive collapse theory is that it's very difficult to actually build something that will exhibit this behavior."

Following pressure from technical experts, industry leaders and families of victims, the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology conducted a three year $24 million investigation into the structural failure and progressive collapse of several WTC complex structures. The study included in-house technical expertise and drew upon the knowledge of several outside private institutions for aid to include:

• Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers
• Society of Fire Protection Engineers
• National Fire Protection Association
• American Institute of Steel Construction
• Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
  
• Structural Engineers Association of New York

Opponents of the demolition theory cite this government report which presented evidence on how and why the buildings collapsed. The report also said that "NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001." Though this report said there was no such evidence, professor Steven Jones, as well as others, continue to say that it did not address any of the specific analysis arguing for the demolition hypothesis.

• The FEMA and NIST reports have yet to resolve all disagreements among engineers. Although not advocating the theory that a controlled demolition occurred, New Civil Engineer published several articles regarding the collapse. One such article, Row Erupts Over Why Twin Towers Collapsed, cites one party saying "the towers would have collapsed after a major fire on three floors at once, even with fireproofing in place and without any damage from plane impact". Another quote from the same article states, "World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers…Visualizations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the investigators.”
• In addition to the above articles, other theorists continue to say critical aspects of the NIST report in the engineering community. In 2005 fire engineers B. Lane and S. Lamont stated: "This lower reliance on passive fire protection is in contrast to the NIST work where the amount of fire protection on the truss elements is believed to be a significant factor in defining the time to collapse. There is no evidence in NIST's preliminary report that this is backed up by structural modeling in response to fire. It appears that only heat transfer modeling considering different levels of fire protection have been carried out and the failure of the individual elements has been related to loss in strength and stiffness only. Thermal expansion and the response of the whole frame to this effect has not been described as yet."
• In August of 2006, NIST produced a webpage titled Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, which addressed many of the questions pertaining to the demolition theory. 9/11 conspiracy theorist Jim Hoffman responded to the FAQ with his report, A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's Answers to Frequently Asked Questions.

Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, head of the institute’s Trade Center report, recently addressed many of the issues 9-11 conspiracy theorists have with the study. Dr. Sunder replied, "Yes. I am sympathetic. But our report . . . it is extensive. We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who’s Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can’t worry about that. Facts are facts.”

I've come to this point wherein I totally as in TOTALLY don't know what to do with my life.. HELP! Anyone?

This is freakin' scary!!! Ohhh The Horror!!!

people come people go.. thats life.. nothings permanent.. one day we'll just past away.. never knowing what hit us.. and if we'll ever walk this part again.. so swift.. one second you're up.. next you're at your worst.. so mysterious no one knows what tommorow may bring.. so while you're at your best do everything you wanna do.. cuz no one knows if there really is a cross road.. and if ever there is.. you dont know where it may lead..

i hate mondays! i dont know why.. i just hate it period..

One of my childhood deams fulfilled..

Yay D.j. na ako!!! hehe for those within pangasinan area.. do catch me on air uhmm sa month ng july 5 days ako mag gueguest d.j. sa 93.5 campus radio dagupan.. will be aired mondays to saturdays 1pm to 3pm sa segment na talk to papa.. =)

The War

I thought it would start at the exact date.. I under estimated the enemy.. The attacks were launched thousands of years ago.. But the battle that was about to to take place today, had been started months before.. I was caught off-guard.. what kind of soldier I am? I even gave in to thier bribe.. I must be ashame of myself.. but still I was given a second chance.. a second chance I wont waste.. I was given this task by Him.. so whom shall I fear???

*A war is going on.. war between light and darkness.. whose side are you in?*

LEAD ME NOT INTO TEMPTATION.. AND DELIVER US.. ..

Meet "missjoshie" my in-game character

"missjoshie" my lucky charm.. same game, eagle at hole 9 of 18 holes

www.pangya.com.ph

quite busy.. semi finals kasi.. and busy doing our mirc channel's webbie www.manilawebmaster.tripod.com or www.manilachatzone.cjb.net uhmm.. marami ako natatanggap na email about may december post.. kung sino daw ung girl.. unfair naman kung mag iisip kau na si ganito or si ganyan ung girl.. now to clear things up eto first name nya.. Nadine.. there sana matahimik na tong issue na to and hope wag na tayo mag isip ng masama about people who got nothing to do with this un lang po =) ..happy summer!!