Since 9/11 is my birthday, two friends gave me the above gift last year. It’s a lighted box they found in the International District, a scrolling view of New York City’s sights.
While writing this piece about the shakeout since 9/11 in my military family, I soaked my brain in all kinds of World Trade Center-related movies, none of which ended up in the piece. I watched Oliver Stone’s very boring World Trade Center (Nicolas Cage mutters to himself while trapped under rubble for two hours), I rewatched the never boring Working Girl (did you realize Melanie Griffith works in the World Trade Center?), I rewatched Man on Wire…
But the video that really stood out—and will make you sickest to your stomach—is the History Channel’s documentary about the World Trade Center filmed in early 2001, nine months before the attacks.
It’s all about how neat the World Trade Center is: how the buildings are cooled by water pumped in from the Hudson River, how the complex contains 71 escalators and 254 elevators, how its subway station was the first subway station to be air conditioned in the United States, how the architect Minoru Yamasaki was afraid of heights.
Nauseatingly, since the documentary was made while the buildings were still standing but aired on TV after the towers were gone, in the upper corner of the screen during interviews are two superimposed dates: The date of the interview and the date the interviewee has been missing since. One of the interviews is with Frank A. De Martini, a construction manager, who talks excitedly about the exterior skeleton on the buildings. There were no columns in the middle of the building; the exterior walls carried all vertical loads.
A smiling De Martini tells the camera that because of the way the buildings were designed, you could fly airplanes into them and they’d still stand. “I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid. And the jetplane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.” Up in the corner of the screen while he’s talking, it says, “Recorded 1/25/01, Missing since 9/11/01.”
Both he and his wife were in his office when the first plane hit. He sent her downstairs and out to safety while he stayed back to help others. He hasn’t been seen since.
@ 48 — so your problem is with facts and figures. Got it.
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
— John Adams, ‘Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,’ December 1770
we all know that truthers are too smart by half.
but therein lies the rub with them, they are quote “smart”
but…obviously not smart enough to dig themselves out of the muck of the half assed conspiracy theories they so often find their skinny white asses are too often in.
if you can respond with a bish pleaz to a truther, that means their basic premise is pretty weak.
so anistasia, bish pleaz.
@52, @53 — WTF are your trying to say?
@ 54: that you may have some insightful perspective, on some things, but on this, umm. probably not so much…
that shouldn’t be such a stretch for someone so incisive as yourself to figure out, right?
I have tapes of the US government planning the terrorist attacks. Some snippets:
Colin Powell: “Well, the buildings are all rigged with explosives and ready for destruction. We’re all set to blame Al Qaeda for blowing them up.”
George W. Bush: “But wait – who the heck will be angered by Al Qaeda merely blowing up the WTC? No one! We should fly jets into them and pretend the Jets took them down instead.”
CP: “Well, that’s pretty complicated: If they miss, we’re screwed, whereas simply blowing it up and blaming Al Qaeda is a slam dunk. I really don’t see much of a difference, outrage-wise.”
GWB: “Planes!”
CP: “Okay, well, speaking of planes, we’re also ready to crash Flight 93 into the ground in Pennsylvania.”
GWB: “No! No No! Instead, we should PRETEND it crashed. We’ll stage it!”
CP: “Ummm. Isn’t that a lot more complicated than ACTUALLY crashing the plane? I mean, we’re already crashing two planes into the towers – we’re not faking those, right?”
GWB: “Come on! Crashing planes into buildings is a cinch. But crashing them into the GROUND? No, no, no. Let’s not take any chances.”
CP: “Okay, but what do I do with the passengers? I mean, we’ll have to kill them for sure or someone will talk. But if we really crash the plane…”
GWB: “Way too risky. Do it my way. Hey, how’s that missile attack on the Pentagon going?”
CP: “All set. The missile should do some real damage. We’ll plant evidence of Al Qaeda all over that wreckage.
GBW: “Hmmm. Don’t you think we should pretend it’s a plane instead?”
CP: *Sigh*
@56 LOL, ty.
GWB: “Planes!”
@ 48
“there’s no law that says that long options need to balance short options”
Um, the SEC’s duty is in-part to investigate massive, highly suspicious fluctuations in the market. The ratio of put’s to calls placed on United and American airlines days before the attacks are so unprecedented they absolutely prove someone had foreknowledge. Do you want to know just how the SEC handle their investigation? I don’t want to ruin it. It’s in here: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011…
Were the trades actually statistically suspicious in the first place? Well, yes: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/5036…
@49, my seventh grade science teacher would have said “how anyone could interpret the phrase ‘pressurized diesel tanks’ to mean that the diesel was pressurized instead of the tanks not only doesn’t understand anything about science, they don’t understand anything about the English language”.
The diesel tanks were on the ground floor (illegally, thanks to Giuliani); the generators were on the fifth. I have no doubt that you are confused about how gravity works, but no one else is.
And the diesel may not have been that important to the fires. The fires are what brought the building down, in conjunction with the peculiar load bearing of the building and the gigantic bite taken out of the front — where those peculiar structures were located — by the collapse of two of the largest buildings in the world next door.
You have not even attempted to address your other idiotic statements, like the one about Larry Silverstein “admitting it” (which is completely stupid in every way) or the bit about secretly hauling all the steel to Bangladesh from a place that was being shown live 24/7 on every TV channel in the world.
These stories you tell are not just wrong but laughably wrong. No rational person anywhere gives any of them so much as a glint of credence. You have NOTHING. Your so-called argument is worthless. Your rhetorical abilities are nil as well. You don’t even understand what you’re saying.
My seventh grade science teacher would also say “this idiot was never in my class, I hope”.
John Adams would have called you a cunt as well.
@51 – it’s a fool’s errand, but look. The point is that you can cite facts and figures. Under normal circumstances, someone’s ability to marshal evidence in favor of his argument lends credibility to that argument. But the problem is that the facts and figures you cite don’t add up to anything persuasive – they are not logically connected in a way that leads to the conclusions you want us to draw from them. So it’s misleading, because the discussions inevitably get bogged down in questions like “how unprecedented is it to have 5,000 put options on an airline stock?” or “what is thermite made of?” And as Fnarf and I have both pointed out, once we do refute an argument, then it’s on to the next.
So you’re able to generate something that superficially resembles a reasonable argument, with evidence being adduced on both sides, but in fact it’s a farce. Taking my comment about facts and figures out of context is just another example to add to the pile.
Wait, wait, wait. Spindles. You’re telling me that someone(s) out there bought some options in Airline stock running up to 9/11, and one of those options remains unclaimed? Well, who could that POSSIBLY be? Definitely some government big-wig who knew about the inside job. Nope, could NEVER be a terrorist. After all, so many of them are rich from oil and blood money, why would they invest? And the unclaimed money, that guy thought the attacks were happening on the 12th, and was making sure the charges to bring down the buildings were in place…OOPSIE! JUST COULD NOT BE a terrorist who was captured or killed in the wake of the attack, or had to go into SERIOUS hiding. Or even lots of people buying puts because the U.S. had just experienced a period of massive economic expansion and was starting to see the weakening of that growth. Tell me what United and AA’s options traffic looked like for the 6 months preceding 9/11. How did other airlines do during that same period. This is how an intelligent, educated, and sane person seeks to answer a question. You, on the other hand, take a few random, isolated facts as the gospel truth. Please, proceed to your root cellar and don’t come back out…
Terrorism = conspiracy to kill people. The U.S. government = smashing incompetence regarding 9/11. Clinton’s people were practically yelling the threat at the Bush team, and they decided to check out what was up in the USSR…ARGH, RUSSIA – why did they change the name again? – instead.
@41: “nice attempt at lying?” The link you provided does nothing but back me up:
“Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide that produces an exothermic oxidation-reduction reaction known as a thermite reaction.”
So… small flakes of aluminum and rusted iron were found in the wreckage.
You really have four options at this point:
1. Accuse me of lying again, even though I am entirely without motive.
2. Accuse me of lying because I’m “in” on some conspiracy. If that were the case, I should be making a lot more than I do.
3. Accept that sane people don’t think the way you do. (not likely to happen)
4. Call me “sheeple” or some equally asinine term and continue with your insane rants. (most likely)
Something to lighten the mood:
*knock-knock*
“Who’s there?”
“9-11.”
“9-11 who?”
“I thought you said you’d never forget.”
It’s been 10 years for eff’s sake, can we all PLEASE just chill out?
@ 61 yes. The most insanely infuriating thing about the Truthers is every molecule of energy they waste with their “Silverstein’s” “Thermites” “put options” “missles not planes” “Beamer’s made phone calls after the crash (imagine the grotesquerie of that)” and “missing gold bars” is energy and time wasted, from the very real threat of more religious fascists unleashing more horror and death in the service of their “god” and whatever cause they are convinced he has given his full blessing to.
@60 — Oh, now you’re retreating from your claims about the pseudoscience “article” you referenced because I’ve shot it full of holes. The diesel is what you were saying caused building 7 to fall and now you’re saying the tanks Probably weren’t on fire at all. So what…the mere PRESENCE of non-burning diesel fuel causes buildings to fall? That’s all you’re left with from your original argument. DEAL WITH IT.
Larry Silverstein said what he said. “Pull it” is controlled-demolition talk for “bring down the building”. The “pull” references the lateral cables that are often installed to pull the walls in on the collapsing core of the building so the debris doesn’t fall outside the building’s footprint. I’m not saying they prepped building 7 in that way, but the term “pull” is one Silversein would know (being a lifelong property developer he’s had many buildings demolished) and would use to fit in as “one of the guys”. I didn’t invent Larry Silverstein or tape recording. Larry Silverstein is on tape as saying “pull it”. DEAL WITH IT.
The debris was trucked to New Jersey. Nobody outside of government was allowed to examine it; the claim was it was “sacred”. No samples could be taken. Then the “sacred” scrap metal was loaded on a ships and sent to Bangladesh for recycling. The evidence was disappeared. That’s a fact…DEAL WITH IT.
And I repeat my challenge…ask your 7th grade science teacher if diesel fuel can be PRESSURIZED, because that is the claim you took ownership of when you linked to the nonscientific article written by non-journalists. They wrote the words “pressurized diesel fuel tanks” to try to cause people like you to think that’s why WTC 7 fell down all by itself. Not me. DEAL WITH IT.
@61 — Just face it: you don’t wish to know anything outside your comfort zone. You were raised by television and your mind can’t handle complexity. Go back to sleep.
@63 — Do you know what “pyrotechnic composition” means? That’s something you might use to… oh…. bring down a steel-frame building. Backed into a corner you concede the point, hoping nobody will notice. I’ll take option #5: attack until your noise stops, or until this story scrolls off into the summary items at the bottom of slog (I don’t bother writing it if nobody will read it).
Come back with your best stuff or just give up now.
THe trouble with conspiracy theories is they are based on the idea that thousands of people can be managed and work secretly to pull off extraordinary events without any leaks. Anyone who has managed an office of more than 2 people knows that that is fucking impossible with human beings.
Ergo: most conspiracy theorists work at Kinkos, but think they’re really smart and should be in management.
@69 — I’ve stated facts and have never mentioned “thousands of people” doing anything secretly or otherwise. Your statement of opinion is conveniently fact-free. I’ll stick with my facts over your opinion.
@68: I am aware of what that term means. My assertion is that no thermite was placed in the WTC in the first place – not that it’s a harmless substance.
The discovery of residual metal and rust (the two components of thermite) does not mean that thermite was placed there – these could very reasonably be byproducts of the building collapse. Honestly, I’d be surprised if those *weren’t* found in the remains of a steel-framed structure that had been getting water poured on it for weeks prior to removal.
Again, if you find RDX or some other compound that a reasonable person wouldn’t expect to see in the debris, we’ll be talking.
A smiling De Martini tells the camera that because of the way the buildings were designed, you could fly airplanes into them and they’d still stand.”
Unfortunately, a comment like that just makes the so-called (and, of course, wrongly-named) “truthers” believe even more that the airplanes couldn’t have brought down the towers.
But what Liembo @ 5 said is right: De Martini was correct about the impact of the planes. The impact did not knock the buildings down immediately and because of that, many (probably most) people below the crash zones were, thankfully, able to make it down safely. Other skyscrapers, built without that kind of “mosquito netting” design, likely would not have withstood the initial impact. But what the towers could not withstand was the horrendous heat from the fires accompanying the impacts.
What I remain puzzled by is why, with skyscrapers in every large city in the U.S., there is apparently no provision to be able to rescue people (even if only some) from the floors above a fire or some other catastrophic event.
What I didn’t know until watching a special on TV last night was that six fireman from Ladder Company 6 were helping an elderly woman named Josephine down the stairs of tower #1. When they got to floor 2 she stopped and said she couldn’t go any further, telling them to go on but they said they weren’t going to leave her. Then the tower collapsed above them but they all ended up surviving in a “pocket” of the stairwell from the 2nd to the 4th floors that, somehow remained intact. Amazing.
Are you guys getting anything out of feeding the troll? It won’t stop, won’t listen to reason, and won’t quit resorting to name-calling. Just leave the stupid creature alone. You can’t help it now.
@74 Nice! And let’s not forget the multiple war games on the morning of 9/11 simulating hijackings over the continental United States that included (at least) one “live-fly” exercise as well as simulations that placed “false blips” on FAA radar screens. Or the additional war games on 9/11 including Northern Vigilance, an exercise that pulled Air Force fighters from the east coast of the United States up into Canada and Alaska simulating an attack out of Russia. No wonder NEADS was effectively paralyzed on 9/11, allowing the planes to fly loop de loops over the most heavily protected airspace in the world.
@Sgt Doom, You sir are a badass!
@71 — You keep changing your story as I present additional support for my facts. You dismissed thermite as harmless when you wrote @ 22 “thermite is literally fine flakes of metal and rust”. Now you agree it’s a “pyrotechnic composition”. The kind of stuff that brings down buildings.
Keep evolving.
70/sgt doom: “@Fnarf, and the other lowbrows out there,”
I’ve read that one of the primary things that drives conspiracy folks is ego, the feeling that they are intellectually superior to others. They, and they alone, are smart enough to understand “the truth” while those who don’t see things as they do are dumb or ignorant (or in on the conspiracy.)
I rewatched Man on Wire…
I loved that movie!
Never Forget http://youtu.be/7xNgtWG09TQ?t=48s
@66:
No it’s not.
And even if it was, why would Larry Silverstein, who is not a demolitions contractor, be using their slang?
And even if he was, why would he jeopardize this vast conspiracy, not one hairline crack in which has appeared in a decade, by shouting it into a TV camera? It’s nonsense.
It’s also not true.
As for your other hysterical semantic (and immaterial) rubbish about whether the diesel was pressurized or not, you’ve gotten several different things mixed up. Which isn’t surprising given your laughable “science” understanding. The jet fuel was in the buildings that got hit by jets. The diesel was in WTC 7. Tanks on the ground floor, generators on the fifth. How you think the diesel got from the ground floor to the fifth without pressurization I can’t imagine and don’t want to know. But the diesel wasn’t necessary; the fire was strong enough, and the pre-existing damage serious enough (a giant hole carved out right where the funky cantilevered support structure of the building was based) that it fell anyways. It’s not a mystery.
I strongly suggest that you go away and don’t come back until you’ve had your meds adjusted, and stop believing everything you hear from kook websites. Literally every single statement you’ve made in this thread is laughably wrong.
@74 – 81: what a lovely troll circle jerk you all are. Really. You guys should really get together for a good wank sometime. Preferably not on slog.
@75: That article goes directly from describing the spheres to making the following claim: “The microspheres must have been formed at extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center’s destruction – temperatures exceeding the melting point of iron (~2,700° F).”
That is not true, though. There’s no reason cited to rule out the original construction (ie, welding) as the process that generated molten iron microspheres. There are known points in time where there was molten metal present in the WTC prior to 9/11, so finding evidence of it in the wreckage isn’t particularly compelling. It’s like holding up a welded joint and claiming that as evidence.
@81: Those two things aren’t mutually exclusive, as the article that was linked by a fellow truther mentions in its first sentence. It’s a pyrotechnic composition of metal dust and rust. Note that “pyrotechnic composition” doesn’t mean that it must have been created by people. Magnesium probably also falls into that category, for example.
Not a single whistle-blower among all of the “conspirators” theoretically involved with placing explosives? Where are these guys? Only a few people knew about Monica Lewinski, and that was not to remain a secret — how on earth has this (impossibly large) conspiracy remained under wraps?
In order to be credible, a scientific theory needs to be based on a body of data, rather than starting with a theory, then cherry-picking “evidence”.
The reason that the world dismisses the truther movement’s ramblings is that they are bullshit. Meanwhile, there’s plenty of actual conspiracies ON THE RECORD, that you all should be much more angry about.
@88, Nope, no whistle blowers at all. Well, except for:
Sibel Edmonds-FBI translator
Coleen Rowley-Minneapolis field office Chief Counsel
J. Michael Springmann-head of the visa section at the U.S. consulate in Jeddah
Robert Wright-of the FBI’s Chicago field office
Indira Singh-risk management consultant for J.P. Morgan in 2001
Barry Jennings-Deputy Director of Emergency Services for the New York City Housing Department
(to name just a few)
Let’s not forget:
Richard Andrew Grove
William Bergman
Michael C. Ruppert
architects and engineers for 9 11 truth
6 out of 10 9/11 commision members, some of whom have questioned the commission and its conclusions personally (namely Kean and Hamilton, Kerrey, Roemer, Lehman and Cleland). Commission co-chairman Thomas Kean once famously remarked that the Commission was “set up to fail.” Commission members considered bringing criminal charges against Pentagon officials who had deliberately lied to them about the military’s complete lack of response on that day. One of the commissioners, Max Cleland, even resigned because the commission had been “deliberately compromised by the president of the United States.”
@85 —
“Pull it” is absolutely controlled-demolition talk for “bring down the building”. It’s a fact, and I have already explained this to you. Please read before you comment.
Larry Silverstein, would use the slang of demolition contracts because he’s an old boring businessman who would want to sound “like one of the guys” when there’s a bit of excitement in his life. That’s why.
It is true. It is a fact. Deal with it.
You are the one who based your entire argument on a web page (YOU provided the link) that was obviously written by people who don’t know shit about shit. I pointed this out by using their absurd idea of “Pressurized diesel tanks” (maybe they were thinking propane or CNG?). It is very material because it impeaches your ridiculous source. I never claimed there was jet fuel in building 7 and you’re lying now by trying to say that I did.
The fire was NOT “strong enough”, as you put it, to structurally damage the building and you obviously did not read the link I posted which give many examples of buildings that burned much more than WTC 7 without ANY structural damage whatsoever. You can try to hide from the truth, but it’s still there.
You are a frightened child who keeps repeating a favorite fairy tale because it makes you feel safe. Outside of your fair tale (in that scary place we call reality) you would be unable to function — with the possible exception of involuntary bowel evacuations.
@87 — Nobody is talking about Magnesium. You’re trying to change the subject. Nice try, though.
88 — They’re probably dead. More than likely they were ordered to work on the building on 9/11/01 (told that the attack would be a day or two later) and were killed inside the building. The collapse they engineered would hide the evidence of their own murders. How cool is that!?!
Time is running out, folks. I don’t comment on Slog items that roll off the page into those summary links at the bottom (which nobody reads) so post your best remaining lies and bullshit before that happens to this one, K?
Remember, you don’t have the last word if nobody ever reads it!
@93: Caught me. Clearly the fact that I am using an example of another naturally-occurring pyrotechnic composition is proof enough that 9/11 was a massive conspiracy.
You’ve convinced me.
@89: obstructing justice to cover your ass after the fact is a far cry from orchestrating the attacks. I firmly believe that there was obstruction to the 9/11 report, but that doesn’t mean that anyone planned the attacks – simply covering up incompetence is motive enough.
@97 — No, I noticed you trying to steer the discussion in an irrelevant direction. That shows you’re doing a “QUICK… LOOK… OVER THERE!” And why would you attempt that, I wonder? Afraid of staying on-topic?
One hundred.
@99, What more is there to say on the topic? It was claimed that thermite dust was found at ground zero, and that its presence indicated a controlled demolition of some sort. I said that thermite is just rusty metal dust, something that one would expect to find at the site of a ruined building. The counter-point was that wikipedia calls thermite a “pyrotechnic composition.” I wrote that the specific term wikipedia wikipedia uses it is not at all relevant to my point, and I provided an illustration of why. If you’d like to carry on about thermite instead of getting sidetracked, I’m all for it.
(Obvious troll is obvious, btw. I’m just incredibly bored and stuck in an office.)
101 — You keep trying to suggest thermite is a low energy (if not inert) substance. Since you cite Wikipedia, let’s see what the Wiki article on thermite says:
“…can create short bursts of extremely high temperatures focused on a very small area for a short period of time. The thermite is simply a mixture of metal, often called the ‘fuel’ and an oxidizer. Its form of action is very similar to other fuel-oxidizer mixtures like black powder.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
You keep suggesting the Wikipedia entry on thermite reads as:
“Nothing to see here… move along, citizen.”
You can ignore the highly-energetic properties of thermite if you want, but the steel holding-up the World Trade Center didn’t have the luxury of your denial. Then gravity prevailed.
@102: I’ve explicitly claimed the exact opposite:
71: “My assertion is that no thermite was placed in the WTC in the first place – not that it’s a harmless substance.”
This thread is great, it’s like watching spastics compete in a hurdle race. Thx!
103 — You argue that there was thermite but it’s harmless and then when you’re debunked on the ‘harmless’ claim you switch to the ‘was not placed there’ argument. But thermite residue was found on the wreckage (that’s a FACT), so you switch to the ‘oh, it must have gotten there when the building was welded together’ argument, but the residue included some uncombusted elements that make it able to melt a steel structural member in less than a second but wouldn’t be there if it was welding slag or any other construction artifact.
Cue-up your next batch of bullshit, the current batch has just gone stale.
@105: when did I write that thermite is harmless?
And you’re confusing thermite with the iron microspheres – two entirely different parts of the conspiracy theory. Keep it together!
92/sgt doom: @82, Roma,, intelligence isn’t a factor in the matter, although indepedent and analytical thinking certainly helps.
It still comes down to ego. Conspiracy folks feel superior to everyone else since they, and they alone, know the “truth.”
105 — You have REPEATEDLY tried to minimize the definition of thermite and relegate it to a harmless innocuous substance (and I’ve called bullshit each time). Let’s review your comments on thermite:
@63 – “small flakes of aluminum and rusted iron”
@71 – “residual metal and rust”
,,,and the best one of all:
@87 – “Note that ‘pyrotechnic composition’ doesn’t mean that it must have been created by people.”
HA! Good one! You even tried the Whole Foods natural-is-good argument with something that has ‘technic’ in its name! HA! HA! HA!
Also, I have never mentioned iron microspheres. Re-read all of my postings and you’ll see I have never mentioned anything of the sort. Just another attempt by you to sidetrack the discussion and the change the subject.
The Jr. Bush Administration thanks your for your valiant efforts at providing disinformation to the serfs.