Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

911 Conspiracy?

Wazzup? said:
I have yet to come across anybody that is not biased or opinionated on any particualar issue... I have absolutely no problem with the guy making money with what he does, as he does what he does very good... ya gotta make a living somehow and ya might as well make it by doing something ya do well...

I have analyzed it somewhat, and what he's puzzled together with the evidence, fit's together more-so than any media/gov. report I've ever seen in the new's... But you'll notice in my post that I said "... although, that's not to say that their is not any unknown information that can refute the exact detail's of 911..." meaning, he could be a little off on puzzleing the evidence together...but I still believe, for the most part, that he is correct...



Here, try downloading this link that SlowTom gave: http://100777.com/media/911theroadtotyranny.asf?PHPSESSID=5603973926e9dbab52dbd5fb22a407a1 ...it take's an hour or 2 with DSL, but you might find it pretty interesting...I was just downloading it for a good laugh and entertainment...little did I know, that he would have a pretty good case...

i have no problem with him making money either, but thats exactly why his material needs to be taken with a jar of salt. he will only submit information, not only in just a manner that bolsters his storyline but he will also purposely leave some of the most obvious and not so obvious explanations to individual pieces of evidence.

when you say you have analyzed it somewhat, are you talking about his story or the actual events that preceeded 9-11 and the events during and after that day?

my opinion is that someone could take all the publi knowledge information that is available and concoct many different compelling scenarios by using the techniques i described earlier. usually they leave out the explanations for each piece of evidence that would logically explain why this or that happened.
 
i have no problem with him making money either, but thats exactly why his material needs to be taken with a jar of salt. he will only submit information, not only in just a manner that bolsters his storyline but he will also purposely leave some of the most obvious and not so obvious explanations to individual pieces of evidence.

He might, but I bet it happen's more-so with the media...they take money too, alot more money... and they are alway's contradicting themselves in one way or another... I also know that the reason why the majority of the public think that you can't trust Cospiracy theorist's, is based on "popular opinion" and what society has conditioned people to take as legitamite and NOT based on the actual case's presented... People tend to label these individual's as "conspiracy theorist's" and therefore "scandulous"...that's the association the majority of the public make...not to say that some CT's aren't scandulous, but I believe some do have a level head...at least after checking out what he had to say.

Have you download the link and listened to some of what he has to say?

my opinion is that someone could take all the publi knowledge information that is available and concoct many different compelling scenarios by using the techniques i described earlier. usually they leave out the explanations for each piece of evidence that would logically explain why this or that happened.

I agree...although he does make a more compelling case (without all of the contradiction's) than what you will hear on any "major media" new's station/government... I know it sound's crazy and I probably sound like a crazy broken record, but I do believe he's more on track of what happened than anything your going to hear given to the public... Is he 100% correct in every detail? I believe only the perpetrator's would be able to tell exactly what went down.

when you say you have analyzed it somewhat, are you talking about his story or the actual events that preceeded 9-11 and the events during and after that day?

I'm just talking about the case he present's in the download link above... I don't really know of any "direct" source's of information that I can get to really analyze the attack's. He does use copie's of video media report's, government document's and other hardcore verifieable evidence... for example, "Operation Northwood's" (not really a "direct" piece to 911, but it show's that our gov. is capable of, has planned AND tried to carry out such atrocities) that the government actually admited too. JFK stopped the plan in it's track's, planned to shut down the CIA and other devious organization's...and then shortly after he was...make's you wonder...

You can read a little about this "sick" plan below:

From _BODY OF SECRETS_, James Bamford, Doubleday, 2001, p.82 and following: scanned and edited by NY Transfer News.

...In [Joint Chief's chair] Lemnitzer's view, the country would be far better off if the generals could take over. [JFK assassination legend has it some general presided over the fudgy JFK autopsy. --Mk]

For those military officers who were sitting on the fence, the Kennedy administration's botched Bay of Pigs invasion was the last straw. "The Bay of Pigs fiasco broke the dike," said one report at the time. "President Kennedy was pilloried by the superpatriots as a 'no-win' chief . . . The Far Right became a fount of proposals born of frustration and put forward in the name of anti-Communism. . . Active-duty commanders played host to anti-Communist seminars on their bases and attended or addressed Right-wing meetings elsewhere."

Although no one in Congress could have known it at the time, Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs had quietly slipped over the edge.

According to secret and long-hidden documents obtained for Body of Secrets, the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. In the name of anticommunism, they proposed launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting an ill-conceived war they intended to launch against Cuba.

Codenamed Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.

The idea may actually have originated with President Eisenhower in the last days of his administration. With the Cold War hotter than ever and the recent U-2 scandal fresh in the public's memory, the old general wanted to go out with a win. He wanted desperately to invade Cuba in the weeks leading up to Kennedy's inauguration; indeed, on January 3 he told Lemnitzer and other aides in his Cabinet Room that he would move against Castro before the inauguration if only the Cubans gave him a really good excuse. Then, with time growing short, Eisenhower floated an idea. If Castro failed to provide that excuse, perhaps, he said, the United States "could think of manufacturing something that would be generally acceptable." What he was suggesting was a pretext-a bombing, an attack, an act of sabotage carried out secretly against the United States by the United States. Its purpose would be to justify the launching of a war. It was a dangerous suggestion by a desperate president.

Although no such war took place, the idea was not lost on General Lemnitzer But he and his colleagues were frustrated by Kennedy's failure to authorize their plan, and angry that Castro had not provided an excuse to invade.

The final straw may have come during a White House meeting on February 26, 1962. Concerned that General Lansdale's various covert action plans under Operation Mongoose were simply becoming more outrageous and going nowhere, Robert Kennedy told him to drop all anti-Castro efforts. Instead, Lansdale was ordered to concentrate for the next three months strictly on gathering intelligence about Cuba. It was a humiliating defeat for Lansdale, a man more accustomed to praise than to scorn.

As the Kennedy brothers appeared to suddenly "go soft" on Castro, Lemnitzer could see his opportunity to invade Cuba quickly slipping away. The attempts to provoke the Cuban public to revolt seemed dead and Castro, unfortunately, appeared to have no inclination to launch any attacks against Americans or their property Lemnitzer and the other Chiefs knew there was only one option left that would ensure their war. They would have to trick the American public and world opinion into hating Cuba so much that they would not only go along, but would insist that he and his generals launch their war against Castro. "World opinion, and the United Nations forum," said a secret JCS document, "should be favorably affected by developing the international image of the Cuban government as rash and irresponsible, and as an alarming and unpredictable threat to the peace of the Western Hemisphere."

Operation Northwoods called for a war in which many patriotic Americans and innocent Cubans would die senseless deaths-all to satisfy the egos of twisted generals back in Washington, safe in their taxpayer-financed homes and limousines.

One idea seriously considered involved the launch of John Glenn, the first American to orbit the earth. On February 20,1962, Glenn was to lift off from Cape Canaveral, Florida, on his historic journey. The flight was to carry the banner of America's virtues of truth, freedom, and democracy into orbit high over the planet. But Lemnitzer and his Chiefs had a different idea. They proposed to Lansdale that, should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof that . . . the fault lies with the Communists et al Cuba [sic.]"

This would be accomplished, Lemnitzer continued, "by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans." Thus, as NASA prepared to send the first American into space, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were preparing to use John Glenn's possible death as a pretext to launch a war.

Glenn lifted into history without mishap, leaving Lemnitzer and the Chiefs to begin devising new plots which they suggested be carried out "within the time frame of the next few months."

Among the actions recommended was "a series of well coordinated incidents to take place in and around" the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This included dressing "friendly" Cubans in Cuban military uniforms and then have them "start riots near the main gate of the base. Others would pretend to be saboteurs inside the base. Ammunition would be blown up, fires started, aircraft sabotaged, mortars fired at the base with damage to installations."

The suggested operations grew progressively more outrageous. Another called for an action similar to the infamous incident in February 1898 when an explosion aboard the battleship Maine in Havana harbor killed 266 U.S. sailors. Although the exact cause of the explosion remained undetermined, it sparked the Spanish-American War with Cuba. Incited by the deadly blast, more than one million men volunteered for duty. Lemnitzer and his generals came up with a similar plan. "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," they proposed; "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

There seemed no limit to their fanaticism: "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington," they wrote. "The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States.

We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated). . . . We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized."

Bombings were proposed, false arrests, hijackings:

*"Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government."

*"Advantage can be taken of the sensitivity of the Dominican [Republic3 Air Force to intrusions within their national air space. 'Cuban' B-26 or C-46 type aircraft could make cane burning raids at night. Soviet Bloc incendiaries could be found. This could be coupled with 'Cuban' messages to the Communist underground in the Dominican Republic and 'Cuban' shipments of arms which would be found, or intercepted, on the beach. Use of MiG type aircraft by U.S. pilots could provide additional provocation."

*"Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft could appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the Government of Cuba."

Among the most elaborate schemes was to "create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight."

Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs worked out a complex deception:

An aircraft at Elgin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CJA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone [a remotely controlled unmanned aircraft]. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida.

From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Elgin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency a "May Day" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MiG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft, which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the U.S. what has happened to the aircraft instead of the U.S. trying to "sell" the incident.

Finally, there was a plan to "make it appear that Communist Cuban MiGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack." It was a particularly believable operation given the decade of shootdowns that had just taken place.

In the final sentence of his letter to Secretary McNamara recommending the operations, Lemnitzer made a grab for even more power asking that the Joint Chiefs be placed in charge of carrying out Operation Northwoods and the invasion. "It is recommended," he wrote, "that this responsibility for both oven and covert military operations be assigned to the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

At 2:30 on the afternoon of Tuesday, March 13, 1962, Lemnitzer went over last-minute details of Operation Northwoods with his covert action chief, Brigadier General William H. Craig, and signed the document. He then went to a "special meeting" in McNamara's office. An hour later he met with Kennedy's military representative, General Maxwell Taylor. What happened during those meetings is unknown. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer that there was virtually no possibility that the U.S. would ever use overt military force in Cuba.

Undeterred, Lemnitzer and the Chiefs persisted, virtually to the point of demanding that they be given authority to invade and take over Cuba. About a month after submitting Operation Northwoods, they met the "tank," as the JCS conference room was called, and agreed on the wording of a tough memorandum to McNamara. "The Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that the Cuban problem must be solved in the near future," they wrote. "Further, they see no prospect of early success in overthrowing the present communist regime either as a result of internal uprising or external political, economic or psychological pressures. Accordingly they believe that military intervention by the United States will be required to overthrow the present communist regime."

Lemnitzer was virtually rabid in his hatred of communism in general and Castro in particular "The Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that the United States can undertake military intervention in Cuba without risk of general war" he continued. "They also believe that the intervention can be accomplished rapidly enough to minimize communist opportunities for solicitation of UN action." However; what Lemnitzer was suggesting was not freeing the Cuban people, who were largely in support of Castro, but imprisoning them in a U.S. military-controlled police state. "Forces would assure rapid essential military control of Cuba," he wrote. "Continued police action would be required."

Concluding, Lemnitzer did not mince words: "[T]he Joint Chiefs of Staff recommend that a national policy of early military intervention in Cuba be adopted by the United States. They also recommend that such intervention be undertaken as soon as possible and preferably before the release of National Guard and Reserve forces presently on active duty."

By then McNamara had virtually no confidence in his military chief and was rejecting nearly every proposal the general sent to him. The rejections became so routine, said one of Lemnitzer's former staff officers, that the staffer told the general that the situation was putting the military in an "embarrassing rut." But Lemnitzer replied, "I am the senior military office--it's my job to state what I believe and it's his [McNamara's] job to approve or disapprove." "McNamara's arrogance was astonishing," said Lemnitzer's aide, who knew nothing of Operation Northwoods. "He gave General Lemnitzer very short shrift and treated him like a schoolboy. The general almost stood at attention when he came into the room. Everything was 'Yes, sir' and 'No, sir.'

Within months, Lemnitzer was denied a second term as JCS chairman and transferred to Europe as chief of NATO. Years later President Gerald Ford appointed Lemnitzer, a darling of the Republican right, to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Lemnitzer's Cuba chief, Brigadier General Craig, was also transferred. Promoted to major general, he spent three years as chief of the Army Security Agency, NSA's military arm.

Because of the secrecy and illegality of Operation Northwoods, all details remained hidden for forty years. Lemnitzer may have thought that all copies of the relevant documents had been destroyed; he was not one to leave compromising material lying around. Following the Bay of Pigs debacle, for example, he ordered Brigadier General David W Gray, Craig's predecessor as chief of the Cuba project within the JCS, to destroy all his notes concerning Joint Chiefs actions and discussions during that period. Gray's meticulous notes were the only detailed official records of what happened within the JCS during that time. According to Gray, Lemnitzer feared a congressional investigation and therefore wanted any incriminating evidence destroyed.

With the evidence destroyed, Lemnitzer felt free to lie to Congress. When asked, during secret hearings before a Senate committee, if he knew of any Pentagon plans for a direct invasion of Cuba he said he did not. Yet detailed JCS invasion plans had been drawn up even before Kennedy was inaugurated. And additional plans had been developed since. The consummate planner and man of details also became evasive, suddenly encountering great difficulty in recalling key aspects of the operation, as if he had been out of the country during the period. It was a sorry spectacle. Senator Gore called for Lemnitzer to be fired. "We need a shakeup of the Joint Chiefs of Staff" he said. "We direly need a new chairman, as well as new members." No one had any idea of Operation Northwoods.

Because so many documents were destroyed, it is difficult to determine how many senior officials were aware of Operation Northwoods. As has been described, the document was signed and fully approved by Lemnitzer and the rest of the Joint Chiefs and addressed to the Secretary of Defense for his signature. Whether it went beyond McNamara to the president and the attorney general is not known.

Even after Lemnitzer lost his job, the Joint Chiefs kept planning "pretext" operations at least into 1963. Among their proposals was a deliberately create a war between Cuba and any of a number of .n American neighbors. This would give the United States military an excuse to come in on the side of Cuba's adversary and get rid of "A contrived 'Cuban' attack on an OAS [Organization of Americas] member could be set up," said one proposal, "and the attacked state could be urged to 'take measures of self-defense and request ice from the U.S. and OAS; the U.S. could almost certainly obtain necessary two-thirds support among OAS members for collective action against Cuba."

Among the nations they suggested that the United States secretly were Jamaica and Trinidad-Tobago. Both were members of the Commonwealth; thus, by secretly attacking them and then blaming Cuba, the United States could lure England into the war Castro. The report noted, "Any of the contrived situations de above are inherently, extremely risky in our democratic system in which security can be maintained, after the fact, with very great difficulty. If the decision should be made to set up a contrived situation it be one in which participation by U.S. personnel is limited only to the mosst highly trusted covert personnel. This suggests the infeasibility of the use of military units for any aspect of the contrived situation."

The report even suggested secretly paying someone in the Castro government to attack the United States: "The only area remaining for ration then would be to bribe one of Castro's subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on [the U.S. naval base at] Guantanamo." The act suggested--bribing a foreign nation to launch a violent attack American military installation--was treason.

In May 1963, Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul H. Nitze sent a the White House proposing "a possible scenario whereby an attack on a United States reconnaissance aircraft could be exploited toward the end of effecting the removal of the Castro regime." In the event Cuba attacked a U-2, the plan proposed sending in additional American pilots, this time on dangerous, unnecessary low-level reconnaissance missions with the expectation that they would also be shot down, thus provoking a war "[T]he U.S. could undertake various measures designed to stimulate the Cubans to provoke a new incident," said the plan. Nitze, however, did not volunteer to be one of the pilots.

One idea involved sending fighters across the island on "harassing reconnaissance" and "show-off" missions "flaunting our freedom of action, hoping to stir the Cuban military to action." "Thus," said the plan, "depending above all on whether the Cubans were or could be made to be trigger-happy, the development of the initial downing of a reconnaissance plane could lead at best to the elimination of Castro, perhaps to the removal of Soviet troops and the installation of ground inspection in Cuba, or at the least to our demonstration of firmness on reconnaissance." About a month later, a low-level flight was made across Cuba, but unfortunately for the Pentagon, instead of bullets it produced only a protest.

Lemnitzer was a dangerous-perhaps even unbalanced-right-wing extremist in an extraordinarily sensitive position during a critical period. But Operation Northwoods also had the support of every single member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and even senior Pentagon official Paul Nitze argued in favor of provoking a phony war with Cuba. The fact that the most senior members of all the services and the Pentagon could be so out of touch with reality and the meaning of democracy would be hidden for four decades.

In retrospect, the documents offer new insight into the thinking of the military's star-studded leadership. Although they never succeeded in launching America into a phony war with Cuba, they may have done so with Vietnam. More than 50,000 Americans and more than 2 million Vietnamese were eventually killed in that war.

It has long been suspected that the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident-the spark that led to America's long war in Vietnam-was largely staged or provoked by U.S. officials in order to build up congressional and public support for American involvement. Over the years, serious questions have been raised about the alleged attack by North Vietnamese patrol boats on two American destroyers in the Gulf But defenders of the Pentagon have always denied such charges, arguing that senior officials would never engage in such deceit.

Now, however, in light of the Operation Northwoods documents, it at deceiving the public and trumping up wars for Americans to fight and die in was standard, approved policy at the highest levels of the Pentagon. In fact, the Gulf of Tonkin seems right out of the Operation Northwoods playbook: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba . . . casualty lists in U.S. newspapers cause a helpful wave of indignation." One need only replace "Guantanamo Bay" with "Tonkin Gulf," and "Cuba" with "North Vietnam" and the Gulf of Tonkin incident may or may not have been stage-managed, but the senior Pentagon leadership at the time was clearly capable of such deceit.

Book epigram:

"The public has a duty to watch its Government closely and keep it on the right track." --Lieutenant Gen. Kenneth A. Minihan, USAF, Director, NSA, _NSA Newsletter_, June 1997
 
Wazzup? said:
He might, but I bet it happen's more-so with the media...they take money too, alot more money... and they are alway's contradicting themselves in one way or another..

I'm just talking about the case he present's in the download link above... I don't really know of any "direct" source's of information that I can get to really analyze the attack's. He does use copie's of video media report's, government document's and other hardcore verifieable evidence... for example, "Operation Northwood's" (not really a "direct" piece to 911, but it show's that our gov. is capable of, has planned AND tried to carry out such atrocities) that the government actually admited too. JFK stopped the plan in it's track's, planned to shut down the CIA and other devious organization's...and then shortly after he was...make's you wonder...

im not defending or relying on the mainstream media for an explanation myself.

well thats what i was talking about, wether or not you have examined the same information that is available to him and all of us and what conclusion you came up with. there is plenty of available info out there to piece things together.
 
I'd like to see an explananation for Goldstein purchasing the WTC lease in August, 2001 then saying they decided to pull bldg 7 on the afternoon of 9/11.

A pull is a controlled demolition and the charges had to have been planted prior to 9/11.

The "choice" of bldg 7 is of interest. The evidence for the investigations into Citicorp and Worldcom conveniently got destroyed.


Worldcom..........................a very huge backer of the NWO/Bushbarian agenda.
 
Well, I think the seismic evidence alone during the collapse of the twin towers is eye catching. The graphs really do show a controlled demolition, not a large building falling on it's own. And the whole "pulling" of WTC7 only a few hours after the attack is ludicrous, setting up a pull takes days or even weeks of planning. And the fact that someone told mayor Guliani to evacuate because the towers were going to fall (but faliled to tell anyone else this revelation) but officially the collapses were surprises and unexpected, talk about shady.

How hard is it to become a Canadian citizen?
 
Forge said:
Well, I think the seismic evidence alone during the collapse of the twin towers is eye catching. The graphs really do show a controlled demolition, not a large building falling on it's own. And the whole "pulling" of WTC7 only a few hours after the attack is ludicrous, setting up a pull takes days or even weeks of planning. And the fact that someone told mayor Guliani to evacuate because the towers were going to fall (but faliled to tell anyone else this revelation) but officially the collapses were surprises and unexpected, talk about shady.

How hard is it to become a Canadian citizen?

what seismic evidence are you talking about? and compared to what other type of building collapsing. the structural design of the WTC allows for what seems to be a "controlled" demo. controlled or nor not, buildings come down in pretty much the same fashion. downward, one floor falling on the other gaining momentum. if it were a controlled demo, why didnt anyone including the firefighters that were in the building of the time of its collaspe that survive hear or see any "controlled" explosions. let me guess, they used top secret silent tnt.

the structure of the building is nothing more than tall columns built all the way up on the perimenter only. 90% of the building is basically air.

one more point, the building didnt fall on its own, in effect it was a controlled callaspe. the plane damaged the structural support on two sides of some of the top floors. the fire weakened the remaining structural support and one floor fell on the other while gaining momentum. in essence it was controlled, from the top down.

which happens to be the best way to bring down TWC. top down. remember the first attack, it was bombs in the basement. the attackers didnt understand the structural support of the building at the time. those bombs had little effect on the actual structural support. the design(support only on the perimenter) allows for that.

its documented that terrorist have wanted to take down the WTC, not only from the first attack but from an actual terrorist comments prior to 9-11. this time all they did is study the design and understand its weaknesses.

i understand you guys read some of this guys materials but also read all the material present by the actual designers and other highly reputable engineers on how and possibly why the building came down.

i would think that if it were an emergency situation, a pull in this nature, for the WTC7 would be absolutely no problem at all to pull off in a couple of hours.
 
Testosterone boy said:
I'd like to see an explananation for Goldstein purchasing the WTC lease in August, 2001 then saying they decided to pull bldg 7 on the afternoon of 9/11.

A pull is a controlled demolition and the charges had to have been planted prior to 9/11.

The "choice" of bldg 7 is of interest. The evidence for the investigations into Citicorp and Worldcom conveniently got destroyed.


Worldcom..........................a very huge backer of the NWO/Bushbarian agenda.

im just not quite sure why you are making so many assumptions without trying to find the explanations for your questions, questions alone do not make a conspiracy.
 
spongebob said:
if it were a controlled demo, why didnt anyone including the firefighters that were in the building of the time of its collaspe that survive hear or see any "controlled" explosions.

They did. There are tapes floating around infowars.com of interviewed nyfd first responders claiming they witnessed 'rolling detonations' similar to that of a controlled demo during the WTC collapse.


spongebob said:
i understand you guys read some of this guys materials but also read all the material present by the actual designers and other highly reputable engineers on how and possibly why the building came down.

There are various crediabe opinions regarding the collapse of the WTC. I don't read too much about it because it's one of the more speculative areas that may or may not evidence a 9/11 conspiracy. If you're interested in reading other opinions explaining the WTC structural collapse, the oldest fire fighting magazine in New York, don't know the name off hand but apparently it's well repsected in the community, did a op-ed piece (which in essence they all are - speculation) that asserted both WTC shouldn't have collapsed.

Another interesting note is the original cheif structural engineer of the WTC desgined the buildings to withstand a direct collision with a 708?! or similar sized commercial aircraft, if not larger, to the 737's? that impacted the WTC.

Of course, this brings up the critical issue of how much feul was factored in the calculations, collision speed to determine net kenetic energy at time of impact ect. We could spend another week here hashing it out!

But one other interesting note, the recently declassified audio recordings of first responding NYC fire fighters to the 77-78th floor on the WTC (south or north?) said they needed 2 lines to put out the fires. They noted no extreme heat and casually observed they needed only two lines to put out the remaining 'pockets'. Hardly a three alarm fire that would seem to have the intensity to melt steel.

The real thrust of the argument supporting hte official WTC collapse theory is the melting aluminine which, once ignited, creates a self sustaining reaction. I haven't looked much into this because the WTC collapse theories are so miyired in speculation i dont really know.

But interesting facts nonetheless.
 
spongebob said:
i would think that if it were an emergency situation, a pull in this nature, for the WTC7 would be absolutely no problem at all to pull off in a couple of hours.


It's not possible. Even if they had plans showing where to place the charges to pull WTC7 prepared in advance, the act of actually rigging the building would require a very large team of experts at least a couple of days. Were there even any demolition teams in the area? Even if they were, the traffic situation in NY that afternoon was horrible. A demolition team of that size would have been hard to miss working in the mess at ground zero, yet no one saw a this going on.

If they really did pull WTC7 as Silverstein says, then it was rigged well in advance.


spongebob said:
what seismic evidence are you talking about?

Earthquake monitoring stations recorded the seismic "quakes" created by the buildings falling. In a large structure that falls naturally, the graph shows a small magnitude event that starts low, has a medium duration, and then gradually falls to a flat line. Both of the towers and WTC7 show a pattern that begins with a large and very quick series of spikes, followed by a longer duration medium pattern and then gradually tapering off. The large initial spikes are the charges going off, they register stronger than the actual collapse. It is a documented phenomemon, a seismic "blueprint" of a controlled demolition. All three buildings showed this pattern, including the other buildings pulled later in December.


Edit: At least this is what Alex Jones says he has documented proof of. I wouldn't mind getting another source to verify the official seismic graphs.
 
buddy28 said:
spongebob said:
if it were a controlled demo, why didnt anyone including the firefighters that were in the building of the time of its collaspe that survive hear or see any "controlled" explosions.

They did. There are tapes floating around infowars.com of interviewed nyfd first responders claiming they witnessed 'rolling detonations' similar to that of a controlled demo during the WTC collapse.


spongebob said:
i understand you guys read some of this guys materials but also read all the material present by the actual designers and other highly reputable engineers on how and possibly why the building came down.

There are various crediabe opinions regarding the collapse of the WTC. I don't read too much about it because it's one of the more speculative areas that may or may not evidence a 9/11 conspiracy. If you're interested in reading other opinions explaining the WTC structural collapse, the oldest fire fighting magazine in New York, don't know the name off hand but apparently it's well repsected in the community, did a op-ed piece (which in essence they all are - speculation) that asserted both WTC shouldn't have collapsed.

Another interesting note is the original cheif structural engineer of the WTC desgined the buildings to withstand a direct collision with a 708?! or similar sized commercial aircraft, if not larger, to the 737's? that impacted the WTC.

Of course, this brings up the critical issue of how much feul was factored in the calculations, collision speed to determine net kenetic energy at time of impact ect. We could spend another week here hashing it out!

But one other interesting note, the recently declassified audio recordings of first responding NYC fire fighters to the 77-78th floor on the WTC (south or north?) said they needed 2 lines to put out the fires. They noted no extreme heat and casually observed they needed only two lines to put out the remaining 'pockets'. Hardly a three alarm fire that would seem to have the intensity to melt steel.

The real thrust of the argument supporting hte official WTC collapse theory is the melting aluminine which, once ignited, creates a self sustaining reaction. I haven't looked much into this because the WTC collapse theories are so miyired in speculation i dont really know.

But interesting facts nonetheless.

not you again. and just for the record, im only countering your arguement for arguements sake. but for the record, i think that this idea of plan demolition is rediculous and would rather put my money on your original conspiracy, that the govt knew and did nothing.

ok, your first point of first responders hearing "rolling detonations" is interesting. but couldnt the actual collasping of the floors, one on top of the other, lead the firefighters to believe they heard something similar.

and this is just a question because i dont know, but didnt most of the first responders die, the firefighters i spoke about were second responders at the bottom floors. and they survived due to the way the building collasped.

at any rate i need to read more on those interviews.

most of the material that ive read from engineers are pretty close as to why they collapsed except for some variances in the amount of heat produced.

when was that op-ed piece written? because most, including the designers, didnt think they would collapse. until they studied the design of the building.

as far as the comment on the ability of the WTC able to withstand a 708 or larger is not a valid arguement. they were also designed to withstand hurricane winds up to 140mi./hr. both conditions are referrring to lateral movements. LATERAL movements and the intial impact is not what caused the WTC to collaspe. it did not topple over.

the only structural support is on the perimenter. there were no internal structural walls. it was a building made of straws around the perimenter. for each floor, you have joises, and those joices have "clips" that connected them to the outer structural straws. the clips were not strong enough for 1. and intial impact from a jet airliner, 2. an estimated 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, and 3. more than 1 floor on them. it was a combonation of factors that caused the collapse.

i cant comment on why or for what reason the intial call was that the firefighters made regarding what severity they thought it was. i can only say this, my brother is a full time firfighter and im a volunteer as part of my job duties at work. and all can tell you is that even the most well trained and experienced people that i am in contact with make mistakes on every single call out, whether its the real thing or just training. afterwards, there is always a debriefing, and there are always mistakes discussed, some serious and some not so serious. human error MUST be factored in.

aluminum can melt without burning. the self-staining fire you are talking about is once it actually reaches its ignition temperature. and yes aluminum and magnesium are similar in this manner. im not sure what aluminum's ignition temp is but it is estimated that it only reached about 1400degree's, at most 1600(that is about as hot as jet fuel can burn with pure oxygen). i dont think this is hot enough for aluminum to actually burn.

second point about that is that your comment actually proves the aluminum didnt burn, they only found melted aluminum at the site. melted aluminum does not equal burned aluminum. not to mention if aluminum would have caught fire, you woulkd have seen one hellava bright light. just like a flare.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom