Looks like the "conspiracy theories" really were true after all...
schoenf...@gmail.com
crashing down on the day of 9/11.
The third building, WTC 7, can be seen here
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329
There is no mention of this building in 911 Omission Report.
Can fire make a building come crashing down at free fall speed?
If you think it can, patent the idea and make billions in the
demolitions industry!
How do we know WTC 7 was demolished?
If WTC 7 collapsed in 6 seconds, and it takes 6 seconds to free fall
from the roof of WTC 7, then you got it - WTC 7 underwent a free fall.
This means as the each floor was falling straight to the ground it did
so without crashing into anything on the way. ONLY CONTROLLED
DEMOLITION CAN ACCOMPLISH THAT!
PROPOSITION 1:
It took a total of 6 seconds for the roof of WTC 7 to reach the
ground. This proposition is supported by the empirical,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329
Collapse start time: 17 seconds
Collapse end time: 23 seconds
Total collapse time: 23-17 = 6 seconds
PROPOSITION 2:
A free fall from a height equal to the roof of WTC 7 would take 6
seconds. This proposition derives trivially through (Galilean)
kinematical considerations alone:
Displacement = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 * acceleration *
total time^2
or
s = ut + 1/2at^2
where
s = 174 m (height of building)
u = 0 m/s (building was stationary prior to collapse)
a = 9.8 m/s^2 (since gravitational field strengh averages at
a constant)
Thus,
174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2
Solving for t
t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8)
= 5.9590
~ 6 seconds
oasysco
You forgot the integral of time vs distance vs mass vs cubic area. If
you take the integral of those 4 factors, invert the result and
synthesize through Eigen's value vector, and then apply Machewan's
hypothesis to each of the resulting formulatic phrases, you will see
that your hypothesis is bullshit.
Robert Weldon
<schoenf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193144459.0...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Most people don't know that there were actually 3 buildings which came
> crashing down on the day of 9/11.
>
> The third building, WTC 7, can be seen here
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329
>
> There is no mention of this building in 911 Omission Report.
>
> Can fire make a building come crashing down at free fall speed?
>
> If you think it can, patent the idea and make billions in the
> demolitions industry!
>
> How do we know WTC 7 was demolished?
It wasn't, the other two towers fell on it, and fire finished it off
-crap snipped
Barnacle Bill the Sailor
for one life?
Ivan Marsh
Actually that's not true... the recording of the phone call between the
building owner and the "rescue" crews where the building owner gives the
okay to "pull" the building is on record.
The audio can be found here:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc7newspaper.htm
Even if you don't believe the conspiracy theories you should at least know
that you haven't been told the truth.
Though I fail to see what this has to do with Linux.
--
I told you this was going to happen.
george2
they are all complete nonsense. If you to to the ny firemens site you will
read the firemens viewpoint how they were taking measurements and predicted
the collapse of wtc7 before it happened.
The building owner could not have told the firemen to demolish the building
because they were not under his command. To believe that a building owner
can issue commands to firecrews and rescue workers it to really not
understand how the real world works.
G
"Ivan Marsh" <ann...@you.now> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.10.23....@you.now...
caver1
> I've sadly spent many sad checking out all these conspiracy theories and
> they are all complete nonsense. If you to to the ny firemens site you will
> read the firemens viewpoint how they were taking measurements and predicted
> the collapse of wtc7 before it happened.
> The building owner could not have told the firemen to demolish the building
> because they were not under his command. To believe that a building owner
> can issue commands to firecrews and rescue workers it to really not
> understand how the real world works.
> G
Remember Oklahoma City?
There were a total of 14 buildings damaged enough
that they had to be taken down.
You never heard about that unless you were in the
area.
There some buildings in NYC that had to come down
because of collateral damage,
but this in no ways even suggests conspiracy
caver1.
Ivan Marsh
> I've sadly spent many sad checking out all these conspiracy theories and
> they are all complete nonsense. If you to to the ny firemens site you
> will read the firemens viewpoint how they were taking measurements and
> predicted the collapse of wtc7 before it happened. The building owner
> could not have told the firemen to demolish the building because they
> were not under his command. To believe that a building owner can issue
> commands to firecrews and rescue workers it to really not understand how
> the real world works.
> G
You obviously didn't listen to the recording.
Mr. Smartypants
> I've sadly spent many sad checking out all these conspiracy theories and
> they are all complete nonsense. If you to to the ny firemens site you will
> read the firemens viewpoint how they were taking measurements and predicted
> the collapse of wtc7 before it happened.
LOL!!!
What made WTC7 collapse?
> The building owner could not have told the firemen to demolish the building
> because they were not under his command. To believe that a building owner
> can issue commands to firecrews and rescue workers it to really not
> understand how the real world works.
> G
>
> "Ivan Marsh" <anno...@you.now> wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2007.10.23....@you.now...
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:39:26 +0000, Robert Weldon wrote:
>
> >> <schoenfeld....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1193144459.0...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >>> Most people don't know that there were actually 3 buildings which came
> >>> crashing down on the day of 9/11.
>
> >>> The third building, WTC 7, can be seen here
>
> >>>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329
>
> >>> There is no mention of this building in 911 Omission Report.
>
> >>> Can fire make a building come crashing down at free fall speed?
>
> >>> If you think it can, patent the idea and make billions in the
> >>> demolitions industry!
>
> >>> How do we know WTC 7 was demolished?
>
> >> It wasn't, the other two towers fell on it, and fire finished it off
>
> > Actually that's not true... the recording of the phone call between the
> > building owner and the "rescue" crews where the building owner gives the
> > okay to "pull" the building is on record.
>
> > The audio can be found here:
> >http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc7newspaper.htm
>
> > Even if you don't believe the conspiracy theories you should at least know
> > that you haven't been told the truth.
>
> > Though I fail to see what this has to do with Linux.
>
> > --
> > I told you this was going to happen.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Outback Jon
> Actually that's not true... the recording of the phone call between the
> building owner and the "rescue" crews where the building owner gives the
> okay to "pull" the building is on record.
>
> The audio can be found here:
> http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc7newspaper.htm
Except that the audio files on that page are *not* the recording of the
phone calls.
--
"Outback" Jon - KC2BNE
outba...@ver.no.sp.am.izon.net
AMD Opteron 146 (@2.8) and 6.1 GHz of other AMD power...
http://folding.stanford.edu - got folding? Team 53560
2006 ZG1000A Concours "Blueline" COG# 7385 CDA# 0157
1980 CB750F SuperSport <== For Sale $1200
BrianNZ
Now you two go sit in the corner and tell each other how clever you are
and how silly everyone else is, keep patting each other on the back and
enjoy head nodding "I know" to each other.
No charge for the hook-up.......
TOPposter.
--
Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once
they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If
a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it
should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but
the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous
"Robert Weldon" <rweldon....@jrpspamblock.ca> wrote in message
news:yInTi.129113$1y4.20101@pd7urf2no...
TOPposter.
Raymond McGovern, former Chairman of the National Intelligence Council and
27-year CIA veteran, "I think at simplest terms, there's a cover-up. The
9/11 Report is a joke."
William Christison, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former
Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political, and 29-year CIA
veteran, "We very seriously need an entirely new very high level and truly
independent investigation of the events of 9/11. I think you almost have to
look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a joke and not a serious piece of
analysis at all."
Melvin Goodman, PhD, former Division Chief of the CIA's Office of Soviet
Affairs and Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990, "The final report is ultimately
a coverup. I don't know how else to describe it."
Robert Baer, 21-year CIA veteran and specialist in the Middle East, who was
awarded the Career Intelligence Medal upon his retirement in 1997, "Until we
get a complete, honest, transparent investigation ., we will never know what
happened on 9/11."
Robert David Steele has 25 years of combined service in the CIA and the U.S.
Marine Corps. Second ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from
1988 - 1992. Member of the Adjunct Faculty of Marine Corps University. "I am
forced to conclude that 9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext
for war. . I have to tell anyone who cares to read this: I believe it. I
believe it enough to want a full investigation that passes the smell test of
the 9/11 families as well as objective outside observers."
Lynne Larkin, former CIA Operations Officer who served in several CIA
foreign stations before being assigned to the CIA's Counter-Intelligence
Center. There, she co-chaired a multi-agency task force, which coordinated
intelligence efforts among the many intelligence and law enforcement
agencies. One of twenty-five signers of a letter to Congress expressing
their concerns about "serious shortcomings," "omissions," and "major flaws"
in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new
investigation.
David MacMichael, PhD, former Senior Estimates Officer at the CIA with
special responsibility for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the CIA's National
Intelligence Council. Prior to joining the CIA, he served for four years as
a civilian counter-insurgency advisor to the U.S. government, and prior to
that was a U.S. Marine Corps officer for ten years. One of twenty-five
signers of a letter to Congress expressing their concerns about "serious
shortcomings," "omissions," and "major flaws" in the 9/11 Commission Report
and offering their services for a new investigation.
Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report
Official Account of 9/11 a "Joke" and a "Cover-up"
September 23, 2007 - Seven CIA veterans have severely criticized the
official account of 9/11 and have called for a new investigation. "I think
at simplest terms, there's a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke," said
Raymond McGovern, 27-year veteran of the CIA, who chaired National
Intelligence Estimates during the seventies. "There are a whole bunch of
unanswered questions. And the reason they're unanswered is because this
administration will not answer the questions," he said. McGovern, who is
also the founder of VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity), is
one of many signers of a petition to reinvestigate 9/11.[1]
During his 27-year CIA career, McGovern personally delivered intelligence
briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice
Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other
senior government officials. Upon retirement in 1990, McGovern was awarded
the CIA's Intelligence Commendation Medallion and received a letter of
appreciation from then President George H. W. Bush. However, McGovern
returned the award in 2006 in protest of the current George W. Bush
Administration's advocacy and use of torture.
In his blurb for 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out," edited
by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, McGovern wrote "It has long been
clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of
9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us
with evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks
were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could
be thus exploited. If this is true, it is not merely the case, as the
Downing Street memos show, that the stated reason for attacking Iraq was a
lie. It is also the case that the whole "war on terror" was based on a prior
deception. This book hence confronts the American people---indeed the people
of the world as a whole---with an issue second to none in importance and
urgency. I give this book, which in no way can be dismissed as the ravings
of 'paranoid conspiracy theorists,' my highest possible recommendation."
William Christison, a 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence
Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and
Political Analysis also describes the 9/11 Commission Report as a "joke" and
offers even more outspoken criticism. In a 2006 audio interview he said, "We
very seriously need an entirely new very high level and truly independent
investigation of the events of 9/11. I think you almost have to look at the
9/11 Commission Report as a joke and not a serious piece of analysis at
all."
Earlier this year, in an endorsement of David Ray Griffin's book, Debunking
9/11 Debunking, Christison wrote "[There's] a strong body of evidence
showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11,
2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies." And in an online
essay in late 2006, he wrote, "I now think there is persuasive evidence that
the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the
9/11 Commission would have us believe. . An airliner almost certainly did
not hit The Pentagon. . The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center
almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked
aircraft hit them."
Prior to his retirement from the CIA in 1979, Christison served as Director
of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, overseeing 200
analysts who collected intelligence and provided analysis on all regions and
every country in the world. Prior to that, he served as one of only a
handful of NIO's in the intelligence community. NIO's are responsible for
the intelligence community efforts in a particular area and are the
principal advisors to the Director of Central Intelligence. Christison was
NIO for Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Africa.
Melvin Goodman, PhD, is another former senior CIA official who calls the
9/11 Commission Report a "coverup" and who signed the petition to
reinvestigate 9/11 Goodman was the Division Chief of the CIA's Office of
Soviet Affairs and served as Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served
as Professor of International Security at the National War College from
1986 - 2004.
In testimony before a 2005 Congressional briefing on the 9/11 Commission
Report Goodman said, "I want to talk about the [9/11] Commission itself,
about the flawed process of the Commission and finally about the conflict of
interest within the Commission that is extremely important to understand the
failure of the Commission. . The final report is ultimately a coverup. I
don't know how else to describe it." Goodman is currently Senior Fellow at
the Center for International Policy and Adjunct Professor of Government at
Johns Hopkins University.
Robert Baer is another well known CIA veteran who has questioned the
official account of 9/11. A 21-year CIA veteran and specialist in the Middle
East, Baer was awarded the Career Intelligence Medal upon his retirement in
1997. After retirement, he wrote two best-selling non-fiction books about
the CIA, See no Evil Sleeping with the Devil the former of which was the
basis for the Academy Award-winning movie Syriana, starring George Clooney.
Baer was also the writer and on-camera commentator for the Emmy
Award-nominated documentary Cult of the Suicide Bomber.
Baer has repeatedly questioned whether al-Qaida could have accomplished 9/11
alone. The 9/11 Commission Report categorically found al-Qaida to be
entirely responsible for 9/11, stating, "Similarly, we have seen no evidence
that any foreign government -- or government official -- supplied any
funding." However, this 9/11 Commission finding directly contradicts the
earlier finding of the Joint House-Senate Select Intelligence Committee's
2002 Report (p.415) of "sources of foreign support for some of the September
11 hijackers."
In a
In 2006, during an interview by Thom Hartmann, Baer, after commenting on the
financial profits being made from 9/11, was asked: "What about political
profit? There are those who suggest that ... someone in that chain of
command ... had pretty good knowledge that 9/11 was going to happen -- and
really didn't do much to stop it -- or even obstructed efforts to stop it
because they thought it would lend legitimacy to Bush's ... failing
presidency." Baer replied: "Absolutely." Hartmann then asked, "So you are
personally of the opinion ... that there was an aspect of 'inside job' to
9/11 within the U.S. government?" To which Baer replied, "There is that
possibility, the evidence points at it." When Hartmann continued, "And why
is it not being investigated?" Baer replied, "Why isn't the WMD story being
investigated? Why hasn't anybody been held accountable for 9/11? We held
people accountable after Pearl Harbor. Why has there been no change in
command? Why have there been no political repercussions? Why has there been
no -- any sort of exposure on this? It really makes you wonder."
In his blurb for the revised and updated edition of David Ray Griffin's
Debunking 9/11 Debunking Baer wrote "Until we get a complete, honest,
transparent investigation ., we will never know what happened on 9/11."
"I am forced to conclude that 9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a
pretext for war," wrote well-known intelligence analyst Robert David Steele
in 2006 in a review of the book, 9/11 Synthetic Terror by Webster Tarpley
Steele is the author of numerous books on the intelligence services and is
currently the CEO of OSS.net, a proponent of Open Source Intelligence.
Steele has 25 years of combined service in the CIA and the U.S. Marine
Corps. He also served as the second ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine
Corps Intelligence from 1988 - 1992 and was a member of the Adjunct Faculty
of Marine Corps University. Steele continued, "I have to tell anyone who
cares to read this: I believe it. I believe it enough to want a full
investigation that passes the smell test of the 9/11 families as well as
objective outside observers."
In a subsequent interview on the Alex Jones Show Steele said, "The U.S.
government did not properly investigate this [9/11] and there are more rocks
to be turned over," and added, "I'm absolutely certain that WTC 7 was
brought down by controlled demolition and that, as far as I'm concerned,
means that this case has not been properly investigated. There's no way that
building could have come down without controlled demolition."
In late 2004, a group of 25 intelligence service and law enforcement
veterans sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about
"serious shortcomings," "omissions," and "major flaws" in the 9/11
Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation. Their
letter was apparently entirely ignored. Among the signers were four CIA
veterans; Raymond McGovern and Melvin Goodman (both mentioned above) and
Lynne Larkin and David MacMichael.
Lynne Larkin was a CIA Operations Officer who served in several CIA foreign
stations before being assigned to the CIA's Counter-Intelligence Center.
There, she co-chaired a multi-agency task force, which, among other
functions, provided direction to other federal agencies for coordinating
intelligence efforts among the many intelligence and law enforcement
agencies.
David MacMichael, PhD, is a former Senior Estimates Officer at the CIA with
special responsibility for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the CIA's National
Intelligence Council. Prior to joining the CIA, he served as a U.S. Marine
Corps officer for ten years and for four years as a counter-insurgency
advisor to the government.
Their letter read:
"[W]e the undersigned wish to bring to the attention of the Congress and the
people of the United States what we believe are serious shortcomings in the
report and its recommendations. .
Omission is one of the major flaws in the Commission's report. We are aware
of significant issues and cases that were duly reported to the commission by
those of us with direct knowledge, but somehow escaped attention. .
The omission of such serious and applicable issues and information by itself
renders the report flawed, and casts doubt on the validity of many of its
recommendations. ...
The Commission, with its incomplete report of "facts and circumstances",
intentional avoidance of assigning accountability, and disregard for the
knowledge, expertise and experience of those who actually do the job, has
now set about pressuring our Congress and our nation to hastily implement
all its recommendations. .
We the undersigned, who have worked within various government agencies (FBI,
CIA, FAA, DIA, Customs) responsible for national security and public safety,
call upon you in Congress to include the voices of those with first-hand
knowledge and expertise in the important issues at hand. We stand ready to
do our part."
And they and thousands of dedicated, loyal, and experienced military
officers, intelligence service and law enforcement veterans, and government
officials still stand ready to provide assistance for a thorough, impartial,
and honest investigation into the terrible acts of 9/11.
Statements questioning the official account of 9/11 and calls for a new
investigation by hundreds of credible individuals can be found at
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
--
Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once
they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If
a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it
should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but
the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous
"Robert Weldon" <rweldon....@jrpspamblock.ca> wrote in message
news:yInTi.129113$1y4.20101@pd7urf2no...
>
jaf
what evidence, real or rumored to be real, or "on the internet" and
therefore carved in stone, do you have that any of those people actually
work for CIA?
John
"TOPposter." <TOPposter@Poster,com.> wrote in message
news:NAtTi.146$oD1.1...@news.sisna.com...
Robert Weldon
"Ivan Marsh" <ann...@you.now> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.10.23....@you.now...
You obviously didn't either.
The statement was in reference to pulling the people out and let it
collapse, not demolish the building, this piece of crap has long been
refuted, yet the conspiracy loonies keep regurgiposting it. As has already
been mentioned, the FD had been watching the building, including using
surveying instruments to monitor the walls buckling, for hours before it
collapsed.
Robert Weldon
"Mr. Smartypants" <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1193165851....@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 23, 9:47 am, "george2" <geo...@twig.tk> wrote:
>> I've sadly spent many sad checking out all these conspiracy theories and
>> they are all complete nonsense. If you to to the ny firemens site you
>> will
>> read the firemens viewpoint how they were taking measurements and
>> predicted
>> the collapse of wtc7 before it happened.
>
>
> LOL!!!
>
> What made WTC7 collapse?
>
Gravity and structural failure.
Lucifer
There is no state of Idaho
http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/idaho_does_not_exist.html
Or town of Bielefeld
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielefeld_Conspiracy
--
Lucifer - Yamha XV535 Virago
snowman
>
>
> This means as the each floor was falling straight to the ground it did
> so without crashing into anything on the way. ONLY CONTROLLED
> DEMOLITION CAN ACCOMPLISH THAT!
>
>
"According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's
failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were
carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area
for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you
take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it
could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire
section comes down."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5#wtc7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry
> <schoenf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> How do we know WTC 7 was demolished?
> It wasn't, the other two towers fell on it, and fire finished it off
You obviously have no idea where WTC7 was located or what hit it.
Like all mindless parrots of the Bush regime's cartoon conspiracy
theory, you're ignorant of the facts and are either too stupid or
too lazy to get informed. This link has an illustration. Since you
can't seem to read, maybe that'll help.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/collateral.html
This link contains expert research on WTC7's obvious demolition.
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://stj911.org
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.911truth.org
Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
Ever wonder who benefits from the 700 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21
"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...
Henry
> I've sadly spent many sad checking out all these conspiracy theories and
> they are all complete nonsense.
The Bush's regime's conspiracy theory is obviously complete nonsense,
but the inside job/demolition conspiracy theory has been proved beyond
any doubt by dozens of highly qualified experts.
snowman
>
>>
>> What made WTC7 collapse?
>>
>>
>
> Gravity and structural failure.
>
>
snowman
> george2 wrote:
>
~snip~
I've often wondered about these theories. Assuming for a second that
they were true (which of course they are not), what would be the purpose
of the US government intentionally destroying some of the most prominent
buildings in NYC? Insurance fraud? Political expediency?
Assuming that they were true once again, it would take literally
several hundred people to covertly pull off the destruction of these
buildings. Why have none of them come forward to admit their role in
the destruction of these buildings? One person can keep a secret. Two
can share a secret. But keeping a conspiracy such as this secret
amongst several hundred people would be difficult if not impossible. In
the words of the MythBusters..... "I call this one busted".
Charles
It was done to distract people while Bush stole the $200 billion worth
of gold that was stored in the basement of building 7. I read in on
the Internet, so I'm sure it is true.
Mike McGinn
(guess where he died) was a civil engineer, he studied the design of the
towers. Now, do any of you conspiracy assholes know a fucking thing
about demolition. Do you have any idea how many charges would have to be
places to bring those buildings down?? Any idea of the amount of wiring
involved?? Any idea how much time it would take?? Any idea how it could
be done in buildings where thousands of people worked 24 hours a day??
Your stupidity is astounding. No wonder this country sucks in science
and math. Read a fucking engineering book assholes.
Sincerely
--
Mike McGinn
"more kidneys than eyes"
Registered Linux User 377849
BrianNZ
<LOUD APPLAUSE> standing ovation!!
snowman
>
>> What a bunch of fucking idiots. My brother Lt. Billy McGinn SQ18 FDNY
>> (guess where he died) was a civil engineer, he studied the design of the
>> towers. Now, do any of you conspiracy assholes know a fucking thing
>> about demolition. Do you have any idea how many charges would have to be
>> places to bring those buildings down?? Any idea of the amount of wiring
>> involved?? Any idea how much time it would take?? Any idea how it could
>> be done in buildings where thousands of people worked 24 hours a day??
>>
>> Your stupidity is astounding. No wonder this country sucks in science
>> and math. Read a fucking engineering book assholes.
>>
>> Sincerely
>>
>
>
> <LOUD APPLAUSE> standing ovation!!
z13...@yahoo.com
>
> What a bunch of fucking idiots. My brother bla bla bla
They curse, they spit, they call you nasty names - BUT THEY CAN'T
DEFEND THEIR DEVIL'S LIES!
And the official 911 cover story is a devil's lie from beginning to
end!!!
george2
They have absolutely no qualifications or experience in building
engineering. !!
G
"Henry" <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote in message
news:ffm43p$f8h$9...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
Kuba
Also from wikipedia:
Aldo of Pignotti
they say is bullshit. They are just hateful little toads. The best
thing to do is to just ignore them.
Robert Weldon
> Robert Weldon wrote:
>> <schoenf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>> How do we know WTC 7 was demolished?
>
>> It wasn't, the other two towers fell on it, and fire finished it off
>
> You obviously have no idea where WTC7 was located or what hit it.
I know exactly where it was, and I know tons of debris from the two towers
fell on it.
> Like all mindless parrots of the Bush regime's cartoon conspiracy
> theory, you're ignorant of the facts and are either too stupid or
> too lazy to get informed. This link has an illustration. Since you
> can't seem to read, maybe that'll help.
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/collateral.html
Oh I can read just fine, the problem is you can't think.
>
> This link contains expert research on WTC7's obvious demolition.
>
> http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
>
>
I am a Civil Engineer, you know, those guys who design and build things?
And I am Canadian, so how the fuck am I supposed to be a mindless parrot of
the Bush regime, you fucking conspiracy loon retard. I can read reports and
I know how buildings are designed and how they fall down. Your "experts"
are idiots, the conspiracy crap I have seen on the various websites are
complete fabrications and distortions.
>
>
> --
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net
> http://stj911.org
> http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
> http://www.911truth.org
>
Nice job, these are some of the nuttiest sites you could find. Their crap
has long been refuted by the real experts.
> Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
> to raging infernos for hours on end.
>
> http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
>
> On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
> had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
> at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
> demolition.
No it didn't, it was failing for hours before it finally collapsed. Learn
some physics and structural engineering. Where is the evidence of the
controlled demolition? With the fires and damage, some of those charges
would have been damaged and would not have functioned, where were the duds?
Why was nothing found in the debris? Where is all the wiring, how did they
do all that without ANYBODY seeing anything? You conspiracy nutbarss will
accept any loony idea without critical thought.
Just a thought. How many of these 911 nutbars are also moon hoax nutbars? Or
JFK conspiracy nutbars? I suspect there is a strong connection.
-rest of consipiracy crap snipped
Ivan Marsh
Ivan Marsh
Ivan Marsh
> What a bunch of fucking idiots. My brother Lt. Billy McGinn SQ18 FDNY
> (guess where he died) was a civil engineer, he studied the design of the
> towers. Now, do any of you conspiracy assholes know a fucking thing
> about demolition. Do you have any idea how many charges would have to be
> places to bring those buildings down?? Any idea of the amount of wiring
> involved?? Any idea how much time it would take?? Any idea how it could
> be done in buildings where thousands of people worked 24 hours a day??
>
> Your stupidity is astounding. No wonder this country sucks in science
> and math. Read a fucking engineering book assholes.
You're absolutely correct... and you're assuming that the buildings
weren't wired for demolition long before the attack on the trade center.
Mike McGinn
And this would have been missed in the frequent FDNY inspections??
Not to mention the explosive sweeps that were done regularly on the WTC
buildings.
You cling to stupidity.
z13...@yahoo.com
towers
fell on it.
--- You ignored what I said before, bullshit artists, as well as all
the other hundreds, if not thousands, of 911 "anomalies" (i.e. lies) -
like for instance, to pick one out of the hat, how did Bush see the
first plane crash into the 1st tower BEFORE he minced into his little
classroom on 911? He described this at least twice, and the
malevolent little traitor thought it was pretty funny: "I thought
that must have been a very bad pilot," he joked. Problem is the 1st
plane crash wasn't on tv until the following day, 9/12. He must have
been getting a direct closed circuit feed from the Mossad camera crew
or some other source. Also, the school custodian saw a plane crashing
into a big building on Bush's limo tv when he exited to go into the
school for his 911 photo op. Also, why didn't Bush and his Secret
Service react when Card whispered in his ear that tower two had been
struck, when everybody in teh world knew taht the USA was under
attack? If 911 had been real the Secret Service would have
immediately whisked the little traitor away to safety. The school
photo op location was well-publicized and near an airport besides.
You bullshitting cursing and spitting brain dead would-be defenders of
the 911 hoax of course ignore this and everything else!
But why waste more time here on a GPS forum with a malicious jackass
like you? There are many forums devoted to discssing the subject, and
I have yet to see one single person attempt to rationally defend the
911 hoax on any one, or in any other place, in a coherant give and
take discussion - and that's because it can't be defended. The
official 911 cover story makes no sense and bears no scrutiny
whatsoever!
Richard B. Gilbert
Arguing with a conspiracy theorist is a waste of time and bandwidth.
His mind is made up and no fact or accumulation of facts will change his
opinion!
The John F. Kennedy assasination is a good case in point. Hundreds, if
not thousands, of people have investigated, researched, generated
hundreds of thousands of pages of bullshit and haven't managed to prove
anything to anyone's satisfaction but their own. Did Lee Harvey Oswald
really do it? Did he act independently or was he backed by the CIA, the
Cubans, Moscow or some combination?
Any concievable theory has rabid proponents who cling to any shards of
evidence that support their position and denounce any and all evidence
that does not support their position. It's more like a religious
dispute than anything else I can think of!
z13...@yahoo.com
towers
fell on it.
z13...@yahoo.com
towers
--- Tons of debris did NOT fall on 7 WTC. It was seperated from the
twin towers by over a city block. Only small fires were burning in
it. Lucky Larry Silverstein, the owner - and close personal friend of
Netanyahu of israel (whose first unguarded words on 911 were, "This is
good for Israel") - had purchased the WTC complex as shortly before
911 as the law would allow. He made BILLIONS of dollars on 911! He
also said - and we have it right on camera - that he ordered building
7 PULLED on 911. Why was he never even questioned about that statement
- let alone indicted for suspicion of multiple counts of arson and
over 3,000 counts of murder!?
--- Furthermore, you completely ignored what I said before, as well as
ignoring all
z13...@yahoo.com
Yeah, tell me about conspiracy theories - you with your Bush family
biz partner hiding in a cave in the Himalayan foothills and 19 Arab
"islamaniacs" (woops, now Newspeak-altered to "Islamo-fascists") who
couldn't fly and weren't even on board - and they did 911 because
"they hated our freedom" and because the USA "is a shining beacon of
democracy".
Yeah, champ, tell me about "conspiracy theories"!
Jon
> <schoenfeld....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> [snip of breathtakingly off-topic, useless cranial spooge]
Something to help get your head on straight:
<http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/>
*PLONK*
Davorin Vlahovic
>> On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
>> had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
>> at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
>> demolition.
>
> No it didn't, it was failing for hours before it finally collapsed.
No it didn't. If fell within seconds.
> Learn
> some physics and structural engineering.
Hello, physics professor here.
> Where is the evidence of the
> controlled demolition?
There's the free fall of the entire building thing for one. Many people
reported multiple explosions (see the wtc firefighter clip where they
say they've heard multiple sequential explosions).
And, the question I like to ask: what happened to 47 "spindle" columns
that carried the whole construction?
Those things were somewhat unique to those towers. But, somehow those
were the first things to get placed on the lorries and transfered to
South Korea to be melted - before any investigation! And guess what -
they were just the right length for a lorry to fit on >:}
> With the fires and damage, some of those charges
> would have been damaged and would not have functioned, where were the duds?
Where's any part of any wtc1,2,7 tower? Where are the columns that bore the
whole construction? It's impossible for them to collapse into
themselves.
Also, the wtc1 and wtc2 were built in three sections - why hasn't the
topmost section fell on the street?
> Why was nothing found in the debris?
Better yet, where's debris? All there was was a fine concrete dust. No
parts of concrete outer walls. Why were there molten steel pools weeks
after the demolition (that's what it was)?
> Where is all the wiring, how did they
> do all that without ANYBODY seeing anything? You conspiracy nutbarss will
> accept any loony idea without critical thought.
Really?
So, two planes brought down three buildings in a free fall with obvious
explosions on each floor on wtc1 and wtc2? See this one:
http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm
BTW, the smoke coming out of the skyscrapers was black. Ask any fireman
what it means - cool fire, small amounts of oxygen.
Also, at the demolition site there was a piroclastic cloud (dense
tiny airborne material) ejected upwards with high speed - powdered
concrete which can exist only in demolitions and vulcanic eruptions.
--
Izbori: (i) proces kojim idioti biraju lazljivce
Davorin Vlahovic
> Assuming that they were true once again, it would take literally
> several hundred people to covertly pull off the destruction of these
> buildings. Why have none of them come forward to admit their role in
> the destruction of these buildings? One person can keep a secret. Two
> can share a secret. But keeping a conspiracy such as this secret
> amongst several hundred people would be difficult if not impossible.
Yeah, but you're thinking in a westerner's way. Try to think like a
fanatic that shares a vision with hundreds of others. Think "hero to entire
nation(s)".
Davorin Vlahovic
> What a bunch of fucking idiots. My brother Lt. Billy McGinn SQ18 FDNY
> (guess where he died) was a civil engineer, he studied the design of the
> towers.
Sorry for your loss, but what about it?
> Do you have any idea how many charges would have to be
> places to bring those buildings down??
Sure, the number is questionable :)
> Any idea of the amount of wiring
> involved?? Any idea how much time it would take?? Any idea how it could
> be done in buildings where thousands of people worked 24 hours a day??
Sure, it's impossible because we all know that all the people that
worked there regularly go through maintenance shafts and watched people
maintain the building :')
> Your stupidity is astounding. No wonder this country sucks in science
> and math. Read a fucking engineering book assholes.
There is no way in this Earth for building (skyscraper!) to go down at
free fall speed straight down, spitting *powdered* concrete upwards
(bigger chunks of concrete were never found, not even office equipment!
and steel was melted!).
The towers were built to withstand a boeing 707 crash, videotape
analysis confirmed the statics of the building to be ok after the crash
(they've checked the sway of the buildings after the impact) and let's
not forget - jetfuel isn't enough to melt all (or any!) of the 47 steel
columns going through the middle of the building.
Davorin Vlahovic
Sure. And the Earth is just 6000 yrs old. _grin_
z13...@yahoo.com
> Sure. And the Earth is just 6000 yrs old. _grin_
>
4,312 or something, I think, according to these tin foil hatted
loonies - the same loonies that believe the official Bush-Likkudnik, I
mean "neo con", fairy tale about what happened on 911, and the
aftermath of *war without end* for which they use that false flag op
as their excuse. They believe it. It all makes perfect sense to
them. Or so they tell us.
Davorin Vlahovic
Of course, the government is here to protect people, right? The
government would never do anything to harm people, right?
Wrong - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Oh, btw, my signature is ideal for this topic. It says: "Elections: (n)
process in which idiots elect liars".* :)
[*] I'm not saying everyone who decides to take part in elections is a
liar.
BrianNZ
> On 2007-10-24, z13...@yahoo.com <z13...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Sure. And the Earth is just 6000 yrs old. _grin_
>> 4,312 or something, I think, according to these tin foil hatted
>> loonies - the same loonies that believe the official Bush-Likkudnik, I
>> mean "neo con", fairy tale about what happened on 911, and the
>> aftermath of *war without end* for which they use that false flag op
>> as their excuse. They believe it. It all makes perfect sense to
>> them. Or so they tell us.
>
> Of course, the government is here to protect people, right? The
> government would never do anything to harm people, right?
>
> Wrong - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
It was not implemented.....no one was harmed. It was a plan that was
scrapped, which goes to show the govt. was doing it's job.
>
> Oh, btw, my signature is ideal for this topic. It says: "Elections: (n)
> process in which idiots elect liars".* :)
>
> [*] I'm not saying everyone who decides to take part in elections is a
> liar.
So, since those who vote are idiots, what do want to live
under......anarchy or a dictatorship?
democracy has its pitfalls, but the other options are worse!
Davorin Vlahovic
>>
>> Wrong - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
>
> It was not implemented.....no one was harmed.
How could anyone know? For all we know, IME that could be big enough
to get people killed at the time. Or especially one - JFK (if you like
conspiracy theories :) )
> It was a plan that was
> scrapped, which goes to show the govt. was doing it's job.
Sure, why not. :)
>> Oh, btw, my signature is ideal for this topic. It says: "Elections: (n)
>> process in which idiots elect liars".* :)
>>
>> [*] I'm not saying everyone who decides to take part in elections is a
>> liar.
>
> So, since those who vote are idiots, what do want to live
> under......anarchy or a dictatorship?
Benevolent and intelligent dictator would fit the requirement
quite nicely. Great leaders don't rule, they serve. Stupid, greedy,
apathetic, violent, egoistic and rash dictators are the problem here.
> democracy has its pitfalls, but the other options are worse!
Depends how you look at it. Since everyone over 18 are allowed to wote
there are lots of people who will decide on who to vote just because the
person is pleasant looking, does some seet-talking etc, etc, and not
because they've thought things through and evaluated objectively
all options with all reppercussions to it (you've guessed it, I call
these people idiots).
Davorin Vlahovic
> On 2007-10-24, BrianNZ <br...@itnz.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>> Wrong - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
>>
>> It was not implemented.....no one was harmed.
>
> How could anyone know? For all we know, IME that could be big enough
> to get people killed at the time. Or especially one - JFK (if you like
> conspiracy theories :) )
>
>> It was a plan that was
>> scrapped, which goes to show the govt. was doing it's job.
>
> Sure, why not. :)
BTW, I almost forgot, this isn't the first time the U.S. government
"allowed" such a thing to happen on the U.S. soil.
Remember Pearl Harbour? Yep! They knew. Before that the people of U.S.A.
were reluctant to enter WWII. What was approval rate after P.H.? Yep,
you've got it.
And what about U.S.S. Liberty? It's sad, really.
BrianNZ
> On 2007-10-24, BrianNZ <br...@itnz.co.nz> wrote:
>>> Wrong - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
>> It was not implemented.....no one was harmed.
>
> How could anyone know? For all we know, IME that could be big enough
> to get people killed at the time. Or especially one - JFK (if you like
> conspiracy theories :) )
I was just going off your Wiki link........
>
>> It was a plan that was
>> scrapped, which goes to show the govt. was doing it's job.
>
> Sure, why not. :)
>
>>> Oh, btw, my signature is ideal for this topic. It says: "Elections: (n)
>>> process in which idiots elect liars".* :)
>>>
>>> [*] I'm not saying everyone who decides to take part in elections is a
>>> liar.
>> So, since those who vote are idiots, what do want to live
>> under......anarchy or a dictatorship?
>
> Benevolent and intelligent dictator would fit the requirement
> quite nicely. Great leaders don't rule, they serve. Stupid, greedy,
> apathetic, violent, egoistic and rash dictators are the problem here.
>
There seems to be a shortage of benevolent and intelligent dictators
(and elected officials!), but plenty of the others! :)
Even if the dictators themselves are benevolent, it doesn't take long
before political/religious minnions take control and leave the dictator
as a puppet.
>> democracy has its pitfalls, but the other options are worse!
>
> Depends how you look at it. Since everyone over 18 are allowed to wote
> there are lots of people who will decide on who to vote just because the
> person is pleasant looking, does some seet-talking etc, etc, and not
> because they've thought things through and evaluated objectively
> all options with all reppercussions to it (you've guessed it, I call
> these people idiots).
>
yep, people are only allowed to vote for the people the politicians put
forward.
I'd like to see a voting system where the people could vote 'no
confidence' if there was no one worthwhile voting for. The 'no
confidence' votes would be the silent majority in the
parliament/congress, blocking the passing of new laws/bills. it would
force the politicians to listen to the people, rather than just give
them a choice of pre-selected candidates.
Davorin Vlahovic
>> Benevolent and intelligent dictator would fit the requirement
>> quite nicely. Great leaders don't rule, they serve. Stupid, greedy,
>> apathetic, violent, egoistic and rash dictators are the problem here.
>
> There seems to be a shortage of benevolent and intelligent dictators
> (and elected officials!), but plenty of the others! :)
Unfortunately.
> Even if the dictators themselves are benevolent, it doesn't take long
> before political/religious minnions take control and leave the dictator
> as a puppet.
I would disagree. There was a time when Roman Empire was ruled by three
such dictators and all was well...until one day one's son got to be a
dictator.
>> Depends how you look at it. Since everyone over 18 are allowed to wote
>> there are lots of people who will decide on who to vote just because the
>> person is pleasant looking, does some seet-talking etc, etc, and not
>> because they've thought things through and evaluated objectively
>> all options with all reppercussions to it (you've guessed it, I call
>> these people idiots).
>>
> yep, people are only allowed to vote for the people the politicians put
> forward.
Hm, it wasn't my point, but ok.
> I'd like to see a voting system where the people could vote 'no
> confidence' if there was no one worthwhile voting for. The 'no
> confidence' votes would be the silent majority in the
> parliament/congress, blocking the passing of new laws/bills. it would
> force the politicians to listen to the people, rather than just give
> them a choice of pre-selected candidates.
I'd still opt for a benevolent dictator :)
Unruh
>On 2007-10-24, Robert Weldon <rweldon....@jrpspamblock.ca> wrote:
>>> On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
>>> had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
>>> at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
>>> demolition.
>>
>> No it didn't, it was failing for hours before it finally collapsed.
>No it didn't. If fell within seconds.
Uh, failing is not falling. I realise that they only differ by one letter,
but it is a crucial letter.
>> Learn
>> some physics and structural engineering.
>Hello, physics professor here.
>> Where is the evidence of the
>> controlled demolition?
>There's the free fall of the entire building thing for one. Many people
One would expect roughly freefall once the fall started. The forces are
simply insufficient in such a critical collapse to slow down the building.
(Actually timing is is extremely difficult due to all the dust )
>reported multiple explosions (see the wtc firefighter clip where they
>say they've heard multiple sequential explosions).
I would expect to hear multiple individual cracks as members
catastrophically failed at the beginning, all to merge into a roar as the
building actually collapsed.
>And, the question I like to ask: what happened to 47 "spindle" columns
>that carried the whole construction?
>Those things were somewhat unique to those towers. But, somehow those
>were the first things to get placed on the lorries and transfered to
>South Korea to be melted - before any investigation! And guess what -
>they were just the right length for a lorry to fit on >:}
I will agree that the investiative phase was pretty cursory, but I also
think there was a desire to clean up and not continually be reminded by the
rubble. Also that rubble contained 2000 decomposing bodies, and lots of
other poisons.
>> With the fires and damage, some of those charges
>> would have been damaged and would not have functioned, where were the duds?
>Where's any part of any wtc1,2,7 tower? Where are the columns that bore the
>whole construction? It's impossible for them to collapse into
>themselves.
Impossible? Hmm. YOu believe that someone dematerialised them?
>Also, the wtc1 and wtc2 were built in three sections - why hasn't the
>topmost section fell on the street?
I would be interested in knowing what the stabilizing feature was tht kept
the collapse vertical. I could imagine some, but do not know what the
reason there was. And it sure was not controlled demolition.
>> Why was nothing found in the debris?
>Better yet, where's debris? All there was was a fine concrete dust. No
>parts of concrete outer walls. Why were there molten steel pools weeks
>after the demolition (that's what it was)?
??? Again you believe in dematerialisation?
>> Where is all the wiring, how did they
>> do all that without ANYBODY seeing anything? You conspiracy nutbarss will
>> accept any loony idea without critical thought.
>Really?
>So, two planes brought down three buildings in a free fall with obvious
>explosions on each floor on wtc1 and wtc2? See this one:
>http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm
>BTW, the smoke coming out of the skyscrapers was black. Ask any fireman
>what it means - cool fire, small amounts of oxygen.
>Also, at the demolition site there was a piroclastic cloud (dense
>tiny airborne material) ejected upwards with high speed - powdered
>concrete which can exist only in demolitions and vulcanic eruptions.
The buildings were demolished. EVeryone agrees. The cause of the demolition
is at question (well with you it is a question). "Pyroclastic flows" occur
when air is mixed with dust. The building contained LOTS of air. And the
fall generated lots of dust.
BrianNZ
> On 2007-10-24, BrianNZ <br...@itnz.co.nz> wrote:
>>> Benevolent and intelligent dictator would fit the requirement
>>> quite nicely. Great leaders don't rule, they serve. Stupid, greedy,
>>> apathetic, violent, egoistic and rash dictators are the problem here.
>> There seems to be a shortage of benevolent and intelligent dictators
>> (and elected officials!), but plenty of the others! :)
>
> Unfortunately.
>
>> Even if the dictators themselves are benevolent, it doesn't take long
>> before political/religious minnions take control and leave the dictator
>> as a puppet.
>
> I would disagree. There was a time when Roman Empire was ruled by three
> such dictators and all was well...until one day one's son got to be a
> dictator.
So a good one comes around every few thousand years........I'd bet there
were a lot of people at that time being dominated by the Roman empire
and who thought they weren't being very benevolent at all. Like ALL
dictators, any dissent will be met with death, so your benevolent
dictator is only benevolent to those who kiss his ass?
I'm sure Saddams boys looked upon him as a benevolent dictator?
>
>>> Depends how you look at it. Since everyone over 18 are allowed to wote
>>> there are lots of people who will decide on who to vote just because the
>>> person is pleasant looking, does some seet-talking etc, etc, and not
>>> because they've thought things through and evaluated objectively
>>> all options with all reppercussions to it (you've guessed it, I call
>>> these people idiots).
>>>
>> yep, people are only allowed to vote for the people the politicians put
>> forward.
>
> Hm, it wasn't my point, but ok.
>
>> I'd like to see a voting system where the people could vote 'no
>> confidence' if there was no one worthwhile voting for. The 'no
>> confidence' votes would be the silent majority in the
>> parliament/congress, blocking the passing of new laws/bills. it would
>> force the politicians to listen to the people, rather than just give
>> them a choice of pre-selected candidates.
>
> I'd still opt for a benevolent dictator :)
I hereby appoint you my first subject! Since I'm such a nice guy, your
tax rate will be lowered but you will pay it to me...... :)
Outback Jon
> Davorin Vlahovic <nr...@ylf.krs.ref.rh> writes:
>> Where's any part of any wtc1,2,7 tower? Where are the columns that bore the
>> whole construction? It's impossible for them to collapse into
>> themselves.
>
> Impossible? Hmm. YOu believe that someone dematerialised them?
>
I think I just figured it out. The columns were *made* of explosives.
It was all a plot from the very construction of the tower.
Man, that explains it all...
--
"Outback" Jon - KC2BNE
outba...@ver.no.sp.am.izon.net
AMD Opteron 146 (@2.8) and 6.1 GHz of other AMD power...
http://folding.stanford.edu - got folding? Team 53560
2006 ZG1000A Concours "Blueline" COG# 7385 CDA# 0157
1980 CB750F SuperSport <== For Sale $1200
Davorin Vlahovic
> Davorin Vlahovic <nr...@ylf.krs.ref.rh> writes:
>
>>On 2007-10-24, Robert Weldon <rweldon....@jrpspamblock.ca> wrote:
>>>> On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
>>>> had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
>>>> at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
>>>> demolition.
>>>
>>> No it didn't, it was failing for hours before it finally collapsed.
>
>>No it didn't. If fell within seconds.
>
> Uh, failing is not falling. I realise that they only differ by one letter,
> but it is a crucial letter.
Ok, I misread it. Never the less, there was nothing to fail in it to
cause even-leveled free-fall. The fire couldn't do it alone and nothing hit
it.
>>Hello, physics professor here.
>
>>> Where is the evidence of the
>>> controlled demolition?
>
>>There's the free fall of the entire building thing for one. Many people
>
> One would expect roughly freefall once the fall started.
Not even close.
> The forces are
> simply insufficient in such a critical collapse to slow down the building.
> (Actually timing is is extremely difficult due to all the dust )
Actually, the building 7 went down with some small amount of smoke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM
>>reported multiple explosions (see the wtc firefighter clip where they
>>say they've heard multiple sequential explosions).
>
> I would expect to hear multiple individual cracks as members
> catastrophically failed at the beginning, all to merge into a roar as the
> building actually collapsed.
Sure, accompanied by entire floors being popped right out horizontally
for wtc1 and wtc2 but not wtc7, right?
>>And, the question I like to ask: what happened to 47 "spindle" columns
>>that carried the whole construction?
>
>>Those things were somewhat unique to those towers. But, somehow those
>>were the first things to get placed on the lorries and transfered to
>>South Korea to be melted - before any investigation! And guess what -
>>they were just the right length for a lorry to fit on >:}
>
> I will agree that the investiative phase was pretty cursory, but I also
> think there was a desire to clean up and not continually be reminded by the
> rubble. Also that rubble contained 2000 decomposing bodies, and lots of
> other poisons.
You're kidding, right? You'd remove the evidence before the proper
investigation because it doesn't look pretty and emotionally hurts
people?
Yeah, why not? I'm sure people would be less hurt if they didn't know
what happened :')
>>> With the fires and damage, some of those charges
>>> would have been damaged and would not have functioned, where were the duds?
>
>>Where's any part of any wtc1,2,7 tower? Where are the columns that bore the
>>whole construction? It's impossible for them to collapse into
>>themselves.
>
> Impossible? Hmm. YOu believe that someone dematerialised them?
Of course not. I'm saying something else happened to them. They were
cut by explosions to exact size and took away from the scene.
Note here that they aren't harmful to environment at that stage.
>>Also, the wtc1 and wtc2 were built in three sections - why hasn't the
>>topmost section fell on the street?
>
> I would be interested in knowing what the stabilizing feature was tht kept
> the collapse vertical. I could imagine some, but do not know what the
> reason there was. And it sure was not controlled demolition.
How do you figure it wasn't? If 47 columns keep the building straight,
if some of them fail the others would at least get bent since they're
off center of gravity.
>>> Why was nothing found in the debris?
>
>>Better yet, where's debris? All there was was a fine concrete dust. No
>>parts of concrete outer walls. Why were there molten steel pools weeks
>>after the demolition (that's what it was)?
>
> ??? Again you believe in dematerialisation?
WTF is with you and dematerialisation? Concrete dust = exploded
concrete. Drop a piece of concrete from the height equivalent to the
height of WTC1 and see how much of it turns to powder.
Furthermore, steel doesn't keep itself in liquid form. It takes energy
to do that. Someone proposed this as a clue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
>>BTW, the smoke coming out of the skyscrapers was black. Ask any fireman
>>what it means - cool fire, small amounts of oxygen.
>
>>Also, at the demolition site there was a piroclastic cloud (dense
>>tiny airborne material) ejected upwards with high speed - powdered
>>concrete which can exist only in demolitions and vulcanic eruptions.
>
> The buildings were demolished. EVeryone agrees. The cause of the demolition
> is at question (well with you it is a question). "Pyroclastic flows" occur
> when air is mixed with dust. The building contained LOTS of air. And the
> fall generated lots of dust.
Well, as I've said before, drop a slab of concrete from that height and
see how much of it turns to fine dust in mid-air and how much of it
turns to fine dust when it lands.
Davorin Vlahovic
>>> Where's any part of any wtc1,2,7 tower? Where are the columns that bore the
>>> whole construction? It's impossible for them to collapse into
>>> themselves.
>>
>> Impossible? Hmm. YOu believe that someone dematerialised them?
>>
>
> I think I just figured it out. The columns were *made* of explosives.
> It was all a plot from the very construction of the tower.
Sure, but you have to leave them out to explain the pancake theory. They
weren't reported to even exist in the official report.
> Man, that explains it all...
No, this one is even better - God conspired with archangels to keep
people thinking the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Man, he even put
fossils of imaginary animals in the Earth to weed out the infidels,
"hacked" the speed of light, slowed the rotation of Earth and even
created Darwin to spread this so-called evolution theory :')
Davorin Vlahovic
>> I would disagree. There was a time when Roman Empire was ruled by three
>> such dictators and all was well...until one day one's son got to be a
>> dictator.
>
>
> So a good one comes around every few thousand years........I'd bet there
> were a lot of people at that time being dominated by the Roman empire
> and who thought they weren't being very benevolent at all.
Yep.
> Like ALL
> dictators, any dissent will be met with death, so your benevolent
> dictator is only benevolent to those who kiss his ass?
Nope. See Pope John Paul II. Met the man in 1992. I was very impressed.
> I'm sure Saddams boys looked upon him as a benevolent dictator?
Wouldn't know. But I'm thinking no.
>> I'd still opt for a benevolent dictator :)
>
> I hereby appoint you my first subject! Since I'm such a nice guy, your
> tax rate will be lowered but you will pay it to me...... :)
Doesn't work that way. Here's a new idea for you to ponder on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy
BrianNZ
> On 2007-10-24, BrianNZ <br...@itnz.co.nz> wrote:
>>> I would disagree. There was a time when Roman Empire was ruled by three
>>> such dictators and all was well...until one day one's son got to be a
>>> dictator.
>>
>> So a good one comes around every few thousand years........I'd bet there
>> were a lot of people at that time being dominated by the Roman empire
>> and who thought they weren't being very benevolent at all.
>
> Yep.
So a benevolent dictator to one person would be a despicable dictator to
others........
>
>> Like ALL
>> dictators, any dissent will be met with death, so your benevolent
>> dictator is only benevolent to those who kiss his ass?
>
> Nope. See Pope John Paul II. Met the man in 1992. I was very impressed.
Catholics can hardly be called 'benevolent'!! Look at the shite they
have stirred up over the centuries.
>
>> I'm sure Saddams boys looked upon him as a benevolent dictator?
>
> Wouldn't know. But I'm thinking no.
>
The ones that lived in palaces? His army? His police force? if you were
'with him' you got looked after.
>>> I'd still opt for a benevolent dictator :)
>> I hereby appoint you my first subject! Since I'm such a nice guy, your
>> tax rate will be lowered but you will pay it to me...... :)
>
> Doesn't work that way.
Why not? You don't get to choose dictators!
> Here's a new idea for you to ponder on:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy
>
I like that!....but I can't see the rich and powerful handing over
control for a long time yet......
Henry
> LOL!!!
>
> What made WTC7 collapse?
Why, Osama's magic, invisible fires, of course!
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://stj911.org
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.911truth.org
Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
Ever wonder who benefits from the 700 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21
"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
Henry
> schoenf...@gmail.com .... meet.... Henry <9...@insidejob.gov>
> Now you two go sit in the corner and tell each other how clever you are
> and how silly everyone else is,
It's more fun to let magic fire cartoon conspiracy kooks prove it than
it is to talk about it. <vbg>
Look at the height of WTC7:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture1.jpg
Then look at how it collapsed:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
Small random fires can't possibly make a steel framed building
do that. Not even a raging inferno can cause a steel building to
do anything even remotely close to that. Only a very well executed
controlled demolition can cause the total, instant, and symmetric
failure of all steel support columns that took place in WTC7.
That was very solidly braced and virtually undamaged steel frame.
It was dramatically over engineered to withstand hurricane force
winds and mild earth quakes. Look at the still photos at 1 second
intervals. The building stays perfectly straight and level all the
way down. Every one of the 58 steel perimeter columns failed at
exactly the same time, and they all failed totally, putting up
essentially zero resistance. That's proved by the collapse time of
6.6 seconds compared to 6 seconds free fall. The southwest corner
of WTC7 was damaged by debris from the north tower, and there were
small random fires in the building, although it's anyone's guess how
they were ignited. But asymmetric damage and random fires don't cause
steel framed buildings to collapse even slowly and asymmetrically.
More expert analysis on the demolition of WTC7 can be found here:
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
This is what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging
infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
As you can see, these steel framed structures suffered gradual
deformation, but nothing even remotely close to a total symmetric
and free fall speed collapse - and those fires were far hotter
and of much longer duration than the small, isolated fires in
WTC7.
Twin Towers:
The massive reserve strength designed into the steel frames of
the towers could not possibly have been overcome by the force
of gravity alone. The fact that it was exceeded to such an
extreme degree that the undamaged steel frame offered no
measurable resistance, proves conclusively that the lower
structures were destroyed before being impacted by the upper
structures.
From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690
"The Twin Towers and Why They Fell
It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers
in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award
judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates
the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest
contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that
"the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to
resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of
special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns
were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on
these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
More on the incredible strength of the towers can be found here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
"There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even
greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings.
According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers'
design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well
as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and
the building would still be strong enough to withstand a
100-mile-per-hour wind. 3"
The massive steel frames of the towers were far too strong to
collapse only under their own weight. That's been proved through
physics, and that's why no other steel framed buildings have ever
collapsed that way unless they were demolished. See Gordon Ross'
excellent paper on momentum transfer on this page:
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/
As common sense would dictate, even if all the perimeter and
core columns near the top of the tower were somehow destroyed
simultaneously so that the top 20 stories or so dropped onto the
remaining undamaged frame, after some bending and compression,
the collapse would have stopped, or the upper block would have
fallen off to the side. Gordon Ross proves that with physics.
The official conspiracy requires us to believe that falling
directly =through= the massive undamaged steel frames, including
the 47 interconnected central core columns:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
provided little more resistance than air. This is proved by
the fact that debris falling outside the towers hit the ground
about the same time as the debris falling through the towers.
Making the government's conspiracy theory even more implausible,
is the fact that the steel at the top of the towers was over
ten times lighter and thinner than the undamaged steel in the
lower section. Look at the massive core column cross section in
the bottom photo.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
The official conspiracy theory says that crushing 47 of those
columns, all interconnected with even more steel, =and= destroying
all the perimeter columns, =and= "pancaking" all the floors, and
stairways, produced about the same kinetic friction as falling
though air. That, of course, is not physically possible.
Observe the rotating and disintegrating block on the South
Tower.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html
Notice that the corners are curved, as the block's internal
destruction is already taking place. If it had not been destroyed
through demolition, it would have continued to rotate and fall off
the building as an intact block. Also, notice that the block is
tilting towards the corner where it was impacted. The opposite
corner was undamaged by impact or fire, as proved by photo
evidence.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp1.html
As the top section of that tower is rotating, the high strength,
fire resistant perimeter columns on one side of the building are
being compressed, and on the opposite side, where the building
was not damaged by fire or impact, the weight above them is greatly
reduced.
Why do you think the undamaged steel perimeter frame with reduced
weight above it is exploding and collapsing at the same rate as
the fire and impact damaged side that has most of the weight of the
rotating block on it? Seems more than a little odd, doesn't it? Here's
some information on the perimeter columns.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
Now watch the video titled, "Close-up of South Tower collapse"
on this page:
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/#videos
That's not gradual bending and buckling of an over heated steel
frame. Those are huge explosions not unlike those we see in a
controlled demolition. Keep in mind that this is at the onset of
the collapse, so nothing is falling quickly at this point.
More good information on 9-11 can be found here:
Henry
Hey, posting the facts and truth is gonna get the magic fire cartoon
conspiracy kooks all worked up...
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://stj911.org
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.911truth.org
Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
Ever wonder who benefits from the 700 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21
> Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report
> Raymond McGovern, former Chairman of the National Intelligence Council and
> 27-year CIA veteran, "I think at simplest terms, there's a cover-up. The
> 9/11 Report is a joke."
>
> William Christison, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former
> Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political, and 29-year CIA
> veteran, "We very seriously need an entirely new very high level and truly
> independent investigation of the events of 9/11. I think you almost have to
> look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a joke and not a serious piece of
> analysis at all."
>
> Melvin Goodman, PhD, former Division Chief of the CIA's Office of Soviet
> Affairs and Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990, "The final report is ultimately
> a coverup. I don't know how else to describe it."
>
> Robert Baer, 21-year CIA veteran and specialist in the Middle East, who was
> awarded the Career Intelligence Medal upon his retirement in 1997, "Until we
> get a complete, honest, transparent investigation ., we will never know what
> happened on 9/11."
>
> Robert David Steele has 25 years of combined service in the CIA and the U.S.
> Marine Corps. Second ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from
> 1988 - 1992. Member of the Adjunct Faculty of Marine Corps University. "I am
> forced to conclude that 9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext
> for war. . I have to tell anyone who cares to read this: I believe it. I
> believe it enough to want a full investigation that passes the smell test of
> the 9/11 families as well as objective outside observers."
>
> Lynne Larkin, former CIA Operations Officer who served in several CIA
> foreign stations before being assigned to the CIA's Counter-Intelligence
> Center. There, she co-chaired a multi-agency task force, which coordinated
> intelligence efforts among the many intelligence and law enforcement
> agencies. One of twenty-five signers of a letter to Congress expressing
> their concerns about "serious shortcomings," "omissions," and "major flaws"
> in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new
> investigation.
>
> David MacMichael, PhD, former Senior Estimates Officer at the CIA with
> special responsibility for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the CIA's National
> Intelligence Council. Prior to joining the CIA, he served for four years as
> a civilian counter-insurgency advisor to the U.S. government, and prior to
> that was a U.S. Marine Corps officer for ten years. One of twenty-five
> signers of a letter to Congress expressing their concerns about "serious
> shortcomings," "omissions," and "major flaws" in the 9/11 Commission Report
> and offering their services for a new investigation.
>
> Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report
> Official Account of 9/11 a "Joke" and a "Cover-up"
>
> September 23, 2007 - Seven CIA veterans have severely criticized the
> official account of 9/11 and have called for a new investigation. "I think
> at simplest terms, there's a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke," said
> Raymond McGovern, 27-year veteran of the CIA, who chaired National
> Intelligence Estimates during the seventies. "There are a whole bunch of
> unanswered questions. And the reason they're unanswered is because this
> administration will not answer the questions," he said. McGovern, who is
> also the founder of VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity), is
> one of many signers of a petition to reinvestigate 9/11.[1]
>
> During his 27-year CIA career, McGovern personally delivered intelligence
> briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice
> Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other
> senior government officials. Upon retirement in 1990, McGovern was awarded
> the CIA's Intelligence Commendation Medallion and received a letter of
> appreciation from then President George H. W. Bush. However, McGovern
> returned the award in 2006 in protest of the current George W. Bush
> Administration's advocacy and use of torture.
>
> In his blurb for 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out," edited
> by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, McGovern wrote "It has long been
> clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of
> 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us
> with evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks
> were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could
> be thus exploited. If this is true, it is not merely the case, as the
> Downing Street memos show, that the stated reason for attacking Iraq was a
> lie. It is also the case that the whole "war on terror" was based on a prior
> deception. This book hence confronts the American people---indeed the people
> of the world as a whole---with an issue second to none in importance and
> urgency. I give this book, which in no way can be dismissed as the ravings
> of 'paranoid conspiracy theorists,' my highest possible recommendation."
>
> William Christison, a 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence
> Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and
> Political Analysis also describes the 9/11 Commission Report as a "joke" and
> offers even more outspoken criticism. In a 2006 audio interview he said, "We
> very seriously need an entirely new very high level and truly independent
> investigation of the events of 9/11. I think you almost have to look at the
> 9/11 Commission Report as a joke and not a serious piece of analysis at
> all."
>
> Earlier this year, in an endorsement of David Ray Griffin's book, Debunking
> 9/11 Debunking, Christison wrote "[There's] a strong body of evidence
> showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11,
> 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies." And in an online
> essay in late 2006, he wrote, "I now think there is persuasive evidence that
> the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the
> 9/11 Commission would have us believe. . An airliner almost certainly did
> not hit The Pentagon. . The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center
> almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked
> aircraft hit them."
>
> Prior to his retirement from the CIA in 1979, Christison served as Director
> of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, overseeing 200
> analysts who collected intelligence and provided analysis on all regions and
> every country in the world. Prior to that, he served as one of only a
> handful of NIO's in the intelligence community. NIO's are responsible for
> the intelligence community efforts in a particular area and are the
> principal advisors to the Director of Central Intelligence. Christison was
> NIO for Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Africa.
>
> Melvin Goodman, PhD, is another former senior CIA official who calls the
> 9/11 Commission Report a "coverup" and who signed the petition to
> reinvestigate 9/11 Goodman was the Division Chief of the CIA's Office of
> Soviet Affairs and served as Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served
> as Professor of International Security at the National War College from
> 1986 - 2004.
>
> In testimony before a 2005 Congressional briefing on the 9/11 Commission
> Report Goodman said, "I want to talk about the [9/11] Commission itself,
> about the flawed process of the Commission and finally about the conflict of
> interest within the Commission that is extremely important to understand the
> failure of the Commission. . The final report is ultimately a coverup. I
> don't know how else to describe it." Goodman is currently Senior Fellow at
> the Center for International Policy and Adjunct Professor of Government at
> Johns Hopkins University.
>
> Robert Baer is another well known CIA veteran who has questioned the
> official account of 9/11. A 21-year CIA veteran and specialist in the Middle
> East, Baer was awarded the Career Intelligence Medal upon his retirement in
> 1997. After retirement, he wrote two best-selling non-fiction books about
> the CIA, See no Evil Sleeping with the Devil the former of which was the
> basis for the Academy Award-winning movie Syriana, starring George Clooney.
> Baer was also the writer and on-camera commentator for the Emmy
> Award-nominated documentary Cult of the Suicide Bomber.
>
> Baer has repeatedly questioned whether al-Qaida could have accomplished 9/11
> alone. The 9/11 Commission Report categorically found al-Qaida to be
> entirely responsible for 9/11, stating, "Similarly, we have seen no evidence
> that any foreign government -- or government official -- supplied any
> funding." However, this 9/11 Commission finding directly contradicts the
> earlier finding of the Joint House-Senate Select Intelligence Committee's
> 2002 Report (p.415) of "sources of foreign support for some of the September
> 11 hijackers."
>
> In a
>
> In 2006, during an interview by Thom Hartmann, Baer, after commenting on the
> financial profits being made from 9/11, was asked: "What about political
> profit? There are those who suggest that ... someone in that chain of
> command ... had pretty good knowledge that 9/11 was going to happen -- and
> really didn't do much to stop it -- or even obstructed efforts to stop it
> because they thought it would lend legitimacy to Bush's ... failing
> presidency." Baer replied: "Absolutely." Hartmann then asked, "So you are
> personally of the opinion ... that there was an aspect of 'inside job' to
> 9/11 within the U.S. government?" To which Baer replied, "There is that
> possibility, the evidence points at it." When Hartmann continued, "And why
> is it not being investigated?" Baer replied, "Why isn't the WMD story being
> investigated? Why hasn't anybody been held accountable for 9/11? We held
> people accountable after Pearl Harbor. Why has there been no change in
> command? Why have there been no political repercussions? Why has there been
> no -- any sort of exposure on this? It really makes you wonder."
>
> In his blurb for the revised and updated edition of David Ray Griffin's
> Debunking 9/11 Debunking Baer wrote "Until we get a complete, honest,
> transparent investigation ., we will never know what happened on 9/11."
>
> "I am forced to conclude that 9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a
> pretext for war," wrote well-known intelligence analyst Robert David Steele
> in 2006 in a review of the book, 9/11 Synthetic Terror by Webster Tarpley
> Steele is the author of numerous books on the intelligence services and is
> currently the CEO of OSS.net, a proponent of Open Source Intelligence.
> Steele has 25 years of combined service in the CIA and the U.S. Marine
> Corps. He also served as the second ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine
> Corps Intelligence from 1988 - 1992 and was a member of the Adjunct Faculty
> of Marine Corps University. Steele continued, "I have to tell anyone who
> cares to read this: I believe it. I believe it enough to want a full
> investigation that passes the smell test of the 9/11 families as well as
> objective outside observers."
>
> In a subsequent interview on the Alex Jones Show Steele said, "The U.S.
> government did not properly investigate this [9/11] and there are more rocks
> to be turned over," and added, "I'm absolutely certain that WTC 7 was
> brought down by controlled demolition and that, as far as I'm concerned,
> means that this case has not been properly investigated. There's no way that
> building could have come down without controlled demolition."
>
> In late 2004, a group of 25 intelligence service and law enforcement
> veterans sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about
> "serious shortcomings," "omissions," and "major flaws" in the 9/11
> Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation. Their
> letter was apparently entirely ignored. Among the signers were four CIA
> veterans; Raymond McGovern and Melvin Goodman (both mentioned above) and
> Lynne Larkin and David MacMichael.
>
> Lynne Larkin was a CIA Operations Officer who served in several CIA foreign
> stations before being assigned to the CIA's Counter-Intelligence Center.
> There, she co-chaired a multi-agency task force, which, among other
> functions, provided direction to other federal agencies for coordinating
> intelligence efforts among the many intelligence and law enforcement
> agencies.
>
> David MacMichael, PhD, is a former Senior Estimates Officer at the CIA with
> special responsibility for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the CIA's National
> Intelligence Council. Prior to joining the CIA, he served as a U.S. Marine
> Corps officer for ten years and for four years as a counter-insurgency
> advisor to the government.
>
> Their letter read:
>
> "[W]e the undersigned wish to bring to the attention of the Congress and the
> people of the United States what we believe are serious shortcomings in the
> report and its recommendations. .
>
> Omission is one of the major flaws in the Commission's report. We are aware
> of significant issues and cases that were duly reported to the commission by
> those of us with direct knowledge, but somehow escaped attention. .
>
> The omission of such serious and applicable issues and information by itself
> renders the report flawed, and casts doubt on the validity of many of its
> recommendations. ...
>
> The Commission, with its incomplete report of "facts and circumstances",
> intentional avoidance of assigning accountability, and disregard for the
> knowledge, expertise and experience of those who actually do the job, has
> now set about pressuring our Congress and our nation to hastily implement
> all its recommendations. .
>
> We the undersigned, who have worked within various government agencies (FBI,
> CIA, FAA, DIA, Customs) responsible for national security and public safety,
> call upon you in Congress to include the voices of those with first-hand
> knowledge and expertise in the important issues at hand. We stand ready to
> do our part."
>
> And they and thousands of dedicated, loyal, and experienced military
> officers, intelligence service and law enforcement veterans, and government
> officials still stand ready to provide assistance for a thorough, impartial,
> and honest investigation into the terrible acts of 9/11.
>
> Statements questioning the official account of 9/11 and calls for a new
> investigation by hundreds of credible individuals can be found at
> http://patriotsquestion911.com/
>
> --
> Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once
> they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If
> a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it
> should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but
> the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous
>
>
>
> "Robert Weldon" <rweldon....@jrpspamblock.ca> wrote in message
> news:yInTi.129113$1y4.20101@pd7urf2no...
>> <schoenf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1193144459.0...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>> Most people don't know that there were actually 3 buildings which came
>>> crashing down on the day of 9/11.
>>>
>>> The third building, WTC 7, can be seen here
>>>
>>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329
>>>
>>> There is no mention of this building in 911 Omission Report.
>>>
>>> Can fire make a building come crashing down at free fall speed?
>>>
>>> If you think it can, patent the idea and make billions in the
>>> demolitions industry!
>>>
>>> How do we know WTC 7 was demolished?
>> It wasn't, the other two towers fell on it, and fire finished it off
>>
>> -crap snipped
>>
>>
>
>
--
"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...
Henry
> "Ivan Marsh" <ann...@you.now> wrote in message
>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:47:21 +0100, george2 wrote:
>>> I've sadly spent many sad checking out all these conspiracy theories and
>>> they are all complete nonsense. If you to to the ny firemens site you
>>> will read the firemens viewpoint how they were taking measurements and
>>> predicted the collapse of wtc7 before it happened. The building owner
>>> could not have told the firemen to demolish the building because they
>>> were not under his command. To believe that a building owner can issue
>>> commands to firecrews and rescue workers it to really not understand how
>>> the real world works.
>>> G
>> You obviously didn't listen to the recording.
> You obviously didn't either.
> The statement was in reference to pulling the people out
Why did Silverstein refer to the people as "it", and then say
they watched "it" collapse? Did the people collapse after it - I
mean they were "pulled" out of the building? What did he use
to pull it - I mean the people out of the building before it - I
mean the people collapsed?
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://stj911.org
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.911truth.org
Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
Ever wonder who benefits from the 700 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21
"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
Henry
> "Mr. Smartypants" <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>> What made WTC7 collapse?
> Gravity and structural failure.
Structural failure that was obviously and irrefutably caused by
controlled demolition.
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
World Trade Center 7 was the third skyscraper destroyed on September
11 2001. It was not hit by a plane. The picture on the left shows WTC 7
after the collapse of the Twin Towers, smoldering on the background.
The final investigation report on its collapse has been postponed
several times. At this moment – over 6 years after the destruction – it
still has not been published.
This steel-framed skyscraper, completed in 1987, was located 110 meters
(350 feet) away from the closest of the Twin Towers ("WTC 1" on the map
below). The building's tenants included the CIA, the Internal Revenue
Service, several banks, the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management, and
the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission. A large number of records of
ongoing investigations of Enron and other companies were destroyed with
WTC 7.
No airplane hit WTC 7, but its south facade was damaged by debris
ejected from the North Tower, which collapsed at 10.30 am. There is
conflicting information about the amount of damage. For example, in the
pictures shown in a preliminary official report the southwest corner is
badly damaged, whereas in the photograph taken by Aman Zafar in the
afternoon the same corner is intact – see my photo comparison. The
building was reported on fire at 4.10 pm by CNN, although the fires seem
to have started several hours earlier. The fires, whose origin is
unknown, appeared on a number of floors, and the building collapsed at
5.20 pm.
A high-resolution video of the collapse is available here. The
slow-motion video animation below shows the totality and symmetry of the
destruction.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, speculated that office
fires caused the collapse of the building. It, however, acknowledged in
its report in May 2002: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how
they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. [...]
the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence." Later in
2002, Larry Silverstein, the owner of WTC 7, gave in the America
Rebuilds TV program a famous "pull it" statement that has commonly been
interpreted as meaning that the building was professionally demolished.
Did WTC 7 collapse as a result of office fires, or was it demolished
with explosives? The answer can be sought by examining the way in which
the building collapsed.
Collapse Speed
As one can observe from the videos of WTC 7's collapse, shortly
following the destruction of its penthouse structures, the building fell
to the ground in 6.5 seconds. This is a phenomenally short time: a stone
dropped from the top of the building would have reached the ground
(covering a distance of 174 meters) in 5.95 seconds – if there were no
air resistance! However, in principle the distance analyzed should be
that from the top of the building to the top of the debris pile, not to
the ground. As the exact height of the debris pile is not documented, it
is more useful to examine the early stages of the collapse, during which
the debris pile does not need to be taken into account.
According to the video analysis presented in the 9-11 Eyewitness
documentary, starting from the state of rest, WTC 7 fell 100 meters in
4.5 seconds. This results in an acceleration of 9.8 m/s2, corresponding
to a free fall.
To verify this, I examined the fall of a corner of the building in one
collapse video using Blaze Media Pro video editing software. The corner
fell 56 meters (=the distance between the Start and End lines in the
animation below) in 3.47 seconds. This results in an acceleration of 9.3
m/s2, which corresponds to a very low resistance factor of the
structural supports: only 5 percent of the force of gravity of the
building's falling upper section.
I also measured an acceleration of 8.5 m/s2 for the middle part of the
wide facade in the picture, which means that the force of resistance of
the structural supports was 13 percent of the force of gravity of the
falling upper section (see the calculation in more detail here).
My measurements therefore support the conclusion presented in 9-11
Eyewitness that the skyscraper fell virtually unimpeded. The lack of
structural resistance seems to be explainable only by the destruction of
the structural supports through the use of explosives. WTC 7 dropped
rather than collapsed. It came down as if only air had separated the
roof of the building from the street below.
WTC 7 fell on average 7 floors per second (47 / 6.5). One second after
the onset of the collapse, the speed of descent was almost 10
meters/second; after two seconds, almost 20 meters/second; and at the
end, about 60 meters/second (over 200 kilometers/hour). According to the
analysis of Frank Legge (Ph.D.), the rate of descent of WTC 7 closely
matches the rate of gravitational free fall, which – combined with the
uniformity of the descent throughout the breadth and length of the
building – is irrefutable evidence of controlled demolition.
Heikki Kurttila, a Finnish Doctor of Engineering and accident
researcher, has made detailed calculations about the collapse speed of
WTC 7. He concludes that the short collapse time and low structural
resistance "strongly suggest controlled demolition". Kurttila notes that
an apple dropped from the height of WTC 7's roof would have taken about
0.5 seconds longer to reach the ground than it took the skyscraper to be
completely destroyed.
Structural Features of the Collapse
A striking feature in the collapse of WTC 7 is symmetry. The collapse
progressed evenly throughout the building, and the debris piled up
almost completely within the foundations of the building (see the
picture below).
The symmetry of WTC 7's descent means that all of its steel supports –
25 central and 58 peripheral columns – were destroyed almost
simultaneously. Any asymmetry in the damage to structures would have led
to asymmetrical collapse. By contrast, a fully symmetrical collapse
without controlled use of explosives would not have followed the
principle of least resistance. Local fires and structural damage here
and there could not have weakened all the central and peripheral support
structures in a way that would have caused all of them to give in at the
same moment. The simultaneity of the destruction of support structures
throughout the building can, however, be explained by controlled demolition.
A controlled demolition is also suggested by the drop of the center of
the skyscraper moments before the surrounding structures started to
fall, as well as by the fact that the outer walls were pulled inwards.
In a controlled demolition the collapse is caused by first destroying
the weight-carrying core of a building, which "pulls" the exterior walls
inwards ("implosion"). Although the lowest floor with fires was
reportedly the sixth floor, the building seems to have undergone a
traditional demolition, beginning from the bottom floor. An emergency
worker who witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 was interviewed on 9/11. He
described hearing what sounded like a "clap of thunder", followed by
what looked like "a shockwave ripping through the building", with
windows busting out, and "about a second later the bottom floor caved
out and the [rest of] the building followed after that". The videos
showing the collapse support his description.
At least one high-resolution video of the collapse of WTC 7 clearly
shows one more characteristic of controlled demolition: streamers of
dust emerging out of the building.
A Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko (right), who owns a demolition
company and has been in the business for almost 30 years, concluded in
September 2006 that WTC 7 "is controlled demolition. [...] A team of
experts did this. This is professional work, without any doubt."
Hugo Bachmann, a Swiss professor emeritus for structural design and
construction, said in Tages-Anzeiger : "In my opinion WTC 7 was with
great probability brought down by controlled demolition done by
experts". In addition, Jörg Schneider, another Swiss Professor emeritus
for structural design and construction, interprets the existing videos
as indices that "WTC 7 was with great probability brought down by
explosives".
Fire Endurance of Steel
Steel is very fire-resistant material. In tests conducted by Chorus
Construction in several countries, the fire endurance of steel-framed
parking garages was examined by feeding fires with hydrocarbon fuel.
Steel beams and pillars heated to a maximum of 360 degrees Celsius, and
the breaking of steel was not even close. In Cardington fire endurance
tests, modelled on conditions in real buildings, unprotected steel was
subjected to temperatures of up to 1100 degrees Celsius (2012 F), but
there was no collapse. In the Windsor Building in Madrid, an almost
24-hour intensive fire did not collapse the building. Moreover, the
fires in WTC 7 were insignificant compared to fires in Windsor Building
and all other skyscraper fires. The latest case is the all-engulfing
fire in Al Nasr Tower in 2006. Fires have never collapsed a single
steel-framed highrise to the ground.
In the picture of WTC 7 to the right, the fires are limited to small
areas, almost all windows are intact, and no red heat indicative of
temperatures capable of softening steel is visible. The situation is
largely the same in other photographs taken of the building in late
afternoon. In some videos, such as this, a fair amount of smoke can be
seen emanating from the southern facade (some of the smoke appears to be
rising from the remains of the twin towers), and several windows were
broken on a few floors in the southern wall. In any case, WTC 5, which
was badly damaged by the collapse of the North Tower next to it, burned
much more powerfully: all its floors were covered by a sea of flames and
all windows were broken. However, this building, despite the fact that
it had weaker support structures than WTC 7, did not collapse into a
debris pile, but remained standing.
Characteristics of the Debris
The debris of WTC 7 was extremely hot weeks after the collapse of the
building. Thermal imaging by NASA showed that the top of the debris pile
had a temperature of 730 degrees Celsius five days after the collapse.
Deeper, and immediately after the destruction, temperatures were
probably considerably higher. Residual temperatures like this cannot be
explained by office fires or by an ordinary, gravity-driven collapse.
When the potential energy of a building experiencing an ordinary
gravitational collapse turns into thermal energy, the result is only a
few degrees' average increase in temperature.
According to several reports, molten metal (also suggested by this video
footage) was found under the debris pile of WTC buildings. To melt
structural steel, temperatures exceeding 1500 degrees Celsius are
required. Such temperatures are never achieved in office fires. In
addition to molten metal, partly evaporated steel beams were found in
the debris of WTC 7. As professor Jonathan Barnett pointed out in a New
York Times interview, the fires in the building could not have produced
temperatures capable of evaporating steel. However, the use of
explosives like thermite can produce temperatures (even 3000 degrees
Celsius) that can melt and even evaporate steel.
FEMA's investigators were not allowed to work in the collapse zone
itself. They were allowed to examine the debris of WTC skyscrapers only
in landfill areas used as temporary storage for the steel debris before
its recycling. By May 2005, when FEMA finished its preliminary report
calling for further investigation, all the steel debris had been sold
and shipped into the Far East. Only 156 pieces of steel were chosen for
futher analysis, of which a ridiculous total of 4 were from WTC 7. Even
these no longer seem to exist.
As WTC 7 was evacuated over six hours before its destruction, there were
no grounds for the rapid removal and recycling of the steel debris.
Quite the contrary: as WTC 7 was one of the three greatest building
disasters in recorded history (the other two being the North and South
Towers), the debris of the building should have been meticulously
examined. Many individuals and publications, such as the Fire
Engineering Magazine, protested strongly, but in vain, against the rapid
destruction of the evidence.
Witness statements
Craig Bartmer, a NYPD officer, states that he saw WTC 7 come down and
heard a number of explosions in rapid succession. He is convinced that
the skyscraper was brought down with explosives. Several rescue
personnel have also come forward saying they were told that the building
would be brought down by means of explosives. Interestingly, a news
report on a Finnish TV channel on September 12, 2001, stated that the
authorities brought Building 7 down with explosives, allegedly due to
the apparent danger of collapse.
Final Words
Was WTC 7 destroyed as a result of controlled demolition? Everyone can
draw their own conclusions from the way in which the building was
destroyed and the temperatures produced in the destruction.
If and when the building was demolished, it must have been wired with
explosives before September 11th. An operation of that magnitude could
not have been accomplished during a couple of chaotic hours. This is why
the official hypotheses have not touched on the most obvious explanation
for the collapse of the skyscraper. It is revealing that the 9/11
Commission, which published its report in 2004, does not mention in a
single sentence the destruction of the third skyscraper resulting from
the terrorist attack in New York.
FEMA's work has been continued by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, which has again postponed its report on WTC 7, this time
until the end of 2007. NIST is now saying that it is also investigating
the hypothesis that explosions initiated the collapse. However, the
institute appears to be excluding the floors below 8 from the
investigation – a rather interesting restriction, considering that the
collapse seems to have started on the lowest floors.
Interviewed in the March 2006 issue of New York Magazine, Dr S. Shyam
Sunder, NIST lead investigator, summed up the ongoing state of the
investigation as follows:
NIST did have "some preliminary hypotheses" on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said.
"We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the
structure, on the fifth to seventh floors." Then Dr. Sunder paused. "But
truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on
Building No. 7."
--
Davorin Vlahovic
> Davorin Vlahovic wrote:
>> On 2007-10-24, BrianNZ <br...@itnz.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> I would disagree. There was a time when Roman Empire was ruled by three
>>>> such dictators and all was well...until one day one's son got to be a
>>>> dictator.
>>>
>>> So a good one comes around every few thousand years........I'd bet there
>>> were a lot of people at that time being dominated by the Roman empire
>>> and who thought they weren't being very benevolent at all.
>>
>> Yep.
>
> So a benevolent dictator to one person would be a despicable dictator to
> others........
Nope. Since those days people have learned some things, most promising
of all would be - humanity :)
>>> Like ALL
>>> dictators, any dissent will be met with death, so your benevolent
>>> dictator is only benevolent to those who kiss his ass?
>>
>> Nope. See Pope John Paul II. Met the man in 1992. I was very impressed.
>
> Catholics can hardly be called 'benevolent'!! Look at the shite they
> have stirred up over the centuries.
But I'm not speaking of all christians, I'm speaking of _a_ benevolent
and kind dictator. It's not nice to overgeneralize.
Just as an example, this guy talked and forgave the man who attempted to
take his life.
>>> I'm sure Saddams boys looked upon him as a benevolent dictator?
>>
>> Wouldn't know. But I'm thinking no.
>
> The ones that lived in palaces? His army? His police force? if you were
> 'with him' you got looked after.
Wouldn't bet on it. There are lots of people that were even high ranked
and ran away from him because they didn't want to commit attrocities.
>>>> I'd still opt for a benevolent dictator :)
>>> I hereby appoint you my first subject! Since I'm such a nice guy, your
>>> tax rate will be lowered but you will pay it to me...... :)
>>
>> Doesn't work that way.
>
> Why not? You don't get to choose dictators!
Not true at all. Since we've mentioned Roman Empire, I'd have to inform
you that dictators were elected for a fixed period in certain
times :)
Guess you're off the list for a benevolent dictator for now :)
>> Here's a new idea for you to ponder on:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy
>
> I like that!...
Now isn't this...Internet...thing nice. It lets you share...whaddaya
call them...ideas :) That reminds me, I'd better send a
thank-you-postcard to some of them geeks that invented this "tubular
architecture" called "the internets" :)
> but I can't see the rich and powerful handing over
> control for a long time yet......
_shrugs_ Never say never :)
Henry
> Henry wrote:
>> george2 wrote:
>>
> ~snip~
>
> I've often wondered about these theories. Assuming for a second that
> they were true (which of course they are not),
The Bush regime's conspiracy theory has been proven to be impossible
and based on lies, but the demolition/inside job theory has been proven
beyond any doubt to be true.
> what would be the purpose
> of the US government intentionally destroying some of the most prominent
> buildings in NYC? Insurance fraud? Political expediency?
Read the article in the second link. It's impressive.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/asbestos.html
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/spingola/060212
Killing several birds with one stone
Deanna Spingola Deanna Spingola
February 12, 2006
"In his remarks, Mr. Bush referred to the West Coast target as 'the
Liberty Tower,' but White House officials said he had meant to say
Library Tower, the name of the U.S. Bank Tower in 2002. The building,
completed in 1989, is 1,018 feet tall and was 'destroyed' by alien
invaders in the 1996 movie Independence Day." [2] I suspect if they had
not "foiled" this terrorist attack that selectively efficient FEMA
representatives would have immediately responded and quickly destroyed
all of the critical evidence. And surely Controlled Demolitions
Incorporated would have been there with their special trucks and equipment.
Another attack is unnecessary — an occasional Osama audio or video tape
supposedly released by "objective" sources appears to keep Americans
appropriately in tow. Once the government established the enemy as a
fanatical Islamo Fascist segment of Islam, all the corroboration that is
needed is persuasive media depicting mob violence, planted cartoons,
public beheadings, flag burning, a few kidnappings and whatever else is
necessary to incite American distrust and hatred against a contrived enemy.
What about those flags for burning? Where exactly do they all come from
— particularly in a third world country? How quick could you, in
America, spontaneously obtain flags of other countries? Do you think all
those Kuwaitis really had tiny American flags ready and waiting when we
invaded to save them from our proxy — Saddam Hussein? [3] Those flags
were supplied by the Rendon Group, an American special public relations
company.
"The Rendon Group is a secretive public relations firm that has assisted
a number of U.S. military interventions in nations including Argentina,
Colombia, Haiti, Iraq, Kosovo, Panama and Zimbabwe. Rendon's activities
include organizing the Iraqi National Congress, a PR front group
designed to foment the overthrow of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein." [4]
"In a 1998 speech to the National Security Conference (NSC), company
founder John Rendon described himself as "an information warrior, and a
perception manager. This is probably best described in the words of
Hunter S. Thompson, when he wrote 'When things turn weird, the weird
turn pro.'" [5]
"'Through its network of international offices and strategic alliances,'
the Rendon Group website boasted in 2002, 'the company has provided
communications services to clients in more than 78 countries, and
maintains contact with government officials, decision-makers, and news
media around the globe.'" [6]
"The Chicago Tribune reports that the Rendon Group has garnered more
than $56 million in Pentagon work since September 2001." [7] Fifty-six
million dollars can finance a lot of flag burning and media mobs. It is
all about mind manipulation and brainwashing — ours!!!!
There is a pall of amnesia or ignorance hanging over America — we don't
remember or never knew that the government organized the CIA to create
America's perpetual enemies. The CIA's job description includes:
provoking and financially supporting both sides of the conflict in third
world countries, [8] orchestrating media propaganda by infiltration or
otherwise to support their covert agenda, assassinating or supporting
leaders in our own country and other countries, establishing camps to
train others how to torture and kill and a host of other questionable
activities that destabilize and divide all countries to further global
governance.
The CIA has "unvouchered funds, by which operations can be funded with
minimal risk of exposure in Washington." [9] No one, the government or
the media is going to call your attention to the CIA's activities.
Whistle blowing of any kind can be decidedly deadly.
When the CIA was established the official government directive included
the following clandestine activities: "propaganda; economic warfare;
preventive direct action, including sabotage, demolition and evacuation
measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to
underground resistance movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation
groups, and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened
countries of the free world. Such operations should not include armed
conflict by recognized military forces, espionage, counter-espionage,
and cover and deception for military operations." [10]
We can reliably assume that what the CIA can do in other countries, it
can also do in our own country. There are many circumstances surrounding
9/11 than what the media and the government have revealed regarding the
ownership and control of the buildings.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey had been losing money on
the towers for years because of low tenancy. The financial loss was the
real issue. There was also another vital issue — asbestos! The towers
had become an albatross sitting on the most valuable piece of real
estate in the world. The Port Authority had three choices: sell or lease
them, pay for expensive asbestos removal or demolish them. The Authority
had tried for years but were unable to sell the buildings — after all,
what fool would take on the liability of asbestos? They couldn't
demolish it. The health hazard of asbestos powder blanketing New York
was legally unthinkable and totally out of the question. Expensive
asbestos removal seemed to be the only option.
According to court records from New Jersey, the Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey attempted to have their insurers pay for the removal
of the asbestos in several of their buildings including three of the
buildings at the World Trade Center. The court case was initiated in
1991 after the Authority had scrapped extremely expensive asbestos
removal in 1989. The case finally ended on 1 May 2001 with a judgment
against the Port Authority. The Court decided that the insurance
companies were not liable for the very costly removal of asbestos in the
buildings in question. [11]
After the 2000 presidential election and after the court judgment
against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, another
opportunity presented itself. In a previous article, "Bush's War of
Terror," I stated:
"The New York and New Jersey Port Authority decided to award the lease
of the twin towers and other buildings in the World Trade Center
Complex, including Buildings 4 and 5 and two 9-story office buildings,
to Silverstein Properties and Westfield America, Inc. Peter S. Lowy is
the Chief Executive Officer of Westfield America, Inc. They were
actually the low bidders but were awarded the lease because the
competing bidder, Vornado Realty Trust was not able to reach a final
agreement." [12]
"Larry Silverstein already had control of WTC 7 and the nearby Equitable
Building. As a result of the Port Authority's decision, a document was
drafted on 24 July 2001."
"Silverstein Properties, Inc., and Westfield America, Inc. will lease
the Twin Towers, completed in 1972 at a cost of $370 million, and other
portions of the complex in a deal worth approximately $3.2 billion — the
city's richest real estate deal ever and one of the largest
privatization initiatives in history." The cost of this lease was for a
fraction of their real value. The twin towers were originally part of an
urban renewal project spearheaded by the Rockefeller family." [13]
"This lease was for 99 years and the negotiations by Lewis M. Eisenberg,
the chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, had begun
in April 2001." [14]
"Eisenberg has served as Chairman of the Republican National Finance
Committee in Washington, D.C. since January 2002, raising crucial
dollars for Republican candidates across the country. During the last
year (2004), Eisenberg helped raise $135.3 million for the Republican
Party." [15] He is also known as a Republican Super Power Ranger. [16] A
Super Power Ranger is someone who was willing to individually contribute
$300,000 to the 2004 Bush/Cheney campaign. [17] Eisenberg personally
gave $307,000 and has been an influence in the Bush administration. [18]
He is also a member of the Republican Jewish Coalition." [19]
"Silverstein and Eisenberg have both held senior leadership positions
with the United Jewish Appeal (UJA), a billion dollar Zionist "charity"
organization, to which media magnate Rupert Murdoch and Lowy generously
contribute. Silverstein is a former chairman of UJA. This organization
raises hundreds of millions of dollars every year for a network of
Zionist agencies in the United States and Israel." [20]
"In February 2002, Silverstein was awarded $861 million from Industrial
Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. His original investment
in WTC 7 was $386 million. He constructed this building in 1987 on land
leased from the Port Authority. On 6 December 2004, after a six-week
trial and ten days of deliberations Larry Silverstein won the court
battle against nine of twenty-four different insurers. The court agreed
with his claim that the destruction of each tower should be considered a
separate occurrence. If this verdict is upheld Silverstein would get up
to $2.2 billion from the nine insurers. He has indicated that this money
would be devoted to construction at Ground Zero. [21] Silverstein could
ultimately win $4.6 billion from the one insurer. Silverstein has
already started reconstruction of the steel frame building #7, and
another building, the 1776-foot Freedom Tower. [22] Cost estimates for
rebuilding the WTC site ranged from $10 to $12 billion. [23] Given these
estimates, one has to wonder how much asbestos removal and renovation
would have cost for the towers."
Henry
> What a bunch of fucking idiots.
These cartoon conspiracy kooks are often thick headed, but you're
being a little harse on 'em. Give 'em some more time... <g>
Look at the height of WTC7:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture1.jpg
Then look at how it collapsed:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
Small random fires can't possibly make a steel framed building
do that. Not even a raging inferno can cause a steel building to
do anything even remotely close to that. Only a very well executed
controlled demolition can cause the total, instant, and symmetric
failure of all steel support columns that took place in WTC7.
That was very solidly braced and virtually undamaged steel frame.
It was dramatically over engineered to withstand hurricane force
winds and mild earth quakes. Look at the still photos at 1 second
intervals. The building stays perfectly straight and level all the
way down. Every one of the 58 steel perimeter columns failed at
exactly the same time, and they all failed totally, putting up
essentially zero resistance. That's proved by the collapse time of
6.6 seconds compared to 6 seconds free fall. The southwest corner
of WTC7 was damaged by debris from the north tower, and there were
small random fires in the building, although it's anyone's guess how
they were ignited. But asymmetric damage and random fires don't cause
steel framed buildings to collapse even slowly and asymmetrically.
More expert analysis on the demolition of WTC7 can be found here:
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
This is what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging
infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
As you can see, these steel framed structures suffered gradual
From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/#videos
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
Henry
> Mike McGinn wrote:
>> Your stupidity is astounding. No wonder this country sucks in science
>> and math. Read a fucking engineering book assholes.
>> Sincerely
> <LOUD APPLAUSE> standing ovation!!
He's a little abrasive, but it would nice if people would just
read, think, and openly discuss the facts rather than jerk their
knees and scream profanities.
BrianNZ
> On 2007-10-24, BrianNZ <br...@itnz.co.nz> wrote:
>> Davorin Vlahovic wrote:
>>> On 2007-10-24, BrianNZ <br...@itnz.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>> I would disagree. There was a time when Roman Empire was ruled by three
>>>>> such dictators and all was well...until one day one's son got to be a
>>>>> dictator.
>>>> So a good one comes around every few thousand years........I'd bet there
>>>> were a lot of people at that time being dominated by the Roman empire
>>>> and who thought they weren't being very benevolent at all.
>>> Yep.
>> So a benevolent dictator to one person would be a despicable dictator to
>> others........
>
> Nope. Since those days people have learned some things, most promising
> of all would be - humanity :)
>
Where they are using it to good effect in Iraq and Africa?
As long as there are humans, there is going to be disagreements over who
should be in charge. Your benevolent dictator could well be my sworn enemy.
>>>> Like ALL
>>>> dictators, any dissent will be met with death, so your benevolent
>>>> dictator is only benevolent to those who kiss his ass?
>>> Nope. See Pope John Paul II. Met the man in 1992. I was very impressed.
>> Catholics can hardly be called 'benevolent'!! Look at the shite they
>> have stirred up over the centuries.
>
> But I'm not speaking of all christians, I'm speaking of _a_ benevolent
> and kind dictator. It's not nice to overgeneralize.
>
> Just as an example, this guy talked and forgave the man who attempted to
> take his life.
And who is he benevolent to? His 'flock' comes first?
>
>>>> I'm sure Saddams boys looked upon him as a benevolent dictator?
>>> Wouldn't know. But I'm thinking no.
>> The ones that lived in palaces? His army? His police force? if you were
>> 'with him' you got looked after.
>
> Wouldn't bet on it. There are lots of people that were even high ranked
> and ran away from him because they didn't want to commit attrocities.
>
A bit like George W's. cronies? :)
What I'm getting at is that some did better under him than others.....to
the ones who did well he was benevolent, to all the rest, he was despised.
>>>>> I'd still opt for a benevolent dictator :)
>>>> I hereby appoint you my first subject! Since I'm such a nice guy, your
>>>> tax rate will be lowered but you will pay it to me...... :)
>>> Doesn't work that way.
>> Why not? You don't get to choose dictators!
>
> Not true at all. Since we've mentioned Roman Empire, I'd have to inform
> you that dictators were elected for a fixed period in certain
> times :)
Then I'd call them 'elected' officials, not dictators.
>
> Guess you're off the list for a benevolent dictator for now :)
Only because I'm not benevolent! :(
>
>>> Here's a new idea for you to ponder on:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy
>> I like that!...
>
> Now isn't this...Internet...thing nice. It lets you share...whaddaya
> call them...ideas :) That reminds me, I'd better send a
> thank-you-postcard to some of them geeks that invented this "tubular
> architecture" called "the internets" :)
Good call.....but aren't we supposed to flame each other first?
>
>> but I can't see the rich and powerful handing over
>> control for a long time yet......
>
> _shrugs_ Never say never :)
Unfortunately I'm mortal.....I can't see things changing that much in my
lifetime. :)
Henry
> Don't feed the trolls!!! These 9/11 assholes know that everything
> they say is bullshit. They are just hateful little toads. The best
> thing to do is to just ignore them.
The truth about 9-11 is too important. We can't afford to let
their silly lies go unchallenged. Silence is complicity.
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
The Destruction of WTC 7
Important news (see the article for more details):
- NIST postpones its report until the end of 2007, will consider if
explosions occurred
- a demolition expert and two structural design professors: WTC 7 was a
controlled demolition
- Heikki Kurttila (DEng): WTC 7 fell as fast as an object falling the
same distance through air
- Frank Legge (Ph.D.): the rate of descent of WTC 7 almost equals
gravitational free fall
- Several witnesses to explosions have come forward
- 198 architects and engineers challenge the official explanations for
WTC destruction
Collapse Speed
Fire Endurance of Steel
Characteristics of the Debris
Witness statements
Final Words
--
Henry
> "Henry" <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote in message
>>> It wasn't, the other two towers fell on it, and fire finished it off
>> You obviously have no idea where WTC7 was located or what hit it.
> I know exactly where it was, and I know tons of debris from the two towers
> fell on it.
Look at the illustration. Debris from the south tower didn't hit
WTC7.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/collateral.html
You said two towers fell on WTC7. That's kook drivel. Without lies
and ignorance, magic fire cartoon conspiracy kooks have nothing to
"support" their comical, impossible fantasies.
>> Like all mindless parrots of the Bush regime's cartoon conspiracy
>> theory, you're ignorant of the facts and are either too stupid or
>> too lazy to get informed. This link has an illustration. Since you
>> can't seem to read, maybe that'll help.
>> http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/collateral.html
> Oh I can read just fine, the problem is you can't think.
I didn't say two towers fell on WTC7. That comical idiocy
is all yours.
>> This link contains expert research on WTC7's obvious demolition.
>> http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
> I am a Civil Engineer, you know, those guys who design and build things?
Fires can't cause a steel framed skyscraper to drop at free fall
speed and perfect symmetry. If you are a civil engineer, you're
grossly incompetent and unqualified. I notice that you can't refute
any of the expert research in this link:
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
>> http://911research.wtc7.net
>> http://stj911.org
>> http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
>> http://www.911truth.org
> Nice job, these are some of the nuttiest sites you could find.
If you find a site that says two towers fell on WTC7, that'll
be the nuttiest site you can find. <chuckle>
> Their crap has long been refuted by the real experts.
You think "two towers fell on WTC7". You have no credibility.
> Just a thought.
Barely qualifies...
Henry
> Arguing with a conspiracy theorist is a waste of time and bandwidth. His
> mind is made up and no fact or accumulation of facts will change his
> opinion!
Don't give up so easily. Some folks just take a little (or a lot)
longer than others to figure things out. <g>
Look at the height of WTC7:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture1.jpg
Then look at how it collapsed:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
Small random fires can't possibly make a steel framed building
do that. Not even a raging inferno can cause a steel building to
do anything even remotely close to that. Only a very well executed
controlled demolition can cause the total, instant, and symmetric
failure of all steel support columns that took place in WTC7.
That was very solidly braced and virtually undamaged steel frame.
It was dramatically over engineered to withstand hurricane force
winds and mild earth quakes. Look at the still photos at 1 second
intervals. The building stays perfectly straight and level all the
way down. Every one of the 58 steel perimeter columns failed at
exactly the same time, and they all failed totally, putting up
essentially zero resistance. That's proved by the collapse time of
6.6 seconds compared to 6 seconds free fall. The southwest corner
of WTC7 was damaged by debris from the north tower, and there were
small random fires in the building, although it's anyone's guess how
they were ignited. But asymmetric damage and random fires don't cause
steel framed buildings to collapse even slowly and asymmetrically.
More expert analysis on the demolition of WTC7 can be found here:
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
This is what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging
infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
As you can see, these steel framed structures suffered gradual
From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/#videos
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
Henry
> On 2007-10-24, Mike McGinn <mikem...@mcginnweb.net> wrote:
>> What a bunch of fucking idiots. My brother Lt. Billy McGinn SQ18 FDNY
>> (guess where he died) was a civil engineer, he studied the design of the
>> towers.
> Sorry for your loss, but what about it?
>> Do you have any idea how many charges would have to be
>> places to bring those buildings down??
> Sure, the number is questionable :)
>> Any idea of the amount of wiring
>> involved?? Any idea how much time it would take?? Any idea how it could
>> be done in buildings where thousands of people worked 24 hours a day??
> Sure, it's impossible because we all know that all the people that
> worked there regularly go through maintenance shafts and watched people
> maintain the building :')
>> Your stupidity is astounding. No wonder this country sucks in science
>> and math. Read a fucking engineering book assholes.
> There is no way in this Earth for building (skyscraper!) to go down at
> free fall speed straight down, spitting *powdered* concrete upwards
> (bigger chunks of concrete were never found, not even office equipment!
> and steel was melted!).
> The towers were built to withstand a boeing 707 crash, videotape
> analysis confirmed the statics of the building to be ok after the crash
> (they've checked the sway of the buildings after the impact) and let's
> not forget - jetfuel isn't enough to melt all (or any!) of the 47 steel
> columns going through the middle of the building.
Great post, Davorin. You are obviously well informed and understand
the hard evidence. I hope you stick around to help educate the flat
earthers. <g> What group are you posting from?
The obvious demolitions are proof enough for those of us who can grasp
basic concepts of physics and mechanics, but apparently, this is not
so easy for some folks. Here is a great site with other compelling
evidence.
Gefio Norse
> Henry wrote:
> > george2 wrote:
>
> ~snip~
>
> I've often wondered about these theories. Assuming for a second that
> of the US government intentionally destroying some of the most prominent
> buildings in NYC? Insurance fraud? Political expediency?
> several hundred people to covertly pull off the destruction of these
> buildings. Why have none of them come forward to admit their role in
> the destruction of these buildings? One person can keep a secret. Two
> can share a secret. But keeping a conspiracy such as this secret
> amongst several hundred people would be difficult if not impossible. In
> the words of the MythBusters..... "I call this one busted".
Bush is 35% more popular after 9/11.
Before he is not popular and he can not win election and so his
friends can not make money with petrol and arms.
It is the truth, you know, you can read here:
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm
* The highest approval rating recorded for any president by the Gallup
Organization, which began asking the question when Franklin D.
Roosevelt was in the White House.
Gefio Norse
> On 2007-10-24, Ivan Marsh <anno...@you.now> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:55:00 +0000, Mike McGinn wrote:
>
> >> What a bunch of fucking idiots. My brother Lt. Billy McGinn SQ18 FDNY
> >> (guess where he died) was a civil engineer, he studied the design of the
> >> about demolition. Do you have any idea how many charges would have to be
> >> places to bring those buildings down?? Any idea of the amount of wiring
> >> involved?? Any idea how much time it would take?? Any idea how it could
> >> be done in buildings where thousands of people worked 24 hours a day??
>
> >> and math. Read a fucking engineering book assholes.
> > You're absolutely correct... and you're assuming that the buildings
> > weren't wired for demolition long before the attack on the trade center.
>
> And this would have been missed in the frequent FDNY inspections??
> Not to mention the explosive sweeps that were done regularly on the WTC
> buildings.
Washington, D.C. WASHINGTON, Jan 19, 2003 -- A company that provided
security at New York City's World Trade Center, Dulles International
Airport in Washington, D.C., and to United Airlines between 1995 and
2001, was backed by a private Kuwaiti-American investment firm with
ties to a brother of President Bush and the Bush family, according to
records obtained by the American Reporter.
Marvin P. Bush, a younger brother of George W. Bush, was a principal
in the company from 1993 to 2000, when most of the work on the big
projects was done. But White House responses to 9/11 have not publicly
disclosed the company's part in providing security to any of the named
facilities, and many of the public records revealing the relationships
are not public.
Nonetheless, public records reveal that the firm, formerly named
Securacom, listed Bush on its board of directors and as a significant
shareholder. The firm, now named Stratesec, Inc., is located in
Sterling, Va., a suburb of Washington, D.C., and emphasizes federal
clients. Bush is no longer on the board.
Marvin Bush has not responded to repeated telephoned and emailed
requests for comment on this story.
****************************************************
George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company
providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles
International Airport and United Airlines, according to public
records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-
American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.
The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named
Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the
company had a ``completion contract" to handle some of the security at
the World Trade Center ``up to the day the buildings fell down."
It also had a three-year contract to maintain electronic security
systems at Dulles Airport, according to a Dulles contracting official.
Securacom/Stratesec also handled some security for United Airlines in
the 1990s, according to McDaniel, but it had been completed before his
arriving on the board in 1998.
McDaniel confirmed that the company has security contracts with the
Department of Defense, including the U.S. Army, but did not detail the
nature of the work, citing security concerns. It has an ongoing line
with the General Services Administration - meaning that its bids for
contracts are noncompetitive - and also did security work for the Los
Alamos laboratory before 1998.
Marvin P. Bush, the president's youngest brother, was a director at
Stratesec from 1993 to fiscal year 2000. But the White House has not
publicly disclosed Bush connections in any of its responses to 9/11,
nor has it mentioned that another Bush-linked business had done
security work for the facilities attacked.
Marvin Bush joined Securacom when it was capitalized by the Kuwait-
American Corporation, a private investment firm in D.C. that was the
security company's major investor, sometimes holding a controlling
interest. Marvin Bush has not responded to telephone calls and e-mails
for comment.
KuwAm has been linked to the Bush family financially since the Gulf
War. One of its principals and a member of the Kuwaiti royal family,
Mishal Yousef Saud al Sabah, served on the board of Stratesec.
The managing director at KuwAm, Wirt D. Walker III, was also a
principal at Stratesec, and Walker, Marvin Bush and al Sabah are
listed in SEC filings as significant shareholders in both companies
during that period.
Marvin Bush's last year on the board at Stratesec coincided with his
first year on the board of HCC Insurance, formerly Houston Casualty
Co., one of the insurance carriers for the WTC. He left the HCC board
in November 2002.
But none of these connections has been looked at during the extensive
investigations since 9/11. McDaniel says principals and other
personnel at Stratesec have not been questioned or debriefed by the
FBI or other investigators. Walker declined to answer the same
question regarding KuwAm, referring to the public record.
Walker is also chairman and CEO of Aviation General, a Tulsa, Okla.-
based aviation company with two subsidiaries. SEC filings also show al
Sabah as a principal and shareholder in Aviation General, which was
recently delisted by the Nasdaq. Stratesec was delisted by the
American Stock Exchange in October 2002.
The suite in which Marvin Bush was annually re-elected, according to
public records, is located in the Watergate in space leased to the
Saudi government. The company now holds shareholder meetings in space
leased by the Kuwaiti government there. The White House has not
responded to various requests for comment.
Speaking of the Watergate, Riggs National Bank, where Saudi Princess
Al-Faisal had her ``Saudi money trail" bank account, has as one of its
executives Jonathan Bush, an uncle of the president. The public has
not learned whether Riggs - which services 95 percent of Washington's
foreign embassies - will be turning over records relating to Saudi
finance.
Meanwhile, Bush has nominated William H. Donaldson to head the
Securities and Exchange Commission. Donaldson, a longtime Bush family
friend, was a Yale classmate of Jonathan Bush.
On the very day of the tragic space shuttle crash, the government
appointed an independent investigative panel, and rightly so.
Why didn't it do the same on Sept. 12, 2001?
caver1
So you are trying to say that none of the concrete
landed on the ground?
How about when 10 floors hit 1, then those 11 hit
the next one ect.
Christopher Hunter
> democracy has its pitfalls, but the other options are worse!
The poor Americans have little chance at democracy - their elections are
usually rigged. They get the "government" they're given!
C.
Christopher Hunter
> See Pope John Paul II. Met the man in 1992. I was very impressed.
Be impressed by the man, /not/ what he stands for! /Please/ read "The God
Delusion" by Richard Dawkins if you think that /any/ church is a power for
good!
C.
jellybean stonerfish
> Just a thought. How many of these 911 nutbars are also moon hoax nutbars? Or
> JFK conspiracy nutbars? I suspect there is a strong connection.
>
> -rest of consipiracy crap snipped
Ok, so maybe NASA did send some astronauts to the moon. That does not
mean that Oswald killed Kennedy, or that Osama did the towers.
sf
z13...@yahoo.com
true believers in the official 911 cover story, are cordially invited
to defend their positions here:
http://www.libertyforum.org/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=consp_911&page=0&view=&sb=&o=
That's the 911 board on LibertyForum.org. That would be much better
than disrupting this GPS board.
I have yet to encounter one single would-be defender of the official
911 story who can defend his position in honest point by point debate,
and that goes for everything from Dubya and Cheney and their media
talking heads on up!
jellybean stonerfish
> I think I just figured it out. The columns were *made* of explosives.
> It was all a plot from the very construction of the tower.
>
> Man, that explains it all...
>
Have you been watching 'Get Smart' recently?
sf
Davorin Vlahovic
Hm, well, in my book the guy is a hero - he brought down communism and
helped the people of my country not to be slaughtered by the radical
Serbs during 1991.-1995.
Of course, I'm also perfectly aware that the Church stopped the human
technological progress for a time period of 1000 years and of most bad
things they've did during those times.
Davorin Vlahovic
Actually, they aren't. The U.S.A., as a _republic_ (not a democracy) had
perfectly legal elections, wether we're speakin of 2000. or 2003.
Things such as those elections are bound to repeat themselves until they
change the voting system.
Davorin Vlahovic
> So you are trying to say that none of the concrete
> landed on the ground?
Almost none of the solid non-powedered concrete
> How about when 10 floors hit 1, then those 11 hit
> the next one ect.
The buildings weren't built that way. Most of the concrete was in outer
walls. Inside of the building are beforementioned steel columns and
beams that connected to the outer wall which was more or less a facade.
Davorin Vlahovic
> Great post, Davorin. You are obviously well informed and understand
> the hard evidence. I hope you stick around to help educate the flat
> earthers. <g> What group are you posting from?
> The obvious demolitions are proof enough for those of us who can grasp
> basic concepts of physics and mechanics, but apparently, this is not
> so easy for some folks. Here is a great site with other compelling
> evidence.
I actually like mysteries, especially if they include high-tech and
physics. The problem here is this is a sad one with many wounds open so
it's perfectly understandable why people prefer to shut everything out
and tend not to ask painful questions.
Can you imagine having someone in the family killed (brother, sister,
husband or wife) and someone comes and tells you your father/mother
brutally dismembered him/her? It would be just too painful.
Unfortunately, there are many things that make this incredibly painful
for people of the U.S.A. - the report that insults the common sense,
a lot of pushy people (I appologise if someone percieves me as such a
person) and a lot of other things. I understand this, not so long ago
(16 years) such a thing was done to our entire city during the time of
three months (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vukovar,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7FQfY3BZq4).
What fascinates me about this is there are so much conspiracy stories.
Why are there so many? There were none surrounding the, let's say,
Unabomber or the prevous bombing of WTC. I mean, just the other
day I found a video that shows flashes on the airplane fuselage and
frame after that a flash in the building so the viewer can conclude
that both planes fired a missile into buildings just prior to crashing
into them.
Al Slater
Davorin Vlahovic
> I understand this, not so long ago
> (16 years) such a thing was done to our entire city during the time of
> three months (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vukovar,
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7FQfY3BZq4).
Sorry, wrong video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKMaBfUj1xM
But, since we're at it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlC4HX3n3m4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDjOmRVMAMQ
It is very important for the people to never give up, wether it's
finding out the truth or fighting for freedom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VTk5E8LnLI
Davorin Vlahovic
>>>> Yep.
>>> So a benevolent dictator to one person would be a despicable dictator to
>>> others........
>>
>> Nope. Since those days people have learned some things, most promising
>> of all would be - humanity :)
>
> Where they are using it to good effect in Iraq and Africa?
?
> As long as there are humans, there is going to be disagreements over who
> should be in charge. Your benevolent dictator could well be my sworn enemy.
Depends on what kind of person you are.
>> But I'm not speaking of all christians, I'm speaking of _a_ benevolent
>> and kind dictator. It's not nice to overgeneralize.
>>
>> Just as an example, this guy talked and forgave the man who attempted to
>> take his life.
>
>
> And who is he benevolent to? His 'flock' comes first?
Seems you've no idea about who we are speaking here :)
>>>>> I'm sure Saddams boys looked upon him as a benevolent dictator?
>>>> Wouldn't know. But I'm thinking no.
>>> The ones that lived in palaces? His army? His police force? if you were
>>> 'with him' you got looked after.
>>
>> Wouldn't bet on it. There are lots of people that were even high ranked
>> and ran away from him because they didn't want to commit attrocities.
>
> A bit like George W's. cronies? :)
A bit.
> What I'm getting at is that some did better under him than others.....to
> the ones who did well he was benevolent, to all the rest, he was despised.
No. Perhaps you could look a bit into it :)
>>>>>> I'd still opt for a benevolent dictator :)
>>>>> I hereby appoint you my first subject! Since I'm such a nice guy, your
>>>>> tax rate will be lowered but you will pay it to me...... :)
>>>> Doesn't work that way.
>>> Why not? You don't get to choose dictators!
>>
>> Not true at all. Since we've mentioned Roman Empire, I'd have to inform
>> you that dictators were elected for a fixed period in certain
>> times :)
>
> Then I'd call them 'elected' officials, not dictators.
C'mon, read something. The dictator is defined by his powers, not by how
he gets to the ruling seat.
>> Guess you're off the list for a benevolent dictator for now :)
>
> Only because I'm not benevolent! :(
No, because you are partially ignorant and not benevolent :)
>>>> Here's a new idea for you to ponder on:
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy
>>> I like that!...
>>
>> Now isn't this...Internet...thing nice. It lets you share...whaddaya
>> call them...ideas :) That reminds me, I'd better send a
>> thank-you-postcard to some of them geeks that invented this "tubular
>> architecture" called "the internets" :)
>
> Good call.....but aren't we supposed to flame each other first?
Why?
>>> but I can't see the rich and powerful handing over
>>> control for a long time yet......
>>
>> _shrugs_ Never say never :)
>
> Unfortunately I'm mortal.....I can't see things changing that much in my
> lifetime. :)
Well, I've seen some pretty miraculos stuff in my lifetime (fall of
communism, 1800 people defending a city for 84 days while being attacked
by 50000-80000 fully armed people which had hundreds of tanks,
airplanes, heavy artillery, Finns winning the Eurovision...) and I'm just
25.
Robert Weldon
> Davorin Vlahovic wrote:
>> On 2007-10-24, Mike McGinn <mikem...@mcginnweb.net> wrote:
>
>>> What a bunch of fucking idiots. My brother Lt. Billy McGinn SQ18 FDNY
>>> (guess where he died) was a civil engineer, he studied the design of the
>>> towers.
>
>> Sorry for your loss, but what about it?
>
>>> Do you have any idea how many charges would have to be
>>> places to bring those buildings down??
>
>> Sure, the number is questionable :)
>
>>> Any idea of the amount of wiring
>>> involved?? Any idea how much time it would take?? Any idea how it could
>>> be done in buildings where thousands of people worked 24 hours a day??
>
>> Sure, it's impossible because we all know that all the people that
>> worked there regularly go through maintenance shafts and watched people
>> maintain the building :')
>
>>> Your stupidity is astounding. No wonder this country sucks in science
>>> and math. Read a fucking engineering book assholes.
>
>> There is no way in this Earth for building (skyscraper!) to go down at
>> free fall speed straight down, spitting *powdered* concrete upwards
>> (bigger chunks of concrete were never found, not even office equipment!
>> and steel was melted!).
Bullshit. The steel was not melted. And the building didn't fall at
freefall speed.
>
>> The towers were built to withstand a boeing 707 crash, videotape
>> analysis confirmed the statics of the building to be ok after the crash
>> (they've checked the sway of the buildings after the impact) and let's
>> not forget - jetfuel isn't enough to melt all (or any!) of the 47 steel
>> columns going through the middle of the building.
It doesn't have to melt it, just heat it up enough to loose the strength,
which is exactly what happened.
>
> Great post, Davorin. You are obviously well informed and understand
> the hard evidence. I hope you stick around to help educate the flat
> earthers. <g> What group are you posting from?
> The obvious demolitions are proof enough for those of us who can grasp
> basic concepts of physics and mechanics, but apparently, this is not
> so easy for some folks. Here is a great site with other compelling
> evidence.
Actually you are both idiots. It was not demolished, not one scrap of
evidence has been found that supports that loony idea. Where is the wiring?
Where are the dud charges that didn't go off when the plane cut the
connections?
-rest of crap snipped.
Davorin Vlahovic
>>> There is no way in this Earth for building (skyscraper!) to go down at
>>> free fall speed straight down, spitting *powdered* concrete upwards
>>> (bigger chunks of concrete were never found, not even office equipment!
>>> and steel was melted!).
>
> Bullshit. The steel was not melted.
First of all - which steel are we talking about? The 47 steel columns or
other? Because I remember a clip of some young senator or congresman or
someone like that that spoke to a fire marshall on the ground zero a
week after the 11.9. and the firemarshall told him that even that day
(a week after the demolitions!) there were a pool of molten steel on
the bottom and the site under the street level had high temperature.
> And the building didn't fall at
> freefall speed.
No? Where's your proof? We all saw it. Especially the WTC7. And we've
seen the floors popping out horizontally on wtc1 and wtc2.
>>> The towers were built to withstand a boeing 707 crash, videotape
>>> analysis confirmed the statics of the building to be ok after the crash
>>> (they've checked the sway of the buildings after the impact) and let's
>>> not forget - jetfuel isn't enough to melt all (or any!) of the 47 steel
>>> columns going through the middle of the building.
>
> It doesn't have to melt it, just heat it up enough to loose the strength,
> which is exactly what happened.
And every one of 47 columns lost integrity at the same time (perhaps
they talked between themselves and decided on which moment they should
just give in, huh?) and went straight down without tilting? Bullshit.
You couldn't do it even with a stack of playing cards.
BTW, jet fuel burns at 315 degrees centigrade max and cast iron melts at
about 1370 degrees centigrade. And, and I have to mention this, it is
hard enough to bear structures at at least 800-1000 degrees centigrade.
So, the temperature of regular jet fuel shoud be at least twice as high
to cause structural collapse. Too bad people don't at least check these
simple facts for themselves.
> Actually you are both idiots.
Where's your proof for any of things you say? I wouldn't believe anyone
when something like this happens. I'd believe just my own two eyes and
my brain.
> It was not demolished, not one scrap of
> evidence has been found that supports that loony idea.
Myriad of cameras that filmed all three demolitions are proof enough.
Especially wtc7.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExrVgioIXvk
> Where is the wiring?
Where are the steel columns? Where are the concrete slabs? I've seen
just powdered concrete.
> Where are the dud charges that didn't go off when the plane cut the
> connections?
Where's anything? Where's the Pentagon crash tape?
> -rest of crap snipped.
Hope you didn't lose you head in the process :)
caver1
Remember the tunnel fire in California just a
while back?
just gas and diesel. Temperatures in the tunnel
reached 1000f.
Wasn,t just the jet fuel burning.
caver1
Davorin Vlahovic
> while back?
Actually, no. I'm not from U.S.A.
> just gas and diesel. Temperatures in the tunnel
> reached 1000f.
1000F=537.78 degrees Celsius.
> Wasn,t just the jet fuel burning.
No, but officially there weren't any items that could burn with a hotter
flame.
Alexander Skwar
> Remember the tunnel fire in California just a
> while back?
> just gas and diesel. Temperatures in the tunnel
> reached 1000f.
> Wasn,t just the jet fuel burning.
Just curious, to see if I understood you correctly: You're
saying, that there were also other materials burning? Like,
eg., Thermite, maybe?
Alexander Skwar
--
Bigmac wasn't an athlete. If there was an Olympic Sick Note event, he
would've won the 100 metres I've Got Asthma, the half marathon Lurk in the
Changing Rooms, and the freestyle Got to Go to the Doctor.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Johnny and the Bomb)
Henry
> http://www.libertyforum.org/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=consp_911&page=0&view=&sb=&o=
>
> That's the 911 board on LibertyForum.org. That would be much better
> than disrupting this GPS board.
> I have yet to encounter one single would-be defender of the official
> 911 story who can defend his position in honest point by point debate,
> and that goes for everything from Dubya and Cheney and their media
> talking heads on up!
That's been my experience, too, with a few exceptions. Those
who do attempt to defend their magic fire/Super Arab conspiracy
theory make claims that are so comically absurd and easily debunked
that I often think they're joking.
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://stj911.org
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.911truth.org
Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
Ever wonder who benefits from the 700 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21
"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
Henry
> Davorin Vlahovic wrote:
>> Of course, the government is here to protect people, right? The
>> government would never do anything to harm people, right?
>> Wrong - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
> It was not implemented.....no one was harmed. It was a plan that was
> scrapped, which goes to show the govt. was doing it's job.
It was a plan created by the government. Thwart the good
guys and plans like that one are seen through.
snowman
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 00:59:44 GMT, snowman <x@x.x> wrote:
>
>
>> Henry wrote:
>>
>>> george2 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> ~snip~
>>
>> I've often wondered about these theories. Assuming for a second that
>> they were true (which of course they are not), what would be the purpose
>> of the US government intentionally destroying some of the most prominent
>> buildings in NYC? Insurance fraud? Political expediency?
>> Assuming that they were true once again, it would take literally
>> several hundred people to covertly pull off the destruction of these
>> buildings. Why have none of them come forward to admit their role in
>> the destruction of these buildings? One person can keep a secret. Two
>> can share a secret. But keeping a conspiracy such as this secret
>> amongst several hundred people would be difficult if not impossible. In
>> the words of the MythBusters..... "I call this one busted".
>>
>
>
> of gold that was stored in the basement of building 7. I read in on
> the Internet, so I'm sure it is true.
>
Lol :-)
snowman
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 00:59:44 +0000, snowman wrote:
>
>
>> Henry wrote:
>>
>>> george2 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> ~snip~
>>
>> I've often wondered about these theories. Assuming for a second that
>> they were true (which of course they are not), what would be the purpose
>> of the US government intentionally destroying some of the most prominent
>> buildings in NYC? Insurance fraud? Political expediency?
>> Assuming that they were true once again, it would take literally
>> several hundred people to covertly pull off the destruction of these
>> buildings. Why have none of them come forward to admit their role in
>> the destruction of these buildings? One person can keep a secret. Two
>> can share a secret. But keeping a conspiracy such as this secret
>> amongst several hundred people would be difficult if not impossible. In
>> the words of the MythBusters..... "I call this one busted".
>>
>
>
Well that was just about as enlightening as scooping the sh*t out of my
cat's litter box...
John Fleming
the scriptorium snowman <x@x.x> wrote:
> $Ivan Marsh wrote:
[snip]
> $Well that was just about as enlightening as scooping the sh*t out of my
> $cat's litter box...
LOL
Yes. Not very enlightening, but its a dirty rotten job that
has to be done. And I'm not sure the cat really appreciates
it.
But what they hey. Around here, what the little lady brings
to my life in so many other ways more than makes up for her
not appreciating me cleaning up her litter box.
--
John Fleming
Edmonton, Canada
A Dreamer is One Who Can Only Find Her
Way by Moonlight.
-- Oscar Wilde
snowman
> snowman wrote:
>> Henry wrote:
>>> george2 wrote:
>>>
>> ~snip~
>>
>> I've often wondered about these theories. Assuming for a second that
>> they were true (which of course they are not),
>
> and based on lies, but the demolition/inside job theory has been
> proven beyond any doubt to be true.
Not really. It doesn't answer the question of why all of those who were
allegedly involved in such a conspiracy have all remained silent. How
would it be possible to silence literally the hundreds, if not thousands
of people that would be required to pull such a stunt off?
>
>> what would be the purpose of the US government intentionally
>> destroying some of the most prominent buildings in NYC? Insurance
>> fraud? Political expediency?
>
>
Not really. It doesn't answer how or why all the hundreds of alleged
conspirators remain silent. It doesn't answer how the building could
have been laid with charges and/or wiring without anyone seeing or
witnessing anything. Assuming that there was witnesses to the laying of
charges in these buildings, it doesn't explain how the silence of these
witnesses was ensured. It doesn't answer why none of the remains of any
of those charges and/or wiring were ever found. Assuming that the
building was indeed salted with demolition charges, it doesn't answer
why the hundreds of emergency crews and subsequent investigators never
found any evidence of such a thing. No unexploded charges, no wiring
fragments, no explosive casings, nothing. Assuming that said emergency
crews and investigators were complicint in such a conspiracy, it doesn't
explain how or why they continue to remain silent to this day, or how
their silence was ensured. It doesn't explain why a news media that
hungers and chases after a juicy story such as OJ or Hurricane Katrina
has never picked up on such an alleged conspiracy. It doesn't explain
how or why those hundreds of media employees and reporters remain silent
about this, the alleged "Mother of all conspiracies". Face it dude, it
just doesn't wash.
>
~snip~