9/11 WTC Demolition worker to confess!

[=RTM=]

WTC Demolition worker to confess!
A now born again Christian who was part of the WTC demolition wants to come clean and say what took place on 9/11! look for his confession soon and remember, you heard it here first!

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/WTC/WTC-Basement-top-secret.gif

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/WTC/wtc-beams-3.gif

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/WTC/wtc-beams-large.gif

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/WTC/WTC-basement-camera.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/WTC/WTC7.gif

[clambake]

you lost me at "born again christian"

[=RTM=]

you lost me at "born again christian"


Ask Satan for the cliff notes!

:wakeup

[Whottt.]

you lost me at "born again christian"

I have read your posts in here! I got news, you have been lost since you came to ST :lol

[BacktoBasics]

Is he part of this movement?

http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/6F393F4DE41C4CF798CBB438E6378129/september-clues-part1.aspx

[clambake]

I have read your posts in here! I got news, you have been lost since you came to ST :lol

thats because you haven't provided me with enough ground breaking discoveries.

i need your guidance

[George Gervin's Afro]

IF, this is true there is no way this guy will live to tell about it..

[shelshor]

I have read your posts in here! I got news, you have been lost since you came to ST :lol
???http://imdb.com/title/tt0061489/???

[BacktoBasics]

IF, this is true there is no way this guy will live to tell about it..No he'll live and they'll pay no attention to him. Killing him would just look worse, the longer they ignore him the quicker he'll go away. Americans have the attention span of next to nothing, no sense in bringing more attention by acknowledging him.

[ChumpDumper]

Bloated GIF forum.

[xrayzebra]

Here we go again. Sheeesh..........

[Nbadan]

Another classic Mouse thread.

:hat

[Wild Cobra]

Probably as accurate as what the left's favorite phony soldier says...

[George Gervin's Afro]

Probably as accurate as what the left's favorite phony soldier says...


as accurate as what hush talks about on a daily basis

[Fat boy]

My teacher at SAC said he heard something on this very man. He is not in the country anymore. And get this, he only had one family member and he mysteriously died in Iraq!

[smeagol]

When is the "confession" publicly announced?

[RandomGuy]

I remember this. It was proven to have been faked a while back.

Thermite burns at thousands of degrees centigrade and requires contact with the surface of a beam to cut through it.

Please explain how rubber bands hold thermite next to columns. ;)

The other thread from a year ago that promised the same bullshit. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65814&page=1&pp=26)

[smeagol]

RG the debunker

[Wild Cobra]

Please explain how rubber bands hold thermite next to columns. ;)

I know teacher...

They came from the planet Krypton!

[=RTM=]

Please explain how rubber bands hold thermite next to columns. ;)



=2 seconds after thermite is lite it welds itself so any metal object. Since that is not just thermite but and explosive? It only needs 1 and 1/2 seconds to cut through the beam,did you not see how fast the WTC came down? you do the math. Besides the elastic bands they use are not 'rubber bands' but a special band that is durable and stretches.

On a side note: I am sure If I used a "rubber band" to tie a stick of dynamite to your ass it would hold it there long enough to blow your shit away.

Leave it to RandonGuy to try and ask some sort of technical question to avoid the topic that him and Chump are about to be exposed as the true morons they really are =

:lmao


http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml

[RandomGuy]

=2 seconds after thermite is lite it welds itself so any metal object. Since that is not just thermite but and explosive? It only needs 1 and 1/2 seconds to cut through the beam,did you not see how fast the WTC came down? you do the math. Besides the elastic bands they use are not 'rubber bands' but a special band that is durable and stretches.

On a side note: I am sure If I used a "rubber band" to tie a stick of dynamite to your ass it would hold it there long enough to blow your shit away.

Leave it to RandonGuy to try and ask some sort of technical question to avoid the topic that him and Chump are about to be exposed as the true morons they really are =

:lmao


http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml

I'll beleive it when I see it. Still waiting six months later, mouse.

[xrayzebra]

I'll beleive it when I see it. Still waiting six months later, mouse.

RG will you PM me when he confesses. Thank you.

[RandomGuy]

RG will you PM me when he confesses. Thank you.

Promise me not to hold your breath. We might not agree politically, but I still kinda like ya.

[Nbadan]

Thermite just doesn't seem likely, but.......it doesn't rule out the possibility that shape charges could have been used,...........or not........

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/thermiteonwtccolumns_small.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

I'll beleive it when I see it. Still waiting six months later, mouse.
Me too. My understanding is something like a 'welding' occurs, but it is a liquid state still, and would fall in a vertical environment. I don't think the surface tension would be adequate to hold the weight.

[RandomGuy]

Thermite just doesn't seem likely, but.......it doesn't rule out the possibility that shape charges could have been used,...........or not........


ASSERTION 1:
"The towers' collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions."

PROTEC COMMENT: No they didn't. It's the "where".

When discussing similarities between the towers' collapse and an explosive demolition many people overlook the single question most central to any objective investigation. It is not "how" or "when" the buildings failed but "where" they failed. That answer holds the key to understanding almost everything that occurred at Ground Zero.

Since their inception in the late 1800's, blasting engineers have understood that building implosions work best when the forces of gravity are maximized. This is why blasters always concentrate their efforts on the lowest floors of a structure. While smaller supplemental charges can be placed on upper floors to facilitate breakage and maximize control as the structure collapses, every implosion ever performed has followed the basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors first, "to get the structure moving."

This was not the case with the collapse of Towers 1 and 2. Close examination of these events from every video and photographic angle available does not indicate failure originating from the lowest floors, rather clearly shows each building beginning ot fail at precisely the point where the respective planes struck. That is, no floors above, or below the impact points every move until the structural elements within the impact zone begin to collapse. (WTC 7 collapsed differently which we will cover later).

Futher there are no independent failures present while the structures are collapsing (we're not talkinga dust plumes or debris, but actual structural failure). All lower floors remained completely intact until they were comsumed by the collapse from above.

Because countless images confirm this assessment and none contradict it, we believe this fact to be visually indisputable.

Therefore, for explosives to be considered as a primary or supplemental catalyst, one would have to accept that either, a) dozens of charges were placed on those exact impact floors in advance and survived the violent initial explosions and 1100+ degree Fahrenheit fires, or b) while the fires were burning, charges were installed undetected throughout the impact floors and wired together, ostensibly by people hiding in the building with boxes of explosives. There is no third choice that could adequately explain explosives causing failure at the exact impact points.

The chemical properties of explosive and their reaction to heat render scenario A scientifically impossible and scenario B remarkably unlikely, as we know of no explosive compound that could withstand such force and/or heat without detaching from teh columns or simply burning off prior to detonation.

There are other problems with both scenarios: Given that consistant weight distrobution around the outer perimeter of each structure, one would have needed access to a prohibitively large quantity of load-bearing I-beam columns to allow "cutter charges" to initiate failure. Thoes columns would have needed extensive preparation, also know as "pre-burning, " to allow the explosives to perform their function. And[sic] in order to prepare the columns you first had to be able to see [emphasis authors-RG]the columns, which means at least partially removing the outer perimeter interior walls of all blast floors, including furniture, plumbing and conduit lines, insulation, etc.

All of this would have been performed within the 55 minutes between plane impact and collapse --working in an environment of unspeakable heat and destruction -- or have been performed completely undetected, in advance, on multiple floors in both buildngs, while suffering no adverse effects from the planes' impact with these same areas.

This is impossible. [emphasis:RG]

A trade magazine implosionworld.com report from people who blow up (ok, blow down) buildings for a living (warning: pdf file) (http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf)

[RandomGuy]

Dan or anybody who backs the silly "controlled demolition" theory has yet to name an explosive that can survive a thousand degree fire.

[Nbadan]

Dan or anybody who backs the silly "controlled demolition" theory has yet to name an explosive that can survive a thousand degree fire.

I haven't openly backed 'the silly controlled demolition theory', but what I have said is that, you cannot scientifically rule out one theory or the other - either the buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition, or they collapsed as a result of stress on structural beams at the point of impact, and the calculated work did the rest....

[xrayzebra]

I haven't openly backed 'the silly controlled demolition theory', but what I have said is that, you cannot scientifically rule out one theory or the other - either the buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition, or they collapsed as a result of stress on structural beams at the point of impact, and the calculated work did the rest....


Dan, did the planes fly into the WTC or not?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Dan, did the planes fly into the WTC or not?that's a pretty stupid question. i think that's fact. millions of people saw it. brass tacks........brass tacks.

[Wild Cobra]

that's a pretty stupid question. i think that's fact. millions of people saw it. brass tacks........brass tacks.
We live in an ignorant world. Some people actually believe it was trickery and no plane flew in!

[RandomGuy]

I haven't openly backed 'the silly controlled demolition theory', but what I have said is that, you cannot scientifically rule out one theory or the other - either the buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition, or they collapsed as a result of stress on structural beams at the point of impact, and the calculated work did the rest....

You say that as if the two competing theories are equally plausible. They aren't.

Example:

Either the buildings were brought down by magic purple gnomes that chewed on the steel girders or it was brought down by fire and impact damage.

Is the "controlled demolition" theory of the collapse equally plausible with the "fire and impact damage" theory?

[RandomGuy]

that's a pretty stupid question. i think that's fact. millions of people saw it. brass tacks........brass tacks.

Dude you have either got to quit posting here, or change that horribly distracting avatar... :p:

[Galileo]

ASSERTION 1:
"The towers' collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions."

PROTEC COMMENT: No they didn't. It's the "where".

When discussing similarities between the towers' collapse and an explosive demolition many people overlook the single question most central to any objective investigation. It is not "how" or "when" the buildings failed but "where" they failed. That answer holds the key to understanding almost everything that occurred at Ground Zero.

Since their inception in the late 1800's, blasting engineers have understood that building implosions work best when the forces of gravity are maximized. This is why blasters always concentrate their efforts on the lowest floors of a structure. While smaller supplemental charges can be placed on upper floors to facilitate breakage and maximize control as the structure collapses, every implosion ever performed has followed the basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors first, "to get the structure moving."

This was not the case with the collapse of Towers 1 and 2. Close examination of these events from every video and photographic angle available does not indicate failure originating from the lowest floors, rather clearly shows each building beginning ot fail at precisely the point where the respective planes struck. That is, no floors above, or below the impact points every move until the structural elements within the impact zone begin to collapse. (WTC 7 collapsed differently which we will cover later).

Futher there are no independent failures present while the structures are collapsing (we're not talkinga dust plumes or debris, but actual structural failure). All lower floors remained completely intact until they were comsumed by the collapse from above.

Because countless images confirm this assessment and none contradict it, we believe this fact to be visually indisputable.

Therefore, for explosives to be considered as a primary or supplemental catalyst, one would have to accept that either, a) dozens of charges were placed on those exact impact floors in advance and survived the violent initial explosions and 1100+ degree Fahrenheit fires, or b) while the fires were burning, charges were installed undetected throughout the impact floors and wired together, ostensibly by people hiding in the building with boxes of explosives. There is no third choice that could adequately explain explosives causing failure at the exact impact points.

The chemical properties of explosive and their reaction to heat render scenario A scientifically impossible and scenario B remarkably unlikely, as we know of no explosive compound that could withstand such force and/or heat without detaching from teh columns or simply burning off prior to detonation.

There are other problems with both scenarios: Given that consistant weight distrobution around the outer perimeter of each structure, one would have needed access to a prohibitively large quantity of load-bearing I-beam columns to allow "cutter charges" to initiate failure. Thoes columns would have needed extensive preparation, also know as "pre-burning, " to allow the explosives to perform their function. And[sic] in order to prepare the columns you first had to be able to see [emphasis authors-RG]the columns, which means at least partially removing the outer perimeter interior walls of all blast floors, including furniture, plumbing and conduit lines, insulation, etc.

All of this would have been performed within the 55 minutes between plane impact and collapse --working in an environment of unspeakable heat and destruction -- or have been performed completely undetected, in advance, on multiple floors in both buildngs, while suffering no adverse effects from the planes' impact with these same areas.

This is impossible. [emphasis:RG]

A trade magazine implosionworld.com report from people who blow up (ok, blow down) buildings for a living (warning: pdf file) (http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf)

This bogus article has been totally debunked:

Reply to Protec's
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT
by Jim Hoffman
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html

Only a fool would follow Blanchard, he is a snake oil salesman.

Read Hoffman, he's a genius. You'll see.

Wake Up!

[ChumpDumper]

So, on the subject of building implosions, I am naturally expected to discount the word of a person who implodes buildings and instead trust the word of a software engineer.

Makes sense.

[inconvertible]

retards. you fuckheads are disrespecting 343 firefighters that died that day by alledging that their own government would commit mass murder. get the fuck outta here you stupid fucking midless fucking idoits. i would kick your teeth in if you said that shit to me in my face. without hesitation.

[inconvertible]

oh and a "born again" christian is the one credible source that would make all this true. hahahahahahahahaha!

nice try jim bakker.

[RandomGuy]

This bogus article has been totally debunked:

Reply to Protec's
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT
by Jim Hoffman
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html

Only a fool would follow Blanchard, he is a snake oil salesman.

Read Hoffman, he's a genius. You'll see.

Wake Up!

That was painful. That link was actually something new to me, so I bothered to take the time to read it.

The twists of logic and deduction needed to "debunk" Protec's paper is enough to make anybody familiar with scientific princple and rules of logic want to puke.

The "debunking" is nothing but a rehash of every bit of shitty pseudo-science that has come to form the core dogma of the Church of the Holy Conspiracy Theory, from "pulverized concrete" to "seismic evidence".

The best example of how short shrift is given to logic comes when they are talking about that "seismic evidence".

In the same sentence, they imply that 1)it is silly to think that explosives would cause seismic readings, and then 2) point to seismic evidence as proof of explosives.

WTF?

Blanchard's "compelling argument" ... an unsupported assertion (that charges would generate detectable seismic signals) [ignores] public evidence that arguably indicates explosives (seismic signals recorded at Palisades).

The only way one can consider Protec's paper "debunked" is if you are already a dogmatic adherent of the Holy Demolition Theory, because that is the only way you can ignore the cognitive dissonance involved in accepting this garbage as an article of faith.

[RandomGuy]

Secondly, here is the hubris of the "truth" movement:

They are wrapping themselves in the cloak of science at the expense of valid science.

The fact that they are trying to assume some sort of victimhood by claiming to be in the same category as Galileo should tell you something. "Help! Help! I'm being repressed."

That is the last gasp of failed ideologies. Instead of admitting that, maybe their theories just don't hold water, they play the victim card. "We're fighting for the "Truth" (tm), buy our t-shirts, videos, and coffee mugs and support our cause".

It is only a matter of time before the nuttier, more fanatical elements of this cult do something really stupid(er).

[Galileo]

That was painful. That link was actually something new to me, so I bothered to take the time to read it.

The twists of logic and deduction needed to "debunk" Protec's paper is enough to make anybody familiar with scientific princple and rules of logic want to puke.

The "debunking" is nothing but a rehash of every bit of shitty pseudo-science that has come to form the core dogma of the Church of the Holy Conspiracy Theory, from "pulverized concrete" to "seismic evidence".

The best example of how short shrift is given to logic comes when they are talking about that "seismic evidence".

In the same sentence, they imply that 1)it is silly to think that explosives would cause seismic readings, and then 2) point to seismic evidence as proof of explosives.

WTF?

Blanchard's "compelling argument" ... an unsupported assertion (that charges would generate detectable seismic signals) [ignores] public evidence that arguably indicates explosives (seismic signals recorded at Palisades).

The only way one can consider Protec's paper "debunked" is if you are already a dogmatic adherent of the Holy Demolition Theory, because that is the only way you can ignore the cognitive dissonance involved in accepting this garbage as an article of faith.

Blanchard never addresses the core scientific evidence which proves controlled deloition:

1) near free fall speed of collapse

Why hire a controlled demolition company for a million dollares, when you can just douse a few offices with lighter fluid?

[RandomGuy]

Blanchard never addresses the core scientific evidence which proves controlled deloition:

1) near free fall speed of collapse

Why hire a controlled demolition company for a million dollares, when you can just douse a few offices with lighter fluid?

How does a "near free fall" prove anything, other than the building fell down?

[DarkReign]

So, Im still confused...

Building 7 wasnt hit by a plane and/or fire, yet fell.

Serious question(s)...why and how?

[RandomGuy]

So, Im still confused...

Building 7 wasnt hit by a plane and/or fire, yet fell.

Serious question(s)...why and how?

Simple uncontrolled fires to the best of my knowledge. CTers can't get any traction for their silly ideas when it comes to the towers, so this is their fall back when that doesn't work.

[Yonivore]

So, Im still confused...

Building 7 wasnt hit by a plane and/or fire, yet fell.

Serious question(s)...why and how?
It was hit by another, much larger, building.

[Galileo]

It was hit by another, much larger, building.

WTC 7 was NOT hit by another larger building.

It was hit by some debris that flew (from gravity) 355 feet from the north tower, over, WTC 6, across the street, and then into mostly the SW corner of WTC 7.

NIST has determined that this debris damage played no role in the collapse.

[ChumpDumper]

WTC 7 was NOT hit by another larger building.Sure it was.


It was hit by some debris that flew (from gravity) 355 feet from the north tower, over, WTC 6, across the street, and then into mostly the SW corner of WTC 7.Considering the north tower was 1368 feet tall. Having a good chink of it travel 355 feet is plausible. And there are videos and eyewitness testimony showing most of the damage was on the south face of the building from the top almost all the way to the ground.
NIST has determined that this debris damage played no role in the collapse.They said controlled demolition did not play a role in the collapse.

[Yonivore]

From Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5#wtc7):


Claim: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."


http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/911-tower-collapse.jpg
Fire Storm: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse. (Photograph by New York Office of Emergency Management)


FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
The most popular "Truther" videos of WTC7's collapse don't show the bottom third of the building. Look at the photo above; it's likely the debris that hit WTC7, did so in the lower portion of the building...

Sorry, I'm going to go with sober scientific analysis instead of nutter nonsense.

WTC7 was, indeed, struck by many -- and large -- pieces of a much larger building.

EDIT: You'll notice the NIST did, if fact, determine that debris played a major role in the collapse. You don't lose the facade of a building, to a depth of 25%, along the first 10 floors of a 47 story building without seriously compromising the integrity of the structure.

[Galileo]

NIST exploring 9/11 conspiracy theory for WTC-7

New witness confirms Scholars previous findings






Abstract: The National Institute for Standards and Technology appears to be moving in the direction of a conspiracy theory about the destruction of WTC-7. This comes as a new witness reports explosions inside the building early that morning, long before the building would be destroyed at 5:20 PM. This reinforces Scholars for 9/11 Truth previous finding that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition, which the government is trying to conceal.


Madison, WI (OpEdNews) 1 July 2007 – The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) appears to be moving in the direction of a “conspiracy theory” about the destruction of WTC-7 on 9/11 just as a new witness has emerged reporting extensive destruction inside the building many hours before it would be demolished.

According to James Fetzer, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, these turns of events provide further confirmation for the conclusion that WTC-7 was brought down by a controlled demolition at 5:20 PM/ET. “Anyone who googles WTC-7 will see an event that looks exactly like a controlled demolition, just as Peter Jennings and Dan Rather reported at the time. That is why this event makes NIST so uncomfortable.”

WTC-7, a 47-story building also known as the Soloman Brothers Building, collapsed about 7 hours after the Twin Towers were demolished. It was hit by no jet aircraft and had no jet-fuel based fires. “It did have a few modest fires, which could have been easily controlled but were allowed to burn,” Fetzer said. “Remarkably, the fire alarm system in WTC-7 was turned off at 6:47 AM/ET and placed on ‘TEST’ status for a period of eight hours.” In its latest press release (29 June 2007), NIST acknowledges that NIST is “considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse . . . (and) led to (WTC-7’s) structural failure”
(http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html).

A new eyewitness inside WTC-7 on the morning of 9/11, heard explosions before either of the Twin Towers collapsed. He was summoned to the Office of Emergency Management Operating Center (OEMOC), also known as “Rudy’s Bunker,” on the 23rd floor of the building. The center had been especially prepared for the Mayor and other officials to gather in case of a terrorist attack or other emergency. Some have wondered why Giuliani did not go to the OEMOC but instead remained some distance from the World Trade Center. This witness, who testified at official hearings and whose identity will be revealed in the general-theater-release version of “Loose Change,” has information that sheds light on this and other questions about WTC-7.

Rolf Lindgren, former Vice-Chair of the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin and independent scholar of the events of 9/11, transcribed the testimony and edited it for clarity of English. The complete transcript is below. The witness went to WTC-7 after the first plane struck the North Tower and before the second hit the South Tower. When he arrived at the 23rd floor, he found half-eaten sandwiches and still-steaming coffee.

He made some phone calls and was told to leave “right away.” Someone ran into the Center and led him to a stairwell. “When we reached the 6th floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way; there was an explosion and the landing gave way.”

He had to climb back up to the 8th floor to find a way out. When he got to the lobby, “the lobby was totally destroyed. It looked like King Kong had come through and stepped on it.. And it was so destroyed I didn’t know where I was . . . (and) they had to take me out through a hole in the wall, . . . a hole that I believe the fire department made to get me out.”

WTC-7 has been widely regarded within the 9/11 research community as the most blatant of all “smoking guns” that disprove the official account. According to David Ray Griffin, a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and the movement’s leading representative, the building showed all the characteristics of a controlled demolition:

an abrupt, complete, and total collapse at freefall speed, which was perfectly symmetrical and into its own foundation, as he has explained in his latest book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking (2007). “The ‘blast events’ this witness is describing are not ‘hypothetical,” Fetzer observed, “but actual. Only actual events can bring about effects. So it’s a bit labored for NIST to say it’s considering whether ‘hypothetical’ blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. They could not. That requires real blast events.”

The witness, who was interviewed by Dylan Avery (with audio clips played on Alex Jones’ and on Dylan’s shows), has expressed his puzzlement over the destruction of the building. “Well, I’m just confused about one thing and one thing only,” he said, “why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place? I’m very confused about that. I know what I heard; I heard explosions. The explanation I got was it was the fuel oil tank. I’m an old boiler guy. If it was the fuel oil tank, it would have been one side of the building.” But the collapse was symmetrical. “There was a large tank of diesel in the building,” Fetzer said, “but diesel burns at a low temperature and diesel is not explosive. It cannot have brought about this collapse.”

Anyone who has watched the building come down appreciates that it has all of the characteristics of a controlled demolition. Even James Glanz, a reporter for The New York Times, admitted in an early story (29 November 2001) that the collapse of WTC-7 is even more perplexing than is the destruction of the Twin Towers, because no reinforced, steel structure high-rise building had ever collapsed due to fire in the history of structural engineering. “Indeed, no steel structure rise collapsed due to fire before 9/11 nor after 9/11 – nor, if our research is correct, on 9/11,” Fetzer said. “None of these fires burned long enough or hot enough to cause steel to weaken, much less melt. It must be embarrassing for the scientists at the NIST to defend these ridiculous theories.”

Lindgren, who has extensive experience with press releases, added, “Friday afternoon is the best time of the week for the government to bury unpleasant news. Since NIST insists it has found ‘no evidence’ of a controlled demolition, it must not consider the videos of WCT-7’s collapse as ‘evidence,’ because they leave no room for doubt. The fires in Building 7 provide a good cover story to hide the fact that powerful explosives brought it down.” He is also not impressed with Giuliani’s excuse for not going to his command center, which is that another plane could have been headed for it. “But if another plane was headed toward the World Trade Center, then he should have directed that the firemen be removed from all the buildings, which he did not do.” (See http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=rudolf_(_rudy_)_giuliani ).

There were other oddities related to WTC-7, including Larry Silverstein reporting (during a PBS interview) that he had suggested to the fire commander that the best thing to do might be to “pull it” (where, he said, “They made the decision to pull, and we watched the building come down”) and the BBC broadcast of a report of the collapse of “the Solomon Brothers Building” at least 23 minutes before the event would actually occur. “This was stunning,” Fetzer said, “because you could see WTC-7 in the background over her left shoulder as she reported its collapse. It is hard to imagine a more revealing demonstration of the entanglement of the intelligence agencies, the administration, and the mass media. And a ‘terrorism drill’ was scheduled for the next day.” The PBS interview and the BBC report are archived on the Scholars site at 911scholars.org.

“If Rosie O’Donnell had talked about ‘blast events initiating the collapse of WTC-7”, Fetzer said, “she would have been labeled a ‘conspiracy theorist.’ But then the official government account of 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacking four commercial airlines, outfoxing the most sophisticated air defense system in the world to perpetrate these atrocities under the control of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan is only the most ‘outrageous’ conspiracy theory of them all. I guess we should be grateful that NIST is moving inch by inch toward a more adequate explanation of what actually happened on 9/11, which bears no relationship at all to what we have been told. Given the cumulative evidence, we are not ‘conspiracy theorists’ but ‘conspiracy realists.’”

WTC 7 Eyewitness Testimony Transcribed by Rolf Lindgren (edited for clarity with notes)

Sources: http://www.prisonplanet.com/audio/190607clips2.mp3

http://69.80.230.7/Archives2/Jun2007/gwrpt1erT/0619071.mp3

http://69.80.230.7/Archives2/Jun2007/gwrpt1erT/0619072.mp3

[Start of transcript]

“I was asked to go and man the Office of Emergency Management [OEM] at the World Trade Center 7, on the 23rd floor.

[This was immediately after the North Tower was struck. OEM is also know as Rudy’s Bunker.]

As I arrived there, there were police all over the lobby.

They showed me the way to the elevator; we got up to the 23rd floor.

We couldn’t get in; we had to go back down. [The witness was with another person.]

Then security and police took us to the freight elevators where they took us back up and we did get in.

Upon arriving into the OEMEOC [OEM Emergency Operating Center], we noticed that everybody was gone.

[The witness’s voice inflection indicates elevated surprise. It seems he has arrived before the official evacuation time of 9:30 AM]

I saw coffee that was on the desks still, the smoke was still coming off the coffee.

I saw half-eaten sandwiches.

And after I called several individuals, one individual told me to leave and to leave right away.

[Could indicate foreknowledge]

I came running back in.

He said we’re the only ones up here.

We gotta get out of here. He found the stairwell.

So we subsequently went to the stairwell and we’re going down the stairs.

When we reached the 6th floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way.

[The witness’s timeline places this event well before the collapse of either Twin Tower.]

I was left there hanging.

I had to climb back up, and now I had to walk back up to the 8th floor.

After getting to the 8th floor everything was dark.”

[However, according to FEMA maps, none of the South Tower debris, excepting dust clouds, reached Building 7. (Source: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf, esp. p. 9). The North Tower did not collapse until 10:28 A.M., far too late to fit into the witness’ timeline.]

“As I told you earlier, both buildings were still standing. Because I looked to, I looked one way, looked the other way, there’s nothing there.

When I got to the 6th floor before all this happened, I got to the 6th floor, there was an explosion, that’s what forced us back to the 8th floor, both buildings were still standing.”

[The above two paragraphs were obtained from another source not listed above. For this source, please contact the Scholars.]

….

“Well, I’m just confused about one thing and one thing only, why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place? I’m very confused about that.

I know what I heard; I heard explosions.

The explanation I got was it was the fuel oil tank. I’m an old boiler guy. If it was the fuel oil tank, it would have been one side of the building.

When I got to that lobby, the lobby was totally destroyed.

It looked like King Kong had came through and stepped on it.

And it was so destroyed I didn’t know where I was.

And it was so destroyed that they had to take me out through a hole in the wall.

A makeshift hole that I believe that the fire department made to get me out.”

[The damage to the lobby may have been related to the earlier explosion or possibly be related to the destruction of the North Tower, a point that will be resolved when the entire tape is released.]

….

“And it wasn’t until some years later that I testified in front of them [9/11 Commission or NIST].

It was very scary because they looked like very important people; they were questioning me about certain things.

I don’t know if they liked the answers I gave, I could care less, I gave what, my account of it, the truth, and that was that.

I thought they were just doing an interim report or investigation on as to what happened. They got my point of view.

I haven’t heard any more from them.”

[End of transcript]

http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=113&Itemid=67

[Galileo]

NIST Misrepresents Testimony Regarding Explosion in WTC 7 Stairwell

More Proof Key WTC 7 Witness is Telling the Truth

By Galileo Galilei

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has misrepresented the testimony of a witness who heard and felt an explosion inside of WTC-7 on the morning of 9/11, in an attempt to cover up arson.

The witness, who has asked not to be identified by name until this fall, testified:

“When we reached the 6th floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way.”

Witness testimony transcribed:

http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=113&Itemid=67

The witness was also seen on TV on the day of 9/11, saying; “Big Explosion. It blew us back into the 8th floor.”

Since the fire alarm system in WTC 7 had been turned off at 6:47 A.M. that morning, we don’t know the exact time of the explosion; but the witness specifically stated that the explosion occurred before either Twin Tower collapse, when he said:

“As I told you earlier, both buildings were still standing. Because I looked to, I looked one way, looked the other way, there’s nothing there. When I got to the 6th floor before all this happened, I got to the 6th floor, there was an explosion, that’s what forced us back to the 8th floor, both buildings were still standing.”

Galileo Galilei, former Vice-Chair of the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin and independent scholar of the events of 9/11, analyzed NIST reports regarding this event.

He says:

“This explosion was not caused by debris from the collapse of either tower because the locations of both stairwells inside of WTC 7 were not in the area of debris damage, according to NIST diagrams.”

“Both stairwells were along the north edge of the WTC 7 core in the north half of the building, but all the debris damage hit the south face of WTC 7. WTC 7 was 355 feet from the North Tower, at its closest point, with WTC 6 in between.”

“Also, core columns # 74 and # 75 would have blocked the advance of any debris that might have been headed for the stairwell closest to the area where possible debris damage may have occurred.”

Sources:

Location of WTC 7 stairwells: http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf (page L-6)

Location of WTC 7 debris damage: (page L-22)

Fire Alarm turned off: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/a647alarmnoton

Yet NIST omits the word “explosion” and writes that the collapse of WTC 1 caused the events described by the witness:

“The collapse of WTC 1 also appears to be responsible for starting fires inside WTC 7. With the collapse of the two towers, a New York City employee and a WTC 7 building staff person became trapped inside of WTC 7. The two had gone to the OEM center on the 23rd floor and found no one there. As they went to get into an elevator to go downstairs the lights inside of WTC 7 flickered as WTC 2 collapsed. At this point, the elevator they were attempting to catch no longer worked, so they started down the staircase. When they got to the 6th floor, WTC 1 collapsed, the lights went out in the staircase, the sprinklers came on briefly, and the staircase filled with smoke and debris. The two men went back to the 8th floor broke out a window and called for help.”

Source: http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-8.pdf (page 109 of report)

The footnote for this source is #381:WTC 7 Interviews 2041604 and 1041704, spring 2004.

This refers to our witness above and the other witness is Mike Hess, who was the NYC corporation counsel and a close associate of Rudy Giuliani.

Dr. Kevin Barrett of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth attempted to contact Mr. Hess regarding this incident:

“I called Michael Hess's office Wednesday, June 27th and left a message for him to return the call. A secretary/co-worker from his office (female) called back the next morning, Thursday June 28th. She asked what I wanted to speak to him about. I started to explain the reports about Hess and the other witness in WTC-7. She interrupted me by saying; "Believe me, I know about that". She said Hess wasn't available to speak to me and she didn't know when he would be. I asked her to leave him the message that I'd like to talk with him.”

As of this writing, Dr. Barrett has not heard back from Mr. Hess.

“It looks like Mike Hess and NIST have a WTC 7 problem.”

Galileo says:

“This analysis effectively refutes objections raised on the JREF forums.”

JREF analysis: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85234

“The JREF people are the most intelligent and best informed critics of the 9/11 Truth movement. Unlike Popular Mechanics, Fox News, and the Screw Loose Change blog, JREF raises critical issues regarding the truth about really happened on the fateful day of 9/11. No member of the 9/11 Truth movement should accept their own arguments as true, without a careful study of the counter-arguments raised by JREF.”

The Scholars for 9/11 Truth call on NIST scientists to recognize that the fires in WTC 7 were started intentionally and the collapse of the building was an obvious controlled demolition.

Watch WTC 7 fall down:

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

Map of WTC building locations:

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf

[Yonivore]

In its latest press release (29 June 2007), NIST acknowledges that NIST is “considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse . . . (and) led to (WTC-7’s) structural failure”

I hope you all go to the link provided by Galileo and read the press release in its entirety.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html

Here is the entirety of the language from which this latest conspiracy is drawn:


NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.
Looks to me like they're engaging in the exercise so they can rule out explosives and shut the fucking nutters up.

Once they determine the theoretical magnitude of such blasts, they'll quickly discount their existence by showing none of the physical evidence supports such blasts ever occurring on September 11, 2001.

Too bad it won't work. The nutters will only accuse the NIST of covering up the truth.

It was a short press release Galileo, how come it's taken almost 4 months for you guys to misconstrue a single sentence near the end of the release?

Wow!

[Galileo]

The Twin Towers were blown to kingdom come. Don't believe me? Watch THIS!!

The Ultimate Con - 911
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3996900289299723693&q=%22the+ultimate+con%22&total=26&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[Wild Cobra]

The Twin Towers were blown to kingdom come. Don't believe me? Watch THIS!!

The Ultimate Con - 911
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3996900289299723693&q=%22the+ultimate+con%22&total=26&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Get real. A montage of real time reporting of 'assumed' sound to cause and effect are not reliable. I see they keep focusing on explosion. That does not mean bomb. It's a sound quality.

[Galileo]

I hope you all go to the link provided by Galileo and read the press release in its entirety.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html

Here is the entirety of the language from which this latest conspiracy is drawn:


Looks to me like they're engaging in the exercise so they can rule out explosives and shut the fucking nutters up.

Once they determine the theoretical magnitude of such blasts, they'll quickly discount their existence by showing none of the physical evidence supports such blasts ever occurring on September 11, 2001.

Too bad it won't work. The nutters will only accuse the NIST of covering up the truth.

It was a short press release Galileo, how come it's taken almost 4 months for you guys to misconstrue a single sentence near the end of the release?

Wow!

The NIST press release was not written by a scientist, it was written by a political appointee of NIST, which is part of the Bush Administration's Commerce Department.

The NIST release doesn't say there isn't any evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event demolition, only that they have not "found" any.

Well, I have "found" some evidence and am posting it here:

9/11 WTC 7 BOMBS WITNESS
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6837877109446258151&q=%22barry+jennings%22&total=11&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

PS for debunkers only:

You may not consider this witness to be PROOF, but I would like to see you deny that it is EVIDENCE. This witness already spoke with federal investigators regarding this incident, so the statement they they have not "found" any evidence is an OUTRIGHT LIE.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm sorry Galileo, they physics are easily understood as to why the buildings went down. I'm really surprised that this is still a subject of debate.

[Galileo]

So, Im still confused...

Building 7 wasnt hit by a plane and/or fire, yet fell.

Serious question(s)...why and how?

WTC 7 fell down from a controlled demolition. That's why the video of its collapse looks like a controlled demolition.

The best websites on the subject are:

http://www.wtc7.net/

and

http://www.ae911truth.org/

[Galileo]

Here's another one for the Archie Debunkers to lick around!

BBC Reported Collapse of WTC Building 7 23 Minutes Early
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5661808404862296083&q=wtc+7+bbc&total=262&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

The Salomon Brother Building is what WTC 7 was commonly called by many at the time.

This would be like watching a Spurs game on TV, with reporter at the end of the 3rd quarter announcing the final score of the game.

VIDEO: BBC WAS HALF AN HOUR TOO EARLY REPORTING ON WTC7 COLLAPSE

On September 11th 2001, BBC World reported at 4:57pm Eastern Time that the Salomon Brothers Building (more commonly known as WTC7 or World Trade Building 7) had collapsed.

This even made the 5pm EST headlines, what is bizarre is that the building did not actually collapse until 5:20pm EST.

9/11 was unusual enough, without BBC World being able to foretell the destiny of WTC 7.

What is even stranger, is that the women reporter is telling the world that the building had collapsed when you can see it in the background over her left shoulder.

Then at 5:15pm EST, just five minutes before the building did actually collapse, her live connection from New York to London mysteriously fails.

So the question is, on 9/11 how did the BBC learn that WTC7 collapsed 23 minutes before it actually did.

Building Seven was 47 storeys, modern in design with structural steel throughout, yet symmetrically collapsed in 6.5 seconds, was someone leaking information.

No steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire, before or after 9/11, most people who find out about WTC7, believe it was brought down by a controlled demolition, even demolition experts agree.

Please Investigate 9/11 - Time is of the essence. ---- ANOTHER BBC Video with TIME STAMP - NEWS24 also reported it had collapsed at 4.57!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lWQ5cJ5XYY ----- http://www.angelsfortruth.com

[Galileo]

Get real. A montage of real time reporting of 'assumed' sound to cause and effect are not reliable. I see they keep focusing on explosion. That does not mean bomb. It's a sound quality.

Hey Newton;

What about all the TV reporters and 9/11 survivors talking about the bombs and explosions?

[Wild Cobra]

You know, I've pretty much stayed quite on these conspiracy threads because they have already been debunked so well. I see the same things spun in different ways. Photo's and films from one angle that other angles don't show the same things of. Accounts of rushed judgment and repeated words misinterpreted. Sorry, No conspiracy. Tired of putting any effort into the subject too.

This thread is so many years late.

[Wild Cobra]

Hey Newton;

What about all the TV reporters and 9/11 survivors talking about the bombs and explosions?
They didn't see bombs, they heard sounds that sounded like explosions to them So what...

[Nbadan]

You say that as if the two competing theories are equally plausible. They aren't.

That's not what I'm saying at all.....What I am saying is that either theory is plausible.....there is enough evidence to convince any reasonable person that either theory is correct - the buildings fell because two planes loaded with jet fuel crashed into them going at 500MPH, weakening support columns, and sending jet fuel spiraling downward through the staircases and elevator shafts....or the buildings fell because two planes crashed into them going 500MPH, and inner support columns were weakened with explosives during the ensuing confusion...

[Galileo]

I'm sorry Galileo, they physics are easily understood as to why the buildings went down. I'm really surprised that this is still a subject of debate.

I'm sorry, Wild Cobra, but the brilliant scientists at NIST still have not figured out why WTC 7 fell. But the physics is easily understood, right?

[Galileo]

They didn't see bombs, they heard sounds that sounded like explosions to them So what...

FYI

When bombs go off they sound like explosions.

[Galileo]

That's not what I'm saying at all.....What I am saying is that either theory is plausible.....there is enough evidence to convince any reasonable person that either theory is correct - the buildings fell because two planes loaded with jet fuel crashed into them going at 500MPH, weakening support columns, and sending jet fuel spiraling downward through the staircases and elevator shafts....or the buildings fell because two planes crashed into them going 500MPH, and inner support columns were weakened with explosives during the ensuing confusion...

Good to see an open mind.

Here's another good one! Check out the medic who said the crowd was chanting a 10-9-8... countdown just before WTC 7 fell down!

VIDEO -- WTC 7: The Smoking Gun of 9/11
Explosive new video contains rare footage and a call to action.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/11678

WTC 7 Archive:

WTC7
http://www.911blogger.com/taxonomy/term/712

[Galileo]

You know, I've pretty much stayed quite on these conspiracy threads because they have already been debunked so well. I see the same things spun in different ways. Photo's and films from one angle that other angles don't show the same things of. Accounts of rushed judgment and repeated words misinterpreted. Sorry, No conspiracy. Tired of putting any effort into the subject too.

This thread is so many years late.

The government's version of 9/11 is a giant conspiracy of people who hate us that are secretly placed all over the world.

Sounds a bit pranoid to me.

Here is the best overall 9/11 site so you can brush up on your facts:

http://www.911research.com/

[DarkReign]

How can people watch the testimony of eyewitnesses, firefighters and civilians say specific "explosions" took place in WTC 7 (in te sub basements, no less)and not question how a that building came down without a plane hitting it?

Just boggles my mind. Are you afraid to admit the official report may be wrong? So many people here question the governments every political step, yet not this.

I am what I am. I have always believed 9/11 was too convenient for the power structure. Dems, Repubs...it doesnt matter. To them, there is Us and Them. High time we started thinking the same way.

[Nbadan]

How can people watch the testimony of eyewitnesses, firefighters and civilians say specific "explosions" took place in WTC 7 (in te sub basements, no less)and not question how a that building came down without a plane hitting it?

Mostly because WTC7 was build over a existing power plant - so for structural purposes they constructed the 'base' of the building on floors 1-6 - giant cross beams that could have possibly been weakened by fires caused by diesel gasoline that was pumped through the building to the upper floors because it was Giuliani's emergency control center built after the 03' WTC attack, and also by collapsing debris from WTC1....

[Galileo]

DarkReign;

You are not alone.

Here is the latest polling data:

Zogby Poll: 51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney Regarding 9/11 Attacks; Over 30% Seek Immediate Impeachment

67% also fault 9/11 Commission for not investigating anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1354

[Galileo]

Mostly because WTC7 was build over a existing power plant - so for structural purposes they constructed the 'base' of the building on floors 1-6 - giant cross beams that could have possibly been weakened by fires caused by diesel gasoline that was pumped through the building to the upper floors because it was Giuliani's emergency control center built after the 03' WTC attack, and also by collapsing debris from WTC1....

Here is an early NIST report on WTC 7 which I posted earlier:

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report...4/appendixl.pdf

The power plant has nothing to do with it's collapse.

Which makes sense; why would buildings that are located on power plants fall in a controlled demolition.

Here is the single best article regarding on the topic of the Three Towers and their destruction:

The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
David Ray Griffin
Authorized Version (with references & notes)
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

[Galileo]

Mostly because WTC7 was build over a existing power plant - so for structural purposes they constructed the 'base' of the building on floors 1-6 - giant cross beams that could have possibly been weakened by fires caused by diesel gasoline that was pumped through the building to the upper floors because it was Giuliani's emergency control center built after the 03' WTC attack, and also by collapsing debris from WTC1....

Oh, by the way, the east penthouse, which is on the roof of WTC 7, collapsed about 8 seconds before WTC 7 itself fell.

Details here:

RARE NEW Video of WTC 7 Collapse ~ Close-Up of Penthouse on Roof, 9/11 Cover Up
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3132857754400064872&q=wtc+7+east+penthouse&total=3&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

So why would an explosion in the basement (which nobody witnessed) cause the roof to cave in?

[Galileo]

WTC Building 7 demolition charges
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=850759703889798387&q=wtc+7+demolition+charges&total=54&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

[Jamtas#2]

The government's version of 9/11 is a giant conspiracy of people who hate us that are secretly placed all over the world.

Sounds a bit pranoid to me.

Here is the best overall 9/11 site so you can brush up on your facts:

http://www.911research.com/

It would be paranoid if there wasn't the fact that 3 groups hijacked aircraft and crashed them into buildings and then later a group sent in a video claiming credit for it.

Paranoid would be creating a vast conspiracy attributed to a giagantic coverup by the government.

[Jamtas#2]

How can people watch the testimony of eyewitnesses, firefighters and civilians say specific "explosions" took place in WTC 7 (in te sub basements, no less)and not question how a that building came down without a plane hitting it?

Just boggles my mind. Are you afraid to admit the official report may be wrong? So many people here question the governments every political step, yet not this.

I am what I am. I have always believed 9/11 was too convenient for the power structure. Dems, Repubs...it doesnt matter. To them, there is Us and Them. High time we started thinking the same way.

Well, I wouldn't call them liars, but exposions could have been caused by the fires in the building igniting combustibles or jsut the sounds of the floors/equipment/etc falling and hitting each other at great force. I heard a loud bang outside of our aparment in LA a few years ago that sounded like a bomb going off when it was a drunk driver crashing into 7 cars. Sounding like an explosion doesn't necessarily mean that there was one.

[Nbadan]

So why would an explosion in the basement (which nobody witnessed) cause the roof to cave in?

I've seen interviews with a maintenance guy who said he saw a huge fire in the lower floors of WTC7, maybe even the basement, but I've never seen any photographic or video proof that there was a fire on the lower floors.....it's important because the prevailing theory is that fire destroyed WTC7....and in order for that to happen there must have been huge fires in floors 1-6........

[Nbadan]

The structural integrity of this building was in those floors...if there were massive fires then it becomes plausible that the building collapsed because these lower floors caved in, causing the inter structure of the building to collapse first, which would explain why the penthouse collapses first....I believe the facade damage is just a distraction really....

[ChumpDumper]

Oh, by the way, the east penthouse, which is on the roof of WTC 7, collapsed about 8 seconds before WTC 7 itself fell.

Details here:

RARE NEW Video of WTC 7 Collapse ~ Close-Up of Penthouse on Roof, 9/11 Cover Up
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3132857754400064872&q=wtc+7+east+penthouse&total=3&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

So why would an explosion in the basement (which nobody witnessed) cause the roof to cave in?It didn't need to be an explosion.

The critical building structures were not in the basement.

[ChumpDumper]

WTC Building 7 demolition charges
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=850759703889798387&q=wtc+7+demolition+charges&total=54&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2
That was hilarious.

Why would charges need to be placed at the very top of the building?

[ChumpDumper]

I've seen interviews with a maintenance guy who said he saw a huge fire in the lower floors of WTC7, maybe even the basement, but I've never seen any photographic or video proof that there was a fire on the lower floors.....it's important because the prevailing theory is that fire destroyed WTC7....and in order for that to happen there must have been huge fires in floors 1-6........Here's the best video that I have found showing the south side of 7 WTC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

At the 1:30 mark you can hear someone talking about "a hole in that building" and that it "might come down."

[RandomGuy]

The Twin Towers were blown to kingdom come. Don't believe me? Watch THIS!!

The Ultimate Con - 911
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3996900289299723693&q=%22the+ultimate+con%22&total=26&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I am on strike.

I refuse to watch another shitty youtube video until you prove to me that yo have spent at least 2 hours reading a good debunking site.

Quid pro quo.

[DarkReign]

Well, I wouldn't call them liars, but exposions could have been caused by the fires in the building igniting combustibles or jsut the sounds of the floors/equipment/etc falling and hitting each other at great force. I heard a loud bang outside of our aparment in LA a few years ago that sounded like a bomb going off when it was a drunk driver crashing into 7 cars. Sounding like an explosion doesn't necessarily mean that there was one.

Look, I understand what youre saying....but listen to their words! These arent some mistakable sounds, or a trick of the ear....most of those survivors were being blown back, off their feet, hit with retreating debris, knocked unconscious, hard of hearing afterword...so on and so on.

Not just one or two "secondary explosions", but multiple, multiple secondary explosions. Cops and Firefighters evacuating their people from the area because of "bombs" in the building?

Just too convenient. Way too many coincidences, far too many.

[RandomGuy]

Look, I understand what youre saying....but listen to their words! These arent some mistakable sounds, or a trick of the ear....most of those survivors were being blown back, off their feet, hit with retreating debris, knocked unconscious, hard of hearing afterword...so on and so on.

Not just one or two "secondary explosions", but multiple, multiple secondary explosions. Cops and Firefighters evacuating their people from the area because of "bombs" in the building?

Just too convenient. Way too many coincidences, far too many.

(shrugs)

When it became obvious that this was a terrorist attack, and you are sitting in a police/fire command post and get reports of explosions, what would YOUR first thought be?

Remember all the bomb scares for months afterwards?

Let's assume, for a minute, that there were bombs in the buildings.

Which is more likely, a government plot to bomb them, or the same group of terrorists that tried to bomb the same buildings a decade earlier and who rammed two jetliners into skyscrapers the same day?

Simultaneous bombs in multiple places is something of an Al Qaeda hallmark.

[RandomGuy]

Get real. A montage of real time reporting of 'assumed' sound to cause and effect are not reliable. I see they keep focusing on explosion. That does not mean bomb. It's a sound quality.

Something I learned from shitty youtube conspiracy videos:

Since verbose, difficult-to-read scientific reports contradict my claims of conspiracy, I'll use a different approach: Nothing says "Science" like lots of photos, drawings, and short captions in a PowerPoint or Flash animation backed by spooky "conspiracy music."

[RandomGuy]

http://www.sawyerhome.net/whatilearned.html

What I Learned from
9-11 Conspiracy Theories.

The U.S. is actually quite popular worldwide; so much so, in fact, that its government must create artificial terrorist organizations to attack it. Left to their own devices, everybody else pretty much respects Americans and leaves them alone.
It takes the complacency or cooperation of the world's largest superpower to hijack a defenseless civilian aircraft.
If you believe what your government tells you about 9-11, you are part of the conspiracy or, at least, part of "the problem." But if you accuse people at all levels of the government, including the U.S. military, of planning and carrying out the largest terrorist attack on U.S. soil, killing thousands of civilians, then you are a patriot.
The large fireballs seen at the WTC impacts look like napalm explosions, so it was probably a napalm bomb that actually caused the damage. Of course, napalm being jellied fuel, and jet aircraft being full of fuel, you can see the vast difference there.
The WTC towers fell in what was obviously a controlled demolition. The largest, messiest, deadliest, most witnessed, most mismanaged, most ill-timed, most poorly executed, and most uncontrolled controlled demolition in history.
Even though our civilian airliner pilots had been trained to cooperate with hijackers and not try to physically resist, and even though short knives and box cutters were allowed in carry-on luggage, we shouldn't believe the absurd claim that four or five strong and very determined men armed with knives and a fanatic eagerness to die killing Americans could take over an unlocked cockpit.
Several of the hijackers are still alive, and apparently are living well.
The government planted explosives at the exact aircraft impact sites of the Pentagon and both WTC towers, the explosives and activity surrounding their placement went completely unnoticed, the rigging of the explosives was unharmed by the aircraft impacts, and they went off exactly when planned.
Somehow orchestrating the hijacking of multiple airliners to have them crash at explosive-rigged sites was more effective than just setting off the explosives by themselves in the first place.
Those plane crashes were like so totally fake cuz they were so totally unlike all the real fiery passenger jet crashes into buildings I've seen in real life.
When you refer to the planes, say "alleged aircraft." When referring to the terrorists, say "alleged terrorists." Because not only can we not be sure they even existed, but also, "alleged" has such a nice, objective ring to it.
The plane-shaped holes in the WTC towers were an absurdity, like a cat-shaped hole in a fence in a Tom and Jerry cartoon, because the planes would have either smashed to pieces against the building and fallen straight down to the street below, or flown right through the building (making a cartoon-like hole) and emerged out the other side relatively intact.
Cries of "Death to America!" and "America is the Great Satan!" by Islamic extremists are all part of our government's plan for world domination. Left to themselves, the so-called "extremists" are actually quite pleasant, simple folk (but very good actors).
The rigged explosives in the upper floors of WTC2 were powerful enough to collapse a skyscraper, but not powerful enough to instantly kill Kevin Cosgrove, on floor 105, who was talking on the phone with a fire dispatcher and managed to blurt out three words between the time of the "explosion" and the collapse that killed him.
The meandering directions of the hijacked aircrafts' flight paths were all part of well-planned routes, and not due to the terrorist pilots flying and navigating a large, real, multi-engine passenger jet for the first time.
Our service men and women chose not to shoot down the planes or protect the Pentagon and WTC because they were part of the conspiracy, and they're not speaking out because they've been bought off. Better still, NORAD actually sent the remote-controlled aircraft into their targets.
A black helicopter was hovering over the WTC South Tower before, during, and after the crashes, and the floor that was on fire the most must have had barrels and barrels of a crude oil-diesel mixture that was remotely ignited to ensure a hiding place for the helicopter which is the only thing that could explain black sooty smoke coming from an office building filled with office supplies, and the people working on that floor didn't notice the barrels and barrels of oil and went about their daily routine, and nobody working security or janitorial in the building noticed black-suited men rolling barrels of crude oil on the elevators, all to hide the black helicopter because we all know what black helicopters do. Seriously!
If a large, thin-skinned aircraft impacts the side of a thick concrete building at 400mph, and only small pieces of the aircraft are found outside on the lawn, then it's obvious the pieces were planted there, and a plane didn't crash at all.
The shape of the Pentagon and the approach path of the aircraft are Illuminati symbols. 'Nuff said.
Although the 1993 WTC bombing was obviously the work of terrorists, the idea that the 2001 attacks were perpetrated by terrorists is ludicrous.
Because the shape of the impact holes in the WTC towers and the Pentagon don't match what I think the shape of the planes should be, then it must have been some other type of craft that did the damage, in spite of all of the eyewitness reports and physical evidence to the contrary. Which means that, since the alleged hijacked aircraft are, indeed, missing, and the passengers on said aircraft are, indeed, missing, then the government must have landed those passenger jets in secret somewhere, removed the people, killed them, dismembered them, sprinkled their remains around the crash sites somehow, and destroyed/hid the aircraft somewhere else. Masterful. Much more convincing than just actually crashing the planes into the buildings in the first place.
The same nefarious conspirators that pulled off the single largest concerted suicide attack in history forgot to make a hole in the Pentagon to help fake the airliner impact site.
The images and other references of the WTC on pre-9-11 terrorism reports and books reveals a casual, open foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks, and in no way could possibly ever ever refer to the largest pre-9-11 foreign terrorist attack on U.S. soil, the 1993 WTC parking garage bombing.
Of course, if the shadow government could pull off the 9-11 attacks, then plotting the 1993 WTC attack would have been child's play.
Incompetence, being unprepared, not foreseeing events, rushed decisions, finger pointing, blame trading, and hysteria equal "conspiracy."
More information only muddles "the truth:" The most accurate and complete reports of any disaster are from selections of the first hurried reports, not from more complete, thoughtful analysis and more thorough eyewitness reports that come later.
Of all the types of aircraft described by witnesses at the WTC and Pentagon, we should choose to believe only the ones that fit our theories, not the ones that describe actual planes that are missing that contained actual passengers who are missing and whose body parts and DNA were found at the crash sites and whose planes were tracked to impact.
When some eyewitnesses at the WTC describe a really big noise as an "explosion," we should believe them, and not our own eyes that saw floors pancaking on each other, ejecting debris out the windows. And we should believe their assessment of the "explosions" because, you know, of their experience discriminating between the sounds of some of the tallest skyscrapers in the world collapsing and explosions 80 stories up.
When we hear witnesses describing "something like a bomb going off" in the Pentagon, we should ignore subsequent (and concurrent) eyewitness reports of a rather large passenger jet flying into exactly the same spot, and ignored reports and photos of engines, landing gear, other aircraft parts, aircraft passengers, and other debris being found on and in the site, and absolutely no evidence of any explosive.
When pointing out how a B-25 flew into the Empire State Building in 1945, but the building easily survived and didn't collapse, we should disregard how much smaller the B-25 is than a 767, the amount of fuel that each contains, and that the ESB was constructed largely of concrete (like, say, the Pentagon).
Any videos of the crashes that surface more than a day or two after the event are obviously computer-generated fakes, because the time it took to create the fake videos explains why they weren't immediately released. Because everyone knows that if someone takes home video of a disaster, they run straight to a media outlet to share it with the rest of the world.
The same government conspirators who plotted this complex event didn't prepare fake videos ahead of time. They waited until the events happened to prepare the computer-generated fakery, which delayed their release until a cloud of suspicion could fall on their authenticity.
No buildings in history ever fell because of fire until 9-11. And if the WTC towers were the first modern, steel structures to collapse by fire, it is not a testament to the intelligent engineering put into the design of skyscrapers in general, but only evidence that the WTC was brought down by other means. No, I don't mean by airplanes filled with thousands of pounds of fuel ramming into them, I mean by a bomb. Yes!
Steel supports must liquify at their melting point of 3000°F in order to weaken and fail, and everything that metalurgists and engineers have told us about heat of only about 700°Fweakening steel is false, and for thousands of years, metal workers like blacksmiths and armorers have just had it all wrong, because they only needed large blast furnaces, spigots, and molds to form horseshoes, swords, and plowshares from liquid metal, and they didn't need a hammer and anvil, as you see in Hollywood movies' special effects.
If a large plane crashes into a large skyscraper and starts a raging fire inside, then a woman later waves from the outside edge of a lower part of the huge jagged entry hole, then that's proof that the fire inside isn't actually all that hot.
Although a simple concrete barrier can sucker punch a dump truck to a dead stop and virtually atomize a fighter jet, we should expect the impact site of a passenger jet on the world's largest reinforced concrete building to be marked by a plane-shaped hole in the wall.
When actor Charlie Sheen says that the U.S. government was behind the attacks, and that "We're not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue," we should believe him because he is a "highly credible public figure" who is a star on the current hit comedy show "Two and a Half Men." And his stammering, "The more you look at stuff, especially specific incidents, specific events, in or around the fateful day, it just-- it just raises a lot of questions" makes you realize just how articulate he is, and how Tom "You don't know...psychiatry--I do" Cruise could take debating pointers from him.
Most of the WTC towers' exterior was glass; most of the Pentagon's exterior was thick concrete. Naturally, we should expect them to be affected by aircraft impacts the same way.
If there is disagreement on the approach angle and bank of the plane hitting the Pentagon in an official report and from online bloggers, then we can safely assume that the plane, in fact, did not exist.
When pointing out how the FAA rule allowing pilots to fly armed was rescinded two months before 9-11, we should ignore the fact that at the time, no pilots were taking advantage of the rule, and we should not jump to the conclusion that the repeal is any different than businesses or schools banning employees from carrying firearms.
It doesn't make sense that remains of the hijackers and passengers, who hit the sides of mostly open-spaced office buildings at hundreds of miles an hour and ejected out the other side, were some of the first remains discovered, and not under thousands of tons of rubble straight down. The body parts must have been planted on streets, on the roofs of buildings, and through broken windows by burglars. Or something.
If people aren't listening to my theories, then maybe shouting them in eye-searing hot pink will do the trick.
Disagreement between government reports and eyewitness accounts do not mean that the individuals witnessed the same event; they only mean that the accounts that don't agree with my paranoid point of view are lies as part of the government cover-up, are mass hallucinations, or, just to be thorough, both.
Since verbose, difficult-to-read scientific reports contradict my claims of conspiracy, I'll use a different approach: Nothing says "Science" like lots of photos, drawings, and short captions in a PowerPoint or Flash animation backed by spooky "conspiracy music."
If video is poor quality, or with low frame rates (like with a surveillance film), it must be fake.
The WTC towers fell straight down (more or less), which proves that it was a controlled demolition. If it were a true building falling down, it would have fallen over like a popsicle stick.
Although video clearly shows smoke and debris being blown out the pancaking WTC upper floors as the floors collapse against each other, but video of planned, controlled building demolitions clearly shows bright flashes of explosions before the building begins collapsing, the explosives planted in the towers must be some new super-secret kind because the explosive effect obviously goes back in time and starts the collapse of the building before the explosions throw stuff out the windows. So now there's the whole "Government Stuff Can Travel Through Time" conspiracy, and don't get me started.
George W. Bush is at once America's most deviously intelligent autocrat and its most stupidest president ever.
When an eyewitness describes a loud sound or strong, sudden vibration as "like a bomb," it means unequivocally that it was a bomb, because, you know, people have so much experience identifying bomb noises versus nearby passenger jet crashes.
If I am on the faculty of a university, and I use the university's good name and my position in the university as a crutch to substantiate my claims of a 9-11 mega-conspiracy, expecting my learned colleagues to believe and support me, I will get a harsh dose of reality when I am slapped down to administrative leave as my continued employment at said university is reconsidered.
99.9% of the worlds top engineers, architects, physicists, and chemists are all wrong, and I am right, because I read the Intarweb and I am so smart.
If I repeat the same absurd claims enough times, they will become truth: There are over 6.5 billion people in the world, and about 1.1 billion of those people use the Internet.
Chances are, I could claim anything on the Web, and at a million-to-one odds, over a thousand people would believe me. In the age of the Internet, that makes me an expert.
I can't be wrong because thousands of people believe my theories. But you can be wrong even though hundreds of millions believe you, because we all know there are millions of stupid people in the world.
Any information that comes from the government is suspect, because everybody knows that "the government" is one vast conspiracy utterly controlled by a small number of evil-doers, not made up of millions of honest, hard-working people, at all levels of bureaucracy, of all ages, of all parties, of all walks of life, each fighting in their own way for truth, justice, and the American way.
The jets that crashed were not piloted by hijackers, but by "advanced robotics and remote-control technology." So the video footage of "men of middle-eastern descent" boarding each of the aircraft was falsified, the cockpit voice recordings were falsified, the ground service crew, mechanics, and flight crew of the four aircraft didn't notice any of the advancedroboticsandremotecontroltechnology while prepping the aircraft, body parts of known terrorists were planted at the crash sites, the live phone conversations between crew, passengers, and their loved ones on the ground were implanted memories and falsified recordings, and the Flight 93 passengers actually wrestled with some hidden robotic equipment, not terrorists.
"The 9/11 hijacking attacks were very likely facilitated by a rogue group within the US government that created an Islamic terrorist 'Pearl Harbor' event as a catalyst for the military invasion of Middle Eastern countries." You know, because that strategy has worked so well in the past. And no it is not shameful to mention "conspiracy" and "Pearl Harbor" in the same breath.
The government has a track record of blowing up its own buildings to push its own nefarious agenda, like they did in the Oklahoma City bombing and the 1993 WTC attack, because, you know, those attacks enabled the government to, you know,... do stuff, and stuff. So you can see this isn't a new idea for them.
If I cave in to the majority and concede that the planes did, in fact, exist, then quibbling about the degrees of bank or impact angles or other meaningless trifles will somehow vindicate me.
If other conspiracy theorists make claims that are later widely disbelieved even in the conspiracy theory community, then it's not that fellow conspiracy theorists are wrong, it's that it was sinister counter-intelligence trying to undermine the "9/11 truth movement" with claims so absurd that it compromises the efficacy of the whole. Seriously.
Confusion of timelines and action reports at the time of the largest modern enemy attack on the United States were intentionally deceptive, and not the result of actual confusion, inconsistent memories, or finger pointing that usually accompany failures of intelligence.
The 9-11 attacks and the related misinformation/propaganda campaign were designed by the government to precipitate the lingering war in Iraq, so that we could get thousands of our men and women killed and thousands of Iraqi civilians killed to make the U.S. more popular and make the current administration more popular, which has worked like a charm.
The Pentagon fire owed much of its smoke to an emergency generator near the crash site that was remotely detonated, it's suspicious that an emergency generator would have a large extra fuel tank next to it, and the WTC was only made of steel and concrete, with little to no combustible materials inside like carpet, desks, electronics and electrical cables, cubicle walls, file cabinet contents, storage rooms, and pens.
When an "earwitness" to the Flight 93 crash claims she didn't hear a crash, but instead heard "an explosion, like an atomic bomb," we should believe her, because of her experience discriminating between the sounds of large passenger jets hitting the ground at high speed and the detonation of atomic weapons.
Cory Lidle's plane crash into an apartment building proves that the WTC should have survived a similar attack. Because although both planes were vastly different in size, mass, fuel load, and speed, and although the buildings were vastly different in structure, they both happened in New York City.
It's somehow productive to pontificate ad nauseum about whether there was a napalm bomb, or a missile, or a pod, or a whatever, attached under a passenger jet, since we all know how much more explosive power would be added by attaching something like that to a civilian jet already full of thousands of pounds of fuel.
It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that any web pages that poke fun at conspiracy theories are a part of the conspiracy itself. Surely no right-thinking person could doubt and preach against the conspiracies by their own free will.
If I e-mail the author of a web site that pokes fun at my conspiracy theories, I will write masterfully persuasive arguments for several pages, taking an entire evening of my time, making the text flow juuust right, and when he gets the e-mail he will read it all and will naturally be persuaded to see the error of his ways. After seeing how much work I put into it, he wouldn't just delete it without reading past the first ranting line. He just wouldn't.
People will see what they want to see, and believe what they want to believe. Because rubbing someone's face in their own absurd beliefs only makes them close their eyes tighter, the claims in this list will continue to be believed by many. To all others: May our future rest in your capable hands.

[JoeChalupa]

Didn't I just see that cut and paste in another thread?

[Galileo]

It would be paranoid if there wasn't the fact that 3 groups hijacked aircraft and crashed them into buildings and then later a group sent in a video claiming credit for it.

Paranoid would be creating a vast conspiracy attributed to a giagantic coverup by the government.

9/11 wasn't a giant conspiracy. It might not even have been a conspiracy at all, legally.

It always takes fewer people to pull off an inside job, than an "outside job".

[Galileo]

Well, I wouldn't call them liars, but exposions could have been caused by the fires in the building igniting combustibles or jsut the sounds of the floors/equipment/etc falling and hitting each other at great force. I heard a loud bang outside of our aparment in LA a few years ago that sounded like a bomb going off when it was a drunk driver crashing into 7 cars. Sounding like an explosion doesn't necessarily mean that there was one.

Was the loud bang you heard followed by a controlled demolition? If not, then it might not have been a bomb you heard.

[RandomGuy]

Didn't I just see that cut and paste in another thread?

Yup.

I thought since the conspiracy guys do it, I might as well adapt the tactic to my own purposes.

Zealots of the Church of the Holy Conspiracy Theory have all manner of pre-typed posts for internet forums, as our pretentious "Galileo" demonstrates in this thread.

I try to avoid it, but throw it in occasionally, especially if, like the above, it is somewhat humorous.

[Galileo]

That was hilarious.

Why would charges need to be placed at the very top of the building?

Why not put the people who put the charges there under oath and ask them?

[Galileo]

Here's the best video that I have found showing the south side of 7 WTC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

At the 1:30 mark you can hear someone talking about "a hole in that building" and that it "might come down."

If the person talking about the building that "might come down" knows why it "might come down", he should contact the NIST scientists and let them know, because after 6 years, the NIST scientists still have no idea why WTC 7 "might come down".

[Galileo]

I am on strike.

I refuse to watch another shitty youtube video until you prove to me that yo have spent at least 2 hours reading a good debunking site.

Quid pro quo.

I have already read through most of the debunking websites for dozens of hours a long time ago. In fact, I have been in email correspondence with some of the authors of these sites, including Mark Roberts who created the best debunking site. Mark Roberts often posts under the name of 'Gravy', if you want to do a google search, as he is all over the internet, especially on the JREF forums.

Unlike many conspiracy theorists, I am interested in getting to the truth about 9/11, and weigh both sides of the argument in all cases.

The author of www.911research.com, Jim Hoffman does the same.

So here are some conspiracy theories about 9/11 that are dead wrong:

FL77 didn't hit the Pentagon theory

The Pod theory

Video Fakery

Mini-nukes

Bumble planes theory

Cleveland plane-switch theory

Directed Energy weapons theory

Fake phone calls theory

The Al-Quada did it theory

Here's what's left:

The WTC was blown up

The failure to intercept the hijacked planes was deliberate

[Galileo]

http://www.sawyerhome.net/whatilearned.html

What I Learned from
9-11 Conspiracy Theories.

The U.S. is actually quite popular worldwide; so much so, in fact, that its government must create artificial terrorist organizations to attack it. Left to their own devices, everybody else pretty much respects Americans and leaves them alone.
It takes the complacency or cooperation of the world's largest superpower to hijack a defenseless civilian aircraft.
If you believe what your government tells you about 9-11, you are part of the conspiracy or, at least, part of "the problem." But if you accuse people at all levels of the government, including the U.S. military, of planning and carrying out the largest terrorist attack on U.S. soil, killing thousands of civilians, then you are a patriot.
The large fireballs seen at the WTC impacts look like napalm explosions, so it was probably a napalm bomb that actually caused the damage. Of course, napalm being jellied fuel, and jet aircraft being full of fuel, you can see the vast difference there.
The WTC towers fell in what was obviously a controlled demolition. The largest, messiest, deadliest, most witnessed, most mismanaged, most ill-timed, most poorly executed, and most uncontrolled controlled demolition in history.
Even though our civilian airliner pilots had been trained to cooperate with hijackers and not try to physically resist, and even though short knives and box cutters were allowed in carry-on luggage, we shouldn't believe the absurd claim that four or five strong and very determined men armed with knives and a fanatic eagerness to die killing Americans could take over an unlocked cockpit.
Several of the hijackers are still alive, and apparently are living well.
The government planted explosives at the exact aircraft impact sites of the Pentagon and both WTC towers, the explosives and activity surrounding their placement went completely unnoticed, the rigging of the explosives was unharmed by the aircraft impacts, and they went off exactly when planned.
Somehow orchestrating the hijacking of multiple airliners to have them crash at explosive-rigged sites was more effective than just setting off the explosives by themselves in the first place.
Those plane crashes were like so totally fake cuz they were so totally unlike all the real fiery passenger jet crashes into buildings I've seen in real life.
When you refer to the planes, say "alleged aircraft." When referring to the terrorists, say "alleged terrorists." Because not only can we not be sure they even existed, but also, "alleged" has such a nice, objective ring to it.
The plane-shaped holes in the WTC towers were an absurdity, like a cat-shaped hole in a fence in a Tom and Jerry cartoon, because the planes would have either smashed to pieces against the building and fallen straight down to the street below, or flown right through the building (making a cartoon-like hole) and emerged out the other side relatively intact.
Cries of "Death to America!" and "America is the Great Satan!" by Islamic extremists are all part of our government's plan for world domination. Left to themselves, the so-called "extremists" are actually quite pleasant, simple folk (but very good actors).
The rigged explosives in the upper floors of WTC2 were powerful enough to collapse a skyscraper, but not powerful enough to instantly kill Kevin Cosgrove, on floor 105, who was talking on the phone with a fire dispatcher and managed to blurt out three words between the time of the "explosion" and the collapse that killed him.
The meandering directions of the hijacked aircrafts' flight paths were all part of well-planned routes, and not due to the terrorist pilots flying and navigating a large, real, multi-engine passenger jet for the first time.
Our service men and women chose not to shoot down the planes or protect the Pentagon and WTC because they were part of the conspiracy, and they're not speaking out because they've been bought off. Better still, NORAD actually sent the remote-controlled aircraft into their targets.
A black helicopter was hovering over the WTC South Tower before, during, and after the crashes, and the floor that was on fire the most must have had barrels and barrels of a crude oil-diesel mixture that was remotely ignited to ensure a hiding place for the helicopter which is the only thing that could explain black sooty smoke coming from an office building filled with office supplies, and the people working on that floor didn't notice the barrels and barrels of oil and went about their daily routine, and nobody working security or janitorial in the building noticed black-suited men rolling barrels of crude oil on the elevators, all to hide the black helicopter because we all know what black helicopters do. Seriously!
If a large, thin-skinned aircraft impacts the side of a thick concrete building at 400mph, and only small pieces of the aircraft are found outside on the lawn, then it's obvious the pieces were planted there, and a plane didn't crash at all.
The shape of the Pentagon and the approach path of the aircraft are Illuminati symbols. 'Nuff said.
Although the 1993 WTC bombing was obviously the work of terrorists, the idea that the 2001 attacks were perpetrated by terrorists is ludicrous.
Because the shape of the impact holes in the WTC towers and the Pentagon don't match what I think the shape of the planes should be, then it must have been some other type of craft that did the damage, in spite of all of the eyewitness reports and physical evidence to the contrary. Which means that, since the alleged hijacked aircraft are, indeed, missing, and the passengers on said aircraft are, indeed, missing, then the government must have landed those passenger jets in secret somewhere, removed the people, killed them, dismembered them, sprinkled their remains around the crash sites somehow, and destroyed/hid the aircraft somewhere else. Masterful. Much more convincing than just actually crashing the planes into the buildings in the first place.
The same nefarious conspirators that pulled off the single largest concerted suicide attack in history forgot to make a hole in the Pentagon to help fake the airliner impact site.
The images and other references of the WTC on pre-9-11 terrorism reports and books reveals a casual, open foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks, and in no way could possibly ever ever refer to the largest pre-9-11 foreign terrorist attack on U.S. soil, the 1993 WTC parking garage bombing.
Of course, if the shadow government could pull off the 9-11 attacks, then plotting the 1993 WTC attack would have been child's play.
Incompetence, being unprepared, not foreseeing events, rushed decisions, finger pointing, blame trading, and hysteria equal "conspiracy."
More information only muddles "the truth:" The most accurate and complete reports of any disaster are from selections of the first hurried reports, not from more complete, thoughtful analysis and more thorough eyewitness reports that come later.
Of all the types of aircraft described by witnesses at the WTC and Pentagon, we should choose to believe only the ones that fit our theories, not the ones that describe actual planes that are missing that contained actual passengers who are missing and whose body parts and DNA were found at the crash sites and whose planes were tracked to impact.
When some eyewitnesses at the WTC describe a really big noise as an "explosion," we should believe them, and not our own eyes that saw floors pancaking on each other, ejecting debris out the windows. And we should believe their assessment of the "explosions" because, you know, of their experience discriminating between the sounds of some of the tallest skyscrapers in the world collapsing and explosions 80 stories up.
When we hear witnesses describing "something like a bomb going off" in the Pentagon, we should ignore subsequent (and concurrent) eyewitness reports of a rather large passenger jet flying into exactly the same spot, and ignored reports and photos of engines, landing gear, other aircraft parts, aircraft passengers, and other debris being found on and in the site, and absolutely no evidence of any explosive.
When pointing out how a B-25 flew into the Empire State Building in 1945, but the building easily survived and didn't collapse, we should disregard how much smaller the B-25 is than a 767, the amount of fuel that each contains, and that the ESB was constructed largely of concrete (like, say, the Pentagon).
Any videos of the crashes that surface more than a day or two after the event are obviously computer-generated fakes, because the time it took to create the fake videos explains why they weren't immediately released. Because everyone knows that if someone takes home video of a disaster, they run straight to a media outlet to share it with the rest of the world.
The same government conspirators who plotted this complex event didn't prepare fake videos ahead of time. They waited until the events happened to prepare the computer-generated fakery, which delayed their release until a cloud of suspicion could fall on their authenticity.
No buildings in history ever fell because of fire until 9-11. And if the WTC towers were the first modern, steel structures to collapse by fire, it is not a testament to the intelligent engineering put into the design of skyscrapers in general, but only evidence that the WTC was brought down by other means. No, I don't mean by airplanes filled with thousands of pounds of fuel ramming into them, I mean by a bomb. Yes!
Steel supports must liquify at their melting point of 3000°F in order to weaken and fail, and everything that metalurgists and engineers have told us about heat of only about 700°Fweakening steel is false, and for thousands of years, metal workers like blacksmiths and armorers have just had it all wrong, because they only needed large blast furnaces, spigots, and molds to form horseshoes, swords, and plowshares from liquid metal, and they didn't need a hammer and anvil, as you see in Hollywood movies' special effects.
If a large plane crashes into a large skyscraper and starts a raging fire inside, then a woman later waves from the outside edge of a lower part of the huge jagged entry hole, then that's proof that the fire inside isn't actually all that hot.
Although a simple concrete barrier can sucker punch a dump truck to a dead stop and virtually atomize a fighter jet, we should expect the impact site of a passenger jet on the world's largest reinforced concrete building to be marked by a plane-shaped hole in the wall.
When actor Charlie Sheen says that the U.S. government was behind the attacks, and that "We're not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue," we should believe him because he is a "highly credible public figure" who is a star on the current hit comedy show "Two and a Half Men." And his stammering, "The more you look at stuff, especially specific incidents, specific events, in or around the fateful day, it just-- it just raises a lot of questions" makes you realize just how articulate he is, and how Tom "You don't know...psychiatry--I do" Cruise could take debating pointers from him.
Most of the WTC towers' exterior was glass; most of the Pentagon's exterior was thick concrete. Naturally, we should expect them to be affected by aircraft impacts the same way.
If there is disagreement on the approach angle and bank of the plane hitting the Pentagon in an official report and from online bloggers, then we can safely assume that the plane, in fact, did not exist.
When pointing out how the FAA rule allowing pilots to fly armed was rescinded two months before 9-11, we should ignore the fact that at the time, no pilots were taking advantage of the rule, and we should not jump to the conclusion that the repeal is any different than businesses or schools banning employees from carrying firearms.
It doesn't make sense that remains of the hijackers and passengers, who hit the sides of mostly open-spaced office buildings at hundreds of miles an hour and ejected out the other side, were some of the first remains discovered, and not under thousands of tons of rubble straight down. The body parts must have been planted on streets, on the roofs of buildings, and through broken windows by burglars. Or something.
If people aren't listening to my theories, then maybe shouting them in eye-searing hot pink will do the trick.
Disagreement between government reports and eyewitness accounts do not mean that the individuals witnessed the same event; they only mean that the accounts that don't agree with my paranoid point of view are lies as part of the government cover-up, are mass hallucinations, or, just to be thorough, both.
Since verbose, difficult-to-read scientific reports contradict my claims of conspiracy, I'll use a different approach: Nothing says "Science" like lots of photos, drawings, and short captions in a PowerPoint or Flash animation backed by spooky "conspiracy music."
If video is poor quality, or with low frame rates (like with a surveillance film), it must be fake.
The WTC towers fell straight down (more or less), which proves that it was a controlled demolition. If it were a true building falling down, it would have fallen over like a popsicle stick.
Although video clearly shows smoke and debris being blown out the pancaking WTC upper floors as the floors collapse against each other, but video of planned, controlled building demolitions clearly shows bright flashes of explosions before the building begins collapsing, the explosives planted in the towers must be some new super-secret kind because the explosive effect obviously goes back in time and starts the collapse of the building before the explosions throw stuff out the windows. So now there's the whole "Government Stuff Can Travel Through Time" conspiracy, and don't get me started.
George W. Bush is at once America's most deviously intelligent autocrat and its most stupidest president ever.
When an eyewitness describes a loud sound or strong, sudden vibration as "like a bomb," it means unequivocally that it was a bomb, because, you know, people have so much experience identifying bomb noises versus nearby passenger jet crashes.
If I am on the faculty of a university, and I use the university's good name and my position in the university as a crutch to substantiate my claims of a 9-11 mega-conspiracy, expecting my learned colleagues to believe and support me, I will get a harsh dose of reality when I am slapped down to administrative leave as my continued employment at said university is reconsidered.
99.9% of the worlds top engineers, architects, physicists, and chemists are all wrong, and I am right, because I read the Intarweb and I am so smart.
If I repeat the same absurd claims enough times, they will become truth: There are over 6.5 billion people in the world, and about 1.1 billion of those people use the Internet.
Chances are, I could claim anything on the Web, and at a million-to-one odds, over a thousand people would believe me. In the age of the Internet, that makes me an expert.
I can't be wrong because thousands of people believe my theories. But you can be wrong even though hundreds of millions believe you, because we all know there are millions of stupid people in the world.
Any information that comes from the government is suspect, because everybody knows that "the government" is one vast conspiracy utterly controlled by a small number of evil-doers, not made up of millions of honest, hard-working people, at all levels of bureaucracy, of all ages, of all parties, of all walks of life, each fighting in their own way for truth, justice, and the American way.
The jets that crashed were not piloted by hijackers, but by "advanced robotics and remote-control technology." So the video footage of "men of middle-eastern descent" boarding each of the aircraft was falsified, the cockpit voice recordings were falsified, the ground service crew, mechanics, and flight crew of the four aircraft didn't notice any of the advancedroboticsandremotecontroltechnology while prepping the aircraft, body parts of known terrorists were planted at the crash sites, the live phone conversations between crew, passengers, and their loved ones on the ground were implanted memories and falsified recordings, and the Flight 93 passengers actually wrestled with some hidden robotic equipment, not terrorists.
"The 9/11 hijacking attacks were very likely facilitated by a rogue group within the US government that created an Islamic terrorist 'Pearl Harbor' event as a catalyst for the military invasion of Middle Eastern countries." You know, because that strategy has worked so well in the past. And no it is not shameful to mention "conspiracy" and "Pearl Harbor" in the same breath.
The government has a track record of blowing up its own buildings to push its own nefarious agenda, like they did in the Oklahoma City bombing and the 1993 WTC attack, because, you know, those attacks enabled the government to, you know,... do stuff, and stuff. So you can see this isn't a new idea for them.
If I cave in to the majority and concede that the planes did, in fact, exist, then quibbling about the degrees of bank or impact angles or other meaningless trifles will somehow vindicate me.
If other conspiracy theorists make claims that are later widely disbelieved even in the conspiracy theory community, then it's not that fellow conspiracy theorists are wrong, it's that it was sinister counter-intelligence trying to undermine the "9/11 truth movement" with claims so absurd that it compromises the efficacy of the whole. Seriously.
Confusion of timelines and action reports at the time of the largest modern enemy attack on the United States were intentionally deceptive, and not the result of actual confusion, inconsistent memories, or finger pointing that usually accompany failures of intelligence.
The 9-11 attacks and the related misinformation/propaganda campaign were designed by the government to precipitate the lingering war in Iraq, so that we could get thousands of our men and women killed and thousands of Iraqi civilians killed to make the U.S. more popular and make the current administration more popular, which has worked like a charm.
The Pentagon fire owed much of its smoke to an emergency generator near the crash site that was remotely detonated, it's suspicious that an emergency generator would have a large extra fuel tank next to it, and the WTC was only made of steel and concrete, with little to no combustible materials inside like carpet, desks, electronics and electrical cables, cubicle walls, file cabinet contents, storage rooms, and pens.
When an "earwitness" to the Flight 93 crash claims she didn't hear a crash, but instead heard "an explosion, like an atomic bomb," we should believe her, because of her experience discriminating between the sounds of large passenger jets hitting the ground at high speed and the detonation of atomic weapons.
Cory Lidle's plane crash into an apartment building proves that the WTC should have survived a similar attack. Because although both planes were vastly different in size, mass, fuel load, and speed, and although the buildings were vastly different in structure, they both happened in New York City.
It's somehow productive to pontificate ad nauseum about whether there was a napalm bomb, or a missile, or a pod, or a whatever, attached under a passenger jet, since we all know how much more explosive power would be added by attaching something like that to a civilian jet already full of thousands of pounds of fuel.
It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that any web pages that poke fun at conspiracy theories are a part of the conspiracy itself. Surely no right-thinking person could doubt and preach against the conspiracies by their own free will.
If I e-mail the author of a web site that pokes fun at my conspiracy theories, I will write masterfully persuasive arguments for several pages, taking an entire evening of my time, making the text flow juuust right, and when he gets the e-mail he will read it all and will naturally be persuaded to see the error of his ways. After seeing how much work I put into it, he wouldn't just delete it without reading past the first ranting line. He just wouldn't.
People will see what they want to see, and believe what they want to believe. Because rubbing someone's face in their own absurd beliefs only makes them close their eyes tighter, the claims in this list will continue to be believed by many. To all others: May our future rest in your capable hands.

I am not going to go through this entire thing, and some of appears to be correct information, so just a few points:

* the 9/11 conspiracy was planned by only a few people.

*The hijackers had guns, according to the phone calls we know about, and an internal FAA memo that has been released.

* In one of your points, you ridicule the idea that the planes didn't set off the explosives that were already in the building. But you deny that the explosions people heard were bombs.

* I have listened to the Kevin Cosgrove audio. I don't remember him saying explosion. But I do know he was by the window, and the bombs were place inside the core on the core columns near the elevator shafts.

The entire essay just conflates crazy ideas with rational ideas. I could do the same. I could say; "Heh, heh, you don't think Julius Caesar was killed by a conspiracy, heh, heh. You think the Virgin Mary was really a virgin, heh, heh, even though Jesus was descended from King David through Joseph, heh, heh. You don't think Watergate or Iran Contra ever happened, heh, heh, because those are government conspiracies."

[Jamtas#2]

9/11 wasn't a giant conspiracy. It might not even have been a conspiracy at all, legally.

It always takes fewer people to pull off an inside job, than an "outside job".

Sorry, I'll rephrase.
Paranoid would be believing that a small group of people pulled an inside job rather than believing that a terrorist group who claimed credit for the attacks did it.

[Jamtas#2]

Was the loud bang you heard followed by a controlled demolition? If not, then it might not have been a bomb you heard.

No it wasn't followed by a controlled demolition...much like the tower wasn't a controlled demolition either.

[Galileo]

Sorry, I'll rephrase.
Paranoid would be believing that a small group of people pulled an inside job rather than believing that a terrorist group who claimed credit for the attacks did it.

* Terrorists are liars, and like to "take credit" for stuff they didn't do.

* Osama bin Laden issued a statement a few days after 9/11, saying was not aware of the attacks and had nothing to do with them.

* Osama bin Laden has not been charged with any crime involving 9/11.

* The so-called bin Laden confession tape is not bin Laden. It shows a man who is right handed, writing a note with his right hand, but according the FBI website, bin Laden is left-handed.

* bin Laden is 6' 5" tall, 160 pounds, on the FBI website, but he looks like a fat guy on the video.

* the guy on the video doesn't look like bin Laden

* the video is fake, and bin Laden is not on it.

[ChumpDumper]

Why not put the people who put the charges there under oath and ask them?Why don't you explain why they are needed on the very top corner of the building and designed to look exactly like glass and building materials deforming and breaking during a building collapse.

[ChumpDumper]

If the person talking about the building that "might come down" knows why it "might come down", he should contact the NIST scientists and let them know, because after 6 years, the NIST scientists still have no idea why WTC 7 "might come down".Everyone at the scene knew it might come down. They measured the deformation of the building over a few hours and came to that conclusion. That's why all the fire and rescue crews evacuated the building. The NIST scientists are trying to track down the exact cause, but the symptoms were readily apparent to the people who were actually there.

[Galileo]

Everyone at the scene knew it might come down. They measured the deformation of the building over a few hours and came to that conclusion. That's why all the fire and rescue crews evacuated the building. The NIST scientists are trying to track down the exact cause, but the symptoms were readily apparent to the people who were actually there.

The WTC was designed to withstand multiple airplane crashes and fires. In 1975, it withstood a substantial fire. In 1993, it withstood a substantial bomb. All other steel framed buildings in the world have survived earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornados, without collapse. Steel buildings attacked by bombing raids during WWII never fell in simulated controlled demolitions.

There is a tall steel building in San Francisco, built in the 1890s, that withstood the San Francisco earthquake and ensuing 3 day fire. It still stands today.

The WTC was made of mostly steel and concrete, had fireproofing on the steel beams, complied with fire codes, and had a water sprinkler system.

That's why after the planes hit, firemen and policemen rushed into the buildings, the engineers felt it was safe.

But right after the Twin Towers fell, it would be pretty easy to get a bit paranoid and feel that WTC 7 might fall as well.

Of course, the engineers at the scene had no idea that powerful bombs had been planted throughout the WTC.

[Yonivore]

Wow, so how does the kookaid taste, Galileo?

[ChumpDumper]

The WTC was designed to withstand multiple airplane crashes and fires. In 1975, it withstood a substantial fire. In 1993, it withstood a substantial bomb. All other steel framed buildings in the world have survived earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornados, without collapse. Steel buildings attacked by bombing raids during WWII never fell in simulated controlled demolitions.Nice line of BS. The WTC was designed to absorb a 707 that was traveling at landing speed trying to avoid crashing, not a 767 traveling 550 mph intentionally trying to crash.


There is a tall steel building in San Francisco, built in the 1890s, that withstood the San Francisco earthquake and ensuing 3 day fire. It still stands today.So you're saying it was constructed exactly like the WTC and hit by a 767 traveling at 550 mph.


The WTC was made of mostly steel and concrete, had fireproofing on the steel beams, complied with fire codes, and had a water sprinkler system.The fireproofing was knocked of the beams by the impact and much of the water supply was cut off in the same impact.


That's why after the planes hit, firemen and policemen rushed into the buildings, the engineers felt it was safe.No shit. If you can show a precedent for this particular set of circumstances, give me a link to them.


But right after the Twin Towers fell, it would be pretty easy to get a bit paranoid and feel that WTC 7 might fall as well.And measuring the deformation of the building would help them come to an actual conclusion based on evidence.


Of course, the engineers at the scene had no idea that powerful bombs had been planted throughout the WTC.Of course, they knew the building was burning uncontrolled and progressively deforming.

[Yonivore]

Hey Galileo, your name and your nutter position remind me of Alex Jones:

The History Channel ran a program some time back called "9/11 Conspiracy: Fact or Fiction." The concept is that, as was the case with Pearl Harbor and the assassination of President Kennedy, conspiracy theories become part of the historical record, no matter how absurd they are. So THC, one of my favorite cable channels, looks into it and features a number of vocal Truthers in the process.

In the program, Alex Jones tells the interviewer that Galileo was persecuted in his time for proclaiming that the world was round and not flat… and that he himself is a modern day Galileo.

This would be a good analogy were it not for the inconvenient fact that Galileo was accused of heresy for suggesting the Earth moved around the Sun and not the other way around. In Galileo’s time it was widely acknowledged that the world was indeed round.

Ironically, in a tangent but an interesting one at that, it was Islamic astronomers who were among the first to calculate the circumference of the Earth, developing spherical trigonometry in the process, and plot the movement of the known planets at the time, in the 9th century. I say ironic because the world would indeed be a better place if Islamic fundamentalists again pursued mathematics and the sciences for the betterment of mankind instead of our destruction.

Alex Jones discusses Galileo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzJOGNevg_U)

That Alex Jones, he's a card. Next to Leslie, he's the whackiest guy in town.

http://www.austinexperience.com/scenes/leslie/leslie1.jpg

[Galileo]

Nice line of BS. The WTC was designed to absorb a 707 that was traveling at landing speed trying to avoid crashing, not a 767 traveling 550 mph intentionally trying to crash.

So you're saying it was constructed exactly like the WTC and hit by a 767 traveling at 550 mph.

The fireproofing was knocked of the beams by the impact and much of the water supply was cut off in the same impact.

No shit. If you can show a precedent for this particular set of circumstances, give me a link to them.

And measuring the deformation of the building would help them come to an actual conclusion based on evidence.

Of course, they knew the building was burning uncontrolled and progressively deforming.

WTC construction manager, Frank A. DeMartini
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7796162640538269955&q=frank+dimartini+wtc&total=32&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

* He says in this interview it could withstand multiple plane impacts. That's why he stayed in the WTC after the planes hit, and died after the bombs went off.

* Kinetic energy is based on the square of the velocity. The 707 had a cruising speed of 600 mph, while the 767 was 530 mph. So the 707 had more kinetic energy.

* The fireproofing was only knocked off the beams in the places where the plane directly hit the beams. This is only a few of the columns a few floors. That's it. Also, fires don't burn in the core, because the core was all steel and concrete.

You may want double check the crap you read on those archie debunking sites before you make a fool of yourself and post it online.

[ChumpDumper]

He says in this interview it could withstand multiple plane impacts. That's why he stayed in the WTC after the planes hit, and died after the bombs went off.What bombs?


Kinetic energy is based on the square of the velocity. The 707 had a cruising speed of 600 mph, while the 767 was 530 mph. So the 707 had more kinetic energy.A 707 lands at 600 mph?


The fireproofing was only knocked off the beams in the places where the plane directly hit the beams. This is only a few of the columns a few floors.That's all it took.


Also, fires don't burn in the core, because the core was all steel and concrete.Once a plane crashed through it, there was a lot more in there.


You may want double check the crap you read on those archie debunking sites before you make a fool of yourself and post it online.You may want to try using common sense before you make a fool of yourself posting online.

[Galileo]

What bombs?

A 707 lands at 600 mph?

That's all it took.

Once a plane crashed through it, there was a lot more in there.

You may want to try using common sense before you make a fool of yourself posting online.

Towers' Design Parameters
Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

A Boeing 707 has a cruise speed of 607 mph

A Boeing 767 has a cruise speed of 530 mph

Kinetic energy equals (1/2)x(mass)x(velocity squared)

At cruise speed, a Boeing 707 has more kinetic energy than a Boeing 767.

btw

WTC 7 wasn't hit by an airplane, so NONE of it's fireproofing was dislodged at all.

[ChumpDumper]

Towers' Design Parameters
Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

A Boeing 707 has a cruise speed of 607 mph

A Boeing 767 has a cruise speed of 530 mph

Kinetic energy equals (1/2)x(mass)x(velocity squared)

At cruise speed, a Boeing 707 has more kinetic energy than a Boeing 767.707s land at 607 mph?

707s cruise at 1000 feet?


btw

WTC 7 wasn't hit by an airplane, so NONE of it's fireproofing was dislodged at all.It was hit by the second tallest building in America, and burned longer than the fireproofing was designed for.

[ChumpDumper]

And really, engineers thought this bridge was designed to withstand the winds blowing over Puget Sound:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge_Falling.png

You never know until something actually happens.

[Galileo]

707s land at 607 mph?

707s cruise at 1000 feet?

It was hit by the second tallest building in America, and burned longer than the fireproofing was designed for.

R U some sort of a dolt?

The WTC was designed to withstand plane crashes into them. Your stupid argument that a Boeing 767 is a little bit bigger than a Boeing 707, so therefore a Boeing 767 would knock the WTC down, but a Boeing 707 wouldn't is not only trivial, but also dead wrong, as the kinetic energy of a Boeing 707 going at X% of its cruise speed is MORE than the kinetic energy of a a Boeing 767 going X% of its cruise speed.

The kinetic energy of the plane would be the same at either an impact at 500 feet or 1000 feet, it doens't matter. Are you sure you're all there?

And Boeing 707s were less fuel efficient, so a plane crash in 1970 would likely have more fuel than one in 2001. And the crashes in 2001 were both with less than half full fueltanks.

The fireproofing was designed to last more than 2 hours and the Twin Towers burned for only 1 to 1 1/2 hours each. The fire is the South Tower was going out, so they had to pull the switch and take it down before people got wise.

[ChumpDumper]

The WTC was designed to withstand plane crashes into them. Your stupid argument that a Boeing 767 is a little bit bigger than a Boeing 707, so therefore a Boeing 767 would knock the WTC down, but a Boeing 707 wouldn't is not only trivial, but also dead wrong, as the kinetic energy of a Boeing 707 going at X% of its cruise speed is MORE than the kinetic energy of a a Boeing 767 going X% of its cruise speed.Planes do not cruise at 1000 feet.


The fireproofing was designed to last more than 2 hours and the Twin Towers burned for only 1 to 1 1/2 hours each.Are you a dolt? Are you all there? The fireproofing was knocked off on impact.


The fireproofing was designed to last more than 2 hoursWhich would be dandy if it was actually on the steel. It wasn't.


The fire is the South Tower was going out, so they had to pull the switch and take it down before people got wise.Why would anyone have to pull a switch? What is the actual purpose of blowing up towers that have already had passenger jets rammed into them at 550 mph?

What would people get wise to?

[johnsmith]

I'm convinced that everyone on the "truthers" side of this argument is a mouse troll.

I'm also convinced that all of mouses trolls are as dumb as he is. Fuck, at least make up a "smart" troll and escape reality from time to time rather then just enhancing it.

[ChumpDumper]

Nah, this Galileo guy actually sounds like he believes the bullshit. Mouse just hits and runs to start some shit.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

CD will go out of his way to prove every fact, aphorism, and resource used in the 9/11 commission report was valid, relevant, and insightful.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, no one has gone out of his way to present an alternate theory that is valid, relevant and insightful.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Anthony Michael Hall would be ashamed.


It's one thing to say its the most plausible theory but another to say because it is the most plausible it is automatically completely true.

[ChumpDumper]

Anthony Michael Hall would be ashamed.


It's one thing to say its the most plausible theory but another to say because it is the most plausible it is automatically completely true.Eh, I've done enough research. It's a plausible theory and pretty easily defensible. That isn't my fault. I'm open to other theories, but no one has ever actually come up with one that explains everything.

[Galileo]

Planes do not cruise at 1000 feet.

Are you a dolt? Are you all there? The fireproofing was knocked off on impact.

Which would be dandy if it was actually on the steel. It wasn't.

Why would anyone have to pull a switch? What is the actual purpose of blowing up towers that have already had passenger jets rammed into them at 550 mph?

What would people get wise to?

The WTC was designed to withstand multiple plane impacts. This is not a simple concept to understand.

WTC 7 couldn't even withstand 0 plane impacts.

CD, in your infinite wisdom, do you think WTC 7 was designed to stand 0 plane impacts?

You're in luck, new video!

VIDEO -- Twin Towers: Demolished For Effect
controlled demolition | demolished for effect | Jim Hoffman | oral histories | Steven Jones | Twin Towers | witness testimony
Powerful new video features strong evidence for controlled demolition of the Twin Towers.
Please spread this video around. It can and should go viral.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/12170

[ChumpDumper]

The WTC was designed to withstand multiple plane impacts. This is not a simple concept to understand.And that bridge was designed to withstand wind.


WTC 7 couldn't even withstand 0 plane impacts.

CD, in your infinite wisdom, do you think WTC 7 was designed to stand 0 plane impacts?Was it designed to withstand the impact of the second tallest building in America and uncontrolled fire?


Powerful new videoSame crap, different music.

[Galileo]

And that bridge was designed to withstand wind.

Was it designed to withstand the impact of the second tallest building in America and uncontrolled fire?

Same crap, different music.

That's the best you got, ChumpDumpler? A bridge. Did you ever read the scientific report to see what the scientists said about the bridge?

WTC 7 had a few chunks of debris fly into it, let's see your evidence.

And it had only a few small fires. I already posted the official NIST summary of the fire locations. You can't just change the facts because you're in a bad mood. The official summary of debris damage is also in the same report.

Have you read a scientific report?

[Galileo]

WTC 7 - Arson or a smokescreen?

WTC Owner Larry Silverstein gave order to "pull" Building 7
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=824509319957782667&q=%22pull+it%22&total=2268&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

6:47 a.m. September 11, 2001: WTC Building 7 Alarm Not Operating According to later reports, the alarm system in WTC 7 is placed on “TEST” status for a period due to last eight hours. This ordinarily happens during maintenance or other testing, and any alarms received from the building are generally ignored. [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 6/2004, pp. 28 ]
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a647alarmnoton&scale=0#a647alarmnoton

Who pulled the fire alarm and started WTC 7 on fire? Was the fire a smokescreen?

[ChumpDumper]

That's the best you got, ChumpDumpler? A bridge. Did you ever read the scientific report to see what the scientists said about the bridge?It was designed to withstand wind. It didn't. What else is there to say?


WTC 7 had a few chunks of debris fly into it, let's see your evidence.:lol

Here's a post from the last time this was brought up:


And last (for now) but not least, two video stills showing tremendous damage to the south side of 7 WTC caused by the collapse of the north tower:

http://www.debunking911.com/wt7top.jpg

http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7gash.jpg

Here's the video from which the first still was taken:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_3uUQt8bu6k

and the second:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6186921835292416413&hl=en-CA



And it had only a few small fires. I already posted the official NIST summary of the fire locations. You can't just change the facts because you're in a bad mood. The official summary of debris damage is also in the same report.The fire is not tiny.

http://www.debunking911.com/wtcc.jpg

But thanks for pointing out that they were on floors critical to the structure. That helps me out a lot.


Have you read a scientific report?Not the final one. Neither have you.

[ChumpDumper]

And another blast from the past -- interviews of people on the scene at WTC7 that I put together in April:

Here's part of an interview with a fireman from Ladder Company 22:

They told us to get out of there because they were
worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind [the Verizon building],
coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon
building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom
corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over
to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up.
Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was
tremendous, tremendous fires going on.

Finally they pulled us out. They said all right,
get out of that building because that 7, they were really
worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they
regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and
West Street. They put everybody back in there.

Finally it did come down. From there - this is much
later on in the day, because every day we were
so worried about that building we didn't really want to
get people close. They were trying to limit the amount
of people that were in there. Finally it did come down.
That's when they let the guys go in. I just remember we
started searching around all the rigs.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt

Here's the Chief of Department:

The most important operational decision to be made that
afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade
Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey
between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very
heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of
an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we
had to give up some rescue operations that were going on
at the time and back the people away far enough so that if
7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn't lose any more
people.

We continued to operate on what we could from
that distance and approximately an hour and a half after
that order was given, at 5:30 in the afternoon, World
Trade Center collapsed completely.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt

Here's Chief Frank Cruthers:

A. ....Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area --

Q. A collapse zone?

A. Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Cruthers.txt

Here's part of a Firehouse magazine interview with FDNY Captain Cris Boyle:

Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.

Firehouse: How many companies?

Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. 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.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

They also interviewed deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. 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.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

Also from Firehouse:

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]

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]

Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.

http://www.firehouse.com/911/magazine/towers.html



But I'm sure you're going to say they were all in on the conspiracy.....

[Jamtas#2]

The WTC was designed to withstand multiple plane impacts. This is not a simple concept to understand.


CD is making the point to you that the towers were designed to withstand the impact of 707 while it was at landing speed, (not the 600 mph you are claiming) not a 747 cruising directly at the tower at 550 mph.

[smeagol]

CD will go out of his way to prove every fact, aphorism, and resource used in the 9/11 commission report was valid, relevant, and insightful.
And mookie will go out of his way to bring his trolls to defend his position

[Wild Cobra]

Chump, Galileo, either of you two look through this document? It supports so much of what Chump has said:

Appendix L; INTERIM REPORT ON WTC 7 (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf)

Has some cool pictures of WTC 7 damage before it fell, and describes the substation, trussing, etc.

[Yonivore]

WTC 7 couldn't even withstand 0 plane impacts.
It was struck by something with more mass and kinetic energy than an airplane.

[Wild Cobra]

CD will go out of his way to prove every fact, aphorism, and resource used in the 9/11 commission report was valid, relevant, and insightful.
Yes, he is a real ass most the time.

I hate to say this because I dislike Chump, but we agree on this issue.

Something to clesar up...

weights (common larger sizes):

707 max weight 333600 lbs
767 max weight 395000 lbs

same airframes empty:

707 146400 lbs
767 181610 lbs

resources:

707 detailed specs from Boeing (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/707.pdf)

757 detailed specs from Boeing (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/757_23.pdf)

767 detailed specs from Boeing (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/767.pdf)

[Galileo]

And another blast from the past -- interviews of people on the scene at WTC7 that I put together in April:

Here's part of an interview with a fireman from Ladder Company 22:

They told us to get out of there because they were
worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind [the Verizon building],
coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon
building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom
corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over
to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up.
Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was
tremendous, tremendous fires going on.

Finally they pulled us out. They said all right,
get out of that building because that 7, they were really
worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they
regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and
West Street. They put everybody back in there.

Finally it did come down. From there - this is much
later on in the day, because every day we were
so worried about that building we didn't really want to
get people close. They were trying to limit the amount
of people that were in there. Finally it did come down.
That's when they let the guys go in. I just remember we
started searching around all the rigs.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt

Here's the Chief of Department:

The most important operational decision to be made that
afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade
Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey
between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very
heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of
an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we
had to give up some rescue operations that were going on
at the time and back the people away far enough so that if
7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn't lose any more
people.

We continued to operate on what we could from
that distance and approximately an hour and a half after
that order was given, at 5:30 in the afternoon, World
Trade Center collapsed completely.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt

Here's Chief Frank Cruthers:

A. ....Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area --

Q. A collapse zone?

A. Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Cruthers.txt

Here's part of a Firehouse magazine interview with FDNY Captain Cris Boyle:

Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.

Firehouse: How many companies?

Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. 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.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

They also interviewed deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. 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.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

Also from Firehouse:

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]

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]

Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.

http://www.firehouse.com/911/magazine/towers.html



But I'm sure you're going to say they were all in on the conspiracy.....

Great work! Now please get this info pronto to the NIST scientists so they can finish up theie work. There is no visual proof that this giant gaping hole exists, and contradicting staements from others that it didn't, but maybe you can hang your hat on one lone witness.

[how would a gaping hole on the south face cause the east Penthouse to collpase on the roof anyway?]

NIST has already determined that structural damage had nothing to do with the collapse, as most of the damage was at the SW corner below the 18th floor, and the collapse began on the roof below the east Penthouse.

What really happened is the people doing the controlled demolition spread rumors WTC 7 would fall, and in a paranoid atmosphere people believed it.

Did your boys at the scene bother to check that someone turned off the fire alarms in WTC 7 at 6:47 A.M. that morning? That's before any of the planes were hijacked. Who turned off the fire alarm in this highly secure building that housed the CIA, FBI, and Security & Exchange Commission?

[Galileo]

CD is making the point to you that the towers were designed to withstand the impact of 707 while it was at landing speed, (not the 600 mph you are claiming) not a 747 cruising directly at the tower at 550 mph.

So he is arguing that the WTC couldn't withstand a hit from one 767, but was designed to withstand multiple 707s, because the 767 weighs a little bit more?

Two 707s weigh more than one 767.

The 707 has a higher landing speed than a 767.

The WTC withstood the impact of the 767 anyway. There was just a fire near the top. That's why all the firemen and policemen rushed in, they knew it was safe becasue the engineers knew the fire wouldn't have any impact on the steel structure.

[Galileo]

It was designed to withstand wind. It didn't. What else is there to say?

:lol

Here's a post from the last time this was brought up:




The fire is not tiny.

http://www.debunking911.com/wtcc.jpg

But thanks for pointing out that they were on floors critical to the structure. That helps me out a lot.

Not the final one. Neither have you.

So if the bridge got knocked over by the wind, was it because of a design flaw, or was the wind greater than designed for? You see, with the WTC, nobody has discovered any designed flaw nor that it took an attack greated than what it was designed for. But of course, the WTC was not designed for controlled demolition.

btw - your photos don't impress me. There were thousands of buildings damaged in WWII far less than WTC 7 that never fell.

The fire is very tiny compared to the size of WTC 7. If the fire was in my garage, it would be big.

I have read the scientific reports on the WTC.

[Yonivore]

So he is arguing that the WTC couldn't withstand a hit from one 767, but was designed to withstand multiple 707s, because the 767 weighs a little bit more?
No, he's arguing that the World Trade Center was designed to survive an accidental impact from a 707, traveling at normal airspeed or dropping out of the sky like a rock; not an intentional, full-throttle, fully-fueled impact from a passenger-carrying guided missile in the guise of a airliner.


Two 707s weigh more than one 767.
I'm not a physics professor but, I'd imagine that 1 767 traveling at full-throttle, fully-loaded with fuel, exerts quite a bit more kinetic energy on impact than even two 707s being piloted by four career pilots trying to save their lives or who have dumped their fuel in resignation of their fate.


The 707 has a higher landing speed than a 767.
Neither a crashing 707 nor a 767 being intentionally piloted into a building can be assumed to be traveling at "landing speed" in this scenario so, what the fuck does that have to do with September 11 and the World Trade Center attacks?


The WTC withstood the impact of the 767 anyway. There was just a fire near the top. That's why all the firemen and policemen rushed in, they knew it was safe becasue the engineers knew the fire wouldn't have any impact on the steel structure.
:lmao I guess all the firmen and policemen failed to bone up on their "what the fuck happens when a fully-throttled, fully-fueled, airliner flies into a building" continuing education.

[Yonivore]

So if the bridge got knocked over by the wind, was it because of a design flaw, or was the wind greater than designed for? You see, with the WTC, nobody has discovered any designed flaw nor that it took an attack greated than what it was designed for. But of course, the WTC was not designed for controlled demolition.
I think the point he is making is that some design flaws are not discovered until after a failure.

And, actually, design flaws in the WTC Towers have been discussed. From the design of the stairwells to the application of fire retardant to the construction of the trusses. There have been quite a few things that engineers said they could have improved upon had they known a bunch of FUCKING TERRORISTS WERE GOING TO FLY FULLY-FUELED AIRLINERS INTO THE BUILDINGS AT FULL THROTTLE.

[Yonivore]

I've got a serious question for you Galileo.

Why bother with the airplanes at all? Why not just rig the buildings for a controlled demolition and blame terrorists?

Sure, the conspiracy you've conjured up involves many people having to keep their mouths shut. Why take the risk of having all those people who witnessed the suspicious activities leading up to the event live? Why not just bring the buildings down in a controlled explosion and kill them all?

I don't understand the need for the airplanes in your scenario.

If I were going to do what you allege, and I were the government; I'd recruit a highly professional black ops team to go in, plant the explosives, leave some evidence to incriminate bin Laden, and simultaneously push the plunger on all three buildings at 8:45 A.M. on September 11, 2001.

Then, I'd have the black ops team assassinated.

[Galileo]

I've got a serious question for you Galileo.

Why bother with the airplanes at all? Why not just rig the buildings for a controlled demolition and blame terrorists?

Sure, the conspiracy you've conjured up involves many people having to keep their mouths shut. Why take the risk of having all those people who witnessed the suspicious activities leading up to the event live? Why not just bring the buildings down in a controlled explosion and kill them all?

I don't understand the need for the airplanes in your scenario.

If I were going to do what you allege, and I were the government; I'd recruit a highly professional black ops team to go in, plant the explosives, leave some evidence to incriminate bin Laden, and simultaneously push the plunger on all three buildings at 8:45 A.M. on September 11, 2001.

Then, I'd have the black ops team assassinated.

spectacular TV and an atmosphere of fear, followed by the Patriot Act and war.

[Yonivore]

spectacular TV and an atmosphere of fear, followed by the Patriot Act and war.
You don't think a sudden, unannounced, demolition of three building -- totalling somewhere north of 250 stories and containing more than 20,000 people would have been spectacular and instill an atmosphere of fear?

[Galileo]

I think the point he is making is that some design flaws are not discovered until after a failure.

And, actually, design flaws in the WTC Towers have been discussed. From the design of the stairwells to the application of fire retardant to the construction of the trusses. There have been quite a few things that engineers said they could have improved upon had they known a bunch of FUCKING TERRORISTS WERE GOING TO FLY FULLY-FUELED AIRLINERS INTO THE BUILDINGS AT FULL THROTTLE.

The WTC was designed to withstand multiple large airliners at full throttle. Only one hit it. Many people in the WTC didn't even know anything happened at first because the WTC was designed to take a hit.

I am asking you WHAT DESIGN FLAW caused the WTC to fall, not some bullshit about the stairwells.

Have you ever read the scientific reports, or do you just regurjitate everything your hear on TV?

Here's one example:

The NIST report says 6 core columns were severed in the North Tower. This Tower was hit straught on at the 95th floor.

So what does NIST say about the South Tower? It says 10 core columns were severed, even though this was hit on the side and at a lower floor where the columns are thicker. This is total BS. Guess where they got these numbers, do you think they have any actual evidence? Nope. The had to had this many columns severed or the WTC wouldn't fall according to their computer simulations. That is not scientific reasoning folks, that's circular reasoning.

Here's some good movies to learn what happened to the towers:

9/11 Revisited: Were explosives used? (v.2)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3760797491142118919&q=dustin+mugford&total=10&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8

911 Mysteries Demolitions recut
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8129564295534231536&q=9%2F11+mysteries&total=504&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

Improbable Collapse : The Demolition of our Republic
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782&q=improbable+collapse&total=48&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

These are the three best movies on the subject, in increasing order of technical analysis.

Go for it, and learn the truth.

[Galileo]

You don't think a sudden, unannounced, demolition of three building -- totalling somewhere north of 250 stories and containing more than 20,000 people would have been spectacular and instill an atmosphere of fear?

More spectacular with airplane crashes. James Bond would approve.

[Yonivore]

The WTC was designed to withstand multiple large airliners at full throttle.
You're going to have to source that one.

[Yonivore]

More spectacular with airplane crashes. James Bond would approve.
More visual evidence from which nutters, such as yourself, can construct wild and fantastic conspiracy theories.

Not very James Bondish.

I seriously don't think you've given much thought to the sheer number of people who would have to know about the controlled demolition of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 and keep quiet.

First of all, whose plan was it?

Then, assuming you think it's the Bush cabal, did President Bush, himself, recruit the people to install the explosives? Or, did he delagate?

How many levels of people between Bush and the people that planted the explosives were there?

You're a nut.

[Galileo]

More visual evidence from which nutters, such as yourself, can construct wild and fantastic conspiracy theories.

Not very James Bondish.

I seriously don't think you've given much thought to the sheer number of people who would have to know about the controlled demolition of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 and keep quiet.

First of all, whose plan was it?

Then, assuming you think it's the Bush cabal, did President Bush, himself, recruit the people to install the explosives? Or, did he delagate?

How many levels of people between Bush and the people that planted the explosives were there?

You're a nut.

So how does this prove an office fire took down WTC 7? Was it the core column cabal that conspired to fall down at 5:20 PM?

[Al Gore]

Then, assuming you think it's the Bush cabal, did President Bush, himself, recruit the people to install the explosives? Or, did he delagate?

How many levels of people between Bush and the people that planted the explosives were there?

You're a nut.

Yonivore would be great to debate with if he wasn't so bias. Let go of Bush's sac for 5 minutes so we can get down to real 9/11 talk. Stop pulling out the Bush card 24/7

[Yonivore]

So how does this prove an office fire took down WTC 7? Was it the core column cabal that conspired to fall down at 5:20 PM?
I'm going with the NIST finding that a good chunk of the face of WTC 7, approximately 10 floors, gouged out to an approximate depth of 25% of building, near the center of the south face, caused by debris impacts from WTC1, is the likely culprit when combined with the fires fed by a pressurized fuel line fed from the basement.

[Yonivore]

Yonivore would be great to debate with if he wasn't so bias. Let go of Bush's sac for 5 minutes so we can get down to real 9/11 talk. Stop pulling out the Bush card 24/7
Isn't that who he believes is behind this?

[IceColdBrewski]

We've officially reached that point in the 9-11 conspiracy thread where the conspiracy nut starts grasping at straws.

[Al Gore]

Isn't that who he believes is behind this?

You pull out the Bush card no matter what the topic is. I know you love Bush and you probably have some sort of shrine dedicated to him in your trailer but if you want to show others your real political debate skills, (which you used to be known for) you need to think on your own without saying to yourself "what would Bush say" it makes for better conversation.

[Al Gore]

We've officially reached that point in the 9-11 conspiracy thread where the conspiracy nut starts grasping at straws.


Who is grasping? It seems to me anyone who has to resort to insults has run out of legit come backs. (cue in johnsmith to ruin this topic)

[Yonivore]

You pull out the Bush card no matter what the topic is. I know you love Bush and you probably have some sort of shrine dedicated to him in your trailer but if you want to show others your real political debate skills, (which you used to be known for) you need to think on your own without saying to yourself "what would Bush say" it makes for better conversation.
Well, unfortunately, the left wing nuts believe George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove are behind all that is wrong or that has gone wrong in the past 2,000 years.

Again, isn't Galileo saying that our government is behind 9-11?

By the way, you should have shut the fuck up after your concession speech in 2000.

[johnsmith]

Who is grasping? It seems to me anyone who has to resort to insults has run out of legit come backs. (cue in johnsmith to ruin this topic)

At least you know for sure it's me talking.


By the way, which one of your trolls has a life?

[Al Gore]

Well, unfortunately, the left wing nuts [quote]

Insult #1 (shows your desperate and in a corner).


[quote]believe George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove are behind all that is wrong or that has gone wrong in the past 2,000 years.

You just couldn't go 5 minutes w/o using the Bush card again could you?


Again, isn't Galileo saying that our government is behind 9-11?

Who cares who is behind 9/11 lets find out how 3 steel frame building just happen to collapse into dust.(first time in history) Then if we have time, we can go into who and why.



By the way, you should have shut the fuck up after your concession speech in 2000.

Don't worry who ever you vote for will have the same opportunity in 08

[Yonivore]

Insult #1 (shows your desperate and in a corner).
No, there are nuts...generally, but not always, on the far left...that believe our government is behind the 9-11 attacks. If I'm not mistaken, that group includes Galileo.


You just couldn't go 5 minutes w/o using the Bush card again could you?
You know, when the implication is always there that our government, currently presided over by George Bush, is complicit in the greatest terrorist act committed on American soil, it demands to be made explicit.

Does he think George Bush had something to do with 9-11 or not? Simple question.


Who cares who is behind 9/11 lets find out how 3 steel frame building just happen to collapse into dust.(first time in history) Then if we have time, we can go into who and why.
First of all, who is a bit more important than how. But, secondly, I believe the NIST has what they call a "working theory" that does not include controlled demolition charges.

Something about WTC1 and WTC2 being struck by really, really, fast moving airplanes loaded with fuel. And, WTC7 being struck by gobs and gobs of debris from the collapsing WTC1.

I don't know, seems more plausible than a crew of demolition experts sneaking around planting charges and then, arranging for suicide plane bombings to cover their nefarious plan.


Don't worry who ever you vote for will have the same opportunity in 08
We'll see, eh? At least you're not going to be on the ballot. Unless of course, you're still a liar.

[Jimmy]

Not that's the Yonivore I remember from WOAI :smokin

[Yonivore]

Not that's the Yonivore I remember from WOAI :smokin
Do I know you?

[ChumpDumper]

So how does this prove an office fire took down WTC 7? Was it the core column cabal that conspired to fall down at 5:20 PM?How did the government demolition crews make WTC 7 deform measurably enough to lead the firemen to evacuate the area because THEY KNEW IT WAS GOING TO COME DOWN?

Please answer this question.

[Galileo]

I'm going with the NIST finding that a good chunk of the face of WTC 7, approximately 10 floors, gouged out to an approximate depth of 25% of building, near the center of the south face, caused by debris impacts from WTC1, is the likely culprit when combined with the fires fed by a pressurized fuel line fed from the basement.

NIST says the 10 floors that were gouged out were the SW corner between floor 8 and 18. This area is limited to a few yards from the corner.

This gouge has nothing to do with a building falling in a controlled demolition, or the east Penthouse on the other side of the building falling down.

MEMO

Controlled demolition companies do not start their demolition by gouging out 10 floors in one corner of the building.

[ChumpDumper]

This gouge has nothing to do with a building falling in a controlled demolitionThis statement is irrefutable--


--since there was no controlled demolition.

[Galileo]

How did the government demolition crews make WTC 7 deform measurably enough to lead the firemen to evacuate the area because THEY KNEW IT WAS GOING TO COME DOWN?

Please answer this question.

WTC 7 wasn't deformed.

[Galileo]

This statement is irrefutable--


--since there was no controlled demolition.

Why are there several videos of a controlled demolition?

Explain how a gigantic steel building of interlocked steel beams, 47 stories tall, can fall straight down in 6.5 seconds, from an office fire and a gouge in the corner

[ChumpDumper]

WTC 7 wasn't deformed.

Good to know you don't read quotes that are spoon fed to you. Once more, with feeling:

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. 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.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

Was there any part of that you didn't understand?

[Yonivore]

NIST says the 10 floors that were gouged out were the SW corner between floor 8 and 18. This area is limited to a few yards from the corner.

This gouge has nothing to do with a building falling in a controlled demolition, or the east Penthouse on the other side of the building falling down.

MEMO

Controlled demolition companies do not start their demolition by gouging out 10 floors in one corner of the building.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

Okay, go to slide 20 and tell me the NIST doesn't say there was extensive damage to the South face of WTC7. And, when you compare it to the represented damage to the Southwest corner, maybe you can understand why WTC7 failed and collapsed.

I encourage you to look at the entire presentation but, I'd like your opinion on slide 20, if you don't mind.

[mouse]

Do I know you?

How soon they forget!

http://www.nba.com/mavericks/0001images/body_solutions.gif

[ChumpDumper]

Why are there several videos of a controlled demolition?There were videos of the collapse of WTC 7.


Explain how a gigantic steel building of interlocked steel beams, 47 stories tall, can fall straight down in 6.5 seconds, from an office fire and a gouge in the cornerThere were more gouges as I have already shown. No matter how you try to ignore them, they exist.

The building didn't fall straight down.

Once a critical truss was compromised by fire -- which you have been shown was much larger than you tried to lie about -- catastrophic failure was inevitable.

If they were all brought down by controlled demolition, wouldn't it have ben easier just to make the north tower hit WTC 7 more squarely and demolish it at the same time like they apparently wanted to do with the Marriott and the Greek Orthodox Church?

[Yonivore]

How soon they forget!

http://www.nba.com/mavericks/0001images/body_solutions.gif
Hell, that's been years ago. How's Duel doin'?

[Smackie Chan]

Hell, that's been years ago. How's Duel doin'?

Grow a pair and ask him :smokin

http://p078.ezboard.com/Main-Underground/f550undergroundfrm7

[Yonivore]

Grow a pair and ask him :smokin

http://p078.ezboard.com/Main-Underground/f550undergroundfrm7
Is he still slummin' over there? I dropped in on him once but, I think his alzheimer's prevented him from recognizing me. I'll try again...

[Galileo]

Good to know you don't read quotes that are spoon fed to you. Once more, with feeling:

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. 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.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

Was there any part of that you didn't understand?

Who deformded WTC 7 and why did they do it? And how come no one noticed them doing it? How did they benifit from deforming WTC 7?

And why is this information not in the NISt report?

[Yonivore]

Grow a pair and ask him :smokin

http://p078.ezboard.com/Main-Underground/f550undergroundfrm7
God, that's a butt ugly forum and it's asking me to apply for membership. Think that fuck-up Chris Duel would grant me membership, again?

[ChumpDumper]

Who deformded WTC 7 and why did they do it?The building that fell on it and the resulting fires did it. They didn't have and didn't need a reason.
And how come no one noticed them doing it?Lots of people noticed the building falling on it and the fires burning inside it.
How did they benifit from deforming WTC 7?Buildings and fires are not people, so talk of benefits are specious at best. But to humor you, the building that fell on WTC 7 received no benefit as it was in the process of being destroyed itself. The fire benefited by having lot of fuel provided to it.


And why is this information not in the NISt report?I have yet to see the final report, and neither have you.

Are you calling all these firemen liars?

Co-conspirators?

[Yonivore]

Who deformded WTC 7 and why did they do it? And how come no one noticed them doing it? How did they benifit from deforming WTC 7?

And why is this information not in the NISt report?
It is.

Main columns 79, 80, and 81 were compromised by the debris from WTC1 taking out a huge chunk of the South face of WTC7. The East end of the building became deformed and the East penthouse started sagging.

Look at all 42 slides from that NIST presentation I just linked. It explains it all.

Main support columns 79, 80, and 81 failed near floor 7 because of some ConEd cage that was constructed in the first 7 floors. When they failed, the East penthouse -- a late addition to the building -- supported by those columns disappeared through the roof of WTC7. The collapse then transferred rapidly out from those three columns and the whole building came down.

Read for yourself.

[Galileo]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

Okay, go to slide 20 and tell me the NIST doesn't say there was extensive damage to the South face of WTC7. And, when you compare it to the represented damage to the Southwest corner, maybe you can understand why WTC7 failed and collapsed.

I encourage you to look at the entire presentation but, I'd like your opinion on slide 20, if you don't mind.

Figure L-23c in this NIST report,

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

says it is only "possible" damage. It's the same diagram.

So what you quote has no credibility.

[Yonivore]

Figure L-23c in this NIST report,

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

says it is only "possible" damage. It's the same diagram.

So what you quote has no credibility.
It has more credibility than your insane conspiracies.

They walk you through the collapse in a manner that supports the evidence they have and they clearly state there was no evidence of a controlled demolition, explosion, or missile strike.

[ChumpDumper]

Figure L-23c in this NIST report,

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

says it is only "possible" damage. It's the same diagram.

So what you quote has no credibility.:lol Like your controlled demo statements have any credibility whatsoever.

[Yonivore]

Figure L-23c in this NIST report,

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

says it is only "possible" damage. It's the same diagram.

So what you quote has no credibility.
Do you know why there is no visual record of WTC7 along Vestal Street (the South Face of WTC7)?

[Galileo]

Do you know why there is no visual record of WTC7 along Vestal Street (the South Face of WTC7)?

Loose Change Final Cut has visual evidence that the south face of WTC 7 only had minor damage, at best, and the gaping hole you like to tout, doesn't exist. It will be released November 11.

Even the damage you like to imagine does not even begin to explain why the east Penthouse fell, or WTC 7 fell in 6.6 seconds.

[Galileo]

:lol Like your controlled demo statements have any credibility whatsoever.

You're probably a Piston's fan, so you have no credibility.

[ChumpDumper]

Loose Change Final Cut has visual evidence that the south face of WTC 7 only had minor damage, at best, and the gaping hole you like to tout, doesn't exist. It will be released November 11.:lol Where did Dylan get his engineering degree again?


Even the damage you like to imagine does not even begin to explain why the east Penthouse fell[quote]That and the fires do.[quote]or WTC 7 fell in 6.6 seconds.There is no video of WTC 7 actually reaching ground level, so why are you making this number up?

I'm still waiting for your explanation why the conspirators chose to deform the building and give everyone a chance to clear out the area first.

[ChumpDumper]

You're probably a Piston's fan, so you have no credibility.Wow, you really don't read.

[Galileo]

:lol Where did Dylan get his engineering degree again?

[quote]Even the damage you like to imagine does not even begin to explain why the east Penthouse fell[quote]That and the fires do.There is no video of WTC 7 actually reaching ground level, so why are you making this number up?

I'm still waiting for your explanation why the conspirators chose to deform the building and give everyone a chance to clear out the area first.

Dylan has video of the south face of WTC 7. That doesn't mean he's an engineer.

You can extrapolate the fall of WTC 7, which goes at free fall speed down to the 20th floor.

There is also seismic data.

They not only cleared out the area, they did a 10-9-8-7 etc, countdown right before collapse.

[ChumpDumper]

Dylan has video of the south face of WTC 7.So do I. Did you bother to look at them?


You can extrapolate the fall of WTC 7, which goes at free fall speed down to the 20th floor.Yeah, this is like the free fall argument that folks like you try to pass off for the twin towers, only debris is clearly falling ahead of the towers. Simple BS.


They not only cleared out the area, they did a 10-9-8-7 etc, countdown right before collapse.So you are saying the firemen conspired to bring down 7 WTC. That makes perfect sense.

[RandomGuy]

The WTC was designed to withstand multiple large airliners at full throttle. Only one hit it. Many people in the WTC didn't even know anything happened at first because the WTC was designed to take a hit.


This is a lie.

Prove it that the WTC towers were "designed" to withstand a jet impact.

[Yonivore]

Loose Change Final Cut has visual evidence that the south face of WTC 7 only had minor damage, at best, and the gaping hole you like to tout, doesn't exist. It will be released November 11.

Even the damage you like to imagine does not even begin to explain why the east Penthouse fell, or WTC 7 fell in 6.6 seconds.
Well, the NIST report begins to explain it but, you apparently refuse to listen.

They have a well-reasoned, logical working theory behind the collapse of WTC7.

I hope you'll post a still of their "visual evidence" because I don't plan to sit through Loose Change Final Cut.

[Galileo]

So you are saying the firemen conspired to bring down 7 WTC.

No, a medic who was a 9/11 1st responder says there was a countdown.

The Elephant In The Room:Kevin McPadden, 9/11-1st Responder
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5275619472475044378&q=kevin+mcpadden+countdown&total=13&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

Maybe he's on it, too?

[Galileo]

This is a lie.

Prove it that the WTC towers were "designed" to withstand a jet impact.

I already posted the interview with one of the WTC building engineers saying it was designed to withstand multiple airplane hits.

Sort of shakes up your world, don't it?

[Yonivore]

The WTC was designed to withstand multiple large airliners at full throttle.
I'm still waiting for you to source this one.

[ChumpDumper]

No, a medic who was a 9/11 1st responder says there was a countdown.

The Elephant In The Room:Kevin McPadden, 9/11-1st Responder
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5275619472475044378&q=kevin+mcpadden+countdown&total=13&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

Maybe he's on it, too?So the firemen and the Red Cross were in on it too. Both organizations are chock full of demolition experts!

Why would they tell anybody at all they were going to blow up the building?

[ChumpDumper]

So let's review.

1) The twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition for unknown reasons. Merely crashing jumbo jets into them wasn't enough.

2) The north tower was brought down in a precision controlled demolition designed not to quickly destroy WTC 7 even though such directional demolition is possible and done on a regular basis. No, the conspirators merely wanted to start a few fires in it and gouge out holes in it.

3) More conspirators in the FDNY including the Deputy Chief, made up stories about WTC 7 making creaking noises, being deformed and saying it was about to fall.

4) Finally, after spending hours making up and gathering evidence for a cover story about the WTC 7's imminent collapse, the conspirator firemen then purposely blow that story by broadcasting their true intentions to blow up the building with preplanted explosives they set up using the demolition training they received at the firefighting academy, with the blessings of the entire American Red Cross.

It all makes perfect sense.

[Galileo]

I'm still waiting for you to source this one.

construction mgr of WTC
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8011309641797764545&q=martini+wtc&total=8&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

[Galileo]

So let's review.

1) The twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition for unknown reasons. Merely crashing jumbo jets into them wasn't enough.

2) The north tower was brought down in a precision controlled demolition designed not to quickly destroy WTC 7 even though such directional demolition is possible and done on a regular basis. No, the conspirators merely wanted to start a few fires in it and gouge out holes in it.

3) More conspirators in the FDNY including the Deputy Chief, made up stories about WTC 7 making creaking noises, being deformed and saying it was about to fall.

4) Finally, after spending hours making up and gathering evidence for a cover story about the WTC 7's imminent collapse, the conspirator firemen then purposely blow that story by broadcasting their true intentions to blow up the building with preplanted explosives they set up using the demolition training they received at the firefighting academy, with the blessings of the entire American Red Cross.

It all makes perfect sense.

I have no odea what you are talking about. Must be a different conspiracy in a parallel universe.

[ChumpDumper]

I have no odea what you are talking about. Must be a different conspiracy in a parallel universe.This is what you are saying happened. It's not my problem it looks so stupid when one puts it all together.

[Galileo]

This is what you are saying happened. It's not my problem it looks so stupid when one puts it all together.

That is what you are saying I'm saying, but it not what I'm saying I'm saying, nor it it what I'm saying. What I have been saying I already said.

[ChumpDumper]

Of course you said all this. It just makes you look that stupid when it's all in one place.

That why I can't even call you a conspiracy theorist.

You have no theory.

[Yonivore]

construction mgr of WTC
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8011309641797764545&q=martini+wtc&total=8&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
Nothing about full-throttle or fully loaded with fuel. He appears to be strictly talking about the kinetic affect of an object the mass of a 707 crashing into the towers.

As we've been saying. That's different that a full-throttled, fully-fueled 767.

[Galileo]

Of course you said all this. It just makes you look that stupid when it's all in one place.

That why I can't even call you a conspiracy theorist.

You have no theory.

9/11 wasn't a conspiracy. It was a clean and legal military operation that achieved objectives with only a minimum of casualties and property damage.

[Galileo]

Nothing about full-throttle or fully loaded with fuel. He appears to be strictly talking about the kinetic affect of an object the mass of a 707 crashing into the towers.

As we've been saying. That's different that a full-throttled, fully-fueled 767.

Well, we could ask him, but he got blown up when the bombs went off.

btw

the planes that hit the towers has less than half a tank.

[Yonivore]

9/11 wasn't a conspiracy. It was a clean and legal military operation that achieved objectives with only a minimum of casualties and property damage.
How many people know about this "military operation?"

I mean, we can't keep secret prisons or a fucking surveillance program secret.

[Wild Cobra]

Have any of you taken a good look at the area of WTC-6?

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/6-wtc-marked.jpg

Notice the distinctive shapes and sizes of WTC 1 pieces. Many of them are in and over WTC 6. There is a distinct trail in the south center of WTC 7 if the smaller WTC 1 pieces completely broken up, and the ground didn't cushion their fall like the pieces lying in WTC 6. These pieces are also clearly seen on slides 18 and 19 of the slide link furnished by Yoni.

Now I'm not sure, but isn't slide 18 at least a picture of WTC 7 after WTC 1 fell, but befor WTC 7 fell, and of the south face?

WTC 1 pieces obviously had the capability of hitting the south faces of WTC 7. In later reports, the south face damage is not stated as possible, but stated as happening. The appendix L is older (June 2004) than the slides furnished by Yoni (April 2005). They say it did happen.

Dates are important Galileo. I noticed much of your explanations are older than accepted conclusions.

One more thing. Loose Change is a total joke.

[ChumpDumper]

9/11 wasn't a conspiracy. It was a clean and legal military operation that achieved objectives with only a minimum of casualties and property damage.Legal?

Minimum property damage?

Minimum casualties?

You are clearly insane.

[1369]

So, can thermite cut steel or can't it?

[Wild Cobra]

So, can thermite cut steel or can't it?
It depends on how its used. Thermite is used both as a welding process, and an incendiary in the military to destroy equipment left behind, so the enemy cannot use it. I cannot imagine it being used to cut a vertical standing beam, but I'm not qualified to state it as fact. I would say the answer is no, but there may be factors I’m unaware of. The process heats the thermite to melting, so it would slide or fall off a vertical surface. It will melt through a horizontal steel surface *IF* the mass of the steel does not dissipate too much heat, keeping it from achieving enough temperature to liquefy the metal past surface damage. In the case of steel I beams, I think the heat would dissipate before causing enough damage unless the size of the thermite was really large.

My question about the thermite theory is what did they find to be able to declare thermite was used? Thermite is a process between rust, or other iron oxides, and aluminum. Modern processes use other metallic chemicals to some degree. Thing is, fire causes the iron in the steel to oxidize. Aluminum is used for so many things these days. With the heat of fire, any aluminum in contact with the oxidized iron could create a aluminothermic reaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminothermic_reaction) with enough concussive damage, like when a steel structure falls…

Signs of thermite can de found without it actually being used! Now I skipped allot of this thread, because I just wasn’t into rehashing this old debate. I never saw any evidence of thermite before. Did this thread have something irrefutable about thermite?

[Wild Cobra]

How many people know about this "military operation?"

I mean, we can't keep secret prisons or a fucking surveillance program secret.
This should be the most convincing evidence to the conspiracy theorists. Where is any legitimate source? Like you said, nothing these days are secrets. Secrets get leaked left and right, and they are small operations. With the number of people involved in such an operation, it would be statistically next to impossible to keep secret.

[Nbadan]

...didn't the government keep stealth fighters a secret? hmmmm...

[Wild Cobra]

...didn't the government keep stealth fighters a secret? hmmmm...
No, if you recall, there were rumors about it everywhere. Security is also kept well under programs that are on the right side of right and wrong also. Take something as evil as an act that kills thousands of innocent people... The patriots will talk...

[Nbadan]

what if.....what if those 'patriots' are black-water? or some other foreign outfit>....which do you think is more important to them? patriotism or dollars?

[Wild Cobra]

what if.....what if those 'patriots' are black-water? or some other foreign outfit>....which do you think is more important to them? patriotism or dollars?
Now you are just being irritating, like a troll...

Blackwater may have some bad apples, but they are not anything like the media would have you believe.

[Nbadan]

maybe not black-water, but you also got costa rican mercinaries.....south African separatists....dutch fighters.....you got a whole somrgesbourge of bad guys running around in Iraq...anyone of these outfits is more than capable of running a operation like 911 - it would have been childs-play if you really think about it....

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

Just :lmao

[smeagol]

:lmao

Just :lmao


Once upon a time you were my favorite political forum poster . . .

[Yonivore]

Once upon a time you were my favorite political forum poster . . .
Yeah, in a land, far, far away.

[MannyIsGod]

Once upon a time you were my favorite political forum poster . . .Once upon a time i'd waste my time in a thread like this when it deserved nothing more than a laugh.

[xrayzebra]

Hey has the old demolition worker confessed yet? I wished he
would hurry up so we cold end this discussion.

[Galileo]

Legal?

Minimum property damage?

Minimum casualties?

You are clearly insane.

The Nazi Holocaust was legal, why can't 9/11.

Dick Cheney killed 3000 people, Hitler killed 6 million. That makes Hitler 3000 times worse than Cheney and clearly insane.

The controlled demolitions minimized property damage. If the Towers had fallen over onto other buildings, there would have been much more property damage.

Also, the Pentagon was struck in an area specially reinforced to take a plane crash hit, reducing damage quite a bit.

Nothing of real historical value was hit, like the Washington Monument, Statue of Liberty, or Gateway arch in St. Louis.

Casualties on 9/11 were minimized in many ways:

The WTC was hit early in the morning befoer it was filled up with people.

The first hit was the 95th floor, only trapping a small fraction of people.

They waited 17 minutes before hitting the 2nd tower, so most people could get out. And they hit high up on the 80th floor so fewer people were trapped.

They waited an hour before the 1st controlled demoltion, so more people could get out.

They waited another 1/2 hour before the 2nd controlled demolition, so even more people could get out.

The controlled demolition prevented the WTC from falling onto other people and killing them.

WTC 7 was not blown up until it was evacuated and people were removed from the immediate area.

The 4 hijacked flights were only 20% to 50% filled up, so less people died on the planes.

The Pentagon was hit in an area under renovation, so it was lightly populated and fewer people were killed.

FL93 was shot down over an open field, so no one was hurt on the ground, nor was there any property damage.

The hijacked planes could have hit a nuclear power plant, killing way more people.

These terrorists were domestic terrorists. Most terrorists would not be so kind as to spare so many lives to acieve their poltical goals.

[Nbadan]

Manny prefers to stick his head in the sand and blindly trust the government.....

[Wild Cobra]

Galileo, you are one sick puppy if you believe that crap.

[smeagol]

Once upon a time i'd waste my time in a thread like this when it deserved nothing more than a laugh.

A laugh?

Ths thread deserves an infinite number of laughs . . .

But once upon a time you'd used to post in the threads that deserved posting. But not anymore.




Oh well, after that side bar, back to the topic of this thread . . .

:lmao :rollin :lmao :lol :lol :lol :lmao :rollin :lmao

[Yonivore]

Once upon a time i'd waste my time in a thread like this when it deserved nothing more than a laugh.
You're wasting your time now...

[Yonivore]

The Gateway Arch has historical value? :lmao

[mookie2001]

this thread is like heros season 2

[ChumpDumper]

"Minimized."

I'd make a whole page of :lmao if that characterization wasn't so insulting.

[Galileo]

"Minimized."

I'd make a whole page of :lmao if that characterization wasn't so insulting.

Are you capable of rational analysis, or just insults?

[ChumpDumper]

Are you capable of rational analysis, or just insults?Of course I'm capable of rational analysis.

You on the other hand, are delusional.

What would even be the purpose of minimizing casualties?

[xrayzebra]

Hey Galileo, I have a bicycle I would like to sell you, you
interested.


http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z273/xrayzebra/ChumpsBike.jpg

[Galileo]

Of course I'm capable of rational analysis.

You on the other hand, are delusional.

What would even be the purpose of minimizing casualties?

In military operations, one consideration is the number of casualties. The US operatives who pulled off 9/11 did not want to kill any more Ameriacns than they absolutely had to, in order to achieve their goals.

[ChumpDumper]

In military operations, one consideration is the number of casualties. The US operatives who pulled off 9/11 did not want to kill any more Ameriacns than they absolutely had to, in order to achieve their goals.Why not?

[boutons_]

"did not want to kill any more Ameriacns than they absolutely had to"

WTF? How is that possibly knowable?

Had the murderers scheduled better and flown lower (neighboring buildings permitting), they could have hit the towers lower and killed many, many more of the 50K people who worked there.

[Al Gore]

Why really did 9/11 Happen?

[xrayzebra]

Why really did 9/11 Happen?

You don't know Al? Hell it was global warming and Bush
caused it all.

But it doesn't surprise me you don't know. Good thing
your daddy left you all that money.

[Galileo]

"did not want to kill any more Ameriacns than they absolutely had to"

WTF? How is that possibly knowable?

Had the murderers scheduled better and flown lower (neighboring buildings permitting), they could have hit the towers lower and killed many, many more of the 50K people who worked there.

The planes were not piloted by hijackers.

They were on auto-pilot and flown into specified places. The first plane hit the 95th floor, to reduce casualties. It had to hit low enough, though, to make it seem plausible that the top 15 floors of the building could crush the bottom 95 floors when they did the controlled demolition.

Remember, 9/11 was an inside job.

[ChumpDumper]

The planes were not piloted by hijackers.:lmao


They were on auto-pilot and flown into specified places. The first plane hit the 95th floor, to reduce casualties. It had to hit low enough, though, to make it seem plausible that the top 15 floors of the building could crush the bottom 95 floors when they did the controlled demolition.:lmao :lmao

Why bring the buildings down at all then? That would have really minimized casualties.


Remember, 9/11 was an inside job.A military mission and an inside job are two very different things. You really need to make up your mind about which tin foil hat you are going to wear.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

:lmao :lmao

Why bring the buildings down at all then? That would have really minimized casualties.

A military mission and an inside job are two very different things. You really need to make up your mind about which tin foil hat you are going to wear.
I thought you were bad Chump. This guy has absolutely lost it!

[DeeBo]

Why is it people who don't agree with chump have to either wear foil caps or are mentally ill? Maybe Bush's plan did work after all

[Wild Cobra]

Why is it people who don't agree with chump have to either wear foil caps or are mentally ill? Maybe Bush's plan did work after all
You don't understand. Chump and I are almost always on opposite sides. I think this is the only thread we have agreed on!

[ChumpDumper]

[b]Why is it people who don't agree with chump have to either wear foil caps or are mentally ill?I will certainly allow for the possibility that they can be misinformed or merely stupid too.


What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[Galileo]

:lmao

:lmao :lmao

Why bring the buildings down at all then? That would have really minimized casualties.

A military mission and an inside job are two very different things. You really need to make up your mind about which tin foil hat you are going to wear.

We've already covered this; the controlled demolition created an atmospere of fear where power flowed to the military industrial complex.

Most military missions are not inside jobs, but 9/11 was a false-flag operation.

[ChumpDumper]

We've already covered this; the controlled demolition created an atmospere of fear where power flowed to the military industrial complex.

Most military missions are not inside jobs, but 9/11 was a false-flag operation.You keep using these words. I don't think you know what they mean.

Why even bring down any buildings if the purpose was to minimize damage?

[Steve Perry]

Why even bring down any buildings

The two towers where losing money and had to have asbestos's removed for millions of dollars. That is why the owner took out a in case a terrorist blows up my towers I get 4 billion insurance policy right before 9/11. WTC7 had all the documents to show all that so you do the math why it went down.



if the purpose was to minimize damage?

The purpose was to go to war and get the oil. and maybe get rid of much of the American peoples privacy as they can along the way!

[ChumpDumper]

The two towers where losing money and had to have asbestos's removed for millions of dollars. That is why the owner took out a in case a terrorist blows up my towers I get 4 billion insurance policy right before 9/11.So it was the joooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.


WTC7 had all the documents to show all that so you do the math why it went down.Uh, you just told me all that, so it must have been somewhere else too.



The purpose was to go to war and get the oil. and maybe get rid of much of the American peoples privacy as they can along the way!Uh, you just said it was the jooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Make up your mind.

[smeagol]

The planes were not piloted by hijackers.


Hey mookie, is that what you believe too? :lol

[Yonivore]

Mark Steyn's latest column (http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/one-iraq-dickey-1910470-reynolds-burt) makes a point very similar to Peggy Noonan's in Friday's Wall Street Journal (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010780): opponents of the Iraq war, such as the editors of the New Republic, seem to have gotten their understanding of war from movies about Vietnam. It's a good point, but what I want to comment on, and relevant to this thread, is this observation by Mark Steyn, which was highlighted by Hugh Hewitt (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/e37f50f7-3146-4335-b35b-da4e3c334e08):


It's the same with all those guys driving around with "9/11 Was An Inside Job" bumper stickers. That aligns reality with every conspiracy movie from the past three decades: It's always the government who did it – sometimes it's some supersecret agency working deep within the bureaucracy from behind an unassuming nameplate on a Washington street; and sometimes it's the president himself – but when poor Joe Schmoe on the lam from the Feds eventually unravels it, the cunning conspiracy is always the work of a ruthlessly efficient all-powerful state. So Iraq is Vietnam. And 9/11 is the Kennedy assassination, with ever higher percentages of the American people gathering on the melted steely knoll.

There's a kind of decadence about all this: If 9/11 was really an inside job, you wouldn't be driving around with a bumper sticker bragging that you were on to it. Fantasy is a by-product of security...
That is exactly right, I think. It is the luxury of knowing they are bullshitting that allows American nutters to claim their freedoms are going up in smoke and that dissent is being suppressed, when in fact, "dissent" is socially mandated in polite society from Manhattan to Marin County.

If your freedoms were truly being taken away and dissent was truly being suppressed, most nutters would be petrified to voice their conspiratorial nonsense and, with good reason. Indeed, many on this forum would have disappeared, like Jimmy Hoffa, a long time ago.

Analogous to this; any survey of Europeans you look at will say that they think the United States is the biggest danger to world peace, worse than North Korea or the Islamofascists. But they don't mean it. If they did, they would be clamoring for their own countries to re-arm. But the very people who claim to believe that the U.S. is bent on world domination are the same ones who don't want their own governments to spend a dollar on defense. They are entirely content to let us keep the peace. Which means that what they tell pollsters about threats to world peace, like what liberals say about threats to their civil liberties, is, to put it politely, disingenuous...and, to put it directly, a pack of fucking lies.

[xrayzebra]

Hasn't that dude confessed yet? When is he going to confess,
an inquiring mind wants to know.

[MavTalker]

To bad no one is in a hurry for Bush to confess!

[smeagol]

9/11 wasn't a conspiracy. It was a clean and legal military operation that achieved objectives with only a minimum of casualties and property damage.

Mookie, is this you theory too?

[smeagol]

Casualties on 9/11 were minimized in many ways:

The WTC was hit early in the morning befoer it was filled up with people.

The first hit was the 95th floor, only trapping a small fraction of people.

They waited 17 minutes before hitting the 2nd tower, so most people could get out. And they hit high up on the 80th floor so fewer people were trapped.

They waited an hour before the 1st controlled demoltion, so more people could get out.

They waited another 1/2 hour before the 2nd controlled demolition, so even more people could get out.

The controlled demolition prevented the WTC from falling onto other people and killing them.

WTC 7 was not blown up until it was evacuated and people were removed from the immediate area.

The 4 hijacked flights were only 20% to 50% filled up, so less people died on the planes.

The Pentagon was hit in an area under renovation, so it was lightly populated and fewer people were killed.

FL93 was shot down over an open field, so no one was hurt on the ground, nor was there any property damage.

The hijacked planes could have hit a nuclear power plant, killing way more people.

These terrorists were domestic terrorists. Most terrorists would not be so kind as to spare so many lives to acieve their poltical goals.

Dan, cbf, pego, mookie, mouse . . . what part of this theory do you guys agree with?

[thispego]

i dont give a shit one way or the other. i have my suspicions and i'll be here to laugh if i'm right and be relieved if i'm wrong

[Nbadan]

Most gagged person in the U.S. ready to spill the beans on 911 and other Congressional criminal activity, that is, if anyone of the corporate shills in the M$M will grow some cahones and give her some face time....

EXCLUSIVE: FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds Will Now Tell All - and Faces Charges if Necessary - to Any Major Television Network That Will Let Her

She's Prepared to Name Names, Including Those of Two 'Well-Known' Congress Members Involved in Criminal Corruption

The 'Most Gagged Person in U.S. History' Tells The BRAD BLOG She's Now Exhausted All Other Channels...

-- By Brad Friedman

Attention CBS 60 Minutes: we've got a huge scoop for you. If you want it.


Remember the exclusive story you aired on Sibel Edmonds, originally on October 27th, 2002, when she was not allowed to tell you everything that she heard while serving as an FBI translator after 9/11 because she was gagged by the rarely-invoked "States Secret Privilege"? Well, she's still gagged. In fact, as the ACLU first described her, she's "the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America".
But if you'll sit down and talk with her for an unedited interview, she has told The BRAD BLOG, she will now tell you everything she knows.

Everything she hasn't been allowed to tell since 2002, about the criminal penetration of the FBI where she worked, and at the Departments of State and Defense; everything she heard concerning the corruption and illegal activities of several well-known members of Congress; everything she's aware of concerning information omitted and/or covered up in relation to 9/11. All of the information gleaned from her time listening to and translating wire-taps made prior to 9/11 at the FBI.

Here's a handy bullet-point list, as we ran it in March of 2006, for reference, of what she's now willing to tell you about.

"People say, 'why doesn't she just come forward and spill the beans?' I have gone all the way to the Supreme Court and was shut down, I went to Congress and now consider that shut down," she told The BRAD BLOG last week when spoke with her for comments in relation to our story on former House Speaker Dennis Hastert's original attempt to move a resolution through the U.S. House in 2000 declaring the 1915 massacre of 1.5 million ethnic Albanians in Turkey as "genocide".

"Here's my promise to the American Public: If anyone of the major networks -- ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, FOX -- promise to air the entire segment, without editing, I promise to tell them everything that I know," about everything mentioned above, she told us.

"I can tell the American public exactly what it is, and what it is that they are covering up," she continued. "I'm not compromising ongoing investigations," Edmonds explained, because "they've all been shut down since."

"She's Very Credible"

She has, in fact, spent years taking every reasonable step to see that the information she has goes through the proper channels. The Supreme Court refused to hear her whistleblower lawsuit, even in light of the Department of Justice forcing the removal of both her and her own attorneys from the courtroom when they made their arguments concerning why it was that still had to remain gagged under the "States Secrets Privilege."

On the morning that the SCOTUS refused to hear her case, the facade cracked on the front of the building. In a ridiculously ironic metaphor which would have been rejected by any credible screen-writer, a chunk of marble -- just above an allegorical statue representing "Order" and just below the words "Equal Justice" -- came crashing to the ground.

She has met with, and told her story to, U.S. Senators including Republican Charles Grassley and Democrat Patrick Leahy, both of the Senate Intelligence Committee, both who found her extremely credible. 60 Minutes producers may remember when Grassley told them, "Absolutely, she's credible...And the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story."

In fact, the FBI itself has done so. Their Inspector General found her allegations, as described in the unclassified version of his report, to be "credible", "serious" and "warrant a thorough and careful review by the FBI."

As far back as 2002, Grassley and Leahy co-wrote letters on Edmonds behalf to Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and DoJ Inspector General Glenn A. Fine, calling on all of them to take action in respect to the allegations she's made.

"Certain officials in this country are engaged in treason against the United States and its interests and its national security," she said during an interview an August 2005 interview on Democracy Now. That comment followed 60 Minutes' revelation years before alleging that Edmonds had information revealing that a "Turkish intelligence officer" she worked with at the FBI "had spies working for him inside the US State Department and at the Pentagon."

She's briefed many legislative offices -- as well as the 9/11 Commission -- in regard to her claims, and now, she says, she's even prepared to tell the media "the names of every single Congressional office who has received the names of the witnesses" to the crimes she's detailed.

When we spoke last week, Edmonds seemed to reserve most of her frustration for Congressman Henry Waxman's office. Waxman is the Democratic Chairman of the U.S. House Government Reform and Oversight Committee.

After briefing members of his security-cleared staff "inside the SCIF" -- a high-security room in the U.S. Capitol, specially created for discussion of highly sensitive information -- Edmonds says she was told on several occassions, prior to the 2006 Election, that her case would be one of the first heard in his committee, once he became Chairman.

"I even gave names of former and current FBI agents who were willing to go to Waxman's office and give more information on all of this," she said.

"Before the elections, I had a promise from Congressman Waxman's office." She claims they told her, before the election, "the only reason they couldn't hold hearings, was because the Republicans were blocking it."

"They said 'your case will be one of the first ones we will hold investigations on,'" she told us. Now, however, since the Democrats have become the majority in the House, Waxman's office is "going mum". They won't even respond to her calls.

The Congressman's office did not respond to several requests for comment on this story.

Two Other "Well-Known" Congressmen


Aside from the allegations she's already made concerning Hastert, as we reported in some detail in early 2006, following up on a Vanity Fair exposé in 2005, Edmonds says there are at least "two other well-known" members of Congress that she's prepared to name as well.

"There are other Congressional people, whose names have not come out," she explained. "As I'll be able to give them file numbers and investigations, including investigations by the IRS. I will be giving details one by one, not just allegations."

"But," she added, "unfortunately nobody wants to have an investigation like that."

For the record, she told The BRAD BLOG, the other two "well-known members" are from the House, both Republican, and "one of them is recently no longer there."

So far, she says, "those names have not been public."

"Kafka-esque"


Since leaving the FBI, and in the wake of her years-long ordeal, which she frequently describes as "Kafka-esque", Edmonds has founded the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition

In addition to the support she has received, at various times, from members of Congress, she's received a great deal of support from members of the national security whistleblower community and government watchdog organizations.

As we reported last Spring, Veteran FBI counterintelligence agent, John Cole has said he's "talked to people who had read her file, who had read the investigative report, and they were telling me a totally different story" than that given publicly by FBI officials. "They were telling me that Sibel Edmonds was 100 percent accurate," he said, "management knew that she was correct."

Famed "Pentagon Papers" whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg has described Edmonds as "extremely credible." In a 2005 interview on KPFA, Ellsberg said, "FBI agents we've talked to have, in every respect that was raised, have confirmed her story - that she's a very credible witness."

More than 30 groups, from across the political spectrum -- including the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the September 11th Advocates, the Liberty Coalition, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), OMB Watch, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and People for the American Way (PFAW) -- all signed a letter in March of this year calling on the House Oversight Committee to "hold public hearings into the case of FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, and the erroneous use of the State Secrets Privilege to shut down all court proceedings in her case."

That petition was sent almost precisely one year after The BRAD BLOG originally reported on a public petition to Congress, demanding they hold public hearings. More than 30,000 people, Edmonds says, have now signed that petition since it was first announced.

"Exhausted Every Channel"


In a speech given over the Summer in D.C. at the American Library Association (ALA, video here), Edmonds detailed the "Kafka-esque" nature of her unprecedented gag-order. Among the information still-regarded as "classified" under the States Secret Privelege: the fact that she was a translator for the FBI, where she was born, what languages she speaks, the date of her birth, the universities she attended and the degrees she earned.

In fact, the interview that CBS' 60 Minutes aired with her in 2004, was later retroactively classified by the Department of Justice under the same "privilege"!

But enough is enough. She's now ready to tell all. To the public. But not (yet) to us. She will speak, however, to any broadcast network who would like to have her.

"I have exhausted every channel. If they want to, they can bring criminal charges against someone who divulges criminal activity, and see how far they're going to get."

But will any of the corporate mainstream networks take her up on the offer? It'd certainly be an explosive exclusive.

"I don't think any of the mainstream media are going to have the guts to do it," she dared them.

So whaddaya say 60 Minutes? We've given you scoops before that you ended up turning down -- and likely later regretted. Will you be smart enough to take this one?

"You put me on air live, or unedited. If I'm given the time, I will give the American people the exact reason of what I've been gagged from saying because of the States Secrets Privilege, and why it is that I'm the most gagged person in the history of the United States."

"My feeling is that none of them have the guts to do that," she dared them, before charging, "they are all manipulated."

"I keep using the word Kafkaesque..." she paused, during her speech at ALA, clearly showing her exasperation, "because...," she continued slowly, "...I really can't come up with a better word."



Of course, the reason that Sibel is being forced into this drastic action, at great personal risk, is that Henry Waxman reneged on his promise to hold hearings in Congress where Sibel would be (legally) protected.

According to the last week's front-page WaPo article on Waxman:

"Waxman has become the Bush administration's worst nightmare: a Democrat in the majority with subpoena power and the inclination to overturn rocks.

<...>

Some investigations come straight from the headlines... But the real secret, Waxman said, is simply to follow investigations wherever they lead.

Except in Sibel's case.

In fact, Waxman doesn't even need to do any investigation in this case, the investigationwas completed years ago, and Waxman has seen the classified version, yet all he can say is

"I really don’t particularly have a comment on her case."


So what will it be, Henry? Will you follow the headlines, after Sibel has exposed herself to criminal charges and spilt the beans on national TV? How will you explain to your supporters that you sat on evidence of treason for years? Or will you do the right thing and hold hearings now 'wherever it leads'?

Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/swf/cps.swf?video_id=DHnIyGWEz_Y&eurl=http%3A//www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php%3Faz%3Dview_all%26address%3D389x215671 3&iurl=http%3A//img.youtube.com/vi/DHnIyGWEz_Y/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskKmSIqK4F6l7sQfsziVs7rH&rel=1&border=0)

[ChumpDumper]

Why didn't she just tell everything to the "Brad Blog"?

[Nbadan]

You think she'd get MAX exposure by the M$M by reporting it to a web-site? Only if your www is TMC...

[ChumpDumper]

Why do you have so little faith in alternative media?

She is committing treason by sitting on this information for no apparent reason.

Hell, half the programs on the news channels are talking heads quoting blogs.

[Nbadan]

She will be committing treason by exposing what she knows according to the Justice Dept...so of course she wants some assurance that it won't be squashed by the M$M with info news about the latest Nichole Richie or Paris Hilton scandal...

[ChumpDumper]

There are only two options here:

1) She wants money.

2) She doesn't really have much to say.

There is no good reason to hold this information hostage in exchange for editorial control of a news outlet.

[Nbadan]

She's not holding it hostage....in fact, she's been trying to do it the legal way, but no-one wants to hear it even though they all agree that she's very credible.....collaborated by the FBI in fact....

[ChumpDumper]

Then what is the holdup?

Vanity?

People read blogs.

Nobody watches MSNBC.

[Wild Cobra]

If the media isn't taking time for such a hot story, it must be full of obvious holes...

[Nbadan]

Or....the government along with its accomplice, the corporate M$M simply doesn't want the story told.....at least, not giving it any credibility...trouble is....the credibility comes from all the collaborated research that has already been done....

[ChumpDumper]

Or....the government along with its accomplice, the corporate M$M simply doesn't want the story told.....at least, not giving it any credibility...trouble is....the credibility comes from all the collaborated research that has already been done....So it's already credible.

Put it on a credible blog.

This is how news works now.

[Nbadan]

MAX exposure for MAX impact.....what so hard to understand about that?