The Stanford Daily Covers 9/11 Skepticism
911 call on 9/11 response - daily.stanford.edu
Honest search for the truth or yet another conspiracy theory?
October 31, 2006
By Emma Vaughn
At a Friday screening of the documentary “9/11: Press for Truth” at Gunn High School, Stanford grad Paul Thompson and Berkeley English Prof. Peter Dale Scott charged the Bush administration of failing to make Americans safer and pointed to a governmental cover-up at the film’s Palo Alto debut.
Much of the content, which traces the events and government actions leading up to the terrorist attacks, is based on Thompson’s book, “The Complete 9/11 Timeline.” In addition to news clips and government evidence, the film uses survivor statements to raise provocative questions regarding the attacks and the role of the current administration.
“In looking at what happened since 9/11, I don’t feel like this country has been secured or made safer in any way, shape or form,” Thompson said. “It is just so shocking what has not been done. This country is so open to another attack. It wouldn’t even take Al Qaeda at this point.”
In a discussion session immediately proceeding the film, Thompson was joined by Scott to gauge the film’s political implications. Scott, who has penned numerous articles on terrorism and the 9/11 attacks, expressed serious doubts in the ability of any administration to secure the country against Al-Qaeda.
“We have a big problem right now in which we need a more serious remedy than a Democrat in the White House,” Scott said. “There is this whole interlocking milieu of intelligence agencies and the terrorists they sponsor, and they are so clearly imbedded in each other that there is no clear decisive action to stop them. The CIA is still sponsoring terrorism, and after five years of this ‘War on Terror,’ we can say that the net result is a far more dangerous world than we had before.”
Thompson said that while he based his opinions on facts only, government inaction leading up the attacks reached a criminal level.
“If you follow the incompetence theory, it would be such gross criminal negligence to have so many warnings and do absolutely nothing in response that that alone should lead to the impeachment of the Bush administration,” Thompson said. “If you look at the untrue statements that we know the top officials have said under oath, that right there should be a minimum five-year prison sentence.”
In addition to the administration’s role, the film focused on what it labeled as gaps and contradictions in the 9/11 Commission. It employed the “Jersey Girls,” a group of four women widowed by the attacks, to trace the steps in the investigative process.
“There has been a massive cover-up from the beginning,” Scott said. “And while we hoped that the Commission might do something to end the cover-up, it actually participated in it. The odd paradox is that it’s not just the mainstream press that doesn’t want to go there. It’s people like Noam Chomsky that don’t want to go there. We have to make America go there.”
While most audience members reacted enthusiastically towards the discussion and film’s content, a few felt that both stopped short of unearthing some of the more controversial questions. Dennis Galen Mitrzyk, a social activist from Los Altos, said he was disappointed that Stark and Thompson hadn’t addressed what he believed to be the administration’s active role in the attacks.
“I feel that Paul and Peter are both guilty of taking a position known as the limited hang-out,” Mitrzyk said. “Paul is assuming that it is Al-Qaeda who did it. My specialty is the collapse of the towers, and the collapse was clearly controlled demolition, and if it was this, than it was clearly not Al-Qaeda. It’s a very different situation if Bush and the neo-cons planned it.”
A number of people walked out in frustration during the discussion session, with one audience member loudly charging that the “destruction of Israel” was all the U.S. needed to maintain political stability.
- Jon Gold's blog
- Login to post comments
Off topic. Did anyone watch
Off topic. Did anyone watch national geographic Inside Saddam's Reign of Terror and see if there was a subliminal sequence in there saying "inside job" in red letters?
Great news/off topic
That is great news that 911 contiunes to get more coverage.
OFF TOPIC:
Democratic congressman John Conyers exposed his ultimate subservience to Israel and to the Jewish Zionist Lobby that controls the purse strings of his party when he joined other key Democrats in criticizing Jimmy Carter for describing Israel's occupation of the Palestinians as "apartheid," not that he or any one of these moral cowards has ever set foot in a Palestinian town or village in either the West Bank and Gaza or has any idea of what they are talking about. As for NY's Charlie Rangel, there has never been a Zionist behind that he has not been willing to kiss. As for the one-time presidential candidate Dean, he has learned his lesson and has become the lobby's doormat.
Jimmy Carter is the only US president to negotiate a treaty that required Israel to give up land, and if there are those who believe that either Israel or the Zionist lobby was happy with Camp David or will forgive him for twisting Menachem Begin's arm to get it, they are seriously deluded. And it wasn't just the lobby in 1980, folks. Carter received only 48% of the Jewish vote against Reagan that year, the lowest estimated Jewish vote total for any Democratic candidate since they started taking such polls.
mailto:jablankfort@earthlink.net
Published on World War 4 Report (http://ww4report.com)
Democrats task Carter over "apartheid" Israel tome
By David Bloom
Created 10/30/2006 - 17:40
Subliminal
I recorded that documentary last night on the National Geographic Channel....Saddam's Reign of Terror to try and decipher the subliminal message added to the 9/11 clip in the film.
there were three frames that I could not decipher... the words were blurred.... but then there was a frame where the word "INSIDE" was written in red letters from bottom to top...along with some arabic lettering.
then they flashed a few pictures of Saddam and Bush
then there were a few more frames with one frame which had the text turned upside down .... the text when written in proper justification said "FILE: A108"
With the text flipped there was only a few letters which appeared to be a word..... the "108"
when you flip it upside down.... it looks like JOB.... the 1 had a pretty large tail creating what appeared to be a "J"
in a sumliminal type of presentation.... I can see where I made that connection.
But I'm just a conspiracy WACKO
It's too bad some want to
It's too bad some want to jeer or yell out "limited hangout" to Paul Thompson or Peter Scott Dale.
Oh, sorry if they dont go on and on about melting points and pentagon holes. Peter Scott Dale's take on 9/11 and its origins, along with Sander Hicks I feel is some of the finest 9/11 research, period. Next to Webster Tarpley and Nafeez Ahmed of course.
Oh yeah, did anyone see Kill The Messenger, or HBO's The Journalist and the Jihadi documentaries, or know if they are online?
How did caveman Osama & his 19 flunkies make NORAD
stand down?
Moreover, an "airliner" slams into the Pentagon 40 minutes after both towers are slammed? Come on!
A stand down order would
A stand down order would mean they Let It Happen on Purpose.
Not necessarily...
...it could've just been insurance that someone didn't show initiative and intercept those planes and whatever hit the Pentagon, which all could've been Inside Job in origin.
Mitrzyk is absolutely on target...
"“I feel that Paul and Peter are both guilty of taking a position known as the limited hang-out,” Mitrzyk said. “Paul is assuming that it is Al-Qaeda who did it. My specialty is the collapse of the towers, and the collapse was clearly controlled demolition, and if it was this, than it was clearly not Al-Qaeda. It’s a very different situation if Bush and the neo-cons planned it.”
Everything changes when you realize it was an inside job. Any stressing of the 'incompetence' theory is a limited hangout. And since LIHOP is irrational, the only conclusion is they Made It Happen On Purpose. And, in the end, as one connects the dots across the spectrum of occurrences since and before 9/11, the MIHOP DOT is the only one that fits and turns the whole mosaic into a glaring picture of corporate and neocon lust for power and control of OUR world. Remember who our enemies are. Those that would kill us for a whim of self-aggrandizement.
"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free" (Goethe)..... a paraphrase from V: Cast aside the illusions. Only when you are finally hopeless can you truly be free.
Scott and Thompson can't be that stupid
Protect us from al Qaeda?? Riiiiiiiight. Beef up that port security, etc. Yup. That'll show the terrists!! No more letting it happen again!!
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Lets have some fun with this one.
I just spotted this comments page that pertains to the "9/11 press for Truth" showing. http://voice.paly.net/view_story.php?id=4683 Be sure to add your comments. Some young fool named Jim took some heavy hits at Dylan and his crew.
LIHOP is not an irrational
LIHOP is not an irrational position.
not irrational, just not supported by any evidence
Plus it implies that planes caused the towers to collapse. I would recommend that if ever using LIHOP to try to ease someone into the truth it must be done with reference to the obvious controlled demolitions.
Of course since LIHOP serves to preserve the "evil muslim" fairy tale it really should go the way of the pancake theory. Muslims were not behind 9/11, period. It was the brainchild of the neocon cult that very clearly wanted it blamed on muslims. Will we help them do that?
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
The role of the muslim
The role of the muslim hijackers is unclear to me. It's certainly possible that the plan for the attack came out of the ISI sponsored Qaeda network, for instance.
I think Pakistan was duped
Into helping to frame Saudi nationals and "al Qaeda'" and bin Laden. Perhaps this meant wiring money to Mohammed Atta for whatever reason, like to pay for renting the apartments, etc. to make it seem as if there were teams of hijackers in the U.S. Then Pakistan's good buddy India prints the story about it (who knows who leaked that info to them or if they have an informant whatever) and the result is that Pakistan suddenly has egg on its face, looks guilty as hell and can be forced to cooperate with the takeover of Afghanistan under threat of being blamed for 9/11 (which seems to happen a lot these days!)
This scenario makes a lot more sense than Pakistan actually agreeing to carry out the attacks with such an obvious trail of suspicion leading to them. Providing a cover story that for remote controlled planes that implicates Saudis is a lot different than coordinating a real hijacking in cahoots with bin Laden or directly with alCIAda. They would have been fools to agree to that.
This way though they were relatively clean, except they didn't count on being stabbed in the back via the Times of India. Now the LIHOPPERS are implicating them and the heat is on, because either way they have to be guilty of something, whether it was relatively benign (faking a hijacker scenario) or evil (coordinating hijackings).
Who other than India wants to screw Pakistan? Well, Pakistan has the only Islamic nuke in the world. Suddenly the Neocon-Israel-India axis starts to make a lot of sense. They want us to see Russia, China (both formerly sort of communist), and Latin America (under growing leftist influence) as the other axis in a bipolar world.
Suddenly things are becoming VERY clear to me at least!
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
If Pakistan was "duped"...
Then why do we continue to treat them as our "bestus buddies?"
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
MIHOP Statement
"The CIA is still sponsoring terrorism"
Playing the "limited hangout" angle is meant to be divisive. Paul Thompson does NOT, I repeat, does NOT like to theorize.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Sorry Jon but I don't believe you are correct:
from your article:
“In looking at what happened since 9/11, I don’t feel like this country has been secured or made safer in any way, shape or form,” Thompson said. “It is just so shocking what has not been done. This country is so open to another attack. It wouldn’t even take Al Qaeda at this point.”
Clearly Thompson is concluding that 'this country is so open to -another- attack' ; the following sentence implies the first attack was committed by Al Qaeda. That paragraph reflects a conclusion derived from Thompson's acceptance of the official theory. And with respect to the beginning of that quote, the only way our country will be safe (according to my theory) is if you remove the neocons and their complicit security/intelligence agencies that actually caused 9/11. NOT the Arab box cutters.
And thus it reflects a limited hangout or at least Thompson's theory and conclusion regarding 9'11 that I believe is so wrongheaded as to be laughable.
"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free" (Goethe)..... a paraphrase from V: Cast aside the illusions. Only when you are finally hopeless can you truly be free.
Or...
Maybe he's logically pointing out the fact that nothing has been done to secure this Nation from another attack, proving that we were never in any "danger" to begin with.
Sometimes people need that logical push to come to a conclusion. For instance...
In this article it says:
"Mounir al-Motassadeq, 31, was sentenced to seven years in prison for membership of a terrorist organisation, but the judge ruled that the more serious charges were not proven, in part because of a failure by the US authorities to co-operate with the prosecution.
In a three-hour judgment, read out before a court in Hamburg, Judge Ernst-Rainer Schudt said that the US Justice Department had refused to co-operate fully with the German court."
When that article came out, I promoted the following "angle":
I have a really really really stupid question. Shouldn't the United States OF ALL countries want to punish those responsible for the attacks of 9/11? Shouldn't the United States OF ALL countries want to cooperate any way we can in order to hold those responsible, accountable?
Shouldn't Fox News Zombies be FURIOUS with this news? Logically, if you follow the "Official Story", finding out that the United States didn't cooperate during a trial for someone who helped "prepare the September 11 attacks", should make you FURIOUS.
I think what Paul is doing is using their words against them. Ok, you say we were attacked, and are in danger, yet, you're not doing anything to secure us. Why is that:?
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Well, we certainly have made many more real enemies with
our torture & our killing of hundreds of thousands of Afghanis & Iraquis!
Absolutely...
If we weren't in any real danger 5 years ago, we certainly are today.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
we're in danger? really?
While I certainly agree that the neocons' plan probably counts on creating real terrorists I don't know how effective they're being. Where have there been any terror attacks since 9/11 that did not have clandestine backing by the US or its "allies"? I simply refuse to lend any weight to this idea that, naturally, arab muslims will turn to violence when wronged. After five years all we have seen is anger and mass demonstrations, both justified and restrained. I shudder to think what Americans would start doing if they were so unjustly attacked as Arabs and Muslims have been. Oh wait, we know what they would do--hand over the keys to the most powerful killing machine on earth to a dry drunk with a messianic complex resulting in the deaths of over half a million innocent people. Until we start recognizing the real terrorists for who they are, and dealing with them accordingly, everyone in the world will be in real danger. Unfortunately, some people just don't seem to get that the longer they keep the truth from coming out (and there are plenty of people who could ensure the truth did come out tomorrow if they so chose) the worse the backlash is going to be. They're playing with the fires of hell, and people are going to get burned as a result.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
If...
Your people were constantly murdered, would you eventually turn on the murderers?___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
of course, but...
We are fully prepared to deter would-be terrorists is my point. How far you have to push anyone in order to turn them into a murderer is an individual matter and what I object to is a blanket belief that A leads to B. I'm not trying to be contrary, honest. I just don't think it's fair to plant a seed in people's minds that has not yet even been shown to be true. As understandable and (maybe to some extent) predictable as it may be to make the assumption, we should beware of self-fulfilling prophecies. It reminds me too much of the Zionist trick of constantly telling Jews that they are universally reviled and then provoking animosity to make it seem as if they were right all along. Say if I were muslim and read your comment, I might think--you know? Jon Gold is right--any normal person would turn on their oppressor--why don't I grow some balls and get my jihad on? I think the message we should be sending is that since all of this violence is fake, don't be a sucker and fall for it. I'm not saying you're advocating it Jon, but like I said, self-fulfilling prophecies got their name for a reason!
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
We have been doing the
We have been doing the torture for years for this exact purpose.... their goal was not to kill many of these people but to enrage them... give them one sole purpose in life to exact revenge upon the people who tortured them and killed their families right in front of their face for absolutely no reason at all..... they get these people to the breaking point...then they release them.... they probably give them a roadmap to the nearest terrorist group.
not to mention the practice of breeding these CIA punishers willing to do anything they are told.... not to mention having this held over their heads to coerce them to carry out their will.... once you are in.... there's no getting out.
This is a Mafioso.... a gang sponsored and armed by a naive population.
Keep in mind...
Paul is a VERY "slick" individual. Also keep in mind that Paul is probably the poster-child for not sounding "crazy."
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
not convincing
"Maybe he's logically pointing out the fact that nothing has been done to secure this Nation from another attack, proving that we were never in any "danger" to begin with."
He is not logically pointing out any fact. He is essentially stating a position I have heard many democrats, and DLC members state about the bush regime. That the bush regime has done little to keep us safe. IF he is actually asserting that this is 'because we were never in any 'danger' to begin with', then he should state that. He does not do so. Although You have made such a leap says nothing at all about the mass of folks who simply are very much not likely to.
"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free" (Goethe)..... a paraphrase from V: Cast aside the illusions. Only when you are finally hopeless can you truly be free.
CIA
"We have a big problem right now in which we need a more serious remedy than a Democrat in the White House,” Scott said. “There is this whole interlocking milieu of intelligence agencies and the terrorists they sponsor, and they are so clearly imbedded in each other that there is no clear decisive action to stop them. The CIA is still sponsoring terrorism, and after five years of this ‘War on Terror,’ we can say that the net result is a far more dangerous world than we had before.”
I agree with statement. At this time I don't think any president can trully run the country. This shadow government of secret agencies continues unabated no matter who the president is. How we rid ourselves of them is the big question. They, it seems are not beholding to our laws or constitution.
Look what happened to JFK
Look what happened to JFK when he wanted to disband the CIA and eliminate the Federal Reserve....
It's up to us.... If all are tax money is going to the bankers who are running the Federal Reserve.... we need to stop paying taxes....
when the federal reserve dollar is no longer worth anything..... we will gladly give them all back to pay off our debt.... then we can start this all over.... the correct way.
Unfortunately the have also taken all our gold as collateral for all the money our government has borrowed from them..... what a backassward system.... how could we have let this happen to begin with is beyond me...
stop paying taxes and start buying precious metals.... If we do this we may be able to stop this sickness we created
Jon Gold wrote... "Keep in
Jon Gold wrote...
"Keep in mind...
Paul is a VERY "slick" individual. Also keep in mind that Paul is probably the poster-child for not sounding "crazy."
John,
When police detectives investigate a crime, they are not concerned with wether or not a particular theory "sounds crazy", they simply follow the facts to where they lead. LIHOP is for people that chose to rtemain in the dark.
A few questions for you Jon,
1. Do you belive WTC1,2 and & to be control demolitioned?
2. Who did the London bombing?
3. Who did the Spain bombing?
Time for us to face the facts and let go of silly superstitions like "Al Qaeda".
Hmmmm...
1. Do you belive WTC1,2 and 7 to be control demolitioned?
I think people like Professor Jones, Jim Hoffman, Don Paul, Michael Berger, etc... make a phenomenal argument that leads one to believe that it was Controlled Demolition that brought down all three buildings. That being said, I'm some schmuck from Philadelphia that's never had a physics class, or a structural engineer class. That means I'm not qualified to tell you whether or not it was Controlled Demolition. However, I openly refer people to Professor Jones' work.
2. Who did the London bombing?
I know it wasn't Al-Qaeda.
3. Who did the Spain bombing?
I know it wasn't Al-Qaeda.
Incidentally, "Al-Qaeda" does in fact exist. However, it is more of an ISI/CIA/MI6 collaboration.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Now...
I have a question for you. Do you have a publicist, and PR campaign available to you?
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
The reason I ask is...
Your analogy regarding a detective isn't accurate. Paul Thompson is not a detective. If he was, he wouldn't have to worry about credibility, and whether or not he comes across as "crazy."
However, he isn't. Therefore, he chooses to make his arguments as logical, and factually accurate as possible so he doesn't come across as "crazy."
See, regular citizens such as ourselves don't have publicists, and PR campaigns to improve our image.
That's why credibility is everything to this movement.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
It's common sense
You don't need a physics class, and you certainly do not need to be a structural engineer, to know that the NIST report has not explained the reason the buildings free-fell.
Appeals to authority or expertise should not prevent people from doing their own reasoning. In NIST's case, the authorities are lying, or very subtly not lying by avoiding the key question everyone has. This is obvious on the face of the report. "Global collapse ensured." We know that!!! WHY???!!!!!
Also, the expertise argument seems to never end -- even a physicist can't comment because he's not a structural engineer, seismologist, etc., even a mechanical engineer is not structural engineer, etc..
The NIST report is supposed to explain to layman what happened. It does not. Why? Because it can't without considering politically incorrect hypotheses. This is politics, not science.
I agree that the Al-CIA-duh stuff is diversionary. It might explain how the Atta et al were in the country making themselves seen right before the attacks. For example, going to flight schools: not because they actually intended to hijack planes, but to create a trail consistent with that.
This is the way I made the controlled demolition argument to someone who cited the NIST FAQ
Anonymous said:
For people who want the truth and not some lib-nutjob conspiracy
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 10:08.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
» reply | email this page
I replied:
Link provides no answers
Submitted by David (not verified) on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 01:04.
Thank you. I read the NIST FAQ.
I was perplexed to learn that NIST is not saying that the floor trusses gave way and the floors "pancaked" down. I had thought that this was their explanation.
They are saying that one face of each tower began bowing in and that this initiated global collapse. I don't really understand what they are saying -- if anyone can explain please reply -- but it is not relevant to my questions, which relate to after global collapse ensued.
Are you aware that NIST has only modeled up to the initiation of collapse? The events after initiation of collapse are not modeled -- NIST just says that global collapse ensued.
People's questions relate to the global collapse -- how did it happen so quickly, with those dust clouds billowing out.
In response to the question of how the towers fell so quickly, basically at free-fall speed, NIST basically says "because they did."
Do you understand that NIST's reasoning is tautological? Let me explain.
The fact that the towers free-fell means that there was virtually no resistance by the underlying building, and the building fell as if the only resistance was air.
So when people ask how did the buildings free-fall, what they mean is, why did the 80 or 90 floors underneath where the planes hit provide no resistance?
NIST's answer?
The collisions and fires weakened the structures to the point "the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors."
But WHY couldn't they resist? And around we go again.
NIST also says “… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone."
WHY?
NIST answers: "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."
WHY?
Perhaps the best example of NIST's tautological reasoning:
"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."
Yes, I saw the videos. Why did the building offer little resistance.
WHY?
NIST says the speed increased:
"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.”
WHY?
We know the speed would pick up, the question is why was there no resistance at all.
Understand that the structure beneath, most of a massive building with core columns and exterior columns, and steel floors, was not weakened by the collision or fires.
So how did the resistance disappear?
The only possible answer is that energy was added to remove the resistance. That energy turned the building to dust in front of your eyes.
Come on, this is common sense. Physics 101, if we need to get academic about it.
It's also Logic 101 -- NIST is going around in circles with its argument.
Why? Because it either cannot or does not want to answer the question.
Finally, NIST's answer to the controlled demolition theory is that the collapse started at the top. So?
The controlled demolition theory is simply that some energy was added to remove the building so that the building could free fall, which I have just shown must have happened. This energy could have been top top down, bottom up, middle up and down, top down and bottom up, whatever. Energy was still added, so the building was demolished. It was done very effectively and the building fell straight down, not hitting other buildings, so it was controlled.
Controlled demolition. Doesn't matter that they usually start at tghe bottom, like WTC7. Energy was still added.
The building turned to dust in front of your eyes.
NIST is essentially telling you that this did happen.
But you saw it, I saw it, we all saw it. I would like a rational explanation. NIST has not provided it.
I ask why NIST has not provided an answer, and very reasonably suspect something other than the story we have been told. Why?
If this makes me a liberal nutjob, I guess I am. But I have posited no conspiracy. Just questions.
By the way, NIST attempts to lengthen the time of collapse by talking about some columns at the bottom that stayed up longer, that we could not see:
"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."
I'll have to take NIST's word on that, but it just raises more questions. Why were they not crushed? I thought the core columns could not handle the weight above and so provided no resistance. Apparently these did, because they resisted the wright above and remained standing for a while longer. Why just these? Why didn't the other core columns remain standing And since they obviously provided resistance, why did they not slow the building's collapse?
Any way you look at it, energy was added from some source. I don't know the source, and want to know.
I assure you that I would be very relieved to learn that there is a rational explanation for this. This has nothing to do with partisan politics. If you or anyone else has answers to my questions, please reply.
And if you think I should just take the government's word for it, I'd have to answer that that is positively un-American. This country was founded on questioning the government. The government should fear the people, not vice versa. The government owes you and I a rational explanation.
The NIST report is its explanation. That explanation is not rational.
Correction
I meant to say toward the end of my comment:
NIST is essentially telling you that this did not happen.