Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition - Part 4

R70966
5 years ago
whitey


R70970
5 years ago
fennec

Redundant, eh, yt?

Post Modified: 07/22/05 21:26:14

R71190
5 years ago
Geronimo_Skull


R71191
5 years ago
Roquentin


Post Modified: 07/25/05 23:32:13

R71205
5 years ago
CaptainTrips

McKinney reopens 9/11
Conspiracy theories implicating president aired at 8-hour hearing.
07/23/05
Washington — Revisiting the issue that helped spur her ouster from Congress three years ago, Rep. Cynthia Mc­Kinney led a Capitol Hill hearing Friday on whether the Bush administration was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The eight-hour hearing, timed to mark the first anniversary of the release of the Sept. 11 commission’s report on the attacks, drew dozens of contrarians and conspiracy theorists who suggest President Bush purposely ignored warnings or may even have had a hand in the attack — claims participants said the commission ignored.
“The commission’s report was not a rush to judgment, it was a rush to exoneration,” said John Judge, a member of Mc­Kinney’s staff and a representative of a Web site dedicated to raising questions about the Sept. 11 commission’s report.
The White House and the commission have dismissed such questions as unfounded conspiracy theories.
McKinney first raised questions about Bush’s involvement shortly after the attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, generating a furious response from fellow Democrats in Washington and voters in Georgia, who ousted her in 2002.
“What we are doing is asking the unanswered questions of the 9/11 families,” McKinney, a DeKalb County Democrat who won back her seat in 2004, said during the proceedings.
She rebuffed a reporter’s repeated attempts to ask her why she would so boldly embrace the same claims that led to her downfall.
“Congresswoman McKinney is viewed as a contrarian,” panelist Melvin Goodman, a former CIA official, said. “And I hope someday her views will be considered conventional wisdom.”
Though she left the testimony and questioning of panelists to others, McKinney was the main attraction, presiding over more than two dozen participants, including the author of a book that claims the U.S. government had advance knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack and allowed it to happen, and Peter Dale Scott, who wrote three books on President John F. Kennedy’s assassination.
Georgia peanuts, Cokes and coffee were available to more than 50 attendees, whose casual dress was a decided change from the gangs of blue-suited lobbyists who usually crowd Capitol Hill hearings.
McKinney herself offered witnesses bottled water and found additional trash cans to place around the room.
Nearly a dozen 9/11 enthusiasts lined one side of the room, camcorders at the ready, broadcasting the hearing live over the Internet or recording it for later release. C-SPAN cameras documented the hearing, and a DVD recording of the proceedings will soon be available.
Ten people sat in a section reserved for family members of 9/11 victims.
“Nine-eleven could have been prevented,” said Marilyn Rosenthal, a University of Michigan professor who lost a son in the attacks, echoing the premise of the hearing.
Panelists maintained that Bush ignored numerous warnings from the CIA, the Federal Aviation Administration, foreign governments and others who told him before 9/11 that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack the United States and that terrorists were likely to use hijacked airliners as weapons.
But why would the president or his administration want the 9/11 attacks to occur? Power, the panelists agreed.
In the wake of the attacks, the administration was able to greatly expand the president’s power and the reach of the federal government, they said, but whistle-blowers and other potential witnesses who could have testified to the Sept. 11 commission about such things were either prevented from speaking or ignored in the commission’s final report. Panelists called the commission’s report “a cover-up.”
“The American people have been seriously misled,” said Scott.

R71217
5 years ago
Continuity

“The American people have been seriously misled,” said Scott.
_
P.D. Scott is a cool guy. I’ve learned more from reading his books (and his various short articles) than all the other researchers I’ve read combined. John Judge, also listed in the post above, is a good source of interesting information too.
I’d be interesting in viewing the DVD of this new hearing overseen by McKinney and guests.
Post Modified: 07/23/05 01:17:50

R71361
5 years ago
whateveryousay







R71452
5 years ago
Rasputin

I never did like pancakes.
Or waffles for that matter.
Conspiracy theories implicating presiden
Ho-hum. What’s it gonna take for people to stop using this term?

R71601
5 years ago
cortez

“Ho-hum. What’s it gonna take for people to stop using this term?”
Courage

R71608
5 years ago
Shogo

“What’s it gonna take for people to stop using this term?”
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say “evidence”, Bob.

R71629
5 years ago
Continuity

The English language has been so Orwellian manipulated ever since the assassination of JFK that the common person automatically interprets the word conspiracy with something that is made-up, false, and not to be talked about. PR firms have worked hard for years to arrive at this present state.
Conditioning has produced emotional, sub-cognitive reactions to the word. That’s why people like Shogo use it as a wisecrack slogan, hoping to pre-empt thought. And after 11 previous pages of data, which present many unanswered questions, his next Orwellian trick is just plain denial: no evidence, he says, no unanswered questions.

R71682
5 years ago
CaptainTrips

Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center
While it may be difficult to awaken everyone from their state-induced fog of fear, we are at a critical point in history which requires us to try. We truly must take an objective look at the facts and evidence surrounding 9-11.
While none of the many 9-11 researchers knows exactly what happened on that fateful day in September almost 3 years ago, any sensible person can easily spot dozens of inconsistencies in the official story that is being forced upon us.
And these inconsistencies are huge. They range from the apparent stand-down of our immense military arsenal (for over an hour and a half) to the small hole and lack of debris at the Pentagon. There was Bush’s bizarre, uninterrupted photo op in a Florida elementary school, and then there is the matter of the remains of Flight 93 being scattered over eight miles of Pennsylvania farmland, a fact which suggests the plane may have been shot down. The official story seems wrong on all of these points.
But the focus of this article is on just one point: the odd collapse of the three buildings in the World Trade Center complex.
How I First Began to Question – WTC7
The World Trade Center (WTC) contained seven buildings. The Twin Towers were called buildings One (WTC1) and Two (WTC2). They collapsed in truly astounding fashion, but the event that caused me first to question the official story about the events of 9-11 was viewing videos of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7).
If you’ve forgotten, WTC7 was a 47-story building that was not hit by an airplane or by any significant debris from either WTC1 or WTC2. Buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 were struck by massive amounts of debris from the collapsing Twin Towers, yet none collapsed, despite their thin-gauge steel supports. World Trade Center Buildling 7, which was situated on the next block over, was the farthest of the buildings from WTC1 and WTC2. WTC7 happened to contain the New York City Office of Emergency Management (OEM), a facility that was, according to testimony to the 9-11 Commission, one of the most sophisticated Emergency Command Centers on the planet. But shortly after 5:20 pm on Sept. 11, as the horrific day was coming to a close, WTC7 mysteriously imploded and fell to the ground in an astounding 6.5 seconds.
6.5 seconds. This is a mere 0.5 seconds more than freefall in a vacuum. To restate this, a rock dropped from the 47th floor would have taken at least 6 seconds to hit the ground. WTC7, in its entirety, fell to the earth in 6.5 seconds. Now, recall, we’re supposed to believe that each floor of the building “pancaked” on the one below. Each of the 47 floors supposedly pancaked and collapsed, individually. Yet WTC7 reached the ground in 0.5 seconds longer than freefall. Is this really possible?
Judge for yourself. Watch WTC7 go down. It takes 6.5 seconds. Take out your stopwatch.
What About Towers One and Two?
The odd, swift collapse of WTC7 made me reconsider the Twin Towers and how they fell. As I had with WTC7, I first studied video footage available on the web. Then I acquired and watched a DVD of the collapses, frame by frame.
What struck me first was the way the second plane hit WTC2, the South Tower. I noticed that this plane, United Airlines Flight 175, which weighed over 160,000 pounds and was traveling at 350 mph, did not even visibly move the building when it slammed into it. How, I wondered, could a building that did not visibly move from a heavy high speed projectile collapse at near freefall speed less than an hour later?
Next, I turned my attention to steel beams that fell in freefall next to the building as it collapsed. The beams were falling at the same rate that the towers themselves were descending. Familiar with elementary physics, including principles of conservation of energy and momentum, this seemed quite impossible if the towers were indeed “pancaking,” which is the official theory.
The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. I calculated that from that height, freefall in a vacuum (read, absolutely no resistance on earth) is 9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. Just like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to fail individually.
As I was considering this, another problem arose. There is a principle in physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy. There is also the Law of Conservation of Momentum. I’ll briefly explain how these principles work. Let’s assume there are two identical Honda Civics on the freeway. One is sitting in neutral at a standstill (0 mph). The other is coasting at 60 mph. The second Honda slams into the back of the first one. The first Honda will then instantaneously be going much faster than it was, and the second will instantaneously be going much slower than it was.
This is how the principle works in the horizontal direction, and it works the same in the vertical direction — with the added constant force of gravity added to it. Jim Hoffman, a professional scientist published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, took a long look at all of this. He calculated that even if the structure itself offered no resistance — that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air — the “pancake” theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. So, even if the building essentially didn’t exist — if it provided no resistance at all to the collapse — just the floors hitting each other and causing each other to decelerate would’ve taken 15.5 seconds to reach the ground.
But of course the buildings did exist. They had stood for over 30 years. The floors weren’t hovering in mid-air. So how did the building provide no resistance?
Yet another observation one makes in watching the collapsing towers is the huge dust clouds and debris, including steel beams, that were thrown hundreds of feet out horizontally from the towers as they fell. If we are to believe the pancake theory, this amount of scattering debris, fine pulverized concrete dust, and sheetrock powder would clearly indicate massive resistance to the vertical collapse. So there is an impossible conflict. You either have a miraculous, historical, instantaneous, catastrophic failure that occurs within a fraction of a second of freefall and that kicks out little dust, or you have a solid, hefty building that remains virtually unaffected after a massive, speeding projectile hits it. You either have a house of cards or a house of bricks. The building either resists its collapse or it doesn’t.
And we know the WTC Towers were made of reinforced steel and concrete that would act much more like bricks than cards.
Thus, put simply, the floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how?
What About the Fires?
The official story maintains that fires weakened the buildings. Jet fuel supposedly burned so hot it began to melt the steel columns supporting the towers. But steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire, since they’re built from steel that doesn’t melt below 2750* degrees Fahrenheit. No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is really just refined kerosene, will burn hotter than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit.
It’s also odd that WTC7, which wasn’t hit by an airplane or by any significant debris, collapsed in strikingly similar fashion to the Twin Towers. There wasn’t even any jet fuel or kerosene burning in WTC7.**
According to the 9-11 report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “the specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.”
Aside from its startling nonchalance, this statement makes a rather profound assumption. Again, no building prior to 9-11, in the 100-plus year history of steel frame buildings, had ever collapsed from fire.
This fact was known to firemen. Hence their unflinching rush up into the skyscrapers to put out the fire. Partly it was bravery, to be sure, but partly it was concrete knowledge that skyscrapers do not collapse due to fire. Yet after 100 years, three collapsed in one day.
Did the FEMA investigators not think to ask the New York City Fire Department how they thought the fire started, or how the fires could have caused the astounding, historical collapse? This would seem to be an elementary step in any investigation about a fire. Instead, they chose to leave the cause of the collapse “unknown.”
Conclusion
So if the science in this article is correct (none of it goes beyond the tenth grade level), then we know that the floors of the three WTC buildings were not pancaking but were falling simultaneously.We also know that fire is an insufficient explanation for the initiation of the collapse of the buildings.
Why, then, did the three WTC buildings fall?
There is a method that has been able to consistently get skyscrapers to fall as fast as the three buildings of the World Trade Center fell on 9-11. In this method, each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously — and in virtual freefall. This method, when precisely used, has indeed given near-freefall speed to demolitions of buildings all over the world in the past few decades. This method could have brought down WTC7 in 6.5 seconds. This method is called controlled demolition.
A controlled demolition would have exploded debris horizontally at a rapid rate. A controlled demolition would also explain the fine, pulverized concrete powder, whereas pancaking floors would leave chunks of concrete. Controlled demolition would also explain the seismic evidence recorded nearby of two small earthquakes — each just before one of the Twin Towers collapsed. And finally, controlled demolition would explain why three steel skyscrapers — two of which were struck by planes and one of which wasn’t — all collapsed in essentially the same way.
Ongoing Questions
But having established that all three WTC towers had to have been assisted in their failures, I asked myself, Who could have planted the explosives to blow up the buildings in a controlled demolition? Could fundamentalist Muslim fanatics have gotten the plans for those buildings, engineered the demolition, and then gotten into them to plant the explosives?
This seemed improbable. And after learning that WTC7 housed the FBI, CIA, and the OEM, it seemed impossible. Then I thought, Why would terrorists engineer a building to implode? Wouldn’t they want to cause even more damage to the surrounding buildings and possibly create more havoc and destruction from debris exploding away from the building? And if they’d planted explosives in the buildings, why would they have bothered hijacking and flying planes into them? Perhaps WTC7 was demolished to destroy evidence that would answer these questions. To this day, I don’t know. But this is how I began to question the official story about 9-11.
Recently I learned that President Bush’s brother, Marvin Bush, is a part owner of the company that not only provided security for both United and American Airlines, but also for the World Trade Center complex itself. I also discovered that Larry Silverstein, who had bought the leasing rights for the WTC complex from the NY/NJ Port Authority in May of 2001 for $200 million, had received a $3.55 billion insurance settlement right after 9-11 — yet he was suing for an additional $3.55 billion by claiming the two hits on the towers constituted two separate terrorist attacks! He stood to make $7 billion dollars on a four month investment. Talk about motive.
In conclusion, I’ll repeat myself. None of the many 9-11 researchers can definitively say exactly what happened on that fateful day in September almost 3 years ago. But any sensible person can easily spot dozens of inconsistencies in the official story that is being forced upon us. And the fact is, most of the available 9-11 evidence points to at least some level of government complicity or foreknowledge.
Please, read more for yourself. Don’t take my word for it. Most of all, do not buy the double-speak that visible politicians and the media use to discount any question about 9-11. Clearly, there are no “conspiracy theories” surrounding 9-11. The official story itself affirms that there was obviously some kind of conspiracy. It’s just a question of which conspiracy occurred. We know it wasn’t mere coincidence that several hijackers happened to be on several different airplanes and happened to hijack them at the exact same time and happened to pick the World Trade Center as a target. The real question is, “Who was involved in the conspiracy?”
Dave Heller, who has degrees in physics and architecture, is a builder and engaged citizen in Berkeley, California.
  • Dave is a little off on this point, Kevin Ryan, a former employee of U/L says,
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 2000 F 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 3000 F 2. Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000 F 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 500 F (250 C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
From letter of Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). link
  • There was Diesel fuel. However, a substantial amount of Diesel was recovered;
“Engineers from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation investigated oil contamination in the debris of WTC 7. Their principal interest was directed to the various oils involved in the Con Ed equipment. However, they reported the following findings on fuel oil: “In addition to Con Ed’s oil, there was a maximum loss of 12,000 gallons of diesel from two underground storage tanks registered as 7WTC.” To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7.” link
From Democratic Underground…
The Case for Controlled Demolition.
For the following, I used the height of The World Trade Center Towers as 1368 feet and considered each floor as (1368/110) feet. Gravity = 32.2 ft/sec^2.
The official collapse time I first read was 8.4 seconds. Later, I read it was 10 seconds. I think the official story gives the time it took for the damaged zone to reach the ground in free-fall, not even the rooftop, as the total collapse time. But, this difference is small. Here, I will use the full height of the building. (This difference benefits the official story.)
Case 1.
Imagine this exercise with billiard balls. From the rooftop of WTC1, drop one (dark-blue) billiard ball over the edge. As it falls, it accelerates. If it were in a vacuum, it would hit the pavement (1350 feet below) in 9.490 seconds, shown by the first blue curve in the figure (Figure_1.jpg), below. It will take longer if air resistance is considered. For simplicity, we’ll use the “no-air resistance” case. (This difference benefits the official story.)
Note, as the ball begins to fall, it accelerates. If the entire building is to collapse in 9.5 seconds, the other floors must start falling before the ball reaches that floor. This makes the “pancake theory” or “progressive collapse” theory impossible.
Figure 1.
Case 2.
Now, let’s simulate a beam collapse every 10th floor. (This difference benefits the official story.) Refer to the figure (Figure_1.jpg),above. The clock starts when the blue ball is dropped from the roof (110th floor).
Just as the blue ball passes the 100th floor, the red ball drops from the 100th floor. When the red ball passes the 90th floor, the orange ball drops from the 90th floor, ... etc. This approximates the “pancaking” theory, assuming that each floor between the “pancaking” (collapsing) floor provides no resistance at all. (This difference benefits the official story.)
With this theory, no floor below the “pancake” can begin to move until the progressive collapse has reached that level. For example, there is no reason for the 20th floor to suddenly collapse before it is damaged. As you can see, a minimum of 32 seconds is required. Of course it would take longer if accounting for the differences I’ve noted.
Now, let’s consider another scenario, considering momentum.
Case 3.
Assume that the top 10 floors stay intact as a solid block weight (Block-A). Start the collapse timer when the 100th floor fails. At that instant, assume floors 90-100 miraculously turn to powder and disappear. So, Block-A can drop at free-fall speed until it reaches the 90th floor. After Block-A travels 10 floors, it now has momentum. If all of the momentum is transferred from Block-A to the next floor (or floors), Block-A will stop moving, even if there is no resistance for the next floor to start moving. Recall the physics demonstration shown below. (I believe everyone who has finished high school has seen one of these demonstrations at some point in their life.)

So, if some part must stop and then restart its decent every 10 floors, the total collapse time must be more than 10 seconds. Also, consider the energy required to pulverize the 10 floors between each “pancake.”
Questions:
Now, consider reality.
How likely is it that all supporting structures on a given floor would fail at exactly the same time?
What if all supporting structures on a given floor did not fail at the same time?
Would the building tip over or fall straight down into its own footprint?
Case 4.
Similar to Case 1, above, let’s consider a floor-by-floor progressive collapse.
Refer to my figure below (Figure 3):
Figure 3.
If the progression begins at the top, it takes about 100 seconds to collapse the building to the gound. If you want to use the 85th floor as a starting point, cut the lower 25 floors off the chart and it takes about 75 seconds. However, the top 25 floors must also have time to drop.
Now, consider the “stuff” flying out horizontally from the building. If the building were falling from gravity alone, it would take even longer to fall because a lot of the gravitational energy would be spent in the horizontal direction. (Actually, the horizontal and/or vertical motion and pulverization would consume many more times the available energy from just gravity alone.)

R71836
5 years ago
Continuity

That a great deal of material seemed to explode horizontally as ejecta, in my opinion, is not a clear sign of demolition. This material, from my viewing, appeared to be destroyed outer flooring & lattice. There was resistance, and as a result material was flung wide.
However, the resistance probably should have been greater and thus the full collapse longer in duration (by several seconds). Not to mention more chaotic and less uniform. In particular, I say that the resistance should probably have been greater because the core — levels and levels of highly reinforced steel and concrete — simply lost all support simultaneously. The core, which could not pancake in the way that the outer floors could, compacted and telescoped onto itself very neatly, so neatly and hastily that I’m still stuck on what really happened.

R71881
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Wow, more new info still coming. Thanks whatever and continuity. The demolition nukes were a definite wrinkle.

R71926
5 years ago
whateveryousay

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1579092.stm
Professor Wilem Frischmann:
“Prior to 11 September, I scarcely believed that this icon was vulnerable,”
...
“My current analysis of the collapse sequence [suggests that] damage caused to the outside would not have triggered collapse.”
...
Bob Halvorson:
“There is going to be a debate about whether or not the World Trade Center Towers should have collapsed in the way that they did.”
...
“We are operating well beyond realistic experience,”

R72005
5 years ago
verisimilar

table{border:0px solid black;background:#1A1A1A}. |
SECRECY SURROUNDS A BUSH BROTHER'S ROLE IN 9/11 SECURITY
Eight of Clubs Marvin Bush, pt. 1 Eight of Clubs Marvin Bush, pt. 2 Eight of Clubs Marvin Bush, pt. 3

The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.

|

R72029
5 years ago
CaptainTrips

July 23, 2005 – House Hearing on anniversary of 911 Report
Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) chaired a 9-hour hearing in the Cannon House Office Building on the anniversary of the release of the widely-criticized 911 Commission Report. Witnesses, including 911 family members, former intelligence officers, former diplomats, politicians, academicians, and legal experts were uniform in their contention that the 911 Commission was deeply flawed and its report failed to address why 911 occurred. A number of the Commission members had major conflicts of interest. The Executive Staff Director Phillip Zelikow is a long-time Republican activist with close ties to Condoleezza Rice and the right-wing funded Miller Institute. The Commission was also criticized for focusing more on increased authorities for intelligence and law enforcement and intelligence restructuring than on the events of 911 and past U.S. policy in the Middle East and South Asia that led up to the 911 attacks.
Former CIA officer Mel Goodman stated that the 911 Commission intelligence reforms proposed and, in part, acted upon by the Bush administration, would do nothing to prevent the politicization of intelligence. He said there’s no better way to politicize intelligence than to place the Director of National Intelligence in the executive chain. He added, “considering [John] Negroponte’s background in Honduras,” the creation of the DNI is “a bad precedent.” Goodman pointed to a statement by Negroponte that his goal is to ensure intelligence “meets consumer demands.”
McKinney Hearing witness Lorie Van Auken, whose husband was killed in the WTC, expressed her frustration at both the 911 Commission’s failure to address key issues and President Bush, who she watched on TV sitting in a Florida classroom with second graders after the second plane struck the Trade Center. While worried about the fate of her husband, she was bewildered that Bush would remain in the classroom, putting himself and the school children in danger while America was experiencing a major terrorist attack.
The panel discussed past U.S. support for Al Qaeda and its affiliates in Afghanistan, the Caucasus, Algeria, the Philippines, and the Balkans. Experts like British Middle East expert Nafeez Ahmed, author of The War on Freedom, pointed to links between Philippine Intelligence and the Abu Sayyaf Group; Algerian Intelligence ties to the Armed Islamic Group (GIA), and U.S. intelligence support for Al Qaeda units in Kosovo and Azerbaijan and the Mujaheddin and Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The 1990s exploits of Iran-contra felon, retired General Richard Secord, and two other covert players, retired Air Force Special Forces officer Harry “Heine” Aderholt and Gary Best, in backing Azerbaijan against Armenian separatists in Nagorno-Karabakh, was of particular note. The three, using a front company called Mega Oil, brought hundreds of “Arab Afghans,” many of whom were members of Al Qaeda and served under then-Bin Laden ally Gulbuddin Hekmatayar, into the region from Afghanistan to fight not only in Nagorno-Karabakh but also Georgia, Chechnya, and Dagestan. The goal was to eliminate pro-Russian governments to make way for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline. Hundreds of Al Qaeda terrorists were trained in terror tactics. At the time of the operations, Richard Armitage was the head of the US-Azerbaijani Chamber of Commerce, an entity supported by companies like Chevron (on whose board Condoleezza Rice served), Halliburton (where Dick Cheney was CEO), and Enron (which was a cash cow and network of off-shore shells for the Bush family).
A number of experts, including Dr. Peter Dale Scott of the University of California at Berkeley, a former Canadian diplomat and author of Drugs, Oil & War, referred to the U.S.-sanctioned heroin trade from Afghanistan as the primary method Al Qaeda uses to finance its operations. That contention was supported by Lauretta Napolione, author of Modern Jihad, Terror Incorporated.
Veteran ABC News Middle East correspondent John Cooley, author of Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America, and International Terrorism, provided a statement for the hearing. Cooley shoots down the neo-con line about links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
“In the area of ignorant or mislaid intelligence warnings about 911, as well as the false (and probably in some cases, falsified) intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s supposed WMDs and terrorist links, I can attest to personal experience: Myself and other working reporters often described Saddam Hussein’s early support of notorious Palestinian guerilla groups, such as Abu Nidal, but also his quarrels with them, often resulting in their expulsion and/or assassination of their leaders.”
“We reported how bin Laden, during his 1990s operations in the Sudan and later, denounced Saddam and offered to turn his volunteer Islamist legions against him in the Kuwait war of 1991. This was rejected by the Saudi royals. They preferred to accept then US Defense Secretary Dick Cheney’s offer of a 400,000-plus, US-led expeditionary force, an idea excoriated by bin Laden as “an infidel presence” at sacred Muslim holy places, a main cause of bin Laden’s break with the Saudi regime.”
“During the summer of 2001, this reporter received directly from Jordanian intelligence in Amman information already passed to the United States, both in Jordan and Germany: communications intercepts of messages between terrorist operatives referring to imminent operation, code-named in Arabic “THE BIG WEDDING,” in the continental US, using aircraft. Similar warnings were passed to Rabat and doubtless onward to Washington, by a Moroccan intelligence operative who infiltrated bin Laden’s immediate circle. Suspected by bin Laden and frozen out, he escaped. He was eventually given a new identity and existence in the United States.”
John Cooley has covered the Mideast and South Asia as a correspondent and author since the late 1950s.
McKinney was thanked repeatedly for the courage to hold the unofficial hearings and she received several standing ovations from the assembled witnesses, families, experts, and audience members. McKinney said that the “truth has finally arrived in the Congress.”
Keeping up its role as a mouthpiece for Corporate America and a longtime enemy of Rep. McKinney, The Atlanta Journal Constitution has a report in today’s issue about the hearing. The paper insinuates the hearing was dominated by “conspiracy theorists.” A posting on Democratic Underground today is quite correct when it states the topics brought up in the heaing were not “conspiracies” but “discoveries.” On the other hand, Daily Kos, the faux “liberal” Blog, keeping to form as a fount of group think and mainstream media pabulum, had little or nothing on the McKinney hearings. It has repeatedly censored postings that its operators and moderators claim are unfounded “conspiracy theories.” The McKinney hearings were due to be broadcast by C-SPAN on the evening of July 23. The hearings were also streamed by Indymedia and Pacifica Radio.

R72032
5 years ago
CaptainTrips

Critics Cite Omissions, Cover-Ups On First Anniversary of 9/11 Commission Report
By Len Bracken – July 25, 2005
WASHINGTON, D.C.—On the first anniversary of the 9/11 Commission Report, family members and experts challenged its veracity and comprehensiveness at hearings convened by Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) on July 22.
Congresswoman McKinney set the tone by reminding the assembled citizens and media in the stately Cannon Office Building hearing room of administration’s opposition to the commission, of the conflicts of interest among its members and of the omissions in the report. Many of the alleged hijackers are alive in Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Egypt, she said, yet the report failed to mention this. She lamented that the report did not cover the final $100,000 payment to hijacker Mohamed Atta from Saeed Sheikh or Bin Laden’s connection with the mujaheddin. Much “inconvenient information” was left out of the report, she said. Co-chair the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, Lorie Van Auken, whose husband died in the World Trade Center, shattered the notion that the report is an accurate account by presenting numerous cases where it is suspect, such as the three-minute discrepancy with the seismic record of the flight 93 crash and the failure to investigate the claim by the administration spokesman that there were no warnings when in fact there were many. The report somehow skipped over the FBI’s thwarting of a request to search Zacorais Moussaoui’s computer by editing the request and finally blocking it. According to Van Auken, the so-called Reno Wall excuse for this was unjustified and an FBI lawyer who looked into the affair had never seen a refusal for a search request such as this. Moreover, the FBI official responsible for blocking the request, David Frasca, was rewarded with a promotion and large financial bonus.
Van Auken also cites the report’s failure to draw a conclusion from the CIA’s lack of follow-up on a tip from German intelligence that could have led to the Hamburg cell. Buried in a footnote, she said, the report mentions the CIA deliberately kept the FBI out of the loop regarding two suspects who should have been on a watch list much earlier. The desk officer would not say who told her to withhold this information. The commission perpetuates the myth that institutional problems, not intentional withholding, were to blame, she said. Van Auken directly challenged the veracity of Condoleezza Rice’s testimony regarding purported ignorance of the threat posed by hijacked planes used as missiles and the famous presidential daily briefing entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States.” Van Auken characterized the latter as domestic and current rather than historical.
Reflecting the frustration of many victims’ families, Van Auken noted the absence of prosecutions, citing the release of suspects in Germany because of the lack of cooperation from the United States. She said the report did not adequately account for the military exercises on the morning of 9/11, which created considerable confusion. Only one video of the Pentagon has been released, she said, and it has the wrong date on it. The commission did not answer requests to see the videos from a nearby gas station and hotel.
A list of whistleblowers whose testimony was either barely acknowledged or omitted, she said, showed that the commission “actively and knowingly ignored evidence.” Van Auken derided the commission’s conclusion that 9/11 was the result of a “failure of imagination” and she condemned the way it skirted questions of accountability.
Addressing flaws in the process, 9/11 CitizensWatch co-founder John Judge noted that much of the testimony concerned recommendations for intelligence reform rather than what actually happened. Members and staff of the commission are part of the national security state with serious conflicts of interest, he said. Many of the sources cannot be seen and FOIA requests to do so have been denied. Judge said that the commission’s work faced obstruction from the White House and suffered from unquestioned acceptance of information from earlier reports.
Ex-CIA official Mel Goodman said the commission deferred to executive privilege, failed to use its subpoena power with detainees and, in general, lacked tenacity. Goodman said Philip Zelikow, the commission’s staff director with deep right-wing connections, authored intelligence case studies at Harvard purporting to show how the CIA made accurate assessments of the Soviet Union, when in fact the agency was famously wrong. Goodman was questioned by Mike Ruppert, author of Crossing the Rubicon in which he alleges Vice President Cheney orchestrated the event. Ruppert was the only person at the hearing to flatly state that 9/11 was an inside job.
Paul Thompson, creator of the influential Complete 9/11 Timeline online and author of The Terror Timeline published by Harper-Collins, said that there are five timeline accounts in conflict with each other, adding the commission made a “complete rewrite of what happened” in 2004. Thompson quoted Senator Mark Dayton (D-Minn.) as saying that the North American Aerospace Command and the Federal Aviation Administration have “lied to the American people.” Thompson has discovered yet another war game taking place on 9/11, this one with the ominous title Global Guardian: Practice Armageddon.
Nafeez Ahmed, author most recently of War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism, spoke of “unresolved anomalies” in the hijackers’ behavior, such as trips to the Philippines and Las Vegas for “prohibited pleasures.” He cited the hijackers training at U.S. military installations and noted that they had all been under surveillance – yet they were able to enter the United States. According to a Miami Herald report, he said, hijacker Mohamed Atta’s conversations with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were monitored by the National Security Agency. Ahmed noted that the United States used the mujaheddin in Bosnia and he finds a pattern in the way Algerian and Philippine intelligence services infiltrated terrorist organizations and perpetrated massacres.
Other panelists included Marilyn Rosenthal PhD. on the pre-9/11 warnings, Lauretta Napoleoni on terror financing, Anne Norton on the political philosophy of U.S. conservatives, John Newman on “triple agent” Saeed Sheikh, and Peter Dale Scott on drugs, oil, and U.S. operational ties with the al-Qaeda. In addition to Ruppert, the questioners included former intelligence analysts turned critics Ray McGovern (CIA) and Wayne Madsen (NSA). Pacifica Network’s Verna Avery-Brown moderated the proceedings. This was a rare hearing in a Republican-controlled Congress, proving, as Wallace Stevens said, that in the presence of an extraordinary event, conscience takes the place of imagination.
Len Bracken is the author of Shadow Government: 9-11 and State Terror.

R72114
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Did McKinney’s panel get any press?

R72199
5 years ago
CaptainTrips

Chickenma,
Conspiracy Theories and the Fight for Truth
Not much. Just the disengenous AJC article I posted up thread.
———————————————————————————————————————————————
Here is one of the best updates to Paul Thompson’s Terror Timeline
For the Ruppert crowd, it’s icing for the cake.
Complete 911 Timeline: Military exercises up to 9/11
Between 1991 and 2001: NORAD Exercise Simulates Crash into Famous US Building At some point between 1991 and 2001, a regional NORAD sector holds an exercise simulating a foreign hijacked airliner crashing into a prominent building in the United States, the identity of which is classified. According to military officials, the building is not the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. The exercise involves some flying of military aircraft, plus a “command post exercise” where communication procedures are rehearsed in an office environment. [CNN, 4/19/04]
People and organizations involved: North American Aerospace Defense Command
1991: White House Is Protected From Airplane Attack During Gulf War Time magazine reports in 1994, “During the Gulf War, uniformed air-defense teams could be seen patrolling the top floor [of the White House] with automatic rifles or shoulder-mounted ground-to-air missiles.” [Time, 9/26/94] While a battery of surface-to-air-missiles remains permanently on the roof of the White House, the rest of these defenses are apparently removed after the war is over. [Daily Telegraph, 9/16/01] Yet even though counterterrorism officials later call the alerts in the summer of 2001 “the most urgent in decades,” similar defensive measures will apparently not be taken. [9/11 Congressional Inquiry Report, 9/18/02]
1999-September 11, 2001: NORAD Exercise Simulates Crashes into US Buildings; One of Them Is the World Trade Center According to USA Today, “In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conduct[s] exercises simulating what the White House [later] says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.” One of these imagined targets is the World Trade Center. According to NORAD, these scenarios are regional drills, rather than regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises. They utilize “[n]umerous types of civilian and military aircraft” as mock hijacked aircraft, and test “track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination; and operational security and communications security procedures.” The main difference between these drills and the 9/11 attacks is that the planes in the drills are coming from another country, rather than from within the US. Before 9/11, NORAD reportedly conducts four major exercises at headquarters level per year. Most of them are said to include a hijack scenario (see Before September 11, 2001). [USA Today, 4/18/04; CNN, 4/19/04]
People and organizations involved: North American Aerospace Defense Command, World Trade Center
Between 1999 and September 11, 2001: NORAD Practices Live-Fly Mock Shootdown of a Poison-Filled Jet At some point during the two-year period preceding 9/11, NORAD fighters perform a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet loaded with chemical poisons heading toward the US. [USA Today, 4/18/04]
People and organizations involved: North American Aerospace Defense Command
Between October 24 and 28, 2000: Military Holds Exercise Rehearsing Response to a Plane Crash at the Pentagon Pentagon and Arlington County emergency responders assemble in the office of the Secretary of Defense?s conference room in the Pentagon for a mass casualty exercise (“MASCAL”). The exercise involves three mock-scenarios. One is of a commercial airliner crashing into the Pentagon and killing 342 people, while the other two involve a terrorist attack at the Pentagon?s subway stop and a construction accident. The exercises are conducted using a large-scale model of the Pentagon with a model airplane literally on fire in the central courtyard of the building. An Army medic who participates in the mock attack calls it “a real good scenario and one that could happen easily,” while a fire chief notes: “You have to plan for this. Look at all the air traffic around here.” [MDW News Service, 11/3/00; Daily Mirror, 5/24/02; UPI, 4/22/04; 9/11 Commission Final Report, 7/04, pp 314]
People and organizations involved: Pentagon, US Department of Defense
April 17-26, 2001: Joint Chiefs of Staff Holds Exercise for Continuity of Government if US is Attacked; Proposal to Simulate Airliner Crash into Pentagon Rejected The Joint Chiefs of Staff holds a large, worldwide exercise called Positive Force, which focuses on the Defense Department’s ability to conduct large-scale military operations and coordinate these operations. [CJCSI, 8/14/00] The 2001 Positive Force exercise is a “continuity of operations exercise,” meaning it deals with government contingency plans to keep working in the event of an attack on the US. [Guardian, 4/15/04] Over a dozen government agencies, including NORAD, are invited to participate. The exercise prepares them for various scenarios, including non-combatant evacuation operations, cyber attacks, rail disruption, and power outages. [Provider Update, 10/01; GlobalSecurity [.org], 6/09/02] Apparently, one of the scenarios that was considered for this exercise involved “a terrorist group hijack[ing] a commercial airliner and fly[ing] it into the Pentagon.” But the proposed scenario, thought up by a group of Special Operations personnel trained to think like terrorists, was rejected. Joint Staff action officers and White House officials said the additional scenario is either “too unrealistic” or too disconnected to the original intent of the exercise. [Air Force Times, 4/13/04; Boston Herald, 4/14/04; Guardian, 4/15/04; Washington Post, 4/14/04 (G); New York Times, 4/14/04]
People and organizations involved: Bush administration, US Department of Defense, Pentagon
May 2001: Medics Train for Airplane Hitting Pentagon The Tri-Service DiLorenzo Health Care Clinic and the Air Force Flight Medicine Clinic, both housed within the Pentagon, train for a scenario involving a hijacked 757 airliner being crashed into the Pentagon. It is reported that the purpose of the training is “to fine-tune their emergency preparedness.” [US Medicine, 10/01]
People and organizations involved: Pentagon, Air Force Flight Medicine Clinic, Tri-Service DiLorenzo Health Care Clinic
May 11, 2001: New York City Practices for Biological Terrorist Attack New York City’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM), which is located in World Trade Center Building 7, organizes a bio-terrorism drill where militant extremists attack the city with bubonic plague and Manhattan is quarantined. The “tabletop exercise” is called RED Ex—meaning “Recognition, Evaluation, and Decision-Making Exercise” —and involves about seventy different entities, agencies, and locales from the New York area. Federal legislation adopted in 1997 requires federal, state, and local authorities to conduct regular exercises as part of the Domestic Preparedness Program (DPP). The US Defense Department chose New York City as the venue for RED Ex due to its size, prominence, and level of emergency preparedness. Various high-level officials take part, including Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, OEM Director Richard Sheirer, Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen, and Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik. Agencies and organizations that participate include New York City Fire Department, New York City Police Department, the FBI, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The exercise is supposedly so intense that, according to one participant, “five minutes into that drill, everybody forgot it was a drill.” [New York City Government, 5/11/01; New York City Government, 9/5/01, pp 74; New York Sun, 12/20/03; 9/11 Commission, 5/18/04] According to OEM Director Richard Sheirer, “Operation RED Ex provided a proving ground and a great readiness training exercise for the many challenges the city routinely faces, such as weather events, heat emergencies, building collapses, fires, and public safety and health issues.” [New York City Government, 5/11/01] In his prepared testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Bernard Kerik later states: “The City, through its OEM, had coordinated plans for many types of emergencies; and those plans were tested frequently.” The types of emergencies they prepared for, he states, included “building collapses” and “plane crashes.” [Kerik Testimony, 5/18/04] Considering Richard Sheirer’s comments, RED Ex appears to be one example where the city tests for building collapses. Details about training for airplanes crashing into New York City remain unknown. The second part of this exercise, called Tripod, is scheduled to take place in New York on September 12, 2001, but is cancelled due to the 9/11 attacks.
People and organizations involved: US Department of Defense, Rudolph (“Rudy”) Giuliani, New York City Fire Department, Bernard Kerik, New York City Police Department, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Air College, World Trade Center
June 1-2, 2001: Military Conducts Exercises Based on Scenario in which Cruise Missiles Are Launched against US
Bin Laden is pictured on the cover of the first Amalgam Virgo exercise.
The US military conducts Amalgam Virgo 01, a multi-agency planning exercise sponsored by NORAD involving the hypothetical scenario of a cruise missile being launched by “a rogue [government] or somebody” from a barge off the East Coast. Bin Laden is pictured on the cover of the proposal for the exercise. [American Forces Press Service, 6/4/02] The exercise takes place at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida. [Global Security, 4/14/02] The next Amalgam Virgo exercise, scheduled to take place the following year, will involve two simultaneous commercial aircraft hijackings. Planning for the exercises begins before 9/11 (see Before September 11, 2001).
People and organizations involved: US Department of Defense, North American Aerospace Defense Command, Osama bin Laden
Summer 2001: Pentagon’s Police Force Holds Various, Unknown Emergency Drills The Pentagon’s police force, the Defense Protective Service (DPS), conducts emergency drills throughout summer 2001. Some members of the DPS subsequently assist in directing rescue efforts at the Pentagon on 9/11. [Los Angeles Times, 9/13/01©]
June 16, 2001: Major Simulated Terrorist Attack Exercise is Held in Pennsylvania A major training exercise based upon a simulated terrorist attack is held in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, which neighbors Somerset County where Flight 93 crashes on 9/11. The exercise, called Mall Strike 2001, is conducted in Greengate Mall, Hempfield, and involves over 600 emergency first responders and emergency managers responding to the simulated release of a toxic chemical agent and the simulated release of radiation and radiological contamination. [Westmoreland County Annual Financial Report, 2001; Connellsville Daily Courier, 9/11/02] Mall Strike is organized by the Pennsylvania Region 13 Working Group: a 13-county organization that began preparing for terrorist attacks in 1998. When Flight 93 crashes on September 11, the Region 13 Working Group’s chair immediately contacts other members of the group and emergency teams are quickly deployed to the crash site. The group’s four years of preparing and working together “allowed them to develop and train teams that could work efficiently together during an event of this magnitude.” [Department of Homeland Security, 3/12/03]
People and organizations involved: Mall Strike 2001
July 2001: MASCAL Training Exercise Held at Fort Belvoir A MASCAL (mass casualty) training exercise is held at Fort Belvoir. It is “designed to enhance the first ready response in dealing with the effects of a terrorist incident involving an explosion.” [MDW News Service, 7/5/01]
People and organizations involved: Fort Belvoir
Late August-Early December 2001: Fighters from Langley Air Force Base Deployed to Iceland for Operation Northern Guardian In late August 2001, two-thirds of the 27th Fighter Squadron are sent overseas. Six of the squadron’s fighters and 115 people go to Turkey to enforce the no-fly zone over northern Iraq as part of Operation Northern Watch. Another six fighters and 70 people are sent to Iceland to participate in “Operation Northern Guardian.” The fighter groups will not return to Langley until early December. [Flyer, 7/1/03] (Note that the word “operation” specifies that Operation Northern Guardian and Northern Watch are not exercises, but actual military actions or missions. [CJCSM, 4/23/98; Defense Department, 11/30/04] ) Operation Northern Guardian is based at Naval Air Station Keflavik, Iceland, the host command for the NATO base in that country. The US sometimes assists Iceland with extra military forces in reaction to Russian military maneuvers in the region. Approximately 1,800 US military personnel and 100 Defense Department civilians are involved. [Flyer, 6/4/04; GlobalSecurity [.org], 4/9/02; Iceland Defense Force website, 6/30/04] The 27th is one of three F-15 fighter squadrons that make up the 1st Fighter Wing, the “host unit” at Langley Air Force Base in Langley, Virginia. The other two are the 71st and 94th Fighter Squadrons. [Langley Air Force Base, 11/03; GlobalSecurity [.org], 8/02/04] Langley is one of two “alert” sites that can be called upon by NORAD for missions in the northeast region of the US. [9/11 Commission Report, 6/17/04] Langley’s 71st Fighter Squadron also participates in Operation Northern Watch and Operation Northern Guardian at some (unstated) time during 2001. [Air Combat Command News Service, 6/13/02] Whether this deployment of fighters diminishes Langley’s ability to respond on 9/11 is unknown. However, Air Force units are cycled through deployments like operations Northern and Southern Watch by the Aerospace Expeditionary Force (AEF) Center, which is at Langley Air Force Base. [CJCSM, 4/23/98; GlobalSecurity [.org] Aerospace Expeditionary Force page, 04/26/05] And according to NORAD Commander Larry Arnold, “Prior to Sept. 11, we’d been unsuccessful in getting the AEF Center to be responsible for relieving our air defense units when they went overseas.” [Air War Over America, by Leslie Filson, 1/04, pp 99]
People and organizations involved: US Department of Defense, Operation Northern Watch, Operation Northern Guardian, 27th Fighter Squadron, Langley Air Force Base, 94th Fighter Squadron, 71st Fighter Squadron, North American Aerospace Defense Command
Early August 2001: Mass Casualty Exercise at the Pentagon Includes a Plane Hitting the Building A mass casualty exercise, involving a practice evacuation, is held at the Pentagon. General Lance Lord of US Air Force Space Command, one of the participants in the exercises, later recalls: “[It was] purely a coincidence, the scenario for that exercise included a plane hitting the building.” Lord will also say that on 9/11, “our assembly points were fresh in our minds” thanks to this practice. [Air Force Space Command News Service, 9/5/02]
People and organizations involved: Pentagon, Lance Lord
Early Morning September 11, 2001: Medic Is Studying a Medical Emergency Disaster Plan for a Plane Crash at the Pentagon Sergeant Matt Rosenberg, an army medic at the Pentagon, is studying “a new medical emergency disaster plan based on the unlikely scenario of an airplane crashing into the place.” [Washington Post, 9/16/01] The day before, Rosenberg later recalls in an interview with the Office of Medical History, he called the FBI with questions about who would have medical jurisdiction if such an event were to take place. “Believe it or not, the day prior to the incident, I was just on the phone with the FBI, and we were talking ‘so who has command should this happen, who has the medical jurisdiction, who does this, who does that,’ and we talked about it and talked about it, and he helped me out a lot. And then the next day, during the incident, I actually found him. He was out there on the incident that day.” [Office of Medical History, 9/04, pp 9]
People and organizations involved: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Pentagon
8:30 a.m.: US Military Holding ‘Practice Armageddon’ Nationwide Training Exercise As the 9/11 attacks are taking place, a large military training exercise called Global Guardian is said to be “in full swing.” It has been going on since the previous week. [Omaha World-Herald, 2/27/02; Omaha World-Herald, 9/10/02] Global Guardian is an annual exercise sponsored by US Strategic Command (Stratcom) in cooperation with US Space Command and NORAD. One military author defines Stratcom as “the single US military command responsible for the day-to-day readiness of America’s nuclear forces.” [Arkin, 2005, pp 59] Global Guardian is a global readiness exercise involving all Stratcom forces and aims to test Stratcom’s ability to fight a nuclear war. It is one of many “practice Armageddons” that the US military routinely stages. [Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 11/12/97; Associated Press, 2/21/02 (B); Omaha World-Herald, 2/27/02; Omaha World-Herald, 9/10/02] It links with a number of other military exercises, including Crown Vigilance (an Air Combat Command exercise), Apollo Guardian (a US Space Command exercise), and NORAD exercises Vigilant Guardian and Amalgam Warrior [Defense Department, 5/97; GlobalSecurity [.org], 10/10/02] Global Guardian is both a command post and field training exercise, and is based around a fictitious scenario designed to test the ability of Stratcom and its component forces to deter a military attack against the US. Hundreds of military personnel are involved. [Collins Center, 12/99; Times-Picayune, 9/8/02; Committee on Armed Services, 2000] According to a 1998 Internet article by the British American Security Information Council—an independent research organization—Global Guardian is held in October or November each year. [BASIC, 10/98] In his book Code Names, NBC News military analyst William Arkin dates this exercise for October 22-31, 2001. [Arkin, 2005, pp 379] And a military newspaper reported in March 2001 that Global Guardian was scheduled for October 2001. [Space Observer, 3/23/01, pp 2] If this is correct, then some time after March, the exercise must have been rescheduled for early September. Furthermore, there may be another important facet to Global Guardian. A 1998 Defense Department newsletter reported that for several years Stratcom had been incorporating a computer network attack (CNA) into Global Guardian. The attack involved Stratcom “red team” members and other organizations acting as enemy agents, and included attempts to penetrate the Command using the Internet and a “bad” insider who had access to a key command and control system. The attackers “war dialed” the phones to tie them up and sent faxes to numerous fax machines throughout the Command. They also claimed they were able to shut down Stratcom’s systems. Reportedly, Stratcom planned to increase the level of computer network attack in future Global Guardian exercises. [IAnewsletter, 6/98] It is not currently known if a computer attack was incorporated into Global Guardian in 2001 or what its possible effects on the country’s air defense system would have been if such an attack was part of the exercise.
People and organizations involved: US Department of Defense, North American Aerospace Defense Command, Crown Vigilance, Apollo Guardian, US Space Command, Global Guardian, US Strategic Command, Vigilant Guardian, Amalgam Warrior
8:30 a.m.: FBI/CIA Anti-Terrorist Task Force Away From Washington on Training Exercise in California USA Today reports that at this time, “a joint FBI/CIA anti-terrorist task force that specifically prepared for this type of disaster” is on a “training exercise in Monterey, Calif.” Consequently, “as of late Tuesday, with airports closed around the country, the task force still [hasn]‘t found a way to fly back to Washington.” [USA Today, 9/11/01] The US politics website evote.com adds that the FBI has deployed “all of its anti-terrorist and top special operations agents at a training exercise (complete with all associated helicopters and light aircraft) in Monterey, California.” So at the time of the attacks, “the chief federal agency responsible for preventing such crimes [is] being AWOL.” [Evote [.com], 9/11/01]
People and organizations involved: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency
8:30 a.m.: Army Base Near Pentagon Holds Terrorist Attack Exercise At Fort Belvoir, an army base 10 miles south of the Pentagon, Lt. Col. Mark R. Lindon is conducting a “garrison control exercise” when the 9/11 attacks begin. The object of this exercise is to “test the security at the base in case of a terrorist attack.” Lindon later says, “I was out checking on the exercise and heard about the World Trade Center on my car radio. As soon as it was established that this was no accident, we went to a complete security mode.” Staff Sgt. Mark Williams of the Military District of Washington Engineer Company at Fort Belvoir also later says: “Ironically, we were conducting classes about rescue techniques when we were told of the planes hitting the World Trade Center.” Williams’ team is one of the first response groups to arrive at the site of the Pentagon crash and one of the first to enter the building following the attack. [Connection Newspapers, 9/5/02] A previous MASCAL (mass casualty) training exercise was held at Fort Belvoir a little over two months earlier (see July 2001). It was “designed to enhance the first ready response in dealing with the effects of a terrorist incident involving an explosion.” [MDW News Service, 7/5/01]
People and organizations involved: Mark Williams, Mark R. Lindon, World Trade Center, Fort Belvoir
8:46 a.m.: Fighters Are Training over North Carolina; Not Recalled to Washington Until Much Later At the time of the first WTC crash, three F-16s assigned to Andrews Air Force Base, ten miles from Washington, are flying an air-to-ground training mission to drop some bombs and hit a refueling tanker, on a range in North Carolina, 207 miles away from their base. However, it is only when they are halfway back to Andrews that lead pilot Major Billy Hutchison is able to talk to the acting supervisor of flying at Andrews, Lt. Col. Phil Thompson, who tells him to return to the base “buster” (as fast as his aircraft will fly). After landing back at Andrews, Hutchison is told to take off immediately, and does so at 10:33 a.m. The other two pilots, Marc Sasseville and Heather Penney, take off from Andrews at 10:42 a.m., after having their planes loaded with 20mm training rounds. These three pilots will therefore not be patrolling the skies above Washington until after about 10:45 a.m. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 9/9/02; Air War Over America, by Leslie Filson, 1/04, p. 56] F-16s can travel at a maximum speed of 1,500 mph. [Associated Press, 6/16/00] Traveling even at 1,100 mph (the speed NORAD Major General Larry Arnold says two fighters from Massachusetts travel toward Flight 175 [MSNBC, 9/23/01©; Slate, 1/16/02] ), at least one of these F-16s could have returned from North Carolina to Washington within ten minutes and started patrolling the skies well before 9:00 a.m.
People and organizations involved: Billy Hutchison, Heather Penney Garcia, Phil Thompson, NBC, Marc Sasseville
(That’s only the first half.)
For the desperately thirsty,

R72732
5 years ago
Continuity

Tripps, I bookmarked your link instantly. Wow. I was aware of only half of that.
Thanks

R72737
5 years ago
whateveryousay

ghuuuuh
mmmmmmff
gaaaagh
wrwwwwrrrrrlghmf

R72795
5 years ago
Shogo

Yeah, it’s not at all obvious that someone might fly a plane into the WTC.
Apparently not one of you has ever played Flight Simulator.
If the NTSB studies vehicle safety, does that make every car accident a government conspiracy?

R72806
5 years ago
zark

cynthias questions
download
2nd go>>>
cynthia has another go
CMK: Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-GA)
DR: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
RM: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers
TJ: Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Tina Jonas
DH: Chairman Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
CMK: The question was, we had four wargames going on on September 11th, and the question that I tried to pose before the Secretary had to go to lunch was whether or not the activities of the four wargames going on on September 11th actually impaired our ability to respond to the attacks.
RM: The answer to the question is no, it did not impair our response, in fact General Eberhart who was in the command of the North American Aerospace Defense Command as he testified in front of the 9/11 Commission I believe – I believe he told them that it enhanced our ability to respond, given that NORAD didn’t have the overall responsibility for responding to the attacks that day. That was an FAA responsibility. But they were two CPXs; there was one Department of Justice exercise that didn’t have anything to do with the other three; and there was an actual operation ongoing because there was some Russian bomber activity up near Alaska. So we
CMK: Let me ask you this, then: who was in charge of managing those wargames?
DH: General, why don’t you give the best answer that you can here in a short a period of time and we’ll – the gentlelady wants to get a written answer anyway, and then we can move on to other folks.
RM: The important thing to realize is that North American Aerospace Defense Command was responsible. These are command post exercises; what that means is that all the battle positions that are normally not filled are indeed filled; so it was an easy transition from an exercise into a real world situation. It actually enhanced the response; otherwise, it would take somewhere between 30 minutes and a couple of hours to fill those positions, those battle stations, with the right staff officers.
CMK: Mr. Chairman, begging your indulgence, was September Eleventh declared a National Security Special Event day?
RM: I have to look back; I do not know. Do you mean after the fact, or
CMK: No. Because of the activities going on that had been scheduled at the United Nations that day.
RM: I’d have to go back and check. I don’t know.
Post Modified: 07/29/05 02:10:24

R74083
5 years ago
Geronimo_Skull

Interview with Morgan Reynolds
Morgan Reynolds, PhD, is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. He served as chief economist for the US Department of Labor during 2001–2, George W. Bush’s first term.
Reynolds is the recent author of a remarkable article Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse? that exposes weakness after weakness of the official story of what happened on 9/11.
This interview was taken by telephone June 30, 2005
R: Hello Morgan, this is Rand ————, with libertyforum?
M: Yes?
R: Do you have a couple of minutes? You responded to my emails, last night…in the wee hours?
M: Yes…Insomniacs united…
R: Yeah…Do you have a couple of minutes?
M: sure!
R: Okay, thanks for taking my call. Now, I’m not a professional interviewer, in any way…I have run for office, house district 13 here in Colorado, and I’m a Libertarian Party of Colorado official as well (but not conducting this interview in that capacity)
M: I see
R: …and I’ve been following the questions about 9/11 for about a year now, so I have a lively interest in the subject. And I asked on this website we go to, libertyforum.org, if anybody had any questions—and there were people who did.
M: Ok
R: …and so I got some of those written down here, …
M: Right, right…as you know I’ve been bombarded…
R: Right, I can imagine, the flack coming from…these guys are relentless, sometimes.
M: Yeah, right, so…
R: You must be receiving both barrels right now.
M: Yes! Just, figuratively, so far…
R: Yes, yes of course, I meant that figuratively! Do you have any interesting stories
about that, I mean has there been any real sharp attacks?
M: Well, I’m putting together an op-ed for tomorrow that addresses that, and of course there’s a bunch of people who say “How dare you” and “it’s inconceivable,” and the whole American exceptionalism and programming, that this could never happen because we’re so good, that’s the bottom line…
R: Well, that’s right! People are defending it sort of unreasonably—
M: And none of this lays a glove on the evidence of demolition of the skyscrapers. None of this makes a dent in that.
R: Exactly! In other words, most of what you are dealing with is ad-hominem attacks.
M: It’s like the number one thing is, “you’re not a physicist,” I answer “no, I’m a Ph.D from the University of Wisconsin, what have you done?” I’m tired of these talk show hosts, I mean what do they have? I’ve done a couple of dozen of these, and I’ve been hammered about what a whacko I am, blah, blah, blah.
R: Right…
M: No content! The second half of my article is, to use a phrase, bulletproof, alright? And people are upset, because—this is a denial thing, they don’t want to look but just move on. Move on? Are you kidding me? I mean we have these—justice, truth, what about stopping the perpetrators? The first murder is the hardest—what’s to stop them doing it again? And this whole just—“We don’t need any criminal investigation, it just means war!” Well, hold it, we need a scientific and criminal investigation, we don’t need all the evidence swept away as much as they can, etc.
R: Uh huh..
M: Now, I get tremendous support as well—four or five to one, but the other side…we all hear more from our friends than our enemies.
R: Sure
M: Well, my bottom line here, is I have surprised how little the other side has…
R: It’s almost like they don’t need anything, because of the defenders, because people will defend at any cost, and they almost don’t want to look at it.
M: Right, because the consequences of…
R: It will change their world!
M: Oh, yeah! But they’re fearful. It’s just like the Soviet Union, everyone knew the Soviet Union was a living lie, and the “worker’s paradise” etc etc, but everybody’s so invested in it the status quo goes on. Everyone knows it’s a lie—and you know, we’re eventually going to reach that here.
R: I think so…
M: And that’s one reason why my article so struck a nerve, it’s like an open wound…
R: Somehow American’s think they’re special, exceptional as you say, that there’s something unusual about those Russians that they could have ever have fallen into that pattern. We’re totally different people,…
M: Tyrants and criminals rule in other lands, but never here, that would never be possible here.
R: You mentioned [in your email] that we’re heading toward, perhaps fascism now. Fascism has been defined many ways, and I know that you are an economist, and so perhaps…
M: Mussolini knows something about the subject, it’s the merger of corporate and government political power…Now look we we’ve got—does that ring a bell at all?
R: Yep, guess what! Well, let me get to some of these questions here, so I don’t take too much of your time, because they actually address some of these, OK?
Somebody asked, are you still watching the pulse of the economy, is it really in an upswing as reported in mainstream media? And, how should Americans prepare financially for the next three years?
M: Oh man, that’s a wide field to run on…
R: Pick something…
M: Well, the economy is not sound today, number one. Number two, we have an unprecedented accumulation of debt, it’s incredible, unbelievable.
R: Do you have any idea who owns these “Caribbean Banking Centers” that have been purchasing our treasuries…
M: Yes, those are hedge funds, mostly American-owned…
R: American-owned—and you know that for a fact?
M: Yes, I’m about 99% certain.
R: Hm! American-owned hedge funds. Now, why has Japan and others cooled their buying?
M: Well, they’re choking on American credit, right? Treasuries.
R: The Fed has been so good at selling…
M: Over a trillion dollars of them? Our greenback doesn’t look strong, long-term…
R: But they’re holding dollars already, so what’s the difference—at least they can earn interest.
M: Point is, how much suicide do you want, how soon, you know, financially.
R: So how do they get rid of their dollars?
M: Well, that’s what they’re all doing, they’re all holding these hands that aren’t too good, but nobody wants to break out, because that could take the whole thing down. Remember a few months ago, a South Korean central banker or some bureaucrat said treasuries and the U.S. dollar don’t look too good, and people hushed up and did a retraction, right away.
R: Do you remember who that was?
M: No, I don’t remember the guy’s name, but you can look it up, it was within the last six months. Here’s another point. You know, American savings are nil.
R: And why would they save? Why would anybody save? It’s a losing venture.
M: Yes, well interest rate and the return are low. but when things go south, cash is king. So keeping your powder dry is the thing to do.
R: (laughs) Keeping your powder dry—are you really thinking it’s going to go down that far, that it’s a matter of anarchy at some point?
M: No, I’m not saying that, I’m not that fatalistic—an Argentinean type of collapse, no I’m not saying that.
R: Well, why would you say keep your powder dry? That would be a shocking thing to hear in mainstream media today!
M: No, I don’t think so. There are some sound people out there, including—who’s the Morgan Stanley guy, Steven Roach—he’s the best economist on wall street.
R: And he’s a realist.
M: Right! But the point is, when I say go south, I mean like the DOW going down to seventy-five hundred, lose a third of its value.
R: That’s almost predictable.
M: We could easily get a panic of course, and that would mean sixty percent loss in value, that kind of thing.
R: Do you know anything about the real estate market, or is that outside your…
M: Oh, of course that’s the second bubble…
R: People have been buying on the basis of credit.
M: Asset values are temporary, but debt is permanent, so once the bubble bursts, that’s going to spread, and create a lot of havoc. Your group’s suspicions are shared. Trouble is—for the last three years I’ve been saying this—the real problem financially to gaining wealth is getting the timing right. I sell short, but then the market stabilizes…
R: You can never guess, can you?
M: You need to get two out of three right to make money.
R: Okay, let’s move on to some other questions here.
R: Who do you identify—since you say the government’s investigation, their conclusions are basically indefensible on several points—Who do you identify as complicit, then, in this?
M: We don’t need to name everybody, we don’t know everybody. Bush, Cheney on down.
R: Do you think that they definitely knew?
M: Oh, yeah, yeah.
R: What about Rumsfeld?
M: Oh yes, right. You’d name him, you’d charge him but you’d need a prosecutor who’s true patriot or you couldn’t prosecute these guys.
R: Would the officers at the FAA or NORAD, would either of them need to be complicit?
M: The FAA guy, Ben Sliney was the operating manager but it was his first day on the job. Charles Leidig, the naval Captain, it was his first job at the NMCC (national military command center), and Montague—these two guys, of course, I would charge.
R: You think they probably were—
M: Both got promoted after the catastrophic failures, okay? I’m writing a column about this. The 9/11 commision, of course, in effect blamed the FAA , but when you look at their recommendations, there’s no recommendations at all.
R: No heads rolled on this! That’s the most telling…
M: It’s just totally bogus and irrational and illogical, and of course the media is frightened, and cowardly.
R: That’s why they got new guys like Ben Sliney, so that if something bad went down, they could roll some heads to get the pressure off.
M: Right. Here’s the lesson from Pearl Harbor, and that is, you know they went after Kimmel and Short, blamed the two Pearl commanders?
R: Right…
M: And of course that was a complete injustice. They were denied the information about the Japanese fleet; they were restricted in every way. The reason they put the fleet there, out of San Diego— Hawaii was so damned hard to defend—was, to set up Pearl Harbor.
R: Sure…
M: This is all well documented in books; we have them by the short hairs. Even the congress had to restore the reputation of Kimmel and Short. Their families have been saying that for decades.
R: Yes
M: When you put up a scapegoat, you’re going to get s**t back, alright? That’s why, this time, they didn’t put up a scapegoat! In other words, they learned. Now, how can Americans be as dumb as this?
R: What they’ve done is meet it with deafening silence, has been their way to address…
M: …the American public. Oh yeah, they don’t want to look at it. What do you want these guys to confess, say “hey look at me I’m a bad boy?”
R: (chuckles)
M: Take the demolitions theory versus the pancake collapse theory, it’s a hundred for the demolition theory, and zero for pancake. People don’t know that!
R: There’s no real engineering basis for it given the amount of energy it would take to break that building down.
M: Especially at the start!
R: Oh yeah. It would have gone really slow, and then eventually cascaded…
M: That’s right. Until it developed enough—you can model that. But you know, what they’re left with, are these bogus computer simulations. That’s what NIST has done.
R: Most certainly. I was actually a physics major, and I actually did the spreadsheet analysis using the momentum, and it was very clear—here’s what the numbers really are, it should have taken over 20 seconds for that building to fall, and it didn’t.
M: Do you know how strong that core was? Incredible. If it were a natural collapse, you’d have a heck of a lot of rubble at the bottom, and furthermore, a lot of that core would be standing hundreds of feet in the air.
R: Exactly right! If it were to collapse those peripheral columns would have collapsed around it, floor would have fallen off, the core would be standing.
M: Right.
R: And nobody seems to understand this.
M: Well, some of us do. This is not wide-spread knowledge.
R: What would be your thoughts on the single most effective short argument, the “elevator argument” against the official story of what happened on 9/11?
M: The number one fact is free-fall collapse. The number two fact is pulverization of the concrete.
R: I never understood that part. Why…
M: Because of how much energy it would take to pulverize over a hundred thousand tons of concrete. Could you possibly get that out of a gravity/pancake collapse? There’s no way.
R: So let’s suppose that they planted the demolitions to do that. Why wouldn’t they just separate all of the floors from the columns using charges and weaken the columns using charges? In other words, why blow up the floors?
M: They could have done it the more conventional way. But now you’re asking why did they do it this way, well, just thinking out loud here…my number one thought would be it was the “independence day” spectacular event of it all, that Americans are TV-watching couch potatoes, they’re programmed, and they say man—this is spectacular.
R: So what you’re saying here, is that because it was planned, why not make it something spectacular since you’re looking for a certain outcome.
M: Yes. Terrorist events are not about really about kneecapping the enemy. It’s show biz! Terrorism is show-biz. I understand, in effect, I’m kind of making light of the loss of life, but the point is it’s a show-biz deal. It’s publicity that’s designed to make a point.
M: In this business people ask me about the airplanes. I don’t know. The short answer to this is I don’t know about the planes. I have lots of problems with the official story. The airplanes and the initial impact hole are kind of standard terrorist stuff.—Where you do one thing over here…
R: It’s a diversion…
M: And a lot of the fire personnel and police personnel were very aware of this; they were worried about secondary devices.
R: Bush would not be able to use 9/11 in his latest speech there, at Fort Bragg, today, if it had merely been planes plowing into a building, a fire that was put out, and a few people that were killed.
M: If we bought in to the 19 loser arabs and all pulling this off, and then it ended there…No. They needed something a lot bigger.
R: I guess I can see the argument for the spectacular collapse, the enormous dust cloud.
M: The trauma to the American psyche where we have these two immense oceans between us and real enemies, and here we were, shown vulnerable. Then everybody, ninety percent were yah! War!
R: Okay. Well, that brings up one last bit on the towers. Do you think that the planners expected all of the elevators and stairways to be blocked off? Do you think they expected to lose two thousand people in the tops of those buildings? Or was that maybe an oversight, but then they went ahead and pushed the button anyway?
M: Let’s step back and look at the big picture. These are also markers of guilt. If you really wanted to do this from a terrorist point of view, you’d use a 747. Second of all, you’d go in lower, to kill more people. Ninety seven percent of the people below the impact point escaped.
R: Exactly.
M: A 747 has twice the fuel, for example, as a 767. You’d go in lower, you’d trap more people and you’d do it at 11am or at 2:30pm.
R: When it was the busiest.
M: Yeah, you’d want to maximize the loss of life. Also, you’d find out (duh) where Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld are in the Pentagon. Instead, they run into the West side which had just recently been rehabbed.
R: That’s true.
M: It wasn’t even occupied, okay? There again, tell me how could these brilliant terrorists who did all this have overlooked all that. So here again, they’re minimizing loss of life.
R: So you would suggest, perhaps they didn’t realize that the planes crashing into the building would block or occlude these exits for people in the top of the buildings?
M: No, I’m saying they didn’t maximize the loss of life by any means. However—now you’re asking me to read the minds of the criminals.
R: I guess that is speculation.
M: It may be worth while, but the point is, do they have a problem with 2,749 killed at the world trade center? Do you think they would have a problem with that? They don’t have a problem with it.
R: Really?
M: You need to get a grip on who you’re dealing with.
R: You’ve been closer to them than I have. You’ve actually worked for the government there.
M: The fatality toll from highway/street accidents is three thousand a month. Like any military commander—Alexander the Great, or some roman emperor maybe—these people compare themselves, privately, to the historical glories of the past…
R: They see themselves as glorious figures…
M: The idea that so many grunts are going to lose their lives—and this is really grimy stuff, but are they going to worry they are going to kill 2,749 or just 500? I mean, what are they going to do next time?
R: So you really think that the President of the United States, his Vice-President, and…
M: Follow the evidence, look where it leads—right to the White House. Look at what happened that morning. Look at the behavior of the President. The Secretary of Labor, she was virtually hustled out by her two secret service guys. When there’s a terrorist threat, a threat to the life of the President, the President doesn’t have a damn thing to say. It’s a secret service operation completely. The marine holding the nuclear telephone, he says “we’re out of here”. Now that guy, he wasn’t part of the plot. He’s innocent, I know it by what he said. So, what happened? They hung around, stuck to the schedule, did the photo op. They didn’t change a thing; that is a complete give-away. It’s a total violation of S.O.P..
R: Okay…
M: You tell me how to explain it any other way.
R: I’ve heard this argument repeatedly. You know, for somebody like me, who is not fully informed of secret service standard operating procedure, that argument’s kind of a ho-hum, to be honest. Perhaps that day…
M: We can of course document on behalf of their behavior all the way, from covering up evidence, fighting any investigation, on and on. Vincent Bugliosi, the greatest prosecutor alive, said that their behavior, their words, their actions, tell you of their guilt.
R: Okay, let’s move on to the last question: Are you open to speaking at any of our libertarian state conventions?
M: Yes, if it’s a paid event, with an honorarium.
R: Is there anything else we can talk about that we haven’t covered that you really think ought to be heard?
M: Wherever you look, the official theory quickly shreds. You can just punch—and I’m really good at this, by the way, if I do say so myself…
R: Your article, actually, was one of the better ones out there, I’ll tell you, because you were able to keep it to the believable.
M: The first part was more speculative, but the second part of it was irrefutable, and pretty compact. And, I haven’t seen diddly (to refute it)—with all my attackers, to put it in athletic terms, is that all you’ve got?
R: They think they’ll take you down just with the ad-hominems…
M: Only two things they got working, one is the ad-hominems—you’re not a physicist, all that, or you left disgruntled. And the other one is the conspiracy would be too big.
R: Then they use words like hoax, conspiracy, words that tend to make people doubt you.
M: I’m not letting these radio talk-show guys who can’t carry my water on the homework or the credentials, give me that bilge when they talk about conspiracy theory. Number one, everybody’s a conspiracy theorist on this, because it’s a multi-person plot. Number two, one out of four federal prosecutions involve a conspiracy charge. Conspiracies are a dime a dozen. Number three, there’s been a lot of conspiracies in government, from the local sheriff conniving with other people to bilk the taxpayers, I’ve seen a lot of that. There’s this impression that people in the government are driven white snow.
R: It’s difficult to defend on the conspiracy word, because it’s an emotional thing.
M: It gets back to the American exceptionalism, that Americans have been programmed to expect a “lone nut”. Of course this thing is so big, it’s got to be a multi-person crime.
R: And that’s it…the lack of investigation is the clearest sign of conspiracy because if there’d been an above-board, full public disclosure, investigation of every aspect of concern on 9/11, we wouldn’t…
M: Too much dirty laundry…
R: So okay, their answer has been, let’s have a closed-door investigation, and disclose very little except bland platitudes and common knowledge, and then we’ll close the book on it.
M: Exhibit A, in the 9/11 commission these guys are mobbed up, as the prosecutor would put it, they never sit as a judge and jury in a criminal trial. Mobbed up- they’ve got old connections to the administration, etcetera. Even in contrast to the absurd Warren Commission, on the JFK assassination, at least the Warren Commission put people on oath subject to the perjury penalty. They never did that with Bush, Cheney—it was private rather than public.
R: That was odd.
M: Odd! The President is such an intellectual retrograde, he can’t hold Clinton’s job either, dancing around questions and so forth.
R: Clinton could have probably handled the questioning in public.
M: So they had Cheney, the Vice-President, hold his hand. That guy is such a monster. This thing is such a put-up.
M: (a proper investigation) would have really pursued it, for example “explain your behavior on that morning at Booker Elementary”. If we had David Ray Griffin, and me, to aid the counselor, this would have been a complete fiasco—total exposure.
R: He’d be sitting there with eyes like deer in the headlights.
M: It would be too sweet, to begin that step toward justice.

R74086
5 years ago
fennec


Post Modified: 08/04/05 02:38:39

R74141
5 years ago
Shogo

It’s like the number one thing is, “you’re not a physicist,” I answer “no, I’m a Ph.D from the University of Wisconsin, what have you done?”
Does that mean that someone with a Ph.D in say, Anthropology, would be qualified to analyze a building collapse?
Continuity rants about how the engineering guy from MIT isn’t specifically a structural engineer, but isn’t his status as head of the engineering department a lot more relevant to analyzing a building collapse than being the Labor Department’s Chief Economist?
All he’s doing is regurgitating the same arguments made by everyone else, which are based wholly on conjecture. Such as “the core would still be standing!”. Oh really? Based on what?
What a fucking joke.
Post Modified: 08/04/05 07:39:24

R74144
5 years ago
Shogo

Not that it matters. The crackpot who sees religious behavior in her chickens has analyzed the evardentz and concluded that something was definitely fishy!

R74158
5 years ago
neverknwo


I HAVE TO ASK, WHY DIDN“T THE PLANE MELT FROM THE FUEL FIRE?

R74159
5 years ago
whateveryousay

“the core would still be standing!”. Oh really? Based on what?
things which are standing tend to stay standing.

back to the original topic with some audio. interview with Morgan Reynolds
starts almost a 1/4 way in.
here’s a nice video of a talk given by jeff king
http://www.reopen911.org/video/cte_07.mov
starts after the familiar montage of “secondary explotion” footage.

R74165
5 years ago
Shogo

things which are standing tend to stay standing.
Except when they are slammed into at several hundreds of miles per hour by an extremely heavy object.

R74212
5 years ago
whateveryousay

Except when they are slammed into at several hundreds of miles per hour by an extremely heavy object.
oh, i thought they stayed standing after the planes. i heard it was fire and pancakes that did it. mmm, pancakes. i like pancakes.
anyway. comment on the video shogo.

R74213
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Shogo, you’re an expert on chickens?

R74215
5 years ago
Shogo

oh, i thought they stayed standing after the planes. i heard it was fire and pancakes that did it.
They did, for a time. However, the damage done to the building by the impact, when combined with the long-burning fires, sufficiently weakened the structure that it collapsed under it’s own weight. Perhaps someday you’ll learn to read so that I don’t have to keep repeating myself.

R74216
5 years ago
Shogo

Shogo, you’re an expert on chickens?
Nope. But I’m pretty confident that chickens aren’t religious.

R74219
5 years ago
whateveryousay

They did, for a time. However, the damage done to the building by the impact, when combined with the long-burning fires, sufficiently weakened the structure that it collapsed under it’s own weight.
got any evidence for that theory?
But I’m pretty confident that chickens aren’t religious.
there is an argument that chickens are only religious, but it, of course, relies on a certain definition of religious

R74259
5 years ago
Shogo

got any evidence for that theory?
You mean other than the planes crashing into the building, the fires burning, and the building’s subsequent collapse?
I’ll ask you a counter-question, how much of a tool are you anyway?

R74289
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Shogo, your lack of intellectual honesty intrigues me – are there no questions raised in this thread that rattle your pancake mantra even a little? You’re beginning to sound like your views are religious, not scientific – hmmm, maybe you’re a chicken.

R74293
5 years ago
Shogo

are there no questions raised in this thread
Not a one.
Thanks.

R74294
5 years ago
whateveryousay

You mean other than the planes crashing into the building, the fires burning, and the building’s subsequent collapse?
well, yeah, other than that. the observed sequence of events is one thing but it happens to be evidence supporting both theories.

R74336
5 years ago
Shogo

it happens to be evidence supporting both theories.
I disagree.

R74563
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Wow Shogo, you’re really great at pointing out those holes.

R74568
5 years ago
whitey

This is pretty interesting – it’s film footage of the aftermath of a B-25 flying into the Empire State Building.

R74572
5 years ago
neverknwo

There was a NYC Fireman on the Alex Jones Show yesterday.
You all missed what he had to say on this topic, there are hundreds of sick
firefighters with Asbestoes poisoning in their lungs that the Federal Government refuses to address. Just like the “Gulf War Syndome turning out to be DU Poisoning
The U.S.Troops and the countery ignoring the sick and dying. So it is the same with 9/11, too.

R74578
5 years ago
Shogo

Wow Shogo, you’re really great at pointing out those holes
Zero physical evidence is one of the biggest holes there is.
film footage of the aftermath of a B-25
Someone else already brought up the B-25 incident. As you can plainly see here the B-25 weighed about 21,000 pounds. The 767 weighs over 300,000 pounds. The top speed of the B-25, depending on model, ranges from 215 mph – 375 mph – far, far less than that of the 767.
In short, the two planes are about as comparable as a Fiat convertible is to a Mack truck.

R74598
5 years ago
whitey

Someone else already brought up the B-25 incident.
Yeah, but they didn’t post a cool movie of it.

R74601
5 years ago
viaossa

neverknwo writes: There was a NYC Fireman on the Alex Jones Show yesterday. You all missed what he had to say on this topic
What are you implying, sir? That some of us would dare miss an episode of the Alex Jones Show? A show whose delightful nuttiness could only be surpassed (one would assume) by the combined output of his loyal audience if each were given an AOL account and paid by the word? A show known for its objective and groundbreaking investigative journalism? Alex motherfuckin’ Jones?
Heaven forfend.
-VO
Post Modified: 08/06/05 09:51:31

R75968
5 years ago
cortez

Building a Better Mirage NIST’s 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century
by Jim Hoffman
....Challenges
In this critique I challenge NIST’s explanation on two levels:
* Its theory about the effects of crash and fire damage is deeply flawed. * Its presumption that “collapse initiation” will automatically lead to “global collapse” is unfounded.
Whereas the Report attempts to pre-empt challenges of the first type with the voluminous detail of its observations and models, it does not even address challenges of the second type. Yet it must have been aware of such challenges. NIST’s lead investigator Shyam Sunder is extensively quoted in the Popular Mechanics article attacking “conspiracy theories.” Respected theologian David Ray Griffin detailed evidence of controlled demolition in an April 18, 2005 address to the University of Wisconsin at Madison, which was aired twice on C-Span’s BookTV. Griffin’s remarks included:
* The buildings collapsed straight down, and at virtually free-fall speed, as in controlled demolitions, and then the rubble smoldered for months. * Many people in the buildings said that they heard or felt explosions. * Virtually all the concrete of these enormous structures was pulverized into very fine dust. * Much of this dust, along with pieces of steel and aluminum, was blown out horizontally several hundred feet. * Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections about 30 feet long, conveniently ready to be loaded on trucks.
By truncating its investigation at “collapse initiation” NIST avoids having to consider and disclose the subsequent evidence of controlled demolition.
Passing Off “Global Collapse”
To explain the collapses of the Twin Towers, both NIST’s theory of the “collapse initiation” and its supposition that “global collapse” automatically follows from such an event would both have to be true. The Report simply asserts the supposition without any supporting argument, and subtly reinforces it without drawing attention to it.
* It truncates the timelines of the collapses at the point of “collapse initiation.” * It ignores the history of steel-framed buildings in regard to total collapse. * Its numerous mentions of ‘progressive collapse’ conceal the fact that the Twin Towers are the only examples of top-down total progressive collapse….
Circumscribing the Investigation
The Report explicitly limits its scope to the time between the jet impact and the start of the collapse of each Tower. Its abstract contains the following description:
This is the final report on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reconstruction of the collapses of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers, the results of an investigation conducted under the National Construction Safety Team Act. This reports [sic] describes how the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires led to the collapses of the towers after terrorists flew jet fuel laden commercial airliners into the buildings; whether the fatalities were low or high, including an evaluation of the building evacuation and emergency response procedures; what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the towers; and areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision. (p xiii/15) [emphasis added]
The Executive Summary is less candid about the pre-ordained conclusion of the investigation.
1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed; (p xli/43)
The extent of NIST’s explanation for the totality of the collapses and their many demolition-like features is simply that the total collapse was “inevitable” once a collapse event was “initiated”.
The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable. (p xliii/45) [emphasis added]
Let’s pause and consider the implications of this. NIST’s investigation is being presented as the presumptive last word on the collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7. The collapse of each of the Twin Towers was the last of three events:
1. A jetliner collides with the Tower, punching a gaping hole and producing a giant fireball. 2. The jet fuel ignites fires on multiple floors, producing thick smoke and heating and possibly deforming some structures. 3. The Tower collapses totally, from top to bottom, leaving virtually no recognizable pieces except fragments of its steel skeleton and aluminum cladding.
Each event was horrific and killed hundreds of people. But only the third event violated engineering experience and required the invention of new theories to explain. Yet the Report looks only at the first two events — the subject of hundreds of pages — while showing no interest in the third. These are curious priorities for an investigation that purports to explain the three largest and least expected failures of engineered steel structures in world history: the total collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7.
Hiding Engineering History
NIST’s Report gives the reader no clue of how unprecedented and unexpected the total collapses of these skyscrapers were. Rather, it suggests that total collapses of high-rise buildings are normal events, but usually happen less suddenly.
In our cities, there has been no experience with a disaster of such magnitude, nor has there been any in which the total collapse of a high-rise building occurred so rapidly and with little warning. (p xlvii/49)
Indeed buildings are normally evacuated and cordoned off before being taken down by controlled demolition, so the statement is literally true. But the Report doesn’t contain the word demolition, so the statement seems crafted to mislead. In fact, there appear to be no examples of total collapse of skyscrapers anywhere in the world except through controlled demolition. There are examples of steel-framed buildings about 20 stories in height being knocked over by severe earthquakes, but large portions of earthquake-destroyed buildings remain intact. In contrast, the steel skeletons of the Twin Towers were shredded into thousands of pieces, and their non-metallic constituents and contents were pulverized to dust….

Bare steel in fire places and wood stoves “can heat quickly when exposed to a fire of even moderate intensity,” but we don’t often see fire place gratings or wood stoves collapsing.
Imagined Heat
The Report repeatedly makes claims that amazingly high fire temperatures were extant in the Towers, without any evidence. The Report itself contains evidence contradicting the claims.
Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (p 88/142)
The highest temperatures estimated for the samples was 250 ºC (482 ºF). That’s consistent with the results of fire tests in uninsulated steel-framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 ºC (680 ºF). How interesting then, that NIST’s sagging truss model has the truss heated to 700 ºC (1292 ºF).

A floor section was modeled to investigate failure modes and sequences of failures under combined gravity and thermal loads. The floor section was heated to 700 ºC (300 ºC at the top surface of the slab) over a period of 30 min. Initially the thermal expansion of the floor pushed the columns outward, but with increased temperatures, the floor sagged and the columns were pulled inward. (p 96/150)
Where does NIST get the idea that steel temperatures should be more than 450 degrees Celsius (or 842 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than their own evidence indicates? This passage provides some insight into their experimental method.
A spray burner generating 1.9 MW or 3.4 MW of power was ignited in a 23 ft by 11.8 ft by 12.5 ft high compartment. The temperatures near the ceiling approached 900 ºC. (p 121/175)
1.9 to 3.4 MW (megawatts) is the heat output of about 500 wood stoves — that in a living-room-sized space!
The jet fuel greatly accelerated the fire growth. Only about 60 percent of the combustible mass of the rubblized workstations was consumed. The near-ceiling temperatures varied between 800 ºC and 1,100 ºC. (p 123/177)
Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases accumulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, extremely high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.
The first section of the Report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building’s core.
Aside from isolated areas, perhaps protected by surviving gypsum walls, the cooler parts of this upper layer were at about 500 ºC, and in the vicinity of the active fires, the upper layer air temperatures reached 1,000 ºC. The aircraft fragments had broken through the core walls on the 94th through the 97th floors, and temperatures in the upper layers there were similar to those in the tenant spaces. (p 28/82)
Note the absurdity of asserting that the fires in the core were as intense as those in the tenant spaces when the core:
* Had very little fuel * Was far from any source of fresh air * Had huge steel columns to wick away the heat * Does not show evidence of fires in any of the photographs or videos
Furthermore, NIST’s suggestion of extremely high core temperatures is contradicted by its own fire temperature simulations, such as the one illustrated on the right, which show upper-level air temperatures in the core of mostly below 300 ºC.
Ignored Conduction?
NIST calibrated its computer model of heat transfer to the steel structure using thermally isolated pieces of steel. NIST does not appear to have taken into account the role of heat conduction within the steel structure in lowering the temperatures of the fire-exposed steel.
NIST apparently ignored heat conduction within its model of the steel structure. Since steel is a good conductor of heat, and the steel in the Twin Towers’ structures was well connected, their massive steel structures would have drawn heat away from the parts that were exposed to fire. The Report describes a model of “The Fire-Structure Interface”, and describes the computation of heat transfer between the air and the steel structure, but it does not mention the conduction of heat along spans of the steel structure. (p 129/183) The suspicion that NIST simply ignored the conduction of heat by the steel is corroborated by the Report’s disclosure that they used heat transfer tests on isolated steel elements to calibrate their model. (p 132/186)...
more here

R76089
5 years ago
emissary71

“Zero physical evidence is one of the biggest holes there is.”
How convenient. Destroying evidence is a crime, dumbshit.
Fuck impeachment

R76099
5 years ago
Shogo

but we don’t often see fire place gratings or wood stoves collapsing.
We also don’t often see fire place gratings or wood stoves that are hundreds of stories tall, and made of steel-reinforced concrete either.
Putz.

R76161
5 years ago
neverknwo

“City to Release Thousands of Oral Histories of 9/11 Today”:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/nyregion/12records.html
The fact that the firefighters have been saying the *fires weren’t
very large or hot*, and there were lots of explosions in the towers
that *brought the towers down8 has been suppressed by the Gov’t; but now a
FOIA request by NY Times and family of those who died got
documentation released.
*“Here are the unedited 9/11 tapes from the New York Fire Department,
released today.”:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8926416*
• Tape 1 – 22 (21 Missing)
“Firefighters: WTC2 fires small and controllable”:http://thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape-excerpts.htm see 9:52 statement
*“South Tower fires small and isolated, as videos also showed; gas
fires lasted less than 5 minutes(official report)”:http://www.freedomisforeverybody.org/911physics.php*
*“Temperature not hot in North tower area plane stuck a few minutes
after the crash after gas fire died. See people in hole the plane
struck; and more such shots.”:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?*
*“Huge explosions reported by firefighters, janiftors, building
engineers, survivors, others at the site(hundreds)”:http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/mushrooming.html*
“http://www.flcv.com/wtcexplo.html”:http://www.flcv.com/wtcexplo.html
“http://www.reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6.pdf”:http://www.reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6.pdf
“Complicity documented”:http://www.flcv.com/index911.html
Post Modified: 08/13/05 06:42:11

R76459
5 years ago
neverknwo

From: “Jones, Steven” Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 10:02:58 -0600
Subject: FW: Analysis of 9-11 events
Gentlemen,
Here is the email I¹ve sent to a number of scientists as well as
educated friends and neighbors. You may share this analysis as
you wish. It is written at level to be accessible to most
educated persons, at least that was my effort. My goal was to
encourage people to look for themselves at the data regarding the
collapses of WTC 1,2, and 7, and in some cases (not all) I was
successful.
Paul: I would be happy to work on a paper for your volume, in
conjunction with Jeff Strahl and (hopefully; see below) with Kevin
Ryan and Jim Hoffman ­ if indeed any of these gentlemen would like
to co-author a paper on this with me. I do not feel sufficiently
well-informed yet to write such a paper solo, as I¹m still
climbing the learning curve.
Sincerely,
Prof. Steven E. Jones
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
(Published in Scientific American, Nature, Phys. Rev. Letters, etc`.)
It was the cry of a whistle-blower scientist (Kevin Ryan) that finally caught my attention, sufficient to induce me to take a look at the events surrounding 9-11. >From a physics point-of- view, I soon found that this man was right! The collapses of the three buildings on Sept. 11, 2001, were indeed odd ­ not at all consistent with the official storyŠ as we shall see. I want you to see the data for yourself right away.
First, let me call on Kevin Ryan, previously a lab director at
Underwriter Laboratories (UL), for an introduction to these
important issues. His letter is rather technical, and I¹ll just
extract salient portions. This is an impassioned plea from a
scientist with inside information, and we would do well to give
him a fair hearing:
³As 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 yearŠ they suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year [2004]. I’m aware of UL’s attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these testsŠ indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.²
[Right ­ UL set up models of the WTC buildings and tested themŠ but
they did not fail as required by the official story of 9-11.]
³We 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.
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 able to not only
soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid
structural collapse.
This story just does not add upŠ. That fact should be of great
concern to all AmericansŠ. 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
9/11.²
Guess what happened to Kevin Ryan? ³Associated Press (AP)
reports that a lab director who became a 9/11 whistleblower
recently lost his job for questioning the official story of the
World Trade Center collapse. [ AP article as published in Fort Wayne, Indiana’s News-Sentinel ].
In June 2005, Kevin Ryan wrote a public follow-up letter from
which I will quote portions:
³I stand behind what I wrote, although it was originally intended
as a personal message, not an open letter. Since many have asked
for clarification, here is my message to all.
To me, the report in question represents a decision point, not
just for the US, but for humanity as a whole. We’re at a point
where we must decide if we will live consciously, or literally
give up our entire reality for a thin veneer of lies.
Anyone who honestly looks at the evidence has difficulty finding
anything in the official story of 9/11 that is believable. ŠIn my
previous job I was in a position to question one part, the
collapse of three tall buildings due to fire. [The ³official
theory²] may be best approached initially through statistics.
The three WTC buildings in question weren’t all designed the same
way and weren’t all hit by airplanes. The only thing they seemed
to have in common were relatively small and manageable fires, as
indicated by the work of firefighters right up to the moment of
collapse. From the government’s report we know that only a small
percentage of the supporting columns in each of the first two
buildings were severed, and that the jet fuel burned off in just a
few minutes.
To follow the latest “leading hypothesis”, what are the odds that
all the fireproofing fell off in just the right places, even far
from the point of impact? Without much test data, let’s say it’s
one in a thousand. And what are the odds that the office
furnishings converged to supply highly directed and (somehow)
forced-oxygen fires at very precise points on the remaining
columns? Is it another one in a thousand? What is the chance that
those points would then all soften in unison, and give way
perfectly, so that the highly dubious “progressive global
collapse” theory could be born? I wouldn’t even care to guess. But
finally, with well over a hundred fires in tall buildings through
history, what are the chances that the first, second and third
incidents of fire-induced collapse would all occur on the same
day? Let’s say it’s one in a million.
Considering just these few points we’re looking at a one in a
trillion chance, using generous estimates and not really
considering the third building (no plane, no jet fuel, different
construction [for WTC 7]).
How convenient that our miraculous result, combined with several other trains of similarly unlikely events, gives us reason to invade the few most strategically important lands Š [Afghanistan and Iraq].²
Now I¹d like to invite you to take a close look at these WTC
buildings as they collapse, for yourself. It doesn¹t take a
rocket scientist — YOU can form an educated opinion for yourself
as to whether these buildings MORE LIKELY came down due to FIRE
and ³pancaking² of one floor onto the next below it (the official
story, from the FEMA and 9-11 commission reports) or due to
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION (the competing theory of what really
happened on 9-11).
We¹ll consider WTC-7 first. WTC7 was a 47-story building that was
NOT hit by an airplane on 9/11/01, yet it collapsed in the late
afternoon on that fateful day. (It did have some smaller fires on
one side of the building, which lends to the ³official story² that
fires caused it to collapse.) It was across a street and some
distance away from towers 1 and 2 which collapsed about 7 hours
earlier. WTC7 happened to contain offices and records of the CIA
and FBI.
On the left is a photo of WTC 7. On the right, we see the fires
burning on two floors of WTC7, on September 11, 2001.
Here are other skyscrapers that survived MAJOR fires easily, including WTC itself in 1975
Consider that thousands of skyscrapers have had fires ­ yet NONE
have collapsed in over 100 years of history, before or since
9/11/2001.
The fires in WTC7 were on one side of the building, on floors 7
and 12. If these fires indeed caused weakness in the steel
girders, we would expect the 47-story building to lean toward this
weakened side, and perhaps tip over. (This is based on physics
principles of force and torque.) But this is NOT how the building
came down. Now PLEASE take a look at the data for yourself ­ takes
less than a minute to view the videos. CTRL-click to with your
cursor on the address below, and you¹ll see that three TV networks
independently caught the collapse of WTC7 y ­ 35, 8, and 7 seconds
is all it takes to look at these video clips. (Try to get the
audio with the clips if you can.)
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
Aha! The 47-story skyscraper does NOT tip to one side (the side
that had the fires) ­ but amazingly it falls symmetrically straight
down. Even Dan Rather (1st clip, CBS video) says it looks just
like a ³building destroyed by well-placed dynamite².
Please take a minute to compare with a known controlled
demolition, so you can observe for yourself the striking
similarities. Demolition examples show symmetrical collapses
generally as well as clouds of smoke and debris called ³squibs²:
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm
(See bottom row, fourth from right shows squibs and nice collapse
­ a lot like WTC7. Also, third from left, for squibs. Top row,
right-most for symmetrical collapse of steel-beam building.)
Let¹s look at a close-up of collapse of WTC-7 for any additional evidence of sequenced explosions, like squibs
&PageNum=60
(come on, CTRL-click ­ just takes 10 seconds.)
Oh, my. We do see squibs clearly — boom-boom-boom going right
up the side of the building as it starts to collapse, on upper
floors which did not even have fires. The evidence is staring us
in the face; Dr. Ryan was right!
From Jim Hoffman¹s talk on this subject
This shows the collapse WTC 7 at 1-second intervals. The collapse
takes about 6.5 seconds ­ you can time it yourself as I did. Then
I checked the official ³pancaking-floors² theory, using the
Physics principle of Conservation of Momentum. See, when a
falling floor encounters another concrete floor below it, the
speed of the falling floor is drastically reduced. I proceeded to
calculate that the fall of WTC-7, based on the official
³pancaking-floors² theory and a few necessary assumptions should
be about 10.5 seconds ­ and this ³government² theory is therefore
falsified by the data which shows a fall in 6.5 seconds!
Controlled demolition, in which lower floors are blown away by explosives, permits a collapse in the observed time (see Jim Hoffman¹s talk for more on this point )
I cannot emphasize enough that the official theory that fire
caused the floors to pancake destroying WTC 7 is bogus! As Kevin
Ryan said,
³This story just does not add upŠ. That fact should be of great
concern to all AmericansŠ. 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
9/11.²
We are not alone in asking these hard questions. Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts, expressed his doubt about the official 9/11 statements: “I know many qualified engineers and scientists have said the WTC collapsed from explosives. In fact, if you look at the manner in which it fell, you have to give their conclusions credibility.”
(From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories)
Please note that scientists and engineers are questioning the
official story regarding the collapses of the twin towers WTC1 and
2, as well as the blatant example of the demolition of WTC 7.
First, here¹s a photo of one of the twin towers during
construction, showing the central steel
beams in the core‹47 strong steel girders in the core. (And lots
of ASBESTOS when builtŠ hence strong desire pre- 2001 to get rid
of towers..)
Rather than my going through a long discussion here, I¹ll ask you to look at the power-point slides of a Talk by James Hoffman, given 9/11/2003
Of particular interest to me is the fact that we all saw, that the
concrete in the towers were turned to dust as the buildings
collapsed. What other researchers have done is to show that this cannot be due to pancaking floors (insufficient energy for one thing), but can readily be explained as due to well-placed explosives.
Expulsions of beams and demolition-style squibs are also seen
North Tower, frame-by-frame, we see tower go down first, then outer walls. Also squibs are seen.
Demolition-style squibs seen clearly in floors well BELOW fires
Finally, as if the evidence shown so far was not enough, molten
metal was also found in the basements of all three of these towers
after they collapsed on Sept. 11, the expected end product of
thermite explosives. The reaction involves iron oxide + aluminum
powder which when ignited, produces Al2O3 and MOLTEN IRON. There
is no explanation for the observed and published reports of molten
metal in the basements of WTC 1,2 and, yes, WTC7 (which was not
even hit by a plane!) in the official government reports.
However, the use of high-energy thermite explosives on these buildings is 100% consistent with these observations. USGS infrared photogram demonstrates 900 C ­ 1020 C temperatures at sites of WTC 1, 2 and 7
To me, the evidence adds up to conclusive proof for the pre-
positioned explosives, controlled-demolition argument, while
falsifying the government¹s theory for the collapse of the towersŠ
Something is rotten, not in Denmark, but in our beloved America!
³A June 13, 2005 article in the Washington Times, reported that former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush’s first term, Morgan Reynolds, said the official story about the collapse of the WTC is “bogus” and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. [Dr. Reynolds is emeritus professor at Texas A&M University.]
Referring to Bush¹s efforts to obstruct the 9/11 Commission¹s
access to critical documents, Senator Max Cleland said “disgusting . . . a scam. Americans are being scammed.”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11)
Here is an impassioned editorial plea for real and impartial investigation and to STOP destroying evidence, as steel beams from the WTC buildings were hurriedly shipped to Asia for re-cycling ?
Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25
&ARTICLE_ID=131225
There is much more that could be said, further proofs that could
be brought to bear, but for now I¹d like to ask you to watch two
short ³review² video clips, then I¹d like to hear what YOU think
of all of this. Please remember that I¹m considering these
matters in the context of scriptural prophecies regarding the last
days.
“1. Excellent commentary by Mrs. Mariani, whose husband perished
in the WTC disaster”:
http://www.digitalstylecreations.com/movies/Mariani%20Letter.mov
(If that doesn¹t work, go to the home page first . )
2. Jeff King ­ engineer at MIT ­ provides scientific analysis of the collapses of WTC 1,2, 7 in this most interesting talk: CTRL-click
Then hit ³OK² to the question (you won¹t have to provide any
information actually).
Then scroll down to ³Jeff King ­ WTC Demolitions² and click on
that. Takes a little while to load the video, but well worth it.
à And a follow-up email summarizing my conclusions:
As I stated in my previous email, the reasons I believe WTC
collapses to be due to controlled demolition are:
1. My own analysis of the ³pancaking² floors model (the
FEMA/NIST model), which demonstrates that Conservation of Momentum
gives a much longer time for the fall (over 10 seconds) than that
which was actually observed for WTC-7 (6.5 seconds, just over the
free-fall time of 6.0 seconds).
2. The fact that WTC -7 fell down symmetrically, onto its
own footprint very neatly, even though fires were just observed on
one side of the building. A symmetrical collapse, as observed,
requires the simultaneous ³pulling² of support beams. The Second
Law of Thermodynamics implies that the likelihood of symmetrical
collapse due to fires on one side of the building is
infinitesimal, yet symmetrical collapse was observed (see link
above, for example, and other links in my previous email.) Note
that the 9-11 Commission report does not even deal with the
collapse of WTC-7. This is a striking omission of highly relevant
data.
3. Squibs (horizontal puffs of smoke and debris) are
observed emerging from WTC-7, in regular sequence, just as the
building starts to collapse. Yet the floors have not moved
relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos, so
air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is excluded. I have
personally examined many building demolitions based on on-line
videos, and the presence of such squibs is prima facie evidence
for the use of explosives.
4. The pulverization of concrete to powder and the
horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of yards, observed
clearly in the collapses of the WTC towers, requires much more
energy than is available from gravitational potential energy
alone. Other scientists have quantified this fact, and I can
provide references if you wish. Here we are appealing to the
violation of Conservation of Energy inherent in the ³official²
pancaking theory ­ a horrendous violation, forbidden by principles
of Physics.
5. I conducted my own experiments on the ³pancaking² theory,
by dropping cement blocks from approximately 12 feet onto other
cement blocks. (The floors in the WTC buildings were about 12
feet apart.) We are supposed to believe, from the pancaking
theory, that a reinforced-concrete floor dropping 12 feet onto
another reinforced-concrete floor will result in PULVERIZED
concrete! Nonsense! My own experiments, and I welcome you to try
this yourself, is that only chips/large chunks of cement flaked
off the blocks ­ no mass pulverization to approx. 100-micron powder
as observed. And I was not using reinforced-concrete, which is
even less likely to be pulverized to dust by falling 12 feet, or
even hundreds of feet. Explosives, however, can indeed convert
concrete to dust (mostly, along with some large chunks) as
observed.
6. The observations of molten metal in the basements of all
three buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7 is consistent with the use of the
extremely high-temperature thermite reaction which I outlined in
my notes. Falling buildings have insufficient stored energy to
result in melting of large quantities of metal, and even the
government reports admit that the fires were insufficient to melt
steel beams (they argue for heating and warping then failure of
these beams.)
7. Models of the steel-frame WTC buildings at Underwriters
Laboratories subjected to intense fires did NOT fail, did not
collapse at all. And no steel-frame buildings before or after
9/11/2001 have collapsed due to fire. (Earthquake, yes, but there
were no earthquakes in NYC on that day.)
8. Explosions ­ multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence ­
were heard and reported by numerous observers in (and near) the
WTC buildings, consistent with explosive demolition. Some of the
firemen who reported this barely escaped with their lives.
Essentially none of these science-based considerations is mentioned in the Popular Mechanics article on this subject, authored by B. Chertoff (a cousin of M. Chertoff who heads the Homeland Security Dept.). (Squibs are mentioned briefly, but the PM analysis does not fit the observed facts.) I will consider the PM article in greater detail later.
—Steve J.

R76512
5 years ago
whateveryousay

cool, i’m going to copy those tapes.

R76541
5 years ago
Shogo

_I conducted my own experiments on the pancaking theory,
by dropping cement blocks from approximately 12 feet onto other
cement blocks._
WTF kind of experiment is that? If he wasn’t dropping multi-ton slabs thousands of feet, then this statement is completely irrelevant.
Models of the steel-frame WTC buildings at Underwriters Laboratories subjected to intense fires did NOT fail
They also wouldn’t have been a) weakened from a violent side impact, nor b) supporting the same kind of weight.

R76561
5 years ago
agentwhy

Well, I have finally gotten to the end of this long thread. The debate is actually worthwhile, and there are things worth considering from both sides of the debate.
I consider this a theory worth exploring more. Here’s a few things that stand out in for me. Some of them major, some minor.
-We could clear this up a lot easier if extensive analysis had been allowed on the wreckage of the trade centers.
-I would like to see a comparison of the seismic data from 9/11 and seismic data from controlled demolitions. This would at least give us something to compare the seismic data to.
-A ways back in this thread, someone had posted a list of what they saw as the holes in the controlled demolition theory. One of the holes they saw was the plausibility of gettig the explosives into a building like the WTC with out being detected, and the involvement of hundreds of people.
I am aware personally that the explosives used in some controlled demolition are in the form of explosive-filled plastic tubing. The tubing is about 2in in diameter. Itwas mentioned at the beginning of this thread that several people who worked in the trade center reported that elevators and floors were made inaccessible in teh months leading up to 9/11. And, it was mentioned that construction/engineering people were seen constantly coming and going. Would anyone be overly suspicious if those construction/engineering folks brought a bunch of reels of plastic tubing. I doubt it.
-Shogo talks about how some of the pictures of the towers show them leaning to one side as they fall. He says this is not indicative of what he has witnessed and seen on film in regards to how buildings fall during implosions/controlled demolitions.
However, the ways that controlled demolitions happen vary depending on whether the structure is concrete or steel. They also are planned based upon the building that surround them and the projected way that the structure will land.
While it’s true that in some controlled demolitions there is no “leaning” of the demolished building, if you head on over to http://implosionworld.com you’ll easily discover that this is not always the case.
This information by itself does not prove that the buildings were taken down by controlled demolition. But, it does show that the fact that the building was leaning when it came down does not automatically mean that it was not imploded in a demolition process.
Although I can’t reveal who I am, or what my line of work is, I may be one of the few people in this discussion with some expertise relevant to subjects of building structure, and controlled demolition.

R76592
5 years ago
whateveryousay

agent why,
you read the whole thing?
well under that pretence, i hope the responses you get are respectful and prudent.

R76937
5 years ago
Continuity

Agent, welcome aboard.
Here is one thing for you to consider. No one here, either entertaining the possibility of controlled demolition or (bitterly) denying it, can really go into serious detail regarding the hypothetical placement of explosives. I’m talking about precisely ‘when’ and ‘how’. The information in regards to what was happening at the WTC complex, in the weeks and months before Sept 11, is still seriously limited. Hence, it’s not particularly important until more information is compiled. That’s why I won’t pursue that angle at the moment.
My main argument is not how hypothetical explosives could be installed. Instead the main debate revolves around this: why exactly did the 3 skyscrapers fall? and why exactly in the way they did?
Cortez’s recent link, which carefully criticizes the conclusions of NIST, offers some serious controversy. The NIST report, like the Warren Commission, is not a pure pack of lies, but a complicated, self-contradictive maze of good & bad info. NIST not only covers up & ignores some problems, but strangely points out its own analytical errors and gives ammo to those who want further investigation.
For starters read what NIST confesses here (thanks Cortez):
Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC . (p 88/142)
In other words, NIST has zero physical evidence to back up their assumptions. 250 C, according to their own evidence, is the hottest it got.
Post Modified: 08/16/05 19:10:49

R76945
5 years ago
fennec


R76970
5 years ago
Continuity

Aww, shucks, Fennec…. I appreciate the abstract bump. Are you feeling…?
?
Why not get psyched?....

and



R77158
5 years ago
Snark

This thread is still around. Excellent.

R77166
5 years ago
fennec

Aww, shucks, Fennec…. I appreciate the abstract bump. Are you feeling…?
Nah, I just took that picture in a parking lot from the drive thru of an In and Out Burger, it was great. Some ravens were eating some garbage out of a shopping cart and then a seagull swooped in and stole it and the ravens were too much of pussies (and also smaller) to defend it…uh, I was bored.

R77323
5 years ago
whateveryousay

when do we get to page friday the 13th>?

R77324
5 years ago
Shogo

offers some serious controversy
You mean like the douchebag dropping cinderblocks from a few feet high? That was some serious batshittery indeed.

R77325
5 years ago
whateveryousay

Disinformation

Maintaining the Official Story in the Face of Glaring Contradictions

Ensuring the success of the official story of 9/11/01 despite the long sequence of highly improbable events it supposes required that people not pay too much attention to the details. This would be ensured by the “shock and awe” of the attack itself combined with an intense propaganda campaign to sell the official story. Ironically, the vast majority of those who created and promoted that propaganda probably did so innocently, never questioning the official version of events. The idea that the entire attack was an inside job was simply too unthinkable for most Americans to consider.
The use of disinformation and diversion to manipulate public opinion is a highly developed art. It is well understood not only by psychological operations experts in the national security establishment, but also by marketing and public relations wizards. With the engineering of public reaction to September 11, disinformation has been used with a sophistication and depth that is historically unprecedented. A key tool in this modern form of psychological warfare is the “meme” — an idea that acts like an infectious agent to spread itself through a population. Through careful construction of memes, the perpetrators could depend on others to unwittingly promote their cover story and conceal the truth. Their disinformation strategy was twofold. First, they would sell the official story to the masses through the compliant mass media, relying on people’s desire to believe the official story. Second, they would seed specious ideas in the community of “9/11 skeptics” in order to distract and discredit them.
The Official Story of September 11, and Its Apologists
On the day of the attack, details about the alleged perpetrators emerged with a rapidity that are remarkable given the assertions by high-ranking administration officials that no one had ever considered that an attacker could fly planes into buildings. Within hours the identities of several of the alleged hijackers were known, and Osama bin Laden was being presented as the prime suspect. Within two days the FBI published the identities of all the alleged hijackers. It was being presented as an open-and-shut case.
Academics helped to explain the collapses of the Twin Towers in articles in respected publications. Just two days after the attack, a scientific paper purported to fully explain the unprecedented engineering failures using “elastic dynamic analysis.” “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? – Simple Analysis” was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE on 9/13/01. Peer review of this paper and of other theories volunteering to explain the collapses was nowhere to be found.
The mass media were consistent in avoiding asking the most obvious questions. Why did the air defense network fail to respond? Why is there no footage of an airliner striking the Pentagon? Why was the Ground Zero steel removed and destroyed as fast as possible? The media shirked their public service obligation of acting as watchdogs of the government, and instead became cheerleaders for the administration’s war plans for central Asia.
The vast body of print reportage about September 11 attack is notable for an abundance of contradictions. The timelines in the Complete 9-11 Timeline series reveal numerous inconsistencies, such as between reported times of events. These discrepancies, combined with the lack of evidence, discourage investigation of facts of the attack. Meanwhile, the impending attack on Afghanistan, the alleged Islam-terror link, and “homeland security” got the attention.
This section examines just a few of the elements of the official story of September 11 with a skeptical view and attention to contradictions.
Red Flags: People are able to accept theories blessed by government and mainstream media, despite inconsistencies and long series of improbable coincidences.
Cover Stories: The top four in command of our defense go about routine appointments for an hour as the attack unfolds.
Experts on Parade: Experts “explain” the collapses of the World Trade Center Buildings.
Disinformation Targeting the Skeptics
Disinformation targeting skeptics of the official story is more subtle than the simple promotion of that story to the masses. It may consist of ideas with no basis in evidence packaged as shocking new findings that supposedly prove the involvement of insiders. Its effect is to discredit the larger body of 9/11 research through guilt by association with its sensational and unscientific approach. An example is the idea that Twin Towers were not hit by Flights 11 or 175 but rather by completely different objects, such as military planes with missile-firing pods. Since 9-11 Research does not provide analysis of such disinformation, we recommend the disinformation section of 911review.com.
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/index.html

R77326
5 years ago
whateveryousay

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/times.html
ERROR: Towers Collapsed in 10 Seconds
Each of the Twin Towers totally collapsed in an interval of approximately 14 to 16 seconds. A temporal record of the entire North Tower collapse is provided by the real-time CNN broadcast feed aired during the attack. (This table shows frames from that video at half-second intervals.) It allows reasonably accurate measurement of gross collapse features such as the growth and descent rate of the rubble and dust cloud. However, this and other video evidence does not allow the determination of a precise time of total collapse because each tower’s destruction remains hidden behind an expanding dust cloud which, because of its size, reaches the ground over a span of several seconds.
Despite the availability of video evidence establishing lower bounds of total collapse times of over 13 seconds for each of the towers, assertions that they collapsed in under ten seconds are widespread. Collapse times of eight to ten seconds are common not only in literature of the skeptics, but also in publications promoting the official explanation. A Scientific American article about a 2001 public meeting of engineers on the MIT campus in Cambridge, MA gives a figure of nine seconds.
e x c e r p t
title: When the Twin Towers Fell
authors: Steven Ashley
[Kausel] also performed some computer simulations that indicate the building material fell almost unrestricted at nearly the speed of free-falling objects. “The towers’ resistive systems played no role. Otherwise the elapsed time of the fall would have been extended,” he noted. As it was, the debris took about nine seconds to reach the ground from the top.
site: scientificamerican.com page: 911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/sciam01/sci_am1.htm
The book Painful Deceptions, respected as the first detailed exposition on the World Trade Center demolition, labels an illustration of the South Tower destroyed down to its 30th floor “4 1/2 seconds” (page 77), a moment that was actually more than ten seconds into the collapse. While author Eric Hufschmid combines a solid grounding in the physical sciences with common sense, brilliant originality, and humor, he occasionally makes errors evaluating the evidence.

R77330
5 years ago
Rasputin

An example is the idea that Twin Towers were not hit by Flights 11 or 175 but rather by completely different objects, such as military planes with missile-firing pods.
which is a completely loony idea, considering:
A: the exact same scenario was hypothesized by the Joint Chiefs, minus the missiles, during the Camelot administration.
Not “military planes” mind you, but “exact duplicates” (that’s a direct quote) of the “hijacked” vessels.
Shall I go on? Chronology, transponders, hijackers and such? No, because Northwoods alone is enough to prove that Hoffman is playing the fool.
The reason for this, I assume, is that he wants to keep the 9/11 truth movement “respectable”, sort of like the Chomsky’s of the world wanna keep their reputations. In other words, he’s doing the exact same thing he’s accusing of the “gatekeepers” and “dupes”.
Hoffman’s an interesting case. he’s been labeled a loon so many times for his (quite sensible) take on controlled demolition that he wants to distance himself from the even loonier crowd who suspect (quite sensibly) that drones were used in the attacks. Thus is he “moderate” between the “extremes” of LiHOP and full-out Inside Job.
This has been played out ad naseum by just about every 9/11 researcher and his or her peers, from Ruppert to Hopsicker to Tarpley to the biggest nut of them all, AJ.
Post Modified: 08/18/05 16:27:59

R77365
5 years ago
Rasputin

Zapruder


Naudet

You be the judge.
Back, and to the right.

R77398
5 years ago
Shogo

because Northwoods alone is enough to prove
The only thing Northwoods proves is that at some point in the ’60s, there were people in the government who were obsessed with science fiction.
The film footage of the impacts clearly shows they were 767s.
You’re a stupid fuck, Spewt.

R77404
5 years ago
neverknwo

Have you seen the expanded view of the Driver of the limo turn around and fire the fatal shot at Kennedy. William Greer used a nickel plated .45, pointing it at point blank range wirh his left hand and firing at the president when he saw Oswald’s shot wasn’t the kill shot. Notice in the film how he turns his head and then Kennedy’s head jerks back and to the right.
Guess who ran the Dallas CIA office during the Execution?

R77434
5 years ago
whateveryousay

ah yes, the killing of the “divine king”, etc. and what-not…
but, you know, if your head happens to get shot by a rifle, it would jerk back towards the shot… the bullets tend to enter pretty fast and clean but exit in a rather explosive way, which propels the head…
No, because Northwoods alone is enough to prove that Hoffman is playing the fool.
the bumble-plane story makes a lot of sense to me as far as how an inside job would be orchestrated (if that’s what it was)... but there isn’t that much in the way of evidence. i think jim would rather look at something a bit more concréte.

R77459
5 years ago
neverknwo

Why did the first shot make Kennedy’s Head lean forward and when he grabbed his neck from the wound? The first bullet went through Kennedy because of it being a high power round and into Connelly who sitting in front of the President. Then the next shot blew apart the right side of his skull.
The bullet slammed into his face, which showed when his head getting jerked from a shot from the front to produce the the thrust that propelled his head back and to the right.
If the government was behind Kenedy’s Death, George Bush is a suspect do to the fact he was the Head of the Dallas CIA office during the Kennedy Execution.
The conspirasy fooled the world once and they got away with it.
What would prevent them from engineering other staged Killings and using patsies that the government trained to take the blame?
Post Modified: 08/19/05 07:56:55

R77464
5 years ago
Rasputin

the bumble-plane story makes a lot of sense to me as far as how an inside job would be orchestrated
Yes, it does.
but there isn’t that much in the way of evidence.
Sure there is.
There is nothing but, not the least of which are the two brilliant flashes occurring prior to both impacts. Salter and co. have offered some theories, but the Naudet bros footage puts those to rest.
Bumbleplane is the only scenario that fits the evidence as a whole.
Northwoods. The war games. The transponders. The chronology. The “box-cutter” absurdity. The 101 anomalies of Flight 77.

As Leonard Spencer explains:
“Flight 11 for instance first deviates from its route a minute or two after Flight 175 takes off, and its transponder is switched off at the same time that Flight 77 takes off. Flight 175 first deviates from its route just as Flight 93 takes off and its transponder goes off at the same time that Flight 11 hits WTC1, which is also the time that Flight 77 first goes off course.
“The switching off of the transponders was therefore not the elaborate yet pointless oddity that the official account demands, but an absolutely critical part of the whole plot. It was only by ensuring that the planes that actually hit the towers and the Pentagon were unidentifiable and anonymous blips on the radar screens that the operation could proceed successfully.
“It explains too of course why no meaningful black-box data have been recovered or why the tapes of the conversations between Air Traffic Control and the planes have not been made public. It explains why there have been no official enquiries into the catastrophic failure of the air defense system or the bizarre collapse of the towers.”
Just like the Joint Chiefs recommended: switch the planes and replace them with “exact duplicates”. Now of course they weren’t exactly the same but they were similar enough to snooker most of you;)

R77469
5 years ago
neverknwo

“Why were the terrorists trained and aided by the Nazi’s??”:http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/aug2005/atta-a10.shtml
US military intelligence identified four 9/11 hijackers in 2000
By Patrick Martin
10 August 2005
A top-secret military intelligence unit identified four of the 9/11
suicide hijackers as Al Qaeda operatives, including two of the pilots,
more than a year before the September 11 terrorist attacks, a front-page
report in the New York Times revealed Tuesday.
The article by reporter Douglas Jehl, cites Republican Congressman Curt
Weldon of Pennsylvania and an unnamed former military intelligence officer
as its sources.
Jehls report confirms what has been widely reported overseas but long
covered up by the Bush administration and the American media: Mohammed
Atta, believed to be the operational leader of the 9/11 attacks, was under
US intelligence surveillance even before he came to the United States in
2000. How Atta was able to enter and re-enter the country on multiple
occasions over the next year, enroll in flight school, and use credit
cards and bank accounts in his real name, despite being a known Al Qaeda
operative, has never been explained.
Weldon first revealed the existence of the military intelligence program,
code-named Able Danger, in an interview with the Norristown Times-Herald,
a newspaper in his suburban Philadelphia district, on June 19. He followed
this up with a little-noticed speech to the House of Representatives on
June 27. It was not until the issue was raised by Government Security
News, a publication that specializes in reporting on the US homeland
security apparatus, that it was taken up by the major media.
The Times interviewed the former military intelligence agent at Weldons
congressional office. By his account, Able Danger was set up in 1999 to
conduct data mining from publicly accessible databases, cross-referencing
with information from US agencies like the Immigration and Naturalization
Service and with classified intelligence information. This technique
pinpointed the names of Mohammed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi, the pilots who
flew hijacked jets into the north and south towers of the World Trade
Center, as well as Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhdar, two of the five
men who hijacked an American Airlines jet and crashed it into the
Pentagon.
Had this information been widely circulated in 2000 or 2001, the September
11 attacks, which took the lives of 3,000 innocent people, could have been
prevented. But the Times article states: In the summer of 2000, the
military team, known as Able Danger, prepared a chart that included visa
photographs of the four men and recommended to the militarys Special
Operations Command that the information be shared with the Federal Bureau
of Investigation… The recommendation was rejected and the information
was not shared…
According to the account in Government Security News, the former military
intelligence agent remarked bitterly: We were directed to take those 3M
yellow stickers and place them over the faces of Atta and the other
terrorists and pretend they didnt exist.
White House discussions
Remarkably, Weldon reveals that he discussed Able Danger with top White
House officials, including then-deputy national security adviser Stephen
Hadley, in September or October 2001, just after the 9/11 attacks. The
White House was thus fully aware that the US military had identified
Mohammed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi well before September 11, but it
suppressed that information from all subsequent investigations, including
the 9/11 commission.
The 9/11 commission staff nonetheless learned of the existence of Able
Danger in October 2003, when several former military intelligence officers
spoke to the staff, including executive director Philip Zelikow. According
to the former military intelligence officer interviewed by the Times, they
specifically mentioned Mohammed Atta by name in these discussions.
The former spokesman for the 9/11 commission, Al Felzenberg, in an
interview with the Times, confirmed that the discussions about Able Danger
had taken place, but claimed Attas name had not come up and the staff had
not believed the report to be significant.
The June 19 Norristown Times-Herald article, however, gives the following
account:
Weldon said he was told specifically by commission members Tim Roemer, a
former Democratic congressman from Indiana, and John Lehman, a former
secretary of the Navy, that they had never been briefed on the Able Danger
unit within Special Ops or on the units evidence of a terrorist cell…
The former military intelligence officer told the Times-Herald, I
personally talked with Zelikow about this. For whatever bizarre reasons,
he didnt pass on the information.
snip
There is no mention of Able Danger in the final commission report, and no
hint that any US government agency had linked Atta to Al Qaeda before the
September 11 attacks.
This demonstrates that the 9/11 commission was a fraud and a whitewash.
Rather than uncover the real story of the terrorist attacks, the
commission conducted a sophisticated cover-up of the real relations
between US government agencies and the terrorists who killed 3,000 people.
Meanwhile, Zelikow, the chief organizer of the 9/11 panel, has been
rewarded for his services to the Bush administration and to the
military/intelligence apparatus with an appointment as senior counselor to
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a longtime friend and associate.
snip
Reports were carried by the television network ARD, the magazine Der
Spiegel, and major daily newspapers like the Berliner Zeitung and Die
Zeit. Their accounts have *the CIA beginning surveillance of Atta in
Hamburg in January 2000*, following him during a trip to Frankfurt, where
he purchased chemicals that could be used in making explosives, right up
to the point where he visited the US embassy in Berlin, on May 18, 2000,
and obtained a US entry visa. Atta flew to the United States from Prague,
capital of the neighboring Czech Republic, on June 3, 2000.
Both Der Spiegel and Die Zeit reported that Mossad kept Atta under
surveillance while he was attending flight school in south Florida in 2000
and early 2001. At one point, after a trip to Europe, Atta was stopped by
a customs officer when re-entering the US at Miami International Airport,
because his visa was invalid. Nonetheless, he was allowed in.
Finally, on August 23, 2001, Mossad presented to the CIA a list of 19
named Islamic fundamentalist terrorists living in the United States and
said to be planning an imminent attack. Aside from the chilling
coincidence in the number19 Islamic fundamentalists participated in the
September 11 attacksthe Israeli list actually named four of the future
hijackers, including Mohammed Atta.
The Times report confirms once again the analysis the WSWS made within
four months of 9/11 (Was the US government alerted to September 11
attack?). We charged then, and reiterate now, that the least plauerrorists
entered the United States, obtained training at US flight schools and
organized the simultaneous hijacking of four airliners, without any agency
of the American government having the slightest idea what they were doing.
This new revelation only reinforces the suspicion that the tragedy of 9/11
was not the result of an intelligence failure or an inability to connect
the dots. High-level officials in the state apparatus took affirmative
action to protect the Al Qaeda operatives and allow them to prepare a
terrorist attack. Whether they knew the full extent of what Atta and his
confederates would do on September 11 can be debated, but there is no
question that a terrorist outrage within the United States served the
political purposes of the Bush administration.
The new right-wing government desperately needed a Pearl Harbor-style
event to shift public opinion and create the conditions where it could
press forward with plansalready well prepared before 9/11for military
interventions in the Middle East and Central Asia, the two largest sources
for oil and gas. Bush, Cheney & Co. ruthlessly exploited 9/11 as an
all-purpose justification for right-wing policies at home as well, from
tax cuts for the super-rich to unprecedented attacks on democratic rights.
In response to the Times report, it is necessary to demand answers to
basic questions about September 11:
  • Why were known Al Qaeda members permitted to enter the United States and

carry out their plans?
  • Who made the decisions which facilitated the work of the terrorists and

why have they not been held responsible?
  • Why have the facts about September 11 been covered up, not only by the

White House and the intelligence agencies, but by congressional Democrats
and the American media?

R77536
5 years ago
Shogo

Flight 11 for instance blah blah blah
Assuming for the sake of argument that these time measurements are accurate, what is it that they prove? Why does the timing of the transponders being turned off have anything to do with anything?
The switching off of the transponders was therefore not the elaborate yet pointless oddity that the official account demands, but an absolutely critical part of the whole plot.
Isn’t it possible that hijackers would know that deviation from the flight path would raise red flags with air traffic controllers? Isn’t it possible that they’d turn the transponders off to ensure the success of their mission?
Do you really not understand how obvious it is that you’re a knee-jerk reactionary who automatically believes anything so long as it’s couched in layers of conspiratorial language?
Once again, you see a smoking gun where I see an obvious and rational explanation.
The flash thing is another curious one. You present a blurry, low-res, animated GIF, and claim that to be evidence. You apparently have never used Photoshop or ImageReady, where making such an animated GIF would take all of 2 minutes.
What are you hypothesizing the flash to be, Spewt? Death rays? Alien magic? Lee Harvey Oswald’s killshot?

R77571
5 years ago
whateveryousay

Bumbleplane is the only scenario that fits the evidence as a whole.
no it isn’t. not by a long shot.
but the flashes are there. and i haven’t seen a good explanation for them. besides some sort of ‘garage-door opening’ fuel igniting missile or something.
and even shogo wouldn’t go as far to suggest they were pasted into the 11/9 vid and all the other footage as some big dis-info conspiracy.

R77634
5 years ago
Shogo

even shogo wouldnt go as far to suggest they were pasted into the 11/9
OK, check it out people.
The WTC was clad with giant reflective windows. Anyone who has seen the building in person (like I have) knows this. Airliners have running lights, which anyone who has seen one flying at night can see.
The original video clip (not the low-res, extremely compressed animated GIF that Spewt posted above) shows a very brief flash that’s visible when the plane is about to impact the building. The flash visible in that video (which was relatively uncompressed and of a decent size) was much smaller and less bright than the one depicted in the above animated GIF.
So, two things. One – whoever made that animated GIF is a douchebag, and adjusted the shit out of the brightness/contrast settings, making the flash appear much larger and more apparent than it actually was. Two – when I saw the original clip of this, my thought was that all you are seeing there is the reflection of the planes running lights in the windows prior to impact.
Rasputin is certainly proving himself to be a most capabale disinfo agent by posting crap video clips like that and pretending they show what really happened.

R77678
5 years ago
whateveryousay

shogo,
i once rented the video 11/9 and watched it and did bother the scrutinize ‘the flash’ in slow mo. i don’t see any particular exaggeration in the gif… it’s been obviously motion stabilized and there is certainly less colours represented but there nothing to suggested the flash was made brighter or bigger than how it appears in the source.
your ‘running lights’ theory is interesting but i don’t think such lights would be bright enough to cause the effect. sunlight reflecting off the fusilage and then off the building maybe…
and they wouldn’t be
runningrunning lights they would be runway lights’ or landing lights. and why would they switch those on? or do you mean the strobes on the wing tips (which totally wouldn’t be bright enough)?
there are rumours that a u.s. release of the 11/9 video had the flash toned down compared to what cnn initially showed (or was it the other way around) ...
but i don’t know about that one… could just come back to a web capture at a lower frame rate…
speaking of frame rate, seems to me that the naudet brothers were using sony pd-150’s (wel duh) and some sort of 16:9 aspect-ratio converters… but were they using the pd150 or the pd150E? pretty important for skeptics to know because ntsc and pal are quite different and converting between the two uses all sorts of totally complex interpolation algorithms which can create weird artifacts.

R77685
5 years ago
Shogo

they wouldnt be running lights
Sure they would. Planes have lights on when they fly. You can see this effect clearly at night.

R77690
5 years ago
whateveryousay

You can see this effect clearly at night.
and not so much during the day, which was sort of my point.
maybe it was someone taking a photo of the plane from inside the building eh?
ever think of that ? huh?
some of those disposable cardboard box cameras come with flashes now.
see?

R77699
5 years ago
cortez

All these video’s and pictures floating around.
Here’s some more
—————————
HI-RESOLUTION VIDEOS
If you are using Windows Media Player you need the DivX3.11a codec plug-in (many non-Microsoft movie players come standard with the codecs necessary to play DivX movies (eg Mplayer for Linux)).
If you do not already have it, you can find it here:http://public.planetmirror.com/pub/divx/windows/divx_3.11alpha.zip
http://public.planetmirror.com/pub/divx/windows/divx_3.11alpha.zip
The files from public.planetmirror.com are bit for bit the same (I checked) as those I have had on my system for years (with no harmful effects). You unzip the files and double click on Register_DivX.exe
If you wish to learn about DivX movies, in particular, why they sometimes play upside-down, read this thread:
http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=599
HIGH RESOLUTION VIDEO
Here HiRes (high resolution) video means video recorded with the DivX3.11a codec with the (variable) bitrate set to 6000 and crispness/smoothness set to 100. The hi-resolution videos are much larger files than necessary for good viewing. They are meant to convey as much of the original detail as possible.
THE FIRST PLANE STRIKE ON THE NORTH TOWER
The First Plane Hitting The North Tower (13 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×408)
Video taken while waiting to enter the Brooklyn Tunnel (0.8 MB Codec: DivX3.11a 360×240)
THE SECOND PLANE STRIKE ON THE SOUTH TOWER
Plane Hitting South Tower. View from south (10 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×472)
View from north-east (4.9 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 716×480)
View from north (13 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×472)
View from east (1.2 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×356)
Close view from east (1.3 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×356) Includes the “911 In Plane Site” flash.
Another view from north (0.8 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×356)
Short view from north-east (1.2 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 696×472)
Longer view from north-east (2.8 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 716×480)
NORTH TOWER DEMOLITION
Video one of the WTC North Tower Demolition (2 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 492×408)
Video two of the WTC North Tower Demolition (5.6 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 716×480)
Video three of the WTC North Tower Demolition (0.5 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 676×408)
Video four of the WTC North Tower demolition MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×472)
Premature Detonations in North Tower Demolition. (4.8 MB Codec: DivX3.11a 692×472)
North Tower Premature Detonations (Marked) (2.8 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×472) Copy. Newest.
More North Tower Premature Detonations (6.1 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 696×472)
Another view of the North Tower Predetonations (1.4 MB HiRes Codec: MPEG1 352×264)
SOUTH TOWER DEMOLITION
Video one of the WTC South Tower demolition (1.6 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 716×480)
Video two of the WTC South Tower demolition (2.3 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×408)
Video three of the WTC South Tower demolition (1.5 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×352)
Video four of the WTC South Tower demolition (1.7 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×356)
South Tower Premature Detonations (Marked) (0.4 MB Codec: DivX3.11a 704×480)
WORLD TRADE CENTER BUILDING SEVEN DEMOLITION
The WTC Building Seven Demolition (0.9 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×408)
The WTC Building Seven Demolition (another view) (0.8 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×408)
The WTC Building Seven Demolition (yet another view) (9.5 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×408)
The WTC Building Seven Demolition – Four (0.8 MB Codec: DivX3.11a 360×240)
The WTC Building Seven Demolition – Five (1.1 MB Codec: DivX3.11a 542×407)
PENTAGON
Pentagon Collapse One (2.2 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 696×472) Copy.
Pentagon Collapse Two (0.8 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 696×472) Copy.
Video one of the Pentagon on Fire (4.2 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×480)
Video two of the Pentagon on Fire (3.5 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×464) New.
Video three of the Pentagon on Fire (1.4 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×464)
Video of the Pentagon damage from the air (9.6 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×480)
——————————
I won’t vouch for the info on the original link, the guy has peppered some holocaust denial in the lower links (the turd in the punch bowl).
But the video collection is useful
Post Modified: 08/20/05 21:45:40

R77732
5 years ago
whateveryousay

i checked the first strike and the quality is awful and the flash isn’t bright at all.
when i get enough money i’ll go rent the dvd 11/9 and show you what the the fuck is up

R77740
5 years ago
neverknwo

FBI Knew Terrorists Were Using Flight Schools
By Steve Fainaru and James V. Grimaldi
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 23, 2001; Page A24
Federal authorities have been aware for years that suspected terrorists with ties to Osama bin Laden were receiving flight training at schools in the United States and abroad, according to interviews and court testimony.
Three days after the attack on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III described reports that several of the hijackers had received flight training in the United States as “news, quite obviously,” adding, “If we had understood that to be the case, we would have — perhaps one could have averted this.”
A senior government official yesterday acknowledged law enforcement officials were aware that fewer than a dozen people with links to bin Laden had attended U.S. flight schools. However, the official said there was no information to indicate the flight students had been planning suicide hijacking attacks.
“We were unable to marry any information from investigations or the intelligence community that talked to their use of this expertise in the events that we saw unfold on the 11th,” the official said.
Connections between terrorists and flight training include the following:
• In 1996, two flight school operators said last week, FBI agents visited them to obtain information about several Arab pilots connected to a Pakistani terrorist eventually convicted of plotting to bomb U.S. airliners.
The flight schools, Coastal Aviation of New Bern, N.C., and Richmor Aviation of Schenectady, N.Y., were two of four that provided flight training to Abdul Hakim Murad in the early 1990s, according to Philippine authorities. Murad was arrested in Manila in 1995 and later convicted in New York of plotting to blow up a dozen U.S. airliners over the Pacific, then crash a suicide plane into CIA headquarters.
• In 1998, FBI agents questioned officials from Airman Flight School in Norman, Okla., about a graduate later identified in court testimony as a pilot for bin Laden, according to Dale Davis, the school’s director of operations.
• This year, the trial of bin Laden associates for the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania yielded documents containing several references to flight schools and bin Laden pilots.
• Two weeks before the Sept. 11 attack, Davis said, FBI agents returned to Norman seeking information about another Airman student, a French-Moroccan dropout who had entered the country on a visa sponsored by the flight school. The man, Zacarias Moussaoui, had been detained in Eagan, Minn., on an immigration violation after he tried to purchase time on a jet simulator — even though he had never flown solo in a single-engine aircraft.
One government witness in the embassy-bombing trial, Essam al-Ridi, testified that he had taken classes and taught at the now-defunct Ed Boardman Aviation School in Fort Worth. Al-Ridi also said that in the mid-1990s, he purchased a used Saber-40 aircraft on bin Laden’s behalf for $210,000 in Tucson. Another witness in the same bombing trial, L’Houssaine Kerchtou, testified that he was sent to a flight school in Nairobi and later served as a pilot for bin Laden.
The issue of how U.S. authorities processed early warning signs that terrorists were taking advantage of the flight school system is certain to be examined in the aftermath of the attack. Suzanne E. Spaulding, executive director of the National Commission on Terrorism, a congressionally appointed task force, said, “In hindsight, we can see how all these things [flight school connections] might be relevant and important.” But, she said, “it is harder on a day-to-day basis. There is no question that technology could help sort information.”
Since the attack, the FBI has extended its investigation to dozens of flight schools coast to coast, including some of the same schools it visited in the years before the attack. According to law enforcement officials and press reports, the 19 suspected terrorists received flight training from at least 10 U.S. flight schools. At least 44 people sought by the FBI for questioning received some flight instruction.
Dietrich L. Snell, who helped prosecute Murad, said that although the Pakistani terrorist attended four U.S. flight schools, it would have been difficult for the FBI to connect the schools to the kind of terrorist attack that occurred Sept. 11.
Murad, he said, had indicated that he wanted to use his flight training to become a commercial pilot until he was recruited by Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, a bin Laden operative who also plotted the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
“I think that because Murad had been trained as a pilot it’s tempting in hindsight to say that the bureau should have known,” said Snell. “But I think they were missing any link that would have connected the flight schools to this kind of terrorism.”
The Murad investigation showed that Murad and Yousef were planning to employ five-man teams to smuggle bombs on to 12 planes operated by United Airlines, Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines during a two-day period in 1995. Prosecutors for the U.S. government described the plot as “one of the most hideous crimes anyone ever conceived.”
Murad confessed to authorities that part of his planned role in the terror attack was to crash a plane into CIA headquarters in Langley.
Richard Kaylor, manager of Richmor Aviation, said the FBI was first alerted to the Schenectady flight school after a Richmor business card was discovered in Murad and Yousef’s Manila apartment.
Kaylor said two FBI agents came to interview him about Murad in 1996. He said he provided information about Murad and two other student pilots, both of whom lived with Murad. Kaylor said the three men had come to Schenectady after a stint at Alpha Tango Flying Services in San Antonio.
Kaylor said four FBI agents returned Friday to Richmor to question him about a Turkish student who had received his private pilot’s license last year. But Kaylor said it was unclear whether the agents were aware that he had been interviewed five years earlier.
Whether officials at Alpha Tango were also interviewed in 1996 is unclear. The flight school’s owner, Hamid Afzal, could not be reached for comment. After the Sept. 11 attack, Afzal contacted the FBI about names on a published list of suspects, believing some of the hijackers might also have taken instruction at Alpha Tango, according to a report in the San Antonio Express-News.
Paul Proctor, the former owner of Coastal Aviation, another school Murad told investigators he had attended, said he could not recall whether the convicted terrorist had received his commercial pilot’s license from his facility. But he said he “wouldn’t be surprised,” because an FBI agent searched his files about the same time agents were visiting Richmor.
Proctor said that the FBI agent never disclosed the purpose of the visit, but that he asked to see the files for students of Arab descent. The agent collected names, passport information and flight training records, according to Proctor. As the agent was finishing, Proctor said, “I made a little comment about hijacking an airplane or terrorism. He said, ‘Don’t even say that.’ That was obviously what he was looking for.”
Proctor, whose company ceased operations in 1997, said he had already been suspicious about a specific group of Arab students, two of whom had arrived at the school on North Carolina’s coast from New York City in a taxicab. The students already had private pilots’ licenses and had come to the school to receive advanced training to fly multi-engine aircraft, Proctor said.
The day after the students completed their training and left, Proctor said, he discovered that a $12,000 instrument radio pack — including automatic direction finder, navigation aids and transponder — was missing from one of his single-engine Cherokee Archers. Proctor said he never reported the theft to police because he believed he had little hope of recovering the equipment.
About three years later, FBI agents visited Airman Flight School in Oklahoma to inquire about Ihab Ali Nawawi, a bin Laden associate whose name surfaced during the trial for the 1998 embassy bombings. Dale Davis, the flight school’s director of operations, said Nawawi obtained his commercial pilot’s license from Airman in the early 1990s, then traveled to another school in Oklahoma City to qualify for a rating to fly small business aircraft.
In testimony during the embassy bombing trial, al-Ridi, the government witness, described Nawawi as a pilot for bin Laden. Al-Ridi testified that he met Nawawi in Khartoum at a time when Nawawi had just graduated from flight school in the United States and had begun to work for bin Laden.
Correspondent Doug Struck and researcher Margaret Smith contributed to this report.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company

R77741
5 years ago
neverknwo

(*I have no comment or opinion on this*, just saw it and found it interesting. There’s so much ‘smoke’ being blown by CIA perps and NeoCONs on the net it’s hard to tell what’s what.)
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 11:02 AM Subject: The Next 911: Intel Agent Leaks Plans
It’s good to hear from you. I’ve been a bit worried.
My feeling is that Operation Deep Shield has been terminated (maybe the
price of oil?). I don’t see any more chemtrails here in Florida and I used
to see a lot of them, even smell the chemicals in the air. Not anymore.
The result on the environment has been the elimination of most of the bird
species, many insects and even the squirrels seem to have a lower population
in places where they used to thrive. And people are getting sick.
But John, this is what I am worried about. Have a look at this:
HINT: A big event in NYC next week, courtesy of Bush and “The Technicians”.
Yeah, that´s what these guys call themselves. They´ve been dining out on
9-11 for a long time and now they´re going to do it again. Only bigger. Much
bigger.
Y´all take care now.
-
I´m no longer in the States.
I can´t tell you exactly when these bastards are going to detonate their
payloads, but three dates have been touted: August 19, 23 and 24.
My guess is that they´ll run with August 19. Why? Because internal
opposition is building and Bush needs to know how many post-op
assassinations he can authorize without blowing his game.
(Obviously this date has not…)
-
The Technicians are run out of Tel Aviv. They took over maintenance of the
Twin Towers three weeks before impact. They planted the demolition charges.
This time, The Technicians have brought in some prime quality merceneries:
three ex-SAS guys. The SAS is bit like the US Delta, only better, faster and
more efficient.
-
I liase with individuals who work for diverse European intelligence
agencies. That´s how I know what I know. I get to hear the “rumble”
Stateside, and then I check it against the data I have this side of the
wash.
-
>>You know what I´m asking for.What does Bush hope to gain from this attack? Why doesn´t anyone stop
>>him?And OP what should we be doing now?Safe & Sound, did you post that one also?Except for that 8 years of Clinton and the 8 years of Reagan, of
>>course…There´s no more oil to steal.If you cannot be more specific…..then I say this is BS. I am Very Close
>>to someone who is a “Bigshot” at a Fortune 100 Company. As a matter of
>>fact…..this person is literally in charge of all of this company´s
>>“outsourced IT storage and credit records” worldwide.Show some backbone. Don´t be a spineless jellyfish! Be Specific!Why next week? Why now? The 19th, what wait does that carry? Symbolism?when do you sleep?What do you imagine the probability of your warning actually coming true
>>is?what next? another war? what country will be blamed?Honestly, I don´t understand how the intelligence business can function
>>what with all the insane compartmentalization and the fact that “allies”
>>are all spying on each other.Is it a well known site among the intel community?What does that matter? The government kills people all the time. Why not
>>get a hit man and take Panchet out? When did the government become so
>>concerned with someone they know is a problem who hasn´t broken any laws?
>>They kill innocent people all of the time. Again does not make sense.Ill buy the drinks!S&S, R U coming back tomorrow?Safe and Sound …. Do you know if they will cut off Social security
>>benifits immediately/close the banks ?OP, you say you are an American citizen. You spelled “defence” using the
>>British spelling. Was that because you were talking about the British? Are
>>you also British? MI6?Can you talk about the Helping Hand or Hidden Hand? I cant remember which
>>one it was. German Guy said that Paul Wolfowitz was in charge of that.Do you think OPEC would drop the $USD as the petro currency?Whats the deal with that general being sacked? Do you think he knew
>>something and was trying to stop a strike? Theres even been some
>>speculation theres some kind of on-going coup within the US army against
>>bush, any creedance?What do you think will prompt the upcoming global conflict? There have
>>been a lot of chess moves, both economically and militarily, but for now
>>it seems the concerns are more strategic.
Any thoughts. In my opinion, it seems some time was bought with manipulation
of the markets in order to guarantee a succesful transition to a wartime
economy. Do you feel that the sudden economic downturn will result in
immediate military response, or do you feel that a certain military action
will signal the economic house of cards to come falling down?This is a dumb question, but is something going to happen here in the D.C.
>>area. Should I worry? I have children.airstrikes on Iran to cripple it enough that an oil bourse based in euros
>does not achieve fruition?
Is there any way to change this outcome now?Who controls Bush?>In a span of about a week, a few extremely powerful bankers all died. One
>>falling from the 9th floor of a building, one found floating in his
>>pool… It seems to me like this was more than just a coincidence. Do you
>>know anything about it?
I´m also curious if you know anything about the string of scientists who
died. They were all microbiologists or something to that effect, the people
with the most expertise to be able to stop a deadly epidemic if one ever
occured. Why were they killed?<<
I’m pretty sure Wim Duisenberg died of natural causes, but I wouldn’t be in
a hurry to discount assassination either. The same applies to Zankel, who
may have known too much about the upcoming global crash. However, I have no
hard data pointing toward murder.
Not all of the microbiologists murdered or “suicided” in recent years were
deliberately targeted for their knowledge of secret biowarfare projects and
medical breakthroughs, but most were. We have a number of projects ongoing
in the US (and offshore) that have been focused on DNS sequencing in
relation to pathogenic infections. These are really just a continuation of
the aerial “field testing” carried out on the civilian population in the
1950s and 1960s and the syphilis monitoring survey in which black Americans
were unwitting participants.
About five years ago a cure for the AIDS disease was discovered by Victor
Kurschunov in Russia. He was murdered shortly after he submitted a white
paper for internal peer review. There’s a team down in the SEA states (names
will be forthcoming one day) that coincidentally found an interrupt in the
sequencing pattern that allows for successful intervention and immunisation
against HIV, but I believe they’ve been told not to publicize their
findings.
There has been enormous “progress” in the last few years in the field of DNA
and RNA sequencing with a view to weaponized pathogens that target
individuals with a particular genetic marker. It’s now possible, for
instance, to target any US city in such a way that only African-Americans
are killed, leaving Caucasians unaffected. In Great Britain scientists are
currently working on a means to kick start the 1918 flu virus once more, but
only this time with more fatalities.
It may sound paranoid to talk of selective culling, but my experience tells
me that this will probably happen as part of the mix. They´ve been talking
about this since the early 1970s.
-
Wow! I really can´t keep up with the pace of questioning (and your questions
and feedback are truly awesome — there´s hope for America yet.)
For a start, I need to switch from my notebook to proper PC, which I´ll
probably do later this evening. I´m also being nagged to leave the house and
take a car journey some place. I´m not entirely sure whether I´ll be
sticking around here tomorrow. I still have quite a few city people to visit
in this country before moving on.
Perhaps what I should do when I return is scan through the posts and see if
I can provide a few catch-all answers.
I´ll see you guys later.
Post Modified: 08/21/05 06:39:14

R77862
5 years ago
Rasputin

Oh come on McBeal.
You’re gonna tell me a couple of skinny five-foot-something exacto-knife wielding punks who couldn’t even fly a Cessna took over flight 77 from all those burly military men and performed that aerial miracle into the renovation wing of the Pentagon?
Now I laid out a theory, which I think is the most plausible in light of the evidence I’ve seen. This involves a number of different factors.
Instead of trying to trash such theories using pure ad hom and references to “sci-fi” etc. (which may indeed have been tenable during the 1940’s), how about deconstructing said theories on the basis of evidence, and comparing them to your own ideas about what happened?
I’m OPEN to your ideas. If you’d just present a scintilla of evidence to back them up instead of resorting to flaming.

R78258
5 years ago
Schneibster

OK, I’ve got expert testimony from multiple sources on 7 WTC to share: “Firehouse” magazine’s site, firehouse.com, published interviews of four firemen who were on site when 7 went down. There is compelling evidence of massive damage to the building on the south side, which is the side facing the towers, due to their collapse. Not only the corner damage listed in the NIST report, but a huge, twenty-story-high hole in the side of the building.
The testimony is from four sources. Here are the links:
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html
“We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.”
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html
“Now, World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself, how come they’re not trying to put this fire out? I didn’t realize how much [damage] they had because my view was obstructed. All I could see was the upper floor. At some point, Frank Fellini said, now we’ve got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds and hundreds, and that’s on the West Street side alone. He said to me, Nick, you’ve got to get those people out of there. I thought to myself, out of where? Frank, what do you want, Chief? He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we’ve got to get those people out of there…
“I was getting some resistance. The common thing was, hey, we’ve still got people here, we don’t want to leave. I explained to them that we were worried about 7, that it was going to come down and we didn’t want to get anybody trapped in the collapse. One comment was, oh, that building is never coming down, that didn’t get hit by a plane, why isn’t somebody in there putting the fire out? A lot of comments, a bit of resistance, understandable resistance…
“I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run.
I said, that building is not coming this way, you could see where it was going, but I was concerned about debris. I got over near a vehicle, I don’t know what kind of vehicle. I sheltered in there a little bit and this dust cloud of debris came up and next thing you know, silence. Guys were all right. Nobody was running, hurt or anything like that.”
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
Hayden By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors . It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety…
Firehouse Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out? Hayden Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event.”
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norman.html
“I started to go down Vesey toward West, but there was a lot of debris blocking the way and they were telling me no, you don’t want to go down there – they’re worried about that building collapsing. I looked at 7 World Trade Center. There was smoke showing, but not a lot and I’m saying that isn’t going to fall. So I went up Church Street two more blocks and went across to West and went right down behind 7 and got a good look at three sides. Again, there were a lot of fires on the ground, some crushed mail trucks, some burned-up engines. It was a scene out of a war zone… We had extension on the first and second floors, so we took some standpipe lines, put them in operation and knocked that down. From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged…
“Once I got out onto West and Liberty and see that there’s nothing left, the whole steel of that building is out covering the block, it’s just incredible. Now we’re still worried about 7. We have guys trying to make their way up into the pile, and they’re telling us that 7 is going to fall down – and that was one of the directions from the command post, to make sure we clear the collapse zone from 7 and this is a 600-foot-tall building, so we had to clear a 600-foot radius from that building. Guys are looking at me when I’m telling them to move away, we’re over by the north tower and we got to get out of here. They said what building you talking about? I said that building and they thought the phone company because through the smoke you couldn’t see what I’m talking about. They said that building isn’t going anywhere. I said no, not that building, the one next to it, the big one. It was tough getting them to understand what we’re talking about because until you had done either a couple of 360s around this whole site or if you got an aerial view somehow, you really couldn’t appreciate the scope of the damage.”
That’s not all of it, but it’s the most important bits. I don’t think that you can imagine the devastating impact of the steel sections off the perimeter walls of 1 and 2 if you weren’t there; they were falling all over the place, tumbling around, smacking into other buildings and making huge holes in them. In any case, I don’t see that there is insufficient damage to 7 to make it impossible that it fell down.
And in closing, I’d like to make a point: y’all keep saying, “No steel frame building has ever fallen down as a result of a fire,” like it means something in this context. It doesn’t. In fact, it’s still true. 1 and 2 WTC fell down because of mechanical damage from being crashed into with airplanes, plus the resulting fires. 7 WTC fell down because of mechanical damage due to the flying steel from 1 hitting it, plus the resulting fires. None of these buildings fell because of the fires alone . The whole demolition thing is a gigantic smokescreen, to take your eyes off the ball: the ball is, none of the planes were shot down. The ball is, Norm Mineta’s testimony about what Cheney said and did was edited out of the Commission report. The ball is, where’s the money? And this demolition horseshit is nothing but a smokescreen. So let’s keep our eye on the ball.

R78293
5 years ago
Shogo

None of these buildings fell because of the fires alone
You can repeat that ad infinitum, but not one of these tools is going to take it to heart. They simply are too uneducated and ignorant to recognize what is totally obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense.
Good finds on those stories. There is a photo out there taken by the NYPD from an oblique angle to the southwestern corner of #7, and you can see the uppermost portion of what is obviously a giant gash in the facade of the building. There are other photos too, post-collapse, where you can see the northern facade laying across the pile of rubble, owing to the asymmetrical collapse of the building.
Youre gonna tell me a couple of skinny five-foot-something exacto-knife wielding punks who couldn’t even fly a Cessna took over flight 77 from all those burly military men
I love that wording Spewt. Really visual. Really insulting, too. And nonsensical.
A) you don’t know that they couldn’t fly a Cessna.
B) they didn’t need to take off or land, only to steer the planes into large buildings.
C) I can just imagine you getting all stiff over the “burly military men”, but this is a family website. Keep it clean, buddy.
D) I’m not sure how many pilots you’ve seen in your life, I’m guessing you don’t fly a whole lot. I dunno, call it a hunch. I’ve flown quite a bit. The pilots I’ve seen are, to a man, pretty normal looking guys. Not musclebound military bruisers, but pretty average looking. Now, even if they were musclebound gay porn icons, they’re still seated, and belted in, with their backs to the door of the cockpit. If someone managed to get in there, and was armed, they’re ambulatory and free to move – not exactly an opportune scenario for a pilot to dramatically tear off his seatbelt, muscles bulging homoerotically, and give the hijacker what for.
Why are you so quick to assume that Arabs can’t fly airplanes? You’re not a racist, are you?

R78301
5 years ago
Rasputin

7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we’ve got to get those people out of there
Wow, talk about your crystal balls lol. Did Nostradamus make that prediction, or was it an expert in the newly formed, rapidly blossoming field of “progressive collapse”?
Foreknowledge indeed.

I think we have ourselves a suspect, assuming we can trace this remarkable piece of “intelligence”. Most blogs are claming it came from Guiani’s office. I have no idea.
Mcbeal:
you don’t know that they couldn’t fly a Cessna
Just quoting their instructor, sonny.
The pilots I’ve seen are, to a man, pretty normal looking guys.
Actually I was referring to the scores of military-industrial types who were aboard flight 77 that day, not the pilot, though now that you mention it, so was he and it does seem a tad strange that the last job of said pilot (Burlingame) was to coordinate contingency plans in the event of an airliner hitting the Pentagon.
What a koo-inky-dink.
hahahah
mark
Post Modified: 08/23/05 23:30:10

R78314
5 years ago
Schneibster

Rasputin, bud, I hate to defect- but the evidence is just too clear-cut. I’ll point out that they were predicting collapse at 2PM- and it didn’t come down until 5. I’ll also point out that someone was out there with a transit- you know what that is? It’s surveying equipment. He checked the edges of the building, and he found a big bulge in one edge. And it just so happens that that’s right where it failed- go ahead, the quote on the transit and the position of the bulge is at the link above, and the NIST report has all the details about how it fell, which side first and so forth. Now, this information is not present in either report alone- and they are totally unrelated, from completely different sources. You gotta put them together to understand what happened- and when you do put them together, they make sense . No fucking way anybody put that shit together to deceive someone. I’m sorry, man, but when you get the evidence, you either gotta believe it, or you gotta stop being sane. No third way.
And why, you ask, didn’t anyone see this huge hole in the front of the building? Guess where you had to be standing to see it? Now, think a minute- where is the damge gonna be? On the side next to 1 WTC, right? That’s the close tower to 7. So, you’re gonna go stand in the middle of the disaster area, all these cops and firemen and shit, crap all over the place, broken glass, burning trucks, dead people, huge three-story perimeter column pieces spread around like playing cards, fuckin no-mans-land, and shoot off your fuckin camera and all them firemen and policemen gonna just let you waltz right on into the largest fuckin crime scene any of them has ever seen? Not to even mention the fact that your chances of making it in and back out with your life- we won’t even talk about your camera- are, shall we say, slim to none?
Somehow, I don’t THINK SO. You know?
So every picture you’ve ever seen shows only the side away from the tower. There aren’t any pictures on the other side, because nobody there was alive to take them. And, of course, since that’s the side away from the tower, lo and behold it didn’t get hit with multiple 23-ton three-story three-column sections flying out of the collapse. Let’s put this in perspective here: you know that shit you see on, like, Godzilla movies, monster walking around, steps on a bus and flattens it? Kicks some tank or something on the street and it goes flying into a building? That foot is just about the size of one of those sections. There were COMPLETE HOOK AND LADDER TRUCKS FLATTENED FROM END TO END, SO FLAT NOBODY HIDING UNDERNEATH COULD HAVE LIVED. Think about that shit for a minute, and tell me there wasn’t a 200-foot hole in the other side of that building.
You need to read those reports; here we got four eyewitnesses, telling their stories to reporters. Hey, you like all those eyewitness accounts from people who just happened to be there, and had no idea what was going on; these eyewitnesses actually understand what the fuck they saw and what the fuck was going on, because they are professionals and it’s their job to know what the fuck is going on . And the minute they’re in a situation and they lose track of what’s going on, THEY’RE FUCKING DEAD. No room for doubt, no time for horseshit, no tolerance for error. There’s nowhere left to hide, bud.
It’s over, man. Move on, get your eye on the ball.

R78315
5 years ago
Shogo

Just quoting their instructor, sonny.
And you know this how? Curious how you believe the official version when it suits your pet conspiracy theories, and disparage it when it doesn’t. A bit of selective perception there, Spewt – wouldn’t you say?
Schneib just pwned your ass. At least have the decency to admit when you’ve been shown up.
I was referring to the scores of military-industrial types who were aboard flight 77 that day
Ahh. Right. Of course. How silly of me. You and your sekrit knowledge are no match for logic or common sense.

R78320
5 years ago
Chickenma1

“The whole demolition thing is a gigantic smokescreen, to take your eyes off the ball: the ball is, none of the planes were shot down. The ball is, Norm Mineta’s testimony about what Cheney said and did was edited out of the Commission report. The ball is, where’s the money? And this demolition horseshit is nothing but a smokescreen. So let’s keep our eye on the ball.”
Okay, I can buy that. Thanks for the update.

R78323
5 years ago
Rasputin


Post Modified: 08/24/05 11:53:39

R78336
5 years ago
Schneibster

Dude, that’s about all you got
Wrong. Read it. Or enter the state of ignore; somewhere I’d hoped never to have to put you. I have respect for you; but I will not tolerate insults, and if that’s all you have to say, then I have nothing further to say to you. You ignore evidence that does not suit you, and that is no road to truth.

R78337
5 years ago
Rasputin

You ignore evidence that does not suit you, and that is no road to truth.
Dude, look at the gif. It’s not rocket science.

R78353
5 years ago
whateveryousay

to quote one of those firemen.
One comment was, oh, that building is never coming down, that didn’t get hit by a plane, why isn’t somebody in there putting the fire out? A lot of comments, a bit of resistance, understandable resistance…
the whole story as posted seems to say that your “professionals and it’s their job to know what the fuck is going on“ figured they should be putting the fire out.

R78407
5 years ago
Rasputin

Just quoting their instructor, sonny.
And you know this how?
You can see an interview with him in the film “Loose Change”.

R78410
5 years ago
Rasputin

insults
No you’re right. That was unnecessarily catty and dismissive. I apologize. The new info deserves more scrutiny. Post deleted.
The first thing, again, that comes to mind is: how did they know it was going to collapse? That’s some serious Nostradamus shit right there, since total progressive collapse is an entirely new phenomenon, unheard of before and after 9/11.
Apparently the intell came from the New York’s Office of Emergency Management
From http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/08/how-did-they-know.html
How Did They Know?
On September 11th, none of the New York firefighters thought the twin towers would collapse. And no engineer in the country, including the designers of the world trade centers, thought they would collapse. Indeed, “experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire” (full article is pay-per-view), and the twin towers were designed to survive airplane strikes.
And yet, somehow, on 9/11, Mayor Rudy Giuliani knew in advance that the world trade center was going to collapse.
Giuliani comment broadcast on 9/11:
“I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the police commissioner, the fire commissioner, the head of emergency management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.”
No steel framed building had collapsed through fire prior to 9/11, so how was it known within minutes that the World Trade Center was going to collapse? There was no factual or historical basis for this prediction.
And newly-released tapes of firefighters and other emergency personnel show that New York’s Office of Emergency Management told a handful of people that buildings 1 and 2, as well as building 7, were going to collapse BEFORE each building actually collapsed. See also this statement.
What if a police detective was investigating the murder of a guy named Joe, who had previously been healthy, and discovered that a suspect had said on the day of the murder “Joe will be dead within 2 hours”? The detective would believe that the suspect killed Joe, or at least conspired with those who did.
Similarly, the foreknowledge of the collapse of buildings 1, 2 and 7 – when steel-framed buildings simply do not collapse due to fire – is strong circumstantial evidence that Guiliani and some key people within New York’s Office of Emergency Management — or their superiors in the chain of command — are guilty for the demolition of those buildings.
We’ve all watched enough detective shows on TV to recognize this foreknowledge as evidence of guilt.”
Now assuming that there was a hole “20 stories tall in the building” on the opposite side of WTC7, it still doesn’t explain wy the building collapsed as it did – into a tidy pile of rubble at near free fall speed with perfect symmetry, exactly in the manner of a controlled demo.
A more plausible theory would be that this “massive hole” led some to believe that the building was structurally unsound, so, in order to prevent further damage to the surrounding buildings, or perhaps to cash in on the insurance and destroy certain evidence in 7, they demolished it. The building could have been pre-wired as a precautionary measure, in order to protect sensitive info contained in the CIA, FBI, Secret Service (etc.) offices.
That at least makes some sense.
After all, I remember another building that had a hole “20 stories tall” after a terrorist attack and it stood up rather nicely (until brought down by controlled demo inc.)


Post Modified: 08/24/05 13:22:05

R78420
5 years ago
Shogo

You’re such a stupid fuck, Rasputin. It’s almost a shame computers are so easy to use that now even you can use one.
The fact that you can’t tell the difference between the Murrah building and WTC7 says a lot about your pronounced mental deficiencies.

R78452
5 years ago
Schneibster

Whatever,
the whole story as posted seems to say that your “professionals and it’s their job to know what the fuck is going on” figured they should be putting the fire out
You’re not paying attention. The guy telling the story did know what was going on; it was the guys who were running around in reaction mode, reacting to the latest problem, who didn’t have any idea- and get this, here’s a new concept, THAT’S WHY HE WAS THERE. That’s his JOB- to know what’s going on, and HE DID. The fact that the OTHER GUYS didn’t makes no difference.
Rasputin,
Dude, look at the gif. It’s not rocket science
Dude, the gif only shows the top half- or less- of the building. The evidence is, the building collapsed internally because the cantilevers couldn’t hold it up any more; nobody denies that, not even those who contend that the cantilevers or their back supports were taken out with explosives. The cantilevers were between the fifth and tenth floors- which are invisible in that gif. Furthermore, the gif is not only a partial view- it’s from the wrong side.
When it collapsed, the collapse began at the site of the bulge, over the damaged southeast corner which is the one that you see pictures of in the NIST report and elsewhere, and is described in two of those eyewitness reports; one of them is the one that describes the bulge they found with the transit. What precisely do you suppose it means when the corner of a building is bulging out several feet, directly above the site of impact damage that is well documented in several different photos and eyewitness accounts? Man, that shit is a STEEL COLUMN THAT GOES ALL THE WAY UP THE CORNER OF THE BUILDING; it’s a very important part, know what I mean? If it’s STICKING OUT, there is something WAY WRONG WITH THAT SHIT. And THAT ain’t rocket science, either.
The first thing, again, that comes to mind is: how did they know it was going to collapse? That’s some serious Nostradamus shit right there, since total progressive collapse is an entirely new phenomenon, unheard of before and after 9/11
Not true. Total progressive collapse is the method used in demolitions- but it’s not the only way that such a collapse can happen. It happens that way all the time in earthquakes. There’s a million hits out there on google just waiting for you to enter the right string.
In fact, the last time you said that I provided five links to different firefighting articles and manuals that specifically described circumstances that firemen should be looking for to help them avoid entering burning buildings that might collapse on them. In fact, after smoke inhalation, building collapses, either on top of the firefighters or blocking their exit, is their most likely cause of death when fighting a fire. There was a reason there were surveyors outside 7 with a transit: they were checking the integrity of the building and not only that, but one of the accounts includes someone telling one of the witnesses that they had talked to people who described hearing creaking and groaning sounds coming from the building- sure signs of structural instability; and that was the initial reason that he was told to get everyone out of there. Next thing, another one of the guys sets up in front of the building with a surveying team, and they spot the bulge. Now they have two pieces of data: noises indicating structural instability, and visible deformation of the structure. That’s at 2PM. They figure at that point that it’s coming down no matter what they do, so they pull everyone out; they’ve already lost 300+ guys, no point in losing more fighting a fire in a building that’s probably gonna have to be demolished if it doesn’t fall down on its own. And it did fall down on its own.
Now, lemme ask you: is it rocket science to hear people talking about creaking and groaning coming from a building, and set up and do a survey and find structural deformation at one of the most important supporting points on a building, and see a gaping 200-foot hole in it, and the base of one of its corners smashed in directly under the bulge, and conclude as a result that it’s dangerous and nobody should go inside because it’s liable to fall over on them? And every single one of these points of evidence is described in multiple accounts and/or pictures, with the exception of the survey that confirmed the deformation; and running a survey being the obvious thing to do, and in fact a standard procedure for these guys, I just don’t have any trouble believing it, and even if it were a lie (which I find very hard to believe), the other points are sufficient to show that the building was severely damaged and highly unstable.
On September 11th, none of the New York firefighters thought the twin towers would collapse. And no engineer in the country, including the designers of the world trade centers, thought they would collapse. Indeed, “experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire” (full article is pay-per-view), and the twin towers were designed to survive airplane strikes
And again, I tell you, NONE of those buildings, NOT ONE, fell over due to a fire; and the towers DID survive airplane strikes, despite the fact that the strike they were designed to survive was only about 10-20% of what actually happened. They stood for an hour afterward, enough time to get a lot of people out.
And I have to ask, this has precisely what to do with 7?
Similarly, the foreknowledge of the collapse of buildings 1, 2 and 7 – when steel-framed buildings simply do not collapse due to fire
Again, since it doesn’t seem to be getting through clearly: THEY DIDN’T COLLAPSE DUE TO FIRE.
No information is presented as to how Giuliani found out it was going to collapse; just a bald statement that he knew, at some point prior to the actual event, perhaps no more than seconds before. He probably was told it by the fire chief, who himself probably didn’t know what the direct evidence was. Most likely, a surveying team discovered the building was progressively deforming, and/or some firefighters who had been up high in the building trying to get above the fire and rescue people heard creaking and groaning; and quite likely, most or all of those firefighters, and the survey team, and possibly the chief they were reporting to, were killed in the collapse. They did, after all, pull a dead fire chief out of the rubble of 2 before 1 came down; there were pictures of it in all the newspapers. It’s even likely that the fire chief who told Giuliani had no idea where the information had come from; communications in a disaster are carefully managed, and the information likely came to him at third- or fourth-hand. So most likely, we’ll never know. But in any case, when dealing with an event of this magnitude with thousands of people running around gathering information so that decisions can be made, it’s ludicrous- even naive- to assume that there is only one possible source of information, and it’s also ludicrous to assume that that person has any idea what the origin of the information was.
Pictures of the Murrah building prove nothing; first, 7 was not a standard steel-frame building, it had an open floor plan on the lower stories and cantilevers to hold the rest of the building up above that; the Murrah building, OTOH, is a standard steel-framed building. Second, the Murrah building is far smaller; thus, the weight and therefore the stress on the frame members is far less. Third, the damage to the Murrah building was from the ground upward; in 7, the damage was from multiple 23-ton perimeter column segments slamming into the face, moving out and down from the site of the 1 WTC tower; so there is a great deal of directional difference in the vectors of the respective forces. Fourth, the damage to the Murrah building is entirely on the face- notice all four corners are intact. 7 had damage- severe damage, at that- to a corner. The corners of a building are very important to its structural integrity.
One more thing: as usual, you earn my respect by showing me respect. Thanks.
Josh,
Do me a personal favor: don’t pee on Rasputin. He’s willing to engage in serious debate, and he backed away from insults. Take the high road, bud. He may never be convinced; we may agree to disagree. But there’s no point in that shit, unless that’s your only purpose. I know for sure you have good technical and logical points to present; you have before. You’ve even spotted conclusions that I did not draw, from evidence I had presented. So help me out here; let’s keep it civil.

R78461
5 years ago
Schneibster

It strikes me that “no point in that shit” could be taken different ways; I mean, “no point in being insulting.”

R78474
5 years ago
Shogo

Sorry dude, his hidebound nature brings out the worst in me. You can present him with well-reasoned and logical arguments all day long – it won’t make one bit of difference. He’s just going to re-post his li’l animated GIF and gloss over your lengthy analysis since it’s way over his head.
Best of luck reasoning with that brick wall known as Rasputin. It’ll all end in tears I just know it!!!

R78477
5 years ago
whitey


R78485
5 years ago
Schneibster

Ha! :D
Well, thanks anyhoo, Josh, it’s good to be able to count on you. ;)

R78494
5 years ago
whateveryousay

fuck. i was just about to post and crashed my browser.
the long and the short was pointing out to schneib that the murrah building was steel reinforced concrete, not a standard steel framed building as he called it.
the story about the transit is vague and you should go assuming they actually documented anything with it… i mean you’d expect they’d give that data to nist for one thing. he says you could see a bulge and he’s says they’d put a transit on it. you need elaboration.

R78505
5 years ago
whateveryousay

WENT OUTSIDE TO SEE WHAT
COULD DO WHEN AW THE SECONID BUILDING OF THE WORLD
TRADE CENTER STILL UNBEKNOWN TO ME THE FIRST ONE HAD
COLLAPSED
SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD
TRADE CENTER THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH
COMING OUT INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH THEN
THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE
BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE THE
POPPING SOUND AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS
INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF
THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE
BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE THESE
POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER
GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE
BUILDING
WENT INSIDE AND TOLD EVERYBODY THAT THE
OTHER BUILDING OR THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION OCCURRING UP
THERE AND SAID THINK WE HAVE ANOTHER MAJOR
EXPLOSION DONT KNOW IF WE ARE ALL GOING TO BE SAFE
HERE... —CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE
INTERVIEW DATE NOVEMBER 2001
All we saw was a puff of smoke coming
from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some people thought
it was an explosion. I don’t think I remember that. I
remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one
specific layer of the building. I assume now that that
was either windows starting to collapse like tinsel or
something. Then the building started to come down. My
initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it
looks when they show you those implosions on TV. I
would have to say for three or four seconds anyway,
maybe longer. I was just watching. It was interesting
to watch, but the thing that woke everybody up was the
cloud of black material. It reminded me of the 10
commandments when the green clouds come down on the
street. The black cloud was coming down faster than
the building, so whatever was coming down was going to
hit the street and it was pretty far out. You knew it
wasn’t coming right down. Judging from where people
were jumping before that, this cloud was out much
further. —DEPUTY COMMISSIONER THOMAS FlTZPATRlCK
Interview Date: October 1, 2001
When we got to the Brooklyn Battery
Tunnel, about that point on West Street, there
was a Port Authority cop standing there. They
were shouting, “The tower’s going to come down.
The tower’s coming down. You’ve got to get out
of here. “
Q. What were you able to observe at that
time around there?
A. Black smoke. Black smoke and people
running everywhere. A lot of fire apparatus on
both sides of West Street. I didn’t see any
guys, just apparatus. I saw some stretched lines
and things like that.
So we continued to drive into the smoke
cloud. We got to maybe one block north of where
the Battery Tunnel exits onto West Street there,
and then, boom, a massive explosion. fight in
front of us we saw what looked like a fireball
and smoke. It was rolling this way.
...
Then there was another it sounded like
an explosion and heavy white powder, papers,
flying everywhere. We sat put there for a few
minutes. It kind of dissipated. —CHIEF MARK STEFFENS
Interview Date: October 3, 2001
I know I was with an officer from Ladder
146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me
up a couple of days later just to find out how I was.
We both for whatever reason — again, I don’t know how
valid this is with everything that was going on at that
particular point in time, but for some reason I thought
that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center
before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw
low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant
Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he
questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes
in front of the building, and I agreed with him because
I thought — at that time I didn’t know what it was. I
mean, it could have been as a result of the building
collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash
flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q. Was that on the lower level of the building
or up where the fire was?
A. No, the lower level of the building. You
know like when they demolish a building, how when they
blow up a building, when it falls down? That’s what I
thought I saw. And I didn’t broach the topic to him,
but he asked me. He said I don’t know if I’m crazy,
but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing
right next to me. He said did you see anything by the
building? And I said what do you mean by see
anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said,
yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw
them, too.
I don’t know if that means anything. I mean,
I equate it to the building coming down and pushing
things down, it could have been electrical explosions,
it could have been whatever. But it’s just strange
that two people sort of say the same thing and neither
one of us talked to each other about it. I mean, I
don’t know this guy from a hole in the wall. I was
just standing next to him. I never met the man before
in my life. He knew who I was I guess by my name on my
coat and he called me up, you know, how are you doing?
How’s everything? And, oh, by the way did you … It
was just a little strange.
Q. On the television pictures it appeared as
well, before the first collapse, that there was an
explosion up on the upper floors.
A. I know about the explosion on the upper
floors. This was like eye level. I didn’t have to go
like this. Because I was looking this way. I’m not
going to say it was on the first floor or the second
floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what
appeared to be flashes. I don’t know how far down this
was already. I mean, we had heard the noise but, you
know, I don’t know. —ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GREGORY
Interview Date: October 3, 2001
Although debris fell around us, the
main structure felt as if — we were lucky. When
it sounded like the explosion stopped, the steel
hitting, when it all seemed to stop, this just
like a fire storm of wind and material, a
sandstorm kind of, just came and wailed by,
really flew past us quick. —FIREFIGHTER CRAIG MONAHAN
I n t e r v i e w D a t e : O c t o b e r 9, 2 0 0 1
That’s basically where we were. Then a
large explosion took place. In my estimation
that was the tower coming down, but at that time
I did not know what that was. I thought some
type of bomb had gone off.
I was, I believe, ahead of the rest of
the firefighters and officers there. I made it
to the corner, and I took about four running
steps this way when you could feel the rush of
the wind coming at you. I believed that that was
a huge fireball coming at the time. —LIEUTENANT GREGG HANSSON
Interview Date: October 9, 2001
I ‘ d say we were i n t h e 30th or 31st, 32nd Floor,
or something l i k e t h a t , and a few of t h e guys were
l y i n g wiped out on t h e f l o o r , you know, t a k i n g a break
with t h e i r masks off and l y i n g i n t h e hallway when
t h e r e was a v e r y l o u d roaring sound and a v e r y l o u d
explosion, and t h e — it f e l t l i k e t h e r e was an
explosion above us, and I had a momentary concern t h a t
our b u i l d i n g was c o l l a p s i n g .
Looking up, guys were diving i n t o t h e
stairway, and then it was l i k e — everybody was very
scared by then. I ‘ m t a l k i n g t h e firemen, and then we
were very worried about what was going on. We d i d n ‘ t
know, but apparently t h a t was t h e o t h e r b u i l d i n g
f a l l i n g . I think we were t h a t f a r along.
So we regrouped i n t h e stairway f o r a couple
of minutes, and I t o l d t h e guys, “All r i g h t , hang on.
L e t ‘ s see what’s going on.” I s t i l l wanted t o go up
and f i g h t t h e f i r e . The chief was very good. He s a i d ,
“All r i g h t , everybody calm down.”
A couple of firemen s a i d , “Did you f e e l t h a t
rush of a i r ? “ and t h i n g s l i k e t h a t ,
...
What did you hear when the building starting
collapsing the second time? Did you feel — just
started coming down? You didn’t hear anything, feel
anything?
A. We felt — our whole building that we were
in, when World Trade Center 2 collapsed, that was the
first one to collapse. We were in World Trade Center
1. It was a tremendous explosion and tremendous
shaking of our building. We thought it was our
B. BECKER
building maybe collapsed, there was a collapse above us
occurring.
It was tremendous shaking and like everybody
dove into this stairwell and waited for, I guess, 20,
30 seconds until it settled, and that was our
experience of the other building collapsing. —LIEUTENANT BRIAN BECKER
Interview Date: October 9, 2001
We went north on West Street. We decided
not to go to our rig, because we saw a lot of people
up here, so we started going towards them. When the
tower started — there was a big explosion that I
heard and someone screamed that it was coming down
and I looked away and I saw all the windows
domino — you know, dominoeing up and then come
down. We were right in front of 6, so we started
running… —FIREFIGHTER KEVIN MURRAY
Interview Date: October 9, 2001
HOWDID YOU KNOWTHAT IT WAS COMING
DOWN
THAT NOISE IT WAS NOISE
WHAT DID YOU HEAR WHATDID YOU SEE
ITWASAFRIGGING NOISE ATFIRSTL
THOUGHT IT WAS DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL
DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN
FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR POP POP POP POP
POP THAVS EXACTLY WHAT BECAUSE THOUGHT
IT WASTHAT WHEN HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE
THAVS WHEN SAWTHE BUILDING COMING DOWNPARAMEDIC DANIEL RIVERA
INTERVIEW DATE OCTOBER 10 2001

R78517
5 years ago
cortez

More from ..
Building a Better Mirage NIST’s 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century
by Jim Hoffman
Conclusion
Assuming the premise of the official explanation, the total collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 were the largest, most unexpected, and least understood failures of engineered steel structures in the history of the world. NIST’s Report, like FEMA’s 2002 report, presents the appearance of explaining the collapses of the Twin Towers, but in reality it doesn’t explain them at all. Flatly asserting that “global collapse” inevitably follows “collapse initiation,” the Report implies that the only issue worthy of study is how the jet impacts and fires led to collapse initiation — an issue to which it devotes well over one hundred pages. Thus, the Report makes two fundamental claims, the first explicit and the second implicit:
* The impact damage and fires caused the tops of the Towers to lean and then begin to fall (collapse initiation). * Once initiated, the collapses proceded to total collapses.
NIST goes to great lengths to support the first claim, but commits numerous omissions and distortions in the process. It remains quiet about the second claim, which is indefensible. Accepting that claim requires us to believe:
  • That the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 are the only examples of total progressive collapse of steel-framed structures in history.
  • That those collapses were gravity-driven despite showing all the common physical features of controlled demolitions. In the cases of the Twin Towers, those features included the following:
  • Radial symmetry : The Towers came straight down, blowing debris symmetrically in all directions.
* Rapid descent : The Towers came down just slightly slower than the rate of free-fall in a vacuum.
  • Demolition waves: The Towers were consumed by synchronized rows of confluent explosions.
  • Demolition squibs : The Towers exhibited high-velocity gas ejections well below the descending rubble.
  • Pulverization : The Towers’ non-metallic components, such as their concrete floors, were pulverized into fine dust.
* Totality : The Towers were destroyed totally, their steel skeletons shredded into short pieces, most less than 30 feet long.
All of these features are seen in conventional controlled demolitions. None have ever been observed in steel-framed buildings collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition.
What are the chances that a phenomenon other than controlled demolition would exhibit all six features never observed elsewhere except in controlled demolitions?
NIST avoids asking this and other questions by implying that they don’t exist. It uses the false assertion that partial collapse will inevitably lead to total collapse (couched in the ill-defined terms of “column instability,” “global instability,” “collapse initiation,” and “global collapse”) to imply that nothing about the actual collapses is worth considering.
To shield the reader from the evidence of controlled demolition, NIST fills hundreds of pages with amazingly realistic plane crash simulations, tedious details about fire tests and simulations, and long lists of recommendations for improving building safety. It calls its event narrative of each Tower, which starts with the jet impact and ends at the point that “collapse ensued,” the “probable collapse sequence,” but it is neither probable nor a collapse sequence.
NIST’s misleadingly named “probable collapse sequence” is a mirage, masking the explosive reality of the collapses with a cinematic account of the crashes and fires. NIST’s theory stops at the moment that the “upper building section began to move downwards,” thus avoiding the longer timeline of the truss-failure theory and any overlap with the time span in which the demolition-like features appear. Despite NIST’s theory being even more incredible than its predecessors (with spreading “column instability” triggering “global collapse” in an instant) it works better as a mirage because its timelines stop short of the collapses.
NIST’s Report states that its first objective is to “determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed.” The Report does not fulfill that objective, and hides that failure with misleading headings and disproportionate, misapplied technical detail. Its authors should admit that they have failed to explain why and how the Towers collapsed, and should call for an investigation that will address rather than avoid the issue.
Post Modified: 08/25/05 00:06:03

R78549
5 years ago
Shogo

See what I mean? It’s like trying to persuade religious fanatics.

R78564
5 years ago
Strangegloved

I thought we already established that building 7 was pulled. It is all right here.

R78569
5 years ago
whateveryousay

And it was like a cluster, so — I just decided, you
know, let me take this guy, cause he started having shortness of breath. I couldn’t call for
anything to stabilize him, cause there was a mess there, you know, before I intubated him.
So I said, let me take him to the hospital. So as I was pulling off, I’d say about half a block
away, we heard a big boom, and we seen a whole bunch of ashes, everything just started
coming towards us. So I actually stopped the ambulance for thirty seconds and I looked.
My partner was in the back he said stop the ambulance. So I stopped and I looked, and I seen all the debris coming. So I said close the bus. Cause at this point everyone started
running towards the ambulance, I mean, you know, we had one critical patient there, so I
said let me just get this guy to the hospital. So he closed the ambulance. And as I’m
driving, people are running and debris is coming down. Debris is coming down and
hitting the bus. —EMT-P ANDRE CHERRINGTON
Interview Date: October 10, 2001
You heard a big boom, it was q u i e t f o r
about t e n seconds. Then you could hear another
one. Now I r e a l i z e it was t h e f l o o r s s t a r t i n g t o
s t a c k on top of each o t h e r as they were f a l l i n g .
It was spaced a p a r t i n t h e beginning, but then it
got t o j u s t a tremendous roar and a rumble t h a t I
w i l l never f o r g e t . —PARAMEDIC NEIL SWEETING
I n t e r v i e w D a t e : O c t o b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 1
It just seemed like a long time that it
was — it didn’t seem like an explosion. It was
like boom, boom, and then just got louder and
louder. It got louder and louder, and then all
of a sudden I was looking out onto West Street
and the whole area turned from gray to black in a
hurry. —FIREFIGHTER JAMES MURPHY
Interview Date: December 12, 2001
UPON GETTING BACK TO THE CAR STARTED
TO GRAB MY TURNOUT GEAR TOLD THE OTHER CHIEF
WELL GO UP THERE SEE WHATS GOING ON THAT
WELL CHECK IN UP THERE AND ILL BE RIGHT BEHIND
HIM LET THEM KNOW THAT WE HAVE SOME CYLINDERS
HERE AS SILLY AS IT SEEMS NOW WHEN HEARD
BOOM AN EXPLODING SOUND REAL LOUD BANG
LOOKED UP AND COULD SEE THE TRADE CENTER
STARTING TO COME DOWN THE SOUTH TOWER WHICH
GUESS WAS ABOUT BLOCK AWAY FROM
LOOKING UP IN TOTAL AMAZEMENT
COULDNT BELIEVE WHAT WAS SEEING WHICH
PROBABLY EVERYBODY WAS IN THE SAME BOAT SAW
VALLEBUONA
STUFF COMING OFF THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING IT
LOOKED LIKE GIANT FOUNTAIN IT WAS ACTUALLY
BEAUTIFUL IN STRANGE WAY SAID CANT BE
HERE MUST BE BACK IN THE FIREHOUSE
BUT WITHIN SECONDS IT WAS PROBABLY
LESS BECAUSE THEY SAY THE BUILDING CAME DOWN IN
EIGHT AND HALF SECONDS REALIZED THAT WE
WERENT FAR ENOUGH AWAY FROM THIS BUILDING AND WE
WERE GOING TO BE HIT BY STUFF IT SEEMED LIKE
YOU COULD JUST SEE STUFF SPIRALING OUT LIKE
CONE
SO WE PROCEEDED TO TRY AND OUTRUN IT
MYSELF AND MY AIDE STEVIE ZASA WE WERE HOLDING
HANDS WITHIN SECONDS WERE ENGULFED IN CLOUD
THAT YOU COULDNT SEE YOUR HANDS IN FRONT OF YOUR
FACE IT WAS HARD TO BREATHE IF ALMOST
IMPOSSIBLE YOU FELT LIKE YOU WERE EATING THE
DUST YOU COULD HEAR THINGS FALLING AROUND YOU
YOU COULDNT SEE ANYTHINGBATTALION CHIEF THOMAS VALLEBUONA
INTERVIEW DATE JANUARY 2002
Post Modified: 08/25/05 10:11:59

R78580
5 years ago
Shogo

we already established
The only thing established by anyone here (with few notable exceptions) is a proclivity for buying into anything so long as it comes from “alternative sources”. Markedly absent from most participants is any capacity for critical thinking, any knowledge of physics, and a willingness to accept that not every conspiracy theory in the world is true.

R78606
5 years ago
Schneibster

Well presented, folks. But I have a couple things to point out.
First, if there is a big fire going on inside a particular floor, and the building starts to collapse, and that floor collapses, what happens to the fire? It doesn’t just go out. Ever use a blowtorch?
Second, I’d like to take on the points raised in cortez’ post.
“ * The impact damage and fires caused the tops of the Towers to lean and then begin to fall (collapse initiation). * Once initiated, the collapses proceded to total collapses.
NIST goes to great lengths to support the first claim, but commits numerous omissions and distortions in the process. “
A great deal of rehashing of this has gone on. I don’t think that there will ever be agreement between “demolition” proponents and- here I’ll coin a term- “unassisted collapse” proponents- what I perceive as “my side-” on whether the damage was sufficient to cause collapse initiation. However, I do believe that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that it is highly plausible that there was sufficient damage to cause the collapse; when we add up the energy of impact and the energy of the fuel and the energy of the office contents, we get the EQUIVALENT power of a small nuclear weapon (please don’t misrepresent my statement as being that a nuclear weapon was actually used- EQUIVALENT is a key word). I’ll also point out that the collapse began in at least the 2 WTC case in the immediate vicinity of the point of impact and this is obvious in Joe’s pictures and also in the video. I think it was the same in the 1 WTC case, but I’m not entirely certain, because I haven’t given 1 the kind of scrutiny I have 2.
“It remains quiet about the second claim, which is indefensible. Accepting that claim requires us to believe:
* That the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 are the only examples of total progressive collapse of steel-framed structures in history.”
I need to point out here that courses in progressive collapse mitigation are being offered all over the country in the wake of these collapses. Literally scores of computer programs have been developed to do progressive collapse mitigation analysis on steel-frame buildings. And in fact, there have been at least three prior framing failures, despite rash statements to the contrary; proof of two of them is available merely by reading the abstract of this paper from the American Society of Civil Engineers; one was a department store in New York, and apparently there was more than one such failure in a collection of freezer warehouses in Pennsylvania. You are welcome to pay for the article if you want the details; personally, I don’t care enough to do so.
I also have to point out that one of the goals in structural engineering is to prevent progressive collapse. A rather famous apartment building pancake failure in Mexico City in an earthquake has been the subject of examples in college curricula for many years, as has the failure of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge (the one that was destroyed by a series of wind gusts that happened to attain a frequency equal to its resonant frequency, and caused it to thrash until it came apart). A great deal of careful study has accompanied the design of such buildings in California due to the danger of earthquakes.
And finally, I have to point out that the mitigation is intended to prevent immediate collapse and give emergency personnel the opportunity to evacuate the buildings before collapse occurs. And in fact, to a great extent, that was successful in all three cases; the collapse of 7 resulted in only one death, and the victim was not actually inside the building but was caught in the rubble (I think; he might not even have died, but just been injured), and most of the people were able to escape 1 and 2 before they came down. You need to understand that there were upwards of 10,000 people in each one of those towers; most of them got out.
Next, the fact that demolition experts are able to cause total progressive collapses is proof that they are possible; any building will collapse if it is subjected to sufficient stress. And the fact that demolitions are the most common method for inducing this is no proof that they are the only method.
And finally, it appears that there were some structural engineering… shall we say, “glitches…” in the construction of these buildings. Studies are ongoing, but several web pages of syllabi of college courses in structural engineering that I was able to find mention that improvements in engineering and construction techniques suggested by the WTC events are covered. The implication is that there were improvements to be made.
“ * That those collapses were gravity-driven despite showing all the common physical features of controlled demolitions. In the cases of the Twin Towers, those features included the following:
* Radial symmetry : The Towers came straight down, blowing debris symmetrically in all directions.”
Patently untrue. The photographs of the 2 WTC collapse belie this.
“ * Rapid descent : The Towers came down just slightly slower than the rate of free-fall in a vacuum.”
Also untrue. The collapses took at least 20% longer than a free-fall; and the extra time is spent at the highest velocity, so the distance difference isn’t 20%, it’s more like 45%. This has been proven over and over and over again, and I even did calculations on this very thread that proved it.
“ * Demolition waves: The Towers were consumed by synchronized rows of confluent explosions.”
Again untrue. This is based on ignoring the fact that the space between the pads- that is, all the space that people walk around in- is filled with air, which is naturally displaced by the falling ceiling, and that the dust generated by the ceiling is carried out by the air; and on the assumption that there is no flashing happening due to natural gas pipes being ruptured, static electricity (yes, there would be an enormous static charge generated by the collapse- ever messed with a Van de Graaf generator? Same principle) electrical shorts, and even flashes originating from steel as it passes its stress point (yes, by the way, this is a known and documented effect- if you think about the energy implicit in the molecular bonds in the steel, you’ll see why; or just go bend a piece of steel back and forth until it breaks and then feel the region close to the break- it will be hot).
“ * Demolition squibs : The Towers exhibited high-velocity gas ejections well below the descending rubble.”
Actually, if you go to Controlled Demolition’s site and take a look at the gas ejected from real demolitions, you’ll see that it’s entirely composed of dust; you can tell because it goes straight out, rather than curving downward. Whereas the ejections from the towers curve down; proving that the cause is not dust, but larger material; material that would be dust if it were caused by explosions rather than collapse. The evidence is right there; take a look for yourself.
“ * Pulverization : The Towers’ non-metallic components, such as their concrete floors, were pulverized into fine dust.”
And again, this is untrue. Large pieces of concrete are visible in photographs of the area taken during the cleanup, and more large pieces (they look small, but are not- the tower is just very large so they look tiny by comparison) are visible falling as the towers collapse; that’s why they curve down, which dust would not do.
“* Totality : The Towers were destroyed totally, their steel skeletons shredded into short pieces, most less than 30 feet long.”
Ummmm, the towers were primarily built from short pieces, less than 30 feet long: the perimeter columns! And of course, they came apart and turned into individual pieces… funny how that works.
I’d say you need some new arguments; these ones didn’t hold up, when compared with the evidence.

R78628
5 years ago
whateveryousay

First, if there is a big fire going on inside a particular floor, and the building starts to collapse, and that floor collapses, what happens to the fire? It doesn’t just go out. Ever use a blowtorch?
what? the flame turns blue? i’m actually not sure what you are saying.
And again, this is untrue. Large pieces of concrete are visible in photographs of the area taken during the cleanup, and more large pieces (they look small, but are not- the tower is just very large so they look tiny by comparison) are visible falling as the towers collapse;
that is your chance to show some of these photos you’re referring to, that would help make your point.
that’s why they curve down, which dust would not do.
dust is not immune to gravity.
the dust has been described (and it would seem correctly) as a pyroclastic flow.
However, I do believe that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that it is highly plausible that there was sufficient damage to cause the collapse;
a partial collapse i think is plausible, sure, why not? but the whole building…
  • Radial symmetry : The Towers came straight down, blowing debris symmetrically in all directions.”

Patently untrue. The photographs of the 2 WTC collapse belie this.
!http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/ground_zero_arial2_ort.jpg
!:http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/ground_zero_arial2_ort.jpg click
you’re talking about the toppling top i’m sure… but look… radial symmetry. the opposite would be if a tower fell over
but you’re not supposed to talk about the top falling off the top of the building because that part is supposed to be eating the rest of the building with its mass.
now, why don’t you start explaining those testimonies by professionals who ‘knew what the fuck was going on’.

R78630
5 years ago
whateveryousay

SO WE STARTED WALKING THE SAME WAY THE CHIEF
WENT AND HE WAS AT THE OTHER END HE SAID THE SAME
THING HE SAID WE BETTER GET OUR ASSES OUT OF HERE
THIS DOESNT LOOK GOOD AT ALL AS WE WERE WALKING WE
HEARD WE THOUGHT IT WAS ANOTHER PLANE COMING IT
WAS LIKE BIG SHHHHH THOUSAND TIMES LOUDER THAN
THAT IT SOUNDED LIKE MISSILE COMING AND WE JUST
STARTED BOOKING WE TOOK OFF LIKE BATS OUT OF HELL
WE MADE IT AROUND THE CORNER AND THATS WHEN
TH SHIT HIT TH FAN RIGHT TH AND TH
THAT LOUD AND THEN BA BOOM JUST IT WAS LIKE AN
EARTHQUAKE OR WHATEVER GIANT GIANT EXPLOSION
KENNY MADE IT AND THOSE OTHER GUYS MADE IT AROUND THIS
BEND HERE WAS LIKE THE LAST GUY AND JUST TURNED
AROUND AND JUST SORT OF FFFFFFFF JUST DID FETAL
POSITION CRAWLED DOWN AND HELD THANK GOD THAT
HELMET SAVED MY LIFE JUST HELD ONTO IT AND THE
IMPACT CLOSED MY EYES JUST THE IMPACT COULD
JUST FEEL SHIT HITTING ME FLYINGFIREFIGHTER GEORGE KOZLOWSKI
INTERVIEW DATE DECEMBER 10 2001
Post Modified: 08/25/05 14:28:04

R78631
5 years ago
Schneibster

what? the flame turns blue? i’m actually not sure what you are saying
No, the flame billows out, and it looks like an explosion.
that is your chance to show some of these photos you’re referring to, that would help make your point
Literally scores of such photos of the collapse have already been posted in this thread. Go look at them.
As far as photos of the cleanup site, how’s this do? I see huge chunks of concrete in several of these photos, right next to people and three-story perimeter column sections. It ain’t “powdered,” man. It’s rubble- which is not “powder.”
_dust is not immune to gravity.
the dust has been described (and it would seem correctly) as a pyroclastic flow_
Ummm, dust is dust. Throw some in the air and you’ll see what I’m talking about; it hangs, it doesn’t fall. Go look at the Controlled Demolition site, and you’ll see more of what I’m talking about. Then go back and look at the photos of the collapses again- and you WON’T see it. I’m not going to argue with you about it if you’re not willing to admit what everyone else can look and see- LOOK FOR YOURSELF. It’s right there. There’s no question, except apparently in the minds of conspiracy theorists. The rest of us can look at it and see it clearly- Joe can see it, I can see it, Josh can see it. Ask them. Go ahead. If all that dust is being made by all those explosions, where the hell is it? The cloud of debris almost all falls in free-fall- proving it’s not “dust,” because if it were it would take a lot longer to fall.
_a partial collapse i think is plausible, sure, why not? but the whole building… _
Once the top starts to move, nothing is strong enough to stop it. It’s moving at somewhere near 10 m/s- which, by the way, is 20mph- when it hits the floor below, assuming that the collapse started on a single floor. We’re talking about thirty stories of a building moving at 20 mph here. Do you seriously think that anything can stop it? Ever seen someone try to stop a railroad car moving at just 1 mph? Most people can’t do it- and 30 stories of building is one hell of a lot more massive than a railroad car- it’s more like a mile or so of them. Once it starts, down it goes.
radial symmetry. the opposite would be if a tower fell over
It CAN’T “fall over.” It’s not strong enough to stay in one piece; as soon as it starts to topple, the shear forces would break it apart. And guess what? It would fall straight down after that- it has no more structural integrity. And in fact, THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED!!! You’re thinking a building is like a tree; it’s NOT. It’s nowhere NEAR as strong as a tree.
_now, why don’t you start explaining those testimonies by professionals who ‘knew what the fuck was going on’. _
I did. It doesn’t appear you read it. Why don’t you do that now?

R78633
5 years ago
Schneibster

You’ve presented many accounts that describe booming sounds and flying debris. Do you have any idea how catastrophic a boom ONE SINGLE THREE STORY THREE COLUMN PERIMETER SECTION WOULD MAKE ALL BY ITSELF? And we’re talking about HUNDREDS of them, all falling, all flying around, smacking into other buildings, into the ground, into fire engines…
C’mon, whatever, ‘fess up. A hundred 23-ton pieces of steel fall a thousand feet. What do you suppose the survivors describe?

R78647
5 years ago
whateveryousay

they describe explosions, rushes of heat, and flashes to name a few… i haven’t bothered to go through the whole 2500 pages of testimony (nor have you), just a handful of samples.
you’re going to have to point out the chunks of concrete
is there some here?

Once the top starts to move, nothing is strong enough to stop it. It’s moving at somewhere near 10 m/s- which, by the way, is 20mph- when it hits the floor below, assuming that the collapse started on a single floor. We’re talking about thirty stories of a building moving at 20 mph here. Do you seriously think that anything can stop it? Ever seen someone try to stop a railroad car moving at just 1 mph? Most people can’t do it- and 30 stories of building is one hell of a lot more massive than a railroad car- it’s more like a mile or so of them. Once it starts, down it goes.
ever tried to move a train that’s standing still? do i think anything could stop the building? the lower 80 floor did a pretty good job for the last 30 years, swaying in the wind and all.
Once it starts, down it goes.
yeah, unless it hits another train which is 3 times longer (and much much heavier)
you’re train car analogy is silly comparing the top 30 floors to a railroad car and the bottom 80 floors (whose steel core gets thicker is you go down) to a single person trying to stop it. try an analogy which is a bit more analogous.
Post Modified: 08/25/05 15:45:29

R78652
5 years ago
Shogo

Schneib, your persistence is admirable, but I’m concerned you’re going to experience some damage to blood vessels in your brain if you keep this up. You’re talking to a bunch of morons, who will never (and I mean NEVER) acknowledge the depths of their ignorance – shit, some of them even believe the moon landings were faked. Idiots, to a man.

R78654
5 years ago
shoogoo

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!

R78655
5 years ago
whateveryousay

Schneib, your persistence is admirable, but I’m concerned you’re going to experience some damage to blood vessels in your brain if you keep this up. You’re talking to a bunch of morons, who will never (and I mean NEVER) acknowledge the depths of their ignorance – shit, some of them even believe the moon landings were faked. Idiots, to a man. -shogo
i don’t think it’s fair to call popular mecanics magazine morons unware of their own ignorance.
they just do what they do.
they’re very creative




R78663
5 years ago
Strangegloved

I keep asking this question
has fire ever collapsed a building?
and this is what I get.

R78675
5 years ago
Shogo

The reason you keep asking that question is because you’re a colossal tool.
If the statement “the buildings of the WTC didn’t collapse solely due to fires” was a cock, you could be anally raped by it, performed some a2m on it, and had it blow a giant load into your eyeballs all without once being aware that your ass was sore, your mouth tasted like shit, and your eyes were stinging like a motherfucker.

R78677
5 years ago
Schneibster

you’re going to have to point out the chunks of concrete
They’re right there, in that picture you posted. Look at the truck. Now look left and back. There’s a whole pile of them. Kinda hard to miss.
ever tried to move a train that’s standing still? do i think anything could stop the building? the lower 80 floor did a pretty good job for the last 30 years, swaying in the wind and all
It wasn’t going 20 mph downward then; it’s the difference between a static and a dynamic load. Like, you can hold up a 100lb weight; but if it falls off a building, and you try to hold it up, it’ll break you in half. Maybe you’ve heard of, you know, momentum somewhere before?
yeah, unless it hits another train which is 3 times longer (and much much heavier)
Sorry for trying to use an analogy, I guess I figured you weren’t getting the math so I better make it a little simpler. But the fact is, the math says that the static load gets added to the dynamic load, and the dynamic load is about ten times (depending on how much time it’s distributed over- it could even go higher, a LOT higher- I’m making a very conservative assumption limiting it to only ten times) the static load. So, while I’m sure it was built to handle twice the loading, are you entirely certain it was built to handle ten times the loading? I seriously doubt it.
Here, let’s prove this.
Ten pounds of mass (that’s lbm for you physics buffs) is sitting on a table in someone’s kitchen on Earth somewhere. How much force is it exerting? Ten pounds of force, (that’s lbf for the physics crowd), of course. Now let’s convert into far more convenient metric measurements: that’s 4.5359237 kg (we don’t have to specify mass, 4.5 kg is 4.5 kg, on Earth, on Mars, in space, wherever) exerting a force of 44.482216 N (g, the acceleration of gravity, is 9.806 65 m/s^2^ multiplied by 4.53 kg gives 44.48 Newtons).
OK, now let’s make it go the same speed as the building was after one second; now, we know that everything falls at the same speed, Galileo proved that by dropping the two cannonballs off the leaning tower of Pisa (or so the story goes). So our ten pound weight will be going the same speed as our 30-story piece of building. And since the acceleration of gravity is 9.80665 meters per second per second, after one second, it will be going 9.80665 m/s.
So how much kinetic energy does it have? Well, kinetic energy’s equation is E(k) = 1/2mv^2^ . So we have to square the velocity, multiply by the mass, and divide by two (or multiply by 1/2, which is the same thing). So that gives us 4.5359237 kg x (9.80665 m/s)^2^ x 1/2, which is 218.110763 Joules.
Now, the thing about Joules is, they’re kilogram-meter-meters per second per second; you can see that if you think about the equation above for a moment. And the thing about Newtons is, they’re kilogram-meters per second per second; so Joules are Newton-meters. (Look at it again; this is called “dimensional analysis,” and it lets you figure out how things work.) So a Joule is how much energy gets expended when you exert a force of one Newton, and the thing you’re pushing on moves one meter; a Newton-meter. Now, one of the basic things in physics is that momentum is conserved; and momentum is defined as mass times velocity. In other words, to quote Newton himself, “a body at rest tends to remain at rest, and a body in motion tends to remain in motion, at a constant velocity and in a constant direction.” You’ve heard that one before, right? It’s called the “second law of motion.” You probably heard about it in the sixth grade or so.
So, how much force does the 4.5359237 kg weight exert when it hits something going 9.80665 m/s? Well, that’s a little tricky. We’re dealing with something here called “impulse.” It actually has the same units as momentum- kilogram meters per second. But we tend to think of impulse as a force applied for a time- so, the common units used are Newton-seconds. Now, that means that the momentum is absolutely key to determining the force; but it also means that how long the top of the building pushes on the next floor down determines how much force it exerts . So, shall we start with a tenth of a second? Let’s suppose that the weight takes a tenth of a second to stop when it hits something. We know its momentum will be 44.482216 N-s; so, if it stops in a tenth of a second, it will exert 444.82216 N of force- ten times its static force due to gravity . And if what it hits is very hard, it might stop in only 1/100 of a second- and exert an astounding 4448 N of force- the same force as a static thousand pound weight .
So as you can see, the more rigid that lower floor is, the more force is exerted against it . And if it manages to absorb the energy over even as long as a tenth of a second, the force will be ten times the static force . And that’s a heck of an assumption; the reality is, it’s going to be more like a hundredth of a second- which will multiply the static force by a factor of a hundred and as I’m sure you can see, there just isn’t any way at all that that floor is going to support that. And that’s just the first floor it hits; and it assumes that that floor manages to bring the upper section fully to a stop. Which, of course, it doesn’t. So now, it’s falling at perhaps half the speed it was- but that means that by the time it hits the next floor, it’s going 1.5 times the speed it was when it hit the first one- and of course, it’s one floor more massive. And as it continues to move down the building, it will go faster and faster, and weigh more and more; and if the first floor to be hit couldn’t stop it, and there’s no way it could, then how can any later floor hope to? The answer, of course, being, “it can’t.”
So, like I said, once it’s rolling, it ain’t stoppin for nothin.
Now, this is all very basic physics- you should have learned all of this in high school. If you weren’t out getting stoned, or drawing pictures of the teacher fucking the principal, or looking at the tits on the cutie in the next row. So, were you paying attention? Or do you flunk the class?
Post Modified: 08/25/05 17:57:07

R78679
5 years ago
Schneibster

Strange, no it hasn’t, and it didn’t at the WTC on 9/11/01 either.

R78680
5 years ago
Schneibster

Heh, Josh, I appreciate the thought, but my blood vessels are OK so far. :D

R78692
5 years ago
Strangegloved

Hey, this issue has already been settled. Is there something about this sentence that you don’t understand?
And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

R78698
5 years ago
Joe

Nice posts Schneib. I may steal some of this. :-P

R78715
5 years ago
Schneibster

The same phraseology was used in at least one and, IIRC, two, of the eyewitness reports linked above. It was clear from the context that that meant, “pull all the firefighters out,” not “pull the building down.” Since it is made clear by this unrelated eyewitness testimony that this is common terminology among the firefighters, I suspect that we now have the explanation of the use of that phrase by Silverman, and this is further evidence that 7 fell down due to impact damage from the WTC segments combined with fire damage.
Strange, you really have to read those accounts. They are compelling.
Joe, thanks- feel free. Just make sure you attribute them if you put them on a board I frequent. I don’t use any other aliases, so you’ll have no difficulty figuring it out. :D

R78716
5 years ago
JustLurking

meh…....
you know, personally, I’m thinkin… Dimensional shift.
I know, I know. Dimensional shift, brutal on the DNA. Precisely why the Federation banned it’s usage. However, used sparingly as opposed to that rebel bunch on an earlier, albeit rather tacky STTNG episode, you could do it and evade detection…. /me thinks I’m onto something.
Post Modified: 08/25/05 22:00:53

R78717
5 years ago
Strangegloved

Defining “Pull it”:
So there can be no doubt that “pull it” means “demolish it” here’s a clip from the same documentary using the term in the same context concerning admitted controlled demolition of WTC buildings 4, 5 and 6 in mid-December.
See for yourself right here.
Post Modified: 08/25/05 20:14:29

R78730
5 years ago
Shogo

Strangeloved took one look at all that physics, stuck his head up his ass, and was done.
Going back to the same bullshit conspiracy nonsense, the same unsupported hypotheses, the same idiocy.
Congratulations Strange, you’re the newest GNNster to join the Pantheon of Tools. It’s a large membership, to be sure, but made all the richer by your presence.

R78731
5 years ago
Schneibster

You said, “no doubt.” I say, the transcript I linked introduces major doubt; read it. If you don’t have doubt, then you aren’t paying attention. It’s right up there; there are four of them. They all tell what they saw and what happened around them.
Strange, if you’re just going to go on denying reality and not reading the evidence I post, then it’s clear that no evidence will convince you. It is therefore unnecessary to talk to you, since you are not amenable to being convinced of anything, ever. This is the definition of a crackpot, and I have no time for crackpots.
If Alex Jones told me the sun was gonna rise tomorrow, I’d believe it when I saw it. He’s been wrong too often, and failed to acknowledge it too many times. That’s the difference between professional reporting and the horseshit Faux peddles; and if Alex Jones is doing the shit Faux does, I ain’t interested in what he has to say. If you don’t have a reliable source, I’m sorry, I don’t buy it.
Now go ahead and try to tell me that “Firehouse Magazine” is mainstream media and can’t be trusted.
I’m beginning to think JL’s right- dimensional shift for sure.

R78734
5 years ago
whateveryousay

Schneibster,
you missed some details.
as did i ‘cause i didn’t see the concrete chunks.
i’m wondering if you can use your math skills to calculate why the broken part of the building started to topple over, and then managed to drive a total collapse… this differs between the two buildings of course… if i remember rightly, the one with the mast fell off and the other one fell into the rest of the building.

R78737
5 years ago
whateveryousay

i grabbed a few more eye-witness accounts from the ems / fdny testimonies… these are only recently release btw. it’s by no means a complete list of the documented accounts… it’s worth a read though, there are some quite startling details no matter which collapse arguments you support.
there’s some formatting issues here and there.
sorry for a few overlaps with the excerpts posted above.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=—=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Right before that we discussed the operation
of the radio. Any time in a high-rise building,
communications is difficult. We tried to get repeaters
to work. The Trade Center had a repeater. We tried to
get that to work. That did not work for some reason,
and there were problems with the repeater in the car
also. So communications from the onset was difficult
and both Orio and myself tried to get that to work. We
tried it numerous times and we couldn’t get the
repeaters to operate properly, so we had to rely just
on handie-talkie communication, which is at best hit or
miss in any high-rise.
At one point I was asked to get the
operations with the helicopter into motion.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, I could not get ahold of
the dispatcher to do that. One of the citywide radios
got moved around and I couldn’t grab that, and there
were no phone lines. The phone lines were out and
nobody was picking up or the lines were busy to the
dispatcher, so I couldn’t get through to them on a
landline or a cell line.
...
But right before the south tower collapsed, I
noticed a lot of people just left the lobby, and I
heard we had a crew of all different people,
high-level people in government, everybody was gone,
almost like they had information that we didn’t have.
Some of them were moved across the street to the
command post.
Q. Who were you with at this time?
A. You name them, they were there.
Q. With you?
A. Yes, in the lobby. They were moving the
command post. So, I guess, after that companies were
coming in and we were listing them on the command board
so we had an account of everybody. Unfortunately, the
command board is not around any longer.
At one point the Fire Safety Director, Mike
Hurley, asked us if we wanted the building evacuated.
I’m not too sure if he meant both buildings or he was
just talking about this. In either case, I believe he
was talking about both buildings. I turned to Chief
Hayden and said do you want to evacuate the buildings?
He said yes. I turned to Mike and I told him evacuate
the buildings.
...
Then after a while it started to clear.
Actually, I was with a civilian. Actually, I was
laying over him because he had no helmet or anything.
Then we got up and we couldn’t see, but it started to
clear to like a brown, cloudy smoke, and I hear pop,
pop, pop, which sounded like gunfire to me. Then right
after that I hear people screaming get down, get down.
It’s not normal. I worked in the ghetto long enough
that you get down.
Q. Of course.
A. Because it sounded like gunfire and I’ve
heard gunfire before. It could have been something
totally different. I have no idea. I grabbed the guy
I was with and told him, hey, we have to get down, we
have to get some cover.
Then it started to clear again a little
better and we got up and I looked down the block and I
saw some law enforcement taking a guy away in handcuffs
and he was very agitated.
Q. Would that be on the other side of west?
A. On the west side of West Street.
Q. Towards the river?
A. Towards the river.
Q. Did you ever find out what he was —
A. No. But the cops were real agitated and it
was early on. I couldn’t imagine what they would
arrest somebody for. Again, it could have been almost
anything creating that sound. I have no idea. But I
figured that was three strikes at that point. And then
I came back to the scene and tried to figure out what
took place here and what we had. —CHIEF JOSEPH PFEIFER
Interview Date: October 23, 2001
At that time I started walking back up
towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions,
and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and
tower two started to come down. To the
firefighters and the cops that I was standing
there with started running northbound on West
Street and we made a left on Vesey and ran again
towards North End Avenue where we were having EMS
triage, and we stopped over there. —PARAMEDIC KEVIN DARNOWSKI
Date: November 9, 2001
The first plane had hit. We pulled
up in front, and we headed inside toward the
lobby. On the way inside you saw the usual stuff
like everyone else saw, things falling and stuff
like that.
We got inside the lobby and we waited
to hear from a chief or whoever what’s going to
go on, wait until we found out what’s going on.
What wound up happening is they teamed us up with
4 Engine, I believe it was. What it was is they
combined us as one hose team pretty much. So
they dropped half of their rollups and we kept
half of ours, we kept one standpipe kit, and we
headed up together.
As we were going up, they said on the
lower level the second plane hit the other
building. Me personally, I felt it on another
level up, so I think the timing was off between
everybody.
We just kept walking up. As far as we
knew, there were no planes or anything coming in.
There wasn’t even a plane that hit that building.
We just knew there was a fire up there. Any
other explosions that we felt from inside were
maybe extra machinery or something like that.
Those were the words that we were getting.
So we just kept going up the stairwell.
We got up to about the 17th floor, and we felt
another pretty big explosion. At this time about
every two floors, every three floors you’d stop
into an office, get some water, take a breather.
Guys were pretty winded. They had equipment on
and carrying everything.
We’re taking a breather, and I believe
that’s when the other Trade Center went down and
everybody felt it and they didn’t know exactly
what it was.
...
There was nobody in the intersection,
nobody in the streets in general, everyone just
saying come on, keeping coming, keep coming.
That’s when it went. I looked back. You see
three explosions and then the whole thing coming
down. I turned my head and everybody was
scattering. From there I don’t know who was who.
I don’t even know where my guys went. None of us
knew where each other were at at that point in
time. —FIREFIGHTER FRANK CAMPAGNA
Interview Date: December 4, 2001
Tower one now comes down. Same thing
but this time some of us take off straight down
West Street, because we realized later on,
subconsciously we wanted to be near buildings.
We all thought it was secondary explosives or
more planes or whatever. —CHIEF LAKIOTES
Interview Date: December 3, 2001
So when that one went down. I thought the
plane was exploding, or another plane hit. I had no
idea it was coming down. But I couldn’t see it gone,
because I couldn’t see it really in the first place
with all the smoke. —EMT LINDA MCCARTHY
Interview Date: November 28, 2001
Anyway, with that I was listening, and
there was an incredibly loud rumbling. I never
got to look up. People started running for the
entrances to the parking garages. They started
running for the entrances. I started running
without ever looking up.
The roar became tremendous. I fell on
the way to the parking garages. Debris was
starting to fall all around me. I got up, I got
into the parking garages, was knocked down by the
percussion. I thought there had been an
explosion or a bomb that they had blown up there.
The Vista International Hotel was my first
impression, that they had blown it up. I never
got to see the World Trade Center coming down. —CAPTAIN MICHAEL DONOVAN
Interview Date: November 9, 2001
THE BEST CAN REMEMBER WE WERE JUST
OPERATING THERE TRYING TO HELP OUT AND DO THE
BEST WE COULD THEN WE HEARD LOUD EXPLOSION OR
WHAT SOUNDED LIKE LOUD EXPLOSION AND LOOKED UP
AND SAW TOWER TWO START COMING DOWN CRAZYBATTALION CHIEF JOHN SUDNIK
INTERVIEW DATE NOVEMBER 2001
I’M OVER THERE STANDING AND SOMEONE STARTS YELLING
THERES AN EXPLOSION ALL OF SUDDEN YOU COULD
HEAR SOME WEIRD SOUND LIKE CRUMBLING ALL OF
SUDDEN EVERYBODY STARTS RUNNINGFIRE MARSHAL SALVATORE RIGNOLA
INTERVIEW DATE NOVEMBER 5 2001
I DIDNT KNOW IF IT WAS AN EXPLOSION DIDNT
KNOW IT WAS COLLAPSE AT THAT POINT THOUGHT
IT WAS AN EXPLOSION OR SECONDARY DEVICE
BOMB THE JET PLANE EXPLODING WHATEVERCAPTAIN JANICE OLSZEWSKI
INTERVIEW DATE NOVEMBER 2001
HAD RIO CLUE WHAT WA GOING ON NEVER
TURNED AROUND BECAUSE SOUND CAME FROM SOMEWHERE THAT
NEVER HEARD BEFORE SOME PEOPLE COMPARED IT WITH AN
AIRPLANE IT WAS THE WORST SOUND OF ROLLING SOUND
NOT THUNDER CANT EXPLAIN IT WHAT IT WAS ALL
KNOW IS AND FORCE STARTED TO COME HIT ME IN MY
BACK CANT EXPLAIN IT YOU HAD TO BE THERE ALL
KNOW IS HAD TO RUN BECAUSE THOUGHT THERE WAS AN
EXPLOSION
RAN ABOUT 10 12 FEET UP THIS LITTLE GRASSY
HILL AND BY THEN THIS FORCE AND THIS SOUND CAUGHT UP
WITH ME ALREADY THREW MYSELF BEHIND THE LAST
SUPPORT COLUMN OF THE PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS IT BECAME
PITCH DARK THE SOUND GOT WORSE THE FORCE JUST KEPT
PASSING ME AT TIMES THOUGHT IT WAS LIKE AN ORANGE
LIGHT MAYBE COMING PAST ME
...
HAPPENING THOUGHT
IT WAS JUST MAJOR EXPLOSION DIDNT KNOW THE
BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING WAS SITTING WITH MY LEFT
SIDE TOWARDS THE SUPPORT BEAM TOTAL DARKNESS TOTAL
NOISE
...
THERE WAS NO AIR WHATEVER THIS EXPLOSION WAS SIMPLY
SUCKED ALL THE OXYGEN OUT OF THE AIR YOU COULDNT
BREATHE AND THE FEELING OF SUFFOCATION CANT EXPLAIN
NO FURTHER ON THAT
...
WENT OUTSIDE TO SEE WHAT
COULD DO WHEN AW THE ECONID BUILDING OF THE WORLD
TRADE CENTER STILL UNBEKNOWN TO ME THE FIRST ONE HAD
COLLAPSED
SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD
TRADE CENTER THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH
COMING OUT INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH THEN
THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE
BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE THE
POPPING SOUND AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS
INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF
THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE
BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE THESE
POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER
GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE
BUILDING
WENT INSIDE AND TOLD
...
SO HERE THESE EXPLOSIONS ARE GETTING BIGGER
AND LOUDER AND BIGGER AND LOUDER AND TOLD EVERYBODY
IF THIS BUILDING TOTALLY EXPLODES STILL UNAWARE THAT
THE OTHER BUILDING HAD COLLAPSED IM GOING IN THE
WATER SAID CAN SWIM IM TAKING SOMEBODY WITH ME
ARID HOLD THEM BECAU IT WA MAYBE FOOT DROP
...
AGAIN DIDNT SEE WHAT WAS HAPPENING BEHIND
ME BUT KNOWING OF ALL THE EXPLOSIONS THOUGHT HERE
WA ANOTHER EXP1O COMING ARID THILI OUTNID AGAIN ARID
THIS WAVE OF THIS FORCE AGAIN JUST JUMPED ON THE
BOAT CLOSED THE DOOR WITH MY LEFT HAND AND JUST SANK
DOWN TO MY KNEESCAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE
INTERVIEW DATE NOVEMBER 2001
The second building came down.
Q. But you weren’t involved with that part,
because you were already out of the area, you were by
the boat loading people?
A. Right, because we heard the explosion. We
wasn’t there.
Q. Right.
A. It was just like — I think the second
building, I could be wrong, but the second building
that fell crumbled. It’s the first building that
fell. It actually came down, so — I really didn’t
witness the second building at all. —EMT MALA HARRILAL
Interview Date: November 2, 2001
It was weird how it started to come
down. It looked like it was a timed explosion,
but I guess it was just the floors starting to
pancake one on top of the other. —BATTALION CHIEF DOMINICK DeRUBBIO
I n t e r v i e w D a t e : O c t o b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 1
At that time we
proceeded into the middle of West Street directly
underneath the north tower. At that time, I had a very
tight feeling in my stomach, just experiencing what I
went through with 2 World Trade Center, being that
close. I didn’t feel at ease at all.
We were standing underneath and Captain Stone
was speaking again. We heard — I heard 3 loud
explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming
down now, 1 World Trade Center.
Q. Did you see any fire Chiefs or anybody like
that?
A. I saw two fire Chiefs. I don’t recall their
names. I saw two fire Chiefs, Chief Basile, Captain
Stone and I don’t recall who else was over there. We
were standing in a circle in the middle of West
Street. They were talking about what was going on.
At that time, when I heard the 3 loud
explosions, I started running west on Vesey Street
towards the water. At that time, I couldn’t run fast
enough. The debris caught up with me, knocked my
helmet off. I tumbled and then eventually I started
running again. I made it behind a building on North
End Avenue. I set up a triage area in that corner
building and at that time I started treating patients. —EMT GREGG BRADY
Interview Date: November 1, 2001
Q. This is the first building collapsing?
A. Right. There was an explosion and after we
started running, I was able to make it to Chambers and
West, where I only saw one EMT, EMT Vega. She is new
here. She was the only EMT I saw from the station and
with all the cops and everybody else running, rescue
workers. I grabbed her and I said just stay with me.
We will try to get out of here. —EMT ORLANDO MARTINEZ
Interview Date: November 1, 2001
There were some units there, along with a
Battalion Chief and I gave them some instructions as to
what to try to do. And while I was still in that
immediate area, the south tower, 2 World Trade Center,
there was what appeared to be at first an explosion.
It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all
four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then
there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could
see the beginning of the collapse.
At that point, I turned and ran west on
Albany Street, okay, in an attempt to get beyond the
corner of this building on the diagram marked Dow
Jones. I got a ways down. As I was running down the
street, the cloud kind of overtook us, then the air
seemed to be filled with a lot of very light material.
Most of it appeared to be paper. —CHIEF FRANK CRUTHERS
Interview Date: October 31, 2001
At that point I looked back and most of the
people who were triaged in that area with the triage
tags on them got up and ran. I took a quick glance at
the building and while I didn’t see it falling, I saw a
large section of it blasting out, which led me to
believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a
secondary device, but I knew that we had to go.
...
Within a few moments, I regrouped with Bruce
Medjuck and I asked him to tell them on the radio to
send us MTA buses to get people out. That didn’t
happen. But one thing that did happen was an ambulance
pulled up which was very clean. So I assumed that the
vehicle had not been in the – what I thought was an
explosion at the time, but was the first collapse. —CAPTAIN JAY SWITHERS
Interview Date: October 30, 2001
I was going to run down
further into the bay, and then — I don’t know. It’s
very strange, but in the loading dock, right against
the wall very close to the door was a white van, and it
was just parked there, and I said, “All right. We are
going to grab refuge behind this van.”
We went to the back of the van, and we got
down on the ground, and we heard this huge, thunderous,
loud sound, and then it was completely dark and
completely silent.
...
People began to scream. I
remember Jerry saying, “Ross,” and I said, “Jerry.” We
had each other. He had a little flashlight. He had
the flash on, and we were trying to see did we see
anybody else. Then I thought to myself — I thought of
the thing about the ’93 incident when they had this
Ryder truck full of explosive, and now I realized how
strange it was that this white van was parked in this
loading dock. I started to think to myself, God, did
we step into the wrong place here? So I said to Gombo,
“Look, we gotta get out of here, because we don’t
know —” I didn’t know the integrity of the building we
were in, what fell on us, how much we’re under, so we
tried to go back and look, but it was too dusty. —ROSARIO TERRANOVA
Interview Date: October 26, 2001
I was watching the fire,
watching the people jump and hearing a noise and
looking up and seeing — it actually looked —
the lowest floor of fire in the south tower
actually looked like someone had planted
explosives around it because the whole bottom I
could see — I could see two sides of it and the
other side — it just looked like that floor blew
out.
I looked up and you could actually see
everything blew out on the one floor. I thought,
geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it
blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we
looked at it and realized, no, actually it just
collapsed. That’s what blew out the windows, not
that there was an explosion there but that
windows blew out.
The realization hit that it’s going to
fall down, the top’s coming off. I was still
thinking — there was never a thought that this
whole thing is coming down. I thought that that
blew out and stuff is starting to fly down. The
top is going to topple off there. —BATTALION CHIEF BRIAN DIXON
Interview Date: October 25, 2001
Everybody’s heads were all popping up now.
Everybody is digging out, so I ran into a couple of
firefighters and I said, “Well, you know, what the hell
happened?” Some kind of an explosion, he goes, and
that’s what I thought it was, because it was like
coming at you sideways, so we looked out, and we’re
getting the people out, and as we are getting people
out through this debris onto West Street, I’m looking
at the medical treatment area, and all the fire
apparatus, and all the ambulances were on fire, and
nobody is around. You know, where is everybody? —Deputy Chief CHARLES WELLS
Interview Date: October 25, 2001
In that process of him trying to
explain to me to pull my ambulance over, I heard
a loud bang. We looked up, and we just saw the
building starting to collapse. I looked over and
started to scream at my partner, which he was
inside the vehicle.
Q. Who was your partner that day?
A. My partner was Naomi Nacional.
I was screaming from the top of my
lungs, and I must have been about ten feet away
from her and she couldn’t even hear me, because
the building was so loud, the explosion, that she
couldn’t even hear me. I just saw everybody
running; and she saw us running, and she took off
behind us. —EMT JULIO MARRERO
Interview Date: October 25, 2001
The next thing I
knew, you started hearing more explosions. I
guess this is when the second tower started
coming down. —EMT DAVID TIMOTHY
Interview Date: October 25, 2001
So this guy held me. I took off my contact
lenses, irrigate them, put them back, check my arm,
which was okay, and then just go back again until
someone said that we had to run again because there was
going to be a manhole explosion. We had to run again. —EMT IMMACULADA GATTAS
Interview Date: October 17, 2001
The next thing I heard was Pete say what the
fuck is this? And as my eyes traveled up the building,
and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about
halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a
secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring
right around the building blew out. I later realized
that the building had started to collapse already and
this was the air being compressed and that is the floor
that let go. And as my eyes traveled further up the
building, I realized that this building was collapsing
and I turned around and most everybody was ahead of me
running for the garage, and I remember thinking I
looked at this thing a little bit too long and I might
not make this garage. But I did. —CHIEF ALBERT TURI
I n t e r v i e w D a t e : O c t o b e r 23, 2 0 0 1
The next thing I know, we heard a
little bit of a rumbling, and then white powder came
from the first collapsed building. I thought it was an
explosion initially. We got hit with the powder. We
tried to run. We got hit with the powder. It took a
few minutes to clear.
...
After that, I still thought it was an
explosion. I thought it was some kind of thermal
explosion where I’m either going to get burnt — and I
had kind of ideas that it was going to be something
like Hiroshima where all this heat was coming at me and
we were going to get burnt — or if the heat didn’t
burn me, I thought that all the parts coming out of
this building, the windows, metal, all the things like
that, that I might be severed in half. —LIEUTENANT GEORGE J. DeSIMONE
Interview Date: October 22, 2001
I made it up onto the — I guess you
call it the concourse level, the mezzanine level,
and onto the foot bridge when I started to
hear — I thought I heard an explosion of some
sort, but I kind of dismissed it. I figured, ah,
it’s just something burning upstairs. I really
didn’t think of what was going on.
Okay. I start going across this
pedestrian bridge. I’m the only one on this
bridge. I’m walking across it, and then I just
remember feeling a rumble and hearing this
rumbling sound that was really intense. It
actually shook my bones. —PARAMEDIC LOUIS COOK
Interview Date: October 17, 200
We were in the
process of getting some rigs moved when I turned,
as I heard a tremendous roar, explosion, and saw
that the first of the two towers was starting to
come down.
...
When the dust started to settle, I headed
back down towards the World Trade Center and I
guess I came close to arriving at the corner of
Vesey and West again where we started to hear the
second roar. That was the north tower now coming
down. I should say that people in the street and
myself included thought that the roar was so loud
that the explosive – bombs were going off inside
the building. Obviously we were later proved
wrong.
...
The sight of the jumpers was horrible and
the turning around and seeing that first tower
come down was unbelieveable. The sound it made.
As I said I thought the terrorists planted
explosives somewhere in the building. That’s how
loud it was, crackling explosive, a wall. That’s
about it. Any questions?
Q. Any other feelings or thoughts that you might
want to have included in this?
A. No, it was just unbelieveable. Seeing how
close Commissioner Von Essen and the Mayor were to that
location was also quite startling. That’s about it. —ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER JAMES DRURY
Interview Date: October 16, 2001
Then we heard a rumble, some twisting metal, we looked up in the air, and to be
totally honest, at first, I don’t know exactly…but it looked to me just like an explosion. It
didn’t look like the building was coming down, it looked like just one floor had blown
completely outside of it. I was sitting there looking at it. I just never thought they would
ever come down, so I didn’t think they were coming down. I just froze and stood there
looking at it. —EMT MICHAEL OBER
Interview Date: October 16, 2001
After that I
heard this huge explosion, I thought it was a boiler exploding or something. Next thing
you know this huge cloud of smoke is coming at us, so we’re running. Everyone is,
firemen, PD, everyone is running away from the World Trade Center, up Vessey Street.
This is North End, we was running around Vessey and around North end to get away
from the first smoke.
...
We was trying to clear out the
treatment area, and as we’re clearing the treatment area, I hear this huge noise. Someone
told me the building is exploding, I couldn’t believe it. So we started moving the
treatment area back even further. After the second one fell, we started running
up…where is it? I’m not sure what these buildings represent, but we ended up down by
the water, the cloud pushed us all the way to the water. —EMT JAMES MCKINLEY
Interview Date: October 21, 2001
I looked up, and the
building exploded, the building that we were very
close to, which was one tower. The whole top
came off like a volcano.
...
So now both towers
have been hit by a plane. The north tower was
burning.
So the explosion, what I realized
later, had to be the start of the collapse. It
was the way the building appeared to blowout from
both sides. I’m looking at the face of it, and
all we see is the two sides of the building just
blowing out and coming apart like this, as I
said, like the top of a volcano. —LIEUTENANT GARY GATES
Interview Date: October 12, 2001
THE PARKED CARS THAT HAD BEEN PARKED THERE WERE
ALL ON FIRE AND WHICH WASNT ON FIRE WAS EXPLODING WE
DIDNT KNOWAT THAT POINT KNOWTHAT ONE OF THE
POLICE OFFICERS SAID THAT HE THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE
BOMBS AND MAYBE THEY RIGGED THEM TO BLOW UP JUST
SECONDARY EXPLOSIONS WEDIDNT KNOWWHAT TO DO
WEWENTTOWARDS THE BACK OF THE RESTAURANTPARAMEDIC GARY SMILEY
INTERVIEW DATE OCTOBER 10 2001
I was in the back waiting, you
know, so we could wait for patients and I was hooking up the regulator to the O-2, when I
hear people screaming and a loud explosion, and I heard like “sssssssss…” the dust like
“sssssssss…” So I come out of the bus, and I look and I see a big cloud of dust and
debris coming —EMT JUAN RIOS
Interview Date: October 10, 2001
THEN THAVS WHEN KEPT ON WALKING
CLOSE TO THE SOUTH TOWER AND THAVS WHENTHAT
BUILDING COLLAPSED
HOWDID YOU KNOWTHAT IT WAS COMING
DOWN
THAT NOISE IT WAS NOISE
WHAT DID YOU HEAR WHATDID YOU SEE
ITWASAFRIGGING NOISE ATFIRSTL
THOUGHT IT WAS DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL
DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN
FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR POP POP POP POP
POP THAVS EXACTLY WHAT BECAUSE THOUGHT
IT WASTHAT WHEN HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE
THAVS WHEN SAWTHE BUILDING COMING DOWN
WHATDIDYOUDO
RUN MOST OF THE PEOPLE RAN INTO THE
RIVERA 10
BUILDING BUT WASJUST TOO FAR FROM THE
BUILDING TO RUN INTO THIS TRIAGE BUILDING
...
IGHT COULD ACTUALLY TOUCH THE
BUILDING WHEN IT COLLAPSED THE SECOND TIME WHEN
IT COLLAPSED
BUT AGAIN WAS PREPARED BECAUSE
HEARD THAT SAME NOISE IT WASLIKE WATERFALL
NOISEPARAMEDIC DANIEL RIVERA
INTERVIEW DATE OCTOBER 10 2001
I started to treat
patients on my own when I heard the explosion from up
above. I looked up, I saw smoke and flame and then I
saw the top tower tilt, start to twist and lean.
...
I was
assisting in pulling more people out from debris, when
I heard the second tower explode. When I tried to
evacuate the area, by running up Fulton, got halfway
up —LIEUTENANT PATRICK SCARINGELLO
Interview Date: October 10, 2001
When the
tower started — there was a big explosion that I
heard and someone screamed that it was coming down
and I looked away and I saw all the windows
domino — you know, dominoeing up and then come
down. We were right in front of 6, so we started
running and how are you going to outrun the World
Trade Center? So we threw our tools and I dove
under a rig. —FIREFIGHTER KEVIN MURRAY
Interview Date: October 9, 2001
So we just ran as a unit to the overpass
again, and we took a look up, and it was like one — it
was like, holy shit. It was like — because it was
like — I guess the building was kind of — I don’t
remember specifically, but I remember it was, like, we
got to get out of here. So I think that the building
was really kind of starting to melt. We were — like,
the melt down was beginning. The collapse hadn’t
begun, but it was not a fire any more up there. It was
like — it was like that — like smoke explosion on a
tremendous scale going on up there.
I said to the guys — I said, “We are in the
collapse zone.” I mean, that sounds like a joke, but I
said, “We got to — we can’t stay here.” So we started
running up West Street, and I’d say within 50 yards or
so the building was collapsing behind us, and then it
was like everybody was, like, oh shit, you know. This
is it. Every man for himself, running up West Street.
...
What did you hear when the building starting
collapsing the second time? Did you feel — just
started coming down? You didn’t hear anything, feel
anything?
A. We felt — our whole building that we were
in, when World Trade Center 2 collapsed, that was the
first one to collapse. We were in World Trade Center
1. It was a tremendous explosion and tremendous
shaking of our building. We thought it was our
building maybe collapsed, there was a collapse above us
occurring.
It was tremendous shaking and like everybody
dove into this stairwell and waited for, I guess, 20,
30 seconds until it settled, and that was our
experience of the other building collapsing.
MR. MURAD: Lieutenant Becker, I would —LIEUTENANT BRIAN BECKER
Interview Date: October 9, 2001
Still in the hallway, we heard a big
shake in the building. It’s my belief that was
the tower two coming down. I’m not positive, but
you could definitely feel an incredible shake.
Q. Did you hear any explosion or anything
from the first?
A. I didn’t. Some people stated to me
that there was at that time, but I can’t recall
actually hearing.
Q. You were at the 35th floor —
A. We were at the 35th floor.
...
That’s basically where we were. Then a
large explosion took place. In my estimation
that was the tower coming down, but at that time
I did not know what that was. I thought some
type of bomb had gone off.
I was, I believe, ahead of the rest of
the firefighters and officers there. I made it
to the corner, and I took about four running
steps this way when you could feel the rush of
the wind coming at you. I believed that that was
a huge fireball coming at the time. —LIEUTENANT GREGG HANSSON
Interview Date: October 9, 2001
Although debris fell around us, the
main structure felt as if — we were lucky. When
it sounded like the explosion stopped, the steel
hitting, when it all seemed to stop, this just
like a fire storm of wind and material, a
sandstorm kind of, just came and wailed by,
really flew past us quick. —FIREFIGHTER CRAIG MONAHAN
I n t e r v i e w D a t e : O c t o b e r 9, 2 0 0 1
As I said that and he turned around, all this
black smoke started filling and I looked at the
building and it started vibrating. So I was almost
next to the cemetery at that time. I was on the side
of the church. I looked and all this debris just
started exploding everywhere, and I turned around to
run and I didn’t see the patient anymore, and myself
and the FBI guy just started going down that block. —EMT RUSSELL HARRIS
Interview Date: October 9, 2001
We knew something had happened. I
don’t think we realized like the whole thing had
come down, because we didn’t even know — she had
said that something had collapsed, there was some
kind of explosion, I don’t know. We just got
out, we stopped, and all of a sudden people just
started coming out, all covered in the ash. —PARAMEDIC TRACEY MULQUEEN
I n t e r v i e w D a t e : O c t o b e r 4, 2001
I d i d n ‘ t want t o take
one because they had a couple of f i r e t r u c k s t h a t
were hanging out r i g h t i n f r o n t of him. I d o n ‘ t
know what f i r e t r u c k s they were, but they looked
kind of beaten up from t h e explosion. —WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW
LIEUTENANT MURRAY MURAD
I n t e r v i e w D a t e : O c t o b e r 4, 2001
but for some reason I thought
that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center
before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw
low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant
Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he
questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes
in front of the building, and I agreed with him because
I thought — at that time I didn’t know what it was. I
mean, it could have been as a result of the building
collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash
flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q. Was that on the lower level of the building
or up where the fire was?
A. No, the lower level of the building. You
know like when they demolish a building, how when they
blow up a building, when it falls down? That’s what I
thought I saw. And I didn’t broach the topic to him,
but he asked me. He said I don’t know if I’m crazy,
but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing
right next to me. He said did you see anything by the
building? And I said what do you mean by see
anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said,
yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw
them, too.
I don’t know if that means anything. I mean,
I equate it to the building coming down and pushing
things down, it could have been electrical explosions,
it could have been whatever. But it’s just strange
that two people sort of say the same thing and neither
one of us talked to each other about it. I mean, I
don’t know this guy from a hole in the wall. I was
just standing next to him. I never met the man before
in my life. He knew who I was I guess by my name on my
coat and he called me up, you know, how are you doing?
How’s everything? And, oh, by the way did you … It
was just a little strange.
Q. On the television pictures it appeared as
well, before the first collapse, that there was an
explosion up on the upper floors.
A. I know about the explosion on the upper
floors. This was like eye level. I didn’t have to go
like this. Because I was looking this way. I’m not
going to say it was on the first floor or the second
floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what
appeared to be flashes. I don’t know how far down this
was already. I mean, we had heard the noise but, you
know, I don’t know. —ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GREGORY
Interview Date: October 3, 2001
The part that was really bizarre is actually
— what seemed bizarre is there was the second
explosion, you know, the second plane explosion, and
then it was — at least on the EMS radio, there was
absolute silence for probably 10 or 15 seconds, you
know, which to me, it seemed like 10 to 15 seconds, but
it was absolute radio silence for a few seconds. I
don’t know if everybody was just sort of — —DR. MICHAEL GUTTENBERG
Interview Date: October 2, 2001
Then there was another it sounded like
an explosion and heavy white powder, papers,
flying everywhere. We sat put there for a few
minutes. It kind of dissipated.
...
That’s when we heard this massive
explosion and I saw this thing rolling towards
us. It looked like a fireball and then thick,
thick black smoke. —CHIEF MARK STEFFENS
Interview Date: October 3, 200 1
I turned around, I heard
something, and I thought the facade and just the facade
of the south tower was coming down, and one of the
firefighters near me was saying holy shit, and I think
he felt the building was going to collapse. I wasn’t
convinced of that at first. I thought maybe it was
just some facade falling. All of a sudden there was a
rumble and you see the building starting to collapse.
At that point I ran north on West Street as fast as I
could possibly run. —CHIEF FIRE MARSHAL LOUIS GARCIA
I n t e r v i e w D a t e : O c t o b e r 2, 2 0 0 1
We looked up at the building straight up, we
were that close. All we saw was a puff of smoke coming
from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some people thought
it was an explosion. I don’t think I remember that. I
remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one
specific layer of the building. I assume now that that
was either windows starting to collapse like tinsel or
something. Then the building started to come down. My
initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it
looks when they show you those implosions on TV. I
would have to say for three or four seconds anyway,
maybe longer. I was just watching. It was interesting
to watch, but the thing that woke everybody up was the
cloud of black material. It reminded me of the 10
commandments when the green clouds come down on the
street. The black cloud was coming down faster than
the building, so whatever was coming down was going to
hit the street and it was pretty far out. You knew it
wasn’t coming right down. Judging from where people
were jumping before that, this cloud was out much
further. —DEPUTY COMMISSIONER THOMAS FlTZPATRlCK
Interview Date: October 1, 2001

R78738
5 years ago
Strangegloved

Pulling” Building 7
A PBS documentary about the 9/11/01 attack, America Rebuilds, features an interview with the leaseholder of the destroyed WTC complex, Larry Silverstein. In it, the elderly developer makes the following statement:
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.
This statement seems to suggest that the FDNY decided to demolish the building in accordance with Silverstein’s suggestion, since the phrase “pull it” in this context apparently means to demolish the building. This interpretation is supported by a statement by a Ground Zero worker in the same documentary:
... we’re getting ready to pull the building six.
Building 6 was one of the badly damaged low-rise buildings in the WTC complex that had to be demolished as part of the cleanup operation.
An alternative interpretation of Silverstein’s statement is that “pull it” refers to withdrawing firefighters from the building. However, according to FEMA’s report there were no manual firefighting operations in Building 7, so there would not have been any firefighters to “pull”.
That Silverstein would admit that officials intentionally demolished Building 7 is bizarre for a number of reasons. Silverstein Properties Inc. had already won an $861 million claim for the loss of the building in a terrorist incident. FEMA’s report states that the cause of building’s collapse was fires. Presumably FEMA and the insurance company would be interested in knowing if the building was instead demolished by the FDNY. Moreover, the logistics of rigging a skyscraper for demolition in the space of a few hours would be daunting to say the least, particularly given that demolition teams would have to work around fires and smoke.
A third explanation is less obvious but makes sense of the non-sequiturs in the above explanations: perhaps Silverstein’s statement was calculated to confuse the issue of what actually happened to Building 7. By suggesting that it was demolished by the FDNY as a safety measure, it provides an alternative to the only logical explanation — that it was rigged for demolition before the attack. The absurdity of the FDNY implementing a plan to “pull” Building 7 on the afternoon of 9/11/01 will escape most people, who neither grasp the technical complexity of engineering the controlled demolition of a skyscraper, nor its contradiction with FEMA’s account of the collapse, nor the thorough illlegality of such an operation. Thus the idea that officials decided to “pull” Building 7 after the attack serves as a distraction from the inescapable logic that the building’s demolition was planned in advance of the attack, and was therefore part of an inside job to destroy the entire WTC complex.
article
Post Modified: 08/25/05 22:44:07

R78745
5 years ago
Shogo

Yay. Another badly written piece of shit from a conspiracy nutter site.

R78764
5 years ago
Rasputin

Schneib, strangegloved is correct about the term “pull it” being used to refer to a cd in the documentary in question. You can see a clip here
As for what Silverstein really meant, we’re never gonna know one way or another so I suggest we drop it.
West face:

And here’s another where the “cut out” section is obscured by smoke:

Figure 5-16 Damage to southwest corner of WTC 7 (see box), looking from West Street.
The collapse appears to have been iniatiated on the opposite side, however:
“The collapse of WTC 7 appears to have initiated on the east side of the building on the interior, as indicated by the disappearance of the east penthouse into the building. This was followed by the disappearance of the west penthouse, and the development of a fault or “kink” on the east half of WTC 7 (see Figures 5-23 and 5-24). The collapse then began at the lower floor levels, and the building completely collapsed to the ground.

Here’s a picture of the east face:

Here’s WTC7 afterward:

Assuming the pictures and testominy are accurate and not fabrications, WTC7 can no longer be considered cut-and-dried. The collapse is still highly suspicious, however: why it collapsed, why it collapsed in the manner it did and what possible motivations there may have been for demolishing it, whether benign (e.g. protecting documents and avoiding damage to surrounding buildings) or more sinister (e.g. destroying evidence).
HowStuffWorks.com


The Privatization of the World Trade Center
“After providing a fairly detailed overview of the history of the World Trade Center, the Report mentions that WTC 7 “was completed in 1987 and was operated by Silverstein Properties, Inc.” (p 2/56) However, the Report makes no mention of the fact that a private consortium headed by Silverstein Properties acquired a 99-year lease of the main World Center complex on July 24, 2001. Nor does it mention that the new landlord secured an array of insurance policies that included a special provision for loss due to terrorist attacks, and, subsequent to the attack, successfully sued the insurers to obtain twice the value of the policy based on its being “two occurrences” (two airplane crashes).”
Dissappearing evidence:
“Maybe no financial institution lost more critical documents than the Securities and Exchange Commission, which had its New York regional office at 7 World Trade Center. While the regulatory agency was fortunate in that it lost no employees in the terror attacks, it suffered setbacks in a number of long-running securities investigations.
In August, defense lawyers for several former executives of Rite Aid, who’ve been charged by the SEC with fraud and obstruction of justice, filed a motion seeking a delay in the trial, claiming some of the documents gathered by the SEC had been lost in the attack. SEC attorneys contend many of the original copies of those documents still exist at other locations but acknowledge it will take time to reconstruct all the evidence in the case.”
The CIA
“The Central Intelligence Agency’s clandestine New York station was destroyed in the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center, seriously disrupting United States intelligence operations while bringing the war on terrorism dangerously close to home for America’s spy agency, government officials say.
The C.I.A.‘s undercover New York station was in the 47-story building at 7 World Trade Center, one of the smaller office towers destroyed in the aftermath of the collapse of the twin towers that morning. All of the agency’s employees at the site were safely evacuated soon after the hijacked planes hit the twin towers, the officials said.
The intelligence agency’s employees were able to watch from their office windows while the twin towers burned just before they evacuated their own building.
Immediately after the attack, the C.I.A. dispatched a special team to scour the rubble in search of secret documents and intelligence reports that had been stored in the New York station, either on paper or in computers, officials said. It could not be learned whether the agency was successful in retrieving its classified records from the wreckage.
A C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment.”
New York Times (11/04/01)
I also don’t trust the NIST report, as you apparently do. As Hoffman writes:
NIST continues in the tradition of Core Denial, with a number of misrepresentations, including, apparently, in the computer models that it supposedly used to simulate collapse initiation. Figure 6-9 shows sections of the global model for both the North and the South Towers. Both show the core columns to be thinner than the perimeter columns. But we know that the perimeter columns had outside dimensions of about 13.5 by 14 inches, and that the core columns had outside dimensions of 36 by 16 inches. We might forgive NIST for skimping on the dimensions of the core columns at the 100th floor of the North Tower, since the box columns apparently transitioned to smaller H-columns around the 100th floor, but their use of tiny core columns on the 85th floor of the South Tower is clearly in error.”

This is a zoom-up of Figure 6-8 (p 94/128), which shows the “multifloor global model” for WTC 2, in which the top floor (pictured) is the 85th floor. Note the miniscule size of the core columns (the short, toothpick-like rods in the central area of the floor).
I’d like to see what some of the other experts have to say on the new info before I speculate any further.
Post Modified: 08/26/05 18:28:01

R78772
5 years ago
Butt

Let me guess: you use this to hammer your nuts as you read this thread.

Masochism brought to extremes
or was that your tool, Tool?
Strangeloved took one look at all that physics, stuck his head up his ass, and was done.
the physics has, so far, ‘proved’ very little. There is so much it hasn’t explained that a thinking person would have to conclude that physics hasn’t got all the answers to this one.
surely an intellect as massive as yours can comprehend that
of course that massive thing I thought was your intellect could have been your swollen post-hammered nutsack
Post Modified: 08/26/05 06:12:00

R78778
5 years ago
Shogo

There is so much it hasnt explained that a thinking person
I don’t how you’d have any idea what a thinking person would do. Maybe you read about such people in a book once? Or a leaflet, perhaps? In any event, only a fool (ahem) uses the term proof when it comes to science. Science deals in evidence supporting hypotheses. Given the evidence (giant multi-ton concrete chunks flying into buildings, the reports of people diagnosing the collapse of the building using surveying methods), the explanation of the WTC7 collapsing due to damage it sustained from the collapse of the towers is supportable, and plausible. And this evidence really pushes the notion of it being controlled demolitions further off to the land of the whackos.
On the other hand, I gotta say I’m impressed that Rasputin is beginning to see the light. Though the usage of a diagram of “How Building Implosions” work isn’t relevant here, since WTC7, as Schneib pointed out, wasn’t constructed using that kind of structure.
In any event, I am actually quite pleased that you’re coming around given the photos and testimony of the people who actually measured the damage to the building as it was occuring. I am surprised, I’ll admit, but nevertheless impressed that you’re amenable to rexamining your position.

R78800
5 years ago
Strangegloved

Strange, if you’re just going to go on denying reality and not reading the evidence I post, then it’s clear that no evidence will convince you. It is therefore unnecessary to talk to you, since you are not amenable to being convinced of anything, ever. This is the definition of a crackpot, and I have no time for crackpots.
If you don’t mind Mr. Schneibster, whoever the hell you think you are, I have my own opinion on the “pull it” statement. Is that ok with you? I am talking to every-body in the forum (there are over 1200 comments). Who died and left you in charge?

R78808
5 years ago
whateveryousay

I have my own opinion on the “pull it” statement. I am talking to every-body in the forum (there are over 1200 comments). Who died and left you in charge?
i thought we went over “pull-it” statements a few pages ago.
“pull-it” vs. “pull-back” vs. “pull-down” whatever.

R78810
5 years ago
Shogo

I have my own opinion on the pull it statement
Yep, you do. One made in complete ignorance of the facts of what went on at the WTC complex that day, one based on a widely reported yet unsupported claim that this is some kind of “official” demolitions lingo, and one that retardedly assumes that the owner of the complex would say in front of reporters to go ahead and trigger the secretly planted demolitions charges.
As we all know, wealthy real estate tycoons are masters of technical jargon employed in the demolitions industry – even when it’s not actually technical jargon employed in the demolitions industry.
So yes, it is certainly fine for you to continue to cling to your ill-informed, unsupported, and unsupportable opinion – but your opinion isn’t worth a bucket of warm piss.
The fact that you can read such a careful analysis of the physics involved which show that the collapse from damage is not only possible, but plausible, and still stick to your deranged conspiratorial website-inspired beliefs is only a testament to your lunkheadedness.
Congratulations again sir, you represent the Pantheon of Batshittedness admirably. Perhaps for your next trick you can stick your fingers in your ears and chant “I’m not listening!” over and over.
Post Modified: 08/26/05 09:01:58

R78815
5 years ago
Strangegloved

Shobo,
Who rattled your cage?

R78836
5 years ago
Schneibster

whatever, it’s all right there. You flunked. You can’t see what’s right in front of you in a picture unless it agrees with your preconceived notions. You keep asking questions that have already been answered like they’re something new; I’ll post the answer once, and if you don’t acknowledge it, the conversation is over. I answered every point you made, and you just keep bringing them up again like there was no answer. That’s a waste of time, and I’m done wasting time on you.

R78837
5 years ago
Butt

Science deals in evidence supporting hypotheses
ahh you’re finally admitting that Schnieb, you, and your bum-buddies at Popular Dianetics are putting forward an hypothesis?
Given the evidence (giant multi-ton concrete chunks flying into buildings, blah, blah, blah.
well there appears to be other evidence that you and your water-cooler-on-the-78th-floor-buddies at Popular Fuctology are
  1. Dismissing as the ramblings of mere (unqualified) Firefighters (as if Firefighters would be able to tell us anything useful about what happened that day, em no Phd’s you see, and as we all know: No Phd = fingers in the ears/I can’t hear YOU)
  1. Ignoring
btw: how’s the sack? recovering? The swelling will never go down if you keep reading this thread, you know
ChickenMa’s comment about the Lift-shafts being especially desinged so as not to act as a chimney in the event of a fire has been mostly ignored by such luminaries of the de-bunking scene as yourself. Why is that I wonder? Possiblly because the proposed Hypothetical occurance of the ‘massive fires in the lift-shafts’ could hold up only if the lift -shafts ran the height of the building? And since (according to ChickenMa) they didn’t, that kinda brings your hypothesises into question, no?
Could the french-film makers sighting of burning-people leaving elevators apply to people who may have come from the Sub-ground levels??

R78851
5 years ago
Strangegloved

Disinformation
Maintaining the Official Story in the Face of Glaring Contradictions
Ensuring the success of the official story of 9/11/01 despite the long sequence of highly improbable events it supposes required that people not pay too much attention to the details. This would be ensured by the “shock and awe” of the attack itself combined with an intense propaganda campaign to sell the official story. Ironically, the vast majority of those who created and promoted that propaganda probably did so innocently, never questioning the official version of events. The idea that the entire attack was an inside job was simply too unthinkable for most Americans to consider.
The use of disinformation and diversion to manipulate public opinion is a highly developed art. It is well understood not only by psychological operations experts in the national security establishment, but also by marketing and public relations wizards. With the engineering of public reaction to September 11, disinformation has been used with a sophistication and depth that is historically unprecedented. A key tool in this modern form of psychological warfare is the “meme” — an idea that acts like an infectious agent to spread itself through a population. Through careful construction of memes, the perpetrators could depend on others to unwittingly promote their cover story and conceal the truth. Their disinformation strategy was twofold. First, they would sell the official story to the masses through the compliant mass media, relying on people’s desire to believe the official story. Second, they would seed specious ideas in the community of “9/11 skeptics” in order to distract and discredit them.
The Official Story of September 11, and Its Apologists
On the day of the attack, details about the alleged perpetrators emerged with a rapidity that are remarkable given the assertions by high-ranking administration officials that no one had ever considered that an attacker could fly planes into buildings. Within hours the identities of several of the alleged hijackers were known, and Osama bin Laden was being presented as the prime suspect. Within two days the FBI published the identities of all the alleged hijackers. It was being presented as an open-and-shut case.
Academics helped to explain the collapses of the Twin Towers in articles in respected publications. Just two days after the attack, a scientific paper purported to fully explain the unprecedented engineering failures using “elastic dynamic analysis.” “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? – Simple Analysis” was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE on 9/13/01. Peer review of this paper and of other theories volunteering to explain the collapses was nowhere to be found.
The mass media were consistent in avoiding asking the most obvious questions. Why did the air defense network fail to respond? Why is there no footage of an airliner striking the Pentagon? Why was the Ground Zero steel removed and destroyed as fast as possible? The media shirked their public service obligation of acting as watchdogs of the government, and instead became cheerleaders for the administration’s war plans for central Asia.
The vast body of print reportage about September 11 attack is notable for an abundance of contradictions. The timelines in the Complete 9-11 Timeline series reveal numerous inconsistencies, such as between reported times of events. These discrepancies, combined with the lack of evidence, discourage investigation of facts of the attack. Meanwhile, the impending attack on Afghanistan, the alleged Islam-terror link, and “homeland security” got the attention.
This section examines just a few of the elements of the official story of September 11 with a skeptical view and attention to contradictions.
Red Flags: People are able to accept theories blessed by government and mainstream media, despite inconsistencies and long series of improbable coincidences.
Cover Stories: The top four in command of our defense go about routine appointments for an hour as the attack unfolds.
Experts on Parade: Experts “explain” the collapses of the World Trade Center Buildings.
Disinformation Targeting the Skeptics
Disinformation targeting skeptics of the official story is more subtle than the simple promotion of that story to the masses. It may consist of ideas with no basis in evidence packaged as shocking new findings that supposedly prove the involvement of insiders. Its effect is to discredit the larger body of 9/11 research through guilt by association with its sensational and unscientific approach. An example is the idea that Twin Towers were not hit by Flights 11 or 175 but rather by completely different objects, such as military planes with missile-firing pods. Since 9-11 Research does not provide analysis of such disinformation, we recommend the disinformation section of 911review.com.
article
Post Modified: 08/26/05 12:05:36

R78853
5 years ago
whateveryousay

whatever, it’s all right there. You flunked. You can’t see what’s right in front of you in a picture unless it agrees with your preconceived notions.
you’ll need to circle on the picture what you interpret to be chuncks of concrete schneib. they be pretty low rez and blowing up reveals not much else but jpeg artifacts. there’s nothing wrong with me asking for you to be specific… you’re attitude is that if i switch to your team i’ll suddenly see it.
the picture in question: i see metal, paper, and dust mainly, maybe some other small miscelleneous debrit. the pieces i see in the location you describe look to be made out of metal to me.
draw a circle around something and post it in photo bucket and then i’ll know what you are talking about.
You’ve presented many accounts that describe booming sounds and flying debris. Do you have any idea how catastrophic a boom ONE SINGLE THREE STORY THREE COLUMN PERIMETER SECTION WOULD MAKE ALL BY ITSELF? And we’re talking about HUNDREDS of them, all falling, all flying around, smacking into other buildings, into the ground, into fire engines…
C’mon, whatever, ‘fess up. A hundred 23-ton pieces of steel fall a thousand feet. What do you suppose the survivors describe? —schneib
i imagine most of… there’d be a lot of ground shaking for one thing. more like an earthquake than a straight up ‘explosion’ . . . and the peeps most definately do describe both… however…
many of the accounts describe, in detail, that there was an explosion and then the building collapsed. this is an extremely important detail in many accounts. at least 2 seperate accounts (of the ones i posted) describe 3 destinct explosions and then the collapse of the building.
why do you feel the need to dismiss that with a wave of your hand? what, everyone got it backwards and it was actually the sound of the building hitting the ground before the collapse?
you say you answered me point for point but i think that you need to get at least a little bit specific. like saying there’s chunks of concrete and then linking to a page with like 100 pictures…

R78855
5 years ago
Schneibster

Rasputin,
Well, I have witness testimony in which “pull” is used by a deputy chief fireman to mean getting people out. So pick ‘em.
That first picture is the same picture used in the NIST report; and it doesn’t show the south face of the building. It shows the west face, not the south face; and the south face is also obscured by smoke in the second picture. Think about it: if the second picture shows the southwest corner, and south is toward you- then it would have to be the south*east* corner, not the south*west* corner . We also have multiple testimony that the southwest corner was damaged, but only below the tenth floor. If you are looking at the south face, then you are looking north; and east is right and west is left. But if you’re looking at the west face, then south is right and north is left, and you’re looking east. And from the smoke damage above the impact damage on the southwest corner, there can be no question; those are two angles of the same face. Again, that’s the WEST face. Neither of those pictures shows the south face. I have looked extensively and not found a picture of the south face. The only evidence we have to go on is the description in the testimony I posted, which described a 200-foot hole in the south face; and made it clear that the damage to the southwest corner was separate from that hole; it was below the tenth floor, and you can’t have a twenty-story hole below the tenth floor. Read it again.
By the way, I got turned around and thought that was the south*east* corner in a post above; sorry about that. But it’s clear from the pictures and the testimony that it’s the southwest corner. I’ll also point out that there was a three-story-high bulge in the southwest corner, according to testimony; your first picture doesn’t show it, but the second one does, right near the top of the red box. If you look carefully, you can see it’s bulging out at the top, and shoved in in the middle, and bulging out again at the bottom just above the hole; and that lower bulge is at about the tenth story, if you follow the sightline along the tenth story windows on the building to the left in the second shot. Now I don’t know about you, but if I saw that shit, I wouldn’t even think about going inside that building, and that Deputy Chief concluded from looking at that, as I do, that that building was coming down for sure. You can’t have a building with a sway like that in one corner that doesn’t have serious structural damage inside it.
The disappearing financial evidence was certainly evidence of a strong motivation. However, with that bulge in there, I can’t imagine anyone going in the building to set demolition charges. And with a 200-foot hole in the south face, with debris falling out of it, and fires burning inside of it, I also can’t imagine anybody’s preset demolition charges not being disturbed. So I think it’s pretty much conclusive; although it’s not, as you say, cut and dried, either way.
The NIST report seems to have a lot of hand-waving in it. I wouldn’t trust their conclusions, if they drew any; but I’ll also point out that they don’t draw conclusions. They state that none of the theories of the collapse seem to have full substantiating evidence; in other words, the only thing to pay attention to is the evidence they have gathered. I trust that evidence where it is substantiated by third parties; and by and large, it is. I also concentrated on their discussion of 7 and ignored a great deal of what they said about 1 and 2; I was already convinced I knew what had happened to 1 and 2, and they didn’t bring anything I hadn’t already seen elsewhere to light with regard to them. So if you want to call second-sourcing everything they said, and believing that the pictures they showed were real, “trusting” them, fine; I wouldn’t exactly call it that, but you’re free to think whatever you like.
I’m not sure what the CIA part had to do with it; and I’m also not sure why the CIA wouldn’t have picked up whatever secret documents they had on hand had they known the building was mined. I consider it a pretty strong piece of evidence that they didn’t take anything with them; they had no reason to believe that the building was going to fall down.
I’m pretty sure the new data has nothing that we haven’t already seen. I don’t think there’s any question: all three buildings were damaged by impacts, 1 and 2 by aircraft and 7 by debris and column sections from 1 and 2, all three had major fires afterwards, all three fell down on their own without any help. That isn’t where the crime was, and looking at it distracts from the real criminal activity: gee, I wonder why no planes were shot down? Isn’t that interesting? NO! THE BUILDINGS WERE DEMOLISHED! IT WAS A PLOT! PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!

R78866
5 years ago
Strangegloved

The 9/11 Myth
The official myth of the 9/11/01 attack was rolled out on the day of the attack. Its major elements are:
Sleeper cells of Islamic terrorist directed by Osama bin Laden hijack four jetliners using only primitive weapons (boxcutters).
The hijackers fly two of the planes into the Twin Towers.
The hijackers fly the third plane into the Pentagon, later causing part of the building to collapse.
Passengers on the fourth plane attack the hijackers, causing the plane to crash in Pennsylvania.
The towers, weakened by fires, collapse.
There is no public evidence to prove any of these claims. The contents of the jetliners’ black boxes have never been made public. Records of the alleged calls from the planes have never been produced. Interviews with air traffic controllers have been destroyed. The steel from the collapsed World Trade Center buildings was rapidly recycled without forensic examination. The blueprints for those buildings have remained off-limits to the public. The FBI, by its own admission, has failed to turn up “a single piece of paper” linking the alleged hijackers to the plot.
Memetic Engineering
Dissecting the official myth reveals a set of two memes:
Islamic militants hijack jetliners with simple weapons.
Jumbojet crashes cause buildings to collapse.
These memes function primarily on a subconscious level. They are reinforced through repetition, and bypass rational argument.
Memes spread through reinforcement. The first meme is reinforced by the repeated success of the alleged teams of hijackers in taking over the flights. The second meme is reinforced by the collapses of both of the towers hit by jetliners, and the collapse of a portion of the Pentagon above the crash zone. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, but its collapse aids the second meme by making steel buildings seem prone to collapse. Repetition of unlikely events is even more unlikely in fact, but is favorable for the meme.
Memes can succeed in spite of the absence of precedent, and of contradictions to easily demonstrated facts. The fact that no steel high-rise has ever collapsed from fires, and the fact that no steel building has ever collapsed in a top-down manner, did not stand in the way of the second meme.
article

R78869
5 years ago
whateveryousay

Strangegloved,
i posted that article on page 12, here
rasp,
that first ‘south-face’ picture i posted here on page 8. that was in, like, march.
nark, also on that page, posted this for some reason.

briefcaseman pointed to pictures like this and this as evidence earthquake damage


i bring that up because of schneib’s comments about all the great new “progressive collapse” software and collage courses and then he talked about earthquake damage.
if we’re trying to post new information here to discuss then it might be better to read or at least skim the thread from the beginning… you know, to see which parts have been covered.

R78871
5 years ago
JustLurking

please… stop
my eyes are bleeding

R78872
5 years ago
Shogo

ahh youre finally admitting that blah blah blah blah drivel blah dumb stuff blah idiocy blah blah?
Stupid cunt.

R78873
5 years ago
Shogo

You see what I mean Schneib? There’s literally no point in discussing anything involving science. The uneducated tools that frequent this site lack sufficient knowledge to differentiate between shit and Shinola – let alone to discern plausible theory from lunatic-fringe stupidity.

R78874
5 years ago
shoogoo

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!

R78875
5 years ago
whateveryousay

That first picture is the same picture used in the NIST report; and it doesn’t show the south face of the building. It shows the west face, not the south face; and the south face is also obscured by smoke in the second picture. Think about it: if the second picture shows the southwest corner, and south is toward you- then it would have to be the south*east* corner, not the south*west* corner . We also have multiple testimony that the southwest corner was damaged, but only below the tenth floor. If you are looking at the south face, then you are looking north; and east is right and west is left. But if you’re looking at the west face, then south is right and north is left, and you’re looking east.
you could just look at the caption on the picture that says “SW corner damage”... and the arrow which points to the southwest corner.
here’s a view of the south wall (on the right)

this is a picture of the south face (left) of building 7 (background)

no sign of fire on the south face. not detailed enough to see damage and it’s in shadow. blowing it up i can see 2 somethings that could be a hole, 4 or 5 floors high, but it’s not clear enough of a picture to tell for sure.

R78877
5 years ago
whateveryousay

here’s a view of the south wall (on the right)
oh crap, maybe that’s the north face on the right.
other one is forsure southface

R78881
5 years ago
Strangegloved

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!
Please don’t leave me Schneib, you and me are the only ones who know anything!
Love,
Smomo

R78883
5 years ago
whateveryousay

Deutsche Bank building stayed standing

this is most likely because it was a lucky building which didn’t have a 13th floor.
it was closer to the towers than wtc7 and stood at 40 or so floors high
it’s also referred to as the “banker’s trust” building
number 20 on the map

R78890
5 years ago
whateveryousay


R78894
5 years ago
Schneibster

Gee, whatever, that’s an awfully funny picture of the south face- with the sun up and shining on September the 11th and no sun on it. How do you suppose the conspirators managed to move the sun to the north?

R78905
5 years ago
whateveryousay

Gee, whatever, that’s an awfully funny picture of the south face- with the sun up and shining on September the 11th and no sun on it. How do you suppose the conspirators managed to move the sun to the north?
i don’t think they moved the sun to the north.
i think they somehow got a giant wall of dust and smoke and hung it in the air to cause a big shadow.
sort of like this:


sun reflects well off the east side (which is angled south also) pretty well so i’d say it’s still morning when the shot in question was taken.
Post Modified: 08/26/05 16:08:33

R78912
5 years ago
228

So much for Dr. Science over there…

R78923
5 years ago
Rasputin

rasp,
that first ‘south-face’ picture i posted here on page 8.
Oops, according to some dude on another forum it was “newly released”. Guess you can’t trust everything you read!;)
*By the way, I got turned around and thought that was the south*east* corner in a post above; sorry about that.*
oh crap, maybe that’s the north face on the right.
Apparently we all ask our wives for directions when we’re in the car. Anyone here have photoshop? We need to get those pics labeled with their proper cardinal points, so as not to confuse us rubes.

R78930
5 years ago
Schneibster

Oh, so the sun shining on the other side, that’s what, the EXTRA SUN the conspirators put up there?

R78936
5 years ago
Schneibster

Look at the sunlight, R. The Sun is to the south in the Northern Hemisphere in September, and last time I checked it rises in the east and sets in the west. Most of the pictures you see were taken in the afternoon, at which time the sun would be southwest, moving west. So the sun shone on the south face, and the west face.
If you look at the first of those two shots whatever put up, you can see the clear blue sky being reflected in all the windows of the north side, and the Sun being reflected off the building next door on the east side; the north face is on the right, and the east face is in the middle. You can also see the Sun backlighting the clouds of smoke issuing from the hole in the south side of the building, which we still have not seen a picture of. NIST couldn’t find one either, and concluded there were none. I still have yet to see one.
In its second shot, the shadowed north face is toward the center, and the west face is to the right. The Sun was over the right shoulder of the photographer, which is a standard direction to shoot a picture. Look at the shadows of the meter scooter in the foreground; you’ll have no question where the Sun was. Now look at the building, which had its long direction east-west, and remember the Sun stays south in the Northern Hemisphere, and tell me what face you’re looking at. For the directionally challenged, if the Sun is over the cameraperson’s right shoulder, and it’s afternoon in the Northern Hemisphere, that has to be the north face; the south face will be in sunlight all day, and the north face will be in shadow all day. There’s plenty of sunlight; it’s illuminating the west face of the building.
Now look at your shots again. The north face is the one in shadow. There’s no way the sun ever shone on that face; and it’s a wide face, as you can tell because there’re only 14 or 15 windows across the face that’s lit; that lit face has to be either the east or west face, because it doesn’t have enough windows otherwise; and the north face has to be in shadow, so that means that the narrow face on the right of that first shot has to be the west face. This is further confirmed by the pattern of light spots in the windows (I think they’re curtains, but in any case, they’re lighter than the surrounding window) comparing your first and second shots; and look at the smoke patterns, they’re identical too. And there’s the gash in the corner, in both shots. You can’t see all of it in the second one, but you can see the top of it, and you can see the bulges in the corner of the building, which you can’t see in the first shot because they’re outside the frame.
In your second shot, we have that same damaged corner, the southwest corner, from multiple different statements; yet another confirmation that the dark face on the left in your first shot must be either the east or north face; again, remember that the window count in the lit-up face is only 14 or 15, so that has to be the east or west side; and that means it absolutely has to be the west side, because of the damage to the corner, and that means the dark side absolutely has to be the north side. And again, in that second shot, we’re looking straight at the west side- and nothing of the south side is visible, it’s all blocked by smoke.
Your third shot is taken from the north, looking south at the north face. The Sun is low on the right, lighting up one building near the center of the shot, on the left in the mid-ground, and lighting it from the right. That means west is right, it’s 5PM and the Sun is in the western sky (it sets in the west last time I checked); 5PM is when the building went down.
Your fourth shot is very similar to whatever’s second shot; it shows the east and north faces of the building. The east face in both shots has a fire burning on about the tenth or eleventh floor. Neither corner is damaged, so that has to be the east face; the southwest corner is thrashed, we have that from literally twenty different accounts by eyewitnesses and captions to multiple pictures from multiple sources. Now, if east is to the left, what direction is behind you? Gee, that’s north, isn’t it? At least on Earth it is.
I once again state categorically that I have not yet seen a picture of the south face of that building after the collapse of 1 WTC.

R78938
5 years ago
Strangegloved

Does anybody know what this cat is talking about?

R78946
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Man, I can’t understand what all this vehemence is about. Going into this discusssion, I hadn’t really thought much about explosives, so my mind was open but very skeptical of “official versions” for obvious reasons. I have been convinced that there is a scientific, somewhat implausible but yet possible, explanation for the 3 buildings falling down (though what about the elevator shaft thing?). I am also still extremely skeptical of “official versions” and the possibility that the collapses were insured with a little help is no more implausible than the scientific versions. Both versions are possible and which you consider more likely has more to do with your worldview than any evidence that’s been made available to us.
I have a theory: the older you are (if you’re a “leftist”), the more likely you are to suspect foul play at every corner. According to that, whateveryousay, myself, and strangeglove are the oldest, and Shogo is, of course, totally wet behind the ears. Fess up everybody, am I right? I’m 57.

R78947
5 years ago
Rasputin

Ok I gotcha. You’re right, looking at the pic there aren’t enough windows for it to be the south face; I’ll edit the original post. Would you say that that pic represents the height of the hole, if not the width? It’s 18 stories high, which gels with the report of “about 20”.

R78948
5 years ago
Chickenma1

The above doesn’t count if you’re a foreigner (Butt, etc.)

R78953
5 years ago
Rasputin

What am I chopped liver? ;)

R78956
5 years ago
Schneibster

Hmmm, I get only about ten stories, twelve max. I get that from counting on the Verizon building in your second shot and making allowance for the setback of the south face from the face of the Verizon building. I can’t get more than eight from the first one, but it also doesn’t show the ground, so I’m discounting it. From the eyewitness description of the bulge, and the appearance of the second photograph, it’s apparent that he was talking about the bulge immediately above the damage on the corner, not the part that is pushed back above that or the bulge yet higher up, around the fifteenth floor or so. And looked at in the second picture directly, it’s obvious it can’t be anywhere near even 15 stories high. Finally, two different pieces of eyewitness testimony state that the damage to the corner was separate from the damage to the south face; they are not the same.
I don’t think we’ve ever seen pictures of the south face; I don’t think anyone took any. I don’t think that anyone was going to venture into the no-mans-land between 7 and the remains of 1; 6 had a huge hole punched pretty much all the way down through it by falling debris from 1, and they eventually wound up demolishing it. I’m guessing several of those perimeter column segments wound up hitting 7, and the damage was far more severe than the other three sides of the building would lead you to believe. I look at whatever’s picture of the Deutche building, and think about what would have happened to 7 had something like that happened to it. 7 was not a straight-up standard steel frame building; it had weird architecture, this kind of- well, BOX- in the middle from like the fifth to seventh floor, with columns holding it up, going perhaps 2/3 of the way across and 2/3 of the way front to back; then at the seventh floor, it had cantilevered beams to hold the rest of the building up. If some of those perimeter column sections got into the area of that cantilevered stuff… I don’t think the results would be very good. And the buckling of the corner says that they most likely did- remember, the damage below makes the corner unstable, but for it to push in or out, the stuff inside the building has to shift.

R78958
5 years ago
Schneibster

Hee hee, I suspect you’re in for some surprises, ma; I know for sure you are in one case. 42. No, I’m not the case.

R78974
5 years ago
Rasputin

Hmmm, I get only about ten stories, twelve max.
Are you joking? Post the pic in your address window maybe; there are at least 16 on the facade and if you look on the left where the north face is visible you can count several more.
Are you suggesting that there were two “20-story” holes in the building, one of which the firemen failed to notice?

R78983
5 years ago
Schneibster

No, I’m suggesting based on two pieces of testimony that there was a ten-story hole in the southwest corner, and a twenty-story hole in the south face. And that they’re separate things, not the same like you’re trying to make out.

R78998
5 years ago
Rasputin

Ok, so the hole ended exactly at the point where the crest of the other building obscured visual; it’s not a mere “ten stories”, mind you, but ok. I’m not trying to be combative here, I’m trying to find out what the theory is. So there were two “massive holes”, one of which was twenty stories and the other of which was 10-15 stories and occurred on the periphery. Correct?

R79022
5 years ago
Wedge

the fbi had thier hands all over the 93 bombing/fire of WTC
I figure this time if those same people are working to pulloff an inside job on 911 this time they can’t fail to bring the buildings down…thus the reason for the use of explosives.
I origonally bought the natural collapse theory without question ..but there have been too many reputable people who know better than I would arguing this shit. and the numerous reports from witnesses and firefighters of explosives going off …. eventually you start taking a closer look at it all.

R79023
5 years ago
Schneibster

Rasputin, plain and simple, nobody knows why it fell down; but what the people who were standing right there watching it do know is, nobody used demolition charges on it. And we know there were two pieces of impact damage- and that at least one of those pieces of damage had disturbed the floor where the cantilevers were anchored, because not only do we have testimony of it, but we have a picture that shows it clearly. And one of those pieces of damage was to a corner, surely you can see why corners would be crucial to the stability of a building, and the other is described as a “huge 20-story hole with fires burning inside and debris falling out.”
I don’t really need to know any more than that; and considering there don’t appear to be any pictures of the south face of 7 after 1 came down, I seriously doubt anyone ever will. But I think it’s also clear that “it fell down because there was a fire in it” is now obvious bullshit; it fell down because first it got smacked around by multiple 23-ton pieces of steel going a couple hundred feet per second, and then there was a fire in it.
So the statement that “no steel-framed building has ever fallen down from a fire” is still true; none of the three that supposedly did on 9/11, according to the “demolition” theorists, actually were free from severe impact damage that happened before or at the same time as the fire was started. And that’s not theory; it’s now proven fact.
When we thought we were dealing with a building that was essentially whole, with all that wonderful motive hanging about, I was pretty sure that we were looking at a demolition myself. But now that it’s clear that there was not just damage, but severe damage, as a result of 1 coming down, I just don’t buy it.
And as I have repeatedly pointed out, I think it’s a smokescreen in the first place; PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN, TEH GUMMINT BLEW UP TEH WORLD TRADE CENTER WITH NUCULAR WEAPONS, I TELLS YA! Bullshit. We got other fish to fry.

R79024
5 years ago
Shogo

Does anybody know what this cat is talking about?
Yep. And if you weren’t such a tool, you probably would as well.

R79027
5 years ago
Schneibster

By the way, what are you going to say after Penn and Teller put this on “Bullshit!” next year?

R79028
5 years ago
Shogo

Shogo is, of course, totally wet behind the ears. Fess up everybody, am I right?
Nope. Not even close.
And your deference to a stupid cunt like Butt doesn’t say much for you.

R79030
5 years ago
Shogo

By the way, what are you going to say after Penn and Teller put this on “Bullshit!” next year?
I thought they already covered this topic?
I don’t have HBO, but I am very curious to see the program. I’ve read some great things about it. They’re a couple of pretty sharp guys.

R79032
5 years ago
Schneibster

Well, they did mass extinction just lately- which pissed me off. I wrote them about it. Haven’t heard back- they must get a lot of hate mail. I was polite, so I might hear.
But their other ones were pretty good. They are, as usual, a riot.
And you can just imagine him up there going, “Bullllllll shit!” Just about hear his voice, can’cha? :D

R79036
5 years ago
whateveryousay

In its second shot, the shadowed north face is toward the center, and the west face is to the right.
i said i was wrong about the first pic (well i said maybe, but it’s the north and east faces)
and now, once again, the second picture

the second picture is the south face and east face of building 7. in the middle left of the picture is wtc 6, the left of the pic is the remains of tower 1, the building in the front right is 5 world trade.
now look at the map and tell me where the picture was taken from.
it’s a fair estimation that the picture was taken before or around noon… but it could be earlier. there’s not too much to go on from the foreground shadows, and if you’ve ever been to a big city you’ll know that lots of extra light can reflect off of them reflective skyscraper windows: 1 Liberty Plaza, East River Savings Bank, and Millennium Hilton could be reflecting lots of sun into the foreground.
the south face is in shadow because of the gigantic cloud of dust and smoke! some of which you can actually see in the left of the picture.
any more questions on that?
this is what building 6 looks like:
!http://www.conservationtech.com/MAIN-TOPICS/5-NYC-World-Trade/RL-WTC%20Photos/PANORAMAS/WEB-(6)-85-6-PANO.jpg!:http://www.conservationtech.com/MAIN-TOPICS/5-NYC-World-Trade/RL-WTC%20Photos/PANORAMAS/WEB-(6)-85-6-PANO.jpg!

Post Modified: 08/26/05 22:42:34

R79038
5 years ago
Shogo

Again, the problem is that without certain basic knowledge to operate from, the conspiracy nutters drivel might seem like it makes sense. This is how the Bush admin creates doubt in the public about global warming, or how ID proponents bamboozle the inexperienced.
Most people are scientifically illiterate. This makes them highly susceptible to being duped by those who are slightly less illiterate than they are.
When you go talking about the kinetic forces created from heavy objects moving at high speed, it just goes in one ear and out the other. I don’t know if you’ve ever tried having a logic-based debate with a devout Christian, but it’s about the same as what is happening on this thread.

R79041
5 years ago
Schneibster

Dude, the Sun is behind the cameraperson, because it is a competent photograph and the merest rube KNOWS you can’t shoot into the Sun. Not only that, but the wide side of the building is the north face and the south face- and the Sun is GUARANTEED to be in the south. DUH, THAT MEANS THAT THE DARK WIDE FACE HAS TO BE THE NORTH FACE BECAUSE THE SUN WILL SHINE ON THE SOUTH FACE ALL FUCKING DAY!
Were you born this stupid, or did you have to practice???
Post Modified: 08/26/05 22:43:42

R79047
5 years ago
whateveryousay

Dude, the Sun is behind the cameraperson, because it is a competent photograph and the merest rube KNOWS you can’t shoot into the Sun. Not only that, but the wide side of the building is the north face and the south face- and the Sun is GUARANTEED to be in the south.
heh.
well you CAN shoot into the sun if you spot-meter the subject and let the back over-expose. some cameras even come with a built-in ‘back-light’ exposure feature. but that’s so totally besides the point.
let me see if i can explain this…
now is the sun is in the south, yes. now if the sun is behind the photographer, the photographer is facing… _______
north! that’s right. now if you’re looking due north at 7 world-trade, which side of the building can you see?
maybe a hint will help. if the photographer is taking a picture of you, and you’re looking into the camera, and the camera is pointed north ...
which direction are you facing?
(if you say north again then i’m not sure i can help you)

R79053
5 years ago
whateveryousay

it’s a fair estimation that the picture was taken before or around noon… but it could be earlier. —me
and i should add that it could also be later in the afternoon to that sentence.
like if the south-western afternoon sun was somehow reflected onto the east face of wtc 7. maybe a bit far-fetched though…
you’d need something like a giant 59 floor mirror to pull that off

thats number 11 on the map
but i don’t think it’s necessarily that. i’ll stick with guessing the picture is from around noon.
there’s no question about where the picture was taken from though.

open click this arial shot… start at the bottom right by 1 liberty plaza. move up till you get to the 3rd building with red stuff on its façade (hilton) ... now from the base of the hilton (bottom corner of the front of the building, go straight across left until you get to the yellow line. that’s about where the picture in question was taken from, in fact the yellow line (i guess it’s a crane) points in about the direction the lens was facing.

R79055
5 years ago
whateveryousay

oh yeah, here’s the map legend:
http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/wtc_map.htm
for this

R79061
5 years ago
Shogo

Actually, if you look at the map shown with the proper orientation ( like so ) you’ll see that the shorter long side (in other words the side facing the two towers) of building 7 is actually facing the southwest, not the south specifically.

R79067
5 years ago
JustLurking


my eyes ! my eyes !... I can’t take it. This thread, it’s killing me !

R79092
5 years ago
Butt

Blo-Jo
it’s unclear whether or not you are finally admitting that Schnieb, you, and your bum-buddies at Popular Dianetics are putting forward an hypothesis?
could you clear that up for a stupid cunt??
I’m confussled

R79101
5 years ago
Schneibster

I give up. Anybody who can’t figure out that the Sun is going to shine on the south face of a building all day at 40 degrees north latitude in September, and that the very map they’re posting shows that the long sides are the north and south sides, and that the picture they’re looking at shows a dark long side, is beyond help. This is precisely what I mean when I say you can’t look at a picture and see what’s in front of your face because of your preconceived notions.

R79103
5 years ago
whateveryousay

4 world trade and 6 world trade look really alike. and the shot is from a bit further south than i initially thought. but now i can conclude that the shot was taken from 1 liberty plaza (more accurately the corner of church and cortland)
the left centre foreground building is wtc4, the right foreground is wtc5, the far left is tower 2 (south tower), most likely upper sections of the building which fell onto wtc4.
view from the north of the south tower top falling over.

R79107
5 years ago
whateveryousay

here’s the photo again with the buildings marked

you can place the photographer by lining up the building corners.

R79111
5 years ago
whateveryousay

shadow angle and time:

11:54 sept 15, 2001 click for link to high-rez

i’ll stick to my approx. noon theory for now.

R79126
5 years ago
whateveryousay

actually, i better hang onto these quotes ‘cause they’re just too rich:
Dude, the Sun is behind the cameraperson, because it is a competent photograph and the merest rube KNOWS you can’t shoot into the Sun. Not only that, but the wide side of the building is the north face and the south face- and the Sun is GUARANTEED to be in the south. DUH, THAT MEANS THAT THE DARK WIDE FACE HAS TO BE THE NORTH FACE BECAUSE THE SUN WILL SHINE ON THE SOUTH FACE ALL FUCKING DAY! —Schneibster
maybe your special number math can show how you face south and still have the sun behind you. too funny.
I give up. Anybody who can’t figure out that the Sun is going to shine on the south face of a building all day at 40 degrees north latitude in September, and that the very map they’re posting shows that the long sides are the north and south sides, and that the picture they’re looking at shows a dark long side, is beyond help. This is precisely what I mean when I say you can’t look at a picture and see what’s in front of your face because of your preconceived notions.
it seems you defend your ‘position’ on that photo in such an irrational way because your entire hypothesis relies on having no documentary evidence of the southface damage of wtc7.

R79133
5 years ago
Shogo

whether or not you are finally admitting that Schnieb, you, and your bum-buddies at Popular Dianetics are putting forward an hypothesis
Let me help you out, stupid cunt.
Let’s pay a visit to our friend, Mr. Dictionary.
hypothesis |h??pä??sis| noun ( pl. ses |?s?z|) a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation
OK, so now that we’re clear on what hypothesis means, let’s look at the two sides of this debate.
One side, (I’ll call it the reality and logic-based side) says, “Hm, two really fucking heavy, fuel-laden planes smashed into the WTC, and then the towers collapsed. Then WTC7 collapsed. I’ll hypothesize that the planes smashing into the towers caused them to collapse, and the debirs from that collapse along with long-burning fires in WTC7 caused it to collapse. Let’s check out the supporting evidence.”
Then the fact that the planes were really fucking heavy, and flying at high speed, is taken into account. You do the math and see that an amount of force far greater than the building was designed to survive impacted it. You see that the amount of burning fuel spread across the floors caused a much hotter fire than the building was designed for. You see that the WTC7, as reported by people on the scene, sustained a lot of physical damage, and that a key support element was deforming. All of this evidence supports the initial hypothesis.
A hypothesis with evidentiary support is no longer a hypothesis. At that point one can consider the hypothesis proven, given the quantity of evidence that supports the hypothesis.
Meanwhile, on the other side (your side, which I’ll label the sub-moronic ignoramus side) the hypothesis is put forward that the collapses were caused by bombs, and/or missiles, and/or sekrit fuelpods, and/or sekrit demolitions. When looking for evidence to support this hypothesis, we find….nothing! No evidence of demolitions. No evidence of missiles. No evidence of ANY of these claims. No – instead of evidence, innuendo is subsitituted. Hand-waving is substituted. The inevitable claims of a shadowy “they” are made; “they” did away with the evidence, “they” have sekrit magic technology; blah blah blah.
One position is supported by what people saw with their own eyes (planes smashing into the buildings), math (the force generated by the planes), and physics. The other position is supported by “you just believe anything the government says!” accusations.
It’s not hard to discern which position should still be considered a hypothesis (a conclusion made based on limited evidence), and which should be considered proven. Unless of course, you’re a stupid cunt. In which case it might just be best to log-in as shoogoo and post some more “Waaaah!“s.

R79140
5 years ago
cortez


R79142
5 years ago
cortez


R79145
5 years ago
cortez


R79175
5 years ago
whateveryousay

You see that the WTC7, as reported by people on the scene, sustained a lot of physical damage, and that a key support element was deforming. All of this evidence supports the initial hypothesis. —shogo
well, you’ve got 4 testimonies from butch, visconti, hyden, and chris boyle, all from only 1 publication, firehouse magazine, about damage to building seven.
so yeah, that’s evidence.
but i’m showing a lot of reports of the twin towers, of an explosion, and then the tower starts falling, and there’s a lot more which i haven’t posted yet.
that’s evidence for the “sub-moronic” side as you call it.
from what i’ve read about 7…
they knew it was going to come down, so an hour and a half before it did come down, they created a ‘collapse zone’ around it a tried to make sure no one went near it.
for eg.
“the only guy that really stands
out in my mind that I remember being on the radio was
Chief Visconti. I remember him talking and giving
directions and this and that. But this is as the day
was going on and, of course, there were so many
transmissions going over. I remember him screaming
about 7, No. 7, that they wanted everybody away from 7
because 7 was was definitely going to collapse, they
don’t know when, but it’s definitely going to come
down, just get the hell out of the way, everybody get
away from it, make sure you’re away from it, that’s an
order, you know, stuff like that.” —FIREFIGHTER EDWARD KENNEDY
Interview Date: January 17, 2002

R79176
5 years ago
cortez


Next page


R79177
5 years ago
whateveryousay

welcome to page 14

R79180
5 years ago
whateveryousay

hey… while you wait for certain people to admit that they is wrong.
as a curiosity,
why not listen to the reports of “one of those remote control planes filled with explosives” on one of the dispatch recordings.
http://www.nbvfd3.org/audio/wtc10.mp3
it’s not that long a tape, 7 minutes or so.
the
“remote control planes with explosives” comment is at, like 3 minutes in.
(turns out in the end to be a van with a mural of one of those, you know, remote control plane, crashing into newyork and exploding. story is, van explodes, 2 guys run for it and get caught)
Post Modified: 08/27/05 23:51:24

R79183
5 years ago
cortez

Some more video clips
——
Rick Sanchez of MSNBC

Quote:“Police have found what they believe to be a suspicious device and they fear that it may lead to another explosion…I spoke with some police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me they have reason to believe that one of the explosion at the besides the ones made with the planes, may have been caused by a van that was parked on the building that may have had an explosive device in it.” Rick Sanchez clip
—-
some more clips similar theme
—-
NBC reporter Pat Dawson

——- Video clip of Pat Dawson reporting on the comments made by Albert Turi, for the New York City Fire Department, claiming there were bombs planted in the WTC
Video
———-
Construction worker Phillip Morelli describes being thrown to the ground by two explosions while in the fourth subbasement of the North Tower.
Video
—————
Jack Kelley
———-
Jeffrey Beatty
—————-
from http://www.terrorize.dk
and many more on this forum thread
Post Modified: 08/28/05 00:02:09

R79184
5 years ago
whateveryousay

the exploding van with the mural is reported to have been here
Turi’s recently release story doesn’t mention bombs:
-==-=-=-=====-=-=-==-=-=-=-=—=-=-=-=
Then Steve Mosiello, Chief GanciÌs executive
assistant, came over to the command post and he said weÌre
getting reports from OEM that the buildings are not
structurally sound, and of course that got our attention
really quick, and Pete said, well, who are we getting these
reports from? And then Steve brought an EMT person over to
the command post who was I think sent as a runner to tell us
this and Chief Ganci questioned him, where are we gettino
these reports? And his answer was something, you know, we re
not sure, OEM is just reporting this.
And within ten seconds of that
conversation, I was writing on my clipboard — can I use foul
language on this?
C. Absolutely. That conversation, by the way, took
place in the ramp driveway leading into the garaoe?
A. That is correct; right at the ramp. The ramp was
still on the exterici . We were not in the garage. Maybe 20
feet from the opening of the garage.
The next thing I heard was Pete say what the
fuck is this? And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I
was looking at the south tower,
somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there
was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a
ring right around the building blew out. i later realized
that the building had started to collapse already and this
was the ai:r being compressed and that is the floor that
let go. And as my eyes traveled further up the building, I
realized that this building was collapsing and I turned
around and most everybody was ahead of me running for the
garage, and I remember thinking I looked at this thing a
little bit too long and I might not make this garage. But I
dio.
And I got about 20 feet down the ramp into the
garage, IÌm going to estimate 15 to 20 feet, when all the
dust from debris blew into tne garage like it was a
hurricane force wind and I ducked into some small alcove.
Most of the remainder of the people were in the garage
deeper than I was because I was still on the ramp. I could
feel the incline. And you could hear heavy objects falling
outside and 2 said to myse~:, well, if this building
doesn’t
collapse around me, weÌll probably survive this. Then the
dust got so thick and it became so black au one ctme I
thought, wow, 33 years under some terrible
conditions and IÌm going to smother in dust and die. I
didnÌt like that thought.
—Deputy Assistant Chief of Safety Albert Turi
-=-=—=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-

R79216
5 years ago
Strangegloved

Smomo said
One side, (I’ll call it the reality and logic-based side) says, “Hm, two really fucking heavy, fuel-laden planes smashed into the WTC, and then the towers collapsed. Then WTC7 collapsed. I’ll hypothesize that the planes smashing into the towers caused them to collapse, and the debirs from that collapse along with long-burning fires in WTC7 caused it to collapse.
YES. WE KNOW.
WHAT DID SUITCASEMAN CALL IT?
The Magic Planes Theory
Ha Ha Ha Ha
I guess it is because the planes were fucking heavy!
Post Modified: 08/28/05 09:10:29

R79221
5 years ago
Shogo

You’re such a tool, dude. Seriously.

R79223
5 years ago
Shogo

while you wait for certain people to admit that they is wrong
Why not start a trend?

R79230
5 years ago
Butt

I see a religious devotion

R79240
5 years ago
whateveryousay

Why not start a trend? —shogo
yeah, well, i tried:
by admitting i got the angle of my first photo wrong.
and though the angle of the second photo i posted was correct, i initially placed it a bit closer than it actually was. these just happen to be details that we should be interested in agreeing on.
i find it interesting, shogo, that you don’t call out schneib’s obvious error on the photo.
you know he’s wrong so the pally thing to do is tell him.
one wonders if, in the end of all things, if you are actually interested in things like facts and truth, or if you are merely interested in ‘winning’.
and seriously, it’s not like i’m asking you to be like hulk hogan and change sides or something.

R79280
5 years ago
Shogo

schneibs obvious error on the photo.
I’m yet to be persuaded.

R79282
5 years ago
Wombat

One side, (I’ll call it the reality and logic-based side) says, “Hm, two really fucking heavy, fuel-laden planes smashed into the WTC, and then the towers collapsed. Then WTC7 collapsed. I’ll hypothesize that the planes smashing into the towers caused them to collapse, and the debirs from that collapse along with long-burning fires in WTC7 caused it to collapse.
Well they had to smash two really heavy fuel ladded planes planes into them didnt they. If they just collapsed all on their own even brain dead single celled organisms like you would see there was something fishy about it. As it is they have given you a thread to hang on to, it must have been the planes and the non existent raging fires that trained firefighters couldnt find, so you dont have to open your eyes to the reality of the world, and you are hanging on with white knuckle ferocity arent you.
How anyone can look into the collapse of the three WTC buildings and still believe in the hijacked plane causing the collapse crap is beyond me. Self delusion to protect your image of the world must be a lot stronger is some people I guess.
The biggest question I have, and I dont know if its been asked already cause I dont really want to read 13 pages, is what happened to the 47 steel reinforced concrete columns in the centre of each building that reached from the basement to the top of the tower, yes 47 fucking great columns right up the middle. Did they “pancake” as well because Im bloody sure I never seen them sticking a hundred feet in the air from the centre of the rubble, which is exactly where they would have been if the floors had “pancaked” down the outside of them. Or maybe the plane hit them so hard that they just completely atomised, like the plane that hit the Pentagon did. Or maybe, just maybe, they were blown into dust by explosives and that is how the floors, with nothing remaining to support them “pancaked” to the ground in 10 seconds flat.

R79286
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Hey, what about the elevator shaft thing?

R79291
5 years ago
Shogo

non existent raging fires
Non-existent fires, eh?

That’s just the smallest image I could find. Try going to google images and searching for “burning wtc”.
Then maybe you could work on your spelling. Given the poor quality of your writing – the lack of organization, grammar, and spelling – it’s unsurprising that the quality of your logic is equally poor.
Tool.

R79298
5 years ago
zark

yeah chickenma1;
the elevator shafts are separate blocks down the building yet there is a person who was burned by an explosion that came out of the shaft, the shaft in the basement.
cortez that audio of the van with a picture of a remote control plane flying into newyork is a bit fucked up – to say the least

R79305
5 years ago
whateveryousay

cortez that audio of the van with a picture of a remote control plane flying into newyork is a bit fucked up – to say the least
cortez? he posted video.
shogo is yet to be convinced about the picture… surly must be taking the piss.
the only way to take a picture with wtc4 in the foreground and wtc7 in the background is to be shooting the south face of 7.
to say it’s the north face in the picture?
back it up, kindly identify the buildings in the foreground…
yes it was a sunny day in manhattan, but it did get dark for a spell. ‘nuclear winter’ it was described as.

R79306
5 years ago
whateveryousay

here’s a hint:
click

R79307
5 years ago
Chickenma1

It is ultimately irrelevent whether it’s the south face because the side facing in toward the towers would be the one damaged by debris – not the side facing away. Whatever, this is clearly a pic of the south side (or side that’s supposed to be damaged) and no damage appears. Of course it may be lower down, but judging from the other buildings in the picture, the blast from the towers collapse didn’t head in that direction. It would have had to be a very large piece that lobbed over the top of building 5, which is not like anything we have seen in pictures where everything is pretty well pulverized and the bigger pieces are falling pretty much straight down. BTW, these eye-witness accounts of bldg 7 damage are new (to me), what we heard before was FEMA’s description of minimal damage as the picture shows.

R79317
5 years ago
zark

opps sorry whateveryousay

R79338
5 years ago
whateveryousay

this is the diagram of damage from the fema report.

Figure 1-7 Schematic depiction of areas of collapse debris impact, based on aerial photographs and documented damage. Striped areas indicate predominant locations of exterior steel columns. Inner circles indicate approximate radius of exterior steel columns and other heavy debris. Outer circles indicate approximate radius of aluminum cladding and other lighter debris. Heavy Xs show where exterior steel columns were found outside the predominate debris areas.
looks like wtc7.net forgot to pay their domain-host or somethang
Post Modified: 08/29/05 08:41:12

R79359
5 years ago
Shogo

whatever, you surely must be smoking crack. Based on your diagram of the complex, there’d be no way for WTC2 to be visible. Yet in the photograph, with the buildings labeled, WTC2 is clearly in the foreground – even though according to the map with the arrows drawn, it shouldn’t even be visible.

R79366
5 years ago
whateveryousay

whatever, you surely must be smoking crack. Based on your diagram of the complex, there’d be no way for WTC2 to be visible. Yet in the photograph, with the buildings labeled, WTC2 is clearly in the foreground – even though according to the map with the arrows drawn, it shouldn’t even be visible. —shogo
now you really are taking the piss. but i’ll play along for the low-iq crowd.
the tower 2 cameo appearance in the photo was thanks to the fact significant portions of tower 2 (which you should try to remember was destroyed) fell onto wtc4.
here’s a picture of wtc4 after the clean-up began

quite obviously the same building, and notice the sections of tower 2.
and of course the arrows of the diagram are only to line up the edges of wtc7 with foreground features (corners of 4 and 5 world-trade) so as to approximate the location of the camera. i don’t know the field of view of the lens used and shit. the same picture, pre-attack, would have had tower 1 visible and maybe a little bit of the corner of tower 2 would have been visible, but probably not.
WTC2 is clearly in the foreground -shogo
so i take it that’s a positive i.d. from shogo?
if only we had these guys on the case:


R79381
5 years ago
Wombat

Shogo – Non-existent fires, eh?
Look at the colour of the smoke. See it, that big black thing its hard to miss. Do you know why the smoke is black. Any takers. Anyone at all. You at the back of the room. Yes thats right. Its black because they are small smouldering fires, probably office furniture and fittings. If they were raging 2,000d infernoes that could melt steel the smoke would be white, yes white, you know white its the opposite to black. Take another look. See any white smoke. No. So fuck off you moron.
Post Modified: 08/29/05 16:06:06

R79420
5 years ago
whateveryousay

wombat,
i think that it’s unfair to characterize the fires as ‘small’.
shogo doesn’t buy the ‘fires created so much heat the steel melted’ theory.
he supports the claim that damage to some perimeter columns cause excesive load to be transfered to the core and that once the damged and heated ring of floors which was holding up the structure above gave up, it mashed all the floors below into a fine dust.
shneib would argue that the non-metalic or paper contents of the building were not thouroughly pulvarized and that large chunks of concrete are observable in photos. he fails to point out these pieces in photos.

R79423
5 years ago
Shogo

If they were raging 2,000d infernoes that could melt steel
Nobody said they melted steel, you stupid fuck. Go back and re-read the thread, douchebag.
*edited for fuktile
Post Modified: 08/29/05 20:26:54

R79432
5 years ago
Wombat

Im so sorry Shogo. What did they do to the steel then. These smoldering office fires. Just how did they heat the steel up enough for it to loose its integrity and cause a total collapse of the building. Cause you see in your very instructive little picture I see a lot of black smoke, indicative of a low intensity smoldering fire, but ya know what im missing. Flames. Ya know what flames are dont ya fuck for brains. Those big yellow and red things that go hand in hand with raging infernos that melt buildings. Flames that show there is a fire burning fiercely deep in the core of the building. That kind of thing just looks absent to me ya fucking dick wanking armature shit.
I know my logic is a bit piss poor and not at all on the same high level as yours but you see I figure that if the kerosene, aka jet fuel, doesnt burn at a high enough temperature to cause the collapse and the office fittings dont burn at a high enough temperature to cause the collapse. Then Im a bit stumped. Just what did cause the whole mess to come a tumbling down.
And if I knew how to put a picture in here then I would show ya what I mean.

R79435
5 years ago
Shogo

how did they heat the steel up enough for it to loose its integrity and cause a total collapse of the building
Hey fuckface, there’s 14 motherfucking pages of posts for you to get caught up on. I’m not rehashing the same arguments that have been gone over a bunch of times just because you’re too goddamned lazy to read what’s already been written.
PS – you’re dumb.

R79438
5 years ago
Wombat

And you were being sssooooo helpful.
“PS – you’re dumb.”
Nice comeback. I can just tell you are an intellectual giant amoung men. I feel all ashamed and put in my place.
If you have gonads, and can find them, then reach down, grab that useless piece of meat just above your gonads and tug on it till it spits at you. That’s how much I care about your opinion of me ya maggot infested red arsed monkey scrotum.
So sorry I haven’t read all 14 pages for you but if it’s the same driveling bullshit that is coming out of you Im glad I didn’t bother. It doesn’t alter the fact that the fires did not cause the collapse. Ok. I don’t give a shit what sort of bile you threw up before, thems the facts Oh great and wise fuckwittedmess. The fires just don’t do it, no way, never, not hot enough. Get the point.

R79439
5 years ago
whateveryousay

still waiting for confirmation on that image shogs.
i mean if we can’t agree on some basic facts …

R79449
5 years ago
Shogo

Wombat, can’t you go back to oppressing the aborigines?
It doesnt alter the fact that the fires did not cause the collapse.
No shit, Sherlock. If you’d even bothered to read page #13, you’d see that nobody is claiming anything of the sort. Since you can’t be bothered to click on “prev” and read it, why the fuck should I bother rehashing what’s already been typed over and over again?
The main damage to the buildings that caused the collapse was the impact of the planes. The fires only exacerbated the damage.

R79462
5 years ago
whateveryousay

check out this little squiblet. happens pretty early and pretty low down for it to fit the “just air being pushed out” theory.


this is the clip.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem12/911.wtc.2.demolition.south.below.mpg
you can see the same thing on this angle
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem10/911.wtc.2.demolition.south.air.mpg

R79476
5 years ago
whateveryousay

ah ha!
i found a picture of concrete particles which are bigger than dust:

some of those are almost golfball size.

R79478
5 years ago
whateveryousay

close up of building 7 remains:


R79480
5 years ago
Shogo

check out this little squiblet. happens pretty early and pretty low down for it to fit the “just air being pushed out” theory.
Eh, not buying it. Who knows what it is? In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, assuming it to be explosives is sky-high conjecture.
More interesting to me watching that footage is the dead giveaway that there weren’t demolitions charges employed. How do we know this? Because you don’t hear anything prior to the building collapsing.
Not sure how many of y’all have attended a buildings demolition, but I’ve been to one here (for a much smaller building) and even from a few blocks away you could clearly hear the detonation of the explosives prior to the collapse of the building.
If such a thing were to be attempted on a building of those dimensions, it would require more explosives, and subsequently generate a lot more pre-collapse noise.
Unless of course “they” got to the video footage first and edited the sound out!

R79482
5 years ago
fennec


R79491
5 years ago
Memnoch01

“Not sure how many of y’all have attended a buildings demolition, but I’ve been to one here (for a much smaller building) and even from a few blocks away you could clearly hear the detonation of the explosives prior to the collapse of the building.”
You do understand that that does not make you an expert in building demolition, so commenting on what exactly that explosion was is completely and totally irrelevant?
I once went to a car race, yet I dont profess expertise in the automobile field.

R79513
5 years ago
whateveryousay

Unless of course “they” got to the video footage first and edited the sound out! SHOGO
that’s a good point about the sound. you think the music at the beginning somehow covers the sound of collapse initiation?
i don’t really think so.
i don’t hear a classic ‘boom’ in the clip (like the plane crash) though it can be hard to identify a sound without enough silence around it to ascertain its shape.
... but i do hear 2 very distinct sound events at the beginning, and 2 less distinct sound events before the roar takes over.
the first two are events are about a second apart and you can hear the echo of each one. the next 2 are masked by the growing roar.
reporter in helicopter reaction audio
Post Modified: 08/30/05 12:14:12

R79525
5 years ago
Shogo

so commenting on what exactly that explosion was
I just noticed I didn’t hear the sound prior to the collapse that I heard before. I’m not claiming to be an expert. Surely one would expect to hear something prior to the collapse, don’t you think? Tool?

R79577
5 years ago
whateveryousay

I just noticed I didn’t hear the sound prior to the collapse that I heard before. shogo
please elaborate.
looking closer at the sound:
towards the end, after the guy’s mic craps out, there’s a small section of background noise on its own… sounds like the background cabin noise when you’re sitting on a plane at cruising altitude…
i used that little chunk (about .7 seconds) to build a noise profile so as to dial out the rest of the audio.
pulling out the noise, i found that there were 3 genuine spikes to be seen on the VU meters. the third as far as i can make out is the loudest
i mucked around with the eq’s to see if the spikes had any sort of characteristic frequency ranges.
to describe these 3 distinct audio events…
i’m skipping the very first 0.5 seconds where there is a “click” and sort of reverbed ‘hiss’ sound as i think it might be a compression artifact from giving the codec audio which isn’t zeroed at the cut. mixed in with that sound is the sort of ‘horn’ sound which i initially thought was the tail end of some incidental music… i think it’s just the sound of an emergency vehicle siren somewhere.
so starting from 0.4 seconds the first event is a sort of “ka-boom” sound, or actually more like a “ka-chaaa”. that’s when people look up and the camera whips around. the next event is more of a ‘thud/rumble’ the third is more of a ‘baaanggg’ with a kind of almost doppler like reverberance to it.
these three things are one second apart each.
if you want to hear these events clearer then use a parametric eq. crank up the 1.5k all the way with the q at 14% or so. (you may need to convert from the m1a format to something useful) . this should make the sounds more pronounced.
boost the area of 400 – 550 hz more and you should here the other notable sound. it’s a bit like the trash-compactor in the first starwars movie… a kind of mechanical marching sound with a kind of deep ‘boom boom boom boom’ going along with it every … all to the rhythm of about half a second.
it’s good to boost different ranges of frequencies to see what’s up, it’s really from hearing it from a bunch of sonic perspectives that you pick up the shape of these sounds.

R79586
5 years ago
whateveryousay

re: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem12/911.wtc.2.demolition.south.below.mpg
  1. use headphones.
and
  1. there’s a cloud of white smoke at the base of that tower… what’s that from?

R79682
5 years ago
whitey

that’s an amazing video

R79719
5 years ago
whateveryousay

that’s an amazing video
okay, check this out.
this is a much better audio recording. much better frequncy range and dynamic range. tell me what you hear.

R79931
5 years ago
cortez

The site has some great stuff


link to video).avi
link to page

R79936
5 years ago
whateveryousay

check out this audio:
this is the sound only from from one of the video above of the south tower
this is the sound from a demolition in detroit, the hudson building (pretty sure that’s what it is)
.
p. .

R79994
5 years ago
Strangegloved


R81074
5 years ago
cortez


‘You are being lied to’ featuring a bunch of eye witness comments referring to explosions inside of the WTC. I personally hadn’t seen quite a few of these clips, so it may be worth checking out.
Link to Video
Link

R82427
5 years ago
whateveryousay

scheib!

when you going to admit to being wrong about the photo?!


R82428
5 years ago
Snark

Snark hammers a giant wooden stake through thread’s heart, gives it a holy water enema, and fires silver bullets out of a gatling gun at it, shreiking “Die! Die, you unholy motherfucker, die and go back from whence you came! Out, deeeeemon!

R84866
5 years ago
whateveryousay

am i to assume you don’t like this thread snack?.. oops, i mean snark.

R84896
5 years ago
Continuity

Whateveryousay, I have to congratulate you. Few people have sniffed out so much information on one topic as you have in this thread.
Whether you disagree with him or not, you have to admit he’s stuck with the topic relentlessly, never retreated from a sub-topic, supported all or nearly all of his premises/arguments, and didn’t get sucked down too far into the Ad Hom quicksand, which of course got thick and gooey fairly quick.
Other people have argued with skill too, whether their position was yea or nay or I dunno . And some quite wisely just offered information without comment and left it for readers to decide. It would be nice if we could avoid the unnecessary hostility. Then again, if a writer relies on that heavily, maybe the casual reader might be let to believe that said writer has a deficit in argument.

R84901
5 years ago
Snark

It’s not so much that…it’s just that the dead horse has been flogged into a little puddle of soup, and yet it keeps rising from the dead every week or so with a fresh crop of posts and argument. Nobody’s changed their minds, nothing new has been said, and yet people keep posting to it as if it’s accomplishing anything.

R84917
5 years ago
whateveryousay

thanks for the vote of confidence continuity.
snark, i’ve changed my mind numerous times on many points.
i don’t even know what your position is actually.
perhaps you are missing the argument.
it’s controversial still because the question as to how the towers fell awaits a decent explanation.
the nist/popular mechanics/nova versions are nice and everything but they fail to address some very glaring points.
an example of this is how the wide spread reports of explosions are not addressed at all. the number of eye-witness accounts describing explosions at least approaches 100. the waving of the hand dismissal or even more common just completely ignoring is on about the same level as disregarding all the eye-witness accounts of a plane at the pentagon.
on top of the verbal accounts you have visual evidence of things that look like what happens when you explosively demolish a building (the squibs far below the collapse zone) and you have audio evidence of events which sound like explosions, leave the audio signatures of explosions, and temporally coincide across multiple angles of the same events.
now i don’t want to jump to any conclusions but it seems like there might have been explosions during, and at the on-set of the twin-tower collapses. that is a logical assumption.

R84928
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Whateveryousay said on page 14:
“am i to assume you don’t like this thread snack?.. oops, i mean snark.”
Snark said:
“It’s not so much that…it’s just that the dead horse has been flogged into a little puddle of soup…………..”
But on page one, Snark said:
“So what the fuck difference does it make?”
Which was his reaction to, I believe, a cartoon that Rasputin posted about box cutters.
So Rasputin said:
“Could be that widespread awareness of the 9/11 fraud will deter future attacks of a much larger and more lethal nature. Plus it clues people in to the criminality of the state, making rebels out of flag-wavers. And of course there’s that small matter of the truth.”
Snark next appeared on page two where he chimed in:
“God, I am so fucking intolerant of this sort of fucktarded armchair forensic crap. “I’m just a member of the general public, but I’m still informed enough to hold an opinion worth expressing when it comes to 9-11/Terri Schiavo/Jacko/Gary Webb and whatever this week’s trial or momentous event is. Furthermore I will attempt to debate it on an internet forum to the death.”
Snark continued:
“I think a few of us need to learn to respect our own fuckin’ limitations. There is not a single person here with the information or credentials to hold an opinion on this matter. Maybe Shogo’s right, maybe the rest are. Doesn’t matter. However accurate your conjectures are, none of you are informed enough to make intelligent and definitive statements about this. So quit it.
Rasputin replied first to Snark’s statement:
“I think a few of us need to learn to respect our own fuckin’ limitations.”
By saying: “Speak for yourself”.
And second to another of Snark’s statements:
“There is not a single person here with the information or credentials to hold an opinion on this matter.”
By saying: “Bullshit. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize the reductio ad absurdum of WTC7 (or the rest of the official story), and your suggestion that people should “trust the experts” (which one?) instead of trying to understand their various arguments and come to their own conclusions is elitist and fawning.”
And then Rasputin advised Snark
“If you’re sick of the argument, ignore it and move on”.
I say, I guess, Snark, you should have heeded Rasputin’s advice.
P.S. I mean no harm.
Post Modified: 09/24/05 10:24:40

R84984
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Snark hammers a giant wooden stake through thread’s heart, gives it a holy water enema, and fires silver bullets out of a gatling gun at it, shreiking “Die! Die, you unholy motherfucker, die and go back from whence you came! Out, deeeeemon!
After reading over this thread for a while, I’m feeling sick …...you’d better try that again!
Post Modified: 09/24/05 08:32:07

R84985
5 years ago
Snark

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize the reductio ad absurdum of WTC7 (or the rest of the official story), and your suggestion that people should “trust the experts” (which one?) instead of trying to understand their various arguments and come to their own conclusions is elitist and fawning.
Oh, this shit again. Ok. I made this clear before, but maybe you didn’t read it. My point was that certainty or conclusions are impossible for us to make. That since even the people that are actual experts in this sort of shit are of wildly diverging opinions, that about as far as we can go while remaining intellectually honest is “the official story behind 9/11 doesn’t appear to hang together and it is equally plausible that it was a false flag operation.” And that’s really it. You and everybody else seem so desperate for certainty and “conclusions”, and that’s really what I’m irritated at.
As for “understanding their various arguments”, you and I don’t have the competence to understand and judge those arguments. This is the problem with creationism, actually- people being too uninformed to accurately distinguish convincing bullshit from accurate analysis of the evidence, and being swayed by emotionally appealing but incorrect analysis. Similarly (though I make no judgement for or against 9/11 conspiracy theories) we are not in a position to reliably evaluate for accuracy the various explanations; we might well be being fed bullshit and lies and never suspect it.
And that’s really what I was getting at saying “There is not a single person here with the information or credentials to hold an opinion on this matter.” Not that we should blindly trust the experts- but that we don’t know enough to distinguish which expert to trust, that drawing conclusions based on our laymen’s understanding of the topic is precarious at best, and that maintaining a skeptical attitude free of firmly-held opinions is about the best we can do.
Post Modified: 09/24/05 08:51:15

R84987
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

THIS IS MY FAVORITE! (from page 2)
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!!

PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!!
Post Modified: 09/24/05 11:24:38

R84991
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

About half way down page 4, Shogo said
What a bitchen thread.
That was pretty funny.

R85000
5 years ago
lday

Snark, reduxed: “...equally plausible that it was a false flag…”
It’s hardly equal at all.
Just look at the flash, if you dare.
The flash screams: high tech!
Box-cutters?
Harrumph!
That FEMA’s volunteer team of investigators weren’t provided with
the real blueprints, but doctored graphics to support
‘pancake theory’, screams cover-up.
mihop, the evidence is in, “equally plausible” is bozo.

R85088
5 years ago
whateveryousay

i think the conspiracy kooks lack imagination.
explosive demolition and massive multi-layered cover-ups are not an all-or-nothing possibility. it doesn’t have to be a) unprecedented catastrophic engineering failure on one hand b) bush and chaney pushing detonation buttons in a bunker on the other. that the bush regime capitalized as much as possible on the disaster doesn’t automatically mean they did it. that silverstein held the lease doesn’t mean they did it either. that both groups prefer a simplistic and probably bogus version of what happened is probably quite meaningful.
the question as to who is covering up what and why?.. could lead to hundreds of possible perspectives… hundreds of individual coverups.
first of all, you have an important question: how long were the buildings supposed to last and how did they plan to get them down in the first place?
the popular answer is “100 hundred years” or “forever” or “architects aren’t paid to think, they make buildings, they’re not supposed to consider what happens to their creations in the future”.
now, post-93 bombing, you have a situation where something must be done about a terrorist bombing threat. i can imagine “hire more cops” wasn’t the first consideration. you’ve got these huge buildings in the heart of the financial district which could topple like trees and kill literally hundreds of thousands of people in one fell swoop… not to mention destroying 10’s of buildings in their wake.
suppose for a second that management thought: “maybe we should wire these fuckers to fall straight down if they are ever compromised by yet another terrorist plot”. ie, if the buildings ever happen to be compromised and risk tipping over onto the wfc or the millennium or whatever, we push the button and bring them straight down, saving thousands of lives (not to mention billions in property and commerce). a number of power brokers in the area would have a clear motive for pushing for such a safe-guard against their property and employees and business.
such a contingency plan, though for the safety of all, would have to remain so totally secret as not to fall into the wrong hands. if a terrorist faction ever even suspected that the buildings were wired, they could bring hell to manhattan.
if a small group of people were gathered to wire the buildings, they could do so with full knowledge that their efforts were for the safety of all and that secrecy was integral. to this day there could be a small group of insiders with full knowledge of how the buildings were brought down. their shame at being part of such a terrible accident would keep them quiet.
the unsuspecting fire-fighters, ems, cops, port-authority, residents?.. “we tried to warn them… unforeseen communications difficulties bla bla etc and what not”.
so as far as the well informed (or incredibly fucking lucky) attackers are concerned… all they would have to do would be to bring the buildings to the point where the authorities had no choice (well maybe a little choice) but to push the button and save thousands of lives (and lots of $)... with the sacrifice of a few brave souls who get paid to risk their necks anyway.
now you have a small, influential group of red-handed insiders who didn’t even plan the attack who are going to bust their ass to cover shit up.
now maybe this all seems far-fetched but it’s just an example of how IF it was proven that the buildings had a bit of help in reaching the ground, a hapless, though not altogether saintly group, could be scapegoated and roasted alive (on a bed of nigerian yellow-cake plutonium).
no do remember that whether or not the buildings fall has little influence of osama’s planes-of-doom.
the faa, norad, cia, and fbi could also have their own little embarassing problems which they’d love to have disappear. if there’s any grand conspiracy it’s that no one can seem to admit for a second that they might have ever fucked up in the slightest.
we have to deal with the possibility that such a huge attack generated cover ups within cover up within cover ups, each compartmentalized level guarding their own and reacting on full damage control as a natural result of what happened. there needn’t be any puppet masters here folks.
the conspiracy theorists want to tie the destruction of the buildings to the same hands which flew the planes into them. i can’t really see how anyone could prove such a thing. you’ve got malicious intent (planes x 4) + fate (catastrophic engineering failure x 3)... hmmf…
you know, this could go on forever, so i’ll wait for someone else to chime in.

R85097
5 years ago
Snark

Great post. Seems pretty good to me- nice and plausible, ties up many loose ends. Aside from the theory, your point that there are plenty of viable and plausible explanations for what happened is well-made, and I agree with you.

R85107
5 years ago
whateveryousay

Aside from the theory
heh. well, history will show that i can do a lot worse but thanks anyway.
but plunging into a more chaotic reading the limitless possibilities may expose 2 central memes which dominate the debate:
1) the simple “they hate our freedoms osama/saddam did it” story.
and
2) the all powerful elite nwo are to blame.
both tend to serve the current power structure by throwing gas on the same fire.
one one hand: big brother (uncle sam) loves you and wants to protect your way of life, you must love him and offer your support.
on the other hand: we fear and hate big brother because he is all powerful and terrible.
both assign power and responsibility to a loving/caring and or vengeful/terrible god… with of course an anti-god at the other end of the spectrum..
wait, scrap that, all bullshit, sorry.

R85151
5 years ago
Shogo

I don’t think that dividing the memes into those 2 is fair, or accurate.
Some of us believe that the attackers were aided and abetted, but that the structural damage caused by the planes was sufficient to cause the buildings to fall. Again, were the buildings wired to be detonated, you would not see the top of one of the towers leaning over as it’s support goes. That part of the building would have exploded as well.
It seems to me that where this discussion breaks down and fails is when you have people (such as Florence Gay) who obviously have little to no knowledge of physics formulating a conclusion that isn’t really supportable by any available evidence. Just like religious debates, at that point it becomes a matter of faith. The Church of The Demolitions.
Conversely, the first meme you described has it’s evangelists as well.
The lack of middle-ground on the discussion is disheartening – but I’m not prepared to accept the demolitions explanation without some clear evidence. By clear evidence, I mean something other than conjecture-based ridicule of, say, pancaking.
I think your idea is interesting, and might even be plausible, but it just doesn’t feel right to me. I don’t think that people are really that far-sighted. Plus Silverstein had only just purchased the property.
Even if the towers had not fallen that day, they would have needed to have been destroyed since they would have been far too compromised from the physical damage caused by the planes.
Post Modified: 09/25/05 00:23:11

R85160
5 years ago
cortez

One more controlled demolition video
and
Video: 911.wtc.2.hit.evans.at.1.06.live.bbc.ram — 2m59s, 1KB
Steve Evans; BBC reporter: “I was at the base of the 2nd tower, the second tower that was hit. There was an explosion – I didn’t think it was an explosion – but the base of the building shook. I felt it shake – then when we were outside, the second explosion happened and then there was a series of explosions. We can only wonder at the kind of damage — the kind of human damage — which was caused by those explosions – those series of explosions.”
Link

R85165
5 years ago
whateveryousay

but it just doesn’t feel right to me. I don’t think that people are really that far-sighted.
does it “not feel right” because of any specific data you’re holding onto? or because it challenges certain world views you have?
your assertion that as a demolition it wasn’t perfect, tops falling off and what not, doesn’t come close to ruling out purposeful demolition. (though one has to wonder how the top of a building can fall off and crush all the floors it just fell off of at the same time)
as far as far-sighted-ness goes, perhaps you’re familiar with the game of chess. in it, people think ahead through as many possible outcomes and future combinations as they (and perhaps their computer helpers) can think of. when you know all the possible outcomes, even when you lose you win.
Even if the towers had not fallen that day, they would have needed to have been destroyed since they would have been far too compromised from the physical damage caused by the planes.
they would have been embaracing white elephants taking ages (not to mention many metric tonnes of money) to dismantle… an eye soar and lasting reminder of how their ass got their kicked. that’s not the american style, it’s better to exxplode than to fade away in the usa.
they would have had to had come down rather than be repaired at least for the practical/political/financial side… integral structural damage or not.

R87578
5 years ago
Schneibster

Well, I’m in a dead-horse-whipping mood this evening, and there’s a new thread on it, and this one has more info and more sense to it. So here goes.
Whatever, I was nasty and I apologize.
I have to point out once again that we’re looking at two sides of a building, one long and one short, and that the long sides are the north and south sides, and that the sun is in the south all day on September 11th at 40 degrees North Latitude. That means that the south face of the building (that is, the face that points to the south and is illuminated from the south) will be illuminated all day. The large aerial shot you posted shows the building shadows pointing north, just as one would predict from this. So the south face of 7 would be the face pointing toward 1 and 2. Yet, the photo you posted which you claim shows the face as undamaged shows a dark face. So there are three possibilities:
1. It’s really the south face, but it’s shadowed by something.
1a. The something it’s shadowed by is a WTC tower, in which case it hasn’t fallen yet which would account for the lack of damage. This theory is supported by the sun angle, which indicates it’s still morning (the sun is behind the photographer, therefore in the southeast- and the sun rises in the east). Assuming of course that you are correct about the location of the photographer, something about which I am unconvinced.
1b. The something it’s shadowed by is the smoke cloud from the WTC tower, in which case we can’t see the damage because it’s shadowed.
2. It’s really the north face, which wasn’t damaged.
This was what I was referring to with my nasty comment about not being able to see through your preconceptions. And again, I’m sorry I made nasty comments. But you have to admit that it doesn’t really leave any place to turn; there remains no proof either way as to the damage, we remain with the accounts of the two firemen (and remember, they were not grunts- they were commanders, for whatever that’s worth, probitive or supporting).
I still feel that there is now sufficient evidence to support the idea that 7 was seriously damaged by the collapse of the towers, and that there was sufficient fuel and that 7 was sufficiently architecturally peculiar to permit the official story of the collapse to be as accurate as any description is ever going to be.
While the motive is most attractive, the testimentary evidence, when all is said and done, is persuasive, and does not appear coached. Too many extraneous details support it, as well. And the testimony of the building owner, using possibly misunderstood or misquoted firefighter jargon, suitcase, simply isn’t convincing.
I believe at this time that the three buildings all collapsed as a result of damage they incurred. The first two from strikes by large, heavy, fast-moving aircraft loaded with fuel, supplemented by fire damage, and the third from strikes by multiple 30-ton 3-story 3-column steel perimeter column segments from the falling towers, supplemented by fire damage from the large diesel fuel tanks in the building to support its use as an emergency command center and by architectural flaws inherent in its design.
I have watched both videos and see no evidence of demolition; the sounds of the floors collapsing onto one another are clear and convincing. The sounds of demolition squibs are completely absent in both. I have watched numerous videos of building demolitions, and I agree with Shogo’s observation that the sounds of the squibs precede the collapses in all cases, and are absent here. I agree that these are amazing video clips.
In regard to the large remaining pieces of rubble, I have already pointed out that the pictorial record is replete with pictures of them; five hundred pictures of concrete dust in the midst of the cleanup, when it’s obvious to the least among us that the large pieces of rubble would have been removed first, won’t change the ten or fifteen rubble shots I got off google in the first search I did. I can only imagine that you are either misinterpreting what you’re seeing, or that you are incredibly unlucky or incredibly bad at using google.
On the other hand, I remain convinced that the US government played a fully witting part in these events at the highest levels of that government; whether Shrub himself knew or not, it is likely that Cheney did based on his actions, and nearly certain that (unless news of the exercise was leaked) an exercise that would cause the greatest possible uncertainty and likely prevent reaction was scheduled for that day.
We will most likely never know for certain; the number of players need not have so large as if demolitions were undertaken, and might be small enough that none of the conspirators will ever talk.
I seriously doubt that any of the avowed conspiracy theorists here will ever be convinced that they are wrong, by any evidence whatsoever, or any defect in the “evidence” they accept as conclusive. I therefore do not intend to continue this conversation, particularly not in the face of horseshit like five hundred “pull it” quotes (fifty hitlers, anyone?) and larry-bud day’s “flash” (repeatedly debunked over and over again, but larry-bud just keeps posting it) but I certainly didn’t want to leave you with a bad taste in your mouth about it, whatever. Let me know if you have any last thoughts and I’ll take a look; perhaps you’ve found something more convincing in the interim. I doubt it, but I’ll always look at new evidence.

R87587
5 years ago
whateveryousay

once again, i see no reason why it would be the srub-admin specifically. their obvious coverup campaigns could be just protecting others and/or covering their own stupid mistakes.
i’m correct on the position of the wtc7 photograph, but you could well be right that the north tower is still standing when the photo was taken. i’ve just been assuming that less than an hour (the time between the 2 tower collapses) is not enough for the dust to have cleared enough for that photo but of course i can’t really say for sure on e way or the other. i don’t think there’s enough shadow information to pinpoint the time of day.
The sounds of demolition squibs are completely absent in both. -Sch
actually, the sounds of the explosions are there. in fact, every clip which has enough audio information of the event intact has evidence of the explosions. there’s a number of reasons why they are not generally heard or acknowledged.
the 2 squibs seen in this clip (the ‘amazing’ one):

do make a sound but it’s very hard to hear with all the other noise… and there are much more audible explosions anyway… you don’t see the others in this particular clip but they are seen and/or heard in other clips.
it takes a bit of non-linear looking to piece events that are seen and heard together.

there’s an article in progress which i’m privy to so since,
I’ll always look at new evidence
you can check an unfinished piece of work here:
Explosion Sounds and the World Trade Center – Twin Tower Collapses
it only covers 2 clips but i know there are at least 3 others which corroborate the main audio events which are pointed out in this (beta) article.

R87607
5 years ago
Continuity

An open-ended investigation is much more preferable. Everything about the why, who, and how is still not established. While some people think it’s massively crucial to establish these things first, I believe they are wrong. The sudden jumping to why, who, and how in my mind actually impedes the main debate here.
I got caught up this too when certain people ignored the evidence and went for a philosophical approach instead, so I gave them mini-scenarios just to stir things up. Unfortunately, the idea that elements in America somehow assisted in the destruction of the Towers is simply beyond their points of reference. They can’t look at any evidence soberly because they can’t jump the why-who-how part first.
I’m glad Whateveryousay is here to remind us about the main argument: Did those 3 buildings fall in natural way?

R87719
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Schneib,
It is 184 “pull-it” quotes, I believe. It was 2pacalypse, who put them up on page two, not me. But, I thought it was funny. This paragraph you put up about the north face and south face and the sun and this and that, you are way out of control. It is not that complicated. Three buildings down in one day from fire, and it has never happened before. Those of us who do not buy into the government conspiracy theory are entitled to our opinions and no amount of obstruction by you or anyone else is going to change that. Get over it please.

R87723
5 years ago
Schneibster

Whatever, let me suggest that analysis be included that covers the collapses of floors onto one another to eliminate those events from consideration. I also have to point out that there would be sounds from the column sections breaking apart, and from the central column too- and figuring those out could be difficult to say the least. Because there will be no visible evidence of what is happening to the central column in the building, I believe it may be impossible- but by all means do try. Just be aware and caution others that there are other effects possible. IOW, don’t get so caught up in the analysis that you forget to consider other explanations than explosives.
I also have to point out that I listened quite carefully, through a very expensive sound card and a set of professional-grade headphones, and I’m a musician, so I’m used to picking out little details from the sounds I hear, and I have pretty damn good equipment. I didn’t hear anything that sounded like the regular squib explosions- “rat-tat-tat-tat-tat-” that I find on demolition tapes. There’s a “boom” when the first upper floor collapse occurs, followed at diminishing intervals by more “booms” as the collapse accelerates down the building, accompanied by a rumbling from the column sections and presumably the central column coming apart, eventually merging into a continuous rumble.
A couple of other little details:
1. Neither building could ever “topple like a tree.” They simply aren’t strong enough. Well before they got more than a few degrees off vertical, they would disintegrate- but not from the top as we see in these videos. I would expect the greatest deformation just above the heavily-reinforced machinery floors, followed by a wave of collapsing floors moving upward from there, and destruction of the lower floors once the upper part of the building fell onto them, probably simultaneously moving downward from the machinery floors. While this would spread the debris more widely IMO, the greatest part of the debris would still wind up in the original footprint of the building. For a demonstration of what I mean, force a wooden plug down a tube to the middle, then bend the tube from the ends. Generally, the first major deformation will occur at the site of the plug.
2. Blowing the central columns at the base would result in a collapse like that I described above; yet, we cannot see any movement of the lower portion of the building before the collapse wave reaches it. I think this scenario is denied by the visual evidence.
3. With the elevator columns providing an egress for the pressure waves from the collapsing floors, and potentially air ducts and who knows what other openings doing the same, I am unsurprised to see debris emerging far below the collapse area.
Continuity, means, motive, and opportunity. If Ruppert was right about anything, he was right about this. But be careful: you need all three. And your point about not getting caught up in motive is well taken- I originally did this with 7 WTC, and was led astray. But be careful not to get too caught up in either of the others, as well!

R87729
5 years ago
Schneibster

Suitcase,
Better. Be reasonable- funny or not, it’s disruptive, and irritating. If you want to have a reasonable, measured discussion, I’m game- different opinions are OK with me, and I try not to get nasty, and regret it when I do. But let’s try to keep it serious; if you have data, present it. Which you did here, and which I will respond to- in a measured, reasonable, respectful manner, and as objective a fashion as possible. As far as “get over it,” I would suggest you get over it yourself- and try to step back a bit. Bear in mind that there are numerous examples of popular opinion assigning significance to coincidence, which is the reason that religions exist in the first place. Not every coincidence is a conspiracy, but then again conspiracies do generate coincidences. Suspicion is one thing; certain knowledge entirely another. Circumstantial evidence has led to many documented cases of execution and imprisonment on charges that have later turned out to be false; they’re finding cases of this every day now that they’ve started looking.
This paragraph you put up about the north face and south face and the sun and this and that, you are way out of control. It is not that complicated
But apparently, in fact, it is that complicated. Whatever acknowledges that. Interpretation of photographic evidence is not simple; ask any military reconnaisance photograph expert. Photographs compress a three-dimensional reality onto a two-dimensional plane, and major inaccuracies introduced by that compression can lead to major misinterpretations of the situation. Photographs of craters can be misinterpreted as photographs of hills, and vice-versa, and this is a very simple example of a large number of very complex possibilities.
Three buildings down in one day from fire
Or not. The point I’ve been making repeatedly is that this is an oversimplification. It ignores significant- and extensive- structural damage that preceded all three fires. I contend that no building has received such structural damage followed by such fires, and that as a result there is no other event to compare these with, so unusual circumstances have had unusual effects, which is unsurprising when viewed in this light.
I’d like to point out that oversimplification seems to be a theme here. I suggest that it might be a good idea to think very carefully about this, and take careful heed of my response to Continuity above. You strike me as a reasonable sort, when you are not provoked, as I am- and I am bending over backwards here to avoid provoking you. If you will respond in similar fashion, either or both of us might learn something to our benefit.

R87794
5 years ago
Continuity

Well, the hypothetical Bush-related culprit certainly had means, motive, and opportunity available. But like I said, while those topics are well-argued & sourced, they are also secondary topics in a disciplined debate regarding actual demolition. Luckily I decided to spend most of my time in this thread looking at and linking evidence regarding this theorized demolition.
Also I found most of what Ruppert wrote about 9/11 is worth reading. Schnieb, you’ve mention Ruppert a few times in respect, but I suppose you are moving to a position that is, on many fronts, in opposition to his research.

R87816
5 years ago
Schneibster

Ruppert: Not sure about that. I’ve never bought everything he wrote. He is a very good researcher, though, even if he gets the occasional wild hair up his butt about something (microwaves == radioactivity, for example). There is a great deal of interesting information in Crossing the Rubicon and I have found it a useful reference more than once.
I don’t subscribe to anyone’s view. I form my own opinions, and don’t really pay attention to whether I agree or disagree overall with any particular source.

R87831
5 years ago
whateveryousay

let me suggest that analysis be included that covers the collapses of floors onto one another to eliminate those events from consideration.
well, you’re talking 110 floors in 14 seconds (about)... so that’s what, 12.73 floors per second. so however you want to describe the sound, you’re talking about quite a few instances in quite a short period of time. you can go ahead and add some serious doppler on that if you’re standing right under the tower.
here is a 12 hz pulse mp3 as a frame of reference.
it’s a drum-roll speed…
i figure when a building does that you get a “smooth” consistent sound. (also a snare drum aamof)
the clip from below the tower features a loud constant sound throughout (except the very start) and it can be heard to be rising in pitch in that familiar doppler way, ie getting closer to the camera. teaching a noise reduction filter to handle doppler shift? well you’d be better off looking at an angle taped from a good distance i think.
rather than predict and remove the noise of steel coming apart and concrete doing whatever the concrete did, you could just find a further angle where the noise is attenuated through the air… that way, the serious blast pressures associated with high-explosives would in theory escape the noise… though they would loose the high frequency registers through attenuation.
OW, don’t get so caught up in the analysis that you forget to consider other explanations than explosives.
given the title of the piece, it should probably try and hazard a number of different guesses as to what the cause of “explosion sounds” are. it might take a bit of imagination but it’s possible. but i mean it’s not the pancaking floors… maybe you could argue that the building threw in a couple flams and accents for effect but i don’t think you’d get too far with that one. twisting steel not… breaking steel… hmmm… i’d be curious as to what that sounds like… impact sounds for sure are going to be a very important differentiation when looking at the end of the collapses… my hunch on that is you’re going to see similar frequency responses but totally different sound pressure curves.
I didn’t hear anything that sounded like the regular squib explosions- “rat-tat-tat-tat-tat-” that I find on demolition tapes.
recently having seen a tape of explosive demolitions, about 20 minutes worth (i don’t know, 50 buildings or so) ... i can tell you that the sounds come in all shapes and sizes and characters… there’s so many ways to bring a building down with bombs that there is no one specific way it should sound and proximity of the listener is really having a huge effect also.
Neither building could ever “topple like a tree.”
i’m a bit lost on this detail. first you have the building collapsing “up”... i mean i know what you mean, but… if you can prove your point with a game of jenga… or maybe jenga x3 with some school glue or something. it would help me visualize… some clips do show the top of the building sort of telescoping into the bottom (with crash zone in middle) ... are you referring to that?
Blowing the central columns at the base would result in a collapse like that I described above; yet, we cannot see any movement of the lower portion of the building before the collapse wave reaches it. I think this scenario is denied by the visual evidence.
that’s reasonable… but something does still nag me when i really thing about it…
we’ve got a tube within a tube construction, now say if you blow out 1/2 or a 1/3 of the central columns… not totally shatter the whole thing but just remove a meter of steel at the base(ment) of each… how long do you think the tower would keep standing for? i don’t know, but what i imagine is that because of the outer tube and its numerous bracings to the core, the sudden force of gravity on the core would cause a wave of stress to travel up the outside of the building… it would get pulled in and down but would hold… upon reaching the crash zone, the stress would kind of bust out through the hole… so when you’ve got the core telescoping in on itself, you’re seeing the destruction erupt from the first weak point in the outer shell… the crash-zone.
without a crash zone i imagine that maybe the top of the building would blow off and then you’d see the rest come down as it did. (honourable mention to how the mechanical floors would affect this all though)
to entertain this theory, you have to imagine that when the zone of destruction was halfway down the building, the interior of the remaining lower half was already a bit totally fucked up beyond all recognition… maybe that’s your squibs as seen far below the zone of destruction.
3. With the elevator columns providing an egress for the pressure waves from the collapsing floors, and potentially air ducts and who knows what other openings doing the same, I am unsurprised to see debris emerging far below the collapse area.
yep. holds for other scenarios too.
so… yeah, maybe shogo can get a copy of “bombCAD” and we can have this out with 3-d models.
edit: had a stray quote mixed in there
Post Modified: 10/06/05 22:09:19

R87955
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!
LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!
LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!
LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!
LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!
LOOSE CHANGE!!!

LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!
LOOSE CHANGE!!!
LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!
LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!
LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!
LOOSE CHANGE!!!
LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!
LOOSE CHANGE!!!
LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!LOOSE CHANGE!!!
LOOSE CHANGE!!!
Post Modified: 10/06/05 19:44:11

R87956
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

POPCORN ANYBODY?
Post Modified: 10/06/05 09:47:18

R87972
5 years ago
Schneibster

Looks like suitcase is a lightweight. C’est la vie.

R88112
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Schneib,
You made all these statements between pages 4-6 about WTC 7 being blown up:
LIHOP, then taking advantage of the situation. Why must it be all three or none? Why do you have a problem crediting the people who were responsible with the intelligence to take advantage of an exigent situation to demolish 7 WTC with all its inconvenient SEC records?”
“On the other hand, 7 WTC obviously didn’t get enough damage from the collapses of 1 and 2 WTC to destroy the inconvenient SEC records, and equally obviously was an easy target after the collapses of 1 and 2 WTC; but why, again, does it have to be all or none? Hey, they tried to get the deed done with a big fire, but it just didn’t spread enough to get the job done; the records weren’t being burned. OK, so pull it. ‘Nuff said.”
“So, once again, I don’t think there’s any question that the highjackers (or at least some of them anyway) took those planes where they are reputed to have gone; but I also don’t think that there’s any question that it was orchestrated by our own government, and that a great deal of machination went on to allow it to happen. In other words, LIHOP. And as far as 7 WTC is concerned, the data are also relatively conclusive: if the SEC took Chase down, Shrub and Cheney and their buddies were in a world of pain, so it got pulled.”
“I’ll buy that the neocons blew up 7 WTC to cover their buddies’ tracks with the SEC. I’ll buy that the neocons fucked with the ATC and NORAD tracking systems, and ran an exercise that day to make sure there were no fighters in a position to respond. Why, again for the umpteenth time, does it have to be all-or-nothing?”
“But 7 WTC had to be demolished, because the evidence the SEC was compiling had to be destroyed. It might even have been a contingency plan; the diesel fire from the generator might have been intended to do the trick, but when it became obvious that it was not going to work, then and only then came the decision to pull it.”
“7 WTC on the other hand is simple criminal activity for financial gain, gangsterism, highway robbery, in this case to prevent the SEC from getting back the money of all the little investors who put that seven trillion dollars into the stock market which Citibank, Chase, and their ilk stole when they took it down in 1999 and 2000.”
“Just go pull 7, and you’re done. Mission accomplished; now let’s get to Afghanistan and Iraq. And don’t forget to get your payoff for 7 WTC at the next board meeting.”
“Hey, Ras, you know my opinion; it’s abundantly clear to me that 7 WTC was demolished, and yes, it looks like one of a couple possible plans for doing it deliberately; the plans are, “from the East side,” “from the West side,” and “from the center.” Depending on the exact construction details, one or another might be best for a straight-down drop into its own footprint, which is what happened to 7 WTC. And I even know why it was demolished, and have said why repeatedly. No sense repeating it yet again.”
“In other words, LIHOP. And as far as 7 WTC is concerned, the data are also relatively conclusive: if the SEC took Chase down, Shrub and Cheney and their buddies were in a world of pain, so it got pulled.
Then on page 12 you said this:
“OK, I’ve got expert testimony from multiple sources on 7 WTC to share: “Firehouse” magazine’s site, firehouse.com, published interviews of four firemen who were on site when 7 went down. There is compelling evidence of massive damage to the building on the south side, which is the side facing the towers, due to their collapse. Not only the corner damage listed in the NIST report, but a huge, twenty-story-high hole in the side of the building.
The testimony is from four sources. Here are the links:
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html”
Then you provided extensive quotes from the Firehouse Magazine articles, which were published in 2002
“We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.”
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html
“Now, World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself, how come they’re not trying to put this fire out? I didn’t realize how much [damage] they had because my view was obstructed. All I could see was the upper floor. At some point, Frank Fellini said, now we’ve got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds and hundreds, and that’s on the West Street side alone. He said to me, Nick, you’ve got to get those people out of there. I thought to myself, out of where? Frank, what do you want, Chief? He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we’ve got to get those people out of there…
“I was getting some resistance. The common thing was, hey, we’ve still got people here, we don’t want to leave. I explained to them that we were worried about 7, that it was going to come down and we didn’t want to get anybody trapped in the collapse. One comment was, oh, that building is never coming down, that didn’t get hit by a plane, why isn’t somebody in there putting the fire out? A lot of comments, a bit of resistance, understandable resistance…
“I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run.
I said, that building is not coming this way, you could see where it was going, but I was concerned about debris. I got over near a vehicle, I don’t know what kind of vehicle. I sheltered in there a little bit and this dust cloud of debris came up and next thing you know, silence. Guys were all right. Nobody was running, hurt or anything like that.”
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
” Hayden By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors . It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
” Firehouse Was there heavy fire in there right away?
” Hayden No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety…
” Firehouse Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event.”
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norman.html
“I started to go down Vesey toward West, but there was a lot of debris blocking the way and they were telling me no, you don’t want to go down there – they’re worried about that building collapsing. I looked at 7 World Trade Center. There was smoke showing, but not a lot and I’m saying that isn’t going to fall. So I went up Church Street two more blocks and went across to West and went right down behind 7 and got a good look at three sides. Again, there were a lot of fires on the ground, some crushed mail trucks, some burned-up engines. It was a scene out of a war zone… We had extension on the first and second floors, so we took some standpipe lines, put them in operation and knocked that down. From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged…
“Once I got out onto West and Liberty and see that there’s nothing left, the whole steel of that building is out covering the block, it’s just incredible. Now we’re still worried about 7. We have guys trying to make their way up into the pile, and they’re telling us that 7 is going to fall down – and that was one of the directions from the command post, to make sure we clear the collapse zone from 7 and this is a 600-foot-tall building, so we had to clear a 600-foot radius from that building. Guys are looking at me when I’m telling them to move away, we’re over by the north tower and we got to get out of here. They said what building you talking about? I said that building and they thought the phone company because through the smoke you couldn’t see what I’m talking about. They said that building isn’t going anywhere. I said no, not that building, the one next to it, the big one. It was tough getting them to understand what we’re talking about because until you had done either a couple of 360s around this whole site or if you got an aerial view somehow, you really couldn’t appreciate the scope of the damage.”
Then you made some statements about the quotes:
“That’s not all of it, but it’s the most important bits. I don’t think that you can imagine the devastating impact of the steel sections off the perimeter walls of 1 and 2 if you weren’t there; they were falling all over the place, tumbling around, smacking into other buildings and making huge holes in them. In any case, I don’t see that there is insufficient damage to 7 to make it impossible that it fell down.
And in closing, I’d like to make a point: y’all keep saying, “No steel frame building has ever fallen down as a result of a fire,” like it means something in this context. It doesn’t. In fact, it’s still true. 1 and 2 WTC fell down because of mechanical damage from being crashed into with airplanes, plus the resulting fires.”
Then you offered your opinion on why Building 7 came down
“7 WTC fell down because of mechanical damage due to the flying steel from 1 hitting it, plus the resulting fires. None of these buildings fell because of the fires alone. The whole demolition thing is a gigantic smokescreen, to take your eyes off the ball: the ball is, none of the planes were shot down. The ball is, Norm Mineta’s testimony about what Cheney said and did was edited out of the Commission report. The ball is, where’s the money? And this demolition horseshit is nothing but a smokescreen. So let’s keep our eye on the ball.”
But your opinion is just one opinion based on reading the statements of 4 firemen,
and what about the statements from countless firemen about explosions?
and
what about this?
WTC 7 Sustained major damage prior to it’s controlled implosion
By Abel Ashes
“Many activists insist that the demolition of World Trade Center Building 7 is a more important issue politically than the issue of the demolitions of The Twin Towers. That may or may not be true, but I would guess not. However, political relevance is not the same thing as legal relevance or historical relevance, both of which concern me more than does political relevance.”
“Most activists who press the issue of WTC 7 over that of The Twin Towers either insist that Building 7 wasn’t damaged at all prior to it’s sudden standard demolition style implosion, or that the only notable damage was minor. The only damage to WTC 7 noted by most activists are the three relatively small fires easily visible in photos of WTC 7 before it’s implosion, but after the explosion of The South Tower.”
“Many activists believe that it is easier to prove that Building 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition than it is to prove that The Twin Towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions. The “fact” that Building 7 sustained little damage before it’s implosion is offered as an explanation for this concept. However, it has been reported that Building 7 did sustain major damage before it’s implosion. The fact that this information is not addressed by many of these activists is not surprising, since it has been emphasized by neither the powers-that-be nor their detractors.”
“Paul Thompson and The Center for Cooperative Research [http://www.cooperativeresearch.org] have amassed a very large timeline surrounding the events of September 11th 2001 and while the timeline is inexplicably missing some vital information, it is a very useful resource and a great piece of work.”
“Regan Books, a division of HarperCollins Publishers, recently published an edited and abbreviated, book format version of the “Complete 9/11 Timeline”. In this book, called “The Terror Timeline”, on page 441 you will find that there were a number of reports referring to major pre-collapse damage to Building 7. However, every report cited is from the same relatively obscure publication, Firehouse Magazine and I have been unable to find any of these reports reprinted on the internet.”
“What follows is the section of The Terror Timeline beginning at the bottom of page 441 and ending at the top of page 442, to which I refer above.”
WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13. [Firehouse Magazine, 4/02]
Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, “At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged.” [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]
Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls recounts, “A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.” Captain Chris Boyle recalls, “On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.” [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
“The building will collapse hours later.”
“The book also reprints a photo, credited to The New York City Police Department, that shows severe damage to the lower floors on a corner section of Building 7. I would present that photo here, but I am currently without a scanner and I was unable to find it online.”
“It is probable that most activists propagate the myth that Building 7 was not significantly damaged prior to it’s controlled demolition because they are unaware of the reports quoted above. It is possible that some activists believe that the reports quoted above are false. I believe that the reports quoted above are most likely true and that attempts should be made to contact the above mentioned firefighters to determine their authenticity.”
“The problem with the Building 7 as smoking gun argument, in light of the evidence of major pre-collapse damage to the 47 story skyscraper, is that Building 7 is a distraction from the much more important issue of the controlled progressive explosions of The Twin Towers in which the vast majority of September 11th’s victims perished. World Trade Center Buildings 1 and 2 were blown to dust and pieces in mere seconds before the world’s eyes and this irrefutable evidence of controlled demolition was caught on videotape. Case closed, The Twin Towers did not “collapse”, they were blown up!”
“Building 7 was a controlled demolition too, you say? Yes it most obviously was and a simpler more conventional implosion style one as well. However, the differences are these. Building 7 had been evacuated so as far as we know no one was killed during it’s controlled implosion. Building 7 was reported to have sustained very severe damage, most likely during the violent controlled progressive explosion of The South Tower, so there goes the idea that it’s an easier case to prove because the building was relatively undamaged as compared to The Twin Towers.”
“Many activists who favor the WTC 7 issue note that rigging a tall building for demolition is large job and state that this could not be accomplished in a matter of hours. This is probably false. Major damage to Building 7 was reported shortly after the 9:59 AM demolition of The South Tower, yet Building 7 did not collapse into it’s own footprint until 5:20 PM. There are 7 hours and 21 minutes between 9:59 AM and 5:20 PM. With both of The Twin Towers already completely destroyed by 10:28 AM, the area already evacuated, and many other buildings in the area already damaged, it would not have been as big of a concern as usual that the demolition be perfect, so as to avoid damage to surrounding structures. Activists are probably correct in saying that Building 7 was rigged for demolition before September 11th 2001, however the notion that it would be impossible for that not to have been the case is false.”
“The most important issues regarding WTC 7 are probably New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s “control bunker” and the offices of The CIA, DOD, and Secret Service that were housed in Building 7. Any or all of these sections of WTC 7 may have been used as “control bunkers” during the execution of “The 911 Attacks” and that indeed may be the real reason why Building 7 was so hastily demolished. However, the problems with overemphasizing Building 7 and under emphasizing The Twin Towers are extremely significant. No one is known to have died during the demolition of Building 7, while the vast majority of those killed on September 11th 2001 were killed in The Twin Towers, with most of those killed during the demolitions of the buildings. The other extremely significant problem with the overemphasis of the Building 7 issue is that the authorities in question can even more easily weasel their way out of addressing the issue of complicity of U.S. officials in “The 911 Attacks” with case of Building 7 than they can with case of The Twin Towers and that the issue of Building 7 can and is being used to distract from the much more important issue of The Twin Towers.”
“If Rudy Giuliani, Larry Silverstein, Jack Loizeaux, Alan Greenspan, Peter G. Peterson, and George W. Bush were directly confronted, in public, with irrefutable evidence of that the collapse of Building 7 was a controlled demolition, all they would have to say is that Building 7 was severely damaged during the “collapse” (sudden explosion) of The South Tower and that it was decided that Building 7 would be demolished in order to save lives and property and that the building was already unsalvageable anyway. If such a situation ever does arise the argument can and most likely will be made that it is not impossible to rig a 47 story building for standard controlled implosion style demolition within 7 hours. “Case closed, ’911 activists’ were making mountains of molehills” and Building 7 fades from public consciousness and takes The Twin Towers with it.”
“The point is The Twin Towers are the real issue. Building 7 is a side issue.”
So Abel Ashes looked at the same articles from Firehouse Magazine and came to yet another conclusion.
Post Modified: 10/07/05 12:39:17

R88121
5 years ago
cortez


Video
Someone please explain the puff
Post Modified: 10/06/05 21:48:15

R88123
5 years ago
fennec


R88378
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

More from Abel Ashes.
Scroll down a little bit for this story:
Eyewitnesses’ and Experts’ Testimonies
Consistent With Allegations of Deliberate Demolitions
Post Modified: 10/08/05 08:09:34

R88462
5 years ago
cortez

from 911blogger.com

William Rodriguez and Greg Szymanski Interview – Video Download
tvnewslies.org has posted an INN interview with William Rodriguez and Greg Syzmanski. This interview may be worth checking out for those unfamiliar with Rodriguez’s claims of major explosions in the sub-basements of the WTC before the first plane impact.
innrodriguesisdnsept05snow.wmv
An American hero A 20-year employee at one of the World Trade Center buildings hit on September 11, 2001, Rodriguez risked his life in saving many people and was honored for his heroism. And then Rodriguez testified in closed session to the official 9-11 commission (Kean-Zelikow), but his story of what happened that day the explosions in the sub-basements seconds before the plane hit, was suppressed by those whose task it is to cover-up what really happened. Special thanks to INNWorld Report for airing Rodriquez crucial evidence that exposes the Bush administrations lies.

R88485
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Yes, very interesting interview of Rodriguez and Syzmanski, especially, as you said, for people unfamiliar with Rodriguez’s story.
Also, at the very end of the interview, Greg Syzmanski, talked about an ongoing lawsuit, filed by the South Carolina firm of Motley Rice, which is attempting to recover damages for 9/11 victims by uncovering the money trail behind 9/11.
Syzmanski said the government was blocking discovery of an important 28 page document. You can read more about that document here.
Post Modified: 10/09/05 09:06:10

R88543
5 years ago
fennec


Post Modified: 10/09/05 18:16:06

R88564
5 years ago
2pacalypse

The ’93 bombing was just a test to see how much explosives it would take for the building to collapse into the parking garage.

R88572
5 years ago
fennec

Right, and that guy who let’s his doberman shit in your yard daily is just allowing you to test what the consistency, weight and volume that an average doberman pincher shits on a regular basis.

R88584
5 years ago
Chickenma1

“but it just doesn’t feel right to me. I don’t think that people are really that far-sighted.”
Other “far sighted” Bushie mindfucks:
1. Counting chads and butterfly ballots enables Bushies to mandate voting machines that their friends at Diebold just happen to have ready to go.
2. Screams of inadequate response over Katrina enable Bushies to throw a bunch of money at Halliburton, etal, without stopping to ask anybody’s permission.
3. Again, criticism of Katrina allows Bushies to push for martial law quarantines when the bird flu manages to mutate into a pandemic, possibly “in two weeks”.
4. Unlawful downloading of files at Los Alamos allows Bushies to scream security and wrestle the lab away from University of California into private Texas hands.
5. After crippling California with electricity price-gouging, a mysterious old law is dug out of the files which allows a free-for-all governor recall election and a Republican takeover.
6. Key players in local precincts and strange balloting as California, Texas and other states are forced to redistrict in non-census years.
7. Everything that happens is used as an opportunity to raise oil prices or give Halliburton more money.
I’m sure I’ve missed a few. Hmmm….

R88621
5 years ago
zark

Cortez: -Someone please explain the puff
ok, ahem. At the point of collapse, all the smokers on that floor exhaled at the same time saying “what the fuck was that explosion?”, sending a concentrated plume of cigarette smoke out the window.

there, its all explained.
Rodriguez statement is quality evidence especially when considering the stairwell and elevator structure. There is no way that jet fuel could travel down to that basement. Impossible. So … interesting, yes. Interesting and makes it clear that there were explosions all over the building.
Post Modified: 10/10/05 00:19:41

R88630
5 years ago
BetterRed

Popular Mechanics?
Yeah – I’m really gonna trust their analysis (well maybe if a skoda had crashed into a traffic light or something).
I am also not a structural engineer, but I have built computer models and found it interesting that the models created by Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-As were flawed (given the facts added in red font were correct). No matter how complex the algorithm, it is useless if the variables are compromised.
A main reason I have reservations about the ‘anti-conspiracy’ arguments (aside from the rantings of their proponents) is that they appear selective. Maybe the seismic thing is a bit hard to figure out – lets forget it. They also appear to act like victims, “all these nasty conspiracy theorists are after us”. They seem unaware that they have the support of most of the world’s capitalist class.

R88632
5 years ago
BetterRed

Popular Mechanics?
Yeah – I’m really gonna trust their analysis (well maybe if a skoda had crashed into a traffic light or something).
I am also not a structural engineer, but I have built computer models and found it interesting that the models created by Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-As were flawed (given the facts added in red font were correct). No matter how complex the algorithm, it is useless if the variables are compromised.
A main reason I have reservations about the ‘anti-conspiracy’ arguments (aside from the rantings of their proponents) is that they are selective. Maybe the seismic thing is a bit hard to figure out – lets forget it. They also appear to act like victims “all these nasty conspiracy theorists are after us”. They seem unaware that they have the support of most of the world’s capitalist class.

R88633
5 years ago
BetterRed

Apologies. I answered this thread after only reading the 1st page. Imd this is only the 2nd time I’ve posted in v2.0.
Post Modified: 10/10/05 05:21:10

R88674
5 years ago
Butt

but you’re right about Popular Mechanics

R88694
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Yes, I agree. And also, about your statements
the ‘anti-conspiracy’ arguments are selective
and
They also appear to act like victims “all these nasty conspiracy theorists are after us”. They seem unaware that they have the support of most of the world’s capitalist class.
Could not have said it better myself.
It’s like you want to say, give us an answer or two will you please, maybe a document or two, to prove that what we say is not true. But they hold onto it all, destroying evidence here, withholding it there, refusing to call witnesses, ignoring areas of the investigation, and attacking people who pursue 911 truth.
Post Modified: 10/10/05 12:59:21

R88743
5 years ago
whateveryousay

Maybe the seismic thing is a bit hard to figure out – lets forget it. —better
not sure if you were doing a popular mechanics impersonation or not there.
funny thing about the seismic readings.
the p-wave isn’t so strong as to say ‘explosions’ is what i’ve read.
look at this video
that’s sometimes called a “ripple shot” or “delayed blasting”. used in mining. one reason being because the destructive interference caused by multiple shots can “greatly reduce” p-waves. the expected readings from an amount of explosives have been show to be reduced by a factor of 60-300 because of destructive interference from delayed firing.

R88747
5 years ago
whateveryousay

that’s “shown” not “show”. oops.

R89502
5 years ago
Suitcaseman


R89534
5 years ago
whateveryousay

looks good.
too bad there isn’t any audio… i know it’s often just a news anchor voice over, but still, too bad.

R89608
5 years ago
Continuity

Fennec, you’re useless. Find another board to get bored on.

R89626
5 years ago
fennec

You know what all you 911 experts remind me of with all your “knowledge”?

R90035
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Sometimes it helps to go back to the beginning and see how the story developed. This site is pretty amazing. It is called 9-11 Research. If you are not familiar with it, and you are interested in 9-11, you should go to the site and read the introduction. Before you do anything else clik onto Site Guide on the left to find out how to use the website.
Concerning this 9-11 GNN forum discussion of 9-11, I call your attention to an article, which appeared two days after 9-11, on September 13, 2001, and which purported to explain why the towers fell.
Here is an excerpt from the section on Disinformation.
Academics helped to explain the collapses of the Twin Towers in articles in respected publications. Just two days after the attack, a scientific paper purported to fully explain the unprecedented engineering failures using “elastic dynamic analysis.” “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? – Simple Analysis” was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE on 9/13/01. Peer review of this paper and of other theories volunteering to explain the collapses was nowhere to be found.
And here is the article itself:
Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, in press
9/13/01, Expanded 9/22/01, Appendices 9/28/01)
“Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse”:http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/bazant_jem/bazant_zhou.html?—Simple Analysis
By Zdenek P. Bazant1, Fellow ASCE, and Yong Zhou
Post Modified: 10/16/05 08:26:00

R90216
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

These are the topics you will find in the section on
Disinformation
listed under the sub-heading Red Flags
daring flight routes
towering infernos
collapsing skyscrapers
miles-wide crash
paper highway
crash-proof passport
flunky super pilots
resurrected hijackers
1000 missing bodies
vanishing jetliner
carousing jihadists
“fatty” bin Laden
You can use these lists as a way of testing your knowledge of 9-11. Try to see if you can explain each red flag before clicking onto Red Flags
Post Modified: 10/17/05 06:55:34

R90226
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

I simply must be the 1400th post on this thread.
I wanted to put a cartoon I once saw about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in this space. It was a drawing of two arab men with t-shirts with the words “We Bombed the World Trade Center” on them. Can anybody locate it? You remember don’t you, one of the 93 bombers returned to Ryder Truck to get his deposit and was later arrested. After the Oklahoma bombing, Tomothy McVeigh was arrested driving a beat-up old car with no license plate. After JFK was murdered, Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested in a movie theater.
Post Modified: 10/17/05 08:16:09

No comments:

Post a Comment