The guy's last name is pretty appropriate for the type of hat he should be wearing.

Morgan Reynold is not saying our government blew up these buildings. He is saying that this kind of explosive charge could only have been placed by a government.
He is saying that 9-11 may not have just been Al Qaeda. Maybe we are back to Al Qaeda and Iraq.

When he writes of an "inside job" he means that someone with access to the building placed the explosives.

I think the story is not written clearly.

That isn't the implication I got when I read his comments and the article that the report is based on, I got the impression that he means the US government.

Anyone with a basic understanding of the laws of physics can see that the 3 WTC buildings were demolished using explosives if they take the time to look. Despite the idiotic claims contained in the "expert reports" it is clear that jet fuel and/or office furnishings do not burn hot enough to melt steel. If you believe that the fires werehot enough to weaken the steel columns at the point of impact, how would you explain the absence of steel columns protruding from the rubble?
What is the explanation for WTC7 coming down in free fall. No planes hit it, the fires were minimal at worst and the owner admitted to giving the order to "pull it".
Here is a news flash: Sometimes people lie either out of fear, greed or because they believe the end justifies the means.
When you say "Almost every engineering school in the country" has been looking into it, what exactly is the basis for that statement and where can I read their analysis and conclusions?
What the hell does his degree in economics and whether or nothe is a liberal have to do with skyscrapers being demolished?
Since Neil Bush was on the board of the company in charge of the security for WTC (and Dulles) perhaps they had a more sophisticated method for palceing explosives in the building than "walking down the street with boxes of dynamite".
What "gag order" do you refer to? You sound like a conspiracy theorist...
Quit apologizing for mass murderers and open your eyes.

A few months after 9/11 I ask a fire chief what he thought of the explanation of how the towers came down. He isn't an expert, but he said he would rather be in a large wooden beamed building then a steel one during a fire. His reason was that steel was less predictable, it would suddenly bend and twist, and pull away from it's supports, and then fall. This fits perfectly with what happened, as far as I can tell. If you look at how this building was made, you would have to be blind or stupid to think it couldn't have happened like we were told. Once one floor pulled away and fell, the heat and weight of that floor would be to much for the next. Like a house of cards, down the whole thing came.

And just like the Nazi sympathizers who believe there never really were any death camps; in about 40 years I imagine a group of folks will believe there never were any World Trade Towers.

Yay!

having some past experience with explosive demolition, i can make no firm Opinion since i have not studied the available information...

one thing to note is that a building does not usually fall straight down without help, the taller it is , the more propensity it has to tip to a side and fall...expert demolition people plan very carefully when dropping tall buildings so that they do fall into the desired "footprint"

where i can see it being 9in the realm of possibility for one building to drop straight, anything can happen at random....it does defy imagination that both 100 plus storey structures would fall perfectly straight down

i don't pretend to Know any Answers here, and i doubt we, the public, ever will...

as i said, i have no good Theory or even Hypothesis about the event...

as for Sensenbrenner, it is still typical behaviour of the current Regime to stifle everything they can....

Excelsior!

Yeah, who knows? Not me, but I do know that once a single floor "pancakes" the "mass in motion will tend to stay in motion" in the same direction unless something exerts enough force to alter the direction of movement.

And we're talking about a HUGE amount of mass above where the planes hit.

Just having the single floor where the plane hit each tower "pancake" would set off this irreversable downward momentum.

But hey, my mileage varies, and it's just a thought.

Bennet, i understand what yer saying, it's just the thought that ALL structural supports "melted" at the exact same time to make the upper areas fall straight down?

the timing for that trick is one of the most difficult in demolition, precise timed detonations are required...not an easy thing , and for each area collapsing you increase the possibilities of angular momentum for a topple to a side

that's my only point here...no "theory" just an Observation based on personal knowledge of how these things work

that being said, with a structure that big, all bets are off

Excelsior!

I think www.911research.com gives the best analysis of what really happened.
Please see here to see how a steel building should and normally behaves in a fire. It's difficult to get a fire hot enough to weaken steel. The fact it happened three times in one day in New York is absurd. It's not an engineering problem, it's not a political problem, it's not a social problem, IT IS A PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEM! How do you get Americans to confront the truth when it's so awful?

Gonzo - Since this is the first I've heard of this (thanks John) I'm still trying to wrap my mind around it.

The quote from the article John links to suggests that this is an "inside job" and that it would then be an "attack on the USA by a government". He doen't specify which government.

The falling of the second tower, I saw that live, shouldn't the slo-mo footage of the collapse show some evidence of charges going off?

You and I have both seen large demolition jobs, and the charges going off (and the smoke/flash) show up pretty clearly.

This is disturbing to the max.

very sensible John, thanks. Any event this large, disastrous and with political ramifications is going to draw conspiracy theorists, it's just inevitable.

It happened the way we think it happened and Oswald shot Kennedy.

Given that the Twin Towers stood amongst many other heavily populated structures, it would have been a far greater disaster for them to topple over into other buildings. That being the case, I wonder if the buildings might not have been designed to collapse in a certain way. The "scandal" there would be that some of the supports might have been built to fail, increasing the likelihood of a disaster to avoid the possibility of a worse one.

JR--I forgive your trying to reach for an acceptably palatable explanation but the truth probably resembles something you're currently incapable of confronting. Your government conspired with others to premeditatively murder nearly 3000 Americans and others to justify illegal and preemptive war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The seditiously silent media has kept quiet because they are controlled, cowed and manipulated. The President and his administration probably take directions from people whose identities we know nothing about. Hard to believe but the United States was overthrown and you didn't even know about it. Justice might see Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Powell and others standing against a brick wall for their Fort Leavenworth military firing squad executions. They will do everything in their power to deny the revelation of truth. They will do everything in their power to strengthen and reinforce your inability to confront. 911 was an inside job.

I kinda gotta go with Eric. Unless there is more to this than "It's unlikely that the buildings fell that way on their own" I can't buy the conspiracy.

It would have been better if they toppled, from a terrorist standpoint. No need for precise demolition techniques. Why bother with that?

"Oh, and let's get the buildings to come straight down, just to confuse everybody..."

John Galt - Sorry, no habla espanol. Have you a link to a site I can actually read?

John Galt - you are a lunatic spouting unsuppotable monstrous hate-speech that might be dangerous to impressionable minds. Please fuck off hard.

Bennett--Why bother with that? Because the command center and homing beacon for the operation was probably in Building Seven that was later conveniently blown up after the players had departed.

Nothing about this is going to be handed to you on a silver platter. I suggest you come up to speed on the many facets of the event by reading all of www.911research.com so that you can understand the implications of the photos at the Spanish website. You shouldn't need to understand Spanish to understand what the photos mean.

Eric--an inability to confront often leads to fearful expressions of profanity. You seem to have selected the blue pill. You can't bring yourself to confront the evidence presented. The Greek philosopher Socrates drank hemlock as a penalty for his alleged crime of corrupting the youth of Athens. Truth is a hard nut to crack because those spouting it are very often sentenced to die.

And here you thought gnosticism was a centuries old heresy...

Who is John Galt?

Sorry. I jus' hadda.

Actually, comment #14 sounds about as sane as anything around here, and I don't understand Eric's Olsen's *reaction. I could buy it. Stranger things have happened.

*Likely to get a lecture about civility from his wife.

Ironically.

It wasn't Neil in charge of security, it was Marvin.
Never in history has a steel framed highrise collapsed through fire. WTC7 did, and wasn't hit by a plane. There is no evidence that it was seriously damaged by falling debris. But it collapsed as through a controlled demolition, with only small fires burning on two floors (those fires started in the afternoon. What started them?).
The CEO of Controlled Demolitions Inc (who wrote the cleanup plan for the complex) reported pools of molten steel in the basements of WTC 1, 2 and 7. It remained hot for over a month. What melted that steel?
But go ahead and make tinfoil hat wisecracks. It's easier than doing the homework.

BTW: re. Bambi-neck's reference to a statement by Texas A & M University:

Everything Texas A & M says is suspect.

It's an ENGINEERING school - fer chrissakes -- and their students couldn't construct a safe *bonfire using 300 lb. tinker toys.

WE DON'T CARE WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT ARCHITECHTURAL STRUCTURES, 'kay??

'kay.





*12 dead, 27 injured.

Now back to your regular programming.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em, cuz you all are on drugs. Good Gawd almighty...

This dicussion invalidates any substantial gains by blog.critics in my book. Ya'll fuggers are nutz!

As I mentioned, the intensity of my reaction is based upon such hateful drivel being taken seriously by the weak minded and easily deluded.

damn, Shark beat me to the "who is John Galt" sub-ref

on that note, to Sloop John B, WTF does gnosticism have to do with anything written in this Thread?

the character of "John Galt" comes from the Objectivist book "Atlas Shrugged" and has NOTHING to do with gonosticism, which IS alive and well, christian gnosticism was being argued against by Bishop Iraneus as early as 180 AD, Valentinius was tossed out of Rome for gnostic "heresies" around 150 AD

so i just don't get your point..

JR, there is no documentation or evidence that ANY large building (over 30 floors) is designed to fall in a certain way that i can discover, i'm not sure it's possible, but i am no engineer. the closest i have found are the earthquake "proof" buildings in Japan, which can sway quite considerably..but no study has been done about collapsing..

as for the rest..no way of knowing with the data available, but Bog forfend it was anything but what we believe it to have been

Excelsior!

Hmmm, then please tell me why exactly the office building in MADRID SPAIN burned for almost a full day, fire spreading to over 20 floors. now THATS a raging inferno.......BUT YET......IT DID NOT FALL. -->

operation911

That last link, how was that woman able to survive through heat that supposedly melted 3 foot thick concrete-reinforced steel beams and girders? hmmm?

Shark, I think you should stick with the A&M bonfire deathcount as an alternative to Iraq war casualties. It's way more entertaining.

Dave

here is the answer, now you can retire and take down your stupid website: shit happens that seems unlikely ALL THE TIME

>>Never in history has a steel framed highrise collapsed through fire. WTC7 did, and wasn't hit by a plane. There is no evidence that it was seriously damaged by falling debris. But it collapsed as through a controlled demolition, with only small fires burning on two floors (those fires started in the afternoon. What started them?).<<

Wasn't WTC7 damaged substantially by debris, caught on fire, and then intentionally demolished after it was evacuated in order to control the fire?

>>The CEO of Controlled Demolitions Inc (who wrote the cleanup plan for the complex) reported pools of molten steel in the basements of WTC 1, 2 and 7. It remained hot for over a month. What melted that steel?<<

Ok, here's a question for you. If jet fuel can't generate a fire hot enough to melt steel, then what can? And how could they get enough of any of the substances which CAN melt steel into the building and wrapped around the support pillars without anyone noticing it?

The fact is that there's nothing which can burn and melt steel which could have been gotten into place in the building without basically reconstructing the building to accomodate it.

The one thing which can melt steel, which no one is considering here, is pressure and friction. Ever seen what happens when a steel bar bends? The bend point gets incredibly hot. With some kinds of steel the metal can even soften to the touch. There are also lots and lots of different kinds of steel, some of which can melt at temperatures as low as 800 degrees centigrade.

Imagine the pressure those steel columns were under with the weight of all those collapsing floors pushing down on them. It's like instant metal fatique, and the more that collapsed the higher the pressure would be on the sections below.

Dave

Morgan Reynolds came out last year as a 9/11 skeptic

Clearly Mr Reynolds is indicting the Bush Administration as the guilty party. It's no mysterty that WTC7 was destroyed by well-placed explosives since the lease-holder, Mr Larry Silverstein, said he made a decision to "pull it."

The anthrax attacks and the (pointless) war in Iraq are all part of the Bush Administration's tactics to start a globe wide war. Sadly, most Americans will never see through it.

Also, Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant Secretary of Treasury under Reagan, and author of the _Supply-Side Revolution_ also suspects that 9/11 was an "inside job" carried out by the Bush Administration. However, he's been reluctant to say so.

>>>Wasn't WTC7 damaged substantially by debris, caught on fire, and then intentionally demolished after it was evacuated in order to control the fire?


There is no photographic evidence that it was damaged substantially. It was the furthest of the buildings in the WTC Complex from the towers.
In fact, the 9/11 (C)omission Report didn't even pretend to know how it happened. Early reports that the diesel tanks for the generator systems in the basement caught fire were dropped when photographic evidence showed that the basement was not on fire.
The fires broke out in the afternoon, and the building fell at 5:20PM.

>>>"Ok, here's a question for you. If jet fuel can't generate a fire hot enough to melt steel, then what can?"

Thermite, or the newer generation cutting charges used in controlled implosions to shear load bearing structural members.
In the case of the Trade Center Towers, they were probably placed at multiple levels in the 7-story basement, eviscerating the central core structure, which pulled the building straight down through the center.
This was the same thing that the truck bomber tried to do in the '93 Trade Center bombing, but it was parked too far from the central columns.

Yes, bending metal makes it hot, a fact easily observed when pulling old nails out of a board. Hot enough to reduce it to a liquid state?
Interesting thought, but I've never heard of anything like that.

And for Eric Olsen: Nothing hateful here, except your initial comment. How about answering some of the questions raised? Clue: "Duh, that's nutz and you all must hate America" does not count as an answer. I think you can do better.

Eric--When I realized the government's explanation about Arabs with box cutters overpowering four flight crews and making perfect untrained approaches into three structures was drivel and when I realized it was all done to express hatred toward Arabs in the form of illegally and preemptively killing more than 100,000 of them, I didn't shout obscentities. Your behavior is contemptible and does not strenghthen your position.

Dave Nalle--Steel can be weakened when force-fed oxygen flames are directed at it for prolonged periods of time. Your local muffler shop probably uses an oxy-acetylene torch to cut steel. Steel mills use forced air through purifed coal to melt steel in their refractory line crucibles. Nitrate based explosives get hot enough and are powerful enough to melt steel. Nuclear reactions could melt steel. Also, a new variety of aluminum-based metastable interstitial composite can easily melt steel.

The troubling fact is that none of these types of materials were in that building and none were carried aboard the plane. Or were they? What we do know is that oxygen-starved kerosene fires were burning at no hotter than 350 degreess Celsius. 800 degrees Celsius is required to even begin weakening steel. NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has not detected any sample from available rubble that indicates temperatures in excess of 250 degress Celsius.

Confront the truth. 911 was an inside job.

>>>"If you look at how this building was made, you would have to be blind or stupid to think it couldn't have happened like we were told. Once one floor pulled away and fell, the heat and weight of that floor would be to much for the next. Like a house of cards, down the whole thing came."

Simple, believable, convincing, and completely unsupported by the facts.

If one looks at how the towers were constructed, you'll see that they utilized a "tube within a tube" structure. A massive central core, which housed the elevator shafts, stairwells, and utilities, consisting of 47 massive steel columns. A load bearing outer wall, also of steel. The floors were suspended between these with trusses, opening up a maximum amount of floor space.
If the "pancake -collapse/truss-failure" theory held water, and those floors would have went slamming down onto each other like vinyl records down a spindle, there would have been several stories of shattered concrete floors atop the rubble, and a couple hundred feet of the core would have remained standing.
But that's not what happened, is it?
Think about it.
Everything was pulverised into dust.
Practical experimement: drop a chunk of concrete 1,400 feet to the pavement, and see if it explodes into dust like a dirt clod.

Missile & remote control systems added to?small jets before 9-11; same parts found at Pentagon

Two civilian defense contractor employees--told to remain silent--say?other workers quietly retro-fitted missile and remote control systems onto A-3 jets at Colorado public airport prior to September 11 when similar A-3 parts much smaller than a Boeing 757 were found at Pentagon

Presidential candidate says scores of retired and active military and intelligence officials would testify?before?current grand jury probing government?involvement in 9/11 attacks

Prism please state your source or provide a link. Thank you.

Bottom line?

The towers collapsed in anywhere from 8-11 seconds, flat. They were built around a solid structural steel core.

Absolute freefall in a complete vacuum, within even air resistence??

9.2 seconds, flat.

Shaking head at ANYONE's attempt to stretch the bounds of credulity, and the push the outer limits of absurdity in order to attempt to make what is patently absurd conform with the officially twisted worldview, that after an hour, the fires all but out, the firefighters setting up a triage in the building - the buildings collapsed straight to the ground from top to bottom at about the rate of free fall in a vacuum for reasons other than controlled demolition?

Take a safe or a grand piano and the north tower, and drop them at the same time, and all indication, and visual evidence shows, that they hit the ground at the same time, or if anything, the tower a fraction of a second later!!

Now think about that, and then think about the construction of these buildings, designed to withstand hurricane force winds, and an actual plane strike of similar magnitude.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_ch2.htm

http://data.greatbuildings.com/gbc/images/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.3.jpg

Large Safe (or Grand Piano)
North Tower
Drop

http://xenonpuppy.net/video%20archive/

Steel structural core and controlled demolition.

Proven. End of story.

So Karl and John are contending that Thermite or the equivalent was smuggled into the building in large enough quantities to pack around the main pillars at multiple intervals to heat them to a total temperature high enough to cause a rapid melt-down. Perhaps the planes were just there to ignite the thermite?

About the only way that much thermite or thermite equivalent could have gotten where it needed to be would be for it to have been done when the building was under construction. As demonstrated in the first bombing, just parking a truck near a couple of columns is nowhere near sufficient.

What about the possibility that the giant elevator shaft acted as a forced-air furnace? That seems to make much more sense.

Dave

Here's what he had to say on that issue. Sounds pretty rational. In fact, any other explanation as to why those towers fell the way they did is untenable if not utterly absurd!

"There is special import in the fact of free-fall collapse (item one in the list immediately above), if only because everyone agrees that the towers fell at free-fall speed. This makes pancake collapse with one floor progressively falling onto the floor below an unattractive explanation. Progressive pancaking cannot happen at free-fall speed ("g" or 9.8 m/s2). Free-fall would require "pulling" or removing obstacles below before they could impede (slow) the acceleration of falling objects from above. Sequenced explosions, on the other hand, explain why the lower floors did not interfere with the progress of the falling objects above. The pancake theory fails this test.

If we put the murder of 2,749 innocent victims momentarily aside..."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/150605wtccollapse.htm

Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United
by Margie Burns

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?

Pre-9/11 World Trade Center Power-Down
by Victor Thorn
April 23

Did the World Trade Center towers undergo a deliberate ?power-down? on the weekend prior to the 9-11 terrorist attacks? According to Scott Forbes, a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, Inc. ? a high-net investment bank which was later acquired by Franklin Templeton ? this is precisely what took place.

Forbes, who was hired by Fiduciary in 1999 and is now stationed at a U.K. branch office, was working on the weekend of September 8-9, 2001, and said that his company was given three weeks advance notice that New York?s Port Authority would take out power in the South Tower from the 48th floor up. The reason: the Port Authority was performing a cabling upgrade to increase the WTC?s computer bandwidth.

Forbes stated that Fiduciary Trust was one of the WTC?s first occupants after it was erected, and that a ?power-down? had never been initiated prior to this occasion. He also stated that his company put forth a huge investment in time and resources to take down their computer systems due to the deliberate power outage. This process, Forbes recalled, began early Saturday morning (September 8th) and continued until mid-Sunday afternoon (September 9th) ? approximately 30 hours. As a result of having its electricity cut, the WTC?s security cameras were rendered inoperative, as were its I.D. systems, and elevators to the upper floors.

Forbes did stress, though, that there was power to the WTC?s lower floors, and that there were plenty of engineers going in-and-out of the WTC who had free access throughout the building due to its security system being knocked out. In an e-mail to journalist John Kaminski, author of The Day America Died (Sisyphus Press) and America?s Autopsy Report (Dandelion Books), Forbes wrote: ?Without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors, and many, many ?engineers? coming in and out of the tower.?

Forbes didn?t think much of these occurrences at the time, and said that he worked until Monday morning (September 10th) to get all the computer systems back online.

Due to his IT-related duties on Saturday & Sunday, Forbes had Tuesday, September 11th off, and thus watched the World Trade Center towers collapse from his apartment. While doing so, he recalled, ?I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work.?
In addition, Forbes says there were other peculiarities revolving around this unreported event, including:

1) Fiduciary employees trapped between the 90-97th floors of the South Tower told family members (via cell-phone calls) that they were hearing ?bomb-like explosions? throughout the towers.

2) Video cameras positioned atop the World Trade Center which were used to feed daily images to local television stations were inexplicably inoperative that morning.

3) A Fiduciary employee who was on one of the lower floors and escaped immediately after the first (North) tower was struck, reported that he was amazed by the large number of FBI agents that were already on the streets surrounding the WTC complex only minutes after the initial strike.

4) Last but not least, Ann Tatlock, CEO of Fiduciary Trust and now a board member of Franklin Templeton, had just arrived at a conference hosted by Warren Buffet at the Offutt Air Force Base (home of the U.S. Strategic Command Headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska) when the 9-11 attacks took place.
Coincidentally, later that day President George W. Bush flew into this very same base on Air Force One for ?security reasons.? Even more chilling are the Offutt AFB ties to the CIA?s MK ULTRA experiments, Project Monarch, the Franklin Cover-Up, and the diabolical practices of Michael Aquino. (Type any of these words into a search engine for more information.)

In the end, Forbes says that even though these disclosures could jeopardize his current employment, he has stepped forward because, ?I have mailed this information to many people, including the 9/11 Commission, but no one seems to be registering these facts.?
Obviously there are many unanswered questions to this story, and we will keep you updated as more information arrives..."

If you own the building, you can do just about anything you want to it under the guise of maintenance. After 5pm the buildings were virtually empty. Crews could pack it with hidden explosives relatively easily in the months preceding 911.

Larry Silverstein, leaseholder of the WTC, slipped up in a PBS documentary, "America Rebuilds", when he stated that he discussed with the NYFD "pulling" building seven and he confirms that they pulled it meaning destroyed it using controlled demolition techniques.

But wait there's more..


Another Ignored 9/11 Clue: Bomb Sniffing Dogs Removed From WTC Days Before Attack

Jon Rappoport | June 28 2004

As you'll see from the Newsday excerpt below, tight security at the Twin Towers in NYC was lightened in the days just before the 9/11 attacks.

What makes the particular removal of bomb-sniffing dogs so important are statements from firemen that they heard bombs going off in the Towers on 9/11, as they were carrying out their rescue operation.

Naturally, if people were planting bombs in the Towers, they would not have wanted those charges to be discovered by trained dogs prior to 9/11.

This matter of the dogs and the statements of firemen about bombs were completely ignored by the 9/11 commission.

Parallel: in the 1995 OKC bombing, there had to have been charges pre-planted on specific columns of the Murrah building, because no truck bomb of any size could have caused the profile of damage sustained by the building on April 19. Certain columns were taken down and certain columns survived intact. A few of the surviving columns were closer to the truck than other columns which went down. It's likely that, on April 19, as the diversionary blast went off in the Ryder truck, the charges that had already been placed on the columns were set off by remote control from another location. Or the Ryder truck shock wave itself set off detonators embedded in the charges on the columns.

Here is the Newsday excerpt:

Heightened Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted
By Curtis L. Taylor and Sean Gardiner
STAFF WRITERS

September 12, 2001

The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.

Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

"Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."

Security guard Hermina Jones said officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center...

End of Newsday excerpt.

There is no way enough explosves were secretted into the WTC in a matter of days. Seriously.

And gnosticism is perfectly relevant to this thread with all the proclamations of sooper sekret knowledge that only a few have and the rest of the world is stupid/insane/both.

But thanks for keeping my post at the top guys.

when one starts with a conclusion and works backward from there, one can "prove" virtually anything.

Move along psychos

I myself am not emplying by those articles that the whole thing was acomplished in a few days. Merely that the intensity of activity increased days prior, and very likely most of all during the very weekend prior.

Certainly, building 7 too would have had to have been set up weeks and even months in advance. Thus, Silverstein's admission of the CD of building 7 also proves prior knowledge and secret, yes secret complicity and conspiracy, which is nothing more than two or more people working together in secret for the purpose of committing a crime, in this case, the crime of the fricking CENTURY!!

It was a 'projection' of shock and awe power, for a "New American Century".

Open your eyes man!

Can you count down 9 seconds? Now, imagine a large safe racing the top of the north tower to the ground, and actually beating it there!

Now take another look at this, please.

http://data.greatbuildings.com/gbc/images/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.3.jpg

You'd better include Gallileo and Isaac Newton among us, and, prepare to argue their "theories" about free falling bodies then..

1) stop leaving fucking URLs - make them actual links
2) Roswell - how did that one turn out?

and on and on and on

Idle minds..... kill your televisions... it's destroying your brains.

For years the electrical utility companies have led the public to
believe they were in business to supply electricity to the
consumer, a service for which they charge a substantial rate. The
recent accidental acquisition of secret records from a well known
power company has led to a massive research campaign which
positively explodes several myths and exposes the massive hoax
which has been perpitrated upon the public by the power companies.

The most common hoax promoted the false concept that light bulbs
emitted light; in actuality, these 'light' bulbs actually absorb
DARK which is then transported back to the power generation
stations via wire networks. A more descriptive name has now been
coined; the new scientific name for the device is DARKSUCKER.

This newsletter introduces a brief synopsis of the darksucker
theory, which proves the existence of dark and establishes the
fact that dark has great mass, and further, that dark particle
(the anti-photon) is the fastest known particle in the universe.
Apparently, even the celebrated Dr. Albert Einstein did not
suspect the truth.. that just as COLD is the absence of HEAT,
LIGHT is actually the ABSENCE of DARK... scientists have now
proven that light does not really exist!

The basis of the darksucker theory is that electric light bulbs
suck dark. Take for example, the darksuckers in the room where
you are right now. There is much less dark right next to the
darksuckers than there is elsewhere, demonstrating their limited
range. The larger the darksucker, the greater its capacity to
suck dark. Darksuckers in a parking lot or on a football field
have a much greater capacity than the ones in used in the home,
for example.

It may come as a surprise to learn that darksuckers also operate
on a celestial scale; witness the Sun. Our Sun makes use of dense
dark, sucking it in from all the planets and intervening dark
space. Naturally, the Sun is better able to suck dark from the
planets which are situated closer to it, thus explaining why those
planets appear brighter than do those which are far distant from
the Sun.

Occassionally, the Sun actually oversucks; under those
conditions, dark spots appear on the surface of the Sun.
Scientists have long studied these 'sunspots' and are only
recently beginning to realize that the dark spots represent leaks
of high pressure dark because the Sun has oversucked dark to such
an extent that some dark actually leaks back into space. This
leakage of high pressure dark frequently causes problems with
radio communications here on Earth due to collisions between the
dark particles as they stream out into space at high velocity via
the black 'holes' in the surface of the Sun.

As with all manmade devices, darksuckers have a finite lifetime
caused by the fact that they are not 100% efficient at
transmitting collected dark back to the power company via the
wires from your home, causing dark to build up slowly within the
device. Once they are full of accumulated dark, they can no
longer suck. This condition can be observed by looking for the
black spot on a full darksucker when it has reached maximum
capacity of untransmitted dark... you have surely noticed that
dark completely surrounds a full darksucker because it no longer
has the capacity to suck any dark at all.

A candle is a primitive darksucker. A new candle has a white
wick. You will notice that after the first use the wick turns
black, representing all the dark which has been sucked into it.
If you hold a pencil next to the wick of an operating candle, the
tip will turn black because it got in the way of the dark flowing
into the candle. It is of no use to plug a candle into an
electrical outlet; it can only collect dark.. it has no
transmission capabilities. Unfortunately, these primitive
darksuckers have a very limited range and are hazardous to operate
because of the intense heat produced.

There are also portable darksuckers called flashlights. The bulbs
in these devices collect dark which is passed to a dark storage
unit called a battery. When the dark storage unit is full, it
must be either emptied (a process called 'recharging') or replaced
before the portable darksucker can continue to operate. If you
break open a battery, you will find dense black dark inside,
evidence that it is actually a compact dark storage unit.

How do you make them links?

Roswell! Please. C'mon. At least take the time to read and examine what I fucking posted, before attempting to bring this into the realm of UFO's.

Saying no, simply because you cannot accept it by implication, is no argument I hope you know.. Is it motive? Prior conduct? If so I would refer you to Northwoods, and to PNAC (Project for a New American Century) for that matter.

On what basis are you saying that what I've posted is in the realm of "psycho" and of Roswelleanism? Because the government or a faction within it, including Dick Cheney, would not DO such a thing?

Are you aware of the 911 War Games Operations under way that day and who was responsible for those, and what specifically, one or more of them involved?

Way to go Brain. More like an enclosed tin can which only recieves what it has been told by the mass media channels. Nice argument on ya there!

Brain. How ironic!

I am aware of many things including the fact that there are far too many deranged obsessives who have nothing better to do than to cloud their own minds and attempting to cloud the minds of others. This behavior takes on the characteristics of a cult.

And for links: type HTML in any search engine and there it will be

"darksucker" - that is classic

Shark, are you still hanging with these guys?

Yes of course, that's it. I am clouded and am obsessed with clouding other people's minds, for no other reason than because I am clouded.

Fuckoff. That's rediculous. This is serious business. Most people know the official story is patently false, or at the very least seriously flawed.

Well, take the free fall collapse of the twin towers and building 7, for starters.

You say one thing.

I am saying something else.

Which - is the most congruent with reality as it really is.

8-10 seconds my friend, from top, to bottom they fell, for no reason, and the reason that has been fed to you makes no sense - not in terms of physical reality.

So you revert to name calling, and what do they call it - ad hominen attacks.

Who's the fool. Argue your case for the official story, against what I've posted.

So more than simply point the finger and shout names. Please! Rediculous.

So, let's get down to the meat of the matter. It was the Jews who bombed the WTC, right guys?

Dave

hdhntr--It's difficult for nonengineers or scientists to get their minds around the physics of 911. 911 was an excellent psychological operation. I did not consider alternative explanations for more than a year after the event. I hadn't even heard about Building Seven. Just after September 11, 2001 I saw a Diane Sawyer interview with the classmates of Zoe Falkenberg who died on flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon and I remember mentioning it to my brother that it seemed rehearsed. That children of that age would never be so composed and well spoken in their feelings. It definitely seemed rehearsed. It probably was and I'm not even sure those were Zoe's classmates or whether a Zoe actually really ever existed.

I think the government admitted guilt when it coordinated the illegal removal and destruction of crime scene evidence. If that rubble were in a warehouse somewhere, materials scientists and structural engineers would be able, with great accuracy, to analyze the mechanisms of failure. It's obvious why the government ordered the evidence destroyed.

I think the second admission of guilt was when the 911 Commission didn't summon Larry Silverstein, WTC leaseholder, for interogation. Let's pretend you were appointed to be member of the 911 commission sworn to determine the TRUTH regarding 911. After learning that the controller of the property admitted that one of the buildings was blown up by NYFD, wouldn't you interview Larry? The 911 Commission didn't. Need I say more?

Hdhntr--you and I have the strength, education and courage to see the truth. Others don't. Please don't let them get under your skin. You have the strength that comes from knowing. They are weakened because they rely on a false belief imposed on them by those that committed the crime. Also, there are agents of the fascists spreading doubt, ridiculing truth, reinforcing the government line. Do not underestimate their power.

What do you think should be the next action, if any action, that resolved citizens can perform that would force independent but complementary investigations of 911 by investigators appointed by the individual 50 State Legislatures?

Mossad 'artists', CIA specialists...military - most certainly authorized by Cheney who, months prior was placed, by Bush, in charge of various War Games Operations under way that very day, one of which involved, get this - simulated hijacked aircraft being flown as planes as fuel-air bomb missiles into major Landmark buildings, and Bob Dole's ex chief of Staff confirms this also, as to a whole host of other public record sources.

The whole thing is pretty damn sinister. A 'dark sucker'.

"So, let's get down to the meat of the matter. It was the Jews who bombed the WTC, right guys?"

Thanks Dave for exposing yourself as enabling shill.

Thank you John. At least someone here is being rational about this issue.

Here is precisely what would need to occur.

1) A not-for-profit organization needs to be formed in New York City, with numerous victim's family members on the board. If there is one organizing dynamic that is more powerful than the states capacity to dupe its citizenry into waging wars of aggression, unjust and unjustified wars I might add - it is enlightened people of great conviction and extreme courage operating and collaborating together in a spirit of mutual harmony to realize a definite purpose. It could be called 911 Victims Families For Truth, or simply The 911 Truth Movement, or some such thing.

2) Money. Alot of it, needs to be raised and, with all the evidence that's out there in hand, showing, make that proving, government complicity in 911 at the highest levels, I am confident that there are many many wealthy and influential true patriots who could be 'tapped' for any and all needed funds, without corrupting this 'system' with any sort of left/right political agenda.

3) Supporters: A growing central data base of supporters needs to be gathered around and built up around the cause, with email and snail mail addresses. Engineers, Policemen, Firefighters, Judges, Lawyers, Academics, Scientists, Ex-Bush Admin Officials, etc. and of course, regular people like you and me. Then, once a certain critical mass threshold level of people working together in a true mastermind alliance is reached, that's when a New York City 911 Grand Jury needs to be formed, and whistleblowers en mass encouraged to come forth to get on the record. Their protection would reside in their numbers, and the high profile such a proceeding would have, who's sole objective would be nothing other than to discover the truth about 911. A Zogby poll shows that 50% of New Yorkers believe that 911 was, at the very least, a LIHOP (let it happen on purpose).

Such an organization, and Grand Jury proceeding ought to take place relatively close to ground zero.

And it would accumulate such a groundswell of support that there would be no keeping it out of the mass media channels.

Holes in the 911 Omission Report would also serve as a central pillar of the investigation.

Something like that needs to happen, and the sooner the better, before anything else happens.

Aww come on Hallu, I'm just trying to give 'em a helping hand.

Dave

Didn't 911truth.org already try to present a petition to the New York State Attorney General Spitzer? I think he turned down the request so he could address steroids abuse instead.

I contributed to 911truth.org but I'm slightly suspicious that they're CIA. Ever since I learned NORML was DEA, I've suspected the government was posing as the opposition.

Nothing substantive has yet formed, because they keep throwing up sinkholes like Spitzer to pin our hopes on.

All that is required is the will and for someone or some small group to make a start. That's what I think.

There are like ALOT of people with knowledge who only need to know how to safely come forth with what they know.

To date, the truth movement has merely been concerned with the movement of the truth about 911. It needs to get organized, and anyone could start that process in earnest. Just be careful not to get infiltrated by a-hole shills. Even regular people, smart and educated people are simply desperate to prevent this knowledge from coming out into the open, it is such an assault on their comfy cozy worldview I guess.

Here's a link of some interest I believe. Sorry, I don't know how to make it a an clickable link.

http://www.tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=110&mode=&order=0&thold=0

"when one starts with a conclusion and works backward from there, one can "prove" virtually anything."

Exactly!! - start with the conclusion that the collapse was caused by the planes, and then it can be "proved."

But an objective look at the facts, and the questions (very disturbing questions) remain.

I am an engineer with a degree in civil engineering. I worked for the state of new york in structural steel quality assurance for many years. On 9-11 live TV I recall a demolition "expert" stating that there must have been charges placed in the building. I haven't read any theories yet that convince me otherwise.

The pancaking theory - where was the structural steel spindle? How was this steel simply crushed, by the weight of a building that it supported for decades?

I'm sorry Eric Olsen but you should take a deeper look at some of the existing testimony before writing this off as psycho talk.

For example, the fire chiefs present did not expect the buildings to collapse, right up to the last moment. Yet Mayor Giuliani stated in a TV interview that he received a 20 minute warning that the buildings were about to collapse, and so he moved to a safer location. Who warned him and how could they possibly have known the building was about to collapse?

If you keep your mind closed and consider to insist we're "psychos" you will never get at the truth. Good luck to you and thanks for the forum.

NORML is DEA? That'll be harsh news to all the NORML activists I know.

Dave

"There a principal which is a bar against all information, and proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance.
That principal is contempt, prior to investigation."
~ Herbert Spencer

To add a link... you will use the opening tag and closing tag. Whatever appears between these two tags will become underlined and colored, and if you click on the underlined text it will send the browser to the location within the quotes.

Example of a link...

Visit Dave's Site!

Visit Dave's Site!

Kevin Ryan - Former Underwriters Laboratory Inspector for WTC Speaks out on 911 Once Again

---
Kevin Ryan - A Personal Decision


By Kevin Ryan
June 9th 2005

Have you ever found yourself caught between several hundred million people and their most cherished lies? After writing a letter to a government scientist, pleading with him to clarify a report of his work, I found myself in just that situation. The letter was circulated on the internet and for a brief time I became a reluctant celebrity. Of course I stand behind what I wrote, although it was originally intended as a personal message, not an open letter. Since many have asked for clarification, here is my message to all.

[For background to Kevin Ryan's personal story see:
UQ Wire: Underwriter Speaks Out On WTC Study
UQ Wire: 9/11 Whistleblower Kevin Ryan Fired - UQ Wire Editor.

To me, the report in question represents a decision point, not just for the US, but for humanity as a whole. We?re at a point where we must decide if we will live consciously, or literally give up our entire reality for a thin veneer of lies. In the US these lies include cheap propaganda that passes for journalism, police-state measures that promise security, and mountains of debt that paint a picture of wealth. Additionally we?ve adopted many implicit self-deceptions, like the idea that we?ll always enjoy a limitless share of the world?s resources, no matter where these are located or who might disagree.

All people lie to themselves. It?s one of the most important things we have yet to accept about our own nature. We lie to ourselves to justify our past actions, to protect our self-image, and to promote ourselves relative to others. This lying is at the root of many of our problems (e.g. nationalism and racism). Until we see this, and strive to understand if not control it, the resulting problems will continue unchecked and the outcome will be certain. Any organism or society that makes self-deception its modus operandi will make many bad, and ultimately fatal, decisions. The day will come when we are collectively fooling ourselves in such a way that we essentially trade everything we have for what?s behind our fantasy curtain. It appears that day is near.

The official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a key part of our current self-deception. More importantly, this story may be our last chance to see just how critical our situation is so that we can all stop, and begin working together to solve the real problems we face. These problems, for the US and the world as a whole, amount to a growing storm of factors including environmental changes, resource depletion, and growth in resource usage.[1,2] Undoubtedly the secret Energy Taskforce report of May 2001 would verify this, and help us to understand that our government is responding to some of these threats with a carefully laid out plan. This plan assumes that people cannot rise above their own natural, ego-based self-deception, and therefore few of us will survive the coming storm. In essence, they?re betting against us.

Anyone who honestly looks at the evidence has difficulty finding anything in the official story of 9/11 that is believable. It?s not just one or two strange twists or holes in the story, the whole thing is bogus from start to end.[3] In my previous job I was in a position to question one part, the collapse of three tall buildings due to fire. But this isn?t really a chemistry or engineering problem, and may be best approached initially through statistics.

The three WTC buildings in question weren?t all designed the same way and weren?t all hit by airplanes. The only thing they seemed to have in common were relatively small and manageable fires, as indicated by the work of firefighters right up to the moment of collapse. From the government?s report we know that only a small percentage of the supporting columns in each of the first two buildings were severed, and that the jet fuel burned off in just a few minutes.

To follow the latest ?leading hypothesis?, what are the odds that all the fireproofing fell off in just the right places, even far from the point of impact? Without much test data, let?s say it?s one in a thousand. And what are the odds that the office furnishings converged to supply highly directed and (somehow) forced-oxygen fires at very precise points on the remaining columns? Is it another one in a thousand? What is the chance that those points would then all soften in unison, and give way perfectly, so that the highly dubious ?progressive global collapse? theory could be born? I wouldn?t even care to guess. But finally, with well over a hundred fires in tall buildings through history, what are the chances that the first, second and third incidents of fire-induced collapse would all occur on the same day? Let?s say it?s one in a million. Considering just these few points we?re looking at a one in a trillion chance, using generous estimates and not really considering the third building (no plane, no jet fuel, different construction).

How convenient that our miraculous result, combined with several other trains of similarly unlikely events, gives us reason to invade the few most strategically important lands for the production of oil and natural gas. As I said, this is not about chemistry or engineering. Our continued dependence on this highly improbable story means that we have a desperate need to believe it. It is, in fact, a psychology problem.

Solving the problem is a personal challenge, and involves at least three-steps. First, we have to admit we were wrong, and that we were fooled. This is not easy for most people, but congratulations to the neo-cons for noticing that their political opponents seem to be least able to admit they were wrong on any significant issue. Secondly, we have to see that terrorism is actually much worse than we feared because the terrorists are in charge. Such a pause on a national scale would be dramatic to say the least. If we get to the third step we begin to realize the scope of change necessary to move forward in a conscious manner. Obviously the US government must be substantially changed and/or forgiven. New cooperative, multinational agreements would need to be implemented immediately.[4]

If you make it through step one and care enough about people to work for step three, you may face ridicule and isolation. You may lose your income and some friends, but if we continue down the same path there?s a real chance you?re going to lose those anyway. On the upside you may be able to hold on to some sense of integrity. The only thing you can be certain of is that we?re all in this together. No matter how you voted, what credentials or positions you hold, or what faith you have in people, you will face the consequences of our collective self-deceptions. Now is the time for each of us to decide between a stormy reality and what?s behind the fantasy curtain.

Of note is the fact that he was summarily fired for expressing anything contrary to the official theory of a pancake collapse. He just couldn't go along with it.

>>"when one starts with a conclusion and works backward from there, one can "prove" virtually anything.

Move along psychos"

Who's doing that, Eric?
WHO is starting with a conclusion?
Start with the evidence, and work forward. Oh wait, you're not familiar with any of it. That probably accounts for the derision in your voice. It's okay, go back to your FOX news.
Yeah, Building 7 fell because bin Laden "hates our freedom". 19 Arabs, 7 of which are still alive and well, ducked past surveillance cameras stayed off the passenger mannifestos to comandeer a jetliner so suddenly that neither the pilot or co-pilot could get off so much as a yelp to the tower. Not once, but four times. They then piloted these things into those buildings, executing a precise spiral to strike at ground level, in the case of Hani Hanjour at the Pentagon, despite the fact that he could barely fly a Cessna.
Why did they shut off the transponders, Eric?
And how did they find these freakin buildings from cruising altitude? Did they navigate with maps and a Silva compass?
Did you know that Mohamed Atta was a coke-fiend and a drunken party boy who liked strip joints? Sounds like a real fundie. "This party's for Allah!"
Yeah, and they tied him to it on account of his rental car, conveniently loaded with a Koran (he left those in strip joints, too), flight manuals in Arabic, and all sorts of other goodies.
The problem is that he'd driven to Portland, Maine the night before, and FLEW IN to Boston in the morning. So how was his car parked at Logan, Eric?
Who's sounding like the whacked out conspiracy nut now?

Seriously, educate yourself.
And turn off the FOX News.

Giuliani got the warning but the firefighters didn't.

Maintenance workers saw evidence of apparent bombings in the WTC basement prior to the collapse.

But just keep moving along, psychos, nothing to see here. Don't bother looking any deeper and get your "tin foil hat" quips at the ready. Because I'm sure you are all so smart, you don't need to understand or even read the evidence to jump to the conclusion that it's all a cult driven hoax. Our gov't would never do anything like this, right?

Wouldn't you do it? If you were head of the DEA with a virtually unlimited budget, wouldn't you spend the paltry amount required to infiltrate and control the voice of the opposition without destroying it to ensure another voice of opposition didn't erupt somewhere? That way you could pose as the opposition and control the amount of dissent delivered by it so as never to threaten your power. That's why NORML has been in existence for some thirty years, collecting donations, without accomplishing a single significant thing.

The government does the same thing in other areas. 911 truth groups in particular. There are a lot of red herrings being thrown out there that are used to discredit legitimate 911 anomalies that point to government participation.

Giuliani got the warning.

OMG! I always thought that was just a rumour. I couldn't find it anywhere. Now I've heard it with my own ears. He was warned ten minutes BEFORE the building collapsed! Fuck that's a pissoff!

"...sacrificed, on the alter of freedom."
~ Rudolph Giuliani,
Ground Zero Ceremony
September 11th, 2004

I guess the Jewish elite needed their own new, 3000 unit version or something...

Let's just remember the people who jumped, and those heros who were needlessly crushed while doing their jobs, all so that a couple 100 more 1000 could be slaughter in the name of "freedom" (oil, power, wealth, unipolar global hegemony).

Where do YOU stand, relative to this information.

First things first, you might want to consider looking into it, for the love of Pete!

This article describes the official Texas A&M response from the school's president.
Texas A&M response

Care to guess who the President of Texas A&M is and what his job used to be?

Give up?

Robert M. Gates, Director of the CIA

Just a final comment before this "nutcase" signs off.

Giuliani did in fact say just that "sacrificed, on the alter of freedom" in his last 911 Ceremony speech, but I'm not sure where it was to be precise, and I don't have the transcript, but I heard him and watched him say it. You've got to trust me on this one.

Otherwise, I suggest some investigation, without contempt prior to investigation, and take a close look at all the information in a variety of different forms, including what's in the public record, as well as all the photographic and videographic evidence recorded first hand in real time when it happened. There's so much that was on TV that day and was never again seen since, though it is getting preserved on the net and in various 911 documentaries.

Look and read and think, and then and only then draw your own conclusions.

All the best,

HH

RE: Comment #67 You can't be serious.
That link to prisonplanet.com has fewer
verifiable sources than the Weekly World
News does. All it has is sensationalist
innuendo and hare brained theories by
unnamed and unknown sources. The tape of
Guiliani(if it's actually him)seems to
be tampered with,if it's not just some
outright fraud that is. It is a highly
entertaining site and all but I prefer
The Onion as it at least has some small
degree of underlying truth to it before
they expound and expand on their subject
matter.

"The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11, 2001"

States Robert M. Gates, Ex Director of the CIA

No, they don't. But most of it was preserved, the first hand, when it happened, recorded in real time photographic and videographic record of events.

Two things are of interest, or ought to be, for every American patriot and for the whole world. One, the time it took for those building to collapse from top, to bottom, and Two, what happens and what you see when you slow down the videos of the south tower plane strike, and take a close look at that event, from a whole variety of angles and video and still camera lenses.

The American people THINK they know what they saw with their own eyes, but did they really?

I think they should all take another look, just to be sure that they know what they think they saw the day it happened.

LOL, prisonplanet.com is an Alex Jones website. He's the king of insane and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. Check out his main site at infowars.com for some real, broadband lunacy.

Dave

>>>"He's the king of insane and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories."

So shoot the messenger.
He actually does an excellent job of substantiating what he says. As opposed to... I dunno, pigeonholing valid questions and issues as "conspiracy theory" to avoid having to look at or answer them?
Seriously, there more than enough valid issues and questions to justify, no, necessitate a hard investigation into the events of that day, and by a truly independant group of engineers, pilots and criminal investigators. Not a whitewash comission led by an oilman.

I'm very interested by what i've read here. However, it seems as though the ardent defenders of the accepted story of 9/11 have, instead of arguing logical points and deductions, turned to wild accusations of "conspiracy theories" and other slander. What have you to say in defense of the accepted theory? Or to disprove this "conspiracy" theory? I would like to hear it. Thanks.

You guys are ALL a bunch of deranged lunatics. I'm sure I'm going to get shouted down for this but did anyone actually look into the how and why the towers were designed the way they were? No? Didn't think so. Here's a lesson.

1. The towers were built to withstand the direct hit of a Boeing 747 with moderate fuel. The planes that crashed were 757's with full fuel supplies.

2. The external structure was built as a ridgid steel frame with an internal core. This frame would withstand the heat and force of the 757 plane attack.

3. The individual floors were "floating" floors that were anchored to the ridgid steel frame of the towers. These could withstand the force of a 747 but not anything larger. They designed the entire capacital structure around a plane hit by a 747.

4. Why a floating floor? something of that size is bound to be effected by swaying in the wind. If you've ever been to the top you understand this. Solid floors would have cracked and need to be replaced.

5. since we have a heat over the structural capacity contained within a ridgid steel frame the heat does not dissipate but insensify, causing the first floor to completely combust and make things even hotter on the inside, as well as destroying the supports.

6. The Collapse of the floating supports creates an added friction to the next floor down and the overall mass causes the supports of the already heated next floor to collapse as well.

7. This whole time the external structure has been building heat and close to the heat required for a class delta (Metal) fire, aka molten, flaming metal. Since the external supports are long beams running the length of the building they are already heating the lower and upper floors and weakening the floating supports for them as well.

8. The dominoe effect happens due to the reason stated above. The internal floors collapse, one by one. This increased heat finally reaches the heat required to turn the external structure into a class delta fire. The external structure begins to melt and combust.

9. Since the internal floors are already falling in an enclosed space it creates a vacuume for the newly liquifying external metal. It is the path of least resistance. The building collapses in on itself from top to bottom.

Does this help with explaining why the building went straight down? The internal class alpha fire sucked the external class delta fire into itself.

If you completely disagree with me I understand. There are those that just refuse to believe the truth because it is just too devastating...to your theories that Bush is evil.

Have a nice day guys!

>>>"1. The towers were built to withstand the direct hit of a Boeing 747 with moderate fuel. The planes that crashed were 757's with full fuel supplies."

I only got that far.

They were built to withstand the crash of a 707 (the largest passenger jet of the day). The planes that crashed into the towers were both 767s, which are hardly "jumbo jets".

>>>"3. The individual floors were "floating" floors that were anchored to the ridgid steel frame of the towers. These could withstand the force of a 747 but not anything larger."

Larger? Like what? A 767 is much smaller than a 747. It's actually closer to a 707 in size. The bigger the number doesn't mean the bigger the jet.

>>>"The external structure begins to melt and combust."

Sorry, that's just ridiculous.

>>>"There are those that just refuse to believe the truth because it is just too devastating...to your theories that Bush is evil."

No, there are some who actually consider the facts, after taking the time to find out what they are. Looking at your response, I'd say you have some homework to do. Not because I disagree with your conclusion, but because your points are riddled with the most basic factual errors.
And what does ones personal opinion of President Bush have to do with any of this?
Right, because you're "either with us or you're with the terrorists".

I thank you all for the discussion.

Good night.

Hay, you asked for an explanation and you make excuses.

..and the conspiracy goes to point the finger at Bush. Don't switch at the last moment.

707, 747, 757, whatever.

combustion. Do you even comprehend what a class Delta fire is? If you've been through your b acis damage control on a big grey ship you would understand the effects of a burning jet on a carrier's runway. If you don't dump it off the side it burns through the ship...all the way through. Look into the Forrestall and you'll understand a bit more.

I didn't make excuses, I pointed out that your "facts" were mostly wildly inaccurate.
As far as the USS Forrestall, this page seems to claim that most of the damage was from exploding ordnance, not burning JP5. Do you agree with that?

As far as the Twin Towers go, in the attack on the South Tower, most of the jet fuel combusted outside the building, in that huge fireball that we all saw on television. It was almost a near miss (catching the corner of the tower), as opposed to the North Tower strike, which was almost a direct hit.
And yet the South Tower collapsed first.
Why?

And what do you mean by: "the conspiracy goes to point the finger at Bush"?
He's an idiot and a liability, and I personally question how much he knew. He was in Florida; Dick Cheney was effectively in charge. Maybe he and Rumsfeld and Rove sent Bush down there so he couldn't screw things up, eh?

Again, good night.

so what are we saying here? That the WTC was just a parking lot for 757's and right after the arabs parked their two jets the govt decided they weren't paying the proper fee?

alright..I confess! I did it...from my living room in AZ! morons!

Sorry I got so testy.

In all seriousness, I can appreciate how much time and effort you Don Quixotes have invested in this crusade, but why don't you do yourselves and the world a favor and turn that energy toward something positive?

Don't back off now, Eric! Nutcases who pronounce judgement from their lofty perches ("You just can't face the truth...") deserve nothing more than puncturing. The arguments being advanced here are simply silly, the stuff of children's games.

"Reality is the opposite of whatever the Voice of Authority is saying." -- Robert Anton Wilson

EricO, I think a healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing, but one must be prepared to use it on all sides, including one's Standard Reality Tunnel that accepts everything the 'government' says as gospel.

PS: I suggest you read Woodward's book "Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA " if you think all conspiracy folks are daffy. You'd be surprised what your government does in "your name".

PPS: In SOME WAYS, the Reichstag fire has always reminded me of 9/11.

Anyway, this is some fun reading!


BTW: IMHO, the WTC bldg #7 has always been problematic. It's just too weird and doesn't seem to fit in with the Standard Story.

Carry on!

I also called them "tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists" until I started reading those articles and looking at the evidence. The moment of truth came to me when I read the the 9/11 Commission Report that said the investigations into some of the so called "hijackers" was obstructed by orders from higher-ups in the CIA & FBI.

I thought, why would people in charge of protecting us want to endanger American lives by giving these scum a free pass? It became clear to me as I pieced all the evidence together, these "terrorists" who could only dream of hijacking one airliner let alone hijack four and attack the Pentaton and WTC were being set-up to act as patsies. I remembered how the months before 9/11 there was an increase in chatter about Osama and terrorists in general, I read about the War Games that took place on the week of 9/11 for the purpose of dealing with airplane hijackings and the complete hypocrisy and lies of the administration as they told the American people they had no idea of anything and were responsible for nothing!

Even if you refuse the believe the truth, you cannot ignore the criminal 'negligence' that took place.

surely there was negligence, there usually is when something this monumentally terrible happens

Phillip, I am backing off nothing, just being more polite about it.

Shark, my government does not conspire to blow up two buildings full of its own citizens on its own soil.

Skepticism is fine - direct it at these "theories"

Its more than negligence, its a criminal act.

Even now the FBI protects Osama Bin Laden's RIGHT TO PRIVACY over the American public's right to know about the involvement this human filth had. It always smelled like bull to me when the "osama tapes" were released at the most opportune times including right before the elections. Yet they cant catch this criminal who is reported to be alive and well?

I refuse to become fodder for these corrupt powers.

Boys and girls,

WTC not demolished with explosives?

Ha!

Trust your eyes... I DARE you

watch LOOSE CHANGE, which has beeeeaaauuuutiful footage and enlargements of the

ACTUAL CHARGES GOING OFF

CLICK HERE

ACTUAL CHARGES GOING OFF

Watch it, and ask whats wrong
with your eyes... or blame the
messenger.


further research:

- Remote Control 767 757 egyptair 990
- wargames northern vigilance leidig

are your google words.

Actual documentary videos can be downloaded from:

watch LOOSE CHANGE

Right, our government that can't seem to keep a secret from anyone, has been able to keep this secret for this long. Something this big would have taken dozens, maybe hundreds of people to pull off, not one of them has stepped forward. To bad deepthroat came out of hiding.

Ok, for the sake of refuting this, let's assume you are right. The WTC was demolished.

The crew that set it up was so intelligent as to sneak in the explosives under everyone's nose. They managed to outfit 4 commercial airliners with remote control underneath the flight and maintenance crews noses. They managed to have Arab looking men on planes pretend to hijack the plane (phone calls prove this happened, and I'm not talking about the ones to the operator, I'm talking about people talking to their spouses). They were so brilliant they have the whole world except a few people believing this story that took place under the gaping eyes of a nation.

Yet, they were so stupid that:

1) They couldn't sequence the explosions correctly having the tower hit second come down first,
2) They blew up a building that wasn't hit, and
3) They couldn't make sure none of their own people was on the plane (Ted Olsen, the solicitor general's wife was on the plane that hit the Pentagon. Ted Olsen is an administration insider who has access to most all of our government's dirty laundry).

Which is it guys? Are the frighteningly brilliant or a bunch of clumsy oafs who just got real lucky?

The theory is internally inconsistent.

I am a licensed professional engineer with years of experience in structural steel quality assurance.
I have witnessed structural steel that was scorched for hours by fuel fires. I have studied collapses of major steel bridges. And I just cannot believe that the towers fell like that as the result of fires. I will reserve final judement until someone actually builds a scale model and recreates the impact and fire. Maybe one of the "every engineering school in the country" that supposedly "has either been looking into the collapse or using it as a case study" would be willing to do so. But on the evidence I've seen, I'd say 99 to 1 it was more than the planes and ensuing fuel fire that took those buildings down. But don't believe me, just because I spent years studying and working on structural steel. Get someone to build the scale model and do everything you can to recreate the failure mode. Then and only then can you convince me, that the "official conspiracy theory (the man in the cave did it!)" is true.

Someone talks about nutcases "who pronounce judgement from their lofty perches" -- well how is that any different than what you folks are doing?

For those of you interested in refuting 9/11 theories, please visit this interesting site:

There are many, many facets of the official 9-11 story which should make anyone with half a brain wonder if they are being lied to.

But those of you on your lofty perches can keep casting your nutcasings, and keep your tin foil hats firmly in place if you blindly insist on believing the conspiracy theory that the "man in the cave did it."

I prefer to look at all the evidence and reserve final judgement until i see some proof. The coverups do make me wonder... As of yet, I've not seen proof one way or the other. Your theories & your derision is not proof, neither are news stories and CIA directors denouncing everything but the official conspiracy theory.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Relying on "[a]nyone with a basic understanding of the laws of physics" despite the fact that a good number of us have watched the footage many times doesn't constitute evidence. When someone disagrees with you, "[y]ou can't bring yourself to confront the evidence presented" isn't a valid answer. I've looked at all of this stuff, and I simply don't agree.

I've been through it all with Waco, with the Pentagon, with OK City, and so I've seen the conspiracy theories roll in from the right and the left and on and on. From the "faked moon landings" to this, it has so far all worked out roughly the same: because life doesn't work like television does, with every single plot element carefully scripted and every question answered in 42 minutes or at least 22 episodes, people imagine the worst. People take little things here and there that don't look like they do in the summer blockbuster movies and put them together to mean something more. And it's just false.

We landed on the moon. The was sunlight reflecting off of the tank. Yes, a truck full of fertilizer took down that whole building. Yes, that was an airplane hitting the Pentagon. And yes, crashing two airplanes full of jet fuel into the World Trade Center towers caused all of that destruction.

I don't trust experts just because they're experts. But I don't mistrust the government just because it's the government either. There are some nasty people in government who make poor decisions and don't have my best interests at heart -- I understand that. But that doesn't overwhelm the rest of the evidence which clearly demonstrates what happened on 9/11.

We can stack up all of the engineers and firefighters who believe the party line on one side, and all of the engineers and firefighters who believe the conspiracy theory on the other side, and we'll have a lot of engineers and firefighters, but no real answers.

Better yet, write up the two stories. Put them side by side. Which one makes more sense? That Osama bin Laden claimed credit for something the US government did? This isn't a courtroom, where all you have to do to acquit your client is introduce "reasonable doubt." You need to make a positive case, explain what did happen. And the positive case simply doesn't add up in any way.

well put Phillip - sometimes there ARE conspiracies, but they are almost always found out

I check out all these links and now I see what really is wrong with blogging....any wacko can write any conspiracy theory he wants and be able to find moonbats to follow him or her!

which is exactly why it is so important to call a moonbat a moonbat

We landed on the moon???

Is that were the bats came from???

I went to college with Armstrong's son - he's pretty sure his dad made the trip.

Phillip wrote "You need to make a positive case, explain what did happen."

Anyone who claims to know "what did happen" is lying to themselves, because no one (that's talking, anyway) knows for sure what did happen.

I know the official version doesn't add up (to me, anyway, and I am a structural steel expert, more or less). Until someone can take the time and money (and why not, in the most important attack on US soil ever?) to build a scale model and prove that it could have happened this way, I will continue to disbelieve that the fuel fire caused that collapse. Where were the protruding steel columns immediately after the collapse? Crushed? Melted? You want syrup with your pancakes?

Sorry, maybe that makes sense for you. But not for me. But unlike you folks, I'm not claiming to know exactly what happened. I just know how steel behaves and I don't see why WTC steel would behave any differently than bridge steel or structural steel subjected to fire in many other skyscraper fires both before and since.

Sorry I don't buy it.

enjoy your obsession and may it keep you warm at night

Thanks!
Enjoy your closed mind, may it keep you safe from bad men in caves everywhere.

If you simply are unable to accept or believe that OUR GOVERNMENT is capable of something like 9-11, then please do yourself a huge favor and search out your own information on "OPERATION NORTHOODS" ... and also read Woodwards "VEIL: The Secret Wars of the CIA" ... as folks here have already suggested. "Northwoods" goes