In my view, this emphasis on controlled demolitions diverts us from matters which truly merit investigation, such as Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff's ties to an accused Al Qaida financer, or the possible links between Bin Laden and intelligence-connected drug routes. These areas of research remain under-discussed. Meanwhile, the "bomb brigade" includes some of the loudest loudmouths on the internet.
Alas, actor Charlie Sheen has joined their company.
His eyewitness description of 9/11 is worth reading. Nevertheless, I feel that he has bought into some misleading information:
Regarding building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, Sheen highlighted the use of the term "pull," a demolition industry term for pulling the outer walls of the building towards the center in an implosion, as was used by Larry Silverstein in a September 2002 PBS documentary when he said that the decision to "pull" building 7 was made before its collapse. This technique ensures the building collapses in its own footprint and can clearly be seen during the collapse of building 7 with the classic 'crimp' being visible...Let's look at what Larry Silverstein actually said...
"The term 'pull' is as common to the demolition world as 'action and 'cut' are to the movie world," said Sheen.
(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)
This is from an Alex Jones web page:
In a September 2002 PBS documentary called 'America Rebuilds,' Silverstein states, in reference to World Trade Center Building 7, "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."In context, the true meaning of Silverstein's report is clear. Firemen were inside the building trying to save it. Silverstein didn't want them to risk their lives. Better, he felt, to give the building up for lost -- to pull it down and build anew. The phrase "maybe the smartest thing to do" indicates a decision made on the spot -- a decision made by firemen ("they made the decision"), not by Silverstein and not by any band of conspirators. Nothing in this quote indicates a pre-arranged plan to pull the building that day. Nothing in this quote specifies that the building fell because it was "pulled."
As Oscar Wilde noted: "Quotation may be slander/If you gerrymander." This particular gerrymandered quotation represents just one of the ways the bomb theorists have misled the public.
Here's another commonly heard misconception: "Steel melts at 2800 degrees Fahrenheit; the fire caused by the exploding jet fuel could not have reached that temperature." Other sources give 1500 degrees.
My response comes in the form of what may seem a rather odd question: Did you know that you can make your own dagger? People do it all the time. They buy steel rasps (files) from the hardware store, and then they "cook" them in a fireplace or over the coals of an outdoor barbecue. This process is called annealing, and it is the first step in making the steel workable. I do not know how hot an outdoor barbecue gets, but I feel fairly sure that the temperature stays somewhere below 2800 degrees.
Point being: A piece of steel loses structural integrity at a much lower degree than is necessary to turn it into a running liquid.
For a while now, I've threatened to post an unpublished piece I wrote in early 2003 on the WTC7 collapse. Here are a few selections, detailing facts which the "bomb boys" don't want you to know:
* * *
In 1998, Mayor Rudolph Guiliani situated his Emergency Operations Center -- headquarters of the Office of Emergency Management -- on the 23rd floor. To provide this command post with power even if the rest of the city went dark, he arranged for the installation of a 6000 gallon fuel tank. According to New York City fire codes, such a unit must rest at or below ground level, encased in concrete. Technically, the tank was on the ground floor – although much depends upon how one defines the term: It sat atop a 15 foot pedestal, in order to escape possible flooding. Nobody knows if the fireproofed enclosure was adequate, or if the shock of the nearby collapses caused a rupture....
7 World Trade Center hid other diesel caches. Just below ground on the southwest side, four tanks held an astounding 36,000 gallons. Pipes connected this fuel to three 275 gallon tanks on the fifth, seventh and eight floors -- the same general area first hit by the fire, as documented by the photographic record. These smaller tanks, in turn, fed generators that serviced various tenants...
An engine from the first plane sailed through the South Tower and described, in its path of descent, an arc that took it very near Building 7. The engine finally landed on the street behind 7 World Trade Center. The other engine, or a flaming chunk of the South Tower, might well have sailed into the building itself. Granted, I’ve seen no photographic evidence of an "entrance wound," but, as the axiom has it, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. After scouring the web and flipping through many photo books, I have yet to find a single clear, detailed image showing what the key areas of building 7 looked like before 9:55. Cameramen focused on buildings one and two, while the eight-story tall 6 World Trade Center did much to obscure the lower region of its 47-floor sibling.
Within that structure, pipes carried diesel from the massive ground floor units up to the smaller tanks on floors five, seven and eight, where fire broke out. Any fiery rupture of that piping could have ignited the upper fuel deposits. (Alternatively, an aircraft engine could have struck one of the tanks directly.) If gas flowing within that pipe turned to flame, the 36,000 gallon underground tanks might have ignited, and one can easily guess how the resulting explosion would have affected both the lobby area and the Mayor’s cache of emergency fuel. In all, 7 World Trade Center hosted some 43,000 gallons of diesel -- perhaps more, if the CIA maintained its own fuel supply, as some believe that agency did. This potential explosive power far exceeded that of the bomb Timothy McVeigh (and friends?) stuffed into their infamous Ryder truck.
Irving Cantor, the engineer initially baffled by the fall of the edifice he had helped create, accepted the preliminary findings of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA pointed an accusing finger at the diesel tanks, which did not feature in the original plans.
Although this scenario explains how the tower became an inferno, we still have no answer for the most important question: How did fire bring about the collapse of Building 7? In theory, skyscrapers should withstand an uncontrolled blaze.
If you have ever stepped inside a large open space within the ground floors of a tall building, you may have wondered how such a vast expanse could support the floors above. Architects use huge steel beams known as transfer trusses to distribute the weight – and such trusses played a major role in the construction of 7 World Trade Center. The design had to enclose ten previously-existing, 35-foot tall power transformers, much as one might use a paper cup to cover a ping pong ball. These transformers contained 109,000 gallons of oil, adding even more potential fuel to the fire. The transfer trusses over the power stations ran through floors five, six and seven; the fire-resistant spray-on coating on these beams probably crumbled when the nearby collapses shook the area. Fire weakened the trusses, and the weight of 30-odd floors brought the building down.
(By comparison, a foot-thick sheath of protective tile surrounded the steel support beams within 90 West Street, the 1907 structure which remained standing even when gutted by fire. Modern builders consider tile too heavy and too expensive for fire retardation purposes.)
* * *
End of self-quotation. I would argue that a similar situation contributed to the downfall of towers 1 and 2, both of which suffered from poor design and inadequate fireproofing. The gas lines running throughout the buildings may well explain the anecdotal reports of explosions.
As I've said more than once, the allegations of a controlled demolition rest upon an absurd premise. Setting up such a demolition is an ostentatious, laborious process; covert operatives running bombs into the building would have run a great risk of discovery.
Why would anyone have bothered? The image of airliners hitting the towers provided all the casus belli needed for any devious plan the neocons wanted to put into action.
I've asked this question numerous times, and have yet to receive an answer that I found even partially persuasive.
27 comments:
All right, I'll bite.
1. I agree, the bomb crowd makes too much of the ambiguous "pull it" remark, but I don't think he means "evacuate" because as far as I know there was never any effort made to fight the fires and there was no one to evacuate.
2. Annealing is done to soften steel, which does not necessarily cause it to lose much of its strength. As I recall, the temperature/strength curves of the steel in question did not show much loss of strength at 1500 F. Note that NIST has not one piece of core steel showing heating above 250 degrees C.
3. Your discussion of the fuel tanks is interesting, but I'll note that though some firemen claimed there was structural damage to the building, AFAIK none of them claimed there were diesel-fueled fires. On the other hand, FEMA explored the diesel-fire theory quite enthusastically (and poo-pooed the structural damage) but ultimately admitted that the diesel theory had a low probability of having occurred.
4. Your assertion that "Setting up such a demolition is an ostentatious, laborious
process" may be true in most buildings. The WTC towers provided a unique opportunity to access the major core columns in the elevator shafts. Using an elevator car as movable staging, radio-controlled charges could be placed quite quickly.
5. Why bother with explosives? Because merely hitting the towers was not enough to create "terror". Suppose the fires burned out and the towers remained standing. The impression would have been endurance and strength. A few hundred people would have been dead, as in a plane crash. Survivors would have climbed down from the top of the towers. Only bringing the towers down would create the terror effect, showing the vulnerability of civilization to those ubiquitous flying bombs.
Also, you need to check out Appendix C
to the FEMA report. A team of researchers at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts studied steel samples from WTC7 and were quite mystefied by their "evaporation" from a high-temperature sulfidative attack. WPI still has an article on its web site "The Deep Mystery of the Melted Steel." The researchers could not explain the source of the sulfur, and though I've had laymen try to tell me it came from drywall or carpets or the diesel, no scientist to my knowledge has made any attempt to explain it.
Hi Joseph,
Re your discussion of WTC 7: your assumption of the diesel fires has a lot more certainty than the relevant FEMA report dares to conclude. Also: NIST (which is a very relevant body for every structural engineer) still has not published their report on WTC7. There is a powerpoint on their web site, broadly explaining the way WTC7 collapsed. But that powerpoint doesn't say anything concrete about the cause, just some vage guesses about diesel fires. I even remember that the FEMA (or was it the EPA?)has described how a lot of diesel was still in the tanks when they cleared the rubble.
(This for the record, I don't want to make this into a tit for tat discussion. :)
You write:
Why would anyone have bothered? The image of airliners hitting the towers provided all the casus belli needed for any devious plan the neocons wanted to put into action.
Hmm. Maybe a visual experience that wildly transgresses the borders of a person's imagination? Also handy: removing the evidence.
But, don't theorise and try to reconstruct other people's motives too much.
Let them explain why it isn't so. That's why Sheen is does the right thing and keeps asking the stupid, unanswered questions. What does he have to lose?
Hi Joseph,
I usually also agree that putting too much emphasis on the controlled demolition theory risks focusing on a physical evidence problem, which at the end of the day will pit one group of experts against another group of experts, with the public getting puzzled inconclusion, just like the magic bullet theory some four decades after the fact.
On the other hand, there is something very much in the air, here in NYC. It is sometimes hard to keep in mind given the borderless internet that geography still matters with respect to the media, and I recall that you are in LA. There is a lot of buzz here in NYC, because major local media are actually beginning to take 9/11 truth issues seriously. A few weeks ago, the Village Voice, perhaps the premiere alt weekly in the nation, devoted a cover and several articles to it, here:
http://villagevoice.com/news/0608,murphy,72254,6.html
And a few days ago, just as Charlie was making his comments, New York Magazine, a thorougly mainstream rag, ran a respectful 9/11 truth piece -- most importantly written by a reporter who was at ground zero on 9/11 and has been mystified ever since about the collapse of WTC7:
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index.html
One of the most chilling parts of the piece is his first hand recollection concerning WTC 7:
{quote}
Hours later, I sat down beside another, impossibly weary firefighter. Covered with dust, he was drinking a bottle of Poland Spring water. Half his squad was missing. They’d gone into the South Tower and never come out. Then, almost as a non sequitur, the fireman indicated the building in front of us, maybe 400 yards away.
“That building is coming down,” he said with a drained casualness.
“Really?” I asked. At 47 stories, it would be a skyscraper in most cities, centerpiece of the horizon. But in New York, it was nothing but a nondescript box with fire coming out of the windows. “When?”
“Tonight . . . Maybe tomorrow morning.”
This was around 5:15 p.m. I know because five minutes later, at 5:20, the building, 7 World Trade Center, crumbled.
“Shit!” I screamed, unsure which way to run, because who knows which way these things fall. As it turned out, I wasn’t in any danger, since 7 WTC appeared to drop straight down. I still have dreams about the moment. Even then, the event is oddly undramatic, just a building falling.
{unquote}
I also never thought much of the Silverstein quote until I read this little vignette.
Then CNN does a respectful 9/11 truth piece, which I haven't seen yet, I think last night.
Something is turning, and it is happening here in NYC where about 50% of people polled, people who saw that shit, think it was at least in part an inside job.
What is totally scary is that for many of us who speculated about 9/11 truth issues for the last several years, and hoped for the truth to come out, if we are right, then all bets are off about what kind of politics we get next. It's terrifying to consider what would happen if even some of the theories were proven to the public and ratified by the media: truth and reconciliation style commissions going back to JFK or lynch mobs in DC looking for cabinet members and congressmen?
I don't know but you can smell it in the air here in NYC
HamdenRice from DU
Joseph, can you actually find us evidence of an explosion that brought WTC7 down? Seculation's cheap, but no-one has yet been able to present any persuasive evidence for an explosion.
Your use of the interchange between Silverstein and the fire chief is itself a quote out of context. We don't have any record, as far as I'm aware, of what conversations Silverstein and the fire department had before that -- nor has the question been raised very often about what else they may have said in their previous conversations about the building.
While I do not pretend to be able to answer all questions, I can offer a few points in response to the above:
1. Annealing softens metal. After exposure to temperatures well below 1500 degrees, a rasp can be shaped into something non-raspy. Many believe that the "transfer truss" design is inherently unstable under the best of circumstances.
2. I didn't know that firemen in the process of fighting a fire usually offered opinions as to what caused the blaze.
3. If the Worcester Polytechnic Institute is puzzled by the presence of sulfur, I suppose I ought to be as well. Even so, this laymen would like to remind you of the presence of 109,000 gallons of oil, and that the type of oil used in the generation of electricty has (as a little googling will tell you) a notable sulfur content which would be dispersed into the air as the oil burns.
4. From the WPI's introduction to the "Mystery of the Melted Steel" study: ""The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary--as acid rain." http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
5. For quite a while now, bomb buffs have pointed to that Silverman quote as though it were the holy grail. Now that I've noted out that it doesn't mean the buffs THINK it means, they say: "Pfft. The quote is unimportant."
C'mon, guys. Play fair. This isn't Calvinball -- you can't change the rules as you go along.
6. What does that New York Magazine piece come to? An exhausted fireman reports that his bosses had decided to give up on WTC7. Well, we knew that from the Silverstein business discussed above.
7. "Joseph, can you actually find us evidence of an explosion that brought WTC7 down?" By which you mean, I presume, an explosion involving the deisel tanks. In the first place, the burden of proof is on those positing a conspiracy. (I accept this challenge speaking as one who has posited a few conspiracies in his time.) Second, photographs show that fire broke out on the very floors where deisel tanks were stored. Coincidence?
8. Every time I ask the "Why bother?" question, the answer comes down to this: "More psychological oomph. People would not have gotten really, really, REALLY scared unless they saw buildings fall."
You really expect me to believe that this posited "oomph" factor justified the expense, the drain on the economy, the loss of life?
Okay. Let us posit that someone -- call him Mr. Evil -- pushed a button and set off bombs in the south tower, which went first. Why didn't he wait until the building was evacuated?
"Because it was important to maximize the loss of life! He needed to SCARE people! Oomph! They needed lots of OOMPH!"
Okay. But if that "oomph" factor made it so bloody important to maximize the loss of life and scare people, why didn't Mr. Evil make BOTH buildings go down at once? Why wait until the north tower was evacuated?
"Um...maybe he was SOMEWHAT evil but not TOTALLY evil...?"
Yes, I know that I've argued with a straw man, which is, I suppose, a very presidential thing to do. But I doubt that any real life debater will be able to make the scenario more convicing to me.
More stupid questions:
How long does it take to set explosives to "pull" a building of that size? Shouldn't it take DAYS? If true, that would indicate to me that the explosives were set in advance.
Was anyone inside the building or in the surrounding area when it fell? I have read that at least one person died when WTC 7 fell. If so, there was no official warning, and they were going to go with the "it just fell" storyline.
What about the "power down" in the WTC towers in the weeks before? Are those stories true? Also, the absence of bomb-sniffing dogs in the weeks leading up to the "attack."
Is it true that Silverstein bought insurance on those 3 buildings and none of the others? Would evil men perpetrate a massive coverup to make half a billion dollars? (That's an easy one.)
Silverstein's group now owns the Sears Tower (Chicago IL, 60606). Will it be "attacked" on 6/6/06 and blamed on Iran based on the type of explosives? (Just a crazy pre-emptive conspiracy theory.) The Madrid subway bombing on 3/11/04 occurred exactly 911 days after 9/11/01. You have to be a coincidence theorist to think that's not significant. Looks like 9/8/06 is 911 days after that attack. I'm gettin the hell outta town just in case!
OK, Joseph, I'll bite this time:
1. There is a difference between iron and constuction steel. The first is soft, the second is much stronger, but also certified. It's classification (and resulting strength curve) is found in every engineer's design book. Off-shore oil rigs are built from the same stuff!
2. Most firemen don't do that, therefore it's slightly strange that it happened it time. Gossip, hearsay, etc.
3/4. The remarkable thing of the sulphur found in WTC7's steel beams, was that it had become part of the steel (i.e. part of it's crystalline structure). Put any piece of iron (your choice) in a diesel fire, and no sulphur wil enter its crystalline structure.
5. Siversteins's quote is, I agree, multi-interpretable (is that English?). More sillines is in the current little (or big) spat between Silverstein and Bloomberg, about rebuilding Ground Zero. Or Silversteins gyrations to get paid twice from his insurance company for 9/11. Doesn't prove anything, remains strange.
6. Is hearsay, cannot judge.
7. Explosions are speculation. The only thing we really know are 1., 3/4. (see above).
8. This is all speculation about motives. I only can speculate at this moment. But steel building don't just simply collapse. (Steel oil rigs also don't simply collapse, unless a force majeure like maybe Katrina happens).
Really, there are many questions left, especially about motives. I could fantasise about world government, putsch-thinking, etcetera, but I just don't know.
I focus on the construction bit to make clear that there's something serously amiss with the official story. Reconstructing the motives is something the we all have to do. I feel it should be a part of mainstream politics.
Understanding the details of the fall of these three towers is the Rosetta Stone to unravelling the official cover story of the events of those days.
As has been amply laid out elsewhere (David Ray Griffin's work, eg), these collapses share some dozen or more characteristics of controlled demolitions, lacking no such characteristic. It should go without saying, but for the more obtuse among us, large buildings do NOT collapse this way when they fail and fall from other causes, and it is a highly technical matter even for professionals to achieve these effects. That is why few companies are even in that business, and those that are receive high remuneration.
IMO, these facts together with Occam's Razor should make the controlled demolition so-called 'theory' rather the odds-on presumptive assumption, and the 'official story' is likewise the obviously extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proofs (none of which have been provided).
Whether Charlie Sheen or anybody else agrees or disagrees has nothing to do with the truth of things.
Tell my how the standard story accounts for the antenna, attached to the core, beginning to move downward as soon as the collapse began. How can the standard story explain the topmost 20 floors or so, tipping over sideways (as shown in the photos), not landing well outside the footprint of the building, but instead being pulverized to dust IN THE AIR. Are there any of the alleged mechanisms that can yield a near-free fall time for the collapse of the buildings, even though they would have been falling through redundantly strong steel and concrete floors below?
I think you have to listen to Silverstein's "pull it" quote. Once you hear it, it's clear he meant demolition.
As for the towers, answer this.
There was essentially no intact concrete, no chunks, no slabs of concrete, in the rubble pile. Virtually all of the concrete in the 110 floor slabs of the tower were turned to a fine powder and spread over the city, from river to river.
Absent explosives what is the mechanism for that? Remember the concrete made up the floors of the building. It was poured into the corregated steel floor pan to a depth of 4 inches and then covered in carpet. How was it all converted to powder? Strong explosions in the central core exploding outward could do it, how else?
could it be that Bush started his illegal spying soon after he took office in 2001 in order to make sure there were no "leaks" regarding the upcoming 9/11 attacks? That no one from the inside (the special ops 9/11 team) leaked information to the press or anyone else?
If 9/11 is an inside job used to push through the Patriot Act, bomb Afghanistan, wage war in Iraq and provide a backdrop for Bush to get re-elected, then there is no way for this hunta to ever let go of power illegally gotten.
i believe that the next "event" of national significance will occur in late August/early September which will result in waging war against Iran and Bush suspending the constitution.
Regardless of whether or not Bush has public support, it won't matter any longer since as he said "dictatorship is so much easier". Plus this neo-con, neo-nazi extremists are chomping at the bit to finally have power to do middle of the night roundups against the liberals, jews, anti-war protestors, athiests. The final implementation of the long sought after police state this rabid fascist group has sought for so long since JFK's murder.
yes it is true that Silverstein took out new insurance policies on the WTC in July 2001 and this paid off quite handsomely for him.
sofla said:
The prior explosion at the WTC in '93, and the explosion at the Murraugh Federal Building in OKC, were NOT enough to get the Congress to then pass what later were rubberstamped in the dead of the night without being read as the provisions of the Patriot Act, even though there was some loss of life in both cases and Clinton had sought those expanded powers back when.
When you ask questions of mass psychology and hysteria, you should realize that our (or other countries') intel organizations' psyops really are state of the art, having been lavished with untold black budget research grants, and augmented by numerous real world trials and after-action reports and debriefings. The boys do a great job (although usually for evil purposes, IMO), and if they judged that the complete destruction of those buildings was required to stampede American opinion, I think we can take their word on it.
It should be noted that many birds were killed with that one stone, not the least of which was what WERE the Rockefeller boys going to do with that white elephant project, as more and more tenants left, and the study (still in the public domain!) for either retrofitting or demolishing the site showed an extreme cost into the billions to handle the asbestos problem in an environmentally sound and legally mandated fashion.
Beyond that, most of the law enforcement agencies had their local offices there, including the CIA offices, the Treasury FinCen criminal investigators for some of the largest financial crimes in history (AND all their evidence), etc. One such set of offices, a couple dozen floors below the plane hit, was reached prior to the demolition, and it was reported as bombed to smithereens.
If you don't even fucking know what annealing is, then you probably should just shut up.
Joseph, you wrote:
"Better, he felt, to give the building up for lost -- to pull it down and build anew. The phrase "maybe the smartest thing to do" indicates a decision made on the spot -- a decision made by firemen ("they made the decision"), not by Silverstein and not by any band of conspirators. Nothing in this quote indicates a pre-arranged plan to pull the building that day."
So you admit that WTC7 was intentionally demolished? I am confused because it also seems you think that the fires brought the building down. So which is it, fire or demolition?
(C'mon, guy. Play fair. This isn't Calvinball -- you can't change the rules as you go along)
As to why the WTC buildings had to be demolished (as opposed to just crashing the planes)I just came across this from Dave at Dave'sWeb which reinforces my idea that this may have been the primary purpose:
Let's just suppose, for the moment, that a decision was made, at some point in time, to rid New York City of the World Trade Center towers. Under normal circumstances, that would have been nearly impossible to accomplish. Even with the most carefully controlled demolitions, it simply would not be possible to bring the gargantuan towers down without doing a considerable amount of collateral damage to surrounding buildings. And it's a fairly safe bet that the toxic clouds of dust that blanketed much of Manhattan would not have been well received.
But if those collapses could be packaged into the Hollywood-style production known as the September 11 terr'ist attacks, then two birds could be killed with one stone: the towers could be brought down, and it could be done in the most spectacular way possible, thus traumatizing the nation and properly conditioning the people to accept the prepackaged, post-911 agenda.
It's possible that the WTC 93 bombing may have been a failed attempt, or a dry run, as Dave suggests. This seems a very interesting idea to me. Whoever was running 911 it may be that the goal of destroying the twin towers - and the WTC 7 housing SEC prosecution files - was the primary aim (!) of 911. Maybe it was just business as well as political?
What are the odds of two towers coming cleanly down by being hit by airplanes? When has this happened before? The video looks EXACTLY like a controlled demolition to anyone who has seen one. And bombs had been placed in the WTC towers in '93 so why shouldn't people be suspicious that this involved a controlled demolition?
Why did the FBI and other intelligence agencies keep backing down on arresting people they had indications were about to attack the towers in '93 and '01 and even in the OKC bombing case? And now they want more powers to spy on us?
Why did they back down on doing something about Katrina?
Why do they back down on investigating the lies that got us into a war?
Nothing changes in this country because so many people are so afraid to call a spade a spade. If this was not all part of an inside job involving some of our own then the government needs to open up all of those hidden files, videos and black boxes and clear this crap up so the American people can trust them again.
Jesus Christ, I'm so sick of this bullshit.
Hey Joseph
yer right about that ambiguous "pull it" quote, clearly Silverstein meant the firemen. I mean I use the pronoun
"it" in place of a person or persons all the time. In fact, I met it for dinner last night and it agreed with me but it still left without saying goodbye. It's an asshole.
thank you Joseph for your fury..it has fired up the intelligent quotient significently. Zeal is a wonderful animator towards truth and inquirey..so keep the Cannonfires burning and burning and burning evermore..cause in the inferno we will infer "no" to this rotten Nazi clones of Hitler currently repicating all of Adolphs blueprints, spread over ther Pesidents desk.
Hallejujah! I see an army marching now and they are immersed in a cloud of "glory".
I gave up on you sometime last year when I realized that you were blind to the most obvious fraud perpetrated in our lifetimes. Nobody who looks at the evidence objectively arrives at any conclusion but that of a stage-managed event designed to confer unlimited power upon the perpetrators. You are still trying to make excuses for cold- hearted killers. You are either: A) On the payroll of some spook organization or B)The stupidest smart person around.
There was a program on dutch tv last sunday that debunked the cd of tt and the pentagon missile attack. However, a cd-expert with 30 years of experience, looking at the collapse of building 7 without obviously knowing it was building 7, concluded: this building was brought down with explosives, you can see it by the way it collapses.
He reacted spontanously, and was left in confusion when the reporter told him the collapse took place at the same site.
http://cgi.omroep.nl/cgi-bin/streams?/tv/vara/zembla/bb.20060910.asf
the building 7 piece starts at about 46 minutes. it's in dutch, but you can read bodylanguage, i presume.
I was going to write what last anon said about the Dutch top demolition expert's comments on the WTC 7 collapse. It was featured in a mainstream documentary that will soon hit the web with english subtitles. As confident as he was about the the WTC 1&2 collapses, including 'the puffs' what he says is the failing of bolted joints what can easily be mistaken for 'cutter charge' explosions. He said the wiring and placing of explosives for a hypothetical top-down demolition of WTC 1&2 would be a year of work. But the WTC7 footage shown to him after his analysis of WTC 1&2 clearly shocked him. 'This is the work of a team of experts'. He tried to logically explain it away by saying that there was enough time to prepare the building between the plane crashes and the WTC7 collapse. But when he heard about the fires inside WTC7 he clearly showed doubt about this scenario, but sticked to his conclusion of the WTC7 controlled demolition.
I'll just note because it's not completely on topic, but one of the arrested Israelis from the art-student DEA groups/moving companies, the one named Peer SEGALOVITZ, told his interrogators he was a demolition expert. Also Sibel Edmonds has spoken about skyscraper blue prints that were send to a certain middle eastern country from Nevada a couple of months prior to 9-11.
Watch the video of the Dutch demolition expert with his statements on WTC 7 here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqrn5x2_f6Q&eurl=
Some of the subs are not correctly translated however. Where it says
'It has jumped after' the demolition expert uses industry slang that
better translates to (to first cut the columns..) and then set of secondary charges.
As I understand it, the WTC Complex, especially the Twin Towers was a white elephant and a money loser for the Port Authority and was about to cost them an extra billion dollars to come into complience with the asbestos codes of the city, state, and nation. Many floors were vacant and other tenants had plans to leave. The idea of demolition had been considered by the Port Authority but a stick by stick demolition would have been necessary and very cost prhibitive. How convienient that a personal friend of Ariel Sharron and Ben Netanyahu would gain control of the buildings and get them insured against terrorist attack for the first time in their history just a few short weeks before their demolition(Oops, I mean collapse.) giving them just enough time to set the charges necessary to bring the structures down. How to explain the molten iron in the basements? How to explain the pulveerization of the non-metalic solids that made up the buildings? How to explain the fact that over half of the weight of the noncombustible contents of the buildings were pulverized and not accounted for at the site of the clean-up? They weren't hauled off to Fresh Kills and weren't sold as scrap to China and the like. They were pulverized into dust and, as Governor Pataki said, Spread across Manhattan. How to explain the bone fragments on top of the Deutsche Bank Bldg. that were no more than slivers? What mechanism other than massive exlosion could explain the fragmentation of these human remains that had been part of intact beings prior to the "collapse" of the buildings. How to explain the lack of intact though crushed office furniture, computers, filing cabinets, elevators, waterfountains, toilets, sinks, not to mention people (over 1,000 still missing) sandwiched between the "pancaked" floors like the filling in some macabre Dagwood sandwich, as the NIST Report would have us believe happened? And, one last question, why do you who have obviously studied the question in greater depth and detail than most continue to promote any theory at all other than the theory of controled demolition, recognizing that without a legitimate criminal investigation into the matter all theories are just that, theories, and the best one yet to fit the data is without a doubt the theory of controled demolition? I leave with a quote from Macbeth " I begin to doubt the equivocation of the fiend that lies like truth."
Peace Tom Tvedten MD
It's sad that because some people with too much imagination (or not taking their medication) plagued the 9/11 truth movement since its beginning, a lot of people rejected all alternative explanation outside the "official" story, fearing being associated with nut jobs and conspiracy theorists.
But when you think about it for 30 seconds: 19 dudes from Saudi Arabia, with boxcuter taking over airplanes, bringing down 3 steel towers in almost freefall perfectly on their footprint like controlled demolition, that sounds like a very weird conspiracy theory to me... and all the political recuperation afterward to justify everything makes me even more suspicious.
-Anonymous put it so well ... I just wanted to jump to one other aspect ...
Follow the money ...
CNN later confirmed that it was "Ahmed Umar Syed Sheikh, whom authorities say used a pseudonym to wire $100,000 to suspected hijacker Mohammad Atta, who then distributed the money in the United States." [8]
Soon after the money transfer was discovered, the head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, Gen. Mahmood (Mahmud) Ahmed resigned from his position. Indian news outlets reported the FBI was investigating the possibility that Gen. Mahmood Ahmed ordered Saeed Sheikh to send the $100,000 to Atta, while most Western media outlets only reported his connections to the Taliban as the reason for his departure. [9]
The Wall Street Journal was one of the few Western news organizations to follow up on the story, citing the Times of India: "US authorities sought [Gen. Mahmud Ahmed's] removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 [was] wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen Mahumd." [10] The best coverage came from The Daily Excelsior, reporting "The FBI’s examination of the hard disk of the cellphone company Omar Sheikh had subscribed to led to the discovery of the 'link' between him and the deposed chief of the Pakistani ISI, Gen. Mehmood Ahmed. And as the FBI investigators delved deep, sensational information surfaced with regard to the transfer of 100,000 dollars to Mohammed Atta, one of the Kamikaze pilots who flew his Boeing into the World Trade Centre. Gen. Mehmood Ahmed, the FBI investigators found, fully knew about the transfer of money to Atta." [11]
According to the Washington Post, "on the morning of Sept. 11, [Porter] Goss and [Bob] Graham were having breakfast with a Pakistani general named Mahmud Ahmed -- the soon-to-be-sacked head of Pakistan's intelligence service".[54] On September 12 and September 13, Lt. Gen. Mahmood met with Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Senator Joseph Biden, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Secretary of State Colin Powell. An agreement on Pakistan's collaboration in the new "War on Terrorism" was negotiated between Mahmood and Armitage.[55][56][57][58] Lt Gen Mehmood Ahmed then lead a six-member delegation to the Afghan city of Kandahar in order to hold crisis talks with the Taliban leadership, supposedly in an attempt to persuade them to hand over Osama bin Laden.[12]
^ Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States, 11 September 2001. 10 Downing Street, Office of the Prime Minister of the U.K. (2001, November 14). Retrieved on 2006-09-29.
^ Lawrence Freedman (2002-08-22). Out of Nowhere?. BBC. Retrieved on 2006-10-16.
^ Phil Hirschkorn (2003-02-26). New York remembers 1993 WTC victims. CNN. Retrieved on 2006-10-16.
^ Phil Hirschkorn (2003-02-26). New York remembers 1993 WTC victims. CNN. Retrieved on 2006-10-16.
^ Lawrence Freedman (2002-08-22). Out of Nowhere?. BBC. Retrieved on 2006-10-16.
^ Swansea student links to Bin Laden. BBC (2001-09-18). Retrieved on 2006-10-16.
Americans are DUMB & you just put the last nail in the coffin.
The Talmud is Judaism's holiest book (actually a collection of books). Its authority takes precedence over the Old Testament in Judaism. Evidence of this may be found in the Talmud itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition): "My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah (Old Testament)."
"When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (three years and a day) it is as if one put the finger into the eye." The footnote says that as “tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.”
Kethuboth 11b.
there`s nothing ambiguous about that remark. It´s quite clear. You guys make it "ambiguous", or i should say:
Try a LOT to. Some people attitude its all about disinformation and confusion. I would say: Stick to the so called "stupid questions" they are quite objective, would´t you say?
..well..i suppose you wouldn´t.
Post a Comment