well according to bill manning the wtc investigation seems to be far less than standard and even went as far as to call it a "half-baked farce" where revealing the truth seems to be the opposite of what the investigation attempted to do--also
just to clarify the misconception that a large aircraft has never struck a tall building --here is a reminder that shows it "has" happened before with much different results--
The Facts:

On Saturday, July 28 1945 a B-25 bomber, lost in fog, crashed straight into that era’s world’s tallest building – the Empire State building. For many people today, this disaster foreshadows the chilling events of September 11, 2001. But in 1945, many things were different. Human error, not hatred, caused the disaster. In the low fog, the pilot became disoriented and crashed into the 78th and 79th floors of the Empire State. Luckily, because it was Saturday, only 1,500 out of the average 10,000 workers were in the building. Still, 14 people lost their lives after the plane and both of its engines plowed a hole in the Empire State.LINK
************************************************** ****
Fire Engineering's Bill Manning Calls for Comprehensive Investigation of WTC Collapse

Fair Lawn, NJ, January 4, 2002 - Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief, is summoning members of the fire service to "A Call to Action." In his January 2002 Editor's Opinion, "$elling Out the Investigation" (below ), he warns that unless there is a full-blown investigation by an independent panel established solely for that purpose, "the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals." Manning explained: "Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers ....

"A respected firefighting trade magazine with ties to the city Fire Department is calling for a "full-throttle, fully resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. A signed editorial in the January issue of Fire Engineering magazine says the current investigation is "a half-baked farce." The piece by Bill Manning, editor of the 125-year-old monthly that frequently publishes technical studies of major fires, also says the steel from the site should be preserved so investigators can examine what caused the collapse. "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happy Land social club fire? ... That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center," the editorial says. "The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately." Fire Engineering counted FDNY Deputy Chief Raymond Downey, the department's chief structural expert, among its senior advisers. Downey was killed in the Sept. 11 attack. John Jay College's fire engineering expert, Prof. Glenn Corbett, serves as the magazine's technical editor.

A group of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, with backing from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has been studying some aspects of the collapse. But Manning and others say that probe has not looked at all aspects of the disaster and has had limited access to documents and other evidence. A growing number of fire protection engineers have theorized that "the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers," the editorial stated.

Just out of interest, there are many major differences between the 1945 event and the 2001 event.

- The B-25 was much smaller than the Boeing 767, so there was far less mass in the impact.

- The B-25 was flying slowly, so there was far less momentum in the impact.

- IIRC, the pilot saw the building a couple of seconds before impact, and started to take evasive action. This meant the impact wasn't perpendicular to the building, and thus spread the force of impact.

- The Empire State Building was faced with limestone blocks, much more resistant to an impact than the steel and glass sides of the WTC buildings.

Combine these effects, and the 1945 impact had far less effect on the ESB than the 2001 impacts had against the WTC towers.

How many times are you going to repost this lie? The real call to action from Bill Manning was already posted and showed that the concerns of Mr. Manning were for whitewashing of safety issues, not a bombing conspiracy.

Funny how you use something almost four years old, and pre-dating the NIST reports.

the nist report is exactly what he was warning about!! imo the burdon is on you to proove it is a lie and not by saying this has been debunked "before"-- here is a direct quote from william manning please include the reference material you used to conclude that this segment deals with safety issues--
LINK

Kookbreaker is correct...It's obvious that Manning is talking about construction "issues".

SynKronoS, where does Mr. Manning talk about a bombing conspiracy??

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Bullfeathers. The NIST report hadn't been made yet, it wasn't even concived. In fact, Manning' call for a blue-ribbon panal might well have been what lead to the NIST report. In your own link Manning mentions only FEMA and ASCE.

Read the actual "Call to Action" and tell me where the claims of bombs are:

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/PDF/FireE...estigation.pdf

Also recall this: When Manning is talking about "Lack of Disclosure", he is not talking about bombs or evidence of bombs. He is talking about backwards policies (in construction and in the fire dept.), ineffectual equipment, and other mundane elements that resulted in the deaths of more fireman that might otherwise have happened.

A few "facts" for you:

1. Each of the WTC towers were hit by a B-767 carrying approximately 10,000 gallons (that's about 65,000 pounds) of fuel. By comparison, the B-25 carried only 33,100 pounds of fuel, and that was an absolute maximum. The one that crashed into the Empire State Building was carrying about half that.

2. The Empire State Building was designed back in the day when engineering was somewhat of a less exact science. To ensure safety, it was "overdesigned," with significantly larger margins of error, than were the WTC towers.

3. It was errantly assumed that the fire suppression system in the WTC towers would extinguish any "normal" fires. It was not supposed that an aircraft would transport such large quantities of fuel as to overcome the fire suppression system.

It wasn't the "explosive" ignition that brought down the towers, but the excessive heat that weakened the steel, which was already under additional stress due to partly severed steel structural members. Heated steel, under stress, will eventually crumple like butter.

whats obvious was that he was speaking of the "investigation"!-- as was i in reference to manning-- kook has confused you by insinuating i was linking manning to the demolition-- i used him as a reference to gene to show that they were "not" studying it and even got rid of evidence-- it was shipped to china-- every crumb should have been put somewhere-- he was clearly referencing it using examples

Keep in mind (back to the B25 issue) that B25's run on aviation gas, a higher-octane version of what's in my GMC. Modern jets burn jet fuel, not gas. I'm no chemist, and I'm only guessing, but I'll bet that jet fuel packs more heat when burned.

And the WTC towers were much taller, and their structures were required to support far more weight than the ESB. The 767's struck the towers at a higher speed and altitude which imparted too much stress onto the framework.

Synk, got anything other than fingerpointing?

__________________
My son is my universe.

I don't think you are qualified to tell me what are "lies" regarding Pearl Harbor or 9/11.Indirect evidence? You mean unsubstantiated innuendo.9/11 in the CT context wasn't necessary, that's my point. What you and others overlook is that international terrorism exists and has blighted much more than NYC and DC. It's fallacious to dismiss this while proposing a preposterous alternate scenario that is short on proof and long on fanciful speculation.

Tell the people who lost loved ones that day how "profitable" it was.heh .. this is absurd. Now it's about insurance? Your corollary between a building and Silverstein's wife is one of the longest 'reaches' I've read to date.So the Mossad was behind 9/11 too? It's possible the Mossad has "infiltrated" some areas of our government, along with Chinese, Russian, and other foreign intelligence agencies. All intelligence agencies try to infiltrate other country's various institutions, as do we .. but so? The fact is - you don't know what the Mossad or any other intelligence service, foreign or domestic, is "up to" any more than I do.

Based on what I've read so far I'm surprised even you guys buy into this nonsense.

WIKI
Circumstantial evidence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence is the result of combining seemingly unrelated facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence.

It differs from direct evidence, which is the physical trail left by an event (known in law as forensic evidence); documentary evidence which is a direct recording of an event on a medium, typically audio or video recordings; and witness, which is the testimony of someone who has first hand knowledge of an event, usually by seeing or hearing it.

Law

Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning.

The distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence is important because with the obvious exceptions (the immature, incompetent, or mentally ill) nearly all criminals are careful to not generate direct evidence, and try to avoid demonstrating criminal intent. Therefore, to prove the mens rea levels of "purposely" or "knowingly," the prosecution must usually resort to circumstantial evidence. The same goes for tortfeasors in tort law, if one needs to prove a high level of mens rea to obtain punitive damages.

An example of circumstantial evidence is the behavior of a person around the time of an alleged offense. If someone were charged with theft of money, and were then seen in a shopping spree purchasing expensive items, the shopping spree might be regarded as circumstantial evidence of the individual's guilt.

A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is generally considered more powerful, but successful criminal prosecutions often rely largely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence."

lets go over the 9/11 indirect evidence--
1-pnac(republican's project for a new american century)authored in aug2000 states that without a new helpful pearl harbor type event the shift of their agenda from an economic driven one to an energy driven one would be slow and take many years
2-executive order w199i--bush orders fbi SAjohn oneil to desist investigating bin laden
3-silverstein purchases a white elephant in towers 1 and 2;damaged from a previous bombing and never achieving even a 70% occupancy
4-taliban refuse offers to allow an oil pipeline worth untold "T"rillion"S" for america to pass through afg
5-silverstein takes out a record insurance policy with special terrorist clause
6-faa fails to alert pentagon about loss of transponder signal and communication with flight 11
7-faa fails to alert pentagon about loss of transponder signal and communication with flight 175
8-bin laden's alledged associates from fl11 fail to target indian point nuclear facility;flying directly over it
9-bin laden's alledged associates from fl175 fail to target indian point nuclear facility
10-faa fails to alert pentagon about loss of transponder signal and communication with flight 77
11-faa fails to alert pentagon about loss of transponder signal and communication with flight 93
12-38 min "AFTER" the second plane hit the wtc the pentagon is attacked
13-fl 93 crashes with two debri fields seperated by 1.5 miles(important due to official story of passenger struggle with allegded terrorists)
14-both towers collapse in a verticle freefall that would have earned any demo co a hefty bonus
15-multiple credible witnesses describe bombs and secondary devices;ex.albert turi,loui cacciolli,paul isaac jr,william rodriguez,more..
16-bldg 7 collapses in a perfect verticle freefall alledgedly due to burning for 5 hours
17-bin laden and 20 suspects officially announced responsible 24 hours after the first attack
18-war waged with afg including occupation resulting in approval of oil pipeline
19-iraq switches trading its second largest oil production in the world supply from dollars to euros--immediately iraq is linked to bin laden and posses wmd's and war is declared on iraq and their oil resources confiscated--opec begins a steady increase in the cost of barrells
20-the collapses destroy the entire accumulation of evidence and investigation briefs on two highly important fbi cases 1) the case against Mobil Oil and James Giffen on illegal oil swaps between Iran and Kazakhstan (at that time before a New York grand jury as described in great detail by Seymore Hersh in the July 9 New Yorker magazine)
21-2) the evidence in the investigation of gold price fixing stemming from charges brought against Alan Greenspan, Morgan & Comapy, Goldman Sachs
22-silverstein files for his isurance payoff and tries to get two awards of 3.5 billion for his initial 200mil investment claiming each attack as a seperate event
23-ex da prosecutor r.gulliani procedes to ship 80% of steel removed from ground zero to china for recycling??!!geeesh as if he is unaware of the importance of evidence in a homicide
24-bush asks tom delay to limit the 9/11 investigation--while "mouthing" the word "anthrax"
25-molten pools of steel found in wtc 1,2,7 IGNORED
26-video of demolition evidence IGNORED
27-fact that pentagon struck 38 min after a confirmed terrorist attack IGNORED
28-epa lies to public about safety of air quality of the area due to govt pressure to reopen wall street
29-downing street memos
30-plamegate
31-torture
32-"lets not forget"- operation northwoods
33-or rummy's P2OG(pro-active pre-emptive operations group)
34-oklahoma murrah demolition
35-93' wtc bombing funded by the fbi
36-jfk' desire to abolish the federal reserve and cia and the resulting psy-op
37-karl rove's grandfather being "karl rover" a gautleiber of an entire state in nazi germany
38-bush jr being investigated for six months on "mass murder" charges in brownsville,tx before running for govenor
39-prescott bush having millions of assets seized under the "trading with the enemy" act and exposed a MAJOR finacier of adolph hitler

If you keep waving your hands like that you're going to break a wrist...

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

I have to agree. The list above is just so much pointless drivel.
Why would anyone go to so much trouble? For what purpose?

Did it ever occur to the conspiracy theorists that there's alot of people in the world that would love nothing better than to see the USA and other nations go up in flames?

Believe what you will. Blame the US for all the worlds troubles. Obviously the truth is just too much for most conspirators to handle.

__________________
"The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest." - G'Kar

Should we divide up this workload, debunkers?

Heck. Circumstantial evidence (CE) is effective in a court case only when it can't be countered with facts or reasonable alternative explanations. That's its weakpoint.

If you had this much CE in a murder trial, you'd have something assuming that the defense lawyer couldn't directly dispute each of your CE points with facts.

But 9/11 is much more complicated than any murder trial. Its not just the number of bodies, but the number of people and activities surrounding the WTC each and every day. You've compiled a list of 39 events that you perceive to be tied to the events of 9/11. Out of zillions of business transactions, conversations, and memos, you chose 39 and ignored all the rest. You have to show how those 39 are connected, not just say they are. Otherwise, its just business as usual and things like the 39 items on your list happen every hour of every day, with no ties to any grand conspiracy. In fact, with a little digging, I'm sure that someone could come up with a thousand daily activities surrounding 9/11 that directly contadict any perceived connection between your 39 items and the WTC attacks.

I spotted many items in you list right away that are merely coincidence, and all I did was skim.

Sure, 39 points of CE is a strong argument so long as no one can whittle that list down by finding where you are just plain wrong, reaching for a connection that isn't there.

__________________
My son is my universe.

I think the three previous posters summed up my take on all that SynKronoS. You might as well tell me the Moon was aligned with Mars and make it an even 40.

Its clear as mud now: The Bushes bombed Pearl Harbor!

Seems to me that circumstantial evidence of guilt is only useful in cases where a crime has been committed. Now the WTC crashes were a crime and the evidence for the identity of the hijackers is mostly circumstantial. That is, there are no living eye witnesses and no one can tell who was in the cockpit at the time of the crash. Nevertheless the event was real.

On the other hand there is no crime of controlled demolition of the buildings. This is because there is no evidence that it was done. So all the “circumstantial evidence” in the world linking anyone to a unproven event means nothing.

__________________
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.

Inconclusive. Many smart investors make bad decisions. How is this anything but business as usual?

Understandable since the WTC was attacked previously and Silverstein probably wanted enough coverage for liability. Most insurance policies didn't cover terrorism and he could be sued by survivors of a second bombing.

You have to show why this act is unusual. Why does it stand out of the context of normal business activity? I don't see it.

Left hand not telling the right hand what was going on. FAA isn't one person, its an organization and you're blaming them for being part of a conspiracy for something that could have been presented with hindsight.

That wasn't their target. Bin Laden attacked the WTC for the publicity and because it was still standing after his earlier bombing. Also, nuclear reactors are built to withstand a major aircraft collision. They'd just shut down and there'd be no meltdown or radiation release. The WTC incident was more deadly and terrorizing.

I'm just getting started. Little time to work on this.

Anyone else want to take a bite?

__________________
My son is my universe.

Just to clarify the difference between a B25 and a B767...

The B25 has a fuel capacity of between 700 and 1,000 gallons (6,300-9,000 pounds). The one that hit the ESB was ending its flight and probably had about 100 gallons (900 pounds) of fuel.

The B767 has a fuel capacity of about 16,700 gallons (161,000 pounds). The ones that hit the WTC were just starting their flights and were probably carrying about 15,000 gallons (145,000 pounds) of fuel.

Add to that, the aviation fuels of 1945 had a lower heat content than those of today. But, that's pretty minor compared to the quantities involved.

As for engineering design in the 1920-30s (when the ESB was designed and built) and the 1960-70s (when the WTC was designed and built), the tools and techniques have improved dramatically. The ESB was designed with a large safety factor and included redundant structural features; the WTC could be more precisely designed, so the safety factor and need for redundancy could be trimmed.

This doesn't make for poorer or less robust design. It makes for more accurate and efficient design.

But, it does have one "drawback" when compared to earlier designs. Since the design can be much more precise, the ability to withstand unforseen extreme circumstances will be lessened. Designing with a large safety factor can provide some allowance for those extreme events.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

SynKronoS, you come to us with what you believe is a towering firestorm. In reality, you're brought us a pile of burnt matches.

__________________
My son is my universe.

I wouldn't know. I've stopped reading the posts altogether until some effort is made to make them coherent. (IE, spelling, punctuation, etc.)

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

This particular CT makes as much sense as saying that FDR caused Pearl Harbor and finding all the circimstancial evidence later on, from many unrelated sources......ie:
1.) Who put the bomb in the Arizona's forward magazine?
2.) Who made sure that an Army Doctor was in place that morning with a 16 mm color movie camera??
3.) FDR picked the Arizona because the ship was in the movie "Follow the Fleet", with Ginger Rogers and Jimmy Cagney, and was well known and this would make it unforgettable to the US Public..
5.) Roosevelt was having trouble with Lindberg, and the Bund, so he had to do something to stay on top, so that is why they staged the attack, FDR used to like the Japanese and even sold them oil and scrap!! Until he got mad at them....(insert rumor here....)
6.) Look at the secret messages in the Dec 1 1941 issue of Life Magazine.....
(insert wild specuation about advertising and articles here...)

Etc....Etc...

Dale in Ala

__________________
"Ad astra per aspera"

ESB and WTC are not comparable structures. The WTC is highly efficient while the ESB is highly inefficient; it's a huge pile of bricks.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

It probably wasn't hard to look at the passenger list for the four flights, start looking into backgrounds and countries of origin, and decide who was involved.

So, he was an opportunist. That doesn't make him a conspirator. I'd probably try to do it if I had a huge amount of debt to pay off after my buildings were knocked over.

__________________
My son is my universe.

This is really only "evidence" for the possiblity that these politians are taking advantage of a tragic situation. Politicians are opportunists. I don't get this obsession you have with believing that opportunists must create their own opportunities to take advantage of.

Has this ever crossed your mind?

See? This is the kind of crap that makes these CTs so unbelievable. There's absolutely no need to stage some horribly complex and convoluted event, easily prone to leaks and failure, to achieve stuff like this. Casting a country into a recession and blowing the federal surplus we had, just to break even? Please...

It had been a major target before, you know, and was stated that it would be a target in the future. Not surprising.

Gross negligence. Possibly confusion about the exercise that was taking place that day, too.

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.

The corollary: Significantly advanced incompetence is indisguishable from malice.

Uhh... so? You complain about the media being under the thumb of a corrupt goverment, yet you believe all the sensationalism they spout about the effects of a terrorist attack on a nuclear facility? Please...

They killed and scared a lot more people doing what they did than they would have by hitting a nuclear facility.

Yeah... Ninja Demolitions, Inc.

The vast majority of people with expertise in the fields necessary to understand what happened that day have no problem with the official "story". Why do you keep ignoring that overwhelming fact?

A car backfiring sounds like a gunshot. Doesn't mean it was a gunshot.

More opportunism.

Milking a tragedy for all it's worth.

Why would they need the entire building when it's plainly obvious what happened that day?

Whoooaaaa... now that's one hell of a stretch.

Because they're lies. Have you been paying attention at all?

Ever dropped something large onto a bonfire? What do you notice?

Hey, repititon. Not surprising. Again... what does this "prove"?

Huh... they just purposely destroyed a major financial center for the the world, let alone the country, throwing the country into a recession, and putting a dent in markets all around the world. You'd think they could wait a little while longer for Wall Street...

Went absolutely nowhere. Possibly faked.

Holy handwaving, Batman. This is so far from from "indirect evidence" that it's totally irrelevent. That's like saying I was part of the conspiracy, because flight 93 flew over my house, or that I had milk and cookies, being a favorite snack of G.W.B., on the third Wednesday of June 1983...

[post-warning edit, just in case + additional fixes and removal of pointless replies]

Hardly,

He asked for an example of a personal attack and I gave him one.

When I first started on the old Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board, I made the general comment that HBs (Moon Hoax Believers) were morons and Phil gave me a very stern warning not to do it again. As a result, I've always looked at calling someone a moron a personel attack.

Actually, it was a natural gas pipe line, not an oil pipeline.

There are buildings in many cities, including NYC, that would love to have a 70% occupancy rate.

Flying a plane into a nuclear facility will shut it down...but not much more. They really are designed to take a lot. Add to that those who would try to hit a power plant would most likely end up slamming into the towers, the theat is even more recuced.

Power plants are much harder to locate (and hit) by amatuer pilots, as opposed to large symbolic landmark buildings.

This means nothing.

Any intentional tower collapse done like the WTC would have resulted in lawsuits from every citizen in Lower Manhattan. Perhaps you noticed that large, lingering debris cloud that hung over the city for the better part of the day? Controlled implosions are designed to reduce the amount of debris spread to a minimum. This was obviously not the case with the WTC.

There was so much scientific banality and technical ignorance in those points I would not know where to start, and know better to try. Anyone who would post such a list is just looking for attention and nothing more. Derivative wacko.

__________________
Once I thought that I was wrong,
But I was mistaken.

See my Lunar Hoax Debunking Page with documentaries HERE:::
HUMANS HAVE WALKED ON THE MOON

On the other related thread, SynKronoS said that it was a natural gas pipeline "worth an est 7 "T"rillion." Here, SynKronoS said it's "worth untold "T"rillion"S"."

The pipeline is potentially worth "B"illion"S," not "T"rillion"S," but at least here SynKronoS didn't state that the pipeline has been completed.

SynKronoS' claim that George W. Bush had been "investigated for six months on "mass murder" charges in brownsville,tx before running for govenor" smells like spoiled Skolnick/Bloom baloney to me. I'm still collating the "data."

Edit: grammar/spelling