Who Pulled Building 7? (strategies for awareness) [Archive]

-V-

02/27/07, 02:40 am

Alright, here's some of my thoughts on the 9-11 Accountability Convention in Chandler:

I was there for a couple of hours on Sunday and then on Monday I had the privilege of spending 2 hours of quality time with Sofia, the writer/producer/narrator of 9-11 Mysteries.

Though there were dozens of books and videos on the conspiracy available throughout the conference, anyone who has made the rounds knows that 9-11 Mysteries is the most thorough and impressive presentation on the subject.

I don't feel it is an exaggeration to say that if history bares out her take on the story it should also record her contribution with the likes of Paul Revere warning the British are coming, her courage with the likes of Rosa Parks refusing to take a backseat on the bus, and her determination with the likes of Watergate reporters Woodward and Bernstein.

I made sure to let her know that I felt she is a true American hero and I would be happy to volunteer my services if there was any way that I can help. And apparently, help is what she needs. Having financed the film on credit cards, the prospect of her producing part 2 of her documentary as planned is up in the air. Alas, all I could do for the time being is buy a T-shirt and help her pack a few boxes in her car.

It would be terrific if an organization like MoveOn would consider the issue and support her project in particular but, as of yet, the topic appears to be too controversial, even for them.

In regards to the rest of the conference, it is clear that, like the Democratic party, 9-11 conspirists are an eclectic group, divided in theory and lacking focus.

The main point they can all agree on can be summarized in their un-official slogan,
9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!

Personally, I would love to see a united front pushing the provocative question,
WHO PULLED BUILDING 7?

America has demonstrated that they are not ready to consider that 9-11 was an inside job, but if we can get the media to explore one small piece of the mystery and expose it for what it is, the rest of the puzzle will follow in line like a row full of dominoes.

In the end, when that last domino does fall, we can only hope that this country will be back in the hands of the people rather than the powers that be, just like the British were sent packing shortly after Paul Revere sounded his alarm.

Become one of the minute-men and join in on the ride at
http://911weknow.com/

Jennifer_SFBA

02/27/07, 03:29 am

Thank you soooo much for attending the 9/11 conference and reporting back to us, -V-. Maybe someone will read what you wrote about Sofia and be able to help. I hope so.

Karma to you, dear!

-V-

02/27/07, 04:48 am

It was easy for me to attend this conference. Karma to all the people who flew in from all over the country to be there.

Jane of Arc

02/27/07, 10:24 am

Well done -V-! It's good to know that you met the writer and producer, Sophia. It's good to know that she's an authentic person. Just like in the JFK mind-mess, people kept disappearing, witnesses died unexpectantly, groups trying to find out the truth behind the killing of the President were infiltrated and many counter-truth organizations appearing to be about the truth popped up. And all the confusion led the American people to a path of just wanting to forget about the overwhelming probability that the assassination of Kennedy was an inside job.

And I'm glad you want to focus on Building 7 too. I've been squawking about this for so long ... it's a breath of fresh air that you and Jennifer and others at POL are on the same page.

Jennifer_SFBA

02/27/07, 11:01 am

The conference was promoted as a solutions and strategy conference. What solutions and stategies were presented there as the direction forward?

Jane, our government continues to behave the same way about people investigating UFOs and aliens as they did about people investigating JFK's assassination and in those ways you described.

-V-

02/27/07, 01:15 pm

Jen, you can order a copy of the videotaped conference at their website
http://911accountability.org/accountability/
when it becomes available.

I'm emailing you some additional information.

Jennifer_SFBA

02/27/07, 06:32 pm

Thank you for the information about the 9/11 conference video that will be coming out. It may be made available on the internet. Already some of the Chandler, Arizona 9/11 conference is available that way: http://www.citizensadvocate.net/

NeoCon Newbie

02/27/07, 09:42 pm

Lionhearted

02/27/07, 10:12 pm

Wow V saying what you just said proves liberals don't know what they are talking about. How would it benefit America for it to be an inside job. First of all you don't have any proof people in New York saw the planes crash into the twin towers explain that V. You cant because you are full of crap.

WTF??? This has got to be your most incoherent posting to date. Please show me where, exactly, in -V-s post he said America benefitted from 9-11. Perhaps I am the stoopid one here because I've read his post three times and have yet to find that little nugget of information. These folks here are trying to have an intelligent discussion about a dark, sad day in our history, one where anyone with a set of working eyes can see that there are serious holes in the "official" story. I'm beginning to lose hope for you Newbie.

-V-

02/28/07, 12:29 am

How would it benefit America for it to be an inside job

The question is really, how much more does it hurt if 9-11 was indeed an inside job and it is not exposed and remedied.

First of all, whether the job was "inside" or "outside", justice is served and America is safer by catching those responsible. However, if it was an "inside" job the remedy, the cleanup of our government and media, would have a profound effect on your life and your future, for the better.

If there are forces in this country, possibly in conjunction with forces in other countries, with enough power and control to pull of an operation on the scale of 9-11 and its coverup, it means we are living in a matrix that is not the democracy you thought it was. It means your votes really don't count. It means your life and lifestyle is under someone else's thumb and being manipulated to best serve their purposes rather than your own.

In that case, the prospect of returning that control to you and I is a benefit indeed.

-V-

02/28/07, 01:17 am

oh, and newbie. If it was in inside job and you're considering that the cover up might serve your agenda -- think again. The people pulling this set of strings don't give a rat's ass about abortion, the sanctity of marriage, gun control, flag burning, etc.. except to keep you motivated to keep toiling American soil to produce their crop of choice in the season ahead.

e.g. If it's cotton, Republican's like you will plant the seeds, Democrats like me will pick it, and they will bring it to market. You may experience a reasonably comfortable life because ignorance is bliss... BUT YOU STILL THE HOUSE N*GGA JUST THE SAME!

(this is also an example of why we need you, newbie. Without you here, I don't get opportunities to write lines like that)

Jane of Arc

02/28/07, 05:28 pm

Hey NeoCon Newbie, you never answered my question from last week. Can you? Or are you just full of brainwashed, one-line propaganda? Answer this question please:

Can you explain why a decision was made by the owner of Building 7 to 'pull it'; demolish it on 9-11-2001? It takes many days to position sensitive explosives in order to demolish a very large skyscraper. Please Newbie, explain how this happened? Can you?

Do you understand the question?

If not, please feel free to ask questions.

Jennifer_SFBA

03/03/07, 05:43 pm

Juliani was Mayor of New York City at the time of 9/11. As mayor, Juliani was at the head of emergeny management for the city of New York. The headquarters location for emergeny management of New York City was Building 7. Juliani is now running for the office of President of the United States, a great place to be if Juliani wanted to have a handle on the lid that covers up the events of 9/11.

-V-

03/03/07, 06:12 pm

The only way Juliani could make it through the Primaries to become the GOP candidate is if there is indeed an alterior motive because he certainly does not have the right-wing credentials (or any credentials IMO).

Jane of Arc

03/04/07, 02:04 pm

Let's also not forget that Rudy Giuliani is Sir Rudy Giuliani. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II. Other Americans knighted were Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Sr. The Lizard Club?

Jane of Arc

03/09/07, 10:54 am

BREAKING NEWS!!! BBC BOMBSHELL!!! ON 9-11 BBC REPORTED BUILDING 7 (Saloman Brothers Bldg.) COLLAPSED 23 MIN. BEFORE IT HAPPENED!!! FOOTAGE RELEASED!

"The BBC unequivocally announced the collapse about 23 minutes before the fact, and even featured a New York correspondent speaking of the collapse in past tense with the still-erect skyscraper standing behind her ...

These premature reports were uncovered in the wake of the publication of URLS of a vast archive of television footage."

Here's the scoop:
http://www.wtc7.net/foreknowledge.html#bbc (http://www.wtc7.net/foreknowledge.html#bbc)

Here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s

WTC 7 Collapse Foreknowledge:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/b7foreknowledge.html (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/b7foreknowledge.html)

Jennifer_SFBA

03/09/07, 03:36 pm

Thank you, Jane of Arc, for posting that very important news! It implicates the corporate media too in the events of 9/11, not at all a surprise. IMPEACH! IMPEACH! IMPEACH!

MAGI

03/10/07, 03:14 am

Jane of Arc

03/10/07, 11:38 am

Hi MAGI,

You will not find it anywhere on the TV or corporate media or corporate press. This enormous story has NOT been reported. (They haven't figured out yet how to "spin" such damning footage and are probably just waiting for it to die down on the net.) But, it's spreading all over the internet like wildfire! It started when some anonymous person got a hold of the original footage of BBC's correspondent, Jane Standley, saying WTC7 had collapsed while it was clearly behind her, and put it on the internet. BBC said all 9-11 footage was detroyed. It's also important to note that BBC abruptly pulled Jane Standley's live feed on 9-11 when WTC7 actually DID collapse. Very suspicious. BBC has only addressed this on the internet and denies that they were part of a conspiracy. The head of BBC News, Richard Porter, writes (and make sure you read all the bloggers comments at the bottom):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

This story is the smoking gun and it's not going away.

-V-

03/10/07, 12:54 pm

Jane of Arc

03/10/07, 01:59 pm

Jane, please comment or clarify:

1. Is the implication that those in the know leaked out word to the people in immediate danger resulting in the word leaking out to the media? Because, there would have, otherwise, been no reason to leak the information.
2. I anticipate their smokescreen for this one would be "well, it was imminent the building was going to collapse due to structural damage so we prepared to report it and someone screwed up.

The key to strengthening this evidence is showing that the damage to building 7 should have in no way lead anyone to believe its collapse was "imminent". 9-11 Mysteries provides further evidence on that point.

Hey -V-,

I don't understand your first question. Could you rephrase it? The implication I can gather is that somebody with access to BBC archives snooped around, found it and put it on the internet. But who knows?

As far as your smoke screen theory ... sounds likely. But to people that are on top of the story, it's completely bogus. The collapse of Building 7 or any other skyscraper was never "imminent". Only 3 skyscrapers in world history "collapsed on their own from fire" ... and all 3 were on 9-11.

MAGI

03/10/07, 02:59 pm

Page 2.
Some of the respondents to my earlier blog have suggested this must mean he had inside knowledge - that not only did he know the building had collapsed, he knew why.

Well in one sense that's true - for about an hour, it had been reported that the building was on fire and in danger of collapse. But he did qualify it by saying "it seems" and once again I think there's a danger of reading too much into what I believe was a presenter merely summarising what everyone had been saying during the previous hour.

Of course, with hindsight we now know that our live shot showed the building still standing in the background. But again I point to that confusing and chaotic situation on the ground - the CNN reporter who had talked about the building "either collapsed or is collapsing" also had it clearly in shot behind him, but he acknowledged he couldn't see very clearly from where he was standing. As we know, the building did collapse at 5.20pm, with the first pictures of that being broadcast on News 24 at about 5.35pm.

So that's what we know we reported. To me it paints a consistent (and reasonably conclusive) picture.

I should also mention the missing tapes. As you'll see from the details above, the absence of the BBC World tapes hasn't made much difference to our ability to look back at what happened. We have all the tapes of other BBC channels (and I now know that quite a few of you have your own copies of BBC World, which is an interesting discovery... ).

Some of you find it hard to believe we didn't keep the BBC World tapes... but we had several streams of news output running simultaneously on the day, both on radio and television as well as online and we have kept all the tapes from BBC News 24 and Radio Five Live, as well as all the BBC One bulletins. Obviously I wish we'd kept hold of the World tapes alongside all the others, but we didn't... and I don't know whether they were destroyed or mislaid. But as a result of this week's events, I have asked our archivists to get hold of copies of our original material from the organisations which do have them.

And just to be clear, the BBC policy is to keep every minute of news channel output for 90 days (in line with the Broadcasting Act in the UK). After that we are obliged to keep a representative sample - and we interpret that to mean roughly one third of all our output. We also keep a large amount of individual items (such as packaged reports or "rushes" - ie original unedited material), which we use for operational reasons - such as when we come to broadcast fresh stories on the subject. We do not lack a historical record of the event.

I've spent most of the week investigating this issue, but this is where we have to end the story. I know there are many out there who won't believe our version of events, or will raise further questions. But there was no conspiracy in the BBC's reporting of the events. Nobody told us what to say. There's no conspiracy involving missing tapes. There's no story here.

Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World

Please keep us posted if you find more to the story, Jane of Arc.

MAGI

03/10/07, 03:00 pm

Page 1.
Hi Jane of Arc,
Thank you for the reference. I'm glad to see BBC is following through with research on the U Tube story.......................

My first thought was the Christmas card my son-in-law made with my grandchildren, one hugging a montrous Polar bear and the other child in the arms of another and a few other bears closeby, all standing on ice which I envisioned was the North Pole........................... He could find a picture of NYC, with the Towers in place, put me in the foreground reading today's newspaper, and could, most likely, add that video with the female reporter saying the same things she said on 9/11.
Hence my skepticism.

Looking beyond the original article of 2/27/07, I found:

Part of the conspiracy?
(2)Richard Porter 2 Mar 07, 04:43 PM

So how did the BBC report that Building 7 at the World Trade Centre had collapsed around half an hour before it did so? My earlier posting on the subject has attracted a lot of interest so we've been doing more investigating within the BBC to put together the sequence of events.

Five and a half years have passed so it's quite difficult to answer every outstanding question. But we do know quite a bit more than we did on Tuesday, as a result of checking the BBC archives and what other media were doing at the time. I've also read through some of the reports published after 9/11 to help put together the sequence of events.

Back to 11 September itself. The Twin Towers had collapsed. Other buildings were known to be damaged. Building 7 was on fire. But this was also a very confusing picture - remember we had started the day with reports that a light aircraft had struck the first tower, and at one stage there was talk of ten hijacked jets in the air. It's in the nature of rolling news that events unfold in front of you and confusion turns to clarity. It's important to remember that context when looking more closely at what happened between about 4.10pm (EDT) and 5.20pm when Building 7 finally collapsed.

CNN's chronology of events published at the time confirms they reported the building on fire and a clip from a CNN bulletin, widely available on the web, hears from a reporter at about 4.15pm EDT, 9.15pm in the UK, who says: "We're getting information that one of the other buildings... Building 7... is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing... now we're told there is a fire there and that the building may collapse as well."

Other American networks were broadcasting similar reports at this time and the reports from FEMA and NIST both make it clear the building was on fire during the course of the day.

One senior fire officer was quoted in a subsequent interview as saying there was a "bulge" in the building and he was "pretty sure it was going to collapse". During this time, our staff were talking directly to the emergency services and monitoring local and national media… and there was a fairly consistent picture being painted of Building 7 in danger of collapse. Producers in London would have been monitoring the news agency wires - the Associated Press, Reuters, etc - and although we don't routinely keep an archive of agency reports, we're sure they would have been reporting the same as the local media.

At 4.27pm, a BBC reporter, Greg Barrow, who is in New York, appears on our radio news channel, BBC Radio Five Live, and says: "We are hearing reports from local media that another building may have caught light and is in danger of collapse." He then responds to a follow-up question by saying "I'm not sure if it has yet collapsed but the report we have is talking about Building 7."

At 4.53pm, on the same radio station, the programme's presenter, Fi Glover says "25 minutes ago we had reports from Greg Barrow that another large building has collapsed just over an hour ago."

At 4.54pm, the BBC's domestic television news channel, BBC News 24, reports the same thing. Presenter Gavin Esler says: "We're now being told that yet another enormous building has collapsed... it is the 47-storey Salomon Brothers building."

And then at 4.57pm on BBC World (according to the clips available on the web) presenter Phil Hayton says: "We've got some news just coming in actually that the Salomon brothers building in NY right in the heart of Manhattan has also collapsed."

Because three BBC channels were saying this in quick succession, I am inclined to believe that one or more of the news agencies was reporting this, or at least reporting someone saying this.

At 5pm, News 24 repeated the news in its top-of-the-hour headlines sequence and then at about 5.10pm (again according to the clips on the web), Phil Hayton on BBC World says "More on the latest building collapse in NY - you might have heard I was talking a few moments ago about the Salomon building collapsing and indeed it has... it seems this wasn't the result of a new attack but because the building had been weakened during this morning's attack."

Jane of Arc

03/10/07, 04:34 pm

Thanks MAGI~

BBC is not investigating or following through with diddley-squat.I've spent most of the week investigating this issue, but this is where we have to end the story. I know there are many out there who won't believe our version of events, or will raise further questions. But there was no conspiracy in the BBC's reporting of the events. Nobody told us what to say. There's no conspiracy involving missing tapes. There's no story here.

Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World

This story is not going away. It's a piece in the greater awareness that there was foreknowledge to the demolition of Building 7. (1) It was the first large skyscraper in the history of the world to collapse from fire. (2) Larry Silverstein is on videotape saying he gave the order to "pull it".

There's no story here, Mr. Porter? Oh, yes there is.

MAGI

03/10/07, 05:27 pm

Thanks MAGI~

BBC is not investigating or following through with diddley-squat.

This story is not going away. It's a piece in the greater awareness that there was foreknowledge to the demolition of Building 7. (1) It was the first large skyscraper in the history of the world to collapse from fire. (2) Larry Silverstein is on videotape saying he gave the order to "pull it".

There's no story here, Mr. Porter? Oh, yes there is.

************************************************** ***********************

There's no story here, Mr. Porter? Oh, yes there is.

I'm with you, Jane of Arc!
:toast:

-V-

03/11/07, 04:18 am

I don't understand your first question. Could you rephrase it?

What I mean to say is, what is the possible explanation for the 23 minute early reporting of the "collapse"? Why would those with the power to "pull" the building " leak out incriminating evidence? The only thing I could think of is that some leaking was required to clear the area.

Only 3 skyscrapers in world history "collapsed on their own from fire" ... and all 3 were on 9-11.

worth repeating

Jumpin Jupiter

03/11/07, 09:23 am

After a little research, I found this link:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/270207trustanything.htm

I have never been there before (the web site) so I dont know of its credibility, but seems to back up what has been suggested here in this thread.

Also, from another discussion board, some others believe some form of nukes were responsible, Read the post on the last page:

http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=191

Jane of Arc

04/03/07, 11:02 am

Check out Rosie O'Donell take on The View's NeoCon twinkie chick (whatever her name is?). It's wonderful. Rosie stays calm, yet passionate. She's informed, cool and damn, the girl shoots from the hip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3bWB8ATKyM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3bWB8ATKyM)

MAGI

04/03/07, 12:44 pm

YEY, Rosie!

I missed that on TV but heard about it on Joe Scarborough (who I really dislike) on his show last evening on MSNBC. I catch it sometimes and leave it on when I find something I'm interested about will be discussed. Like last night he and his two partisan guests discussed Rosie & 9/11 and they all three found Rosie "crazy" and the station should fire her!

Caught a wee bit of The View today............Rosie was there, but maybe it wasn't live....................

:thumbup: for presenting that Jane and YEY, Rosie!

-V-

04/03/07, 01:39 pm

what amazes me is that people are making a big stink about what Rose said even though her answer to "do you believe the government had anything to do with 911?" was "no, but I do believe it is the first time in history fire has ever melted steel". She wisely and conservatively focused on the implausabilities regarding Building 7.

Jane of Arc

04/03/07, 07:15 pm

I don't watch TV.

I have rarely seen Fox "News".

So, today when I researched the Rosie O'Donnell clip and watched Fox "News" I went into deep shock: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRGv9z5oUbk&mode=related&search=

I am stunned that there's people in America that actually watch this crap.

I'm further stunned that people could ever possibly believe a word from someone like Sean Hannity who has absolutely NOTHING to do with the reporting of non-biased news. He is a complete joke.

And to think that there are millions of Americans buying into this filth is a supremely scary thought.

Tonight I am worried for our future.

Here's a list of the names they called Rosie on the air, who is just someone with a different perspective:

crazy

unpopular

no right to speak

a clown

a fool

a deranged activist

Tokyo Rosie

gay rights activist (what does that have to do with anything discussed?)

FAT SLOB

ignorant

ranting & raving

she rushes to the side of our enemies

Mr. Anderson

04/03/07, 08:34 pm

I'll say it for you Jane because apparently your spiritual work you talk about prevents you from being crass. But with full enthusiasm I will jump into the judgmental troth and say ... the people at Fox are Nazi pigs. (And I mean that in the nicest way possible.) :D

-V-

04/03/07, 09:23 pm

Tonight I am worried for our future.

Mr. A, Mr. Toll would remind Ms. Arc to return to "the now". But personally, I believe there is cause for concern and being "crass" is perfectly appropriate.

On another note, this thread should be moved before the thread police arrive. These posts belong in the Rosey thread, all of which belong in the Building 7 thread.

On a third note, it is a shame Rosey added speculation about the Iran hostages. It gave regressives the ammo to dismiss her Building 7 comments which are much more than speculation.

MAGI

04/07/07, 09:22 am

Just read Rosie's blog:

http://www.rosie.com/blog/sections/ask-ro/

She's been on vacation and will be back on The View, Tuesday, the 10th.

It sounds like The SHOW to watch, or record.....................................

Let the :sunny: shine in.....................

Jane of Arc

04/07/07, 02:01 pm

Please sign the Petition to Disney-ABC to KEEP ROSIE. Don't let the 'Bile' O'Reilly campaign to fire her succeed.

http://keeprosie.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=30 (http://keeprosie.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=30)

Wafflepudding

04/15/07, 04:25 am

I'm not Neocon Newbie, but mind if I step in?
Newbie,

I've asked you now for 2 weeks to explain the demolition of Building 7 on 9-11. Maybe this timeline will help you understand what really happened:

1. Spring 2001: Larry Silverstein purchases the lease of the World Trade Center Complex for 15 million dollars.

2. Summer 2001: Larry Silverstein upgrades his insurance policy coverage and makes sure it covers "teroriist attacks".

3. 9-11-2001: Larry Silverstein is on videotape giving the order "pull it". And immediately, in demolition fashion, Building 7 pancakes to the ground. He owned the 2 towers also. If Building 7 had controlled demolition IN PLACE, so could the 2 towers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3E-26oVIIs&search=%22pull%20it%22%20silverstein

Subsequently, Larry Silverstein was paid 3.5 billion. He didn't think it was enough and went back to court and sued, claiming there were TWO terrorist attacks and was rewarded 7 BILLION DOLLARS. He paid 15 million and in a few years earned 7 BILLION ... not a bad return on an investment!

What does this have to do with the war on Iraq and it's oil? Everything. It was the new Pearl Harbor ... it was this fake attack on America that allowed some extremely greedy globalists to go after the oil.

1.- There were also thousands of other real estate purchases that year, how is this relevant? Also, 15 mill? I find it hard to believe that he got such a bargain, care to source that? I think it's awfully cheap for the lease of the WTC complex.

2.- The WTC had already been bombed in 1993. It was only reasonable to get coverage for a possible second attack. Why leave that out? Don't you believe it's important?

3.- The video you linked to states:
OS: World trade center 7 had always been considered the starting point for rebuilding. Located north of the slurry wall, seven had been cleared faster than the rest of the site, and there had been no bodies to recover.
Pelted by debris when the north tower collapsed, seven burned until late afternoon, allowing occupants to evacuate to safety.
Silverstein: "I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire."
"I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do was, is "pull it" and uuhhh, they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.

Larry is on videotape, on what I presume is a post 9/11 documentary, recalling what happened during that day. Nowhere in it does he "give the order", or give any order in fact. He is being interviewed. Building seven is then shown collapsing from other footage.

Now I have a few questions for you, Jane of Arc:

Were you not paying attention to the video? Is this video not the source of your statements? If so, why link to a video that does not support your argument? Could you please link to a video that DID support what you said?

Another thing that bothers me. Everyone is repulsed by "blood for oil" yet nobody makes an effort to consume less resources. We complain about a system that sacrifices innocent lives and our servicemen in the name of peace when its real goals are economic, yet we continue to demand standards of living not seen on any other nation, consume most of the world's resources, and live in relative comfort while hundreds of thousands live in hovels and tents not knowing where their next meal is gonna come from, worried about warlords, disease and famine. We are surprised that many parts of the world have the same cultural values western societies had during the middle ages, well of course they do! their standards of living are essentially the same! they're also being brainwashed by organized religion into holy wars and crusades.

I think you're a bit naive Joan, the world already hated America before the Iraq war, because we have been EVERYWHERE and screwed almost anyone we came across. Just off the top of my head I can come up with Nicaragua(the contras), Mexico(manifest destiny, "free trade" while subsidizing US agriculture), Colombia (US demand for coke, arming right-wing militia), Panama (cheated them out of canal revenues), Chile and Argentina (helped dictators), Iran (propping the shah), Iraq (the war, Hussein, sanctions), Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrian, Egyptian (unconditional aid to Israel), Vietnam, Somalia (killed tribe elders, left the country to burn and starve), Russia (the cold war ugly business started when the west backed the white army), Liberia (Started as US colony), I could go on and on. The world hated us before Iraq, and the world will hate us long after, no matter what we do over there. Sadly, that's why the astronomically high defense spending is justified.

Mr. Anderson

04/15/07, 02:58 pm

Welcome to the discussion Wafflepudding...nice to have you aboard.

Okay...first off. I nor can anyone else conclusively prove exactly who did what concerning the events of 9/11. What we are left to examine are many unanswered questions, many very suspicious "coincidences" and an "official story" which is not worth the paper it is printed on.

You were right to correct Jane by saying "Larry Silverstein did not order them to pull building 7." Silverstein said " I recieved a call from the fire dept. commander who said he was not sure if the fire could be contained...so I said we've had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do was to pull it, and they made the decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." The point you failed to focus on was that the order to "pull" the building was given! This is HUGE!!! Who was the "they" Silverstein spoke of? It takes several weeks of preparation to bring a building down via contolled demolition. That is one powerful (and fast) fire dept. official. So many people who support the "official story" focus on small almost insignificant details while ignoring the multitude of important questions. Does it prove that Larry Silverstein had foreknowledge of the attacks by changing his insurance policy to include acts of terror a mere six weeks before 9/11? No. But it is undeniably VERY SUSPICIOUS!!!!! I could produce a huge list of such suspicious "coincidences". It's like the analogy of walking into a room and seeing red paint on the wall and seeing a small child holding a can of red spray paint. Could you prove the child did it? No. But...you'd have to have your suspicions.

I agree with you that much of the world hated us before Iraq with good reason (how do you think they like us now?) We have crippled many countries both economically and militarily for decades. Our CIA has committed unthinkable atrocities on a global level. I also agree that as a country, we are somewhat hypocrititical by complaining about "blood for oil" when we do very little to curb our dependancy on it. But to say that the answer to the problem of how we have conducted ourselves as a country on the world stage is to build more bombs is ludicrous!!! That kind of thinking can ONLY lead to more wars and the inevitable demise of mankind.

Do you think that is justifiable????

Jane of Arc

04/15/07, 03:23 pm

BRAVO, Mr. Anderson!!! Well said. Let me repeat something you said which is key:

It takes several weeks of preparation to bring a building down via controlled demolition.

Somehow on 9-11 ... magically ... WTC Building 7 was "pulled", demolished, brought down in perfect pancake style. How was that possible? Please answer this one question Wafflepudding. How was the demolition of Building 7 accomplished in a matter of hours?

BTW, Welcome to POL Wafflepudding! :sunny:

-V-

04/15/07, 04:29 pm

and let me echo Mr. A in saying that the red paint is on the wall and there are more people holding the can of red spray paint than the hijackers. Wafflepudding raises some reasonable questions about a few of the questions surrounding 9/11 but that in no way excuses our media, government, and law enforcement, from getting to the bottom of every one of the "911 Mysteries" rather than us doing it ourselves.

Mr. Anderson

04/16/07, 09:34 am

Thank you very much, Jane! :notworthy: I am not worthy! And I concur that I would love to have Wafflepudding answer that one VERY IMPORTANT question.

I, for one, refuse to go on in America like everything is okay, because it's not. I refuse to accept the version of the "official story" the government is peddling, when it didn't even address the most basic of questions. The American People deserve answers. The American people deserve a real investigation that answers the long list of questions from the families of the victims of 9-11. The government should openly address the questions of respected scientists, engineers and scholars. Americans who buy the "official story lip service" do their fellow citizens no service what-so-ever.

So, please explain to us Wafflepudding:

How was the demolition of Building 7 accomplished in a matter of hours?

Wafflepudding

04/16/07, 09:53 am

Anderson: Thanks for the welcome.

1.- I will be the first to agree that the official version has holes indicating a coverup, however this is not uncommon, FEMA, Bushco and the mayor of New Orleans were tossing a political hot potato for months because they screwed up on the handling of the crisis. Most of the coverup efforts have been geared towards hiding Bush's incompetence in pursuing Bin Laden, his disregard of everything his advisors told him (John O'Neil was ignored completely until 9/11), and Bushco's intention, to fabricate a link between 9/11 and Iraq, which he ended up failing at.

2.- He never said "pull the building", so I assume you're interpreting that from the context. While I can understand where you're coming from, to me there's another more logical interpretation based on the whole conversation:

The fire dept. called him and said "maybe we can't contain the fire", rather than risk the lives of more firefighters, Silverstein said "Ok, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it" meaning end it, pull the firefighters out of the building, pull the plug on the operation, whatever you wanna call it. Moments after, the building collapsed, thereby confirming Silverstein and the fire dept. did the right thing.

Why am I inclined to take this interpretation over Jane's? there are a few factors:
A) The video conflicted with that version of the story.
B) The claims that the building was intact and suddenly collapsed upon itself (on which the "controlled demolition theory" depends) are blatantly false.

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7Corner.jpg
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/7wtc.jpg

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

It is clearly visible, in these pictures, that the building had recieved substancial damage. The scorch marks and thick, black smoke out the windows of a few levels also confirm the official version of widespread fires. This supports the debris and fire theory.

C) If you are indeed seeking the truth, you try to find all the facts. It appears to me, that this "search for the truth", LC, and many other "9/11 truth" efforts consisted in parting from the principle that the government has lied and manipulated us (true), and thereby everything related to 9/11 proves that it was an "inside job" (probably false) and all evidence to the contrary is government propaganda (false) and all who believe it are Bush followers (ridiculously false).

D) I also find it hard to believe that out of the thousands of people that must be involved in a conspiracy of this magnitude, not one has surfaced to speak up, they're "all in on it" unanimously and in perfect sinchronicity.

3.- The "They" Silverstein was talking about was the fire department. Nobody in there said anything about demolishing any building, so that question only works if you're already convinced the building was demolished.

4.- Keep in mind that kind of suspicion/paranoia mentality fueled the witch burnings and McCarthyism. Suspicion is not enough to condemn anyone.

5.- You can produce a huge list of "suspicious coincidences" out of anything, in fact I can produce such a long list of many things that have been said in this forum. Until you produce evidence, all of this is speculation, not fact.

6.- Good analogy, it proves my point. You CAN prove he did it if you investigate it, and he could have just tried to take the can for himself having found it after the fact. It could be HIS can and the deed done by someone else, etc. Am I the only one with childhood memories of being wrongfully acused and punished over suspicions?

7.- I never said arming ourselves to the teeth was the answer, only that it is necesary since the world already hates us and wants to destroy us for reasons you understand. We've sown hate for a century (if not more), presumably fixing that damage will take another century, in the meantime disarming and leaving ourselves open and vulnerable while everyone still wants a piece of us sounds unwise to me.

8.- We should always hope and act for the best but prepare for the worst, defense is no different. We should treat the world kindly and fairly, never prop up another dictator and never start another war based on lies, but still be ready to retaliate with overwhelming force if needed (key words here being IF NEEDED, use of force should be a last resort), anything less is wishful thinking. We live in a violent, bloody, dangerous world teeming with nuclear weapons, military vehicles, explosives and enough small arms and ammunition to kill the entire world population of 6 billion many, many times over. That is not bound to change anytime soon.

All in all, I feel that the whole "controlled demolition" theory is detrimental to the search for the truth about 9/11, it's detrimental to finding and punishing the people, both inside the government (the Bush admin, neocons) and outside it (Jihadists) responsible for the events, and it makes us appear to the mainstream as insane, gullible, uneducated fools. More than that, asking questions that are responded already by independent debunk sites, google image and some experts on the subject, is shifting the focus away from the incompetence that let 9/11 happen, the poor handling and strategy of the war, and the war crimes commited on Iraq, to a futile and ridiculous wild goose chase.

The Bush administration convinced America to support the war on Iraq based on questions, questionable evidence, media and eyewitness reports. Two lies don't cancel each other out, we need nothing more, and nothing less, than the truth.

Jane: Thanks for the welcome.

I refuse to answer it, it's a loaded question, it's more probable that there was no such demolition. I believe it collapsed from the damage.

-V-

04/16/07, 10:26 am

.- Keep in mind that kind of suspicion/paranoia mentality fueled the witch burnings and McCarthyism. Suspicion is not enough to condemn anyone.

one out of two. Paranoia fueled witch burnings. Suspicion fueled Watergate.

You can produce a huge list of "suspicious coincidences" out of anything again, you are working harder at dismissing the suspicions than raising them. You may find some coincidences attached to any incident but hardly a huge list. If our district attorney was as casual as you in dismissing huge lists no one would ever be prosecuted for anything.

As several of us here keep trying to tell you, we are not screaming "burn the witch" we are screaming INVESTIGATE EVERY SUSPECT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MOST DEVASTATING ACT OF TERRORISM IN AMERICAN HISTORY. We are not asking for a multlmillion dollar investigation into a semen stain on an intern's dress and we will not simply dismiss the whole thing because you find it "HARD TO BELIEVE"!

You are right, however, in saying it is wrong to assume everyone who dismisses 9-11 theories is a Bush supporter. CNN reported on a recent poll that puts the percentage of people who believe there is more to 9-11 than we are being told is TWICE as high as Bush's approval number.

Lionhearted

04/16/07, 11:05 am

Hi Wafflepudding and welcome to POL. You most definetly are not Neo-Con Newbie (I mean that as a compliment).

I have a few questions if you don't mind:

Silverstein: "I remember getting a call from the ah fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, ya know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is is pull it. Ahhh and they made that decision to pull. And, and we watched the building collapse."
Not pull out, or pull the plug, but pull it and then to pull.

1) Is not the phrase "pull it" demolition industry jargon for demolishing a building?

2) What is your take on the ability of the BBC, among others, to report on the collapse of a building, before it collapses? In fact the building is clearly visible over Jane Stanley's left shoulder (right side of the screen as you are viewing).
BBC Reports on Building 7 Collapse (http://youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc)

3) Can you provide any instances where a steel framed building had collapsed due to fire that had occurred before (or even after) 9/11? I have done a Google search and have found many instances (usually connected with a 9/11 sight) of such fires that did not lead to building collapse but none where a steel framed building did indeed collapse due to fire.

Thank you for your time and again welcome to POL.

Wafflepudding

04/16/07, 01:29 pm

-V- :
1.-Two out of two. Mere suspicion didn't fuel watergate, deepthroat and the tapes did. Mere suspicion was enough to burn someone at the stake though.

2.- I'm not "dismissing" anything, I'm saying there are good answers to most (not all) of these questions, all you have to do is bother looking them up, preferably before asking them. I have no prejudices and therefore I have no problem with the theory that the government might have done it, I'm saying there's not enough evidence to go with that theory, and lack of evidence from the other side of the argument (of which there isn't) isn't evidence of a conspiracy (which I do believe exists), let alone this particular conspiracy(which I believe is a load).

3.- No, you are not screaming "Burn the witch", Jane is screaming "It was an inside job, lets burn Bushco!":

Maybe this timeline will help you understand what really happened:

What does this have to do with the war on Iraq and it's oil? Everything. It was the new Pearl Harbor ... it was this fake attack on America that allowed some extremely greedy globalists to go after the oil.

Not "there are unanswered questions", not "there are reasons to investigate", suddenly it's a fact that 9/11 was "an inside job", do you have enough proof to back that up as fact? "no, but we have solid reasons to investigate and legitimate doubts", perfect, investigate it, but quit thinking you have a monopoly on truth and quit deriding/dismissing everyone with a different opinion. Not that I have anything against impeaching Bush, but there are plenty of legitimate, solid reasons to do it, without having to reach out to conspiracy theories about controlled demolitions.

Also I find it indicative that you say "Every suspect responsible" (If you are a suspect, you are not responsible, only the guilty are responsible and in this country you are innocent until proven otherwise) as opposed to "Every possible suspect". Do you think this is grammatical nitpicking? I think so too, and so is the "pull it" discussion.

4.- we will not simply dismiss the whole thing because you find it "HARD TO BELIEVE"!
You're taking me out of context. You make it sound as if I'm saying "I don't think it's true, so stop wasting our time", I said "I think it's not true, becase of X, Y and Z, and pending further evidence I consider this a waste of time". You have neither presented further evidence (which will eventually have to stand examination and questioning, that's what being a skeptic is about), or proven "X, Y and Z" are false. Most of you will not dismiss this because you have serious questions about the honesty and accuracy of the official investigation yet when I have serious questions about this theory suddenly I'm all for covering up the truth? please...

5.- "There's more to 9/11 that we're lead to believe" and "the government destroyed the twin towers by controlled demolition" are hardly the same. Notice that I'm against the CONTROLLED DEMOLITION THEORY, not against asking questions about 9/11, there are many other explanations: "Nothing more could have been done to prevent it, it was done by evil muslims that hate freedom", "It was the jihadists, but the government failed at their duties due to incompetence", "It was jihadists, but the government failed to act in order to have an excuse to start wars for oil", "It was jihadists, it couldn't have been prevented, but the government started this war when it selfishly meddled in middle eastern affairs", "This was all a lie, 9/11 was an inside job, the government did it to have an excuse to start wars for oil".
What I'm saying here, is THAT LAST EXPLANATION IS AS CREDIBLE AS THE FIRST ONE. They both are full of holes in evidence and logic, they both rely on speculation, they both ignore the facts that are inconvenient for themselves, they are both heavily dependant on paranoia and speculation, and they both rely on a dramatic, "evil/good" people version of the world. They both satisfy a basic human need of moral highground, by standing against "evil terrorists" or "greedy elites". The truth is likely to be much, much simpler, but no less devious and bleak.

Lionhearted: Thanks for the compliment and the welcome.
What did you think of the website and the pictures showing damage and fire on WTC7?
1.- I don't know, why would Silverstein? Why would Silverstein (an investor and CEO) use demolition jargon informally and casually? or in an interview that's gonna be shown to millions?
2.- They say, repeatedly, "Salomon brother's building", this building:
http://www.nycskyscrapers.com/wallstreet/images/salomon.jpg
http://www.nycskyscrapers.com/wallstreet/salomon.html
Does this look like WTC 7 to you?
3.- I believe the multiton jumbo jets hitting the towers at high speeds might have contributed, and that is not something that happens often.
http://emuse.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/3479
This was just an F series fighter and it still had enough punch to come out the other side of the building. Unfortunately I couldn't find "After" images. More evidence and tests are necesary to give a definitive answer to that question.

Mr. Anderson

04/16/07, 04:32 pm

Pudding...

I will attempt to address each one of your points in the same organized, numerical manner in which you have presented them to the best of my ability (lots of info ...man)

1) Saying "the official version has holes indicating a cover up" is WAY too easy and dismissive; and the fact that this is not "uncommon" doesn't make it acceptable. Have you actually seen these holes? They make the Grand Canyon jealous! These guys manipulated and or omitted VOLUMES OF INFORMATION! Building seven is NOT EVEN MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN THE REPORT!!!! Kind of a big detail to leave out...don't you think? The descrepancies are seemingly endless. You are absolutley wrong in saying that "most of the cover up efforts have been geared towards hiding Bush's incompetence." The reality is most of the report is geared towards hiding the truth from the American public; a truth that (quite possibly) would implicate the very people supposedly investigating it. This was NOT by any means an independant investigation. Bush's incompetence (although evident in almost everything he does) is irrelevant. Bin Laden is not even worth mentioning at this point.

2) Regarding the Silverstein comment; it's interesting that he said "they decided to pull it and we watched the building collapse." Silverstein later said that he meant to "pull the firefighters from harms way." The only problem with that statement is that is is well documented that the ALL personell (including fire fighters) were ordered to vacate all the buildings surrounding towers 1 & 2 after tower 2 collapsed; which happened in the morning. Building seven collapsed around 5:20 in the afternoon. Exactly which fire fighters is he refering to? I have seen video footage of rescue workers walking away from building seven who were saying "keep your eye on that building...it's coming down soon." How did these guys know that? Can rescue workers determine when a building is about to collapse by looking at it? Did someone tell them the building was coming down? If so, who was this person and how did they know? The building did sustain damage. but it's damage was NOTHING compared to the damage sustained by WTC buildings 3,4, 5 and 6; all of which sustained MUCH WORSE damage than building seven and ALL of which REMAINED STANDING!!!!! WTC7 was not "in tact" in that it had sutained damage. However, it DID suddenly collapse into itself. The thing IMPLODED!!! IT LANDED IN A NICE NEAT HEAP IN UNDER 8 SECONDS!! DO YOU NOT HAVE EYES??? NEVER before in the history of architechtural engineering has a steel framed structure collapsed due to fire!!! It defies the laws of physics!!! Even if the damage sustained by WTC7 was bad enough to make the building tople, it WOULD NOT/ COULD NOT HAVE COME DOWN THE WAY IT DID!!! It is IMPOSSIBLE!!! The post collapse photos show a perfect pile of rubble in one place. There was a pyroclastic flow (common to controlled demolitions) which could have ONLY been produced by an external eneregy source (like thermite). The same goes for the towers. Why where those buildings pulverized into DUST?!?! What happened to the 47 HUGE steel columns which made up the core of the towers?

I don't claim to be able to prove who is responsible for 9/11. But one has to ask...who had the means and the motive to pull this off?? Who is benefitting from these wars? Did Larry Silverstein benefit? Are all the huge corporations involved in this war benefitting?? Has BushCo benefitted? Who is benefitting?? If one takes the facts of what happened on that fateful day, takes a look at who is benefitting and applies some simple logic, a conclusion is not difficult to attain. What I am talking about is not a concrete answer but a logical conclusion. I do not draw my conclusion with the alterior motive of tearing down this administration (they are doing quite nicley by themselves). This is NOT a political arguement. My opinion and the opinions of many of my fellow POL'ers are in no way related to the schizophrenic, fear based mentality of Sen. McCarthy...but nice try.

Look...the bottom line is that after having seen the video footage of WTC7 falling you STILL completely rule out controlled demolition then...I don't know what else to say. This operation could have been planned and executed by a few dozen people for all we know; many of whom were given (possibly ordered) to be responsible for their little piece of the puzzle; and who could have never been able to know what the ultimate goal was. And if they had known probably would not have believed it. I don't have all the answers. Furthermore, I think believing that examining the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job or considering the "controlled demolition" theory is "detrimental to the truth or finding the real criminals behind it" is scared thinking and quite frankly...stupid. I'm sorry. These debunk sites you refer to (the ones I have checked out anyway) are not interested in examining REAL details or answering REAL questions. They are more interested in making the people who DO ask them out to be unpatriotic fools. And some of them (like Popular Mechanics) can be directly tied to Bush.

Watch Fox News cover a story about ANYONE who questions the official story. They do not address the issues that person attempts to shed light on. They immediately go into attack mode. Cruel, dirty, viscious personal attacks. Why?

We seem to be living in an insane asylum in this country. And the doctors in our care keep us medicated. Not medicated to help us regain sanity; but medicated to perpetuate insanity. Luckily...more and more people are gaining awareness to this psychosis and refuse to take their meds.

Wafflepudding

04/17/07, 03:02 pm

Anderson:
1.- It is neither easy, nor dismissive, it is the truth, nothing more and nothing less. Dismissive: "There are no holes", "they are not significant", "worthy of investigation". And yet again, incorrect. The 9/11 comission reports mentions WTC7, 5 times.

"You are absolutley wrong in saying that "most of the cover up efforts have been geared towards hiding Bush's incompetence."
I don't see how I'm absolutely wrong, these views are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are convergent, we both think they are hiding something, we just disagree in what they are hiding (negligence or a fake flag operation).

2.- This is all speculation and argumentative, not factual. If you're being so meticulous about what Silverstein said and did not say, he didn't say "and right after we watched the building collapse", or any indication that there wasn't a considerable time difference between the two events.

"Can rescue workers determine when a building is about to collapse by looking at it?" Maybe, they're rescue workers, I presume they have been in dozens of fires and building collapses, more than you or I have been or ever will probably. Even if they didn't, this could mean that the damage was apparent to anyone who went into the building, or had a clear look at the south side. It could also be simply a coincidence, people make correct predictions about things like this fairly often, and considering the building had just been struck by heavy debris and devastated by a fire, I would have guessed the same thing.

"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt." - Fire chief Daniel Nigro http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-634

So it wasn't just "rescue workers", it was several professionals. You didn't read this, or you just choose to ignore it. Either way, you dismissed this.

I looked up your claims about the other WTC structures, they are factually wrong:

WTC3 (WTC1 on background):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/WTC1.jpg

WTC4:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/4-Wtc-photo.jpg

WTC5:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/5-wtc-photo.jpg
Excerpt from Wikipedia: "The (FEMA/ASCE Building Performance Study Team) team found that some connections between the structural steel beams failed in the fire. This was most apparent in the collapse of World Trade Center Building 5, where the fireproofing did not protect the connections, causing the structure to fail."

They are partially collapsed, WTC 3 I wouldn't even describe as "standing". This also contradicts the claims that the building imploded, if it did ALL WTC BUILDINGS save the towers would be intact or the damage would be minimal. How many building implosions resulting from CD have provoked extensive damage to the sorrounding structures? that's the whole point of an implosion, avoid damaging other buildings. These pictures also show rubble strewn all over the area, not a single neat heap.

This however is the most interesting point you make in my opinion:

"There was a pyroclastic flow (common to controlled demolitions) which could have ONLY been produced by an external eneregy source (like thermite)."

Thermite isn't used in controlled demolitions, it's an incendiary. Pyroclastic flows would indicate the temperatures were much higher than the reports stated (at least 3100 F), this would also help explain why the steel girders gave in so easily. I'll look into this, but it will take some time and it's not at the top of my "to do" list.

"the bottom line is that after having seen the video footage of WTC7 falling you STILL completely rule out controlled demolition then..." STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I have repeatedly said, and I quote, "It is improbable, based on the current evidence" thereby my OPINION is this is a waste of time. How do you twist this into "You're a goddam idiot, stop questioning me, the official version is flawless" I cannot comprehend.

I really don't care what the sites are focused in, I linked them for the pictures mostly, to prove some of my assertions about the buildings. Care to de-debunk images? I don't care if they're tied to Chenney's dog, or the queen of England, they count as evidence since they are PICTURES, widely available, taken by third parties, with no evident sign of tampering. If you disagree with the conclusions and evidence presented, present more convincing evidence and better conclusions. Attacking the source does NOT discredit the argument.

Because FOX news is the giant propaganda branch of the neocons in this country, nobody's even arguing that. They go into ad-hominem (attacking the source), because they cannot attack the argument, because most (if not all) of the time they don't HAVE an argument of their own, just rethoric and dismissals. Also, America loves dirty, scandalous bickering on TV, ask Springer.

We have ALWAYS lived disconnected from the truth in this country, the government never mentions any of their shady bullshit on the history textbooks, and every new generation is ignorant of the crimes of the past. More and more people are dissenting, but rebels without a clue are helping no-one. By rebels without a clue, I'm talking about the kind of people you find commenting "J00 R so ghey, a missle bombed WTC!1!1!!", which sadly are the bulk of the CTs I've been in contact with. If that's the kind of people you're talking about we're all better off without them.

Lionhearted

04/17/07, 08:09 pm

Hey WP,
Thanks for your prompt response.
Okay I made an assumption on the BBC video. It was an error on my part as I stupidly failed to follow-up when I wondered if the Salmon Brothers building was another name for WTC-7.
As for the video you linked, showing a fighter jet crashing into a small (relative to the size of the twin towers and WTC-7) building, if you use the pause/play button to attempt a frame by frame review of the video as the jet crashes into the building, you can clearly see that the jet does not crash into the building, but instead, flies over the building. Please take another look at the video and let me know if you see what I, and many who commented on the video saw.
Thanks.

Mr. Anderson

04/17/07, 10:32 pm

This is WTC3 SEVERELY damaged but STILL STANDING.

http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10003/normal_WTC3_01.jpg

This is WTC6...again badly damaged and burned out but still standing.

http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10003/normal_WTC6_01.jpg

As you can see these buildings were much worse off than WTC7 and they DID NOT COLLAPSE! They were in fact still so in tact structurally, they needed to be taken down via CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!!

WTC7 was an implosion. No other buildings around it were damaged. The twin towers were a controlled demolition first in that they EXPLODED, hence all the surrounding structure damage.

As far as the pyroclastic flow is concerned, they are caused by ENERGY (like that of high explosives or a volcanic eruption) not HEAT. You are correct...Thermite IS an incendiary...used by the military. Many believe Thermite was used along with explosives (another controlled demolition first) due to the massive pools of molten steel found under the rubble of all three collapsed buildings several weeks after the attack. It is impossible for jet fuel in an uncontrolled environment to produce that kind of heat. It simply cannot happen.

As far as putting words in your mouth...you said "The claims that the building was intact and suddenly collapsed upon itself (on which the "controlled demolition theory" depends) are blatantly false." Is that not the same as ruling out controlled demolition or am I missing something? You may also want to check and see who is behind these sites you go to "mostly for pictures". I think you'll find many have direct ties to Dubya and his ilk; and (again) if you think that is irrelevent...think again.

I realize media "spin" and "character assasination" is not a new phenomonon. It has, however, gotten significantly worse; especially since 9/11. True journalism is all but non-existent in our main stream media. On this issue I believe we are on the same page. I was just making the point about how the topic of 9/11 "conspiracies" makes most journalists grow fangs and foam at the mouth; engaging in personal attacks rather than unbiased reporting. Why is that?

This is a GREAT documentary about 9/11. It was done by a conservative Republican and simply points out a mountain of facts and unanswered questions which the American people have never seen in our media. Check it out (if you haven't already) and tell me what you think. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysteries&hl=en

Believe it or not...I DO value your opinion.

Until next time.

Mr. Anderson

04/17/07, 10:48 pm

This is WTC4 on fire

http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/8000pics/WTC3456/normal_0662.jpg

This is WTC4 weeks later...looks like it's still standing to me.

http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10003/normal_WTC4_01.jpg

Mr. Anderson

04/17/07, 11:00 pm

Pudding-

I realize that I have to be hyper-specific in this discussion, which is fine.

When I said you were dismissive regarding the "holes" in the 9/11 Commission Report, I simply meant it was too easy to simply say "the official version has holes indicating a cover up" and not really discussing what those holes are. I never disputed the fact that you believe they exist. If we are going to do this, lets do it right.

First of all...when I said "building seven in not even mentioned anywhere in the report" I obviously meant the COLLAPSE of building seven was not mentioned; if this statement is taken in the context of the discussion. I read the report but I'll do you one better. If you go to this link http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf, you can do a word search. I tried every conceivable way to search for WTC7. If you search for 7WTC, you will find it does appear five times, like you said. However, this is what each mention of it references:

1) page 301-talks about the location of the OEM's (Office of Emergency Management) location on the 23rd floor (just one of MANY important offices in that building...we'll get to that later)

2) page 310 - basically talks about the same thing.

3) page 319 - talks about the location of an engineer who remarked the twin towers were in imminent danger of total collapse (How did he know that? Even an engineer would have to have closely examined the structural integrity of two HUGE buildings in just over an hour. Again, it does not mention how this information was attained which is yet another hole.)

4) page 322 - talks about the full evacuation of WTC7 at 9:30 am.

5) page 322 - talks about a secret service agent in WTC7 who advised an OEM official that additional commercial planes were not accounted for.

The collapse of 7WTC, a 47 story building containing offices for:

Saloman Smith Barney (hence The Saloman building!)
The I.R.S.
The U.S. Secret Service
Amex
The Securities & Exchange Commision
The C.I.A.
The Mayor's Emergency Bunker
plus several other investment firms...

WAS NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN THE 911 COMMISSION REPORT!!!

So I say again...KIND OF A BIG DETAIL TO LEAVE OUT...DON'T YOU THINK?!?! In exactly what way do you think the exclusion of this information (or any of the other HUGE descrepancies) is aimed at covering up Bush's incompetence? I think a more logical explanation is that they are aimed at covering up acts of high treason and premeditated mass murder!

As for the rescue workers and their crystal ball...that would had to have been one hell of a coincidence! I'm sure they have seen more damaged buildings than either of us, but how could they (or anyone) have been so sure that this building was about to collapse when NEVER BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF STEEL FRAMED STRUCTURES HAS ONE COLLAPSED DUE TO THIS TYPE OF DAMAGE?!?! You're probably right...JUST a coincidence...nothing to see here! :rolleyes: The link you provided to support your claim that not only rescue workers but "professionals" predicted the building would collapse is wonderful. This "professional" agency is fronted by an ex-CIA agent named William Harvey who's CIA resume includes planning to poison Fidel Castro. His agency's work includes investigating the 2004 election, the Iraq occupation, Katrina, Bush's environmental record, Abu Ghraib and the 9/11 timeline just to name a few. It's nice to have people sympathetic to your cause "investigating" your screw ups. It is a total right wing controlled agency! If you think that is irrelevent...

Okay...PICTURE TIME!!!! (Because I DO care to debunk your images.)

This is WTC5 on fire

http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/normal_39_jpg.jpg

This is WTC5...still standing.

http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/normal_pete4.jpg

MAGI

04/18/07, 07:16 am

So, WP,
You evidently choose NOT to want further investigaton on very
credible evidence that's absolutely warrented because of conflicting evidence! Why?

How do you explain explosions that severely wounded janitors in the basement
of the WTC building within seconds of the plane hitting the towers? Janitors questioning explosions!
Fireman telling of hearing explosions!
Seeing explosions (puffs of white smoke) in the films before floor after floor implodes!

How do you explain this?
Will you kindly look at the films mentioned on POL as well as films that refute same?

I repeat and ask again,
You evidently choose NOT to want further investigaton on very
credible evidence that's absolutely warrented, because of ALL the conflicting evidence! Why?
:confused:

Mr. Anderson

04/18/07, 09:37 am

BTW Pudding...

In reply to your post from 4/16 directed to Lionhearted where you claim the Salomon Building and WTC7 are two different structures...that is ABSOLUTELY a picture of WTC7...The Salomon Building. They are the SAME BUILDING!!!

Have a nice day!

MAGI

04/18/07, 11:20 am

Waffle Pudding:
about your opinion people aren't worried about our reliance on carbon fuels.... NOT!

Why haven't we yet learned about Cheney's secretive energy meetings, early on,
with Energy corporations that set the NEO CON Energy Policy in OUR Country?

How is that MY fault?

Do Cheney's secret meetings bother you?

Why isn't there solar panels on every residence where the Sun shines most of the day throughout the year?
In AZ alone this could feed back to SRP (electric company) and eliminate a great deal of carbon enery needed to make electricity!
Wind power where there is constant wind.
Wave (as in ocean) power on our coasts?

Why the big holdup on developing alternative fuels?
" " " " " developing vehicles which run on cleaner fuel sources?
" " " " " " smaller vehicles?

You think there might be a conspiracy keeping us from getting off the need for
OIL = BLACK GOLD, maybe?.......................:eek: !

:confused: :rolleyes:

Jane of Arc

04/18/07, 02:34 pm

Wafflepudding says:
We have ALWAYS lived disconnected from the truth in this country,
the government never mentions any of their shady bullshit on the history textbooks, and every new generation is ignorant of the crimes
of the past. More and more people are dissenting, but rebels without a clue are helping no-one.

You're criticizing "rebels without a clue"? Well, apparently Mr. Anderson has a clue! He blew away the believability of your
'too-close-to-evaluate' photo and the FEMA aerial shots. He did this with good research and the ground photos of
WTC3, 4, 5, 6 still standing!

These were structures that endured endless crushing debris and long burning fires and were STILL STANDING!!!

It makes the "collapse" of WTC7 even more suspect!

The "rebels without a clue" happen to be American citizens who have serious doubts about what happened on 9/11
to their families, their friends, their city and their nation.

What makes you so hell-bent on defending the bogus "Official 9/11 Story"?

60% of We The People polled believe the government is hiding something and 36% think there is a government conspiracy.
That's MILLIONS of "American rebels without a clue".

Lionhearted

04/18/07, 03:09 pm

Hey!
I just found out that the Salomon Building and WTC-7 are indeed one in the same.

Oh I see where Mr. Anderson has already addressed the Salomon Building/WTC-7 thingy.

Anyway, I now take back and disavow all of my self-denigrating comments. :)

Lionhearted

04/18/07, 08:06 pm

One thing that I have learned while reading about the collapse of WTC-7 is that is apparently takes quite some time to set up a controlled demolition. It would seem to me that, according to the official story on 9/11, that all that work is unecessary. All you need to do is take out a few upper floors and viola! the building will collapse upon itself at near free-fall speed.

Wafflepudding

04/18/07, 08:09 pm

First off, before the rebuttals (I do have a few):
I was wrong. There are some suspicious events and some evidence that needs to be reviewed again. I hadn't sifted through the whole 9/11 comission report (567 pages long, I have to admit I haven't gone over it with a fine tooth comb). I still don't see it as a coverup, but the whole report is a recopilation of other, non-independant sources and stories to make a single explanation, which of course ends up not fitting well. I still believe there isn't enough evidence to claim the government did it, but a second investigation with enough funding to make the necesary experiments, led by independant parties with public oversight is in order and fully warrants the necessary expense.

Anderson: WTC3, in your own picture, is partially collapsed, it's got a large irregular chunk missing, the midsection, indicating that a solid piece of the towers fell on top of it, again this is not consistent with an implosion. Both aerial pictures of WTC4 (shown mostly intact save a few holes on one of the sides) and 5 are consistent with yours, only mine are topside and yours are from the front. FEMA or not, I believe the top view paints a more complete picture than only one side.
hey were in fact still so in tact structurally
Structurally intact? so what would you call those huge holes visible on the aerial photographs? Or the holes visible in your own pics? are they "severely damaged"
or "structurally intact"? We can live without the sarcasm. If a friend of yours bought a lotto ticket, told you he was SURE he would win and then won a prize, would you say he was certain and had inside info? or would you dismiss it as a coincidence? causality is the key here.
However the pyroclastic flow and thermite arguments made me look into the combustion phenomenon and so far I'm finding out very confusing things that could go either way. I would suggest a joint effort in this because it is quite a lenght of information and I might as well get the peer review out of the way, my ICQ is on my profile. I'm not commenting on the SB building, I screwed up, but the pictures don't look like they're from the same building.

MAGI: Because most of the arguments I had heard before (and many I've heard recently) are weak and speculative. I mostly concede to the the physics arguments. "Explosions" that could have been caused by gas mains, a FAE effect or high pressure tanks, and could have not been explosions in the first place, I wouldn't rule it out now, but I don't think it's necesarily proof. The energy discussion belongs somewhere else, and I'm still catching up on the alternative energy links you provided.

Jane: Read and pase the WHOLE QUOTE please:
"rebels without a clue are helping no-one. By rebels without a clue, I'm talking about the kind of people you find commenting "J00 R so ghey, a missle bombed WTC!1!1!!", which sadly are the bulk of the CTs I've been in contact with."

Anderson is, clearly, not the kind of people I'm talking about. If I'm being disrespectful, it's because I don't respect people who go into Ad-hominem, Anderson has not done so.

EDIT: The links were Jennifer's. Also, noody's stopping MAGI, or anyone else from buying their own solar panels and installing them on your rooftop. Do you have any?

-V-

04/18/07, 11:49 pm

Note: several dozen posts were moved here from 3 other threads. Several photos were replaced with links to the photos because they were too wide for the page.

Mr. Anderson

04/19/07, 11:21 am

Pudding-

First of all...have you had a chance to watch the link I sent you? If not, I suggest you do so. It is done VERY well. It addresses 9/11 from a scientific perspective for the most part. They occasionally ask questions which (to me) are logical and very relevent. I think it may answer a lot of the questions you have regarding WTC7 and eveything else. It goes into GREAT detail. Check it out. I'm curious as to your reaction. Here it is again http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysteries&hl=en

Alrighty then...back to our discussion. You said "Anderson: WTC3, in your own picture, is partially collapsed, it's got a large irregular chunk missing, the midsection, indicating that a solid piece of the towers fell on top of it, again this is not consistent with an implosion." If you check my second to last post, you'll see that I wrote that WTC7 was an implosion. The Twin Towers were not. They EXPLODED. Watch the video footage. This is the reason the buildings directly beneath them (WTC3,4,5 &6) were so heavily damaged. WTC7 was NOT directly beneath the towers. How was debris, which was big enough in size and quantity, launched far enough to reach WTC7 causing enough damage to supposedly make the structure collapse? Take a look at the layout of the WTC Complex. http://www.waarheid911.nl/WTCcomplex.gif
If the official story is true and the bulidings "pancaked" straight down, then how could debris (ENORMOUS steel beams) have traveled so far, so fast?

Here is an excellent view of the south side of WTC7...the side which sustained the most damage. Compared to the other buildings in the complex (whose damage was MUCH worse yet remained standing), does this look like enough damage to bring a 47 story steel structure down in under eigth seconds? http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7swd.jpg

Several other buildings surrounding the complex, yet nowhere near the collapse zone, had HUGE steel beams lodged into their sides; as if shot from a cannon. How is that possible?

When I said the "buildings were in tact structurally", I was refering to the load bearing infastructure; the main columns which held up the building. Of course there was structural damage; much of which was severe (WTC3). And even though the buildings could not be saved, they were STILL strong enough to require controlled demolition as the means to completely bring them down. I think that is a very significant fact...don't you?

Your analogy of comparing a winning lottery ticket to the events of 9/11 (in terms of coincidence) could not be more misconstrued. You are comparing a single event (winning the lottery) to an event involving infinite facts, questions, circumstances, individuals and information (9/11); much of which is diametrically opposed to the "official story" we've been given by our government. One coincidence can easily be dismissed; even two or three. However, there are NUMEROUS, extremely significant coincidences which were thouroughly IGNORED by the 911 Commission and are STILL widely unknown by the general public, thanks to our media. It would be great if we had a truly independant and HONEST commission research 9/11. They would simply have to examine the mountains of evidence already compiled and have the power to do something about their findings. Unfortunately, our government now possesses that power by basically owning the judicial system, which is why NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE AND THIS MOUNTAIN OF RESEARCH CONTINUES TO BE IGNORED! Why do you think so much energy is put into discrediting and ridiculing those whose opinions oppose that of big brother? Why aren't these facts examined? For these reasons, for the agenda which has been set in motion, for the beneficiaries of this agenda and for the way these events transpired on 9/11 is why I truly believe this was WITHOUT A DOUBT an inside job. Research the findings of Stanley Hilton and what he attempted to do. Then ask yourself why you've never heard about it before.

It seems to me that you are just begining your research into 9/11, and I think that's GREAT!! I have been on the case from the start. I have read several books, listened to several researchers and watched several videos; some of which are crap. Some, however, are not. I have had this discussion with my older brother who is a STAUNCH Republican and was a MAJOR Bush supporter. He is an M.D. and is VERY intelligent. At first, he didn't want to hear about it; thinking I was out of my mind. After many discussions and turning him on to a few websites, we are now in COMPLETE agreement. I would be happy to help you with your research but I think you would benefit greatly from watching 911 Mysteries (the link above). I am curious to get your reaction to it as aperson with REAL questions regarding that day and I truly believe it would greatly help our discussion.

Peace.

MAGI

04/19/07, 11:30 pm

MAGI: Because most of the arguments I had heard before (and many I've heard recently) are weak and speculative. I mostly concede to the the physics arguments. "Explosions" that could have been caused by gas mains, a FAE effect or high pressure tanks, and could have not been explosions in the first place, I wouldn't rule it out now, but I don't think it's necesarily proof. The energy discussion belongs somewhere else, and I'm still catching up on the alternative energy links you provided.

WP, I'm glad to see you have some doubt now..........
Why not call in those people who can shed light on ALL that Mr. Anderson presents? Of course there must be a non partisan committee.
It would do no harm if it's as you feel, and at the very least, clear up all those legitimate questions asked by a growing number of citizens.

Do you ask yourself why there is such vehement denial?
:confused:

I'll get back to you about energy. I called my state rep's office yesterday, no answer yet. Will call him later today as well as my State Senator & Washington Senator, Dodd, who supposedly had plans to unveil "an ambitious energy plan", yesterday "that aims to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enact a "corporate tax" that would bring in $50 billion annually."
Wasn't home yesterday, wonder if it happened!

Wafflepudding

04/21/07, 04:22 pm

Anderson: I'll get right on the video. I've been trying to post elsewhere, you know, spread myself out a bit. There's more to me than 9/11.

If you check my second to last post, you'll see that I wrote that WTC7 was an implosion. The Twin Towers were not. They EXPLODED. Watch the video footage.
Exactly. If the SB brothers building was an implosion, it would have gone down all at once, there wouldn't be missing chunks. Maybe there were already charges planted and the chunks are not important? If so, those demo charges, their detonators and all the wiring involved in the process of CD survived a long, intense, widespread fire and chunks of WTC 1 and 2 falling on the building. The system went through all of this and came out intact and in perfect working order causing a perfect implosion. This is one hell of a demo system. And if you can dismiss this as being "A CD first" like the thermite, hell, lets just dismiss this whole thing as a first, because it just so happens this is the first time a 757 crashes into a hollow-tube design skyscraper.

WTC7 was NOT directly beneath the towers. How was debris, which was big enough in size and quantity, launched far enough to reach WTC7 causing enough damage to supposedly make the structure collapse? Take a look at the layout of the WTC Complex. If the official story is true and the bulidings "pancaked" straight down, then how could debris (ENORMOUS steel beams) have traveled so far, so fast?

http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm

The official story is NOT that they pancaked down. This is the THEORY of many of the less educated CTs. This theory is promoted in many CT sites and movies such as whatreallyhappened.com and Loose Change. I'm not saying you believe this. There's also believers without a clue, the kind that limit themselves to the 9/11 comission report and Bush speeches.
The debris didn't have to be thrown out by an explosion, those steel beams would have required so much explosive to be ripped and propelled out of the building in that fashion that several rooms would have had to be packed full of RDX, and if that was the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion because we'd have copious videos showing bright explosions. On the other hand the material from the top or middle-upper floors of the north tower could have easily hit the 17th floor of the SB building.

Here is an excellent view of the south side of WTC7...

This is not an "excellent view", and the reason I used it in the first place was because Jane said WTC7 was "intact". Not structurally intact, not slightly damaged, INTACT, which it clearly ISN'T. This is misleading. It's not even a good view, because the rest of the damage is hidden by another building. A whole corner of the building could be missing (or a small 3 or 4 room area), this is speculative and it's what I've been saying from the start.

Several other buildings surrounding the complex, yet nowhere near the collapse zone, had HUGE steel beams lodged into their sides; as if shot from a cannon. How is that possible? How can they sorround the complex yet not be near it? I can't form a decent explanation until I know the pattern of the debris, if they were distributed evenly, this could indeed suggest an explosion.

When I said the "buildings were in tact structurally", I was refering to the load bearing infastructure; the main columns which held up the building. Of course there was structural damage; much of which was severe (WTC3). And even though the buildings could not be saved, they were STILL strong enough to require controlled demolition as the means to completely bring them down. I think that is a very significant fact...don't you? To recap: Jane said the building(s) was intact, then you said they were "lightly damaged", then "structuraly intact", and now they have "structural damage, some of it severe". How would that sound to you if it was the government doing this? of course, it would be DEAD WRONG of me to assume you're lying just because of this, so I DON'T. "severe structural damage" and "damage to the load bearing infrastructure" sound like the same thing. Could you explain?

Your analogy of comparing a winning lottery ticket to the events of 9/11 (in terms of coincidence) could not be more misconstrued. One coincidence can easily be dismissed; even two or three. However, there are NUMEROUS, extremely significant coincidences... You could not have misinterpreted my analogy more if you tried. It was directed at the comment about the rescue workers predictions, not 9/11 as a whole. You keep mentioning numerous coincidences and holes, lets keep going on a case by case basis. I think your implication that the rescue workers had been told of the alleged demolition beforehand is a textbook case of observer bias.

I agree that a new, INDEPENDANT comission with enough funding and access to all the evidence is necesary. The questions we are discussing that ultimately fall on speculation, physics, etc, NEED to be answered.

For these reasons, for the agenda which has been set in motion, for the beneficiaries of this agenda and for the way these events transpired on 9/11 is why I truly believe this was WITHOUT A DOUBT an inside job. Then you're not skeptical and this whole argument is pointless, since you don't have a single doubt that things might not be the way you think. I'll google Stan and see what turns up.

Not really just beggining, but some of the arguments presented here make me rethink my initial position. Again, this would probably go faster in a real time chat. I'm also looking forward to that video clip.

Lionhearted

04/22/07, 10:01 am

WP & Mr. A,
I have been reading your debate on WTC-7 with a good deal of interest. You both have obviously looked into this more than the average American I would dare say. I feel the government could have put most of this debate to rest, had there been been an independent investigation into the crime with, as WP mentioned, full access to all evidence. I read in the NIST report they examined only something like 236 pieces of steel from the site (if they were more specific as to what buildings the steel came from I could not find it). Anyway I digress. As I see it there are two very important questions the American public should demand answers to:

1. Why was the administration so resistant to an independent investigation and only grudgingly allowed what investigation there was to take place?

2. After rescue efforts became recovery efforts, why was the entire site not treated as crime scene and thoroughly investigated instead of having steel shipped off to China?

Even if this is not an "inside job", the administration dragging its feet in opening an investigation and allowing most of the crime scene to be shipped overseas is evidence of complicity in my humble opinion.

I also feel that most any American could have asked better questions or conducted a more thorough investigation than the official panel did, again im my humble estimation.

Wafflepudding

04/22/07, 01:19 pm

Lionhearted: Thank you. It's been great to be part of this discussion and even though I disagree with Anderson, I can see where he's coming from and respect him for providing rational arguments and keeping the discussion on track and civil.

As for the two questions, I agree and I have my own (not very scientific) hypothesis:

1.- Because a true independant investigation would eventually reveal that the government did not do what they were supposed to do. This can be interpreted in 3 ways:

A)The government executed 9/11 as an inside job to have a justification for the wars that would come. (I think it's unlikely)

B)The government needed said justification and when the top levels of this administration learned of the plot, they let it go ahead anyway. (I think it's VERY likely)

C)This was just another of the displays of incompetence by this administration we've come to expect naturally. (I have my doubts about this, it's not that big a leap).

In all 3 they would NEED to cover up the truth to cover their asses.

2.- See 1. Allowing a truly independant comission and setting them loose upon the WTC remains would only make the other part harder to supress, and instead of a weak underfunded comission, Bushco. would have faced the opposite. OR

A) Seeing as there are copious eyewitnesses and tapes of the jets crashing against both towers, the fires, and the collapse, they assumed it was obvious why the buildings collapsed (what I like to call "It's the fricken planes!" camp).

Mr. Anderson

04/23/07, 04:14 pm

Pudding-

Didn't mean to leave you hanging; I've been preoccupied with work. There is more to me than 9/11 as well.

Now then...lets get down to it shall we?

Exactly. If the SB brothers building was an implosion, it would have gone down all at once, there wouldn't be missing chunks.

Before I address this quote please allow me to correct information contained in one of my previous posts when I wrote that WTC7 collapsed in under eight seconds. I was wrong. It actually collapsed in under seven seconds (6.5 to be exact). My apologies.

With that taken care of, my response to your first quote is...uhhh...what? What exactly is your point? It did go down all at once. THE ENTIRE BUILDING WAS REDUCED TO RUBBLE IN UNDER 7 SECONDS!!!!! I don't see how "missing chunks" are relevant to the point of this statement...if it has a point.

The system went through all of this and came out intact and in perfect working Maybe there were already charges planted and the chunks are not important? If so, those demo charges, their detonators and all the wiring involved in the process of CD survived a long, intense, widespread fire and chunks of WTC 1 and 2 falling on the building. order causing a perfect implosion. This is one hell of a demo system. And if you can dismiss this as being "A CD first" like the thermite, hell, lets just dismiss this whole thing as a first, because it just so happens this is the first time a 757 crashes into a hollow-tube design skyscraper.

Again...this point you are trying to make (in my opinion) is weak! First of all...where are these "long, intense and widespread fires" you keep referring to????

The north side of WTC7.
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/wtc7_fire.jpg

The west side of WTC7. This is the "official" FEMA photograph. This is the "whole corner of the building" you claimed "could be missing" in your quote further down the page.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/911%20Cover-up/wtc7_fire-911.jpg

These fires do not look intense OR widespread. The pictures of WTC5 are an example of an intense, widespread fire. The entire building was a raging inferno yet it DID NOT COLLAPSE!! The vast majority of this building was NOT on fire and did NOT have "big chunks" missing from it so...yes, I believe the vast majority of charges DID survive the few fires and structural damage; especially the shape charges attached to the main support columns in the basement, which sustained NO damage and allowed for a PERFECT IMPLOSION! The detonators would not have been in the building. I'm not "dismissing" anything. There is a lot about 9/11 (especially the collapse of the Twin Towers) which cannot be completely explained (even by demolitions experts); many of whom believe the Towers WERE taken down by explosives, just not any explosives they're familiar with. Who else is known for using VERY high powered (possibly very new and advanced) explosives...could it be ...the MILITARY!?!? And it was a 767 which hit the towers, junior, not a 757.

The debris didn't have to be thrown out by an explosion, those steel beams would have required so much explosive to be ripped and propelled out of the building in that fashion that several rooms would have had to be packed full of RDX, and if that was the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion because we'd have copious videos showing bright explosions.

Have you suddenly become a demolitions expert? Talk about speculative...where did you obtain THIS information? I've seen SEVERAL videos of controlled demolition where bright explosions are NOT visible. In fact, in MOST CD videos bright flashes cannot be seen. What can be seen, however, are squibs. Squibs are blasting initiators used to set off high explosives. During a CD, squibs are visible as jets or "puffs" of dust which shoot out of a buildings windows during it's demolition. In many CD videos, squibs can be easily spotted; including the demolition videos of WTC1,2 and 7. Have you watched that video yet? This quote is PURE speculation; containing no facts and making no real point. Next.

This is not an "excellent view", and the reason I used it in the first place was because Jane said WTC7 was "intact". Not structurally intact, not slightly damaged, INTACT, which it clearly ISN'T. This is misleading. It's not even a good view, because the rest of the damage is hidden by another building. A whole corner of the building could be missing...

Okay, lets clear up your confusion about "severe structural damage" and "damage to the load bearing infrastructure", so we can get past it once and for all. There is a HUGE difference between the two. It's the equivalent of you saying "a black eye and a broken arm are the same as a knife in the chest and a bullet in the head." One you survive, one you don't; get it? A building can have MASSIVE structural damage; that is, damage to floors, it's roof, walls etc. But, as long as the "load bearing columns" (the HUGE steel columns embedded in bedrock and attached to the rest of the structure...HOLDING IT UP) are "in tact" the building WILL NOT/ CANNOT suffer a COMPLETE COLLAPSE!!!!!

Regarding my misinterpretation of your "lottery" analogy; I realize you were specifically addressing the comments of the rescue workers. The point I was trying to make was if that were the only coincidence regarding the entire event, it could easily be dismissed. It wasn't, however. There are SEVERAL, very suspicious "COINCIDENCES" regarding that day. That's all I wanted to point out.

Your service.

Jane of Arc

04/25/07, 06:17 pm

Slammin' post, Mr. Anderson. I think we're all waiting to see if Puddin' can reply. I wouldn't want to take you on with anything concerning 9/11, that's for damn sure. You be de man, man! :thumbup:

Jennifer_SFBA

04/25/07, 06:30 pm

wp, so you play tennis? If you do, it sure is a great game! I enjoy tennis, but find racketball a more practical exercise game because one person alone can play it anytime, whereas in the game of tennis, there is not always a partner available.

Wafflepudding

04/25/07, 06:41 pm

I've been busy posting elsewhere, and haven't had the chance to review all the sources Anderson cited (I haven't even seen the whole 9/11 mysteries clip), it's end of terms and I'm kind of swamped, which is also why I didn't research extensively on gun control before posting about it. The taunting, Jen, is not necesary nor called for.

Wafflepudding

05/02/07, 07:21 pm

I'm watching parts of the 9/11 mysteries video right now.

Anderson: Good, west and north side shots. Where's the south side one? True, it was a 767, flight 77 was the 757, my mistake.

Have you suddenly become a demolitions expert? Talk about speculative...where did you obtain THIS information? I admit it is a tad speculative, I'll look for the proper formulae for the calculations. RDX a.k.a. cyclonite has an explosive velocity of 8,750 metres per second, it's one of the most powerful conventional explosives available.

It seems to me that it would still take hundreds of pounds of it to accumulate the force to tear "enormous steel beams" from the rest of the structure, and then propell them across said structure tearing through everything on their path, exiting the building and piercing another building "as if shot by a a cannon". Your words, not mine:

"If the official story is true and the bulidings "pancaked" straight down, then how could debris (ENORMOUS steel beams) have traveled so far, so fast? Several other buildings surrounding the complex, yet nowhere near the collapse zone, had HUGE steel beams lodged into their sides; as if shot from a cannon. How is that possible?

Take the Dora railgun for example. It took 1134Kgs of high explosive propellant charge to propell a 7 ton aerodinamic artillery shell fired from a 47.3M long gun across 23 miles and piece 7 mts of reinforced concrete. This is under optimal conditions as the barrel concentrates the blast energy. How much more propellant explosive would it take to rip a non-aerodinamic projectile (the beam), and launch it "as if shot by a cannon". Explosives in the amounts ordinarily used in CD are NOT capable of this feat.

I'm aware that I'm speculating a bit here, but that hasn't stopped anyone here so far so i figured, why play with different more restricitive rules?

and again, taking your definition, the load bearing structure is not something you can accurately examine from pictures of the sides of the building. As for the fires, if you look at the other picture, it is apparent it had spread to multiple floors, that's what I would call widespread as opposed to sporadic fire in a few rooms. This is really more of a problem in communication and mistakes of mine on interpretation, I apologize. Nevertheless, what you're saying here is this picture:

http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7swd.jpg

and this one:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/911%20Cover-up/wtc7_fire-911.jpg

Both show the damage to the south side accurately, even though one of them shows a multiroom, multifloor area collapsed and the other one shows a complete and largely intact building. So which one is it? Why is one of these pictures blueish-clear and the other one reddish-opaque? could it be because the first one was taken earlier...?

...Seriously, I'm just asking, neither picture has a time stamp and it could be just the lens or something.

Mr. Anderson

05/21/07, 12:45 pm

Okay...I"M BAAAACK!!!!

Pudding-

First of all...have you finished watching 911 Mysteries yet?

Instead of breaking down and responding to everything you've written (as I usually do) let me try another approach. I do this because I feel as if this discussion has come to focus on details which can ONLY be examined by speculation (like the damage sustained to WTC7; how bad WERE the fires; where are the pictures of the south side; could the "load bearing structure have been damaged enough to make the building drop straight down in under 7 seconds...and so on).

It is true that one can use common sense and basic logic to draw "probable" conclusions to many of the questions we have presented here but I feel that perhaps our ideas of these principles differ somewhat. I feel I have presented a very competent and clear cut argument which you have responded to by not entirely addressing my statements or sometimes ignoring them all together. This is not only a waste of time but it makes for a boring and unnecessarily laborious discussion. So, as partial summary of what I've brought up before, let me present to you a few questions which (after all) are the only things we are TRULY left with regarding 9/11.

1) Considering WTC buildings 3,4,5 & 6 sustained SEVERE damage by both fire and falling debris from the explosions of WTC 1 & 2 and still remained standing(weeks later requiring CD to bring down what remained of them), how is it possible that WTC7, a huge 47 floor office building which (by all available evidence and it's proximity to the towers) sustained damage MUCH LESS than that of the other buildings in the WTC complex, yet collapsed neatly into itself (not damaging a single neighboring building) in under seven seconds?

Considering the history of steel framed high rises (in terms of fire and structural damage) and the LAWS OF PHYSICS (unless you care to disprove them), the ONLY logical explanation is the use of controlled demolition. Period.

2) How about disproving the HUNDREDS of eyewitnesses (many of whom are from our own news sources) who, on 9/11, reported SEEING and HEARING MANY secondary explosions?

3) How about explaining the seismic spikes recorded SECONDS before each (all three) building collapsed?

4) My final question...have you finished watching 9/11 Mysteries yet?

Wafflepudding

05/21/07, 01:23 pm

A: I feel I have presented a very competent and clear cut argument which you have responded to by not entirely addressing my statements or sometimes ignoring them all together.

Please refresh my memory, when did I ignore your statements?

1) History also proves that your hypothesis is very unlikely. Your answer to this was that many of the factors that did not coincide were a "Controlled demolition first". Then you proceed to speculate on the nature of the explosives and since they must be really powerful you conclude they came from the US military, thereby reinforcing what you already believed. What did you see here, effective or flawed logic?

Why when history appears to be against me I'm in denial and when it appears to be against you it's a sign you're right=?

2, 3) I don't have to. I already have explained why several times. To sum it up, that's a red herring, secondary explosions do not confirm CD, and it may well have been gas and water mains, storage tanks, etc. Seismic spikes do not even prove explosions at all, they prove the ground shook, not why, and considering the support structure failed and the foundations of it were anchored to bedrock, that's understandable.

By the same token you have failed to produce reliable testimony or evidence of explosives being planted at the buildings you assure were brought down with controlled demolition. That's one hell of a fatal flaw for your hypothesis.

How about explaining why out of the thousands of persons that visited the WTC complex, nobody saw a thing?

4) Truth be told I got to 7:32, found 10 issues with the video and at a rate of more than one factual error/speculative argument/skip of logic per minute, I got tired. Here are the 10 issues I refer to:

1.- At 4:53 – Boeing 707-767 specs - Data specs are not consistent with Boeing’s official records (taken from http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/767.html and http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/707.html), the movie cites empty gross weight as 146,400 pounds for the 707 (boeing’s number: 248,000) and 180,450 pounds for the 767 (boeing: 300,000 pounds). Neither the movie nor Boeing are clear on the definition of “empty” (passengers are clearly out in both estimates but fuel isn’t mentioned). - Factually incorrect

2.- At 4:58 – Flight 11 was headed to LAX. Indeed a farcry from a transcontinental flight, but the actual load of the plane could vary widely, and it is subject to heavy speculation. - Speculative

3.- At 5:19 – The radio communications are not timestamped, the location of the firemen is not specified (Eg. “two isolated pockets of fire on the 58th floor, more pockets on other floors), and could have been taken from another register altogether. Even if not, it was still the professional opinion of one fireman. – Insuficient data for the conclusions.

4.- 5:52 – The official acounts all indicate it was the mixture of fire protection removal, infrastructural damage from the plane impact, and posterior damage and loss of strenght of the columns by the fire that had a cumulative effect and destroyed the twin towers, akin to the small factors that led to the sinking of Titanic – Straw man

5.- 6:02 – The official accounts do not claim an instant collapse of the structure at all, the numbers cited are irrelevant - Straw man

6.- 6:16 – Smoke is also an indication of a fire starting to catch on or spread. Thick black smoke also rises from fairly high temperature firestorms. It also fails to mention fires at different places from different materials would have burned at a different temperature producing different smoke. – Contradictory, factually incorrect, and red herring specifically.

7.- 6:27 - Black smoke is also the sign of a non-flammable material suspended in particles due to heat or polymer fires, such as burning polyesterine. – Misleading.

8 – 6:57 – THC WTC documentary from summer 2001, the source is not stated. Frank DeMartini has a personal interest in stating WTC 1 and 2 as indestructible, much like the designers of the Titanic claimed it was “unsinkable”. – Speculative.

9 – 7:13 – DeMartini’s analogy is dubious, the planes during 9/11 clearly left a wing-shaped hole across the outer steel mesh of both towers, visible even in the video itself. – Factually inaccurate.

10 – 7:32 – Although factually correct, the comparison is innacurate as the plane impacts release less energy but localized on a much smaller area, akin to the logic behind AT weapons. - Misleading

If I watched the entire video and presented you with ALL the issues I have with it, would it serve ANY purpose? would you adress my concerns? Honestly until you respond this particular question I could be wasting my time. If the answer is yes, i'll go right ahead and watch it...

(as soon as I'm done passing all the copies from the semester to .doc format. I've been procrastinating on that)

Mr. Anderson

05/21/07, 08:51 pm

Pudding-

I could easily compile a laundry list of instances where you either did not address statements I've written or addressed them indirectly often containing no logical direction; not to mention a point.

I could do that, but let's just focus on the most recent one.

In my last post, I asked you to explain how WTC 3,4,5 & 6 could remain standing and WTC7 collapsed neatly in under seven seconds. The collapse of WTC7 (and 1&2) DEFIES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!!!! Even if you throw away everything else you and I have written on this subject, it still DEFIES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!!!!

You're response:

1) History also proves that your hypothesis is very unlikely. Your answer to this was that many of the factors that did not coincide were a "Controlled demolition first". Then you proceed to speculate on the nature of the explosives and since they must be really powerful you conclude they came from the US military, thereby reinforcing what you already believed. What did you see here, effective or flawed logic?

Why when history appears to be against me I'm in denial and when it appears to be against you it's a sign you're right=?

Do you see what I mean? Exactly what history proves my hypothesis unlikely? I don't mean to offend you but this response (like many others) is NOT clear, NOT direct and I don't see a point! Because of the nature of investigating 9/11, some speculation is unavoidable. I said early on that it is VERY difficult to PROVE much of what we are discussing here. Sometimes a logical deduction is all we can produce.

And then there's this response to my other two questions:

2, 3) I don't have to. I already have explained why several times. To sum it up, that's a red herring, secondary explosions do not confirm CD, and it may well have been gas and water mains, storage tanks, etc. Seismic spikes do not even prove explosions at all, they prove the ground shook, not why, and considering the support structure failed and the foundations of it were anchored to bedrock, that's understandable.

Secondary explosions do not confirm CD?! Okay. Why would there have been ground level or sub-basement level explosions of ANY kind due to planes hitting the buildings 80 plus stories above? Would a plane strike that high up on a building cause a gas or water main to explode seconds BEFORE the plane actually hit? Yes...BEFORE the plane strike. This was documented by SEVERAL eyewitnesses regarding BOTH towers. Besides these explosions, NUMEROUS explosions were reported throughout the entire event. When the firefighters arrived at WTC1, many said it looked as if the plane hit the lobby. Explain that!!! There are also SEVERAL eyewitnesses who reported hearing muliple explosions inside