about 9-11

[oki]

dutch public tv network had a little 9-11 evening tonight. first farenheit 9-11, then a doc. and then loose change.

now th interesting one was the documentry. done by Zembla, probebly hollands most respected documentry program. for example, only months ago a documentry of them on hirshi ali caused our gouv. to resign....
it focussed on loose change, the famous internet doc. that sais that bush and co. planned the 9-11 attacks.
the documentry whiped just about everything thats beeing said in that documentry from the table as not true.
they brought in demolition experts, let students of leiden university do investigations...
some of the conclusions: no way that the twin towers were a demolition job, impossible. it was definetly a plane that hit the pentagon. the angle it made is possible too, checked with hardware flight simulators with inexperienced pilots.

but that wasnt all.
they traced evidence that massive amounts of transactions were made the days before 9-11, focussing mainly on the american airliner companies. there are definetly harddisks recovered from the twin towers that show again uge amounts of money beeing transferred away, the last days before the attacks. conclusion from a stock exchange org: there was knowledge that it was going to happen, without any doubt.
and
WTC 7 building: without a doubt, demolition with explosives. the experts were shown the footage, without telling them it was 9-11, and there was no doubt whatshowever that it was a demolition job. impossible for a building to go like that by itself...

discuss. :)

[86Dùde]

Inside job no. Did they know it was coming and allowed it to happen? Plausable. WTC 7 imploded? Unlikely. It would had to have been prewired, and a bunch of firemen aren't qualified for that kind of work especially when you consider that there was already a fire raging iniside. And lastly, 1 side of WTC 7 collapsed outward into the street. No implosion.

[Betrade]

The 911 conspiracies are crap, to put it bluntly.

Not one single person has ever proven one solitary shred of any of the supposed 'evidence", and probably never will. After five years, not one of the supposed "conspirators" has come forward; not even anonymously, or under police protection of any kind, which would be the easiest thing in the world for anyone with a heavy conscience to do, especially here in the US.

The burden of proof is still on the theorists, and they have yet to prove one thing. All they have offered is speculation and hypotheticals, and that's all they'll cointinue to put forth for years to come.

And as I've posted before, Bush is called an incompetent, mindless idiot by his detractors, yet they simultaneously accuse him of covertly masterminding the largest attack on US soil since the British were last here, without himself, or anyone else getting caught. He can't be both, and they can't have it both ways.

But, they theories will go on for decades, just as the JFK, RFK and MLK theories have. There will always be a segment of society that feeds on this sort of thing, and even some who obcess over it.

Even if it were true (which it isn't), no one could do anything to bring back a single soul, and if anyone believes the American public will ever imprison a sitting or past President, they're wrong. If anyone should have been put on trial, it was Nixon (although he was a very effective and wildly popular President), but we don't do that here. There were others as well throughout history.

Abe Lincoln would be in deep trouble today, as would FDR ,Truman and others, primarally because of our PC mass media and their attack dog, "get a sensational story" and "gotcha" mentality.

I thank God they weren't around in the past, because there may not have been an America as we know it today. Maybe a few of those types should be tried for treason, instead of being allowed to try and convict whomever they choose through their industry.

The Pope can't even speak his mind without having it sent immediately around the world in an incomplete and out of context fashion, in order to deliberately incite violence in those countries where the media KNOWS it will do just that. His statements could have been presentred differently, yet it wouldn't have created the desired reaction. It reminds me of the dan Quayle/Murphy Brown (a fictitious character) debacle, where three sentences of a great speech were twisted, presented out of context, and broadcast for weeks with the sole intent of destroying his credibility, while completely ignoring the problem he was commenting on.

Whatever happened to responsibility and ethics, along with fair, unbiased journalism??? They've been sacrificed at the altar of ratings and sensationalism.

The 911 conspiracies are in the same exact category. Certian "facts" are cleverly presented, while real fcats are ignored, with the sole purpose of painting a sitting administration as evil, while our enemies are plotting even more attacks as we speak. But that's okay. Our enemies need protection, legal representation and American "rights", never mind that they would love to see us all dead.

I hope people will wake up, and start questioning their sources, instead of blindly following those who are unknown to anyone, and accepting their outlandish theories as "real". I'm afraid people are getting more and more stupid as time goes on.

[oki]

Inside job no. Did they know it was coming and allowed it to happen? Plausable. WTC 7 imploded? Unlikely. It would had to have been prewired, and a bunch of firemen aren't qualified for that kind of work especially when you consider that there was already a fire raging iniside. And lastly, 1 side of WTC 7 collapsed outward into the street. No implosion.they siad that 7 hours was enough to prepare for a job like that. the building was allready burning, and no need to make it fall perfectly like a usual demolition job.


I hope people will wake up, and start questioning their sources, instead of blindly following those who are unknown to anyone, and accepting their outlandish theories as "real". I'm afraid people are getting more and more stupid as time goes on. what do you think of the things I posted? I posted it, because it makes a clear seperation between theories. the "they did it all themsleves" theory was excluded, the "they let it happen" theory is what remains.
every single discussion Ive seen on this subject, revolves around the most extreme theories, it can be interesting to exclude those and focus on the other one.

[Betrade]

they siad that 7 hours was enough to prepare for a job like that. the building was allready burning, and no need to make it fall perfectly like a usual demolition job.

what do you think of the things I posted? I posted it, because it makes a clear seperation between theories. the "they did it all themsleves" theory was excluded, the "they let it happen" theory is what remains.
every single discussion Ive seen on this subject, revolves around the most extreme theories, it can be interesting to exclude those and focus on the other one.

Where's the evidence??

These theories would never hold water in any court of law. The burden of proof would never be met, because there is no proof. It's been 5 years, and still no proof; only more theories.

[oki]

apperently they found out, that there are actual harddisks recovered, that show the money transfers. there is stockmarket record of unnormal activity before the attacks. thhey traced these things, to break down conspiracy theories, and found that some things were real.

[kathaksung]

Where's the evidence??

These theories would never hold water in any court of law. The burden of proof would never be met, because there is no proof. It's been 5 years, and still no proof; only more theories.

Material evidence was eliminated. But there is common sense.

By common sense (to those conveniently blinded by government propaganda)

Ten bus piled up to form a tower. (each represent 10 floors of WTC) The second one to the top had a fire. Will the whole tower collapse? For common sense, the bottom eight won't be affected. Because the construction was designed to bear more weight then 100 floors of building.

Yet it collapsed like a free fall. (One demolished in 10 seconds and the other one in 10.5 seconds)

If you play loggo and piled up a 100 floor tower. What will happen if you take away the loggo at the corner of 83th floor? (One building of WTC was hit at the corner) It will collapse to the side where one corner is missing. (Suppose everything went on as government said that fire melt the iron beam.)

Yet, the building demolished like a free fall in straight way. Beware that from the beginning when the building were hit by plane, the construntion structure kept in straight way and support the whole without any shaking.)

It was a fire getting smaller and off. Unlike other fire which getting bigger and bigger because other burning material added in to help increasing fire (like a wooden house), the WTC fire got smaller and off when the fuel burned out. There was no additional burning material to join. Iron beam won't burn. So after ten to twenty minutes when the flame is off, the temperature should decrease. How could the building collapsed one hour later?

There were two camp fires to boil the water. One is a wood burning fire with wood continually adding in. (normal fire ) One hour later, the water boiled.
The other one is a bowl of gas as burning material. After twenty minutes, the fire was off because there was no more burning material. one hour later, what do you think of the the water? boiled or cooled?

[SecretSamadhi]

And as I've posted before, Bush is called an incompetent, mindless idiot by his detractors, yet they simultaneously accuse him of covertly masterminding the largest attack on US soil since the British were last here, without himself, or anyone else getting caught. He can't be both, and they can't have it both ways.


That is a great point. Seriously, I can't stand Bush and this reason is dead on why he couldn't have masterminded anything! :nice:

[oki]

bush can be just a puppet.

[86Dùde]

Why would someone bother to cover up the fact that they had to implode WTC7, an empty burning wreck? The answer is that there would have been no super secret reason, hence I don't see the controversy. Ditto for the missle and flight 93 conspiracy theory.

[Java_man]

Material evidence was eliminated. But there is common sense.

By common sense (to those conveniently blinded by government propaganda)



The WTC was not "Busses" or "loggos" ... totally different construction and scale, the square-cube law applies (scaling objects has drastic effects on their relative strengths) .. the square-cube law prevents things like giant spiders and 50 foot women from taking over the earth as well ... so sleep tight for that :)

The fires did not "go out" , and the steel need not melt to loose strength

[hadit]

Why would someone bother to cover up the fact that they had to implode WTC7, an empty burning wreck? The answer is that there would have been no super secret reason, hence I don't see the controversy. Ditto for the missle and flight 93 conspiracy theory.

That's the bottom line for me. There was no need for huge, elaborate conspiracies to make these things happen. No one has given even a remotely good reason why WTC7 had to fall, to justify such preparations.

[oki]

what about those money transfers? isnt stealing billions a reason?

[hadit]

what about those money transfers? isnt stealing billions a reason?

They didn't need WTC7 to fall in order to make billions.

[86Dùde]

what about those money transfers? isnt stealing billions a reason?

The FBI and CIA had good intel that this kind of thing might happen and even when, therefore, it is possible that this information leaked out to some important people. This doesn't imply that those agencies were complicit, rather that the people at the top didn't take the intel seriously and it was leaked further down the ladder. Just a paossibility.

[oki]

The FBI and CIA had good intel that this kind of thing might happen and even when, therefore, it is possible that this information leaked out to some important people. This doesn't imply that those agencies were complicit, rather that the people at the top didn't take the intel seriously and it was leaked further down the ladder. Just a paossibility. I guess thats possible, but it does raise some serious suspicions, that cant be egnored.
They didn't need WTC7 to fall in order to make billions.to cover it up? sure they could allso make money in another way.

[86Dùde]

I wonder if the story about Silverstein taking out the multi billion dollar insurance policy right before 9-11 is true. Can someone confirm this as fact?

[oki]

that doc. I saw didnt talk about that, no.

[86Dùde]

I saw that documentary as well. It's convincing until you begin to dig for the real truth which is why I created that 9-11 conspiracy thread in the big debates. I wanted DA'ers to discuss it and rip it apart if indeed it coulld be ripped apart. I'd have to say the conspiracy crowd lost, eventhough I still lean a bit toward the possibility that many persons in this nation knew it was coming, and when.

[oki]

I saw that documentary as well. It's convincing until you begin to dig for the real truth which is why I created that 9-11 conspiracy thread in the big debates. I wanted DA'ers to discuss it and rip it apart if indeed it coulld be ripped apart. I'd have to say the conspiracy crowd lost, eventhough I still lean a bit toward the possibility that many persons in this nation knew it was coming, and when.same here. I ment that doc I talked about in the thread start, one on dutch tv. it broke down that loose change doc., effectively showed that most of it is nonsense. but allso found some things that were true, the money transfers, some people and possibly the gouv. that knew upfront. thats why I started this thread, to discuss those while excluding the other madeup parts. because everything allways seems to focus on cruise missles and explosives in the twin towers, and they showed that that is pretty much nonsense.

[86Dùde]

I see, but I don't think we'll ever know for certain. If it comes to pass that someone did know and used it get richer then I guarantee you they'll get the heavy hand of the law.

[kathaksung]

The WTC was not "Busses" or "loggos" ... totally different construction and scale, the square-cube law applies (scaling objects has drastic effects on their relative strengths) .. the square-cube law prevents things like giant spiders and 50 foot women from taking over the earth as well ... so sleep tight for that :)

The fires did not "go out" , and the steel need not melt to loose strength

But there is law of Physics.

Quote, "Physicist's Letter On 911
PHYSICS To Rocky Mountain News
10-3-6

The following letter was sent by Eric Harrington, a physicist who lives in Ojai, CA, to Vincent Carroll at the Rocky Mountain News...

Dear Mr. Carrol,

I am responding to your article slandering the legitimate questions posed by numerous scientists, engineers, pilots, even international (often Republican) politicians regarding the flaws in the "official account" of 9/11.

"Let us dip our toe again into" a couple of the bogus rebuffs posed by the "experts" at Popular Mechanics.

Pop Mech- "As the fires blazed and the temperatures rose within the buildings, NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) believes, the remaining core columns (those not severed by the planes during impact) softened and buckled, transferring most of the load to the building's outer structural columns. The floors . . . began to sag from the heat, pulling those columns inward and adding to the burden on the outer columns."

Debunking: For anyone who as actually watched the WTC video's carefully, you will note that the south tower was struck near the corner, almost insuring it sustained NO damage to the central core columns. It also had by far the largest fireball produced, indicating a substantially larger portion of the fuel was burned in the initial impact and for the most part outside the building. Oddly, it was the south tower which fell first after burning for only 55 minutes, and at a point when the fires had greatly diminished.

In addition, as given by Kevin Ryan who was responsible for the thermal testing of the WTC Steel when it was certified, the samples tested for the WTC were certified to withstand a temperature of 2,000 deg for 6 hours without failing their rated load characteristics. And that is without insulation. The WTC beams were insulated. Jet fuel burns at only 1200-1300 degrees with an ideal oxygen mixture, something not indicated by the black smoke that issued from the fires. There was nothing contained within the buildings that could have raised this figure, and those that use the example of ancient furnaces that tempered steel as a argument, again, do not understand the principles involved. I suggest that if you want the truth, and wish to actually act like a journalist for a change, you broach this subject with a real expert, Mr. Ryan. I can put you in touch with him upon request.

But more important than the issue of the likelihood of the steel failure, is the FACT (not conjecture) that ALL THREE buildings collapsed into their own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED (i.e. the unimpeded acceleration of gravity). That means, drop a rock off the roof, at the moment of collapse, and the roof would hit the ground at the same time as the rock. This implies, (regardless of what happened at the fire zone) that the when the top section of the building began to fall it managed to plow through 70-80 odd floors of pristine and undamaged steel -- literally thousands of huge beams and concrete pads-- with absolutely NO RESISTANCE (i.e.. slowing of the rate of fall) WHATSOEVER. And this sir, is physically impossible and verging on the absurd, and I (a physicist), and anyone with a shred of knowledge of engineering, physics, or just plain common sense can understand that.

And there is a $1,000,000.00 cash challenge (to date unanswered) to anyone that can suggest a legitimate solution to this nagging little problem. And lastly, if the official pancake theory is correct, it lends no explanation whatsoever for why the central core of 47 HUGE beams, all connected together at numerous levels, would not be left standing like a spire as the floor connectors failed and the floors pancaked symmetrically around them. The less resistance to this collapse scenario exhibited by the building's design, the more likely the central core would remain virtually untouched. It is a paradox.

Watch the videos. Study the evidence. Talk to the experts and the scientists who simply can no longer tolerate an explanation so at odds with the physical evidence and the physical principles of the universe. And these experts I refer to are ready and willing to debate these issues with ANYONE you and your ilk choose, ANYTIME and ANYWHERE, as long as it can be videotaped for posterity.

I will not even get into the dozens of other patently absurd explanations that Popular Mechanics and other government shills and publicity hacks have posed to make the painfully obvious physical evidence at both the WTC and Pentagon fit the official fairy tale, while suppressing the numerous eyewitness accounts that disagree, but suffice to say that when "journalists" (and I use that term EXTREMELY loosely with you), continue to disparage those who simply demand the truth, and not propaganda; who examine the evidence with open minds and simply request that the investigation of this murder of 3,000 innocents be pursued with the same objectivity and forensic vigor that a common mugging would be given; they only contribute to the ignorance pervasive and growing in this country, reduce the once noble journalistic trade to nothing more than corporate propaganda machines, and deface the sacrifice of the 3000 who were murdered.

As for your contemptuous tone of which I have tried to mimic in this reply, to quote Shakespeare, "Me thinks thou dost protest too much."

Sincerely,

Eric Harrington
Ojai, Ca
http://rense.com/general73/phy.htm

[kathaksung]

Why there was no fighter to intercept the hijacked plane on 911?

Quote, "CENTCOM Sergeant Details Traitorous Stand Down Orders On 9/11
Military whistleblower comes forward with key information
Steve Watson / Infowars | September 26 2006

Alex Jones was joined on air yesterday by a former Sergeant in the United States Army named Lauro "LJ" Chavez. Chavez was stationed at MacDill AFB where he claims he witnessed unusual preparations for a potential airplane hitting the base on the morning of 9/11 and distinctly heard officers talking about a stand down. This has led him to go public in questioning the NORAD stand down and the demolition of the twin towers.

Chavez proceeded to detail the key discussions that he heard inside the bunker on the day of 9/11:

"I didn't get to see tower one hit, I was in there talking with individuals and i was tired, I'd been there since four in the morning. Then all of a sudden everybody started hustling and bustling. it was like NASA when Apollo 13 was about to crash, everybody running around, and then they put it on the big screen, CNN with the tower on fire.

Then we see the other plane come in and hit it and at that point everybody is standing up. The air force had commanders in contact with NORAD. The plane, or whatever, hit the Pentagon and then we were like 'Why aren't they scrambling jets?' We were asking, there was eight or nine people... Colonels and Lieutenant Colonels asking the Lieutenant Colonel in charge of the air force 'why isn't NORAD scrambling jets? and he said 'we received an order to stand down''. And that just perplexed everybody."

Mr Chavez did not know the Lieutenant Colonel and so does not know his name, yet if he can be identified, then we have uncovered a direct link to the stand down order. If that man or any others who were present at CENTCOM on 9/11 can be identified and made to testify under oath, then the whole cover operation could be blown. A real independent investigation would have secured this.

The entire riveting interview is freely available online at Prisonplanet.tv now. Please spread this information far and wide.

Mr Chavez has since been informed that the computer company he now works for, as information security manager, has been receiving threatening phone calls demanding his dismissal. Mr Chavez is another example of someone who is bravely putting his career, reputation and life on the line to get the truth out about the 9/11 cover up.

http://infowars.net/articles/September2006/260906Chavez.htm

[kathaksung]

Fortune made from WTC collapsing

Larry "Lucky Larry" Silverstein
by 911 inside job
Thursday Sep 7th, 2006 10:07 AM

"You've got to be lucky to make $4 Billion killing on a 6-month investment
Of $124 Million

Larry Silverstein is the New York property tycoon who purchased the entire World Trade Centre complex just 6 months prior to the 9/11 attacks. That Was the first time in its 33-year history the complex had ever changed ownership.

Mr. Silverstein's first order of business as the new owner was to change The company responsible for the security of the complex. The new security
company he hired was Securacom (now Stratasec). George W. Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, was on its board of directors, and Marvin's cousin, Wirt
Walker III, was its CEO. According to public records, not only did Securacom provide electronic security for the World Trade Center, it also covered Dulles International Airport and United Airlines - two key players in the 9/11 attacks.

The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for many years to the Bush family. KuwAm has been linked to the
Bush family financially since the Gulf War. One of its principals and a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, Mishal Yousef Saud al Sabah, served on the board of Stratesec.

Now, consider: The members of a small cabal owned the WTC complex, controlled its electronic security, and also controlled the security not
only for one of the airlines whose aircraft were hijacked on 9/11, but the airport from which they originated.

Another little "coincidence" -- Mr. Silverstein, who made a down-payment of $124 million on this $3.2 billion complex, promptly insured it for $7
Billion. Not only that, he covered the complex against "terrorist attacks".

Following the attacks, Silverstein filed two insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy ($7B), based on the two -- in Silverstein's
view -- separate attacks. The insurance company, Swiss Re, paid Mr. Silverstein $4.6 Billion - a princely return on a relatively paltry
investment of $124 million.

There's more. You see, the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe. From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception by the NY Port Authority -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the
rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?

The towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. It was
well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell.

For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an ageing dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due to the known asbestos problem.
Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to dissemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing
the buildings.

The projected cost to disassemble the towers: $15 Billion. Just the scaffolding for the operation was estimated at $2.4 Billion!

In other words, the Twin Towers were condemned structures. How convenient that an unexpected "terrorist" attack demolished the buildings completely.

WTC Building 7 was a part of the WTC complex, and covered under the same insurance policy. This 47-storey steel-framed structure, which was NOT
struck by an aircraft, mysteriously collapsed 8 hours later that same day into its own footprint at freefall speed - exactly in the manner of the
Twin Towers.

How could this have happened? Mr. Silverstein gave the world the answer when he slipped up during a PBS television interview a year later, on 9/11/2002:

"I remember getting a call from the...er...fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the
fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

As anyone who knows anything about construction can tell you, "Pull" is common industry jargon for a controlled demolition.

One thing is for sure, the decision to 'pull' WTC 7 would have delighted many people. Especially because it has been reported that thousands of
sensitive files relating to some of the biggest financial scams in history - including Enron and WorldCom -- were stored in the offices of some of the building's tenants:

US Secret Service
NSA
CIA
IRS
BATF
SEC
NAIC Securities
Salomon Smith Barney
American Express Bank International
Standard Chartered Bank
Provident Financial Management
ITT Hartford Insurance Group
Federal Home Loan Bank

The Securities and Exchange Commission has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed by the collapse of WTC 7. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. ..."Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their
work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases."

Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking [about WorldCom] was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center. The bank says that
back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack.

Inside WTC 7 was the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. "All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran.

What a neat, complete, and fortuitous turn of events was 9/11.

Incidentally, it's worth noting that one of Lucky Larry's closest friends - a person with whom it's said he speaks almost daily by phone - is none other than former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

More on that cozy little relationship later...

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/09/07/18306895.php

[oki]

yes, thats what I was getting at. just leave out all the grand theories of this tragedy, and assume this one possible. there seems to be some actual traceble evidence.

[kathaksung]

There are many pictures in this site to compare the explosion of WTC and military test. Worth having a look.

Quote, "View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed

The airplanes did not a have true effect on the destruction of towers; they were needed to give an excuse for odd Orwellian wars at the same time when the USA is turned into a police nation, like the German Third Reich, to some extent. The towers took the impacts of crushing Boeing 767's. The towers were originally built to take impacts of Boeing 707's, which are approximately of the same size and was widely used in the 1970's.

Fires that kindled from the fuel in the planes were too shortlasting and weak to be able to severely damage the structure of the skyscrapers. Even in the extreme situation, the heat from a kerosene fire cannot threat the durability of a steel trunk. With the temperature of carbohydrate fires that reaches only 825 °C (approx. 1517 °F) steel weakens at 800 °C (approx. 1470 °F) and melts at 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F). In the skyscrapers of the WTC the surroundings were not at all ideal as there were far too many steel columns and they led heat away from the burning area. WTC 1 burned for 102 minutes and WTC 2 for 56 minutes only. A fire burning much longer, from 10 to 20 hours, could slowly increase the burning temperature down to perhaps 1100 °C (approx. 2010 °F). Provided there is more substance to burn, such a fire will damage concrete and irons, but not severely heavy steel constructions.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/5/soldier5.htm

[kathaksung]

Quote: ISRAELIS FOREWARNED

On September 12, 2001, the Internet edition of The Jerusalem Post reported, "The Israeli foreign ministry has collected the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attack."

Yet only one Israeli was killed at the WTC and two were reportedly killed on the "hijacked" aircraft.

Although a total of three Israeli lives were reportedly lost on 9/11, speechwriters for President George W. Bush grossly inflated the number of Israeli dead to 130 in the president's address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.

The fact that only one Israeli died at the WTC, while 4,000 Israelis were thought to have been at the scene of the attacks on 9/11 naturally led to a widespread rumor, blamed on Arabic sources, that Israelis had been forewarned to stay away that day.

"Whether this story was the origin of the rumor," Bret Stephens, the Post's editor-in-chief wrote in 2003, "I cannot say. What I can say is that there was no mistake in our reporting."

ODIGO INSTANT MESSAGES

Evidence that Israelis had been forewarned several hours before the attacks surfaced at an Israeli instant messaging service, known as Odigo. This story, clear evidence of Israeli prior knowledge, was reported only briefly in the U.S. media – and quickly forgotten.

At least two Israel-based employees of Odigo received warnings of an imminent attack in New York City more than two hours before the first plane hit the WTC. Odigo had its U.S. headquarters two blocks from the WTC. The Odigo employees, however, did not pass the warning on to the authorities in New York City, a move that could have saved thousands of lives.

Odigo has a feature called People Finder that allows users to seek out and contact others based on certain demographics, such as Israeli nationality.

Two weeks after 9/11, Alex Diamandis, Odigo's vice president, reportedly said, "It was possible that the attack warning was broadcast to other Odigo members, but the company has not received reports of other recipients of the message."

The Internet address of the sender was given to the FBI, and two months later it was reported that the FBI was still investigating the matter. There have been no media reports since.

Odigo, like many Israeli software companies, is based and has its Research and Development (R&D) center in Herzliya, Israel, the small town north of Tel Aviv, which happens to be where Mossad's headquarters are located.

[kathaksung]

FIRE OFFICER SAYS FIREMEN, COPS KNOW TRUTH
By Victor Thorn

American Free Press
November 11, 2006

'BOMBS INSIDE WTC'

NEW YORK CITY, N.Y.—On the morning of Sept. 11, 2005, New York City auxiliary fire lieutenant Paul Isaac Jr. asserted, yet again, that 9-11 was an inside job. "I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know it's an inside job; and the firemen know it too," said Isaac.

The ramifications of this statement are immense: One of New York's own firefighters says publicly that 9-11 couldn't have been the work of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, but instead was planned, coordinated and executed by elements within our own government.

He also added, after pointing to throngs of police officers standing around us, that, "We all have to be very careful about how we handle it."

Isaac reiterated what a 9-11 survivor told this journalist during our protest at Ground Zero on Sept. 11, 2005—that emergency radios were buzzing with information about bombs being detonated inside the World Trade
Center towers.

Also, Isaac directly addressed a gag order that has been placed on firemen and police officers in New York.

"It's amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs," said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9-11. There is more information related to Isaac circulating in on-line and print reports, so here again we are hearing first-hand evidence from individuals who were on the scene, such as live witness William Rodriguez, saying that the World Trade Center towers were brought down not by the airliner's impact or the resulting jet fuel fires, but instead by a deliberately executed controlled demolition.

Tragically, due to heavy-handed pressure from officials at the city, state and federal levels, we are still not hearing the entire story.

Researcher Vincent Sammartino, who was also at the WTC "open grave site" on the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2005, wrote the following on the on-line news web site APFN: "I just got back from Ground Zero. People know the truth. Half of the police and firemen were coming up to us and telling us that they know that 9-11 was an inside job. They were told not to talk about it. But they were supporting what we were doing. I had tears in my eyes."



Victor Thorn is the author of New World Order Exposed, and co-host of WING TV. For more information, visit Thorn's web site at wingtv.net or write P.O. Box 10495, State College, PA 16805-0495. New World Order Exposed (#1080, $25, 560 pps., softcover) and 9-11 On Trial (#1178, 175 pages, $14, booklet) can be ordered from FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS. Write 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100, Washington, D.C. 20003. Call toll free 1-888-699-NEWS (6397) to order by Visa or MasterCard.

(Issue #40, October 3, 2005)


Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bombs_inside_wtc.html

[kathaksung]

Pre-9/11 Put Options on Companies Hurt by Attack Indicates Foreknowledge

Financial transactions in the days before the attack suggest that certain individuals used foreknowledge of the attack to reap huge profits. 1 Â The evidence of insider trading includes:
Huge surges in purchases of put options on stocks of the two airlines used in the attack -- United Airlines and American Airlines
Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of reinsurance companies expected to pay out billions to cover losses from the attack -- Munich Re and the AXA Group
Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of financial services companies hurt by the attack -- Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley and Bank of America
Huge surge in purchases of call options of stock of a weapons manufacturer expected to gain from the attack -- Raytheon
Huge surges in purchases of 5-Year US Treasury Notes


http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html

There is a graph there to help you understand more clearly.

[EMTrue]

http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html

Power down just before 9-11...

Forbes did stress, though, that there was power to the WTC’s lower floors, and that there were plenty of engineers going in-and-out of the WTC who had free access throughout the building due to its security system being knocked out. In an e-mail to journalist John Kaminski, author of The Day America Died (Sisyphus Press) and America’s Autopsy Report (Dandelion Books), Forbes wrote: “Without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors, and many, many ‘engineers’ coming in and out of the tower.”

[LemonCookie]

Or one could see the stupidity of this whole thing by asking youself one simple question..

Is this Administration competent enough to pull off the greatest feat of demolitions engeneering in the history of the world and keep it secert?

[zipper99]

There goes Lemon Cookie again. Bringing in reality to confuse the Conspiracy nuts.

[Betrade]

Pre-9/11 Put Options on Companies Hurt by Attack Indicates Foreknowledge

Financial transactions in the days before the attack suggest that certain individuals used foreknowledge of the attack to reap huge profits. 1 Â The evidence of insider trading includes:
Huge surges in purchases of put options on stocks of the two airlines used in the attack -- United Airlines and American Airlines
Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of reinsurance companies expected to pay out billions to cover losses from the attack -- Munich Re and the AXA Group
Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of financial services companies hurt by the attack -- Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley and Bank of America
Huge surge in purchases of call options of stock of a weapons manufacturer expected to gain from the attack -- Raytheon
Huge surges in purchases of 5-Year US Treasury Notes


http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html

There is a graph there to help you understand more clearly.

All that proves is that some people were aware of what was about to happen.

Now if you look at that logically, it's easy to see that OBL, a wealthy man himself, and his well connected cohorts were all aware of the day the attack would take place, as were other terrorist cells around the globe. It's not surprising at all that profits were made from the attack.

The real question is WHO made the transactions???? If it was GWB and Cheney, then we have a smoking gun. If it were Ali Abdul Mohammed from Syria and all of his friends and extended family, it's no surprise whatsoever. In fact, it would be surprising if those who were behind the attack didn't do this.

There were probably at least hundreds of people connected to these attacks who had foreknowledge, and used that knowledge for their own gain, and to make money for future attacks against the West. That doesn't establish any link to the US government. Stocks, options, commodities and futures are all freely traded on the open market. Anyone with the cash can invest whenever they choose to.

[86Dùde]

I doubt Bush is smart enough to tie his own shoes much less keep the lid on a conspiracy of this magnitude.

[Dave_in_paradise]

Iron beam won't burn. So after ten to twenty minutes when the flame is off, the temperature should decrease. How could the building collapsed one hour later?

There were two camp fires to boil the water. One is a wood burning fire with wood continually adding in. (normal fire ) One hour later, the water boiled.
The other one is a bowl of gas as burning material. After twenty minutes, the fire was off because there was no more burning material. one hour later, what do you think of the the water? boiled or cooled?

Not accurate, by a long shot. As most of you probably know, structural steels MELTS at approx 1500C, where as a flourocarbon fire can only sustain heat's of up to approx 800C. So, first sentence is correct, Iron beam won't burn. BUT, Here's what seldom get's forgotten, or just simply is not known. Structural steel's "Critical Temperature" is only 500C, in other words, steel enter's a state between solid and liquid at a much lower temperature than was presentened by the aviation fueled fires. Look at it like a spagetti noodle. It's stiff and rigid in it's natural form, but doesn't take alot for it to go "limp". After much more exposure to increasing heat, it will simply disintegrate. Steel is the same way, the "melting point isn't just some magic point that it goes liquid like the bad guy in Terminator 2 or something. It's a gradual, ever increasing effect. But, at 500c it begins that change and begin's losing it's integrity. Now, for the "why did it collapse an hour later". Well, steel will also store heat as engery and it disapates it very slowly. If the steel in those building's reached 600, 700 or 800c they would be sparking fires for many hours to come. Many office materials (Paper, carpet, plastics, etc.) will simply instantaniously combust at such high temperatures. It would be a simple matter of physic's to maintain temperatures of around 300 - 500c for well over an hour inside that building burning and smoldering everything it encountered. Energy, such as heat cannot be created or destroyed. It has to go somewhere. As a steel beam cools, the energy from that heat MUST go somewhere. If not, IT WILL NOT COOL. So, while the epicenter of the fire had extreme temperatures, as the steel cooled the heat disapated in an ever decreasing "circle" of heat. so, it's not unrealistic to think that paper and carpet could have still been freshly combusting an hour later 2, 3, 4 or even more floors away.

So, in essense, the "hot spot" reaches 800C, but it's not a big enough area to collapse the building. The fires continue to burn, oxygen deprived or not, and maintained that temperature for up to 20 minutes. As the fuel began to die off, the steel disapates heat to the surrounding areas. Soon, like within an hour, the heat being dissapated by the steel (800c) brings more area's of the building to the "critial temperature" (500c). Now, there's enough weakened steel that it will no longer support the upper structures and is condusive to a collapse.

Common sense must first adhear to basic law's of physics, chemistry and gravity before they make "sense".

[Dave_in_paradise]

There were two camp fires to boil the water. One is a wood burning fire with wood continually adding in. (normal fire ) One hour later, the water boiled.
The other one is a bowl of gas as burning material. After twenty minutes, the fire was off because there was no more burning material. one hour later, what do you think of the the water? boiled or cooled?.

Let's make this experiment more apples to apples vs. apples to Oranges.

You use wood and gas fire sources to heat a 6x6x1/4 plate of steel with a container of water sitting on it for 20 minutes then remove the source of the heat.

1) Which will boil first?
2) Whick will boil longer?

Do the experiment yourself, but the answer to both questions is the gas fed fire. Flourocarbons burn much hotter than wood, hence the water will boil much quicker. Also, after 20 minutes, the steel plate plate heated by the gas will be hotter and will take longer to dissapate the heat, hence the water will boil longer.

Might wanna rethink that analogy...:hmm:

[LemonCookie]

Add in to that, the fact that Skyscrapers are top heavy.

They have massive weights at the top of their stuctures to reduce the sway from wind. The higher the building, the larger the counterbalance.

With that load, you just have to weaken the structure a little bit and the counterbalance comes crashing down through the building.

It is far from inplausable that a highly flamable jumbo jet filled with fuel crashing into a building filled with highly flamable materials and made of an interal exoskeleton would cause a top heavy skyscraper to collapse and cause collateral damage to the nearby structures.

Occam's Razor wins again.

[86Dùde]

How does one explain the presence of photographs that show glowing yellow/white steel ibeams on the ground after the attack?

[Dave_in_paradise]

How does one explain the presence of photographs that show glowing yellow/white steel ibeams on the ground after the attack?


The same way they explain that the metal beams were fire resistant, yet can't seem to grasp the concept that metal expands when it heats behond it's critical temperature and negates the effectivness of most resistant.

[86Dùde]

The same way they explain that the metal beams were fire resistant, yet can't seem to grasp the concept that metal expands when it heats behond it's critical temperature and negates the effectivness of most resistant.

Well no shit? I grasp that concept fine, but that wasn't my question.

Maybe you'd help me grasp how steel glows yellow/white from a fire that burns at 800 degrees or less. Simple question.

Is it:

A. An illuminati death ray
B. A figment of my imagination
C. Justin's a dick
D. Something heated the steel past 2000.

[Dave_in_paradise]

Well no shit? I grasp that concept fine, but that wasn't my question.

Maybe you'd help me grasp how steel glows yellow/white from a fire that burns at 800 degrees or less. Simple question.

OH! I thought you were just being sarcastic...:p ...Sorry. That's a good question as a white or yellow color on mild structural steel would be indicative of temperature's above 1300c. Why it was there is beyond what I've researched, read. Interesting. Unless, these were aluminum beams by chance.

[86Dùde]

OH! I thought you were just being sarcastic...:p ...Sorry. That's a good question as a white or yellow color on mild structural steel would be indicative of temperature's above 1300c. Why it was there is beyond what I've researched, read. Interesting. Unless, these were aluminum beams by chance.

Didn't look aluminum to me. I'd have to search for the pics.

[Dave_in_paradise]

Well no shit? I grasp that concept fine, but that wasn't my question.

Maybe you'd help me grasp how steel glows yellow/white from a fire that burns at 800 degrees or less. Simple question.

Is it:

A. An illuminati death ray
B. A figment of my imagination
C. Justin's a dick
D. Something heated the steel past 2000.

After thinking about this for a few minutes, something hit me....For it to have still been glowing white/yellow after the building came down, those beams would have to have been heated WAY above 1300c. Laying out, exposed to the normal environment, beam's that hot would dissepate off heat rather quickly and wouldn't maintain that coloring for long, The longest color phase for stuctural steel is red (According to information from amateur blacksmithing guides). I would put my money on those beams being something other than steel, or some coating on the beams that would produce that coloring. But, that's just a WAG (Wild ass guess).

[Dave_in_paradise]

Didn't look aluminum to me. I'd have to search for the pics.

If you find them, shoot me a link. I'm curious now...:D

[LemonCookie]

Alot of composite material went into the building of the Twin Towers abd many of the beams were amde from alloys and such matrial.

That being said, that means the properties would be far different then steel itself.

[Dave_in_paradise]

Alot of composite material went into the building of the Twin Towers abd many of the beams were amde from alloys and such matrial.

That being said, that means the properties would be far different then steel itself.

True. That's why my numbers and stat's represent structural steel, not just regular mild steels, or carbon hardend steel or such.

[86Dùde]

http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/2169/moltensteelenclose5mt.jpg

Dave this is the only one I could find from a casual search, but I have seen a few others.

[living love]

All that proves is that some people were aware of what was about to happen.

Now if you look at that logically, it's easy to see that OBL, a wealthy man himself, and his well connected cohorts were all aware of the day the attack would take place, as were other terrorist cells around the globe. It's not surprising at all that profits were made from the attack.

The real question is WHO made the transactions???? If it was GWB and Cheney, then we have a smoking gun. If it were Ali Abdul Mohammed from Syria and all of his friends and extended family, it's no surprise whatsoever. In fact, it would be surprising if those who were behind the attack didn't do this.

There were probably at least hundreds of people connected to these attacks who had foreknowledge, and used that knowledge for their own gain, and to make money for future attacks against the West. That doesn't establish any link to the US government. Stocks, options, commodities and futures are all freely traded on the open market. Anyone with the cash can invest whenever they choose to.
I looked into this years ago. A lot of those trades went right to a CIA bank if I remember right and I think I do.

[living love]

Fortune made from WTC collapsing

Larry "Lucky Larry" Silverstein
by 911 inside job
Thursday Sep 7th, 2006 10:07 AM

"You've got to be lucky to make $4 Billion killing on a 6-month investment
Of $124 Million

Larry Silverstein is the New York property tycoon who purchased the entire World Trade Centre complex just 6 months prior to the 9/11 attacks. That Was the first time in its 33-year history the complex had ever changed ownership.

Mr. Silverstein's first order of business as the new owner was to change The company responsible for the security of the complex. The new security
company he hired was Securacom (now Stratasec). George W. Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, was on its board of directors, and Marvin's cousin, Wirt
Walker III, was its CEO. According to public records, not only did Securacom provide electronic security for the World Trade Center, it also covered Dulles International Airport and United Airlines - two key players in the 9/11 attacks.

The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for many years to the Bush family. KuwAm has been linked to the
Bush family financially since the Gulf War. One of its principals and a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, Mishal Yousef Saud al Sabah, served on the board of Stratesec.

Now, consider: The members of a small cabal owned the WTC complex, controlled its electronic security, and also controlled the security not
only for one of the airlines whose aircraft were hijacked on 9/11, but the airport from which they originated.

Another little "coincidence" -- Mr. Silverstein, who made a down-payment of $124 million on this $3.2 billion complex, promptly insured it for $7
Billion. Not only that, he covered the complex against "terrorist attacks".

Following the attacks, Silverstein filed two insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy ($7B), based on the two -- in Silverstein's
view -- separate attacks. The insurance company, Swiss Re, paid Mr. Silverstein $4.6 Billion - a princely return on a relatively paltry
investment of $124 million.

There's more. You see, the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe. From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception by the NY Port Authority -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the
rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?

The towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. It was
well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell.

For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an ageing dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due to the known asbestos problem.
Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to dissemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing
the buildings.

The projected cost to disassemble the towers: $15 Billion. Just the scaffolding for the operation was estimated at $2.4 Billion!

In other words, the Twin Towers were condemned structures. How convenient that an unexpected "terrorist" attack demolished the buildings completely.

WTC Building 7 was a part of the WTC complex, and covered under the same insurance policy. This 47-storey steel-framed structure, which was NOT
struck by an aircraft, mysteriously collapsed 8 hours later that same day into its own footprint at freefall speed - exactly in the manner of the
Twin Towers.

How could this have happened? Mr. Silverstein gave the world the answer when he slipped up during a PBS television interview a year later, on 9/11/2002:

"I remember getting a call from the...er...fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the
fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

As anyone who knows anything about construction can tell you, "Pull" is common industry jargon for a controlled demolition.

One thing is for sure, the decision to 'pull' WTC 7 would have delighted many people. Especially because it has been reported that thousands of
sensitive files relating to some of the biggest financial scams in history - including Enron and WorldCom -- were stored in the offices of some of the building's tenants:

US Secret Service
NSA
CIA
IRS
BATF
SEC
NAIC Securities
Salomon Smith Barney
American Express Bank International
Standard Chartered Bank
Provident Financial Management
ITT Hartford Insurance Group
Federal Home Loan Bank

The Securities and Exchange Commission has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed by the collapse of WTC 7. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. ..."Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their
work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases."

Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking [about WorldCom] was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center. The bank says that
back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack.

Inside WTC 7 was the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. "All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran.

What a neat, complete, and fortuitous turn of events was 9/11.

Incidentally, it's worth noting that one of Lucky Larry's closest friends - a person with whom it's said he speaks almost daily by phone - is none other than former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

More on that cozy little relationship later...

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/09/07/18306895.php

Again its the Jews. Covering up crime with more crime.

Who was arrested right after the attacks? Again it was Jews. Mossad agents celebrating their handy work.

All 9/11 Airports Serviced by
One Israeli Owned Company http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ICTS.html


"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death." - Adolph Hitler

Israel and 9/11

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/israel_9-11_index.html



"Get hold of fifty of the wealthiest Jewish financiers, the men who are
interested in making wars for their own profit. Control them, and you will
put an end to it all."
Henry Ford

"We are at the bottom, not merely of the latest Great War, but of nearly all
your wars; not only of the Russian, but of every other major Revolution in,
your history . . . We did it solely with the irresistible might of our
spirit, with ideas and propaganda."

Rothschild biographer, Marcus Eli Ravage

[zipper99]

Quoting Adolf Hitler and Henry Ford ( a World class Antisemite) and announcing "Again its the Jews. Covering up crime with more crime"
shows up your linear thinking and closed mind.

[oki]

when one doesnt know, one can allways blame the jews and be a cool WN....

[kathaksung]

.

Let's make this experiment more apples to apples vs. apples to Oranges.

You use wood and gas fire sources to heat a 6x6x1/4 plate of steel with a container of water sitting on it for 20 minutes then remove the source of the heat.

1) Which will boil first?
2) Whick will boil longer?

Do the experiment yourself, but the answer to both questions is the gas fed fire. Flourocarbons burn much hotter than wood, hence the water will boil much quicker. Also, after 20 minutes, the steel plate plate heated by the gas will be hotter and will take longer to dissapate the heat, hence the water will boil longer.

Might wanna rethink that analogy...:hmm:

There is a logic mistake in your description. In ordinary fire when it is the house which is made of wooden lumb, the fire will be bigger because the house itself helps the fire to continue. But in WTC case, the building is made of steel which won't help the fire.

So the experiments should be, after 20 minutes, the fire of WTC got decreased and off. The heat got lower thereafter,

But the fire in ordinary house would go on because the wood joined with fire. So the heat got higer thereafter.

The point is the burning time. Remember the WTC collapsed one hour later. Consider the jet fuel had burned out in 20 minutes, the temperature of steel should be much lower after 40 minutes. How do you explain unless you re-write physics.

[Dave_in_paradise]

There is a logic mistake in your description. In ordinary fire when it is the house which is made of wooden lumb, the fire will be bigger because the house itself helps the fire to continue. But in WTC case, the building is made of steel which won't help the fire.

So the experiments should be, after 20 minutes, the fire of WTC got decreased and off. The heat got lower thereafter,

But the fire in ordinary house would go on because the wood joined with fire. So the heat got higer thereafter.

The point is the burning time. Remember the WTC collapsed one hour later. Consider the jet fuel had burned out in 20 minutes, the temperature of steel should be much lower after 40 minutes. How do you explain unless you re-write physics.

By applying very basic physics. After 20 minutes of heating by a flourocarbon based fire, the metal beams are 3 to 4 times hotter than they would have been if heated by a wood based fire (Wood burns at around 200c, although, it can reach 350c under the right conditions). The point IS NOT burning time. But, the time it takes to dissepate the heat absorded by the beams. In a wood fire, they would never have even reached critical temperature. In a flourocarbon fire, there heated enough that even after removing the heating element, they could still cause combustion of materials with a lower burning point. In an enclosed environment, such as the WTC was, a steel beam will not dissapate heat very rapidly due to the ambient temperature of the environment. Some of the heat will also transfer along the length of that beam in an effort to dissapate. So, say room one burns at 800c and heat's the beams supporting it. After 20 minutes, the flames are gone. BUT, Steel beam is still at 800c and only now starts to dissapate heat (energy). As it dissapates through both the air (Very slow, as the air is already hot) and the length of the beam (Easier as the beam's are cooler the further away from the fire they are), if the beam goes into another room, say room 2 and that room was not as hot and didn't burn much, THE COOLER BEAM WILL CONTINUE TO HEAT UP as the energy is transfered through it. Now, what if said beam is now, let's say only 300c. IT IS STILL HOT ENOUGH TO IGNITE WOOD! Walla, a fresh fire has started. Rinse and repeat. Now, this room is going to reach an ambient temperature equal to the burning point of wood or whatever else material catching fire and contributes to the temp. So, now that section of beam must maintain that ambient temperature and dissapate it off futher down the length of the beam (Or, other beams if there joined), hence spreading the potential for further ignition of materials with lower burning points.

Just do the experiment, see for yourself. If that one is to time consuming, turn on the eye of your stove and let it get red hot. Now cut it off. Will you touch it now? It's off isn't it? Of course not. Touch a match to it. Will it ignite? Yes, it will. The eye doesn't just go cold. It has to dissapate the heat and that takes time and a suitable environment. Another experiment to show this point about environment. Heat both your stove eye and the oven to 450f. Put a thermometer to them. Now, kill the power to both at the same time, but leave the oven door closed. Which will cool faster? The eye, every time. Almost 30 times as fast. Why? The air inside the oven is hot and isn't very conductive to dissapation of heat from the element.

So, again, it's not about burn time. It's about the rate of heat dissapation and the relationship of extreme high heats dissapating into a cooler environment with materials of relatively low burn points. No, a metal beam will not burn at 800c, but it will damn sure cause lumber to ignite, plastic to ignite, Paper will damn sure ignite if it come's in contact with a 800c steel beam.

[kathaksung]

In an enclosed environment, such as the WTC was, a steel beam will not dissapate heat very rapidly due to the ambient temperature of the environment. Some of the heat will also transfer along the length of that beam in an effort to dissapate. So, say room one burns at 800c and heat's the beams supporting it. After 20 minutes, the flames are gone. BUT, Steel beam is still at 800c and only now starts to dissapate heat (energy). As it dissapates through both the air (Very slow, as the air is already hot) and the length of the beam (Easier as the beam's are cooler the further away from the fire they are), if the beam goes into another room, say room 2 and that room was not as hot and didn't burn much, THE COOLER BEAM WILL CONTINUE TO HEAT UP as the energy is transfered through it. Now, what if said beam is now, let's say only 300c. IT IS STILL HOT ENOUGH TO IGNITE WOOD! Walla, a fresh fire has started. Rinse and repeat. Now, this room is going to reach an ambient temperature equal to the burning point of wood or whatever else material catching fire and contributes to the temp. So, now that section of beam must maintain that ambient temperature and dissapate it off futher down the length of the beam (Or, other beams if there joined), hence spreading the potential for further ignition of materials with lower burning points.

.

1. Even if, as you said, the beam was heated to 800c, then the heat will spread to the whole building since the beam were connect together to support building. That's a huge mass of substance. After 20 minutes, the heat will decrease, do you suggest that it was still at 300c? Do you mean a plane's fuel will bake the beam of whole building to that temperature of 300c that even wood would burn? (Even only consider the upper part of beam structure of the building because heat is generally conducted upwards, it was still a big mass) 100c will boil the water, no man will survive in that condition. No symtoms showed that WTC was at that situation. Your 300c is an exaggeration.

2. There was no wood for you to burn in WTC. The material used in construction was asbestos which is fire proof. WTC was a hot potato in real estate market because it used asbestos which was later a forbidden construction material.

UL Says NO WAY WTC Steel Could Melt At 2000 F UL Executive Speaks Out On WTC Study
911Truth.org
11-14-4

"The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel."

From Kevin R. Ryan
Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories
South Bend, Indiana
(Company site - www.ehl.cc) <http://www.ehl.cc)>

A division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
(Company site - www.ul.com) <http://www.ul.com)>

To Frank Gayle
Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division
Material Science and Engineering Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
NIST and the World Trade Center at wtc.nist.gov
Dr. Gayle biography wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gayle

From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI
To: frank.gayle@nist.gov <mailto:frank.gayle@nist.gov>
Date: 11/11/2004

Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel ? burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I?m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter".

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

1. <http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html>

2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187

3. <http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf>

4. <http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php>

5. <http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf> (pg 11)

6. <http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf>

Kevin Ryan
Site Manager
Environmental Health Laboratories

[Note: The letter is followed in the e-mail by a standard UL message footer]

-- For more information about UL, its Marks, and its services for EMC, quality registrations and product certifications for global markets, please access our web sites at <http://www.ul.com> and <http://www.ulc.ca,> or contact your local sales representative.

November 12:

An executive of the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused its collapse, in a letter yesterday to the head of the government team that has spent two years studying how the trade center was built and why it fell.

The author of the letter, Kevin Ryan, is site manager at Environmental Health Laboratories in South Bend, Indiana, a division of Underwriters Laboratories, the product-compliance and testing giant. Because UL certified the WTC steel for its ability to withstand fires, its performance on September 11 is obviously of concern to the company.

Ryan sent his letter to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the Metallurgy Division at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). He later forwarded it in an e-mail to David Ray Griffin, author of the New Pearl Harbor, and Catherine Austin Fitts, who is a member of the 911Truth.org board.

Griffin asked for and received permission to forward the letter for Web distribution. 911Truth.org called Ryan today to confirm his authorship.

The letter raises disturbing questions, pointing out that the steel in the towers tested up to its certified standard (i.e., it should have easily withstood the fuel fires without buckling).

A chemist by profession, Ryan said he is acting in the hope of receiving a public response from Gayle. Given the impact of September 11 on events around the world, Ryan said, everyone needs to know the full truth of what really happened on that day. He added that he considers Gayle to be a good scientist and an honest person.

A draft of the government agency's final report on the WTC collapse is due in January.

The New York Times reports today that the NIST team is planning to hold some of its deliberations in secret. "The announcement has been sharply protested by advocates for families of the 9/11 victims, who said they were considering a lawsuit to force the agency to open the meetings to the public," the Times writes.

As the Times notes, the NIST investigation was started in 2002 after lobbying by, among others, the Skyscraper Safety Campaign, an organization created by Monica Gabrielle and Sally Regenhard, both of whom lost family on September 11.

Gabrielle told the Times that NIST should have "one job, and one job only - to find out the truth of what happened to those buildings and to report to the public about it. You don't owe industry, the Port Authority or federal agencies anything. You owe it to the public - the truth, no matter where it goes." (See www.nytimes.com) <http://www.nytimes.com)>

<http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451> - 911Truth

[Pappy&Me]

FIRE OFFICER SAYS FIREMEN, COPS KNOW TRUTH
By Victor Thorn

American Free Press
November 11, 2006

'BOMBS INSIDE WTC'

NEW YORK CITY, N.Y.—On the morning of Sept. 11, 2005, New York City auxiliary fire lieutenant Paul Isaac Jr. asserted, yet again, that 9-11 was an inside job. "I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know it's an inside job; and the firemen know it too," said Isaac.

The ramifications of this statement are immense: One of New York's own firefighters says publicly that 9-11 couldn't have been the work of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, but instead was planned, coordinated and executed by elements within our own government.

He also added, after pointing to throngs of police officers standing around us, that, "We all have to be very careful about how we handle it."

Isaac reiterated what a 9-11 survivor told this journalist during our protest at Ground Zero on Sept. 11, 2005—that emergency radios were buzzing with information about bombs being detonated inside the World Trade
Center towers.

Also, Isaac directly addressed a gag order that has been placed on firemen and police officers in New York.

"It's amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs," said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9-11. There is more information related to Isaac circulating in on-line and print reports, so here again we are hearing first-hand evidence from individuals who were on the scene, such as live witness William Rodriguez, saying that the World Trade Center towers were brought down not by the airliner's impact or the resulting jet fuel fires, but instead by a deliberately executed controlled demolition.

Tragically, due to heavy-handed pressure from officials at the city, state and federal levels, we are still not hearing the entire story.

Researcher Vincent Sammartino, who was also at the WTC "open grave site" on the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2005, wrote the following on the on-line news web site APFN: "I just got back from Ground Zero. People know the truth. Half of the police and firemen were coming up to us and telling us that they know that 9-11 was an inside job. They were told not to talk about it. But they were supporting what we were doing. I had tears in my eyes."



Victor Thorn is the author of New World Order Exposed, and co-host of WING TV. For more information, visit Thorn's web site at wingtv.net or write P.O. Box 10495, State College, PA 16805-0495. New World Order Exposed (#1080, $25, 560 pps., softcover) and 9-11 On Trial (#1178, 175 pages, $14, booklet) can be ordered from FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS. Write 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100, Washington, D.C. 20003. Call toll free 1-888-699-NEWS (6397) to order by Visa or MasterCard.

(Issue #40, October 3, 2005)


Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bombs_inside_wtc.html



So in other words what this person is sayng is that all the cops and firemen of NY are cowards ? That even the ones who lost sons and family are keeping it to themselves ? I will never believe this lie . I will never believe that that many cops and firemen are keeping quite .

I think he is a lowlife dirty liar . These men picked up body parts and clothes belonging to their loved ones and I don't think fear can be compared to the rage they must have had for whoever did this, including their own gov to keep silent .

We will never know for sure, but until somebody can prove it and Alex and others who make millions off these conspiracies can prove without a doubt, they should shut the hell up .

Of coure europe is buzzing with accusations, those freeloaders always bite the hands that feed them .

They have to hate jews and patriots because their nations are full of radicals who will soon enslave them .

[Pappy&Me]

when one doesnt know, one can allways blame the jews and be a cool WN....


One can always blame the white man and be PC and a cool multiracial mutt . All who claim to be jews are not jews . You can tell a jew by his God, not the tribe he belongs to .

Oki you accusing Living Hate is like the pot calling the kettle black . I don't think you ever met a anti-white anti-American racist bigot liberal you didn't like .

Instead of accusing my nation of all the worlds ills, maybe you should get a jump start on the problems yours has .

I know we are finished , but all this celebrating at our fall is getting tiresome . Besides your nation is already history and being run by outsiders from what I read .

[kathaksung]

Alex Jones: Most Police, Firefighters Now Believe 9/11 Inside Job

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | September 11 2006
Documentary film maker and radio host Alex Jones, coordinating today's 9/11 truth movement events in downtown New York City, says that the atmosphere around ground zero has dramatically changed, with the majority of firefighters and police officers now sympathetic to the claim that 9/11 was an inside job.

Saying that the "entire atmosphere had changed," Alex explained how police support for protesters at ground zero had gone from 20% support two years ago to around 60% support now - with many willing to affirm that sentiment on camera and many knowledgeable about Alex Jones' work and the 9/11 truth movement.

"Police just saying 'keep your investigation going, we appreciate you' on video," said Jones.

"The firemen we've been talking to - a hundred per cent are on our side and have seen the documentary films....it is just incredible what's happened at the grass roots."

http://groups.msn.com/WorldCitizensConcerns/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=20153&LastModified=4675589113908669499&all_topics=0

[kathaksung]

WTC photo shows there were people alive at the hole the plane crashed at. The heat was not high as government told you. It cooled off after the fire was off. Click URL to see the picture.

Quote, "Now let's look at a close-up of damage to the WTC 1. It might be hot enough for a weenie roast, but not a towering inferno capable of weakening the integrity of the steel structure. Do you see the man near the right edge looking out between the pillars? On the next floor down on the left, do you see the woman leaning out for a look? Do you think they just walked through a blazing inferno to get there? In case you are thinking that the images have been doctored and the survivors added with Photoshop, the picture of the woman actually appears in the FEMA report (page 18 of Chapter 2: WTC 1 and WTC 2

http://www.the7thfire.com/9-11/World_Trade_Center/no_towering_inferno.htm

[oki]

One can always blame the white man and be PC and a cool multiracial mutt . All who claim to be jews are not jews . You can tell a jew by his God, not the tribe he belongs to .

Oki you accusing Living Hate is like the pot calling the kettle black . I don't think you ever met a anti-white anti-American racist bigot liberal you didn't like .

Instead of accusing my nation of all the worlds ills, maybe you should get a jump start on the problems yours has .

I know we are finished , but all this celebrating at our fall is getting tiresome . Besides your nation is already history and being run by outsiders from what I read .:confused: when I object to someone blaming israel, Im still not doing it right in your eyes?

[kathaksung]

More than an hour and fifteen minutes after the first hijacking was reported
by FAA, the US military headquarters at the Pentagon was struck without any
defensive action taken to stop the attack. The impact was on the west side,
for some reason the only side that had been "hardened" with blast-proof windows
and specially reinforced walls. None of the highest ranking military leadership
were located on that side.

http://www.masoncontractors.org/newsandevents/masonryheadlines/headline.php?id=20020809080000

[grimrebuke]

The pentagon was hit on the one side that was NOT yet hardened, unless I'm seriously mistaken. I'll ask on Tuesday. I'm all for a good conspiracy theory, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this one being staged by the administration. Terrorism insurance would have made sense for the WTC owners, it had been attacked before. Not only was the steel heated by burning jet fuel and whatever else was on those floors, but the building took a substantial amount of impact force. And the size and scope of the conspiracy would require so many knowledgeable players that someone would have been likely to have come out. It does make fascinating reading, though.

[kathaksung]

Bush asks Daschle to limit Sept. 11 probes
January 29, 2002 Posted: 9:26 PM EST (0226 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle Tuesday to limit the congressional investigation into the events of September 11, congressional and White House sources told CNN.
Tuesday's discussion followed a rare call to Daschle from Vice President Dick Cheney last Friday to make the same request.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/inv.terror.probe/

[kathaksung]

Quote, "Who Destroyed The WTC?
By D. Cassidy
5/27/2008

A Memorial to the millions of innocents who died and will die as a
result of September 11, 2001.

"Toda y, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles
to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially
true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond,
whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence."
Henry Kissinger, 1991.

"I can think of no faster way to unite the American people behind
George W. Bush than a terrorist attack on an American target
overseas." Henry Kissinger, 2000.

"September Eleven was good for Israel" (Benjamin Netanyahu)

Do the following quotes from news reports on the internet, limn a
cabal so evil, so dreadful that--"The individual is handicapped by
coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe
it exists."-- J. Edgar Hoover. And it rules Washington absolutely!

The Principals

Lewis Eisenberg, vice president of AIPAC and former Goldman Sachs
partner, was Chairman of the Port Authority ("PA"), the Lessor. Larry
Silverstein, New York developer an d friend of Netanyahu (every Sunday
Netanyahu would call Silverstein) led the Silverstein Group, the
Lessee. (Italics added.)

In April 2001 Silverstein was informed he had lost his bid in the
privatization of the World Trade Center ("WTC"). T hen events took a
surprising turn. The winner dropped out, leaving Silverstein and his
partners, who had finished second, as the new winner.

The Lease

The lease was purchased by the Silverstein Group for $3.2 billion on
July 24, 2001. Sil verstein put up $125 million, only $14 million his
own money. The net lease covers four buildings at the World Trade
Center, including the Twin Towers and the retail Mall. It may have
been one of the most elaborate deals in the leasing history of New
York City.

The speed with which this painstakingly complex deal was closed is
notable. "There are a million items that need to be dealt with", said
Marc Schauer, of NAI Lawrence, a leasing firm. The entire negotiation
period--from sta rt to finish--lasted only a few [3] months, a
relatively swift duration in the world of colossal lease transactions
especially with a governmental entity. [This frantic rush to close
[for possession] by some deadline was the principal cause of th e
litigation to follow. Why the rush?]

The Property

Chairman Eisenberg said, "The Port Authority and the region both
benefit from this transaction." PA Executive Director Neil Levin
said, "It was this excellent record of managing the comp lex that now
allows the Port Authority to realize the enhanced value of the
complex." Silverstein said. "We will be in control of a prized asset
and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new
heights." [Was that, "raising" or "ra zing"?]

But from an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since
its inception -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to
function, unprotected in the real estate marketplace. It would cost
$800 million just to upgrade the e lectrical, electronic, and cooling
systems.

And it was well-known that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. Plans
were made in 1989 to completely dismantle the WTC not only because of
the asbestos problems but also the electrolytic corrosion pr oblems.
Apparently, the plans were dropped because they were considered
prohibitively expensive. The only reason the building was still
standing on 9/11 was it was too costly to disassemble floor by floor.
There is a persistent report on the i nternet that either the state of
New York or the EPA had ordered the dismantling of the WTC. And
dismantling the WTC would not result in the recovery of insurance
proceeds since it would not be a casualty.

Why would Silverstein, a knowledgeab le real estate developer, pay
millions of dollars to get control of a building that was uneconomic,
was an environmental basket case, and had serious corrosion problems?
Many New York developers had gone bankrupt complying with mandated
renovations.

But all of Lucky Larry's problems disappeared on Sept. 11, 2001.
Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the
policy, based on two, in Silverstein's view, separate attacks. The
total potential payout is $7.1 bn., more than enough to build a
fabulous new complex and leave a hefty profit for the Silverstein
Group, including Larry Silverstein himself. Lucky Larry would also
miss his usual breakfast at the Windows on the World restaurant on
the 107th flo or of the North Tower and survive that fateful day
together with 3,999 of 4,000 Israelis who normally were in the WTC, a
statistical anomaly of huge proportions).

The Insurance

The story of the Silverstein insurance program, assembled in the
summer of 2001, is so far-fetched that any law professor who dreamed
it up would be laughed out of the classroom. Silverstein hired Willis
Group Holdings Ltd. to find enough coverage to satisfy his lenders.
Willis is a giant insurance broker, specializing in coverage for big
commercial properties. Silverstein's lenders insisted on first $2.3
bn. then right before the lease deal closed, $3.55 bn. Willis
scrambled to place the insurance, ultimately to 25 carriers.
Negotiations were frenetic.

Willis hustled in June and July, contacting carriers in the United
States, Europe and Bermuda to place coverage. Willis distributed a
sample policy that Willis had developed, the Wilprop form. This form
included a specific definition of "occurrence" under which the
destruction of the WTC was plainly, a single occurrence. But Willis
later testified that it considered it's form a starting point for
negotiations after the closing.

On July 24, 2001, Silverstein closed with only binders, slips of
coverage and certificates of insurance totaling $3.5 bn. from his
insurers ["slips" are binders in Europe]. According to federal Judge
Martin, "The New York Court of Appeals has made clear that when a
binder is signed, "the contract of insurance is closed and the binder
is in effect the same as a regular insurance policy." Swiss Re [a
major insurer] asserts that the language used in the binders that it
and 21 other insurers signed was the "WilProp" form under wh ich the
attack on the WTC is unambiguously a single occurrence.

But Travelers Insurance [CEO Sanford Weill] had a major role to play
in the total insurance picture for the WTC. It insisted on using its
own form, which did not specifically def ine "occurrence"; however,
its form was not present at closing. Willis needed Travelers to stay
in the deal and promised to substitute the Travelers policy after the
closing. Only one formal policy was in effect on September 11, 2001.

The dev eloper has often repeated that he would need at least $7 bn.
to rebuild the WTC site. But Silverstein chose to insure the entire
property for $3.55 bn., half of its true replacement value, to save
premiums and declared the full replacement cost f or insurance
purposes as $3.945 bn. to avoid co-insurance. [Shouldn't this make
him a co-insurer under insurance law, sharing half the cost of
damages, exactly the reverse of double indemnity?]

The Dispute

Contrary to the express understa nding of insurance professionals,
Silverstein trumpets at every opportunity that the attack on the WTC
was two separate occurrences." Barry Ostrager, an insurer's attorney,
weighed in with, "Silverstein's elaborate two-occurrence argument is
a hoax. We believe we have established that the Silverstein case is a
fiction conceived by lawyers and public relations advisors after
Sept. 11, 2001."

Silverstein and Willis now say that all of the insurance companies
agreed to and should be held to the terms of the Travelers policy
which did not define "occurrence". Swiss Re and a host of other
carriers notified Willis that they'd bound coverage on the basis of
the WilProp form, and had never agreed to substitute the Travelers
form at all. Most of the carriers deny that anyone from Willis ever
told them Travelers was replacing WilProp; many said that the first
they'd heard of it was after Sept. 11.

When Willis' Boyd called their London office after Sept. 11, he said,
according to the notes of one, "In their opinion this is one
occurrence." Another broker said something similar to Swiss Re's
Bollier. Silverstein's own risk manager hurriedly faxed a copy of
portions of the WilProp form to a lawyer for the PA w ith a cover
note: "FYI the 'occurrence' definition and the insuring agreement and
the exclusions in the Willis policy that we are working with."
Several hours later he sent the same materials to one of
Silverstein's lenders.

Building No. 7

WTC 7 occupied a city block north of the WTC complex. Silverstein's
estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. FEMA concluded that
the collapse of WTC 7 was a direct result of fires triggered by
debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1 which resulted in a payout of
nearly $861 million or a profit of about $500 million to Silverstein.
Buildings a lot closer to the Twin Towers strangely remained
upright.*

Silverstein stated in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided
to demolish WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001. And the
building quickly fell into its own basement. [How did the FDNY know
that WTC 7 was prepared for demolition? Did Silverstein? This
requires weeks of careful preparation by demolit ion experts.] Senator
John Kerry stated that, WTC 7 was brought down as a result of a
controlled demolition, directly contradicting FEMA. So WTC 7 was
"pulled" by a controlled demolition, meaning that the FEMA version of
what happened is false, casting serious doubt on the official story
that terrorists of foreign origin destroyed the WTC as well as on the
rest of the official account of 9/11 [and today disbelieved by most
Americans and the rest of the world].

The OEM crisis cente r in WTC 7 has been identified on the internet as
the control center for the pre-planned demolition of the WTC. The
center and all of the evidence was destroyed when the 47-story tower
was completely demolished. So, who decided to build the OEM c risis
center in WTC 7? "Jerry Hauer recommended it as the prime site" Mr.
Giuliani said. "It was largely on his recommendation that that site
was selected."


The Attorneys

On Sept. 13, two days after the towers fell, Silverstein hired top
legal gun Herbert Wachtell to defend him in the tangle of litigation
sure to come. It was Wachtell, according to Ostrager, who originated
the double indemnity theory of two ocurrences. Willis agreed that
attorneys John Gross, Eric Roth and Ma rc Wolinsky could come to New
Jersey on Monday, Sept. 17, to talk to the brokers. It was at these
meetings that Ostrager claimed that Wachtell exerted "fantastic
pressure" on Willis as the lawyers and brokers figured out what to
tell the insurance market.

Ostrager claimed repeatedly in the litigation that only after
Wachtell Lipton lawyers got involved did Willis witnesses convert to
the story that favors Silverstein. He later said they never meant to
suggest that Wachtell Lipton lawyers had suborned perjury, merely
that in hours of preparing Willis witnesses for deposition, Wachtell
Lipton had subtly shaped their recollections and perspectives.
Silverstein's attorney, Howard Rubenstein called the statements "a
cynical and manipulative attack on Silverstein and an attack on
rebuilding lower Manhattan."

Willis was represented at these meetings by Andrew Amer. Amer, who
presumably heard the Willis witnesses tell Silverstein's lawyers that
the Travelers polic y governed the WTC coverage, declined to comment.
Gerson of Epstein Becker, the lawyer who replaced Amer soon after
those initial meetings rejects any suggestion that Willis witnesses
were coerced at the Sept. 17 meeting with Wachtell Lipton lawy ers.

The Litigation

In 2002, US District Judge Martin rejected the Silverstein claim
"that at the time the insurers signed the binders they were well
aware that they were committing to be bound to some future agreement"
and granted summary judgment in favor of three insurers who
specifically referred to the WilProp form in their binders. Two
Bermudan insurance companies also mentioned the WilProp form in their
binders and paid only their policy limits. Judge Martin seemed eager
for the case to settle, and appointed federal Judge Lewis Kaplan to
oversee talks. Judge Martin retired and Judge Mukasey took over.

In May 2004, before Judge Mukasey, a jury decided, with respect to 10
of the remaining insurers were bound by the Wilprop form and only one
occurrence had taken place and therefore were only obligated for $2
bn. rather than $4 bn. The jury said that three others insurers were
bound by other forms and had to pay double on their claims. Thus, by
the Fal l of 2004, about $2.4 or $2.5 bn. in insurance proceeds had
been awarded to Silverstein. The remaining claims were for either
$1.1 or $2.2 bn.

In December 2004, before Judge Mukasey, a second jury held that the
remaining nine insurers were no t bound by the Wilprop form, thus two
occurrences had taken place, holding all nine insurers collectively
liable for $2.2 bn. By the dawn of 2005, then, $4.6 bn. was awarded
in insurance settlements. This is a far cry from what Silverstein
wanted ($7 bn.), but much more than what many pundits thought he
would recover ($3.55 bn.). Brooklyn-Queens Congressman Anthony Weiner
vowed to punish the insurers with fines or operating restrictions if
they do not pay up. [The WTC is in Manhattan.] Both sides appealed.

[A judge can greatly influence a jury by regulating the evidence they
receive and the final instructions that guide their decision. The
second jury was obviously and totally confounded and overwhelmed by
the mass of con flicting evidence and the burden of having to
reconstruct the intent of the various parties years after the fact
and very dependent on Mukasey's "shepherding".]

In October 2006, the Court of Appeals (Judge Walker) in a 70 page
opinion affirme d Judge Mukasey and wrote, "Judge Mukasey did a
masterful job shepherding this complex, hotly contested case through
both phases of a lengthy jury trial."

Judge Walker opens his opinion with, "whether the coordinated
terrorist attacks of Sept ember 11, 2001, whereby two jetliners
separately crashed into the WTC, destroying both buildings,
constituted one or two "occurrences" under...multiple insurance
contracts." And concludes with, "The jury had before it evidence that
none of the remaining nine insurers were bound to the WilProp form...
their hours limitation clauses did not specifically refer to losses
caused by fire, aircraft, or acts of terrorism...and the destruction
of the WTC was caused by separate fires, resulting from separate
collisions by separate aircraft into separate buildings."

[Persuasive evidence was allowed from a Silverstein expert as to
trade customs in the insurance industry as well as testimony by a
Travelers executive as to other claims against Travelers which were
treated as separate occurrences. Reading this lengthy opinion, one is
struck by the absence of Weill's Travelers as the replacement insurer
when the news reports are filled with it.]

Silverstein had spent about $ 100 million paying lawyers, which
critics said was an unconscionable siphoning of money that should
have been used for rebuilding but that $100 million produced an
additional $1.1 bn. And Silverstein made a huge profit. The Port
Authority, after Silverstein won the second case, quietly filed its
own lawsuit seeking double indemnity on its own insurance policy.

Part 1.

[kathaksung]

Continuation:

More Litigation

In 2005, Lloyd's of London filed a lawsuit against the PA, claiming
the agency's demands for $2.1 bn. in insurance money to rebuild WTC
are unreasonable. The PA has already received $950 million for
damages incurred on September 11. The PA and Silverstein are still
pressed for money to complete the reconstruction of the WTC and the
PA wants to se ek damages for two events instead of one, making it
eligible for about $1.5 bn. more in insurance money.

In August 2006, seven insurers contended the new ownership of the WTC
did not affect their insurance obligations, arguing that the
insure rs' obligations are intertwined with the litigation that has
been ongoing since 2002 . (The PA had taken back ownership of the $2
billion Freedom Tower and Silverstein had assigned the insurance
proceeds to the PA to reduce rent payments.) But Ju dge Mukasey ruled
that he lacks jurisdiction to handle the latest lawsuit and sent it
back to state court, where it will be handled by Justice Herman
Cahn.

In 2007 Silverstein and seven insurance companies agreed to a $2
billion settlement to end an almost six-year dispute over the
insurance policies covering the WTC. Governor Eliot Spitzer announced
the settlement at a news conference in lower Manhattan, 'The
settlement will end all litigation on the issue". Spitzer compared
t he insurance dispute to a Stanley Cup playoff hockey series in which
the two sides play a ``very hard match'' and ``at the end of the
series they always shake hands and move on.'' [Forgetting the
thousands who died so horribly and were disposed o f in a landfill.]
New York and PA officials said that the deal removed any uncertainty
over how much money would be available for rebuilding and would
enable them to obtain private financing for the $9 bn. project.
"There's a high level of cooperation," says Travelers counsel Harvey
Kurzweil, who, along with his partner Saul Morgenstern, has become a
spokesman for the other insurers. [Cynics comment the insurers'
litigation was only intended to shelter them from billions in claims
by their own shareholders, participants, re-insurers and excess
insurers.]

In 2003, Spitzer, then NY Attorney General, got involved behind the
scenes and in the courts, filing a amicus curiae ("friend of the
court") brief on Silverstein's beh alf [after the Martin decision in
2002]. The courts ended up agreeing with Spitzer and Silverstein.
Spitzer helped mid-wife a fat compromise and an eventual $4.5 billion
payout for Silverstein. Requests for comment from Governor Spitzer
were ignored.

But the money Silverstein is set to receive from his insurers--$4.6
bn.--is not enough to reconstruct. So much of Silverstein's insurance
proceeds have already been spent, there is not enough money to
rebuild. The developer has often repeated that he would need at least
$7 bn. to rebuild the WTC. Silverstein and the PA had spent more than
$1.5 billion of the insurance money already, including more than $500
million for Silverstein's rent to the PA; about $190 million for the
PA to buy out Westfield America's retail rights; and more than $700
million to repay Silverstein's lender, GMAC, and to repay Silverstein
and his partners most of their equity.

In another case, Judge Harold Baer of the U.S. District Court
rejected arguments by Silverstein that it should recover an
additional $700 million to make a rebuilt complex safe, modern and
politically acceptable. What's most noteworthy is that Judge Baer
interpreted the policy language as the insurers thoug ht it was
written.

February 2008: The Port Authority lost its right to collect insurance
money on the destroyed Twin Towers and much of the WTC when it leased
the property two months before the 9/11 terror attacks. Federal Judge
Barbara Jo nes limited claims by the PA to buildings that weren't
leased to developer Larry Silverstein. The judge noted Silverstein
had his own insurance.

March 2008: Larry Silverstein joined in a suit by the Families of the
Victims of 911 and is seeking $12.3 bn. in damages from airlines and
airport security companies. He filed the claim in 2004, saying the
airlines and airport security companies failed to prevent terrorists
from destroying the WTC. The $12.3 bn. represented $8.4 bn. for the
replacement value of the destroyed buildings [that he declared for
insurance purposes as $3.9 bn.] and $3.9 bn. in other costs,
including $100 million a year in rent to the PA and $300 million a
year in lost rental income, as well as the cost of marketing and
leasing the new buildings. Judge Hellerstein expressed skepticism
about Silverstein's claim and asked why he had not stemmed his losses
by just "walking away. Any trials in the case appear to be more than
a year away.

[Jud ge Hellerstein also played an important role in the 911 Victims
lawsuits, judicially "blackjacking" them into settlements rather than
lawsuits.] He ruled out testimony from top government officials
raising serious questions as to why the judge wo uld cover up and
potentially obstruct government testimony and evidence under oath by
key players when it would be in the interests of both parties to the
suit.

An atmosphere of intimidation was apparent when an attorney for the
victim fam ilies explained that his clients wanted a trial not a
settlement, to which Hellerstein retorted, "Sit down." The judicial
coercion continued, attorney Schiavo told Hellerstein that she was
also experiencing problems with "difficult clients" who w ere adamant
about going to trial with full discovery and government witness
testimony, to which the judge said, "This is the way it's going to
be. Go back and you tell them we are going to settle, period."
Hellerstein finally decided to person ally "select and quickly hear"
three cases "without any discovery or interruptions." Though
remaining families want a trial, Hellerstein has been coercing them
all along to negotiate a settlement with his "special mediator,"
Sheila L. Birnbaum.

Not one single September 11 Victim lawsuit has been permitted to
proceed to a public trial by jury with testimony by major government
officials, complete and unhindered discovery of documents and
interrogation by career prosecutors despite meritorious evidence of
prior knowledge of the attacks by the Bush administration.

When Silverstein applied for $3.35 bn. in tax-exempt Liberty Bonds to
help finance the Freedom Tower and his other buildings on the site,
Mr. Bloomberg [mayor of New York] found a lever. The city and the
state each control half those bonds, and the mayor said that he would
not agree to the city's half unless Mr. Silverstein made certain
concessions. Silverstein needed the Liberty Bonds because insuranc e
proceeds, which amounted to about $4.6 billion, would not nearly
cover the expected costs of the five towers [now $9 bn.].

Victim family attorneys have strangely failed to seek testimony from
Ashcroft and Chertoff regarding the selection of Kenneth R. Feinberg
as Master of the multi-billion dollar 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund
which forced families to sign away their right to sue the U.S.
government for criminal negligence. Feinberg's law firm represented
major insurance firms w hich would have lost billions in payouts if
Congress had not used American taxpayer funds to cover expected
losses by insurance companies.

What is almost certainly the most sophisticated and complete
understanding of exactly how and why the W orld Trade Center fell has
been compiled as part of a secret proceeding in federal court in
Lower Manhattan. But everyone fears that the closely held information
may remain buried in sealed files or even destroyed.

Epilogue

In 2008 Mukase y, an Israeli citizen, was installed as US Attorney
General at the urging of Senators Schumer and Feinstein where he will
"shepherd" the prosecution of AIPAC for treason and/or espionage just
like Kissinger was chosen to head the 911 Commission a nd replaced by
Zelikow. Former Attorney General Gonzalez came under intense pressure
to resign from Senators Schumer, Feinstein and Spector. The deputy
attorney general and the associate attorney general also resigned
clearing the way for more Mukasey shepherding. [Got the picture
yet?]

Four of the Israelis, arrested on 9-11 for celebrating the mass
murder of thousands of Americans, filed a multimillion dollar lawsuit
against the US Justice Department, claiming they were arrested
illegally, then held without charge and interrogated and tortured for
months. They were released by Chertoff, another Israeli citizen who
now heads Homeland Security. The FBI concluded at least two of the
five were Mossad agents and all were on a Mossad surveillance
mission. Their lawyer claims the case will debunk theories that
Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks. As of 2008, there have been no
further media reports about this lawsuit. [What are the odds they
were paid?]

After Sept. 11 over 100 young Israeli "art students", illegally in
the country and spying all across America, were quietly ordered
"deported" to Israel by a high American official [Chertoff again?].
[Have they filed suit against US, too?]

Conclusio n

As anticipated by Kissinger, the destruction of the WTC and the loss
of thousands of lives resulted in the demolition of the American
Constitution; the American people did unite behind Bush and endorse
wars of aggression and genocide on the nations of the Middle East and
the theft of their resources for the benefit of Israel. Now it comes
out that the president actually practiced for 911 in advance and on
that terrible day didn't know whether it was real or another practice
session. And still noone in government or the 911 litigation even
dares to suggest that the WTC was an "inside job" although the
evidence is now almost overwhelming. Reportedly, even the National
Institute for Standards and Technology has repudiated the "collapse
initiation" theory of its 10,000 page report, "We are unable to
provide a full explanation of the total collapse." Well, nearly
everybody else on the planet can.

There is no Statute of Limitations on murder. There should be an
inquiry by an international body, such as the International Criminal
Court, to assess responsibility for this monstrous crime against
humanity; ironically like the Nuremberg Trials brought by the zionist
cabal against German officials.

*In the history of the world, no high rise steel buildings have ever
collapsed from fire except the three Silverstein buildings on
9-11-01. Structural steel is not affected by fire. For example in
1991 eight floors in the middle of the high rise Meri dian Building in
Philadelphia burned for 20 hours. According to the official fire
report, "Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as
three feet --under severe fire exposures. Despite this extraordinary
exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without
obvious damage." And stood for many years later.

Despite zionist efforts to confuse the two, Zionism is not a religion
but a political conspiracy, centuries old. Zionism is Jewish like
Nazism was Lutheran. You can read all about it in the Protocols. Many
years ago,

George Washington called them "our greatest enemy."

Benjamin Franklin said, "They are vampires. If they are not excluded
from the United States...they will rule and destroy us."

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial
element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the
days of Andrew Jackson." FDR letter to Colonel House, November 21st,
1933.

"We control America and th ey know it." Ariel Sharon

Welcome to the Goldene Medin, the New Khazar Empire (ceded by
Congress: 413-8)!

D. Cassidy
Memorial Day, 2008
http://boards.marihemp.com/boards/thd1x114890.shtml

[Šñøü†ê®]

kathasung, so y'all think that the whole 9/11 thing was perpetrated by Zionists simply because it benefited some Zionists?

[Dogberry]

I saw that documentary as well. It's convincing until you begin to dig for the real truth which is why I created that 9-11 conspiracy thread in the big debates. I wanted DA'ers to discuss it and rip it apart if indeed it coulld be ripped apart. I'd have to say the conspiracy crowd lost, eventhough I still lean a bit toward the possibility that many persons in this nation knew it was coming, and when.

Indeed look through history.

Stalin was told repeatedly that germany was going to attack the USSR, spies told him, and there was masses of evidence but he chose not to believe him.

Pearl harbour, Churchill knew it was going to happen, he even lent the US our secret weapon RADAR so they could see it coming but strill the US was caught off guard.

Prediction is so much easier after the event. If it wasnt bookies (or whatever you call people who take bets on races etc) would be out of business.


The FBI and CIA had good intel that this kind of thing might happen and even when, therefore, it is possible that this information leaked out to some important people. This doesn't imply that those agencies were complicit, rather that the people at the top didn't take the intel seriously and it was leaked further down the ladder. Just a paossibility.

Absolutely,:nice: see above.


The 911 conspiracies are crap, to put it bluntly.



And as I've posted before, Bush is called an incompetent, mindless idiot by his detractors, yet they simultaneously accuse him of covertly masterminding the largest attack on US soil since the British were last here, without himself, or anyone else getting caught. He can't be both, and they can't have it both ways.



This is true:nice:

Also no-one has sufficiently explained to me why on earth any Government would want to carry out this kind of attack, other than some abstract mumbling about war for oil.

[LiberTBell]

And as I've posted before, Bush is called an incompetent, mindless idiot by his detractors, yet they simultaneously accuse him of covertly masterminding the largest attack on US soil since the British were last here, without himself, or anyone else getting caught. He can't be both, and they can't have it both ways.....

Perhaps Bush is called an incompetant based solely on his performance, and his inability to articulate the simplist of ideas.

(I know that is MY opinion of him, but that is beside the point)

The point, is that he has access to ALL of America's resources even before he first entered the White House. ( since his father is a former president)

Now just because he's an idiot doesn't mean that everyone working for him is.

Oh, they are ideologs to be sure, and perhaps a bit into the patrician thing the Bush's are so fond of.... but there's no denying THEY have intelligence (while there's plenty of proof that Bush has none).

While theory tends to need proof in order to be validated, reality speaks for itself.


Reality, we WERE attacked... and those attacks represent penetrations of the most sophisticated security and defence systems ever crafted... layers and layers of them.

Reality, an opportunity to advance the screwy policies that would NEVER have had an easy enactment presented itself... So Bin Laden gets off and Saddam is super-imposed over his spot...

Most of the things Bush has done are conceptually attributed to Karl Rove after all.

It is fairly easy to wave away the theories, but much, much harder to wave away the practical realities.

Even if idiot George isn't the braintrust that came up with this stuff, he is the power that enabled most of it to occur.

Most Americans have now demonstrated what "blind trust and obedience" looks like in American politics.. because I don't think any other generation of Americans would have stood by and allowed the doings of this administration to go on and on without loud protests in the street.

Bottom line, it has yet to be proven that Bush (and/or Rove) directly had a hand in allowing the attacks to occur (even though it has been proven that they had an established relationship outside of government with the Taliban.)

It can only be proven that they USED the attacks of 9/11 for political gain and in the process completely trampled Bush's ( and Cheney's, and a host of other elected officials) oath(s) of office.

[86Dùde]

The bottom line is that the shit happened, it was due, and the bad guys benefited greatly from it. Who are the bad guys? The BA, and the filthy terrorists. The rest of just got screwed. Everytime we walk into an airport we give up the entire bill of rights. Paranoia, and fear. I can't believe how dumb America is.

[antiquity]

Perhaps Bush is called an incompetant based solely on his performance, and his inability to articulate the simplist of ideas.

Bush does have problems at times but listen to these clips of your next President of the United States.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBX8sz3tO8


www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbpWonUzlrc

[86Dùde]

Wow, the silver tongued anti-christ actually messed up.

[Corporate Avenger]

First one sounds like there was a tech problem, and the second, it's very common to have difficulty speaking while be sleep impaired.

You can't even compare those 2 to the made up words, and terrible speaking ability of Bush.

On the issue's the far right loses horribly, which is why they are always focused on the fluff..

[Que sera, sera]

I think he was being heckled/interrupted from someone in the crowd in the first one, and just plain misspoke in the second. "Breathalyzer" instead of "inhaler" is pretty funny, though. At least he was in the general ballpark with his thought process.

[Nor'Easter]

oqEpuTGc98s

Near the end of this video clip, there is a comparison of the 2nd jet liner impact (WTC 2) as shot by a FoxNEWS helicopter. The video tries to suggest that the plane is a digital plant (which I don't subscribe to at all) and after making that suggestion, the film maker aligns the FoxNEWS helicopter video shot with a CNN video broadcast of the exact same clip (it is the exact clip shot live by FoxNEWS) that it broadcast only 6 minutes later.

My question:

With this being a historic piece of footage owned and immediately published and copyright protected by FoxNEWS, and with CNN (owned by Ted Turner) and FoxNEWS (owned by Rupert Murdock) separate corporations (never mind the part about them being direct competitors) with all the very clear infringement laws in place regardless of the circumstances surrounding the attacks, how is it possible for CNN to be broadcasting a FoxNEWS broadcast clip within 6 minutes of the moment it was recorded live on the air?

Anyone got a good explanation for this? It takes months to get most companies to agree to release images and at least a day for the legal dept to work out a bare bones release for broadcast of a live clip.

You guys are corporate types. Help me to understand this seemingly bizarre aspect of the 9/11 news coverage. No law suits between Fox and CNN? Yeah, that makes sense. None of it makes sense.

[Que sera, sera]

One very simple word:

Complicity?!?

[kathaksung]

Criminals always scare of the truth revelation.

Critics Demand Resignation of U.N. Official Who Wants Probe of 9/11 'Inside Job' Theories

Thursday, June 19, 2008

By Joseph Abrams
Critics are calling for the resignation of a U.N. official who publicly supports investigating theories that the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were an "inside job."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,369122,00.html

[Nor'Easter]

It's only a matter of time, and not a long time, that the dam cracks and the truth begins to spill out. It's been dripping through in seemingly contradictory but obvious clues all along, and the defenders of the official conspiracy theory do their best to ridicule the findings that people have been making as those small leaks spring here and there. They can't maintain that defense forever, and the tipping point is approaching, where defense won't appear patriotic anymore, but will be widely seen as complicity. Then, these profiles in courage that are shouting us down right now will all scatter, and the real account of what happened that day will start to come together.

There are already too many issues with the official conspiracy theory for it to sustain as a workable thesis. Only by belligerence is it being sustained even now.

[Ross22]

I am only guessing here but I bet the reason that 9/11 happened is because the government needed a war so that they could spend billions of dollars on weapons and machinery so that Bush's buddies at lockheed martin and haliburton could make tons of money! Dont forget that the US is a military state and Bush has many buddies that are major shareholders in large defence companies!

[kathaksung]

Ventura’s 9/11 Questions Break Through Mainstream Media Dam

Category: FOX <http://waronyou.com/topics/media-coverage/fox/>, Media Coverage <http://waronyou.com/topics/media-coverage/>, National News <http://waronyou.com/topics/news/national-news/>, Videos <http://waronyou.com/topics/media-coverage/videos/>, World News <http://waronyou.com/topics/news/world-news/> |

Jesse ‘The Mind’ Defends Questions About Towers’ Telling Collapse on Hannity & Colmes and National Talk Radio Programs: “How can two planes bring down three buildings?”
Former Governor Jesse Ventura broke through enemy lines yesterday, exposing major inconsistencies with the official 9/11 story and holding his own against some of mainstream media’s most disingenuous hosts, including Fox News’ Sean Hannity and Opie & Anthony from XM Satellite radio.

http://waronyou.com/2008/04/ventura%e2%80%99s-911-questions-break-through-mainstream-media-dam/

[Cyclone Ranger]

Reality, we WERE attacked... and those attacks represent penetrations of the most sophisticated security and defence systems ever crafted... layers and layers of them.
It's simply not the case that NORAD was necessarily the most sophisticated security and defense system ever. And it was hardly geared up to stop hijacked passenger planes from destroying our skyscrapers.

[Cyclone Ranger]

I am only guessing here but I bet the reason that 9/11 happened is because the government needed a war so that they could spend billions of dollars on weapons and machinery so that Bush's buddies at lockheed martin and haliburton could make tons of money! Dont forget that the US is a military state and Bush has many buddies that are major shareholders in large defence companies!
9/11 happened because a major terrorist attack had to happen sometime. There were plenty of wars we could have tooled up for and fought without killing thousands of our citizens and trashing our economy.

[antiquity]

First one sounds like there was a tech problem, and the second, it's very common to have difficulty speaking while be sleep impaired.

You can't even compare those 2 to the made up words, and terrible speaking ability of Bush.

On the issue's the far right loses horribly, which is why they are always focused on the fluff..

CA, have you ever consider going on Comedy Central? You are a real comedian....

I can see it now, Obama negotiating with world leaders or speaking at the UN...ah, ah, ah.....

[observe this]

I think he was being heckled/interrupted from someone in the crowd in the first one, and just plain misspoke in the second. "Breathalyzer" instead of "inhaler" is pretty funny, though. At least he was in the general ballpark with his thought process.

It always seems, to me, that someone is speaking into GWB's ear. He pauses, looks down, listens and starts talking, pauses to listen etc. It's hard to listen and talk at the same time. I'd **** up if I had to do it.
It's a tough job especially since others are calling the shots and he gets the blame.........

[Nor'Easter]

It's simply not the case that NORAD was necessarily the most sophisticated security and defense system ever. And it was hardly geared up to stop hijacked passenger planes from destroying our skyscrapers.

This is pretty funny. One of the four simulation exercises that NORAD was engaged in, on the morning of the attacks, was an annual defense exercise TO STOP HIJACKED PASSENGER PLANES!!!!

Who poops for you? How long did it take for you learn how to feed yourself? What's it like to function solely on a stunted brain stem?

[optimus]

Hilarious thread. Cyclone Ranger certainly doesn't fail to deliver the comedy in these 9/11 debates.

[Corporate Avenger]

Hilarious thread. Cyclone Ranger certainly doesn't fail to deliver the comedy in these 9/11 debates.

What I find most eye opening is everyday we find out more crimes, cover-ups, and cronyism done by the white house, and considering the seriousness of these people's crimes, it makes you realize just how much they not only needed 9-11, but how they would even blink at doing it themselves. They've slaughtered upwards of a million people in Iraq, and are gearing up for a holocaust in Iran. Yet some think these same tyrants wouldn't stage a terrorist attack to give them the blank check they needed to carry out their bloodthirsty imperial agenda.

These kinds of people make the mistake of thinking "evil", only happens in far off lands, and can't happen here. These same morons are the ones who gave us George Bush and are planning on voting for the criminal John McCain.:nonono:

[optimus]

Yup. 9/11 was the best thing that ever happened for them. The mass psychological benefits and the complicity awarded as a result will extend for generations unless something drastic happens, such as the truth being revealed to the entire public. Amazing to think that there are still people who can't seem to grasp that the neocons, our own leaders, have no concern for human life as they clearly demonstrate in the ME. Why they insist on living in this sort of denial is beyond me. It's akin to saying Charles Manson would never kill his own friends, despite being a serial killer.

[antiquity]

Yup. 9/11 was the best thing that ever happened for them. The mass psychological benefits and the complicity awarded as a result will extend for generations unless something drastic happens, such as the truth being revealed to the entire public.

The truth as you percieve it.


It's akin to saying Charles Manson would never kill his own friends, despite being a serial killer.

Charles Manson didn't kill anyone nor was he convicted of killing anyone, he was convicted of 'Conspiracy to commit' and he wasn't even there when his follower committed the crimes.

[antiquity]

This is pretty funny. One of the four simulation exercises that NORAD was engaged in, on the morning of the attacks, was an annual defense exercise TO STOP HIJACKED PASSENGER PLANES!!!!

NORAD doesn't plot flights of planes inside the US. NORAD air defense is for possible attacks or hijacked planes coming from outside the country, if a hijacked plane was coming from Canada they would have the abillity to track it, but a plane flying out of Boston is not tracked. Their radar is faced out ward from our borders.

[antiquity]

They've slaughtered upwards of a million people in Iraq, and are gearing up for a holocaust in Iran.

Are you saying the US military under orders from Bush slaughtered a million Iraqis. Please provide proof of that statement?
Provide proof that the US is gearing up for an attack on Iran and what would the propose of such an attack be? To cut off oil supplies?


Yet some think these same tyrants wouldn't stage a terrorist attack to give them the blank check they needed to carry out their bloodthirsty imperial agenda.

Since a Democrat will most likely be elected to be President of the US in about four months how is any agenda going to be carried out in such a short time. Are US troops amassing at Iran borders?


These kinds of people make the mistake of thinking "evil", only happens in far off lands, and can't happen here. These same morons are the ones who gave us George Bush and are planning on voting for the criminal John McCain.:nonono:

Gee I remember evil happening right here in America, it was called 9/11.

Criminal McCain? Explain?

[Corporate Avenger]

NORAD doesn't plot flights of planes inside the US. NORAD air defense is for possible attacks or hijacked planes coming from outside the country, if a hijacked plane was coming from Canada they would have the abillity to track it, but a plane flying out of Boston is not tracked. Their radar is faced out ward from our borders.

Complete lie.

Otherwise they wouldn't run drills imitating exactly what happened on 9-11.

Are you saying Norad can't see what's going on in US airspace???

[Corporate Avenger]

Are you saying the US military under orders from Bush slaughtered a million Iraqis. Please provide proof of that statement?
Provide proof that the US is gearing up for an attack on Iran and what would the propose of such an attack be? To cut off oil supplies?

Bush ordered an attack on Iraq back in 03, some have estimated it's caused a million deaths and it has displaced at least 2 million people, and caused the deaths of over 4,400 US soldiers.

Which of these facts do you take issue with?



Since a Democrat will most likely be elected to be President of the US in about four months how is any agenda going to be carried out in such a short time. Are US troops amassing at Iran borders?

We don't know who is going to be elected, the GOP is already attempting to suppress voting just like in 00 and 04, and it only takes orders to start an attack on Iran which has been planned for a long time.



Gee I remember evil happening right here in America, it was called 9/11.

Exactly, that is what I said, there can be evil everywhere..



Criminal McCain? Explain?


He's one of the Keating 5, and the media has not reported on this once, so much for the "liberal media".

The lobbyists running his campaign have been instrumental in the Enron scandal, the mortgage meltdown, and the current gas price rip-off. Look it all up, Google or Yahoo search it, the man is ready to accept the class war torch being passed on by Bush. Fluck him.

Besides, he was born in Panama, we don't need a Panamanian dictator for president.

[Ross22]

I still say that 9/11 was basically staged so that Bush's buddies can make a ton of money as many of them have large stakes in defence companies!

[antiquity]

Complete lie.

Interesting....


Otherwise they wouldn't run drills imitating exactly what happened on 9-11.

NORAD is a defense system, what would be the point of a defense system that monitored internal flights? Do you have proof that the drill was exactly like what happened on 9/11? It was more likely a drill to see if incoming overseas flights could be monitored or tracked.


Are you saying Norad can't see what's going on in US airspace???

Except on the fringe, that is exactly what I'm saying and only if civilian authorities requested they do it. The reason the civilian authorities were so slow in notitying the military is because the terrorist shut down the transponders and Air Traffic Control didn't know where the hijacked planes were or where they were going. With all the hundred of blips on the radar screen, each with a transponder number, when one or two disapear off the screen, it is almost imposible to track an aircraft.

Google and read NORADs mission statement.

NORAD was developed to track military aircraft or ICBMs coming toward our border from either the USSR or China not internally.

[antiquity]

Bush ordered an attack on Iraq back in 03, some have estimated it's caused a million deaths and it has displaced at least 2 million people, and caused the deaths of over 4,400 US soldiers.

Which of these facts do you take issue with?

Some say? Isn't that the unofficial number asigned by Moveon.org or the Huffington Post? The Iraqi government estimates that around 80-100K have died since the US invasion. The majority have been killed by terrorist.


We don't know who is going to be elected, the GOP is already attempting to suppress voting just like in 00 and 04

Suppress votes? Kind of like the democrats did with the overseas military vote in varies states? What proof do you have that GOP suppressed votes in either election?


and it only takes orders to start an attack on Iran which has been planned for a long time.

I believe an attack is in the planning stage for every country that poses some kind of threat against the US. Most of these plans were started back in the beginning of the Cold War. Most of these plans have been updated to according to the times and new tech. So what's your point?. Did you think this plan was some new just off the drawn board?
You are totally naive....


He's one of the Keating 5, and the media has not reported on this once, so much for the "liberal media".

That is comical, Nor have they reported on the four democrats who were involved. Since a democratic ethic Committee found he and John Glenn not guility of any crime and three others were found guility of interfering with the investigation and were forced from office. That is really funny you pick the one republican of the five who was found not guility of wrong doing and forget that powerhouse democrats, namely Alan Cranston, Dinnis DeConcini and Donald Riegle that were found in violation of ethic rules.
Doing a little cherry picking here are we.


The lobbyists running his campaign have been instrumental in the Enron scandal, the mortgage meltdown, and the current gas price rip-off. Look it all up, Google or Yahoo search it, the man is ready to accept the class war torch being passed on by Bush. Fluck him.

And Obama had people on his staff who were involved with Country Wide? So where is all this going to lead us, more of the same. In fact didn't Obama himself get a special loan rate for some property in Chicago? Didn't Chris Dodd?
I believe people who were involved with Enron were convicted of crimes and sent to jail. By the way, it took the Bush administration to do it after they all got their start under the protection of the Clinton administration.
Why did Obama meet with Hillary? Why did Hillary introduce Obama to her money backers?


Besides, he was born in Panama, we don't need a Panamanian dictator for president.

I never thought of that before, wasn't Obama born in Hawaii, another Banana republic....:nice:

[Nor'Easter]

All this nit picking shit. Here's something for anyone that really wants to look into all of this and not just jerk-off on a messageboard over it. If you can't read, or if your God is telling you to ignore reality so that you can justify hating Muslims, then just go fluck yourself with a stick and die. No information can save your ignorant ass.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/911information#911summaries


9/11 Information Summaries: For the best, most concise introduction to the 9/11 information, we highly recommend our 9/11 timeline summaries. These fact-filled summaries provide revealing 9/11 information from respected media sources with links direct to the articles on their media websites for easy verification of all information presented. The first two summaries take information only from the very top, most highly respected major media sources.

Two-page 9/11 information summary: http://www.WantToKnow.info/9-11cover-up

Ten-page 9/11 information summary: http://www.WantToKnow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

25-page 9/11 information summary: http://www.WantToKnow.info/9-11timeline25pg

60-page 9/11 information summary: http://www.WantToKnow.info/9-11timeline60pg

[kathaksung]

WTC-7 mystery will soon be "solved". Nearly 7 years later.


The final mystery of 9/11 will soon be solved, according to US experts investigating the collapse of the third tower at the World Trade Center.

The 47-storey third tower, known as Tower Seven, collapsed seven hours after the twin towers.

Investigators are expected to say ordinary fires on several different floors caused the collapse.

Conspiracy theorists have argued that the third tower was brought down in a controlled demolition.
Unlike the twin towers, Tower Seven was not hit by a plane.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, based near Washington DC, is expected to conclude in its long-awaited report this month that ordinary fires caused the building to collapse.

That would make it the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse because of fire.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7485331.stm

Dissenter spoke out.


UL Executive Speaks Out on WTC Study
November 12 2004 - Articles

"The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel." - Kevin Ryan

Friday, November 12, 2004
(911Truth.org news service -- updated 11/13, 11/14)

An executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center, has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse.

In a letter dated Thursday (11/11, complete text below), UL executive Kevin Ryan called on Frank Gayle, director of the government team that has spent two years studying how the trade center was built and why it fell, to "do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel."

Kevin Ryan is Site Manager at Environmental Health Laboratories (EHL) in South Bend, Indiana. This is a division of UL, the product-compliance and testing giant. Because UL certified the WTC steel for its ability to withstand fires, the steel's performance on September 11 is obviously of concern to the company. While Ryan's letter does not constitute an official statement from Underwriters Laboratories, it suggests incipient disagreements between UL and NIST about the true cause of the WTC collapses.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451

But he was fired ten days later. Very efficient compare for that six years not solved question.


Kevin R. Ryan Terminated at Underwriters Laboratories
Area Man Stirs Debate on WTC Collapse:

South Bend firm's lab director fired after questioning federal probe
JOHN DOBBERSTEIN / South Bend Tribune 22nov04

SOUTH BEND - The laboratory director from a South Bend firm has been fired for attempting to cast doubt on the federal investigation into what caused the World Trade Center's twin towers to collapse on Sept. 11, 2001.

On Nov. 11, Ryan wrote a letter to the National Institute of Standards and Technology - the agency probing the collapse - challenging the common theory that burning jet fuel weakened the steel supports holding up the 110-story skyscrapers.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Kevin-R-Ryan22nov04.htm

[kathaksung]

Quote, "Several 9/11 hijackers seen in OKC prior to attacks

Red Dirt Report, editor
Posted: July 19, 2008

Discussed was explosive information regarding the fact that several witnesses in Oklahoma City have confirmed with eyewitness reports and credit card receipts (from expired government-issued credit cards) that five of the 19 9/11 hijackers were in Oklahoma City.........

That Mohammad Atta and four of his cohorts were sighted in Oklahoma City on the Thursday, Friday and Saturday before 9/11/01........

During this report, your Red Dirt Reporter addressed information compiled by Norman-based researcher Michael P. Wright who has uncovered information on Nick Berg, Zacarias Moussaoui and later, white suicide bomber Joel Hinrichs, among others. Wright discovered in a 2000 University of Oklahoma student directory that a man with an identical name as a 9/11 hijacker attended the school and the following year a man with a nearly identical name had a school email of abuali911@ou.edu..........

http://www.reddirtreport.com/news.php?c=5

[Plastik]

My thoughts on 9-11 conspiracies: The United States Governments is not going to get outsmarted by the public. If the government did anything on 9-11 you and I would not know about it. The idea that the Government couldn't destroy a building and cover their tracks without leaving all these rediculous gaps is absurd. The idea that the government would plan out a secret mass murder of it's own citizens, and given access to scientists and engineers for information, hell Wikipedia would be enough, and not consider whether or not their story would be plausable in accordance with basic, college level physics is unthinkable.

[kathaksung]

Quote, 'OKLAHOMA BOMBING - 9/11 CONNECTIONS
9/11/02
As told to: J. B. Campbell

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/okc-911.htm

The Spook Who Sat Behind The Door: A Modern Day Tale
author: Dennis Shipman (repost)
Former FBI agent alleges that the US government deliberately allowed the attacks on 9-11 but "miscalculated."
Tyrone Powers, a former African American FBI special agent announced on NYC's urban contemporary radio station 98.7 KISS FM's May 19th airing of the Open Line show, hosted by news director and morning personality Bob Slade, that he had credible evidence strongly suggesting the Bush administration did in fact allow the September 11th attacks to further a hidden agenda.

Dr. Powers says that the administration miscalculated, though, and "didn't believe that [an attack] would be on this scale." Powers, author of critically acclaimed autobiography, Eyes To My Soul: The Rise and Decline of a Black FBI Agent is director of the Institute of Criminal Justice/Legal Studies and Public Service, and an assistant professor of law Enforcement and Criminal Justice at Anne Arundel Community College in Arnold, Maryland stated that "arrogant" US intelligence agencies underestimated the resolve of the terrorists.

They have the American people duped into believing that the fundamentalist Islamic lunatic fringe who carried out the attacks here in America are uneducated "fanatics." Powers says, though, that most of the terrorist leadership was comprised of highly educated, extremely "patient" ideologues with "legitimate" grievances against the United States - many having been educated right here in the US and hold degrees in "engineering" among other disciplines critical to the end that these radical factions seek.

Like Pearl Harbor, the US government needed a substantive excuse to enter World War Two and end German hegemony over Europe generally and England particularly.
German domination over Europe grew rapidly into an expansionist policy once Italy and Japan join forces to take over the world - or so we were led to believe.
The revisionists would have us believe that those altruistic objectives were the sole motivation for Franklin Roosevelt wanting to enter WWII and help his close friend an colleague British Prime Minister Winston Churchill whose country was under siege by a relentless German war machine. Roosevelt was an extremely savvy politician, though, and knew that the relatively widespread anti-Semitism evident in the United States during the 1940's would effectively disrupt those objectives. So an environment had to be created causing an anticipated furor enabling the Roosevelt administration to declare war against this "axis of evil."

Does this scenario sound familiar? It ought to because Powers argues persuasively that the Bush administration has taken a page from history in its endeavor to maintain control over rapidly dwindling oil reserves in the world generally and in the middle east particularly. American culture is by nature duplicitous and hypocritical. We do not like to hear the truth, and when we are compelled to confront it, we simply refuse to concede to it.

The Bush administration relied strongly on these pathologies when it deliberately ignored warnings from stand up agents in Federal law enforcement and other intelligence agencies and allowed what they only thought was going to be the "high jacking" of a single airliner. They were prepared to "sacrifice" those citizens. Powers claims that the Bush administration superciliously perceives itself to be the last world super power; an Empire and, by some misguided albeit self-serving divine right, has to sometimes make appalling decisions to further its imperialistic aims, which is the total, unequivocal domination of the world and, more tellingly, its mineral resources.

There is more than a little truth to this supposition. And Powers makes some very compelling arguments. The Enron debacle and this flagrant insult against the American people have definitive albeit tenuously proven ties that the mainstream media has conspicuously ignored. All concern oil, energy, and greed. Virtually all of the top management at Enron enjoyed an open door policy at the White House. Indeed, Vice president Dick Cheney has refused repeated requests from the Congressional Budget Office to release material information regarding the nature of those frequent meetings with Enron executives; meetings that took place in the nascent stages of the Bush administration when it was still formulating energy policy for the country.

"The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 created the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It began operating on February 24, 1975, with the appointment of its first Director, Alice M. Rivlin. CBO's mission is to provide the Congress with the objective, timely, nonpartisan analyses needed for economic and budget decisions and with the information and estimates required for the Congressional budget process. Compared with the missions of the Congress's other support agencies -the Congressional Research Service and the General Accounting Office - CBO's mandate is relatively narrow.

But its subject matter gives it a broad reach, reflecting the wide array of activities that the federal budget covers and the major role the budget plays in the U.S. economy."

In short, the CBO's mandate is to provide congressional oversight to matters involving budgetary decisions made by the executive branch in furtherance of our system of checks and balances; a system that the Vice president of the United States has deliberately attempted to thwart. A situation so unprecedented, that the Congressional Budget Office brought suit against a sitting US Vice President to compel him to release information relating to exactly what he discussed with those criminal managers of the failed Enron Corporation, which is a first in the history of this country. But we hear little about the status of this case in the mainstream media. Why? Because "laws are made by the rich to protect the interests of the rich."

What is believed was discussed at those meetings is the domination of the oil and mineral reserves in the entire world, and how the US government could use its considerable resources - i.e., political, diplomatic and military - to further this agenda. That is why Cheney has been fighting tooth and nail to prevent those conversations from becoming public, citing executive privilege; a tenuous legal concept that simply does not apply to a vice president in a largely ceremonial post but perhaps to a sitting president. Given "Dubya's" demonstrable stupidity, there ought not be any wonder that Cheney had the effrontery to make this preposterous argument because he honestly feels he is the wizard behind the curtain and, as a consequence, does in fact run the Bush administration. It has always been believed that the role of president was a figurehead post. Cheney lends credence to this belief by the arrogance with which he has responded to the CBO's legitimate requests.

http://forum.signonsandiego.com/upload/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=59139

[antiquity]

If Feds call you and defame my message, it is a tactic of intimidation. They don't want people know the fact. It also proves that I wrote are truth. They are afraid of it.

And if they don't call, does it prove you are paranoid?

[antiquity]

by kathaksung: 'That would make it the first and only steel skyscraper in the worlds to collapse because of fire."

Ever think that it was probably the first and only skyscraper in the world that was on fire and no one tried to put it out, because of the danger to firefighters. Lets wait until the final report is out before spreading speculation and opinion.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Other steel high-rises have collapsed due to fire, although they weren't built from protected steel.

No way to put out fires 950-1000 feet above the ground, once the safety systems in place failed.

[Cyclone Ranger]

This is pretty funny. One of the four simulation exercises that NORAD was engaged in, on the morning of the attacks, was an annual defense exercise TO STOP HIJACKED PASSENGER PLANES!!!!

That HARDLY means Cheyenne Mountain in COLORADO was capable of stopping four passenger planes with their transponders off thousands of miles away on the East Coast with NO authorization from the POTUS.

In fact, they had never done anything like it before. There is simply no way they could have:

1. Used triangulation to pick out the correct airplanes out of hundreds of other flights, with no transponder to key to.

2. Obtained authorization directly from the President to down a passenger plane.

3. Intercept the flights and shoot them down before the planes hit the three targets.

The idea that they could have is loony. The drill they ran certainly did not prepare them to do THAT.

[Betrade]

That HARDLY means Cheyenne Mountain in COLORADO was capable of stopping four passenger planes with their transponders off thousands of miles away on the East Coast with NO authorization from the POTUS.

In fact, they had never done anything like it before. There is simply no way they could have:

1. Used triangulation to pick out the correct airplanes out of hundreds of other flights, with no transponder to key to.

2. Obtained authorization directly from the President to down a passenger plane.

3. Intercept the flights and shoot them down before the planes hit the three targets.

The idea that they could have is loony. The drill they ran certainly did not prepare them to do THAT.

Thank You. NORAD doesn't exist to deter commercial flights, or hijackings. It was created to detect, track and destroy Soviet bombers and missiles.

With today's stealth technology, it will eventually be an obsolete system and be closed. Maybe they can store nuclear waste there someday.

[optimus]

Other steel high-rises have collapsed due to fire, although they weren't built from protected steel.

No way to put out fires 950-1000 feet above the ground, once the safety systems in place failed.

No, they haven't. Not one. Not a single steel framed high rise has EVER collapsed due to fire alone, especially at the same speeds as the WTC towers. Go peddle your bullshit elsewhere.

[Cyclone Ranger]

False: the steel-framed McCormick Center in Chicago collapsed utterly after a four-alarm 1967 electrical fire:

http://www.extraalarm.org/broadcast/chicago/McCormick/McCormick_Place.htm

In fact, it's exactly that catastrophe which led to the current industry standard use of protect steel for construction.

[optimus]

Jesus Christ. Do you even know what the **** a steel framed high rise building is? Obviously not. Tell me what year the WTC buildings were constructed and what type of steel they used.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Yes, I do - and the McCormick Center was exactly such an structure; as mentioned, it was steel-framed.

And, yes, the WTC buildings were built from protected steel, while the McCormick Place plaza was not, as I already stated.

[Šñøü†ê®]

Yes, I do - and the McCormick Center was exactly such an structure

:rofl:

The insane websites that promote the government's ridiculous conspiracy theory also suggest a fire in a Taiwan warehouse as evidence that building always melt as a result of a fire. Very convincing. :p

[Betrade]

No, they haven't. Not one. Not a single steel framed high rise has EVER collapsed due to fire alone, especially at the same speeds as the WTC towers. Go peddle your bullshit elsewhere.

The WTC didn't collapse for a fire ALONE. Both buildings suffered catastrophic structural failure because they were hit by fully loaded airliners.

The outer skin of the buildings is what carried the bulk of the load. These buildings were constructed differently than any other buildings at the time. They did this to create huge, wide open spaces inside. It was a fatal flaw.

The official story is sound for the most part, and when you look at it honestly, you have admit that they fell as a result of being damaged beyond anything ever anticipated.

Plus, not a single witness has ever come forward and produced any physical evidence that anyone wired the buildings for a controlled demolition. There was also no evidence for that theory in the wreckage. Not a single blasting cap, wire, or any other evidence of a controlled demolition can be produced, and it's been years now. The amount of explosives required for that job is enormous, not to mention the miles of wire necessary. Where is it??? Was it all spirited away to hide the fact, and have all the potential whistle blowers been whacked or hauled off to secret concentration camps??

There is no way this would not have been made public the very second that a shred of physical evidence had been found. There were thousands of people on that clean up job and at least one or more would have squealed by now, but as of now, we're still waiting.

[optimus]

There's only a few small problems with Betrade's post...One, the twin towers had been built to withstand multiple impacts from jet airliners. That is, multiple impacts. Two, the twin towers were built with heavy duty steel core columns called interior box columns. They were so strong that they can still be observed standing shortly after both collapses. Three, WTC7 wasn't hit by any airplane, and small fires are simply not enough to cause a near free fall speed collapse of a steel framed building.

Saying that not one "witness" hasn't come forward to reveal any physical evidence is just stupid because all the evidence was SHIPPED OFF OVERSEAS BEFORE THEY COULD BE INVESTIGATED. Photographs of some structural beams have surfaced however that show diagonal cuts in left over beams, the exact same type of cuts used in controlled demolitions.

In addition to that, molten steel was observed for weeks after the collapse. Show me a single fire that leaves molten steel for weeks...the only thing that can cause that is some sort of explosive.

I mean Jesus Christ, how much evidence do you require?

[Cyclone Ranger]

:rofl:

The insane websites that promote the government's ridiculous conspiracy theory also suggest a fire in a Taiwan warehouse as evidence that building always melt as a result of a fire. Very convincing. :p
No one has suggested that any building has 'melted.' If you can't keep up, drop out. :rolleyes:

[optimus]

:rofl:

The insane websites that promote the government's ridiculous conspiracy theory also suggest a fire in a Taiwan warehouse as evidence that building always melt as a result of a fire. Very convincing. :p

Seriously. I state that not a single steel framed high rise building has ever collapsed at near free fall speed due to fire alone and what type of proof does Cyclone Ranger provide? A website of a flucking barn that caught on fire.

[Cyclone Ranger]

There's only a few small problems with Betrade's post...One, the twin towers had been built to withstand multiple impacts from jet airliners.
No evidence that they were designed to withstand multiple impacts of anything:they were designed for was to withstand the slow impact of a lost smaller plane, not the impact of a 767 at 500 mph.

Also, no computer simulations in the seventies to model the impact of burning jet fuel either.


That is, multiple impacts. Two, the twin towers were built with heavy duty steel core columns called interior box columns. They were so strong that they can still be observed standing shortly after both collapses.
That doesn't mean they could possibly stand forever while holding up all the floors above the impact sites, with steel supports that were weakened by a 1000 C fire.


Three, WTC7 wasn't hit by any airplane, and small fires are simply not enough to cause a near free fall speed collapse of a steel framed building.
1. The burning debris from the two WTC collapses caused massive damage to the WTC 7 building; a 50 foot crater was observed in the north face of the buildings.

2. The fires weren't 'small'; they were fed by a pressurized diesel fuel line serviced by a tank filled with thousands of gallons of diesel.

3. Any collapse of a building the size and weight of WTC 7 would collapse at near free-fall speed when it structurally failed.


Saying that not one "witness" hasn't come forward to reveal any physical evidence is just stupid because all the evidence was SHIPPED OFF OVERSEAS BEFORE THEY COULD BE INVESTIGATED.
Nonsense: it was shipped to the Freshkills landfill.


Photographs of some structural beams have surfaced however that show diagonal cuts, the exact same type of cuts used in controlled demolitions.
They were cut by the FDNY to make transport and removal easy. There's lots of photos of that.


In addition to that, molten steel was observed for weeks after the collapse. Show me a single fire that leaves molten steel for weeks...the only thing that can cause that is some sort of explosive.
No - molten METAL was observed. No evidence it was steel. It was probably aluminum from the planes, building materials, office computers, etc.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Seriously. I state that not a single steel framed high rise building has ever collapsed at near free fall speed due to fire alone and what type of proof does Cyclone Ranger provide? A website of a flucking barn that caught on fire.
BWAHAHAHAHA!! Hold on - THE MCCORMICK CENTER IN DOWNTOWN CHICAGO WAS A BARN!!! :rofl:

Let me wipe the tears of ridicule out of my eyes and massage my sides...

You're not intellectually qualified to participate in this, or any other, endeavor. Newsflash: any multi-story building over 75 feet high is a "high-rise." High-rise is not synonymous with "skyscraper."

[optimus]

First point, the Twin Towers were designed to withstand an impact of Boeing 707, which was the largest plane at the time. Straight out of the WTC construction manager's mouth, Frank A. DeMartini. He believes it would withstand multiple impacts because the construction was like a grid, the plane would just be a small puncture in the overall grid.

bDGInaB0eQM

Second point, jet fuel burns extremely fast and most of it would've been burned up at the point of impact in the explosion.

Third, the WTC7 damage was absolutely minimal. Even if it was catastrophic, a massive fire would still not be enough to cause a collapse at near free fall speed. It was build in the 80's and was built to withstand excessive fire damage.

Fourth, the collapse of WTC7 displays all the typical characteristics of a controlled demolition. The speed (free fall), the kink in the top in the seconds before collapse, and squibs along the corner. If any steel frame building were to collapse due to fire, it wouldn't collapse at free fall speed, because each progressive floor would slow down the collapse due to the laws of physics.

Fifth, yes, evidence was shipped overseas. Some 200,000 tons were shipped to China and India before inspection. Disposing of evidence in a crime scene is illegal. We only kept a small portion of it. Glen Corbett was pressing for a full scale investigation and while they were doing it, the evidence was already being destroyed.

GxycV4fNPnQ

Yes, molten STEEL was observed at ground zero. Here's some firefighters talking about it. The funny thing is, according the the official account, molten steel would be "impossible."

cCdRA09pztM

Finally, criminals always reveal themselves. Who needs whistleblowers when the president himself is this transparent?

Sm73wOuPL60

[Cyclone Ranger]

Directly out of Leslie Robertson, Chief Engineer of the construction project's mouth, it was designed for the impact of a smaller, slower plane that was lost in the fog from the airport. Moreover, the effect of the jet fuel was not considered.

Big difference between that and the direct impact of a 767 with a full tank. In fact, it's believed that the hijackers targeted a 767 because in the first WTC bombing trial, it was mentioned that the towers had been designed to take the impact of a 707.

[optimus]

Uh, the difference between a 707 and a 767 is minimal. What are you talking about?

[Cyclone Ranger]

No, no evidence that molten steel was seen at Ground Zero. The firefighters did not perform a chemical analysis of the molten metal at the site, as they were not qualified to do so. They're firefighters, not industrial chemists.

Only an actual spectral analysis of the metallic pools could have determined their composition. An untrained observer's uninformed eyeballing is not forensic evidence.

[optimus]

No molten steel? Fine, here's more.

v36bkCB8sTY

We can do this all day, how much more do you want?

[Cyclone Ranger]

Uh, the difference between a 707 and a 767 is minimal. What are you talking about?
No, it's not.

Maximum take-off weight (767): 412,000 lb

A basic 707 available in 1965 when they started the WTC planning: 160,000 pounds

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_300prod.html

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html

[Cyclone Ranger]

Again, no spectral analysis proving that the metals were steel; no steel. It's not possible to identify the composition of the metal alloy by visual inspection. Many different types of metal were in use in the WTC towers and the offices they contained.

[optimus]

No, it's not.

Maximum take-off weight (767): 412,000 lb

A basic 707 available in 1965 when they started the WTC planning: 160,000 pounds

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_300prod.html

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html

You quote "maximum weights" of the 767 and not the 707? You use the features from the 707 PROTOTYPE built in 1954?? Not only that, you quoted the specs of the 767-300ER, which is a bigger model than the one used in the attacks, the 767-200. How about some honesty? Is that too much to ask of you?

From your links:

707 Advanced 707-320B
Wingspan - 145 feet 9 inches
Length - 152 feet 11 inches
Wing Area - 3010 ft^2
Gross Weight - 336,000 lbs

767-200ER
Wingspan - 156 ft 1 in
Length - 159 ft 2 in
Wing Area - 3050 ft^2
Gross Weight - 395,000 lbs

Minimal difference as anyone can see.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/docs/aircraftcomparison.gif

Got any more lies you'd like to spread and then debunked?

[Cyclone Ranger]

They were planning in '65 (or so). They would have used the '54 model as a guide.


707-120B: The first major upgrade to the design was a re-engining with JT3D-3 turbofans, which were quieter, more powerful, and more fuel-efficient, producing 18,000 lbf (80.1 kN) each. The aircraft also received extra leading-edge slats, and the tailplane was enlarged. A total of 72 of these were built, and many more were converted from 707-120 aircraft, including Qantas' aircraft, which became 707-138B aircraft upon conversion. The first flight of the -120B was on 22 June 1960.

The above would have been 20K lighter or so than the 767 200ER. Quite a difference in engineering terms.

[Betrade]

There's only a few small problems with Betrade's post...One, the twin towers had been built to withstand multiple impacts from jet airliners. That is, multiple impacts. Two, the twin towers were built with heavy duty steel core columns called interior box columns. They were so strong that they can still be observed standing shortly after both collapses. Three, WTC7 wasn't hit by any airplane, and small fires are simply not enough to cause a near free fall speed collapse of a steel framed building.

Saying that not one "witness" hasn't come forward to reveal any physical evidence is just stupid because all the evidence was SHIPPED OFF OVERSEAS BEFORE THEY COULD BE INVESTIGATED. Photographs of some structural beams have surfaced however that show diagonal cuts in left over beams, the exact same type of cuts used in controlled demolitions.

In addition to that, molten steel was observed for weeks after the collapse. Show me a single fire that leaves molten steel for weeks...the only thing that can cause that is some sort of explosive.

I mean Jesus Christ, how much evidence do you require?

Yeah, the airliners of the day flying at slower speeds, and no one ever counted on multiple impacts. That's just disinformation, according to that Japanese guy who designed the towers.

Just admit the conspiracies have more holes than the official story, which probably will never be 100% accurate, but it's close enough beyond a reasonable doubt. You'll never prove otherwise, no more than anyone will prove that JFK was whacked by the mob, Castro, LBJ, or whoever.

That fire was IGNITED by jet fuel, which is basically kerosene and burns up in no time. Who doesn't know that?? Any kid who ever played with matched knows this.

Do you know how hot carpet burns, not to mention the millions of tons of other flammable materials?? Carpet alone can reach 1200 degrees, and there was a whole bunch of carpet in that building. Then we have paper, plastics, wood, drapes, etc. The jet fuel ignited massive fires. Why do you suppose people had to jump?? The blistering heat was impossible for any human to bear. They chose to hurl themselves to their own deaths rather than face that heat.

Diagonal cuts prove nothing without all of the other necessary ingredients required for a controlled demolition.

Do yourself a favor. cal Controlled Demolitions Inc. in MD. ASK them. I have (about 5 years ago when that Frenchman started this whole conspiracy theory wave), and they will explain in detail why this whole theory is wrong. They're the top company in their field in this country. If you don't believe me, maybe they can convince you.

[optimus]

Yeah, the airliners of the day flying at slower speeds, and no one ever counted on multiple impacts. That's just disinformation, according to that Japanese guy who designed the towers.

What "disinformation?" I just posted a video of the WTC construction manager stating exactly that. Why do you choose to ignore it?


Just admit the conspiracies have more holes than the official story, which probably will never be 100% accurate, but it's close enough beyond a reasonable doubt. You'll never prove otherwise, no more than anyone will prove that JFK was whacked by the mob, Castro, LBJ, or whoever.I'm not going to "admit" anything of the sort. The official story has so many holes and logistical inconsistencies that it actually disproves itself.


That fire was IGNITED by jet fuel, which is basically kerosene and burns up in no time. Who doesn't know that?? Any kid who ever played with matched knows this.Which sort of detracts from your hypothesis that the fire, which burned up "in no time," led to the weakening of steel which caused a near free fall collapse. So this kerosene, which was burned up "in no time" is what caused the beams to weaken. You don't see a logical problem here? And this fuel, which burns "in no time" somehow led to molten steel at ground zero for WEEKS. What were you saying about having holes in the story again?


Do you know how hot carpet burns, not to mention the millions of tons of other flammable materials?? Carpet alone can reach 1200 degrees, and there was a whole bunch of carpet in that building. Then we have paper, plastics, wood, drapes, etc. The jet fuel ignited massive fires. Why do you suppose people had to jump?? The blistering heat was impossible for any human to bear. They chose to hurl themselves to their own deaths rather than face that heat.What the **** does that have to do with molten steel? Or anything for that matter?


Diagonal cuts prove nothing without all of the other necessary ingredients required for a controlled demolition.By themselves they do not prove it, but they sure as hell would be used as physical evidence...if they hadn't been shipped off overseas immediately. Apparently this doesn't seem to bother you, nevermind that it's yet another "hole" that you conveniently gloss over. Evidence from the biggest crime scene in American history destroyed and shipped overseas? "That's fine with me!" says Betrade.

[Betrade]

What "disinformation?" I just posted a video of the WTC construction manager stating exactly that. Why do you choose to ignore it?

I'm not going to "admit" anything of the sort. The official story has so many holes and logistical inconsistencies that it actually disproves itself.

Which sort of detracts from your hypothesis that the fire, which burned up "in no time," led to the weakening of steel which caused a near free fall collapse. So this kerosene, which was burned up "in no time" is what caused the beams to weaken. You don't see a logical problem here? And this fuel, which burns "in no time" somehow led to molten steel at ground zero for WEEKS. What were you saying about having holes in the story again?

What the **** does that have to do with molten steel? Or anything for that matter?

By themselves they do not prove it, but they sure as hell would be used as physical evidence...if they hadn't been shipped off overseas immediately. Apparently this doesn't seem to bother you, nevermind that it's yet another "hole" that you conveniently gloss over. Evidence from the biggest crime scene in American history destroyed and shipped overseas? "That's fine with me!" says Betrade.

I never said anything was "fine", so please don't put words in my mouth, and just because someone "believes" something doesn't mean it isn't disinformation or just plain wrong. People aren't infallible.

Who hauled away the debris and scrapped it?? Americans; thousands of them. Where's the evidence of the conspiracy?? Where are the eyewitnesses who handled this material and, who can prove the theory that the most idiotic President in world history (according to many on the left that is), is actually a maniacal genius who pulled off the most massive fake terrorist attack in US history????

Which is it? Is he an idiot or maniacal genius? The conspiracy theorists can't have it both ways.

[Cyclone Ranger]

The detritus from Ground Zero was brought out to Fresh Kills in Staten Island, examined by NIST and FEMA, then ultimately sold off at various points, including museums and for scrap.

The state hardly needed Alex Jone's permission first.

[Betrade]

The detritus from Ground Zero was brought out to Fresh Kills in Staten Island, examined by NIST and FEMA, then ultimately sold off at various points, including museums and for scrap.

The state hardly needed Alex Jone's permission first.

Exactly, and I seriously doubt that if there were evidence of a controlled demolition (which would have been plentiful and very obvious) it would have been made public the very same day.


I know some people wish in a really bad way that the US government staged the attacks (can't imagine WHY though), but it's just not true, and there isn't really any evidence whatsoever that they did. It's all based on speculation and a whole bunch of "maybe's", and maybe's don't hold water in court.

If these people are so sure of themselves, then they should gather their evidence, file suit against the federal government, and take them to court for wrongful death of every victim, fraud, gross negligence, reckless endangerment, destruction of property, insurance fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud and anything else they can think of.

The truth is, they couldn't win, because they haven't proven their case; not even on the internet (which is where 99% of this theory originated, and still exists). That's precisely why no such suits have been filed, No lawyer with half a brain would even take it on, at least, not on contingency.

Every shred of "evidence" that's been presented can be refuted. No jury would rule in their favor in a million years based on the flimsy evidence at hand. It comes down to reasonable doubt, and if these people were so sure, the suits (and there would be many) would have been filed years ago.

As I mentioned above, I called Controlled Demolitions roughly 5 years ago and talked to girl who explained in explicit detail what would be present in the wreckage if such a demolition had actually occurred, and how glaringly obvious and plentiful it would have been. She also said that they had received hundreds of calls when these theories started gaining some popularity.

That particular company is a family owned and operated corporation, and their pretty much the top in their field. They get a huge percentage of the really big demolition jobs in the US, and they're very knowledgeable about what they do. They're pro's, they're successful and they wouldn't risk their business to get involved in helping to cover up something like this. There' just no way.

And where are all the witnesses who would have seen the building being wired?? When a building is wired, it's a very dangerous place to be, and there is no way it can be done when 20,000 people are going in and out every day, nor can it be concealed. Too much equipment is required, not to mention dangerous high explosives. It would take weeks to do it, and at least ONE person would have seen something if it had actually happened.

It's just too unbelievable; if not impossible to wire two enormous skyscrapers without a single soul taking notice, asking questions and eventually, if not immediately going public about it. Human nature alone makes such a scenario impossible. People just love to break a story, or out someone who's doing something wrong. Our press would also be all over this story if it were true. That fact alone says it all. The press would never let any administration get away with something like this; no way.

Plus, thousands, or hundreds at the very least, of people would have been in the know, and statistically, at least a few would have spilled the beans by now. Who would want something like that on their conscience?? There would at the very least have been an anonymous tip to law enforcement, but we're still waiting for it. Don't these conspiracy theorists ever even wonder why??

[Cyclone Ranger]

If NIST, FEMA and the US Corps of Engineers examined it and found no reason to believe anything was out of order, the burden of proof is on the conspiracy wackos to present conflicting evidence.

It's hardly as if it were incumbent on the federal government to hold an Open House to let Alex Jones, Charlie Sheen and Cynthia McKinney scrutinize remains of a national disaster area and apply their "expertise" to it.

[Betrade]

If NIST, FEMA and the US Corps of Engineers examined it and found no reason to believe anything was out of order, the burden of proof is on the conspiracy wackos to present conflicting evidence.

It's hardly as if it were incumbent on the federal government to hold an Open House to let Alex Jones, Charlie Sheen and Cynthia McKinney scrutinize remains of a national disaster area and apply their "expertise" to it.

I can't argue with that.

[Jeremiah]

Jesus finally returned and he goes by the name of Charlie Sheen.

[hadit]

What "disinformation?" I just posted a video of the WTC construction manager stating exactly that. Why do you choose to ignore it?

I'm not going to "admit" anything of the sort. The official story has so many holes and logistical inconsistencies that it actually disproves itself.

Which sort of detracts from your hypothesis that the fire, which burned up "in no time," led to the weakening of steel which caused a near free fall collapse. So this kerosene, which was burned up "in no time" is what caused the beams to weaken. You don't see a logical problem here? And this fuel, which burns "in no time" somehow led to molten steel at ground zero for WEEKS. What were you saying about having holes in the story again?

What the **** does that have to do with molten steel? Or anything for that matter?

By themselves they do not prove it, but they sure as hell would be used as physical evidence...if they hadn't been shipped off overseas immediately. Apparently this doesn't seem to bother you, nevermind that it's yet another "hole" that you conveniently gloss over. Evidence from the biggest crime scene in American history destroyed and shipped overseas? "That's fine with me!" says Betrade.

Dude, you keep talking about molten steel. Didn't you get the memo? No one has definitively identified what people saw as molten steel. And I dare say that controlled demolitions don't leave steel molten for weeks.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Nor, for that matter, could thermite possibly create huge pools of molten steel.

[hadit]

Nor, for that matter, could thermite possibly create huge pools of molten steel.

This is true. A controlled demolition CUTS steel beams, relying on gravity to bring down the building. Pools of molten metal indicate very hot and long lived fire, not demolition.

[optimus]

JESUS CHRIST. The ONLY thing that could leave molten steel for weeks IS explosives. Not fire, not "carpet," not "plastic," not "drywall."

[Cyclone Ranger]

Pools of molten steel indicate the blast of a high-yield nuclear device or, in the alternative, the collision of Earth with the Sun. Neither scenario suggests itself in the case of 9/11.

[Cyclone Ranger]

JESUS CHRIST. The ONLY thing that could leave molten steel for weeks IS explosives. Not fire, not "carpet," not "plastic," not "drywall."
No conventional explosive could have caused pools of molten steel at Ground Zero without shattering every window in lower Manhattan.

[Betrade]

No conventional explosive could have caused pools of molten steel at Ground Zero without shattering every window in lower Manhattan.

Thank You for saving me the trouble of typing that.

[Cyclone Ranger]

You're welcome. :)

[optimus]

I never said anything was "fine", so please don't put words in my mouth, and just because someone "believes" something doesn't mean it isn't disinformation or just plain wrong. People aren't infallible.

Who hauled away the debris and scrapped it?? Americans; thousands of them. Where's the evidence of the conspiracy?? Where are the eyewitnesses who handled this material and, who can prove the theory that the most idiotic President in world history (according to many on the left that is), is actually a maniacal genius who pulled off the most massive fake terrorist attack in US history????

Which is it? Is he an idiot or maniacal genius? The conspiracy theorists can't have it both ways.

Look Betrade, YOU'RE the one who is perfectly ok having shitloads of "holes" in the official account. You seem to think they have no responsibility to fix those holes, yet you expect the "conspiracy theorists" to do everything with limited resources and destroyed evidence. You don't see a problem here?

And NO, thousands of Americans did NOT destroy the evidence and ship them off overseas. That was done more covertly. Watch the video I posted.

Show me one person who is claiming that Bush orchestrated this entire event. You keep repeating this asinine point as if anyone believes that. No one is saying that he did, so stop repeating it like some kind of broken record. Your non-points are tiring.

[optimus]

No conventional explosive could have caused pools of molten steel at Ground Zero without shattering every window in lower Manhattan.

Another lie. How many more do you have? Like I said, we can do this all day.

Explosives are used in controlled demolitions. Do you see them affecting nearby buildings?

In order to maintain those extreme levels of heat for weeks, something has to be fueling it. And it ain't carpet residue.

[Betrade]

Look Betrade, YOU'RE the one who is perfectly ok having shitloads of "holes" in the official account. You seem to think they have no responsibility to fix those holes, yet you expect the "conspiracy theorists" to do everything with limited resources and destroyed evidence. You don't see a problem here?

And NO, thousands of Americans did NOT destroy the evidence and ship them off overseas. That was done more covertly. Watch the video I posted.

Show me one person who is claiming that Bush orchestrated this entire event. You keep repeating this asinine point as if anyone believes that. No one is saying that he did, so stop repeating it like some kind of broken record. Your non-points are tiring.

Please. The administration's so called masterminding or at least, compliance or looking the other way, as well as NORAD ignoring what it knew was happening, as well as having some type of drill going on that very day is a huge part of the conspiracy theory. Just do a little Googling if you don't believe me.

I've been hearing this for about 6 years now for crying out loud, and on this board, the subject pops up about every 6 months.

Read the comments after this article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/22/911-masterminds-interroga_n_108501.html

You're honestly going to tell me that this theory isn't out there?? If you believe that, then you don't know the whole theory. Why do you think I find it so ridiculous??

[optimus]

Exactly, and I seriously doubt that if there were evidence of a controlled demolition (which would have been plentiful and very obvious) it would have been made public the very same day.

The evidence was obvious and plentiful, before it was destroyed and shipped off overseas. Are you getting this through your head yet?


I know some people wish in a really bad way that the US government staged the attacks (can't imagine WHY though), but it's just not true, and there isn't really any evidence whatsoever that they did. It's all based on speculation and a whole bunch of "maybe's", and maybe's don't hold water in court.Nobody "wishes" the government staged this. What kind of shit is this? You're just rambling.


If these people are so sure of themselves, then they should gather their evidence, file suit against the federal government, and take them to court for wrongful death of every victim, fraud, gross negligence, reckless endangerment, destruction of property, insurance fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud and anything else they can think of.This is in the works. Get yourself up to speed.


The truth is, they couldn't win, because they haven't proven their case; not even on the internet (which is where 99% of this theory originated, and still exists). That's precisely why no such suits have been filed, No lawyer with half a brain would even take it on, at least, not on contingency.Says Betrade, the all knowing psychic. It's already been proven by rules of logic that the official account could not have been accurate.


As I mentioned above, I called Controlled Demolitions roughly 5 years ago and talked to girl who explained in explicit detail what would be present in the wreckage if such a demolition had actually occurred, and how glaringly obvious and plentiful it would have been. She also said that they had received hundreds of calls when these theories started gaining some popularity.Gee, wonder why she told you that. It wouldn't be possible that they would have been instructed to tell the hundreds of callers that there were no controlled demolitions on 9/11, would it? No, of course not.


That particular company is a family owned and operated corporation, and their pretty much the top in their field. They get a huge percentage of the really big demolition jobs in the US, and they're very knowledgeable about what they do. They're pro's, they're successful and they wouldn't risk their business to get involved in helping to cover up something like this. There' just no way.How would they be "risking" their business by covering up for the US gov't? You're not making any sense. You're still rambling.


And where are all the witnesses who would have seen the building being wired?? When a building is wired, it's a very dangerous place to be, and there is no way it can be done when 20,000 people are going in and out every day, nor can it be concealed. Too much equipment is required, not to mention dangerous high explosives. It would take weeks to do it, and at least ONE person would have seen something if it had actually happened.1. It's a possibility that it was wired during the mandatory security evacuations in the weeks leading up to the attacks
2. It's possible they were pre-wired well in advance


It's just too unbelievable; if not impossible to wire two enormous skyscrapers without a single soul taking notice, asking questions and eventually, if not immediately going public about it. Human nature alone makes such a scenario impossible. People just love to break a story, or out someone who's doing something wrong. Our press would also be all over this story if it were true. That fact alone says it all. The press would never let any administration get away with something like this; no way.What's so unbelievable about it? You make it seem like it would be the most impressive task in history to wire a building to come down during off hours and while the building was evacuated during the security evacuations. What's the problem here? No one would know. Hell, they could even have been disguised as construction workers doing electrical "maintenance" in the building and no one would've suspected a thing. No one would suspect a thing because who would suspect that a bunch of workers would be wiring a high rise with explosives? Nothing would've led them to believe it. Any witnesses would simple observe a bunch of workers doing their thing and think nothing of it.


Plus, thousands, or hundreds at the very least, of people would have been in the know, and statistically, at least a few would have spilled the beans by now. Who would want something like that on their conscience?? There would at the very least have been an anonymous tip to law enforcement, but we're still waiting for it. Don't these conspiracy theorists ever even wonder why??Thousands? Not even close. The more people "in the know" the more chance of error. Only a small group would be "in the know" and everyone else would simply be following orders without being privy to any overriding "plan."

[optimus]

Please. The administration's so called masterminding or at least, compliance or looking the other way, as well as NORAD ignoring what it knew was happening, as well as having some type of drill going on that very day is a huge part of the conspiracy theory. Just do a little Googling if you don't believe me.

Right. But that's not what you said. You said that people think Bush "orchestrated" the entire thing. Then you draw a false conclusion:

"and, who can prove the theory that the most idiotic President in world history (according to many on the left that is), is actually a maniacal genius who pulled off the most massive fake terrorist attack in US history????

Which is it? Is he an idiot or maniacal genius? The conspiracy theorists can't have it both ways."

Complete dishonesty.

[Betrade]

The evidence was obvious and plentiful, before it was destroyed and shipped off overseas. Are you getting this through your head yet?

Nobody "wishes" the government staged this. What kind of shit is this? You're just rambling.

This is in the works. Get yourself up to speed.

Says Betrade, the all knowing psychic. It's already been proven by rules of logic that the official account could not have been accurate.

Gee, wonder why she told you that. It wouldn't be possible that they would have been instructed to tell the hundreds of callers that there were no controlled demolitions on 9/11, would it? No, of course not.

How would they be "risking" their business by covering up for the US gov't? You're not making any sense. You're still rambling.

1. It's a possibility that it was wired during the mandatory security evacuations in the weeks leading up to the attacks
2. It's possible they were pre-wired well in advance

What's so unbelievable about it? You make it seem like it would be the most impressive task in history to wire a building to come down during off hours and while the building was evacuated during the security evacuations. What's the problem here? No one would know. Hell, they could even have been disguised as construction workers doing electrical "maintenance" in the building and no one would've suspected a thing. No one would suspect a thing because who would suspect that a bunch of workers would be wiring a high rise with explosives? Nothing would've led them to believe it. Any witnesses would simple observe a bunch of workers doing their thing and think nothing of it.

Thousands? Not even close. The more people "in the know" the more chance of error. Only a small group would be "in the know" and everyone else would simply be following orders without being privy to any overriding "plan."

How many employees do you suppose had to remain in that building 24/7 during off hours?? The buildings were never empty. There was a huge maintenance staff there at all times. This weren't little office buildings. They were incredibly complex structures that required round the clock maintenance.

Do you think maybe just one of the employees would have noticed a demolition team who didn't belong there wiring their place of employment for utter destruction?? If that was going on where I work, I would dial 911 right away and have those people hauled off to the nearest lock up, and then I would call the press, as would anyone.

[optimus]

NOT IN A MANDATORY EVACUATION. Do you understand what a mandatory security evacuation is?

[Betrade]

NOT IN A MANDATORY EVACUATION. Do you understand what a mandatory security evacuation is?

How long did they last?? Long enough to wire two of the largest buildings on earth with no one even noticing?? C'mon.

Dude, there are people who knew every nook and cranny of those buildings, and if it were pre wired, it would have been detected, even if it was done secretly, and totally hidden (which isn't how it's done). Someone would have spotted something wrong.

There was a security guard who died that day who always suspected the next attack (after the 93' attack) would come from the sky. He had contingency plans for such an event and got everyone he was responsible for out. He was on the ball, and certainly would have known if something was wrong. He looked at everything, he talked to everyone and everyone talked to him.

The History Channel did a whole story on this guy. You should check it out some time. It's called "The Man who Predicted 911".

[optimus]

How long did they last?? Long enough to wire two of the largest buildings on earth with no one even noticing?? C'mon.

http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html

http://www.waketheflockup.com/WRHARTICLES/911security.html?q=911security.html

7Zg0d3UcTak

[Betrade]

Right. But that's not what you said. You said that people think Bush "orchestrated" the entire thing. Then you draw a false conclusion:

"and, who can prove the theory that the most idiotic President in world history (according to many on the left that is), is actually a maniacal genius who pulled off the most massive fake terrorist attack in US history????

Which is it? Is he an idiot or maniacal genius? The conspiracy theorists can't have it both ways."

Complete dishonesty.

No dishonesty whatsoever. This line of thinking has been around since 911; in conspiracy theory circles that is. Maybe you're just not up on the entire list of theories out there.

[Betrade]

http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html

http://www.waketheflockup.com/WRHARTICLES/911security.html?q=911security.html

7Zg0d3UcTak

I've seen scores of these videos and articles, and scores of others that refute them. These aren't anything new. It's all part of the theory mindset.

They never even mention that the South side of WTC7 was destroyed from debris hours before it fell. look it up. There are pictures online of a gaping hole on the south side of the building as well as a huge fire. It couldn't stand, and they predicted it would fall at least an hour before it did. This was on several live newscasts that day.

Look, believe what you want, I don't really care, but I'm personally not buying into any conspiracy theory until I see the proof, which I'm still waiting to see. If you prove your theory is correct, then I will have been wrong, but until such time, the jury is still out.

I'm just tired of typing to tell you the truth.

[optimus]

I've seen scores of these videos and articles, and scores of others that refute them. These aren't anything new. It's all part of the theory mindset.

They never even mention that the South side of WTC7 was destroyed from debris hours before it fell. look it up. There are pictures online of a gaping hole on the south side of the building as well as a huge fire. It couldn't stand, and they predicted it would fall at least an hour before it did. This was on several live newscasts that day.

Look, believe what you want, I don't really care, but I'm personally not buying into any conspiracy theory until I see the proof, which I'm still waiting to see. If you prove your theory is correct, then I will have been wrong, but until such time, the jury is still out.

I'm just tired of typing to tell you the truth.

You asked a question and I answered it with a video along with two other sources. What does Betrade do? "Oh, I've seen these videos blah blah blah..."

If you seen "scores" of these videos, then why the **** are you asking questions that you already know the answer to? What the **** is wrong with you? You asked how long they were having the evacuations for, so I cite a video with an eyewitness who was there to talk about it. He describes in detail the "power downs" that they had in the weekend before 9/11, which also shut down all security cameras.

Perhaps if the "scores" of information you view actually registered in your brain, you won't have to continue to ask the same questions over and over that you already know the answer to, like some sort of chimp.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Another lie. How many more do you have? Like I said, we can do this all day.
You are ignorant of basic science and logic


Explosives are used in controlled demolitions. Do you see them affecting nearby buildings?
The explosive charges used in demolition are not capable of melting steel into pools. Charges large enough to do so would shatter windows all over the borough.


In order to maintain those extreme levels of heat for weeks, something has to be fueling it. And it ain't carpet residue.
1. The collapse and the fire heated the ground.

2. The extreme heat of the ground and the molten aluminum alloy mixture continued to radiate for a long period of time afterwards. There's nothing unexpected about that.

[optimus]

The detritus from Ground Zero was brought out to Fresh Kills in Staten Island, examined by NIST and FEMA, then ultimately sold off at various points, including museums and for scrap.

Another lie. Do you ever stop? It was never fully investigated by NIST or FEMA.


Nor, for that matter, could thermite possibly create huge pools of molten steel.

What the ****? How many lies can you possibly tell? That's exactly what thermate does. It creates molten iron.


This is true. A controlled demolition CUTS steel beams, relying on gravity to bring down the building. Pools of molten metal indicate very hot and long lived fire, not demolition.

They cut beams in addition to using explosives. Fire simply doesn't burn hot enough to create pools of molten steel.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Another lie. Do you ever stop? It was never fully investigated by NIST or FEMA.
Yes, it was. In fact, the NIST report on WTC 7 will be released soon. The fact they didn't reach the hysterical conclusions you did does not mean they didn't 'fully investigate.'



What the ****? How many lies can you possibly tell? That's exactly what thermate does. It creates molten iron.
No, it melts a small section of iron, usually hairline, then lets gravity take its course. It does not create huge pools of molten steel at demolition sites or anywhere else.



They cut beams in addition to using explosives. Fire simply doesn't burn hot enough to create pools of molten steel.
Nor do conventional explosives, except in vast quantities that would have had the effect caused by sound pressure mentioned.

[hadit]

Another lie. How many more do you have? Like I said, we can do this all day.

Explosives are used in controlled demolitions. Do you see them affecting nearby buildings?

In order to maintain those extreme levels of heat for weeks, something has to be fueling it. And it ain't carpet residue.

Exactly. FUELING it, as in continual burning. Demolition explosives go bang, then stop heating stuff up. No demolition site will have molten steel lying around for weeks. It had to have been something else.

[Jeremiah]

Who killed Roger Rabbit?

[hadit]

The evidence was obvious and plentiful, before it was destroyed and shipped off overseas. Are you getting this through your head yet?

Here's an obvious question. How do you KNOW that "The evidence was obvious and plentiful" if it was "destroyed and shipped off overseas"? Did someone see it? Who? What expert did an analysis of the building materials that convinced him it was evidence of a controlled demolition? That's so typical of conspiracy theories. The fact that no evidence exists merely strengthens their convictions.


This is in the works. Get yourself up to speed.

Says Betrade, the all knowing psychic. It's already been proven by rules of logic that the official account could not have been accurate.

You have to have real evidence. Internet keyboard warriors don't cut it.


Gee, wonder why she told you that. It wouldn't be possible that they would have been instructed to tell the hundreds of callers that there were no controlled demolitions on 9/11, would it? No, of course not.

What evidence is there that these demolition companies are being pressured by the government to keep quiet? Or is this another case of no evidence merely strengthening the convictions I mentioned earlier?


How would they be "risking" their business by covering up for the US gov't? You're not making any sense. You're still rambling.

Because if it were to come to light that they were aiding in covering up something like that, they would be lucky to only lose the business.


1. It's a possibility that it was wired during the mandatory security evacuations in the weeks leading up to the attacks

No it's not. Successfully wiring a building, especially a large one, to come down requires weeks of wiring, clearing and cutting.


2. It's possible they were pre-wired well in advance

No, it isn't.

1. They couldn't take the chance that someone would see something out of the ordinary and report it. All that cutting would have left signs.
2. Explosives are not so stable that they are left wired for weeks or months, waiting to be detonated. The last thing they would have wanted was for a charge to go off prematurely. Talk about logical fallacies, that's a good one.


What's so unbelievable about it? You make it seem like it would be the most impressive task in history to wire a building to come down during off hours and while the building was evacuated during the security evacuations.

Yeah, it would be.

[hadit]

They cut beams in addition to using explosives. Fire simply doesn't burn hot enough to create pools of molten steel.

How do you think steel is made in the first place? Hint, they burn stuff. BTW, do you have any pictures of that molten steel?

[optimus]

Here's an obvious question. How do you KNOW that "The evidence was obvious and plentiful" if it was "destroyed and shipped off overseas"? Did someone see it? Who? What expert did an analysis of the building materials that convinced him it was evidence of a controlled demolition? That's so typical of conspiracy theories. The fact that no evidence exists merely strengthens their convictions.

Because there were over 200,000 ****ing tons of it. WTF? That's plentiful evidence. The fact that it wasn't examined, wasn't put into a place for a thorough investigation, and destroyed and disposed of, which is illegal, is proof that there was interference. Someone didn't want it examined. Even when TWA 800 was destroyed, we went through great lengths to recover the pieces of the plane from the ocean and reconstruct it for intense analysis. This did not happen with the towers. Evidence was destroyed in the biggest crime scene of American history.


You have to have real evidence. Internet keyboard warriors don't cut it. Evidence in the form of logical contradictions is still evidence in any realm.


What evidence is there that these demolition companies are being pressured by the government to keep quiet? Or is this another case of no evidence merely strengthening the convictions I mentioned earlier? Betrade mentioned that controlled demolitions was receiving hundreds of calls about demolitions. First, of course they're going to start getting calls. Even Dan Rather thought it was a controlled demolition shortly after the attacks. It was many people's first hunch. I have no evidence that they were instructed to tell the public that the collapses were not caused by controlled demolition, but him saying that just because he called them about it is hardly proof that they weren't. Talking to some receptionist at controlled demolitions front desk won't exactly cut it.


Because if it were to come to light that they were aiding in covering up something like that, they would be lucky to only lose the business.False conclusion, that's called a "wild guess."


No it's not. Successfully wiring a building, especially a large one, to come down requires weeks of wiring, clearing and cutting.Yes, it is. Just because you don't like the possibility doesn't negate it. It could've easily done in the weeks prior. By using thermate they wouldn't have even had to wire the entire building either.

Just because you can't conceive of multiple possibilities doesn't mean they don't exist.


No, it isn't.Again, it is. Don't let your inability to see things at different levels lead you to false conclusions set in stone.


1. They couldn't take the chance that someone would see something out of the ordinary and report it. All that cutting would have left signs.Actually, they could. An eyewitness who called the port authority to report the power downs was "ignored." See the video posted above. The risk was significantly reduced, especially after a complete evacuation. No power, no people, no cameras, no worries.


2. Explosives are not so stable that they are left wired for weeks or months, waiting to be detonated. The last thing they would have wanted was for a charge to go off prematurely. Talk about logical fallacies, that's a good one.Hence the use of thermate.


Yeah, it would be.One would think that even the most mundane tasks would be impressive to hadit.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Again, you've failed to produce evidence that thermite or thermate are capable of producing large pools of molten steel.

Ask yourself: how much thermate would be required to melt, say, a steel beam?

[hadit]

Because there were over 200,000 ****ing tons of it. WTF? That's plentiful evidence. The fact that it wasn't examined, wasn't put into a place for a thorough investigation, and destroyed and disposed of, which is illegal, is proof that there was interference. Someone didn't want it examined. Even when TWA 800 was destroyed, we went through great lengths to recover the pieces of the plane from the ocean and reconstruct it for intense analysis. This did not happen with the towers. Evidence was destroyed in the biggest crime scene of American history.

That is a really, really, wild guess.


Evidence in the form of logical contradictions is still evidence in any realm.

Betrade mentioned that controlled demolitions was receiving hundreds of calls about demolitions. First, of course they're going to start getting calls. Even Dan Rather thought it was a controlled demolition shortly after the attacks. It was many people's first hunch. I have no evidence that they were instructed to tell the public that the collapses were not caused by controlled demolition, but him saying that just because he called them about it is hardly proof that they weren't. Talking to some receptionist at controlled demolitions front desk won't exactly cut it.

And why not? If a company received hundreds of calls with the exact same question, they would educate the receptionist on how to correctly answer it.


False conclusion, that's called a "wild guess."

And what do YOU think would happen to the owners of a company that were discovered to have helped cover up the deliberate deaths of 3,000 Americans?


Yes, it is. Just because you don't like the possibility doesn't negate it. It could've easily done in the weeks prior. By using thermate they wouldn't have even had to wire the entire building either.

Just because you can't conceive of multiple possibilities doesn't mean they don't exist.

Again, it is. Don't let your inability to see things at different levels lead you to false conclusions set in stone.

The options have to be probable in order to be seriously considered. The whole demolition idea is absurd.


Actually, they could. An eyewitness who called the port authority to report the power downs was "ignored." See the video posted above. The risk was significantly reduced, especially after a complete evacuation. No power, no people, no cameras, no worries.

Was this person ever deposed, subjected to questioning? Was the call recorded, or do we only have one person making a claim here?


Hence the use of thermate.

One would think that even the most mundane tasks would be impressive to hadit.

And one would be a freakin' idiot. Totally ignoring the big holes in the theory is classic of the conspiracy theorist. From Wikipedia, regarding thermite (and its relative, thermate) "Ignition of a thermite reaction normally requires supervision by a trained technician, and may require persistent efforts, as ignition can be unreliable and unpredictable." Why, pray tell, would the planners of this rely on unreliable and unpredictable methods?

[Cyclone Ranger]

Speaking of classic conspiracy theorists:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3dd_1181140608

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

Who killed Roger Rabbit?

A Jew.

[Betrade]

You asked a question and I answered it with a video along with two other sources. What does Betrade do? "Oh, I've seen these videos blah blah blah..."

If you seen "scores" of these videos, then why the **** are you asking questions that you already know the answer to? What the **** is wrong with you? You asked how long they were having the evacuations for, so I cite a video with an eyewitness who was there to talk about it. He describes in detail the "power downs" that they had in the weekend before 9/11, which also shut down all security cameras.

Perhaps if the "scores" of information you view actually registered in your brain, you won't have to continue to ask the same questions over and over that you already know the answer to, like some sort of chimp.

Dude, I don't take these debates personally. You shouldn't either. If it makes you mad, go outside and do something. When you start name calling on your computer, it's probably a really good time to turn it off and chill. Have drink or something, but don't walk around angry. It's really bad for you.

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

the NIST report on WTC 7 will be released soon. The fact they didn't reach the hysterical conclusions you did does not mean they didn't 'fully investigate.'


Indeed.

I remember reading years ago on NYC building codes re skyscrapers, and IIRC certain regs, since the 1970's at least, like joist design and construction, pretty much dictate that buildings such as the CitiBank Tower and the WTC will fall a certain way if a major structural failure were to occur, to minimize the effects on adjacent properties. I read this a long time ago, in a college library book, so I have no internet Link-O-Rama festivals for the Peanut Gallery to wade into, not that this place is awash in civil engineers that would actually have a clue about what was involved, or even many who made it through a freshman physics class for that matter, and of course if it's not on the internet it never existed and couldn't be true, but in any case the way the WTC was delberately built had a lot to do with how it collapsed, in spite of my not bothering to find a website somewhere as Absolute Proof ...

[Betrade]

Indeed.

I remember reading years ago on NYC building codes re skyscrapers, and IIRC certain regs, since the 1970's at least, like joist design and construction, pretty much dictate that buildings such as the CitiBank Tower and the WTC will fall a certain way if a major structural failure were to occur, to minimize the effects on adjacent properties. I read this a long time ago, in a college library book, so I have no internet Link-O-Rama festivals for the Peanut Gallery to wade into, not that this place is awash in civil engineers that would actually have a clue about what was involved, or even many who made it through a freshman physics class for that matter, and of course if it's not on the internet it never existed and couldn't be true, but in any case the way the WTC was delberately built had a lot to do with how it collapsed, in spite of my not bothering to find a website somewhere as Absolute Proof ...

Speaking of "engineers", I have to tell this story.

We had a blizzard, and the roof caved in in the building I work in. It dropped about a foot and the metal joists were twisted in a few spots.

So they call in the engineers, who spent two days shoring it up. When they were done, the guy asked me what I though about the job.

I looked around, and then down, and asked him "Is this floor strong enough to carry the load of the roof, because if it goes, we go""?? His eyes got as big as two plates, he pulled out his calculator, called his partner and they immediately got to work shoring up the floor from the basement. He walked away and never even mentioned it after that, but they secured that floor in a hurry.

Anyhow, these are supposed to be the smart people. It just amazed me that they didn't even think about the floor. So the moral of the story is, experts aren't always as smart as they may pass themselves off to be.

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

Indeed.

I remember reading years ago on NYC building codes re skyscrapers, and IIRC certain regs, since the 1970's at least, like joist design and construction, pretty much dictate that buildings such as the CitiBank Tower and the WTC will fall a certain way if a major structural failure were to occur, to minimize the effects on adjacent properties. I read this a long time ago, in a college library book, so I have no internet Link-O-Rama festivals for the Peanut Gallery to wade into, not that this place is awash in civil engineers that would actually have a clue about what was involved, or even many who made it through a freshman physics class for that matter, and of course if it's not on the internet it never existed and couldn't be true, but in any case the way the WTC was delberately built had a lot to do with how it collapsed, in spite of my not bothering to find a website somewhere as Absolute Proof ...

A translation for Obama supporters, Move On muppets, Democracy Now! robots, and miscellaneous morons: Skyscrapers don't fall like trees, like that one did in the Vonage commercial, or the one that fell on Snouter's head that summer he went to camp and got caught in a big storm.

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

Anyhow, these are supposed to be the smart people. It just amazed me that they didn't even think about the floor. So the moral of the story is, experts aren't always as smart as they may pass themselves off to be.

No kidding. I spent about three years in Silly Con Valley, working with 'engineers' ... apparently reading and math are not necessary requirements to graduate from San Jose State with an engineering degree ...

[Betrade]

No kidding. I spent about three years in Silly Con Valley, working with 'engineers' ... apparently reading and math are not necessary requirements to graduate from San Jose State with an engineering degree ...


It's scary when you think about it.

[hadit]

Anyhow, these are supposed to be the smart people. It just amazed me that they didn't even think about the floor. So the moral of the story is, experts aren't always as smart as they may pass themselves off to be.

Especially when the "experts" post politically charged stuff on the internet, and all anyone who quotes them knows about them is, "he's an engineer, so he's better than you. Shut up".

[Cyclone Ranger]

Indeed.

I remember reading years ago on NYC building codes re skyscrapers, and IIRC certain regs, since the 1970's at least, like joist design and construction, pretty much dictate that buildings such as the CitiBank Tower and the WTC will fall a certain way if a major structural failure were to occur, to minimize the effects on adjacent properties. I read this a long time ago, in a college library book, so I have no internet Link-O-Rama festivals for the Peanut Gallery to wade into, not that this place is awash in civil engineers that would actually have a clue about what was involved, or even many who made it through a freshman physics class for that matter, and of course if it's not on the internet it never existed and couldn't be true, but in any case the way the WTC was delberately built had a lot to do with how it collapsed, in spite of my not bothering to find a website somewhere as Absolute Proof ...
The only thing that will satisfy the conspiracy idiots is a government finding that affirms their emotionally-driven conclusions. ANY other inquiry will be an "incomplete investigation."

[optimus]

Are you guys done jerking each other off yet?

[optimus]

Dude, I don't take these debates personally. You shouldn't either. If it makes you mad, go outside and do something. When you start name calling on your computer, it's probably a really good time to turn it off and chill. Have drink or something, but don't walk around angry. It's really bad for you.

I take the subject matter seriously, but when people like you come in and ask questions that you already know the answers to, you're just trolling. The only thing that does is make you look like a clown who has no real interest in the debate, just an interest in dodging and obfuscating the topic.

[optimus]

Speaking of classic conspiracy theorists:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3dd_1181140608

OH WOW. :rolleyes:

When you run out of lies, you always have pathetic attempts at smears to fall back on.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Are you guys done jerking each other off yet?
Look who's talking!

[Cyclone Ranger]

OH WOW. :rolleyes:

When you run out of lies, you always have pathetic attempts at smears.
I've refuted everyone of your claims of a 'lie' and the recorded behavior on the video above is hardly a 'smear.'

[optimus]

Indeed.

I remember reading years ago on NYC building codes re skyscrapers, and IIRC certain regs, since the 1970's at least, like joist design and construction, pretty much dictate that buildings such as the CitiBank Tower and the WTC will fall a certain way if a major structural failure were to occur, to minimize the effects on adjacent properties. I read this a long time ago, in a college library book, so I have no internet Link-O-Rama festivals for the Peanut Gallery to wade into, not that this place is awash in civil engineers that would actually have a clue about what was involved, or even many who made it through a freshman physics class for that matter, and of course if it's not on the internet it never existed and couldn't be true, but in any case the way the WTC was delberately built had a lot to do with how it collapsed, in spite of my not bothering to find a website somewhere as Absolute Proof ...

Haha, says the resident internet racist keyboard commando. Piss off, you have nothing to offer.

[Cyclone Ranger]

He offers more than you do.

[optimus]

I've refuted everyone of your claims of a 'lie' and the recorded behavior on the video above is hardly a 'smear.'

You haven't refuted a single thing, but you have managed to reveal that you're nothing but a liar, citing incorrect statements in each successive post of yours. I've had to correct every one of your lies, and will still continue to do so until you grow tired of being called out on them.

[optimus]

Speaking of "engineers", I have to tell this story.

We had a blizzard, and the roof caved in in the building I work in. It dropped about a foot and the metal joists were twisted in a few spots.

So they call in the engineers, who spent two days shoring it up. When they were done, the guy asked me what I though about the job.

I looked around, and then down, and asked him "Is this floor strong enough to carry the load of the roof, because if it goes, we go""?? His eyes got as big as two plates, he pulled out his calculator, called his partner and they immediately got to work shoring up the floor from the basement. He walked away and never even mentioned it after that, but they secured that floor in a hurry.

Anyhow, these are supposed to be the smart people. It just amazed me that they didn't even think about the floor. So the moral of the story is, experts aren't always as smart as they may pass themselves off to be.

Hahaha....but Betrade is! Hey Betrade, with such astonishing common sense as that, it's a wonder why you don't say something like, "Hey, aren't you supposed to keep evidence from a crime scene?"

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

Haha, says the resident internet racist keyboard commando. Piss off, you have nothing to offer.

LOL ... the major clique of racists here are Democrats, and 'Peace Leftists', and the only keyboard commandos as well, witness your idiotic ravings as Exhibit 1. And, I'll 'piss off' when I feel like it, twit boy; you're hardly a critter that can make anybody feel threatened, pinhead.

[Cyclone Ranger]

You haven't refuted a single thing, but you have managed to reveal that you're nothing but a liar, citing incorrect statements in each successive post of yours. I've had to correct every one of your lies, and will still continue to do so until you grow tired of being called out on them.
No, you have not been able to demonstrate anything to be incorrect, and have continued to promote such obvious errors as the idea that thermite can produce giant pools of molten steel.

[Cyclone Ranger]

"Hey, aren't you supposed to keep evidence from a crime scene?"
Evidence from crime scenes is only kept until a verdict is reached by a jury. Then it's either disposed of or returned to its owner(s). NIST has already analyzed it and delivered its report.

[optimus]

LOL ... the major clique of racists here are Democrats, and 'Peace Leftists', and the only keyboard commandos as well, witness your idiotic ravings as Exhibit 1. And, I'll 'piss off' when I feel like it, twit boy; you're hardly a critter that can make anybody feel threatened, pinhead.

Sounds like I struck a nerve, you're sensitive little racist cunt aren't you? Who needs to threaten drooling imbeciles like yourself, when everyone knows you're nothing but a loon?

[optimus]

Evidence from crime scenes is only kept until a verdict is reached by a jury. Then it's either disposed of or returned to its owner(s). NIST has already analyzed it and delivered its report.

Another lie. NIST did not conduct a formal investigation of the evidence, and no, evidence is not "disposed" of and there was no "jury" involved in any investigation of 9/11, you lying tool.

[Cyclone Ranger]

1. NIST certainly did conduct an investigation of the collapse. A criminal investigation was not under their purview.

2. Evidence is not held on to forever once a jury verdict is rendered and appeals exhausted.

So please stop your compulsive lying.

[optimus]

It wasn't even held for a formal investigation, or long enough for anyone to thoroughly investigate, moron.

[Cyclone Ranger]

No, dumbass, it was. It was thoroughly investigated by NIST and then given to museums, sold off for scrap, etc.

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

Sounds like I struck a nerve, you're sensitive little racist cunt aren't you? Who needs to threaten drooling imbeciles like yourself, when everyone knows you're nothing but a loon?

LOL man, do you ever have it backwards, but then projecting is all you got; you certainly have squat for arguments here. You should try giving up drugs. If you re not on drugs, then you should start, with serious ones; in your case heroin would be the best choice.

[optimus]

Fifth, yes, evidence was shipped overseas. Some 200,000 tons were shipped to China and India before inspection. Disposing of evidence in a crime scene is illegal. We only kept a small portion of it. Glen Corbett was pressing for a full scale investigation and while they were doing it, the evidence was already being destroyed.

GxycV4fNPnQ


Once again, 200,000 TONS OF EVIDENCE WAS SHIPPED OFF TO CHINA AND INDIA BEFORE INSPECTION. How is this so difficult for you to grasp? This is like talking to a brick wall.

[optimus]

LOL man, do you ever have it backwards, but then projecting is all you got; you certainly have squat for arguments here. You should try giving up drugs. If you re not on drugs, then you should start, with serious ones; in your case heroin would be the best choice.

Good one, now go back to stormfront, boy.

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

No, dumbass, it was. It was thoroughly investigated by NIST and then given to museums, sold off for scrap, etc.

These people are truly stupid. The size of this conspiracy they claim would involve literally thousands of people at all levels, and the idea that it would remain secret more than a week is absolutely ludicrous and insane, to say the least. Nobody would even entertain the idea of taking a fall of this magnitude for the sake of George W., no matter how corrupt and psychopathic they were. He has so many crooked rats jumping off his ship of state it''s hilarious to watch.

[Cyclone Ranger]

1. Ground Zero was not deemed a crime scene by the NYPD; it was designated a national disaster area by the Feds.

2. The investigation conducted by NIST was not a criminal investigation; it was a scientific investigation to determine the causes of the collapse.

Therefore, disposal of it once the scientific investigation was judged complete by the authorities, did not violate the statute.

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

Good one, now go back to stormfront, boy.

Why? It's more of a 'Peace Left' site, for your ilk, not my type of forum, even though the average level of debate over there is much higher than you're capable of, little girl.

[Jeremiah]

http://i38.tinypic.com/1415mpi.jpg

[Cyclone Ranger]

dup post. Sorry.

[optimus]

1. Ground Zero was not deemed a crime scene by the NYPD; it was designated a national disaster area by the Feds.

Cyclone Ranger, you are literally the biggest liar I've ever encountered. You're a dishonest piece of shit.


The New York City Office of Emergency Management was responsible for coordinating the response efforts of approximately 150 governmental agencies and non-governmental organizations. Further complicating the situation was the fact that the area was treated as a crime scene, with law enforcement authorities strictly limiting access for agencies such as EPA, particularly in the first 48 hours.

http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2003/WTC_report_20030821.pdf

STOP LYING.


2. The investigation conducted by NIST was not a criminal investigation; it was a scientific investigation to determine the causes of the collapse.

Please tell me, what sort of "scientific" investigation could be conducted WITH NO ****ING EVIDENCE? Needless to say, they don't even present any definite causes, only a theory, which has since been debunked by numerous engineers and physicists.


Therefore, disposal of it once the scientific investigation was deemed complete by the authorities, did not violate the statute.

Yes, it did, you lying scum.

[optimus]

Why? It's more of a 'Peace Left' site, for your ilk, not my type of forum, even though the average level of debate over there is much higher than you're capable of, little girl.

Aww, the racist cunt wants some attention, doesn't he?

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

Such lame responses, for a wanna bee troll girl. Try setting off some thermite in your ears, and get back to us on how extensive the damage is, will you? That's a good girl ...

[Cyclone Ranger]

Learn to read: the area was TREATED like a crime scene initally. It was not legally designated by the NYPD a crime scene for purposes of trial.

The police didn't pursue suspects once it was understood to be a terrorist act.

[optimus]

Learn to read: the area was TREATED like a crime scene initally. It was not legally designated by the NYPD a crime scene for purposes of trial.

The police didn't pursue suspects once it was understood to be a terrorist act.

Oh, terrorism isn't a crime?

You really need to pull your head out of your ass.

FACT: Terrorism is a crime
FACT: Evidence was removed and destroyed
FACT: Both are illegal.

End of story.

[optimus]

Such lame responses, for a wanna bee troll girl. Try setting off some thermite in your ears, and get back to us on how extensive the damage is, will you? That's a good girl ...

Another good one! You're just so adorable. It's like, you never know what you're going to say next!

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

Another good one!

Thanks! ...


You're just so adorable.

I know! Tell me about it! ...


It's like, you never know what you're going to say next!

Of course I know. Don't be silly ...

Now, do you have anything besides moronic memes you got from the usual stoopid assed conspiracy sites? Any factual evidence at all to back up these crackpot theories? Of course you don't ...

[Cyclone Ranger]

Oh, terrorism isn't a crime?

You really need to pull your head out of your ass.

FACT: Terrorism is a crime
FACT: Evidence was removed and destroyed
FACT: Both are illegal.

End of story.
No, it's not. The statute only applies to legally-designated crime scenes, not what you happen to believe is a crime scene.

Because it was ruled to be a national disaster area and not an FBI or NYPD crime scene, the law didn't apply. Moreover, NIST was given legal custody of the materials to dispense with as they saw fit.

[optimus]

Facts aren't exactly your forte, are they? The pentagon was deemed a crime scene. You don't see a logical problem here? And isn't it rather convenient that ground zero was initially deemed a crime scene?

I'll give you a few minutes to put 2 and 2 together...

[Cyclone Ranger]

It was a federal crime scene under the auspices of the FBI, not a local crime scene for the D.C. police. It therefore wasn't subject to the state statute.

The FBI released the wreckage to NIST to use and dispose of as they saw fit. It's not as if they were pursuing suspects

[optimus]

...again...still waiting...

Hint: rather convenient for easily disposing evidence.

[Cyclone Ranger]

They didn't "easily" dispose of it: they collected it, analyzed it for their report, and legally disposed of it.

[optimus]

You simply cannot trust any conclusions made by NIST or any other company after destroying evidence so quickly. In particular, the core columns should've been kept for further analysis by multiple entities.



NIST states: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."
Thus NIST euphemistically admits that its 10,000-page report on the Towers does not even pretend to provide any explanation whatsoever for the Towers' total collapse--and that indeed no such explanation is possible without invoking the politically-incorrect idea of controlled demolition.


NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support. In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors.


But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air.

Well Golly gee! Let's just get rid of all this inconvenient "evidence" stuff!!! We don't need it!

[hadit]

You simply cannot trust any conclusions made by NIST or any other company after destroying evidence so quickly. In particular, the core columns should've been kept for further analysis by multiple entities.



Well Golly gee! Let's just get rid of all this inconvenient "evidence" stuff!!! We don't need it!

Post a link to your source next time.

[hadit]

I guess the thermate theory has been sufficiently laid to rest.

[Ice Pick]

How does one "investigate" the collapse of two tall buildings? You'd have to reconstruct them just to see what happened to both of them, which is just unrealistic. Another thing is, if this was a controlled demolition, wouldn't the buildings collapse from the bottom up? Because the buildings collapsed from the top, where the planes hit.

Optimus, cool down ya nut.

[Ice Pick]

I wonder if Optimus thinks that we didn't go to the moon also.

[Betrade]

I take the subject matter seriously, but when people like you come in and ask questions that you already know the answers to, you're just trolling. The only thing that does is make you look like a clown who has no real interest in the debate, just an interest in dodging and obfuscating the topic.

I take things seriously as well, despite your assumptions to the contrary, but not to the point where I feel the need get angry and lash out at people I disagree with, or resort to calling them names.

I believe in civil debate, and I don't take it personally when you or anyone else disagrees with my point of view. If I did that every time I had a disagreement, I imagine would be a wreck, and I don't like to spend my time being upset. Why would I?? It's not like discussing a topic here is going to change anything.

And I'm not dodging anything. Apparently, you disagree with my position, and that's your right, but I have answered your questions. It's not my fault if you don't like my answers. That's something you'll have to deal with yourself, and I'm surely not going to sit here wringing my hands and getting all bothered about it. It's a discussion, not a federal case.

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

I wonder if Optimus thinks that we didn't go to the moon also.

There wasn't a Republican in the White House then; otherwise, Otismusk, Corpulent Avenger,Mister E., and Javaman would be posting several thousand YouTube videos about how it was faked.

[Betrade]

Hahaha....but Betrade is! Hey Betrade, with such astonishing common sense as that, it's a wonder why you don't say something like, "Hey, aren't you supposed to keep evidence from a crime scene?"

In that instance, I was, and probably saved their asses, not to mention anyone else in that building. Oh, and when did I ever advocate disposing of evidence from crime scenes?? I stated that a whole bunch of people worked on that job clearing ground zero. BTW, there were lots of ordinary civilian volunteers from all over the country who came to NY to help clean up the mess.

Do you suppose they were all in on the big cover up as well, and of the ones who weren't, you know, the regular folks who just showed up to help, do you think that maybe just one would have overheard someone instructing anyone to hide the evidence so no one would find out what "really" happened, yet not report it??

The deeper you go into these theories the more ridiculous they become, and you realize the sheer numbers of people who would have had to keep quiet about it. With human nature being what it is, I find it extremely hard to believe that not one single person has blown the whistle and been able to actually prove it. I also find it hard to believe that not a single soul filed a single police report stating that a fiendish plot was being played out during the debris removal process, especially given the length of time it took to actually complete the job. It was about five months before they reached the PATH train station under the site.

All of that time passed yet no one did. I wonder why?? Maybe it was because not one of those people believed any fiendish plot was taking place. If they did, you can bet someone, at least just one would have squealed, and I'm not talking about putting up video on YouTube. I'm talking about calling law enforcement and the national media.

Of course, every journalist in the country may have been in on the big cover up too. Yeah, that must be it. The media was in on it from the get go and they're still keeping it on the down low, even after all of these years. Not even one journalist who could make a huge name for him or herself by breaking the biggest conspiracy story in US history has revealed the "truth", because they believe in keeping the secret.

Again, see how the numbers grow, as well as the ridiculousness when you logically follow what would have been necessary to keep such a story secret?? The whole damn country would have to be in on this if it were true, then it wouldn't be a secret would it??.

And in case you're wondering why I've been repeating certain points and sounding completely ridiculous from time to time, it's to point out absurdity by being absurd.

[optimus]

I take things seriously as well, despite your assumptions to the contrary, but not to the point where I feel the need get angry and lash out at people I disagree with, or resort to calling them names.

I believe in civil debate, and I don't take it personally when you or anyone else disagrees with my point of view. If I did that every time I had a disagreement, I imagine would be a wreck, and I don't like to spend my time being upset. Why would I?? It's not like discussing a topic here is going to change anything.

And I'm not dodging anything. Apparently, you disagree with my position, and that's your right, but I have answered your questions. It's not my fault if you don't like my answers. That's something you'll have to deal with yourself, and I'm surely not going to sit here wringing my hands and getting all bothered about it. It's a discussion, not a federal case.

WTF?

You asked ME a question about the security evacuations. I answered. You ignored. Your "position" was the equivalent to putting your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la la la - I can't hear you." You then made various statements about the very questions you're asking, indicating that you are only interested in typing them over and over again, since you already "know" the answers to them.

You aren't interested in debate. Your only goal is to type endlessly, ramble on and on, tell stupid stories about your fantastic common sense, and revert to the same stuff over and over again such as:

"It would be impossible for them to pull this off"
"You would need thousands of people to be involved"
"I know some people wish in a really bad way that the US government staged the attacks"

It's pointless to debate with you, because if anyone answers any questions you have, you just ignore them and put your fingers back in your ears. Click, whir, betrade goes on autopilot ranting mode, blathering about watching "scores" of videos on 9/11, calling controlled demolitions, and whatever completely irrelevant story you fancy yammering on about.

[optimus]

There wasn't a Republican in the White House then; otherwise, Otismusk, Corpulent Avenger,Mister E., and Javaman would be posting several thousand YouTube videos about how it was faked.

Wow, that's pretty clever for a racist maggot.

[optimus]

Here's the video again, just for shits and giggles.




GxycV4fNPnQ

Just curious to see how many people are going to watch it, have their questions answered, then ask the same questions over again.

[Betrade]

WTF?

You asked ME a question about the security evacuations. I answered. You ignored. Your "position" was the equivalent to putting your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la la la - I can't hear you." You then made various statements about the very questions you're asking, indicating that you are only interested in typing them over and over again, since you already "know" the answers to them.

You aren't interested in debate. Your only goal is to type endlessly, ramble on and on, tell stupid stories about your fantastic common sense, and revert to the same stuff over and over again such as:

"It would be impossible for them to pull this off"
"You would need thousands of people to be involved"
"I know some people wish in a really bad way that the US government staged the attacks"

It's pointless to debate with you, because if anyone answers any questions you have, you just ignore them and put your fingers back in your ears. Click, whir, betrade goes on autopilot ranting mode, blathering about watching "scores" of videos on 9/11, calling controlled demolitions, and whatever completely irrelevant story you fancy yammering on about.

I get the impression that you have a very low tolerance to those who don't subscribe to your beliefs.

If it's pointless to debate me, then don't. It's your call.

[optimus]

Post a link to your source next time.

NIST: "We are Unable to Provide a Full Explanation of the Total Collapse"

On April 11th, 2007, family members Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, scientists Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice filed a petition with NIST demanding that it correct its erroneous methods and findings (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-family-members-file-petition-with.html).

On September 27th, NIST finally replied (http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf).

While the reply is mainly bogus, and the filers of the petition intend to appeal the decision of NIST not to correct the many fatal errors in its reports, attorney James Gourley (who drafted the petition) has pointed out one interesting statement. Specifically, NIST says in its reply:

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".

Well, yes! That's exactly the point the petitioners are trying to make. No modern steel frame high-rise building has ever collapsed before or after 9/11 due to fire other than at WTC 1, 2 and 7, even though other fires have burned longer and hotter (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.htm). And even if they somehow did start to collapse, the collapse would not have occurred at virtual free-fall speeds (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/04/cant-have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too.html) while creating enormous dust clouds right from the start.

So yes . . . NIST will forever be "unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse" unless it stops covering up the evidence that the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down by controlled demolition.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/nist-we-are-unable-to-provide-full.html

[Betrade]

NIST: "We are Unable to Provide a Full Explanation of the Total Collapse"

On April 11th, 2007, family members Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, scientists Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice filed a petition with NIST demanding that it correct its erroneous methods and findings (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-family-members-file-petition-with.html).

On September 27th, NIST finally replied (http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf).

While the reply is mainly bogus, and the filers of the petition intend to appeal the decision of NIST not to correct the many fatal errors in its reports, attorney James Gourley (who drafted the petition) has pointed out one interesting statement. Specifically, NIST says in its reply:

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".

Well, yes! That's exactly the point the petitioners are trying to make. No modern steel frame high-rise building has ever collapsed before or after 9/11 due to fire other than at WTC 1, 2 and 7, even though other fires have burned longer and hotter (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.htm). And even if they somehow did start to collapse, the collapse would not have occurred at virtual free-fall speeds (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/04/cant-have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too.html) while creating enormous dust clouds right from the start.

So yes . . . NIST will forever be "unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse" unless it stops covering up the evidence that the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down by controlled demolition.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/nist-we-are-unable-to-provide-full.html

Okay, so there are some factors that aren't fully understood. That's why people trying to figure out what happened start with theories, just as conspiracy theorists do.

Filing the paper doesn't prove a thing. It only points out that not every little factor is known.

Also, for everything you come up with, I can find something to support my view. You may get frustrated, but no matter what you post, I'm not buying into the idea that my government killed all of those people, or that those buildings were pre wired for demolition. There isn't a shred of evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here's a few more "expert" opinions that seem to support my views, and there are many more. We can do this all day long.




http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:5gShGhU5X4YJ:www.freestone-inc.com/pubs/Skyscraper_Collapse.pdf+another+skyscraper+collaps ed+from+fire&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june02/towers_5-1.html

PBS is hardly a liberal, or pro administration network BTW.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3497174


You have your opinions based on what you have seen, heard and read, as do I. We reach different conclusions on the topic. It's not a big deal. If you go on until you're blue in the face, I still won't get on board with these conspiracy theories.

Oh, and there is at least one steel framed building that has collapsed from fire other than the ones on 911. I'll look it up and post a link.

Even if there had not been, it still proves nothing besides the fact that there's a first time for everything. Lots of things haven't happened, but are possible to happen sooner or later. Truth is always stranger than fiction.

[Jeremiah]

It all sound a little to James Bondish for me. It would have been the most perfect high tech demolition in the hystory of demolitions. If these people are so all powerful, why not plant WMD in Iraq? Why not make the hijackers Iraqi people, instead of Saudies? An eyewitness spoke about an explosion in the basement, around the time of the impact. Why blow up a basement an our before the top down demolition? If all those firemen and policemen still think those heard explosions (half an hour before the collapse???) are explosives to bring down the building, why don't we hear from them now?

[Jeremiah]

If it was thermite, those detonations would have been on that floor and the plane would have had to be directed to that precise location. So we are talking radiodirected planes? Faked telephoneconversations? How big must this organisation be? All determent to kill thousands of there own, to plunge into a war that leads nowhere and costs trillions? And noone leaks it to the press, eventhough it is the hottest thing since Watergate. That's a fanatic bunch of people. But i think in the end this whole thing is just a left right fight. I bet ya 95 % of the truth movement is leftwing.

[optimus]

Okay, so there are some factors that aren't fully understood. That's why people trying to figure out what happened start with theories, just as conspiracy theorists do.

Filing the paper doesn't prove a thing. It only points out that not every little factor is known.

The point is that NIST admitted that they are unable to provide a full explanation of the collapse. The point is that you guys constantly cite NIST this, NIST that, their retarded pancake theory, but you're all unaware that they haven't "proved" anything, yet you have no problem using them to "prove" your arab hijacker/pancake collapse conspiracy theory.

See what happens when you start off from a flawed point? You can be led very far astray and not even know it, until something like this surfaces and then you're forced to reexamine your position again.

The only thing that NIST has proved, is that they haven't proved anything and that they are unable to prove anything. Therefore, they cannot be used as "proof" in any argument.

[soylentgreen]

...they haven't proved anything and that they are unable to prove anything. Therefore, they cannot be used as "proof" in any argument.Sounds like a good argument against Global Warming.

[optimus]

If it was thermite, those detonations would have been on that floor and the plane would have had to be directed to that precise location. So we are talking radiodirected planes? Faked telephoneconversations? How big must this organisation be? All determent to kill thousands of there own, to plunge into a war that leads nowhere and costs trillions? And noone leaks it to the press, eventhough it is the hottest thing since Watergate. That's a fanatic bunch of people. But i think in the end this whole thing is just a left right fight. I bet ya 95 % of the truth movement is leftwing.

I'd bet the answer is much simpler than we would think. People tend to draw erroneous conclusions about "conspiracy theories" because they let the scope, the magnitude of the attacks influence their problem solving.

Example:

9/11 was a catastrophic attack, large in scope, large in impact, large in psychological impact, therefore the execution of the event must've been large in scope, large in numbers of people involved, etc. When in actuality, there isn't necessarily a correlation between the two, because we know that small numbers of people can cause huge events that are large in scope, large in magnitude, large in psychological impact.

[hadit]

I'd bet the answer is much simpler than we would think. People tend to draw erroneous conclusions about "conspiracy theories" because they let the scope, the magnitude of the attacks influence their problem solving.

Example:

9/11 was a catastrophic attack, large in scope, large in impact, large in psychological impact, therefore the execution of the event must've been large in scope, large in numbers of people involved, etc. When in actuality, there isn't necessarily a correlation between the two, because we know that small numbers of people can cause huge events that are large in scope, large in magnitude, large in psychological impact.

Yet your theory involves much greater numbers of people than does the real story. The highjackers had a rather simple mission. Once they had control of the planes, they set the auto pilot to the coordinates of the WTC and hit the buildings. They didn't have to hit on any specific floor, they just had to hit them. The conspiracy theory requires that:

1. The buildings be wired with no one noticing anything unusual (extremely difficult, given the nature of such wiring)
2. That the explosives would all sit quietly for weeks or months with NONE of them going off or failing (a risk no demolition expert would ever take)
3. That the airplanes impact on a precise location on the buildings (because we can't afford to have explosives going off ABOVE the point of impact, and we can't afford to leave several tons of unexploded ordinance for people to find)
4. That absolutely NONE of the hundreds of people combing through the wreckage for weeks afterward would find ANY traces of explosives.

Most of the time, it's the simplest explanation that's the most accurate. The conspiracy theory requires ever widening circles of people to hold together.

[optimus]

Yet your theory involves much greater numbers of people than does the real story.

Once again, this is based on your own assumptions and prejudices, which lead you to conclusions based on your own frame of reference. Your frame of reference may be accurate, or it could be completely off base if new information was presented to you.


The highjackers had a rather simple mission. Once they had control of the planes, they set the auto pilot to the coordinates of the WTC and hit the buildings. They didn't have to hit on any specific floor, they just had to hit them. The conspiracy theory requires that:

1. The buildings be wired with no one noticing anything unusual (extremely difficult, given the nature of such wiring)This was already previously discussed. The security evacuations and "power downs" would've been an excellent way to get a lot done without any suspicion.


2. That the explosives would all sit quietly for weeks or months with NONE of them going off or failing (a risk no demolition expert would ever take)A valid concern assuming the explosives used were the same used in commercial demolitions.


3. That the airplanes impact on a precise location on the buildings (because we can't afford to have explosives going off ABOVE the point of impact, and we can't afford to leave several tons of unexploded ordinance for people to find)They obviously couldn't afford to have much evidence laying around at all, which is why it was destroyed and shipped overseas.


4. That absolutely NONE of the hundreds of people combing through the wreckage for weeks afterward would find ANY traces of explosives.Much of the buildings were turned into dust.


Most of the time, it's the simplest explanation that's the most accurate. The conspiracy theory requires ever widening circles of people to hold together.Only from your frame of reference, which is based on your beliefs. The simplest theory is often the first impression, as various television news anchors were making comments on-air about how strikingly similar they were to controlled demolitions. When you look at the facts from a physics point of view, and when you consider how over engineered the twin towers were, and when you consider how fast they fell, Occam's razor would actually point to a controlled demolition.

The problem arises when people start to wonder how exactly a controlled demolition would've even happened without people figuring it out. This is the part that separates sides because it seems to be no longer the simplest explanation. That and core beliefs about what the US gov't would actually do to it's own people. If you refuse to believe that the gov't would sacrifice a few thousand of it's citizens, even though history shows that this can't be ruled out, no amount of evidence will persuade you. If you accept the fact that our gov't is corrupt, that there are corrupt elements of our gov't, and the fact that they would actually do such a thing for various reasons including it being "for the greater good of the country" then all kinds of things become visible to you that you couldn't see previously.

I started off on your side then gradually moved to the other. I have no fantasies or delusions about the inherent "goodness" of our government, or various elements in the top echelon. I wouldn't put anything past them which is what finally enabled me to see the entire thing from a new perspective.

[Nor'Easter]

It all sound a little to James Bondish for me. It would have been the most perfect high tech demolition in the hystory of demolitions. If these people are so all powerful, why not plant WMD in Iraq? Why not make the hijackers Iraqi people, instead of Saudies? An eyewitness spoke about an explosion in the basement, around the time of the impact. Why blow up a basement an our before the top down demolition? If all those firemen and policemen still think those heard explosions (half an hour before the collapse???) are explosives to bring down the building, why don't we hear from them now?

The earlier explosions took away the foundation anchor, which is required for this kind of demolition. Bldg #6, the one that blew out from the inside and upward, (check the online photos of that baby) is where the underground charges released in the end. All those buidings were connected through the sub-basement, and all that had to be broken up for the targeted buildings to fall free of the rest of the underlying infrastructure.

By the way, there are plenty of firefighter that have been recorded, and deposed, with very specific statements concerning the explosions that they heard and saw. Google can help you easily find these statements, as they are in the public record for anyone who cares enough tro find them online.


If it was thermite, those detonations would have been on that floor and the plane would have had to be directed to that precise location. So we are talking radiodirected planes? Faked telephoneconversations? How big must this organisation be? All determent to kill thousands of there own, to plunge into a war that leads nowhere and costs trillions? And noone leaks it to the press, eventhough it is the hottest thing since Watergate. That's a fanatic bunch of people. But i think in the end this whole thing is just a left right fight. I bet ya 95 % of the truth movement is leftwing.

RF triggered C-4 demolition packs planted within the building and the sequence detonated from a simple laptop connected to a low wattage transmitter (located in a building downtown in a line-of-sight position) would have been easy to reconfigure to react to the impact zone location after the aircraft crashes. C-4 is extremely stable and will even ignore fire without detonating. That said, the packs could easily have been encased in a fire-resistant package to make sure it'd remain stable until detonated by a simple 9 volt battery hooked up to a RF receiver. Just like the road-side bombs in Iraq. Simple, effective and very easy to hide inside the building's inner load-bearing super structure, and with no wires needed for it all to work.

As far as who would have been available for this demolition effort, the name Blackwater Security Inc. comes to mind immediately. They recruited all the best KGB and Easter Soviet Block assassins and black-ops professionals when the USSR collapsed, and they have been the only security corporation to prosper in a major way since 9/11. These people are the worst killers of the Cold War years, and they now are on top of the world as a result of the Bush/Cheney War on Terror. They have the expertise, the capacity, and have no problem keeping those KGB mouth shut tight forever. Those goons don't care one bit about killing Americans, and 9/11 was like Christmas for that entire company.

It's become even clearer as the years go by. The operation was completely contained within the Bush/Cheney/International Corporate cabal and Blackwater Security Inc, and with the hundreds of billions gained for them all since 9/11, the motive is obvious.

[Betrade]

The point is that NIST admitted that they are unable to provide a full explanation of the collapse. The point is that you guys constantly cite NIST this, NIST that, their retarded pancake theory, but you're all unaware that they haven't "proved" anything, yet you have no problem using them to "prove" your arab hijacker/pancake collapse conspiracy theory.

See what happens when you start off from a flawed point? You can be led very far astray and not even know it, until something like this surfaces and then you're forced to reexamine your position again.

The only thing that NIST has proved, is that they haven't proved anything and that they are unable to prove anything. Therefore, they cannot be used as "proof" in any argument.

I don't know what "you guy's" you're referring to, but I didn't cite NIST . You must have confused me with someone else.

The fact that they haven't proven a particular thing means just what it says. No one's "certain" why JFK was killed, but he's still dead.

And the Arab hijacker theory is backed up by some of the people on the airliners themselves who called their loved ones and told them what was going on. First hand accounts aren't a bad place to start reconstructing an event from.

We have audio of people who died that day as a result of this hijacking, and they're telling different people what's going on as it was happening. We have audio from people trapped in the WTC as well. There is plenty of evidence out there to figure out what happened.



I've even heard a conspiracy about that; that cell phones don't work at 35,000 feet and that all of those calls are fake, yet the fact that almost every call was made from air phones is basically ignored from the conspiracy side. Selective omission of the facts can make anything look plausible, but doesn't make it true.

[Cyclone Ranger]

How does one "investigate" the collapse of two tall buildings? You'd have to reconstruct them just to see what happened to both of them, which is just unrealistic.
Primarily, they use computer simulations.

[Cyclone Ranger]

And the Arab hijacker theory is backed up by some of the people on the airliners themselves who called their loved ones and told them what was going on.
Not to mention, by Al Qaeda themselves:


In an audio tape posted on the internet, Zawahiri insisted al-Qaeda had carried out the attacks on the US.

He accused Iran, and its Hezbollah allies, of trying to discredit Osama Bin Laden's network.

Correspondents say the comments underline al-Qaeda's increasing public hostility towards Iran.

In a two-hour audiotape posted on an Islamist website, Osama Bin Laden's chief deputy responded to questions posted by al-Qaeda sympathisers.

In response to a question about persistent rumours in the Middle East that Israel was involved in the 9/11 attacks, Zawahiri said the rumour had begun on the Hezbollah television station, Al-Manar.

"The purpose of this lie is clear - [to suggest] that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no-one else did in history, he said.

"Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7361414.stm

[optimus]

LOL, well if a filthy arab named Zawahiri said it, then it must be true!

[Nor'Easter]

Primarily, they use computer simulations.

I especially like the "simulation" that neglected to include the 47 massive steel beams in the center of the structure that actually held the entire thing up. F-ed up computer simulations don't prove anything. All the NIST simulations have been universally debunked. They've finally had to admit that they don't know how it all happened once the collapse sequence began. You must be reading old material.

[Nor'Easter]

I've even heard a conspiracy about that; that cell phones don't work at 35,000 feet and that all of those calls are fake, yet the fact that almost every call was made from air phones is basically ignored from the conspiracy side. Selective omission of the facts can make anything look plausible, but doesn't make it true.

There were 30 cell phone calls reportedly made from Flt 93 at 30,00 feet or higher. One was made from a guy who claimed to have locked himself in the lavatory (no air-phone possible there), and he talked for quite a while.

Also, all the Flt 93 cell calls were apparently routed through a single cell tower located in Illinois. Odd enough considering all the cell towers that existed between it and the reported location of Flt 93 at the times the calls were supposedly made. The idea that all these calls would have reached out to this one far-off cell tower defies all logic or technological reality. More likely, these calls were all made from a stationary location that was within the tx range of this specific cell tower. What does this fact indicate? I don't know, but I do know what it doesn't indicate. It doesn't indicate that the calls were made at 30,000 feet in a plane flying 500+ mph and hundreds of miles beyond the reach of that cell tower. That much I can be very sure of.

Another fact is that several examination were made of the potential for successful cell phone usage at a height greater than 6,000 feet and the %'s dropped to less than .006 above that height for any connection whatsoever. The notion that 30 cell calls, attempted at 30K + feet of altitude (according to the official timeline mated to the radar information of the flight of Flt 93) were successfully connected for even a moment is so far beyond the percentage of probability that you'd have to start claiming divine intervention in this case to be able to explain it. Then again, if God only let the people call through, but then let them die a grisly death in the end would make your version of God a pretty twisted character.

I'd look to a more plausible explanation if I were you. Your explanation makes no sense at all and doesn't coincide with the documented facts.

[Nor'Easter]

Not to mention, by Al Qaeda themselves:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7361414.stm

This is just plain stupid. I wouldn't believe this guy about anything. Especially 9/11. Osama aggressively denied having any involvement with 9/11 when it happened, and it wasn't until the US "found" that oddball video in a house in Afghanistan (oddly lucky find) featuring the righthanded Osama fake "admitted" involvement that there was any evidence beyond the weird carry-on bags that Atta just happened to have that just happened to miss the transfer from the Maine flight to the Boston - LA flight. Convenient but sloppy as all hell. Maybe Joe-scratch-his-balls believed that drech but no one else ever did.

Classic stuff, but very out-dated as far as a convincing ruse. That shit lost its magic after the 2nd Jame Bond flick.

[Betrade]

There were 30 cell phone calls reportedly made from Flt 93 at 30,00 feet or higher. One was made from a guy who claimed to have locked himself in the lavatory (no air-phone possible there), and he talked for quite a while.

Also, all the Flt 93 cell calls were apparently routed through a single cell tower located in Illinois. Odd enough considering all the cell towers that existed between it and the reported location of Flt 93 at the times the calls were supposedly made. The idea that all these calls would have reached out to this one far-off cell tower defies all logic or technological reality. More likely, these calls were all made from a stationary location that was within the tx range of this specific cell tower. What does this fact indicate? I don't know, but I do know what it doesn't indicate. It doesn't indicate that the calls were made at 30,000 feet in a plane flying 500+ mph and hundreds of miles beyond the reach of that cell tower. That much I can be very sure of.

Another fact is that several examination were made of the potential for successful cell phone usage at a height greater than 6,000 feet and the %'s dropped to less than .006 above that height for any connection whatsoever. The notion that 30 cell calls, attempted at 30K + feet of altitude (according to the official timeline mated to the radar information of the flight of Flt 93) were successfully connected for even a moment is so far beyond the percentage of probability that you'd have to start claiming divine intervention in this case to be able to explain it. Then again, if God only let the people call through, but then let them die a grisly death in the end would make your version of God a pretty twisted character.

I'd look to a more plausible explanation if I were you. Your explanation makes no sense at all and doesn't coincide with the documented facts.

So you're actually one of those people who have swallowed the phantom cell tower/phone theory?? Do you actually believe that even the 911 operators were somehow involved too??

Look, the US government can't even cover up a simple case of adultery, much less plan, execute and succeed at pulling off a fake terrorist attack so they can get Iraqi oil (of which we haven't seen one drop after all these years).

http://wuzzadem.typepad.com/wuz/2006/07/911_conspiracy_.html

There's no point continuing this, because I can talk until I'm blue in the face and it's pointless You're mind is made up and the facts aren't going to change that. You obviously want to believe in this conspiracy, so knock yourself out.

[Betrade]

Here are a couple of links that debunk the conspiracy theories.

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

http://www.debunking911.com/massivect.htm

[Cyclone Ranger]

I especially like the "simulation" that neglected to include the 47 massive steel beams in the center of the structure that actually held the entire thing up. F-ed up computer simulations don't prove anything. All the NIST simulations have been universally debunked. They've finally had to admit that they don't know how it all happened once the collapse sequence began. You must be reading old material.
NIST'simulations have never been debunked.

The simulations are incredibly complicated, use up vast computing power, and were created using thousands of engineers from all over the country.

And when facts conflict with inane, uninformed conspiracy theories based purely on political motivations and mental defects, in the minds of conspiracy idiots, the facts must be done away with

[Cyclone Ranger]

This is just plain stupid. I wouldn't believe this guy about anything. Especially 9/11. Osama aggressively denied having any involvement with 9/11 when it happened, and it wasn't until the US "found" that oddball video in a house in Afghanistan (oddly lucky find) featuring the righthanded Osama fake "admitted" involvement that there was any evidence beyond the weird carry-on bags that Atta just happened to have that just happened to miss the transfer from the Maine flight to the Boston - LA flight. Convenient but sloppy as all hell. Maybe Joe-scratch-his-balls believed that drech but no one else ever did.

Classic stuff, but very out-dated as far as a convincing ruse. That shit lost its magic after the 2nd Jame Bond flick.
Bullshit - the video is available on a radical Islamic website. The man is OBL's lieutenant.

Your only response is that of the refuted ideologue scrambling to avoid embarrassment once his delusions have been exposed as idiocy: denying reality.

[Nor'Easter]

NIST'simulations have never been debunked.

The simulations are incredibly complicated, use up vast computing power, and were created using thousands of engineers from all over the country.

And when facts conflict with inane, uninformed conspiracy theories based purely on political motivations and mental defects, in the minds of conspiracy idiots, the facts must be done away with

oOIjWvUAdxg

This video should end all speculation concerning how the towers were designed and built. A very elaborate and redundant steel core super-structure is clearly featured in this video that was made while the thing was being built.

So, forget the "pancake" theory or collapse with this thing. The fires only touched the ring area of the building and after the jet fuel burned off (about 10 minutes into the whole affair for either building) the only stuff capable of burning to any great degree was the office furniture and dry wall. That existed only in the external ring areas of the floor plan, and only on the floors where the fires actually occurred. The center structure had no flammable material to any extent whatsoever, and therefore the enormous steel columns and the supporting steel beam weave could not have been impacted beyond the initial fuel fire - which never lasted long enough to cause any weakening of the steel in this web-structure at the center of each building.

Good stuff to know.

[Cyclone Ranger]

1. NIST didn't affirm the "pancake theory" of collapse in their report. That's just your strawman.

2. The combustion of the office materials produced more heat than the jet fuel itself.

3. The jet impact alone severed many of the steel supports; the WTC towers were "tube in tube" constructions.

4. At the temperatures generated by the burning of the jet fuel, office contents and drywall, the steel supports lost around 80% of their strength.

5. Add failing and severed supports to holding up several stories above the impact site, and you get collapse.

No big mystery there.

[Nor'Easter]

1. NIST didn't affirm the "pancake theory" of collapse in their report. That's just your strawman.

2. The combustion of the office materials produced more heat than the jet fuel itself.

3. The jet impact alone severed many of the steel supports; the WTC towers were "tube in tube" constructions.

4. At the temperatures generated by the burning of the jet fuel, office contents and drywall, the steel supports lost around 80% of their strength.

5. Add failing and severed supports to holding up several stories above the impact site, and you get collapse.

No big mystery there.


Come on. You can do better than this. This is circa 2005 clap trap. Hello! It's 2008, and all this junk has been walked away from by the real debunkers on the web. Go work on your talking points and come back when you get within the last 6 months of drivel. You're stinking up the board with this inanity.

Oh, did you know that in the 70s, the WTC suffered a massive fire that burned for three hours and involved multiple floors?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pictures/Apr05/100405WTC.jpg

[optimus]

Will the truth ever come out Nor?

[Cyclone Ranger]

Sorry. Simple ad hominems like the above are not acceptable substitutes for arguments.

Either you can come up with some factual criticisms or you can't. Saying it's "circa 2005" is not an analysis. Come up with something or simply admit you were wrong.

[Nor'Easter]

Will the truth ever come out Nor?

It's already out. I can't be responsible for people believing it. That's what so stupid about the debate. The facts that prove a cover-up by the official conspiracy theory are solid and unassailable, but in this society people always assume that there are two sides to every debate - even when one side is either belligerent ignorance or a bald-face lie. The truth is that no one in the world believes the official conspiracy theory besides the American people who refuse to accept the fact that they've been hoodwinked. That refusal to accept the obvious isn't proof of anything other than what it is - a refusal to accept the obvious.

The entire body of evidence and information has progressed to a point with this where the point-counterpoint has ceased to actually be a legitimate controversy. All that exists now is a campaign to convince enough people of the truth that the whole 9/11 mass murder was committed with the aim of launching our nation into a generational 21st century cold war with an enemy that could never actually be quantified, let alone defeated.

[Nor'Easter]

Sorry. Simple ad hominems like the above are not acceptable substitutes for arguments.

Either you can come up with some factual criticisms or you can't. Saying it's "circa 2005" is not an analysis. Come up with something or simply admit you were wrong.

Hey, read the newspaper story. Your big steel weakening fire already happened in the same building in 1975, and it didn't collapse. You lose.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Youtube videos are not 'facts.' No one has produced even the slightest evidence of a conspiracy; suspicion and evidence are not the same thing.