Movies like loosechange and zeitgeist are really interesting and have taken much time to create. They have the greatest intention, to make sure that we don't just see an event, and immediatly assume that everything we hear/see is true. Unfortunatly, they rely on just that.The video uses very few FACTS to prove their opinions, because thats all they are. Im not going to sit here and curse and yell and tell them. Im going to say just a few things.The people of loosechange are young, very young. They have no experience with engineering, or anything. They also have done minor, minor research on what ACTUALLY happened, used unreliable sources, twisted words, and manipulated everything that happened.

Couple of facts:

Did you know that the history channel interviewed and reviewed all the points that loosechange had? Did you know the result? They disproved EVERY SINGLE ONE THAT WAS SAID. NOT A FEW, ALL OF THEM.

Did you know that numerable mags and other news articals have also disproved EVERYTHING that loosechange has said?

The TRUTH is that this video only provokes the mind into thinking something COULD happen.


If you are young, under 20 or so, please listen to this following advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-When looking at stuff on the internet, there are few regulations on to what they can say or show. Most of the stuff on the internet is pulled days after being released.
-When they created this video, they didn't have to abide by any rules stating that they had to tell the truth, they could manipulate what everyone said in any way they wish, present it the way it is, a complete lie, and still be able to keep it on the internet, PRESENTING IT AS TRUTH.
-Don't always believe what you see on the internet, as most of it is biased, manipulated, or misconstrued in some way or fasion.

In the end, this topic will be undoughtably taken off because of me telling the truth of what they have done, but thats alright, because I must try and tell young people that what they are doing is morally wrong, and most definatly SHOULD be legally wrong, but unfortunatly is not.

LooseChange is a complete manipulation of the truth, taking reality, twisting it, changing the circumstances around the "facts", and then presenting it with NO SOURCE of these "facts'. In FACT, they have only presented a big load of opinions, which should not be believed for a second.

Ask yourself, could a government convince millions of people not to say a word that something was going to happen, AND AFTERWORDS??????

Keep an Open Mind youngens, please, our future generations depends on it1!!

These guys do:

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

did they talk about molten metal?

or zoom in on wtc7? <_<

Atleast you watched them and I continue to watch documentaries like:

http://WKJO.com

Mohamed Atta & The Venice Flying Circus
http://www.universalseed.org/redirect.asp?MediaID=17

The Century of the Self
Official site, no video: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries..._the_self.shtml
Part 1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2637635365191428174

A true skeptic has an open mind. Eventually after watching enough different documentaries your mind will decompartmentalize more than it is right now and like others you may begin to realize the design and switch from coincidence theorist to conspiracy theorist. ;)

More advice, "youngens," stay in school. Learn how to spell. Try to learn what it means to really think about things. See if you can spot some of the propaganda that you are fed daily: from school, media of all kinds, advertising, government... Until you realize you've been lied to, "big time," you'll have trouble in this exercise. But if you truly see it one time you'll be able to recognize it again and again until you learn the art of discrimination. That's a big word that means being able to tell the difference between hogwash and sincerity.

To seek truth is a noble thing. Pay close attention to how many out there will do their best to try to manipulate you. Learn what a red herring is, or what a straw man argument looks like. Be especially concerned about emotional appeals, hot-button words, and the ever useful tactic of misdirection.

Good luck. You'll need it. There is an awful lot of energy out there being spent on keeping the lid on what really happened on 9/11.

or show this:

hehehehe i think i missed it =D

Last time I looked, none of these people were experts in skyscraper design and construction and had experience in them. When I asked, no one on this forum was able to give me the name of a skyscraper architect either.

Ranb

Aren't you the one who is so open minded that you think Apollo did not land on the moon? I am really impressed. :)

Ranb

Elder--

To be fair, isn't there an inordinate amount of energy being spent trying to tell the "truth" or the author's version of "truth" (hence this site and the other three dozen sites referenced here daily).

As stated, I don't fully buy the 9/|| Commission report but it is the most sensible explanation I heard to date.

For example: I do not believe anybody could plant explosives in a building capable of bringing it down without anybody noticing. To do so would have required pinpoint placement. A large aircraft striking the building at a high rate of speed would have knocked these items off of their moorings almost undoubtedly. Additionally, if you have bombs, why do you need planes? Certainly, the thought of a radicalized Muslim coming into a building and blowing it up can be floated as plausible...at least as plausible as the nineteen hijackers story.

For example: I do not believe that any conspirators would allow fake telephone calls from the planes because it would be much easier not to include the telephone calls. What would be the point? If it is to convey that there were hijackings, that is a silly argument because we have footage of planes hitting buildings. One may be an accident, two is terrorism (false flag or otherwise). If it is to convey horror to the masses, that too is a silly argument since one can begin to imagine the terror of being on an aircraft plunging into hardened concrete and steel. I have yet to be convinced as a motive for allowing these phone calls to go through and subsequently be released except for the 9/|| Commission report that inexperienced pilots took control of the aircraft and simply did not know how to disable in flight communications. I know, for a fact, that a pilot can enable/disable telephone capabilities on the plane (the air phones). To fit in with the Official Conspiracy Theory, the Kean commission could have surmised very plausibly that the hijackers disabled the phones on the plane. This would have been "bought" by all who read it as something that is easily explainable. The fact that there were phone calls made from the planes and that these calls were so plentiful leads me to believe that they actually happened.

For another example, there is not so much evidence of a missile hitting the Pentagon or planted explosives in the buildings. While it is true that such an even has never brought down a building in the past, it is equally as true that a bomb most often leaves shells of buildings behind in which they are deployed.

Here is a photograph of a double decker bus that was blown up on 7/7/2005. Notice the relatively low amount of damage:



As stated, fire has never brought down a building but it is as true to stay that terrorists bombs have never brought down a building.

The 1993 attack on the WTC did not bring it down. It is very suspicious to me that more explosives than that were carried in that cargo van could be smuggled into not one but two towers, placed precisely at the points where they were needed to be placed, with nobody noticing them, and then have a plane impact the building (a large airbody at a high rate of speed) and the explosives 1). not go off and 2). not be disturbed.

A Ryder truck that was full of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil took out half of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in April 1995 but did not bring it down. This explosion was external to the building and was not capable of demolishing it or any other structures that I know of in the vicinity.

While I am unconvinced that a jet liner could topple a 110 story sky scraper, I am more unconvinced that some explosives were manipulated in such a manner as to where they could do the feat without discovery and without detection after the fact.

For yet another example of where the 9/|| Commission report trumps some of the other theories I heard, it is the simple logic behind it.

* As I see it, it would be illogical for a planner to detonate the second tower that was struck prior to detonating the first tower. It would certainly seem as though that would defy logic in all "planning meetings." If I were in the place of a conspirator, how would you convince your colleagues that "We need to take down the South Tower First"? To me, this defies explanation.

* Some theories put fourth on this site (and others) hold on firmly to the false pretext (in my view) that the Pentagon was attacked to derail an investigation. This pretext is flawed on no less than two fronts.

1) . If military black ops are so sophisticated as to prevent any leak of information in the years of planning of these attacks, assuredly they could do something much more finesse oriented than hit a building with an incendiary device. As memory serves, a number of material witnesses into the JFK assassination were killed in the few years after the President was slain. The odds of them all being killed were something like 23 million to one--one was killed by a judo chop to the throat. Nothing ever was stated again about this taking place on an official level. Assuredly the black ops that pulled off that stunt could derail an investigation either by sinister or covert means (magnetizing files on computers), setting small fires in buildings, etc...
2) . Where the pretext really falls apart in my mind is that the investigation was certainly not a target of the original planning of the conspiracy. Yet some would have you believe that this was done seamlessly. How, for one thing, could the investigation that, according to the movie Loose Change 911, was announced in 2001 (September 10, 2001 I believe), be incorporated into such an intricate plan so quickly.

Additionally, why would conspirators wish to hit the Pentagon at all? With the entire world watching, they hit the South tower. Obviously, the hi-jacking followed by the hitting, followed by the destruction of the towers would have been quite enough to put the country in the mood to kick some ass. Even more bizarre is that the same military that was going to be used to seize the oil fields in Persia were the ones that the commander in chief would allow to be attacked? If you were to place yourself in George W. Bush's shoes or Richard Cheney’s shoes for a moment, would that not seem incredibly risky to conspire to attack or to allow attacks on the heart of the Nation's Military Complex in September then knowingly full well that you're going to call on them in October? It is incredibly suspicious in my view that anybody would take the risk, much less an administration such as this one.

* Logic also seems to be missing when you consider that a fourth jet was shot down or crashed in Shanksville. No satisfactory explanation for the existence of the fourth hi-jacked vessel has ever been presented.

I remain skeptical in equal portions about the official story as well as what I have read here. However, in terms of plausibility, the 9/|| report still prevails as the most congruent explanation of events on that chaotic morning

There are quite a few blogs and forums and repositories of information concerning 9/11. It is going to take expending a lot of energy to get a new, objective, independent, honest investigation of 9/11. We've never had one, as far as I'm concerned. The 911 Commission Report never looked at anything but the official story of 19 Arab hijackers. They built their entire report on that premise. They neglected to mention anything that might suggest any other possibility. They fill hundreds of pages with irrelevant details and misleading propaganda. For example:

[from page 62 of the 911 Commission Report]
"The details of what happened on the morning of September 11 are complex, but they play out a simple theme. NORAD and the FAA were unprepared for the type of attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001. They struggled, under difficult circumstances, to improvise a homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge they had never before encountered and had never trained to meet."

Yet... we find out that the 911 Commission report discounts and dismisses the fact that multiple war games were being conducted on 9-11-2001 including hijackings, attacks on buildings using aircraft as missiles, attacks using toxic or infectious substances. Apparently, in the two years before 9/11/2001, NORAD conducted exercises simulating hijacked airliners being used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties. One of the exercise targets was the WTC.

However, back to your quote above ... do you see the "truther" point of view on the newstand or on the BBC or in 2-hour "documentaries" on the History Channel? Do you see hit jobs against the Popular Mechanics piece in the mainstream media?

Have the editors of Popular Mechanics lost their jobs?

Yet people who speak out -- (Kevin Ryan, Sybil Edmonds, Ellen Mariani, Charlie Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell, Stephen Jones, the list keeps on going) -- are ridiculed, villified, gagged, and/or fired.

When Bill O'Reilly has Jim Meigs on his show and talks down to him, talks over him, calls him and idiot and a nutcase, unfit to edit a magazine that other people read, then I'll agree that we've spent enough energy. :D

As for the comments and questions in the rest of your post, it's too much to respond to in one go. Could you focus on one or two issues per post? Thanks.

I do not believe I asked you to comment on any of what I was stating although commentary on why a terrorist (foreign or domestic) would require bombs in buildings if you have planes or planes crashing into buildings if you have bombs in those buildings would be appreciated. There appears to be a huge lack of reasoning behind why any organization would wish to do both given the fact that if it is a small group of individuals, their resources would be limited and if it were a governmental organization, the spectrum of individuals would have to be kept low to ensure secrecy.

Additionally, since you requested I keep the questions to two per post, it is unfathomable to me that a precisely placed charge would withstand a building being hit with a huge explosion and maintain both its pinpoint position as well as it's veracity as an explosive given the inpredictability of jet fuel cascading down elevator shafts, the edges of the buildings and the obvious breaches in flooring such an attack would have caused.

I fail to see the propaganda value of the 9/|| Commission report. An exercise is fine and nice in theory yet when one is asked to bring down a jet liner that has innocent Americans, one would understand the hesitation. Further given the confusion of where the airplanes were that is well documented by any number of sources, it is highly dubious that such a conclusion could be drawn; the conclusion that the planes could have been shot down. I, for one, am unaware of any record of a fighter pilot having a plane in his (or her) sights and asking for permission to fire a missile at the aircraft. If such a record exists, I would certainly be happy to see it.

It would seem as though you are discounting the efforts of The History Channel. Nobody forced them to air anything about the "truther" (your term) movement at all. They did. They gave a forum in which the movement was shown on a basic cable station in every cable home in the nation. Nobody forced them to do that. I would imagine that the publicity could only help the efforts of the "truther" community. Secondly, if there is no newstand magazines covering the views of the "truther" community, I tend to blame the community given the facts that there is no shortage of magazines on news stands and that there is coverage galore of any number of topics nowhere near as important.

I am editorializing here but the "truther" community seems to be it's own worst enemy. You know your/our constituents better than most; I say "our" because the truth is a subjective matter in this forum and I beleive I am as interested in getting from here to there as anybody. You know them better than most...do you feel as though there is any validity in a great many theories you hear? When one surveys the websites on Loosechange911.com home page under the links column, here is what they see:

On the Physics 911 website (http://physics911.net/), one of the first links you see is: "International Terrorism Does Not Exist." A totally baseless assertion calling into question any other link on the site. It goes on: "The Cellphone and Airfone Calls from Flight UA93" In that link, the author freely illudes to "A man claiming to be Tom Burnett" and lists Mark Bingham's phone call as coming from a "caller". There is quite ample proof that his own mother--the person Mr. Bingham was speaking to, said that she was sure it was her son; much less Ms. Burnett not knowing it was her husband. If the community wishes to gain any traction with the American public, it would serve itself well by not trampling on the final interactions between husband and wife and mother and son. Again, I feel that the community is it's own worst enemy in this regard.

Another link sponsored by the editors of this website takes a surfer to Plaguepuppy.net where one can view opinions of someone controlling the weather in the Gulf of Mexico. Does this increase or decrease your acceptance of other theories put fourth by this site? I can only chuckle at such a pretense.

Another link sponsored by the editors of this website takes you to something called cooperative research. This is a seemingly middle-of-the-road site that has very interesting timelines and other facts that are stated largely without slant. It puts it strangely out of place in the line up of links on this sites' homepage.

Yet another link is Veterans for 9/|| Truth. I hesitate to involve such a group in any serious discussion about 9/|| Truth when the cruxt of the site appears to be a list of link to other sites.

With the exception of cooperative research, there is not even the smallest preponderence of neutrality. Such is the razor's edge one walks when linking to this site I suppose but since the absolute truth is often found in the middle of any argument (i.e. nobody is 100% right and few are 100% wrong), the preponderence of neutrality would be welcomed by the American public. Additionally, one of the first links often spotted is one that sells items to support the site. aetruth911.com actually sells T-shirts. Again, this isn't too inspiring to the public at large when a site is asking for monetary donations at the outset.

I do not feel that there is a black list when it comes to 9/|| truth seekers who are celebrities. Hence Rosie O'Donnell kept her slot on "The View" long after 9/|| and Charlie Sheen still enjoys his role on "Two and a Half Men." If your argument is that these celebrities' views on politics and topics are unwelcome by the US Populous, I respond with a big "Yeah, So?" I doubt many would agree with Whoopi Goldberg's X-rated rant about our President that got her fired from some endorsement deals she had with her sponsors. Yet she is now on the View which supposedly is in the business of supporting the government hence silencing O'Donnell's viewpoints? It does not make sense to replace one anti-Bush commentator with another if that employer has an agenda, now does it?

The editors of Popular Mechanics systematically explained each one of the topics brought up by the History Channel to a satisfactory conclusion. Had other topics been brought up by the History Channel, it is likely that they too would have looked foolish. But on the merits of the arguments brought up by the interviewers, the explanations seemed conclusive, intelligent, and above all else correct to the majority of the public.

Mammoth, I corrected some of your errors in your OP. Here is the revision:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Movies like the History Channel 9/11 hit piece are really interesting and have taken much time to create. They have the worst intention, to make sure that we don't just see an event, and immediatly assume that everything we hear/see is true. Unfortunatly, they rely on just that.The video uses very few FACTS to prove their opinions, because thats all they are. Im not going to sit here and curse and yell and tell them. Im going to say just a few things.The people behind the History Channel hit piece are liars and traitors. They have no experience with engineering, or anything. They also have done minor, minor research on what ACTUALLY happened, used unreliable sources, twisted words, and manipulated everything that happened.

Couple of facts:

Did you know that the History Channel interviewed and reviewed all the points that Loose Change had? Did you know the result? They failed to disprove EVERY SINGLE ONE THAT WAS SAID. NOT A FEW, ALL OF THEM.

Did you know that numerable mags and other news articles have also failed to disprove EVERYTHING that Loose Change has said?

The TRUTH is that the Loose Change video only provokes the mind into thinking something that probably did happen.


If you are young, under 20 or so, please listen to this following advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-When looking at stuff on the TV or main stream media, there are few regulations on to what they can say or show. Most of the stuff on TV is allowed to stay days after being released.
-When they created the History Channel 9/11 hit piece, they didn't have to abide by any rules stating that they had to tell the truth, they could manipulate what everyone said in any way they wish, present it the way it is, a complete lie, and still be able to keep it on TV, PRESENTING IT AS TRUTH.
-Don't always believe what you see on TV or main stream media, as most of it is biased, manipulated, or misconstrued in some way or fasion.

In the end, this topic will be undoubtably be corrected for errors because of me being just another clueless sheep and believing the official lie, but thats alright, because I must try and tell young people that what Hearst Publications and all main stream media outlets are doing is morally wrong, and most definitely SHOULD be legally wrong, but unfortunately is not.

The History Channel 9/11 hit piece is a complete manipulation of the truth, taking reality, twisting it, changing the circumstances around the "facts", and then presenting it with NO SOURCE of these "facts'. In FACT, they have only presented a big load of opinions, which should not be believed for a second.

Ask yourself, could a government convince a few dozen people not to say a word that something was going to happen, AND AFTERWORDS??????

Keep an Open Mind youngens, please, our future generations depends on it1!!

Holy, you sound like you have the best intentions and are articulate, but your perspective is off. The problem with the truth movement is there are too many holes in the OCT and truthers cannot focus on just one. Truthers are spending so much time trying to figure out what did happen when all they need to do is prove via laws of physics or probabilities that the OCT didn't happen. I believe that has been done many times over, but it's very easy to argue about any theory no matter how logical or correct it is. WTC7 and CD is logical. Do not say a building cannot be wired for CD when you have no idea about it. It certainly is possible with enough money and time. Also do not mistake providing alternate theories with debunking because it isn't. Debunkers are simply countering with their own conspiracy theories, they are not debunking anything.

You can believe what you want. But be very careful believing the wolf in sheep's clothing. His intent is to ultimately eat you. I don't think truthers care to eat you, but the global elites who control our government do.

Are you referring to a CD with explosives or with some other type of device?

It appears to be explosives done in a conventional way. However the wiring probably wasn't conventional. If it was an inside job, then they had access to the building off hours and could have gotten access to the columns and patched the walls up so workers didn't notice. Possibly RC devices were used?

A lot of people like to refer to the penthouse drop as adding 12 seconds to the total collapse time. I believe they are two separate events. Why they dropped the penthouse first could be to make the top symmetric since the penthouse was on one side only. It would make sense to level things off at the top since the goal is a symmetrical collapse into its own foot print and not sway over. That's pure hypothesis, but it does make sense.

CD is more logical versus random chance. Random fires + random damage (to one side only) probably did not cause a perfectly symmetrical collapse. But it does imply inside job which is why a lot of people resist that notion. If CD implied OBL did it, say he owned the building, then I'm sure all the debunkers out there would say it was probably CD.

Conventional explosives sound much different than whatever happened in WTC7, and have distinct seismic signatures, none of which were present in WTC7.

You then have the problem of fires damaging/detonating some of these devices. Most explosives won't detonate from fire, but their detonators/blasting caps will.

Also...by what measurement or standard is this collapse "perfectly symmetrical"?

What effect do you think the unique construction over the Con-Edison sub-station had on the collapse?

Stop with the red text, good grief....

Ask the experts. They haven't been able to answer it. So why are you asking me?

Do you have access to recordings? I never heard them before. Also not aware of seismic data. I'm going off of behavior of the drop being very similar to other CD buildings. Exact? No. Similar? Yes.

That's true. Not sure what they used, or how they protected them from fire.

Should I say near symmetrical and near free fall speed so we don't get into semantic arguments. Just look at it fall. Looks symmetrical to me. You?

Let's say WTC7 did fall from fires on a few floors and damage from falling debris on one side only. And it fell straight down in 7 seconds. Would you not think there would be a massive investigation with all structural engineers from around the world getting involved in answering why? A complete revision of the building codes and the search to find other buildings with similar structures and retrofitting them to prevent another tragedy? Why was evidence removed and disposed of so quickly? The debris should have been moved off-site and preserved so it can be studied by scientists and engineers. Bush tried to block any kind of investigation. Why?

Come on. Just use common sense. They are covering something up. And you are asking me exactly how the building was rigged and what explosives they used? Look at the forest, not the trees and that will answer your questions. You don't even need a calculator for that.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3898962504721899003

Hey listen, it sucks that our government is involved. I hate the thought of it and want to believe the OTC, but their cover story doesn't add up. If you start removing evidence from a crime scene and blocking an investigation, then you have something to hide. What are they hiding from us? That's guilty behavior if you ask me.

This has been addressed (most recently in the History channel show). The unique construction of WTC7 put much of the load of the building onto several trusses which transferred the vertical load laterally to the foundation. (See photo) This unique construction made the illustrated trusses especially vulnerable, since they supported a large portion of the weight of the building. Because this design was unique to WTC7, my question to you is if you believe this would have had an effect on the collapse.

I have seen plenty of videos of WTC7 collapsing, none sound anything like videos of explosive CDs. We cannot conclude it was a CD simply based on the way it "looked" when it fell.

I'm not aware of any explosives which are immune to fire, in fact, most become unstable when exposed to heat:
"As a rule of thumb, most explosives become dangerously unstable at temperatures exceeding 70 °C." Source

From a distance, the collapse looked mostly symmetrical. Looking at the debris, it definitely wasn't.

Engineers did get involved. Are you aware of ANY other building with a similar support structure? (see illustration near the top of this post)

Dozens, if not hundreds, of unrelated individuals - working for various entities and posessing various types of expertise - came in close contact with the steel over a period of months before it was eventually shipped overseas.

What did he do to "block any kind of investigation"?

Common sense tells me that the unique construction of WTC7 would have played into its collapse sequence. Common sense tells me that if explosives were used to bring down the building, they would be audible and would have shown up on seismographs. Common sense tells me to not jump to a conclusion before I have ALL of the facts.

Close your eyes and play the video back again. Which collapses sound like a CD?

Removing it from Ground Zero is guilty behavior? They had to remove debris to begin to clean up the mess, and work on rescue efforts. The debris was examined for months before being shipped overseas.

So, do you have a question?

I do. Why are you posting in RED and BOLD?

And in an upside-down world, I suppose you could say that the recent History channel mockumentary was a boon to "truthers" worldwide... I can assure you that was not Disney's (aka GE's) intent.

If the powers that be (hereinafter referred to as TPTB) were interested, in the SLIGHTEST, in an honest discovery of who really did 9/11 and how, we would not be 6 years after the fact without a real forensic examination of (in large part already destroyed) evidence. We would not find that information related to the event was prohibited from view for "national security" reasons. We would not have to continue to ask for some sort of visual PROOF that flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

We would not see whistleblowers ignored, trashed, evicted and fired.

Would we?

So, do you have a question? And plain black text will do fine, thank you.

Excuse me?

Take a look, from above, at the debris pile for WTC7.



7's debris is clearly in its own footprint. And what is even MORE amazing about this supposedly damage-fire collapse is that the sharp corners of the buildings to each side display no damage at all! How incredible that only building 7 was hit by falling debris ... and right THROUGH building 6's elevation to boot!

Sorry for the big image. But anyone who says 7 came down because tower 1 hit it is sticking their head in the sand and yelling "NANANANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

So "unique construction" somehow equates to being vulnerable to universal collapse due to fires on a few floors and being struck by debris on one side? That's grasping for straws. There are a lot of buildings with unique construction. Are they all deemed dangerous now? You are implying that WTC7 was a collapse waiting to happen due to its unique construction. How could it pass code or safety inspections?

Are you referring to the silent videos taken by the networks? Do you have an on-the-street video that does not have audio muted? Here's an NYPD officer who was near WTC7 as it was coming down. He talks about what he heard starting at 5:25 and also at 11:00.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2283625397351664218

I didn't conclude anything other than CD is a probable theory.

When a building falls into it's own foot print that's pretty symmetrical.

Was there a warning sent to the structural engineering community to seek out buildings with similar structure? I have heard of none.

Source please. FEMA or NIST did not test steel for explosives or thermite per their report. Why not?

Removing and disposing of evidence is guilty behavior. The debris was examined by whom? What was their conclusion? What was the rush to ship the evidence overseas to be melted down? You don't see this as suspicious behavior?

http://www.mikehersh.com/Bush_and_Cheney_B...tigation_.shtml

Why would anyone want to block an investigation of the biggest terrorism attack in history? Unless they have something to hide.

No sense going any further with this. I've made my points. If you disagree fine. I knew it would go there anyway. It typically does for those resistant to the truth.

Halifax-

I should remind you that the topic is entitled “Keeping an Open Mind”. It would be good advice for many here to follow.

There is no evidence whatsoever that I have heard that categorically dispels the findings of the September 11 commission. Opinions taken as evidence are often substituted for factual material; sometimes the supporting “evidence” are even message board postings. To that I say, wrong. This is not the way to “win over” the public.

Neither is deriding the final communications between husband and wife or mother and son as many of the confederates of this site seem to do. Cell phones work sometimes in flight. Sometimes they do not. Airphones certainly work. Not to belabor the point, but if there was a conspiracy at work, totally deleting the phone calls would have been the way to proceed since it would allow the conspirators to concoct any sort of story on board those planes. The only sensible conclusion to the phone call question is that they actually took place. No other conclusion clears the smallest hurdle of logic.

As for, “Do not say a building cannot be wired for CD when you have no idea about it” the farcical nature of such a statement is a challenge to overstate. Controlled demolitions take months to plan, hundreds of yards of wiring, precisely placed charges that must be set off in succession, and above all else tons of explosives. Highly unlikely (if not impossible) is the notion that such items could be placed without anybody noticing. For one matter, this would certainly entail dozens of personnel much less a disruption of large portion of workflow inside the towers themselves since it would require physical assault on the support columns of the buildings, almost certainly include power disruption inside the towers, sawing through piping and conduit to reach the skeleton of the building, and require access that would certainly be noticed by employees in the building. To my knowledge, none of the persons in the building have reported widespread disruption by workmen in the building, cables running every which way or power and utility outages on a wide scale.

No amount of time or funds would circumvent these obsticles, observations and cold hard facts.

I am no expert on controlled demolition but I am not blinded by a set of assumptions that need to be fulfilled by the wildest speculation as you seem to be. Forgive me but I cannot fathom such activities taking place and not the slightest wisper being uttered by any of the employees to their spouses, their parents, or whomever else before or after the fact.

Again, if this was a conspiracy involving a few persons, resources would be scarce and as such not be attempted and if it were a governmental conspiracy, they would certainly seek to reduce the amount of persons involved. Furthermore nobody to my knowledge has ever answered the simple question of why you would need both bombs in buildings along with planes being flown into those buildings. Neither of the two scenarios are complimentary to one another in my view. If the goal was to cash in an insurance policy, you certainly did not need to attack the building on a weekday much less attack it with planes. If the goal was to propel us into an ill advised war in Arabia, certainly the attacks on the towers themselves would warrant such a response on the part of our leaders.

You wrote in your post of early this morning, “Also do not mistake providing alternate theories with debunking because it isn't. Debunkers are simply countering with their own conspiracy theories, they are not debunking anything.” I am unclear of your meaning with the above passage. Is it you who are attempting to debunk the 9/|| Commission? If so, I must say that the “truther” community at large is failing miserably; hence no magazine willing to publish the fanciful findings of the community nor is any of the 170 or so cable stations willing to devote their airtime to giving the community a forum with any gravitas. If you are stating that the “alternate” versions are simply individuals coming up with their own stew and offering it to the public for consumption, I will state that the first amendment gives you that right. However, whether the stew is digested by others is up to them. To date, there seems to be a foul taste associated with much of what is “served up” by “truthers.” Furthermore, it would serve the community well to limit access of these individuals to websites with any gravitas—such as loosechange911.com. I’ll restate that the “truther” community (the word “truther” is Elder’s word) is it’s own worst enemy more often that it is not.

I feel, again, that the 9/|| Commission misses the mark on two key points. The first being that it fails to recommend criminal proceedings or at least dereliction of duty charges be brought against several officials who were occupying seats of authority on that tragic day. It may not have been in their purview to do so however, anybody can look at the events of that morning and tell that the system in place didn’t work. Nobody has been held accountable for the numerous failures and men and women of conscious need to speak up when something needs to be said. The forum was there for them if their mandate was not. Secondly, the 9/|| Commission Report (to my knowledge) did not include any sort of minority report. This is both admirable as well as unbelievable since most blue ribbon commissions do not find a total consensus on any topics. Given the flaws of the report, it remains the single best explanation of what happened on 9/11/01.

As of this paragraph, I have written 926+ words and nearly eaten up 5,000 characters of web space. I doubt there is much need for me to point out all of the weak points in the “truther” stories but here is a small sampling of what I don’t believe about the numerous theories propsed here and elsewhere:

See above to reveal my number one concern:

• Why do you require both bombs in buildings as well as planes being flown into the buildings?
• If a plane did not bring down the light poles in Virginia, what did?
• What was the point of the fourth plane that crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania?
• Why would WTC 7 have to be demolished given that the entire area was sealed off (or could have been sealed off) and any sort of item that needed to be removed from the site could have taken place in broad daylight.

Again, from your post, I am not attempting to “debunk” anything here nor am I giving credence to the official story but these four questions (and about a dozen others I have) would have to be answered satisfactorily before I believe there is any grand conspiracy behind the attacks of 9/||. Do I totally buy the Commission story? No. But it comes as close as anything I have read to describing what happened on that day. Please, convince me of a palpable alternate conclusion and I’ll entertain the post.

Furthermore, I feel that these questions represent a logical gateway that needs to be breached before the informed public at large accepts that there were any shenanigans at work that day. I am aware of statistics that show over 40% believeing there was governmental involvement in the planning of the attacks or letting them happen. However, given the fact that nearly as many cannot locate the Earth in a diagram of the universe or find Iraq on a map, it is an unimpressive statistic, hence the "informed public" stipulation above.

My apologies for the length and for my being “hardheaded” but if it were not for a hardheaded approach to what is being contested, would this site be on the web?

I did not foresee using bold and red being a problem (the options are available). I will refrain from using them.

The History Channel program wasn't a documentary. GE owns NBC, not Disney.
It still may well be the best thing that happened to the "truther" community.

The lack of visual proof of flight 77 is troubling since there are almost certainly videos offering a better view than the one that has been released to day. However, there is considerable proof that an American Airlines plane did strike the Pentagon from the wreckage and eyewitness accounts.

You asked if I had a question, while we are on the topic:

If Flight 77 did not knock over the light poles, what did?

As for a forensic examination of evidence, it was pretty obvious that a plane brought down the towers since there is footage of buildings being struck by planes and the associated collapses of said buildings first occurring near those points of impact. If a bullet strikes one in the head, the body is autopsied to prove that the projectile caused death. With literally millions (if not billions) of cubic feet of "body" did you honestly expect someone to go over the "body" with a fine toothed comb looking for evidence of a bomb being planted when there is voluminous video, physical, eyewitness, and circumstantial evidence that an airliner brought down the buildings? I suppose you could call this a second question however, I am certain of your response so I withdraw the question. I would expect the investigation to go precisely where it did, toward how the planes were commandeered and steered into buildings, how the perpetrators obtained control of the planes, why nothing stopped their attacks and how to repair a system that allowed it to take place.

You are not seeing whistleblowers ignored, trashed, evicted, and fired. What you are seeing are people being dismissed figuratively and sometimes literally due to a stark brand of extremism which would be just as objectionable had the situation been reversed. Two of the person you brought up had their jobs (not to mention landing new ones on the View) or have their jobs still to this date in Charlie Sheen's case. "Two and a Half Men" is now in syndication which means that the syndicator was able to sell his talents to non-affiliated and small stations nationwide. Hardly a blacklisting!

Again, if the community would focus their efforts on one key piece of "misinformation" it would help it gain traction as to moving on to less sexy aspects of the campaign. Certainly, there is a target rich environment in the 9/|| commission findings if what is contested here is true. The public at large treats all of your contemporaries as suspect because of extreme views. I have watched Loose Change 911. I must say that it makes some extremely good points. Why are there no videos of the plane hitting the Pentagon? How did a person's passport fall to the street in an almost pristine condition? However, there is zero chance and I mean absolutely zero chance that the 9/|| Commission did not get any of it right. The video I saw (I understand there has been several "cuts") pretty much discounts everything presented by the 9/|| Commission Report whether it identifies the document by name or not.

If you were to inject all of the viewers of this website with a form of truth serum, I would wager that the Loose Change 911 video is discounted as often as it is heralded due to this "all or nothing" stance I witnessed. Certainly the view of the public has been to discount extremist views such as those put fourth by Loose Change 911.. An extremist point of view is enjoyed by no one except other extremist of the same ilk. Look at Al Queda, the Taliban, PLO, KKK, Survivalists, Earthfirst, Greenpeace, most Red Sox fans, and the truther community. All of which suffer from ridicule or alienation. The motives of some of these groups is great--as is Loose Change 911's. But framing the argument in such a manner is almost tantamount to President Bush's "You're either with us or against us" mantra.

Here is my second question:

Finally, I would like to hear your explanation of why a group would need to plant bombs in buildings if they had planes hitting the buildings or fly planes into buildings that had bombs planted in them. If the motive was to pull off an insurance scam, certainly a terrorist walking into a building and detonating an explosive device is a stomachable explanation to an adjuster. If the motive were to put us on a wartime footing, the mere attacks themselves without the demolition would have sufficed. I am likely missing some sort of explanation and would like to hear the motives for having both items.

Nearly all of the controlled demolitions I have witnessed had an obvious successive blast where the lower portions of the building suffered their charges first then the explosions moved upward. The necessity being that the weight of the building would fall inward as support beams were severed by the force of the explosions. The charges in the upper areas of the building were set off later than those below to compensate for less weight being distributed over the frame of the building. There was less weight to sever support columns and cross beams.

Nearly all of them also had the tell tale squibs that were witnessed on the Twin Towers. None of what I have seen with building seven reveals such squibs. I'm certain they could have been done internally. I share the suspicion about how the building fell. If it were that structurally weak, wholesale modifications should be taking place right now.

But the haunting unsatisfactorily answered question is simply this, "why"? Given the events of the morning, the area known as ground zero could have been sealed off (and likely was) for weeks allowing for any type of removal of data. Most assuredly few would have questioned federal investigators or anybody else with clearance poking around the area post 9/11 if they did not question conspirators planting explosives in a pre 9/11 context.

The Twin Towers posed a unique challenge. They were the tallest buildings on earth at the time. I think it is fair to say that traditional controlled demolition was not an option. Too many stories high, too much chance for the top part to topple one way or another. Therefore, demolition of a sort that had not been publicly carried out before was required.

Building 7 certainly had squibs, at least in a couple of the videos I've viewed. Building 7's demolition was much more in line with what we would expect from a standard CD, unlike what happened with WTC1 and 2. But you know that, I'm sure you've watched it over and over, right?

I'm not sure what your "why" question is. Why was the area not sealed off? Why was there no real investigation? Why was forensic evidence removed by 800 trucks a day?

Go look it up. Find out who took control of ground zero. Find out that even FEMA, charged with producing a report, was prohibited from any real examination of the scene.

Holycanoli>>

In order to justify the events of 9/11 as a terrorist action, planes were used to start the ball rolling. Planes and fires were used to explain the building collapse. You could not just say terrorists had waltzed in and wired and blew up 3 massive skyscrapers and be believed. How could they get access? Where would they get the expertise to bring down these buildings? The planes were a cover for the ultimate demolitions.

Why do the planes and then demolish the entire 7 buildings in the WTC complex? Well, you had to have some loss of life. Plane crashes alone would've accounted for a couple hundred dead. To truly inflame the nation, you needed to literally destroy the symbols of our prosperity and capitalism. Not to mention that Mr. Silverstein et al needed to exercise the clause in his insurance policy that would provide him with the most profits ... and get rid of the white elephants which were the Twin Towers. White elephants that would have cost him hundreds of millions to take down otherwise. Instead, he made billions on the deal. Billions. That's a pretty strong motivation to take the towers down.

And in so doing, the event proved to be the missing catalyst to our hegemonic-inclined leadership, to begin the process of transforming the middle east into bite sized chunks, for our imperialistic consumption.

That you even have to ask about this tells me you have a lot of research waiting.

Holycanoli >>

I'm not qualified to respond to this. Many other researchers may be able to provide answers, I'll just point you to the Pentagon topic on these same forums.

The "why" was to ask "Why blow up the building."

Your response does not make sense.

For the first part, if you are stating that gaining access to the building is more difficult than flying a plane hundreds of miles into that building, that is simply incorrect. One needs only to make an appointment to get access to nearly any office in any public building. If a person has devious intent and is armed, there is no office off limits in a public building.

Secondly, you state "you could not just say terrorist had waltzed in and wired and blew up 3 massive sky scrapers and be believed." The American public at large agrees with you. After all, that is exactly what the majority of posts on this website on that topic allege; that terrorists wired three buildings for controlled demolitions. And now you are stating that it could not be believed? Very strange of you to make such an argument.

"How could they get access" you state. So tell me, how did they get access to plant the charges that took down the towers, which is what you apparently allege since airplanes were used to merely "get the ball rolling"; whatever that means?

This is a really strange argument you are making; " You could not just say terrorists had waltzed in and wired and blew up 3 massive skyscrapers and be believed." Please tell me, what brought down the buildings then if they were not wired for destruction.

To continue, it would be much more fathomable to believe that terrorists came into buildings with explosives wired to their bodies than it would have been to believe that four air liners could be hi-jacked simultaneously in a pre-9/11 world.
There are many posts here devoted to the "hilarious" aspect of four air craft being taken over on one morning.

There is little to suggest a connection between Larry Silverstein and Iraq that I am aware of. The disconnect is self evident. The argument seems to have two tracks: The buildings were leveled to get us into Iraq as well as make Mr. Silverstein money. The two interests are certainly not affiliated much less make any sense.

If it were to get us into a wartime footing, there are several targets much more emotionally tied to the American psyche than any office building. Disneyworld, Disneyland, any collegiate football or basketball game, any professional sporting event, rock concerts, movie theaters, art exhibits, amusement parks, the Statue of Liberty, nearly any historical landmark in the US, any high school, any elementary school, any college, and any other public gathering place you wish to name. When children and innocents are killed, that boils the American blood. The targets would have been much easier to destroy as well since they were most definitely soft targets with little or no defense from air or ground attacks.

Seung-Hui Cho proved that you could do an inordinate amount of damage on a soft target. Hardened killers with Al Queda training could have done much worse on any target of their choosing. If you are now going to state that they could not get weapons, there is even less sound footing for such a claim. Cho was armed with two small side arms. There would be limitless damage inflicted by three or four hardened terrorists. Needless to say, such an attack by Al Queda on a university's population would have had an equal to if not greater effect on damaging the American psyche especially if the tenuous link between them and middle eastern terrorist could be established as it was done successfully between Al Queda and Iraq.

If it were to make Larry Silverstein some money, please explain how he was able to coax all of the hundreds of associated individuals and groups into such a plan so it makes him money. There is simply no explanation that satisfies this rather farcical supposition on your part. If the argument is that he made campaign contributions to TPTB; please tell me you do not really believe that.

The portion about the Middle East being transformed into bite sized chunks for our imperialistic consumption is both correct and well-written. I also wish it were the case, that we could consume the Middle East without much trouble. Too many American soldiers are dying for this "war on terror."

I have looked into them. None have voiced a satisfactory explanation.

I think I gave a reasonable reason.

The Towers were white elephants. They would've cost many times their worth to tear down and replace (by methods that were approved). Requests to Control Demolition the Towers were denied repeatedly by the folks whose job it is to safeguard our environment.

The "official story" tells of Osama bin Laden and his 19 boxcutters.

When I speak of gaining access to the buildings, I am referring to the likelihood of Saudi Arabian nationals being able to gain access and plant explosives. I'm sure you will agree that some number of turbaned jihadists would have a far greater difficulty in doing this than some "American-looking" workers.

If you are a planner of a horrendous false flag event, and you need buy-in ... do you not try to kill as many birds with one stone as you can? I see no disconnect between making Larry Silverstein a few quick billions while also providing the "new Pearl Harbour" that the PNAC neocons wanted.

Yes, there are/were many possible targets, but if you have to choose, why not choose a target that needed to be tested (Pentagon) or brought down (WTC) anyway?

I am not saying Silverstein is the mastermind, just a willing participant. And the WTC towers were far more symbolic of "America" than any theme park or university or other landmark.

I have also considered this: had the perpetrators of the event been entirely without a soul, such as we have been led to imagine of bin Laden and his jihadists, would they not have attempted to maximize the deaths? Instead, the Towers were hit while they were still not full of occupants for the day. The planes that flew were way under capacity. The face of the Pentagon that was hit was largely unoccupied, relative to the other wings. The FEMA folks were already in place the night before, for some sort of exercise the next day. Foreknowledge of the events provided valuable information so that building 7 was destroyed with no occupants.

I recall that morning well. News commentators were loath to put a number on the possible death toll... yet they did state 25,000 as a reasonable number. For days afterwards, in fact, they were still saying 5,000 deaths were expected. It finally ended up at 2974, and that includes all four flights, the Pentagon, and New York City.

It could have been so much worse. The buildings had to be destroyed to create the emotional impact necessary. The perpetrators knew that deaths would go along with it, but it sure looks to me like someone still had a tiny bit of conscience left and minimized the toll where possible.

This should be one of, if not the, last post I author on this thread.

At one point, you seemed to indicate that I would need to do more research on the subject. From the statements,

it would seem to indicate that you have much more research ahead of you. Much more. An alternate conclusion to draw from such a naive statement is that you have not dealt with the service population very often which is almost totally populated with persons of color of one sort or another. Additioally, if Silverstein was a "willing participant" as you contest, he certainly could have granted total access to any number of individuals to do anything they wish, all under the guise of him believing that they were legitimate workmen when knowling all along they are the co-conspirators. And finally (unless you believe that these nineteen men were not jihaddists which would make their mosque attendance under the tutleidge of radical clerics very strange) the terrorists have shown little unwillingness to shave off their beards and closet their turbans in the past.

Your simultaneoous and unsustainable arguments of the grand poobah of the complex being in on the conspiracy and yet his operatives not being able to gain access to the complex is, in a word, bizarre.

I have no predisposition to or experience in planning a terrorist attack however I can tell you unequivocally that planning involves the bare minimum of confederates as to maintain operational secrecy. Washington is nortorious about not being able to keep secrets. The only place that may be worse about being rife with palace intrigue is wall street. Both entities would have been involved in such a conspiracy. Killing two birds with one stone may be a good idea when running errands but each step in planning a terrorist attack jeopardizes every step before and obviously every step afterward. Taking such a risk is, in a word, silly since there is absolutely zero need on the planner's part to include anybody outside of their tent in such an operation. The planners had no motive to make anybody money off of their labors and every reason not to include any outside parties as to not undermine operational secrecy. Unless you believe that Silverstein was a planner which is an even more unsubstainable position to take than the previously bizarre positions many here harbor.

The "truther" community's apparently overwhelming urge to deface and scar as many individuals as possible into their various theories continues to be the achillies heel of the movement.

It is almost as if the preference is to make as many silly accusations as possible rather than attempting to sway public opinion. I wish I were wrong but the majority of posts speak to the former, not the latter.

holycanoli >>

You are attempting to confuse the reader. I have not implied that Larry Silverstein was in cahoots with Muslim extremists, you have. Nice try.

Either the events of 9/11 were an inside job or they were not. If they were an inside job, then with the complicity of a few highly-placed people, there was plenty of time, plenty of opportunity, plenty of money, and there surely was sufficient motive. The planners would have enlisted participants who would not set any alarms offs.

Big, giant lies are easier to pull off than little lies. Nobody wants to believe that insiders could be responsible. Yet nearly everybody seems to know Larry Craig's "I'm not gay..." is a lie.

If the events of 9/11 were not an inside job, I find it difficult to imagine that bin Laden's boxcutter gang or even many more of his associates, would have had the time, money and opportunity to do all that was done vis a vis demolition.

So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

As for secrecy in planning -- I think you are trying to misdirect the reader. The "planners" may have ties to government and Wall Street, but they are not your run-of-the-mill gossips. You say this generic population would not have been able to keep things quiet. My impression is the "planners" are of quite another caliber, or caste, what have you. If you were involved in 9/11, would you have any motive whatsoever to suddenly grow a conscience? And if you found out after the fact that you were involved in 9/11, you are going to live your life and pray you don't get caught one day.

Maybe we'll see a deathbed confession down the road but by that time, one of two things will have happened: either TPTB will have successfully crystallized their story and this single confession will not be given much attention, or the truth will be widely known and accepted rendering the confession nice but unnecessary.

Good. Your input on this thread has been rife with red herrings and your intention appears to have been to obfuscate rather than illuminate.

I never suggested that WTC7 was unsafe. Unique doesn't mean unsafe. Helicopters are unique compared to airplanes, but that doesn't mean they are unsafe. The unique design of the helicopter DOES make it especially vulnerable when a regular airplane might not be. This doesn't make a helicopter unsafe.

Every building with a "unique" construction is going to be "uniquely" vulnerable to different situations, hence the use of the word "unique". A building can be unique and still be up to code and still pass safety inspections (IE WTC7).

And yet, no footage with anything that sounds like a CD. This doesn't bother you?

So you conclude CD based solely on the way it looked?

So, if it had fallen to the side then you would conclude it was not CD? Please explain what effect the unique construction could have had on the way the collapse appeared.

So you're not aware of any buildings with a similar structure, yet you make conclusions about the way this building collapsed, comparing it to buildings with vastly different support structures.

Source
There was no evidence that any beams had been cut by explosives. That's why.

Once the steel was extracted and/or cut away from other debris, it was piled in staging areas just outside the work zone. These piles were then loaded onto trucks that transported them a few blocks north to a secondary staging area on the Hudson River. Cranes transferred the steel from the trucks onto barges, which were shipped to Fresh Kills Landfill in Stanten Island. At this point it transferred into the control of Yannuzzi Demolition, whose team was responsible for off-loading the barges and storing the steel in an area separate from general debris arriving on other barges. It was then examined and cataloged by a series of forensic investigators, city officials, and site managers. Some time later (the timing varied due to logistical factors), the steel was shipped off site to China.

No one we spoke with perceived an attempt to "rush" or hide the process.
Source

It sounds like he's just not supporting ANOTHER investigation.

So it's ok to be skeptical of the official investigation, but it's not ok to be skeptical of yours?

The towers were not white elephants . At the time of 9-11 they were almost fully occupied with the just about the highest lease rates in the city. There was a time in the early years after the towers were built that they were thought of as white elephants but that was long before 9/11

I am not aware that requests to CD the towers were made. Do you have any documentation to support your claim.

"The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey had been losing money on the towers for years because of low tenancy. The financial loss was the real issue. There was also another vital issue — asbestos! The towers had become an albatross sitting on the most valuable piece of real estate in the world. The Port Authority had three choices: sell or lease them, pay for expensive asbestos removal or demolish them. The Authority had tried for years but were unable to sell the buildings — after all, what fool would take on the liability of asbestos? They couldn't demolish it. The health hazard of asbestos powder blanketing New York was legally unthinkable and totally out of the question. Expensive asbestos removal seemed to be the only option.
[source: http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/spingola/060212#fn11]

"According to court records from New Jersey, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey attempted to have their insurers pay for the removal of the asbestos in several of their buildings including three of the buildings at the World Trade Center. The court case was initiated in 1991 after the Authority had scrapped extremely expensive asbestos removal in 1989. The case finally ended on 1 May 2001 with a judgment against the Port Authority. The Court decided that the insurance companies were not liable for the very costly removal of asbestos in the buildings in question."
[source: Port loses claim for asbestos removal.(Port Authority of New York and New Jersey), Business Insurance; 5/14/2001; Mcleod, Douglas]

=====

In 2001, there were 27 unoccupied floors in Tower 1, or 25% of the total.
There were 2,458,830 square feet occupied, or 61% of available space.
[source: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants1.html]

=====

In 2001, there were 31 unoccupied floors in Tower 2, or 28% of the total.
There were 3,568,326 square feet occupied, or 89% of available space.
[source: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants2.html]

Together, Twin Towers tenants were occupying and paying for only 75% of the available 8.0 million square feet.

=====

Port Authority was denied permits for demolition on multiple occasions.
[source: http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-75.php]

=====

This is why I refer to the towers as white elephants. What makes you say they were not?

They were not making the Port Authority money in 2001. That's why the Port Authority had been trying to sell the property for years. Asbestos abatement deadlines were coming due. Taking care of that problem as well as other maintenance issues was going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. And in comes Larry Silverstein, who put down 15 million for a 99-year lease. And negotiates a very unusual insurance policy. The policy absolved Silverstein of paying anything more on his lease in the event of a terrorist attack. But, it left Larry with ownership of the property for the balance of his lease. So instead of paying 3.2 billion, he paid 15 and when the insurance paid off for the destruction of the complex, he took 7 billion out of the deal. And, he still gets to charge rental for whatever gets built on that land, without having to make any more lease payments himself for 98 years.

Is that a sweet deal or what? No wonder folks scratch their heads about Mr. Silverstein.

Please quote the statement on your linked sources which states that there were 27/31 unoccupied floors in towers 1/2, respectively. To be clear, this would have to be rentable office space: mechanical floors, etc would not qualify, because if all rentable space is being rented, it would be at 100% capacity.

The pages you link to only list tenants and their locations: It makes no claim as to the amount of unoccupied space in either tower.