Why did we need to waste money on NIST investigation ?

Originally posted by maxella1
I personally don't like these types of theories very much.

Neither do I, but you can't deny they get posted and that people do believe them. Let's Roll forums for example, promotes the idea that the towers were empty and perhaps even hollow. Just because you consider yourself rational doesn't mean the people you're discussing are.

I agree that MSM is not on the side of the truth, they spin all kinds of things all the time.

The term 'MSM' is untruthful in itself, The BBC is a British publicly owned broadcaster for example. While it's true that some news agencies have their own agenda, there's no evidence or even indication of why they would go along with such an insane plan.

Pull it means pull with cables. I assure you that when firefighters are ordered to evacuate, they do not say 'Pull it" Firefighters don't consider other firefighters as objects. And Larry Silverstien wouldn't be asked by FDNY if it was okay to evacuate WTC 7. Whoever he was talking to did not ask him if they should save the lives of FDNY firefighters.

I agree entirely, but again this doesn't change the fact that many if not most people here will claim that 'pull it' means demolish the building with explosives. This of course would directly implicate the FDNY.

I do have a theory and when I post it you always implicate FDNY and NYPD, i never do. My theory is that your theory which is the mainstream theory is false and based on lies, and used to cover up crimes against the FDNY, NYPD, PANYNJ, private EMS workers, and ordinary innocent civilians.

This is not a theory. A theory must be something which is testable and can meet criteria. This is purely a hypothesis, and it's not based on any solid evidence. I know this because I've been debating 911 for something like 6 years now and I have heard every theory under the sun. The most convincing evidence I ever heard has been totally debunked by my research, and all I see now is the same old rubbish repeated endlessly.

I don't mean you any animosity, and I am truly sorry if you just have legitimate doubts and I have lumped you in with the 'true believer' crowd. However, you must understand it from 'our' perspective. For many years the standard 'truther' behaviour has been to join a forum and ask some questions like 'what caused all the dust we saw'? They'll then be given a reasonable answer (as you have been) of something like 'there was a large amount of powdery fireproofing and lots of gypsum in the towers, and fractured concrete contributed significantly'. They will then proceed to say something like 'no there was too much dust' and refuse to ever move from this point without providing evidence.

I hope this isn't what you are doing, and I am more than happy to discuss any topic with you as long as you don't resort to this 'denialist' argument style.

What possible photograph can you show me to change my mind ? The story is a complete lie and no photograph is going to change that fact.

No excuse for why the attack was allowed is going to change the fact that nobody except the innocent paid for it

It depends on your beliefs. Do you believe that it was simply 'allowed to happen'? If so then surely you have no problem with believing the dust created was normal? If you want to go for some of the 'lighter' LIHOP theories then I will have no argument for you. If you want to say that there was an element of intentional stand down, or controlled demolition etc, then you are wrong, and I can explain why in excruciating detail lol

The "complaint that's being levied" is not that it looks too dusty, it's what pulverized the steel and other solid material if it was a purely gravitational building collapse? unless you are saying that it wasn't pulverized at all?

The steel was not 'pulverized'. Most of everything else was, but that's what tens of thousands of tons of concrete and steel at excessive speeds will do. It essentially formed a gigantic concrete grinder that ripped everything apart. It's not something I think even possible to intuitively imagine.

PS. Someone starred this post between me posting and editing it? Are you serious? Don't just star my posts because of my history or whatever. Star them if you read them and agree with them. I think it's clear by now I don't care how many stars I have so please don't just star my posts without thinking.

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by exponent

 

The complaint that's being levied is that it looks too dusty is not evidence of anything. For a start you have no alternate cause for the dust that would make any sense. It's not even been established with any reliability that there was too much dust.

The "complaint that's being levied" is not that it looks too dusty, it's what pulverized the steel and other solid material if it was a purely gravitational building collapse? unless you are saying that it wasn't pulverized at all?

Did you know that almost all of the steel in the WTC had fireproofing on it. Did you know that after the collapse almost none of the steel had fireproofing on it. Thats the real mystery.... What Happened To All That Fireproofing ??? Where all the dust came from is unimportant.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Dustification does not mean 100% of the steel was dustified. There were 100,000 tons in each tower.

The dustification can be seen in the "partial collapse" of The Spire.

Collapsing structural supports doesn't mean it was "dustified" simply because you don't casn't see what was happening to the steel. What it DOES mean, is that the steel went down with the rest of the building and you're making up junk physics to complement your own lack of knowledge.

Case in point- the term "dustification" is nothing but a meaningless trutherism invented by Judy Wood. Do a google search and you will see this term exists nowhere outside of conspiracy mongor world.

Go back to dropping bowling balls on balloons. At least that was entertaining.

Why is that entertaining? By your own logic if the resistance of the balloon is an unknown it had to mean it was impossible for the bowling ball to squash the balloon. all I did is poitn out the absurdity of the claim as you're applying it to the collapse of the towers and you run away from it just like you do everything else you can't explain...which seems to be pretty much everything I ask you. What was your background in physics, again?

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Yes..... THE AMOUNT OF DUST.

And the amount of dust was ____________?
And the appropriate amount of dust is _________?
And this is based on the following calculations ____________________________.


Mount Saint Helen's - Massive Energy Release

Are you seriously suggesting the towers were destroyed by secret government volcanos?

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Just as I thought. No comment from the LIAR camp about the uncanny resemblance between a "pancake collapse" and a nuclear bomb cloud.

It's probably because it's as goofy a comment as claiming there's an uncanny resemblance between the towers collapsing and a volcano eruption. All of Manhattan would be turned into molten glass and the first responders vaporised.. Plus, everyone entering the site would be coming down with Lukemia from the radiation. So how exactly is it an uncanny resemblance?

...and people ask why we need to waste money on a NIST investigation. For one thing, NIST doesn't wander off into pointless fantasia like this.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Just as I thought. No comment from the LIAR camp about the uncanny resemblance between a "pancake collapse" and a nuclear bomb cloud.

Because it doesn't resemble it at all. Funny how you accuse people of being liars but then you post an explosion next to a collapse and select the pictures that look most alike. In reality the 'mushroom cloud' shape was caused by the dust and debris at the top being sucked down by the towers collapse. This is clearly visible on videos and no large objects have any upward trajectory. Completely the opposite of a nuclear demolition.

Instead, we get this:
Really? How many people over there believe that? Did one or two people postulate a theory, and as usual, you use things like this to say that the entire site promotes such a belief? Is that on their "about us" statement?

Ah yes of course, I'm just lying about it. It's not that they have a whole forum dedicated to this topic? It's not that it is posted and supported by the owner? Oh no because Simon guesses so, that must be wrong.

Do your research please. I'm not going to do it all for you.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by exponent

The term 'MSM' is untruthful in itself, The BBC is a British publicly owned broadcaster for example. While it's true that some news agencies have their own agenda, there's no evidence or even indication of why they would go along with such an insane plan.

I have no desire to argue about this, but I will ask you to read THIS and make up your own mind if the media can be trusted.

I agree entirely, but again this doesn't change the fact that many if not most people here will claim that 'pull it' means demolish the building with explosives. This of course would directly implicate the FDNY.

If you agree with me then you must have the same question as I do, Who was Silverstein talking to and what they agreed to pull?

This is not a theory. A theory must be something which is testable and can meet criteria. This is purely a hypothesis, and it's not based on any solid evidence. I know this because I've been debating 911 for something like 6 years now and I have heard every theory under the sun. The most convincing evidence I ever heard has been totally debunked by my research, and all I see now is the same old rubbish repeated endlessly.

Okay It is my hypothesis that you believe a theory which is not true and used to cover up the crimes against innocent people.

I don't mean you any animosity, and I am truly sorry if you just have legitimate doubts and I have lumped you in with the 'true believer' crowd. However, you must understand it from 'our' perspective.

I'm sorry I do not understand... Who are you representing when you say "our" perspective?

For many years the standard 'truther' behaviour has been to join a forum and ask some questions like 'what caused all the dust we saw'? They'll then be given a reasonable answer (as you have been) of something like 'there was a large amount of powdery fireproofing and lots of gypsum in the towers, and fractured concrete contributed significantly'. They will then proceed to say something like 'no there was too much dust' and refuse to ever move from this point without providing evidence.

I will say it one more time.. I have been at buildings collapses many times in my life. I have never even heard that in a purely gravitational collapse any part of solid material ever get pulverized. In the case of the WTC collapses large portions were pulverized. I'm not talking about the dust, It's what is in the dust that is strange to me, in this video they say that large portions of steel is turned into dust.

It depends on your beliefs. Do you believe that it was simply 'allowed to happen'? If so then surely you have no problem with believing the dust created was normal? If you want to go for some of the 'lighter' LIHOP theories then I will have no argument for you. If you want to say that there was an element of intentional stand down, or controlled demolition etc, then you are wrong, and I can explain why in excruciating detail lol

You see this is where It becomes a big problem for me.. What do you mean 'simply allowed to happen"? If that is what happened then they ( who allowed it ) must be held accountable. If they allowed it at all, why wouldn't they allow explosives to be installed in the building?

The government is # 1 suspect because no matter how you look at it members of the government screwed up intentionally or unintentionally it doesn't even make a difference, but None of them paid any kind of consequences.

reply to post by SimontheMagus


I'm just going to report this post because all you do is call me a liar and don't even bother to address anything I said. You're selecting the clips that look most similar despite the lack of any logic to back it up. Try debating honestly for once.

Originally posted by maxella1
I have no desire to argue about this, but I will ask you to read THIS and make up your own mind if the media can be trusted.

I'm well aware this has happened, but this is a long way from 'oh they want us to run these specific words when a terrorist attack happens'. Keeping that quiet would be literally impossible (in my opinion)

If you agree with me then you must have the same question as I do, Who was Silverstein talking to and what they agreed to pull?

He was talking to a 'fire department commander'. What was pulled was almost certainly the 'firefighting operation'. This is something referred to as a 'it' and nobody would be making these crazy allegations if he said "pack it in" rather than "pull it". They mean the same thing however.

Okay It is my hypothesis that you believe a theory which is not true and used to cover up the crimes against innocent people.

You have no evidence for this, and the evidence opposing you is extremely strong. Despite a decade of research virtually no evidence of anything untoward has been found whatsoever. The only evidence that has been found points to covering up incompetence or arrogance, rather than direct interference.

I'm sorry I do not understand... Who are you representing when you say "our" perspective?

The general perspective of debunkers on this site and elsewhere. We often share many beliefs and frustrations, as there is a very typical 'truther' argument style. Again I don't want to accuse you directly.

I will say it one more time.. I have been at buildings collapses many times in my life. I have never even heard that in a purely gravitational collapse any part of solid material ever get pulverized.

How many building collapses have you attended that were
a) over 30 storeys high
b) fully occupied (in terms of office furniture etc).

These events are rare and nothing remotely approaching the size of the WTCs has ever collapsed before. It is a first in history.

In the case of the WTC collapses large portions were pulverized. I'm not talking about the dust, It's what is in the dust that is strange to me, in this video they say that large portions of steel is turned into dust.

Note the very first words in this video: "Three days ago". Do you not think there are better sources than a report a few days into the investigation? Indeed they say the largest constituents of the dust were "Gypsum, Cement dust, Plaster". The amount of steel 'pulverised' is extremely small, and probably consists primarily of the floor pans and lightest trusses and the subsequent research backs this up.

You see this is where It becomes a big problem for me.. What do you mean 'simply allowed to happen"? If that is what happened then they ( who allowed it ) must be held accountable. If they allowed it at all, why wouldn't they allow explosives to be installed in the building?

That's the same as saying 'if bush authorised an airstrike, surely he'd be ok with stabbing these people in the guts and watching them die'. The two events are of dramatically different magnitude. Perhaps they let it happen through incompetence rather than malice? Perhaps they thought airliners would be landed and threats would be made as had happened in the past? There are many many options but no suggestion that they would resort to wholesale murder. That requires evidence, which currently does not seem to exist.

The government is # 1 suspect because no matter how you look at it members of the government screwed up intentionally or unintentionally it doesn't even make a difference, but None of them paid any kind of consequences.

I thought you wanted to find out what happened though, not hang those responsible for all to see. It's not that I'm against investigation, just that I think that it's hard to put blame on one particular person. I think there's more important things Bush should be tried on, like Iraq.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
You really are quite a comedian Dave. The common denominator is the amount of heat in the cloud. In my opinion, volcanoes as the source of heat this intense are no worse than your fairy tale, that it came from the ensuing office fires from jet fuel that burned off in the first 30 seconds after impact.

Somehow, some way, these office fires not only survived the collapse but became underground molten infernos that burned at thousands of degrees Fahrenheit for weeks and weeks.

You are making as much sense as Jar Jar Binks did in helping along the plotline of the Star Wars prequels. The clouds of dust didn't cause the collapse of the building- the collapse of the building caused the clouds of dust, and the "molten inferno" didn't cause the underground fires- the underground fires caused the "molten inferno".

I don't know how much heat there was in the cloud of dust...but then I really don't care. This is one of those type of "how many toilet seats were up vs how many were down" frovolous issues that serves to obfuscate the research rather than expound on it. Seriously, what difference does the temperatures of the cloud make on whether or not German intelligence reported Mohammed Atta was in contact with Al Qaids operatives in Hamburg?

Yeah....sure.... read me another story Daddy

Sure. The story of "Chicken Little" and his instigating abject paranoia over frivolous things come immediately to mind.

reply to post by exponent

Keeping that quiet would be literally impossible (in my opinion)

First it hasn't been kept quiet. If it was we wouldn't be having this conversation. Enough mistakes were made to get people questioning the whole thing, many has come out and exposed the cover up by the government.
Compared to other major cover ups like the Gulf of Tomkin, we are learning the truth about 9/11 a lot faster.
You just refuse to admit that it's true, for reasons i can't even imagine.

He was talking to a 'fire department commander'. What was pulled was almost certainly the 'firefighting operation'. This is something referred to as a 'it' and nobody would be making these crazy allegations if he said "pack it in" rather than "pull it". They mean the same thing however.

Do you know the name of the FDNY commander by any chance? Almost certainly the fire commander would not consult Larry Silverstien in making this decision. And also the context of that statement makes it even stranger. in my opinion.

You have no evidence for this, and the evidence opposing you is extremely strong. Despite a decade of research virtually no evidence of anything untoward has been found whatsoever. The only evidence that has been found points to covering up incompetence or arrogance, rather than direct interference.

Reading your previous posts makes me think that even if Bush said that he knew about it and didn't stop it on purpose, you would find an excuse for him anyway. It's just my personal observation of the debunkers in general.

How many building collapses have you attended that were a) over 30 storeys high b) fully occupied (in terms of office furniture etc). These events are rare and nothing remotely approaching the size of the WTCs has ever collapsed before. It is a first in history.

Yes they are rare, thanks God. But it still doesn't explain how steel is turned into dust by gravitational collapse.
I find it very strange.

The amount of steel 'pulverised' is extremely small, and probably consists primarily of the floor pans and lightest trusses and the subsequent research backs this up.

Who said the amount is extremely small? and where can I confirm it?

That's the same as saying 'if bush authorised an airstrike, surely he'd be ok with stabbing these people in the guts and watching them die'. The two events are of dramatically different magnitude. Perhaps they let it happen through incompetence rather than malice? Perhaps they thought airliners would be landed and threats would be made as had happened in the past? There are many many options but no suggestion that they would resort to wholesale murder. That requires evidence, which currently does not seem to exist.

What is the difference how they kill people? Killing is killing anyway you look at it. If they let the terrorists carry out the attack, why would they care how they are going to kill people? It's not like Bush personally did it, so whats the difference?

There are many options and none suggest that they would not resort to wholesale murder.. How many killed in Iraq for no reason?

I thought you wanted to find out what happened though, not hang those responsible for all to see. It's not that I'm against investigation, just that I think that it's hard to put blame on one particular person. I think there's more important things Bush should be tried on, like Iraq.

So you think it was only one particular person responsible? How do we make sure this doesn't happen again if you don't want to find who was responsible? Is that person or persons still working in the same position as on or before 9/11?

You debunkers make no sense. You demand evidence of guilt and then dismiss the evidence provided. Innocent people do not cover up their activities leading up to murder. Incompetence is not going to go away if it's not dealt with. There is such a thing as criminal negligence, 9/11 was the result of it -- in the best case scenario.

Originally posted by maxella1
First it hasn't been kept quiet. If it was we wouldn't be having this conversation. Enough mistakes were made to get people questioning the whole thing, many has come out and exposed the cover up by the government.

But this isn't true at all. Nobody has come out and said "I was required to read out this statement" even though many of the people (including the BBC people you refer to) have since been interviewed. How were they silenced considering they're foreigners working for a public broadcaster?

Compared to other major cover ups like the Gulf of Tomkin, we are learning the truth about 9/11 a lot faster.
You just refuse to admit that it's true, for reasons i can't even imagine.

Because I've spent years and years researching the truth movement and investigating the claims within. As a result I have no reason to believe any 'truth' that indicates direct involvement exists.

Do you know the name of the FDNY commander by any chance? Almost certainly the fire commander would not consult Larry Silverstien in making this decision. And also the context of that statement makes it even stranger. in my opinion.

As far as I know nobody has worked out the name yet. Indeed the commander in charge (Daniel Nigro) did not consult Silverstein, and Silverstein himself says 'they made the decision'. It does not seem strange to me at all that a building owner would talk to the people trying to save his building.

Reading your previous posts makes me think that even if Bush said that he knew about it and didn't stop it on purpose, you would find an excuse for him anyway. It's just my personal observation of the debunkers in general.

Utter nonsense. I don't think I've ever seen a single 'debunker' defend Bush. Quote it or retract it please.

Yes they are rare, thanks God. But it still doesn't explain how steel is turned into dust by gravitational collapse.
I find it very strange.

What do you find strange? The floor pans were an acre in size and made of extremely thin steel, they were located over a thousand feet in the air and fell the whole distance colliding with concrete and steel. you also didn't answer my questions:
How many building collapses have you attended that were
a) over 30 storeys high
b) fully occupied (in terms of office furniture etc).

Who said the amount is extremely small? and where can I confirm it?

I believe you can find reports here: speclab.cr.usgs.gov... but I don't have the direct URL to hand. Please let me know if you have any questions.

What is the difference how they kill people? Killing is killing anyway you look at it. If they let the terrorists carry out the attack, why would they care how they are going to kill people? It's not like Bush personally did it, so whats the difference?

The difference is the degree of separation. Stanley Milgram proved that it takes only a single degree of separation and some authority in order to coerce people to kill people. Bush is a fanatic but I certainly don't think he'd outright order murder of innocent civilians. You'd need some evidence for that, and as usual there is none.

So you think it was only one particular person responsible? How do we make sure this doesn't happen again if you don't want to find who was responsible? Is that person or persons still working in the same position as on or before 9/11?

No what I am saying is that it was not one person responsible, the fault lies with governmental policies in general. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have made the US more likely to be the subject of terrorist attacks, not less. The culture of non cooperation between the FBI, the CIA etc was partly to blame. It's not a simple issue and the whole system needs reform, but you probably know that already.

There's no way I'm going to argue that the US is in any way perfect, that all systems worked perfectly, or that nobody is to blame for 911. However I'm not on a witch-hunt. I don't think there are a few individuals responsible, I think in general the political and executive structure of the US is broken and that is what needs to be fixed completely.

You debunkers make no sense. You demand evidence of guilt and then dismiss the evidence provided. Innocent people do not cover up their activities leading up to murder. Incompetence is not going to go away if it's not dealt with. There is such a thing as criminal negligence, 9/11 was the result of it -- in the best case scenario.

It's possible 911 was the result of criminal negligence, but despite this you say things like the amount of dust produced was suspicious. It is this extension from rational to irrational positions that I fear. If you want to discuss culpability of individuals then present some evidence and I'll consider it. Otherwise we'll have to stick to the facts of the day and the distortions therein.

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Put it this way, it's on you to show that there was something suspicious about the amount of dust. Can you?

Yes..... THE AMOUNT OF DUST.

And normally you would expect...

let me guess? Less dust?

What leads you to think that there is an abnormally - indeed suspiciously - large amount of dust for such a building in disorganised collapse? Is it your experience and an underlying knowledge of building properties, destruction dynamics and the materials of the WTC?

Or is it more just a finger in the air, scratching your head sort of "well, that sure looks like a LOT of dust"?

Something about pulverized large portions of structural steel seems a little strange to me. Unless there were explosives attached to those portions of steel. I'm no expert though, maybe you can explain it to me?

Why are you changing the subject?

reply to post by maxella1


Those are two very damning videos. If you listen to what the fireman at the end of the first video said about a "black, very large airplane", that's just incredible. There's video evidence of a black plane, though not all videos show this. To my knowledge no passenger airlines involved have black planes. He was watching from just across the river. Any plane approaching the building, where he was obviously focusing his attention, would have been in daylight and clearly visible. I wonder if there are subsequent interviews of that particular fireman.

The second video is just an amazing undertaking by that guy. He certainly doesn't look or sound like a hack, quack trying to gain attention for himself. His methodology was very scientific. He makes a very compelling case.

I don't know what happened on that day, but it wasn't as simple as a few dozen people hijacking airliners with razor blades, crashing them into those buildings and having them fall. Sorry that just doesn't make any sense in reality.

reply to post by exponent

But this isn't true at all. Nobody has come out and said "I was required to read out this statement" even though many of the people (including the BBC people you refer to) have since been interviewed. How were they silenced considering they're foreigners working for a public broadcaster?

So you mean nobody told her to read out this statement that WTC 7 collapsed when in fact it didn't yet?

I know... I know it was an honest mistake. She didn't mean to predict the future it just happened by mistake, and nobody told her to say that it has already collapsed.

Do you think that BBC reporters are allowed to talk about anything the want on air?

Because I've spent years and years researching the truth movement and investigating the claims within. As a result I have no reason to believe any 'truth' that indicates direct involvement exists.

You should instead investigate what are the government covering up and why. I know it's very hard for you to accept that covering up by the government is illegal, but it is. And as much as you want everybody to believe that it's only incompetents that they are covering up, you can't prove it just like I can't prove that it's more than incompetents. The only way to make sure is by getting them to admit what it is that they are covering up. So we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

As far as I know nobody has worked out the name yet. Indeed the commander in charge (Daniel Nigro) did not consult Silverstein, and Silverstein himself says 'they made the decision'. It does not seem strange to me at all that a building owner would talk to the people trying to save his building.

Silverstein finished off that statement by saying 'they made the decision to pull it and we watched the building collapse'. Personally for me it would make more sense if he really meant pulling out the firefighters he would say something like 'they made the decision to pull it and the firemen were pulled out of the area'. But that is only my personal opinion regarding the “pull it”. It seems strange to me because as far as I know there were no attempts made to save WTC 7 since the very beginning Please correct me if I’m wrong.
In any case we only have Silverteins side of the story, and in my opinion he is as credible as you are (no offense intended).

Utter nonsense. I don't think I've ever seen a single 'debunker' defend Bush. Quote it or retract it please.

I didn’t mean it in a literal sense.

What do you find strange? The floor pans were an acre in size and made of extremely thin steel, they were located over a thousand feet in the air and fell the whole distance colliding with concrete and steel. you also didn't answer my questions: How many building collapses have you attended that were
a) over 30 storeys high
b) fully occupied (in terms of office furniture etc).

I didn’t attend any building which completely collapsed all the way to the basement without being demolished on purpose. In my opinion based on previous cases of building collapses I have seen, gravity alone is not capable of doing that.
Without explosives building collapse partially and it takes a lot longer than what happened on 9/11. And no I didn't attend any building collapse that were hit with a plane.
So I find it strange that any portion of steel were pulverized.
Another issue that I will agree to disagree with you until I get to attend something similar to WTC collapses. I promise that when this happens and you turn out to be correct I will let you know here on ATS.

The difference is the degree of separation. Stanley Milgram proved that it takes only a single degree of separation and some authority in order to coerce people to kill people. Bush is a fanatic but I certainly don't think he'd outright order murder of innocent civilians. You'd need some evidence for that, and as usual there is none.

And it still don't make any sense to me. What is the difference between giving an order to bomb a city full of civilians and allowing to blow up a building full of civilians? It's easier being a chicken-hawk and tell somebody to do it than actually doing it.

reply to post by exponent

No what I am saying is that it was not one person responsible, the fault lies with governmental policies in general. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have made the US more likely to be the subject of terrorist attacks, not less. The culture of non cooperation between the FBI, the CIA etc was partly to blame. It's not a simple issue and the whole system needs reform, but you probably know that already.

There's no way I'm going to argue that the US is in any way perfect, that all systems worked perfectly, or that nobody is to blame for 911. However I'm not on a witch-hunt. I don't think there are a few individuals responsible, I think in general the political and executive structure of the US is broken and that is what needs to be fixed completely.

First both FBI and CIA were aware of the hijackers being in America.
Second- its not a witch-hunt when you hold people accountable for their incompetents and/ or neglect to do a very specific and important job like protecting people that pay them for that specific function.

It's possible 911 was the result of criminal negligence, but despite this you say things like the amount of dust produced was suspicious. It is this extension from rational to irrational positions that I fear. If you want to discuss culpability of individuals then present some evidence and I'll consider it. Otherwise we'll have to stick to the facts of the day and the distortions therein.

The amount of dust wouldn’t be suspicious if it was a controlled demolition. But for a gravitational collapse it is suspicious in my opinion.
You have seen all the evidence needed to suspect foul play, you just refuse to admit it.

Click here to learn more about this warning.