Is there any records of bush gaining money from Iraq's oil? I know theres footage of suppossed squibs but is there any footage of them exploding? And there is more than one video of Osama claiming responsibility if that is infact a look-alike. Also, if the Bush family was assoiciated and are good friends with the Bin Ladens' why didn't they ask HIM to make that video? Again I'm not trying to be rude just looking for answers.

You wont get them just more nonsense. Here is your answer OBL and some radicals flew two planes into WTC and killed thousands. Simplisity was they key and radical belief were are the devil their motivation. They boasted about it and "if" false why not jump and down screaming "we didnt do it!" no they didnt why because they are proud of what they did its that simple. If anyone with a brain looked at this they would know. The World would have thrown a fit after Afghan war if OBL and his crew were not involved but no US had full support of nearly the world! No truth is OBL and his cohorts attacked America on US soil

1-here you go laf let me offer an alternate perspective--since 9/11 we have completed the pipeline trough afg and secured all of iraq's oil wells now step back and look at whats happened to the price of the barrell since then---

2-"squibs" are the high velocity gas ejections from demolition cutting charges--they are the by-product of an explosion and therefore cannot explode themselves

3-no just that lone video of usama-not

4-because he is dead

Oh, you are so very full of crap.



A squib is a small explosive device. It produces a low-order explosion - deflagration rather than detonation, used either alone or to initiate another explosive. ETA: Look it up.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Don't spread your ignorance to others by pretending otherwise.

You nutters lecturing about engineering is like virgins talking about sex.

i dont dont care who you are thats some funny sh** right there
*******************************************************
A squib otherwise refered to as an electric match is a small explosive device which is used in pyrotechnics and display fireworks. A squib can range in size from a small cap only millimeters in diameter to larger, more spectacular ones which can be 1/2 inch or larger. In display fireworks, it is used to ignite the fuse of a commercial firework shell. The squib is generally connected to a "firing-rail" or "breakout box" which connects to a central firing board. Squibs are designed to be fired using a small current which can be supplied from sources such as a 9V battery or a Car Battery in larger setups. Squibs are also very sensitive to EM radiation and devices such as vehicles, radios, celluar phones, and even cellular and microwave transmitters can set off a squib unless the two leads are terminated correctly.

In pyrotechnics, squibs are used to produce a spark which would simulate gunshots, sparking/arcing electrical equipment and much more.

In aviation squibs are used to generate pressurised gas to open valves and operate small mechanical devices on such as ejection seats and to pierce metal diaphrams that are retaining pressurised liquids such as halon and fluorocarbon extinguishants or release compressed nitrogen gas to act as a propellant.

They are also widely used in the special effects industry to simulate a bullet hit by coupling the squib itself with a packet of either fake blood for hits on persons or dust/debris for hits on other objects.

Squibs were originally made from parchment tubes, or the shaft of a feather filled with fine black powder and sealed at the ends with wax. These were inserted into the touch holes of cannon and used to ignite the main propellant charge. Roger Bacon first described the making of squibs in 1248.
****************************************************************
thanks for the lashing redneck --i deserved that--anyway here is evidence of squibs from wtc 7--if you oppose the demolition theory please offer your analysis of these "puffs"

video

And remember kids,Building 7 wasnt even hit by a plane?
The building must of been made outa chocolate for the small fires on a couple of floors to bring it down like that?

Redneck you are slowly starting to become my new hero...LOL..

Number 7's fire was not small and the fire department had their hands full, I would say by the time they where able to reach it the fire's where out of control. As did the people who where there but what do those's folks know they only lived thru it.

I'd be lying if I said I knew what Building 7 was, but If you're talking about the WTC, the plane completely destroyed a collumn in the center of the structure, and the weight from the above floors caused it to collapse.

As for the Squibs, get more footage. That could have been easily faked.

@turbonium, if you are going to compare the 'real' Osama to the 'fake' osama, at least get one where the image is of the same quality. The 'fake' Osama is laughing, so his nose is raised and effectively shortened. Not to mention the lighting its completely different. Debunked my ass. If you can find me a link that actually offers something believable, I'd be happy to see it.

Building 7 was a 47 story scyscraper next to the twin towers that fell down for no apparant reason.It fell suspiciously like the twin towers,neat and tidy and looked like a controlled demolition.
The thing that gets me about the theory that the fuel destroyed the inner collumns is that the planes hit different parts of the buildings,burning different amounts of fuel.Surely they wouldnt fall the same.And it couldnt of been that hot as theres pictures of people looking out of the impact holes and the activity of people inside the towers.
Why didnt the towers just fall but instead dissolve into dust when "collapsing"?

actually mk bldg 6 is in between wtc7 and the south tower which is the the closest tower--bldg 6 took the brunt of the debri and it only collapsed partially!
thats another great point you brought up about the disintegration of the building as it collapsed--a new dvd put out by j walters goes into good detail about it--they demonstrate that it must have been demolished with explosives due to the pyroclastic flow which is actually an expanding cloud of hot gas and ash--the dvd is called "confronting the evidence" and they have been giving them out FREE--check out -
reopen911.com

Thanks Suno.Im gonna have to check out that DVD.
When I said next to i really meant quite near.

Does this really look like a building that will fall down in two hours time.

Here's something that I found very interesting and it really got me thinking http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/boeing.htm

"Pyroclastic flow?" That's a geological term, I've never heard it used in relation to explosives.



They didn't. One tower fell about 56 minutes after it collapsed, another took about 89 minutes. The upper portion of the south tower(the one that was struck in the corner) was skewed slightly in its decent; it rotated slightly as it fell.



That is not a reliable way of estimating the temperature of the fires. A more reliable way is looking at the glass, since high temperature fires will shatter glass. It is true that there isn't a lot of shattering glass to be seen, there's even a few intact windows in the impact area. But that doesn't mean that regions within the impact area weren't exposed to high(700 c range) temperatures. They come up with models to estimate the temperature of the fire taking into account things like ventilation, combustible materials and other things, but they don't really know for certain how hot it was.

While the temperature of the fire was probably not in excess of a normal building fire, the heat output was a lot greater. And then there's the damage to the the perimeter coolumns, the core columns, the floor slabs and the spray-on fireproofing material.

There's a reason they put fireproofing material on steel - steel is vulnerable to fire. In some cases they go so far as to encase steel supports in masonry. Have you ever seen spray-on fireproofing like the kind that was in the towers? I'm not talking about the cementitious stuff; this kind you can usually break off with your hand. What do you think's going to happen to that stuff when a 767 hits it at 500 mph and explodes?



I'm sure you've seen the clouds of dust thrown up by demolished buildings as they hit the ground. The portion of the tower above the impacted area collapsed into the floors below it, pulverizing and expelling building material.



That's only one side of the building, and you can't always tell by looking at a building's exterior how stable it is. Fires were observed shortly after tower 1 collapsed. The building didn't fall until 5:20 pm. That's over 6 hours that it was burning.

By the way, page 6 or so of the NIST report says: "NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles or controlled demolition."

I don't know what those smudges on the side of the building in the video are, but frankly, at this point, I don't think it's even worth looking into. Really, why is it so hard to believe that the attacks everyone saw are what brought the towers down? Other buildings in the area suffered partial collapses. Still other buildings were so severely damaged they had to be demolished later. If someone really wanted building 7 destroyed they could have simply had it declared unsafe and proceed to demolish it without any need for secrecy.

The one part of this conspiracy theory that is true is this: no steel framed building suffered a complete collapse due to a fire before 9-11-2001. And it's true that they don't completely understand why building 7 collapsed. But a lot of things that had never happened before happened on 9-11-2001, like two fuel-filled airliners being rammed into skyscrapers at 400 mph. And yes, there are disagreements among the experts, and there are unanswered questions - for example, not everyone agrees with NIST's working hypothesis that the fireproofing was destroyed in the impact. But nobody thinks it's an unreasonable or wildly unlikely hypothesis. And if you expect a flawless analysis describing the towers' behavior before you accept the government/commonly-accepted theory, then you are demanding an impossible standard of proof. Short of building the entire WTC complex and recreating the attacks, we will never know the exact mechanism of the collapse.

Respect man,good points.
Im no demolitions expert or conspiracy freak but I agree we will never know the exact mechanism of the collapse,but it does seem very strange to me.The whole pentagon and "lets roll"bit too,theres too many holes in the story that there not telling us.
I dont blame American Politics nesacerally(sp?)but somethings not right?George Bush might be a cool dude,only wanting the best for all,Who knows?

But wasnt the first tower to fall hit by the second plane,and that plane burnt up most of its fuel outside the south tower.Its all a bit back to front?
They still fell very vertically and neat,even though hit at different angles?

The thing with the burning fuel destroying the inner core and taking them down inside out makes me think of a huge,firey lava running down the inner structure but surely this didnt happen as people were still going up the stairs,searching floors,lifts still working,etc?
No massive spill of burning fuel anywhere?apart from the few floors near imapct.Not enough to bring it all down.

Even the floors above the impact dissolved before it even hit the damaged parts as it was falling.Surely there would be the top of the floors on all rubble at least?

Sorry I cant be assed to write anymore
Im a bit drunk and going to bed.Goodnight.

Bad Mojo what exactly is your point for posting? No one here believes Bushs story about 9-11 so why do you even bother...and another thing, we dont need you to help spread any more propaganda then already has been disseminated.

I remember seeing on CNN a news capsule...right around 9-11, within two days of...that the NSA had "burned its "evidence" about 9-11 at the request of NSA lawyers.

What does it mean? Well, for starters, it means Americans are paying billions of dollars a year to support an agency that is presently "on the take".

Anyway...Im calling BS on your affiliation with the agency. No one ever mentions that kind of thing casually.

First, the fake Osama video is of poor quality, so you aren't going to get an image of the same quality. But that's irrelevant, as the real Bin Laden writes with his left hand, not the right hand like in the fake video..
Real Osama
Fake Osama
Bin LadenHe is left-handed and walks with a cane.
Fake Osama writing with right hand

2-"squibs" are the high velocity gas ejections from demolition cutting charges--they are the by-product of an explosion and therefore cannot explode themselves




Do you not think the gas ejections were the pressure of the floors collapsing on each other?

Yah, is there any video of them exploding at all? There are ALOT of people that work at that building if. If one of them looked out the window and saw a bomb on the building I think they'd notice. Not to mention no one saw anyone plant these supossed bombs.

@turbonium- Maybe he is ambidextrous?

Reward of $25m? Im up for that

Well, someone asked if maybe demolitions were used then someone would have noticed them being planted...not necessarily true. Who has complete access to the whole WTC complex? Security. Guess who owns the security outfit? One of the Bush brothers. Marvin Bush? I think his name was. How convenient. This family really "preys" together. Like lions. Heh. Hell...security was telling people to go back to work...ponder that one. I think because the whole operation was "time" sensitive. They had to downplay the first "attack" to give time for the other planes to arrive at their destinations. Thats why they told people to go back to work. This way Norad has plausible deniability concerning their response...which was negligent enough if not downright complicit.

Mucho Bueno Scoobysnack! A well put analysis.

So what did security do then? Evacuate the buildings for a couple of days whilst they installed the explosives and rigged up the denonators?

We're not exactly talking a few sticks of TNT hidden in a locker - we're talking truckloads of explosives.

Even then, someone would come foreward. I really doubt every single one involved could live with themself if they knew they helped kill 3000 people. Even at risk of death. This theory is rediculous

Good point if there were bombs we r talking a serious amount of bombs and wires which need to be placed in specific parts of the building not just hidden away in a cupboard somewhere.

I Agree but I have to keep wondering samething. "If" buildings were inploded why? They killed 3000 people why worry about an enplosion? Why not just blow up the building they clearly did not care what happened to anyone. I (for a number of reasons) don't see this theory as being plausible

Anyone seen a documentary called "why the towers fell" i watched it on tv a few weeks ago but i believe it can be purchased i'm not an expert so i am not going to argue the points with anyone but i thought it answered alot of the questions (or theories) that people have asked. here is a brief explanation of the programme

"this informative documentary features interviews with survivors and rescue personnel who recount the buildings' last moments and their harrowing journeys to safety, interweaving these stories with the insights of some of the leading structural engineers in the world to explain exactly what happened on that fateful day. Why the Towers Fell takes viewers through the process by which the investigative team came to understand the how's and why's of one of America's greatest tragedies. From a detailed examination of the building's original design to the relentless process of combing scrap steel yards and Ground Zero itself for evidence, this was one of the most extensive and difficult disaster investigations ever undertaken"

WATCH "CONFRONTING THE EVIDENCE" STREAMING VIDEO WITH ENGLISH SUBTITLES:
Available in five parts:
PART 1 | PART 2 | PART 3 | PART 4 | PART 5
*********************************************************************
FORMER BUSH CABINET MEMBER CALLS OFFICIAL EXPLANATION OF WTC COLLPAPSE "BOGUS": DISSENTION IN THE RANKS:
"Only professional demolition* ... account[s] for the...[World Trade Tower] collapses", Bush Chief Economist for Labor.LINK
Former chief economist for the Department of Labor and Texas A&M Professor Emeritus, Morgan Reynolds Ph.D., is speaking out about his serious doubts regarding the official explanation of the WTC collapse. Read the complete Washington Times story here. Read Dr. Morgan's complete scientific analysis of the World Trade Center collapse here..
*********************************************************************
"Jet Fuel could not have melted steel," Kevin Ryan of UL Labs to (NIST). read it!
*********************************************************************
9/11 LIST OF HARD EVIDENCE

--The Bush Administration misled Americans about the health affects of the WTC attacks, stating "the air is safe to breathe," in order to reopen Wall Street and surrounding areas.

--According to eye witness testimony by several reporters and other citizens, “explosions” occurred at the WTC on 9/11. News footage is available..

--WTC damage was inconsistent with fire (Fire Engineering Magazine); yet consistent with the use of explosives.

--Bush blocked investigations into 9/11, then refused to testify under oath before the '9/11 Commission.' The Bush Administration benefited directly from the attacks in 'political capital.'

--Critical evidence from the 9/11 attacks was destroyed; the government has only released 25% of the documents requested by the 9/11 Commission, these documents have large blacked-out areas.

--The 9/11 attacks were used as a pretext for the war in Iraq; this war, based on ‘bad intelligence’ has resulted in the loss of more than 100,000 lives.

--Five different air military training exercises were taking place on 9/11/01. Was this done purposely to confuse American air defense?

--At least four of the '9/11 suicide hijackers' have turned up alive. The identities of several more are in question. The FBI director admitted not all of the hijackers are known, (New York Times, Washington Post, BBC news).

--Assia Mortensen May, 6, 2005
********************************************************************
People are Dying Because the White House and Giuliani Lied!::
In order to "reopen Wall Street" the Bush administration censored crucial EPA and New York City Health Department warnings that the air after 9/11 was highly poisonous. The White House forced the EPA to say "The air is safe to breathe" at the World Trade Center. This has seriously injured the health of Manhattan workers and residents, is even killing some of the heroes who worked at "Ground Zero"... full story >>
********************************************************************
90% of CNN Viewers Believe in a 9/11 Cover-up:
On Wednesday, November 10th, Anderson Cooper featured Kyle Hence and Jimmy Walter regarding the latter's TV ad campaign to expose 9/11 truth on WTC 7 and the Pentagon strike. An on-air poll showed close to 90% of viewers believe there's been a cover-up of the true events of September 11... full story >>
********************************************************************
US Military Under Bush #1 Planned a WTC Attack!
Our own U.S. Army devised a plan commissioned by Congress to bring down the WTC using commercial airliners and box cutters as weapons... full story >>

********************************************************************
FBI & Secret Service Give Gay Pimp Easy Access to & Preferential Presidential News Scoops:
Watch this video segment from Real time with Bill Maher discussing this recent news headline... full story >>
********************************************************************
US Joint Chiefs Plan to Kill US Civilians to Start a War
Read this now de-classified document detailing the lengths our military leaders are willing to go (PDF document)... full story >>
********************************************************************

********************************************************************
Watch two firemen talk about the explosions. link
********************************************************************
George W. Bush's brother, Marvin P. Bush's company Securacom World Trade Center. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family and the Kuwaiti Ambassador's daughter that lied setting up the Incubator Babies Hoax to start the first Gulf War.
********************************************************************
9/11 NBC News broadcast
listen
"Shortly after 9 o'clock ... [Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit - the first crash that took place - he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.

One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device - he thinks, he speculates - was probably planted in the building. ... But the bottom line is that he, Albert Turi, said that he probably lost a great many men in those secondary explosions, and he said that there were literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people in those towers when the explosions took place."
********************************************************************

"As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway, there was a heavy duty explosion."video
********************************************************************

"We were trying to get some of the people out, but then there was secondary explosions and then subsequent collapses."video
********************************************************************

"...and then all of a sudden it started like... it sounded like gunfire... you know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang and then all of a sudden three big explosions."video
********************************************************************

"I was about five blocks away when I heard explosions... three thuds and turned around to see the building that we just got out of... tip over and fall in on itself."video
********************************************************************

"At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as I got outside I heard a second explosion ... And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last."video
********************************************************************
"Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure."Fire Engineering

I'm going to have to ask you to stop tarnishing the good name of Fire Engineering Magazine by implying that they support your theory.



You've got some real balls to say that when you just watched the technical editor of FEM say explicitly that this was not the case on Penn and Teller's show.

So I call total BS until you cite your article, author and date. And don't tell me it's not on the internet; I can probably get it regardless.



I read that a while ago, and I suspected that it was just a matter of time before you got around to posting that article and, as usual, misconstrued it in an attempt to argue from authority.

The part that you won't post, because it conflicts with your conclusion, is this:



And this, from another FEM article linked in that story:



The article you cited was a criticism of the investigation - a valid one. But nobody, NOBODY at FEM or anywhere else in the fire/structural engineering community that I'm aware embraces this ludicrous notion that the fire was not capable of bringing the towers down, and the collapse was only possible with the use of demolitions.

Oh, hell, why do I bother? I'm probably on his ignore list.

i never implied anything-just demonstrated their lack of confidence in the official story--
let me remind you what they think of the official investigation up to this point-

also i liked the way you ignore all the eye witness testimony collaborated on by video as well as the crime committed by the epa under the govt's authority
********************************************************************
WATCH "CONFRONTING THE EVIDENCE" STREAMING VIDEO WITH ENGLISH SUBTITLES:
Available in five parts:
PART 1 | PART 2 | PART 3 | PART 4 | PART 5
*********************************************************************
FORMER BUSH CABINET MEMBER CALLS OFFICIAL EXPLANATION OF WTC COLLPAPSE "BOGUS": DISSENTION IN THE RANKS:
"Only professional demolition* ... account[s] for the...[World Trade Tower] collapses", Bush Chief Economist for Labor.LINK
Former chief economist for the Department of Labor and Texas A&M Professor Emeritus, Morgan Reynolds Ph.D., is speaking out about his serious doubts regarding the official explanation of the WTC collapse. Read the complete Washington Times story here. Read Dr. Morgan's complete scientific analysis of the World Trade Center collapse here..
*********************************************************************
"Jet Fuel could not have melted steel," Kevin Ryan of UL Labs to (NIST). read it!
*********************************************************************
9/11 LIST OF HARD EVIDENCE

--The Bush Administration misled Americans about the health affects of the WTC attacks, stating "the air is safe to breathe," in order to reopen Wall Street and surrounding areas.

--According to eye witness testimony by several reporters and other citizens, “explosions” occurred at the WTC on 9/11. News footage is available..

--WTC damage was inconsistent with fire (Fire Engineering Magazine); yet consistent with the use of explosives.

--Bush blocked investigations into 9/11, then refused to testify under oath before the '9/11 Commission.' The Bush Administration benefited directly from the attacks in 'political capital.'

--Critical evidence from the 9/11 attacks was destroyed; the government has only released 25% of the documents requested by the 9/11 Commission, these documents have large blacked-out areas.

--The 9/11 attacks were used as a pretext for the war in Iraq; this war, based on ‘bad intelligence’ has resulted in the loss of more than 100,000 lives.

--Five different air military training exercises were taking place on 9/11/01. Was this done purposely to confuse American air defense?

--At least four of the '9/11 suicide hijackers' have turned up alive. The identities of several more are in question. The FBI director admitted not all of the hijackers are known, (New York Times, Washington Post, BBC news).

--Assia Mortensen May, 6, 2005
********************************************************************
People are Dying Because the White House and Giuliani Lied!::
In order to "reopen Wall Street" the Bush administration censored crucial EPA and New York City Health Department warnings that the air after 9/11 was highly poisonous. The White House forced the EPA to say "The air is safe to breathe" at the World Trade Center. This has seriously injured the health of Manhattan workers and residents, is even killing some of the heroes who worked at "Ground Zero"... full story >>
********************************************************************
90% of CNN Viewers Believe in a 9/11 Cover-up:
On Wednesday, November 10th, Anderson Cooper featured Kyle Hence and Jimmy Walter regarding the latter's TV ad campaign to expose 9/11 truth on WTC 7 and the Pentagon strike. An on-air poll showed close to 90% of viewers believe there's been a cover-up of the true events of September 11... full story >>
********************************************************************
US Military Under Bush #1 Planned a WTC Attack!
Our own U.S. Army devised a plan commissioned by Congress to bring down the WTC using commercial airliners and box cutters as weapons... full story >>

********************************************************************
FBI & Secret Service Give Gay Pimp Easy Access to & Preferential Presidential News Scoops:
Watch this video segment from Real time with Bill Maher discussing this recent news headline... full story >>
********************************************************************
US Joint Chiefs Plan to Kill US Civilians to Start a War
Read this now de-classified document detailing the lengths our military leaders are willing to go (PDF document)... full story >>
********************************************************************

********************************************************************
Watch two firemen talk about the explosions. link
********************************************************************
George W. Bush's brother, Marvin P. Bush's company Securacom World Trade Center. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family and the Kuwaiti Ambassador's daughter that lied setting up the Incubator Babies Hoax to start the first Gulf War.
********************************************************************
9/11 NBC News broadcast
listen
"Shortly after 9 o'clock ... [Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit - the first crash that took place - he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.

One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device - he thinks, he speculates - was probably planted in the building. ... But the bottom line is that he, Albert Turi, said that he probably lost a great many men in those secondary explosions, and he said that there were literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people in those towers when the explosions took place."
********************************************************************

"As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway, there was a heavy duty explosion."video
********************************************************************

"We were trying to get some of the people out, but then there was secondary explosions and then subsequent collapses."video
********************************************************************

"...and then all of a sudden it started like... it sounded like gunfire... you know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang and then all of a sudden three big explosions."video
********************************************************************

"I was about five blocks away when I heard explosions... three thuds and turned around to see the building that we just got out of... tip over and fall in on itself."video
********************************************************************

"At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as I got outside I heard a second explosion ... And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last."video
********************************************************************
"Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure."Fire Engineering

Your cut and paste skills don't impress me - I read that article long before you brought it up here.

Your critical reading skills don't impress me either. That article was a critique of the investigation and emphasizes the importance of preserving evidence. In no way does it suggest that fire could not have caused the collapse of the building. In fact, the author clearly believes that this was the case, and that it could happen in the future unless we learn from the WTC fire.

But here's what you wrote before:



Those are your words. You're clearly saying that someone at Fire Engineering Magazine rejects the idea that fire brought down the towers and that it found evidence that explosives were used.

So put up or shut up - cite the article, date and author. If you've got one, I'll not only read every word of it, I'll take it to a professor of fire science at my school and see what he thinks of it.

You can't can you? You pulled it completely out of your ass.

Redneck, I think I have found what you are looking for.
I was just trying to help out. Ill post a brief article from the site but go there and check out the whole page...it was too big to put here.


8-3-3

Most people -- or certainly many people, especially in the U.S. -- believe the complete structural failure and total collapse of the World Trade Center towers was caused by the combustion of large quantities of jet fuel, dispersed and ignited after "hijacked" jets crashed into each tower on Sept. 11, 2001. That is the scenario promulgated to the far corners of the globe by official U.S. government sources.

Interestingly, jet fuel -- somewhat similar to common kerosene and not much different than charcoal lighter fluid -- burns at roughly 875 degrees. Whether a little or a lot of fuel is burned, it still burns at roughly the same temperature. Now: Think about all the kerosene burning in all those kerosene heaters (and lanterns), constructed primarily of thin, low-grade, steel sheet metal. Think about all those kerosene heaters burning merrily away, with temperatures perhaps approaching 875 degrees at the hottest. Think about how parts of all those kerosene heaters would then turn into bubbling pools of melted steel before the horrified eyes of countless poor souls who had no idea the fuel used in their heaters would actually "MELT" the heaters themselves.

Of course, this does NOT happen -- which gives us a pretty good idea that what had been sold far and wide by the U.S. government and innumerable media outlets as the "cause" of the trade center towers' collapse is in fact absolute fiction and fantasy, without the slightest shred of scientific fact or collaborative evidence and testimony to support such monstrous and utter nonsense. Hardened steel such as that used in the WTC beams and girders needs temperatures of approximately TWENTY-EIGHT HUNDRED (2,800) degrees to actually melt, and temperatures approaching 2,000 degrees to turn bright red and soften,

The official version of the collapse of the WTC towers is -- again -- that burning jet fuel eventually melted or liquefied the massive and seriously hard steel beams of the WTC tower(s), to the point where the beams all gave way, unilaterally and simultaneously throughout both the gigantic structures and causing their total and nearly instantaneous collapse. Well, if such doesn't happen with kerosene heaters, you can bet it doesn't happen to huge steel-beamed buildings -- and indeed it never has; especially when the fires which supposedly "caused" such total structural failure had in fact long since largely burned themselves out.

In fact, nearly a year after the monumental and treacherous catastrophe which struck lower Manhattan on Sept. 11, 2001, an audio tape of firefighter communications was finally released -- which proves that the actual conditions at and near the point of impact in the north WTC tower only moments before the building's collapse were totally inconsistent with the conditions which had to have existed for the official version to be even minimally correct.

Firefighters who had reached the eightieth floor of the north tower reported they were eyewitnesses to fact much of the fire caused by burning jet fuel had by then largely burned out, although some burning and smoldering areas still remained. Not once did firefighters on site at " ground zero" of ground zero indicate the slightest concern that fires were still burning at an intensity which threatened their own or others' safety -- certainly not that conditions were so severe that the very integrity of the entire structure itself was threatened! On the contrary: they indicated that conditions were controllable: that they planned to conduct survivors safely out of the building, and to then bring in equipment and personnel to extinguish any remaining burning/smoldering areas.

And what, exactly, does all this mean? It means that the total structural failure of the two massive, superbly-engineered/designed edifices known as the WTC towers did NOT result from jet fuel flash-fires burning at under 900 degrees Fahrenheit -- when steel used in WTC construction needed temperatures over THREE TIMES HIGHER to actually "MELT."

And THIS means that the towers were in fact toppled by use of BOMBS or similar methods.

And THIS means that a stupendously far-reaching conspiracy and cover-up -- involving the highest levels of US government -- lies behind the 9-11 "attacks on America".

by Robert Anderson

Four Winds Website

So you figure, since this guy beleives these things, I will too?

To me...my role is to supply information to those who normally would never have known. Im not here to make anyone believe anything, that is up to you and depends on your own research skills. If you think there is something to it then yes I encourage you to do more research. All this has to do with learning about the world we live in and with that knowledge learn to make it better.

There is no way the guy who wrote that has an engineering background, as his analogy with the kerosene lamp proves.





Jesus H. Christ. It's been said here before: steel loses its strength and stiffness long before it melts.

And the collapses weren't simultaneous or instantaneous.



First of all, temperatures in the impact area are thought to have varied greatly. Second, firefighters in the middle of a burning building can't just look around at a structure and determine how stable it is. They're not omniscient and they don't have x-ray vision. Firemen lose their lives all the time in collapsing buildings.

the windsor fire in madrid prooves that the fire alone is NOT enough to cause a structural failure--bldg7 had no plane hit it and had in its design a command center fortified to widthstand certain stresses--look at these examples of progressive collapses caused by the failure of individual load bearing supports--They show the typical result that occurs when a single load bearing member fails, resulting in the remains of the building tipping over and down onto the initiating point.


For a building to collapse into its own footprint, as WTC 7 did, ALL the load bearing members must fail at the exact same moment. This is achieved in controlled demolitions.


video

It's not only achieved in controlled demolition. There's a term for a collapse of all or a large part of a structure resulting from failure in a small portion of it - progressive collapse. Building 7 and the twin towers both suffered progressive collapses. And collapse can propagate, especially in designs where the loads from failed/damaged members are transferred to intact ones.



I'm going to keep asking this: if fire alone is not enough to cause a structural failure, then why do they put fireproofing on structural steel?

And the answer, of course, is: because steel is vulnerable to fire.

The Windsor building had a concrete core and reinforced concrete columns. The Windsor fire, and other building fires, do not prove that normal building fires can never bring down steel-framed building. It proves that a particular fire didn't bring down a particular building.

That FEM article you linked to earlier says that not only did fire bring down the WTC but fire could very well bring down similar buildings in the future.

I don't trust the government in a lot of things, but I don't believe they blew up the WTC, maybe they let it happen but not blown it up themselves. Anyways, how do you explain the Hi-Jackers? The videos they left behind for Jihad training camps to view? Are you saying the Government took them from Arab nations, forced them to make suicide video, and forced them to take training videos, forced them to take flight simulators, forced them to live in America and not be killed for a year then make them hi-jack planes and drive them into the WTC's. All their information has been documented while they lived in the USA. You can't deny that, they also had family so they must have exsisted if you do deny they were never born.

Yes we have all asked those questions and the theorist have yet to answer them. I have also asked this. "If" this was government plot to blow up WTC why contolled inplosion? If they didnt care that thousands of Americans would be killed to support the NWO plot why inplode? It would be much easier and would require less preparation to just explode them!

I must say you have all given me something to ponder here. I see all your points you make from all sides, and I'm not really sure what to think about all of it. My brother fought in the first Gulf War back in 1991, and I know I will never hear every last detail about what happened behind military lines.

the names of the hi jackers are complete government hoaxes--4 have come forward and are alive stating how the gov was wrong--please link the suicide videos you are talking about--or were you just going on what you "think" exists due to what the government has told you? lets see what does a rent bill with an arab name or a training video from afgh proove? you bring up simulators yet you ignore the comment the instructors made about them unable to get a cesna off the ground much less manuever a big bird---even if they had obtained a liscence expert pilots agree that the manuevers performed by flight 77 seemed outside the range of human capabilites--heres an example--thanks for giving me the opportunity to bring up "ANOTHER" smoking gun
********************************************************************
Former Vietnam Combat and Commericail Pilot Firm Believer 9/11 Was Inside Government Job
Posted on: 7/17/2005 7:54:00 AM - Columnist

By Greg Szymanski

There was no fooling former Air Force and commercial pilot Russ Wittenberg the morning of 9/11. He knew it was an inside job from the get-go, knowing the ‘big boys’ were up to the same dirty tricks they played in the Kennedy assassination and Pearl Harbor.

The government may have fooled millions of Americans with its cockamamie official story, but the former fighter pilot who flew over 100 combat missions in Vietnam and who sat for 35 years in the cockpit for Pan Am and United, wasn’t one of them.

Now, almost four years later, Wittenberg is still shaking his head in disbelief more than ever, saying the country he loved and fought so bravely 40 years ago has fallen in the deep, dark and sinister hands of fascist leaders who are quickly turning America into a military state.

Although back in the beginning he seemed like a lone wolf in the hen house, he’s noticed, especially in the last six months, more Americans waking up to the cold reality that the U.S. government staged 9/1l, started an illegal war in Iraq and basically is criminally responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of innocent lives here and abroad.

Even though it’s a hard pill for some to swallow, Wittenberg says Americans need to “wake up and wake up fast,” holding those in government responsible even though it may mean a total makeover of the American political system.

And for these despicable actions now taking place in the name of freedom, the former F-100 Vietnam fighter pilot, who knows what it’s like to be in harms way, directed a little military jab toward the Commander and Chief, saying: “Oh, why doesn’t he wake up and just fall on his sword.”

Talking about his obvious disgust for the Bush administration, he bundles 9/11 into the neo con’s “neat little contrived war package,” saying it was the lynch pin needed to usher in a state of constant fear, a climate of war and a perfect setting for the unconstitutional Patriot Act and eventual martial law.

“If you would have told me back in the 1970s this was going to happen to America, I would have never imagined it. It’s just not the same country I grew up in as all our Constitutional freedoms are being stripped away right before our very eyes,” said Wittenberg in a telephone conversation from his home in Carefree Az., a picturesque and serene place on the map near Scottsdale.

“The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple. I also thoroughly went over the recent 9/11 Commission report, finding about 110 outright lies and numerous other half-truths and omissions in an obvious cover-up of not only the truth but of a criminal investigation.

“Condaleeza Rice lied through her teeth when she testified and if I would have had her on the stand for 10 minutes, I would have had her in tears.”

Concerning 9/11, Wittenberg knew right off the bat the hijackers - who couldn’t handle a Piper Cub - couldn’t fly the ‘big birds” he flew for so many years, knowing the planes were also incapable of performing such high speed maneuvers as the government claimed.

He also knew the possibility of jet fuel bringing down the towers made no sense. In fact, he knew the whole 9/11 story made about as much sense as crossing the Atlantic in a row boat.

And right after 9/11 when it was unpopular and considered almost treasonous to question the government, Wittenberg became the first commercial airline pilot with experience flying the jets used in 9/11 to publicly denounce the government story.

Although speaking publicly on many occasions about the fictitious government account of 9/11, it wasn’t until Sept. 16, 2004, his controversial remarks aired on Wing TV, sparking a heated debate among pilots and others clinging to the flimsy government account.

Knowing the flight characteristics of the “big birds” like the back of his hand, Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77could have “descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.”

Wittenberg claimed the high speed maneuver would have surely stalled the jetliner sending it into a nose dive, adding it was “totally impossible for an amateur who couldn’t even fly a Cessna to maneuver the jetliner in such a highly professional manner, something Wittenberg said he couldn’t do with 35 years of commercial jetliner experience.

“For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible – there is not one chance in a thousand,” said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727’s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737’s through 767’s it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying.

“I had to be trained to use the new, computerized systems. I just couldn’t jump in and fly one,” he added.

Finding more inconsistencies with the government story about Flight 77, Wittenberg recalled the recent statements made by a flight controller on an ABC 20/20 television program three months ago.

“If you listened to her carefully only an experienced pilot probably would have known that what she was saying was scripted,” said Wittenberg. “Remember the transponder was turned off on Flight 77 and when this occurs, all the particular flight data like air speed and even the plane’s flight identification goes with it.

“All that’s left on the controller’s screen is a green blip, that’s it. But here you have this flight controller on 20/20 saying she was tracking the flight with specific air speed and other coordinates which was totally impossible once the transponder was turned off. How would she even have known the flight number? The whole story is a pack of lies and this is just another example.”

And from the moment Wittenberg called attention to the lies, he’s been in the cross hairs defending his story, defending it by using a little bit of psychology, a lot of history and asking critics to answer questions before drawing conclusions.

“I’ve learned over the years, it’s hard to change anybody’s mind when they really aren’t listening,” said Wittenberg. “So, I just decided to fire back a lot of questions to those people who believe the government story.

“I ask them explain how Building No.7 collapsed? I ask them why haven’t the “black boxes” been recovered? I ask them to explain how jet fuel – fuel that burns cold not hot -- could bring down two high rise structures when more than 90% of the fuel on board burned outside the buildings?”

And Wittenberg has hundreds of other tough questions ready, but said it’s also important to put 9/11 and the Iraq war in a historical prospective.

“Is 9/11 and the phony war on terror any different or more serious than Pearl Harbor and World War II?,” asks Wittenberg. “The bottom line is all wars are contrived and it is these rich bankers and financiers who have pulled the strings and who have put these contrived events like 9/11 and Pearl Harbor into motion.”

Turning to the recent London bombings, Wittenberg said he’s tired of the “talking heads’ trying to analyze how to counter terror when “the real cause and effect issues” about the root problems with America and the world are being ignored.

“It’s simply bizarre. Maybe our one-sided foreign policy that keeps getting us into all this trouble around the world should be seriously questioned,” said Wittenberg. “If we are really fighting terror, why are our borders just to the south completely wide open? It’s a joke.”

Claiming the entire neo con scenario now playing out in America and around the world is based on the attempt to establish a one world government controlled by a select few, he said it’s difficult to figure out their true motives, adding he can only offer an educated guess based on what he’s studied and read.

“Power corrupts, money isn’t enough and these people want total control,” added Wittenberg. “These elites actually think they are better than everybody else and basically want power and control over the diminishing resources by creating a one world government.

Regarding another terror attack on American soil coming on the heels of the London bombings, he said “it’s not if but when,” claiming the unconstitutional Patriot Act is waiting in the wings to silence those Americans who may not fall in line with the government’s eventual takeover.

“They passed it for a reason. The problem with our two party system is that the same group of gangsters controls both parties,” said Wittenberg, who didn’t vote for Bush or Kerry in the last election and was the former Arizona state chairman for Pat Buchanon’s failed presidential run in 2000.

Although Wittenberg remains politically active and abreast of world affairs, he has left the political forefront, trying instead to raise public awareness about the danger of the neo con agenda.

“More people are listening now, but it doesn’t surprise me that still a lot of people just don’t want to get involved, thinking things are just fine in America,” he added. “These people are perfectly content to play golf, watch the ballgame and not get involved.”
http://www.lewisnews.com/article.asp?ID=106623

That guy is a commercial pilot for 35 years and yet claims the transponder transmits airspeed? BS! The transponder contains an octal 4 digit code and transmits altitude information only. Even if off, they still have radar returns and while tracking would be more difficult, especially if they got low, it is not impossible. Airspeed is determined by the computer as it tracks the radar returns from the plane. Flight information would still be retained in the symbology assigned to the radar returns by the computer. The only thing turning off the transponder would do is turn off the altitude reading. The computer would still track by radar returns. It has to as not all aircraft have transponders. It is not a requirement in most airspaces for private planes to have transponders and many private planes don't have them. Yet ATC still can track them.

To reiterate, airspeed is not transmitted by the transponder and ATC could still track the plane and a supposed 35 year professional pilot would not be stupid enough to make that mistake.

this statement is either a bold faced lie,incompetence or both--turning off the transponder would not only turn off the altitude but it would completely eliminate the possibility of possitively identifying the craft--loss of communication or even the lack of a transponder signal is not uncommon but both together is a serious red flag that would require air traffic control to take immediate action--the fact that ATC lost both of these lifelines and did nothing is a red flag!! not only that but losing a signal over the atlantic and "assuming" that any radar signal read after that point is the same aircraft is one of, if not "the" smoking gun revealing deciet "and" an agenda--for the record he says air speed and other coordinates--obviosly the altitude is what is refered to by the term "other coordinates" and as far as air speed goes the computer "would" have computed the data using the transponder signal as a referance and in the event of this signal being lost,adjustments would of have to of been made by the ATC in order to make this calculation and without the ability to identify the signal in question or radio contact to verify the identity of the aircraft,how could they have been sure that what they were tracking was indeed the missing commercial flight without visual verification? c'mon frenat you seem to have some knowledge in the subject why dont you comment on these anomalies!!

Any radar return being tracked is assigned a piece of computer symbology to follow the radar returns. Airspeed is determined from multiple returns. IFF returns may be used to correlate but they are going to come from the same place as the radar returns. The radar antenna is much more sensitive than the IFF antenna. This is because the IFF transponder replies with its own signal when interrogated by atc. If the IFF is turned off, ATC would not have an altitude reading but the computer assigned symbology would still track. This would be even easier with everyone else being ordered to land. The computer tracking is very good. It can also be augmented by the controller. As long as tracking is maintained, the symbology will stay on the correct radar returns. For something the size of an airliner, radar returns are unlikely to fade unless they got really, really low.

The only thing encoded in IFF is a 4 digit Octal code (mode 3), and altitude (Mode C). Modes 1,2, and 4 are used for military only and still ID codes and do not contain any more info like airspeed. Airspeed is determined solely by the computer tracking by the returns it receives. No they couldn't have been 100% positive that the radar returns they were receiving were the plane that turned off it's transponder. But how many others would they have without a correlated IFF return? Not many. How many of those would have been traveling over 350 knots? None. Fairly easy to ID then.

thank you


doubtful conjecture



ludicrous without visual confirmation it would only be a guess--is it standard operating procedure to assume? all the witness testimony,evidence of demo cutting charges in plain sight and an un-natural collapse within its own footprint(110 stories bud) and the deviation from SOP and your not worried?

Hey great post man, great info I knew about some of it but most were new. I checked out the sources, thanks Whoever is responsible for this 9/11 should burn in hell in eternity. This is so inhumane. I never believed the official story of this, thanks for proof!

I just read the first post... and I have say- WOW, playing cards that predicted 9/11.

Please- that sounds too much like the D-Day Spy Crossword during WWII where the Allies thought a crossword that held several of the codewords for D-Day was being used to transmit information to the Axis.

I can see Osama Bin Laden in his cave, playing Illumminanti New World Order, and playing those cards:

*Terrorist Nuke Card is played*

Osama- Golly gee, that looks like a good idea- let's bomb the WTC..."

*Pentagon Card is played*

Osama- Wow... another great idea... I'm so glad I bought this card game...

Did you actually even read the rest of it? Howcome there aint to response to that

Because regardless of whatever a person posts, it can be twisted, manipulated, and warped to suit whatever needs a person has. The playing cards are a prime example.

Documentation from 30 years ago can be used by people today to "prove" what they want- simply by using only a portion of it.

Photos can be retouched to "reveal" the truth... after all- the government manipulated the image in the first place.

Sounds bytes can be enhanced and taken out of context- single words are used as codes, even white noise in the background is sign of a conspiracy.

The first post is pretty indicitive of what sort of thoughts most people put into their conspiracy theories, and I felt it best to only respond to that one.

Of course, I could be part of a conspiracy to misdirect people with my wit...

Do you feel the MIB's behind you yet?