Well it sure was not Dick Cheney just a reminder Mr Mineta was under Oath something Bush and Cheney both refused to do.

n 2003, Former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified before the 9/11 Commission:

Mineta: "During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President...the plane is 50 miles out...the plane is 30 miles out....and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president "do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??"

If you cared to be informed you would find the information at many reliable sources including USA today.

Psstt I will let you in on a secret.

"I don't make this stuff up'

Oh yes our self proclaimed engineer and architect......

Here is what a man said who played a large part in the construction of the buildings has to say.

Frank A. De Martini, Manager of WTC Construction and Project Management:
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded [Boeing] 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3Gcv6_lw…

Welcome to reality we welcome you here.

I like the nano thermite theory! As the prof said (since fired from his job) 'hundreds of tons!' and then, we learn it can be mixed with regular explosive and painted onto beams but of course, CTs can't decide if it was melting steel or exploding it.

Hundreds of tons, painted onto beams. Mixed with regular everyday corner store C4 and brought up in lunch buckets, five pounds at a time for ............... let's see ......... five pounds, and a hundred tons ...................... that's two hundred thousand pounds ................... five pounds for forty thousand trips with the thermite not to mention the C4.

Or, Jeb Bush helping (Cheney's heart wouldn't take the strain), that's only twenty thousand trips a piece just to get the stuff there.

Ok, so, is there any record of workers all over the place with buckets of slop bringing hundreds of tons into the access panels to paint this crap onto the beams and pillars? And, when working with slop, it doesn't all go where you want it to, is there any record of people over the months/weeks/years whatever getting sick from having a strange substance (which explosives do to people) getting sick from contact their skin and even their food or drink? That is probably the main evidence that there was an inside job is the sickness rate of the people who worked in the WTC.

And, now we have to get the charges up there remembering that every place there was this 'special' material sloped on, it has to blow as the evidence can't remain as some shmuck worker on the ground might pull up a fragment of metal with a piece of det cord, remote det or whatever on it attatched to some painted on explosive thermite which didn't go off.

So, that's a lot of stuff to get done. Lot of people. Lot of construction people with passes, excuses, paychecks etc. All without being noticed by the union who took care of the buildings.

How did they do it? And, without anybody getting sick, spilling one once of this stuff onto the carpets, clothes, into the air ducts, and without being noticed? And the unions had no problem i with these non union guys just doing all this work too.

And ... everything hinges on the planes hitting the buildings. If they don't hit, the explosives will be discovered and the guys that put it all there (100 - 1000 non union guys) will get lethal injections. They have no problem doing this work over weeks or months knowing that their *** is covered by dirty terrorists living in caves in Afghanistan so, are in like a dirty shirt. on the big day, they're nervous, they have to have the explosive evidence all destroyed or their *** is toast in Terra Haute so they're anxious yet, once the planes hit, they wait ............ calmly waiting ........ they need all the evidence to go up. They can't have any inspector see the explosives, wires, detonators, remote devices whatever yet they wait ....... and wait ........ long after they could logically blow the building .........rolling on the floor laughing

with the sleep sleepsleep WT7 just sitting there with anybody who wants to find the explosives there about to expose the whole thing sending them all to the injection chamber and then ........

They blow it.

Nothing far fetched going on there. Union guys risking their lives on the promise that some dudes living in a cave will come through with an elaborate plan kept secret for years and on four separate planes. And nobody has said a word, nobody has had any seocnd thoughts of guilt, nobody has found religion or guilt in all this time. Nobody has gotten murdered, none of the people who are exposing this conspiracy are being silenced.

The entire government of the USA wants them dead and here they are, just targets for a poisoning, letter bomb, faulty ground in a hot tub, a heart attack and ......... they're all still spewing the nonsense.

Yes, you've bought this up before and it was shown to be a load of crap. You really should think about this for a minute in light of the video reconstruction and you will realise what a load of nonsense the idea that Cheney knew the plane was going to hit the Pentagon "10 minutes before" really is. You seem to use the above as evidence of Cheney knowing the plane was heading toward the Pentagon, which is of course, absolute rubbish to anyone with half a brain.

The same debunked crap over and over again. I suppose Farmer's misrepresented quote will be dragged out again shortly.

Do tell......... what plane do you think they were talking about on 911.

You missed the point again, didn't you? *sigh* We've been through this before and to say that anyone knew that the Pentagon was the target 10 minutes (or even 5 minutes) before impact is ridiculous.

Your correct the wildly off course plane could have hit the white house or Smithsonian or a highly populated area no telling what the exact target would be..... all the more reason to shoot it down especially after the twin towers had been hit.

Here's a terrific NY Times article as found in the IHT. The writer does a great job of debunking controlled demolition:


"The demolition theory has managed to endure what would seem to be enormous obstacles to its practicality. Controlled demolition is done from the bottom of buildings, not the top, to take advantage of gravity, and there is little dispute that the collapse of the two towers began high in the towers, in the areas where the airplanes struck.

Moreover, a demolition project would have required the walls of the towers to be opened on dozens of floors, followed by the insertion of thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms, all sneaked past the security stations, inside hundreds of feet of walls on all four faces of both buildings. Then the walls presumably would have been closed up.

All this would have had to take place without attracting the notice of any of the thousands of tenants and workers in either building; no witness has ever reported such activity. Then on the morning of Sept. 11, the demolition explosives would have had to withstand the impacts of the airplanes, since the collapse did not begin for 57 minutes in one tower, and 102 minutes in the other."

Reposted from JREF

Here is what a man said who played a large part in the construction of the buildings has to say.

Frank A. De Martini, Manager of WTC Construction and Project Management:
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded [Boeing] 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3Gcv6_lw…

Welcome to reality we welcome you here.

It Looks Like A Controlled Demolition

What else is a large building collapse going to look like?

Until 9-11, our only experience in bringing down very large buildings was controlled demolition. The highest buildings (apart from broadcast towers) brought down were in the 30 story range. Once the building starts to fall, the physics is going to be the same regardless of the initial cause. So alleged similarities between 9-11 and controlled demolitions prove nothing. You might as well argue that the collapse of Mount St. Helens in 1980 was set off by explosives because it looked just like a landslide caused by explosives.

One thing radically different about 9-11 is that controlled demolitions always set off charges low in the structure and let the weight of the building do the rest. Nobody ever set off charges high in a building to pancake the stories beneath. So why resort to a radical and unproven method if you want to bring down the World Trade Center?

Probably the most revealing commentary on the controlled demolition theory is Bringing Down The House by Michael Satchell in US News and World Report (June 30, 2003). This article describes the work of Controlled Demolition Inc., far and away the world leaders in controlled demolition, and Mark and Doug Loizeaux, who run it.

Like most Americans, the Loizeauxs were transfixed by the televised scenes of destruction shortly after the first jet struck. But as experts in buildings' vulnerabilities, they knew right away what few Americans realized. "I told Doug immediately that the tower was coming down, and when the second tower was hit, that it would follow," remembers Mark.

Horrified, the Loizeaux brothers watched first responders streaming into the doomed towers and tried frantically, and unsuccessfully, to phone in warnings. In the following days, CDI was called to ground zero to consult on safety and develop plans for demolition and debris removal. What if the twin towers, though badly damaged, had somehow remained standing? Without doubt, the Loizeaux family would have been called upon to bring them down. "Quite simply," says Mark in a rare moment of introspective uncertainty, "I don't know how we would have done it."

So according to the world experts on building demolition:

* It was immediately obvious that the towers were going to fall
* They have no idea how they would have brought down the towers in a controlled demolition.

Of course, you can always claim the Loizeaux brothers were in on the plot. Some sites link to a story about Controlled Demolition later being charged with illegal campaign contributions, which certainly proves something. Or other.

Actually, the collapse doesn't look like a controlled demolition. Real controlled demolitions try very hard to avoid flinging debris far beyond the building itself. They blow the lower stories and the center of the building to cause the building to collapse in on itself. The collapse of the World Trade Center doesn't look remotely like a controlled collapse, apart from stuff falling down.

Implosion World, a site dedicated to controlled building collapse, agrees (http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm)

DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY “IMPLODE”? No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled [emphasis added] fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site.

HOW DOES THIS EVENT COMPARE WITH A NORMAL BUILDING IMPLOSION? The only correlation is that in a very broad sense, explosive devices (airplanes loaded with fuel) were used to intentionally bring down buildings. However it can be argued that even this vague similarity relates more to military explosive demolition than to building implosions, which specifically involve the placement of charges at key points within a structure to precipitate the failure of steel or concrete supports within their own footprint. The other primary difference between these two types of operations is that implosions are universally conducted with the utmost concern for adjacent properties and human safety---elements that were horrifically absent from this event. Therefore we can conclude that what happened in New York was not a “building implosion.”

Check out the videos of the demolition of the Stardust Hotel in Las Vegas. Fireworks. Big pyrotechnic countdown clock. None of that on 9/11. Not even remotely similar. Silly? Yes, but still above the intellectual level of most 9/11 conspiracy theories. I mean, the similarities the conspiracy buffs point to are on the same level of superficiality as whether or not there were fireworks.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911nutphysics.htm

I created this poll because I'm really curious about the numbers, especially among people who are within my purview. Please answer it, leave a comment and pass it around!

WAS 911 AN INSIDE JOB?

78.8% SAY YES

11.4% SAY NO

8.5 % DEPENDS HOW YOU DEFINE "INSIDE JOB"

1.2% NONE OF THE ABOVE

http://freethoughtnation.com/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/379-was-911-an-inside-job-poll.html

CAST YOUR VOTE AT THE LINK ABOVE

And who would make such a call? Not me, that's for sure. I wouldn't murder a plane load of innocents because of something that might happen. I doubt anyone in that position would, it's silly.

I'm not afraid....I'll play.

There's a ton of opinions, websites, information and misinformation, NO PROOF, and only opinions....each as valid as the next.

Only the "holier than thou" are adamant in their belief or disbelief of the events of that day..... because there is NO PROOF to substantiate either belief, only the tons of information to base "your own opinion" on! Just like the JFK assassination......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_fp5kaVYhk&feature=youtu.be

Ahhhh.....smell that fresh air! Thank you SS, it was getting very stale in here!

or,the stink of another YouTube Jumble!
Typical way!
Choke the Watcher with an Onslaught of "INFO" which you don't have to prove!

Why Conspiracy Theorists Love YouTube.



This writer says much.

""If you argue with conspiracy theorists on the Internet for even a short period of time, you’ll notice one thing very quickly: they love YouTube. It’s extremely rare to carry on any sort of “debate” with a conspiracy theorist of any stripe—9/11 Truther, moon hoaxer, global warming denier, what-have-you—and not see the CT post at least one, and usually more, links to videos on YouTube supposedly validating their position. In fact, in terms of sheer volume of the “evidence” posted by conspiracy theorists, YouTube appears to be their primary source of information. Furthermore, most of them simply can’t understand why not everybody is immediately persuaded by something on YouTube, and if you push back against their arguments, you’ll invariably get still more YouTube links. In the paranoid world of conspiracy theories, YouTube is evidently the ultimate oracle of all knowledge.""

""So, why do conspiracy theorists love YouTube?

1. In most cases, it’s honestly the best they can do.

Conspiracy theories are, by definition, fringe beliefs. The most common shopworn theories these days—9/11 was an inside job, global warming is a hoax, the Illuminati is out to impose a “New World Order” on us, etc., etc.—are completely unsupported by empirical evidence. No reputable scientists or engineers believe that 9/11 was a “controlled demolition.” (Steven Jones and Judy Wood are not a reputable scientists, and Richard Gage is not a reputable engineer). The only studies “showing” that climate change is not happening or is not caused by humans are tainted by association with energy lobbies or other political agendas, and the supposed scientific bases for these viewpoints are not accepted in mainstream science. Therefore, by definition, you will not have pieces of peer-reviewed scholarship to point to that support conspiracy theories. The only support you can find is from some source where content is user-contributed, and thereby not vetted by any type of editorial process whatsoever—meaning, an open and unregulated community of ideas, which is the definition of what YouTube is.

Example: you can’t find a legitimately peer-reviewed scientific paper claiming that the World Trade Center towers were blown up. Papers of that nature simply don’t exist. But type in “9/11 controlled demolition” into YouTube and you’ll bring up thousands of hits. Anybody can put up a YouTube video about anything. Unless it flagrantly violates the terms of service enough to be taken off the net, it will remain there for as long as the contributor wants it there, with no factual vetting of any kind. This is great if you think your cat playing the piano is really funny; chances are others will find that funny too. It’s not great when you’re trying to prove a scientific or factual point. Conspiracy theorists don’t have much “evidence” to choose from, and the richest bed of that sort of material is going to be an open source, user-contributed interface. Ergo, YouTube is custom-made for them.""

""2. Most conspiracy theorists are unaware of, or do not appreciate the importance of, non-Web-based, factually vetted sources of information (put another way, the difference between primary sources, secondary sources and tertiary sources).

It sounds like a cliché, but it is largely true that most conspiracy theorists, at least those active on the Internet, are white males between the ages of 18 and 30 who either don’t have or are not yet finished getting college degrees. Let’s face it, the term peer-reviewed journal doesn’t come up much in this demographic, and far be it from most of these people to set foot into a respected university library. For these people, the Internet with its ease of information retrieval is the paradigm source of knowledge. Need to find something? Google it. Need to learn something about a particular subject? Type it into Wikipedia. ""




""Note, however, that even Wikipedia has a gatekeeping function. There are editors and moderators who constantly view and vet the articles that are posted there. So even a tertiary source like Wikipedia has some editorial control.

Here’s the point: open-sourced Web services like YouTube don’t even rise to the level of tertiary sources! YouTube lacks even the minimal gatekeeping functions that Wikipedia has. I can post a video claiming that Ringo Starr was the first President of the United States. As long as it doesn’t violate the terms of service, which have nothing to do with factual accuracy, no one will take it down.

Conspiracy theorists, however, typically don’t understand the hierarchy of various source materials. The difference between YouTube and the National Archives is completely lost on most of them. Consequently, YouTube is a “source” as equally credible as the National Archives—in fact, possibly even more credible because the gatekeeping function of source materials is often mistaken, in conspiracy theorists’ eyes, with conspiratorial meddling or other chicanery.

3. Conspiracy theorists cannot distinguish between credible and non-credible sources.

This point is closely related to the above one. Because there’s no difference in a conspiracy theorist’s eyes between any two sources based upon the nature of those sources, they have no way of telling whether a source is true or false. David McCullough, a respected academic historian with decades of credentials, is no more reliable a source than David Icke, an ex-football player who believes that the world is controlled by reptilian shape-shifting aliens. John Maynard Keynes, one of the most influential economists in recent history, is no more credible than bloviating radio talkshow host Alex Jones on matters of economics. This is why conspiracy theorists generally interpret any questioning of the credibility of their sources as an “ad hominem” attack, because to them credibility is irrelevant. Taken to an extreme, this idea results in the bizarre belief that a YouTube video can be just as true and credible as a peer-reviewed scientific paper published in a nationally-respected journal.

However, because the world (and especially the Internet) is filled with tidal waves of contradictory information, as human beings we must necessarily have a mechanism that separates truth from ********. No one believes absolutely everything they hear, even people who are extremely gullible; it’s just that the truth-versus-******** mechanism of gullible people is out of whack compared to that of the non-gullible. In evaluating the credibility of a particular piece of information, conspiracy theorists do not ask the questions that most of us would ask—“Where did this information come from? Who did it start with? What supports it? Is the source credible?”—because their shallow understanding of epistemology does not result in that sort of analysis. Too often, conspiracy theorists’ thought processes center around the content or outcome of a particular piece of information—“Does it support the ‘official story’ or does it support my theory?”—or a set of associations, usually negative, with the disseminator of the information itself—“Is it a government spokesperson saying this?”""




""4. Presenting an argument in video format is much more emotionally satisfying than presenting an argument in any other way.

Motion pictures have been used for propaganda purposes since the technology was invented. The phenomenal success of movies to make a political, social or racial statement was demonstrated first with D.W. Griffith’s 1915 film The Birth of a Nation, and the extraordinary power of movies to persuade people continues today.

Packaging an argument in a video format, especially if it has interesting visuals and a good soundtrack, will carry your argument further and faster than it would travel by any other means. Conspiracy theorists are always recruiting, and using video is one of their most powerful tools. Consequently, it makes sense that their weapon of choice would be YouTube.

To a large extent, conspiracy theorists probably don’t even realize the immense power of the medium that they seem to choose (unconsciously, perhaps) as their preferred means of communication.

5. Conspiracy theorists often exhibit an anti-intellectual bias, and because of their positions are forced to attack, ignore or explain away the legitimacy of expertise. YouTube plays into these biases perfectly.

Here is the real meat of this blog: conspiracy theorists are usually anti-intellectual. They have no patience for the opinions of experts—usually because those experts do not support conspiracy theories—and they’re often contemptuous of credentialed experts in the first place. Consequently, conspiracy theorists invest a tremendous amount of thought and effort into denigrating or explaining away the views of those who know more about the subjects they’re talking about than they do.


Conspiracy theorists hate experts and intellectuals mainly because they are forced to. Few if any real experts in anything—engineering, economics, metallurgy, political science, or history—agree with conspiracy theories, and conspiracy theorists know that this is a major obstacle in their attempts to gain mainstream acceptance. Honestly, if one structural engineer with questionable credentials says that the World Trade Center towers were dynamited and 99 real structural engineers say that theory is ********, which side are most people going to believe? Consequently, conspiracy theorists have to tear down experts. They do this mainly by denigrating the real value or relevance of expert opinion, which usually means casting aspersions on expert status in the first place. This has two effects: first, they think it blunts the attacks of experts on their theories, and second, it elevates non-expert opinion into the same realm as expert knowledge.""

""Conclusion

Conspiracy theorists suffer from a number of profound misconceptions regarding how the world works, how knowledge is gathered and verified, and what constitutes proof and evidence. If they did not suffer from these misconceptions, they would not be conspiracy theorists, because the fantastic and unsupportable nature of their theories would be self-evident upon careful review of the real evidence. YouTube, being open-sourced user-generated content with no editorial or “gatekeeping” function, has become conspiracy theorists’ prime source of information preciselybecause it’s open-sourced with none of the gatekeeping functions, such as peer review or editorial processes, that make other sources of information reliable. This coupled with an inability to tell good sources from bad ones plays directly into conspiracy theorists’ conceits that they have “special” knowledge, that expert opinion is overrated or irrelevant, and that they can “change the world” simply by spreading a couple of YouTube links and “opening people’s eyes.”

But conspiracy theorists’ reliance on YouTube is yet another illustration of why their worldview is intellectually bankrupt and incapable of attracting serious mainstream attention. When your “evidence” regarding something is a YouTube video from Prison Planet or Infowars, you’re telegraphing to the world that you’ve got nothing better to support your position. Don’t be surprised when people don’t take you seriously.""


http://muertos.blog.com/2010/05/28/why-conspiracy-theorists-love-youtube/

I always thought it was because they couldn't read but this explains a lot.


Then,throw Israel and MOSSAD into the Mix,and you have a Winner!