This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Engineers Request Permission to Speak Freely Regarding World Trade Building 7
Preface: This essay does not question whether Bin Laden and Al Qaeda attacked us on September 11, 2001, or whether Iran, Saudi Arabia or another nation-state had a hand in the attacks. It focuses solely on a peripheral issue regarding the third building which fell on that terrible day.
Former commander-in-chief President Bush said:
Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories.
Indeed, the 9/11 Commission was warned not to probe too deeply. For example, ACLU, FireDogLake's Marcy Wheeler and RawStory reported (quoting RawStory):
Senior
Bush administration officials sternly cautioned the 9/11 Commission
against probing too deeply into the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001, according to a document recently obtained by the ACLU.
The current commander-in-chief, Barack Obama, has also warned against questioning 9/11:
As anyone in the military knows, you can't give your opinion unless you get first "permission to speak freely".
We're not in the military. However, I am not entirely sure that matters, given that speaking out against government policies may be considered a type of terrorism in America today.
Many hundreds
of high-level military officers, intelligence officers, congressmen,
legal scholars and experts have broken the commander-in-chief's orders
not to question the government's official narrative regarding 9/11. And
see this and this.
But neither Bush nor Obama has instructed us not to discuss World Trade Center Building 7. Indeed, they have never once mentioned the
fact that a third building collapsed on 9/11 (and the 9/11 Commission
never mentioned it either), even though that building was not hit by a
plane.
And no one was killed when Building 7 collapsed. As such,
discussions of why Building 7 fell does not question Al Qaeda's
responsibility for the 3,000 deaths of innocent Americans which occurred
on 9/11. It doesn't even touch on U.S. military affairs since 9/11,
since no wars or anti-terror campaigns were launched to avenge anything
which happened in connection with Building 7.
For these reasons, I
will take the commander-in-chiefs' silence on this subject as
permission to speak freely. And the family members who lost loved ones
on 9/11 want this topic discussed.
Moreover,
if Building 7 collapsed for reasons other than the official
explanation, that does not necessarily show nefarious intent. For
example, Paul K. Trousdale - a structural engineer with decades of
experience - says
:
I had always thought the 3rd building was destroyed to prevent unpredictable collapse.
Here It Is
Have you ever seen Building 7 collapse? Here's footage from several different angles:
Top Experts Say Official Explanation Makes No Sense
Numerous structural engineers - the people who know the most about
office building vulnerabilities and accidents - say that the official
explanation of why building 7 at the World Trade Center collapsed on
9/11 is "impossible", "defies common logic" and "violates the law of
physics":
- Two professors of structural engineering at a
prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo
Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)
- Alfred Lee Lopez, with 48 years of experience in all types of buildings:
I
agree the fire did not cause the collapse of the three buildings. The
most realistic cause of the collapse is that the buildings were
imploded
- John D. Pryor, with more than 30 years experience:
The
collapse of WTC7 looks like it may have been the result of a
controlled demolition. This should have been looked into as part of the
original investigation.
- Robert F. Marceau, with over 30 years of structural engineering experience:
From
videos of the collapse of building 7, the penthouse drops first prior
to the collapse, and it can be noted that windows, in a vertical
line, near the location of first interior column line are blown out,
and reveal smoke from those explosions. This occurs in a vertical line
in symmetrical fashion an equal distance in toward the center of the
building from each end. When compared to controlled demolitions, one
can see the similarities
- Kamal
S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering
from UC Berkeley and 30 years of engineering experience, says:
Photos
of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the
unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as
well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well
planned and controlled demolition
- Steven L. Faseler, structural engineer with over 20 years of experience in the design and construction industry:
World Trade Center 7 appears to be a controlled demolition. Buildings do not suddenly fall straight down by accident
- Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, writes:
Why
would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10
seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would
all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven
seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in
any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three
collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of
the dust.
- Graham John Inman points out:
WTC
7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and
external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a
steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on
this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?
- Paul W. Mason notes:
In
my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically
into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by
controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible
explanation!
- David Scott says:
Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced
collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . .
- Nathan Lomba states:
I began having doubts about, so called, official explanations for
the collapse of the WTC towers soon after the explanations surfaced. The
gnawing question that lingers in my mind is: How did the structures
collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating
causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from
an elementary structural engineering perspective. “If” you accept the
argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent
that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were
exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and “if” you accept the
argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural
framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature
of the failures.Neither of the official precipitating sources
for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the
floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they
finally came to rest within the respective buildings. This means that,
given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural
framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the
burning aircraft. Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel
members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the
individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have
dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the
flames—just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same
rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have
resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining
intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and
stiffness.Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to
compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its
tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, “if” the
structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken,
the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the
burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist
toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at
which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless,
the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper
floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a
concentric, vertical collapse.For this reason alone, I rejected
the official explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers out of
hand. Subsequent evidence supporting controlled, explosive demolition
of the two buildings are more in keeping with the observed collapse
modalities and only serve to validate my initial misgivings as to the
causes for the structural failures.
- Edward E. Knesl writes:
We
design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist
the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall
structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is
impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of
the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below.We
do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate
internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the
top.The engineering science and the law of physics simply
doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled
demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening
effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the
partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that
more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse.
Where would such energy would be coming from?
- Antonio Artha,with 15+ years of experience in building design
Fire
and impact were insignificant in all three buildings. Impossible for
the three to collapse at free-fall speed. Laws of physics were not
suspended on 9/11, unless proven otherwise.
The symmetrical "collapse" due to asymmetrical damage is at odds with the principles of structural mechanics
It
is virtually impossible for WTC building 7 to collapse as it did with
the influence of sporadic fires. This collapse HAD to be planned
- Travis McCoy, M.S. in structural engineering
- James Milton Bruner,
Major, U.S. Air Force, instructor and assistant professor in the
Deptartment of Engineering Mechanics & Materials, USAF Academy, and
a technical writer and editor, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
It
is very suspicious that fire brought down Building 7 yet the Madrid
hotel fire was still standing after 24 hours of fire. This is very
suspicious to me because I design buildings for a living
- David Anthony Dorau,
practicing structural engineer with 18 years' experience in the
inspection and design of buildings under 5 stories tall, who worked as a
policy analyst for the Office of Technology Assessment, an arm of the
U.S. Congress providing independent research and reports on
technological matters
- Russell T. Connors, designed many buildings and other types of structures
- Lester Jay Germanio, 20+ years experience
- Daniel Metz, 26+ years experience
- Jonathan Smolens, 11 years experience, with a specialty in forensic engineering
- William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College
The above is just a sample. Many other structural engineers have questioned the collapse of Building 7, as have numerous experts in other disciplines, including:
- The
former head of the Fire Science Division of the
government agency which claims that the World Trade
Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of
Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s
leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in
mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called
for an independent review of the World Trade Center
collapse investigation. "I wish that there would be a
peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST
investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has
assembled should be archived. I would really like to see
someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally
and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.
- A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded
- Harry
G. Robinson, III - Professor and Dean Emeritus, School of
Architecture and Design, Howard University. Past President of two
major national architectural organizations - National Architectural
Accrediting Board, 1996, and National Council of Architectural
Registration Boards, 1992. In 2003 he was awarded the highest honor
bestowed by the Washington Chapter of the American Institute of
Architects, the Centennial Medal. In 2004 he was awarded the
District of Columbia Council of Engineering and Architecture Societies
Architect of the Year award. Principal, TRG Consulting Global /
Architecture, Urban Design, Planning, Project Strategies.
Veteran U.S. Army, awarded the Bronze Star for bravery and the Purple
Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam - says:
The
collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated.
The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to
implode as they did.
- A prominent
physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in
Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory
for why Building 7 collapsed "does not match the available facts" and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition
Again,
this essay is not questioning whether or not Al Qaeda carried out the
9/11 attacks, or even the collapse of the Twin Towers.
It is simply questioning why a third building which was never hit by a plane collapsed on 9/11.
»
- advertisements -
lol. A building collapse, regardless of the cause, would follow the path of least resistance.
There is no combination of fire or impact damage that could cause a steel-framed skyscraper to collapse through itself for eight stories at a rate of acceleration equal to gravity. It's impossible. All the hand-waving and troll gibberish in the world won't change that immutable fact.
http://ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:
lol. So, then, when you stand atop an empty soda can to crush it, it and you fall over sideways because, as you pointed out, a can crushing straight down into a disk would take the path of most resistance, and thus be impossible, right? Well, if you leave out gravity, which always acts downward, that would be true. But you can't leave out gravity.
And yes, it did demonstrate characteristics of heating if you care to look for yourself. The last of the twin towers to fall exhibited a coke-bottle profile shortly before collapse. That was the sagging floors pulling the sides inward, which ultimately lead to the collapse.
It took around 15 seconds for each of the twin towers to collapse. There are videos taken from the ground during the collapse of each building in which you can hear, and time, the collapses. Those saying free-fall (9.3 seconds) are full of shit.
It is true that the buildings collapsed at a near-freefall (80% or so) rate ealy on, but not the whole way down. Here's why: In each case the tops of the buildings above impact collapsed onto the sections below impact, which were also collapsing. At each tower the section below impact collapsed top-down due to the section above falling on it. The section above collapsed from bottom-up as it interacted with the bottom section. Watch the videos yourself.
If the buildings collapsed at free-fall speed, then the top sections above the airplane impact would have ridden down with the collapse INTACT as the tops could not overtake the collapsing structure beneath unless falling faster than free fall. Instead, you can clearly see the top sections disintegrating against the bottom sections, even as the bottom floors were collapsing, meaning the building beneath the impact had to be collapsing top-down slower than free fall.
When you add the collapse rate of the top AND bottom, you get the overall speed at which the roof approached the ground. Once the top sections were obliterated the collapse slowed to the speed of just the top-down collapse of the bottom section. Most of the remaining collapse was obscured, so people have erroneously extrapolated the faster portion of the collapse as guesswork for timing the entire collapse. The sound of the collapse captured on tape is the better gauge.
Did you just compare a steel-framed skyscraper to a soda can? lol. That's almost as stupid a comparison as the witless 9/11 troll I encountered once who made a comparison to the moon crashing into a tree.
No, I'm afraid you're mistaken. None of the towers exhibited any of the aforementioned characteristics:
What does this nonsense have to do with my comment regarding WTC7?
"There is no combination of fire or impact damage that could cause a steel-framed skyscraper to collapse through itself for eight stories at a rate of acceleration equal to gravity. It's impossible. All the hand-waving and troll gibberish in the world won't change that immutable fact."
"collapse through itself for eight stories at a rate of acceleration equal to gravity"
You did make that claim, right? You then re-asserted it. Yet you claim to have no clue that my discussion of the actual collapse rate is a response to your nonsense about the tower falling at free fall speed (acceleration of gravity)?
Obviously, you don't want to discuss.
Yes, you can compare a building to a can. In this universe and any other. They are both structures, and their collapse hinges on the application of vertical force above the ability to resist that force. A kid can stand on an empty can (carefully) without crushing it. But if you take away enough structural integrity by poking dents in the can it will crush swiftly into a disk most of the time, even though collapsing in the path of most resistance. A very tall building, using just enough material to stand up (because any unnecessary weight has to be supported at the base), is in a similar position when its structure is brought to failure.
You need to understand why a can or any object can be scaled up to a point where it collapses under its own weight, even as the structural component increases in size proportionately. You need to understand why a building that must have 50% or better of its columns intact to stand (2x safety factor) can have 95% of its columns removed and remain standing if built as a scale model (or smaller building) one tenth the size. All with the same Earth pulling downward.
"In this universe and any other. They are both structures, and their collapse hinges on the application of vertical force above the ability to resist that force"
is this why these are the only buildings in history to react to fire and / or planes in this manner? Your logic needs more support columns
Name another building over 1000 feet tall both hit by aircraft of similar size and speed AND suffering uncontrolled fires on multiple floors? You can't, so you're just a parrot.
A building that is overdesigned by a factor of 2 can withstand up to a 50% loss of strength due to EITHER a fire weakening the steel OR the loss of structural members. Not BOTH.
If it looses 30% due to impact and 10% due to fire and another 10% due to load shifts then it's a goner.
But feel free to believe whatever keeps you awake at night.
a goner never falls like that
If I recall the top pic was caused from the foundation of the ground giving way on one side due to poor soil compaction during construction...where did you get these pics?
Edit: If I recall the second collapse pic was found to be from shoddy material...the concrete was bad, supplier/contractor skimming...where were these buildings located?
nmewn,
RE: WTC
Here are the steel-support-column equivalent of weak ground foundation courtesy of angled thermite charges applied in control demolitions.
Before
http://i25.tinypic.com/2mhfv5y.jpg
WTC After
http://i29.tinypic.com/2wf49rc.jpg
(Note the melted slag along the edge of the angular cut)
Again, I ask for the source of the pic...(just like I did of GW, so far nothing) and about what floor would this be on with the firemen standing there in the rubble...three, four? One and two clearly started collapsing at point of impact...its not even disputed anymore.
What building is it? WT7 or 1 or 2?
And there is such a thing as photo shop...no investigator worth a damn is going to walk by melted steel and say that's perfectly normal...even the fireman would be saying WTF is this?
I think you got a forgery there palmer...but I didn't want this to be personal, so I waited to respond...us old timers gotta stick together ;-)
Again, I ask for the source of the pic...(just like I did of GW, so far nothing) and about what floor would this be on with the firemen standing there in the rubble...three, four? One and two clearly started collapsing at point of impact...its not even disputed anymore.
The source of the pic is difficult to determine as picture taking, like all the forensic evidence of the crime itself, was banned and forbidden from ground zero. Hence a formal lack of citation that I can immediately find, which does not mean it does not exist.
What building is it? WT7 or 1 or 2?
The building in question is irrelevant as shaped charges were probably used in all three to some degree, if not exclusively for building 7.
And there is such a thing as photo shop...no investigator worth a damn is going to walk by melted steel and say that's perfectly normal...even the fireman would be saying WTF is this?
As to photoshop skepticism I will provide this link and cut which provides significant analysis of the credibility of the appearance of such a cutting charge based on the physics and exothermic properties of such a burn. It is reasonable to assume the resources and accuracy needed to produce such an accurate faux portrayal would be beyond those of even what passes for professional ham-handed psyops photoshop today (e.g. bin Laden redux ad infinitum) let alone to be concocted by someone so shortly after the event to depict a Truther agenda.
The text excised from this webpage link appears near the bottom of the page. See link for more pictures. (Emphasis below is mine) This section also clearly refutes the Debunker’s allegation of torch cutting of the columns by clean-up crews.
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=18571.40
"The column we are talking about stands about six feet directly over the head of the confused fireman positioned atop a debris pile. A closer look at the column cut his here (pic) where I would direct your attention to the molten iron froth that appears on the inside ‘and’ outside of the severed column. Look how the molten iron (Thermite Residue) has spilled 75 percent on the outside and 25 percent on the inside to realize that any torch operator must stand inside the column itself and cut at a 45-degree downward angle to leave this kind of evidence. Why so little residue on the upper column and a higher amount on the lower column at a distance farther away from the operator? :0) No sir. What you are looking at is a column taken down using a 45-degree shaped charge that begins burning on the ‘outside’ to leave most of the residue and leave a smaller proportion on the ‘inside,’ because the inside is exposed only after the burn is complete.
The second problem for the ‘torch’ theory is all of the debris scattered around the immediate environment that must be removed by laborers before the skilled demolition crew even enters the scene. These 45-degree cuts are very dangerous, because the load can shift and kill somebody and no demolition supervisor is going to allow any 45-degree cuts in any demolition operation; because you waste time and valuable gas resources. The next problem is that you have these 45-degree angle cuts in locations where no man can even reach (pic = at top of pic), as if any demo supervisor is going to send a member of his crew way up a ladder in the middle of the debris pile to make a 45-degree cut. :0) Then you have the problem of all the “Severed Column Ends” poking out of the debris pile with debris piled on top that no steel worker has even touched.
The third problem is found in the massive “Saved” columns (pic) that also have identical 45-degree cutter charge cuts and the telltale signs of ‘stress’ that could only be applied during the actual controlled demolition process. Think about this very carefully and you will realize that any deliberate served connection on anything this large would require the load be held by a crane, which would not allow for the serious bend in these columns."
I think you got a forgery there palmer...but I didn't want this to be personal, so I waited to respond...us old timers gotta stick together ;-)
Nature abhors a vacuum (provided by the systematic ‘Hoovering’ of evidence from the crime scene) but is itself the product of organic systems and rules: logic being such an undeniable creature. Even given the paucity of data from ground zero, logic and the immutable laws of physics make it clear the official conspiracy theory is a joke.
P.S. I’m not that old for one of the undead...lol
"P.S. I’m not that old for one of the undead...lol"
LOL!...if I don't get back to you it means I was one of the good guys (5-21 and all)...so that will be proof ;-)
"The source of the pic is difficult to determine as picture taking, like all the forensic evidence of the crime itself, was banned and forbidden from ground zero. Hence a formal lack of citation that I can immediately find, which does not mean it does not exist."
Which makes it inadmissible as evidence. Evidence is a provable commodity, not heresay.
"The building in question is irrelevant as shaped charges were probably used in all three to some degree, if not exclusively for building 7."
The building, of course, is not irrelevant because what the building is, is the question at hand...and using the word "probably" is not the best way to relate a fact you are trying to describe.
"As to photoshop skepticism I will provide this link and cut which provides significant analysis of the credibility of the appearance of such a cutting charge based on the physics and exothermic properties of such a burn..."
Its widely known I discount everything Alex Jones says or produces...it holds absolutely no cachet with me...none.
"Nature abhors a vacuum (provided by the systematic ‘Hoovering’ of evidence from the crime scene) but is itself the product of organic systems and rules: logic being such an undeniable creature. Even given the paucity of data from ground zero, logic and the immutable laws of physics make it clear the official conspiracy theory is a joke."
I would have to agree, the prevailing conspiracy theory is offically a joke ;-)
If you had ever done demolition you would know det cord is not something you leave laying around for an extended period of time...and is certainly not something that can be placed at 45 degree angles inside habitated office enviroment without drawing suspicion, requiring wall removal in all two to four rooms where the supports are behind...again, occupied office space.
Nice theory, impractical in application.
WTC 7 is conventional demolition. Your eyes can lie but not this time. They fucked up.
I'm liking that Russian dude's explanation (in the youtube link on this thread) for embedded nukes deep in the foundation (77 feet below grade) as the cause for 1 and 2...explains the total pulverization, high radioactive count and molten steel 6 weeks after the blast.
His explanation is a great theory and practical to achieve the results witnessed. What was witnessed was as absurd as the official explanation, thus the cognitive dissonance that allows such false science (i.e. jet planes and kerosene) to flourish.
P.S. The support columns would only need to be cut at the foundation level, nowhere near offices high above and the Alex Jones dismissal is a bias worth revisiting as it was not his authorship but merely a commenter using logic, science and all evidence available to determine plausibility of the occurance.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."-Sherlock Holmes
Good luck with that Rapture thing...lol
The floors above the impact zone came down first...any video you wish to review reveals this.
If the pillars had been cut in the lobby it would have started there first.
"Good luck with that Rapture thing...lol"
LOL!!!...I'm trying to get someone to bet me a million dollars it doesn't happen...so far no takers, as collection seems to be an issue ;-)
Check it out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFgxqYI28Wc&NR=1
Remember the Sherlock Holmes quote
Sherlock Holmes was fictional also...I've got Doyles books in my library ;-)
Then you appreciate logic :)
Please see this, this, and this.
Just having a little fun GW.
LOL!
Life is one big conspiracy.
notice all of the large pieces. this is the way it is supposed to look like. yet everything turned to dust that day, or at least almost everything. the bodies of over 3000 people were turned to dust and fragments. what did this? i say nuclear......of some sort......months after 911, something underground burned exceedingly hot at about 3000 degrees. what was this and what does this? what caused the strange damages to cars parked many blocks away from the wtc?
one thing is for certain. among the many other things going on here, this was a insurance scam. it has been said that over a billion dollars worth of remodeling work needed to be done on the two towers due to aging and wind damages etc......silverstein, before he became a new york real estate magnet was a two bit scumbag who owned a couple of girly bars in the seedy part of town......then all of a sudden he owns the world trade center. and he took out insurance on them and then by golly they were attacked by evil mooooslims and they were destroyed........imagine that..........incidentally, the jewish mob was pushing x pills out of these girly bars. the jewish mob is very much into selling ecstasy pills.......
We can pass back and forth accusations and links all we want, but maybe we can all agree that:
Question:
What was housed in any of these buildings worth the risk of destroying in such a clearly obvious fashion?!
It is not about what was housed in these buildings
although their was allegedly a ton of 'Interesting stuff' DESTROYED.
These buildings were a symbol to Americans and the world.
When they blew up the towers they also blew up the common persons belief that
the law applied to all people in the USA, and they nuked the silly idea that the US government operated under the influence of FACTS,
Fiction,Theater and Denial are now the order of the day,
Patriotism is a word used in old movies about Davy Crockett and should not be spoken outloud or things could get ugly, the IRS might come and get us and we could not have as many pork chops and 2 litre diet Pepsis in the 2 door brushed stainless steel refrigerator with an ice maker on the door.
Theft is OK on a grand scale if we ignore it,Murder on an international scale is OK too if we look the other way and say nothing.It is our jobs after all and the other guys problem.
Why make waves or say anything? I read that Constitution thing in high school and i'm pretty sure it was written buy the same guys that wrote the Bible I guess,'The Republicans?'
Courtesy of Wikipedia:
"7 World Trade Center housed SEC files relating to numerous Wall Street investigations, as well as other federal investigative files. All the files for approximately 3,000 to 4,000 SEC cases were destroyed. While some were backed up in other places, others were not, especially those classified as confidential.[51] Files relating Citigroup to the WorldCom scandal were lost.[52] The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission estimates over 10,000 cases will be affected.[53] The Secret Service had its largest field office, with more than 200 employees, in WTC 7 and lost investigative files. Says one agent: “All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building.”[54]"
At least when they got mad at DSK they didn't take down three buildings to get him. They're getting more sophisticated with time. Good for them.
as soon as i saw charlie sheen on the tv with his open letter to the sock puppet asking for the 9/11 investigation to be re-opened i wondered how he would be dealt with. by death or by discrediting him. well now i know.
Most notable records destroyed that day was the pending Enron case.
The Bad Guy.
you got it
enron and 60 other "energy" companies under the protection of a 20 year promise made by one of two cftc judges
I'd like to see any and all claims and settlements to owners, businesses, individuals as a result of 9-11. Including any $$ paid by .gov and the neocons to the building owners who play on the same team. You have to admit the Patriot act / DHS have significant value.
That would dismiss my suspicions if you can please provide.
"Buzzy" Krongard is one search, the other is Silverstein just re-uped his insurance plan for a double endemnity in case of a terrorist attack. He was being fined dailey for not removing the asbestos from the buldings, go search these public domain articles for the love of Christ, don't try to use rational to figure out an unrational event.
You been had by the MSM, just wrap your mind around it.
Yup
What Was In Building 7?
http://www.wtc7.net/background.html
11 billion insurance policy...
The USA had already developed and demonstrated effective "Earthquake Bombs" to bring down buildings in WWII during the 1940's. They worked, but were not practical because of the targeting limitations of the time to strike close enough to the intended targets even though they were meant to be proximity bombs that did not need direct hits.
The WTC buildings had huge foundations that went down many stories deep to the subways below. The subsequent sequential collapse of two such buildings in close proximity to a third building would have created a much massive effect than any known earthquake bomb and could easily have brought down a third building.
Frankly, I'm surprised more did not come down.
"The WTC buildings had huge foundations that went down many stories deep to the subways below. The subsequent sequential collapse of two such buildings in close proximity to a third building would have created a much massive effect than any known earthquake bomb and could easily have brought down a third building."
But the collaps of the twin towers caused hardly a blip on the Richter scale of nearby earthquake detectors, according to Dr. Judy Wood's book ($40 on Amazon), "Where Did the Towers Go?" The collapse of other large structures has typically caused noticeable jiggles on nearby detectors. Her website is http://drjudywood.com/wtc/
(Caution: Her explanation for what did happen is really far out and she has no theory about WHO did it. Still, I feel about it that Sherlock's famous comment applies: After you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.)
Fromhttp://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/Seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.ht...
Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center (WTC) towers, scientists at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University were able to determine accurate times of the plane impacts and building collapses using the seismic signals recorded at numerous seismographic stations in the Northeastern United States. The collapse of the WTC towers generated large seismic waves observed in five states and up to 428 km away. The North Tower collapse was the larger seismic source and had a magnitude ML 2.3 (Kim et al., 2001).
Thanks for the correction. I haven’t received her book in the mail yet, nor have I done more than glance at the picture-portion of her site (at the link I gave).
As a result of your post I did some googling and discovered that what she said in an interview on Coast-to-Coast AM about ten (?) days ago, which is what I relied on, was misleading. (I.e., that the towers’ collapse was barely noticeable on earthquake detection monitors.) A 2.1 tremor, which she concedes on her site, is definitely well above background noise. Here are the details of my googling:
I Googled for:
site:drjudywood.com richter
and got the following Google results page:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Adrjudywood.com+richter&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
I then clicked on the first “hit”:
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam2.html
and found the following quote:
“The Kingdome was not anchored in bedrock. If the Kingdome Richter value was a 2.3 reading transferred through soft material, a building with 30x the potential energy anchored directly in bedrock should have transferred a much higher signal to earthquake monitoring instruments. Amazingly, the south tower reading of 2.1 was lower than the Kingdome’s 2.3 despite the tower having 30x the potential energy and being anchored in bedrock.”
And I clicked on the second “hit” at:
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/
and searched for “Richter”, finding the following quote near the end of that “page”:
“Although these data seem to be corrupted by unknown filters and a complicit Lamont-Doherty will not release the raw data, a reading similar to the Kingdome would be impossible if the twin towers were destroyed by conventional means (bottom up) because much greater weight would have slammed into a much smaller chunk of land and therefore would have shaken the ground far more than the Kingdome did. Each tower’s collapse should have registered at least four on the Richter scale given two orders of magnitude difference between the twin towers and Kingdome dimensions. The apparent fact that the Richter reading peaked at 2.3 and the disturbance lasted only 8 seconds indicates an extraordinary high-energy weapon was used top-down to preserve the bathtub and surrounding structures. And where are the data from the other recording stations shown in Figure 35? Are they being withheld?”
Maybe that's a clue suggesting your hypothesis is wrong.
It's a clue he should be sterilized.
++ for funny.
It was an inside job, any idiot can see that... except for "USA, USA" chanting americans.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/truthers-fight-back-20110315
Don't bother linking him GW's post. He'll just change the argument to something he can ridicule and then ridicule it.
ANYONE WANT THE TRUTH????
HERE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT VIDEO YOU WILL EVER SEE REGARDING 911.
THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE IS CHILLING. :(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwZbZBn5z2g
what's with all the god and jesus crap
Geez. Do people know how to process information anymore?
Just look at the historical footage.
Anyone with AN explanation?
Clearly something has gone terribly terribly wrong in America.
Ignore what you cannot accept....
but do not deny what you see.
The historical footage is UNDENIABLE for what it is.
And,...to anyone who junked.............
GROW THE FUCK UP!
I have to say, the chants of the school children are ironic.
Irony. Sounds eerily like a ritual. FWIW
and look at Georgie grin -- a shining example of 'no child left behind'.
even if one were to take the words at face value and refuse to consider any occultic undertones to the whole affair, this is what someone chose to have these young children recite in the front of the President:
hit steal playing must
(sound it out, get ready!)
HIIIIIT!
these are the word patterns that are being imprinted in our childrens' brains. and some wonder why we live in a culture of corruption. Bernays is chuckling right now for sure.
I would LOVE for Zero Hedge to feature the historical footage [even deleting the GOD/DEVIL perspective because while I believe there is value there...I do conceed it will turn people off].
Not many people have seen the historical footage that I posted.
I believe if it was a ZERO HEDGE story.....it would totally resonante in the group consciousness.
Either we are witnessing unconscious synchrocity [of a conspiracy?] or evidence of intent [conspiracy?]. . . . .but no way is it mere lark.
This is Aleister Crowley stuff for sure. :(
thanks for the field trip down the rabbit hole dear lord. there's some good mythology in there. the hermaphordite stuff is choice.
if you're around after tomorrow, riddle me this if you please: who is S. Pazul?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wallyg/281347911/
that's what i wanna know ;~)