Preface: If you believe that the government always tells the truth, you have gotten lost in a bad neighborhood, and you should turn around and get back on the freeway as quickly as possible.
If you believe that politics, war and terrorism do not greatly affect your lifestyle, your investment portfolio and the economy, you are sadly mistaken. See this, this, this, this and this.
If, on the other hand, you believe that 9/11 was an inside job, then please point out any inaccuracies, shortcoming or erroneous conclusions contained within the post. Please don’t just label it as being a “limited hang-out” propaganda sell-out hit piece … instead, if you believe it is wrong, please link to actual evidence which disproves what I am saying, or which adds pieces of information which you think are missing. Maybe I’ll agree with you, maybe I won’t. But I will consider every comment.
People who state that 9/11 was an inside job are claiming that it is a false flag operation which killed people, was used to justify wars in Iraq and elsewhere and a power grab in the U.S.
But World Trade Center building 7 – the third building to collapse on September 11th – has nothing to do with any inside job:
- No one died as a result of the collapse
- No airplane hit the building, and so it was not directly involved in the terrorist attack
- No wars were launched to avenge WTC7
- No power grabs or loss of civil liberties ensued because of the collapse of this building
- Unlike the rest of 9/11, the government has been very quiet about its destruction
As such, the collapse of the building – also known as the “Solomon Brothers Building” – was not an inside job.
Of course, the building might have been demolished to save lives. 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.
(some point to the World Trade Center owner's statement about the decision to "pull" the building as confirming Trousdale's theory).
So why am I wasting your valuable time in discussing this?
Because the government – as part of its political cover-up of negligence before and on 9/11 – pretended that the building collapsed due to “natural causes”. This should not be entirely surprising … we know that government personnel sometimes misspeak about things like the economy or Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, and they may also have made some minor errors peripherally related to 9/11:
- The EPA misspoke about the dangers to heroic first responders from toxic chemicals at Ground Zero
- Government officials misspoke about 9/11 being wholly unforeseeable … including pretending that Al Qaeda’s plans to fly planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon were a complete surprise
- Top government personnel misspoke about Iraq’s role in 9/11
Again, this post has nothing to do with “9/11 inside job”: no one died when building 7 collapsed.
What Do the Experts Say?
What does the evidence show about the Solomon Brothers Building in Manhattan?
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)
- 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
- 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 [please ignore any reference in this essay to the Twin Towers. This essay focuses solely on Building 7]. The most realistic cause of the collapse is that the buildings were imploded
- Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, writes:
Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day [i.e. on September 11th]? 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:
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.
***
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 … 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 ….
- 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 [Again, please ignore any reference to the Twin Towers ... this essay focuses solely on WTC7]. 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 top experts in other relevant disciplines, including:
- A demolition loader for the world’s top demolition company (which is based in the United States), Tom Sullivan
- The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that Building 7 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)
- 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
Watch this short video on Building 7 by Architects and Engineers (ignore any reference to the Twin Towers, deaths on 9/11, or any other topics other than WTC7):
Fish In a Barrel
Poking holes in the government’s spin on Building 7 is so easy that it is like shooting fish in a barrel.
As just one example, the spokesman for the government agency which says that the building collapsed due to fire said there was no molten metal at ground zero:
The facts are a wee bit different:
- The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks (page 3)
- A structural engineer who worked for the Trade Center’s original designer saw “streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” (pages 31-32)
- An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, “They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event.”
- New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.”
- A NY firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a “foundry” or like “lava”.
- A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that “feeling the heat” and “seeing the molten steel” there reminded him of a volcano.
- An employee of New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed “Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet.”
- The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.”
- According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, “Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6.”
- A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero “descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams.“
- According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.”
- A retired professor of physics and atmospheric science said “in mid-October when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire–which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December.”
- A fireman stated that there were “oven” like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.
- Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, “There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red” and “the blaze is so ‘far beyond a normal fire’ that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires.” (pay-per-view)
- A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said “for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal – everything from molten steel beams to human remains….”
- New York mayor Rudy Giuliani said “They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days.”
- As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O’Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, “was dripping from the molten steel.”
- A rescue worker “crawled through an opening and down crumpled stairwells to the subway five levels below ground. He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–molten metal dripping from a beam“
- And see witness statements at the beginning of this video
- Indeed, not only was structural steel somehow melted on 9/11, but it was evaporated. As the New York Times reports, an expert stated about World Trade Center building 7:
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures.
(pay-per-view). Evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them
Please remember that firefighters sprayed millions of gallons of water on the fires, and also applied high-tech fire retardants. Specifically, 4 million gallons of water were dropped on Ground Zero within the first 10 days after September 11, according to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories:
Approximately three million gallons of water were hosed on site in the fire-fighting efforts, and 1 million gallons fell as rainwater, between 9/11 and 9/21 ….
The spraying continued for months afterward (the 10 day period was simply the timeframe in which the DOE was sampling). Enormous amounts of water were hosed on Ground Zero continuously, day and night:
“Firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on [ground zero]. You couldn’t even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there,” said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. “It was like you were creating a giant lake.”
This photograph may capture a sense of how wet the ground became due to the constant spraying:
The fact that there were raging fires and molten metal even after the application of massive quantities of water and fire retardants shows how silly the government spokesman’s claim is.
Again, this has nothing to do with “inside job” … no one was killed in the collapse of Building 7, no wars were launched based on a rallying cry of “remember the Solomon Brothers building”, and no civil liberties were lost based on a claim that we have to prevent future WTC7 tragedies.
It is merely meant to show that government folks sometimes lie … even about issues tangentially related to 9/11.
"Any evidence for necessary " lead time"?" Please elaborate."
Would it take an hour to wire? A day? A week? A month?
Many have claimed that WTC7 would have taken weeks to wire for demo. This might be true.
Demolition experts such as Danny Jowenko and Tom Sullivan have said that WTC7 was a controlled demo ... did they say (or did anyone ask them) how long it would take to wire?
This should be a pretty-straightfoward answer to get from a demo expert.
In my limited opinion (I am not a structural engineer nor a demolition expert, but did take physics 101. Oh, and I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night ... not), there is a big difference between a military-style demolition and a civilian demolition. Also in my limited opinion, this has more of a 'military' flavor.
In a civilian demolition, a lot of time goes into removing all glass from the building, and any movable metal objects, things like lighting fixtures, etc. that can become projectiles.
In a military demolition, it's just a matter of placing charges to destroy whatever it is you're going to destroy. Much less time and planning required.
Whoever planned this demolition did not care about collateral injuries, loss of life, etc.
"Would it take an hour to wire? A day? A week? A month?"
CDI's demolition of the Hudson building took a 12-person loading team 24 days to place the charges. That doesn't include the months of prep work, a lot of which also involves manual labor, but also includes planning/design. WTC 7 would have been a comparable job - a little bigger actually, involving 16 floors (only the bottom third needs to be loaded) instead of 9, and ~1,300 locations instead of 1,100 (with mulitple charges at each location). By the way, there was no need for wires.
An 8-hour job?
lol
It could have been wired over the course of the year or so, by a small team of people, after the 2000 stock market crash.
They had to get rid of the Dot-Com fraud evidence.
Now we're getting somewhere ...
Jowenko said 30-40 experienced demolition experts might have been able to do it in one day...
He was amazed to find out that WTC7 was on fire that day ... he couldn't explain how they could have done it.
I asked you to elaborate because of the form of the question.
Now that we are all on the same page...;)
Ok. 30-40 demolition guys. Where did they come from? Outer space?
High explosives are tightly regulated.
What companies in the NYC area were paid to to the job?
Many trucks needed to haul the explosives and men. The amount is large, this stuff takes up space.
Can't just sneak it in.
Paper trail.
The timeline is pretty impossible though. But the building dropped.
No official mention of a demolition company.
If demolition, SOMEBODY used a huge pile of explosives. This could be easily traced if it were a legit company that did it.
Nobody's talking. Nobody looked into a paper trail.
Officially, there WAS NO DEMOLITION.
That seems to be an absurd claim, but the demolition, (faster than you can get pizza delivered) seems absurd as well.
Only thing that makes sense is that the building was pre loaded with explosives.
Or a novel method of destroying a building instantly was used.
Absurd claims demand absurd solutions?
it's a lot like rearranging flight exercises and putting false radar blips on traffic controller screens. It takes time and a few connections
30-40 experts.... and a lot of trucks and equipment
demolition exerts are not coffee baristas. You can't grab a latte on a whim
I would further figure that one could probably estimate how many such capable people were currently on payrolls of the then going-concern businesses and then assess how many jobs were happening around that time-frame. (I suppose that people could be pulled from existing jobs... maybe signs of this from work delays?)
Most of the circumstantial evidence suggests that this WASN'T something that was rolled out on that very day.
The weight seems to lean toward military personnel. There are likely plenty of Oliver Norths out there... and those who might be a bit less than patriotic could be persuaded (yeah, if you don't go along you can expect to see some "nice" assignments in the hornets nests that we kick up*).
*Hmm... another research item might be to check to see where all the military demolitions experts were following the various invasions. Were there a lot of such good patriots left stateside? Employment records might also show who was a good patriot: defense contractors being tight with all of this and all.
NIST's official explanation is fire as a cause for the destruction of the WTC7 and they spent A SIGNIFICANT amount of time coming to that conclusion. Well I guess that's in conflict to your narrative trope.
So if your argument is that spontaneous, impromptu organized controlled demolition in the face of the chaos and the terrorist deterrence incompetence of that day, is a plausible explanation for the collapse of WTC7 (being that it wasn't a false flag and all that...) can you explain why ("Lucky") Larry Silverstein has never heralded or praised the incredible work of the more than 50* ? skilled demolition experts with cutter charges and demolition experience it would have taken to bring such a building down on such notice and how such an incredible brain trust of demolition experts would be miracuously available at just such a site to achieve such an accomplishment on such short notice...or even recognized their effort other than to remark that they simply, had to pull it....
Just an oversight on poor ole Larry's part I suspect...
He'd like to thank the little people now..if he could just have the final script....
*[EDIT: I defer to the poster below me who knows significantly more about the logistics and I leave it to the reader to calculale the actual number. My number was a very limited approximation.]
"NIST's official explanation is fire as a cause for the destruction of the WTC7 and they spent A SIGNIFICANT amount of time coming to that conclusion. Well I guess that's in conflict to your narrative trope."
Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1A)
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610
"Abstract: This report describes how the fires that followed the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 (the north tower) led to the collapse of WTC 7;"
From page 95 of the PDF report:
"Calculated fire-elevated temperatures in the interior columns, including Columns 79, 80, and
81, stayed below 200 ºC on all of the floors. The exterior column temperatures were below
150 ºC (300 ºF), except on Floors 12 and 13, where the east and south exterior columns
reached 300 ºC (570 ºF). At these temperatures, structural steel experiences relatively little
loss of strength or stiffness. Thus, WTC 7 did not collapse due to fire-induced weakening of critical columns."
"The buckling failure of Column 79 between Floor 5 and Floor 14 was the initiating event that led to the global collapse of WTC 7. This resulted from thermal expansion and failures of connections, beams, and girders in the adjacent floor systems. "
"The connection, beam, and girder failures in the floor systems, and the resulting structural
responses, occurred primarily at temperatures below approximately 400 °C (750 ºF), well
below the temperatures at which structural steel loses significant strength and stiffness. "
So...they say fire *led* to the collapse. But fire was not the direct cause (more or less).
Beware "thermal expansion". It's worse than fire. /sarc
PS - You couldn't PAY me to go up in any NYC (or US?) skyscraper after all this.
Obviously they are cheaply built and will go down with a quickness, fire or not.
That's what the "official" reports basically say.
What's worse, the theories or the "reality" in this case? Ugh.
When I get more time I'll slog through that report. Just to see the details of the "official" explanation.
Till then everybody else can have at it.
"Beware "thermal expansion". It's worse than fire. /sarc"
Precious!
Well, the Fed believes that expansion is the answer, so this notion is a bit catchy!
Yes. A great deal. Read "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert. A blow by blow timeline is included.
Nearly needless to say, Mr. Ruppert has suffered greatly for his efforts. He continues to try, however.
The fact that there were raging fires and molten metal even after the application of massive quantities of water and fire retardants shows how silly the government spokesman’s claim is.
its also a strong secondary for thermitic reactions
i have fundamental problems with the proposed linkage architecture
but im also at a point where im done arguing about it, especially the tacit phenom of 911 itself - its 2012 and they just signed off on INFINIMONEY
i similarly dont want to talk about Bali or 7/7 for the same reasons - but i fully support any and all attempts to educate people about the totality
stuff like
misspoke? or deliberately lied in a criminally negligent fashion? they had foreknowledge of the danger but wanted to smooth shit over and reopen wall st
· Government officials misspoke about 9/11 being wholly unforeseeable … including pretending that Al Qaeda’s plans to fly planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon were a complete surprise
doesnt the paper trail clearly indicate that not only was there foreknowledge of such a scenario being likely, but in fact suggest strongly that the scenario was chosen deliberately for its characteristics? then using the drill architecture to smuggle the logistics into the apparatus of government? Able Danger etc.
i love the effort but am not sure if i agree with the point being made about WTC7 being essentially unlinked to the op - again i would argue WTC7 was used to coordinate the op and then was taken down to cover up evidence (and likely prepped to be brought down similar to the other buildings)
and 7/7 should be a striking parallel here...
ultimately this is why i abandoned analysis of the discrete events of 911 and prefer to make the argument with regard to the resultant, the component vector coming out of 911 as per geostrategic reality etc. says it all. from that standpoint the collapse of WTC7 is just a part of the op and there isnt much reason to cordon it off in any significant way from the collapse of the other structures, the pentagon strike etc.
WTC7 was the base of operations for coordinating the NY op
(World Trade Center building 7 – the third building to collapse on September 11th – has nothing to do with any inside job:) seems like a giant non-seq and LIHOP analysis, which is fine - and the extenuating circumstances do not offer us a conclusive proof
however, it seems naive to me to argue that this is negligence and misspeaking
the contention is clear, as are the geostrategic resultants, to the extent that it doesnt even matter what the minutiae tells us - indeed, at some point the analysis of the detritus of an op even obscures the obvious - like patriot acts 1&2 and now NDAA etc. the open-ended war on terror that stands as a prima facie casus belli
"WTC was not part of any inside job" but WTC7 was part of "911" its part of the attack, i mean i get what you are saying here, but it just seems like spinning wheels in the LIHOP end of the pool?
otherwise absolutely scholarly assemblage of data that should be shared with everyone
i just feel like the central message is going to be lost on people due to the conjecture (despite its relevance)
Remember Barry Jennings' account of stumbling over dead bodies in the lobby as he escaped from WTC7 shortly before the collapse?
Apparently people did die in WTC7, though we have no idea who they were.
SCHOLARSHIP
okay its not a scholarly effort - w/e
fuck it man, i dont come here to be well liked and agreed with
diogenes of sinope is really my hero - selah
Most of the work for a new investigation has already been done by us.
Evidently the plane that was supposed to hit #7 did not arrive...so TPTB had to make do; a lot of stuff in there they needed to destroy.
Like maybe more than a Trillion dollars in missing Gold that was supposedly in the basement?
something very incriminating was in one of those buildings, like Monica Lewinsky's soiled dress!
'Solomon Brothers Building'
WTF is that? There used to be Wall Street firm named 'Salomon Brothers'.
And WTF does 'no one was killed' have to do with whether it was an 'inside job' or not?
Utter gibberish.
+1000
Yes! The plane did not make it!
And the other commenter on geostrategic followup was spot on. Cui bono?!?!
But in the midst of all of this, "they" managed to salvage the gold from the LBMA approved 3 stories deep vault about 3 days after the attack, or so said the mayor, if my memory serves me right.
Horseshit.
It's all horseshit.
Horseshithorseshithorseshithorseshithorseshithorseshithorseshit
horseshithorseshithorseshithorseshithorseshithorseshithorseshit
horseshithorseshithorseshithorseshithohorseshitrseshithorseshit
In spite of photographs showing the open, empty vault.
Horseshithorseshithorseshithorseshithorseshithorseshithorseshit
horseshithorseshithorseshithorseshithorseshithorseshithorseshit
horseshithorseshithorseshithorseshithohorseshitrseshithorseshit