9/11 Truth is the single most important issue in all our lives right now. Used as a pretext for the genocide in Iraq and Afghanistan, this event is also a turning point and a catalyst for the bigger plan to implement an elitist one world government  

Our soldiers are dying in these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan based upon this horrible lie. Not to mention over one million dead Iraqis, and the millions of displaced and shattered lives in both those countries. How about the current threats to start the next war with Iran - how much proof do you need?

rigged elections

repeal of Habeas Corpus

Patriot Act

Department of Homeland Criminals

legalized torture

Military Commissions Act

signing statements

criminalization of dissent

no fly lists

detention centers

How can this be happening? - it's happening because of the corruption which has overtaken the government. It's happening because the 5 corporations who control ALL of the mainstream media are owned by the same people who make the machinery and the bombs of war, it is in their financial interest to keep us in a state of perpetual conflict and confusion at the expense of our freedom, our rights as individuals, and any sense of dignity as human beings.

As long as we do not deal directly with this lie, we will continually be forced to play a part in all its subsequent crimes, and pay the ultimate price of our freedom because of willful ignorance or moral cowardice.

9/11 was carried out or assisted by elements within the US government

The war on terror is a hoax

Just Lies

Hatred

Fear

by CasaZaza (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 202 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 10:37:20 AM

  (0+)

9/11 Truth is the single most important issue in all our lives right now.

9/11 "truth" is little more than a cottage industry which is catered toward a market segment among a paranoid few who are possessed of an idiotically-conceited sense of their own self-importance.

It's known as the 9/11 "truth" movement for the same reason bald people are called "curly".

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:40:41 PM

  (0+)

That you can't see the pivotal importance of this false-flag operation is only a testament to your lack of reasoning ability, not to mention the morally bankrupt nature of your character.

by CasaZaza (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 202 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:56:33 PM

  (0+)

That you can't see the pivotal importance of this false-flag operation...

Oh, I see its pivotal importance, alright.

I just don't see the "false flag".

Kindly read my response to Stephen Demetriou regarding the notion of "limited" fires in WTC7. Refute that, if you can.

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:32:44 PM

  (0+)

In fact, neither governmental agency, NIST nor FEMA has been able to figure out how fires could have caused the collapse.

by David Watts (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 284 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:34:08 PM

  (0+)

You give no proof for your claims.  Merely saying something is not proof.

Robert Halfhill   rhalfhill@juno.com   RobertHalfhill@gmail.com

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 325 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 4:58:26 PM

  (0+)

The following is "virtual proof"  #9

9/11: How many virtual proofs does it take to turn on the 9/11 light bulb in people’s minds? A keep it simple approach.

9. WTC7, a steel-framed building collapsed on 9/11 even though it was not hit by an airplane. The 47 story tall building collapased in a perfectly symmetrical fashion on 9/11. In fact you can put a ruler on the screen as you view the collapse and it comes PERFECTLY STRAIGHT DOWN ON A LINE! The collapse exhibited every single characteristic of a controlled demolition; or perhaps better said, a finely produced implosion. And there was not a single characteristic of destruction by fire; much less asymmetrical fire or even asymmetrical damage. In fact, neither governmental agency, NIST nor FEMA has been able to figure out how fires could have caused the collapse. WTC7 was a TALL, NARROW, massively braced steel-framed building. For such a TALL, NARROW building to come down in such a precisely symmetrical fashion -- vs. falling off to the side -- and DIRECTLY into its own footprint at about the speed of a falling brick; common sense would say that would be impossible; unless of course, it had a lot of demolition help.


WTC7



There were even multiple reports of a countdown (as in 5..4..3..2..1.. explosions, collapse) heard over radios that ended with large explosions followed by the collapse. What does that tell you? That tells you they knew the exact second WTC7 was going to collapse. That can only mean they knew exactly what second they were going to “push the button” to start the controlled demolition. There are other factors easily researched that also show prior knowledge that WTC7 was about to come down.

Molten metal was observed below WTC7. That fact cannot be explained away other than in terms of a substance like thermite (evidence of which was found in the rubble) which melts metal like a scalding frying pan liquifies warm butter and is used in demolitions of steel-framed buildings.

Even Mr. Silverstein who had leased and insured all of the WTC buildings just weeks prior to 9/11 said later on PBS that he told them to “pull” (a demolition term) WTC7. An example of the use of this term happened just prior to demolishing WTC6 after 9/11: a worker in a hard hat can be seen and heard saying, “they’re gettin’ ready to pull buildin’ six.” Larry Silverstein subsequently collected several billions of dollars for his destroyed buildings.

Now put all of these things together -- there are more -- and see how contorted one’s reasoning would have to be to not understand WTC7 was a controlled demolition. The collapse of WTC7 alone virtually proves the Official Story to be a lie.

by David Watts (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 284 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:17:45 PM

  (0+)

You will likely find very soon, Gene, that the naysayers will say, the fires weren't limited. They will point out photos on websites, notably this one:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

that purports to show that the fires weren't limited, though I think it hardly does that. It shows smoke being pulled up the side of the building in the eddy created by the slight breeze coming from the opposite side of the building. Only a few windows are blown out, fire is not being disgorged from blown out windows on multiple floors, only a few as might be expected, the smoke is fairly dark and not particularly thick, more indicative of a smoldering fire than an extremely hot fire. When compared to photos such as:

click here, you have a better frame of reference to dispute the argument WTC7 had intense fires burning. There were no doubt fires burning, but the extent of those fires, which are implied to have brought the building down, in conjunction with the damage to one corner and some of the facade, is not indicated to have been extensive or intense.

The resulting straight-down, free fall collapse also in itself argues against fire and damage bringing WTC 7 down. The official investigations found evidence of intense heat in column and dust samples, however that evidence was highly localized. MIT's Thomas Eagar, and if I recall correctly, FEMA's Gene Corley, said the columns DID NOT melt due to the fires. Given this, deformation of the columns would not have been sudden but gradual. In all three building collapses one sees sudden initiation of movement as the collapse starts. As you rightly point out in 7, the penthouse buckles. Note also a demolition wave can be seen breaking out windows, and squibs appear at regular intervals along one side, not on every floor, but at an interval. The gradual deformation that would likely occur with heating steel columns argues very plausibly that the collapse would more likely be asymmetrical and directional, as opposed to a sudden, straight down failure. The fact that the buildings fell at the speed of gravity is conclusive that the entire supporting structures must have come apart nearly simultaneously in order for that to occur. An upper mass falling through the path of MOST resistance is a nonsensical explanation for a demolition occurring at the speed of gravity. 

Other videos of the two towers are very clear that the corner structures remain intact well after a horizontal demolition front moves past them, blowing out windows in a nearly horizontal pattern. A chaotic collapse would not likely produce such an effect, even if the upper mass could defy the structural integrity of the building below it and cause it to come apart at the speed of gravity. The most plausible explanation is that pre-positioned charges disintegrated the building out from under the upper mass. That WOULD produce a speed of gravity collapse, where as a collapse of one part through the structurally sound building below it is physically nonsensical, and so unlikely as to be thought impossible.

Combined with the several references that have become public in the last couple of years of explosions throughout the buildings, from the subbasements to the top most floors, and the references to "bringing the building (7) down..." controlled demolition is the most plausible explanation for the destruction of these buildings. The official story is indefensible and ridiculous. Those that do defend it are in the unenviable position of denying physical laws and common sense.  

Thanks for your posting.  

by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 10:40:06 AM

  (0+)

You will likely find very soon, Gene, that the naysayers will say, the fires weren't limited. They will point out photos on websites...

Photos on Web sites, numerous excerpts of testimony from first-responders who were there on the scene, and various video clips such as this one all indicate that WTC7 was heavily-damaged to the point that it had lost its structural integrity, that the building was fully-involved in fire, and that its collapse was deemed imminent, hence the eventual pulling of operations to a safe distance. In short, the notion that the fires were "limited" stands in contrast to an overwhelming number of reports from FDNY firefighters that WTC7 was "free-burning" and that nearly every floor was (or had been) ablaze during the time before its predicted collapse.

The fact that the buildings fell at the speed of gravity is conclusive that the entire supporting structures must have come apart nearly simultaneously in order for that to occur.

In fact, none of the buildings fell "at the speed of gravity". Such is not only a scientific impossibility, but is demonstrably false by way of a direct examination of the video evidence in which (at least in the case of the Twin Towers) the outer debris field can be seen far outpacing the collapse area on the way toward the ground.

The most plausible explanation is that pre-positioned charges disintegrated the building out from under the upper mass.

If such were the case, then why did we not hear the explosions of these "pre-positioned charges" immediately preceding the collapse initiation, as is the case with hundreds of clips featuring the controlled demolition of various structures which form the basis of our comparison to the Twin Towers' collapse?

Combined with the several references that have become public in the last couple of years of explosions throughout the buildings...

None of which speak of these "explosions" as having occurred immediately preceeding the collapse initiation, as is the case with the controlled demolitions we've come to know through video clips, whathaveyou.

As a matter of course there were various "explosions" heard throughout the buildings/area at various times throughout the morning. We're dealing with jet fuel. We're dealing with transformers. We're dealing with a variety of things which, when put into fire conditions, have a tendency to "explode" with a force loud enough to be heard and to which can be testified. But none of that necessarily points to deliberately planted charges, per se.

Far from it.

...and the references to "bringing the building (7) down..." controlled demolition is the most plausible explanation for the destruction of these buildings.

And what of the aforementioned testimony of the first responders (to which I referred earlier)? Does this not give us any indication as to the severity of the damage and fires of WTC7, thus giving rise to the probablility that, indeed, there exists a causal connection to the collapse of the building that followed?

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:24:57 PM

  (0+)

What did I tell you, Gene?

"Free burning...?" The interesting video you reference does not say this. What it does show is a man, presumably a firefighter, giving his opinion from a distance. NONE of the video that shows the collapse, from various angles, shows a building fully involved, or with "nearly every floor [that] was (or had been) ablaze..." What they DO show are intact window frames throughout the building and, at best, smoke, with the exception of a few rows of windows in a couple of places belching smoke and fire. Your analysis also completely ignores what one of the official investigations makes perfectly clear: FEMA: the hypothesis of fire bringing down the building is "of low probability."

Speed of gravity

The collapse of these buildings was as close to the same time it would take a bowling ball to fall the same distance as to be considered the "speed of gravity." You are correct to say it was not, with precision and accuracy, in strict scientific parlance, at the "speed of gravity," however to split this hair this finely is a red herring. The buildings collapsed with a speed that defies logic, not to mention the laws of conservation of momentum and energy. The upper masses of either building did not possess the energy to travel through the path of MOST resistance and completely collapse the buildings at the speed we witnessed. The angular momentum of the south tower's 13 floor mass, above the impact zone, was arrested as it spun off to one side by the disintegration of the building below it. If the structural integrity of the building below it was not compromised, and in a gravity-only collapse there is no reason to think it was not, that mass should have continued its spin and fallen off into the street below. It did not. The videos clearly show on the side away from the compression of floors great billows of dust exploding out, and then the mass STOPPING its twist to one side and falling straight down as the building below it was imploded.

"Why did we not hear the explosions...?"

We did, especially in the case of the south tower. Eyewitness accounts from the NYFD Oral Histories talk about explosions, and earthquake-like rumbles before the collapse initiated. Video also corroborates this. The Oral Histories also reveal explosions happening, pre-collapse initiation, on multiple floors. Rings of explosions in timed sequence, "pop, pop, pop..." up and down, and around the buildings. Many firefighters and first responders independently giving the exact same, or very similar accounts. People on the street, firefighters, workers, civilians, police give accounts of explosions within the buildings. Reporters on the street outside, with video and audio rolling, show signs and sounds of explosions in some cases, or report having experienced multiple, ground shaking explosions. Long distance video set ups record "camera shake" in concert with explosive events. Explosions in the sub-basements completely destroying a 50-ton press so that it is no longer existant does not occur from an exploding transformer in an area not exposed to jet fuel, enhanced kerosene. Additionally, the jet fuel was said in the official reports to have burned off within minutes of impact, with most being consumed in the fireballs outside the buildings.

118 eyewitness reports from the Oral Histories were carefully selected as indicating, clearly and directly, explosions, as opposed to cracking, banging, collapsing sounds. Burns and charred remains of those involved in lower building level explosions also argues against incidental "explosions" caused by jet fuel that came no where near the areas involved, such as the main lobby, about 1000 feet below the impact zone.

Furthermore, FEMA's discovery of eutectic sulfidation on steel column samples, along with Worcester Polytech's discovery of evaporated steel in the swiss cheese-like holes, with edges sharpened to razor sharpness, in steel samples, or USGS discovery of once-molten molybdenum microspheres in dust samples, or RJ Lee's discovery of vaporized lead, and alumino-silicates, are all indicative of temperatures that are not thermodynamically accountable to hydrocarbon fires or gravity collapses. Nor is the molten metal found in the basements of all three buildings. 

All of this disputes the nonsensical explanation given in the official account of what brought down these buildings.  

by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 2:04:43 PM

  (0+)

What did I tell you, Gene?

You indicated that we (i.e., the "naysayers") would be relying heavily upon photos like the one to which you linked.

I am not relying on such photos, so much as the first-responder testimony.

"Free burning...?" The interesting video you reference does not say this.

You are correct. That particular video does not. I was referring to the pages upon pages of testimony from first-responders in which phrases like "free-burning" and "fully-involved" were used in conjunction with the fires of WTC7.

Would you like me to post some of them?

FEMA: the hypothesis of fire bringing down the building is "of low probability."

In and of itself? Probably low. But nobody is saying it was the fires, per se, which brought down either the Towers or WTC7.

You are correct to say it was not, with precision and accuracy, in strict scientific parlance, at the "speed of gravity," however to split this hair this finely is a red herring.

No, actually it isn't. Not when we're talking about the speed at which the Towers fell in relation to the "speed of gravity". Your problem, I suspect, is that your thinking strictly in terms of time, which, arguably, is a closer variable.

Tell us, have you done any calculations as to what the "speed of gravity" would have been in relation to the speed at which the Towers actually collapsed... as to the distance that would have been covered by a free-falling object during the time difference between the two? I think you should give this a try before you go spouting off about these supposedly negligible differences in speed.

In any event, I think you ought cease the fast and loose treatment of the phrase, "speed of gravity".

We did [hear explosions], especially in the case of the south tower. Eyewitness accounts from the NYFD Oral Histories talk about explosions, and earthquake-like rumbles before the collapse initiated.

How soon before the collapse initiated? Immediately preceding (as in the numerous video clips of CD to which I alluded), or just at various times during the morning before the collapse. This is important.

Video also corroborates this.

Can you point me to a clip? Specifically, I want to see a video of the Towers/WTC7 in which we can very clearly make out a very loud series of bangs right before everything comes crashing down. Something along the lines of this.

...molten metal found in the basements of all three buildings.

Molten metal is not a by-product of Controlled Demolition. At least not of the "explosive" variety (or of any variety, really). So I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. On the one hand, you talk as if the collapse of the buildings has all of the earmarks of a classic CD (e.g., witness testimony as to "explosions", "pops", camera shakes, etc.), and then, at the same time, you talk of "molten metal", which, if true, is more indicative of a very intense fire.

In any event, your argument seems a bit confused.

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 3:12:44 PM

  (0+)

As Richard Gage points out, the collapse of WTC 7 actually accelerated on its way down. Plotting that next to a hypothetical free fall collapse show the curves to nearly match. The 6.5 sec descent was very, very close to free fall speed. Again, for that to happen, all of the support structure would have to fail nearly simultaneously.

by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 3:20:49 PM

  (0+)

Both are relevant as both you and I have referred to photos and written histories. In the case of 7, many videos, regardless of what was seen from the ground around the building, do not show a building fully involved. Photos do show some fires, but not a building fully involved as the Windsor fire I reference above, or of photos of WTC 4, 5, and 6. 

And in the worthy analysis of the Oral Histories by Graeme McQueen, especially this one:

click here is a pdf) it is quite clear that many firefighters that were aware that building 7 was coming down well before it did, derived their opinion from being told that by those above them, not actual personal knowledge. This being the case, I have to, in this case rely heavily on what my own eyes see in the videos... a building not burning on all floors.

FEMA, I have to assume, knew about the damage AND the fires when making this statement.

Computation:

I trust this Pro. of Mathematics abilities, not to say I can't plug in the numbers myself, and then "spout off."

click here a pdf).

Explosions:

There are Oral History accounts of explosions both well prior to initiation of collapse, as well as, immediately before. The film 911Mysteries utilizes a clip, which I cannot find presently, that shows in corroboration with the oral histories a large explosive crack and rumble and then the building fails. 

Molten metal vs explosives:

Molten metal is consistent with thermite, or a thermate-variant, as both produce molten iron, and are used a cutter devices to weaken or sever columns. Evidence of explosives are further found in photos of column ends in which steel flanges are bent outward, suggesting the force of the explosive pushed the column bending the flange prior to completely dislodging it.

It is entirely plausible both types of devices would be used, probably in excess to assure the job is complete, to bring down the buildings. 

by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 3:49:52 PM

  (0+)

By the way, none of the links you've posted up to now work... 

In the case of 7, many videos, regardless of what was seen from the ground around the building, do not show a building fully involved.

So. YOU. Say.

I would sooner trust the informed opinion of the guys who were actually there as to whether or not (or to whatever extent) the building was fully-involved in fire, than your armchair assessment of a few photos. So, too, I think, would any serious investigators into this matter.

...it is quite clear that many firefighters that were aware that building 7 was coming down well before it did, derived their opinion from being told that by those above them, not actual personal knowledge.

Even if this were true, so what? Show me the testimony of firefighters who disagreed with their higher-ups as to the condition of Seven and the notion that collapse was imminent. In any event, there are plenty who testified as to the damage/fires to which they were, personally, an eyewitness.

This being the case, I have to, in this case rely heavily on what my own eyes see in the videos... a building not burning on all floors.

In other words, you're implying that, on the basis of your personal assessment of a few photos/videos, there are members of the FDNY who were lying about the condition of WTC7. Nice.

So on which planet do you think that your personal opinion along these lines would trump the testimony of the firefighters who were there? Just wondering.

I trust this Pro. of Mathematics abilities...

One doesn't have to be a professor to run the calculations of which I speak. It's all fairly high-school stuff.

I take it, then, that your answer to my earlier question is in the negative?

The film 911Mysteries utilizes a clip...

Isn't this the same video which in which it was discovered that different sounds had been dubbed in?

Hmm.

It is entirely plausible both types of devices would be used, probably in excess to assure the job is complete, to bring down the buildings.

In how much "excess", exactly? How many pounds of thermite would it take in conjunction with how many pounds of explosives? Is there a precedent of this type of combination CD to which you can point, or is this all wild and unsupported speculation on your part?

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 4:56:14 PM

  (0+)

I've noticed on OpEdNews sometimes the embedded links get a little something added onto the end of the URL. Look at the URL when they appear at the top of the page. If something is added, simply remove the extra bit. For instance, the mathematics prof link should end in .pdf. If it doesn't, remove whatever is after it. That should work. 

by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 5:18:19 PM

  (0+)

No need to be insulting. I take the firefighter's words very seriously. But the great majority of clips I have seen of WTC 7 collapsing do not show a building fully engulfed in flames, as you imply (without, I might add, supplying the links and testimony you rest your argument on.) The firefighters are experts in what they do, but it is also true that the angles which are seen in numerous videos show more of the building than someone on the ground in close proximity to the building would be able to see. And, again, those videos DO NOT show a building with raging fires engulfing much of the building. The "Myths" site show some good fire images, but even those do not show a fully involved building. My point about the firefighters is, their opinions, like anyone's, can be influenced by authority figures. The notion for many of the firefighters that collapse was imminent was not necessarily their own judgement. They derived it from others. So, it is quite logical to think, especially when the bulk of videos and photos showing the collapse of 7 do not show a building completely, or even close to completely, on fire, that there is more to the stories you are presenting, saying the building was or had been on fire "on nearly every floor" as you put it. Especially if I can't see the references you make your argument on. 

I am not trying to be argumentative, just putting out there what is clearly visible in most of the videos and photos that are available of WTC 7. I think you do need to present some visual evidence to the contrary. I am not saying any of the firefighters are deliberately lying, though it is certainly possible some might. I am saying they are not necessarily in the best position to make a judgement, or are free of influence by authority figures. 

Computation (in case you can't get that link to work):

1/2(V*V) = gh = 32 * 576 (height of WTC 7) resolves to v = 192. 576/(192/2) = 6 seconds.

As stated above, Richard Gage shows the building collapsed in about 6.5 s. That is not much in dispute. Gage showed the building accelerated as it fell, something it would not do if the floors were pancaking and meeting resistance with each successive floor.

I have heard that accusation about the Mysteries film. I have yet to see credible proof of the accusation. I will try to dig up another clip I have in mind of a reporter on the street below in which the crack and rumble is audible. I may not get to it tonight though. Check back tomorrow.

Excess...? precedent...? These events are quite unprecedented. My bet would be they used more than necessary to assure the job gets completed. It is not me who is doing the wild speculation saying these buildings collapsed at free fall speed, contrary to physics and common sense.

by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 5:50:00 PM

  (0+)

...the great majority of clips I have seen of WTC 7 collapsing do not show a building fully engulfed in flames...

If you've seen the same clips I've seen, then we're only seeing one side of the building. From a distance.

In any event, "fully-involved" doesn't necessarily mean flames simultaneously shooting out of every available window.

My point about the firefighters is, their opinions, like anyone's, can be influenced by authority figures.

Authority figures who, in these cases that we're talking about, happen to be other FDNY firefighters. I'm not sure I get where you're going with this, if not to imply that there are some within the FDNY who lied as to WTC7s condition. And although you're not coming right out and saying this, I don't see where you've left any wiggle room here. 

The notion for many of the firefighters that collapse was imminent was not necessarily their own judgement. They derived it from others.

In some cases yes, in other cases no (i.e., in other cases, they were speaking as to their own personal assessment of the building). In any event, nearly all of the testimony as to Seven's fires/damage/imminent collapse comes from (or is said by other firefighters to have come from) firefighters of the FDNY.

Once again, I don't see where you're going. On the one hand, you say that you take the firefighter's words "very seriously", but then you refuse to do so in instances where the notion happens to have been "derived" from firefighters by other firefighters. My point is that, any way you slice this, it's the firefighters' informed opinion against your personal assessment of a few photos. Is there even any contest here at all?

But don't take my word for it.

Here is a collection of sources as to the damage.

Here is a collection of sources as to the fires.

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 6:59:51 PM

  (0+)

Good quotes in that links. Really. I have not seen some of these particular reports and they are very interesting.

Graeme McQueen’s paper is here. It is worth a good reading.

He notes that Deputy Chief Hayden in an article in Firehouse Magazine, in which Capt. Boyle also makes comments, and who is included in your collection, made a collapse prediction around 2 in the afternoon. The building held up for another three hours. And then collapsed straight down, in 6.5 seconds, near free fall speed, exhibiting many, if not all, of the signs of a classic controlled demolition: sudden crimp in the roof, demolition wave rippling through and breaking windows, squibs, bottom up implosion, billowing pyroclastic dust clouds.

And then, again, there is FEMA’s statement, which either was made with the statements regarding fire and damage in mind, or else was an unsupported assumption and their analysis that fire and damage as the cause of collapse was not of “low probability,” which they said it was and warranted more investigation.

NIST has yet to weigh in, and when it does will include an analysis that only entails floors 8 through 40 something. I guess they have their reasons for limiting the scope of the investigation, which is already late.

The 9/11 Commission said nothing about it.

 It remains a mystery why 7 collapsed. Seven years on. 

by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 9:41:19 PM

  (0+)

Graeme McQueen's paper is here. It is worth a good reading.

It's interesting the extent to which it's an Olympic-caliber, acrobatic excercise in hair-splitting (nit-picking, whathaveyou).

What seems to be missing in all of it is any sense of incredulity expressed by any fireman at the time that a "steel-framed" building could have collapsed given the fire/damage that WTC7 had reportedly sustained. To listen to 9/11 truthers, one would think that there'd be no reason whatsoever to pull any of the fire personnel back out of concern for building's collapse, because, after all, this sort of thing just doesn't happen.

And yet, we have the vast bulk of FDNY firefighters following such orders with little or no question - expressed then or now.

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:38:17 AM

  (0+)

WTC7 was a TALL, NARROW, massively braced steel-framed building. For such a TALL, NARROW building to come down in such a precisely symmetrical fashion -- vs. falling off to the side -- and DIRECTLY into its own footprint at about the speed of a falling brick; common sense would say that would be impossible; unless of course, it had a lot of demolition help.

by David Watts (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 284 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:39:30 PM

  (0+)

Mr. Demetriou, this is an old battlefield you're fighting upon once again.   The Second Battle of Bull Run (Manassas to those of Southern persuasion) perhaps?

The actual collapse time, when you factor in the East Penthouse Kink, brings the total to about 15 seconds.  Mr. Gage, who is an architect and NOT an engineer, is out of his depth and into his conspiracy psychology.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 7:30:49 PM

  (0+)

I have always been partial to Little Round Top and Chamberlain's wild charge down the hillside. There is a local brewery that makes a nice beer with his name, and in his honor, I suppose.

by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 9:43:58 PM

  (0+)

The video tells it all Mr. Murphy. Each column taken out simultaneously as building seven begins it free-fall descent, as did both of the Trade Towers  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0&NR=1

And stop with your insipid critiquing of Mr. Gage. It's embarrassing! He is indeed an architect and one who happens to know a thing or two about steel Mr. Murphy, unlike yourself.  

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:05:35 AM

  (0+)

You bet there's a difference!

I'll point Mr. Gage's shortcomings one more time to you, München.  Mind you, this doesn't mean I'm attacking Mr. Gage personally; I'm sure he's a swell guy.  But I can question his engineering "expertise".  The differences between an architect and an engineer are:

"One thinks it up, the other builds it. One wears a monocle and turtleneck, the other a hardhat and steel-toe boots. One's an ‘artist', the other a ‘workman'." - http://www.arabianbusiness.com/515322-engineers-vs-architects . 

Mr. Gage is an artist, who has visions that "inspire" his creations.  "How the Towers Fell" is just another vision that requires an engineer to "make it happen".  I believe others supportive of Mr. Gage agree that ae911truth.org is a few CEUs short of structural engineers, "Indeed Gage’s organization does need more structural engineers. I’ve suggested to Richard Gage that he form a committee that would include, among other people, some of the structural engineers and high-rise architects who are already members of his organization," - http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/911-guide-page-about-richard-gage/ .

In fact, there're only five structural engineers (out of something like 66 engineers total) that have signed up as members at ae911truth.org - http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=ENG .  The great majority of these other engineers are civil and mechanical.  If you think all engineers are qualified equally to review a structural collapse, then I encourage you to visit an endicronolgist the next time you have a heart problem.  Both are MDs (or DOs), but there IS a difference.

Why, München, are there so few structural engineers supporting Mr. Gage's truth campaign?  If you can answer that question honestly, then you can view Mr. Gage and ae911truth.org in the correct light.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 11:43:36 AM

  (0+)

Molybdenum microspheres, vaporized lead, or iron, or alumino-silicates all require EXTREME temperatures to form. A plausible explanation is found in high tech explosives, as well in a thermite type reaction.

by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 3:54:28 PM

  (0+)

And another plausible answer is that the spheres were formed during the initial build of the towers when a huge volume of welding and cutting was occuring. 

Welding and cutting that generated metal fumes. 

Metal fumes that precipitated it's particulate content (dust) on the surrounding horizontal surfaces. 

Particulate content that was sealed with the perimeter and inner walls of the structures

Dust that was released following catastrophic failures of the structures themselves.

Dust that was mixed in with other collapse debris/dust in parts per million concentrations (i.e., milligrams per kilogram of debris).

Dust that was sampled several days/weeks post collapse and found to contain (as expected) a host of constituents - one of which was molybdenum.

Yeah... yeah - THIS is an inconsistency that USGS, EPA, or NIST fails to address adequately.  Chalk it into the conspiracy bin!

Gimme a break - yet again.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 12:30:50 PM

  (0+)

Photos on Web sites, numerous excerpts of testimony from first-responders who were there on the scene, and various video clips such as this one all indicate that WTC7 was heavily-damaged to the point that it had lost its structural integrity, that the building was fully-involved in fire, and that its collapse was deemed imminent, hence the eventual pulling of operations to a safe distance. In short, the notion that the fires were "limited" stands in contrast to an overwhelming number of reports from FDNY firefighters that WTC7 was "free-burning" and that nearly every floor was (or had been) ablaze during the time before its predicted collapse.

Bull$hit. Notwithstanding the hysterical anecdotes of a few excitable people, the fire was only documented as having been in parts of a few floors. And, as the FEMA engineering team concluded, there was simply not enough fuel load available on any of the lower floors to support a fire mediated collapse theory.

Face it, the eyewitness testimony was contradictory and unreliable. Most of the responders had been there all day and were obviously stressed and exhausted. They had already seen two buildings collapse (that obviously should not have collapsed), and the 9/11 conspirators had put out the word, early on, to people on scene, that WTC7 was coming down.

The FEMA team studying the collapse of WTC7 had access to all the eyewitness testimony, and they obviously gave it very little or no weight.

Moreover, where are all these excitable eyewitnesses today? Do they still stand behind what they said on 9/11? Apparently not, or we'd be hearing about it.

I hope that clears things up for you. 

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 7:28:37 PM

  (0+)

Bull$hit.

Good luck making this argument to anyone outside of the choir to whom you preach.

...where are all these excitable eyewitnesses today? Do they still stand behind what they said on 9/11? Apparently not, or we'd be hearing about it.

Ah, the reason we're not hearing from any of these "exitable eyewitnesses" today is because we don't have to. Their testimony is now a matter of record.

Since there will never ever be a re-investigation of 9/11, there's no reason to bother these people again.

In short, it's over.

The truth won.

9/11 "truth" lost.

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 10:48:32 PM

  (0+)

It ain't over with me till the day I die.

by tjb (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 255 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 5:58:42 AM

  (0+)

Echoes of a Charlton heston-like comment, tjb.  Perfect timing on your part to use his mannerisms.  Let us take a moment to honor this acting great's past performances.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:27:09 AM

  (0+)

The old stuff (i.e., the truth) still works. Always has...

LOL! You wouldn't know "truth", if someone shoved it up your ample a$$.

Bull$hit.

Good luck making this argument to anyone outside of the choir to whom you preach.

ROTFL! Well, look who's talkin'! Unlike you, genius, at least I have an argument; several arguments, in fact.

Here's one of them: If WTC7 had collapsed due to some "legitimate" cause, the FEMA study would have uncovered it. It didn't; rather, the FEMA study, in failing to cite a plausible collapse mechanism (involving fire and structural damage, as best these factors could be documented), proves that the collapse was the result of a controlled demolition, the only other possibility.

(By the way, since you're the one making the extraordinary claim wrt the collapse of WTC7, the burden is on you to provide the extraordinary evidence in support. And, no, a video of some stressed out, exhausted, propagandized-by-the-conspirators-forewarning, responder, saying that the building looked like it was going to fall down, hardly amounts to "evidence".

...where are all these excitable eyewitnesses today? Do they still stand behind what they said on 9/11? Apparently not, or we'd be hearing about it.

Ah, the reason we're not hearing from any of these "exitable eyewitnesses" today is because we don't have to. Their testimony is now a matter of record.

Yo, goofball, the "record" contains statements from different people reflecting contradictory viewpoints with regard to such issues as the damage suffered by WTC7. Thus it's reasonable to ask if the people making the wild claims on 09/11/2001, after having had time to calm down and reflect on their experiences, still support the statements they made at the time. And, unfortunately for the deluded statist fools like you, it appears that they don't.

Since there will never ever be a re-investigation of 9/11, there's no reason to bother these people again.

Or at least, that's what the murderous traitors and their accomplices (e.g. you) damn well hope.

In short, it's over.

Pick out the lamp post you want to hang from, chumpy, 'cause when the tide turns against you, as it one day will, that will end it for you.

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 5:47:31 PM

  (0+)

Pick out the lamp post you want to hang from, chumpy, 'cause when the tide turns against you, as it one day will, that will end it for you.

Hang me from a lamp post, huh.

Hmm. I bet you're a big visitor to this site.

And now, I think we're all done.

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Wednesday, Apr 9, 2008 at 9:04:34 AM

  (0+)

In fact, neither governmental agency, NIST nor FEMA has been able to figure out how fires could have caused the collapse.

And they have been studying this since 2002.

by David Watts (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 284 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:43:39 PM

  (0+)

It is getting to the point of ridiculousness that so many are aware that we were lied to comprehensively about 911 and still are being lied to.

What will it take to get our 'leaders' to reopen this investigation and let the truth be brought into the light? 

by Mikael Rudolph (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 79 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 11:11:19 AM

  (0+)

     What will it take to get our 'leaders' to reopen this investigation and let the truth be brought into the light?

      Let's see. JFK, RFK, MLK, (pres Garfield, Lincoln and Kennedy were all assassinated (all attempted to shut down central banking efforts to control the US money supplies.....coincidence?). Oklahoma City. 9/11. The investigation is completed. Done. It IS official. McVeigh alone, 19 guys, Oswald alone, Sirhan alone, James Earl Ray alone, etc etc etc....we bought it, and yet many of us still don't.

      Concerning a reopening of an investigation, it is folly to think our leaders would do anything of the sort. They are not our leaders. Our constitution IS just a goddamn piece of paper. The country we love and the lives we lead are being stolen with our permission.

      Many know something needs to be done. What? We are not sure, but damn it something. Many here see it. We've never been here before so we're not sure how to do it. We just know we must. Many do not believe this is actually happening. But each of us is responsible for this. At this moment, we who feel betrayed, we who have questions, we who are willing to accept responsiblilty, we who see the bigger picture, we must squeaky wheel our asses off. Any way we can. They are not listening. They are laughing. And, I believe, they are scared. They are nervous, because they know what we know.

     This is so NOT about the U.S. and IS about the U.S. In order to continue the move to global and regional control and exploitation of soverign nations the U.S. must be changed from an independent soverign dollar strong lender/creditor to just another dependent debtor. Devaluation and destruction of this independence is in direct conflict with the corporate controlled design and its continued growth and for its protection. A hungry and poor mass is much easier led to acceptance of corporate solutions that serve not the masses, but those who seek only to retain their dominance.

     History tells us there will be a melt down. A distrust between those who cling to the fantasy that we are still a functioning nation of laws of, for and by the people, and those who know we are not. It was played out countless times in history. Egypt, Rome, Greece, France, Russia, Germany, Argentina, Bolivia, Uragray, Brazil. The foundation is first cracked with the acceptance of an outside threat. Real or imagined, the results are the same.

     The war will be between the you's and the me's. The purpose is always to destabilize the confidence and then offer (by dictate) a solution to the madness created in the first place. After the civil war begins (with the military representing those who still buy the functioning government BS either in reality or simply to save their own asses...while putting away those who dare question it) slowly it will dawn on many that we've been had. Many will be disappeared. Slowly the words and the songs and the messages will spread. A movement will begin. Leaders will surface from unknown places representing the 'people'. Slowly, like a spoon on concrete, the movement will begin to break through. It will take a long time.

      This is what history teaches.

      I may be wrong on this, but my gut tells me we've got to go through it. It's just our time and our turn. All lazy people learn eventually.

      Our forefathers warned us. We are beginning to listen. It's gonna hurt.

      peace

by mikel paul (14 articles, 1 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 570 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:23:46 PM

  (0+)

Get behind the Week Of Truth and maybe we can bust through the media blockade and get an investigation.  Tell everyone.

 www.weekoftruth.org

by David Watts (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 284 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:21:27 PM

  (0+)

This is what's needed, but it'll never occur.

Tomorrow on CNN's Larry King Live, King will devote an entire hour with a panel of experts, including Richard Gage from AE911Truth David Ray Griffin, Kevin Ryan & Prof. Steven Jones, where they will discuss very compelling information regarding 9/11, including this damming video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0&NR=1

Larry King:  Stop the video for a moment! "Those were explosions I just heard!" Were they not explosions? What's going on here!

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:23:43 PM

  (0+)

I just watched this Italian made video, and it just reaffirms

that 9/11 was an inside job. Anyone who denies it is either willfully

stupid or working for the government. Building 7 was never hit!

Why would it collapse? It's just so obvious it's a controlled demolition just

like the other 2 buildings. 

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 1094 comments [65 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 2:56:33 PM

  (0+)

It does not matter how much fire there was... how many fires there were... or how long they burned.

To melt steel requires a PRESSURIZED a mixture of TWO gases - typically called "OXY-ACETYLENE" - which then must be applied in a precise manner for a significant amount of time...

An open burning flame from office equipment (paper, plastics, carpets) OR jet fuel, which is essentailly kerosene, will NEVER EVER reach the required temperature to melt steel. Not on THIS planet, anyway.

2. Steel will conduct the heat away from the site (percolation). PLEASE refer to the SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.

I repeat = refer to the SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.

ANY (every) farm boy KNOWS this!

Therefore, any discussion that fire was the reason WTC 7 fell, is pure unadulterated 100% BOVINE EXCRETA.

HINT: There are millions and millions of kerosene burning space heaters in use every damn day all over the world - IF the "fire theory" was true, ALL those heaters would have melted into puddles of melted steel long long ago. Have you never heated water for coffee in a steel pot on your gas stove? Did the pot melt? Save up ALL your fire theories and buy an effing clue!

by mrk * (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 311 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:42:22 PM

  (0+)

An open burning flame from office equipment (paper, plastics, carpets) OR jet fuel, which is essentailly kerosene, will NEVER EVER reach the required temperature to melt steel.

And no-one is saying that the fire, in and of itself, "melted" the steel of WTC7 to the point of structural failure. According to numerous reports from FDNY firefighters who were there on the scene, the building had also been severely damaged as a result of the Twin Towers' collapse. Undoubtedly, this too played a significant role in the WTC7's demise.

...any discussion that fire was the reason WTC 7 fell, is pure unadulterated 100% BOVINE EXCRETA.

That's good, because no-one is saying that fire, in and of itself, was the reason.

Did you have some sort of point you were attempting to make?

Have you never heated water for coffee in a steel pot on your gas stove? Did the pot melt?

No, but then again, I never pounded the sh*t out of one side of it with a hammer and then stacked a bunch of weight on top before heating it up with a blow torch for a long period of time.

Nor would I want to be situated anywhere near the coffee pot during such an experiment.

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 2:03:39 PM

  (0+)

as those who will NAZI

by mrk * (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 311 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 9:09:02 PM

  (0+)

"And no-one is saying that the fire, in and of itself, "melted" the steel of WTC7 to the point of structural failure. According to numerous reports from FDNY firefighters who were there on the scene, the building had also been severely damaged as a result of the Twin Towers' collapse. Undoubtedly, this too played a significant role in the WTC7's demise"

The damage was clearly on one side of the building, yet the undamaged sections fell at exactly the same speed as the damaged sections, symmetrically.  Thats impossible, any collapse could not have been a symmetrical.    As an engineer, I know enough physics and material science to say that what we saw on 9/11 was not possible without explosives.

When you investigate a crime, the people of interest are those who seek to cover up facts and removal of evidence before it can be investigated. 

The fact that WTC 7 was not  mentioned in the report suggests a cover up. 

 The fact that no pictures of the extent of this extensive damage were taken (unbelievable as we had police helicopters flying taking all kinds of pictures)  and disclosed suggest cover up. 

The fact that no investigation of the possibility that explosives were used, despite 3 steel buildings falling as they did for the first time ever suggests cover up (maybe Osama planted the bombs, the security company was partrly owned by Kuwaiti and Saudi Arabian investors).  Even David Addington a former CIA lawyer and close Cheney aid, was quoted in Cheneys biography as saying he thought the buildings were charged when he first saw the collapse. 

The debris was removed from the crime scene and sent to China and Korea without tests being done or an investigation being conducted and suggests a cover up by those who should have led the investigation.

The fact NIST has not yet issued a formal report on how the building collapsed, 6.6 years later,  suggests they can not explain it without destroying their reputations and becoming laughing stocks. We would want to know ASAP since it might be that changes need to be made to structural codes to address the weakness in this structure that allowed it to literally explode unlike any building not subject to controlled demolition.  Why the slow pace.  WTC 7 should have been a priority over WTC 1 and 2 since it housed some very sensitive government agencies, including the SEC which held records on investigations of companies like Enron and Worldcom.

And when it comes to first responders, why do you ignore those who heard explosions.  Why do you ignore those who reported molten steel, an impossibility without explosives.   If you want to listen to them, don't cherry pick.

People have their own reasons to want to deny the obvious, they work for government, want to score brownie points hoping to be protected when martial law comes, or are in denial since it would shatter the security of the illusion they call reality.

by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 601 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 12:53:12 AM

  (0+)

...the undamaged sections fell at exactly the same speed as the damaged sections, symmetrically.  Thats impossible, any collapse could not have been a symmetrical.

Sure it could. If there was insufficient lateral or rotational force with which to sustain a toppling of the upper section, then the only way the building would have fallen is straight down. If there was a sufficient amount of mass above the damaged section, its not out of the realm of possibility that there could have been asymmetrical damage resulting in a linear (i.e., straight-down) collapse of the structure. Such is what we saw on 9/11... with all three buildings.

As an engineer, I know enough physics and material science to say that what we saw on 9/11 was not possible without explosives.

Then I trust that you have worked out the precise calculations with which to back up your assertions.

The fact that WTC 7 was not  mentioned in the report suggests a cover up.

The 9/11 Commission was primarily interested in the why's and wherefores of the attack. Since WTC7 wasn't attacked, it wasn't covered in that report.

There is a NIST report in the works, however.

The fact that no pictures of the extent of this extensive damage were taken (unbelievable as we had police helicopters flying taking all kinds of pictures)  and disclosed suggest cover up.

Are you suggesting that the police were complicit in murder?

The debris was removed from the crime scene and sent to China and Korea without tests being done or an investigation being conducted and suggests a cover up by those who should have led the investigation.

I take it, then, that you are unfamiliar with Fresh Kills Landfill.

And when it comes to first responders, why do you ignore those who heard explosions.

I don't. I just make the distinction between these reports of "explosions" and the notion of explosives.

...molten steel, an impossibility without explosives.

Really? Since when? In how many controlled demolitions of structures has there ever been pools of "molten steel" with which the crew had to deal in their clean-up efforts?

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:12:54 AM

  (0+)

Building #7 is just the most obvious and easiest to understand of many distortions and omissions (Bldg. #7) of the 911 Report.  The list of distortions, spin and outright lies in the Report are: Half of the reported highjackers are reported to be living in Saudi Arabia today. Nothing on the ground in Pennsyvania but a small hole in the ground, (no bodies, no plane, just a hole. Norad just happened to be doing training exercises over Canada on that morning and had no planes  available for defense.  The hole in the Pentagon was not made by a large passenger jet, (too small), so if it don't fit you must acqit that argument. The head of security at the WTC complex was Bush's brother; and some weeks before 911, the buildings were shut down totally for an entire weekend and no one was allowed to go in, (supposedly for maintenance); first time ever. Trained pilots who have never flown those huge passenger jets have said it would be totally impossible for those hijackers (with very limited training) to have performed those manuevers.  The evidence was hurridly shipped off to China and India to be melted down.  The list just goes on and on.  More people are speaking out every day, including the former Prime Minister of Italy, who states its common knowledge in the European Intelligence Community, that 911 was an inside job. You can add to the list, The former head of German Defence, just recently Jesse Ventura, Matin Sheen, Rosie ODonnel, Willie Nelson, hundreds of scientists, engineers, former government and military officers. More are speaking up and demanding a new 911 investigation; and many more will follow. It's time to get the evidence out and start the prosecutions and trials.

by ronheri (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 256 comments [45 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 2:07:42 PM

  (0+)

9/11 was just that another false flag to gain control over the population in order to carry out a criminal act.

 Operation  " Northwood " was another planned flase flag as was the burning of the Reichstag, Bay of Tonkin .

 Contact the FBI and ask them if any hijackers were on board those 4 aircraft.

 I'm a retired Radio Engineer and I can assure you a cell phone could not communicate with a ground cell in 2001, if you don't believe put your phone inside a microwave oven and try to communicate with it, not only is it shielded from radio waves in a fuselage but the speed makes the interigation of a cell impossible. It's like trying to talk to a friend when he's standing still and your velocity is 500mph.

 Two sharp siesmic pulses were recorded in a lab in New York State which coincided exactly with the start of the free fall of each tower.

 The BBC reported prior to WT7 falling that it had fell. Some research will show the CIA and Juliani had bunkers in WT7, there was also a few damaging evidence to get rid of.

 The heat from burning avgas even under ideal conditions is nowhere near the temperature to soften steel.

 If you look at the Photo of the second plane hitting the tower most of the fuel would have been thrown clear.

 I believe Santa Claus can go down billions of Chimneys in one night but the 9/11 story is too far fetched for me.

 The BBC reported that some of the " hijackers " were alive and well.

by douglas kay (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 83 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 4:11:45 PM

  (0+)

Here for one week. 49 posts. Every one arguing in favor of the official government conspiracy theory.

Possibilities that come to mind..... 

--- Merely a JREF reject 'slumming' on OEN?

--- A poorly trained cointelpro child from the Pentagon's Operation Information Roadmap. 

--- A hopped-up uber 'patriot' determined to put all those 911 'twoofers' in their place and thereby defend the Empire and its wars for global hegemony?

--- An innocent who is merely here to present his balanced and well-researched views on various topics not exclusively 911?

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [399 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 5:04:08 PM

  (0+)

So enraptured was he with the haunting specter of Tom Murphy, that he in essence became said Murphoid. 

by CasaZaza (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 202 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 5:13:39 PM

  (0+)

Here for one week. 49 posts. Every one arguing in favor of the official government conspiracy theory.

Possibilities that come to mind.....

What difference does it make who I am and why I'm here?

The question is, are you prepared to deal with the substance of my comments, or would you prefer to engage in ad hominem based on your ideas of who/what it is that you think I might possibly be?

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 5:18:47 PM

  (0+)

What substance?  You keep changing your argument everytime someone pins you down.

   Even IF your experiment with the tea kettle had any relevance to the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7 -- and to begin with a blow torch involves the combination of oxygen and a flamable gas and produces far higher temperatures than buring kerosene and the carpets, desks, etc inside the buildings -- weakening and damaging the building in combination with fire would not cause the bildings to collapse on their footprints,  The damage would not have been precisely even in every part of the buildings.  The fires would have spread to different parts of the buildings at different times and been burning for different lengths of time when the buildings collapsed.  Even if fire COULD cause a protected, steel framed building to collapse, such varying damage in different parts of the buildings would have caused the buildings to fall over on their sides, not collapse on their footprints.

Three experts on the behavior of buildings in fire testified at a hearing of the House Committee on Science in 2002 and ALL THREE testified that NO protected, steel framed building had ever collapsed soley because of fire before.  And never since.  To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, we have here an allegation about the behavior of three protected steel framed buildings in fire that we dare not assert again!

Now shift your allegations again and claim that you never said that... Ect. Ect

Robert Halfhill   rhalfhill@juno.com     RobertHalfhill@gmail.com

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 325 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 6:07:28 PM

  (0+)

Even IF your experiment with the tea kettle had any relevance to the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7...

Stop.

I didn't bring the "kettle" into this discussion. Somebody else did.

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 7:03:13 PM

  (0+)

The 47 story tall building collapased in a perfectly symmetrical fashion on 9/11. In fact you can put a ruler on the screen as you view the collapse and it comes PERFECTLY STRAIGHT DOWN ON A LINE! The collapse exhibited every single characteristic of a controlled demolition; or perhaps better said, a finely produced implosion. And there was not a single characteristic of destruction by fire; much less asymmetrical fire or even asymmetrical damage. In fact, neither governmental agency, NIST nor FEMA has been able to figure out how fires could have caused the collapse. WTC7 was a TALL, NARROW, massively braced steel-framed building. For such a TALL, NARROW building to come down in such a precisely symmetrical fashion -- vs. falling off to the side -- and DIRECTLY into its own footprint at about the speed of a falling brick; common sense would say that would be impossible; unless of course, it had a lot of demolition help.

by David Watts (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 284 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:46:27 PM

  (0+)

Here for one week. 49 posts. Every one arguing in favor of the official government conspiracy theory.

Possibilities that come to mind.....

What difference does it make who I am and why I'm here?

Well, partly for purposes of entertainment, we try to keep track of the statist automatons like you that blow in here, make fools of themselves, and then disappear. 

The question is, are you prepared to deal with the substance of my comments,

LOL! Please point out the "substance".

or would you prefer to engage in ad hominem based on your ideas of who/what it is that you think I might possibly be?

LOL! As if a moron like you should have some expectation to be taken seriously. You're a legend in your own "mind", chump. 

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 7:15:25 PM

  (0+)

Notice how Apoda twists your comments around just like Murphy?

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 1094 comments [65 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 5:36:21 PM

  (0+)

Wow!  It's freaky the twisting!  Maybe they're one and the same?  Or better yet, they're part of some Borg collective - 7 of 9 type of thing! 

There's no twisting occuring here other than the Truther's away from the truth - "the Truther baby is ugly".

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 7:38:21 PM

  (0+)

Additional proof of explosives exists in videos and photos which show extensive series of flashes. WTC 7 was many 10's of flashes and WTC1 and 2 were hundreds, from just prior to the initial events to the destruction sequence were completed.

Another piece of evidence to observe in many photos taken afterwards is the blast gas patterns made in the red oxide paint which coated every truss and beam in all the buildings. A high speed, high temperature slurry of gas and debris scoured the beams in the immediate area of the explosion. Like the metal micro-spheres, the devil is in the details. The scoured areas on the beams etc was exposed to rain water a few days later. This "developed" the evidence to make the areas bright red "new" rust.

Quite another subject, but related, I read the other day, an analysis of the initial video of the alledged airplanes hitting the buildings (WTC1,2, and the Pentagon). There was an interesting observation that the wing tip vorticies were not present. Since these persist for a few minutes and are very strong, and would easily have an effect on light falling debris and smoke, one may question, what did impact the buildings?

Great discussion.

by Guesswhotoo6 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 7:48:18 PM

  (0+)

Do you ever get the impression that like planes have Air Marshals, the Oped has some Internet marshals? Heh heh.

I read a report, actually it was a bill of sale type document about these buildings and how their asbestos content was inacceptable by law. The purchaser Silverstein, or something similar to that, knew that demolition would eventually have to be done.

I say run a plane into a building of that type structure and see if it collapses or flames up. I'm willing to bet there won't even be a fire unless wiring is hot and sets it off. Even then, a plane crashing into a building doesn't collapse a building FROM THE BOTTOM UP. We had a plane in my city crash into a building, albeit, not tall as the towers, and there wasn't any collapsing and not much fire.

Do some critical thinking. Could a plane literally make a tall building blow up as the footage showed? From the bottom up? No way. It would crack it in half  or lean where the plane hits, cause it to tower over and leave the bottom half standing. A witness at the Pentagan(she worked there during 9-11) has written an article of her account. She swears that something blew the buildings up and the planes? She said she saw no plane hit building 7. She claims there wasn't any plane.

Another thing, isn't it ODD that not a single congress person or their relatives, or an official of any status was killed in this Tragedy? Not a movie star or famous author or anyone of high status was IN the buildings. Don't any of you find that simply odd? I do. it makes me think that they had "selective" "collateral damage".

We now know the Tonkin battle was a false flag. That F I N A L L Y came out. Why wouldn't this be another lie? It sure scared the ibittigibbities out of everyone and we surrendered our liberties right quick. Hah hah on us. ............................Never again.

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 8:33:44 PM

  (0+)

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 8:35:10 PM

  (0+)

Seventy percent of the questions posed, important questions that were to have been answered by the report, never were. I had the honor to come face to face with a surviving fireman the other day. His volunteer crew of 26 was in another building at the WTC complex. He did not say which. He was the sole survivor having been entirely buried for over two hours except for one hand a search dog found and licked for the entire time it took to dig him out. The only thing he had to say was that we "must never forget."  First we have to learn what we need to remember.  It's important. We owe him and all of them that. You might be pleased to hear that he has taken up teaching art and the same rescue dog is now his constant companion.

by Pat Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 84 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 11:23:50 PM

  (0+)

Ask any demolition expert and they will tell you it takes weeks of diligent work to properly prepare for a controlled demolition. So how long before the 9/11 fiasco did they prepare for the demolition of WTC7?

by Archie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1750 comments [110 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 12:28:08 AM

  (0+)

Why is it up to us to decide how they did it?.  If explosives were used, they did it.  Explosives were used, so it was not impossible.

Consider that the Port Authority had already commissioned a study for the controlled demolition of the WTC 1 and 2 since they had serious issues with absestos and tenants were leaving.  They were blocked from doing so in the courts due to fears of asbestos contamination in the community. The only way for them to legally demolish the building was manually, which would have been costly and taken many years.   To their rescue came Larry Silverstein, who 6 weeks before 9/11 took control over the WTC with a 99 year lease.  Him and his investors paid a couple of billion for a 99 year lease on buildings the port Authority wanted to demolish , took out the maximum insurance, and in the weeks before 9/11, it was reported by some people who had worked in the WTC that some floors were being closed off on weekends for electrical wiring.   How would you keep this secret?  Simple, you use intelligence agents, foreign (Mossad) or domestic to plant the charges and do the wiring (assuming the port authority did not already due to prewiring when they were planning to demolish them), swear them to secrecy or face jail, and scare MSM with anthrax after 9/11 so even if somebody came foreward, nobody would dare print the story. 

by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 601 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:08:31 AM

  (0+)

Bush's cousin as the CEO of the security company in charge of the complex, it is entirely plausible they took as much time as they needed. With offices of CIA, Secret Service, DOD, among others, in the building, the expertise and opportunity very plausibly makes such an effort possible.

by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:02:56 AM

  (0+)

Click here.

by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:04:55 AM

  (0+)

CB Brooklyn,

Take your red herring and go back to your handlers. We know who you are and what your intentions are.

Here at OEN you are dealing with smart people and sometimes with the best brains on this planet who have come up definitely, with no shred of doubt, after endless research and readings, that 9/11 was an inside job. You and other shills and trolls and paid mercenaries are fools to think that you can alter our opinions or make us change our minds. You and your ilk will only make a fool of yourselves at the best. And that's about as far as you can get. Please, go away.

by ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 793 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 4:29:26 PM

  (0+)

CB Brooklyn,

You nonsensical puerile rubbishy  red herring has no place in an intellectual debate. You make a fool of yourself at the best.

by ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 793 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 2:16:20 AM

  (0+)

I find this whole topic a very disturbing one. I never take the time to edit these articles as I feel I don't have enough expertise to do them justice. But I would never say what you did in response to someone's comments and I would ask that you refrain from such language as well. This is not the time or the place for this type of attack.

thank you.

by Deborah Emin (26 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 95 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 8:32:57 AM

  (0+)

But they don't. 

Soon as we start compiling our useless tidbits of insignificant evidence into solid substantial proof -- all of it an illusion to ourselves, of course -- this bunch of screaming memies comes jumping in our fun like they are protecting us from deluding ourselves.  Not that they are deluded, oh, no, (sarcasm), they are only here giving their time out of their busy days for our own good.

Tell ya' what, screaming memies.  You believe what you are paid to believe, and leave us 911Truthtellers alone in our goofy modelling of what really happened, filing our Freedom of Information Act requests for existing videos and documents for as long as we pay the lawyers, and trying to peddle our hodgepodge of theories in a world market too sophisticated to fall for our dancing chanting Hare Krishna brainwashing sales pitch.  And you all are free during your day to go somewhere else and save young innocents from living lives of recreational abortions.  Okay?  Deal?  We convince ourselves.  You go convince somebody else.

Because obviously it's a free country and you can't tell us what to think.

It is understandable that you all are disappointed to see the American population so gullible that 80 percent -- 4 folks out of 5 -- have bought some form and enough of our goofiness that they have begun questioning and have started demanding a Truth Investigation re-opened.

Disappointing but, hey, the silliness is going to play itself out when the Truth Investigation gets started and all the questions turn out to have the same simple answers you all already know, and everyone can see there's nothing to it, and gets bored, and moves on.  No skin off you all's nose.  Sit back and yuck it up at our expense.  You all are so obviously smarter than 80 percent of Americans.  Enjoy your MasterRacist position and privileges.

A person reading the 911Truthtellers notes for the first time, could almost think there's barely anything noteworthy ... until the screaming memies start shouting 'shut up, shut up, just shut up,' (in the immortal erudite words of Bill O'Reilly, FUXNews), and then, the newcomer has got to think, hey, what's going on here, something's happening? 

Methinks the screaming memies doth scream too much.  Proving their own words false.

911Truthtellers could look like they're shooting blanks, except that the 'theory' of a domestic enemy starts diabolically shooting back.  Hmmmm, not such a 'theory' enemy, after all.

Tommytoon brought his cohorts this time.  This ain't gonna look good on your performance log, T-toons, that you couldn't do the job and had to call for backup.

Whoever, y'all are welcome, come in, sit down, shut up, the 911Truthtellers are talking amongst themselves.  Here in the Temple of Truth.

Now, it really really does NOT matter what words or snottiness the screaming memies toss in the bandwidth.  What matters is to count them, this way:

One is happenstance.

Two is coincidence.

Three is enemy action.

That's the CIA validity threshhold for detecting premeditated tactics in random improbable events, such as airplanes falling out of the sky, or steel-framed buildings decomposing in a massive swelling cloud of pulverized dust.  Three is enemy action.

It seems there are three screaming memies here now, braying like jackasses that no one should suspect the CIA was involved nor the King of the CIA, whose name is on the Headquarters Building and whose brain-damaged sociopathic birth-defect son was reading a second-grade book on camera when it happened, going stark autistic flat affect at the news.

Good, fine, you three jackasses -- no one suspects a thing.  Your work here is done.  Now freefall flat on your faces and vaporize in a cloud of microscopic dust, in silence, and leave 911Truthtellers out-of-it talking amongst ourselves.

---

By the way, 911Truthteller associates, another item on the agenda for our discussions is the portents of May 11, Mothers' Day -- 5/11/08 -- as the date of the Nine-Eleven Op sequel.  And the mob planning it might be in this hideout at the shore where the rumrunners used to ply ... wouldn't hurt to have a rock festival-full of sentries in the streets there keeping an eye on the comings and goings, and maybe some communications monitoring.

What a gawdawful racket the screaming memies conspire!  Spam-for-brains!

by meremark (1 articles, 3 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 572 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 5:48:01 AM

  (0+)

... but you want to do the same with more serious questioners of 9/11.  That's just plain scary.

"It seems there are three screaming memies here now, braying like jackasses that no one should suspect the CIA was involved nor the King of the CIA, whose name is on the Headquarters Building and whose brain-damaged sociopathic birth-defect son was reading a second-grade book on camera when it happened, going stark autistic flat affect at the news."

Meremark, in his soliloquy, offers the evidence that conspiracy theories are very much alive and well. His is a world of deeply set distrust and a belief in what his mind tells him is "known". Meremark's quote above exemplifies the psychological condition that permits conspiracies to grow and spread:

"Conspiracy theories generally attribute extraordinary powers to certain agents – to plan, to control others, to maintain secrets, and so forth. Those who believe that those agents have such powers are especially unlikely to give respectful attention to debunkers, who may, after all, be agents or dupes of those who are responsible for the conspiracy in the first instance," - click here .

And thus, we have meremark concluding that the jackass-like and screaming memies are actually working for the CIA or similar institution.

That's all well and fine, and truthfully to be expected – well from the jackass' perspective it's expected. But what leads a person to such a conclusion? The psychology is both individual as well as collective with both feeding each other initially with the group eventually becoming the core of thought. The start of this twisted logic lays in what we know and (sometimes more importantly) what we don't know.

"...[T]he most useful way to understand the pervasiveness of conspiracy theories is to examine how people acquire information. For most of what they believe that they know, human beings lack personal or direct information; they must rely on what other people think. In some domains, people suffer from a "crippled epistemology," in the sense that they know very few things, and what they know is wrong. Many extremists fall in this category; their extremism stems not from irrationality, but from the fact that they have little (relevant) information, and their extremist views are supported by what little they know. Conspiracy theorizing often has the same feature," – same source as above.

So, how does the group run with this lack of knowledge? Well, look at meremark's approach and you can see. He discredits to the Truther readership several "non-Truthers" not by actually debating the evidence but by associating them with an obviously tainted agency – the CIA. He has no evidence to support this accusation, but meremark doesn't need any such evidence. The group accepts his words as true because they want to believe them to be true – and meremark KNOWS this – so he acts accordingly.

"In any group with some initial inclination, the views of most people in the group will inevitably be skewed in the direction of that inclination. As a result of hearing the various arguments, social interactions will lead people toward a more extreme point in line with what group members initially believed. Reputational factors matter as well. People usually want to be perceived favorably by other group members. Once they hear what others believe, some will adjust their positions at least slightly in the direction of the dominant position. For purposes of understanding the spread of conspiracy theories, it is especially important to note that group polarization is particularly likely, and particularly pronounced, when people have a shared sense of identity and are connected by bonds of solidarity," – same source as above.

What's worse is that there's very little chance of a non-Truther actually leaving an impact with the Truther. The mind of a Truther has become so compartmentalized that the first rebuttal to contrary evidence is to attack the messenger. For example, Popular Mechanics – a reputable magazine with a long publishing history – has been trashed by Truthers, not for its science, but its association. "...[C]onspiracy theorists may still fold independent third-party rebuttals into their theory by making conspiratorial claims of connection between the third party and the government. When Popular Mechanics offered its rebuttal of 9/11 conspiracy theories, conspiracists claimed that one of the magazine's reporters, Ben Chertoff, was the cousin of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and was spreading disinformation at the latter's behest," – same source as above. For the Truther, there is no "need" to actually provide the audio tapes in which the Chertoffs are discussing the Popular Mechanics debunking details; they are acceptable without question because they want to believe.

What's scary is the way in which the Truther Movement has become more hardcore in its thinking. As they loose those people that seriously question 9/11 events, they are replaced (sometimes with smaller numbers) with similar hardcore believers. Even when NIST answers their questions directly, the answers are dead on arrival which forces NIST to appeal to the larger audience, "...[W]hen the National Institute of Standards and Technology issued a fact sheet to disprove the theory that the World Trade Center was brought down by a controlled demolition, the spokesman stated that "[w]e realize this fact sheet won't convince those who hold to the alternative theories that our findings are sound. In fact, the fact sheet was never intended for them. It is for the masses who have seen or heard the alternative theory claims and want balance," – same source as above.

And the Truther justification for this is that NIST is afraid to debate the "truth". Yeah... right.

Philip Zelikow, the 9/11 Commission lead, stated in an October 2004 article in the Washington Post, "The hardcore conspiracy theorists are totally committed... They'd have to repudiate much of their life identity in order not to accept some of that stuff. That's not our worry. Our worry is when things become infectious, as happened with the [John F. Kennedy] assassination. Then this stuff can be deeply corrosive to public understanding. You can get where the bacteria can sicken the larger body," - http://www.sott.net/signs/Washington_Post.htm .

And what was the Truthers' response to Mr. Zelikow's comment and position on the Commission? We shouldn't concern ourselves with Zeilkow's words because "he works for the Administration" and wrote a book with Condoleezza Rice! This is what a non-Truther would call "grasping".

Meremark, thank you for keeping the spark of conspiracy burning bright. Just stay upwind of the smoke of obfuscation as you continue to serve as a textbook example of conspiracy psychology.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:21:31 AM

  (0+)

When he brought a neocon AL Qeada/Iraq connection theorist, one largely discredited for her outrageous hypothesis, before the panel in what many staffers saw as an irrelevant and grandstanding move, and Lori Van Auken, 9/11 family member, called him on it afterward, he just gave her a wry smile. He knew precisely what he was doing, using that forum to grandstand for war with Iraq. That, after all, was his purpose, wasn't it? What with the calls to the White House, and Rove, he attempted to keep secret?

His directorship of that commission was a cancer on this investigation. That is why the family organizations fought so hard against his appointment.

by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 11:44:13 AM

  (0+)

That' all well and fine, but it says nothing about whether or not he actually manipulated the "evidence" and its perception by the Commission. 

Anyone can sling a little mud, Mr. Demetriou.  However, there must be something "real" in the mud to make it stick - and not just a book looking to grab attention through tasty headlines.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 12:39:29 PM

  (0+)

and the harder you pull, the tighter your noose gets.

There may be something sadistic wrong with me, seen in so much enjoyment I am having at your expense, Tommytoons, watching you choke on all the rope you've been given.

Where's your backup today, the Rope'a Dope'a character?  Perhaps some well-aimed two-by-four got someone's attention.  Don't worry T-toons, you're safe from such embarrassment -- you lack the first requirement for reality to be able to affect you:  being sensate.

Let me clue you in on a little secret, of why nobody reads what you are writing:  you talk stupid.

I got as far into your last blast as the point where you got contorted with your headbone connected to your bellybutton and declared that writing and mere marks on a screen constitute "extremism."  I spit coffee all over the keyboard; that's a good one ... "extremism."  That sounds like what Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., said to J. Edgar Hoover's racist drone assassins.  If there is any 'extremism' around here, it is the phony photo under your byline of an extremely ugly Jim Carrey character ... nobody who looked like that would admit it -- hence: phony.

Your keen intelligence and logical arguments are just so superior, you are obviously of a Master Race.  It's a good model for us wage slaves to get to witness, from time to time, the graceful poised breeding in a Supremacist.  Your demeanor is so genuinely beatific, for a jackass.

But, back to our topic, where you twist every which way to get away from, where it is noted that the demolition charges preset in WTC 7, and which imploded the building in a perfect professional military-grade building demolition, did NOT get one single sentence of mention in the Official taxpayer-funded Commission Report, nevermind an explanation of the physical event as mandated by Congress, and law, to be published in contract for cashing the check.

So here's a question.  In your stupid braying that the explosives in WTC 7 were not actually in WTC 7 -- while everyone sees that the building was imploded by explosives -- why do you never point out that the 2nd-biggest CIA installation in the world was in that building, since you then could claim that with them there guarding the place, it is absolutely impossible for anyone to sneak in and set explosives in place?  Unless they did it themselves.

And, for the record, to test your donkey cognizance of knowing anything at all about what you are braying about:  Identify the other lease occupants of WTC 7.

(Hint:  2. FBI.  3. Municipal emergency command post.  4. physical document archives of the Securities and Exchange Commission dating back to the SEC's 1930s origin and containing all the financial records of Prescott Bushbutcher bankrolling Hitler and trading with the enemy from that era, forward.  Also, all the financial records of CIA slush-funding Prescott's Bushbutcher son's dryhole-drilling laughingstock Zapata 'nada oil' enterprise.  Enough hints, go figure for yourself.)

Hee-haawww.  Hee-haawww.  Hee-haawwww.

by meremark (1 articles, 3 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 572 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 3:06:19 PM

  (0+)

meremark,

Excelllent retort but you left out Enron's archives hidden in the building with all secret dealings and  'contributions'  to BushCo and cronies. Was it a coincidence that Enron's secrets had to be in that specific building deemed for demolition? 

We are dealing with highest level gangnsterism. And , of course, Truth bebunkers are there to make a fool of themselves

by ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 793 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 4:55:07 PM

  (0+)

The more you write, meremark, the more you display your child-like ignorance and apparently increasing violent thoughts, as well... 2 X 4's, huh?  You've been planning something?

Don't forgt that WTC 7 also held the secret receipe to the Bush's Best Baked Beans - http://www.bushbeans.com/products/bakedbeans.php .  Hey!  Wait a minute - President Bush... Bush's Baked Beans... Whoa!  Coincidence!?!  No way!  Keep thinking, meremark, eventually a coherent thought... should... emerge.

My statement about the beans is as valid as yours about the CIA and ramsheyi's about Enron - none of us has any evidence to offer a solid connection other than our imaginations.  The difference is that I KNOW I'm imagining my statement; too bad you folks BELIEVE your statements are real.

Thank you for exemplifying "compartmentalization" and "cognitive dissonance" once again, meremark.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:33:26 PM

  (0+)

Not sure what you mean there, Mr. Murphy. Cheerleading for a war with the appearance of a shill was not something anyone at the hearings expected, or perhaps even, were willing to contenance. Van Auken had the audacity, borne of her loss and the fact the hearings were to investigate how 9/11 took place, to call him on it. Read into his smirk what you will. He had little support, and was an obvious admin plant.

by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:20:49 PM

  (0+)

"He had little support, and was an obvious admin plant."

What evidence do you have to offer to support this accusation of him having been a "plant", other than a "feeling"? 

You view... a "smirk" and conclude he's a plant?  How do you deal with intense emotion, Mr. Demetriou, (e.g., a 9/11 family member attacking furiously your legitimacy in a very public forum)?  Do you get nervous, querky, fidgety?  If you want me to accept he was a plant, I need something more than your just your "knowing" or (as some have offered about President Bush's 9/11 coutenance and his ordering the attacks) the "look" of someone's eyes.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:38:32 PM

  (0+)

It took thirty some years to show that elements of our government, Mr. Murphy, murdered Martin Luther King. Makes ya feel proud, don't it soldier? I am young enough to wait that long for the truth of our government's complicity in this inside job to come out. Apologists like yourself notwithstanding. But, you know, somehow I don't think I will have to wait that long.

by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 3:16:48 PM

  (0+)

Just a hunch...?  Well, with this I cannot debate because I have hunches too, but they don't mean squat when you're playing with people's lives, now then, do they?

"Human greatness is a rather difficult thing to account for, and more often than not one is mistaken in one's hunches about somebody one has met," - William Saroyan.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 3:24:46 PM

  (0+)

The following is "virtual proof"  #9

9/11: How many virtual proofs does it take to turn on the 9/11 light bulb in people’s minds? A keep it simple approach.

9. WTC7, a steel-framed building collapsed on 9/11 even though it was not hit by an airplane. The 47 story tall building collapased in a perfectly symmetrical fashion on 9/11. In fact you can put a ruler on the screen as you view the collapse and it comes PERFECTLY STRAIGHT DOWN ON A LINE! The collapse exhibited every single characteristic of a controlled demolition; or perhaps better said, a finely produced implosion. And there was not a single characteristic of destruction by fire; much less asymmetrical fire or even asymmetrical damage. In fact, neither governmental agency, NIST nor FEMA has been able to figure out how fires could have caused the collapse. WTC7 was a TALL, NARROW, massively braced steel-framed building. For such a TALL, NARROW building to come down in such a precisely symmetrical fashion -- vs. falling off to the side -- and DIRECTLY into its own footprint at about the speed of a falling brick; common sense would say that would be impossible; unless of course, it had a lot of demolition help.


WTC7



There were even multiple reports of a countdown (as in 5..4..3..2..1.. explosions, collapse) heard over radios that ended with large explosions followed by the collapse. What does that tell you? That tells you they knew the exact second WTC7 was going to collapse. That can only mean they knew exactly what second they were going to “push the button” to start the controlled demolition. There are other factors easily researched that also show prior knowledge that WTC7 was about to come down.

Molten metal was observed below WTC7. That fact cannot be explained away other than in terms of a substance like thermite (evidence of which was found in the rubble) which melts metal like a scalding frying pan liquifies warm butter and is used in demolitions of steel-framed buildings.

Even Mr. Silverstein who had leased and insured all of the WTC buildings just weeks prior to 9/11 said later on PBS that he told them to “pull” (a demolition term) WTC7. An example of the use of this term happened just prior to demolishing WTC6 after 9/11: a worker in a hard hat can be seen and heard saying, “they’re gettin’ ready to pull buildin’ six.” Larry Silverstein subsequently collected several billions of dollars for his destroyed buildings.

Now put all of these things together -- there are more -- and see how contorted one’s reasoning would have to be to not understand WTC7 was a controlled demolition. The collapse of WTC7 alone virtually proves the Official Story to be a lie.

by David Watts (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 284 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:19:00 PM

  (0+)

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:48:04 PM

  (0+)

München, I already have the "truth"; therefore, I am not in "want" of it.  What you meant to say is that, "You do not want 'our' truth," which IS a true statement; I don't believe WTC 7 (or either of the towers for that matter) were felled via controlled demolitions, death rays, mini-nukes, or missiles acting as holographic projections.

As to your thinking that I only need to view the video and my senses will "show" the truth, you should KNOW that your senses can easily be deceived.  It happens all the time, every day, in numerous instances.  In fact, if you want to throw around an Italian video that rambles on about inaccurate collapse times and scripts being read by mainstream media (why with WTC 7 this was needed and not with WTC 1 and 2 is anyone's guess), check out this video:

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

Of course, you'll dismiss the collapse of the East Penthouse as a premature detonation of the demolitions or something equally silly.  However, the East Penthouse kink (as it's been termed) WAS the start of the collapse sequence, which altered dramatically the dynmaic load on the structure, forcing the remainder of the frame to accept the load, carrying the load for several seconds, then failing catastrophically when it could not.

Your truther baby is ugly, München, or "Baby der Wahrheit ist häßlich".

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:30:53 PM

  (0+)

by David Watts (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 284 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:54:15 PM

  (0+)

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:59:48 PM

  (0+)

But, of course, it fell at free fall speeds!  How silly of me!  The collapse of the East Penthouse is nothing more than smoke!  But then again... where did it go - http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm ?

The mind sees that which it wants to believe - "truth" included.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 3:19:48 PM

  (0+)

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 5:46:06 PM

  (0+)

Firstly - With respect to the Truthers' free fall analysis of WTC 7, the 6.5 seconds doesn't correlate to the seismology associated with the event - click here . Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University analyzed the data from several monitoring station in CT, NJ, and NY. A review of the Palisades, New York data revealed a time period of about 18 seconds for WTC 7. This reflects the collapse of the East Penthouse, the structure straining to accept the new loads, and then failing - http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html .

I find it convenient that Mr. Gage and other "distinguished experts" never reference this source for WTC 7. Perhaps you might know why, München?

Secondly – In an attempt to make easier for Truthers, who sometimes have a phobia of non-Truther web sites, I've cut and pasted a thorough review and analysis by www.debunking911.com of what those explosions most likely were – http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm . While I suspect that most Truthers have a "hunch" that the sounds ARE controlled demolitions, do try to have an open mind when reading. All text between the dashed lines is from that web site.

----------

Could transformers or other electrical equipment explain some of what the firemen saw and heard? What about an acre of concrete floor slamming into another? Would steel bolts snapping under tremendous tension make a pop or explosive sound? Assuming the towers weren't in the vacuum of space, we can be fairly safe to say the things I mentioned are good candidates to explain what the firemen heard. Even they think so...

Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?"

But if you read on...

"I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever."

This is a quote taken out of context. Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking it out of context...

I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.

I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.

click here

Here is a fireman saying it could have been "electrical explosions".

What a transformer explosion looks like...

click here

These buildings, as most office buildings in America had transformers and other high voltage electrical equipment.

Electrical Fire Hurts 6 at Trade Center
Published: July 24, 1992

An air-conditioning transformer five stories below the World Trade Center caught fire after an explosion last night, the authorities said. Six people were injured, none of them seriously, but the 110-story twin towers did not have to be evacuated, the authorities said.

The fire was first reported at 10:02 P.M. in a 13,000-volt transformer in the Trade Center's refrigeration plant, which provides air conditioning and ventilation for the complex, the Fire Department and the Port Authority said. The electrical fire, which went to three alarms, was brought under control at 11:24 P.M., said a Fire Department official, Lieutenant Erick Weekes.

click here

February 26, 1993. It started like most other days. A 4 A.M. wake up, coffee and a buttered roll while driving to work at the Manhattan Central Office. At 12:18 P.M., lunch was being served when we received a call via a street alarm box at the corner of West & Liberty Streets. At the same time Engine Company 10, whose quarters are across the street from the World Trade Center, called us via radio and reported a possible transformer vault explosion on West Street near the Trade Center.

Transformer vault (also called manhole) explosions are fairly common place in Manhattan, especially during wet weather. They're highly visible and normally generate numerous telephone calls to the Central Office. We didn't think this one was going to be any different. When Engine 10 advised us by radio they had a working fire in the Trade Center, we thought the transformer vault was located within the basement of the complex. Not a routine event, but still,it's only a transformer vault we thought.

http://www.fdnewyork.com/wtc.asp

"The Trade Center was never designed for the amount of emergency power necessary for all those trading floors they have there," Calabro said. "Tenants would come in and need emergency power, and it was not available."

To solve that problem, E-J Electric set four generators on the roof of Tower 5, which was nine stories, as opposed to the 110-story Towers 1 and 2. E-J then ran high-voltage feeder cable to Towers 1, 2, 4 and 5, installed three substations and distributed power to the tenants.

"We pulled 6,000 feet of high-voltage feeder cable from the roof of Tower 5, through the building, down through the concourse, through the parking garages and to the roof of Tower 1 and 2," Calabro said.

Current standard tenant power capacity is 6W up to 10W per usable square foot depending on location. The World Trade Center's electricity supply is segmented for greater reliability and safety. Eight dedicated 13,800-V feeders divide into 23 building substations. On-floor electrical distribution is routed via at least two electrical closets per floor, each with separate high- and low-voltage bus ducts for tenant-dedicated use."

click here

This is a deceptive quote from a conspiracy theory site...

"When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go...

...There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down. I stood there for a second in total awe, and then said, "What the F###?" I honestly thought it was Hollywood."

Now let's examine what he said in the context he said it. Here is the part conspiracy sites leave out..

"When we got to about 50 ft from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go. The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go, there was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down.

click here

He said "The way I see it, it had to be the rivets" but the conspiracy sites remove this important insight. They skipped over the sentence. There is only one reason to do something like that. To mislead the reader by removing all other possibilities for the sounds.

He also says he thinks the rivets caused the building to fall and not bombs. Interestingly, the NIST said most of the failures were at the bolts and connections.

Even bodies hitting the floor sounded like explosions.

"The sight was amazing. I was just totally awestruck. I reported to the command post, showed my ID and asked if I could be of use. They said 'Absolutely. Stand off on the side with the other medical people.' I couldn't fight any fires because I did not have that kind of gear with me, but would have done it if asked.

"I decided to walk closer to the South Tower. I was about 100 ft from the South Tower looking up when the bodies started coming down. I counted 35. They were just piling up on the Marriott Marquis hotel. They were 10 to 15 thick piling up one after another. You could hear them hitting on the side streets. They were hitting cars, and there were lots of explosions.

"I have seen plenty of death in my life, and burned bodies and so forth, but this was incredible. As I was looking up, I saw a body coming down, hit a lamppost and explode like a paint ball. Its arms and legs got torn off and the head ripped off and bounced right by me."

click here

The person saying it was an explosion also says bodies hitting the floor sound like explosions. I'm sure they do. I'm sure an acre of concrete floor crashing down onto another acre of concrete floor also sounds like an explosion.

More here

The building was filled with electrical panels and cable feeding them. Some would be no different than a powerline...

It's not unreasonable to conclude, as at least one fireman did that the flashes might have been electrical in nature.

We may never know what exactly caused the flashes. But flashes alone do not mean explosives. You would see more than flashes if an explosive large enough to cut steel were set off. You would see ejecta coming from the same place as the flash.

Then their is William Rodriguez, a worker at the towers. He now says he heard explosions in the basement but that's not what he said before he became a media star and sued the government.

William Rodriguez worked on the basement level of the north tower and was in the building when the first plane struck his building.

"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/new.york.terror/

Here he is describing something very different than an explosion. The change in his story came after he became a media star and plaintiff.

Mark Roberts does an in-depth investigation into William's claims and history.

http://911stories.googlepages.com/home

As loud as the collapse was, it sounded nothing like an actual controlled demolition...

Conspiracy theorists take quotes out of context in order to sell the idea. An example of just how easy it is to take ear witness accounts out of context is below...

[Example video transcript: see www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm ]

Government Train Wreck: How government covers up freight train accidents...

"The noise sounded like two freight trains going over a trestle right over your head; it was an ugly roar. My wife said the noise when the house went was like a giant pencil sharpener working."

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/1953beecher/storiesFJ.php

[Did a fright train pass over their head? Was there a giant pencil sharpener really over there heads?]

"While I was in my kitchen I heard this terrible roar coming," she said. "It sounded like a freight train coming right down my road here"

"It looks like it's been bombed. There's just a lot of destruction, a lot of debris," said Michael Bartz, a state emergency official. "

click here

[Was it a bomb? Did a real freight train go down her road?]

"It indeed sounded like a freight train roaring past us, and when it was gone, we came out to find things a mess."

click here

It came with "the roar of forty freight trains."

http://www.tornadochaser.com/UDALL/reports.htm

"It sounded like a freight train".

click here

"Before I reached the bottom of the stairs, I heard the sound of a roaring freight train"

[enter image of NOAA weather map an hour before the tornado touches down.]

As you can see, there was no tornado on that day, according to NOAA.

So why is the government covering up train derailments?

[enter sinister music]

In 2003 Amtrak was going bankrupt. They couldn't afford to rebuild the homes of Americans after a derailment.

ETC.. ETC..

Looks like someone had the same idea I did...

http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/

While the Titanic was sinking, passengers heard explosions in the ship. In this case, the "Official Story" would be wrong, using the same conspiracy theory logic. To this day, no one really knows what exactly caused the sound, only that it sounded like an explosion. Some say it was the steel snapping as the ship broke in two. Others say it was the hot steam engines hitting the cold water which exploded. Using Conspiracy Theory logic, it was blown up because witnesses characterized the sound as an "Explosion".

----------

And lastly – Anticipating a discussion on the "pull it" statement, another thorough review and analysis is presented by www.debunking911.com of "what" transpired between fire fighting/rescue crews in the hours leading up to the catastrophic failure of WTC 7. Similar to the explosion cut and paste, all text between the dashed lines is from that web site - http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm .

----------

Silverstein's Quote:

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

-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander

-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

He could be lying, right? But here is the corroborating evidence...

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

click here

Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was 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, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

click here

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers

click here

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan

click here

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

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

Firehouse: How many companies?

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

"A little north of Vesey I said, we'll go down, let's see what's going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what's going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

click here

This proves there was a big hole on the south side of the building. From the photographic evidence and these quotes which aren't meant to be technical, I suspect there was a large hole in the center of the building which may have gone up 10 stories connected to a large rip on the left side of the building which continued up another 10 or more stories. Together they would make "a hole 20 stories tall".

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7- did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn't want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn't even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn't know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o'clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that's a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that's a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn't seem so bad. But that's what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn't want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody... My feeling early on was we weren't going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn't make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn't go further north on West Street. And I couldn't go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.

click here

It mirrors what Silverstein said.

WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

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

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

And now for the best video evidence to date from our friends at 911myths...

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.av i

That alone should end this debate. The fire department didn't have orders from on high. So that leaves the fire department lying to cover up a demolition for Bush or the firefighters made a good call.

More from another blogger...

RealityCheck

"(1) In your own quote we have a Fire Dept. COMMANDER saying: "....they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire......". How and why is everyone ignoring the fact that the COMMANDER, obviously based on his relevant/authoritative experience/knowledge, judges that the WTC7 fire is OUT OF CONTROL!

I ask any reasonable person to tell me WHAT POSSIBLE OPINION from ANY 'civilian' could have been persuasive enough to CHANGE THE COMMANDER'S MIND enough to continue with a 'lost cause'? [....the persistence with which 'lost cause' could only INEVITABLY have resulted in greater loss of life than if they "pulled back" NOW and leave it to burn out while concentrate on preventing its spread further afield, heh? ].

So, whatever Silverstein might have WANTED, in light of what the COMMANDER said, it is OBVIOUS to any reasonable person that Silverstein could have had little OTHER choice than to recognize and acquiesce/concur with the FIRE COMMANDER'S professional judgment Wouldn't you agree?

(2) As to the term "pull":

Given that the fire department is organized/regimented along semi-milaristic lines (evidence terms such as Battalion and Commander), would it seem unreasonable to find that OTHER traditional 'military' terms are used?......like withdraw[ or move out or PULL (back) etc. .......in such a structure/culture as in a FIRE DEPT. COMMAND STRUCTURE maneuvering/ordering about MANY 'troops' (firemen)? I for one would find it extraordinary if such an organization did NOT use such traditional and well understood/useful (and to the point) terms to ISSUE ORDERS WHICH COULD NOT BE MISUNDERSTOOD EVEN IN THE HEAT OF 'BATTLE' (remember the term "Battalion" which is part of their organizational/operational structure?).

RC.

As for Building 7 and the evidence for Controlled Demolition, let's review the evidence...

What we do have for sure.

1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".

2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn't look straight." He then says "It didn't look right".

3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."

4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".

5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.

6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.

7) The collapse happened from the bottom.

8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes of smoke so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.

9) Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?

10) Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.

11) Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"

12) Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.

What we don't have...

1) Clear view of the large hole

2) Number of columns and location of columns taken out by the tower impact

3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side

4) Any sign of an actual explosive.

Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.

9/11 conspiracy sites are being dishonest. You have to ask yourself why?

----------

Do you have the answer to "why", München? If you were being honest to yourself and displayed honor and courage (including your duty), then I'd argue that you do. But your in it for the long haul here, München, and have probably already blinked your eyes (if you even read all of this), gathered in a deep breath, exhaled, and are ready to ask the same questions anew - for... you know, that someday... the "truth" will be revealed to all - maybe 30 or 40 years from now, but it will be revealed...

Speak, Truther, speak – good Truther.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:12:31 PM

  (0+)

Mr. Murphy:

I didn't blink once.

Let's take this from the top.

Again, I stated many months ago that I'd spoken with a fellow Iron Worker who worked on the 38-story Meridian Bank Building, also known as One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia after the building burned for more than 19 hours, longer than the fires inside of Building seven or at both Trade Towers. Upon entering the Meridian's burnt out floors this gentleman noticed many of the beams had deflected as a result of the heat, some as much as three feet. However, the building never, ever collapsed. Why? Could it be Mr. Murphy because there were no explosives inside of the building? I thought so too. 

Mr. Murphy, buildings just don't collapse straight down into themselves as building seven did. You know that! Look, the gig is up and the Truth will indeed come out.

At ease, soldier.

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 11:28:54 PM

  (0+)

Bunch o' red ones, too, I see, ayuh! Ketch'em yor'self? What'cha use fo' bait?

I don't think anyone disputes transformers explode when heated, though I wonder how they might do that on floor after floor that were not on fire.

I do think folks would have trouble thinking falling bodies make explosive sounds when hitting the ground.

As for the rest.... alot of words, Mr. Murphy, signifying you hold the debunking sites you quote from in very high regards.

by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 8:56:21 AM

  (0+)

München and Mr. Demetriou, I offered you a river to drink from and in return you give me a tea cup... to sip from...?  I am most dissappointed in you both - not even a semblance of a legitimate argument was offered!  I suspect I do try some people's patience, but... that much? 

You were given a volume of evidence - a fair amount from primary sources - and all you had to offer was... an anectodal reference to a structure (Meridian Bank Building) whose design was totally different than those of WTC 1, 2, and 7; an incorrect claim that multi-story buildings haven't (or was that never?) collapsed straight down (when was the last time someone slammed a fuel-loaded 767 into a 100+ floored building?  Ah.. never...); and a passing comment about the thoroughly detailed assertions being "a lot of words" (were we expecting a bunch of flowers instead of a lot of words?).

The weight of the evidence and the conclusions that can be drawn from the reasonable, most likely hypothesis support NIST's conclusions - not the Truthers theories (note the plural).  I know I won't sway you two; you MUST stay on message because so much of your belief structure has been wrapped around the concept that 9/11 was a false flag operation. 

As I said previously, I can only feel sympathy for such a belief structure because I feel you will not know genuine happiness or even serenity in your lives.  You'll (most likely) continue to feel a deep distrust of others, a frustrating pursuit of unattainable goals, and secret questiong of "what if I am wrong on this being the truth?"  But you have each other to prop one another up when such silliness enters your thoughts and actions.

Thanks for sip, gentlemen, but I have a river to manage.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 9:32:44 PM

  (0+)

I started reading your "river," no, "fount" of knowledge (poisoned, I might add) and after the body thing (which I find rather odd), I started to recognize much of the same debunking line that hasn't yet convinced me of anything. 

I actually have been busy with a lot of work stuff and so haven't devoted much time to replying. 

And please don't try to make too much of my psychological state. You know nothing whatsoever in that department, at least about me. I have a wonderful daughter who sings, and who acts and sings on stage with her dad in local community theater. I have a small but comfortable place to live on a lake. I have a wonderful cat. I have a great boss, who happens to share my views, and between the two of us, we make a pretty decent living in the photography business. I don't suffer from any of the maladies you imagine me to suffer from.

I am disgusted with the military/industrial/congressional regime running this country, and in my own perfect world they would all just go away and let the wonderful things in my life flourish. There would likely be money available for theater groups, so we wouldn't have to shiver through rehearsals in a frigid theater in the winter. Though, the camaradiery of shivering together is not all bad. So, please don't presume to know my psychological state. You seek to project your presumptions, and that is ridiculous.

by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 9, 2008 at 7:48:36 PM

  (0+)

OK, let's be more exact about only one of the myriad stunning examples of physics laws being in suspension on 911, during and following the attacks.  All 58 steel perimeter columns - and each of the 25 internal steel columns throughout the entire 47 story structure formally known as the WTC 7, or Solomon Brothers Building, collapsed simultaneously.

That means at the exact same moment.  Each of the 83, (eighty three), structural steel, vertical components ... utterly and globally failed at the exact same moment as opposed to a cascading or domino effect.  (Once again, to be absolutely clear, each of the massive steel columns at each of the four corners of the building - and each of the 79 other massive steel vertical columns within gave way at the same moment.)  And it was caused by extemely localized and scattered fires being fed by - of all sources - diesel fuel.  Right.

Lay out 83 simple toothpicks on a kitchen table and ponder the reality.

After carefully considering the shear effectiveness and simplicity, I have seriously considered entering into the large structure demolition field with a large quantity of diesel fuel and a bic lighter.  Why bother with all that planning, study of blueprints, practical grasp of structural engineering, charge placement and especially, computer timing to blow the charges exactly when and where needed based on years of practical experience?

When I can pull it off in one day with diesel fuel?  Oh, and the lighter.

Rather than approach the debate of the twin towers' demise, (oops, I can't help it ... um, nearly white hot, sustained fires in the South Tower long before and up to the collapse?  Fed by, um, jet fuel, office furniture, computers, carpet, drapery or drywall?)  Right.  Those pesky laws of physics really make this complicated for the supporters of the official apology/excuse/story.  The American myth remains intact.  For the time being.  Stay tuned.

I'll close by leaving a link for those that have largely ignored or overlooked the compelling reasons why the twin towers collapses were, indeed, a beautiful sight.  And they weren't a collection of fanatical Islamic extremists that hated us for our freedom.

If hard facts are the way a person should defend his version of the truth:

http://redlineav.com/tsg.deposition.contd.2.html

Michael McCoy

by Michael McCoy (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 487 comments [26 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 9:32:04 PM

  (0+)

"All 58 steel perimeter columns - and each of the 25 internal steel columns throughout the entire 47 story structure formally known as the WTC 7, or Solomon Brothers Building, collapsed simultaneously."

You don't read very well, Mr McCoy.  All of the columns did NOT collapse simultaneously.  There was a progressive but localized collapse along the eastern end of the south side of WTC 7.  This limited collapse appears to have caused the East Penthouse to collapse inwards, the structure held for several sections, and then failed catastrophically with a slight tilt to the south and east - http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf .

Who's saying WTC 7 had a uniform failure of it's floor(s) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYzLu7gDbJs ?

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:39:22 PM

  (0+)

The NIST Report is total BS and so too was that silly video you posted. Noting but BS.

Do youself a favor Mr. Murphy, stop that video at 2:12 and then at 3:55. There you can see the difference between a steel beam and a truss. The huge steel beam which is shown at 2:12 does not collapse like you would like and as the very laughable video depicts. And there were many other huge steel beams such as that erected throughout the Building seven structure.

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 12:11:25 AM

  (0+)

"The NIST Report is total BS and so too was that silly video you posted. Noting but BS."

Please elaborate.  What points in particular were BS and what evidence do you have to offer that shows these points to be BS?  It's one thing to whine, quite another to reason.

I'm certain, given that you have obvioulsy read the NIST interim report and presentation to conclude it being BS, you are aware of the significant departure from traditional structural framing by the WTC 7 enginners in order to build atop a ConEd electric substation (13.8 kV feeders) - http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf .

The initial failure - at the structure's lower floors - occurred above the substation.  The scene is being set... 

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 9:42:14 PM

  (0+)

Such childish things as:

"You don't read very well" Mr. So-and-so, or "... I can only feel sympathy for such a belief structure because I feel you will not know genuine happiness or even serenity in your lives.  You'll ... feel a deep distrust of others, a frustrating ... questiong [sic] ... when such silliness enters your thoughts and actions."

So, hey, ladies and germs, keep those punches above the belt.

by meremark (1 articles, 3 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 572 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 9, 2008 at 5:02:15 PM

  (0+)