9-11 Conspiracy Theorists

yea, it seems the book primarily targets entertainers with no power over actual political events. bullshit..

I didn't catch what "number one" refers to. However, Moore plays fast and loose with the truth. Don't believe everything he says. Believe you me, Roger Smith was a bastard and deserved what he got, but Moore isn't an angel, either.

and I'd rather be:


than

noone is Lorelei, but shows and books he has wrote and made in the lower brow sphere open a lot of eyes that otherwise wouldnt be interested.

Oh, I fully expect it to be. However, I will keep my promise, and I will give the book every opportunity to prove itself to me before I speak a word about it.

Most importantly, I'd rather be at home than at work finishing my stupid project, so I'm going to STFU now.

Look, comes down to this. I value critical thinking. I like to think of myself as independent thinker. But when critical thinking is taken to the extreme and you doubt everything just for the sake of doubting it, you're no longer a critical thinker. You've opened up the door to every nutjob wearing a tinfoil hat and asked them to come on in. Critical, good. Being a sucker, bad.

When your theory of choice requires too many mental gyrations to make sense, too many leaps in logics, and requires a flow chart to make sense of (or a 600-page book to explain)(or however many pages are in the Bible), you might want to think again.

Obviously, it's the official story that requires too many mental gyrations to make sense. Nah, just follow the rules of scientific inquiry, like Occam's razor for example, and it's obvious 9/11 was an inside job. It's not the first time those same people are lying to your face you know.

Oh sorry, perhaps you didn't know...

I'm no expert on whatever the official explanation was, but look at the other side of the coin.

IF, hypothetically, the government really did have bombs set to take the buildings down (including #7)... why would they also bring down #7? Isn't bringing down the two that were actually hit by planes enough damage?

And wouldn't blowing up a building that wasn't hit by a plane cause people to ask your question? So why would they make "faking" it more difficult than they had to, just so they could bring down an extra building that didn't have anyone in it? It doesn't make any sense. It would've been much easier (and safer) to not blow up #7 at all, if you follow the line of thinking you're proposing.

Do you know who the tenants were of Building #7?

Building 7 occupied a block to the north of the World Trade Center Plaza. Its 23rd floor held Mayor Giuliani's Emergency Command Center. This floor had bullet- and bomb-resistant windows, an independent air and water supply, and an unobstructed view of the north faces of both towers.

The other government agencies with offices in the building were the IRS, the EEOC, the US Secret Service, the SEC, and the CIA.

The private tenants were Salomon Smith Barney, American Express Bank International, Standard Chartered Bank, Provident Financial Management, ITT Hartford Insurance Group, First State Management Group, Inc., Federal Home Loan Bank, and NAIC Securities.

Large numbers of case files for ongoing investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) were reportedly destroyed in the collapse. The Los Angeles Times reported that "substantial files were destroyed" for 3000 to 4000 of the SEC's cases. The EEOC reported that documents for 45 active cases were destroyed. 3 Before the attack, SEC investigations of corporate fraud by companies such as Enron and Worldcom were the subject of many news reports -- reports that virtually vanished in the wake of the attack.

Apart from what Kendra is saying, one needs to understand that planning huge operations like these isn't simple. It's unaivodable that some things will go awry, plans will be changed at the last moment, confused people in the know will say the wrong things at the wrong time, unsolvable paradoxes will erupt. The paradoxical remnants and anomalies left behind are in fact the principal way in which huge conspiracies can be tracked and nailed down. Like the saying goes: the devil is in the details. On the contrary, asking for someone never to make a slip up or mistake is really to expect too much! Therefore, it's the wrong question.

As for WTC 7, what it tells us is that a building unharmed by the September 11 attacks was still "pulled", that is, destroyed by controlled demolition for no known reason on the same day. The footage itself is irrefutable proof that the building was destroyed by controlled demolition.
Now, preparing a demolition of a 47 story skyscraper isn't something you do in five hours. It takes careful planning and execution over at least several days. This proves that someone had prepared WTC 7 for destruction prior to September 11. This means in turn that there is nothing objecting to the possibilty of the twin towers having been prepared for pulling in the same way.

We don't know who did the preparations, but we do know that such a scenario contradicts the official story which maintains that the towers were destroyed by the aircraft impacts alone and nothing else. It engenders the question, why has the official line not considered the possibility of prepared demolition in regard to the twin towers, when this is such an obvious scenario? The question is of course related to why there hasn't been a normal, objective, standard procedure criminal investigation into the 9/11 events as of yet.

Hell, even the Nazis allowed for a standard criminal investigation of the Reichstag fire, and consequently, Göring was unable to frame the Communist leaders as responsible for that particular act of sabotage/terrorism (which he no doubt had wanted to). The German courts, which were still free to pursue normal rules of juris prudence, freed those guys and found a young confused Dutchman guilty as a lone perputrator (two of the three acquitted Commies moved to the Soviet Union by the way, where they fell victim to Stalin's purges instead).
By contrast, in the United States of today, we find a government which arbitrarily classifies a criminal act of terrorism as an act of warfare (huh?), identifies the culprits immediately (whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty", and refrains from any further investigation into transpired events on the same time as it brands any attempt to do so as nuttines, disloyalty and/or treason.

Yeah... hurray for democracy... I just don't get how some people can be so blind.

Oh really? So I'm curious exactly what sort of training and expertise in controlled demolition of larger structures does Monique Mistral have in RL that allows her say that "the footage itself is irrefutable proof that the building was destroyed by controlled demolition" as an apparently uncontestable fact? Even if you are a P.E. and certified in Explosive Demolition I'm skeptical that you can make such a strong claim based purely on the footage.

But if it is really that irrefutable you should be able to explain succinctly in your own words exactly how you arrived at that analysis, and the backing for that analysis. I'm open to hearing it. But don't just throw a link and say "go read this." I want to understand that you know what you're talking about, not that you can google up links. Since the key "fact" upon which your post rests is the presumption that the WTC was collapsed by explosive demolition, I think its key that you provide this conclusive evidence that many have somehow managed to miss.

I feel it fair to warn you though, that The Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, National Fire Protection Association, American Institute of Steel Construction, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat and Structural Engineers Association of New York apparently do not support your "irrefutable" claim. But I suppose it's possible you've seen something they all managed to miss. So lets hear it.

How do they explain WTC #7? I see nothing in those links on it.

ok listen up people, have you even begun to consider how long it would take ti rig building 7 for CD? it would take well over a month just to plant the explosives, not to mention the fact that if you say a lot of people bringing dynamite and primacord into your office, wouldn't you say something? seriously consider reality before making stupid claims.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3664073116607499063&q=WTC7&hl=en


lol people.. this IS NOT a building falling due to a fire on 2 floors and structural damage..

why dont americans demand a full and proper investigation into this? I mean.. whats the harm, it will put this stuff to bed once and for all.

The listed professional organizations participated in an investigation of the collapse of the WTC buildings and produced the NIST report which explained their findings was to the cause of the collapses. These investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse. WTC 7 was an example of progressive collapse. What that is is where failure of parts of a structure creates strains that cause the entire building to come down.

Their sudies of WTC 7 indicate that the collapse began in the lower stories (either failure of major load transfer members or in columns in the stories above the transfer structure. Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why the building why the building collapse initiated at an interior location.

WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than initially believed. There was physical damage to the 1/3 of the south face to the center and to the bottom of the building. Approximately 10 stories (25% of the building depth) was destroyed. There was also found to be previously undocumented damage to the upper stories and the soutwest corner of the building.

In additiona, a primary contributing factor to the building's structural failure was the unusual design. Videos showing the WTC 7 collapse reportedly show cracks in the building's facade right before the two penthouses collapased into the structure. Columns near the cracks were under exceptionally large loads (~2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor).


Quoting Shayam Sunder (also Deputy Director of the Building and Fire Research Laboratory at the National Institute of Standards and Technology). "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors, it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down." The building fell in on itself with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side.

Other contributing factors include:

1) Trusses on the 5th & 7th floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities. There are some nice graphics here of the building structure of WTC for reference.

2) A fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. It is believed the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. In particular generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

So WTC7 might have held up individually to the physical damage from the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, or the fire that burned for hours, the combination of factors aided by the building's unusual construction were sufficient to set off the chain-reaction collapse


If you wan't additional details to to show I'm not pulling this out of my ass you can read this publication by the American Society of Civil Engineers (Look at page 6, 7 & 14 relating to WTC7). Or this section of the World Trade Center Building Performance Study relating to WTC.

There are also other documents available through the ASCE here.

Well, what do you suggest were used? Firecrackers? Two coconuts and you were banging them together?

As for the rest of your post, you seem to confuse the twin towers and WTC 7. Those are not the same buildings.

Ok Richie, as I asked Monique above, what RL personal expertise, education and/or training makes you able to say so absolutely and without doubt that the collapse shown "IS NOT a building falling due to a fire"? I give the same invitation to you as I did Monique. If it is that blidingly obvious to you, something that all these professionals in the field have missed in that one video clip, you should be able to explain succinctly in your own words exactly how you arrived at that analysis, and the backing for that analysis. I'm skeptical but open to hearing it.

Considering how long the building had been there? I don't think it's unreasonable to assume it was equipped with a self-destruct ability for years.

I believe the evidence and explanation put forth by the Civil Engineers is the most believable explanation I've seen. I've listed the explanation and provided the background information in my post to Kendra. You are welcome to identify where the Civil Engineers are wrong while I'm waiting for you to explain the "irrefutable proof" you spoke of if you like.




Nope, no confusion, all about WTC7. Please identify the particular statement in my post that leads you to believe I'm confusing the two and an explanation of why you believe that I am confusing the two and not you, as opposed to you not understanding my post.

you'd notice the primacord and the fact that all columns would be wrapped in dense felt

you know how I can tell thats not CD? there is no explosions on the upper floors, when you CD a building, there are explosives placed on about every 3rd floor, so that when you cut the bottom of the columns it doesn't topple over. there was no evidence of those upper explosions in the video. No outward shattering windows, no dust clouds on the middle floors. I watched that video and saw nothing resembling CD.

maybe in a standard building --Look again who the tenants were --and give me an explanation for Silvertsein's quote.

Also give me an explanation why "terrorist insurance" was taken out on the all three buildings (the only buildings that fell) for the first time in US history a short 2 months before 9-11.

TWC-7 was built in 1985, so...does that mean you're going to blame Ronald Reagan for the World Trade Center collapse now??

hmm, your telling me that the only tenants in that building were government offices?

you ever consider that they were the largest of the building and thus the most likely hit?

Common sence tells me that a building that falls due to structural damage doesnt fall into its own foot print. that on top of obvios attempts to airbrush it over like it didnt happen, on top of what Kendra pointed to, the handy destruction of papers pertaining to investigations that would have hit people in the bush administration.

I also find events since 9/11 show that the admininstration has done nothing but GAIN from these attacks, things like the patriot act, the invasion of Iraq the pipelines in Afganastan and all this work being carried out by companys with links to bush and his friends. the war needs guns and equipment... who makes that? who profits? do YOU???

the mere fact that the 3 buildings came down so perfectly ready for shipping and melting down in asia like that is proof enough for me..

"go out and shop" new yorkers are told, in air that has aspestos, and other toxins from smoke detectors computers and other office machines.. rescuers are told not to wear gas masks because it looks bad.. the EPA doctors reports of how bad the air quality is, 4 rescue dogs reportedly died shortly after, more people getting sick every day.

look around the incident and not straight at it, if you still dont question it then go ahead and enjoy living under an oppressive autoritarian govenrment running endess wars for the rest of your life, because thats what your getting. but then, most folks will justify that too, not a CHANCE the land of the free home of the brave could be hijacked and run into the ground by terrorists with smiles.

If people like me, kendra and others are WRONG then you have nothing to worry about right? if we are right and things continue as it is.. then you are in a lot of trouble.

think of it a bit like Pascals Wager.