Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[Eldorion]

The only experts who have to fear for their careers are the ones who challenge the Official Conspiracy Theory. No-one get's canned for going along with what most people and government officials believe.

It appears to me that you're claiming that people who go against the "official account" are being persecuted, implying that others keep quiet because they're scared. Aside from what Petty said, this is exactly the same obfuscating, anti-intellectual rhetoric that Creationists use. In fact, it's the standard fall back for any theory that gets laughed out of the scientific community: "You can't trust them, they're all in the pocket of THE MAN". Funny how the alternative hypothesis that the majority of experts in the field just disagrees with you never seems to cross your mind, just as it is with Creationists.

[Pettytyrant101]

More potentailty interesting developments in the NotW saga.

'broadcasting regulator Ofcom has now written to the chairman of the Commons culture committee highlighting its duty to ensure that anyone holding a broadcasting licence is a "fit and proper" person to do so.
The letter says "in considering whether any licensee remains a fit and proper person to hold broadcasting licences Ofcom will consider any relevant conduct of those who manage and control such a licence". '

The culture committe has to decide if the Murdoch takeover of Sky gets the go ahead- which they were all set to do before all this came out in the open. However if they find the company is not 'fit and proper' they can refuse it on those grounds alone. However if they do that it goes without saying he cannot be fit and proper to hold the licenses he already has and would lose those too. Ending the Murdoch hold on the press here. Will be interesting to see now what the Committee do, if they give him the go ahead it will be in the face of public and political outrage, if they don't they effectively sign the end of Murdoch's UK empire, which the Tories don't want. The whole things already a mess for Cameron who is best friends with everyone involved, had them in Downing Street and regularly attended their functions and parties.

[Pettytyrant101]

What GB no reply? Worried my last post on the subject "blew a huge hole in the argument that Controlled Demolition would not cause a shock-wave breaking all the windows of adjacent buildings?" (Should I had a laughing smiley to that or would it be too much! )

[Eldorion]

To be fair to GB, he might just be busy. That said, he was online after several of our recent posts were made, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of a doubt.

[Gandalf's Beard]

Gave your latest vid a watch GB. Had to laugh at the opening footage he uses of the 'explosions' marked with arrows, it was also cited as evidence in a BBC documenary debunking conspiracy theories about 9/11 as evidence of the top floors collapsing and pushing the air and material out the sides as it does so-which would seem to make perfect sense and requires no explosions or demolisions.

You say Eager is just making crap up and that what he says is a red herring and speculation, yet you fail to say why or why what he says is irrelevant.

Eager admitted he made shit up: "At first, I thought it was amazing that the buildings would come down in their own footprints. Then I realized that it wasn't that amazing -- it's the only way a building that weighs a million tons and is 95 percent air can come down."

See?...he just pulled that out of his ass! Pure speculation not based on physical facts. He should be bright enough to know that the air in a building bears no relevance to the physics of the Path of Least Resistance. In fact, Eager's guess that the building weighs a million tons undercuts his own argument.

If you have a building that weighs a million tons, a hundred-thousand tons of top floors collapsing the few floors that were damaged structurally would run into a 900 thousand tons of Resistance. The air is a red herring.

So the question is why would he make crap up that he knows is unsupportable?

You dismiss Vincents comments as 'speculation' yet he gives an eye winess account-"I have seen..." why do you accept some eye witness accounts that fit your version and dismiss as speculations others which don't?

Actually, you are conflating two separate points and then using them to create a Straw Man:

And there is also this quote; "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety.

Which just proves my point. Molted steel was found still Molten several weeks later by clean-up crews. This was reported by the mainstream media, and was thus one of the inconvenient facts which had caused the Administration to concoct a new explanation.

"But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

Again, Vincent's comments support the Controlled Demolition facts. Vincent is speculating without any basis to support it. The majority of the steel was in short lengths consistent with controlled demolition, rather than long pieces of bent and warped steel.

His "eyewitness" accounts are regarding what he has seen in the past. I accept them as valid, as his statement supports controlled demolition.

But perhaps I mischaracterized his statement as speculative; rereading the second part of the quote I now realize that his comments about twisted, warped, and bent steel are also referring to things he's seen in the past. In none of the quote you give me does he claim to be an eyewitness to the rubble of the WTC buildings. So, either you, or the person reporting Vincent's comments are speculating.

On the point about steel losing strength under heat the figure for 18000 degess is an estimate. The figure for 50% loss at 1100 seems to be given as fact. The question therefore is at what point would the loss of strength equal an inability for the steel to keep the floor up? The temperature for fires in the building are given as well above the required temprerature for the 50% strength loss.

NIST's own reports based on the physical evidence say otherwise. The rest of their rubbish is based on computer modelling (i.e. conjecture), not physical evidence.

As to straw man, a slight misuse of the term on my part, I meant that conspiracy theorists often sight the steel failing as 'proof' that a demolishion must have occured.

No, that's not what Conspiracy Factists say. What we say is that the molten steel is evidence that the building was not brought down by catastrophic structural failure or fire damage. But, as you are hopelessly muddled, I can forgive you for YOUR unintended Straw Man.

Where the evidence I've sighted would seem to offer an explanation for the failing without the need to resort to such arguments, and that as such its a flase accusation. The steel never melted becasue of demolision but because of a loss of stength brought about by a combination of huge stress and heat which caused it to warp, buckle, twist and thin. So when conspiracy people attack this idea they are attacking something which is false in the first place- hence a straw man.

This is simply impenetrable. The "evidence" you've cited is based on NIST's speculations and computer modelling, not the actual evidence they gathered. That is a fact (of their own admission). Where is the "false accusation"?

What do you mean when you say; "The steel never melted becasue of demolision but because of a loss of stength brought about by a combination of huge stress and heat which caused it to warp, buckle, twist and thin."??? Did the steel melt or not?

I don't get it!!! Are you saying that because your source draws a different conclusion than I do, that my disagreement is a Straw Man???

You should just stick to the Skeptic Inquirer's Talking Points instead of trying to come up with convoluted and ungrammatical arguments to defend your improper use of a term.

And it still does not explain the complete lack of evidence for demolition in the debris. There should have been detonators, lengths of wiring, all of which are commonly found in demolitions. Yet not a single one of these has turned up.

Sure...if you're using 19th century technology. Good luck finding remote control detonators (the preferred method of detonating controlled demolitions). Wiring???.... Phhhht!!! I'm sure there was all kind of wiring in the rubble.

The idea that just becasue someone supports the governments version means they have nothing to fear shows a poor undrstanding of the pressures in scienticfic groups. Peer pressure is far more important and immediate to a career than any outside influence. If what you are saying is true then these people whom I have cited, who work in high up positions within their own fields or industry only have what the govenrment thinks to worry about for their careers. Not so, if what they are saying is obviously untrue and lies they would be called out by their own peers first. They would lose respect, standing all the things which actually mean something to such people. So yes I do think its a lot to ask of someone just to support Geoge Bush.

You are being absurd. You know better and are being deliberately obtuse. I know you are not that naive, so don't expect me to buy into it. You know as well as I do that people who buck the general consensus are the one's who put their careers on the line. Just ask Anne Machon.

And in point of fact, DESPITE being asked to resign from BYU, Professor Stephen Jones has published his findings in Peer Reviewed Journals (this means that his findings have been validated).

And here is one person who has been fired:

Area man stirs debate on WTC collapse
South Bend firm's lab director fired after questioning federal probe

By JOHN DOBBERSTEIN
Tribune Staff Writer

SOUTH BEND -- The laboratory director from a South Bend firm has been fired for attempting to cast doubt on the federal investigation into what caused the World Trade Center's twin towers to collapse on Sept. 11, 2001.

Kevin R. Ryan was terminated Tuesday from his job at Environmental Health Laboratories Inc., a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories Inc., the consumer-product safety testing giant.

On Nov. 11, Ryan wrote a letter to the National Institute of Standards and Technology -- the agency probing the collapse -- challenging the common theory that burning jet fuel weakened the steel supports holding up the 110-story skyscrapers.

Underwriters Laboratories Inc., according to Ryan, "was the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings."

Ryan wrote that last year, while "requesting information," UL's chief executive officer and fire protection business manager disagreed about key issues surrounding the collapse, "except for one thing -- that the samples we certified met all requirements."

UL vehemently denied last week that it ever certified the materials.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology is conducting a $16 million, two-year investigation of the collapse of the twin towers. The agency expects to issue a draft report in January, and UL has played a limited role in the investigation.

Ryan wrote that the institute's preliminary reports suggest the WTC's supports were probably exposed to fires no hotter than 500 degrees -- only half the 1,100-degree temperature needed to forge steel, Ryan said. That's also much cooler, he wrote, than the 3,000 degrees needed to melt bare steel with no fire-proofing.

"This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institute's metallurgy division, who is playing a prominent role in the agency investigation. "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."

He added, "Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around (500 degrees) suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company."

Ryan declined to comment about his letter Thursday when reached at his South Bend home.

But his allegations drew a sharp rebuke from UL, which said Ryan wrote the letter "without UL's knowledge or authorization." The company told The Tribune "there is no evidence" that any firm tested the materials used to build the towers.

"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.

Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."

"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.

Seeking to head off controversy just months before its report is released, the National Institute of Standards and Technology issued its own statement Thursday.

Some steel recovered from the WTC was exposed to fires of only 400 to 600 degrees, the institute said, but computer modeling has shown higher temperatures of 1,100 to 1,300 degrees or greater were "likely" experienced by steel in regions directly affected by the fires.

The institute believes impact from the jets dislodged fireproofing surrounding some of the steel, and the higher temperatures led to the buckling of the towers' core columns.

Wrangling on the Web
Ryan's statements have generated interest on many Web sites, including some advocating sharp scrutiny of the federal government's WTC probe.

Ryan copied his e-mail to David Ray Griffin, author of "The New Pearl Harbor," and to Catherine Austin Fitts, a board member of 911Truth.org -- a Web site organized by citizens who believe the government is covering up the true cause of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

One day later, Griffin requested and received permission to distribute Ryan's letter to other parties.

An official from 911Truth.org called Ryan to confirm his authorship. They said Ryan made it clear he is speaking for himself only, not on behalf of his laboratory or the company, but that others at UL were aware of his action.

The letter was published Nov. 11 on the Web site

septembereleventh.org, site of the 9/11 Visibility Project. On Tuesday, organizers of the 911Truth.org Web site noted Ryan had been fired.

In his letter, Ryan appeared confident in his statements about the WTC's fire protection levels.

"You may know that there are a number of current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth," he told the institute's Gayle. "Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel."

UL moved immediately to discredit Ryan.

The company said Ryan "was not involved in that work and was not associated in any way with UL's Fire Protection Division, which conducted testing at NIST's request."

The company said it "fully supports NIST's ongoing efforts to investigate the WTC tragedy. We regret any confusion that Mr. Ryan's letter has caused 9/11 survivors, victims' families and their friends."

"We prefer to base our conclusions, and NIST would say the same, on science rather than speculation," Baker said. "We anxiously await the outcome of the NIST investigation."

Organizers of 911Truth.org came to Ryan's defense Thursday, although they couldn't persuade him to speak publicly.

"He just saw too many contradictions, and it set off his sense of what was the right thing to do," said David Kubiak, 911Truth.org's executive director. "It's unfortunate for the country, and it's particularly tragic for him, but inspiring as hell."

"The way things are working in the country right now," Kubiak added, "it's only going to be citizens like this who take their professional knowledge and sense of personal integrity, and put it ahead of the strange status quo, that we will see truth and justice out of the system."

GB

[Pettytyrant101]

GB you seem to have eyes only for what you want to see. You go great lengths to highlight the specualtion, the computer modelling, use of words like belief and likely. And yet in the person you quote in your defence there is this statement; ""If steel from those buildings did soften or melt."
Odd you didn't write as "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt. Then accuse him of oblivously knowing nothing because 'if' is clearly guesswork. Either they found fully melted steel or not- what's the 'if' doing in there?

You also completely failed to addres the fact that in the example of a demolision I gave the prepartion is large amd would have been vastly larger to bring down 3 major buildings in the middle of new york. You conveintly ignored the complete refuting of your no windows breaking argument and seem to have choosen not to address why those blowing it up would have gone to the trouble of protecting surrounding windows. If it was a demolision there would be broken windows both sides of buildings, unless (as in the example I cited) those who demolished it laid loads of extra relays to keep the air pressure low enough- and they had to go in first and physically cut away some of the steel just to make the charges smaller to reduce the risk of breaking windows). And why would they do that if they are trying to cause maximum distruction? Not to mention they had to fill in the basements and pile sand against walls- and from my own research this is a very common occurance in demollishing buildings- as far as I am aware no one dumped tons and tons of fill into the basements of the Twin Towers!
Seems GB if you can't immediately find a pat answer to something you ignore the point.

(ps in case anyone gets the wrong idea I'm thoroughly enjoying this been a while since I had a good spat with GB!)

[Gandalf's Beard]

NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

1) Which proves that NIST hadn't actually conducted an investigation, only producing hypotheses. Belief is not evidence. If they had evidence they would not have to BELIEVE anything.

Did I read that right? Did you just say that the quote "the NIST believes..." proves that they didn't actually conduct experiments and are just making things up, GB? Since when does the word "believe" imply that? For someone who posts so much about science (all the while asserting that the vast majority of professional scientists and engineers, those who have not joined your conspiracy organizations, are wrong) you seem to have forgotten that scientists don't make absolute statements. They only comment on what seems most likely based on the available evidence.

With that in mind, the word "believe" does not imply that they haven't conducted an investigation. I am far more skeptical of people who claim to know for sure one way or another. This is especially true when the people who are so sure of themselves haven't conducted any investigations beyond watching lots of YouTube videos.

1) When NIST says they "believe", they mean that they aren't sure, or are unable to confirm their findings. NIST admitted that they never even tested for evidence of controlled demolition. NIST is VERY clear, and the report writers choose their words carefully. Why? Because to a scientist conclusive evidence is true whether one believes it or not.

2) NIST actually ignores their own findings of the physical evidence they investigated in favour of computer models, i.e. they made shit up. They should have just stuck to "we don't know" instead of "we conjecture."

3) I never said every scientist, architect, or engineer who weren't signed up were wrong. To say that, I would have to assume that every single scientist, architect, or engineer in the country had examined all the evidence. Which is what you're doing by the way.

4) Ah, gotta love the personal attacks from someone who claims that they aren't qualified to evaluate the evidence but somehow they still know I'm wrong. (I still love you though ). FYI, I knew it was a Controlled Demolition on Day 1 when I watched those buildings come down in real time. You see, I'm actually acquainted with the Laws of Physics. I just post the Youtubes for YOUR benefit.


GB

[Gandalf's Beard]

To tackle the glass breaking issue I would like to cite the example of the demoltion of the J.L Hudson Department Store- a good example as like the Twin Towers it was surrounded by other buildings.
But as well as the windows thing it will also bring into focus I hope what it takes to prepare this sor tof thing.

"The store was built in 12 separate stages, the first in 1911 and the last in 1946. The complex had two retail basements and 23 above grade retail floors, including mezzanines. Two additional basements and six upper stories in a tower, provided storage and mechanical support for the 2.2 million square foot building. In all there were 33 levels in the structure.
Hudson’s was bordered on four sides by streets filled with critical infrastructure and flanked on 3 sides by poorly maintained, turn-of-the-century structures
CDI (the demolition company)had to sever the steel in the columns and create a delay system which could simultaneously control the failure of the building’s 12 different structural configurations, while trying to keep the hundreds of thousands of tons of debris within the 420 ft by 220 ft footprint of the structure. CDI needed structural data to complete its design. Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI’s 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI’s implosion design. During that period, the lower two basements of the structure were filled with engineered fill and the perimeter basement walls bermed to 1st basement level with soil.
CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel. CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties.
CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.
Even with all the precautions to control overpressure, the age, existing cracks, and poor condition of glazing windows in vacant structures on the north, east and west sides of the J.L. Hudson complex, window breakage was a concern. CDI had seven glass company crews on standby to handle any problems. Although Homrich/NASDI has placed over 2,000 yards of soil over utilities in the four adjacent streets, emergency utility crews were also standby "just in case."
There was far less window breakage in adjacent buildings than glass company crews were prepared to handle."

Now one has to assume demoltioning the Twin Towers would be a considerably greater job than this one department store. And just look at what had to go into it, they even had to fill the basement with sand to make sure it came down in its own footprint. And yet you expect me to beleive this was somehow accomplished on a huge scale with the Twin Towers in complete secrecy whilst the buildings were still in use.
And as you can see, althought in the end the window breaking was less than expected it is clear it is a concern in such demolitions. And it would appear part of the reason for the damage to windows being as little here as it was is thanks to the choice to take steel plates off to weaken the structure thus allowing less charge to be used and the use of the extra micro-delayers. This would be unlikely, given the extra work, to have happened in the case of the Twin Towers were they demolished, so yes the windows should have been broken on both sides of the surrounding buildings had it been a demoliion. They were not, ergo no demolition.
For what you are saying to be true the people who demolished it, and this remember is all in order to create a 'Pearl Harbour', so presumably the worse the better, took the time to lay at least an extra 1000 micro delays per tower in order to keep the pressure down on the explosives enough to prevent glass breaking in the surrounding buildings? (as they had to do in the above example) Very considerate of them considering they are engaing in the act of mass murder. Really how does that make any sense what so ever?

You posted a very long post which actually supports my argument but not yours.

I don't know what has happened to your logical skills. Drowning in a Bucket of Buckie maybe.

But seriously, all snark aside, don't you realize that given all the effort demolitions teams put into minimizing damage to adjacent buildings, it shows how F******* Difficult that is to pull off???. DUDE!!! What are you thinking???

If it takes a team of experts to work HARD at minimizing damage to other buildings in a CONTROLLED Demolition, the odds are astronomical that an UNCONTROLLED Collapse would cause LESS damage than a Controlled Demolition!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, may I suggest a Logic 101 course refresher along with a Physics 101 course refresher? (And I mean that in the kindest way possible I feel like we're just having a friendly Bar-Side argument [the best kind really] ).

And it would be nice if you would recall what I said in previous debates so I wouldn't have to repeat myself. Marvin Bush's Security Firm was installing new "security systems" at the WTC in the weeks prior to the attacks. Why is it so hard for you to believe that some people will kill a lot of other people to achieve their goals?

As to trying to minimize damage to other buildings, it's anyone's guess why they would do so. But if i had to take a wild guess, I'd think that they wanted to keep things in a relatively controlled environment without having to bring in the Nat Guard, which is what they would have had to do if the damage had been more widespread. Besides which, they probably didn't want to wipe out Wall St. But that's just speculation on my part.

GB

[Gandalf's Beard]

GB you seem to have eyes only for what you want to see. You go great lengths to highlight the specualtion, the computer modelling, use of words like belief and likely. And yet in the person you quote in your defence there is this statement; ""If steel from those buildings did soften or melt."
Odd you didn't write as "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt. Then accuse him of oblivously knowing nothing because 'if' is clearly guesswork. Either they found fully melted steel or not- what's the 'if' doing in there?

Holy Crap!!!! Resorting to Sophistry now Petty!!??? Really? Is that the best you can do? Let's put the statement back in context:

"This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institute's metallurgy division, who is playing a prominent role in the agency investigation. "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."

Are you seriously trying to say that someone using the word "if" in the context of discussing HYPOTHETICALS in regards to an ONGOING Investigation (such as it was) the same as an agency PARADING HYPOTHETICALS in an OFFICIAL REPORT that is intended to be the final word on the matter????

You also completely failed to addres the fact that in the example of a demolision I gave the prepartion is large amd would have been vastly larger to bring down 3 major buildings in the middle of new york. You conveintly ignored the complete refuting of your no windows breaking argument and seem to have choosen not to address why those blowing it up would have gone to the trouble of protecting surrounding windows. If it was a demolision there would be broken windows both sides of buildings, unless (as in the example I cited) those who demolished it laid loads of extra relays to keep the air pressure low enough- and they had to go in first and physically cut away some of the steel just to make the charges smaller to reduce the risk of breaking windows). And why would they do that if they are trying to cause maximum distruction? Not to mention they had to fill in the basements and pile sand against walls- and from my own research this is a very common occurance in demollishing buildings- as far as I am aware no one dumped tons and tons of fill into the basements of the Twin Towers!
Seems GB if you can't immediately find a pat answer to something you ignore the point.

You keep digging yourself a deeper hole with this argument that supports my argument. You might want to rethink this strategy. First you try to claim that it couldn't be a controlled demolition because a controlled demolition would shatter the windows on ALL SIDES of the adjacent buildings, and the adjacent buildings only had windows shattered on one side.

When I pointed out that Controlled Demolitions go to extra lengths to prevent this, YOU come back with....wait for it...CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS GO TO EXTRA LENGTHS TO MINIMIZE DAMAGE TO ADJACENT BUILDINGS.

Oh no, my dear friend. I had your "broken windows" argument stymied from the get go. Sorry, your "refutations" are of your own arguments. This is like Christmas for me.

(ps in case anyone gets the wrong idea I'm thoroughly enjoying this been a while since I had a good spat with GB!)

I know! I always enjoy our lover's quarrels Petty.


GB

[Pettytyrant101]

GB old chum I fear you have gone mad! Your argument is that the people who demolished the Twin Towers took the extra time to lay several hundred (at least) extra detonators per building, just to stop some windows breaking in the surrounding buildings whilst trying to committ an atrocity? Really? Thats your argument? They took the extra risk of being caught, the extra work and the extra time (plus the higher risk of evidence being found afterwards from all those detonators) to save some windows. And your spurious comments about the National Guard needing called in if they didnt, well that's just silly. Given the scale of destruction no one would have called in extra troops because the windows broke on both sides of surrounding buildings.
First you claimed I was wrong, that windows didn't break from a demolision at all. Now you admit they do but claim they didn't in this case because they took the care to prevent it!!!-even though they ar willing to kill hundreds of their own people? (Knew this smiley would coome in useful sometime).

And what about the common practice of filling in basements with rubble and fill? Or pilling sand against lower walls? If it was a text book demolition, so obvious you knew it immediately on seeing it, one would expect it would require text book preparation. And unless you are contenting these things also happened it was not.

Essentally my argument is simple. Demolition leaves behind tell tale signs-
1. evidence of the demolition in the shockwave effect (ie broken windows all round)-this did NOT happen, only windows broken were all facing the damaged buildings and were damaged by debris. The notion this was becasue of extra preparations to prevent it is to silly to give more time to.
2. Detenators left over in the rubble (and there should have been hundreds as the last inch or so nearly always survives)-NONE have been found.
3. Preparation of basements and lower walls- did NOT happen.

So we have what you claim is a text book demolition with none of the normal signs of a text book demolition. Thats a hell of a circle to square GB.

On the point about work being carried out in the buildings prior to the demolition- thats a spurious point as in isolation it means nothing at all. How common was it? How many other buildings in New York if you checked in the surrounding weeks, months and years had similar work done on them? Im betting at the time of 9/11 there would be at least 2 or 3 other major buildings in New York that if it had been them instead would also have had recent worked carried out in them, work which the conspirtory theorists would immediately flag up as suspicious.

And as to pub talk- you are right of course, and I always find the best debating tactic for getting to the truth is to present all the arguments against and see where that leads first.

I expect you will be bringing out the thermite next!

[Gandalf's Beard]

Here's what you get when you read the ACTUAL F****** REPORTS instead of Bulls**t summaries and rubbish posted by people who can't handle the truth.

Confessions that they did no investigation of the Physical Evidence from Building 7. And Confessions that they could not find evidence of heat damage above 250 degrees C or 600 degrees C, and that they didn't look for any more. They admit that they NEVER tested for Explosive or Incendiary materials. They admit that they didn't actually study the collapses (just to the point of "collapse initiation").

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf

NIST NCSTAR 1-3, WTC Investigation

Pg 113

7.7 STEELS USED IN WTC 7

Unlike WTC 1 and WTC 2, no recovered steel in the NIST inventory can be unambiguously assigned to WTC 7. Therefore, properties of the steel were estimated completely from the literature.


Pg 114
7.7.2 Mechanical Properties of WTC 7 Steel

NIST has found no evidence that the elastic modulus or Poisson’s ratio differs between structural steels. Figure 7–1 describes elastic modulus for structural steel as a function of temperature. Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality. The recommended values for the stress-strain behavior were estimated using the same methodology that was used for the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steels (NIST NCSTAR 1-3D). The static yield strengths were estimated from historical averages and corrected for testing rate effects.

Because, prior to collapse, WTC 7 did not suffer any high-strain rate events, NIST made no effort to estimate high-strain-rate or impact properties of the steel. The elevated-temperature stress-strain curves were estimated using the same methodology as used for the steels in WTC 1 and WTC 2 (NIST NCSTAR 1-3D). The elevated temperature stress-strain curve is modeled using power-law work-hardening, where the degree of work-hardening depends on temperature and the calculated stress is scaled by the ratio of the estimated tensile strength of the WTC 7 steel to that of the reference steel used to develop the model.

Creep behavior was estimated using the same methodology that was used for the steels in WTC 1 and WTC 2, in which the creep strain as a function of time depends on stress and temperature (NIST NCSTAR 1-3D). The applied stress was scaled by the ratio of the tensile strength of the steel in question to that of the reference AS A149 steel used to develop the creep model.

Pg 115

7.7.3 Physical Properties of WTC 7 Steel

No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7. Other physical properties are the same as those estimated in Chapter 8 for the WTC steels.



Chap 9

Pg 130

9.4 FINDINGS – DAMAGE AND FAILURE ANALYSIS

Damage and failure analysis findings were made based on pre-collapse photographs of the recovered steel. It should be noted that the recovered steel represents only a small fraction of the structural steel in the towers and that the recovery effort focused on apparent fire and impact damage.


Pg 132

9.4.5 Fire Exposure and Temperatures Reached by the Steel

The pre-collapse photographic analysis showed that 16 of the 33 exterior panels recovered from WTC 1 were exposed to fire prior to building collapse. None of the nine recovered panels from within the fire floors of WTC 2 were observed to have been directly exposed. It is difficult or impossible to determine if high-temperature exposure occurred prior to or after the collapse. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 21 exterior panels, only three locations had mudcracking of the paint, indicating that the steel may have reached temperatures in excess of 250 °C. The 21 panels represent only 3 percent of all panels on the fire floors, however, and cannot be considered representative of other columns on these floors.

Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time for the recovered pieces. Perimeter columns exposed to fire had a great tendency for local buckling of the inner web; a similar
correlation did not exist for weld failure.

Two of the core columns with as-built locations in the fire-affected floors were examined for paint cracking. The few areas with sufficient paint for analysis did not show mud cracking patterns, indicating the columns did not exceed 250 °C. (It must be recognized that the examined locations represent less than about one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region, and thus these temperatures cannot be considered representative of general conditions in the core).


Pg 134
In summary, the steel used in the construction of the WTC towers met the expectations of the designers and the specifications called for in the steel contracts. Material substitutions of higher strength steels were common in the perimeter columns and floor trusses.

The safety of the WTC towers on September 11, 2001, was most likely not affected by the fraction of steel that, according to NIST testing, did not meet the required minimum yield strength. The typical factors of safety in allowable stress design can accommodate the measured property variations below the minimum.


Chapter 6

Pgs 94 – 95

6.6.1 Visual Inspection of Recovered Structural Components

NIST has developed a novel approach to evaluating the primer paint on the structural components for evidence of exposure to high-temperature excursions (see Appendix D of NIST NCSTAR 1-3C). This method was found to be relatively easy to implement and robust enough to examine an entire component in the field. Calibration tests in the laboratory showed that, although there was little or no change in color, the primer paint used on the WTC steels that reached temperatures over 250 °C cracked (similar to a “mud cracking” pattern) from the difference in thermal expansion between the paint and the steel. Since deformation and environmental effects can also cause mud-cracking, the absence of mud-cracking indicates the steel has not exceeded 250 °C, but the presence of mud cracks cannot be assumed to be caused by high temperature.

Visual inspection for the fire effects on recovered steel was conducted solely on the perimeter panels and core columns, as these were the only structural elements that had known as-built locations. Twenty-one panels were selected with numerous locations on the inner webs, flanges, spandrels, and floor truss connectors for each floor level analyzed, providing that sufficient paint was available for the analysis. Core columns C-80 and HH from WTC 1 were examined while C-88a and C-88b were tested from WTC 2; these columns resided within the fire floors for their respective buildings. The entire length of each core column was examined, and evaluations of the primer paint were made when sufficient paint was available for inspection.

Over 170 areas associated with the 21 exterior panels were analyzed, and the results may be found in Appendix E of NIST NCSTAR 1-3C. These 21 panels represent only 3 percent of the panels on floors involved with fire and cannot be considered representative of other columns on these floors. Only three locations showed evidence of paint mud cracking:

1. Panel K-1, WTC 1, column 210, flange and inner web of 98th floor region. Prior to the collapse of WTC 1, the panel was observed to have experienced varying degrees of fire exposure for a minimum of 31 cumulative minutes in this area. A unique feature of this panel is that the upper portion of the column was crushed while generally maintaining concentric axial alignment with the lower portion of the column, Fig. 6–36. This suggests that deformation occurred at the onset of collapse, while the lower portion of the column was still constrained due to the bolted splice (endplates).

2. Panel K-2, WTC 1, column 236, 93rd floor spandrel. This area was observed to have fire exposure for nine cumulative minutes prior to collapse, Fig. 6–13. A positive reading was made directly below the truss seat while above the seat in the same location a negative result was obtained, Fig. 6–37. This suggests that the concrete floor may have shielded the upper portion of the column from the high-temperature exposure experienced by the lower portion.

3. Panel N-8, WTC 1, column 143, seat and standoff plates of the 99th floor. This seat
(Fig. 6–38) was exposed to fire for a minimum of 18 cumulative minutes before collapse.
Mud cracking was not observed on the spandrel plate to which the seat was welded.

6.6.2 Core Columns Exposed to Fire

Four of the core columns with known as-built locations were examined for mud cracking of the paint. For columns C-88a and C-88b, sufficient paint for analysis was not available. For columns HH and C-80, few areas of paint were observed (three to five spots per column) with no indication of temperatures over 250 °C. Note that these core columns represent less than 1 percent of the core columns on floors involved with fire and cannot be considered representative of any other core columns.



600 ˚c = 1,112 ˚f

250 ˚c = 482 ˚f


http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html

Melting Points of Steel:

Carbon Steel 1425˚ - 1540˚ 2600˚ - 2800˚
Stainless Steel 1510˚ 2750˚




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

Jet Fuel Burning Temperatures:

Open air burning temperatures
260-315 °C (500-599 °F)
Maximum burning temperature 980°C (1796 °F)

The following is an AWESOME letter from NIST to researchers in which NIST:
1) Admits they can't explain the collapse.
2) Admits they never even bothered to test for evidence of Controlled Demolition.
3) Affirms information in the above excerpts of one of their reports
4) ADMIT THAT THEY NEVER EVEN F******* INVESTIGATED THE COLLAPSE (or as they put it: ...NIST has stated that it did not analyze the fall of the Towers. NIST's analysis was carried to the point of collapse initiation).

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/NISTresponseToRequestForCorrectionGourleyEtal2.pdf


Oh, and then there is this: A SECONDARY SCHOOL PHYSICS TEACHER GETS NIST TO ADMIT FREEFALL IN WTC 7:





*****************************************************************************************
And HEY....What about THIS dude? Another Lunatic Conspiracy Nutcase????


James Quintiere, Ph.D.

Try FORMER CHIEF OF NIST'S FIRE SCIENCE DIVISION....obviously a crackpot.

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm

August 21, 2007

Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

By Alan Miller

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.

In his hour-long presentation, Dr. Quintiere discussed many elements of NIST’s investigation that he found problematic. He emphasized, “In every investigation I’ve taken part in, the key has been to establish a timeline. And the timeline is established by witness accounts, by information from alarm systems, by any video that you might have of the event, and then by calculations. And you try to put all of this together. And if your calculations are consistent with some of these hard facts, then perhaps you can have some comfort in the results of your calculations. I have not seen a timeline placed in the NIST report.”

Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST’s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. “And that building was not hit by anything,” noted Dr. Quintiere. “It’s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!”

World Trade Center Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane on 9/11, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 8 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. In the 6 years since 9/11, NIST has failed to provide any explanation for the collapse. In addition to NIST’s failure to provide an explanation, absolutely no mention of Building 7’s collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." [To watch a video of the collapse, click here http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/WTC7_Collapse.wmv ]

Dr. Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. “They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

In his presentation, Dr. Quintiere also criticized NIST’s repeated failures to formally respond to serious questions raised about its conclusions regarding the WTC building collapses and the process it employed to arrive at those conclusions. “I sat through all of the NIST hearings. I went to all of their advisory board meetings, as an observer. I made comments at all.”

Responding to a comment from a NIST representative in the audience, Dr. Quintiere said, “I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply.”

Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”

Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. “It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.”

Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said.

Dr. Quintiere’s presentation at the World Fire Safety Conference echoed his earlier statement to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, on October 26, 2005, during a hearing on “The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps”, at which he stated:

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.

"I have over 35 years of fire research in my experience. I worked in the fire program at NIST for 19 years, leaving as a division chief. I have been at the University of Maryland since. I am a founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science—the principal world forum for fire research. ...

"All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.

1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ...

2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...

3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.

5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ...

6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"

[The full text of Dr. Quintiere’s statement to the Science Committee can be found at http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy24133.000/hsy24133_0f.htm ]

Dr. Quintiere is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers. He served in the Fire Science and Engineering Division of NIST for 19 years and rose to the position of Chief of the Division. He left NIST in 1990 to join the faculty of the Department of Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland, where he still serves.

Quintiere is a founding member and Past Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science (IAFSS). He is also a Fellow of the Society of Fire Protection Engineering and a Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. He has received numerous awards for his contributions to fire science research and engineering, including:

· The Department of Commerce Bronze Medal (1976) and Silver Medal (1982)

· The Howard W. Emmons Lecture Award from the IAFSS in 1986

· The Sjölin Award in 2002 for outstanding contribution to the science of fire safety by the International Forum of Fire Research Directors, NIST

· The 2006 Guise Medal by the National Fire Protection Association

Note that I posted this despite Dr Quintiere's fence sitting (which is a pretty good idea from his standpoint. Other people have got the sack for being less circumspect. He can't go wrong by pointing out NIST's failure's and asking for a new and fuller investigation).




I guess THESE guys are kooks too:
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

And check out what some of THOSE firefighting eye-(and ear)-witnesses have to say (after their accounts were allowed to be released), you know, those eyewitnesses NIST claims didn't provide any testimony that contradicted NIST claims:
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=158

Here's a snippet of what one of them thinks about a NIST report:

From NIST website posted 8/21/08:

“Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building’s critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.”

Now, do we have this straight. They investigated it. Although, they self admit they didn’t chemically test for residue. So, they are going off witness testimony, video, photographic, and audio evidence, of which they found none that had blast sounds or indicators. They also used computer models. And, lastly, they admit they did no further investigation for possible explosive charges because….it would have been hard to plant them?!? Did we read that right? So, with that logic, we no longer have to investigate any crime that would have been hard for someone to commit from here on out? Is this what we are going to stand for?

Quick, somebody call NIST! We have another “extraordinary event”…we found some evidence! Dr. Steven Jones already did the chemical analysis for them, and tested it in multiple labs. And, we have found the audio evidence and witness testimony that can clear up any doubts as to whether any blast sounds were heard by anyone. Also, look at the video above and see if it looks at all similar to a controlled demolition. Unfortunately, we weren’t able to find any evidence, videos, pictures, or history of another high rise structural steel building collapsing due to fire.

Are you going to take a goverment agency’s report (one that has pathetically drug it’s feet, self-admittedly refused to test for residue, and ignored obvious “blast sound” evidence) as the final word? As NIST says, are you going to put all these “conspiracy theories to bed?” Or, are you going to take action and demand the real investigation our Brothers deserve!

If you’re still not convinced there’s more to it than we’re being told, then ask yourself: if Tower 7 did come down due to fire, why didn’t Tower 5? Tower 5 was much closer, had devastating structural damage from the Twin Tower collapses, and much more severe fires burning. But, it remained standing. So, did Tower 3,4, and 6.

Further down the page we find this:

A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building 7 collapsed “does not match the available facts” and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.

A Naval Research Lab!!!?????????? What kind of Crackhead would believe someone from the NRL...clearly they're a hotbed of ranting Leftist Nutters?

Let's see NIST said there was no evidence of explosions....right?
What's this then?:


So what's NIST got in the end once you take away their speculations and only go with what little evidence they actually investigated???? A Whole Lotta NUTHIN'.

Everything people babble at you about how NIST PROVED that WTC 1, 2, and 7 weren't brought down by Controlled Demolition is COMPLETE RUBBISH.

But you know what? All of the above is EXTRANEOUS. All you need to know is BASIC SIMPLE PHYSICS. The Path of Least Resistance. If your head gets cut off, it doesn't fall through your body to get to the ground. If you kick a stack of bricks, they don't fall neatly through each other to the ground.



Did the apple that fell on Newton's head smash through it and crush his body into the ground???

Hint: No......Newton was the path of MAXIMUM resistance. So the apple bounced off his head.


Structural Failure--path of least resistance:



By the way....everyone raise their hands who has read the 9/11 Commission Report!!!

Well so far that's 1...counting me!

Hmmm....how do they bill themselves?:

The Commission’s Final Report provides a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks,

I don't know....that's weird... ...what? No mention of WTC 7. I thought the Final Report was a "full and complete account." I wonder if it includes the fact that 6 of the alleged 19 hijackers were alive and well and that some had been interviewed by the BBC??? NO???

Oh,...I see. It's not really a complete report at all. It's mostly about the Terrorists that received funding, arming, and training from Pappy Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Except it doesn't mention anything about Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld's role as the founders of Al Qaeda.

Which isn't surprising as George Bush and Dick Cheney flat out refused to allow an independent investigation to be conducted at all. After a lot of browbeating from 9/11 families, first responders, politicians from both sides of the aisle, judges and lawyers, architects engineers and physicists, and the general public at large, they finally (begrudgingly) allowed a committee to be formed. Unfortunately it wasn't an independent inquiry; and Tricky Dicky and Georgie Porgie refused to testify on the record.

I had to fork out about 20 bucks for it when it came out. Bah! What a waste of money. :X

Here, you can have it for free, straight from the source:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html





GB

[Eldorion]

1) When NIST says they "believe", they mean that they aren't sure, or are unable to confirm their findings. NIST admitted that they never even tested for evidence of controlled demolition. NIST is VERY clear, and the report writers choose their words carefully. Why? Because to a scientist conclusive evidence is true whether one believes it or not.

The more you post, the more skeptical I become of your claims of scientific literacy (even though I love you too ). You should know (and I think you do at some level, if I remember prior conversations accurately) that no evidence ever shuts the book entirely. There is always room for new evidence and ideas to come in -- if they are well-supported -- and no scientific theory is ever seen as completely true, even those that are well-established enough to be colloquially referred to as facts, like gravity and evolution. It is perfectly reasonable for good scientists to talk about "believing" the conclusions they draw from their evidence, and in fact bad scientists are the ones who make absolute statements because they think their results are conclusive.

2) NIST actually ignores their own findings of the physical evidence they investigated in favour of computer models, i.e. they made shit up. They should have just stuck to "we don't know" instead of "we conjecture."

I'd ask for evidence of this from a legitimate news source (neither amateur conspiracy sites or FOX News, I hope) but I doubt much would come of it.

3) I never said every scientist, architect, or engineer who weren't signed up were wrong. To say that, I would have to assume that every single scientist, architect, or engineer in the country had examined all the evidence. Which is what you're doing by the way.

Ah, GB's old straw-men are back. I didn't claim that all of them have examined all the evidence, but the fact that only a tiny minority have supported the conspiracy theories (and they are obsessively listed on public websites, just like Creationists do with biologists willing to criticize evolution) gives me pause. Your feeble attempts to dodge the point can't undo the fact that your position can get only the tiniest sliver of support from the professional community.

4) Ah, gotta love the personal attacks from someone who claims that they aren't qualified to evaluate the evidence but somehow they still know I'm wrong. (I still love you though ). FYI, I knew it was a Controlled Demolition on Day 1 when I watched those buildings come down in real time. You see, I'm actually acquainted with the Laws of Physics. I just post the Youtubes for YOUR benefit.

I still fail to understand why you think that admitting that I don't know as much about physics or engineering as professionals in those fields is cause for mockery in your mind. Then again, conspiracy nuts tend to be the radical populist sorts who disavow "elitism" of all sorts, even when the "elites" are differentiated as such because of years and training and practice. But no, I'm sure the YouTube-watchers and bloggers are juuuuuuuuust as knowledgeable as the experts.

I've missed you GB, but your failure to recognize the difference between professionals and amateurs (among many other things) has always baffled me.

[Pettytyrant101]

A quick jump back to domestic politics in the UK (dont worry GB I will get back to you on the points you raise- but its been a long day and your post demands a proper read and scrutiny).
The government has announced its plans for public services in England in Wales in a White Paper.

'Unveiling the proposed legislation on Monday, Mr Cameron said it was about "ending the old big-government, top-down way of running public services, releasing the grip of state control and putting power in people's hands. It is not about ideology. It is about the best way of getting things done”
"The old dogma that said Whitehall knows best - it's gone," he said. "There will be more freedom, more choice and more local control."
Mr Cameron said he had seen first-hand "how good" many public services were but results were too varied and for many people the current approach "just isn't working". Replacing a "take what you are given" culture with a "get what you choose" ethos was vital to making the UK fairer and more competitive, he argued.'- BBC news.

This is a gamble. Polls show satisfactioni n the NHS is at an all time high, tampering with that is tricky, it will not look good for Cameron if satisfaction falls.
And all this on the day when one of the largest Care Home providers in England collapses, thats the problem when you put things like health into the marketplace, and a timely reminder of the possible end result across services of Camerons plans. Glad I don't live south of the border!

[Gandalf's Beard]

GB old chum I fear you have gone mad! Your argument is that the people who demolished the Twin Towers took the extra time to lay several hundred (at least) extra detonators per building, just to stop some windows breaking in the surrounding buildings whilst trying to committ an atrocity? Really? Thats your argument? They took the extra risk of being caught, the extra work and the extra time (plus the higher risk of evidence being found afterwards from all those detonators) to save some windows. And your spurious comments about the National Guard needing called in if they didnt, well that's just silly. Given the scale of destruction no one would have called in extra troops because the windows broke on both sides of surrounding buildings.

First you claimed I was wrong, that windows didn't break from a demolision at all. Now you admit they do but claim they didn't in this case because they took the care to prevent it!!!-even though they ar willing to kill hundreds of their own people? (Knew this smiley would coome in useful sometime).

I'm sorry that you have completely gone round the bend. Oh well, I hear from a Scot on this forum that they have some lovely Care Facilities in the Highlands.

Anyway, the above is YOUR argument, not mine. You still need to work out your little issues with the window breakages by the way. Did they only break on one side of the adjacent buildings or not? Amazing that an uncontrolled self-demolishing building would cause less damage to adjacent buildings than a Controlled Demolition.

Maybe you just forgot how I first responded to your "window-breaking" theory:

The whole POINT of controlled demolitions is that it MINIMIZES damage to surrounding buildings, so it is not surprising that surrounding buildings only had windows broken on one side. Controlled Demolitions are NOT, in fact, "Explosions," they are IMPLOSIONS; this is a CONFLATION of terms that is intended to bamboozle people. IMPLOSIONS are used in Controlled Demolitions because they DON'T create huge shock waves or topple into other buildings.

Woops!!! I guess that nullifies this sentence: "First you claimed I was wrong, that windows didn't break from a demolision at all."

Let's look at this sentence then: "Now you admit they do but claim they didn't in this case because they took the care to prevent it!!!"

Well, the first bit is obviously wrong ("Now you admit they do...) as you can plainly see above. Second part of sentence "...but claim they didn't in this case because they took the care to prevent it." For Christs-sake can't you get any of my arguments right????

Here:

But seriously, all snark aside, don't you realize that given all the effort demolitions teams put into minimizing damage to adjacent buildings, it shows how F******* Difficult that is to pull off???. DUDE!!! What are you thinking???

If it takes a team of experts to work HARD at minimizing damage to other buildings in a CONTROLLED Demolition, the odds are astronomical that an UNCONTROLLED Collapse would cause LESS damage than a Controlled Demolition!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And Here:

You keep digging yourself a deeper hole with this argument that supports my argument. You might want to rethink this strategy. First you try to claim that it couldn't be a controlled demolition because a controlled demolition would shatter the windows on ALL SIDES of the adjacent buildings, and the adjacent buildings only had windows shattered on one side.

When I pointed out that Controlled Demolitions go to extra lengths to prevent this, YOU come back with....wait for it...CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS GO TO EXTRA LENGTHS TO MINIMIZE DAMAGE TO ADJACENT BUILDINGS.

Oh no, my dear friend. I had your "broken windows" argument stymied from the get go. Sorry, your "refutations" are of your own arguments. This is like Christmas for me.

Nothing like a few quotes to set the record straight.

BTW, my comment regarding the National Guard was in response to what I thought was your point that Mad Bombers would want to MAXIMIZE damage. I took this to mean that you thought lots more buildings in Manhattan would be targeted by Mad Bombers at the same time. Obviously the Nat Guard aren't necessary for a few broken windows.

And what about the common practice of filling in basements with rubble and fill? Or pilling sand against lower walls? If it was a text book demolition, so obvious you knew it immediately on seeing it, one would expect it would require text book preparation. And unless you are contenting these things also happened it was not.

What about it? Don't just tell me about it! Quote me something and give me a link! I can't judge what you're on about unless I know you've actually got the right end of the stick (so far your record isn't looking too good ). In any case, the WTC 1 and 2 weren't textbook demolitions. They were designed for a top down implosion instead of the standard textbook demolition, as was performed on WTC 7.

Essentally my argument is simple. Demolition leaves behind tell tale signs-
1. evidence of the demolition in the shockwave effect (ie broken windows all round)-this did NOT happen, only windows broken were all facing the damaged buildings and were damaged by debris. The notion this was becasue of extra preparations to prevent it is to silly to give more time to.
2. Detenators left over in the rubble (and there should have been hundreds as the last inch or so nearly always survives)-NONE have been found.
3. Preparation of basements and lower walls- did NOT happen.

1) The notion that buildings fall straight down into their own footprints with minimal damage to surrounding buildings without careful planning is even more insane and it displays your severe lack of Physics Comprehension.

2) NIST didn't even bother to look for evidence of Demolitions.

3) A) How do you know it didn't?
B) Or conversely, how do you know if it was necessary in the case of the WTC buildings?

So we have what you claim is a text book demolition with none of the normal signs of a text book demolition. Thats a hell of a circle to square GB.

What's harder for me to square is your stunning inability to grasp simple physics concepts. The UK still has higher education standards than the US, so I just don't know what to make of it.

On the point about work being carried out in the buildings prior to the demolition- thats a spurious point as in isolation it means nothing at all. How common was it? How many other buildings in New York if you checked in the surrounding weeks, months and years had similar work done on them? Im betting at the time of 9/11 there would be at least 2 or 3 other major buildings in New York that if it had been them instead would also have had recent worked carried out in them, work which the conspirtory theorists would immediately flag up as suspicious.

Why do I feel like I'm stuck in a time loop? One more time: Marvin BUSH'S Security Firm was doing work in the WTC BUILDINGS WEEKS BEFORE THE ATTACKS. That's got nothing to do with work going on in other buildings; it's irrelevant. All we need to know is that there were Work Crews from a Shady Bush Outfit doing "work" on the buildings.

And as to pub talk- you are right of course, and I always find the best debating tactic for getting to the truth is to present all the arguments against and see where that leads first.

It helps, of course, for one's arguments to be based on actual evidence...PHYSICAL FORENSIC EVIDENCE, which NIST OPENLY ADMITS IT DIDN'T LOOK FOR (evidence of demolition), and DOESN'T HAVE (in regards to temperatures and a building collapse analysis), and IGNORES (in regards to the physics of falling objects).

I expect you will be bringing out the thermite next!

I could, It's very compelling evidence which has been presented (validated) in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

But it's entirely unnecessary to proving that three WTC buildings weren't brought down by planes and fire. All you need is VERY SIMPLE PHYSICS. The Path of Least Resistance.

Everything else is just gravy. I don't need to actually prove anything else. Unless you can provide some evidence that God suspended the laws of physics on 9/11, you've got nothing.


GB

[Gandalf's Beard]

A quick jump back to domestic politics in the UK (dont worry GB I will get back to you on the points you raise- but its been a long day and your post demands a proper read and scrutiny).
The government has announced its plans for public services in England in Wales in a White Paper.

'Unveiling the proposed legislation on Monday, Mr Cameron said it was about "ending the old big-government, top-down way of running public services, releasing the grip of state control and putting power in people's hands. It is not about ideology. It is about the best way of getting things done”
"The old dogma that said Whitehall knows best - it's gone," he said. "There will be more freedom, more choice and more local control."
Mr Cameron said he had seen first-hand "how good" many public services were but results were too varied and for many people the current approach "just isn't working". Replacing a "take what you are given" culture with a "get what you choose" ethos was vital to making the UK fairer and more competitive, he argued.'- BBC news.

This is a gamble. Polls show satisfactioni n the NHS is at an all time high, tampering with that is tricky, it will not look good for Cameron if satisfaction falls.
And all this on the day when one of the largest Care Home providers in England collapses, thats the problem when you put things like health into the marketplace, and a timely reminder of the possible end result across services of Camerons plans. Glad I don't live south of the border!

AH! The soothing bliss of agreement!

You have to love the sheer ingenious duplicity of Cameron's Rhetorical Ploy: Selling Privatization and Profits for Billionaires as Populism. I don't think that people in the UK are quite as stupid as US Americans in that regard, Cameron is on his way out. And he can't rely on Murdoch anymore to spread the Good News of Corporatism.

By the way. Have as much fun as you like trying to poke holes. But if you can't prove your Magically Collapsing Buildings Theory, you'll be arguing all by yourself. I've given you everything you need to know, and you can look it up in a Physics Textbook.

I'm done until you show me the God or Wizard that prevented the Buildings from toppling into other buildings as they collapsed.

GB

[Gandalf's Beard]

1) When NIST says they "believe", they mean that they aren't sure, or are unable to confirm their findings. NIST admitted that they never even tested for evidence of controlled demolition. NIST is VERY clear, and the report writers choose their words carefully. Why? Because to a scientist conclusive evidence is true whether one believes it or not.

The more you post, the more skeptical I become of your claims of scientific literacy (even though I love you too ). You should know (and I think you do at some level, if I remember prior conversations accurately) that no evidence ever shuts the book entirely. There is always room for new evidence and ideas to come in -- if they are well-supported -- and no scientific theory is ever seen as completely true, even those that are well-established enough to be colloquially referred to as facts, like gravity and evolution. It is perfectly reasonable for good scientists to talk about "believing" the conclusions they draw from their evidence, and in fact bad scientists are the ones who make absolute statements because they think their results are conclusive.

2) NIST actually ignores their own findings of the physical evidence they investigated in favour of computer models, i.e. they made shit up. They should have just stuck to "we don't know" instead of "we conjecture."

I'd ask for evidence of this from a legitimate news source (neither amateur conspiracy sites or FOX News, I hope) but I doubt much would come of it.

3) I never said every scientist, architect, or engineer who weren't signed up were wrong. To say that, I would have to assume that every single scientist, architect, or engineer in the country had examined all the evidence. Which is what you're doing by the way.

Ah, GB's old straw-men are back. I didn't claim that all of them have examined all the evidence, but the fact that only a tiny minority have supported the conspiracy theories (and they are obsessively listed on public websites, just like Creationists do with biologists willing to criticize evolution) gives me pause. Your feeble attempts to dodge the point can't undo the fact that your position can get only the tiniest sliver of support from the professional community.

4) Ah, gotta love the personal attacks from someone who claims that they aren't qualified to evaluate the evidence but somehow they still know I'm wrong. (I still love you though ). FYI, I knew it was a Controlled Demolition on Day 1 when I watched those buildings come down in real time. You see, I'm actually acquainted with the Laws of Physics. I just post the Youtubes for YOUR benefit.

I still fail to understand why you think that admitting that I don't know as much about physics or engineering as professionals in those fields is cause for mockery in your mind. Then again, conspiracy nuts tend to be the radical populist sorts who disavow "elitism" of all sorts, even when the "elites" are differentiated as such because of years and training and practice. But no, I'm sure the YouTube-watchers and bloggers are juuuuuuuuust as knowledgeable as the experts.

I've missed you GB, but your failure to recognize the difference between professionals and amateurs (among many other things) has always baffled me.

1) I've posted NIST'S admissions in THEIR OWN WORDS, and provided links. Thanks for noticing.

2) Until you open a Physics textbook (a Secondary School one will do), you will have as little luck as Petty in moving this conversation forward (you don't need a Quantum Physics or Engineering degree for that Eldo. Just look it up: The Path of Least Resistance as it relates to falling objects).

3) I'm not mocking you at all. REALLY! I'M NOT!

I'm just pointing out that if you claim not to have enough education to evaluate the evidence, you really have no business arguing about it. You can't have it both ways Eldo.


GB

[Eldorion]

I'm not mocking you at all. REALLY! I'M NOT!

I'm just pointing out that if you claim not to have enough education to evaluate the evidence, you really have no business arguing about it. You can't have it both ways Eldo.

Yeah, you're not mocking me, you're just continuing to twist and take out of context a single remark I made months ago. Thanks GB, I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

[Gandalf's Beard]

I'm not mocking you at all. REALLY! I'M NOT!

I'm just pointing out that if you claim not to have enough education to evaluate the evidence, you really have no business arguing about it. You can't have it both ways Eldo.

Yeah, you're not mocking me, you're just continuing to twist and take out of context a single remark I made months ago. Thanks GB, I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Eldo. Eldo, Eldo... I almost feel like I should apologize. And I am a little sad that I've hurt your feelings.

But I don't think I've taken your quote out of context at all (and I don't think you really think that either, which is probably why you're a bit sensitive about it).

I'm just still waiting for you to admit that you are an intelligent human being with a functioning brain, a decent education, and that you are perfectly capable of evaluating the arguments on this particular issue. You have not (to my recollection) retracted the statement claiming otherwise (yes, I do know you have a fully functioning brain, which is why I know that you are perfectly capable of evaluating the evidence [or lack of it] ).

But you know as well as anyone that you can't play both sides of the street. You can't both say that you don't have the "expertise" to make a judgement and then turn right around and make a judgement. You're either in the game or not. If you want to just heckle and take potshots, that's fine, but you can't expect me to give your arguments any serious consideration, and you CAN expect me to heckle you back.

Especially when your favourite tactic is to just dismiss all the professors, architects, engineers, physicists, military, firemen, policemen, journalists, politicians etc out of hand just because you think they are "on the internet" or kooks or random youtube bloggers or are the "wrong kind" of PROFESSIONAL (everyone I've referenced is a qualified professional in one field or another, not weirdos that believe in Space Beams and Holograms, or Satanic Communist Illuminati Freemason Jewish Conspiracies) or something equally ridiculous.

Honestly, there is no arguing with that sort of claptrap.

Okay...that's it...admonishment over. So let's get back to the warm fuzzies.


GB

[Orwell]

To justify a war against Iraq: lies about WMD's. Plausible. Very possible.

To justify a war against Afghanistan: a carefully planned murder of thousands of your own men, women and children, utilizing hundreds of people who all can keep that secret, organized in a very busy business location in a very busy city. Implausible. Very improbable.

[Gandalf's Beard]

To justify a war against Iraq: lies about WMD's. Plausible. Very possible.

To justify a war against Afghanistan: a carefully planned murder of thousands of your own men, women and children, utilizing hundreds of people who all can keep that secret, organized in a very busy business location in a very busy city. Implausible. Very improbable.

That and 5 dollars will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Sorry Orwell, but you should know better (you might want to try actually reading 1984 ). The Laws of Physics and Political Science don't take a backseat to unsubstantiated claims of implausibility. Assassination, Mass Murder and Agent Provocateur events have ever been the Currency of the Powerful and Ruthless.

And nowadays it's even easier to convince the Populace to agree that White is Black and Up is Down. People just go about trying to fit in without making waves or looking too closely at the Authoritarian Ugliness behind the Facade of Democracy. It's actually a testament to the Plausibility of the Inside Job that so many professional people in the political-economic mainstream have taken notice.

After all, you are correct...it is very difficult to keep such a big operation secret--especially when the Official Conspiracy Theory lacks any credible evidence; but also because there HAVE been so many Whistle-blowers stepping forward (and getting sacked). Hell, even an Obama administration official was given the boot for daring to question the Conventional Narrative of 9/11.

Only a few Insiders at the Top and small units of Operatives would have to have full operational knowledge, then as each level of the operation fans out, many players are operating on a need to know basis with very little knowledge of the full import of their actions. Everyone else just carries out their jobs, not realizing at all that their actions provide cover for the Conspirators.


GB

[Orwell]

But I have read 1948 --- and Animal Farm --- and Homage to Catalonia -- and -- well, never mind, none of that is germane... Dear ol' Beard - how do you recruit so many mass murderers-of-their-own, and leave not a trace? Next you'll be saying the world is a big ball in the sky!

[Pettytyrant101]

Ah GB. You do make me smile. Where to begin (again!). Lets start here.

"Controlled Demolitions are NOT, in fact, "Explosions," they are IMPLOSIONS; this is a CONFLATION of terms that is intended to bamboozle people. IMPLOSIONS are used in Controlled Demolitions because they DON'T create huge shock waves or topple into other buildings."

This is precisley why I used as my example the JL Hudson store demolition because it was the first major building in a built up area to be brought down with the implosion technique. So your claim above, "IMPLOSIONS are used in Controlled Demolitions because they DON'T create huge shock waves or topple into other buildings." is simply complete rubbish. I do wish you would pay attention to the entirety of what I say and not just leap onto soundbites out of context!

"the odds are astronomical that an UNCONTROLLED Collapse would cause LESS damage than a Controlled Demolition!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Not at all. If the planes and subsequent damage caused the collapse then the damage in the surroundings is as you would expect damage from debris, blowing up car engines in the streets around about (plenty evidence of that) and windows broken on the sides of buildings facing the calamity.
If it were a controlled demolition, even an implosion, then you need all the preparations as given in the Hudson store example to make it look that way. So
what would it take to prepare the buildings?
Well I will use the Hudson store as an example, its well documented, its a comparable location (ie surrounded by occupied building in a built up area) and its the same 'type' of demolition and no one thnks there is anything suspicous about it, so lets compare.

The Hudson store has 33 levels. It needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for the implosion design, and they didnt have to be sneaky about it. How long where this supposed shady lot in the Twin Towers for doing work prior to its collapse GB?

During that period, the lower two basements of the structure were filled with engineered fill and the perimeter basement walls bermed to 1st basement level with soil. On which matter you said "Quote me something and give me a link!" I have now quoted you something twice! I dont have the link (and can't be arsed going looking for it now) as I didn't think posting it necessary as I pasted and copied the entire report on the demoliton in my post, so there is nothing else to read at the link.
You also say on this matter "They were designed for a top down implosion instead of the standard textbook demolition, as was performed on WTC 7."
Again I am quoting from an imposion demolition not an explosion.
Anyway back to Hudson and what it took to bring it down by controlled means.

It neeeded 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns.
Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in the implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary
implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

Those 216 micro-delays are specifically to prevent the shockwave breaking surrounding windows so would have been required for the Twin Towers also if it
were brought down by the same means. (given windows are broken only on one side, those facing and even then not uniformly indicating the breakages did not all occur at once)

So lets roughly scale that up, the Twin Towers were each 110 storeies high. Which is roughly 3 times the size of the Hudson Store so thats 12,354 seperate charges, 10,8000 ft of detonating cord, 13,536 non-electric delay elements, 648 micro delays and 8,184lbs of explosives.
But thats just per building so the rough final total for the two towers is

Charges- 24,708
Detonating cord - 216,000ft
Non-electric delay elements- 27,072
Micro delays -1,296
Explosives -16,386lbs

And there's still the third tower to add in but I won't go on as surely the point has been made.

I am not a demoliton engineer so I do not know for definite if the Twin Towers would have required the basements filled and the walls packed against with sand in the lower reaches, but from my own research and in the example I cite it is common in both explosive and implosive demolitions so I would err on it being at
the least preferrable.

You ask how I know this did not happen- for the very good reason the Twin Towers are so large it would take tons of fill and that in the middle of New York, in buildings people work in every day, it would be impossible and implausable to conceal. Unless you are propsing that somehow fleets of dumper trucks were
sneaking in and filling up basements without anyone noticing?
And even if it was not required for some reason in this instance the rest of what is required is to obvious to think no one would notice.
For every one of those 24 thouand charges there is a chance of it being spotted before the demolition occurs, same goes for all the rest of it. Why take such a risky approach? Why risk getting caught before you can even carry it out?

The UK went to war because Blair convinced Parliament that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction which could hit UK interests within 45minutes- a lie, a simple lie backed up with biased, delibratley choosen information. Why on earth would any US government undertake such a massively risky operation as this when there are easier means of galvanizing your people for unjust wars?- for goodness sake the US has been involved in unjust wars with the apparent support of its people and politicians for over half a century- why such a huge enteripse full of risk for this one?

Oh and had to comment on the 'sounds of an explosion' vid- could be just about anything- as mentioned there is plenty evidence that several cars blew up during the events as well as gas containers, could even concevably have been a big cooler or some other everyday industrial object which contains pressurized gas of which there are many. One would be more suprised by a lack of explosions in the circumstances than in hearing some.

[Gandalf's Beard]

Petty, my response to your last post will have to wait. I'm tired, in pain, and I need some sleep and strong pain-killers.

However, it appears that my hopes and predictions for the sacking of Cameron, and the split-up of the Tories and the Lib-Dems (hopefully leading to new elections before Cameron can destroy the UK's Social Contract) are beginning to pan out. If all goes as I hope it will, Cameron will be out before the end of the year and new elections called for.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/world/europe/13cameron.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=igw

LONDON — Prime Minister David Cameron is usually the nimblest of politicians, radiating self-assurance and blessed with an almost Reaganesque ability to deflect criticism. But as the phone hacking scandal spreads, Mr. Cameron has been placed in the unaccustomed position of appearing vulnerable and behind the curve.

He has been maneuvered into embarrassing U-turns nearly every step of the way, and on Tuesday performed the latest one: suddenly joining the opposition Labour Party, his bitterest foes, in calling for Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation to withdraw its $12 billion bid to buy British Sky Broadcasting, known also as BSkyB.

Mr. Cameron’s opponents in turn have seized on the chance to inflict damage on the once-unassailable prime minister. The scandal has given new life to the Labour Party and its leader, Ed Miliband, and there are signs, too, of cracks in the governing coalition between the Conservatives and their until-now toothless Liberal Democrat partners. The Liberal Democrat leader, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, on Monday asserted a new independence by heaping moral outrage on Mr. Murdoch and urging him to rescind his BSkyB bid — a full day before Mr. Cameron would do the same.

But the prime minister’s problems go deeper than failing to read the political signs as quickly as other parties. More seriously, his critics say, the affair raises questions about Mr. Cameron’s character and judgment in cultivating multiple ties to News International, Mr. Murdoch’s British subsidiary, which helped put him in office but which is currently about as politically popular as a basket of snakes at a summer picnic.

Mr. Cameron is especially on the defensive about his relationship with his former chief spokesman, Andy Coulson, whom he hired in 2007, soon after Mr. Coulson resigned as the News of the World editor after the initial phone-hacking revelations. Recent disclosures indicate that Mr. Cameron was repeatedly warned not to bring Mr. Coulson with him to Downing Street last year, but did so anyway.

“Unless the prime minister can explain what happened with Mr. Coulson and apologize for this terrible error of judgment in employing him, his reputation and that of the government will be permanently tarnished,” Mr. Miliband said on Monday in the House of Commons.

Mr. Coulson, who gave Mr. Cameron a useful link to the tabloid news world and an invaluable connection to the Murdoch empire, had the full support of the prime minister until last week, when he was arrested on suspicion of phone hacking and paying the police for information and documents while editor of The News of the World.

Last Wednesday, Mr. Cameron called Mr. Coulson his friend and said that Mr. Coulson had always assured him he had done nothing wrong. But this Monday, he said: “If it turned out that those assurances were untrue, if I had been lied to, I would be incredibly angry.”

It turned out he had deflected numerous warnings about Mr. Coulson, from both allies and opponents. These went beyond the initial flurry of opprobrium that greeted Mr. Cameron’s initial decision to hire someone so close to an unfolding scandal.

In February 2010, the deputy editor of The Guardian, Ian Katz, said he telephoned Steve Hilton, Mr. Cameron’s director of strategy, with some worrisome information. According to The Guardian’s reporting, Mr. Katz said, Mr. Coulson and The News of the World had uncomfortably close connections to a corrupt private investigator with a criminal record named Jonathan Rees.

Mr. Katz told Mr. Hilton that the paper could not yet print every detail, because the matter was still in court, but enumerated a number of nasty disclosures that would eventually emerge. And indeed they did.

Mr. Rees, who had earlier been imprisoned for conspiring to plant cocaine on a woman, was rehired after his release as an 150,000-pounds-a-year investigator by The News of the World, edited at the time by Mr. Coulson, The Guardian reported. And he was to be tried as a suspect in an even worse crime: conspiring in the murder of his former business partner, who was chopped to death with an ax in a pub parking lot in 1987. (The trial fell apart this spring, charges were dismissed, and Mr. Rees’s location is unknown.)

Mr. Coulson had to pass through numerous layers of vetting before coming to Downing Street, and none found any criminal connections. On Monday, a spokesman for the prime minister’s office told The Guardian that “the prime minister has said that he was not given specific information” about Mr. Katz’s warnings.

Mr. Katz was not the only one with concerns. Nicholas Soames, a senior Conservative lawmaker, said that he expressed his displeasure about Mr. Coulson to Mr. Cameron “through the usual channels.” The Conservatives’ coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, were unhappy, too.

In opposition, they had long inveighed against Mr. Coulson, an easy strategy because they are the only party without special ties to Mr. Murdoch. Soon after the election last year, Paddy Ashdown, former leader of the Liberal Democrats, said he also contacted Mr. Cameron’s office with worries about Mr. Coulson. “I was aware that there was likely to be more to this than Mr. Coulson was at this stage revealing,” said Lord Ashdown, who has felt the sting of the Murdoch press in the past.

As it happened, Mr. Coulson resigned from his government job in January, following a new round of revelations in the scandal.

The evolution of Mr. Cameron’s statements about Mr. Coulson is just one example of the policy contortions the prime minister has had to perform this week.

First he said there was no need for a new phone-hacking inquiry; then he said there was. First he said there was nothing he could do to delay Mr. Murdoch’s takeover of BSkyB; then he said there was, finally calling on Mr. Murdoch to withdraw the bid.

First Mr. Cameron continued to support his close friend Rebekah Brooks, chief executive of Mr. Murdoch’s News International; then he said she should leave her job. He has also had to shed his numerous associations to News International as swiftly as if he were taking off an overcoat.

These include friendships not just with Ms. Brooks but with Mr. Murdoch’s children Elisabeth and James, and others in the Murdoch inner circle near the village of Chipping Norton in the Oxfordshire countryside. And they include political sympathy so acute that Mr. Murdoch was Mr. Cameron’s second visitor to Downing Street after he became prime minister. In addition, Mr. Cameron’s government has been relentlessly and publicly bullish about Mr. Murdoch’s BSkyB bid until now.

“He is not a sleazy corrupt individual himself, but he has not shown terribly good judgment getting into bed with these people,” said Gerry Alcock, who runs the Web site chippingnorton.net.

In a way, Mr. Cameron is unlucky. Successive governments, most recently the Labour government of Prime Minister Tony Blair, courted Mr. Murdoch with almost as much fervor as the current one. Mr. Cameron's happened to be the government in power and without a chair when the music stopped.

This absolutely SMASHING!!!

Oh it couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Who would have guessed that the exposure of Murdoch's conspiracies (hey, that's what the media and officials on both sides of the pond are calling it) would lead to his co-conspirators, and very likely take them all down (I'm hoping some of the Fascists on this side of the pond will get caught in this net too. Doubt it though. FOX has a devoted fan base, many of them leaders in the GOP).

After Blair and Clinton turned their respective liberal parties into conservative parties, I always appreciated the fact that Gordon Brown never got on with Blair. And given the recent revelations that Brown was a target of Murdoch's operations too, Blair's own ties to Murdoch seem equally suspect.

One Conspiracy unraveling, more to come???


GB

[Pettytyrant101]

"Petty, my response to your last post will have to wait. I'm tired, in pain, and I need some sleep and strong pain-killers."-GB

Blimey! I knew my argument was good but hadn't expected quite such an effect!

All change today with News International- they're unstoppbale bid to take over Sky has been stopped! They've pulled out in the face of a Parliamentary vote backed by all parties to tell them to pull out. Judges have been appointed with full powers to call witnesses for the enquiries and a light is been shone into some very murky areas of our political, media, police. Here's hoping we actually end up with a real free press this time.

[Gandalf's Beard]

"Petty, my response to your last post will have to wait. I'm tired, in pain, and I need some sleep and strong pain-killers."-GB

Blimey! I knew my argument was good but hadn't expected quite such an effect!

Not Bloody Likely!!!

I'm looking forward to responding. It's one the easiest ones yet. But health comes first. I need to recuperate.


GB