9/11 - The Third Tower

[A Dashing Blade]

Now who did it? Thats the bottom line.

A bunch of Arabs . They flew airplanes into the towers.
Why, who you think did it?

 

[A Dashing Blade]

. . . Dashing Blade . .
If we go along your path and don't question then we will constantly be fed any old **** the governments think we will buy in order for us agree with their intentions. . . .

That is not my path. Please demonstrate at any time in this thread where I have not questioned. Quite the reverse I'd have said. Show me proof & I'll believe it.

Look at the case of WMD's. Lies - absolutely known as such by the Govt, used only to create panic so that they could justify the invasion. After the event it doesn't really matter that we find out they were lies - people stop caring. That is wrong - no question.

What "proof" did any Govt demonstrate wrt WMD? No "proof" was shown. It was all "trust us, we have proof, but we can't show you it for security reasons"

Apologies Guys, but just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean I agree with them. I am no disinfromation agent, I don't work for Mossad, the CIA or even Little Green Men From Mars. In no post on this thread have I demonstrated any bias towards anyone. I have only demonstred that your word "theory" is merely shorthand for "fact-free speculation".

 

[A Dashing Blade]

Its all well and good saying these other professors debunk jones . . .

You actually mean that people with qualifications in forensic analysis disagree with the speculations of someone who . . . er . . . hasn't.

. . . but how come the same brains dont say, er, yeah actually guys where is the governments official findings of the detailed collapse of the 3 buildings ?

So, your "rational" argument is that because people with qualifications in forensic analysis disagree with the speculations of someone who . . . er . . . hasn't, it must be a giant conspiracy involving at least 300 academics and God knows how many others.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

Actually, here's one for all you "truth seekers" . . . what do you think actually happened and what proof can you demonstrate to proove your theory. Don't attempt to cite supposed inconsistancies in the official version . . . tell me what YOU believe and proove it.

Second time asking Guys . .. any takers?

 

[Splitlink]

There is such a colossal amount of of money involved, that I would have thought that the insurance
companies would be investigating all these arguments.

 

[dick_dastardly]

There is such a colossal amount of of money involved, that I would have thought that the insurance
companies would be investigating all these arguments.

C'mon Split,

can't you see ?

they're all part of the conspiracy too ! :whistling

do try to keep up Split there's a good fellow !

dd

 

[Crap Buddist]

A bunch of Arabs . They flew airplanes into the towers.
Why, who you think did it?

Thats part of the events that day. Now because of 2 aircraft flyinginto the buildings the Gov. holds the line that it is not needed to EXAMINE the way all 3 buildings actually fell to the ground.

hmmm Ok not even for future safety re-builds or anything? no.

Well not even the fact that witnesses where saying explosions in sub levels? NO

Not even that emergency services reported numerous explosions at numerous levels below where the planes struck? No

OK not even when demolition experts say experts have brought those buildings down, on the way they have collapsed ? No.

Then at this point add conspiracy theories on top of those....

Who do i think brought it down ? Well I think all evidence should be examined,including the way the buildings collapsed. I mean if only to answer some worthwhile Q's that ALL 3 OF THE COLLAPSES Defy the law of "conservation of momentum" In which is suggested that if the buildings fell down naturally, due to a natural event (fires etc) then they would take considerably longer that 6.5-8 seconds for all 100+ floors to collapse, 47 floors would also take longer it is suggested.

Why are the government not examining the way all 3 buildings fell ? At this time all they have is a theory, 2 planes hit 2 buildings, therefore 3 buildings have collapsed into own footprint in under 8 seconds.

Thats some trippy sh!t there hommes..

Again the building industry ,if own for future rebuilds would be very alarmed that these buildings designed to stand(even with planes flying into them) shoulf fall to the ground in under 8 seconds. One could say that it defies natural laws. Therefore lets have a lookie, but the government dont want to lookie.

So the governments theory of 2 planes hit 2 buildings therefore 3 buildings collapse in under 8 seconds into own footprints is not proven.

For goodness sake, Quincy would be carving people up with a chainsaw due to non investigation, if he examined this crime scene.

Case still open- Not proven.

 

[Crap Buddist]

So, your "rational" argument is that because people with qualifications in forensic analysis disagree with the speculations of someone who . . . er . . . hasn't, it must be a giant conspiracy involving at least 300 academics and God knows how many others.

No I think it strange that people some technical professionals do not seem interested in getting to the facts. Well what are they waiting for someone to try to convince them ? Are they too important to assist or something or just not bothered. I understand ,they have a choice though, good for them.

now then
BUt the official line is jet fuel fires are hot enough to melt the supports to bring down the 3 buildings one of the buildings had no jet fuel fires burning in it, although the fires burning in it are also thought to burn hot enough to cause all 3 of the buildings to collapse in under 8 seconds.

The government for some reason will not examine the evidence(including testimonies from employee's & professionals on the scene ,exposed to events) of the actual collapse.
Why Not ?

Why, why, why,..... This will only support the governements theory surely and as a Brucie bonus when rebuilding skyscrapers in the future they can make them just as safe from collapse ,from fires as these ones are or were er, hang on they should'nt of collapsed!!! Oh Yeah.... Why did they collapse?

Lets find out, using science. Bring on the scientists who do study the collapse of buildings please.

Let the towers fall where they may, hmm under fire conditions where/how would they fall? Some say to date no skyscraper has completely collapsed due to fire damage.

Again for a first time in history of building collapses there is 3 on one day. I am positive there must be a few academic professionals who still have an erection because of this "gift horse" opportunity to have 3 collapses in the one day in such a confined area Would'nt it be great for future safety purposes.

# In the land of the brave and the land of the freeeeeeeeee !

Bring on the scientists. YES thats very good.

 

[Atilla]

Thats part of the events that day. Now because of 2 aircraft flyinginto the buildings the Gov. holds the line that it is not needed to EXAMINE the way all 3 buildings actually fell to the ground.

hmmm Ok not even for future safety re-builds or anything? no.

Well not even the fact that witnesses where saying explosions in sub levels? NO

Not even that emergency services reported numerous explosions at numerous levels below where the planes struck? No

OK not even when demolition experts say experts have brought those buildings down, on the way they have collapsed ? No.

Then at this point add conspiracy theories on top of those....

Who do i think brought it down ? Well I think all evidence should be examined,including the way the buildings collapsed. I mean if only to answer some worthwhile Q's that ALL 3 OF THE COLLAPSES Defy the law of "conservation of momentum" In which is suggested that if the buildings fell down naturally, due to a natural event (fires etc) then they would take considerably longer that 6.5-8 seconds for all 100+ floors to collapse, 47 floors would also take longer it is suggested.

Why are the government not examining the way all 3 buildings fell ? At this time all they have is a theory, 2 planes hit 2 buildings, therefore 3 buildings have collapsed into own footprint in under 8 seconds.

Thats some trippy sh!t there hommes..

Again the building industry ,if own for future rebuilds would be very alarmed that these buildings designed to stand(even with planes flying into them) shoulf fall to the ground in under 8 seconds. One could say that it defies natural laws. Therefore lets have a lookie, but the government dont want to lookie.

So the governments theory of 2 planes hit 2 buildings therefore 3 buildings collapse in under 8 seconds into own footprints is not proven.

For goodness sake, Quincy would be carving people up with a chainsaw due to non investigation, if he examined this crime scene.

Case still open- Not proven.

I did A-Level physics and not saying I'm an expert but rudimentary laws of physics tells me for all three buildings that the events were to one side only. ie. Planes hit one side and building no7 smoke coming out of one side of building. No fires on other side.

Plans show all floors as on fire.
How was this so?
How did it come about?
Heat travels up if we are to believe the intensity of these fires.

Also twin towers had another 30 floors above. Consider weight and structure of the whole block and why did it not lean to side planes hit?

As CB points out these are very FUNDAMENTAL questions to integrity of building design.

Given that they didn't buckle or bend to one side but had an absolutely perfect vertical demolition down raises questions in my mind. BIG QUESTIONS?

Am I the only person who has doubts and feels betrayel and lack of interest from the White House to investigate these questions compared to the effort, money and lives they have spent backing a lie about WMD and war in Iraq who had nothing to do with 9/11.

We have pulled an aeroplane out of the bottom of the ocean, after it exploded in the air over the East coast of America and reassembled it and determined it was not a terrorist bomb. Yet we go and clean up a crime scene as soon as the dust settles.

In all the links provided you are happy to see couple of mug shots of some terrorists and the planes flying into a building and you are happy to accept the slam dunk case as George Tennet might say???

Bush says to you who could have thought of such an act but doesn't tell you on the same day they had a simulated disaster exercise where planes were to be flown into sky scrapers! ???

Air traffic controller even ask when told of the event, is this the test we are talking about here or is this for real?

Perhaps Bush didn't know and like us all he can't bring himself to think such an act could be carried out. Perhaps these puppet figure heads too were manipulated.

I only know the questions are mouting up and answers and time to obtain facts and sequence of events growing.

How about the coincidental loss of evidence like films and videos going missing or lost? Coincidents or not you judge?

To top it up Building no 7 is a very significant building as it houses the Intelligence and various other secret organisations. How convenient to get rid of all evidence in a demolition and quickly tidy it away???

Coincidents or not?

Can't people really see the glaring obvious???

Are you not upset or disturbed by any of this???

 

[north5]

That is not my path. Please demonstrate at any time in this thread where I have not questioned. Quite the reverse I'd have said. Show me proof & I'll believe it.

What "proof" did any Govt demonstrate wrt WMD? No "proof" was shown. It was all "trust us, we have proof, but we can't show you it for security reasons"

Apologies Guys, but just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean I agree with them. I am no disinfromation agent, I don't work for Mossad, the CIA or even Little Green Men From Mars. In no post on this thread have I demonstrated any bias towards anyone. I have only demonstred that your word "theory" is merely shorthand for "fact-free speculation".

DB. Sorry if that sounded a bit personal, the last thing I want is for this thread to turn into a slagging match.

What I was saying was that in order for the official version to be true the 78th floor must have been a raging fire. The official 'theory' presented on the collapse requires a very hot fire capable of melting the buildings core.

Where is the evidence for this fire? I saw no flames engulfing the building and there is a witness that sees only two small fires.

If there was evidence of a fire of that intensity then I could subscibe to the official 'theory'. But as there isn't then I just can't. How do you square the need for a very hot fire for the events to happen as presented with the lack of evidence for it?

You want evidence for an alternative theory. That is missing the point. I don't have a theory - what I want to know is how a building could colapse under the conditions that were present.

So I will ask you the same question. where is your evidence to support the fire required to melt the buildings core?

 

[BSD]

Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Disastrous Presidency - America's Finest News Source

 

[Crap Buddist]

I like the narrative in this one. WT7 analysis- well if this was a safe building which has had fires burning in it before which was repaired, like how come it kinda implodes,this time ? why not a partial collapse ? And what about the leaseholders reference to pull it ? Yeah ok so lets say its fitted out with cutter charges on the day, the day ? anyone know how long it takes to wire a building ? ohh wire the building with fires burning in it too dont forget...

whats going on... have a peek

9-11 video THE INEXPLICABLE COLLAPSE OF WTC7

 

[Crap Buddist]

Check out the last 20 seconds...

Whats that noise?

YouTube - World Trade Center 7 - BBC explained (HQ)

 

[Crap Buddist]

Pull the building-nice recordings

YouTube - HOW DID WORLD TRADE CENTER 7 FALL?

 

[Crap Buddist]

Bombs N dead bodies inside WTC 7 ,.... huh

One to put into your diaries

The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower will be broadcast on BBC Two on Sunday 6 July at 9pm.

Cheers Atilla, Apparently the BBC are going to say for the first time in history the building collapsed due to Fire and they are going to p!ss all over this guys testimony safety coordinator in WTC7 that day..... or rather he's going to p!ss all over himself.. wait n see I guess

This barry jennings bloke will be interviewed on the BBC sunday night, and looks like there maybe a little bit of a body swerve or something, so be interesting to see what he says in the interview with them. But the guys from prison planet are unleashing some kungfu interview from the year earlier.......

Show us what you got BBC ....

YouTube - World Exclusive: WTC7 Survivor Barry Jennings Account

 

[JTrader]

More disinfo from "A Dashing Blade" who is muddying the waters again.

Now referencing 911myths dot com and 911stories dot googlepages dot com

Debunkers highlight hoaxes, ignore best evidence

ADB says that whatever is said in the foyer, won't be carried onto the trading boards, and rightly so. But the fact that he is posting such BS from such non-credible sources such as popular mechanics......But if one can be so "misguided" over one important topic...............and deny in the face of a wealth of such credible evidence, and STILL have no doubts that he is 100% correct, and that there was nothing just a little sus. about 911.....how can i respect or value what he has to say on other important topics?

I wouldn't be surprised if ADB was actually a staunch 911 truther, engaged in his own game of double think, with the purpose of seeing if it was possible to convince others that what so obviously are facts, are not so. Fair play to him, although i don't fancy his chances, in the face of the wealth of credible links/sources that have been posted on this thread.

Someone posts a credible link, ADB ignores it, misrepresents it, then comes back here and says its a load of crap. Thats one way of debating, but i'd call it fraud? or maybe just "cheating", knowing deep down that his arguments don't have a leg to stand on!

The facts, i.e. jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel, though thermite does etc. etc. speak for themselves.

 

[JTrader]

911truth.org ::::: THE TOP 40

THE TOP 40
REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001

... An outline in simple talking points ...


We are continuing to compile the best documentation links for every single point on this page, and intend to post the updated version as soon as possible, and create teaching tools and more from the info. This is a significant and time-consuming process--if you have useful links, please send them to janice[at]911truth[dot]org. Thanks for your help!
If you use the search function with title key words, you will discover that 911Truth.org is home to articles backing virtually every point made below. Much of the basic research is available at the Complete 9/11 Timeline (hosted by cooperativeresearch.org), the 9/11 Reading Room (911readingroom.org), and the NY Attorney General Spitzer petition and complaint (Justicefor911.org). For physical evidence discussion, see Point 7.


THE DAY ITSELF - EVIDENCE OF COMPLICITY

1) AWOL Chain of Command
a. It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack - George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield - all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers.
b. Who was actually in charge? Dick Cheney, Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and the 9/11 Commission directly conflict in their accounts of top-level response to the unfolding events, such that several (or all) of them must be lying.
2) Air Defense Failures
a. The US air defense system failed to follow standard procedures for responding to diverted passenger flights.
b. Timelines: The various responsible agencies - NORAD, FAA, Pentagon, USAF, as well as the 9/11 Commission - gave radically different explanations for the failure (in some cases upheld for years), such that several officials must have lied; but none were held accountable.
c. Was there an air defense standdown?

3) Pentagon Strike
How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation''s capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command?

4) Wargames
a. US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack - including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon.
b. The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. If this was only an incredible series of coincidences, why did the official investigations avoid the issue? There is evidence that the wargames created confusion as to whether the unfolding events were "real world or exercise." Did wargames serve as the cover for air defense sabotage, and/or the execution of an "inside job"?

5) Flight 93
Did the Shanksville crash occur at 10:06 (according to a seismic report) or 10:03 (according to the 9/11 Commission)? Does the Commission wish to hide what happened in the last three minutes of the flight, and if so, why? Was Flight 93 shot down, as indicated by the scattering of debris over a trail of several miles?


THE DAY - POSSIBLE SMOKING GUNS

6) Did cell phones work at 30,000 feet in 2001? How many hijackings were attempted? How many flights were diverted?

7) Demolition Hypothesis
What caused the collapse of a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane? Were the Twin Towers and WTC 7 brought down by explosives? (See "The Case for Demolitions," the websites wtc7.net and 911research.wtc7.net, and the influential article by physicist Steven Jones. See also items no. 16 and 24, below.)


FOREKNOWLEDGE & THE ALLEGED HIJACKERS

8) What did officials know? How did they know it?
a. Multiple allied foreign agencies informed the US government of a coming attack in detail, including the manner and likely targets of the attack, the name of the operation (the "Big Wedding"), and the names of certain men later identified as being among the perpetrators.
b. Various individuals came into possession of specific advance knowledge, and some of them tried to warn the US prior to September 11th.
c. Certain prominent persons received warnings not to fly on the week or on the day of September 11th.

9) Able Danger, Plus - Surveillance of Alleged Hijackers
a. The men identified as the 9/11 ringleaders were under surveillance for years beforehand, on the suspicion they were terrorists, by a variety of US and allied authorities - including the CIA, the US military''s "Able Danger" program, the German authorities, Israeli intelligence and others.
b. Two of the alleged ringleaders who were known to be under surveillance by the CIA also lived with an FBI asset in San Diego, but this is supposed to be yet another coincidence.
10) Obstruction of FBI Investigations prior to 9/11
A group of FBI officials in New York systematically suppressed field investigations of potential terrorists that might have uncovered the alleged hijackers - as the Moussaoui case once again showed. The stories of Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit, the "Phoenix Memo," David Schippers, the 199i orders restricting investigations, the Bush administration''s order to back off the Bin Ladin family, the reaction to the "Bojinka" plot, and John O''Neil do not, when considered in sum, indicate mere incompetence, but high-level corruption and protection of criminal networks, including the network of the alleged 9/11 conspirators. (Nearly all of these examples were omitted from or relegated to fleeting footnotes in The 9/11 Commission Report.)

11) Insider Trading
a. Unknown speculators allegedly used foreknowledge of the Sept. 11th events to profiteer on many markets internationally - including but not limited to "put options" placed to short-sell the two airlines, WTC tenants, and WTC re-insurance companies in Chicago and London.
b. In addition, suspicious monetary transactions worth hundreds of millions were conducted through offices at the Twin Towers during the actual attacks.
c. Initial reports on these trades were suppressed and forgotten, and only years later did the 9/11 Commission and SEC provide a partial, but untenable explanation for only a small number of transactions (covering only the airline put options through the Chicago Board of Exchange).

12) Who were the perpetrators?
a. Much of the evidence establishing who did the crime is dubious and miraculous: bags full of incriminating material that happened to miss the flight or were left in a van; the "magic passport" of an alleged hijacker, found at Ground Zero; documents found at motels where the alleged perpetrators had stayed days and weeks before 9/11.
b. The identities of the alleged hijackers remain unresolved, there are contradictions in official accounts of their actions and travels, and there is evidence several of them had "doubles," all of which is omitted from official investigations.
c. What happened to initial claims by the government that 50 people involved in the attacks had been identified, including the 19 alleged hijackers, with 10 still at large (suggesting that 20 had been apprehended)? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-worldtrade-50suspects,0,1825231.story


THE 9/11 COVER-UP, 2001-2006

13) Who Is Osama Bin Ladin?
a. Who judges which of the many conflicting and dubious statements and videos attributed to Osama Bin Ladin are genuine, and which are fake? The most important Osama Bin Ladin video (Nov. 2001), in which he supposedly confesses to masterminding 9/11, appears to be a fake. In any event, the State Department''s translation of it is fraudulent.
b. Did Osama Bin Ladin visit Dubai and meet a CIA agent in July 2001 (Le Figaro)? Was he receiving dialysis in a Pakistani military hospital on the night of September 10, 2001 (CBS)?
c. Whether by Bush or Clinton: Why is Osama always allowed to escape?
d. The terror network associated with Osama, known as the "data base" (al-Qaeda), originated in the CIA-sponsored 1980s anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. When did this network stop serving as an asset to covert operations by US intelligence and allied agencies? What were its operatives doing in Kosovo, Bosnia and Chechnya in the years prior to 9/11?

14) All the Signs of a Systematic 9/11 Cover-up
a. Airplane black boxes were found at Ground Zero, according to two first responders and an unnamed NTSB official, but they were "disappeared" and their existence is denied in The 9/11 Commission Report.
b. US officials consistently suppressed and destroyed evidence (like the tapes recorded by air traffic controllers who handled the New York flights).
c. Whistleblowers (like Sibel Edmonds and Anthony Shaffer) were intimidated, gagged and sanctioned, sending a clear signal to others who might be thinking about speaking out.
d. Officials who "failed" (like Myers and Eberhard, as well as Frasca, Maltbie and Bowman of the FBI) were given promotions.

15) Poisoning New York
The White House deliberately pressured the EPA into giving false public assurances that the toxic air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe. This knowingly contributed to an as-yet unknown number of health cases and fatalities, and demonstrates that the administration does consider the lives of American citizens to be expendable on behalf of certain interests.

16) Disposing of the Crime Scene
The rapid and illegal scrapping of the WTC ruins at Ground Zero disposed of almost all of the structural steel indispensable to any investigation of the collapse mechanics. (See also item no. 23, below.)

17) Anthrax
Mailings of weapons-grade anthrax - which caused a practical suspension of the 9/11 investigations - were traced back to US military stock. Soon after the attacks began in October 2001, the FBI approved the destruction of the original samples of the Ames strain, disposing of perhaps the most important evidence in identifying the source of the pathogens used in the mailings. Were the anthrax attacks timed to coincide with the Afghanistan invasion? Why were the letters sent only to media figures and to the leaders of the opposition in the Senate (who had just raised objections to the USA PATRIOT Act)?

18) The Stonewall
a. Colin Powell promised a "white paper" from the State Department to establish the authorship of the attacks by al-Qaeda. This was never forthcoming, and was instead replaced by a paper from Tony Blair, which presented only circumstantial evidence, with very few points actually relating to September 11th.
b. Bush and Cheney pressured the (freshly-anthraxed) leadership of the Congressional opposition into delaying the 9/11 investigation for months. The administration fought against the creation of an independent investigation for more than a year.
c. The White House thereupon attempted to appoint Henry Kissinger as the chief investigator, and acted to underfund and obstruct the 9/11 Commission.

19) A Record of Official Lies
a. "No one could have imagined planes into buildings" - a transparent falsehood upheld repeatedly by Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush.
b. "Iraq was connected to 9/11" - The most "outrageous conspiracy theory" of all, with the most disastrous impact.

20) Pakistani Connection - Congressional Connection
a. The Pakistani intelligence agency ISI, creator of the Taliban and close ally to both the CIA and "al-Qaeda," allegedly wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta just prior to September 11th, reportedly through the ISI asset Omar Saeed Sheikh (later arrested for the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was investigating ISI connections to "al-Qaeda.")
b. This was ignored by the congressional 9/11 investigation, although the senator and congressman who ran the probe (Bob Graham and Porter Goss) were meeting with the ISI chief, Mahmud Ahmed, on Capitol Hill on the morning of September 11th.
c. About 25 percent of the report of the Congressional Joint Inquiry was redacted, including long passages regarding how the attack (or the network allegedly behind it) was financed. Graham later said foreign allies were involved in financing the alleged terror network, but that this would only come out in 30 years.

21) Unanswered Questions and the "Final Fraud" of the 9/11 Commission:
a. The September 11th families who fought for and gained an independent investigation (the 9/11 Commission) posed 400-plus questions, which the 9/11 Commission adopted as its roadmap. The vast majority of these questions were completely ignored in the Commission hearings and the final report.
b. The membership and staff of the 9/11 Commission displayed awesome conflicts of interest. The families called for the resignation of Executive Director Philip Zelikow, a Bush administration member and close associate of "star witness" Condoleezza Rice, and were snubbed. Commission member Max Cleland resigned, condemning the entire exercise as a "scam" and "whitewash."
c.The 9/11 Commission Report is notable mainly for its obvious omissions, distortions and outright falsehoods - ignoring anything incompatible with the official story, banishing the issues to footnotes, and even dismissing the still-unresolved question of who financed 9/11 as being "of little practical significance."

22) Crown Witnesses Held at Undisclosed Locations
The alleged masterminds of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohamed (KSM) and Ramzi Binalshibh, are reported to have been captured in 2002 and 2003, although one Pakistani newspaper said KSM was killed in an attempted capture. They have been held at undisclosed locations and their supposed testimonies, as provided in transcript form by the government, form much of the basis for The 9/11 Commission Report (although the Commission''s request to see them in person was denied). After holding them for years, why doesn''t the government produce these men and put them to trial?

23) Spitzer Redux
a. Eliot Spitzer, attorney general of New York State, snubbed pleas by New York citizens to open 9/11 as a criminal case (Justicefor911.org).
b. Spitzer also refused to allow his employee, former 9/11 Commission staff member Dietrich Snell, to testify to the Congress about his (Snell''s) role in keeping "Able Danger" entirely out of The 9/11 Commission Report.

24) NIST Omissions
After the destruction of the WTC structural steel, the official Twin Towers collapse investigation was left with almost no forensic evidence, and thus could only provide dubious computer models of ultimately unprovable hypotheses. It failed to even test for the possibility of explosives. (Why not clear this up?)

25) Radio Silence
The 9/11 Commission and NIST both allowed the continuing cover-up of how Motorola''s faulty radios, purchased by the Giuliani administration, caused firefighter deaths at the WTC - once again showing the expendability, even of the first responders.

26) The Legal Catch-22
a. Hush Money - Accepting victims'' compensation barred September 11th families from pursuing discovery through litigation.
b. Judge Hallerstein - Those who refused compensation to pursue litigation and discovery had their cases consolidated under the same judge (and as a rule dismissed).

27) Saudi Connections
a. The 9/11 investigations made light of the "Bin Ladin Airlift" during the no-fly period, and ignored the long-standing Bush family business ties to the Bin Ladin family fortune. (A company in which both families held interests, the Carlyle Group, was holding its annual meeting on September 11th, with George Bush Sr., James Baker, and two brothers of Osama Bin Ladin in attendance.)
b. The issue of Ptech.

28) Media Blackout of Prominent Doubters
The official story has been questioned and many of the above points were raised by members of the US Congress, retired high-ranking officers of the US military, the three leading third-party candidates for President in the 2004 election, a member of the 9/11 Commission who resigned in protest, a former high-ranking adviser to the George W. Bush administration, former ministers to the German, British and Canadian governments, the commander-in-chief of the Russian air force, 100 luminaries who signed the "9/11 Truth Statement," and the presidents of Iran and Venezuela. Not all of these people agree fully with each other, but all would normally be considered newsworthy. Why has the corporate-owned US mass media remained silent about these statements, granting due coverage only to the comments of actor Charlie Sheen?


GEOPOLITICS, TIMING AND POSSIBLE MOTIVES

29) "The Great Game"
The Afghanistan invasion was ready for Bush''s go-ahead on September 9, 2001, with US and UK force deployments to the region already in place or underway. This followed the failure earlier that year of backdoor diplomacy with the Taliban (including payments of $125 million in US government aid to Afghanistan), in an attempt to secure a unity government for that country as a prerequisite to a Central Asian pipeline deal.

30) The Need for a "New Pearl Harbor"
Principals in US foreign policy under the current Bush administration (including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and others) have been instrumental in developing long-running plans for worldwide military hegemony, including an invasion of the Middle East, dating back to the Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. They reiterated these plans in the late 1990s as members of the "Project for a New American Century," and stated a clear intent to invade Iraq for the purpose of "regime change." After 9/11, they lost no time in their attempt to tie Iraq to the attacks.

31) Perpetual "War on Terror"
9/11 is supposed to provide carte-blanche for an open-ended, global and perpetual "War on Terror," against any enemy, foreign or domestic, that the executive branch chooses to designate, and regardless of whether evidence exists to actually connect these enemies to 9/11.

32) Attacking the Constitution
a. The USA PATRIOT Act was written before 9/11, Homeland Security and the "Shadow Government" were developed long before 9/11, and plans for rounding up dissidents as a means for suppressing civil disturbance have been in the works for decades.
b. 9/11 was used as the pretext to create a new, extra-constitutional executive authority to declare anyone an "enemy combatant" (including American citizens), to detain persons indefinitely without habeas corpus, and to "render" such persons to secret prisons where torture is practiced.

33) Legal Trillions
9/11 triggers a predictable shift of public spending to war, and boosts public and private spending in the "new" New Economy of "Homeland Security," biometrics, universal surveillance, prisons, civil defense, secured enclaves, security, etc.

34) Plundered Trillions?
On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced a "war on waste" after an internal audit found that the Pentagon was "missing" 2.3 trillion dollars in unaccounted assets. On September 11th, this was as good as forgotten.

35) Did 9/11 prevent a stock market crash?
Did anyone benefit from the destruction of the Securities and Exchange Commission offices at WTC 7, and the resultant crippling of hundreds of fraud investigations?

36) Resource Wars
a. What was discussed in the Energy Task Force meetings under Dick Cheney in 2001? Why is the documentation of these meetings still being suppressed?
b. Is Peak Oil a motive for 9/11 as inside job?

37) The "Little Game"
Why was the WTC privatized just before its destruction?


HISTORY

38) "Al-CIA-da?"
The longstanding relationship between US intelligence networks and radical Islamists, including the network surrounding Osama Bin Ladin. (See also point 13d.)

39) Historical Precedents for "Synthetic Terror"
a. In the past many states, including the US government, have sponsored attacks on their own people, fabricated the "cause for war," created (and armed) their own enemies of convenience, and sacrificed their own citizens for "reasons of state."
b. Was 9/11 an update of the Pentagon-approved "Project Northwoods" plan for conducting self-inflicted, false-flag terror attacks in the United States, and blaming them on a foreign enemy?

40) Secret Government
a. The record of criminality and sponsorship of coups around the world by the covert networks based within the US intelligence complex.
b. Specifically also: The evidence of crime by Bush administration principals and their associates, from October Surprise to Iran-Contra and the S&L plunder to PNAC, Enron/Halliburton and beyond.

 

[JTrader]

Alex Jones: Most Police, Firefighters Now Believe 9/11 Inside Job

And this articles from 2006.

Alex is featured at the end of the Associated Press video above imploring viewers to understand that 9/11 was "a self-inflicted wound designed to create a police state in the U.S. and capture us as an engine for world government and world domination."

Alex was assigned to lead a protest march today which he described as over 1000 strong as it snaked across ground zero and through lower Manhattan.

Saying that the "entire atmosphere had changed," Alex explained how police support for protesters at ground zero had gone from 20% support two years ago to around 60% support now - with many willing to affirm that sentiment on camera and many knowledgeable about Alex Jones' work and the 9/11 truth movement.

"Police just saying 'keep your investigation going, we appreciate you' on video," said Jones.

"The firemen we've been talking to - a hundred per cent are on our side and have seen the documentary films....it is just incredible what's happened at the grass roots."

Jones said that the few debunkers who were spewing Bush administration style propaganda were met with distain from the police.

"I think that thing that triggered it was the fact that the government lied about the dust, the asbestos all of it," said Jones in citing why first responders and police have become increasingly skeptical about anything the government says about 9/11.

 

[JTrader]

Cheers Atilla, Apparently the BBC are going to say for the first time in history the building collapsed due to Fire and they are going to p!ss all over this guys testimony safety coordinator in WTC7 that day..... or rather he's going to p!ss all over himself.. wait n see I guess

This barry jennings bloke will be interviewed on the BBC sunday night, and looks like there maybe a little bit of a body swerve or something, so be interesting to see what he says in the interview with them. But the guys from prison planet are unleashing some kungfu interview from the year earlier.......

Show us what you got BBC ....

YouTube - World Exclusive: WTC7 Survivor Barry Jennings Account

This program on the BBC will be no more than a yellow journalism biased hit piece, dealing with selected facts, and ignoring the most difficult to debunk facts regarding the collapse/911, aimed at quelling dissent among the public. The program will also lie, misrepresent etc. but the establishments BBC has the muscle to get away with this.
It willl have the effect of waking more people to 911 truth.

 

[JTrader]

Its not that difficult to tell a lie, and despite credible evidence and witnesses, convince others that the lie/inaccuracy you are selling - telling is the truth, and that the truth is a lie.
If i see a brown car parked in the distance, and tell my friends "look at that black car."They are likely to say "its a brown car". If i say - "no its not its black". They may disagree for a while. If i continue for long enough to insist its a black car, my friends are liekely tol either -

Lose the will to continue to try and prove the car is brown, and either 1) agree to disagree, or 2) accept that i am right and the car is brown. Either way, they do not win the argument.

Quite a few years ago, i went on holiday with 4 friends, and we all hired mopeds. After a night out drinking, one friend got in a strop on the way back, and kicked his parked moped down, damaging it. I and another friend saw him do it. He denied it, and despite 2 witnesses seeing him do it, the majority of 3, (him plus the 2 who didn't witness it) prevailed. The result was, he lost his deposit, had to pay for repairs, and we all shared the bill for this, as he didn't do it! Well the other 4 did, i refused, as i knew for a fact he did it. He insisted for several years later that he didn't do it. As he was a bit of a head case, at the time we let it go, and didn't make a big deal of it..........The point is, through power of insistence, bullying, the odd bit of intimidation etc. it was fairly easy for him to convince the group of what actually happened - by lying through his as*!