See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Breaking my silence on 9/11 Truth
Source:
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=opedne
URL Source: http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/pr ... 70328_breaking_my_silence_.htm
Published: Mar 30, 2007
Author: John Kusumi
Post Date: 2007-03-30 06:54:01 by Kamala
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: 911
Views: 1884
Comments: 164
OpEdNews Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_john_kus_070328_breaking_my_silence_.htm Breaking my silence on 9/11 Truth By John Kusumi Initially I preferred to keep silent about the 9/11 Truth Movement, to not be diverted from my issue. I've been associated with the China Support Network, being its founder, and in recent years, I give my speeches in that vein exclusively. That means, I have a cause and I don't need a spare cause, nor a soapbox, nor a reason to be known in the public discourse, where I've contributed since 1980. My 9/11 article is written, not oral; in any public appearance, I remain on the China issue. The article is volunteered and not sponsored; I simply think it fair to have the question, "What happened on 9/11?", and to have the indicated investigation that is genuine and impartial, rather than a whitewash. Read on, to where I suggest a role for Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. Recently, Rosie O'Donnell raised the issue of 9/11 Truth, questioning how one or more of the buildings fell in New York City on September 11, 2001. Also, actor Charlie Sheen has come out with his own questions and concerns about what happened that day, and we've learned that he will narrate an updated version of Loose Change, a documentary that questions the official story of 9/11. This led to mentions on television by Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck, top conservative commentators who seem to have replaced George Will and Bob Novak. (Note to youngsters: The latter were leading conservative commentators in the post-Watergate period. What's Watergate? Check Wikipedia.) I cannot be counted a fanatic on the issue of 9/11 truth. I do my share of writing, publishing, and speaking; and, but for one related blog post, this is my first article on the subject. The standard that I would like to uphold is truth, period -- something that all should care about, and that journalists in particular should be finicky to discern and record accurately. The field of journalism at least bills itself to be concerned about non-fiction and a first draft of history. I believe that non-fiction and truth are synonyms, and that to sweat these details ought to be right up the alley of U.S. journalists. Imagine if you will a bumper sticker that says: "Pearl Harbor: Roosevelt Knew." In the 1940s, there were many very staunch, patriotic citizens, who likely had full faith in their President Roosevelt (FDR) and for whom our hypothetical bumper sticker may hurt, or sting deeply. The sticker could be rejected on the simple basis that it is alien to the world view, held by those observers, of FDR as an upright and above-board U.S. President. More recent research, however, has convinced many historians that the sticker is indeed accurate. I believe that even our mainstream commentators have allowed the same, so that we now have an accepted view of history, to wit that Roosevelt had foreknowledge of the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor. If so, then the truth behind Pearl Harbor becomes LIHOP -- Let It Happen On Purpose. The above paragraph does NOT prove anything about 9/11. If people make bumper stickers saying, "9/11: Bush Knew," then they still must make their case. For those who assert provocatively, there is an onus or a burden of proof. Words are not "more true" on a bumper sticker, and "less true" elsewhere. The standard of proof is not in the placement of the words. However, I believe and would stand behind a bumper sticker that said: "Tiananmen Square: Bush Knew." (That refers to the elder President Bush, who gave a nod and a wink to Chinese leaders before their troops went to Tiananmen Square. Chinese leaders MIHOP -- Made It Happen On Purpose.) For those who are toying with the possibilities, alternate explanations for 9/11 include (a.) "we were surprised -- they got one by us (totally innocent);" (b.) "we were warned, but we failed to connect the dots (totally incompetent);" (c.) LIHOP (partial inside job, partially sinister); and (d.) MIHOP (an inside job, totally sinister). The official explanation has already migrated, since the early days, from (a.) to (b.). Perhaps one reason why I've avoided 9/11 Truth as a topic is due to its parallel with rejecting the "Roosevelt knew of Pearl Harbor" thought, as above. Explanations (c.) and (d.) for 9/11 entail the culpability of someone in our own government. It is alien to the world view that the U.S. Government protects Americans. In this case, Americans were harmed by perpetrators who were clearly evil, and it is harsh -- indeed anguishing -- to contemplate the case if it were that the hand of evil was partly domestic. Culpability within our own government would make 9/11 the crime of the century. I will not take up the job of re-iterating the case that's been made by the 9/11 Truth Movement. But, increasing numbers of questions have been uncovered, and the awareness of prior warnings, given to the U.S. government in advance, has increased. The number of warnings reported has risen since the early days -- the immediate aftermath of 9/11. This means that we know more now, than previously. For brevity, I'd care to focus on three points that I'll call, "Tip-off #1, Tip-off #2, and The Nub Of The Matter." To me, Tip-off #1 is a point that I earlier blogged: "It seems ridiculously implausible that the FBI tracked down 19 mug shots of 19 hijackers, and got that to the news media the same day as the attacks! Again, without inside knowledge, but with general awareness of the working world, how it goes, and what's plausible -- I look at that, and I say to myself, 'prepared slide.'" Each airplane had more than five passengers. Full investigation took less than a day, and the FBI knew precisely who among the passengers was "in" and "out" of the conspiracy. This was reported with certitude the same day, and the official slide with the 19 men remains an enduring memory, seared in there without additions or deletions. (Where we might have expected a developing story, the slide did not change, although some of the hijackers were reported to be alive and well, still living in the Middle East.) The mere fact that the FBI had those 19 mug shots "tips off" their prior familiarity with these men. Tip-off #2 is a recent point. In late February, 2007, the 9/11 Truth Movement released BBC video from 9/11, in which the BBC reported that building seven had collapsed IN ADVANCE. That is to say that the building was still standing while the BBC reported the demise of the building. The timing of their story was off. Half an hour later, the building came down and "got on the page." It seems that Aaron Brown over at CNN made a similar report, that the building was toast before it was in fact toast. 9/11 was certainly a day of "on the ground" events happening. But Tip-offs #1 and #2 each strongly suggest that 9/11 was also a day of news being spoonfed by the media. The early report of building seven collapsing (at BBC and CNN) was not from eyewitnesses on the ground. The faulty information had to come from somewhere (A prepared plan? A press release?) other than eyeballs on the scene. Where did the media get this information, and who was spoonfeeding it to them? Let's move to the nub of the matter. Many in the 9/11 Truth Movement are screaming that controlled demolition brought the buildings down. The original designs and plans for the World Trade Center were meant to withstand a jetliner impact, although we can admit that the designs probably contemplated earlier planes and less jet fuel. Hence, I believe that the towers natively would have withstood impact from a circa 1970 Boeing 737, and that the real difference in the case of 9/11 was "all that jet fuel." The official explanation of 9/11 hinges on the idea that "all that jet fuel" brought the towers down. (And, in my view, the official explanation cannot explain the fall of building seven, which did not even have an airplane impact.) What's true is this: jet fuel has a particular temperature at which it burns, and steel has a particular temperature at which it melts. These are empirically measurable, so there need not be different melting points for liberals, conservatives, mainstreamers, and "loony wack job internet conspiracy theorists." It is America's chronically-lame news media that is so quick to be so judgmental -- or at least, it was Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck who, on their shows, seemed to circle the wagons for "mainstream thinking" -- at the expense of others, who were the recipients for name-calling and ad hominem attacks. (Note to youngsters: Ad hominem or "to the man" attacks never prove anything. If person A says that "X is true," and then person B says "Yah well, A is a Communist," that does not prove that X is false. X will be true or false, independently of whether A is a Communist. Even Communists can say true things --so really, personal details about A are irrelevant to X.) In their recent televised statements, O'Reilly and Beck "took sides," fulfilling their (God-given? Bush-given?) roles as defenders of "official truth." And, it seems to me, this taking of sides was in the absence of kicking the tires or full investigation. (An entire separate article could be made with the reservations about the 9/11 Commission.) If we actually cared to get to the bottom of 9/11, I believe that we would measure the temperature of burning jet fuel, and the melting point of structural steel. I've never done it personally, so perhaps I could still join Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck -- I do not know the outcome of the test that I propose. (Are there published specifications that state these two temperatures? Yes, but the 9/11 Truth Movement is where arguments have broken out over empirical data. One side or the other might warn me against trusting a high school chemistry book, so I am now too skeptical for any approach that cannot "show me." It remains true, for me, that seeing is believing.) I want to see a test in which they try to melt steel with jet fuel. While I personally lack a handy supply of either, there are 50 State Governors who could order their National Guard to undertake this test (and, if Fox and CNN want to save their credibility, they could fund this test). A vat of jet fuel should be prepared, perhaps sunken into the ground as in a foundation or a back yard swimming pool. A steel girder meeting the same specifications as WTC columns should be placed across this vat. I don't require a re-creation of the towers; just one girder. For good measure, one could place a heavy weight like a wrecking ball atop the girder. Then simply ignite the vat and let the jet fuel burn. Show me that jet fuel can melt steel. Here, I have devolved the case to a test of an empirical nature with a boolean outcome: the test either will, or will not, melt the steel. If it will, then I will be more ready to believe the official story. If it will not, then "Houston, we have a problem," and a full explanation of 9/11 must then involve more effort to bring down the towers; more than merely the thought of letting the jet fuel burn to do its thing. What's notable about America's news media has been its LACK of inquiry, curiosity, and skepticism. As one of the biggest atrocities against Americans on our own soil, 9/11 should logically be the MOST deserving of investigation, skepticism, and critical inquiry. O'Reilly and Beck share that "oh so certain" quality of the suave, sophisticated media announcers who read the news from Easy Street, while truth-seekers are derided for being "out of the mainstream." How sure are they, really? How will they react to my proposal of this test? Are they just smoothies who are putting one past the public? This test could tell us the answer, and for one more requirement: --I want it to be Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck who presses the button to ignite the jet fuel. Either the girder, or their credibility, will become toast. Authors Website: http://www.kusumi.com Authors Bio: John Kusumi, in 1984, was the independent "18-year-old" for U.S. President. Presidential politics has no earlier introduction of "the politics of practical idealism," which Kusumi championed with his "People Are Important" bumper stickers. He continues to work on a manuscript, 'Genocidal Correctness' to define and debunk "the reservation" of "mainstream thinking." See http://Kusumi.com.
March 28, 2007
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-21) not displayed.
.
.
.
#22. To: bluedogtxn (#21)
Here's the best part. A poll by the New York Times and CBS news done last September / October showed that only sixteen percent of the American people now believe the official story about what happened on 9/11. Sixteen percent. The same poll shows 53% of the public believes that the government is "hiding something" and 28% believe the government is "mostly lying". Another 3% are "not sure". So, the recent efforts by government apologists to convince people that the "official story" is true is quite understandable. After all, if that story crumbles our current "democratic" regime is going to be very seriously weakened. So don't worry about the government apologists and their endless repetition of weak arguments. Most people aren't buying those arguments anyways. The fact that the government spent only $600,000 investigating 9/11 versus $40,000,000 investigating President Clinton's misdeeds with Monica Lewinsky in and of itself speaks volumes to most intelligent people. So, instead focus on the weakest parts of their "official" story, and keep planting seeds of doubt in people's minds, until finally enough people wake up to the lies they've been told, and become angry enough to demand real change in this desperately corrupt regime.
 | Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#23. To: Kamala, REDPANTHER (#0)
BUMP
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may know peace." -Thomas Paine
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these.
- - IndieTX
- - IndieTX
#24. To: bluedogtxn, SKYDRIFTER, MINERVA, DIANA, all (#21)
BAC has no coherent reason for anything. He is a copy/paste artist and his debate skills are limited to answering questions with questions. In other words, he is a disingenuous shill.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may know peace." -Thomas Paine
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these.
- - IndieTX
- - IndieTX
#25. To: IndieTX, noone222, wbales, Zoroaster, Critter, lodwick, BeAChooser, scrapper2, Elliott Jackalope, bluedogtxn, Axenolith, aristeides, Kamala (#23) (Edited)
This is an hr and a half long video that finally addresses the 'real issue'. The most likely suspects are the least likely suspects. The Arabs enemies, The Jews, more accurately, the "ZIONISTS". Their motto is "By Deception we shall make War". They have gained control of our Government 'officials' and Military leaders through BLACKMALE concerning homosexual activities. Iraq, 911, and The Elaphant in the room. 1 hr 29 min 19 sec - Mar 28, 2007 http://www.rys2sense.com Finally a 911 movie that doesn't ignore Israel. This is the full version of the "All Roads" video. From http://Anti-Neocons.com uncover the lies about Iraq and 911 and how and why it is covered up by the media.
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
#26. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#25)
Bookmarked.
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
#27. To: bluedogtxn, Christine, Diane, Robin (#14)
But in order to have a controlled demo of building 7 not look bad, they had to know the towers would collapse. The only way to know that for sure was to rig them to collapse. There is a theory that the tower collapses were supposed to cover the controlled demo of building 7, but something went wrong in that controlled demo, and 7 was still standing after the towers were gone. However, 7 had to go to cover up the crime, so the problem was repaired, and the demoliton carried out later in the day, only to be blamed on fire instead. I subscribe to that theory. Christine, I believe, knows where to find that theory on the web. Or at least one of the ladies here does.
Building 7 is a horse of a different color, and it sure looks like a controlled demo to me.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#28. To: Itisa1mosttoolate, redpanther (#25)
Thanks. But do you have a website link to a transcript of that video? The music on that one is too rank to listen to for an hour..I can read faster. The vid looks like it's going to be excellent on content!
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may know peace." -Thomas Paine
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these.
- - IndieTX
- - IndieTX
#29. To: Itisa1mosttoolate, *9-11* (#25)
bookmarked, will watch this evening!
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#30. To: noone222, Kamala (#4)
hahahahahahaha!!!! that was great.
I understand that there is a concerted effort to initiate a theory that demonstrates the "real" truth related to the building collpases. The theory is that the fires that brought down the buildings were caused by the ignition of tonnes of horseshit provided by the mainstream media and the government.
#31. To: Elliott Jackalope (#22)
Good observation.
The fact that the government spent only $600,000 investigating 9/11 versus $40,000,000 investigating President Clinton's misdeeds with Monica Lewinsky in and of itself speaks volumes to most intelligent people.
#32. To: bluedogtxn (#14) (Edited)
Have you watched 911 Mysteries: Demolition? If you haven't, please do, and let me know if you still believe that it's possible for the planes alone to have caused these buildings to IMPLODE (two buildings bursting into POWDER from top to bottom at FREEFALL speed).
As for whether the planes crashing into the twin towers could have brought them down, I am satisfied that it could have and probably did.
#33. To: Kamala (#0)
good article, Mark. thanks for the post.
What's notable about America's news media has been its LACK of inquiry, curiosity, and skepticism. As one of the biggest atrocities against Americans on our own soil, 9/11 should logically be the MOST deserving of investigation, skepticism, and critical inquiry. O'Reilly and Beck share that "oh so certain" quality of the suave, sophisticated media announcers who read the news from Easy Street, while truth-seekers are derided for being "out of the mainstream." How sure are they, really? How will they react to my proposal of this test? Are they just smoothies who are putting one past the public? This test could tell us the answer, and for one more requirement: --I want it to be Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck who presses the button to ignite the jet fuel. Either the girder, or their credibility, will become toast.
#34. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#25)
Thanks, I'm downloading it right now.
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
#35. To: bluedogtxn, noone222, Elliott Jackalope, wbales, Zoroaster, lodwick, Critter, scapper2, aristeides, IndieTX, robin, Christine, Itisa1mosttoolate, *9-11* (#21)
Business: Saturday, February 27, 1993 Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision Eric Nalder Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass. "We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an AIRPLANE HITTING THE SIDE," said JOHN SKILLING, HEAD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much." Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the WORLD'S TOP STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center. Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed THE TOWERS WOULD WITHSTAND THE IMPACT OF A BOEING 707. "Our analysis indicated the BIGGEST PROBLEM would be the fact that ALL THE FUEL (from the airplane) WOULD DUMP INTO THE BUILDING. THERE WOULD BE A HORRENDOUS FIRE. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "THE BUILDING STRUCTURE WOULD STILL BE THERE." Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. THE SUPPORTING COLUMNS ARE CLOSELY SPACED and even if SEVERAL WERE DISABLED, the OTHERS WOULD CARRY THE LOAD. "However," he added, "I'm not saying that PROPERLY APPLIED explosives - SHAPED explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage." He took note of the fact that smoke and fire spread throughout the building yesterday. He said that is possibly because the pressurizing system that stops the spread of smoke didn't work when the electric power went off. Skilling, 72, was not involved in the design of the building mechanics. Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DO KNOW ENOUGH about BUILDING DEMOLITION TO BRING A STRUCTURE LIKE THE TRADE CENTER DOWN. "I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with EXPLOSIVES, I WOULD BET THAT HE COULD DO IT." Copyright (c) 1993 Seattle Times Company, All Rights Reserved. See post 10. "It" is a complete LIAR. "It" has zero credibility. "It" is nothing more than a patsy shill for "Its" handlers.
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227
Mark
"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
#36. To: Kamala (#35)
YEP.
See post 10. "It" is a complete LIAR. "It" has zero credibility. "It" is nothing more than a patsy shill for "Its" handlers.
#37. To: noone222, christine (#1)
Very, very well said. This bothers me a lot, as it plays on and brings out a very ugly and evil side of human nature and thereby spreads that evil mindset like a bad virus.
Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly are paid propagandists. Both play to their audience's ego driven sense of self importance and baseless sense of superior intelligence to guide the mesmerized morons of fake patriotism to support the ridiculous claims against the arab world.
#38. To: Elliott Jackalope (#22)
the believers of the government LIE are the minority.
A poll by the New York Times and CBS news done last September / October showed that only sixteen percent of the American people now believe the official story about what happened on 9/11. Sixteen percent. The same poll shows 53% of the public believes that the government is "hiding something" and 28% believe the government is "mostly lying". Another 3% are "not sure".
#39. To: scrapper2, christine, skydrifter, all (#11)
What BAC is saying is that The ends, which must benefit TheStateInc, always justify the means of TheStateInc. IOW, he is holding the lighter while Chimp holds the Constitution up to the flame.
BAC: Yes, do that and realize that if the mainstream media, anti-war movement and anti-government conspiracists had been allowed to act then as they have now ... we'd have lost World War 2. Consider the implications of THAT, folks
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these.
- - IndieTX
#40. To: BeAChooser (#19)
Right it could have been high frequency electromagnetic weaponry.
Melted steel (presumably) was found in the ruins of WTC7 for the same reason it was found in the rubble that was WTC1 and WTC2. And that explanation has little to do with jet fuel other than as an initiator of a hot fire.
#41. To: Critter (#27)
I do find it very strange that BBC reported the collapse of building 7 before it actually collapsed. There are just too many aspects to this whole thing that don't add up, including how the hijackers were immediatly identified, and how it turned out that 5 or so of them were actually alive and safe living in other countries. I don't know if the entire truth will ever come out.
#42. To: christine, IndieTX, Kamala (#32)
That's why I think high-frequency lasers were invovled. It makes the most sense to me.
IMPLODE (two buildings bursting into POWDER from top to bottom at FREEFALL speed).
#43. To: bluedogtxn, ALL (#21)
Well let's see. The structure was hit by large chunks of falling debris. As one of the videos someone published today shows some of that debris was really hot ... glowing, in fact. So in addition to opening up some rather extensive holes in the structure (firemen described one about 20 twenty stories high in the center of one face), it also set the building on fire. A fire which burned, basically without firefighting, for close to 7 hours. That seems coherent enough. And curiously enough, there is only one demolition expert in the whole world that seems to think WTC was a controlled demolition. And he came to that conclusion after just watching a videotape supplied by a conspiracist such as yourself, without knowing that what he was watching was part of 9/11, without knowing that the building had been on fire for hours, and without knowing that firemen had said the structure was starting to lean long before the collapse. And based on other statements by that *expert*, he seems to have been predisposed to thinking in terms of conspiracies. But even so, note that that expert said WTC1 and WTC2 were definitely not controlled demolitions. Not a complete wacko ... Actually, what was said is that "I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, "We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." Pull it in that context could certainly mean pulling the firefighters out. Furthermore, several demolition organizations are now on record saying that the term "pull it" is NOT used to describe an explosives demolition of a building. One of them happens to be that of the demolition expert I mentioned above. You might find this of interest. It's by one of the premiere demolition outfits in the world, Protec. ********** http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf "Our company's archived recordings of original news broadcasts from the morning of 9/11 begin well prior to the collapse of the first tower and continue uninterrupted beyond the collapse of WTC 7. These original unedited recordings have allowed us to compare and scrutinize the collapse of all three structures free from any possibility of image tampering or modification. In addition, we have examined dozens of freelance and amateur video recordings incorporated into various documentary programs chroniclying 9/11 and studied countless ground-based and aerial images captured by private, press and government-contracted photographers. Protec and its employees have not been paid or hired by anyone to analyze this event, nor do we possess any political affiliations or contribue to any political party or individuals. We have undertaken this endeavor entirely at our own expense, with the singular goal of facilitating constructive dialog and providing a factual voice of reason to our friends and associates who were affected by the attack." ... snip ... As we now know, significant amounts of heavy structural debris rained down for blocks around the site. Many of the closest WTC buildings were completely destroyed and others heavily damaged. Predictably, the north tower's collapse caused slightly more ancillary damage than the south tower, as its impact point was higher and thus a larger volume of debris was projected farther from the footprint. Video of the north tower collapse clearly shows a roughly 50-story tall section of the building shearing away intact and laying out towards the west, heavily damaging the American Express Building and others on the adjacent block. Aerial photos taken just after both collapses show massive volumes of debris impacted WTC 7 (and other buildings to the north) the effects of which were directly responsible for the intense fires within that structure. ... snip ... 2. "We have never, ever heard the term "pull it" being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to "pull" the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six-story remains of WTC-6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC 7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway." ... snip ... 4. Saying, "No airplane hit it" implies the structure suffered minimal effects from the planes crashing into the adjacent towers. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Video and photographs of the north tower collapse clearly depict substantial upper sections of the building falling outward and inpacting WTC buildings 6 and 7. This was not a glancing blow from extraneous material, rather thousands of tons of steel girders falling directly into the building from hundreds of feet above. WTC 7 sustained significant impact damage to its southwest corner up to the 18-20th floor, or a little less than halfway up the building. There was also significant damage to the building's south face, although dense smoke present in most photos hinders an exact assessment. Other photos depict several lower floors fully involved in a large fire that either began upon impact or shortly thereafter, and most experts point to the large stockpile of diesel fuel stored in the basement as the likely catalyst. WIth most local firefighting equipment destroyed and the search for survivors being of primary concern, these intense fires were left to burn uncontrolled for more than six hours, further compromising the already badly damaged structure. Given these facts, any implication that WTC 7 was not substantially affected by the original plane crashes is not accurate." 5. Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event. We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported hearing or seeing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse. As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless ... we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming ... but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to that building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went." ***************
What I'm saying is that I haven't heard you come up with a coherent reason for building 7 coming down
or the fact that someone said "we made the decision to pull-it"
or the fact that when it comes down the roofline stays intact and it collapses into its own footprint.
#44. To: Elliott Jackalope, ALL (#22)
This is absolutely false. Have you any idea how large and expensive the NIST modeling and testing effort following 9/11 was? Apparently not ... And if you think the Clinton investigations were just about "misdeeds with Monica" you are wrong there, too.
The fact that the government spent only $600,000 investigating 9/11
versus $40,000,000 investigating President Clinton's misdeeds with Monica Lewinsky
#45. To: IndieTX, ALL (#24)
Just so everyone one visiting this thread knows, IndieTX claims he has bozo'd himself so he can't see my posts. Given that, he couldn't possibly know what reasoning I've presented in this thread. Indeed, if one wanted to make a fool of oneself, then posting a statement like his without knowing what the poster being attacked actually said, would be sure to work.
BAC has no coherent reason for anything. He is a copy/paste artist and his debate skills are limited to answering questions with questions. In other words, he is a disingenuous shill.
#46. To: BeAChooser (#10) (Edited)
But for Bonesmen Nazi financiers and their British backers, World War II would have never happened. Hitler was a creation of the British Foreign Office, the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Bank of England. If you don't believe this, I invite you to read Professor Carroll Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope".
Yes, do that and realize that if the mainstream media, anti-war movement and anti-government conspiracists had been allowed to act then as they have now ... we'd have lost World War 2. Consider the implications of THAT, folks.
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
#47. To: Critter, ALL (#27)
ROTFLOL! One problem with your theory is that your ONLY demolition expert (see, I'm not afraid to mention him) says the demolition of WTC 7 was planned AFTER the collapse of the towers to keep from having to repair the damage caused by the North Tower collapse. And he says WTC 1 and WTC 2 were NOT controlled demolitions.
I subscribe to that theory.
#48. To: Arator, All (#46)
Two years of lies about Sept. 11 The new Warren Commission by Helen & Harry Highwater, Unknown News Sept. 17, 2003 Reliable sources have repeatedly reported that the Bush Administration was expecting a terrorist attack in the autumn of 2001. What does that mean? We'd like to know what it means ... and we probably never will. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, instead of coming back to the White House, Bush criss-crossed the country in Air Force One. When critics asked why, "White House sources" said a mysterious phone call had threatened Air Force One. But a few weeks later, White House officials said there had never been such a phone call. The non-existent threat got widespread media coverage, and the retraction got almost none. What's the significance of that? We don't know — except that while the rest of the nation was in shock and mourning on Sept. 12, 2001, the Bush Administration was already lying about what had happened the day before. When the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) voiced concern about toxins in the smoke after the World Trade Center collapsed, the White House re-wrote the EPA's concerns and reassured New Yorkers that there was nothing to worry about in the air. What does that lie mean? It might mean plenty to your long-term health, if you were living in the New York area in autumn of 2001. For the rest of the country, it just shows that the Bush Administration was more concerned with calming the public than with telling the truth. While all private and commercial planes were grounded for days, the White House granted special permission for a huge entourage of the bin Laden family and their employees to fly home to Saudi Arabia. And what does that mean? Again, we don't know what it means. But an investigation would seem like a good idea, wouldn't it? The Bush Administration worked hard for a year and a half after the attack, to limit, control, or effectively block any meaningful investigation of the 9/11 attacks. Incredibly, Bush even named Henry Kissinger to 'handle' the investigation of Sept. 11. When Kissinger's name proved too controversial, Bush picked Thomas Kean to chair the investigation, and Kean is the man running the investigation now. Kean is an ex-business partner of Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law. Under ordinary circumstances, you might think that's a conflict of interest, and you might think mainstream journalists would point it out. The circumstances, however, are far from ordinary. President Bush, after all, got his start in the oil business in a partnership with Osama's brother. What does that really mean? In reality, Kean's conflict of interest probably means nothing — the bin Laden family is very, very big, and very, very wealthy. It just shows, again, that Bush doesn't care about the appearance of impropriety in this investigation. At least, though, there finally is an investigation. The government's 9/11 Commission moved into an office a few months ago, and they're hoping to have a report ready by mid-2004 (about 2½ years after the attacks). The 9/11 Commission was originally given a budget of $3-million. That's a little less than one-fifth of one percent of one percent — about zero-point-zero-zero-18% — of the $166-billion already spent, committed, and requested just for this year's occupation and 'reconstruction' of Iraq. The investigation's budget was later increased, after much complaining from the Commission itself, to $12-million. Some reports say the budget is now $14-million. By comparison, when the shuttle Columbia disintegrated during its descent in February 2003, $50-million was budgeted for an investigation, which began about an hour and a half after the disaster. Another $305-million was spent by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), searching for shuttle debris. The investigation into the shuttle accident began publicly releasing its findings within several weeks, and concluded its work with an exhaustive report about six months later. Even the Warren Commission, the U.S. government's widely-disbelieved investigation of Pres. Kennedy's 1963 assassination, was budgeted at $5.5-million — in 1963 funds. Adjusted for inflation, that's more than $32-million in 2003 dollars. You might think it would cost substantially more to thoroughly investigate a complicated event — nineteen foreign hijackers commandeering four passenger jets and obliterating the World Trade Center, damaging the Pentagon, and killing thousands of Americans — than to investigate the shooting of the president in a parade. The Bush Administration seems to disagree. They think it should cost substantially less. The Warren Commission provides an appropriate comparison for another reason. 40 years after Kennedy's assassination, people still whisper misunderstood half-truths and harbor suspicions about who was really behind the events of November 22, 1963. The only thing that's widely agreed is that the Warren Commission's report was a sham, more concerned with calming the public than with telling the truth. And now, they've done it again. The Bush Administration has blocked any meaningful investigation of Sept. 11, 2001 — and given us instead an investigation that will be remembered, much like the Warren Commission, for raising more questions than it answers. And what does it all mean? It means we'll never know what it means.
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
#49. To: bluedogtxn, christine, ALL (#32)
Have you watched Screw 9/11 mysteries? Please do ... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934 And when christine claims that two buildings bursting into POWDER from top to bottom at FREEFALL speed, she's not being honest. There was lot more than powder in the rubble. More important, FREEFALL speed would mean a collapse taking about 10 seconds. But as pointed out to christine (she's said I was "evil" for doing this), the following image proves the collapse was not at freefall speed. Because it shows what the collapse looked like 11 seconds into it. Looks like a lot of tower is still standing.
Have you watched 911 Mysteries: Demolition?
#50. To: Kamala, ALL (#35)
Kamala opens another front in his war of 9/11 disinformation by referring to Skilling's white paper out of context. First, Skilling was NOT the head structural engineer on the project. Leslie Robertson is the head structural engineer of record. In fact, Skilling wasn't even located in New York where the design was done. It was Robertson who moved to New York to do the design. Second, the design by Robertson assumed a low speed impact of a commercial jet. The 9/11 planes hit the towers at high speed. The energy of the impact is a function of the velocity SQUARED. Thus, the 9/11 impacts had about 7 to 8 times the energy of the one Leslie Robertson designed the towers to withstand. Third, Skilling's white paper was a back of the envelope "what if" that was NOT part of the design of the towers. It is important to keep in mind that engineers in the 60's (when the towers were designed) didn't have access to the types of computers and computer codes routinely used in building design and analysis, and fire code analysis today. Those codes and the computers needed to run them weren't developed until the 70's and 80's and 90's. So Robertson and Skilling couldn't possibly do the type of detailed impact (or fire) analyses possible today. Contrary to what Kamala wants you to believe, such analyses show that the high speed impacts must have shattered dozens of structural members, and both analyses and tests show that the impacts would have taken the fireproofing off many of the surviving structural members. And it is the loss of those fire coatings combined with the damage which is the key to collapse of the towers in the fires that followed. The designers never analyzed what burning fuel would do to the towers. Leslie Robertson himself said that. Indeed, the computers and software available back at the time the towers were designed were nowhere near as fast and capable as that available today. And even today, a detail analysis of what the impact and subsequent fires would do to the towers is barely possible with confidence. The truth, that Kamala doesn't want you to know, is that Skilling was talking off the cuff if he was claiming they really understood what the impacts or fire would do. They simple didn't have the tools to do such an analysis with any confidence back then. Besides the Skilling white paper, no documents are known detailing how that analysis was made. NIST stated that it has been “unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.” You might want to read the history of what went on back then before accepting Kamala's latest bit of disinformation: http://scott-juris.blogspot.com/The%20Height%20of%20Ambition%20Part%20Four.pdf "The Height of Ambition: Part Four September 8, 2002 By JAMES GLANZ and ERIC LIPTON ... snip ... But Robertson still had one more set of structural calculations to perform. Lawrence Wien, who was continuing his fight against the towers, had begun to remind New Yorkers publicly of a Saturday morning in July 1945, when a B-25 bomber, lost in the fog, barreled into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. Most of the 14 people who died were incinerated by a fireball created when the plane's fuel ignited, even though the fire was quickly contained. The following year,another plane crashed into the 72-story skyscraper at 40 Wall Street, and yet another one narrowly missed the Empire State Building, terrifying sightseers on the observation deck. Wien and his committee charged that the twin towers, with their broader and higher tops, would represent an even greater risk of mid air collision. They ran a nearly full-page ad in The Times with an artist's rendition of a commercial airliner about to ram one of the towers. ''Unfortunately, we rarely recognize how serious these problems are until it's too late to do anything,'' the caption said. The Port Authority was already trying to line up the thousands of tenants it would need to fill the acres of office space in the towers. Such a frightful vision could not be left unchallenged. Robertson says that he never saw the ad and was ignorant of the political battle behind it. Still, he recalls that he addressed the question of an airplane collision, if only to satisfy his engineer's curiosity. For whatever reason, Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow. Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost - he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study. But the Port Authority, eager to mount a counter attack against Wien, seized on the results -- and may in fact have exaggerated them. One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour. That was perhaps three times the speed that Robertson had considered. If Robertson saw the article in the paper, he never spoke up about the discrepancy. No one else issued a correction, and the question was answered in many people's minds: the towers were as safe as could be expected, even in the most cataclysmic of circumstances. There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later."
"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an AIRPLANE HITTING THE SIDE," said JOHN SKILLING, HEAD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER.
#51. To: BeAChooser (#50)
Are you personally aquainted with Achmed Chalabi?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
#52. To: BeAChooser (#50)
that is fascinating BAC. Can you post another one?
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
#53. To: christine, Kamala, ALL (#36)
"It" is also "evil", isn't "it", christine? That's what you said (along with "liar") when it claimed the WTC towers did not collapse at freefall speeds. "It" had the temerity to tell you that the WTC towers took more than 10 seconds to collapse ... the time corresponding to a freefall collapse. And when "it" posted a photo from a source you should deem reliable that showed the most of a tower still standing 11 seconds into the collapse, you had no choice but to ignore "it".
"It" is a complete LIAR. "It" has zero credibility. "It" is nothing more than a patsy shill for "Its" handlers.
#54. To: Diana, ALL (#40)
ROTFLOL!
[image removed due to oversize]
Right it could have been high frequency electromagnetic
weaponry.
#55. To: Diana, ALL (#41)
Certainly not if one pursues the truth from a foundation of misinformation and lies.
I don't know if the entire truth will ever come out.
#56. To: Diana, ALL (#42)
ROTFLOL! Why high-frequency Diana?
That's why I think high-frequency lasers were invovled.
It makes the most sense to me.
#57. To: BeAChooser (#55)
And who would be better to establish an alternate reality more than an old camp follower like you? How well do you know Chalabi?
Certainly not if one pursues the truth from a foundation of misinformation and lies.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
#58. To: BeAChooser, bluedogtxn (#49) (Edited)
lol. first off, the video, naturally, has to inform us that Eric Hufschmidt is a self proclaimed holocaust denier. what does that have to do with how and why the towers fell? second, it praises the NIST report and, third, the word deprivation is misspelled--depravation. sorry, that's as far as i'll go with that obvious piece of government propaganda. fourth, you are evil.
#59. To: Itisa1mosttoolate, ALL (#48)
Just so everyone knows ... NIST's 'Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation' was funded with an initial budget of $16 million. It ended up spending over 30 million on the effort. http://911research.com/wtc/official/nist.html
#60. To: christine, ALL (#58)
How about the image of the structure collapse, christine? You just going to hide from it? Afterall, you said I was an "evil" "liar" for suggesting the towers didn't freefall. That photo was taken 11 seconds into the collapse and proves I'm right. So am I still "evil"? Am I still a "LIAR" concerning that? Or is an apology in order?
#61. To: BeAChooserstein (#60)
Probably. Depends on if you photoshoped it yourself or had Happy Fun Ball do it for you.
That photo was taken 11 seconds into the collapse and proves I'm right. So am I still "evil"? Am I still a "LIAR" concerning that?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#62. To: BeAChooserstein (#60)
By the way, do you really eat that revolting, smelly fish that is packed in sour cream and comes in the little round jar?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
.
.
.
Comments (63 - 164) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest