09-19-2006, 04:42 AM
Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers of the WTC were Over-Engineered to take far more than required. You should check into what the designers said about it.
Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center;
February 27, 1993: WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Plane Hitting It In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center, the other being Leslie Robertson.
Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis, which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.” The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”
A 707 is almost the same weight as a 757/767;
757-200 757-200F 757-300
Empty weight 128,730 lb (58,390 kg) 141,330 lb (64,110 kg )
Empty weight 122,533 lb (55,580 kg) 146,400 lb (66,406 kg)
They were made strong enough to handle hurricane force winds, and survive the direct impact of a fully loaded, fully fueled Boeing 707, here's a comparison.
I'd rather trust the structural engineers and architects than what the US govt's toady bunch of sycophants would say to cover their asses.
This is what the architectural firm stated
THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ..
Below is a picture of the massive steel columns and beams which made up the central core of the World Trade Center towers...
Here is some info on how the world has been duped with misinformation about the construction of the central core of the WTC towers...
Here is some info on the transverse beams which provided lateral support between the central core columns
The main structural assembly of the Madrid Windsor Building which is also a tube within a tube design, in which the mechanical / technical floors and the core system which bore 60 % of the structural load....
Here is how they were constructed and how massive the central cores were;
and this how they came down - watch the disappearing central cores and supports;
The buildings were also a lot stronger towards the base by necessity, and many structural engineers were STUNNED (http://www.medserv.dk/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=896) by the catastrophic collapses happening as they did because the resistance and strength of the building becomes greater the lower down you go. Also, with all the random damage being blamed (fire, and impact), that the buildings went straight down into their own footprint - and did three times in a row - that's like seeing an event beyond the miraculous. Asymmetric structural damage seems is extraordinarily unlikely to create a symmetric collapse.
Demolition experts would be out of business is such things happened normally.
Those buildings were not vertical pillars of water or houses built of cards.
WTC 7 roofline to ground: 6.6 seconds. Symmetrical, straight down.
WTC 7 Collapse (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg)
The FACT- UNALTERABLE- FACT, is that WTC 7 came down in precisely the same near "free-fall" manner and velocity as buildings One and Two says volumes.
Who pulled those buildings? When are we going to prosecute them, as they ought to be prosecuted?
Or do you want to let these mass murderers go free who "pulled" WTC1 and WTC2?
It couldn't have been the Arabs. They weren't around to load explosive charges into every nook and cranny where steel supports had to be compromised
09-19-2006, 04:49 AM
Why those collapses were TOO FAST to be credible as anything other than controlled demolitions.
There's a maximum possible rate at which objects fall, and if any of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing anything other than accelerate the object downward - even just having to push air out of the way - there will be less energy available to accelerate the object downward, and so that object's downward acceleration will be diminished.
And if an object's downward acceleration is diminished, it will be going slower along the way, and thus it will take longer to fall a given distance.
The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall.
Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)
Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity
Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7
Time = 9.2
It will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.
Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph. To be more accurate, it would actually be 9.22 seconds but I justwant to make sure others can easily follow it simply.
But this can only occur in a vacuum.
Most free-falling objects reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph. (source)
Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.
On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we were told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds.
That's close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air.
But the "collapse" proceeded "through" the lower floors of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower floors had successfully suported the mass of the tower for 30 years. You'd think the undamaged 89 and 73 lower floors in each of the buildings would provide signficant resistance to the collapse.
Air can't do that.
Can anyone possibly imagine the undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air would?
what is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not have collapsed gravitationally, through intact lower floors, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11.
Because, as you may recall, not only was much energy expended in causing the observed massive high-speed sideways ejections, but virtually all the glass and concrete was "pulverized"
And the energy requirements to do anything even remotely like that rival the total amount of potential energy that the entire tower had to give.
While gravity is nearly strong enough to cause some things to fall that far, through air, in the observed interval, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both at once.
It is physically impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times.
How long should've the collapse taken?
Simulating a collapse by 1 floor intervals in approximation of the "pancake" theory. With this theory, no floor below the "pancake" can begin to move until the progressive collapse has reached that level.
If the entire building is to be on the ground in close to freefall time, the floors below the "pancaking" must start moving before the "progressive collapse” reaches that floor below. But this creates yet another problem. How can the upper floor be destroyed by slamming into a lower floor if the lower floor has already moved out of the way?
This is assuming the building was turning to dust as the collapse progressed, which is essentially what happened.
So, for the building to be collapsed in about 10 seconds, the lower floors would have to start moving BEFORE the upper floors could reach them by gravity alone. This would require something like a detonation sequence.
In the picture (above), notice that WTC 2 is less than half of its original height, yet has no debris that has fallen ahead of the demolition wave.
It should be obvious by now that only a controlled demolition could achieve this.
And, I haven't even gone into the massive energy requirements just to smash through each of those floors.
It gets worse.
Although more recently the consensus has generally been that it's took a slight longer time than free fall, say about 12-13 seconds for the main part of the buildings to collapse to the ground, and a further 13-14 seconds for the massive cores which came down later - BUT the seismic waves don't match.
Based on the Seismic Waves recorded at Palisades New York (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/fact_sheet.htm)
Collapse 1, South Tower 09:59:04±1 2.1 10 seconds
Collapse 2, North Tower 10:28:31±1 2.3 8 seconds
They're SHORTER than the collapse times - particularly for the North Tower where the duration is less than the free fall time. That's IMPOSSIBLE unless the seismic waves are NOT caused from the collapsed debris impacting the ground BUT by something else.
Physics which proves outright that the WTC towers were brought down by CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.
Anything else required to achieve this, was obviously done.
EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when STEEL-FRAMED tower buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition.
Can any of you cite a single exception to this?
09-19-2006, 05:04 AM
First two simple questions:
Q1: On September 11 2001, how many buildings collapsed in New York City?
A: Two? No, THREE. The Twin Towers were hit by aeroplanes, but WTC 7, a massive 47 storey steel-framed skyscraper also collapsed. It was NOT hit by a plane. The evidence is clear - this was a controlled demolition. http://wtc7.net/ http://911physics.co.nr/ (Click on WTC 7 link)
Q2: How long did it take the FBI to bring charges against Usama bin Laden in connection with 911? One hour, eight hours, a day, a week?
A: Usama bin Laden is NOT on the FBI most wanted list in connection with 911. Why not? According to FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4673 http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm (accessed 20 August 2006)
If you believe 911 was an inside job, YOU ARE NOT ALONE. Below are just a small selection amongst the millions of credible persons including engineers, scientists, intelligence analysts, actors, theologians, philosophers, authors, investigative journalists, lawyers, military personel, politicians, family members and eye-witnesses who believe the investigation into the events of September 11 2001 must urgently be reopened.
Seekin' that ol' 911 Truth August 2006
On July 29 and 30, and then again on August 1, something happened that increasing numbers of people believe is of great importance. On these dates C-SPAN rebroadcast a 911 panel discussion, held originally in late June, sponsored by an organization called the American Scholars’ Symposium to discuss what really happened on September 11, 2001. http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/c-span_firestorm_911_truth_gains_momentum.htm http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Series&Code=APS&ShowVidNum=10&
Held in Los Angeles, the meeting lasted two days, and the C-SPAN rebroadcast covered one almost two-hour wrap-up session. The meeting was attended by 1,200 people interested in hearing something other than the official story of 9/11. The TV audience was evidently large enough to spur C-SPAN to broadcast the panel discussion five separate times in four days.
Even a month late, this is a lot of airtime for stories that many people call conspiracy theories!
The seekers after 911 truth have been around for almost 5 years now, and they're NOT GOING AWAY - they're growing day by day!
In April Charlie Sheen made national news (CNN Showbiz Tonight 7pm) three nights in a row, with coverage continuing every day the following week. http://www.911blogger.com/2006/03/fourth-night-of-showbiz-tonights-sheen.html http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/280606juggernautoftruth.htm
What newsworthy event prompted such coverage? Mr. Sheen announced that he thinks the government has been covering up the truth about 9/11. Charlie thinks 9/11 was an inside job! http://9eleven.info/ http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060323162638376
Two of Sheen's fellow actors, Ed Asner and Ed Begley, Jr, agree with him. http://www.911blimp.net/videos/EdAsner-UnityIsTheKey.mov http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7140359934129245752&q=Ed+Begley+911
And so does movie director Aaron Russo. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2947267143366647266&hl=en
Maybe you don’t care what they think, they're just actors. Perhaps you want the opinion of scientists. Well, how about an expert like Steven E Jones, professor of physics at BYU? Professor Jones has found forensic evidence of thermate, an explosive, being used to cut through key support pillars in the WTC buildings. http://www.9eleven.info/911JonesPaperhtm7.htm http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=4688 http://www.question911.com/linkout.php?filename=Steven%20Jones%20Shows%20WTC% 20Demolition%20Evidence.wmv
Or perhaps MIT Engineer Jeff King who also believes the WTC were brought down by a controlled demolition. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248&pl=true http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=related&search_query=
What about a mathematician? Professor of mathematics, University of Western Ontario, and founder of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven (SPINE), A.K Dewdney. http://www.serendipity.li/wot/operation_pearl.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._K._Dewdney
Maybe they’re too theoretical for you. You want someone from the applied sciences. May I suggest Clemson mechanical engineering professor Judy Wood? http://www.911blogger.com/2006/03/mechanical-engineering-professor-from.html http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
Or how about Kevin Ryan, former department head at UL (Underwriter Laboratories), the company which certified the steel which went into the WTCs upon their construction, and inspected it after the WTC collapses in 2001. He found the official reports to be full of lies and contradictions. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451 http://www.snowshoefilms.com/
Maybe you don’t care for ’eggheads’. http://www.st911.org/ http://physics911.net/spine.htm http://911physics.co.nr/
You want to hear from true patriots, military men, like former head of Star Wars and air force colonel, Bob Bowman, who says the 'official story of 911 is a bunch of hogwash and impossible'. http://benfrank.net/blog/2005/10/27/oil_mafia_treason/ http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/030306Evidence.htm http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6900065571556128674 http://bowman2006.com/
Or USAF Col. (Ret) George Nelson, an authority on aircraft crash investigation. http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm
Or former chief Pentagon arms negotiator for the Middle East, USAF Col. (Ret) Don de Grand-Pre http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html
Or how about military men from other countries who are also skeptics of the 'official' story of 911? Here's a few:
Canadian National Defense Minister, the Honourable Paul Hellyer http://www.septembereleventh.org/kc/multimedia/movies/Hellyer.mov
National Minister of Defense (Germany). Also, served as Minister of Technology Andreas Von Bulow. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8274552561914055825
Former Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces, and chief of the department for General affairs in the Soviet Union 's ministry of Defense, General Leonid Ivashov http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NIM20060123&articleId=1788
Maybe military types scare you. How about a lady of letters like poet Erica Jong? http://www.etruscanpress.org/02_september_11_2001.html
Maybe you’re not into poetry. Prose is more your style. How about Webster Tarpley author of 9/11 Synthetic Terror made in USA? http://www.tarpley.net/welcome.html
Or authors Gore Vidal, Bill Douglas or Christopher Bollyn? http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13969.htm http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/EnemyWithin.html http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bollynbeaten.htm
Or if you prefer your message in song, what about putting some of the hard questions to music? Les Visible: 9/11 Was An Inside Job (music) http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=97737
Maybe you don’t trust actors, authors, musicians or poets. You want to hear from a man of God. How about David Ray Griffin theologian, professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology? http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
The respected Presbyterian Press has recently published his book Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11 https://www.ppcbooks.com/index1.asp
Not just into Christianity? What about MUJCA-NET, a group of scholars, religious leaders and activists dedicated to uniting members of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths in pursuit of 9/11 truth. http://mujca.com/
How about philosophers? What about distinguished McKnight professor of philosophy, Jim Fetzer. http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/BigLies23Apr2006.html
Or Dr. Jim Hoffman? http://911research.wtc7.net/
What could theologians and philosophers know about national security? You want to hear from insiders to the covert world. How about CIA analyst and former presidential adviser Ray McGovern, an expert on National Security who’s career spanned JFK to GHW Bush. http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2006/01/interview_with_ray_mcgovern.html
Or Bill Christison, a former senior official of the CIA. He was a National Intelligence Officer and the Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis before his retirement in 1979. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Christison14.htm
Or how about David Shayler, the MI5 Whistleblower? http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/270605insidejob.htm http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5403286136814574974
Or former cop Michael C. Ruppert? http://www.fromthewilderness.com/store/books.shtml#ruby
Or former 9/11 Commission Member and democrat senator, Max Cleland, who blasts Bush and claims "The White House Has Played Cover-Up". http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/23/1546256
Other members of the 9/11 Commission panel also believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on Sept. 11.
"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true." http://unsungwar.com/
Or what about Republican Thomas Kean and Democrat Lee Hamilton, the two chairmen of the official government 9/11 Commission Report? In their book, “Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission.” Kean and Hamilton reveal that the US military committed perjury and lied about its failure to intercept the hijacked airliners.
"It proved difficult, if not impossible, to raise hard questions about 9/11 in New York without it being perceived as criticism of the individual police and firefighters or of Mayor Giuliani," Kean and Hamilton said.
The commission even debated referring the military’s lies to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.
Why should we assume that these admissions are the only coverups and lies in the 9/11 Commission Report? http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?p=117589 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14531.htm
Or Cynthia McKinney, a five-term U.S. Congresswoman from Georgia's fourth district from 1993 to 2003, or Catherine Austin Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing under President George Bush Sr. and a former managing director and board member of Dillon, Read & Co. Inc. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041101130426916
Or Michael Meacher MP former UK Minister for the environment who says "The war on terror is bogus", or Andreas Von Bulow, former German Secretary Of Defense, who says "The official [9/11] story is so inadequate and far fetched that there must be a different one." http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11222.htm http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8274552561914055825
Or Sibel Edmonds, a 32-year-old Turkish-American, who was hired as a translator by the FBI shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 because of her knowledge of Middle Eastern languages. She was fired less than a year later in March 2002 for reporting shoddy work and security breaches to her supervisors that could have prevented those attacks. http://www.justacitizen.com/
Or Daniel Ellsburg, famous Vietnam 'Pentagon Papers' whistleblower and former American military analyst and Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (ISA), DOD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg http://www.911blogger.com/2006/07/daniel-ellsberg-comes-out-for-911.html
Or how about the FBI? Did you know that the reason Usama bin Laden isn't on their most wanted list in connection to 9/11 is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting him to the crimes? http://www.911blogger.com/2006/06/fbi-states-no-hard-evidence-connects.html
What about another country's government, such as the Venezuelan government under Hugo Chavez, supported by billionaire philanthropist Jimmy Walter and WTC survivor William Rodriguez, which is set to launch an international investigation into 9/11? http://www.iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/83785
Maybe they're all too far left for you! You want to hear from a Republican. How about Paul Craig Roberts assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan? http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28070 http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2006/02/post.html http://www.wanttoknow.info/050908insidejob911#roberts http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14531.htm
OK, he’s a Republican, but that was back in the Reagan days. So how about Ron Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas? http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul200.html http://www.house.gov/paul/ http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Ron_Paul
Maybe you need to hear from someone in GW’s administration. How about Morgan Reynolds professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and chief economist for the US Department of Labor during Bush’s first term? He believes the events of 9/11 were a staged event, orchestrated by people within the Bush government. http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html
Since the attacks of 911 were obviously a crime, maybe you want to hear from trained legal minds. People whose job it is to carefully investigate the details of a crime and reach a well considered conclusion.
Well, how about attorney Philip Berg? Berg, who has filed a lawsuit against the Bush admin on behalf of WTC survivor William Rodriguez says "They (Bush et al) made it happen or let it happen. And if they let it happen, then they made it happen. And they must be held responsible." http://www.911forthetruth.com/
Or attorney Stanley Hilton? http://www.suetheterrorists.net/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Hilton
Or Bill Veale, with 30 years of legal experience. After much research he has come to the conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 were in essence an inside job perpetrated at the highest levels of the U.S. government. http://www.vealetruth.com/?page_id=6
Maybe none of the above does it for you. You want to hear from "eye-witnesses" - people who were there on the scene on that fateful day. May I suggest you listen to the firefighters who were in the building at the time? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248&pl=true
What about first responder, NY Fireman Lou Cacchioli who says the 9/11 Commission twisted his words. "I finally walked out. They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn't let me do that, I walked out.
"It was a disgrace to everyone, the victims and the family members who lost loved ones. I don't agree with the 9/11 Commission. The whole experience was terrible", Fireman Lou says. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/200705twistedwords.htm
Or perhaps to news reporters who were on the scene who repeatedly described hearing "explosions"? http://tinyurl.com/bzg64 (you need to fast forward a little...) http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html
Or how about WTC survivor William Rodriguez, a janitor who worked at the WTC for about 19 years, and was decorated as a 911 hero by Bush. He testifies that he heard and felt explosions in the basement of the North Tower BEFORE the planes hit overhead. William asks: "How could a jetliner hit 90 floors above and burn a man's arms and face to a crisp in the basement below within seconds of impact?" It's a good question! http://williamrodriguezwtc.blogspot.com/ http://www.911forthetruth.com/
What about the families who lost loved ones on 911? http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html http://www.911truth.org/index.php?topic=endorsements
Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg, Patty Casazza and Monica Gabrielle of New Jersey lost their husbands Kenneth, Alan, Richard and John who all worked in the WTC. Sally Regenhard lost her firefighter son Christian, and Bob McIlvaine lost his son Bobby.
None of these people are satisfied with the official story of what happened on 9/11. Will you listen to their questions? http://www.911pressfortruth.com/families
Well, if you don't believe any of them, why not listen to the OWNER of the WTC, Larry Silverstein, who admits on Public Broadcast Television that explosives were used to demolish WTC building #7?!
Yes, Silverstein, who had conveniently insured these buildings (which had been ordered to be dismantled due to safety hazards) for billions of dollars just weeks before 911, said on public television:
"(The Fire Department) were not sure that they were gonna be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we´ve had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. They made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"
In the demolition industry, “pull” is the common term they use for demolishing buildings with carefully positioned explosives, an operation that can take seasoned professionals weeks to plan. http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/rosebud/wtc_7_archivel.htm http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html http://www.wtc7.net/ http://911physics.co.nr/ (Click on WTC 7 link)
So even the building owner admits that explosives were used to demolish at least one of the three WTC buildings!
And if planning to demolish WTC 7 had been carefully prepared for weeks, why not the other two?
Maybe you don’t want to listen to any of these individuals, but the fact is, a lot of Americans agree with them. Like the 83% of over 50,000 CNN Showbiz Tonight online poll respondents who think the government is covering up the truth of 9/11. http://www.911blogger.com/2006/03/fourth-night-of-showbiz-tonights-sheen.html
Or a Scripps Howard News Service/Ohio University poll taken from July 6 to 24, 2006, concluded that “more than a third [36 percent] of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them, so that the United States could go to war in the Middle East.” A poll done by the Zogby polling organization two months earlier, between May 12 and 16, 2006, concluded that 42 percent of Americans believed there had indeed been a cover-up of the true events of 9/11, and an additional 10 percent of Americans were “unsure.” http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Christison14.htm
Maybe you don’t care what the American people think?
Yes, we know some don't.
09-24-2006, 09:54 AM
You guys are doing a great servce in presenting a wonderfully comprehensive and irrefutable case for exposing the criminals who now have our country by the throat...kudos!
You're welcome, and I'll pass it on.
If you find anything interesting, let me know by Private Message.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.