9/11 is a great subject as it really brings out the most of people from either side of the debate?

Question

this question and answer volley is a perfect example of two serious minds working to make a point.. frankly it doesn't matter where your loyalties lie,... this investigation should be ongoing and independent because the reality is.... there is much that has yet to be acknowledged and discussed..

Marvin Bush's job as security chief for the Trade Centers
Silvermans 'pull it"comment.
Molten steel in the basement weeks and weeks later
etc,etc,etc...

free thinkers one and all... lets talk about this horrible event without partisan bickering..
it's too damn important for ego trips to get in the way..
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20071016084805AAAC73K

Answer 1

Well, I already see a lot of partisan bickering, so I guess nothing has changed when it comes to talking about this extremely important topic.
I too have asked similar questions regarding 9/11, and I was called Anti-American, a traitor, etc. Some people just don't want to hear the truth. They can't believe that our government, ie Bush was behind this in one way or another.
They don't even want to examine the evidence that clearly proves that 9/11 was an inside job. Bush, in the very least knew it was going to happen, and let it happen to get into a war with Iraq.
Having known this for many years now, and talking to many people about this topic, I would say there are far too many ignorant people who want to dismiss these facts, just so they don't have to deal with what all of this really means.
Bush should be tried for treason and murder. Plain and simple.

Answer 2

There really isn't much of a debate, as only one side has facts supporting it. The other side says things and then ignores the evidence that says what they're saying is wrong.

Marvin Bush didn't have a job as security chief for the WTC, he was on the board of directors of a company that provided security for the WTC. That is two very different things.

Silverstein's comment seems to have been regarding the FDNY's decision to withdraw from the building when it became apparent it was going to collapse due to damage from the debris and fires.

The molten steel in the basement has never been confirmed by anyone, it seems to be a story that has sprung from one source. There may have been molten aluminum, from the plane's fuselage, but aluminum melts at a much lower temperature.

Answer 3

I have read A LOT of stuff on this. The conspiracy groups are grasping at straws.

"Marvin Bush's job as security chief for the Trade Centers" - Sorry, not correct. Marvin P. Bush, the president's youngest brother, was a director at Stratesec from 1993 to fiscal year 2000. He was not directly connected with the electronic security the company provided. Additionally, they did not provide physical security.

"Silvermans (sic) 'pull it"comment". - There are some that heard him say "pull out" Means nothing. Pull it is not a demolition term. "In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

Molten steel in the basement weeks and weeks later - First if this was true if better supports a large fire then a controlled demolition. Dynamite and other explosives do not melt steel, they shatter it. Additionally, the NIST reports shows that they found melted and then hardened aluminum (which melts at much lower temps). The NIST report specifically states that steel did not melt in any of the buildings.

Answer 4

1. There's no reputable evidence that there was "molten steel" in the basement for weeks and weeks. That's a made-up "fact"

2. Silverstein never ordered WTC7 to be demolished by saying “pull it.”

-- “Pull it” is not a demolition term (Pop Mech p.57)

-- “Pulling” men out of a dangerous situation is a Firefighter term and Silverstein issued a statement on 9/5/2005 saying he only meant to pull firefighters out of a dangerous situation.

-- In any event, NIST said there was “no evidence that the collapse of WTC7 was caused by bombs, missles, or controlled demolition.” (PM, p.58)

-- According to NIST, "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." See http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5#wtc7)

-- The collapse of WTC7 is not surprising since 5 other buildings collapsed or had to be immediately demolished due to debris from WTC1&2. They are: The Marriott World Trade Center, St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, 6 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, 4 World Trade Center.
--

Answer 5

Sad to think now but 9 / 12 America was united one for the first time in a long time

Answer 6

Terrorists attacked us on 9/11. You media jihadists aren't going to convince us otherwise.

Answer 7

What was it that Rosie O'Fatso said?
"Fire melts steel?"
Uh, yeah. So?
"I find that hard to believe."
And I find it hard to believe that your arteries aren't clogged completely.