123I was standing blocks from Building 7 of the World Trade Center complex and staring directly at it when it collapsed.

Working for the Los Angeles Times, I arrived that morning just in time to see an enormous cloud of dust and people running away. I had not yet known of the rapid and deadly descent of the South and North towers. That afternoon, I called in a series of reports to a staffer in the New York bureau.

I was literally on the phone with the office at 5:21 p.m., describing the fires burning in the structure as the building began—and completed— its remarkably fast, smooth descent to the ground. I described the building neatly pancaking, and the Pulitzer Prize winner on the other end taking my dictation declared: “That sounds like a controlled demolition.”

Controlled Demolition

Controlled Demolition

In fact, I have seen controlled demolitions before and since—and indeed, that was exactly what the destruction of Building 7 looked like, except perhaps for a marginally slower collapse of the top portion

As with most people, I was baffled by how Building 7—a smaller, 47-story tower that had not been hit by a plane and was separated from the Twin Towers by low-rise buildings–would come down at all. It just made no sense.

How exactly the building did come down has never been properly explained. An investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that the building was hit by debris from the collapsing North Tower that started fires. However, it ruled out diesel fuel, structural damage from the debris and structural elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs) as causes of the collapse. It said the lack of water to the sprinkler system was an important factor in allowing fires to rage all afternoon. But the panel declined to state how the fires could bring down the building—and in such a rapid manner.

Reasonable Doubts

For many years, those who have been troubled by things that did not make sense regarding the 9/11 attacks have been marginalized as kooks. To be sure, some entertain enormously elaborate, complex scenarios that assume unspeakable evil carried out by a bewildering number of individuals, nations, and institutions.

However, fair-minded people who have carefully studied the evidence are troubled by the “official story,” just as they are troubled by the official explanations of the assassinations of American leaders over half a century, and other traumas ranging from the Oklahoma City bombing to the Boston Marathon bombing.

There is a reason so many people don’t trust the security apparatus and its allies in government, academia and the media, or the reassuring stories they tell us time after time that “there’s nothing to see here, folks.”Or to allow even the most reasonable question into the public discourse.

That kind of question hasn’t been possible with the mystery of Building 7. Until now.

123A small group, NYC Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN), run and largely staffed by a young man named Ted Walter, has come up with a solution: Get the public to legislate a formal inquiry into building collapses.

Noting that no high-rise building has ever collapsed as a result of fire, and seizing on the official position that the destruction of Building 7 cannot be definitively explained, Walter’s group has proposed that the city explore all building collapses since and including 9/11. The proposed inquiry pointedly excludes Buildings 1 and 2, the collapses of which have been much investigated and debated. It does not explicitly mention Building 7—but then it does not have to. Building 7 is unique in that it was not hit by a plane. Any serious investigation of building collapses would start with Building 7.

The mechanism for this is to seek to have New Yorkers vote on a ballot measure, the High-Rise Safety Initiative. Its supporters face a tough challenge ahead, and have already hit some formidable road blocks. Still they persevere.

Not Your Run-of-the-Mill “Kooks”

Ted Walter does not fit the caricature of the unshaven, grumpy, shouting activist. He’s a calm, thoughtful, precise fellow. He grew up in Wisconsin and Mozambique, where his father was an official of a private aid group, got a BA at New York University and a Masters in Public Policy at UC Berkeley, and then worked for San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors.

He’d arrived in New York from Mozambique at age 19 to attend college two weeks before the attacks. “9/11 was essentially my introduction to New York,” he says.

The first thing that struck him was to wonder why, so long after the first planes hit the World Trade Center, another plane was unimpeded in hitting the Pentagon. Where were the U.S.’s vaunted defenses?

He also found it odd that a building collapse would involve entire structures virtually vaporizing in the air.

It was not until the spring of 2006 that Walter began determinedly researching the events. “During the course of a couple months of reading everything I could find, I came to the conclusion that the official account of 9/11 was false,” he says.

In 2008, others launched something called the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative. Walter volunteered as a petitioner, then managed paid canvassers. The next year, he founded a group, NYC CAN, along with some family members of 9/11 victims, and assumed control of the ballot initiative. Although they submitted 80,000 signatures, more than the required number, the city successfully challenged the initiative in court and kept it off the ballot.

This was hardly surprising. In certain parts of the country, especially in many Western states and municipalities, major policy is often legislated directly at the polls. Not so in New York City, which has long made it virtually impossible to qualify such a measure for the ballot. In fact, New York City voters have only seen two of them in half a century.

123Nonetheless, in the spring of 2013, Walter and his group talked with a top New York City election attorney, decided there might be a chance at prevailing despite the long odds, and began moving forward with another attempt. It became the High-Rise Safety Initiative.

Between May 1 and July 31, they gathered more than 100,000 signatures, far more than the 30,000 required to gain a place on the ballot. They submitted the first 67,000 of those on July 3, and plan to submit the remaining 33,000 on Sept. 4, which is more than double what’s required to override the City Council.

As anticipated, the City challenged the petition—claiming that not enough signatures are valid, and that the petition language is not legally valid. Walter and company filed suit against the City to have that determination annulled, and were due to go into court on Aug. 14.

The group believes that it has overcome the usual issue of invalid signatures by filing so many—and because even in its 2009 effort, it was able to prove that enough signatures did pass muster. Now, it must pass the arcane statutory hurdles the city created exactly to prevent such measures. Walter thinks they have a chance.

The case should be decided by mid-September. If the initiative is successful, it will be on the November ballot.  

Officials Mortified

The mayor, a liberal named Bill DeBlasio, has not had kind things to say about the effort—presumably not unlike what his predecessors, Michael Bloomberg and Rudy Giuliani, might have had to say. As reported by Crain’s New York Business:

“From what I’ve heard it’s absolutely ridiculous,” a peeved Mr. de Blasio said in response to a reporter’s question. “And it’s inappropriate, after all the suffering that went on 9/11 and since. It seems to be this is a very insensitive and inappropriate action.”

Crain’s itself couldn’t help referring to the group as “conspiracy theorists,” an unfortunate term that instantly assumes no credibility to those asking what may in fact be legitimate—if uncomfortable—questions.

The speaker of the New York City Council, Melissa Mark-Viverito, a close ally of the mayor, lashed out: “Instead of wasting New Yorkers’ time and hard-earned taxpayer dollars humoring conspiracy theorists with wild fantasies, the City Council will continue to focus on passing sound legislation.”

A Skilled Communicator

Walter is very much a creature of the Internet Age. On the heels of Mark-Viverito’s statement, he was quick to put out an “Action Alert” email to his supporters:

Now we and the High-Rise Safety Initiative are calling on you to tell Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito that there are no wild fantasies here. The only wild fantasy is the one she chooses to believe—namely, that a 47-story skyscraper collapsed symmetrically, at free-fall acceleration, from small isolated fires.

Please take five minutes today to email the Speaker’s office with this message: The only “wild fantasy” is a skyscraper collapsing from fire. Explain to the Speaker and her staff why a 47-story steel-frame skyscraper cannot collapse from fire, and ask them to watch the 15-minute video Solving the Mystery of WTC 7, which features more than a dozen experts, who harbor not wild fantasies, but irrefutable scientific evidence.

If Walter and his group succeed in forcing a serious inquiry into the building collapse, they will have achieved what almost no one else in the 9/11 movement has: transforming a chaotic debate infused with powerful emotions and anger into a sober, methodical exploration of one portion of this sprawling, dark saga.

Photo Credits:

THUMBNAIL

IMPLOSIONS

WTC 7 TIME-DELAY

TOWERS BEFORE 9/11

[box] WhoWhatWhy plans to continue doing this kind of groundbreaking original reporting. You can count on us. Can we count on you? What we do is only possible with your support.

Please click here to donate; it’s tax deductible. And it packs a punch.[/box]

Author

  • Russ Baker is Editor-in-Chief of WhoWhatWhy. He is an award-winning investigative journalist who specializes in exploring power dynamics behind major events.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
521 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rob

These politicians are no different than any of the others in how they handle any objections to the official account. They always smear the objectors with the usual labels and then use an emotional appeal to the people who suffered loss that day. Of course they always tap dance around any of the family members who also object to the official story, of which there are many.
The somewhat veiled concern that they all share however is the implications of re investigating any aspect of 9/11. In this case, if WTC 7 was in fact brought down with explosives, then what about the other 2 towers? This is why they will fight this tooth and nail.

VickyNulandNFriends

Everyone knows 911 is a fraud so what’s the point. Let’s worry about their next scheme.

Tom Pain

The point is that just MAYBE some of the perpetrators of this crime might be exposed and get prosecuted for their criminal involvement. THAT could help derail any further schemes.

Bob Conway

It’s refreshing to see an article about WTC-7 with no mention of “squibs” anywhere in it. Clever to make this ballot measure about an investigation of all building collapses since those of WTC-1 and WTC-2, so as not to focus on anybody’s pet theories about 911.

I’m not a so-called “911 Truther” nor a conspiracy theory buff in general, but I’m all *FOR* the scientific investigation of mysteries. No questions that are answerable, about 911 or any other mystery that has touched the lives of so many, should be left unanswered.

Math & Physics

Aluminum in free space can not penetrate a larger piece of structural steel at subsonic speed (STP@SL)

As long as they can keep the public from realizing the LAWS OF PHYSICS, they win. Everything else is subjective, and they will do their best to keep it subjective.
Look at the Empire St bld impact, that was granite, which has negligible tensile strength. Structural steel has the highest tensile strengths of building material, hence suspension bridges.

Bob Conway

Aluminum can easily penetrate the spaces BETWEEN the structural steel elements of a building like that.

When you throw a potato at a steel grid at 200 mph, some of the potato will be stopped by the steel of the grid, but most of it will go through.

You also are likely to bend the grid wires somewhat, especially if it’s a large potato or a whole sack full of them. If you’re using that grid to support a table, the support may no longer be as stable as it had been before being pelted by your wimpy little potato canon.

Laws of physics.

Paul Lake

A better analogy would be pushing a piece of cheddar against a grater. The columns of the buildings’ core were massive, the flanges were almost 5 inches thick and the webs were over 3 inches thick. The sheet metal of the aircraft would be shredded with negligible damage to the columns. And don’t forget, the buildings were designed to resist a direct hit by the biggest commercial aircraft of the day. The total kinetic energy of the impact would be accommodated in the design by elastic displacement, that is, like a baseball hitting a flagpole, the structure would sway and then return to position. To the extent that pieces of the shredded aircraft would pass between the steel columns, the kinetic energy of these (slowed down) pieces would not contribute to the deflection of the building.

Math & Physics

“BETWEEN”, are you saying it all magically only went through the windows, which comprise about 25% of the facade area? Then how did the columns get pushed out of the way? Shear mod alum 25Gpa, steel 70Gpa.
I suppose these airliners passed through structural steel like Muhammad ascended through the dome of the rock. Allah must be the more powerful god to overcome the laws of physics. Maybe the religious types should convert to Islam and learn to speak Farsi.

Time to salt the hayseeds.

Albury Smith

A B-25 at that speed has 1/60 or less KE than a ~140-ton 767 at ~440 or 540 mph. ~200 gallons of fuel does not equal ~9500 gallons of fuel. Conventional (ESB) framing is not 1/4″-walled 14″ square tubular columns and extremely lightweight bar joists spanning more than twice as far.
Your ESB analogy is nfg, Mr. “Math & Physics.”

Math & Physics

A 767 will never travel 400+ mph at sea level, too much drag and the frame would never handle it nor could the engines create enough power.

“Conventional (ESB) framing is not 1/4″-walled 14″ square tubular columns
and extremely lightweight bar joists spanning more than twice as far.”
Neither was the WTC, you are using innuendo to make a false claim. Even the local farmer’s market open air shelters are 3/8″ I-beams, never seen a vertical support column less than 3/8″. Your statement is nothing more than an attempt to create a myth that the HOAX is possible. If what you are saying had any validity, YOU COULD PROVE ME WRONG BY SIMPLE EXAMPLE. But we both know breaking the LAWS OF PHYSICS will never happen.

Albury Smith

Explain to the Boeing Company exactly how fast Boeing 767s CAN go at sea level, not how safely they can do it. Tell Leslie E. Robertson, SE of record for both WTC towers, what the wall thickness of the perimeter columns “really” was on the upper levels where the airliners hit. Look up 3/8″ I-beams and tell me what the dimensions of one are.
You’re priceless.

JosephConrad

EXCELLENT! Is as there too when Bldg 7 was demolished to cover up a host of US and US corporate criminal acts by burying documented evidence in the rubble then hiding what was found during the cleanup. Americans has let the WHITE WALL STREET WEALTHY STEAL, LOOT & PLUNDER THIS ONCE GREAT NATION!

Diaz's cashed bowl

This is a sham. Read the initiative. Its a trick to legitimize the faulty NIST conclusion regarding the wtc7 collapse, and to ignore wtc 1,2.
It clearly states that wtc 1,2 will be excluded from any investigation now or in the future.
Only wtc 7 and any other new collapses will be investigated.
Oh I guess everyone agrees with what rudy G, the Harley shirt guy and jerome H said ON 911… that the buildings collapsed because the fire was just too hot.
This is perfect way to cover it up by preventing an investigation into wtc 1,2.
While supporting and allowing NIST to finish their inaccurate report on WTC7.

David Alspaugh

Gee, only “conspiracy theorists”, per Crains and Melissa Mark-Viverito. George W. Bush topped them in a 1994 response: “all a giant conspiracy theory” (Russ Baker’s Family of Secrets,pp. 354-356).

Winston Smith

NIST made several serious errors with their theory of how WTC7 collapsed.

1. Four hour fires feeding off of 30 minutes worth of fuel. (had to so the beams could reach 600C)
2. No shear studs on the A2001 girder in a composite floor system that put multiple studs on every other element. (had to so the A2001 could walk)
3. A2001 walks off the 13th floor seated connection due to 5.5″ expansion of beams framing into it from the east. (5.5″ happens to be the maximum expansion for the 53 foot long beams and the exact distance to move across the wrong size seat) (they later admitted they had the wrong seat width, increased their girder travel to 6.25″, but didn’t explain where the required expansion came from)
4. Purposely omitted girder A2001 stiffeners at the column 79 seat. (Oh my!!)
5. Purposely omitted three lateral support beams from the 13th floor G3005 beam. (Oh my, my, my, my my!!)

Read more about this here: http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/

Dan Bland

What? Albury Smith hasn’t commented here yet? There needs to be a real 9/11 investigation. I’m a 63 yr old American veteran who has been study 9/11 for over 5 years. It’s all one big lie with countless problems.

Brainster

The Truthers don’t really care about WTC-7, nor should they or any thinking person. In the context of what happened on 9-11 it’s trivia. Fact: Nobody died in the collapse of WTC-7, because the firefighters had cleared a collapse zone around the building hours before when they realized that it was quite likely to collapse.

No, the Truthers only pretend to care about WTC-7 because they see it as the thin end of the wedge. If they can somehow prove that the building did not collapse from structural damage and fire but from controlled demolition, then they hope to move on to getting people to believe in controlled demolition for WTC 1&2 as well.

rapedexploited

No one died, eh? You apparently aren’t aware of Barry Jennings’ testimony. And yes, #7 is the gateway to 1 & 2.

Matt Prather

I did a sober, methodical exploration of the inside job which must have accounted for the obvious controlled demolitions.

I collected the most undeniable facts here:
https://sites.google.com/site/themattprather/911

Maybe one or more facts there will help someone come to a clearer understanding or concretization of their own considered opinions.

Then again, this whole subject area is about the #1 reason I have no hope for anything anymore. People overwhelmingly believe first and reason second. Exceptions to this “overwhelming” fact, many as they are, can be said to prove that the general rule is true.

I have such respect for Russ Baker after reading his forensic work, and experience more frustration after seeing people ignore his work as they ignore my 9/11 work.

In the end, I decided that “money” is a more fundamental source of our inabilities to develop answers to the many problems we are aware of, more fundamental than what people tend to think of when they think of what the fundamental problems are.

And then, there are even more fundamental problems than “money”.

Good bye.

Brainster

Well, Matt, I just read your five minute explanation, and have to comment on this point:

“It is the fact that the steel infrastructure so
thoroughly and rapidly gave way, allowing the buildings to collapse into their own footprints, leaving no core columns standing that is my five-minute explanation for why 9/11 was obviously an inside job.”

But in fact the core columns did remain standing briefly after the outer superstructure had collapsed–as many as 40-50 stories high. This is known as “the spire,” and can be vividly seen in the movie 9-11 Eyewitness, for example. They didn’t remain standing for long; they toppled over with nothing to support them laterally.

Matt Prather

I think I can see what you’re talking about here:
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/spire.html

Likewise the bottom-right picture in this:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/site1103.jpg

I’ll stand by my statement though: so very thoroughly and rapidly did things give way, that this one peculiar thing we now call “the spire” was all that was left before it too crumbled.

(It might seem wrong to say “well the exception to my statement is an example of how true my statement is!” but, well, in the scope and proportion of things in this case, I maintain my statement as you quoted it: the core columns did so thoroughly and rapidly give way that it had to be a demolition job. This exceptional “spire” is no contradiction to that.)

I can’t explain all aspects of the demolition, but I can say that the hijack crash damage was far too limited to explain the rest of the destruction that took place, with rapid onset.

I remember seeing that “spire” before in my studies, some years ago; I think it was presented as part of a larger theory that underground nukes had to have been used for the demolition. Something like that. I considered it inconclusive and didn’t think about it again. I waded through a lot of poorly-formed theories and reporting during the time I was studying this. I only kept the good stuff in my own report. But that’s besides the point of this paragraph, which to say that I have seen the spire before, and one thing I never thought was that it contradicted controlled demolition. It doesn’t.

I thank you for a reply which was not of a bitter, biting, your-side-of-the-argument-is-stupid-my-side-is-intelligent characterization. Though I be still unmoved from my belief, and you may (or, may not?) be moved from skepticism about my belief, at least our thread of discussion can be an example of civil exchange, in contrast with much of the rest of the 9/11 debate on the internet.

Brainster

Here’s my problem. You originally state that the fact that the core columns didn’t remain standing was the evidence that supports the argument that it was controlled demolition. Faced with the fact that the core columns did remain standing you do not change your conclusion. This is the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a detective. A detective starts with the evidence and works with it to reach hypotheses which he can test in order to find conclusions. If a piece of evidence turns out to be incorrect, the detective will have to reach new hypotheses, which may lead to different conclusions. A conspiracy theorist, on the other hand, starts with a conclusion and sifts backwards through the evidence looking for something to support that conclusion. Thus, even if the evidence (core columns did not remain standing) turns out to be incorrect, the conclusion does not change. Or, as Jonathan Swift once observed, you cannot reason a man out of an opinion that he was not reasoned into in the first place.

Matt Prather

You’re short-changing me. And it’s clear you did some pseudo-detective, pseudo-logical reasoning yourself, taking no more time to follow my report than it took you to find one thing which you (fallaciously) concluded undid my conclusions.

Not only did you quit in error after reaching the conclusion you wanted, you surely decided to quit reading my report, yes?

Re-read the quote you started with. I didn’t say “because 100% of the mass of the core columns went straight down… [therefore this consequent statment follows]”.

So when you say “Look at this spire thing! That means not 100% was gone! That undoes your point!” you are actually wrong yourself there.

The “spire” is clearly <1% of the mass of the steel substructure, and it a piece from just one of the two towers (the other one had nothing standing), and the "spire" itself fell down in a very short measure of time. So this doesn't at all contradict what I said, and I think if you had given me just a little more credit than you did, you wouldn't have made this mistake so easily.

If someone 100 years from now talks about how thoroughly and rapidly the polar ice-caps dissolved, and you say "you're no detective because look! <1% of the original mass is standing!" you would be in error there too.

I could rephrase myself on my website to avoid making a (slightly) erroneous statement to help people like you not quit reading when you think you find one thing wrong, but my point is true as it was written, so no revision is necessary. The problem is between your ears, not in the analysis, summary, or body of what I reported.

I'm not the sort conspiracy theorist you want to believe I am, and I'm very sorry you did so little thinking outside of your own box. Take your Jonathan Swift quote to heart, please.

Peanutcat

Ah, a 911 truther, eh? Could at least one of you nuts tell the rest of us why anyone would set this up like that?

bunnyswanson

It’s called a Quiet Coup – Silent Coup for a reason. Everyone knows it but you. Do you feel like a freak? (You should, you know)

Peanutcat

Why should I feel like a freak? Because I’m not a conspiracy nut?

Jonathan Mailer

No, but you are still a nut even if a peanut isn’t really a not but a legume.

Peanutcat

But you don’t dispute the “cat” part . . . . .

Matt Prather

I’ve had back-and-forth Disqus dicussions before with people who go “troothers = nuts = ridiculous = obviously”. I tried hard to state things plainly. It wasn’t my fault, but we made no headway.

As I said elsewhere in this thread post, I refined my presentation of the facts here:
https://sites.google.com/site/themattprather/911

In the end, I have found it better to just say “I’ve laid my case out, here it is,” than to go back-and-forth in a thread. So many people don’t listen.

If you take the time to consider things there, maybe I can convince you it’s not nuts. Seriously.

People would set us up like this for more authoritarian power, and to create an enemy, the hatred for which could unite a squabbling, fractious, partisan population of Americans towards the actions the authoritarians want: TSA homeland authority, war of conquest abroad. Et cetera. Et cetera.

Of course, I have no hope of convincing you of these things. And maybe you really don’t want to be convinced. Maybe you either want to spread troll venom for amusement, or to make people look bad by filling up a thread with anger and fallacious attempts at rebuttal, or maybe you can’t believe that such an inside job could possibly be true, because that would be too psychologically unpleasant.

This point about filling up the thread with fallacious attempts at rebuttal is an interesting one. As long as you focus on people who make false conclusions and fallacious arguments about the inside job, you can more or less feel like you can dismiss everything everyone says when they say “inside job”.

But it’s quite a different thing to rebut the worst custodians of an argument than to rebut the argument. Imagine if someone convinced themselves the world had to be flat because they habitually rebutted the most illiterate “round-earth truthers”.

Claire Calvey

Peanutcat, I am a so-called ‘truther’ but actually I have sympathy for your question – it’s one which has crossed my mind too. Chomsky asks the same question – why not have 19 Iraqi terrorists if the intention was to go into Iraq? It seems a terribly convoluted plot, much of which is so blindingly obvious and blundering you’d wonder how more people haven’t questioned it. I’m pretty sure if you gave me a couple of hours, a pen, paper and a bottle of whisky I’d come up with a far more convincing one. I can only conclude that the murderers who hatched this plot were relying on people’s stupidity and gullibility, as Adolf Hitler said, ‘If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.’

Saying all that, a quick glance at the evidence will convince you that this is indeed an inside job.

Peanutcat

Oh yeah, the old “they didn’t think we’d be smart enough to notice” excuse!

disqus_3BrONUAJno

Set what up like how?

Peanutcat

Like why make it look like a controlled explosion? If you’re trying to hide what you’re doing, wouldn’t you have the brains to make it look accidental?

disqus_3BrONUAJno

The tangled mess that would result in an “accidental” collapse would have required additional work to fit the pieces onto flatbed trucks to be hauled to the waiting ships in the harbor, in addition to having to be removed from the street and adjacent buildings.

ICFubar

As much as the truth needs airing I will be surprised if this initiative makes it to the ballot, especially as the requirements are so easily changed, re-interpreted, to just down right leaving it off. I give this try about the same odds as seeing G.W.or Obama on trial at the Hague for crimes against humanity. But best of luck to all those involved on the ground there.

SeenItAllBefore

It will follow the usual M.O. at every step to whatever extent it progresses: It will be prevented from ever reaching the ballot. If it somehow prevails, it will be distorted by the opposition in the weeks leading up to the election so that voters will actually vote against it, believing they are voting FOR it, defeating it. If it overcomes this manipulation, the Board or Panel convened to do the “investigating” will be stacked (ala Alan Dulles, whom Kennedy fired, being placed on the Warren Commission) and will dutifully render the “correct” conclusions, i.e., building 7 caught on fire and fell, all at once, to the ground. After all that it will be even more “official” causing anyone who was on the fence to accept it as investigated-therefore-proved fact. All we who know better will just give up and go away.

bunnyswanson

Everyone knows 911 was an inside job. But it has been unfashionable to “Say it.” let’s end this nightmare and send the murderous traitors where they belong.

Peanutcat

Who would that be? If everyone knows, then who’s responsible? Who should be charged and arrested?

Matt Prather

Well, I like the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. They can say for sure that there was controlled demolition occurring, quite apart from the plane hijack damage. This point itself merely establishes that “something other than” the official story is true.

They then keep things at that point, not making erroneous conclusions outside of the most undeniable facts. They say “we don’t know who is behind this, and we would like to have a better investigation”. That’s quite reasonable.

Alternatively, there is this punchy site, based on a book, with a lot of further investigation and some potential people to be charged and arrested

http://Another19.com

beijingyankee
Jason

At this point we need to establish the “What” , not the “Who”. How can you arrest the criminal without a homicide being declared first? We need everyone on the same page here.

yomomma

For the love of GOD, why does no one ever mention WTC 6? It blew up from 8 stories underground without ever being hit and as much as 1 TRILLION dollars in Kuwaiti gold was in the basement. Where is the gold? How did the building spontaneously and simultaneously just EXPLODE with the North Tower when it was hit by the plane?

Rob Denne

good point, no one mentions WTC 6, an even more bizarre scenario…..wonder what NIST has to say about this?

Beef Cake

NIST is in on it.

sk1951

Your diagram does not account for all the windows being blown out on the right side in a straight line from bottom to top. Obvious demo but that stands out as a blazing red light.

blackwidow

I read Family of Secrets and loved it. Thank you for covering 9-11.
Finally more mainstream journalists are showing the courage to cover this issue in a respectable way. A that treats peoples honest questions with consideration. 9/11 truth is the answer to the chaos around the world today. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

Cathleen McGuire

Thank you so much for posting this story, Russ. You stand as a lone beacon in a sea of media sheep.

Beef Cake

Either the coward American people take back their country right now or forever hold your peace.

tosman

“NISTdeclined to state how the fires could bring down the building—and in such a rapid manner.”

NIST did admit that WTC fell @ freefall after David Chandler pointed out this error in their initial report in a humorous way:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkp-4sm5Ypc&list=PL206C1F5EDFC83824

“why a 47-story steel-frame skyscraper cannot collapse from fire, and watch the 15-minute video ‘Solving the Mystery of WTC 7’ ”

I see that some videos and documentaries are getting some traction – PBS showed a documentary last year and Ed Asner talked about ‘Solving the Mystery of WTC 7’ on CBS Sunday Morning.

Clips of Chandler and Jonathan Cole are seen on Ed Asner’s video. Cole’s videos ( http://911speakout.org/?page_id=10 ) describe the physics entertaining way ( in the back yard! ) while embarrassing institutions like the BBC,National Geographic, NIST and Myth Busters.

“For many years, those who have been troubled by things that did not make sense , have been marginalized….A Skilled Communicator,Walter is a creature of the Internet Age.”

Also a a creature of the Internet and a skilled communicator, Corbett gives you Everything you ever wanted to know about the 9/11 conspiracy theory in under 5 minutes:
http://www.corbettreport.com/911-a-conspiracy-theory/

Albury Smith

Corbett’s a master of the Gish Gallop and a serial liar, and Chandler’s ludicrous attempts to divine the causes of building collapses by timing them are totally ignored by the ASCE, SEI, ASCE, SEAoNY, etc.
We all should be asking Richard Gage* and his “experts” to show us on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7’s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY
http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png
If they ever HAD TO do it, this “debate” would be OVER.
*Gage’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

Diaz's cashed bowl

because I know a lot of you wont even bother to read it…
from the initiative…

“If approved by voters, it will require the NYC Department of Buildings
to investigate high-rise building collapses in NYC that occurred on, or
any time after, September 11, 2001. Its provisions exclude the collapse
of the World Trade Center Twin Towers, but apply to the collapse of
World Trade Center 7 and any high-rise collapse that may occur in the
future.”

In case you missed it…

“Its provisions exclude the collapse
of the World Trade Center Twin Towers”

Why?
Because a man wearing a harley shirt already determined ON 911 that the buildings collapsed because the fire was so hot. And anyone who doesn’t believe an actor on the street playing the part of an average harley shirt wearing red blooded american, is just not american are they?
No need for any real intelligent non partisan people to look into that…
And everyone knows that those 2 buildings collapsed from a terrorist attack, thats what the insurance company said when they paid out $7,000,000,000 to the Lease holder.

Albury Smith

So the “Harley Guy” was the only one who sensibly concluded that the WTC tower collapses were fire-induced? The total payout to Silverstein Properties was ~$4.68 billion, and covered ~1/2 of the losses they suffered on 9/11, factoring in mandatory rebuildings and loss of tenants and cash flow for more than a decade.
Here are some of the VERY intelligent and non-partisan people who actually investigated all 3 WTC hi-rise collapses:
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/team_members.cfm
Their teams were ~2/3 CIVILIAN.

PunchDrunkLove

I flirted with 9/11 truth back in 2006-08 but the further you go with the theory the less it holds together, by the time you’re done you have to believe in some pretty incredible things to fit it in with the inside job theory, IE you have to believe that hundreds, possibly thousands, of people were involved in the plot and not one of them blew the whistle or exposed it, I know someone is going to use the Manhattan project to counter this, but there is a distinction, the people involved in the MP thought they were doing something that benefitted the country.

Also you then find yourself having to believe the phone calls from the plane were faked, you get to a point and think “i’m just making stuff up to fit my conclusion and confirm my bias” (ironically this is what the official story tellers and truthers both have in common!).

For these reasons alone I don’t believe 9/11 was a TOTAL inside job, that theory is preposterous, logistically it would be impossible to carry out without being busted, however I still don’t buy the official story as told by the 9/11 commission (even the people who wrote the damn thing don’t!).

Some Guy

Impossible… Like the sinking of the Lusitania, or the Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution, or the War in Iraq, or Syrian Government using chemical weapons. Yeah… there is no way a whole lot of people could believe that doing harm to their country could lie and believe that killing innocents would help the country.

PunchDrunkLove

Here comes the sarcasm and non sequiturs, what next “go and do some research” ?

a total inside job including the wiring of the buildings, the remote flying of airplanes, the faking phones calls and so on and so on would require massive teams of people.

and then you have to explain why the hell they’d use saudis as the
patsies! the US government goes to great lengths to stop any criticism
of saudi arabia, why would they frame up saudis for the attack ? why not
enemy number 1 saddam ? (who they had to lie about having ties to 9/11)

Just because they’ve lied about other stuff doesn’t mean they carried out 9/11! i know they’ve lied lots of times, and they’re lying about 9/11! (mostly lying by omission) we just disagree about what they’re lying about.

There’s your version of 9/11, there’s their version of 9/11 and then there’s the truth! the truthers and official story tellers both peddle the same BS!.

notalent

This seems like the kind of posting that just kills any reasonable discussion. I’m not sure if that was your point.

Ian Harbison

The two countries who seemed to benefit the most from 9/11 were Saudi Arabia and Israel. They benefit from the increased US support and protection as “allies” in Middle Eastern policy.

Albury Smith

If any country benefited at all from the 9/11/01 al Qaeda suicide attacks on the US, it was Afghanistan. Mullah Omar and his Taliban thugs weren’t beloved by all of the citizenry, and more than a trillion dollars in nation-building was well-received by most of them.
The problems will start when the evil US pulls out and peace-loving and tolerant ISIL moves in.

Truman

I don’t disagree with your last statement. But it also applies to the points you make above it which are also total speculation. So it all comes back to the central premise: why not relentlessly investigate everything until we do know the complete unfettered truth? Its a simple concept. Seems suspicious when the so called ‘crazies’ want that but those claiming the rational high ground don’t. Its disingenuous to point to the most ridiculous theories as justification for not investigating the yet unanswered questions. “My” version is that we don’t have all the facts but want them. Is this really so kooky? Video footage exists that would answer every outstanding question. Why has it been so deeply suppressed when if it would fully collaborate the official story without dignifying any other kooky theories?

bert

your supposition is false. you have no idea how false flag conspiracies work, none!!

lieswon'tend

You said it best “Go and do some research” so now go and do it….
Its a scientific fact that thermite was used to bring down the buildings, it was in every dust that covered the downtown NY area, samples collected that very day. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about like the majority of Americans when it comes to 9/11. The government and main stream media paints people who don’t buy the official 9/11 fairy tale out to be crazy, nut job, whack jobs and they’ve done a damn good job of it. Its time you did your research and wake up. My best guess is you like the greater majority of America suffers from cognitive dissonance.

lieswon'tend

Man my hangover grammar is on the struggle bus today.

Some Guy

I mean… I never claimed to know what actually happened. There is little in the realm of trust within the government and it has a track record of lying and keeping things from the populace.

There is nothing either group could produce (save government documents showing complicity) that could convince either group of their oppositions position.

All that I believe is that there should have been a more thorough investigation… and that however the totality of 9/11 was executed… It is impossible to believe that the government knew nothing. Especially given that they had documentation of such an impending attack prior to 9/11.

I don’t know if people wired the building…. or if Saudi’s were complicit or framed… I don’t know if it was a foreign attack allowed to happen (the most likely if I had to guess) or if Aliens directed the whole thing.

My personal position is that I am skeptical of the line of thinking that purports that the government knew nothing and had no hand whatsoever. That in the scheme of history is unbelievable.

PunchDrunkLove

and non of those examples required the USG to actually directly kill huge numbers of their own population inside the USoA, they just required lies and manipulation through propaganda.

the iraq war would have happened without 9/11, it certainly helped to sell it, but they would have found another way to justify it.

at some level there may have been a blind eye turned to the imping attack, they MAY have thought that a terror attack wouldn’t be the worst thing to push their agenda, but even that theory have flaws, IE donald rumsfeld, who every truther agrees would have been in on the plot, was actually at the pentagon on 9/11, would he really go into work knowing a plane was going to hit the building at some point ? i doubt it.

Maynard

“the iraq war would have happened without 9/11” Perhaps, but would the PATRIOT ACT have come about without it and the subsequent abuses of domestic government power in the so-called war on terror?

disqus_3BrONUAJno

The Patriot Act was gathering dust on a shelf before it was passed.

lieswon'tend

Try looking up “Operation Northwoods”…. JFK didn’t allow this false flag to happen when is entire supporting staff was clamoring for it. Ultimately lead to his assassination a little while later by the CIA and shadow government that actually rules this country.

Albury Smith

How many thousands of people in the US would’ve been murdered if the rejected Northwoods operation had been implemented by the evil US gubmint?
Why were LHO’s fingerprints on the murder weapon found exactly where he worked? Was the photo of him with the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in his hands photoshopped in 1963? Was his receipt for it faked? Why did the “real” perps let him run around in Dallas right after the killing instead of offing him so he wouldn’t spill the beans on them?

russbaker

Mr. Smith, we don’t know what to make of your opinions re Building 7. But your remarks about Oswald betray almost total ignorance of well established facts from testimony, books, etc. It is impossible even to begin to address such ignorance, starting with your lack of familiarity on the fingerprint issue. Please do your homework. Otherwise we may decline to give you a platform to post so very many comments here.

Albury Smith

Did we notice that my alleged “almost total ignorance of well established facts from testimony, books, etc. [on LHO’s assassination of JFK]” was in the form of 4 questions that we didn’t bother to answer? I don’t know what to make of your opinion on WTC 7’s ~5:21 PM solely fire-induced collapse either, nor do I understand why we would silence someone for posting facts and evidence supportive of the NIST findings, but it happens frequently on “forums” run by the 9/11 “truth movement.”
Why is that?

russbaker

Since you are so active in expressing yourself, “we” wonder if you would be willing to identify yourself in some meaningful way, and since you know who “we” are. What is your real name? What is your profession? How did you come to be involved with these issues? Are you retired? What is your expertise? How are you able to post such a large number of detailed comments if you have some other employment? Please answer these questions seriously. It’s a prerequisite for your being permitted to post so extensively here. If you choose instead to just post more sarcastic comments, we reserve the right to push the “delete” button. Thanks for your cooperation.

Albury Smith

We certainly are eager to suppress honest discussion, now aren’t we? ~45 years in commercial construction management and supervision, including a lot of field engineering. I’ve worked on a number of steel-framed buildings including some hi-rises.
Do you ever wonder why Richard Gage has never presented his ludicrous dog-and-pony show in front of the Local 40 & 361 ironworkers who erected the WTC buildings and worked on the debris steel removal? I don’t. He wouldn’t go near their meetings, or an SEAoNY conference either. His own(?) AIA wants nothing to do with him, nor does the RIBA:
http://www.architectmagazine.com/architecture/architects-shy-from-truther-conspiracy-theory.aspx
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/11-talk/5020382.article
Why is that, Russ, or have you read enough facts and reason now to ban me and remove my comments?

Matt Prather

IE donald rumsfeld, who every truther agrees would have been in on the
plot, was actually at the pentagon on 9/11, would he really go into work
knowing a plane was going to hit the building at some point ? i doubt
it.

Well, I wish I had better evidence to actually sustain a belief that someone (anyone!) was definitely or probably in on it behind the scenes of the official story, but I just have to say that if Rumsfeld had inside knowledge (and, beside the point: desired that the attacks would happen), then he would also know where to be in the Pentagon to certainly avoid any danger. In fact, his position made him one of the safest people in the building: he was on the dead-opposite side of the impact, 1000 feet away from it, separated by almost as much concrete as possible.

Albury Smith

How would anyone inside the Pentagon have known where Hanjour was going to decide to hit? He overflew and had to try again at lower altitude, and that could have come from any direction. 125 people inside the Pentagon were killed by the crash, some of whom were undoubtedly close acquaintances and friends of the SecDef.

sgtdoom

Listen, clown, if there was an actual suicide pilot he would have flown into the top, dead center, of the Pentagon’s roof, not dead center into the supposedly rehabbed west wall.

Albury Smith

Your al Qaeda hero murdered 125 innocent people inside the Pentagon and 59 innocent passengers and crew aboard AA 77, “clown,” and succeeded in committing suicide with 4 of his AQ buddies too. Wasn’t that enough for you?

Matt Prather

Well, I’ll speak hypothetically again here, because this is all merely plausible according to a theory that Rumsfeld desired that the attacks would happen, or that if he were ignorant of the “inside job”, then at least the insiders would arrange things to keep Rumsfeld safe.

It’s true that the official story has Hanjour “overflying” and coming again at a lower alititude. That’s one way of putting it. Bit of a simplification or mis-statement though.

Let me point out that the precision of his “coming again at a lower altitude” maneuver was surely the most expert bit of piloting of all the hijacks that day. He did a spiraling, helical sort of descent of ~5000 feet that was something like 315-330 degrees (so: a little shy of a full circle), levelling off ~2000 feet above ground to accelerate again towards the Pentagon, ramping down in altitude to come in nearly parallel to the ground at less than 100 feet.

But now let me get back to the point. In my hypothetical vision, the insiders wanted one particular section of the Pentagon to be hit. In fact, this particular section was un-hypothetically the one best hardened against attack, and had only a fraction of its workers there that day, due to renovation work. You know, come to think of it, that sounds like the kind of place a military insider would choose to sacrifice, were a military insider having to choose.

It would explain the pain-staking expert hijack flying maneuver, which you breeze over as “he overflew; had to try again,” as the plane had to be positioned precisely to hit the chosen location.

As far as your assertion that Rumsfeld undoubtedly had close acquaintances and friends there, I would say that’s no more certain than the wave of your hand.

A bit more certain would be to say that teams of accountants did die that day, one day after Rumsfeld’s famous announcement that trillions (thousands of billions) of budgeted money was un-accounted for. If Rumsfeld were a war-mongering villain, as someone said “all truthers believe,” then this would be a notable message to accountants that they must not get crazy ideas of impeding his sublime imperial war machine with earthly details like honest audits: you die, and we still go on with the business of war, with the majority consent of the nation, any questions?

I’ll say finally, again, that this is just a story, a plausible interpretation of events that attempt to place Rumsfeld or other high-level insiders as masterminds of an inside job. This is all just leads and circumstance which I noted but couldn’t come up with real proof for.

Albury Smith

GeeDubya, Deadeye, Rummy, etc. were asleep at the wheel when the al Qaeda suicide attacks occurred, not desiring that they’d happen. The “official story” is from AA 77’s FDR recovered inside the Pentagon. Your hero overflew and had to circle and try again.
Here are more shills for the evil US gubmint:
http://www.minnesotanationalguard.org/press_room/e-zine/articles/index.php?item=75
Weren’t 184 innocent victims enough for you? One 757 crash ANYWHERE would not wipe out all of the records of the ~$2.3 trillion in waste, fraud, errors, etc. that the DoD had accumulated over DECADES, and it was the least of Hanjour’s concerns.

Matt Prather

How dare you call him my hero!?

I’m shaking with anger.

I won’t be replying to you further.

You clearly did not understand the points I was making, and your attitude here and elsewhere all over the board is clearly: unclassy.

You are a bad custodian of anti-truther arguments. I should have recognized that before replying to you. I did recognize it, but I had hoped for something different if I spoke clearly and precisely.

I have seen your type before: you make it a mission to respond to every truther point with derision, CAPITAL LETTERS, and this whole attitude of “wow it’s laughable how dumb other people are; how easy and clear the truth is! the issue is so simple!” and use that attitude to carry half the weight of any point you try to make. As if it could.

And then, of course, you miss the points of people who contradict you, and reply to them with more of the same derision and smarmy superiority.

Sad. And it makes you a bad representative of your beliefs about 9/11. I and other truthers must work hard to forget people like you when we interact with the rest of the people who haven’t realized the inside job yet.

Albury Smith

Were the 1998 al Qaeda SUICIDE attacks on the US embassies in Nairobi & Dar es Salaam and their 2000 SUICIDE attack on the USS Cole “inside job[s]” too? It is laughable how dumb other people are when they completely ignore the facts.

sgtdoom

Why are you connecting the Iraqi War with the 9/11 attacks?

The comptroller of the Pentagon announced that their auditing groupd (DIA’s Financial Management) had uncovered an unaccounted amount of $2.3 trillion in missing DoD funds, and that auditing group is almost completely wiped out when an airliner hits the central point of the Pentagon’s west wall, where they are in a most convenient meeting at that time.

And how did they move those monies?

Just examine the corporations situated where the two airliners struck the Twin Towers.

Some Guy

The spot in the Pentagon that got hit was completely vacant save a few key personnel. It was under construction. Considering the level of protection the Pentagon offers as a building… I would say that while it is unlikely it is not altogether out of the realm of possibility.

sgtdoom

Well done!
And how many uncurious Americans (Ameritards?) to this very day realize that it was Carnegie and Schwab who sold those subs to the Germans which ended up sinking the Lusitania?

Some Guy

I’ll be honest… I didn’t know. I’ve researched the historical aspects… but I’ve only recently got into tracking the money. “War is a Racket” turned me on to that aspect.

sgtdoom

Gen. Smedley Butler, the last Real Marine!

Historically, it was Gen. MacArthur (along with Eisenhower and Patton) who was responsible for the slaughter of over one hundred men, women and children at the Bonus Marchers Village.

For a better idea of history, please read Sally Denton’s book, The Plots Against the President.

Josh Mitteldorf

“Not one of them blew the whistle…”
In fact, there have been thousands. Some have been murdered. Some have lost their jobs. But a lot are still screaming for air time, and some of them are continuing the slow and careful task of research and forensics.

Lee Chen

Barry Jennings is an excellent example. While not exactly a “whistleblower” he was actually in the building on that day and refused to lie about it.

Remarkable.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/633-barry-jennings-revisited.html

Albury Smith

Here’s what a real explosive demolition sounds like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
The people in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area who weren’t dead or comatose didn’t need a “whistle blower” like Jennings to tell them that demolition charges went off. Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles would’ve seen the explosively-cut steel in the debris too.

Albury Smith

These are some of the reasons why all of that “screaming for air time” is falling on deaf ears:
http://www.architectmagazine.com/architecture/architects-shy-from-truther-conspiracy-theory.aspx
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/11-talk/5020382.article
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FCO%2020131204097
The ASCE, NCSEA, SEI, SEAoNY, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, structuremag.org, ENR, etc. want nothing to do with your 9/11 “researchers” either, nor does the Uniformed Firefighters Association IAFF Local 94, or the Ironworker Locals 40 & 361.
Here’s the ONLY “slow and careful task of research and forensics” done by your pals so far:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

sgtdoom

Funny how one year before, Structure Magazine ran a story on the reconstruction of the west wall of the Pengaton, and questioned why they were only rehabbing the west wall?

Albury Smith

You’re fos, but what good did this alleged “reconstruction” do against a ~530 mph 757? Why didn’t you post a link to this alleged structuremag.org article, or do only 9/11 troofers know about it?

Albury Smith

Here’s the only one who’s been murdered so far:
http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/09/911-truther-killed/#!bEvpW5
Poor Jessie Evans was only 27 years old, just asking questions, and…KABOOM!!! How terribly tragic.
:-(
PLEASE be extra careful around hi-rises, Josh.

sgtdoom

Exactly so, at least three military officers committed career suicide by coming forward, one at a military base in Florida, one an associate dean at Monterey’s Defense Language Institute, and the third was an Army type, forget where he was stationed.

Diaz's cashed bowl

“logistically it would be impossible to carry out without being busted”
In this instance your reasoning is absolutely wrong.

Did the nazis get busted for the reichstag fire? No.
How about uss liberty USA was attacked by Israel but just ignored it.
why? because ijn all three of these examples the victims/criminals were the ones doing the “review of select facts” the patriot act was already written b4 911, and if you read PNAC you will see that this is what they planned all along.

And… was there an actual criminal investigation into 911? NO. Uhn uh, nada, zero, nothing.

Before I go, do a search of April Gallop, ask yourself…

Should April Gallop have gotten a different judge than John Walker Bush while she tried to sue Dick Cheney?

well since that judge dismissed the case as “stupid” I would say yes, but you can’t pick the judges can you? But someone went out of their way to make sure that a close relative of the defendant was the one to judge this case.

sgtdoom

you have to believe that hundreds, possibly thousands, of people were involved in the plot and not one of them blew the whistle or exposed it

First, you are repeating the same scripted pablum we always hear, so I am skeptical about you from the get go.

Secondly, that number is both stupid and silly.
Easy to prove you wrong — you simply research the passenger lists on those four airliners involved that day.
It was a highly contained operation, with those involved not knowing what the overall event was, simply doing their job working on counterterrorism plans, remote piloting hardware/software, etc.

Just research those pax lists, and if you aren’t a complete and utter fool, it will become obvious.
Three unique groups aboard those planes that day, three unique individuals (two of which were most likely victims of opportunity), the third a physicist with the directed energy office of the Naval Survace Weapons Center.

Just do the homework sometime.

Perps: Office of the VP, Office of the SecDef, Blackstone Group, Veritas Capital and AIG.

anarchyst

…look up “dancing Israelis and 9-11” (yes, dancing Israelis). The mossad is arguably one of the finest spy agencies in the world. Yes, they could have (and had) pulled off this “false flag” operation. According to the “dancing Israelis”, terrorism ahd come home and “was our problem now”.

slobotnavich

It’s true that some Israelis and other Jews were celebrating the event, not because they were glad to see many Americans die, but because they rightly assumed that it would draw this nation into the conflict in general against Middle Eastern terrorists. And no, I’m not a Yid, just a hard-right Presbyterian conservative who uses smart Jewish accountants and lawyers to protect me from the depredations of the US government.

disqus_3BrONUAJno

The Mossad attacked the USS Liberty for similar reasons.

slobotnavich

I’ve always agreed with that theory. The Liberty was unmistakably flying the American flag when it was repeatedly attacked by Israeli jets for several hours. The Israelis didn’t want their “official” version of how the Six-Day war started contradicted by information from a US intelligence ship.

disqus_3BrONUAJno

That wasn’t the motivation for the attack, which wouldn’t have been necessary if LBJ had merely ordered it out of intel range. They still claim that they mistook it for a much older Eqyptian warship, and LBJ called off rescues until the IDF was done. Then all of the ship’s crew was ordered to STFU or be court martialled. Now that they are much older and closer to death, many are telling their stories, on websites like honorlibertyvets.org

Albury Smith

You just love to make sh*t up, don’t you? LBJ had no time for this alleged order, and “if all of the ship’s crew was ordered to STFU or be court martialled,” they certainly didn’t get the message, now did they? Many of them are still very outspokenly furious about nearly being killed, but were in no position to know anything about the mistaken identity incident.

Albury Smith

http://hnn.us/article/369
You must know more than every US president and congress since 1967.

slobotnavich

Actually, I believe they know it too but are so terrified of AIPAC that they refuse to investigate the matter. The Israelis were fully aware that the Liberty was an American vessel and that they were killing American sailors with their repeated attacks on it. Whether this was to conceal the fact that they in fact started the Six-Day War and were afraid that information gathered by the Liberty would contradict their false version of events, or whether they feared that we’d transmit their intentions to their enemies in the Middle East I can’t say. But that they knew it was an American Naval vessel prominently flying a large and unmistakable American flag was and remains beyond dispute.

Albury Smith

If your absurd claim were true, the USS Liberty would’ve gone down in seconds with no survivors or distress calls. The Six-Day War was started by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, a very well-documented FACT that’s uncontested by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. They’ve also been unsupportive of Hamas during its latest unprovoked attacks on Israel.

slobotnavich

You’re right in one respect – had the Israeli jets been armed with the appropriate armament for attacking shipping the Liberty would have been destroyed promptly. As it was they attacked it mainly with 20mm cannon fire and (as I recall, perhaps inaccurately) napalm and CBUs. And they attacked it repeatedly and over an extended period.

Albury Smith

So why didn’t they sink it? The Israeli jets WOULD HAVE been carrying and deploying the appropriate armament in a hurry if the attack was deliberate.

sgtdoom

Need to check with the Israeli administration then in power, but I believe Golda Meir is dead?

Albury Smith

That’s what usually happens to people in their late 70s. Is Golda Meir’s death a big mystery to you too?

sgtdoom

Israeli pilots later admitted to this, you don’t get out much do you?

Albury Smith

Da Joos don’t do al Qaeda SUICIDE attacks on Israel’s most powerful ally.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW8_Zbsirdw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWVC4JBjtEE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6obQ5naNn0
From OBL’s 1998 (second) fatwa: “The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies-civilians and military-is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, ‘and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,’ and ‘fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God [blah, blah, blah…]'”

Steve Brown

So no other high rise has ever collapsed from fire. But has any other high rise on fire ever been allowed to burn uncontrollably?

anton

yes

Truman

There are many examples of skyscrapers experiencing raging fires, some lasting over 20 hours. You can find the news clips all over the internet. Most are so violent and out of control they make the building 7 fires look pitiful. Nonetheless NONE of these buildings fell, not even partially. WTC 1,2 & 7 are the only 3 steel buildings to EVER collapse from “fires”. This being the case there are still things to be learned even if you buy the ” fire” theory. Overwhelming evidence says jet fuel alone could not be responsible. So what was behind this unprecedented fire? And why don’t the keepers of the official narrative want to investigate? There are many other skyscrapers in NYC. Wouldn’t one want to know all they can for the safety of these building and their occupants? Why don’t they?

Bob Conway

It wasn’t just the fires, but the deformation of vertical support columns from the kinetic energy of those two aircraft. The WTC1 and WTC2 towers probably would still be standing otherwise, or would have been brought down later as condemned structures.

WTC7 is a different matter, and that’s what is at issue with this ballot measure.

disqus_3BrONUAJno

The planes collapsed long before they could transfer any kinetic energy to the cores.

Albury Smith

WHAT? Good lord…

disqus_3BrONUAJno

Even the Mythbusters are afraid to investigate.

Albury Smith

No hi-rise fire in history except in WTC 7 has ever been in one with beam spans over 52′, girder spans over 47′, asymmetrical framing, simple 4-bolt gravity connections to core columns, and a water main to sprinklers and fire hoses shattered by a nearby hi-rise collapse. Overwhelming evidence says jet fuel alone WAS NOT responsible for any of the 3 fire-induced WTC hi-rise collapses.

Lee Chen

On the evening of Feb 8, 2008 I watched the Beijing Mandarin Oriental (MOH) hotel burn, completely, from top to bottom for over five and a half hours while emitting flames over 10 meters high. I clearly heard numerous explosions coming from within the building (not from fireworks in the area) during this time. While a few fire crews were spraying water onto several bottom floors, the rest of the tower was an inferno completely out-of-control.

The MOH building did not turn into pyroclastic-appearing clouds of billowing dust and a deep hole in the ground at any time thereafter. Very unlike 2 WTC and 1 WTC, which I also watched dissolve away less than seven years earlier. Nor like 7 WTC which symmetrically collapsed into a neat pile two stories high (the spectacle of which I actually missed). No emergency workers ran about screaming that the “building is coming down”. No officious entity decided to “just pull it”.

Two months later structural engineers reported that x-ray surveys revealed absolutely no deformation nor damage to the base structure of MOH. Cleanup began immediately thereafter and the building was eventually completed and is in 100% use today.

Five and a half hours of raging, out-of-control fire and a 40-story building of ‘Made in China’ quality and materials emerged relatively unscathed.

That MOH building was intended to be a hotel with some marketing gimmickry (e.g. movie theatres, studios, etc). 7 WTC had FBI, Secret Service, NYC Office of Emergency Management, and a CIA station among many others.

Cui bono?

Albury Smith

For the 2002 PBS documentary America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero, Larry Silverstein said this about WTC 7 on 9/11:

“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 A TERRIBLE LOSS OF LIFE, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And THEY [the FDNY!] made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”
–L. Silverstein

-regarding the term “pull it”:

We have never, ever heard the term “pull it” being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we’ve spoken with.” -Brent Blanchard of Protec in “A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 and 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint”

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

(check it yourself on any demolition contractor’s
web site.)

What was the Silverstein Properties and the FDNY’s motive for blowing up a perfectly good, 14 year-old building, losing hundreds of millions of dollars in cash flow from it for eight years and counting, spending almost the entire $861 million insurance settlement on obligatory replacement of it, and paying ~$500 million back to lenders?

Why would any insurance company have paid him a dime if he publicly admitted to defrauding them, but especially those based in Copenhagen, Zurich, and London?

How did he or the FDNY know that flaming debris from a collapsing hi-rise across the street would hit WTC 7, start multi-story fires in it, and break the water main to it, disabling the sprinklers and providing a cover story for the demolition?

If the explosives were pre-planted, and were what Barry Jennings heard around 10 AM, why was there any discussion in mid-afternoon about whether or not to demolish it with the other apparently fireproof ones a few stories
higher?

Do controlled demolitions take seven or eight hours to collapse a building?

Do they leave no severed columns with copper residue on the ends?

Do they leave ~12 stories on one corner standing?

Is the FDNY in the controlled demolition business?

Please link me to any C/D contractor’s web site, and show me the use of “pull” to refer to building demolition using explosives.

Why doesn’t UL agree with Kevin Ryan about the WTC steel, why was his lawsuit thrown out of court, and why did he have to change the wording in Silverstein’s statement to make it appear that he and the FDNY were complicit in a major felony, when Mr. Silverstein clearly and unambiguously said that “THEY,” i.e. the FDNY, made the decision?

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/RyanFraud1.jpg

How does the “terrible loss of life”(in the WTC
tower collapses) referenced by Silverstein affect a later decision to demolish a burning building across the street with no one in it?

There was a pre-existing ConEd substation at
the Vesey Street WTC 7 site in 1986, and the building was designed to straddle it, requiring some of the extremely long (~52′) girder and (~47′) beam spans inside that contributed to the 9/11 collapse. It was powered up and in full use on 9/11/01, and the demolition of a ~200,000 ton, 47-story building directly on top of it destroyed hundreds of millions of dollars of ConEd’s equipment. This ~$314.5 million lawsuit by ConEd and a half dozen of its insurance companies:

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FCO%2020131204097

was ONLY for NEGLIGENCE, and the plaintiffs LOST. No mention at all in that court summary of secret C/D.

Why?

disqus_3BrONUAJno

Yes, in Spain. You do know how to use a search engine, don’t you?

Albury Smith

Not a good example for your 9/11 “truth movement.” The steel-framed portion of Madrid’s Windsor Tower that was exposed to the fires collapsed completely; the steel-reinforced poured-in-place concrete core prevented a total collapse.
Read & learn:
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/firesafetyengineering%26theperformanceofst

disqus_3BrONUAJno

It is interesting that none of the claims at the link you provide are supported by any corroboration at all, the typical situation when the Delphi technique is the plan.

Albury Smith

What part of those totally-corroborated accounts of other fire-induced collapses of steel-framed buildings didn’t you understand?

disqus_3BrONUAJno

Corroboration requires more than a mention, it requires a valid citation, and you include no citations at all. Flicker can’t do your due diligence, especially when it is down.

Albury Smith

ALL of those steel-framed building collapses were solely fire-induced and can be verified by many other sources. I can’t do your due diligence for you if you’re just going to ignore it.

disqus_3BrONUAJno

I can’t find what you imagined.

Albury Smith

Those solely fire-induced collapses of steel-framed buildings were not just “imagined.” It’s fortunate that you’re not a forensic SE.

Albury Smith

You’re being deliberately obtuse. Should fireproofing and sprinklers be written out of all steel-framed hi-rise building codes?

Josh Mitteldorf

Of course they have to resist this ballot initiative with every gun in their arsenal. Once the story of 9/11 comes unraveled, it will lead inevitably to the whole house of cards. A lot of very powerful people will be revealed as gangsters. The entire “war on terror” is a fraud, not a mistake. The rise of the NSA and the closing down of the American press will come to light as plans conceived and executed at monstrous cost to the American people and American way of life.

They can’t afford to let the light in. It is cheaper and less embarrassing to stop the ballot initiative at this stage than to stack another committee with paid shills, to bribe another round of experts and to stage-manage another whitewash.

slobotnavich

God, reading all these conspiracy theorist posts makes me wonder whether the average IQ of Americans really is 98-100. No doubt of it, the entire American press corps, left, right, and center has been effectively muzzled by the FBI, CIA, DIA, and all local and state police forces, the entire press corps (all of whom we know are really in on it), and all good and patriotic Americans are too intimidated to speak out on the matter. Yup, no doubt of it, the conspirators are keeping a tight lid on it, lest the truth get out and powerful people (whomever “they” may be) would be destroyed. Doubtless “da Jooz” are behind it all.

rapedexploited

^^^Shill/Troll^^^

disqus_3BrONUAJno

You missed Delphi technique implementer.

Saul

“The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” — William Colby, former director of the CIA (1973-1976)

“Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.” — US official quoted in Carl Cameron’s Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11.

lieswon'tend

My god you have no hope……. DO RESEARCH!!
There have been plenty of leakers and whistleblowers over the past years, but of course the main stream media won’t report on things like that. They are made out to be “outrageous conspiracy theorists, nut jobs, etc.” And think how do you learn about things… through the media WAKE UP MAN!!!

disqus_3BrONUAJno

It doesn’t matter what your IQ is if you are ignorant and gullible enough to believe everything you are told by someone who works for a government or the military-industrial complex. Most of ‘da Jooz’ are just as ignorant and gullible as they were when their ancestors boarded trains to be taken to nice safe concentration camps. Most Americans will do likewise when DHS comes to “evacuate” them.

N. Furthermore

The engineering issues in the debate are beyond my technical knowledge, but the “muzzling” of the press is a much simpler issue.

Careerist motivations among reporters are massively powerful and require no conspiratorial management from above. People in the news media know that it is very bad for their careers to go against the grain, and they know that parroting the gov’t line – especially on intelligence and national security issues – is the safe route, and the way to get access for interviewing high-level officials

Many mainstream press reporters are obviously just cheerleaders. A perfect example of this can be found in Glenn Greenwald’s article this week at The Intercept about a National Public Radio reporter shilling for the CIA.

sgtdoom

So all those reporters like Amber Lyons and Cris Hedges, etc., who were either fired because they printed the truth (or resigned like Hedges because the NYT refused to allow him to do so) are figments of our imagination?

Albury Smith

Why does your 9/11 “truth movement” ban sane and rational comments on its “forums,” Josh? I’m not even allowed to ask Richard Gage* and his “experts” to show us on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215
sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7’s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY
http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png
If they ever HAD TO do it, this “debate” would be OVER.
*Gage’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM
Shouldn’t a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) educational organization EDUCATE people instead of silencing them and removing their comments?

notalent

George W. Bush said, “Nobody in our government… could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.” This, despite NORAD’s admission to running several drills of exactly that for the two years prior to 911, and quite possibly on the actual day of September 11th.

Surveying the massive destruction at the WTC complex (not just 1, 2 and 7), I wonder why there hasn’t been a push to severely restrict the 28,000 daily commercial flights in the US? These deadly craft would be enough to destroy any number of cities or military targets, right?

Anyway, I hope this petition gets through, Shine a light on this mess.

disqus_3BrONUAJno

That is why visionaries seldom work for governments.

Albury Smith

NORAD had NEVER run a 9/11-scenario drill prior to 9/11/01, and had only its usual TWO ARMED F15s on standby at Otis AFB and TWO ARMED F16s on standby at Langley AFB that day. Because of al Qaeda’s SUICIDE attacks on the US, who and what goes aboard commercial airliners is now restricted.

notalent

From the April, 18th 2004 edition of the USA today headline……. “NORAD had drills of jets as weapons”

“WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties”

By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY

You’re just as much a “conspiracy theorist’ as anyone else on this site, and perhaps the most fervent believer.

sgtdoom

On that very morning, the NRO was conducting an exercise where multiple planes were flown into their operations center facility.

Albury Smith

Rpt: NORAD had NEVER run a 9/11-scenario drill prior to (or on) 9/11/01. Whatever drills were being conducted that morning were with UNARMED planes; NORAD still had only its usual TWO ARMED F15s on standby at Otis AFB and TWO ARMED F16s on standby at Langley AFB.

disqus_3BrONUAJno

You forgot the fighter jet that was scrambled from a base in Montana and completed his mission after the failsafe period expired, spreading an airliner over several miles in Pennsylvania. They made a movie from a different script…

Albury Smith

That must’ve been the imaginary NORAD fighter the voices in your head told you about. There’s an easy remedy:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

disqus_3BrONUAJno

NORAD doesn’t have any equipment or personnel. It is an association between the militaries of the United States and Canada. It was a United States Air Force fighter jet that blew the airliner out of the air, after it refused to be escorted by it.

Albury Smith

What airliner, pray tell, was blown out of the air by the evil US military in your latest 9/11 wet dream?

disqus_3BrONUAJno

The one that was scattered over several miles of Pennsylvania, as happens when planes explode in the air, contrary to the one that disappeared on contact with the ground, along with the passengers.

Albury Smith

~96% of UA 93 was recovered from the soft fill dirt at the abandoned strip mine near Shanksville, PA. All of the passengers and crew were forensically identified, as were some of the 4 hijackers. Some of the lightweight debris like papers, etc. was found as far as a mile or so downwind of the crash site, but the FDR and CVR clearly indicated exactly what happened aboard that airliner, as do the 37 phone calls to relatives, friends, and the “Let’s roll” phone call from Todd Beamer to Verizon’s Lisa Jefferson*. 35 of the 37 documented calls were from Airfones; the other 2 were made from cell phones at low altitude right before the crash.

What’s especially stupid about the yarn that it exploded in the air is the fact that Deadeye had finally issued a shoot-down order, and NORAD would’ve been more than willing to accept the credit and blame for shooting down one of the four hijacked airliners if they actually had.

* http://www.beliefnet.com/Inspiration/2006/06/I-Promised-I-Wouldnt-Hang-Up.aspx

Lady Val

This is not a “either/or” matter. The planes DID hit the buildings (I saw the second plane hit!) so that is not up for question. HOWEVER, that doesn’t mean that the buildings were not actually brought down to the ground by some very different means other than being hit by the planes. The method of destruction was far too “pat” for my liking from the beginning. Also, my husband worked for a time in the North Tower during the Y2K hysteria and he said that there were an astonishingly few people in the buildings at that time on a weekday morning.

Then there are little stories such as the female supervisor for the MTA who stopped all subway traffic into the WTC station VERY early on before anyone realized that this was an attack rather than an accident. I had always believed that she had the courage and foresight to step in and prevent more commuters from going into harm’s way, but it is also possible that she had her orders, especially if the claim that there were large amounts of explosives in the basement of the buildings is true.

What I have learned about the Oklahoma City bombing has also caused me to rethink the possibility of this being a false flag operation. After all, our government has been involved in such things for over 150 years, starting with Fort Sumter and going on to Cuba and Hawaii. Depending upon what the scenario was, I do not doubt for a moment that this could well have been the means by which to convince Americans that they had to lose a few liberties to be assured of their safety.

disqus_3BrONUAJno

John Does two and three probably have sinecures in the White House now.

Albury Smith

Gravity just has a way of being “pat.”

Lady Val

Anyone involved in demolition will testify that it takes considerable expertise to bring a building down on its “footprint” – and there were THREE such brought down on 9/11.

Albury Smith

Anyone involved in REAL explosive demolition will testify that the 9/11 “truth movement” is fos. It just plain doesn’t happen secretly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
especially in furnished and fully-occupied office hi-rises in NYC.

Lady Val

Please get and view the DVD the Honorable Lie. It’s about the Oklahoma City bombing and you will discover that it IS possible to prepare a building for demolition “secretly” if you have the resources.

Albury Smith

McVeigh’s demolition technique wasn’t very secret after the fact, now was it? Was OK City another “false flag” attack as an excuse to execute that loathsome pos?

Lady Val

Watch the DVD if you have the courage to do so.

Albury Smith

Courage?

Lady Val

Yes, COURAGE. It take moral courage to give an objective hearing to something about which you disagree. Roll your eyes all you like but get back to me when you prove yourself man enough to challenge your own opinions.

Albury Smith

So Timothy McVeigh just went to his death by lethal injection for what some other evil S.O.B. did? Why didn’t he plead not guilty, pray tell? Do innocent people use the “necessity defense,” i.e. claim they did something because they feared the evil US gubmint?

disqus_3BrONUAJno

There was one witness to his execution that said she didn’t know that people kept breathing after they were dead. Her appearance was stricken from following reports. Maybe he had to catch up to the two John Does who rode with him in the truck.

Albury Smith

Yeah, THAT’S IT! You’re an idiot.
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

disqus_3BrONUAJno

McVeigh didn’t build the bomb that blew the glass OUT of the building or cut the support pillars all across the front of the building. He just drove and parked the truck and walked away from it with two John Does that the FBI never bothered to look for, probably because they went onto their next covert operations.

Albury Smith

Always wear at least TWO of these, shiny side OUT for BOTH layers:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

disqus_3BrONUAJno

Using that premise, I’d have to assume that you haven’t heard of the Manhattan Project or the Kennedy assassination, either.

Albury Smith

Were Oswald’s JFK assassination and the US development of the crude nuclear weapons used against Japan secret conspiracies too? The Manhattan Project is old news, as is the overwhelming evidence that LH Oswald bought, owned, and fired the ONLY gun used to assassinate JFK.

Hmmm

The first JFK conspiracy theory, paid for by a CIA – On Nov 23/63, the CIA linked the accused assassin Oswald to Castro:
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/on-this-date/nov-23-1963-the-first-jfk-conspiracy-theory-paid-for-by-the-cia/

sgtdoom

Actually, and I’m not disputing what you say, but the Twin Towers’ architecture was such that this was the only matter in which to bring them down, since they were built around a central core, with a thinner outer structural membrane.

Lady Val

I am not saying that this was some conspiracy, but sadly, I’ve seen, heard and read too many such conspiracies from Roger Stone’s “Who Killed Kennedy” to the DVD mentioned (The Honorable Lie) and there are so MANY “unexplained” events (and dead witnesses) that I can not discount our government’s involvement no matter who flew the planes. Did you know that the FBI was informed by one flight school about the Muslims asking to learn simply how to fly a big jet but not to take off and land – and that agency wasn’t interested? Does THAT make sense?

sgtdoom

You are referring to SAC Colleen Rowley and FBI agent Sinder (if my memory of his name is correct).

According to the Moussaioui trial transcrpts (public domain knowledge and free to all paid trolls such as this Allbury clown), Agents Rowley and Sinder contacted the FBI’s counter-terrorism office, manned by Frasca and Maltbie, over one hundred times, and were either refused or ignored each of those occasions.

And yes, I most certainly do believe it to be a multi-trillion dollar conspiracy involving the movement of trillions of DoD funds offshore to hedge funds and various offshore finance center holding operations.

Follow the money and it leads to individuals within the Office of the VP, the Office of the SecDef, the Blackstone Group, Veritas Capital and AIG.

And one need simply research the backgrounds of those passengers aboard those four airliners to understand why no one came forward with technical knowledge of the 9/11/01 operation, but the official Cheney/Bush conspiracy theorists always refuse to do so.

slobotnavich

This has to be the one of the most ridiculous wacko conspiracy theories ever promulgated by deranged conspiracy theorists, an alarming number of whom are also UFO believers. A fire started by 50,000 gallons of JP-4 could certainly cause any steel-framed building to collapse once the burning contents added their heat to the conflagration. For some reason certain people always want to believe that dark and powerful unseen forces are always manipulating events, that nothing ever is as it clearly seems, and that any random occurrence is never merely random but a carefully orchestrated event caused by shadowy conspirators. Thus, the Titanic was actually sunk, not by an iceberg, but by shipping competitors who paid crewmen to open petcocks flooding the hull…..

Saul

“50,000 gallons of JP-4 could certainly cause any steel-framed building
to collapse once the burning contents added their heat to the
conflagration.” That`s an interesting hypothesis considering it`s only ever happened three times in human history,all three in one day.But the twin towers aside,it does not explain building 7.A furniture fire would not make two dozen structural steel pillars yield at exactly the same time in perfect symmetry and allow the building to fall in it`s own footprint at free fall speed.Thast is ludicrous.Add to that the suspicious circumstances of Silverstein`s admission on video,the ‘terrorism’ insurance applied at such an opportune time,the reports of witnesses hearing explosions,the BBC`s HUGE gaffe,and….my God man!Just who is the conspiracy theorist here?

andy

You are.

And besides,only a sap actually believes that Silverstein admitted anything.

disqus_3BrONUAJno

He didn’t have to admit anything, just collect the insurance payments on buildings he didn’t own.

andy

Cute.

lieswon'tend

Mr. Andy the delusional

Albury Smith

Why did Swiss Re, Lloyd’s, Copenhagen Re, Zurich Financial, and at least 8 other major insurance companies all pay Silverstein a total of ~$4.68 BILLION for his 9/11-related losses? It covered ~1/2 of them, factoring in his mandatory rebuilding costs, loss of tenants and cash flow for years, etc.

disqus_3BrONUAJno

He did pretty well for the loss of a building he was just leasing. This is similar to employers who take out life insurance on their employees.

Albury Smith

Only if you completely ignore his mandatory rebuilding costs, loss of tenants and cash flow for more than a decade, etc. I wouldn’t recommend a career in real estate investment for you…

disqus_3BrONUAJno

Why would he rebuild a building that he didn’t own, especially when it would have cost more to remove the asbestos than it was worth, which is a pretty good justification for getting someone else to tear it down for you, and charge it off to a well covered false flag terrorist attack.

Albury Smith

He was CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED to rebuild, and NONE of the 3 collapsed WTC hi-rises had an asbestos problem. The code changed before the South Tower was closed in, and after the bottom 38 floors of the North Tower had ACM, most of which was removed during tenant fit-outs before 2001. Silverstein Properties built WTC 7 in 1986-’87, ~16 YEARS after the code revision went into effect.
Is your imaginary 9/11 perp the owner/lessee who lost BILLIONS, the evil US gubmint that was as good as in Afghanistan as soon as UA 175 hit the South Tower, the evil Israelis whose principal enemy is and was Iran, all of them in an amazing secret plot to gain nothing, or does it just change constantly?

sgtdoom

Excellent point, since that so-called Dodd-Frank “financial reform” legislation includes a loophole (actually, quite a few major loopholes) to allow the major banks to take out insurance on their employees, and JPMorgan Chase filed a patent, BOLI, or Bank Owned Life Insurance, which means they made a bundle on all those recent and strange deaths of their banking people.

Saul

Anyone with a funtional brain can find the video on youtube.I quote,”I remember getting a call from the, er, 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 we watched the building collapse.” Take it from a former army field engineer,”pull’ or “pull it’ is slang demolition speak,just as it is on a firing range.Maybe you should put on your funny little hat and exercise your right of return.

andy

Yes,Sir.Very much so,Sir,Obviously insane.

Albury Smith

In the 2002 PBS documentary America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero, Larry Silverstein said this about building 7 on 9/11:

“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 A TERRIBLE LOSS OF LIFE, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And THEY [the FDNY!] made that decision to pull and then we watched the building
collapse.”
–L. Silverstein

-regarding the term “pull it”:
We have never, ever heard the term “pull it” being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we’ve spoken with.” -Brent Blanchard of Protec in “A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 and 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint”
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

(check it yourself on any demolition contractor’s web site.)

-What was the Silverstein Properties and the FDNY’s motive for blowing up a perfectly good, 14 year-old building, losing hundreds of millions of dollars in cash flow from it for eight years and counting, spending almost the entire $861 million insurance settlement on obligatory replacement of it, and paying ~$500 million back to lenders?

-Why would any insurance company have paid him a dime if he publicly admitted to defrauding them, but especially those based in Copenhagen, Zurich, and London?

-How did he or the FDNY know that flaming debris from a collapsing hi-rise across the street would hit WTC 7, start multi-story fires in it, and break the water main to it, disabling the sprinklers and providing a cover story for the
demolition?

-If the explosives were pre-planted, and were what Barry Jennings heard around 10 AM, why was there any discussion in mid-afternoon about whether or not to
demolish it with the other apparently fireproof ones a few stories higher?

-Do controlled demolitions take seven or eight hours to collapse a building?

-Do they leave no severed columns with copper residue on the ends?

-Do they leave ~12 stories on one corner standing?

-Is the FDNY in the controlled demolition business?

-Please link me to a C/D contractor’s web site, and show me the use of “pull” to refer to building demolition using explosives.

-Why doesn’t UL agree with Kevin Ryan about the WTC steel, why was
his lawsuit thrown out of court, and why did he change the wording in Silverstein’s statement to make it appear that he and the FDNY were complicit in a major felony, when Mr. Silverstein clearly and unambiguously said that “THEY,” i.e. the FDNY, made the decision?
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/RyanFraud1.jpg

-How does the “terrible loss of life” (in the WTC tower collapses) referenced by
Silverstein affect a later decision to demolish a burning building across the
street with no one in it?

-There was a pre-existing ConEd substation at the Vesey Street WTC 7 site in 1986, and the building was designed to straddle it, requiring some of the extremely long (~52′) girder and (~47′) beam spans inside that contributed to the 9/11 collapse. It was powered up and in full use on 9/11/01, and the demolition of a ~200,000 ton, 47-story building directly on top of it destroyed hundreds of millions of dollars of ConEd’s equipment. This ~$314.5 million lawsuit by ConEd and a half dozen of its insurance companies:

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FCO%2020131204097

was ONLY for NEGLIGENCE, and the plaintiffs LOST. No mention at all in that court summary of secret C/D.

Why?

Greta

Here is why, in addition to helping out his friends in Likud… http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/3497