Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
redhen

911 inside job - for what?

4,457 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Q24

It sounds like you are assuming that somebody in the government somewhere actually wants the truth to be found.

That is a poor assumption.

Sure, I refer not today, not in this government, but in future.

I see a link between our message here and the rising popularity of politicians like Ron Paul. I see a heck of a change in the status quo when the U.S. suffers its first ever inevitable defeat due to its destructive foreign policy and the domestic knives come out on Neocon and Zionist policies that currently rule the system.

Then awareness of the 9/11 false flag will be most important.

Even the German courts pardoned Marinus van der Lubbe in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

your slandering of Raptor by accusing him of slander

I got this far into your post.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm out of here.

Please get over it :lol:

I'm bored clogging up the thread with off-topic personal disputes.

I'll read your post properly and respond to anything that may be relevant to the 9/11 topic when I get chance.

Edit: -

Ok LG, I’ve narrowed it down to what is relevant, the limited substance made it a quicker job than I expected...

It is a fact that Gage has reason or motive to lie, he is compensated for his truther efforts and this appears to be his only income.

Slander.

It is not a fact until you prove that the suggested reason or motive exists.

It could be that Gage doesn’t need the money.

It could be that Gage could earn more in another venture.

It could be that to Gage money is secondary to the truth.

You are making the assumption that the wage earned from AE911T is a motivating factor to Gage.

Prove it.

You need evidence along the lines of Gage stating benefit of “a new Pearl Harbor”... err... I mean rubbing his hands together exclaiming, “money money money!”.

You seem to be viewing this very myopically assuming that everyone prioritizes wealth over other considerations.

No, I’m quite sure that’s what you and RaptorBites are doing.

4, what's to rebut? 'The political climate 'may' affect current academia' is rebutted by 'the political climate may not affect current academia to any relevant degree on this topic'.

What’s to rebut? The whole first segment of my previous post (top of the page) which you’ve ignored.

And you are mistaken...

‘The political climate ‘may’ affect current academia’ fits just fine with ‘the political climate ‘may’ not affect current academia’.

Remember, you are arguing the case of someone who thinks current academia is infallible.

I am raising the case that current academia may be fallible.

The point we have reached, that, ‘The political climate may or may not affect current academia’ sits fine with my case, not so yours.

Edited by Q24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

I got this far into your post.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm out of here.

Please get over it :lol:

I'm bored clogging up the thread with off-topic personal disputes.

I'll read your post properly and respond to anything that may be relevant to the 9/11 topic when I get chance.

Ha, I was never not over it, pointing out your reading comprehension failures is done purely for my amusement I assure you. Now the question of whether your 'argument' is valid is an 'off-topic personal' dispute? Yes, yes, that makes perfect sense, let's not 'clog' a 167 page general 911 thread by going 'off-topic', as anyone can see it has strictly adhered to 'the topic' since January. You certainly get an 'A' in hand-waving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zaphod222

Then awareness of the 9/11 false flag will be most important.

Even the German courts pardoned Marinus van der Lubbe in the end.

What friggin false flag??

The Reichstag fire was an isolated event.

To claim the islamist attacks are all false flags would mean you imagine a whole forest of "false flags".

I am still waiting for a troother to explain to me if they imagine that all of the thousands of jihadist terror attacks prior to and after 9/11 were "false flags".

Yes, please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Ha, I was never not over it, pointing out your reading comprehension failures is done purely for my amusement I assure you. Now the question of whether your 'argument' is valid is an 'off-topic personal' dispute? Yes, yes, that makes perfect sense, let's not 'clog' a 167 page general 911 thread by going 'off-topic', as anyone can see it has strictly adhered to 'the topic' since January. You certainly get an 'A' in hand-waving.

No, comments like, “your slandering of Raptor by accusing him of slander” I think are off-topic. My initial argument in defence of Gage which I noted you missed the point of from the get go, back in my post #2472, has not been scratched. Likewise my argument regarding fallibility of current academia which you declined to even address.

To claim the islamist attacks are all false flags would mean you imagine a whole forest of "false flags".

I am still waiting for a troother to explain to me if they imagine that all of the thousands of jihadist terror attacks prior to and after 9/11 were "false flags".

You are the only one suggesting, “islamist attacks are all false flags”.

Stop setting-up silly strawman positions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Then awareness of the 9/11 false flag will be most important.

But, there is no evidence of a 911 false flag operation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

But, there is no evidence of a 911 false flag operation.

Sure there is.

Would you like to hear it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

I don’t need to ‘handwave’. I have been keeping track of AE911T professional membership figures: -

Jun 20th, 13 – 1,941

Oct 10th, 12 – 1,724

Jul 7th, 09 - 717

May 31st, 09 – 671

Apr 29th, 09 – 643

Mar 1st, 09 – 600+

Aug 17th, 08 – 428

Aug 3rd, 08 – 418

Jul 29th, 08 – 400+

May 14th, 08 – 380

May 8th, 08 – 360+

Apr 26th, 08 – 300+

Jan 5th, 08 – 233

Still a vast minority that has yet to produce a shred of evidence that can be taken seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Sure there is.

Would you like to hear it?

Where is it?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Still a vast minority that has yet to produce a shred of evidence that can be taken seriously.

But it’s a growing minority isn’t it, skyeagle?

I can show many people who take such evidence seriously.

Would you like to see?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

But it’s a growing minority isn’t it, skyeagle?

Without evidence, the numbers will level off when they figure out that they are being taken for a ride.

I can show many people who take such evidence seriously.

Would you like to see?

Go right ahead and then, we can take a look at some other numbers.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Without evidence, the numbers will level off when they figure out that they are being taken for a ride.

There is no evidence that the numbers will level off or that anyone is being taken for a ride, that is only your opinion.

Where is it?.

Evidence of the 9/11 false flag can be found at the following links: -

http://www.ae911truth.org/

http://www.stj911.org/

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

http://911research.wtc7.net/

http://911blogger.com/

And too many others to mention.

Alternatively just head to Google or YouTube and type in “9/11 False Flag”.

You will find the evidence if you are open to it.

Go right ahead and then, we can take a look at some other numbers.

Thank you but I’m not interested in other numbers, only showing your claim that AE911T “has yet to produce a shred of evidence that can be taken seriously” is false. It is easily disproved by the fact that the current professional membership calling for a new investigation of the WTC collapses were not always members of AE911T. It therefore appears they must have taken the evidence that was presented seriously for them to add their names to the petition in the first place. And more will do so in future.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

There is no evidence that the numbers will level off or that anyone is being taken for a ride, that is only your opinion.

Evidence of the 9/11 false flag can be found at the following links: -

http://www.ae911truth.org/

http://www.stj911.org/

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

http://911research.wtc7.net/

http://911blogger.com/

And too many others to mention.

Those websites did not present any evidence of a false flag operation. :no: Once again, where is the false flag evidence that I can present to major news organizations that will take such evidence seriously? Simply calling for a new investigation is not the same as presenting viable evidence, especially in light of the fact that no bomb explosions were observed on video, nor heard on audio, nor detected on seismic monitors nor explosive evidence recovered. With no evidence of explosives, who made up the story that explosives were used?

Now, let's take a look at some other numbers.

123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

The following was taken from one of the websites you'd posted.

he scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe provides, quite simply, proof that explosives were used in the destruction of the Twin Towers. Specifically, the paper positively identifies an advanced engineered pyrotechnic material in each of several samples of dust from the destroyed skyscrapers, in the form of tiny chips having red and gray sides and sharing a very specific three-dimensional structure, chemical composition, and ignition behavior.

Apparently, they were unaware that the dust samples were taken in an uncontrolled environment during clean-up operations where high temp wands and torches were used. In addition, what was found in the samples can also be normally found in buildings.

I might add that it has been determined that the red chips were primer chips and nothing to do with explosives. Is it any wonder then, why I have warned skeptics to beware of those conspiracy websites?

Now, let's take a look why no bomb explosions were seen, nor heard, nor detected nor explosives recovered.

Civil and Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

http://911-engineers...-blanchard.html

August 8, 2006: No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader

Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives. The report is published on ImplosionWorld.com, a demolition industry website edited by Blanchard.

Blanchard is also director of field operations for Protec Documentation Services, Inc., a company specializing in monitoring construction-related demolitions. In his report, Blanchard says that Protec had portable field seismographs in “several sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn” on 9/11. He says they did not show the “spikes” that would have been caused by explosions in the towers.

http://www.popularme...ld-trade-center

'A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers, 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Demolition Industry Viewpoint'

http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy theories and Controlled Demolition Myths

Photographic evidence proves beyond a doubt that floors sagged, pulling perimeter columns in. An event some conspiracy sites suggest never happened.

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

It seems that neither Brent Blanchard or yourself understand the evidence to a degree that would allow either of you to even begin disputing the WTC demolitions. I mean, take this for example: -

Apparently, they were unaware that the dust samples were taken in an uncontrolled environment during clean-up operations where high temp wands and torches were used. In addition, what was found in the samples can also be normally found in buildings.

I might add that it has been determined that the red chips were primer chips and nothing to do with explosives. Is it any wonder then, why I have warned skeptics to beware of those conspiracy websites?

Your first statement is irrelevant because it is a fact that ignition of the red/gray chips created iron spheres. Therefore any iron spheres that were created by cutting torches during the clean-up are beside the point. Your second statement does not end the debate. Now I'm not saying they are, but so what even if the red/gray chips were primer paint? When heated to 430oC the reaction raised the temperature to in excess of 1,538oC (the temperature required to create those iron spheres). That is a very dangerous material to have within a building and could have contributed to weakening of the steelwork and collapse initiations. It is possible that was the intended purpose of its presence.

It is something NIST should have fully considered but did not. Not that anyone should expect better, since NIST did not even publicly question the building owner about demolition, even after the same building owner had enquired about demolishing WTC7 the very morning of 9/11. No, the investigation has been left to what you call ‘conspiracy websites’ to bring to the fore.

Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry...

Brent Blanchard is a professional prat (definition courtesy of urbandictionary.com). Perhaps it says something of like-minds that you felt the need to link to him five times in your post? Just for starters he believes the towers cannot have been intentionally demolished because the collapses didn’t initiate from the bottom. Derrr. Anyone who has a clue, who has researched the possibilities (both practiced and in theory) or even thought about it, understands that is not a prerequisite of demolition. What a stupid argument that is for Blanchard to make.

These type of observations bring me back to my first point of this post and reveal why you don’t see evidence of the 9/11 false flag under your nose, skyeagle - it’s above what you are able to understand, thus you continually miss the point and follow the ramblings of prats like Blanchard.

Of course, I've already pointed half of this out to you before. Your usual response (I was going to say "usual tactic" but I don't believe you think that far) is to jump to some other unrelated aspect of the WTC demolition. The last time we discussed Blanchard you did not respond to the same criticism I noted above and instead went on a tangent about 'squibs'. Let's see what we get this time....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

It seems that neither Brent Blanchard or yourself understand the evidence to a degree that would allow either of you to even begin disputing the WTC demolitions. I mean, take this for example: -

Considering that Brent Banchard is one of the worlds top demolition experts and the fact that no evidence of explosives were seen, nor heard, nor detected on his monitors, nor found in the rubble of ground zero, what more can be said?

Answer: No explosives were used.

Your first statement is irrelevant because it is a fact that ignition of the red/gray chips created iron spheres.

All they had to do was to call the primer company.

Therefore any iron spheres that were created by cutting torches during the clean-up are beside the point.

What more is there to say on that issue?

Now I'm not saying they are, but so what even if the red/gray chips were primer paint?

It would show that the 911 conspiracist were wrong. It has also been said that aluminum and iron oxide were found in the red/gray chips, so let's take a let's take a closer look at structural primer.

400px-Multi-coat_paint_system.jpg

As you can see, there are multiple applications and Iron oxide is one of the ingredients mentioned above. Now, let's take a look here.

What can be expected from a structural primer?

Nucor offers our steel coated with both red and gray primer, galvanized, or unpainted. Unpainted steel is usually used when special paint or cementous coatings are specified. The contractor or owner usually subcontracts the finish painting or application of the more aggressive primer systems.

Nucor offers primers in either red or gray. The gray primers usually cost slightly more and often come with a schedule impact. Some miscellaneous clips will be provided in red primer even on the gray orders.

http://www.nucorbuil...turalprimer.pdf

Aluminum & Gray Epoxy-Mastic Primer

* Coating Section Dry Film Thickness mils

* Aluminum Epoxy-Mastic Primer 1045.8 5.0 min.

* Gray Epoxy-Mastic Primer 1045.9 5.0 m

Corothane I - MIO Aluminum

COROTHANE I MIO-ALUMINUM is a single component, VOC compliant, moisture curing, aluminum and Micaceous Iron Oxide (MIO) filled, urethane primer, intermediate coating, or finish. It has excellent surface wetting properties and provides extended recoatability.

In other words, the ingredients mentioned on 911 conspiracy web sites was expected to be found in structural primers and nothing to do with thermite.

When heated to 430oC the reaction raised the temperature to in excess of 1,538oC (the temperature required to create those iron spheres). That is a very dangerous material to have within a building and could have contributed to weakening of the steelwork and collapse initiations. It is possible that was the intended purpose of its presence.

It is something NIST should have fully considered but did not.

Aluminum and iron oxide are ingredients used in primers, but they pose no hazard when applied to structural steel.

Not that anyone should expect better, since NIST did not even publicly question the building owner about demolition,...

Why should investigators have done so?

...even after the same building owner had enquired about demolishing WTC7 the very morning of 9/11.

In which case, no one in their right mind would have blown up WTC7 illegally knowing that such a statement of his was on the record books for the whole world to see.

No, the investigation has been left to what you call ‘conspiracy websites’ to bring to the fore.

First of all, they have to provide evidence that explosives were used, but there is no such evidence. Explosions make a lot of noise, yet no sound of explosions were seen nor head at the WTC buildings collapsed and once again, no evidence of explosives were found in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers. Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower.

Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

http://911encycloped..._For_Explosives

Components that were present during the construction of the WTC buildings.

Brent Blanchard is a professional prat (definition courtesy of urbandictionary.com). Perhaps it says something of like-minds that you felt the need to link to him five times in your post? Just for starters he believes the towers cannot have been intentionally demolished because the collapses didn’t initiate from the bottom.

He was speaking of normal demolition implosions.

These type of observations bring me back to my first point of this post and reveal why you don’t see evidence of the 9/11 false flag under your nose, skyeagle - it’s above what you are able to understand, thus you continually miss the point and follow the ramblings of prats like Blanchard.

One of the reasons why I do not see a false flag operation of the United States is because countries around the world were aware that Muslim terrorist, not the United States government, were prepared to carried out the 911 attack, and some of those warnings mentioned the use of aircraft as weapons, which the world saw on 9/11/2001. The targets listed were:

* The Capitol Building

* The Pentagon

* CIA Headquarters

* WTC Towers

Abdul Hakim Murad confessed

Abdul Hakim Murad confessed detailed Phase III in his interrogation by the Manila police after his capture.

Phase three would have involved Murad either renting, buying, or hijacking a small airplane, preferably a Cessna. The airplane would be filled with explosives. He would then crash it into the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in the Langley area in Fairfax County, Virginia. Murad had been trained as a pilot in North Carolina, and was slated to be a suicide pilot.

There were alternate plans to hijack a 12th commercial airliner and use that instead of the small aircraft, probably due to the Manila cell's growing frustration with explosives. Testing explosives in a house or apartment is dangerous, and it can easily give away a terrorist plot. Khalid Sheik Mohammed probably made the alternate plan.

A report from the Philippines to the United States on January 20, 1995 stated, "What the subject has in his mind is that he will board any American commercial aircraft pretending to be an ordinary passenger. Then he will hijack said aircraft, control its cockpit and dive it at the CIA headquarters."

Another plot that was considered would have involved the hijacking of more airplanes. The World Trade Center (New York City, New York), The Pentagon (Arlington, Virginia), the United States Capitol (Washington, D.C.), the White House(Washington, D.C.), the Sears Tower (Chicago, Illinois), and the U.S Bank Tower (Los Angeles, California), would have been the likely targets. Abdul Hakim Murad said that this part of the plot was dropped since the Manila cell could not recruit enough people to implement other hijackings in his confession with Filipino investigators, prior to the foiling of Operation Bojinka.

This plot eventually would be the base plot for the September 11, 2001 attacks which involved hijacking commercial airliners as opposed to small aircraft loaded with explosives and crashing them into their intended targets. However, only the World Trade Center (which was destroyed) and The Pentagon (which suffered partial damage) were hit.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Bojinka_plot

As you can see, it was known that terrorist had planned to use airliners as weapons to killed thousands of people. Another reason there was no false flag is because the United States could not have carried out such an attack and not get caught and in fact, the United States couldn't even keep the Watergate Scandal a secret, which was nowhere near the magnitude of the 911 attack.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Against my better judgement of getting any further into discussion of the thermitic material discovered in the WTC dust with someone of skyeagle’s... calibre...

Aluminum and iron oxide are ingredients used in primers, but they pose no hazard when applied to structural steel.

The aluminium and iron oxide in the WTC samples was intimately mixed on the nanoscale. That is the same composition which makes nano-thermite so effective. When heated to 430oC the reaction raised the temperature to in excess of 1,538oC. Whether it be primer paint or not, of course that is hazardous! More than that, it could be catastrophic. Whatever makes you think that raising the whole surface temperature of a column to in excess of 1,538oC is not a hazard?

Why should investigators have done so?

Well you know, when the building owner is,

on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building

and later the same day it goes down like this...

wtc-7.gif

... I think it’s worth asking the question.

Explosions make a lot of noise, yet no sound of explosions were seen nor head at the WTC buildings collapsed

The demolition theory does not necessitate hearing explosions during the collapses.

He was speaking of normal demolition implosions.

Then Blanchard is a prat because no one suggests the WTC demolitions were, “normal demolition implosions”.

One of the reasons why I do not see a false flag operation of the United States is because countries around the world were aware that Muslim terrorist, not the United States government, were prepared to carried out the 911 attack, and some of those warnings mentioned the use of aircraft as weapons, which the world saw on 9/11/2001.

Interestingly enough, Polish saboteurs had been attacking Germany long before Operation Himmler framed them.

In other words, whatever makes you think the Muslim terrorist threat including the intent to use aircraft as weapons precludes a false flag? Your own link states that “part of the [bojinka] plot was dropped since the Manila cell could not recruit enough people to implement other hijackings”. Apparently it’s not so easy to find a large group (say 19 or so?) of intelligent, calculating, suicidal people. All U.S. sources had to do was create the right conditions and give the Muslim terrorist threat a helping hand. It appears to me that the CIA bin Laden unit provided Al Qaeda just that with their 1999 plan to infiltrate agents within Afghanistan

It was only from 1999 that 15 of the hijackers aligned themselves to bin Laden, right? Oh yes ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

Well you know, when the building owner is,

on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building

and later the same day it goes down like this...

... I think it’s worth asking the question.

Most of your other points I can at least see what you are in general talking about, but this one I still don't understand. I think your whole argument here breaks down because what he is asking his insurance carrier is exactly a subject that you would discuss with your insurance carrier given the circumstances, there's nothing unusual about it. Is it the timing of it that you think is suspicious, should he have waited to inquire about this?

More importantly, I don't see how this matters, can you step me through how this fits in the plot? So Silverstein's a conspirator and knows about the demolitions that are planted and he's asking his insurance carrier if they'll cover a controlled demolition, knowing full well that he won't and can't make a claim on the basis that it was a controlled demolition? He cannot make an insurance claim under that authorization or that cause, as it is a crime to demolish buildings without the city's authorization and insurance companies do not cover crimes, nor would this count by any stretch as a 'controlled' demolition. So what is the purpose to the plot of requesting authorization, this suggests what? It seems to fit much better with the scenario that Silverstein didn't know anything about any planted demolitions, he seems to be discussing what his options are concerning the eventual fate of the building assuming it will remain standing.

How are you scripting out the NIST questioning? I kinda think it goes like this:

NIST: Mr Silverstein did you demolish WTC7?

S: No.

NIST: Why were you on the phone then with your insurance carrier requesting authorization for a controlled demolition?

S: Because that is what building owners talk to their insurance companies about when a multi-million dollar building has been damaged to this extent.

NIST: Oh.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

The aluminium and iron oxide in the WTC samples was intimately mixed on the nanoscale. That is the same composition which makes nano-thermite so effective.

You failed to understand that aluminum and iron oxide are two of the ingredents used in primers.

When heated to 430oC the reaction raised the temperature to in excess of 1,538oC. Whether it be primer paint or not, of course that is hazardous! More than that, it could be catastrophic.

Obtain a can of spray paint and spray the paint onto a lighted match and see what happens or, you can go here.

Red Oxide Primer

87471738_XS.jpg?w=300&h=300&keep_ratio=1

A base coat of red oxide primer helps to prevent rust formation on ferrous metals.

Precautions

Red oxide primer, like other paints and coatings, should be used with standards and safe working practices in mind to avoid injury or hazards while handling. Red oxide primer is flammable, so keep it away from sources of ignition such as open flames and cigarettes.

http://homeguides.sf...imer-34873.html

We once used zinc chromate primer in the Air Force, until the Air Force felt it was too hazardous to use.

More than that, it could be catastrophic. Whatever makes you think that raising the whole surface temperature of a column to in excess of 1,538oC is not a hazard?

On the contrary, and structurally speaking, a temperature of even 1500 degrees F. will weaken steel, and that is a hazard.

Well you know, when the building owner is,

on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building

and later the same day it goes down like this...

It is evident that the collapse of WTC7 was in no way, a controlled demolition. There was no sound of explosions nor were explosions seen on video as WTC7 collapsed. Add to the fact that not one single item belonging to explosive hardware was ever found in the rubble of WTC7, so why are conspiracist claiming explosives were used when there was no explosive evidence to be seen, heard nor found to begin with?

wtc-7.gif

Conspiracist failed to gather the rest of the story because WTC7 suffered impact damage as well. Check it out.

WTC7 Damage

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

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

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

In addition:

The American Society of Civil Engineers and FEMA conducted an in-depth investigation of the World Trade Center. The team members included the director of the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the senior fire investigator for the National Fire Protection Association, professors of fire safety, and leaders of some of the top building design and engineering firms, including Skidmore Owings & Merrill in Chicago, Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire in Seattle, and Greenhorne & O'Mara in Maryland.

It concluded that massive structural damage caused by the crashing of the aircrafts into the buildings, combined with the subsequent fires, "were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures."

The National Institute of Standards and Technology did its own forty-three volume study of the Twin Towers. "Some 200 technical experts . . . reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, [and] performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations," the institute says.

It also concluded that a combination of the crash and the subsequent fires brought the towers down: "In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse."

Popular Mechanics, first in its March 2005 cover story and now in its expanded book, Debunking 9/11 Myths, after interviewing scores of other experts in the engineering field, takes apart the most popular contentions of the conspiracists. "In every case we examined, the key claims made by conspiracy theorists turned out to bemistaken, misinterpreted, or deliberately falsified," the book says.

The demolition theory does not necessitate hearing explosions during the collapses.

Let's take another look and compare.

Then Blanchard is a prat because no one suggests the WTC demolitions were, “normal demolition implosions”.

You've failed to understand that demolition experts around the world look up to Brent Blanchard and his company and that there were no abnormal bomb demolitions within the WTC buildings.

In other words, whatever makes you think the Muslim terrorist threat including the intent to use aircraft as weapons precludes a false flag?

Simple! Muslim terrorist made it known they hated the United States and it was no secret that the CIA was in their cross-hairs as well. Nothing there to even remotely suggest a false flag operation.

Your own link states that “part of the [bojinka] plot was dropped since the Manila cell could not recruit enough people to implement other hijackings”.

Terrorist plans didn't stop there, and remember, one of the terrorist, Ramzi Yousef, was the person who detonated that huge bomb beneath WTC1 in 1993 and who just happens to be the nephew of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the terrorist who has admitted to his role in the planning of the 911 attack.

Apparently it’s not so easy to find a large group (say 19 or so?) of intelligent, calculating, suicidal people.

Apparently, there more than enough terrorist in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen, and in Pakistan who were more than willing to blow themselves up and many did with more waiting at the gate.

All U.S. sources had to do was create the right conditions and give the Muslim terrorist threat a helping hand.

Why would the United States help terrorist who've declared war on American and blew up our embassies in Kenya and in Tanzania, the USS Cole, our barracks in Saudi Arabia and in Lebanon, which killed hundreds? In other words, why would the United States assist terrorist who have stated their intentions to attack America?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Most of your other points I can at least see what you are in general talking about, but this one I still don't understand. I think your whole argument here breaks down because what he is asking his insurance carrier is exactly a subject that you would discuss with your insurance carrier given the circumstances, there's nothing unusual about it. Is it the timing of it that you think is suspicious, should he have waited to inquire about this?

That’s interesting, I see this as probably the most compelling point of intrigue in my previous post, yet you claim not to understand it. That obvious point of intrigue is that the controlled demolition option was discussed and then the building went down looking like a controlled demolition, allegedly the first time in history where ‘fire’ alone has ever done that.

I don’t think it is a normal discussion for the building owner to be having specifically off his own back at that time, I’d think rather it were down to emergency responders to take any safety decision regarding demolition of the building and who prompted Silverstein to call his insurers. That scenario ties-in perfectly with Silverstein’s infamous “pull it” comment: “I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." The “it” was clearly the building both in context of the language (i.e. the “decision to pull” leading to “then we watched the building collapse”) and everything else going on that day (i.e. the lack of firefighting operation in WTC7 from early on and Silverstein’s call to his insurers to seek authorisation of the demolition), when are people going to get that?

You would think, given a serious investigation, that NIST or the 9/11 Commission might have at least put the question to Silverstein.

More importantly, I don't see how this matters, can you step me through how this fits in the plot?

I can suggest numerous hypothesis that fit the plot but without a full investigation it cannot be narrowed down at present. I’ve thought this all through a lot more than I’m going to describe here; this is only an overview...

The WTC7 demolition was intended to initiate under cover of the final moments of the WTC1 collapse. For some reason the WTC7 demolition failed – it is possible this was due to the unexpected WTC1 debris impact which may have disrupted the demolition setup. Those on scene responsible for the demolition setup work to scare firefighters from the building citing structural instability (I’m sure you remember those anonymous ‘on the money’ engineers who warded off firefighters’ efforts to save the building). Then there are two options: 1) perform the demolition openly for safety reasons under guise of the structural instability, 2) perform the demolition covertly and blame it on the structural instability. The first option would be preferable as it requires less cover-up and reduces questions asked (not to mention it would have saved NIST an awful lot of work). So that’s what they did, except Silverstein’s insurance carrier, as you suggest likely, said, “nu-uh”, or even, “we’ll get back to you”. That is when the second option was taken.

Like I said, there are numerous possibilities but that is not so important at this stage as knowing that a WTC7 demolition option was discussed shortly before the building came down.

How are you scripting out the NIST questioning? I kinda think it goes like this:

NIST: Mr Silverstein did you demolish WTC7?

S: No.

NIST: Why were you on the phone then with your insurance carrier requesting authorization for a controlled demolition?

S: Because that is what building owners talk to their insurance companies about when a multi-million dollar building has been damaged to this extent.

NIST: Oh.

I think that is clumsy and you’d make a terrible lawyer.

Special agent LG: Did you commit the crime?

Suspect: No.

Special agent LG: Oh.

Great work special agent!

:lol:

It might be better along these lines: -

NIST: Mr. Silverstein, we understand that prior to the collapse of WTC7, on that day, you contacted your insurance carrier seeking authorization of a controlled demolition. Please could you detail the response you received? In addition, when did you envision the potential controlled demolition of the building would take place?

LS: The insurance carrier did not grant approval of my request. I envisioned a potential demolition would be put into action immediately to counteract the safety risk.

NIST: Mr. Silverstein, who advised you that the WTC7 structural condition was so severe that a demolition option should be considered, thus leading to the telephone call with your insurance carrier?

LS: I remember getting a call from the fire department commander advising of the situation and I agreed, ‘maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it’, following which I sought authorization for the... um, I mean,
a
controlled demolition.

NIST: Mr. Silverstein, the conclusions of NIST are that a fire based collapse would be an “extraordinary” first-time ever “phenomenon”, we struggled for years to come up with a theory to be honest. Do you find it possible that the controlled demolition option may have been taken despite non-compliance of your insurance carrier, yes or no?

LS: No [lie detector goes off the scale and explodes
]

You know, ignoring the final response, and understanding that the responses could be different to that I've suggested above, even with those basic acceptances in the public eye – that a demolition was extensively discussed - it’s only necessary to show most objective people a video of the WTC7 collapse for them to consider that the option was taken.

To move the investigation further forward we need questioning of the fire department commander to understand who would have been responsible for a demolition and when and also those anonymous engineers, they are key. I’d go so far as to ask every first responder on site if they knew of the demolition option, who they heard it from, when it was planned to take place and by whom.

That’s what a real investigation is about – asking questions, gathering information and following the trail until a definite conclusion can be drawn. The official investigations to date have come nowhere near that. So much so, that I’d say it’s almost like they are deliberately avoiding it, inescapable politics and all that, LG.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

It appears to me that the CIA bin Laden unit provided Al Qaeda just that with their 1999 plan to infiltrate agents within Afghanistan ;)It was only from 1999 that 15 of the hijackers aligned themselves to bin Laden, right? Oh yes

You might want to check with Pakistan, because Pakistan provided support to the Afghan Arabs, who were not part of the group known as the Afghan Mujahideen, for whom the CIA supported. In other words, the Afghan Mujahideen received CIA support, while on the other hand, the Afghan Arabs, which was the group of bin Laden, was supported by Pakistan.

According to Peter Bergen of CNN the story

...that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden—is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him

Tens of thousand more foreign Muslim radicals came to study in the hundreds of new madrassas in Pakistan and along the Afghan border, that the Pakistan government funded. Eventually "more than 100,000 Muslim radicals were to have direct contact with Pakistan and Afghanistan and be influenced by the jihad."

So, here is where 911 conspiracist confused two different groups; the Afghan Mujahideen and the Afghan Arabs.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

I think that is clumsy and you’d make a terrible lawyer.

Special agent LG: Did you commit the crime?

Suspect: No.

Special agent LG: Oh.

Great work special agent!

:lol:

It might be better along these lines: -

NIST: Mr. Silverstein, we understand that prior to the collapse of WTC7, on that day, you contacted your insurance carrier seeking authorization of a controlled demolition. Please could you detail the response you received? In addition, when did you envision the potential controlled demolition of the building would take place?

LS: The insurance carrier did not grant approval of my request. I envisioned a potential demolition would be put into action immediately to counteract the safety risk.

NIST: Mr. Silverstein, who advised you that the WTC7 structural condition was so severe that a demolition option should be considered, thus leading to the telephone call with your insurance carrier?

LS: I remember getting a call from the fire department commander advising of the situation and I agreed, ‘maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it’, following which I sought authorization for the... um, I mean,
a
controlled demolition.

NIST: Mr. Silverstein, the conclusions of NIST are that a fire based collapse would be an “extraordinary” first-time ever “phenomenon”, we struggled for years to come up with a theory to be honest. Do you find it possible that the controlled demolition option may have been taken despite non-compliance of your insurance carrier, yes or no?

LS: No [lie detector goes off the scale and explodes
]

Was Mr. Silverstein charged and imprisoned for illegally blowing up WTC7?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

You might want to check with Pakistan, because Pakistan provided support to the Afghan Arabs, who were not part of the group known as the Afghan Mujahideen, for whom the CIA supported. In other words, the Afghan Mujahideen received CIA support, while on the other hand, the Afghan Arabs, which was the group of bin Laden, was supported by Pakistan.

So, here is where 911 conspiracist confused two different groups; the Afghan Mujahideen and the Afghan Arabs.

You are so weird. That response had absolutely no correlation with my text you quoted.

Was Mr. Silverstein charged and imprisoned for illegally blowing up WTC7?

Yes... ?

Congratulations on winning the UM ‘most stupid question ever’ award.

A competent investigation is required before we get onto charges and imprisonment.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

You are so weird. That response had absolutely no correlation with my text you quoted.

Factural is the word. I knew where you were coming from and where you were going. :yes: I know you much better than yourself. :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Factural is the word.

In what language?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.