[Winstonm]

In a new poll by CBS and The New York Times, it was found that only 16% now believe the U.S. government is being truthful about the 9-11 attacks.

53% think the Bush administration is hiding something.
28% believe the administration is lying.
3% are unsure.

With 81% now in doubt, isn't it time for a full and complete independent investigation - one with supoena powers?

[Al_U_Card]

Wait until it is found out that their subterfuge was only exceeded by their incompetence......They infiltrated and masterminded the Al Qaeda adventure and instead of foiling it at the last minute......well you know....

[pbleighton]

Bush's credibility is (deservedly) so low right now that you could probably get a majority to disbelieve a statement by him that it is raining.

They had credible information that an attack by Al Quaeda was coming. They ignored this information, and don't like to talk about it. This is what people are thinking, not that it was an insurance scam.

Peter

[Winstonm]

Regardless of motives, the idea that 81% now believe this administation was not fully truthful should lead to a re-investigation. Whether it was ineptitude, complacency, or an inside job can only be determined by a full scale and thorough investigation. Since so much policy has been linked directly to the administration's claims, the U.S. citizen has the right to know what led to those policies - yet no one has been demoted or even reprimanded for his role.

What led to the claim that that ground zero air was safe, while it was found to be asbestos laden and extremely dangerous? Who made the determination?

What caused the lack of fighter jet response to the hijacked airliners? Was the FAA or the DOJ at fault?

What flaw caused the Pentagon airspace be invaded by a commercial aircraft without a response? Has this flaw been rectified?

What is the truth about Iraq and the WMDs? Was it known to be faulty data? What have we done to ensure we do not act again on such bad information?

What engineering problems exist in skyscrapers that make them prone to collapse?

These and a hundred other legitimate questions need to be answered. There has been no accountability or public explanations of the flaws that allowed all this to happen. Before we rush off to war with ghosts in caves, isn't it better to learn what caused us to be so vulnerable in the first place?

[DrTodd13]

US Mind Control

Not that this has to do with 9/11 but it illustrates the level to which people will do things in the name of nationalism. Maybe it is another Pearl Harbor where allegedly they knew about it and intentionally didn't prevent it.

[the saint]

Winstonm, on Oct 15 2006, 04:03 AM, said:

What flaw caused the Pentagon airspace be invaded by a commercial aircraft without a response? Has this flaw been rectified?

Regardless of what low opinion I have of the Bush regime, having flown in and out of Reagan National Airport on several occasions, I can tell you that that it is next door to the Pentagon. There will always be commercial aircraft in its airspace. If one veered off and crashed you would have about 15 seconds to scramble the fighters and intercept it before it did - not really practical.

[Blofeld]

Seeing the title of this thread I assumed that it was about the effectiveness of a 9-11 point 1NT opener ...

[EricK]

Blofeld, on Oct 15 2006, 11:49 AM, said:

Seeing the title of this thread I assumed that it was about the effectiveness of a 9-11 point 1NT opener ...

If someone were to suggest there was a conspiracy in the US to stop people playing these, then I would tend to agree with you.

[Winstonm]

Blofeld, on Oct 15 2006, 06:49 AM, said:

Seeing the title of this thread I assumed that it was about the effectiveness of a 9-11 point 1NT opener ... 

With the current popularity of bridge in the U.S., I doubt a NT opening range would be the subject of a New York Times/ CBS poll.?

[helene_t]

pbleighton, on Oct 15 2006, 04:20 AM, said:

Bush's credibility is (deservedly) so low right now that you could probably get a majority to disbelieve a statement by him that it is raining.

They had credible information that an attack by Al Quaeda was coming. They ignored this information, and don't like to talk about it. This is what people are thinking, not that it was an insurance scam.

Spot on. Politicians (like the rest of us) are frequently lying and this is especially true for the present US government. Even if 9/11 had been a trivial issue, it would be an odd coicidense if there wasn't a single half-truth or intentional ommision in one of the official reports.

[mikeh]

The lack of confidence in the administration's candour probably has relatively little to do with conspiracy theories involving the administration having prior specific knowledge or actual involvement in the events of 9/11. There is abundant evidence that the administration is lying in general about almost everything and specific evidence that at least Secretary Rice was explicitly warned, several months pre 9/11 that the intelligence community (or part of it..) believed that an attack would shortly be mounted using commercial aircraft. Of course, those claiming this to be so may have their own agendas and may be remembering the detail with which they discussed this more clearly than was actually the case. Furthermore, while I am far from a fan of the Bush administration, it is far from clear what Rice could/should have done that others couldn't/shouldn't have done. Plus I rather suspect that there were numerous threats, some of which never materialized. Hindsight makes this one seem obviously important, but then hindsight does allow for retroactive wisdom.

In short: I would be one of those who have the opinion that the Administration is withholding facts/lying, but not about the basic events of 9/11 and who was behind it.

As for the 9-11 1N: there is clear evidence of a conspiracy within the ACBL. Why can one play complex methods over 10-12 but no methods at all over 9-11????? Who stands to gain?? Find that out, and we will have the culprits!!!

[Al_U_Card]

This goes back to when I played the 10-12 NT in the early 90's. I wanted to drop it to 8-10, but no terrorists were ready to attack on August tenth....

[mike777]

More than 81% of those polled also said the sun revolves around the earth.

Watch the next 2 years as the Democrats do nothing but Perp walk the Republicans up the hill to Congress to resolve this issue.

No wonder much of the world thinks we really are not in a full blown War and it is all made up lies to get Bush family and the oil companies rich?

[pbleighton]

"Watch the next 2 years as the Democrats do nothing but Perp walk the Republicans up the hill to Congress to resolve this issue."

It won't be their occupation, but it will certainly be a very pleasant avocation

Peter

[hrothgar]

pbleighton, on Oct 17 2006, 01:41 AM, said:

"Watch the next 2 years as the Democrats do nothing but Perp walk the Republicans up the hill to Congress to resolve this issue."

It won't be their occupation, but it will certainly be a very pleasant avocation

There is very little that would give me more pleasure than seeing Bush, Rumesfeld, Cheney, and the rest of those idiots in prison. At the same time, if the Democratic party does retake congress I'm extremely worried that they will overplay their hand. I don't want a 101 new special prosecutors. I don't want to see constant investigations over what went wrong. For better or worse, we're stuck in Iraq right now. I think that its much more important to focus on solving the issues that are facing the US right now rather than creating an intensely partisan fight over assigning blame.

We have a lifetime to assign blame for the hell-hole that we marched into. Bush isn't going to be going anywhere. Nor are the American people.

The single best way to indict the Bush administration is for the Democrats to create some tangible successes.

[mike777]

hrothgar, on Oct 17 2006, 02:22 PM, said:

pbleighton, on Oct 17 2006, 01:41 AM, said:

"Watch the next 2 years as the Democrats do nothing but Perp walk the Republicans up the hill to Congress to resolve this issue."

It won't be their occupation, but it will certainly be a very pleasant avocation 

There is very little that would give me more pleasure than seeing Bush, Rumesfeld, Cheney, and the rest of those idiots in prison. At the same time, if the Democratic party does retake congress I'm extremely worried that they will overplay their hand. I don't want a 101 new special prosecutors. I don't want to see constant investigations over what went wrong. For better or worse, we're stuck in Iraq right now. I think that its much more important to focus on solving the issues that are facing the US right now rather than creating an intensely partisan fight over assigning blame.

We have a lifetime to assign blame for the hell-hole that we marched into. Bush isn't going to be going anywhere. Nor are the American people.

The single best way to indict the Bush administration is for the Democrats to create some tangible successes.

Amen, but I would not even go this far. Even they even just try and fail rather than just play the blame game for 2 years I think that would be a success. If they really think we should raise taxes, reinstate death taxes, spend more billions on education and pass more restrictive pollution laws, and appoint more pro choice judges then go for it. At least it is a clear choice. If they have an alternative on how to fight the war on terror, assuming they believe there is such a thing, lets hear it. . If they think it is best to just pull out of the middle east and send everyone home, ok..... hopefully we can have a debate..but I do not see one now...all I see is, well what we all see .

[Winstonm]

the saint, on Oct 15 2006, 03:46 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 15 2006, 04:03 AM, said:

What flaw caused the Pentagon airspace be invaded by a commercial aircraft without a response?  Has this flaw been rectified?

Regardless of what low opinion I have of the Bush regime, having flown in and out of Reagan National Airport on several occasions, I can tell you that that it is next door to the Pentagon. There will always be commercial aircraft in its airspace. If one veered off and crashed you would have about 15 seconds to scramble the fighters and intercept it before it did - not really practical.

Yes, but at the same time it has been reported (and taped testimony to this) that Rumsfeld was told that the plane was being tracked - it's now 50 miles out, it's 30 miles out - do the orders still stand?

My question is if the plane had been tracked the whole way, what stopped fighter intervention? When Payne Stewart's plane went off course and did not respond, two fighter planes intercepted it. During 9-11, 4 commercial airlines altered course and would not respond, yet no planes were scrambled. What went wrong?

[Winstonm]

Quote

I don't want to see constant investigations over what went wrong.

I agree - the last thing I want to see is another "Ruby Ridge" or "Waco"-type congressional psuedo-investigation .

All I really want to know is this:

1) Is there clear and compelling evidence that any of the WTC buildings (especially WTC 7) were brought down with help of demolitions? If not, what is the scientific evidence - repeatable to explain 3 collapses - explanation for the free-fall speed of the collapses? I am not saying this cannot happen, only that it has never been addressed in any of the studies released by the government, while many physicists and structural engineers have said it is impossible. If it is possible, what happened? If impossible, what happened?

2) Did someone issue stand down orders to the military that day? If so, by whom? If not, then what happened to prevent a single intercept by any fighter jets?

3) Where are the recovered pieces of airliners imprinted with the serial number of the planes that crashed?

4) Is it accurate or rumor that protocol was changed so that Rumsfeld only could make intercept/shoot down orders? Again, if false, then what caused the failure of the system that before had not prviously failed. If true, what was the reason to change the protocol?

5) When was the order given for the FBI to remove all video evidence from around the Pentagon and what do those tapes show?

I don't think it's asking much to have these 5 questions answered - if a re-investigation concentrated only on these questions it might be useful.

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Oct 18 2006, 03:33 AM, said:

All I really want to know is this:

1) Is there clear and compelling evidence that any of the WTC buildings (especially WTC 7) were brought down with help of demolitions? If not, what is the scientific evidence - repeatable to explain 3 collapses - explanation for the free-fall speed of the collapses? I am not saying this cannot happen, only that it has never been addressed in any of the studies released by the government, while many physicists and structural engineers have said it is impossible. If it is possible, what happened? If impossible, what happened?

Here's what the NIST report says. I quote:

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

http://wtc.nist.gov/...faqs_8_2006.htm

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on Oct 17 2006, 08:13 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 18 2006, 03:33 AM, said:

All I really want to know is this:

1) Is there clear and compelling evidence that any of the WTC buildings (especially WTC 7) were brought down with help of demolitions?  If not, what is the scientific evidence - repeatable to explain 3 collapses - explanation for the free-fall speed of the collapses?  I am not saying this cannot happen, only that it has never been addressed in any of the studies released by the government, while many physicists and structural engineers have said it is impossible.  If it is possible, what happened?  If impossible, what happened?

Here's what the NIST report says. I quote:

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

http://wtc.nist.gov/...faqs_8_2006.htm

Yes, this is the initial "pancake" theory publicized by the NIST - note that it gives only "vague" reasoning as to how this could happen. The weight of the above floors was too much to bear and boom, it all came crashing down. Notice there are no calculations shown of the weight of that mass or the designed load bearing capacity beneath - it's looks good but there is no "meat" in the claim. I believed it accurate for 4 1/2 years - then I found out that scholars say the assertion is a physics impossibility. So it made me look.

Here is one very deep analysis that shows mathematically the pancake concept cannot be accurate: http://st911.org/

It's too deep for me but maybe you can grasp it or prove it wrong?

Along with this, you have different amounts of weight - the two towers were impacted on different floors, so if the pancaking started on the stricken floor there would have been different amounts of pressure brought to bear - and WTC 7 had no plane impact at all - how does this pancake theory hold with WTC 7, which NIST ingnored?

The other problem I have is that NIST has never released its computer model that duplicated the action of the fall - surely those who build these types of buildings should know what went wrong.

I only want the NIST to publish a paper showing mathematically how the fall occured - even if I can't understand it - so that those who do understand the math and physics could review it and say - yes, it could have happened that way.

If the scholars who say it is a physics impossibility are wrong, I'd like the NIST to show them where they have erred in their calculations. If the NIST can prove their version, they should do so.

Notice that in the original 5 questions, if the NIST or other government aganecies and branches of government would simply prove them wrong most of the doubt would be removed - are they unwilling or unable to do so?