Off come the lid on WTC 7!

[Galileo]

Off come the lid on WTC 7!

The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower. Sunday, 6 July 2008, 2100 BST BBC Two.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/

This documentary has some of the best evidence:

1) the testimony of Barry Jennings

2) partially evaporated steel

3) BBC reported the collapse before it collapsed

4) new, unknown footage inside WTC 7

5) lots of controlled demolition footage

:bking

[ChumpDumper]

lots of controlled demolition footage

:lol

[ChumpDumper]

3) BBC reported the collapse before it collapsedSo now the BBC will finally reveal their role in the diabolical plan to bring down the entire world trade center complex to finance the debut of Cash in the Attic in 2002.

[Galileo]

So now the BBC will finally reveal their role in the diabolical plan to bring down the entire world trade center complex to finance the debut of Cash in the Attic in 2002.

I think the government is going to eventually just admit that they engineered the collapse for safety reasons. Not sure if that will fly, but what else they got?

[ChumpDumper]

I think the government is going to eventually just admit that they engineered the collapse for safety reasons.They evacuated the area for safety reasons, because it looked like the building would collapse after being hit by north tower debris and burning for seven hours.
Not sure if that will fly, but what else they got?Missiles, thermite and space beams.

[Galileo]

They evacuated the area for safety reasons, because it looked like the building would collapse after being hit by north tower debris and burning for seven hours.

But after 7 years, they still don't know why it fell....

[ChumpDumper]

And you do?

[xrayzebra]

They evacuated the area for safety reasons, because it looked like the building would collapse after being hit by north tower debris and burning for seven hours.Missiles, thermite and space beams.

I like the space beams idea better.:lmao

[ElNono]

I like the space beams idea better.:lmao

Next thing you know Reagan and his Star Wars project had it planned all along...

[FromWayDowntown]

I understand this to be a photograph of the real destructive force behind the collapse of WTC 7 -- I'm quite certain that this is the first time that the otherwise-invisible spaceship has been shown to have existed as it approached the WTC complex on the morning of 9/11:

http://sp1.yt-thm-a02.yimg.com/image/25/m3/2749021740

All of you skeptics can please note the crystal clear sky over Manhattan -- frankly, I don't see how you can really doubt this proof.

[Don Quixote]

not this again

[Extra Stout]

WTC 7 had all the game tapes for Game 6 of the 2002 Western Conference Finals. It had to come down.

[Don Quixote]

Of course

BRILLIANT!

[Wild Cobra]

I like the space beams idea better.:lmao
Me too.

Here's what happenned:

1) The USS Enterprised warped back in time to make the building fall that never fell like history recorded it.

2) While the enterprise was beaming out two of the support beams, they had a transporter failure.

3) Unsure the one beam would be enough, and would definately take too long, they cloaked a small charge Corbomite bomb and detonated it in building 7.

[ElNono]

Me too.

Here's what happenned:

1) The USS Enterprised warped back in time to make the building fall that never fell like history recorded it.

2) While the enterprise was beaming out two of the support beams, they had a transporter failure.

3) Unsure the one beam would be enough, and would definately take too long, they cloaked a small charge Corbomite bomb and detonated it in building 7.

Where does Han Solo fits in all this? And is he an Anarchist?

[Galileo]

Emergency Official Witnessed Dead Bodies In WTC 7



In exclusive video, Barry Jennings discusses explosions in Building 7 before collapse of twin towers



WATCH THE EXPLOSIVE VIDEO & READ THE ANALYSIS!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/062308_dead_bodies.htm



MORE



Jason Bermas, Alex Jones and Mark Dice discuss Barry Jennings' (New York City Housing Authority worker) on film revelation that he witnessed explosions and dead bodies in WTC7 before WTC1 or WTC2 collapsed

http://www.radiodujour.com/people/bermas_jason/



NIST exploring 9/11 conspiracy theory for WTC-7

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



Bodies in WTC 7: Jennings Interview Demolishes Official Version

http://www.infowars.com/?p=2807



Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories

Prof. Graeme MacQueen

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven.pdf

[Cant_Be_Faded]

The directors of loose change were in dallas saturday. I met them and also told them to start posting here to scoff the shit out of the likes of chumpdumper et. al.

[Wild Cobra]

Where does Han Solo fits in all this? And is he an Anarchist?

He's in a galaxy "far far away' and I don't think they have intergalctic travel.

[Galileo]

He's in a galaxy "far far away' and I don't think they have intergalctic travel.

What planet do you live on? Your nutjob conspiracy theories are wearing thin on us all.

[xrayzebra]

Next thing you know Reagan and his Star Wars project had it planned all along...

Be very very quite about it, shhhhhhh, Bush did it

[Wild Cobra]

What planet do you live on? Your nutjob conspiracy theories are wearing thin on us all.
Don't you see what I'm doing?

I'm demonstrating the absurd by being absurd. At least my arguments are more credible than anything from the likes of Loose Change!

I read the material and I see holes in what is said. So many perfectly explainable possibilities that still are ignored by you conspiracy theorists. As for the NIST looking into the matter, why not. I'll bet they poke big holes in the conspiracy theories.

[Nbadan]

The 911 faith movement has no real answers to the WTC7 and other 911 inconsistencies, so they resort to the same old tired conspiracy theory attacks...

:rolleyes


KlWSv0NZBRw

[ChumpDumper]

What inconsistencies?

If you told us what you think really happened on 9/11, we could tell if there are any inconsistencies in your theory.

So tell us -- what do you think really happened on 9/11?

Or do you have "no real answer" to that question?

[Nbadan]

What inconsistencies? Get serious...


FTW - October 9, 2001 – Although uniformly ignored by the mainstream U.S. media, there is abundant and clear evidence that a number of transactions in financial markets indicated specific (criminal) foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In the case of at least one of these trades -- which has left a $2.5 million prize unclaimed -- the firm used to place the “put options” on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who is now in the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency.

Until 1997 A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard had been Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown. A.B. Brown was acquired by Banker’s Trust in 1997. Krongard then became, as part of the merger, Vice Chairman of Banker’s Trust-AB Brown, one of 20 major U.S. banks named by Senator Carl Levin this year as being connected to money laundering. Krongard’s last position at Banker’s Trust (BT) was to oversee “private client relations.” In this capacity he had direct hands-on relations with some of the wealthiest people in the world in a kind of specialized banking operation that has been identified by the U.S. Senate and other investigators as being closely connected to the laundering of drug money.
Krongard joined the CIA in 1998 as counsel to CIA Director George Tenet. He was promoted to CIA Executive Director by President Bush in March of this year. BT was acquired by Deutsche Bank in 1999. The combined firm is the single largest bank in Europe. And, as we shall see, Deutsche Bank played several key roles in events connected to the September 11 attacks.

Here in Reality (http://www.hereinreality.com/insidertrading.html)

[ChumpDumper]

there is abundant and clear evidence that a number of transactions in financial markets indicated specific (criminal) foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In the case of at least one of these trades -- which has left a $2.5 million prize unclaimed

So someone used foreknowledge of 9/11 to get rich -- even though these people had to be multibillionaires to afford the real passenger extermination camps, fake plane projection machines, BBC and CNN early demolition notification systems, cruise missiles and orbiting Death Stars used in their scheme.

And to top it off they never even claimed the money?

Diabolical!

And has nothing to do with WTC7.

[ChumpDumper]

The put option BS was laid to rest in 2003 by the FBI (I know the entire FBI is in on it, but that means the real terrorists had enough billions to pay them off too without a couple million from put options).

It's easy when conspiracy claims are self-debunking. Thanks for the softball, dan.

[Nbadan]

Yeah...the FBI..sure.. :rolleyes


As early as one week after September 11, the FBI was pointedly stating that they knew about terrorists rotating through Rudi Dekkers’ flight school in Venice, Florida.

"The FBI Knew Terrorists Were Using Flight Schools," read a Washington Post headline one week after the attack. "Federal authorities have been aware for years that suspected terrorists with ties to Osama bin Laden were receiving flight training at schools in the United States," the article stated.

What they left unanswered was why they did nothing to shut it down.

Indications of the FBI's "guilty knowledge" were widespread in the aftermath of the attack, including the widely-reported fact that the FBI was at Huffman Aviation with search warrants at 2.30 a.m. the night after the attack.

Now we have uncovered evidence indicating that the FBI was on the scene even earlier...

"How do you think the FBI got here (Huffman Aviation) so fast after the attack?" asked one Huffman Aviation insider. "They knew what was going on here. Hell, they were parked in a white van outside my house less than four hours after the buildings collapsed."

"We heard that 16 of the 19 terrorists had been on Interpol's Most Wanted list," this aviation executive continued. "But early on I gleaned that these guys had Government protection. They were let into this country for a specific purpose. It was a business deal."

Mad Cow (http://www.madcowprod.com/mc332004.html)

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah...the FBI..sure.. :rolleyes



Mad Cow (http://www.madcowprod.com/mc332004.html)Dan, are you accusing the entire FBI of being complicit in 9/11?

Yes or no.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh, and that link takes us to the awesome Amanda Keller/Mohamed Atta story.

Whatever happened to that, Dan?

[Wild Cobra]

Dan, are you accusing the entire FBI of being complicit in 9/11?

Yes or no.

Propaganda Dan fits pretty good, doesn't it?

[ChumpDumper]

Propaganda Dan fits pretty good, doesn't it?Nah, dishonest dan fits when it comes to talking about 9/11. He'll insinuate all day but never actually say anything.

[Nbadan]

Propaganda Dan fits pretty good, doesn't it?

For someone who is accused of spreading propaganda by the right I certainly have a long-term verifiable record of being correct, and what about you Wild C? For the all the years you have been posting here I cannot point to one time where you posted something that turned out to be verifiably right....

[Nbadan]

Nah, dishonest dan fits when it comes to talking about 9/11. He'll insinuate all day but never actually say anything.

That Chumpy modus operandi....he has no interest in learning the truth about 911 or anything else he doesn't agree with...all he cares about is finding ammo to attack critics with....for years I've told Chumpy the same thing I will tell him today...let's have a real investigation into 911 when the Bush Junta is out of power and then we'll talk about what I think really happened on 911....

[ChumpDumper]

That Chumpy modus operandi....he has no interest in learning the truth about 911Tell me the truth dan:

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

Let's have it.

Right now.

[Nbadan]

I've laid the groundwork...now do your own homework....

[ChumpDumper]

Fucking cop out.

You haven't done shit.

That's why it's easy to dismiss you out of hand.

Why should anyone else believe what you do if you are too much of a coward to actually state your beliefs?

[RandomGuy]

That Chumpy modus operandi....he has no interest in learning the truth about 911 or anything else he doesn't agree with...all he cares about is finding ammo to attack critics with....for years I've told Chumpy the same thing I will tell him today...let's have a real investigation into 911 when the Bush Junta is out of power and then we'll talk about what I think really happened on 911....

*cough* bull*cough*shit *cough*

[RandomGuy]

I've laid the groundwork...now do your own homework....

"do your homework"

The ultimate refrain of the Church of the Holy Conspiracy Theory.

[Cry Havoc]

I've laid the groundwork...now do your own homework....

Weakest. Retort. Ever. And I do mean ever.

[RandomGuy]

_kSq663m0G8

WTC7 collapse explained.

[RandomGuy]

Putting it on TEST STATUS is the same thing as turning it off. Either way, no alarms were received. Of course, not long after it was turned off, a huge explosion almost killed Barry Jennings and Mike Hess, then the building fell down. Smells like arson.

When someone turns off a fire alarm just before a building "burns" down, that's arson. Given that no arson investigation has occurred, that's evidence that WTC 7 did not come down from fire.

_kSq663m0G8

Let me know when you have finished watching it.

[RandomGuy]

my bad!

The firemen who checked the scene denied there was any molten metal.

They say the hot oven WEAKENED the steel, but did not MELT the steel!

:madrun

7YXzjAKJQOg

WTC - No Pools of Molten Steel

This is a good one. It shows the truth movement actively faking evidence.

[RandomGuy]

I'd like to see anyone that owns a building anywhere in the world turn off the fire alarms, then watch the building fall down a few hours later, then go on national TV and say "Pull it", and not be investigated for arson.

PULL IT!!

WTC 7 - Pull It By Larry Silverstein
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1340351950774479027&q=pull+it&total=20339&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Except that he said "THEY" made the decision. Not "I made the decision" to pull it.

Let's look at everything the man said.


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

The conspiracy theorists (hereafter referred to as “CTs”) believe that Silverstein was ordering the FDNY to demolish, or to allow to be demolished, building 7.

In my experience, the CTs are in such a hurry to get to the “pull it” phrase that they neglect to read the statement carefully. While I will provide much evidence in this paper that’s intended to convince the most hardcore CT, all that’s really necessary is to apply a bit of logic to the Silverstein statement, so I’ll start by doing that.

“...and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'”
Let’s use some logic. Was Silverstein saying,

“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to blow up my building,”

or was he saying,

“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to withdraw firefighters to prevent further loss of life”?

Be honest, CTs. Which statement makes sense, and which is completely absurd?

[RandomGuy]

Before we continue examining conspiracist misrepresentations about WTC 7, it's important that we understand what the official version of events is. Here's a summary, from the NIST report.

Essential Reading: NIST NCSTAR 1-8 Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: The Emergency Response Operations. (PDF)

Excerpt: Summary of World Trade Center Building 7 Emergency Response.


• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors [fires were visible on at least 16 floors]. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.

Here’s a much-reprinted quote from FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro:


"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt."[Fire Engineering magazine, 10/2002]

In another interview, Chief Nigro said,


"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [Of the WTC towers] 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, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely."http://tinyurl.com/g8c6y

In 2007, "Ref" of the JREF forum and 9/11 Guide contacted Chief Nigro for clarification of some points. Here's the reply he received:


Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff). The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired) Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94103)

That’s certainly straightforward. Building 7 was severely damaged and had severe, uncontrollable fires, and the FDNY withdrew its firefighters to protect their safety.

[RandomGuy]

But of course the firefighters were in on the whole thing, and despite hundreds of their coworkers getting killed, none of them have stepped forward to reveal this "coverup".

[RandomGuy]

At the beginning of this paper I introduced the group NY911truth, which some friends and I confront on Saturdays at Ground Zero. In my first appearance there, in June or July, 2006, the first thing the group’s leader Les Jamieson said to me was, “We should have a debate.” I’m sure he didn’t know then that I knew far more of the facts of 9/11 than he, although I had only been looking into the CT claims for three months and he had been doing so since November, 2001. We did have an impromptu mini-debate before the video camera of documentarian Fletcher Holmes. The subject was the collapse of WTC 7, which Jamieson believes is one of the best pieces of evidence in favor of the “inside job” theory.

I reminded Jamieson that the firefighters reported massive damage and raging, uncontrolled fires, and that the Chiefs, specifically Chief Nigro, gave the order to withdraw the firefighters from the area long before the building collapsed. He replied that perhaps they had been ordered to withdraw by someone higher up, such as Nicholas Scoppetta, the FDNY Commissioner, who presumably got his orders from someone who was in on the plot.

That made me very angry. It was the first time I had heard someone blame the FDNY for the collapse of WTC 7. Since then, I’ve heard at least three other members of Jamieson’s organization make the same claim while standing on the ground where so many heroes died.

Let’s keep in mind what it would mean (only as far as the FDNY’s involvement is concerned) if
Jamieson was correct:

1. The top people in the FDNY were so corrupt that they called off a search for hundreds of fallen firefighters in order to participate in a crime.

2. The FDNY Chiefs who claim to have made an agonizing decision to stop rescue operations in the area around WTC 7, in order to to keep rescuers from becoming victims, are lying.

3. All the people on the scene who reported massive damage and uncontrolled fires on many floors at building 7, and who said they were sure that the building would collapse (we’ll read their reports later), were coerced into inventing those stories in order to cover up the crime of deliberate demolition of a skyscraper.

4. The massive amount of smoke seen billowing from nearly every floor on WTC 7’s south side did not indicate massive fires.

5. None of the 16,000 uniformed or civilian members of the FDNY, or anyone else who was involved in this huge conspiracy, has come forward about these issues in the past 5 years.

Les Jamieson, leader of NY 911 Truth


Jamieson has appeared twice on the NYC-area television show Hardfire, where his arguments were eviscerated by host Ron Wieck. Watch it here part 1 and here part 2.



Firefighters’ Statements: “Of Course They’re Lies!”

Following is a transcription of an audio recording I made at Ground Zero on September 16, 2006. Bold type indicates shouting. The participants are me, Les Jamieson, and a particularly volatile and ignorant member of his organization named Jack, who is a regular on Saturdays.

Jack, member of NY 911 Truth



A substantial crowd had gathered. First, I read the Daniel Nigro quote above to Mr. Jamieson. Here it is again. It bears repeating:
“The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.”

Me, to Jamieson: Chief of Operations, right here, who gave the order to start clearing this area three hours beforehand. And you’re saying that Larry Silverstein gave that order? Why?

I pull out a sheaf of quotes from FDNY eyewitnesses that detail the fire, damage, and suspected collapse of building 7.

Me: I’ve got page after page corroborating that. Page after page corroborating the damage, page after page corroborating that he gave the order, page after page saying that they did pull the men out starting at about 3 o’clock. But you blame Larry Silverstein. Why?

Jack, interrupting: BECAUSE HE SAID “PULL THE BUILDING!”

Me: Oh, did he?

JACK: PULL is the operative word! You say “they” was the operative word? IT WAS PULL. P-U-L-L!
I hand him the printout of Silverstein’s statement.

Me: Here, read this to the people. Are you afraid to? Let’s see if you get it right. On 9/11, I gave this quote to four different people of your persuasion, and every single one of them said, when they were reading it, said “He” decided to pull. Now you read it. See what it says.

JACK: We went through this before. This is a reprise of a previous episode. [True: from about an hour earlier!] He asked me to read this paragraph. I’ll read the paragraph, and let’s see if it’s going to register as funny, okay? I read the whole paragraph, and he says to me “read the last sentence.” I say, Okay, ‘And they made that decision to pull.’

Me: And who was “they?”

JACK: No, wait a minute! Here’s the punch line. I say to him, “What’s the operative word here?” He says to me “They.” NO. IT’S PULL. P-U-L-L!

Me: Okay, I’ve got 15 different quotes here where fire department– (JACK starts to walk away) You gonna stand here and listen? –Where Fire Department people use the word “pull,” meaning pull their people out.

JACK: You don’t even understand English grammar! He said “IT!” “IT!”

Me: Yeah, the operations. The firefighting operations. I don’t understand English grammar?

Jamieson: People were pulled out at 11:30, weren’t they?

Me: No, sir, they weren’t. As you know – because I’m sure you’ve read the quotes – it started at about 2:30, the pullout. Before that they were trying to rescue their people who were under the rubble here.

Jamieson: I have 11:30. So even if it’s 2:30, why are they saying to pull it at 5:20?

Me: When did the conversation with Silverstein happen? Hours beforehand.

Jamieson: No.

Me: Yes, sir. You’re saying that Chief Daniel Nigro is lying? You’re saying the Fire Department is lying?

Jamieson: Silverstein is lying, maybe. Could that be?

Me: About what? His story corroborates perfectly with what the Fire Department says.

Jamieson: ‘Cause he says “We agreed to pull the building, then we watched it collapse.”

Reminder: Les Jamieson is the leader of one of the major 9/11 “Truth” organizations, and he claims to have been investigating these matters since 2001. Also, Jamieson was listening attentively 30 seconds earlier when Jack read “And they made that decision to pull.”

Me: No, sir. He says “They made that decision to pull.” Who’s “they?” He’s on the phone with the Fire Department.

Jamieson: Right.

Me: So you’re saying the Fire Department’s lying, when they’re saying that they made the decision?

Jamieson: How does the Fire Department have the ability to pull?

Me: To pull? To pull their men out. (I shake my sheaf of quotes) Fifteen different times they use the quote “pull,” meaning pull their men away from the building–

JACK:NO! THEY SAID PULL IT!

Me: –and thank God they did, because no one was killed when building 7 collapsed.

JACK: PULL IT!

Me: Was that a good decision or not?

Unidentified Truther:PULL IT!

Me: And they did that three hours before the building collapsed.

Jamieson: What about–

Me: I’m asking you a question. Is the Fire Department lying? You’re saying Larry Silverstein gave the order. I have page after page of quotes. Are they lying?

JACK: This is total obfuscation! Total obfuscation! What difference does it make if the time is plus or minus two hours? He said “PULL THE BUILDING! PULL THE BUILDING!”

Jamieson:PULL THE BUILDING! And it fell straight down! Not south!

JACK:PULL IT! I-T!

Me (reading from FDNY quotes): Fire Department Chief Daniel Nigro: “The biggest decision we had to make–“

JACK, to the crowd:HE’S OBFUSCATING! WITH TOTAL BULLSHIT!

Me:“–was to create a collapse zone around the severely damaged building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.”

How about this: “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 hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too.”

And this: “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 Brandeis 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.”

Here’s another: “They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. ... Finally they pulled us out.”

Here’s another: “Seven World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling, fully involved.“

Here’s another: “There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it.”

JACK: HAHAHA!

Me: Yeah, it’s a lie? These are all lies the Fire Department is telling? I’m recording this, by the way.

JACK: OF COURSE THEY’RE LIES! TOTAL FABRICATIONS! TOTAL FABRICATIONS!

Jack walks away, shaking his head. Jamieson makes no objection to his statements.

Please let Les Jamieson know what you think about what he and his organization’s members say at Ground Zero. His 9/11-related email address is [email protected]

[RandomGuy]

Jason Bermas of Loose Change Disparages the FDNY at Ground Zero

Contents
Main 9/11 Links Page


I have never encountered anyone in any sphere of endeavor as thoroughly misinformed as Jason Bermas, another “9/11 Truth Movement” leader, the most defiantly outspoken of Loose Change’s three creators, and its chief “researcher.” On the subject of 9/11, he seems to be completely incapable of getting anything right. Bermas has apparently spent a lot of time watching Alex Jones videos.

In my compilation Loose Change Creators Speak, Bermas mentions 18 conspiracy theories in a single interview, not because he’s reciting a list of them, but because that’s the way he talks. The following is a bit of an “aside,” but I think it’s important to show just how twisted the thinking of the leaders of the “9/11 Truth Movement” can be. Here is a sample of Bermas’ lunacy (pun intended):

“I contend that we may have been to the Moon, not with rocket technology, but with something else and it's secret. Definitely not the Apollo landings – they're a joke.”

“I really do feel like the evidence is there that these guys [U.S. political and religious leaders] are in the occult.”

On politician John Kerry: “This guy practices the occult. He had to in order to get into Skull & Bones [the not-so-secret Yale University club whose membership rolls were published by the school when Kerry was a member]. What ELSE is he capable of?”

Radio host: “And the 9/11 attack itself, is that the European group, or is that more the Americans, like Bush and Cheney?”

Bermas: “These guys in America are able to become billionaires, but they're not the multi-trillionaires that are in countries, basically with a free license to print money. So their power [the Americans' power] can only go so far.”

Host: “So you see it [The people behind the 9/11 attacks] as more of a European-type thing?”

Bermas: “Absolutely. I mean when you look at how bizarre some of these rituals are, and where these things come from...Helmut Schmidt, for instance, former German Chancellor, talks about all the things he used to do, all these Germanic death cults, and he talks about, you know, Bohemian Grove being a sex event and loving the rituals there, it's suspicious to me, man! I mean, I can see that with my own eyes. ...You look at things like the Montauk Project, and Boys' Town, and they definitely used, you know, drug addicts, sexual deviants. It's mind control! It's absolute mind control.”

“There was a report out in the past couple of days [on Alex Jones’ website, of course] that the government has been actually recruiting pastors and ministers to go around and say, you know, if something like the bird flu hits, it'll be good to go with, like, FEMA into camps and all these other federally-regulated areas, and they're actually being paid to say this stuff. And taking inoculations, and that is SCARY!”

“Unfortunately, in this country if there is another major event, and if it is incrementalized and larger than the last one, they could declare martial law at any moment, and have forced inocu-lations, and who's to say what they put in your body?”

“Believe it or not, TIVO was working on a brain chip, so that with your TIVO box there it would record what you want, when you want it, and it will base it on your brain patterns.”




http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/02301.jpg/02301-full.jpg
Prophetic logo according to Jason Bermas?


If Bermas and other 9/11 “Truth” leaders are so obviously divorced from reality, why am I spending my time doing this? Why not leave them alone to bark at the moon and be laughed at by sensible people?

Answer: because they have been effective at spreading their message. Millions and millions of people have viewed at least part of Loose Change, which is freely available on the internet. I get several emails a week thanking me for my Loose Change Viewer Guide (a major revision – with twice the information and better sourcing – is in the works), because for a time they had bought Loose Change’s propaganda. In August, that guide, which I don’t advertise, had a peak viewer ship of over 30,000 people in one day. That means many, many more people are out there with this stuff rattling around in their heads. Now I understand the meaning of “viral video.”

Even people who aren’t taken in by the more extreme claims of the 9/11 Denier Movement can find themselves thinking that there must be some evidence of US government involvement in the attacks, based on the sheer volume of conspiracist claims. I have yet to see any such evidence, and it’s not for lack of trying.


Back to Jason Bermas at Ground Zero.


As mentioned above, the purpose of the protest at Ground Zero on 9/11/06 was to get the attention of the mainstream media. Two days earlier, on 9/09/06, the Loose Change guys and Alex Jones visited Ground Zero. Their cameramen filmed the visit. You can watch it here. It begins with a preamble by Jason Bermas:

"You can just imagine just the flurry of people who are going to be here in memoriam of all those that died on September 11th. Really, we’re gearing up, we’re giving out 10,000 DVDs, we’ve got 1,100 shirts. We’re really gonna make our presence known. Finally the mainstream media is going to have to stop attacking us and start reporting on us fairly, and that’s really our goal."

Bermas then strolls past, and comments on, the large bronze relief of 9/11 firefighting operations, which is on the side of Firehouse 10, across Liberty Street from the World Trade Center.


Jason Bermas outside Firehouse 10. He forgot.




At 40:33 in the same video, speaking at Ground Zero on the same day, Bermas expresses his opinion of the low character of FDNY firefighters, in answer to a question by Abby Scott:


http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/02402.jpg/02402-full.jpg
“The firefighters ARE paid off.”


Remember, this video is promoted by the creators of Loose Change. They’re proud of it


Months later, after I brought attention to his statement, Jason Bermas posted the following bizarre explanation on the Loose Change Blog:

[I]
I would just like to apologize for the comment I made to one Abby Scott on September 9th of this past year. I made the MISTAKE of saying that the firefighters were paid off, I did not mean this, and am convinced some sort of Jedi Mind trick was pulled on me.

I was discussing how if you have a government job and want to keep it, aka Controlled Demolition Inc. you keep your mouth shut. It then moved to the firefighters and some how I said "The firefighters are paid off", and then cited how many of them discussed the bombs in the days after. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE FIREFIGHTERS WERE PAID OFF! I hold them as heroes in the highest regard, and I truly believe that they were threatened in the aftermath of the event that not only traumatized a country, but still affect their lives deeply to this very day. Many of these men have families, and would do anything to keep them safe. I also believe many of them do not, and can not think the worst of their country. I know it was very difficult for me.

So, Mr. Bermas believes, not that the firefighters were paid to keep quiet about what they know, but that they are being threatened to keep quiet. He does not present any evidence to back this absurd claim. He also seems to be implying that the respected firm Controlled Demolitions Inc. was somehow involved in this conspiracy.

Did the 9/11/06 Ground Zero protest achieve its goal of garnering massive media attention? Dylan Avery, writer and director of Loose Change:

"And shame on the mainstream media in general for participating in what can only be de-scribed as a media blackout. Those that did mention it marginalized it dramatically.

We are not conspiracy theorists by any stretch.

We are a growing body of concerned Americans who have both investigated the events and experienced them first-hand, and we are absolutely convinced that our government is hid-ing the truth from us, whatever the truth may be."

Dylan Avery, posting on the Loose Change blog, October 3, 2006: “I find it extremely telling that this article from Mexico gives us more coverage [of 9/11] than anything we experienced from American Mainstream Media combined.”

I believe Mr. Avery is complaining about the lack of positive mainstream media coverage, not about the lack of coverage such as that hilariously dished out by Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone on Sept. 26, 2006:

"I challenge a 9/11 Truth leader like Loose Change writer Dylan Avery to come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot – not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together – that would not make any fifth grader anywhere burst out in convulsive laughter."

You can watch a two-part debate between Bermas and Avery of Loose Change, versus myself and Ronald Wieck, on the TV show Hardfire. Part 1 Part 2.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Next: Alex Jones Vilifies the FDNY and Larry Silverstein at Ground Zero

[Wild Cobra]

WTC - No Pools of Molten Steel

This is a good one. It shows the truth movement actively faking evidence.

Yep. If they would police themselves and disclaim all the faked and unreasonable claims, then had something reasonable left, the rest of us might listen.

[RandomGuy]

One might almost think that this thread has been done before and that I have tons of canned, ready made retorts that show how the 9-11 truth movement is a bunch of bullshit... (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65131)

[Nbadan]

"do your homework"

The ultimate refrain of the Church of the Holy Conspiracy Theory.

Dont be ignorant all your life, take a day off why don't you?

[RandomGuy]

Dont be ignorant all your life, take a day off why don't you?


I looked into this bullshit and gave it an honest try once.

It failed miserably to pass the smell test.

I'm sorry my taste for bullshit sandwiches is so lacking...:lol

[Nbadan]

I've always wanted to be a trouble-shooter, but now I see you are not worth it...

[Galileo]

Don't you see what I'm doing?

I'm demonstrating the absurd by being absurd. At least my arguments are more credible than anything from the likes of Loose Change!

I read the material and I see holes in what is said. So many perfectly explainable possibilities that still are ignored by you conspiracy theorists. As for the NIST looking into the matter, why not. I'll bet they poke big holes in the conspiracy theories.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. 9/11 was a legal, clean, false-flag military operation. Sometimes people get killed during military operations, that's unfortunate, its all for the greater good.

You're the crazy conspiracy theorist who believes.

[RandomGuy]

9/11 was a legal, clean, false-flag military operation.

Jeez, you must have someone who has come forward and admitted that they did it, right?

[RandomGuy]

I mean, if you are smart enough to pull this kind of thing off, you must realize that you will not be allowed to live to tell about it by the evil conspiracy, right?

I mean, if someone is willing to kill 3000+ civilians, why would they stop when it came to their trusty henchmen who carried it out for them?

'splain that to me.

[RandomGuy]

"Ok, Mr. Evil Demolition Expert, go wire these buildings with explosives to kill thousands of people, I *promise* we won't kill you afterwards to keep you quiet..."

[RandomGuy]

Where do I sign up for THAT job?

I'm sure it pays well...

[RandomGuy]

Oooh, this is getting good. Let's see where this line of reasoning goes next...

[RandomGuy]

"OK Mr. Document Forger, please fake the following passports, so we can carry out this massive false flag operation and kill thousands of people. We *promise* we are too ethical to cut your brake lines, hot-wire your cruise control, and slip you something special in your afternoon cocktail..."

[Wild Cobra]

Well, when a conspiracy is too rediculous for Common Dreams, and they have a debunking article...

LOL... What can I say. The 'Truthers' have nobody but themselves...

Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already
by Matthew Rothschild (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0912-20.htm)

[Galileo]

I mean, if you are smart enough to pull this kind of thing off, you must realize that you will not be allowed to live to tell about it by the evil conspiracy, right?

I mean, if someone is willing to kill 3000+ civilians, why would they stop when it came to their trusty henchmen who carried it out for them?

'splain that to me.

It's not illegal to kill 3000 people if its a military operation. All you do it get John Woo to whip up a legal memo. Napoleon often lost 3000 men during his flanking maneuvers. Napoleon never killed any of his henchmen.

The decision to decide how many lives should be sacrificed for the benefit of society should be made by our leaders, not the common people.

[Galileo]

"Ok, Mr. Evil Demolition Expert, go wire these buildings with explosives to kill thousands of people, I *promise* we won't kill you afterwards to keep you quiet..."

What's your problem with the Bush Administration? They are not evil, they just want to secure America's oil for us to power our society.

Invading a foreign country is a difficult decision, and hard to explain to the masses. That's why governent leaders all through history set up false-flag military operations. You're more likely to be hit by lighting than to be killed in a false flag attack.

I do agree that if the 9/11 attacks were exposed it would look bad for Bush, that's the liberal media for you.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. 9/11 was a legal, clean, false-flag military operation. Sometimes people get killed during military operations, that's unfortunate, its all for the greater good.

Ths is more outlandish than the truthers. There is even less plausible evidence to consider. You've said this before, and it is so laughable. If we needed to make a reason to attack someplace, we wouldn't need to go to that extent.

[Galileo]

Ths is more outlandish than the truthers. There is even less plausible evidence to consider. You've said this before, and it is so laughable. If we needed to make a reason to attack someplace, we wouldn't need to go to that extent.

Not outlandish. We did the same thing when we attacked the Indians. We always claimed they were attacking us first, which is pretty stupid as we were stealing their land and breaking our treaties.

The elite leaders of our nation know the people are stupid, that's why they're the leaders. Democracy is a road to disaster and leads to anarchy. The leaders know that they can blow up buildings in broad daylight and the stupid people will still believe what they are told.

[RandomGuy]

It's not illegal to kill 3000 people if its a military operation. All you do it get John Woo to whip up a legal memo. Napoleon often lost 3000 men during his flanking maneuvers. Napoleon never killed any of his henchmen.

The decision to decide how many lives should be sacrificed for the benefit of society should be made by our leaders, not the common people.

It's not illegal to kill 3,000 of your own citizens? :wow

In case you didn't notice, the constitution kinda prohibits the US military and the CIA from doing things on American soil.

Please show to me the part of the law that legalizes killing US citizens in "false-flag" operations.

[RandomGuy]

Dude, this shit is WEAK.

Keep it up, though, your half-intelligible explanations are worth a chuckle.

Just don't think you will win any converts to your cult, because you are quite literally ridiculous.

[<�‡�>]

� �|� �|�|�|
���|�|�� �|�|���|��|�|�|�|���|�|�� �|�|���|��|
�|�|����|� �||��|���|�|�� �|� �|

�||��|���|�

- <�‡�>

[Galileo]

It's not illegal to kill 3,000 of your own citizens? :wow

In case you didn't notice, the constitution kinda prohibits the US military and the CIA from doing things on American soil.

Please show to me the part of the law that legalizes killing US citizens in "false-flag" operations.

There are ways to get around the Constitution, that's why you get a good lawyer to write legal memos. The ideal legal memo will claim you are following the Constitution, while at the same time you are breaking it.

There's no law that legalizes killing US citizens in false-flag operations. That's where secret executive orders come in and claims of national security. There aren't many laws on the books regulating false flag military operations, so there'e a legal loophole to drive a truc through right there.

They do have a name for the people killed in false-flag operations, they're called collateral damage.

PS

Here is an example of a good Bush lawyer, Alberto Gonzales.

Gonzales, when he testified to congress about habeas corpus said the Constitution never says you have the right of habeas corpus, so the Gitmo detensions were legal. And Gonzales is right, it doensn't say anywhere in the Constitution that "you have the right of habeas corpus".

Go read the text.

[ChumpDumper]

I've laid the groundwork...now do your own homework....Really, what the fuck more am I supposed to do?

I've seen the YouTubes.

I've read the websites.

Nobody else has come up with any theory that incorporates all the evidence and explains the events of 9/11 better than the generally accepted theory recounted in the various government reports.

Since you have done the groundwork and apparently the homework, and since you are always right as you choose to remind us often -- tell us what really happened on 9/11.

[ChumpDumper]

There are ways to get around the Constitution, that's why you get a good lawyer to write legal memos. The ideal legal memo will claim you are following the Constitution, while at the same time you are breaking it.

There's no law that legalizes killing US citizens in false-flag operations. That's where secret executive orders come in and claims of national security. There aren't many laws on the books regulating false flag military operations, so there'e a legal loophole to drive a truc through right there.

They do have a name for the people killed in false-flag operations, they're called collateral damage.

PS

Here is an example of a good Bush lawyer, Alberto Gonzales.

Gonzales, when he testified to congress about habeas corpus said the Constitution never says you have the right of habeas corpus, so the Gitmo detensions were legal. And Gonzales is right, it doensn't say anywhere in the Constitution that "you have the right of habeas corpus".

Go read the text.
So how did they pull off the false-flag operation?

[Galileo]

So how did they pull off the false-flag operation?

easy as one-two-three:

1) the CIA hired some hijackers.

2) Dick Cheney scheduled 29 wargames at 8:15 A.M. on September 11, 2001, tying up and confusing the entire US airforce.

3) military demolition experts with CIA security passes were allowed into the WTC the night before 9/11 to plant the bombs.

boom.

[ChumpDumper]

easy as one-two-three:

1) the CIA hired some hijackers.How does one hire people for suicide missions?


2) Dick Cheney scheduled 29 wargames at 8:15 A.M. on September 11, 2001, tying up and confusing the entire US airforce.Dick Cheney personally scheduled wargames? Is that what the Vice-President does? And NEADS, which responds to hijackings in that area, was not running an exercise since the hijackings occurred before their participation was to begin. Oops, why couldn't those pesky hired suicide hijackers have taken a later flight and screw up all the plans? What was their hurry to kill themselves?


3) military demolition experts with CIA security passes were allowed into the WTC the night before 9/11 to plant the bombs.The night before?

:lmao

So off course there is a record of their entry into the building since they had to show their passes to someone whilst carrying tons of silent explosives and detcord.


boom.Indeed. There goes your little theory....

[Galileo]

How does one hire people for suicide missions?

Dick Cheney personally scheduled wargames? Is that what the Vice-President does? And NEADS, which responds to hijackings in that area, was not running an exercise since the hijackings occurred before their participation was to begin. Oops, why couldn't those pesky hired suicide hijackers have taken a later flight and screw up all the plans? What was their hurry to kill themselves?

The night before?

:lmao

So off course there is a record of their entry into the building since they had to show their passes to someone whilst carrying tons of silent explosives and detcord.

Indeed. There goes your little theory....

1) The hijackers weren't told it was suicide mission, they were patsies. The planes were remote controlled ino the targets. Either that, or they paid them more.

2) Dick Cheney had personal authority to schedule the wargames, that's right. You can look it up.

3) OK, it could have been a week before, but that's it.

[ChumpDumper]

1) The hijackers weren't told it was suicide mission, they were patsies. The planes were remote controlled ino the targets. Either that, or they paid them more.So they could spend it in heaven. Or paradise. Or hell. Or they just dematerialized and became one with the force.


2) Dick Cheney had personal authority to schedule the wargames, that's right. You can look it up.You would think he would have gotten the start time right. Intercept planes actually got up faster than their target times on 9/11 once the FAA determined the situation.


3) OK, it could have been a week before, but that's it.Damn, I got you to backtrack with one post. You sure have done your homework with dan's groundwork.

[ChumpDumper]

The great thing about the wargames canard is that they actually accelerated NORADs ability to respond (bolding mine):



Representative Cynthia McKinney: The question was, we had four wargames going on on September 11th, and the question that I tried to pose before the Secretary had to go to lunch was whether or not the activities of the four wargames going on on September 11th actually impaired our ability to respond to the attacks.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers: The answer to the question is no, it did not impair our response, in fact General Eberhart who was in the command of the North American Aerospace Defense Command as he testified in front of the 9/11 Commission I believe - I believe he told them that it enhanced our ability to respond, given that NORAD didn't have the overall responsibility for responding to the attacks that day. That was an FAA responsibility. But they were two CPXs [Command Post Exercises]; there was one Department of Justice exercise that didn't have anything to do with the other three; and there was an actual operation ongoing because there was some Russian bomber activity up near Alaska....

These are command post exercises; what that means is that all the battle positions that are normally not filled are indeed filled; so it was an easy transition from an exercise into a real world situation. It actually enhanced the response; otherwise, it would take somewhere between 30 minutes and a couple of hours to fill those positions, those battle stations, with the right staff officers.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/031505_mckinney_transcript.shtml

On 9/11, NORAD was scheduled to conduct a military exercise, Vigilant Guardian, which postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union. We investigated whether military preparations for the large-scale exercise compromised the military's response to the real-world terrorist attack on 9/11. According to General Eberhart,"it took about 30 seconds" to make the adjustment to the real-world situation. Ralph Eberhart testimony, June 17, 2004.We found that the response was, if anything, expedited by the increased number of staff at the sectors and at NORAD because of the scheduled exercise. See Robert Marr interview (Jan. 23, 2004).

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

[Wild Cobra]

What mental institute does Galileo live at? Anyone know?

[Don Quixote]

The Truthers are the Jehovah's Witnesses of politics.

[RandomGuy]

There are ways to get around the Constitution, that's why you get a good lawyer to write legal memos. The ideal legal memo will claim you are following the Constitution, while at the same time you are breaking it.

There's no law that legalizes killing US citizens in false-flag operations. That's where secret executive orders come in and claims of national security. There aren't many laws on the books regulating false flag military operations, so there'e a legal loophole to drive a truc through right there.

They do have a name for the people killed in false-flag operations, they're called collateral damage.

PS

Here is an example of a good Bush lawyer, Alberto Gonzales.

Gonzales, when he testified to congress about habeas corpus said the Constitution never says you have the right of habeas corpus, so the Gitmo detensions were legal. And Gonzales is right, it doensn't say anywhere in the Constitution that "you have the right of habeas corpus".

Go read the text.

You are assuming that no one involved would have had an attack of conscience and come forward to speak out about it.

How many people were involved in this "false-flag" operation?

[RandomGuy]

The Truthers are the Jehovah's Witnesses of politics.


"Knock knock"

"Who's there?"

"OHMYGODYOUKNOWTHEYDIDITIHAVEAWEBSITEWITHAVIDEOTHAT PROVESIT!!!"

[RandomGuy]

"Knock knock"

"Who's there?"

"Wedidifer."

"Wedidifer who?"

"Wedidifer da oil."

[RandomGuy]

"Knock knock"

"Who's there?"

"Lazas"

"Lazas who?"

"Lazas and space beams destroyed the towers."

[Galileo]

You are assuming that no one involved would have had an attack of conscience and come forward to speak out about it.

How many people were involved in this "false-flag" operation?

Three people.

[ChumpDumper]

Three people.:lmao :downspin:

[RandomGuy]

Three people.

:lmao

(wipes tears from eyes)

No, seriously, how many people were involved in this.

You stated for absolute certainty that this was a false-flag operation, so I am sure you can tell me what was involved.

Faking of passports? yes/no?
Demolition of buildings? yes/no?


Seriously, outline your rough estimate of what happened. If you can't at least do that, you can sit over there with the flat earth crowd.

[ChumpDumper]

Three people hijacked four planes!

[TeyshaBlue]

1)

The hijackers weren't told it was suicide mission, they were patsies. The planes were remote controlled ino the targets. Either that, or they paid them more.

2) Dick Cheney had personal authority to schedule the wargames, that's right. You can look it up.

3) OK, it could have been a week before, but that's it.

Dude, when the tenants of your "arguement" are peppered with qualifiers, then you know you're in trouble....or a conspiracy theorists backyard.:lol

[RandomGuy]

Ok, remote controlled planes.

That means you have to have at least 1 person to wire up 4 jetliners without anybody noticing.

Reprogramming autopilots don't cut it, because they aren't sophisticated enough to hit specific targets.

There is one person, probably more, but let's give this operation creds for being really good at their jobs.

Now, assuming remote controls for 4 planes simultaneously, requires 4 people trained to operate the "remote controls", and this assumes that the same mysterious, extremely sneaky, hard-working tech that installed the remote control devices was also capable of hooking up the aircraft to the controlled equipment.

So there is at least five people outside of the people who ordered it.

Galileo is also on record as saying that WTC 7 was obviously imploded, if not the other two towers.

Gawd, even giving them their generous assumptions of limited amounts of explosives on limited columns, fully wiring 3 buildings for explosives in "less than a week" would require...

20 columns per floor, 260 floors or so, 5 minutes to attach, test and troubleshoot any problems per charge, 20*260*5 is about 173 man-hours, or 36 days of 12 hour shifts.

To accomplish this all in 7 days would take 5 guys. Again this assumes that placing the charges are done in total secrecy.

So there is at least 10 active conspirators.

[RandomGuy]

Add to this the security guys who were ordered to allow access to the buildings to the extremely hard-working, sneaky magic demolition crew... call it two guys at the top...

There's at least twelve people.

[RandomGuy]

This assumes some very generous assumptions for our astronomically-named friend.

Take away the generous assumptions, and you have 2-4 technicians to wire the planes, a larger demolition crew, and one or two more security guys to help.

That makes the number of people that would logically have to have been active participants at about 20 or so.

Even if you only had a "bit" part and didn't know WHY you were doing what you were doing, you would have figured it out pretty darn quick from the news reports. i.e. I don't know why I am installing this sophisticated equipment in secret on this commercial airplane, but when I watch the news from sept 11, and recognize the plane I worked on as having hit WTC1, I can put 2 and 2 together.

[RandomGuy]

You might be able to assume the techinicians and security guys were not quite in on it, but figured it out afterwards.

You have to assume that the remote control operators and demolition experts knew bloody well what they were doing...

Either way, any ONE of them could leak the information on the operation.

[ChumpDumper]

Dude, three guys knocked the prep work in one weekend and squeezed in a quick 18 with Bush at the Andrews AFB golf course on Sunday.

[RandomGuy]

Dude, three guys knocked the prep work in one weekend and squeezed in a quick 18 with Bush at the Andrews AFB golf course on Sunday.

I even "did my research" and found their pictures:

http://www.worldofchristmas.net/images/santa-claus.jpg

http://www.clipartandcrafts.com/sample-graphics/bunny1.jpg

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:AuJMlDWlYUobmM:http://www.bgagraphics.com/images/dental_12.gif

[xrayzebra]

You know if people don't post on these threads the quickly go to the other page and are forgotten.

You know like, place in "in basket" and let it die a natural death.

[RandomGuy]

You know if people don't post on these threads the quickly go to the other page and are forgotten.

You know like, place in "in basket" and let it die a natural death.

Yuppers. That is why I give up on them after a few pages. Not worth responding to after a while.

Worth making fun of, but not responding seriously, this post aside.

I have made my point, and will probably do just that, i.e. ignore it after this.