IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT IS MUCH MORE POWERFUL THAN CORPORATE MEDIA WILL EVERY RECOGNIZE.

Corporate media will be drug kicking and screaming toward truth by a committed citizenry willing to use EVERY MEANS NECESSARY TO GET SOME TRUTH OUT.

See:  www.TheShellGame.net

and use the tools there to blast that information out wide fast and far !!

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Thursday, Jan 31, 2008 at 7:12:13 PM

  (0+)

Quote: "It would appear that the 9/11 truth movement is much more powerful than coporate media wil ever recognize."

Oh, Bill, you know that looks can be deceiving. And I think you're deceiving yourself a little bit if you truly feel that the 9/11 truth movement had anything to do with Rudy's fall from grace. This is a man who was leading in all the national polls by wide margins only 3-6 months ago. Are you telling me that the truth movement cranked up its volume loud enough to drown him out in such a short period of time? Are you telling me that Republicans rejected Rudy because they believe that he had inside foreknowledge of the attacks or tried to cover them up after the fact? Au contraire, mon frere.

That's just a load of wishful thinking on your part. Rudy's fall from grace can be summed up in two words -- retail politics, i.e., stumping. The truth is he's lousy at it. John McCain, on the other hand, is brilliant at it. That's why the two have mirrored one another's rise and fall. McCain was written off for politically dead when Rudy was flying high. What changed things for him? New Hampshire. How did he win in N.H.? Through small state retail politics where you talk to voters one-on-one and get a lot of small town free media coverage in the process. That's how New Hampshire voters like it, and that's how McCain parlayed a losing hand into pocket aces.

That's also how Rudy fell from his ivory tower. He couldn't pull off retail politics. And his lack of momentum in the early primaries ultimately killed off his campaign in Florida where 3-6 months ago he had a big lead. Momentum in politics, especially the primaries, is everything.

I'm sorry but it's hubris on your part to give credit for Giuliani's downfall to the 9/11 truth movement. It had little if anything to do with it.

by Sam Adams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments) on Thursday, Jan 31, 2008 at 9:52:51 PM

  (0+)

You miss the point Sam.  Who told Rudi the Tower was going to collapse?  And.....of course, how did they know?  I'll tell you how they knew.  It was because They KNEW!  Not because they thought it was possible, They KNEW!

by David Watts (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 284 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 31, 2008 at 11:01:49 PM

  (0+)

Sammy,

If you don't think that people meeting you at every stop accusing you of mass murder and having the real video proof that you look guilty of at least complicity in 9/11 . . . has some effect on how you "stump" as you put it . . .

. . . well if you believe that . . . then I'd have to take that "smart feller" compliment back. . . . sorry.

Just because you lack the vision to see what the 9/11 truth movement has accomplished . . . well that says more about you than the movement.

Everyone else can get busy using the resources at www.TheShellGame.net and get even more done in coming weeks and months.

Let's break 9/11 truth wide open "The Shell Game" tell everyone !!

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Thursday, Jan 31, 2008 at 11:54:14 PM

  (0+)

I think people simply grew tired of hearing and having to think about 9/11 again and again.  If this election had happened a year or two after 9/11, he would have been a shoe-in.

Did truther harassment have anything to do with his fall?  Perhaps some, but only to the extent that they too reminded people of the 9/11 attacks.

Not to mention that his campaign strategy was ill-conceived in other ways.

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 858 comments) on Friday, Feb 1, 2008 at 1:06:46 AM

  (0+)

Alan, in this article you learned 2 things, if you actually read it.

1) Rudy had foreknowedge of the WTC 7 collapse

2) Rudy destroyed forensic evidence

That constitutes guilt in the murder of 3,000 innocent people by complicity as an accomplice after the fact in the 2nd case, and perhaps compicity in a pre meditated sense with the first fact.

Are you telling me that the powers that be were not shocked to find that about 4 years after the 9/11 attacks 36% of Americans had figured out it was an inside job by their own government (Scripps Howard poll)?

Are you telling me that they actually wanted this guy in the White House that they and the media had handpicked to get the Presidency from day one, I mean day 9/11?

It is amazing how naive so called liberals can be.  Being liberal doesn't mean that everyone is nice.  Rudy got caught as an accomplice to mass murder.  His paymasters pulled the plug on his ascendence.  Its pretty obvious, unless you try really really really hard not to see it.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Friday, Feb 1, 2008 at 1:28:21 AM

  (0+)

Rudy probably was made aware 7 was going to collapse, the whole dang fire department pretty much knew it was inevitable for several hours.  

What's the big mystery?

Why is that because material from the buildings was efficiently disposed of, that means there just HAD to be something nefarious around it?   Might I just as effectively argue that it was simply an effort to clean up an awful mess as quickly as possible?  Isn't that pretty much what people do when they see a big mess?  (except my 10 y/o, that is)

Rudy didn't destroy evidence.  Or if he was involved in deciding whatever the heck timeline there was from pile to China, what evidence is there that he intended to cover anything up?  At that point, I don't think anybody was even of a mind that there was anything to investigate -- it was all pretty obvious to everyone what happened.  Then they realized there were building safety investigative issues involved ..... whoops.

Maybe the truther brigades did have some effect.  That's one thing.  That there is any legitimacy to what they are saying is quite another.     

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 858 comments) on Friday, Feb 1, 2008 at 2:10:07 AM

  (0+)

Al, its hard to even argue with someone as mis-informed as you are.  If you'd do just a modicum of homework on 9/11 truth we could have an intelligent discussion, but let me try to help you out.  Even thought its obvious you didn't even look at the powerful educational video links in the article you purport to be discussing.

The reason it is such a BIG deal that Rudy knew that WTC 7 was going to collapse before it did, is because NO STEEL REINFORCED SKYSCRAPER HAD EVERY COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE IN THE HISTORY OF ENGINEERING.

ON 9/11/2001 WTC 1, 2, AND 7 MADE ENGINEERING HISTORY.  WTC 7 had not even been hit by a plane and had relatively small fires.  There is NO REASON for it too collapse, so WHY/WHO knew it would?

Why won't Rudy or the BBC tell us?  We know why the firemen won't, because they've been ordered not to.  They see their fellow 1st responders with lung disease living on the street, abandoned by Rudy and the system and often can't even get Social Security . . . so they know to stay SHUT UP, if they know what's good for them.  EVEN IF THEY DID PUT IT ALL ON THE LINE AND COME OUT AND TALK, PEOPLE LIKE YOU WOULD YAWN, AND SAY "WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL?" SO WHAT IF SOMEONE KNOW WHAT NOONE COULD HAVE KNOWN UNLESS THEY WERE GOING TO "MAKE" IT HAPPEN.

Al, just watch Richard Gage's presentation at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth (ae911truth.org) just once . . . please.

Now as far as Rudy disposing of the steel . . . no contrary to your flippant view of the world, it is not normal to rapidly ship forensic evidence of perhaps the worst crime in American history out to be destroyed.  HOW DO I KNOW?

Fire Engineering Magazine, the premiere forensic investigation magazine, for fire investigators in America's editor cried foul and demanded that the evidence of the WTC buildings NOT BE DESTROYED UNTIL A FULL FORENSICS INVESTIGATION COULD OCCUR.

Al, did you even watch one of the videos in the above article you purport to be commenting on intelligently?

Al, just go back to the article, and watch the videos, and you'll know ever so much more than you do now about 9/11, and Rudy, and realize that a crime has been committed.  Not by 19 Arabs, but by our media and our government.

A lie that has led us into 2 illegal wars.

A lie that is destroying our civil liberites.

A lied that has made us a torture state.

When my father was in Dachau during WWII in the first Infantry Division to liberate that death camp, he and his friends were so outraged that the suburban German's living around the death camp had for years . . . pretended nothing was happening . . . that they forced the Germans to come out of their nice suburban homes and help bury the bodies . . .

Al, I know you like your comfortable life, and want to keep the door closed and pretend you are not complicit in crimes against humanity because you hear, see and speak no evil . . . but you are.

And like my father, I will keep opening your door, and keep showing you the million dead Iraqis and Afghanis that your unconsciousness is complicit in murdering . . . .

Truth will out.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Friday, Feb 1, 2008 at 9:48:05 AM

  (0+)

Quote: "His paymasters pulled the plug on his ascendence.  Its pretty obvious, unless you try really really really hard not to see it."

If Rudy is dirty, there's no way his "paymasters" would have pulled the plug on him. Unless you want to argue that the votes in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina and Florida were all rigged. I'm not saying that's impossible, but I am saying it's unlikely. And it's not backed by the polling data. Rudy started tanking in the polls right after his big losses in Iowa and New Hampshire. His initial support evaporated quickly thereafter. Sooner or later you have to win a primary to maintain your voter support levels. Rudy couldn't do it. It was the voters who sent him packing, not his paymasters, and Republicans by-and-large do NOT think Rudy was complicit in 9/11.

You're giving a few hecklers far too much credit in my book. And do you suppose those "paymasters" orchestrated McCain's meteoric rise as well? Fat chance of that. The animosity between Bush and McCain stemming from 2000 is well known. I don't think Bush is very happy about the current outcome of the GOP primaries. If I were him I'd be a little bit worried that my archenemy might soon be in charge of keeping a lid on the whole 9/11 can of worms. I know McCain has spoken out against 9/11 conspiracy theories, but that's largely beside the point. I don't think Bush trusts him, and there is good reason for that. McCain has shown a tendency to take on the GOP establishment over many issues. This may be one more time if he truly has any character at all. We'll just have to wait and see. And hope.

by Sam Adams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments) on Friday, Feb 1, 2008 at 4:18:54 AM

  (0+)

Are you naive enough to believe that this show is for real?  Between diebold, the media, and other factors anyone can be made or broken at any time.

CIA Director William Colby once said that "There is no media of any consequence in America that is not controlled by the CIA."

If they had wanted Rudy to stay competitive, he would.  If they didn't want him to, he wouldn't.

Ron Paul for example, and also before him Dennis Kucinich, had ideas that the overwhelming majority of Americans agreed with.  The website where you put in your feelings on issues, show these two to be far and away the favorite candidates.

HOWEVER, the media ridicules, it bolsters, it twists, it manipulates images . . . and then the party structures do their part, and the diebold scanners do theres and "poof" a candidate is no more.

They built Rudy with images they made up about 9/11 . . . and when they were done with Rudy, they let him go.

What's Rudy gonna do, come out and say "I participated in a crime so they'd make me President.  And now they didn't.  They cheated."

Come on.  You live in a mafia state, not a democracy.  I'm still donating to Ron Paul and caucusing for him, because I'm fighting the bastards, but let's get real here.  Rudy was made, and then he was un-made by the powers that pulled off 9/11.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Friday, Feb 1, 2008 at 9:54:35 AM

  (0+)

about a Utah metalurgist who found explosive residue on a section of steel he obtained with difficulty. This was on Alternet, I believe.

WTC#7 had materials of investigations for insider trading and other white collar crimes. A German Co., was able to pull much of the data off the hard drives, Spegil.de, what happened to it I can't recall. 

There are many unanswered questions to 9/11, and Bu$h & Co. would rather the people don't make such a fuss about it.

I think it was his ego that brought him down, and all his bragging how he was Mr. 9/11 saviour.

His lack of reality is as bad as Dybua's and buckshot Dick's.  

by Stanimal (2 articles, 226 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 1254 comments [233 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Feb 1, 2008 at 3:23:50 AM

  (0+)

Actually it was Brigham Young Physics Professor, Steve Jones who has tested various samples of WTC debris and found indications of thermate, a controlled demolition steel cutting agent.  In later tests he's actually found thermite, which is a smoking gun that the WTCs were brought down in controlled demolition.

Controlled demolition proves a premeditated act of placing charges by someone with access to WTC security.  SECURICOM, a WTC security company, had GW's brother and cousin on the board.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Friday, Feb 1, 2008 at 9:57:18 AM

  (0+)

"... Oh what a rain that would be!" 

I agree with Mr. Adams' assessment of Mayor Giuliani's fall from grace.  Being a NH resident, we saw very little of the right Honorable Mayor; in fact, his campaign strategy essentially blew off NH in favor of other states.  However, Senator McCain was like the "Chickenman" of old - "He's everywhere, he's everywhere!"

As to the 9/11 links to his demise, it's fanciful thinking only.  Although brazenly vocal, the 9/11 Truth Movement is stagnant.  The more vocal and desruption the Movements becomes, the fewer sympathetic ears it will retain.  "You'll catch more bees with honey than vinegar..."

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Feb 1, 2008 at 8:46:44 AM

  (0+)

Tom, did you watch any of those videos?  Did you see Sabrina, who lost her father in the 9/11 attacks wanting to know why Rudy didn't tell anyone, warn anyone there to flee the impending WTC 7 collapse?

Are you saying she should just SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP?

What I think Tom, is that if you had a modicum of integrity and conscience, you'd be standing along side Sabrina demanding answers.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Friday, Feb 1, 2008 at 9:59:41 AM

  (0+)

Quote: "The more vocal and desruption the Movements becomes, the fewer sympathetic ears it will retain. "You'll catch more bees with honey than vinegar..."

Why Tom, that's the reason for the new fiction soon-to-be bestseller "The Shell Game." Maybe you've heard of it.....Somewhere. (Bill Douglas insert shameless book promo here ad infinitum.)

I have no ax to grind against the 9/11 truth movement, or Bill Douglas for that matter. I do however question the wisdon of attributing to it more power and influence than it really has. That's just setting oneself up for a disappointment when the "paymasters" go along their merry way. Also, organizing hecklers at political events really just hands more power to the elites. The hecklers get rudely shown the door and are belittled by the likes of Bill Clinton (which just happened recently).

I also question whether or not "The Shell Game" will have any impact on mass consciousness or not. I'm betting against it. It's just the law of proportions at work. The 9/11 truth movement, though it has come far, is stuck in near permanent minority status. I say "near" only because it may become the prevailing view in a generation or so like that of the JFK assassination conspiracy theories. Only by then democracy may be nothing more than a quaint, old-fashioned notion. 

So what is the 9/11 truth movement supposed to do? I don't know, but being shrill at political rallies doesn't work. There's really not much it can do, apart from what it has already done. It acted as a vanguard, but I have little faith that it will convert the resistant mass consciousness of this country and impose its will on our political leaders. After all power, like feces, flows downhill.

So duck and cover. And be careful who you vote for. That's assuming, of course, that votes still count. And they might in some cases. Just ask Rudy.

by Sam Adams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments) on Friday, Feb 1, 2008 at 4:11:29 PM

  (0+)

Sam,

In all honesty, I get the impression you just think that activists are deluded and that if they were realistic, they'd just sit on their hands and not do anything.

If you question 9/11, do you not feel compelled to DO SOMETHING about it?

The way you write makes it seem like you don't.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Friday, Feb 1, 2008 at 4:16:01 PM

  (0+)

But I wouldn't describe myself as an activist. I don't eat, breathe and sleep the "movement" as you do. That's neither a compliment nor a criticism of your actions.

What I've run into is a wall of resistance stacked 30ft. high. I assume you've met the same on occasion. So naturally I'm pessimistic that the 9.11 Truth Movement will succeed. And I don't think assigning it the fake success of knocking Giuliani out of the race is helpful to the movement in any way. 

by Sam Adams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 6:20:11 PM

  (0+)

   I remember that's what they told the Civil Rights and the Anti War movements.  Thar we were being "abrasive", (that favorite liberal word) by picketing, not to mention sitting in and engaging in other forms of civil disobedience.  I started to say that we would present rational argument if the mass media would let our views through.  But the fact is that we HAVE presented rational arguments.   But if the only alternative to most people not hearing our views or even knowing we exist, is, in addition to the reasoned arguments and investigation you can see on many 9/11 truth web sites, is to be "loud," and "abrasive," and "strident."  Wasn't it Frederick Douglas who said something about wanting progress without agitation was like wanting crops without rain?"

Robert Halfhill   rhalfhill@juno.com

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 325 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 5:32:43 AM

  (0+)

Graeme McQueen has performed a thorough examination of the firefighter oral histories released to the NYTimes under a FOIA request. That analysis can be found here.

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

Within this paper is this very interesting exchange:

"We have, as a comparison case, the important warning relating to the Twin
Towers, made shortly before the collapse of the South Tower. I believe it is worth
reminding readers of this warning so I will quote FDNY Chief Peruggia’s account at length..."

“I was in a discussion with Mr. Rotanz and I believe it was a representative from the Department of Buildings, but I'm not sure. Some engineer type person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident that the building's stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse.

I grabbed EMT Zarrillo, I advised him of that information. I told him he was to proceed immediately to the command post where Chief Ganci was located…”

Q. “They felt that just the one building or both of them?”

A. “The information we got at that time was that they felt both buildings were
significantly damaged, but they felt that the north tower, which was the first one to be struck, was going to be in imminent danger of collapse. Looking up at it, you could see that, you could see through the smoke or whatever, that there was significant structural damage to the exterior of the building. Very noticeable. Now you know, again, this is not a scene where the thought of both buildings collapsing ever entered into my mind.

I was there in 1993, 14 minutes after the bomb went off. I operated some 16 hours at the building and with all the post-incident critiques and debriefings with various agencies. We were always told by everyone, the experts, that these buildings could withstand direct hits from airplanes. That's the way they were designed. They went through all of this architectural stuff, way beyond the scope of my knowledge.

It was hit by an airplane. That's okay. It's made to be hit by an airplane. I mean I think everyone may have believed that. We were all told years ago it was made to be hit by an airplane.”

"When Zarrillo carried Peruggia’s startling news of imminent collapse to Chief
Ganci, Ganci’s response was, “who the f**k told you that?” [14] Ganci had bet the lives of his firefighters on the stability of the Towers. In fact, the lives of hundreds of firefighters had been wagered on the experience of fire chiefs who never suspected collapse. Ganci had almost certainly been told, like Peruggia and others in the FDNY (see Appendix E), that planes could not cause the Towers to collapse. Ganci is dead—he died in the collapse of the North Tower—but his question remains a good one: Who told you that?"

Some "engineering type" was going around telling people less than an hour into the event the buildings were in imminent danger of collapse? HUH? How did they know that?

Whether the truth movement can claim responsibility, perhaps some. Any pressure on the candidate that gets picked up in media certainly helps. BraveNewFilms and the firefighter's union members that dogged him can take some credit likewise. The Village Voice was very critical. But his scandals, and everyone who kept bringing them up, is also responsible for his welcomed departure.

by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Feb 1, 2008 at 9:19:50 AM

  (0+)

For the best overview of why we need to know the answer to that question, is found in a free online 90 minute documentary called "9/11 Mysteries"

You'll find a link to it at www.TheShellGame.net under the "911 Links" and you'll see it right at the top of the links page.

Urge all you know to view this important documentary.  That documentary is enough for a criminal investigation to begin, and it won't lead to some cave in Afghanistan.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Friday, Feb 1, 2008 at 10:06:52 AM

  (0+)

Have seen it, and second your recommendation.

by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Feb 1, 2008 at 12:37:52 PM

  (0+)

Votes rigged or not doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is that his paymasters did indeed pull the plug on him because he was not an asset anymore even though he had been promised the high office from the day Ground Zero. Why , because there was no way he could survive as president absent a totalitarian state. People knew too much about his lies and his participation in the crime, thanks to 9/11 Truth Revolution.  

by ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 793 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Feb 1, 2008 at 4:47:26 PM

  (0+)

"NO STEEL REINFORCED SKYSCRAPER HAD EVERY COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE IN THE HISTORY OF ENGINEERING."

Perhaps not, but then again I doubt there's ever been a case of a building with this particular type of transfer-truss construction being 1) hit with tons of debris in a key structural area 2) left to burn uncontrolled for several hours.  So by what possible logic can you make that statement?

"ON 9/11/2001 WTC 1, 2, AND 7 MADE ENGINEERING HISTORY.  WTC 7 had not even been hit by a plane and had relatively small fires.  There is NO REASON for it too collapse, so WHY/WHO knew it would?"

No, by many first hand eye-witness accounts, the building was fully involved in fire for several hours.  True, a plane didn't hit it, but again by many first-hand eye-witness accounts, there was substantial damage done to the south face.  Enough in fact that at least two elevator cars around the 8th floor were ejected from their shafts and landed in the lobby to the north.   You also completely ignore the unusual, and probably unadvised construction of the lower support area.

"Al, just watch Richard Gage's presentation at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth (ae911truth.org) just once . . . please."

By what possible logic should we rely on an agenda-driven money-grubbing  architect with no real experience in large building design, who does not have access to the same testimony, documentation and other evidence that NIST does?

"it is not normal to rapidly ship forensic evidence of perhaps the worst crime in American history out to be destroyed.  HOW DO I KNOW?

Fire Engineering Magazine, the premiere forensic investigation magazine, for fire investigators in America's editor cried foul and demanded that the evidence of the WTC buildings NOT BE DESTROYED UNTIL A FULL FORENSICS INVESTIGATION COULD OCCUR."

Like I said before, the fact that they may have mistakenly or too hastily let material escape their scrutiny does not necessarily mean that they were trying to cover up a secret demolition.   You're not thinking logically. 

Actually, you may be partially right.  What the FE guy (Bill Manning) was trying to say is that he suspected (at least in the case of the towers) that perhaps there was some effort to hide the fact that inadequate fireproofing was used on the steel.  He theorized that this, along with the content fires, was responsible for the collapses.  Manning did not in any way suspect what the truthers do, but something that actually makes some sense.  If this was true, I'm guessing it had more to do with the Port Authority than it did the Mayor, but again, just guessing.  You guys waste so much time on silly stuff like "controlled demolition" that there's no time or interest in investigating things that may actually warrant it.

You really need to do, or redo your homework on this 9/11 stuff.  And perhaps take a course in logic!  ;-)

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 858 comments) on Friday, Feb 1, 2008 at 7:52:47 PM

  (0+)

Folks, Al lied and mislead so many times above, this is a joke.

Al would have you believe that WTC 7 was sooooo badly damaged by debris, why  . . . is just had to fall.   That's BS.

There were several other WTC complex building horribly crushed by debris from the WTC 1 & 2, that burned and burned, and none fell.

But, WTC 7 with the CIA and FBI and other offices which held Enron records, etc. etc. . . . that was barely damaged by debris, and had small isolated fires . . . just had to fall . . .

Folks Al's lying to you, or to himself, but the effect is the same.  Go to AE911Truth.org and watch Richard Gage's presentation.

Richard Gage is a professional design engineer who has designed large buildings.  Why would Al lie to you about that?

Go to ae911Truth.org and you'll know we've been lied to about 9/11.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Friday, Feb 1, 2008 at 9:56:10 PM

  (0+)

Phycisist Stephen Jones proved all 3 buildings were brought down by controlled demolition using physical evidence. Using circumstantial evidence, these findings were confirmed by the stalling of the investigation, the stacking of insiders withing the investigators, and the refusal of Bush & Cheney to testify under oath (AND NO NOTE TAKING EITHER). More confirmation of Stephen Jones's findings are evident in all the ommissions of the final 9/11 Commission Report. It's not brain surgery to figure this one out. The most criminal regime in world history only had to kill 3,000 Americans to get support to go to the Middle East and kill hundreds of thousands more. Only those who embrace life see it this way. Those who support the murdering establishment are unable to...see at all...

As for Guiliani, of course he was another manufactured hero of 9/11 (like the manufactured crew aboard flight 93-I'm sure you all saw the movie). Oh, and did I mention OBL denied responsibility? What's up with that? I thought terrorists couldn't wait to take responsibility for these attacks, it helps recruiting. The next 9/11?  Who knows. It could be an attack on the very building you or your loved ones just happen to be in...getting registered...to vote...

by Mark Watterson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 207 comments [133 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 10:04:08 AM

  (0+)

"Folks, Al lied and mislead so many times above, this is a joke."

No, I don't think I lied, or mislead, but it's telling that you would reach for the "he's lying" card  and not some kind of proof of what you claim.

"Al would have you believe that WTC 7 was sooooo badly damaged by debris, why  . . . is just had to fall.   That's BS."

 
Firefighters:
 

Boyle: ... "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."
 
"I had a clear view down Washington Street of Building Seven, which was on the north edge of the site. All forty-seven stories were on fire. It was wild. The MPs said the building was going to collapse. I said, "Nah, I don't know." And then all of a sudden I watched the building shake like an earthquake hit it, and the building came down." (Nine Months at Ground Zero by Glenn Stout, Charles Vitchers, and Robert Gray Scribner, 2006. p. 15-16)

 
There are dozens more similar accounts, as you should be aware.  So unless you can produce a quote such as: "The building didn't look at all damaged, and there were only a few small fires.  I heard a series of what sounded like demolition charges going off, and then the building fell down." ...... by what logic or evidence can you possibly say: "that's BS"?

"There were several other WTC complex building horribly crushed by debris from the WTC 1 & 2, that burned and burned, and none fell."

 Maybe not in the same way as WTC7, but they were in very different positions, of different design, received different amounts/intensities of debris from different directions, and were of different heights. WTC 3 was only 22 stories.  Perhaps it didn't collapse in the exact same way as WTC7, (is there some law that says that all buildings in a given area must collapse in the same way?) but it was SPLIT IN HALF by the falling debris.  At least WTC7 survived for a few hours.   WTC 4&5 were only 9 stories.  WTC6 was only 7 stories.  All were gravely damaged in different ways, in keeping with the differences in their respective situations.

How in the name of common sense can you take all these situational differences, pretend they're somehow all on par wlth one another, and extend them to make any kind of reliable conclusions about how WTC7 should have behaved?

"But, WTC 7 with the CIA and FBI and other offices which held Enron records, etc. etc. . . . that was barely damaged by debris, and had small isolated fires . . . just had to fall . . ."

 
I won't stoop down to your level and accuse you of lying, but I will have to conclude that you are grossly mis/uninformed.  Again, there are numerous authoritative reports of SUBSTANTIAL damage and PERVASIVE fire.  Somehow, it's imagined that the best way to destroy Enron records was to destroy an entire building.  Never a thought to the possibility that records could still be recovered anyway, (after all, there was very little fire, right?) or whether or not this was the only place where "Enron records" were stored. 

"Tell ya what guys, while we're hiring these guys to fly these planes precisely where we've got our explosives planted to take down the WTC towers, how bout we use it as a distraction to also do something about those pesky Enron records in 7?" 

What a leap.  You guys should step in for the writer's strike.

"Richard Gage is a professional design engineer who has designed large buildings.  Why would Al lie to you about that?"

Do you or Gage have anything to add to this biography?  If so, please post it here or there.

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 858 comments) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 11:54:02 PM

  (0+)

Previous Next | Back to Messages   It is flabergasting how you could speak of stooping to Bill Douglas' level after all the evidence he did give and how you can be so IMPERVIOUS to that evidence AS IF YOU HAVEN'T EVEN READ IT.  However, here is some additional evidence from the May 1, 2002  hearing  of the House Committee on Science.  This is part of an email I sent but my comments about the hearing take ou most of the email.  Since the House Committee on Science is an official body of the U.S. government (legislative branch), it is in no way sympathetic to the views of 9/11 truthers.  Yet this information came through regardless. Robert Halfhill    rhalfhill@juno.com
From : "rhalfhill@juno.com" <rhalfhill@juno.com>      To : rhalfhill@juno.com Subject : THREE EXPERTS TESTIFY BEFORE MAY 1, 2002 HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE HE ARING THAT NO PROTECTED STEEL FRAMED BUILDING HAD EVER BEFORE COLLAPSE D SOLELY BECAUSE OF FIRE Date : Sat, Dec 22, 2007 12:28 AM
Move message to... InboxTrashJesseMortenson [ Printable Version ]    Click here to display images in this message or edit your settings for all messages. External Images and objects in this message have been blocked. What's this?       I have become involved in an email debate about 9/11 with someone after I posted my article, "Too Many Suspicious Anomalies About 9/11" on the Atheists For Human Rights meetup. I sent this letter to him after he emailed me the record of the May 1, 2002 House Committee On Science hearing and all three of the experts who testified admitted that fire alone has NEVER caused a protected steel framed building to collapse. Although he said my arguments were weak and asked "why?" after I wrote that I had not yet read all the documents he emailed -- emails that require hours and hours to read through with links to still more documents -- I doubt he has read through all the documents he emailed me, since he apparently sent them without realizing that the three experts who testified before the House Committe admitted that no protected steel framed building had ever before collapsed solely because of fire. After I have read through the tsunami of documents he emailed and evaluated them by consulting still more documents, I will inform you of the results of my research. Robert Halfhill Tom: Flight AA77, which struck the Pentagon, made a 170 degree turn while simultaneously descending 7000 feet to send up flying only a few feet above the lawn as it flew into the Pentagon. Not only would a pilot with only a few hours of training on a simulator have been unable to perform this maneuver but even military top gun pilots say they would be unable to perform this maneuver. In fact, skilled pilots have said no civilian aircraft would have been able to do this. Three of the experts who testified before the House Committee On Science May 1, 2002 Hearing On the Collapse of the World Trade Center, experts whose testimony I read in the document you sent me, said the there had NEVER BEFORE been a collapse of a protected, steel framed building because of fire. Dr. W. Gene Corley, American Society of Civil Engineers and Chair of the Building Performance Assesment Team reviewing the WTC disaster said on page 76 of the hearing record that "prior to these events, no protected steel frame structure, the most common form of large commercial construction in the United States, has ever experienced a fire-induced collapse." Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology said on page 103, "The Twin Towers and WTC 7 are the only known cases of total structural collapse where fire played a significant role." So we have here an admission by a spokesperson for NIST that allegedly accounted for the collapses that fire had never before brought about such a collapse of a protected, steel framed building. And Dr. Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Safety Studies at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute said of page 133, "Up until 9/11, we never had a collapse of a protected steel building." On page 163 he said, "This was the first time we had the collapse of a protected steel structure." Dr. Bement said on page 169, "... there have been instances where buildings have had major fires that have burned to completion without the buildings collapsing." And on page 172, Dr. Barnett said of the partial collapse of WTC 5, "But building 5 was a normal building and it had a fire and it had a major collapse. This has never happened before." I subscribe to SCIENCE NEWS and the August 25, 2007 issue had an article about the collapse of the World Trade Center on pages 122 - 24 entitled FIRE INSIDE: STRUCTURAL DESIGN WITH FIRE SAFETY IN MIND by Carolyn Berry. The paragraph in the first column on page 124 is particularly significant in evaluating the NIST computer simulation of the collapse of WTC 7: "The NIST simulation, like all models of building failures to date, couldn't follow the 9/11 collapses through to the end. No computer is yet powerful enough to follow the chaotic sequence of events that ensues when components break apart and a building falls, but this is where research is headed." In other words, the much vaunted NIST simulation which purported to dispose of the arguments of we conspiracy theorists didn't actually demonstrate how fire caused the buildings to collapse; they just waved their hands when the computing power currently available had took them as far as it could and said: "This is far enough; the buildings collapsed somewhere about here." Of course we all know we have accounted for how the buildings probably collapsed once we have gone this far. It HAS to be the probable explanation because the only alternative explanation is those NUTTY, WACKO CONSPIRACY THEORIES! We know a priori that that CAN'T be true! I might as well add the statement of Allen Hay, chief fire safety officer of the New York City Fire Department, about WTC 7. "We just expected it to burn out -- we didn't expect it to fall down." "It's the only building I know in New York City to ever collapse (strictly) from fire." But I want to return to the repeated Congressional testimony that a protected, steel framed building have NEVER BEFORE collapsed because of fire. And never afterwards either. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, we have a purported fact about the behavior of protected, steel framed buildings in fire that dare not be true again! You say that 9/11 was the first time a protected, steel framed building had had an airplane crash into it and knock the asbestos insulation off its steel girders. Actually smaller planes have struck skyscrapers. It happened to the Empire State Building in 1929 and 1942. But this may well be the first time a 757 has crashed into a skyscraper. However protected, steel framed buildings have caught fire in earthquakes and earthquakes can shake asbestos insulation loose better than a 757 can. The effect of a 757 on a building is minuscule compared to the effect of an earthquake. But we know that if the buildings weren't toppled by the earthquakes, the fires never caused them to collapse. We know this because of the repeated and reiterated testimony before the Congressional Committee that NO protected, steel framed building prior to 9/11 had EVER collapsed solely because of fire. Once again, NIST has given us an assertion about the behavior of steel framed buildings in fire that dare not ever be true again! I have not yet had the time to check all the claims in the extensive material you emailed me. But as for the claim that the molten metal at the bottom of the wreckage of the World Trade Center could have been molten aluminum, molten aluminum has a silvery color. The molten metal that spilled down the sides of the World Trade Center had a bright yellow color, indicative of molten steel at a much higher temperature. Some portions of it glowed white hot because of an even higher temperature. You are no doubt aware of the pressure the Bush Administration put on officials to report the results they wanted to hear. Generals in Iraq kept being replaced until they not only reported that they could be successful but sucessful with the number of troops the Bush Administration allocated. The Bush Admistration kept demanding intelligence that there were weapons of mass desruction in Iraq until they got it. So it is not surprising that those federal employees in NIST produced the results Bush wanted. Nist is part of the Department of Commerce whose head is a member of Bush's cabinet. Philip Zelikow, who ran the 9/11 Commission hearings was a member of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and as such part of Bush's inner circle. So when you juxtapose the enormous number of experts cited in the NIST report against the few I cite, you are not citing a vast number of independent experts but a vast number of federal employees whose livelihood depended on remaining in the good graces of an administration known for not demanding the facts but the assertions of facts they wanted. Finally, a number of people have rejected the controlled demolition theory of 9/11 on the grounds that there is no way they could have planted all the explosives without being caught. But the crucial consideration is that there is no way the World Trade Center buildings could have collapsed on their footprint without being brought down by a controlled demolition. That is the only way of bringing buildings down without either demolishing it brick by brick and girder by girder or knocking them all over their surroundings. Since we know the buildings were brought down by controlld demolitions, our task is to figure out how they planted the explosives without being caught instead of arguing that they couldn't have brought the building down by controlled demolition because they couldn't have preplanted the explosives without being caught. An analogy might be a person in the 1940's who believed it was impossible to make an atomic bomb. If that person had been in Hiroshima on July 6, 1945, they would know it was possible to construct an atomic bomb even if they still didn't know how to do it themself. Robert Halfhill http://halfhillviews.greatnow.com (SITE NOW BANNED ON AOL) *Write AOL to complain, here: aolaccessibility@aol.com, or call 1-888-212-5537. http://RedLavenderInsurgent.blogspot.com ___________________

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 325 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 6:28:01 AM

  (0+)

Folks who go on and on about no steel building collapsing due to fire really kill me.

I'll tell ya what.  Find me in history an instance of another quarter mile high structure, like WTC2.  It has to be of the "tube in tube" design, with long floor trusses, the bane of firefighters everywhere, connecting the inside tube to the outside tube, like WTC2.  

Now here's the tricky part.  It needs to have been hit by a Boeing 767 airliner with nearly full fuel tanks traveling at top or near top speed, approximately 2/3 the way up from the ground, like WTC2.

Additional requirements that should automatically be fulfilled by this event are: 1) severe damage to a number of exterior and interior columns 2) the fireproofing on remaining columns and floor trusses in the area knocked off  3) the sprinkler system severed and rendered inoperable 4) a nearly instantaneous several-floor-wide fire initiated by jet fuel accelerant and feeding on tons of building contents including hot burning plastics and other synthetics.  All this, very much like WTC2.

Now, if you can show me this building somewhere in history meeting these specifications, and it didn't collapse, I'll certainly grant your point.  But if not, your point is simply pointless and illogical.  

But wait.  I just realized there IS another qualifying building.  It just happens that it was located within baseball throwing distance of our subject WTC2, but why should that matter?  It's a completely separate structure.  

You may have guessed it by now.  Yes, it's WTC1.  Identical to WTC2, and influenced by roughly the same forces in roughly the same spot.  It also collapsed, and in roughly the same fashion. 

All this time wasted scouring the history books, (and even then not realizing that you needed to be looking for much more than just fire) when what you needed was right there staring you in the face.  It was all over the news on and beyond 9/11/01, and you flat missed it.  

WTC1, collapsing shortly after WTC2, was in fact an amazing and spectacular confirmation that indeed, this particular style of building beset by this particular set of circumstances will indeed collapse in this particular fashion.   

I hope this is not too much logic at one time for you, Robert, and I would also hope you might consider starting a new paragraph once in a while. ;-)

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 858 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 12:04:02 PM

  (0+)

   You people just won't quit coming up with alternative hypotheses to explain away  the historical and scientific knowledge that fire has NEVER caused a protected, steel framed building to collapse.  You cite the fact that World Trade Centers 1 and 2 were the talest buildings ever struck by an airplane, ignoring the fact that the World Trade Centers were DESIGNED by PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTS to withstand being struck by a 747!  Despite the fact that no protected, steel framed building had EVER collapsed because of fire, the architects JUST HAPPENED to have hit on the concatenation of factors that made WTC 1 and 2 vulnerable to collapse fron being hit by a large passenger plane, thus providing us with TWO UNPRECEDENTED EXAMPLES in ONE DAY of protected steel framed buildings collapsing from fire.  But not to worry though; we have yet another instance of a protected steel framed building collapsing from fire that same day.  WTC 7, which was NOT  struuck by a plane, and at a mere 47 stories was not unprecedentedly tall, was the THIRD instance of a protected, steel framed building collapsing from fire that VERY SAME DAY!

   Indeed, to again paraphrase Oscar Wilde, the government has given us an allegation about 9/11 and WTC 1, 2, and 7 that we dare not allege again for. protected, steel framed buildings in fire.  The government's tale about 9/11 is taller than the WCT, if not Olympus Mons, and the only even remotely comparable example of a tall tale from the U.S. government was the precedent of the Supreme Court overriding the election and appointing George Bush in 2000, which the Court later specifically said was not a precent to be cited for future cases, thus giving us the precedent which dare not be cited again!

Robert Halfhill   rhalfhill@juno.com

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 325 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 1:08:57 PM

  (0+)

Your political and ideological motivations for clinging to these fairy tales are all too transparent, Robert.  

Your ramblings are nothing more than an exercise in creative writing.  There's nothing resembling common sense or logic in any sentence.

I hear Hollywood's looking for replacement writers.

Bill Clinton said it best so far to a truther idiot in the audience:

"We look like idiots, folks, denying, that the people who murdered our fellow citizens didn't do it when they are continuing to murder people all around the world" 

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 858 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 2:38:46 PM

  (0+)