You guys need to learn how to use the quote function properly. I'm getting a headache trying to ID who wrote what.

Was Bush's slowness to react to Katrina, due to ineptitude, or willful desire to let people suffer?  When you really think about it, flooding occurs all the time in the winter in the U.S. and declaring a federal disaster area is pretty much routine.  It is not stupidity that prevented the Bush Administration from acting in a timely fashion regarding Katrina.

First, let's not speak too confidently about how NIST wasn't flawed.  People with ph.d's in fields related to NIST's research have filed appeals against NIST's findings, and NIST themselves admit there were grave uncertainties in their studies, which I will document later.

Second, I don't need to know physics in order to critique NIST the way I do.  You'll see why later on.  It's mostly for the same reason I don't need to know physics in order to know that a directed energy weapon didn't demolish the towers.

A "white paper" analysis was released in 1964, which said the towers were designed to remain standing after crash of a fully loaded 707 traveling 600 miles an hour.  Says a book written to defend the official account.  City in the Sky, page 131.  Frank Martini, construction manager for the WTC years later would say he thought the building could withstand multiple such impacts, as the design of the building was like mosquito netting, the plane being like a pencil puncturing the netting, it really does nothing to the netting.  That's a severe blow to the NIST report, as there is a severe difference between multiple plane impact damage and single plane impact damage. I'm sure you'll argue that the people who agree with my point of view simply don't know physics as well as you do.

NISTNCSTAR 1-3 admits "None of the nine recovered panels from within the fire floors of WTC 2 were observed to have been directly exposed to pre-collapse fires." (p. xli)  NIST constantly qualifies these unfriendly findings with complaints that such samples are too small to represent a general truth.   We have to wonder what made them think their selection of sample material from the debris piles would be sufficient at the time of selection.   Did they only suddenly discover the insufficiency of the samples after determining that their exposure to fire wasn't enough to help induce global collapse?  Did they choose samples that could be safely assumed to represent the rest, yes or no?

They also complain that they don't know whether their samples underwent fire damage after the collapse, in the inexplicably 2000 degree oven of the rubble pile.  That might make sense if the fires were on much lower floors.  But the fire damaged steel from high up at the point of plane impact/fire is more likely to be thrown clear of the post-collapse fires. Watch the collapse videos...steel is bring thrown around like a rag doll, it's more likely that the steel allegedly exposed to fire in WTC 2, being so high up, would have been near the top of the rubble pile, or thrown clear of the center, arguing that this steel was thrown clear of the post-collapse undergound fire-area.  NIST's caveats are not realistic.  The fire damage was minimal.

You also now disagree with head WTC construction engineer John Skilling, who specifically said the fires from the jet fuel were the most pressing concern and that the while the building would suffer damage, the structure would still be there:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

You are free of course to assume Skilling, a top architect in tall building design, simply didn't realize that a plane crash would rip away the fireproofing material.  But that's highly doubtful. 

Skilling is also said of the WTC..."live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." (Engineering News Record, April 2, 1964)

Then why doesn't the architectural firm that designed the towers agree with you in their statements about WTC surviving multiple plane crashes and live load capacities capable of exponetial increase without failure?  Maybe they didn't know physics as well as you?  Go read the Richard Roth telegram; the WTCs were 16 times stiffer than conventional buildings, and the analysis supporting this conclusion was more extensive than for any other building structure for the time in 1965.

The heated disagreements between the WTC construction architects and NIST give somebody rational warrant to believe one of the parties is not just "wrong", but outrightly LYING. 

Anybody can check the quotes for themselves and see that I misquoted nothing.   If I screwed up any quotes, that's a reason to DEBATE, not DECLINE.  I think you buckled because I rationalized my position without the use of physics, and showed that knowledge of physics is not necessary to sustain my belief that the Bush Administration planned 911.

But certainly not a conspiracy in the sense the "Truthers" paint it as. You and I have been over this, many times. By this definition of terms, it's a conspiracy when I plan a surprise birthday party.

Frankly, I've made my stance on this topic known plainly several times in the past. I do not believe there was any sort of government conspiracy to carry out the attacks or allow them to happen. Yes, there was plenty of incompetence. Yes, there were probably attempts to conceal the actual degree of that incompetence after the fact (so there's your conspiracy I suppose).

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that the same government the truthers paint as incompetent is capable of carrying out such a scheme. You can't have it both ways.

I also find it odd that the truthers have done NOTHING but bitch on the internet for better part of a decade. Personally, were I convinced our government perpetrated such an act on its own civilians, I'd be loading my guns and heading to Washington. The lack of follow through here is curious to me.

In the end all we ever get are people pointing out things that look "fishy", and then speculating to no end. I've not seen a shred of solid empirical evidence that would convince me of any "conspiracy" - and let's stop there for a moment.

One of my biggest problems with this whole truth movement is that I've NEVER seen anyone lay down in black and white a concrete explanation on what actually happened.

All I see is "well this looks like an implosion.....this looks like that.....some talking head said a terrorist attack would be good for us several years ago.....squibs.....where is the video tape....there looks like there is something weird on that plane...." and none of it amounts to anything other than simply building an air of mysticism.

It's a load of bollocks. I don't accept "evidence" or "explanations" like this from people who believe in god or bigfoot, so why would you expect me to accept them from you?

For those who deny that 911 was an inside job, would it be fair to deduce that you know next to nothing about America's own history of false flag terrorism?

A reporter asked Condi Rice in a May 16, 2002 press conference an important question:

Q Dr. Rice, are you aware of the reports at the time that -- was in Washington on September 11th, and on September 10th, $100,000 was wired to Pakistan to this group here in this area? While he was here meeting with you or anybody in the administration?

DR. RICE: I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me.

that's a direct cut and paste from the White House's Official transcript of the press conference at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.html

Notice those "--" that omit somebody's name?

CNN is part of the conspiricy too:

CNN: SHOW: CNN INSIDE POLITICS 16:00, May 16, 2002 Thursday, Transcript # 051600CN.V15

QUESTION: Are you aware of the reports at the time that (inaudible) was in Washington on September 11. And on September 10, $ 100,000 was wired from Pakistan to these groups here in this area? And while he was here, was he meeting with you or anybody in the administration?

RICE: I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me.
====================================

The FDCH is part of the conspiricy too:

FDCH Federal Department and Agency Documents REGULATORY INTELLIGENCE DATA, May 16, 2002 Thursday, AGENCY: WHITE HOUSE

Q Dr. Rice, are you aware of the reports at the time that -- was in Washington on September 11th, and on September 10th, $ 100,000 was wired to Pakistan to this group here in this area? While he was here meeting with you or anybody in the administration?

DR. RICE: I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me.
======================================

However, the Federal News Service is honest enough to include the name of the man the reporter clearly named in his question to Rice:

Federal News Service May 16, 2002 Thursday, SECTION: WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING, HEADLINE: SPECIAL WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING

Q Are you aware of the reports at the time that ISI chief was in Washington on September 11th, and on September 10th, $ 100,000 was wired from Pakistan to these groups here in this area? And why he was here? Was he meeting with you or anybody in the administration?

MS. RICE: I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me.
=====================================

Did you notice that CNN and the White House and the FDCH ommitted "the ISI chief" from the reporter's question?

Why do you suppose they omitted this key identification phrase?

Looks like a deliberate attempt to cover-up American connections with the ISI chief on the morning of 911, you know, that ISI chief who authorized a $100,000 wire transfer to 911 terrorist Atta.
 

The video for this press conference disappeared from youtube, and while I haven't been able to locate any HQ copies of it, I do have the audio, and the reporter clearly says "ISI chief".  Which means the White House website and CNN and various Federal News Agencies, by deleting this detail, or saying it was "inaudible" are attempting to cover up this ISI Chief's connections to the 911 terrorists. 

Now why would they wish to do this?

Could it be because that ISI Chief, Mahmoud Ahmed, was having breakfast in America on the morning of 911 with Senate Intelligence Committee members Porter Goss and Bob Graham?

What's worse,the FBI confirmed in late September, in an interview with ABC News (which went virtually unnoticed) that the 9-11 ring leader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed from unnamed sources in Pakistan:

"As to September 11th, federal authorities have told ABC News they have now tracked more than $100,000 from banks in Pakistan, to two banks in Florida, to accounts held by suspected hijack ring leader, Mohammed Atta. As well . . . "Time Magazine" is reporting that some of that money came in the days just before the attack and can be traced directly to people connected to Osama bin Laden. It's all part of what has been a successful FBI effort so far to close in on the hijacker's high commander, the money men, the planners and the mastermind."  (Statement of Brian Ross reporting on information conveyed to him by the FBI, ABC News, This Week, September 30, 2001)
 

What was Mahmoud doing on Capitol Hill on the morning of September 11, together with Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham and other members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, since this ISI Chief was previously known to be connected to the 911 terrorists?

If you know about America's history of engaging in false-flag terrorism so as to stir the enconomy with a war-budget, why are you so convinced that 911 was perpetrated by the very group that refused to give Bush a cheap pipeline through Afghanistan in April 2001?  Yes, the Taliban and the Bush administration were friends in early 2001, as Bush tried to convince them to let him build an oil pipe through their land.  They didn't go for it and rejected the offer in early 2001.  Then suddenly, 911 happens, and everybody is absolutely positive it's the Taliban.

And what would you think if you found out that American military planes assisted in helping Osama escape American military?  Would that be covered under incompetence too?

What does it mean when Bush absolutely refuses to appear by himself before the 911 commission, but insists Cheney must be there too?

What does it mean when Bush and Cheney finally agree to testify, but only behind closed doors, no recording, and refusal to testify under oath?  Does that sound like somebody trying to hide embarassing incompetence, or attempt to avoid having anybody discover smoking gun evidence of Bush complicity in 911?

If a murde suspect on trial acted the way Bush has regarding evidence and disclosure, would you not suspect it's because they are trying to steer the prosecution away from evidence that will implicate them?

If my wife and I had a stormy relationship, then suddenly, she's found dead by gunshot, and I stand to collect $5 million in life insurance (after I have declared my desire to expand my business, and have complained that it will be a long process without some catastrophe that would make me rich)....wouldn't it be rational to first suppose the person who benefits the most from a crime probably had something to do with it's commission or planning?

What does it mean when Bush, after assuring America for years that Osama surely was guilty of 911, is no longer interested in pursuing Bin Laden?  Incompentence, or "Osama has done his job and is now irrelevent?"  The President doesnt' care about the whereabouts of Osama, who allegedly caused the worst breach of national security in our country's history?  Incompetence, or job well done, go home?

Hasn't the Bush administration told enough lies and spun enough truth to make you suspicious that they had something to do with the event that made America's defense contractors richer than any previous war?  Does bush need to show up at a school and start shooting the kids dead before you will admit there's probably an evil conspiricy going on?  If so, how is this different from his choice to bomb the hell out of the middle east, knowing he is killing innocent children for a totally illegal war, which even Fox News admits was an "optional" war, which war is also started with fraudulent manufactured evidence?

Dick Cheney fought the GOA's perfectly lawful requests to disclose the subject and notes of his meetings with energy executives.  Incompetence?  Or extreme desire to hide something?  What exactly is there to hide?  Might it be that deal with the Taliban they were trying to close in early 2001, which would look suspicious if it got out that the Bush administration is trying to do deals with terrorists?   If desire to hide something, might it be due to the fact that he knows he could face serious legal problems and possible impeachment if they were disclosed?

How about Bush's Patriot Act, which destroys constitutional rights?

How about the completely unbelievable slowness to respond to the Katrina victims?

Gee, was 911 just a lucky day for America's oil and defense contractors, or do you think there was a reason Bush was kicking people off terrorist investigations?

Then there's the Downing street memo.

I've got more rational warrant than I need, to believe the Bush administration, at a minimum, assisted the terrorists to make sure they'd succeed.  I've yet to hear anybody show how all these deliberate lies are just "incompetence."

But give it your best shot.

I previously said I couldn't locate the video of Condi Rice where the reporter clearly stated "ISI Chief", which the official White House transcript omitted from that press conference.

I now have this video in HQ if anybody is interested.

I think when it comes down to it 911 isn't nearly as relevant as the the all too coincidental events and time line surrounding the all too forgotten Anthrax-aided passage of the Patriot Act just after 9/11. 

“The number of unlikely ‘coincidences’ associated with the anthrax attacks on the media and Congress makes it almost impossible to believe that they were random.” This of course is not proof. There needs to be an immediate non-governmental probe into the actual perpetrators behind these attacks the FBI has intentionally tried to steer towards a different direction than the evidence points at, the Bush Administration. An investigation best done by an agency from outside the US, perhaps within the UN. No one in our government can be trusted with this sort of investigation into the same bold, treacherous and arrogant tyrants who overthrew US democracy through proven election fraud and illicitly seized control over the federal government not once, but twice. These terrorist acts directly resulted in the unconstitutional Patriot Act as the new ‘laws of the land’ rendering the country’s most sacred laws from the Bill of Rights as meaningless words.

On June 7, 2002, Judicial Watch, a ‘conservative’ group of lawyers formed to investigate and prosecute US government corruption and abuse, issued a press release headed “Judicial Watch Wants to Know Why White House Went on Cipro Beginning September 11th: What Was Known and When?”. “Judicial Watch also anounced in their press release that they had filed suit against the Bush Admin for FOIA access to documents about the anthrax-aided Patriot Act attacks, asserting top Bush-GOP officials knew the bioterrorist attacks were coming.

The FBI investigations into these 2001 Anthrax Attacks have been a complete farce since they began to intentionally steer it away from the actual perpetrators. Wayne Madsen in ‘Counterpunch’ writes “Forget unfounded conspiracy theories. The evidence is overwhelming that the FBI has consistently shied away from pursuing the anthrax investigation, in much the same way it avoided pursuing leads in the USS Cole, East Africa U.S. embassies, and Khobar Towers bombings.”

“The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.”
Samuel Adams; Chief Massachusetts leader of the Patriot cause leading to the American Revolution.

Many might argue facts showing Bush-GOP complicity in the 9-11 attacks to be one of the major events of the 21st century that had turned a US democratic republic into the new ‘Former USA’. However, it was the end results of the anthrax-aided Patriot Act that became far more harmful to our freedoms than the multitude of suspicious facts surrounding the 9-11 attacks implicating the illegal Bush-GOP regime.

These following anthrax facts and their event time line go far beyond any realm of random coincidence, especially when combined with the previous known proven facts illustrating the tyrannical, arrogant, and bold nature of our present illegal rulers to overthrow democracy and seize supreme control and power.  It is a time line of events showing these same tyrants had the motive, the means and the definitive plan to force a few politicians in US legislature that could possibly put a stop to the initial Patriot Act, to relinquish their objections, or die. For the additionally relevant time line and sources to these factual events, go to Government By Anthrax. Also reference Did the Government Okay the Anthrax Attacks? for more conclusive information to the affirmative that indeed, the Bush regime attacked its own Congress to scare them into passage of the Patriot Act.

Anthrax Attack Facts Far Beyond Any Realm of Mere Coincidence:

Attacks were concurrent with the debate of Bush’s Patriot Act by Congress and the media. The Senators who received anthrax letters were trying to amend the Patriot Act to protect civil liberties and the innocent. Two Senate democratic leaders received anthrax letters mailed the same day that Senator Feingold blocked an attempt to rush the bill through without discussion or amendments. Senator Leahy received an anthrax threat after he expressed reservations about the Bill. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he managed the debate on the Bill. Senate Majority Leader Daschle received the first Senate anthrax letter as he led the opposition to the original version of the Bill. After receiving the anthrax letter, Daschle switched from supporting a 2 year limit on the Bill, later defending a 4-year sunset clause as the appropriate balance. No Republican received an anthrax letter. The House and Senate buildings were closed and not reopened until after the Patriot Act was passed. The Supreme Court was shut down with an anthrax scare the day after the constitutionally-challenged Patriot Act was signed by President Bush. All the contaminated letters contained the Ames strain of anthrax, the DNA of which is traced to the original batch preserved in a university lab in Ames, Iowa. This strain was ‘weaponized’ in Utah into a potent powder with an elaborate secret technique developed at Fort Detrick, Maryland. The FBI failed to interview Ft. Detrick anthrax experts for two months into their investigation, doing it only after the experts complained to the press of gross incompetence on the part of the FBI. The FBI allowed the Iowa state lab to destroy the original batch of the Ames strain, making tracing the anthrax type more difficult. Three top anthrax experts with knowledge of this US bio-weapons program died under suspicious circumstances within this ten day period. The FBI overruled local homicide detectives claiming one of the anthrax experts was possibly murdered because he knew too much.

Government by Anthrax

by Richard J. Ochs, June 9, 2002

“The number of unlikely ‘coincidences’ associated with the anthrax attacks on the media and Congress makes it almost impossible to believe that they were random. The simultaneous debate of Bush’s Patriot Bill in Congress points to the existence of a cabal of domestic conspirators which succeeded in terrorizing the body politic to influence legislation.

If so, this American terrorism was much more harmful to democracy than the attacks on 9-11. It is frighteningly reminiscent of how Hitler grabbed power in 1933 when arsonists destroyed the Reichstag parliament building. Bush is taking advantage of widespread fear, whether he was party to the anthrax cabal or not. He is wielding dictator-like power to push through dozens of unpopular environmental, nuclear, economic and star wars policy changes. He has no electoral mandate for these policies and they have nothing to do with fighting terrorism.

Moreover, the anthrax-aided Patriot Act gave the President unprecedented police power over all citizens, not just suspected terrorists or foreigners. According to Senator Russell D. Feingold, the act would ‘allow police to scan computer activity without a search warrant, to execute a search warrant without informing the subject, and to review private medical records as well as business records.’ Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, who also voted against the Act, criticized ‘wiretaps that could record conversations of people unconnected to the investigation targets.’ The anthrax terror in Congress weakened the rights and well being of U.S. citizens.

The glaring coincidence of the anthrax attacks with the passage of the Patriot Act can only be ignored as an elephant is ignored at a tea party. It is believable that this coincidence was overlooked in the fall of 2001 due to all the confusion, including letters to other places. In historical hindsight, the connection is obvious. It can be ignored now only as Germans ignored the death camps. The brazenness of the crime was unbelievable. Moreover, to admit the crime’s existence requires a courageous response. Timid souls may be tempted to stick their heads in the sand rather than do what is required to expose and root out criminals in high places, especially in time of war. The obvious response would be a Congressional investigation with no holds barred, even if it goes all the way to the top. The war for democracy must start at home.”

I don't believe the "official" story is true. The evidence is out there to make me skeptical that no one knew that something was happening that particuliar day. Willie Brown, mayor of San Francisco, was warned not to fly before 9/11.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL

Of course this doesn't mean I believe that everything the "truthers" put out is true. I just deny the fact that the government is telling the truth concerning what exactly happened. They lied to us about everything else why wouldn't they lie about 9/11?