[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Ethereum ETFs In 'Window-Dressing' Stage, Approval Within Weeks; Galaxy

Americans Are More Likely To Go To War With The Government Than Submit To The Draft

Rudy Giuliani has just been disbarred in New York

Israeli Generals Want Truce in Gaza,

Joe Biden's felon son Hunter is joining White House meetings

The only Democrat who could beat Trump

Ukraine is too CORRUPT to join NATO, US says, in major blow to Zelensky and boost for Putin

CNN Erin Burnett Admits Joe Biden knew the Debate questions..

Affirmative Action Suit Details How Law School Blackballed Accomplished White Men, Opted For Unqualified Black Women

Russia warns Israel over Ukraine missiles

Yemeni Houthis Vow USS Theodore Roosevelt 'Primary Target' Once it Enters Red Sea

3 Minutes Ago: Jim Rickards Shared Horrible WARNING

Horse is back at library

Crossdressing Luggage Snatcher and Ex-Biden Official Sam Brinton Gets Sweetheart Plea Deal

Music

The Ones That Didn't Make It Back Home [featuring Pacman @ 0:49 - 0:57 in his natural habitat]

Let’s Talk About Grief | Death Anniversary

Democrats Suddenly Change Slogan To 'Orange Man Good'

America in SHOCK as New Footage of Jill Biden's 'ELDER ABUSE' Emerges | Dems FURIOUS: 'Jill is EVIL'

Executions, reprisals and counter-executions - SS Polizei Regiment 19 versus the French Resistance

Paratrooper kills german soldier and returns wedding photos to his family after 68 years

AMeRiKaN GULaG...

'Christian Warrior Training' explodes as churches put faith in guns

Major insurer gives brutal ultimatum to entire state: Let us put up prices by 50 percent or we will leave

Biden Admin Issues Order Blocking Haitian Illegal Immigrants From Deportation

Murder Rate in Socialist Venezuela Falls to 22-Year Low

ISRAEL IS DESTROYING GAZA TO CONTROL THE WORLD'S MOST IMPORTANT SHIPPING LANE

Denmark to tax livestock farts and burps starting in 2030

Woman to serve longer prison time for offending migrant men who gang-raped a minor

IDF says murder is okay after statistics show that Israel killed 75% of all journalists who died in 2023


9/11
See other 9/11 Articles

Title: Ex-Italian President: Intel Agencies Know 9/11 An Inside Job
Source: Prison Planet
URL Source: http://infowars.com/articles/sept11 ... encies_know_911_inside_job.htm
Published: Dec 4, 2007
Author: Paul Joseph Watson
Post Date: 2007-12-05 12:44:26 by FormerLurker
Keywords: 9/11, treason, NWO
Views: 1143
Comments: 80

Ex-Italian President: Intel Agencies Know 9/11 An Inside Job
Man who blew the whistle on Gladio tells Italy's largest newspaper attacks were run by CIA, Mossad

Prison Planet | December 4, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson

Former Italian President and the man who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio Francesco Cossiga has gone public on 9/11, telling Italy's most respected newspaper that the attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad and that this was common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies.

Cossiga was elected President of Italian Senate in July 1983 before being winning a landslide 1985 election to become President of the country in 1985.

Cossiga gained respect from opposition parties as one of a rare breed - an honest politician - and led the country for seven years until April 1992.


Cossiga's tendency to be outspoken upset the Italian political establishment and he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio - a rogue intelligence network under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

Gladio's specialty was to carry out what they coined "false flag operations," terror attacks that were blamed on their domestic and geopolitical opposition.

Cossiga's revelations contributed to an Italian parliamentary investigation of Gladio in 2000, during which evidence was unearthed that the attacks were being overseen by the U.S. intelligence apparatus .

In March 2001, Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony, "You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force ... the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security."

Cossiga's new revelations appeared last week in Italy's oldest and most widely read newspaper, Corriere della Sera. Below appears a rough translation. "[Bin Laden supposedly confessed] to the Qaeda September [attack] to the two towers in New York [claiming to be] the author of the attack of the 11, while all the [intelligence services] of America and Europe ... now know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the CIA American and the Mossad with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part ... in Iraq [and] Afghanistan."

Cossiga first expressed his doubts about 9/11 in 2001, and is quoted in Webster Tarpley's book as stating that "The mastermind of the attack must have been a “sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel.”

Coming from a widely respected former head of state, Cossiga's assertion that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and that this is common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies is highly unlikely to be mentioned by any establishment media outlets, because like the hundreds of other sober ex-government, military, air force professionals, allied to hundreds more professors and intellectuals - he can't be sidelined as a crackpot conspiracy theorist. (1 image)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-39) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#40. To: robin (#38)

The laws of physics have been meticulously used to explain the fall of towers

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Purdue Simulation Full of Hot Air

George Washington's Blog

Thursday June 21, 2007

The newest volley in the disinformation campaign regarding 9/11 is a simulation of the Twin Towers created by Purdue University. As summarized by Raw Story:

The simulation found jet engine shafts from airlines flown into the World Trade Center "flew through the building like bullets," according to an Associated Press vide report.

Flaming jet fuel cascaded through the tower stripping away fireproofing material and causing the building to collapse, the AP video reports.

"The weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid," according to the video.

However, Kevin Ryan has already demonstrated that there was not enough energy from the airplane impacts to have knocked much of the fireproofing off. See also this article.

And very few of the core columns were severed by the planes' impact. And tests by NIST showed that temperatures in the Twin Towers never got hot enough to significantly weaken the structural steel of the 47-column inner core.

Researchers have stated that the Purdue simulation contradicts the observed facts in other ways, and in the next couple of weeks, they will publish their findings.

Moreover, the Purdue simulation still does not address the flies in the ointment which NIST also ignored:

(1) The simulation either fails to include, or inaccurately represents, the 47 core columns holding up each of the Twin Towers.

(2) Most of the jet fuel burned outside the buildings, especially in the case of the South Tower - which produced a glowing orange fireball as the building was struck at an oblique angle. So the simulation could not hold true for the South Tower.

(3) The people who designed the Twin Towers did not think that an airplane plus fire from the jet fuel could bring the buildings down. Indeed, they assumed that "all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building", and yet assumed "The building structure would still be there." Since most of the fuel (especially with the South Tower) exploded outside of the buildings, shouldn't they "still be there"?

(4) Even if the planes and fire had initiated a collapse sequence, why did the towers totally collapse, when no modern steel-framed building has ever before completely collapsed due to fire?

(5) Why did they collapse at virtually free-fall speed? And why did WTC7 -- which wasn't even hit by a plane -- totally collapse at free-fall speed later that same day?

(6) How could the buildings have fallen at near free-fall speed, indicating very little resistance, and yet produce tremendous pulverization of concrete, which indicates great resistance?

(7) No one can explain why "steel columns in building 7 were "PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view). Absent controlled demolition, how could such temperatures have been generated by jet fuel or diesel?

As if that's not enough, Kevin Ryan pointed out to me today by email that the Purdue simulation contradicts many aspects of NIST's findings:

"1. Were columns on the south face of WTC severed by aircraft impact? NIST says maybe one, but Purdue now suggests several. NCSTAR1, p. 22-23.

2. Was there any jet fuel in AA11's center fule tank? NIST says no, but Purdue now says yes, it was completely full. NCTSAR1-5A, p liii, lviii.

3. How did the fieproofing get "widely dislodged"? NIST suggests the aircraft debris turned into shotgun blasts to affect this. Purdue now suggests the jet fuel did it. Thanks to Purdue for invalidating NIST's work. NCSTAR1, p 119."

In other words, not only does the Purdue simulation contain many of the same errors as the NIST reports, but, as if that's not bad enough, it stretches the truth beyond even what NIST itself has done.

Moreover, as pointed out by the blog Truth Or Lies:

"The following statement was used in the Purdue simulation: 'The weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid.' This is a direct contradiction of the FEMA report (which can be viewed HERE) which stated: 'despite the huge fireballs caused by the two planes crashing into the WTC towers each with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, the fireballs did not explode or create a shock wave that would have resulted in structural damage.'”

As Crockett L. Grabbe, PhD, research scientist and visiting scholar, department of physics and astronomy, university of Iowa 1980, and former researcher at Naval Research Laboratory put it:

“Many may conclude that the building structure of the World Trade Center twin towers was poorly designed with fire retardants that the heat from the airliner explosions within an hour caused catastrophic destruction of the south tower, and in less than 2 hours the north tower. However, the evidence overwhelmingly supports a different conclusion: this collapse was in fact caused by explosive devices planted well in advance."

Indeed, numerous scientists, engineers and demolition experts have said the official version of the destruction of the World Trade Centers is impossible.

TwentyTwelve  posted on  2007-12-06   11:20:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: TwentyTwelve (#39)

Thank You! Bookmarked!

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!

robin  posted on  2007-12-06   11:20:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: robin (#41)

10 False Flags That Changed the World

by Joe Crubaugh

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

10 False Flags that Changed the World

10. Nero, Christians, and the Great Fire of Rome

9. Remember the Maine, to Hell with Spain

8. The Manchurian Incident

7. Secrets of the Reichstag Fire

6. Fake Invasion at Gleiwitz

5. The Myth of Pearl Harbor

4. Israeli Terrorist Cell Uncovered in Egypt

3. U.S.-Sponsored Terrorism: Operation Northwoods

2. Phantoms in the Gulf of Tonkin

{{drumroll}}

NUMBER ONE

The September 11, 2001 Attacks

http://www.911blogger.com/taxonomy/term/227

TwentyTwelve  posted on  2007-12-06   11:24:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: TwentyTwelve, *9-11* (#39)

9/11 Coincidences (Part Five) (PNAC Document)

9/11 Coincidences (Part Six) (NORAD) (Able Danger)

These should be watched first, IMO. They should be called Part One and Part Two, respectively.

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!

robin  posted on  2007-12-06   12:43:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: TwentyTwelve (#39)

I forgot about Enron, Part 7, reminds us.

www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd155.htm

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!

robin  posted on  2007-12-06   13:01:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: longnose gar (#31)

The joke is you absolute morons who think it makes any sense to believe that that Bush and the Joos flew drones into the WTCs

Only raving nutters such as you imply that. Obviously Bush didn't fly anything, but he might have been aware of and complicit in the attacks, regardless of who actually carried out the operation.

And BTW, are you a Jew hater? Why do you make derogatory remarks about Jewish people?


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-12-06   14:16:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: longnose gar (#31)

Where are the flight crews and passengers from these "fake" crashes? Will you idiots realize what fools you are?

BTW, I don't recall ever saying that airplanes didn't hit the WTC towers, although the planes themselves wouldn't and couldn't have caused the buildings to collapse.

The office fires could not have heated the steel support structure to a point where it would have weakened enough to precipitate a collapse. The entire structure acted as a huge heat sink, where the heat was distributed throughtout the structure, and not just at the floors that were on fire. Don't try to tell me about jet fuel, as even the government's NIST report states that the jet fuel fires only lasted several minutes, where the fuel was burnt up within that time.

Since the buildings did in fact collapse, even WTC7 that had minimal damage from falling debris, and considering the fact that the US government has made every effort NOT to consider explosives in the buildings, then I must assume that those in the US government HAVE to be complicit, as only they could orchestrate a coverup on such a grand scale.

So longnose, what do you do for work?


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-12-06   19:36:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: TwentyTwelve (#40)

As Crockett L. Grabbe, PhD, research scientist and visiting scholar, department of physics and astronomy, university of Iowa 1980, and former researcher at Naval Research Laboratory put it:

“Many may conclude that the building structure of the World Trade Center twin towers was poorly designed with fire retardants that the heat from the airliner explosions within an hour caused catastrophic destruction of the south tower, and in less than 2 hours the north tower. However, the evidence overwhelmingly supports a different conclusion: this collapse was in fact caused by explosive devices planted well in advance."

Indeed, numerous scientists, engineers and demolition experts have said the official version of the destruction of the World Trade Centers is impossible.

Good info, thanks for posting it.


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-12-06   19:39:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: longnose gar (#34)

The laws of physics have been meticulously used to explain the fall of towers, but the twoofers ignore that and stick to their harebrained ideas.

People like you appear to think physics is some sort of voodoo. Trying to use very simple explanations involving physics to the likes of you is like trying to teach a tree to sing, it's a total waste of energy.

Those that DO understand physics DO see how impossible the "official" explanations are, especially when looking at the amount of time it took the towers to collapse. People like you are "magical thinkers", where even though science definitively confirms the fact that the WTC towers could NOT have fallen in the amount of time that they fell UNLESS there were explosives planted in the buildings, you'll continue to believe the opposite, and insist that those that disagree with your mistaken beliefs are "KOOKS", while claiming that "the laws of physics" support your ideas, which they don't.


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-12-06   19:53:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: longnose gar (#34)

The laws of physics have been meticulously used to explain the fall of towers, but the twoofers ignore that and stick to their harebrained ideas.

Uh-huh! Norman Podhoretz must love Hoosiers like me...Obviously.

"Most of the trouble in this world has been caused by folks who can't mind their own business, because they have no business of their own to mind, any more than a smallpox virus has." - William S Burroughs

Dakmar  posted on  2007-12-06   19:56:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: FormerLurker (#48)

and insist that those that disagree with your mistaken beliefs are "KOOKS"

Because you are a kook. A delusional imbecile.

It is an unquestionable fact that the towers began collapsing at the point of plane impacts. So, a rationale person would conclude empirically then, that the planes were the cause of the collapse. Delusional kooks like yourself surmise that somebody planted explosives in exactly those locations the planes would hit, and then the pilots managed to hit exactly those spots with the planes without detonating the explosives, and then the buildings were blown up an hour later. To delusional kooks like yourself, this is supposed to make more sense than the planes caused the collapse.

It has been demonstrated over and over that the buildings did not fall at free fall speed, that they did not fall into their own footprints, and seasoned structural engineers have outlined the most likely mechanisms of collapse. Yet you delusional kooks rely on the speculations of fellow kooks who don't have an effin clue.

So keep living in your fantasy world, and I'll just keep laughing at you.

longnose gar  posted on  2007-12-07   13:27:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: longnose gar (#50)

Think Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the second unnamed victim of the CIA torture that we now learn the videotapes were destroyed of?

If so, everything the 9/11 Commission Report said about the operational details of 9/11 becomes questionable. Because it was all based on KSM's testimony.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2007-12-07   13:31:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: longnose gar (#50)

It has been demonstrated over and over that the buildings did not fall at free fall speed,

Hey genius, post your source. The NIST report states the collapse times were between 10-11 seconds, where the free fall time is ~9 seconds.

So go ahead and tell me how long YOU think it took for the towers to fall.


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-12-07   13:49:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: longnose gar (#50)

Yet you delusional kooks

BTW, I'm not the one that lives in a fantasy world that relies on physically impossible events in order for it to exist, YOU are.


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-12-07   13:50:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: FormerLurker (#53)

I thought the shill had been canned already.

angle  posted on  2007-12-07   13:53:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: angle (#54) (Edited)

I thought the shill had been canned already.

I know he's been warned about posting anti-Paul propaganda, but apparently he's still here.

Honestly, it's not that bad having a shill or two around if only to have fun beating them over the head with truth and facts.


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-12-07   14:19:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: FormerLurker (#52)

The explanations for this have been posted everywhere:

In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.

Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.

Below is a more accurate graphic using a paper written by Dr. Frank Greening which can be found at: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

The paper takes the transfer of momentum into account. Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next as represented below. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave.

d = 1/2at^2

so

t = (2d/a)^1/2

a is 9.8m/s^2

t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s at free fall

As seen in the chart, the fall time for the tops to reach the ground was about 11 - 13 seconds, demonstrating the building fell much slower than free fall.

ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE

longnose gar  posted on  2007-12-07   15:15:14 ET  (2 images) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: longnose gar (#56)

9.23s at free fall

As seen in the chart, the fall time for the tops to reach the ground was about 11 - 13 seconds, demonstrating the building fell much slower than free fall.

So you think that it would only take an extra 1.77 seconds or so to smash through 80 stories of undamaged concrete and steel, eh?

Yep, I guess all that steel and concrete must be about as weak as thin air...

LOL, what an idiot you are.


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-12-07   16:33:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: FormerLurker (#57)

I provided you with a link in which a momentum transfer analysis was performed to determine the expected time of collapse -- which was between 11 and 13 seconds. It was a scientific analysis by a qualified expert, not just something pulled out of his ass like what you and your kook "experts" provide. No one knows exactly how long it took for the buildings to collapse because the top was hidden in the dust cloud as it was collapsing. But it is abundantly clear it was falling at less than free fall from the debris falling which is falling faster than the buildings.

ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE

longnose gar  posted on  2007-12-08   13:11:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: longnose gar (#58)

It was a scientific analysis by a qualified expert, not just something pulled out of his ass like what you and your kook "experts" provide.

Any sane person would realize that it would take more than just a mere 1.77 seconds to break through 80 undamaged floors of a skyscraper, which was designed to support the load of the upper floors PLUS a wide safety factor.

The initial fall was of a distance of ONE floor, if the official collapse theory is to be believed. There would not have been enough energy to cause a total immediate collapse at near free fall speeds, regardless of what your government sponsored "expert" states.

The only "kooks" are those that believe as you do that a 110 story building could totally collapse in 11-13 seconds without a bit of help.

Here's some REAL experts that disagree with you and your "expert";

Engineers and Architects Question the 9/11 Commission Report


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-12-08   19:54:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: longnose gar (#58) (Edited)

ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE

BTW, I can see by browsing through your "experts" analysis that he's a liar that wrote the material specifically for people that don't understand physics.

He used a totally inelastic collision as the basis of his analysis, which is NOT the case in the WTC collapse, as much of the structure disintegrated into dust and was ejected horizontally, thus negating any concept of an inelastic collision.

Additionally, he assumed that the floors would break immediately upon impact from the upper floors, and did not substract the energy required to break the floor from his total kinetic energy, until much later giving it another very crude analysis that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. He also neglected to substract the loss of mass due to material being ejected horizontally away from the structure.

In other words, he performed a dishonest analysis, which was good enough to convince the likes of people such as yourself.


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-12-08   20:17:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: longnose gar (#58)

Here's an analysis you might wish to look over..

A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-12-08   20:21:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: FormerLurker (#61)

The clock starts when the blue ball is dropped from the roof (110th floor). Just as the blue ball passes the 100th floor, the red ball drops from the 100th floor. When the red ball passes the 90th floor, the orange ball drops from the 90th floor, ... etc. Notice that the red ball (at floor 100) cannot begin moving until the blue ball reaches that level, which is 2.8 seconds after the blue ball begins to drop.

This proves you are an idiot if you believe crap like this.

Hint: you're not rolling balls across a table. The floors are falling and accelerating at the rate of gravity.

Again, you are going to believe whatever junk math that gets thrown out to support your dumbass kook position. What you should ponder, and what you can't refute is: The buildings began collapsing at the point of plane impact. This is visually indisputable. So for your stupid controlled demolition theory to be true, the explosives would have had to be planted (completely undetected) at the point of plane impact, the pilots would have had to manage to exactly hit these points in each building, the explosives would have had to survive the impact, and then for some reason, they were detonated an hour later. Only a complete idiot would believe this scenario over the fact that planes caused the collapse.

longnose gar  posted on  2007-12-10   9:44:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: longnose gar (#62)

This proves you are an idiot if you believe crap like this.

Of course idiots like you pick the phrase designed for idiots like you, and ignore the other material that is 99% of the document.

The floors are falling and accelerating at the rate of gravity.

If they were falling through thin air, yes. That could only happen if there were no floors under them, as in what would happen in a controlled demolition.

You even ignore your own post where your expert stated in a ideal inelastic collision the velocity would be reduced by half upon impact with the floor immediately below. This isn't even taking into account the material ejected laterally, which would make it an elastic collision thus reducing the speed further and lowering the momentum downwards due to loss of mass.

But of course you're too stupid to understand any of that, and prefer to call people with more knowledge than you "kooks" and "idiots"...


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-12-13   11:45:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: longnose gar (#62)

Again, you are going to believe whatever junk math that gets thrown out to support your dumbass kook position.

You don't even understand the info you post, which IS junk math, so shut the hell up you retard.


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-12-13   11:47:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: longnose gar (#62)

The buildings began collapsing at the point of plane impact. This is visually indisputable. So for your stupid controlled demolition theory to be true, the explosives would have had to be planted (completely undetected) at the point of plane impact, the pilots would have had to manage to exactly hit these points in each building, the explosives would have had to survive the impact, and then for some reason, they were detonated an hour later. Only a complete idiot would believe this scenario over the fact that planes caused the collapse.

The explosives could have been planted on all floor levels over a period of years. Only a complete moron would think that's impossible.

It's also not impossible that the general area of the impact would be known, especially if the planes were somehow taken over by remote control, which IS entirely possible and has already been done.

As far as the explosives surviving the impact, it's not that difficult if they were placed in the inner core, which was relatively undamaged from the impacts.

But rather than look at how it could have been done, one needs to look at how the buildings came down as they did, and any reasonably intelligent person can see that they could not have possibly come down as they did without some type of explosives.

Hell, the steel hadn't even weakened to a point where there was a danger of collapse, as the fires didn't burn long enough. Similar office fires burned for a day or so in one of the towers in 1975, and the building didn't come close to collapsing then, as the structure acts as a huge heat sink and dissipates the heat throughtout the steel frame and concrete.


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-12-13   11:54:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: longnose gar (#62)

This proves you are an idiot if you believe crap like this.

Go back to El pee.

TwentyTwelve  posted on  2007-12-13   11:57:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: FormerLurker (#65)

When this story about Cossiga broke, we didn't yet know about the CIA's destruction of the waterboarding tapes.

The news of that destruction makes it a lot harder to believe in the 9/11 Commission's account of 9/11, which relied on tortured detainees' testimony. Robert Scheer: Waterboarding Our Democracy.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2007-12-13   11:59:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: FormerLurker (#63)

You even ignore your own post where your expert stated in a ideal inelastic collision the velocity would be reduced by half upon impact with the floor immediately below. This isn't even taking into account the material ejected laterally, which would make it an elastic collision thus reducing the speed further and lowering the momentum downwards due to loss of mass.

The material ejected laterally was collateral material. The floors themselves fell as a bulk, and it is perfectly reasonable to model using an assumed inelastic collisin.

Your modeler thinks a reasonable assumption is that the building fell like rolling billiard balls across a table. Dumbass like all the truthers.

longnose gar  posted on  2007-12-13   13:05:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: longnose gar (#68)

collapse from fire pulverized into fine powder the entire building and its contents, huh? give it up.

christine  posted on  2007-12-13   13:54:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: christine (#69)

As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form...

It seems that the 9/11 truth community likewise “has been slow to understand” that the WTC dust particles in greatest abundance are the “supercoarse” variety rather than “fine” particles, and that significant chunks of concrete were also found in the WTC rubble.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf

longnose gar  posted on  2007-12-13   14:11:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: christine, longnose gar, FormerLurker (#69)

collapse from fire pulverized into fine powder the entire building and its contents, huh? give it up.

I suppose the US government wants us to believe that 300,000 pounds of aircraft parts collided with over 13 million tons of steel (a weight estimate of 7 world trade center floors) and 14,000 cubic feet of concrete (estimate) and that a paper passport navigated it's way through all of that including an explosion that was at least 100 yards in diameter (estimate) to land safely on top of the rubble below?

Get real.

And if that were even possible, you would think the chances of it happening were once in a lifetime, right? Well how about twice?

You may remember that after the planes hit the World Trade Center towers--an epic disaster that melted structural steel designed to withstand a Hellish temperature of 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, incinerated both planes? cockpit recorders and black-box recorders, and vaporized the flesh and bones of nearly 3,000 human beings--the passport of suspected hijacker Mohammed Atta was found intact, in pristine condition, lying on the sidewalk below.

Well, guess what. It happened again. I am not kidding. Both CBS News and the Associated Press are reporting that the passport of another hijacker, one Satam al-Sugami, floated down to Earth along with Mohammed Atta's passport. And not just a charred piece of a passport but , like the other passort, it was IN PRISTINE CONDITION.

Here's the original link (before it was removed:

http://www.11alive.com/news/usnews_article.aspx?storyid=42069

Taken from: http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=43653

TwentyTwelve  posted on  2007-12-13   14:30:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: TwentyTwelve (#71)

It was hardly the only personal effect that was discovered:

On September 11 2002, one year Anniversary of the death of our son, we were informed that the Recovery team at Ground Zero have found the ATM Bank card of Waleed [Iskandar, passenger on Flight 11] and that it will be mailed to us in Northridge. When we received it, we found it in good condition.

How could a plastic card survive the fire of the terrorist attack of the Black Tuesday on the USA? I consider it as a sign from Waleed to his parents on the first Anniversary of his loss. http://www.iskandar.com/waleed911/atmcard.html

"Orange County, CA., Sept. 11 - Lisa Anne Frost was 22 and had just graduated from Boston University in May 2001 with two degrees and multiple academic and service honors. She had worked all summer in Boston before coming home, finally, to California to start her new life. The Rancho Santa Margarita woman was on United Flight 175 on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, when it became the second plane to slam into the World Trade Center...

Her parents, Tom and Melanie Frost, have spent two years knowing they will never understand why.

A few days before the first anniversary of our daughter's murder, we were notified that they had found a piece of her in the piles and piles of gritty rubble of the World Trade Center that had been hauled out to Staten Island. It was Lisa's way, we believe, of telling us she wasn't lost. In February, the day of the Columbia tragedy, we got word they'd found her United Airlines Mileage Plus card. It was found very near where they'd found a piece of her right hip. We imagine that she used the card early on the morning of Sept. 11 to get on the plane and just stuck it in her back pocket, probably her right back pocket, instead of in her purse. They have found no other personal effects".

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:tI2PQRqfJiIJ:www.msnbc.com/local/MYOC/M324557.asp

On Oct. 12, it arrived inside a second envelope at Mrs. Snyder's modest white house on Main Street here, and the instant she took it out and saw it, she says, chills just went over me. It was singed and crumpled. A chunk was ripped out, giving the bottom of the envelope she had sent the look of a jagged skyline. Mrs. Snyder's lyrical script had blurred into the scorched paper. The stamp, depicting a World War II sailor embracing a woman welcoming him home, was intact.

Along with the letter was a note: To whom it may concern. This was found floating around the street in downtown New York. I am sorry if you suffered any loss in this tragedy. Sincerely, a friend in New York! Since then, Mrs. Snyder, a customer service representative at a grocery store, has discovered that she has one of only two pieces of mail known to have been recovered from the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center. At least one auction house has contacted her, saying she could sell the letter for tens of thousands of dollars.

One Letter's Odyssey Helps Mend a Wound New York Times

December 20, 2001

United Airlines Flight 93 slammed into the earth Sept. 11 near Shanksville, Somerset County, at more than 500 mph, with a ferocity that disintegrated metal, bone and flesh. It took more than three months to identify the remains of the 40 passengers and crew, and, by process of elimination, the four hijackers...

But searchers also gathered surprisingly intact mementos of lives lost. Those items, such as a wedding ring and other jewelry, photos, credit cards, purses and their contents, shoes, a wallet and currency, are among seven boxes of identified personal effects salvaged from the site.

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011230flight931230p3.asp

"So what am I getting back?" I asked Miller when he got off the phone.

"A credit card", he said. "It got melted some but it's mostly intact"...

The binder was entitled "Unassociated Personal Effects of Flight 93"... Inside were colour photographs of everything found in Shanksville not clearly linked to a particular person. Jer's wedding ring didn't survive, but seventy other pieces of jewelry did, along with a bewildering variety of scrunchies, hats, belts, bras, dresses, T-shirts, unmatched shoes, and other items that somehow escaped the heat, some virtually unmarred. Then there were keys, books, gift cards, letters, photographs, compact discs, pens, medallions... Some of the shoes were badly mutilated, disturbing evidence of the violence to which they'd been subjected. There was a length of electrical cord, a crumpled cigarette lighter, eighteen toenail clippers in various states of mangling. There were many snapshots of children, most painstakingly glued back together...

I found a pair of his black briefs on the second page of the men's underwear. They were discoloured and savagely torn, but there was no question they were his... At the bottom of the page was an American Express datebook. The cover looked burned and maybe water damaged as well...

There it was, just like the psychic promised: bound in leather, or what was left of of leather. Jeremy's datebook.

Your Father's Voice

Liz Glick, widow of Flight 93 passenger Jeremy Glick, and Dan Zegart "During an interview earlier this week, Koch delicately handled eerie mementos of the crash found during cleanup [at the Pentagon]: Whittington's battered driver's license... a burnt luggage tag and a wedding ring lie on a book dedicated to those lost in the events of Sept. 11, 2001. The wedding ring belonged to Ruth's daughter and the luggage tag belonged to one her granddaughters."

http://onlineathens.com/stories/091104/new_20040911030.shtml

longnose gar  posted on  2007-12-13   14:44:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: longnose gar (#72)

Why 'Debunkers' Help The 911 Truth Movement
Two kinds of 9-11 truth deniers (debunkers) exist today: Those who deny our government has the expertise to carry out the 9-11 attack, and those who deny ...
www.rense.com/general73/whyd.htm - 29k -

All truths passes through three stages, said the philosopher Schopenauer.

First, it is ridiculed.

Second, it is violently opposed.

Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Debunkers, those people who adamantly deny government involvement in the 9-11 conspiracy, who adamantly deny such a conspiracy could even occur, are stuck in the first and second stages.

TwentyTwelve  posted on  2007-12-13   15:10:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: longnose gar (#72)

According to a new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11:

"Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Telling the truth 16%

Hiding something 53%

Mostly lying 28%

Not sure 3%"

TwentyTwelve  posted on  2007-12-13   15:12:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: TwentyTwelve (#74)

That news about the poll is dated Oct. 14, well before the news came out about the destroyed CIA videotapes. I wonder how low the figure is now.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2007-12-13   15:17:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: aristeides (#75)

That news about the poll is dated Oct. 14, well before the news came out about the destroyed CIA videotapes.

The "Official Story" is losing it's credibility.
911 was a False Flag Operation

TwentyTwelve  posted on  2007-12-13   15:29:23 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: longnose gar (#68)

The material ejected laterally was collateral material. The floors themselves fell as a bulk

Bullshit. The floors were pulverized and traveled UP as well as SIDEWAYS. Not much was left to fall DOWNWARDS.

Your modeler thinks a reasonable assumption is that the building fell like rolling billiard balls across a table. Dumbass like all the truthers.

Another lie. Your mischaracterization of the analysis I linked is just another tactic used by the liars such as yourself. Idiotic liars at that.


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-12-13   16:45:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: longnose gar (#70)

As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder

Your pal is a liar, just like you.

From University of California - Davis

The new work helps explain the very fine particles and extraordinarily high concentrations found by an earlier UC Davis study, the first to identify very fine metallic aerosols in unprecedented amounts from Ground Zero. It will be essential to understanding the growing record of health problems.

From JSTOR: World Trade Center Fine Particulate Matter Causes Respiratory Tract Hyperresponsiveness in Mice

Pollutants originating from the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York City on 11 September 2001 have been reported to cause adverse respiratory responses in rescue workers and nearby residents. We examined whether WTC-derived fine particulate matter [particulate matter with a mass median aerodynamic diameter < 2.5 mm]

From Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center

On September 11th, both of the Twin Towers disintegrated into vast clouds of concrete and other materials, which blanketed Lower Manhattan. This paper shows that the energy required to produce the expansion of the dust cloud observed immediately following the collapse of 1 World Trade Center (the North Tower) was much greater than the gravitational energy available from its elevated mass. It uses only basic physics


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-12-13   17:02:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: longnose gar (#70) (Edited)

It seems that the 9/11 truth community likewise “has been slow to understand” that the WTC dust particles in greatest abundance are the “supercoarse” variety rather than “fine” particles, and that significant chunks of concrete were also found in the WTC rubble.

What were you saying about there not being any pulverization of the towers into fine dust?


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-12-13   17:04:21 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: longnose gar (#70)

Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form...

Uh huh....


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-12-13   17:13:31 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]