Ok what about the bit where the firefighter says "we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."
Is that a raging 800c fire?
Is what a "raging 800c fire"?? The fires this guy saw? There's nothing from the transcript that really gives us an indication.
just tell me exactly what you believe to be true. its simple. dont tell me you dont know, dont tell me you dont believe the offical story. tell me exactly how you feel. what really happened on September 11th, 2001. grab your sack off the floor and just say it
I believe, and it is well known, that the US government knew that there was going to be an attack on America using highjacked airliners.
a) The 8/6 Presidential Memo
b) John Ashcroft from July on, when he received the word that commercial airlines were at risk, began flying private chartered flights
c) The Willy Brown phone call from Condoleeza Rice on 9/10, warning Brown not to fly to New York or DC the next day
d) The fact that Jeb Bush shortly before 9/11, when he knew the President would be in Florida on 9/11, declared a state of Matial Law specifically mentioning to keep the peace against possible terrorist threats
"Based on the potential massive damage to life and property that may result from an act of terrorism at a Florida port, the necessity to protect life and property from such acts of terrorism, and inhibiting the smuggling of illegal drugs into the State of Florida, the use of the Florida National Guard to support FDLE in accomplishing port security training and inspections is "extraordinary support to law enforcement" as used in Section 250.06(4), Florida Statutes."
I believe that WTC 7 was brought down by demolition, and because if WTC 7 was brought down that way, it makes it a lot easier to believe that if they would do that to 7, why not Towers 1 and 2.
I believe that the government DID NOT have a direct role in planning the attacks. I do believe however that people who are involved in the government would allow manipulate a series of events to allow this to happen and pave the way for the agenda they could pass through this administration.
a)The head of Security at the WTC and the Boston airport, where the planes came from, was the Presidents brother. Does that mean I think the President was in on it? No. I think this was way over his head.
b)The fact that no jets were scambled because they happened to be hundreds of miles south doing training. This reminds me a lot of the Kennedy assassination where the military was given a stand down order involving Kennedy in Dallas.
I believe that Flight 93 was shot down. Do I fault the government for that? No. Do I think they glorified the whole "Let's Roll" theory? Yes. Just like they did with Pat Tillman. Many people stated that there was a plane tailing 93 and circled the area right after it hit the ground, then it took off.
I believe I am not smart enough to know what steele melts at or what kind of reaction Thermite produces. However, I do know politics, and I do know corrupt politics. There are members of this administration who are more corrupt than anything I have ever come across or studied. I then believe that knowing of the the events that were doomed to happen to our nation, that members of this administration who were involved in organizations outside of their government role, put a stand down order out, and the events of 9/11 were allowed to happen to give them the authority to carry out their agenda which they had been looking for an excuse for a long time.
I hope you can understand why I believe what I do. I know politics and the way it works behind closed doors. That's why I believe what I do, I know how things like this work.
ok good now we are getting somewhere. good response. we actually arent that far off. well kinda.
I dont know if flight 93 was shot down. my gut feeling is that it was not. even if it was, I dont fault the government for doing so. its an incredibly hard call to make. I will go by the black box recording and taped phone calls from the people on board that leads me to believe they rushed the cockpit and caused the terrorist to crash the plane.
I do not believe anyone in our governement, at any level, knew to what extent we would be attacked. I agree that we knew an attack was coming. but we always know that. we have this alert system now that raises the alert level. i'm sure we are always getting intelligence suggesting we will be attacked but when their plans are that good, we can stop it, we can only hope to. like when new york's subway system was put on alert. they must of know they wanted to attack the subway system. could they have gotten a bombs off in the subway even if we knew it was coming? of course.
before 9/11 we were not in a defensive position. neven with good intelligence its hard to imagine such an attack will happen. obviously we learned that it can, and security has tighten up in many areas of our country. I see it everyday on the streets on downtown chicago.
I also will contend that I have my doubts about wtc 7. but lets think logically about this. IF this building was brought down on purpose, is it really a big deal? the building was probably beyond repair and more importantly they seemed to make sure no one was in or around the building. NO injuries were reported from this building going down. is it shady that they (might have) lied about it? sure. but I dont know what the truth is. I'm just happy no one was hurt by that collapse. the building came down, ok, lets build a new one and move on.
but if wtc 7 then why not towers 1 and 2 you say? 1 and 2 came down with hundreds of firefighters and rescue workers still inside. why purposely kill all those people when it could have been done hours later. (assuming it was a controlled demo you can bring it down whenever they wanted). building 7, IF brought down on purpose, was done so much later with no one around.
but if wtc 7 then why not towers 1 and 2 you say? 1 and 2 came down with hundreds of firefighters and rescue workers still inside. why purposely kill all those people when it could have been done hours later. (assuming it was a controlled demo you can bring it down whenever they wanted). building 7, IF brought down on purpose, was done so much later with no one around.
I don't think anyone had anything to gain by there, which is sad, if people did not die. Think of what happened in the days, weeks, months, and years after 9/11. Patriotism was at an all time high. The approval for this administration was near record highs for any administration. They were basically given a blank check because of the events that took place on that day, and no one cared how they spent it. Anything that can get done to get back at those who attacked us that day was ok. Anything to avange the deaths of our citizens was OK.
A lot of people had a lot to gain because these poor souls gave their life.
It just amazes me how much everything has changed since September 12th, 2001. The world was on our side, the US citizens were united, and that was all lost when this administration went too far. Not just the war in Iraq, but everywhere.
I don't think anyone had anything to gain by there, which is sad, if people did not die. Think of what happened in the days, weeks, months, and years after 9/11. Patriotism was at an all time high. The approval for this administration was near record highs for any administration. They were basically given a blank check because of the events that took place on that day, and no one cared how they spent it. Anything that can get done to get back at those who attacked us that day was ok. Anything to avange the deaths of our citizens was OK.
A lot of people had a lot to gain because these poor souls gave their life.
It just amazes me how much everything has changed since September 12th, 2001. The world was on our side, the US citizens were united, and that was all lost when this administration went too far. Not just the war in Iraq, but everywhere.
the administration would still had its "blank check" regardless if they brought down the buildings on purpose with all those innocent people still inside. many people died from the intial impact and people jumping. plus the united feeling that americans had on sept 12th was becuase we were attacked on our soil. the number of dead wasnt very relevant. could have been 1 or 3000. the effect would still be the same.
OK, I can go for that. However, the WTC Towers were an asbestos nightmare. The Port Authority had been trying to get rid of the building for years, but could never get the rights to demolish the building. Let's not forget either that there was plenty of vacancies at the WTC
OK, I can go for that. However, the WTC Towers were an asbestos nightmare. The Port Authority had been trying to get rid of the building for years, but could never get the rights to demolish the building. Let's not forget either that there was plenty of vacancies at the WTC
9/11 perpetrated because of "asbestos nightmare"......ok I've added that one to the list
In seriousness, good posts before this one. I don't agree, but at least you're talking some sense.
but if wtc 7 then why not towers 1 and 2 you say? 1 and 2 came down with hundreds of firefighters and rescue workers still inside. why purposely kill all those people when it could have been done hours later. (assuming it was a controlled demo you can bring it down whenever they wanted). building 7, IF brought down on purpose, was done so much later with no one around.
Ok so you believe that building 7 could have been brought down on purpose, then so could have towers 1 and 2.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
9/11 perpetrated because of "asbestos nightmare"......ok I've added that one to the list
In seriousness, good posts before this one. I don't agree, but at least you're talking some sense.
It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings. [Arctic Beacon]
I'm not saying 9/11 was done because of asbestos, but it would make a case for possibly demolishing the buildings
It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings. [Arctic Beacon]
First and foremost, I'd factcheck your friends at Arctic Beacon -- I'm not aware of any request ever made by the PA to demolish the buildings nor do I think that ever would have happened. To suggest that the "only reason the building was still standing" was because they couldn't tear it down is ridiculous.
Secondly, you cannot seriously believe that WTC was alone in the skyscraper world as an asbestos-laden and partially vacant building. That describes the majority of skyscrapers in every major city in this country.
Finally, if all of the above were even true, none of it would provide a shed of evidence that would mean those buildings were deliberately demolished. I've said it before and I'll say it again, motive != complicity.
Ok so you believe that building 7 could have been brought down on purpose, then so could have towers 1 and 2.
do you read? or only the parts you want to see. I clearly stated why I think wtc 7 "could have come down on purpose" and why I think its iilogical for tower 1 and 2 to be brought down on purpose.
First and foremost, I'd factcheck your friends at Arctic Beacon -- I'm not aware of any request ever made by the PA to demolish the buildings nor do I think that ever would have happened. To suggest that the "only reason the building was still standing" was because they couldn't tear it down is ridiculous.
Secondly, you cannot seriously believe that WTC was alone in the skyscraper world as an asbestos-laden and partially vacant building. That describes the majority of skyscrapers in every major city in this country.
Finally, if all of the above were even true, none of it would provide a shed of evidence that would mean those buildings were deliberately demolished. I've said it before and I'll say it again, motive != complicity.
I have looked into it and have read other sources. I grabbed this Arctic Beacon article because it was the first one I had found on a quick search. I don't totally buy into the asbestos theory, someone asked why the building would be brought down, and I believe it would be a lot cheaper to tear down and build a new one than to eliminate all of the esbestos. That was my whole point of posting that. For the record though, I do not have enough information on the asbestos and PA to come to a clear answer.
Secondly, you cannot seriously believe that WTC was alone in the skyscraper world as an asbestos-laden and partially vacant building. That describes the majority of skyscrapers in every major city in this country.
.
this is very true. any building built before the early 80s (not exactly sure but its close) had abestos. there are several buildings in chicago that have tons of asbestos. it buildings like the size of the WTC, it is much more cost effective to try and contain or remove the stuff as oppsed to demolishing the building.
either way, I dont see this being a reason for someone in our government to ok a plan for planes to fly into the building and have bombs planted throughout. which is essiential what would have had to happen.
I have looked into it and have read other sources. I grabbed this Arctic Beacon article because it was the first one I had found on a quick search. I don't totally buy into the asbestos theory, someone asked why the building would be brought down, and I believe it would be a lot cheaper to tear down and build a new one than to eliminate all of the esbestos. That was my whole point of posting that. For the record though, I do not have enough information on the asbestos and PA to come to a clear answer.
tearing down a building the size of the WTC is not cheaper then trying to contain or remove it. I dont have numbers to prove it but I'm going to go with common sense on that one.
tearing down a building the size of the WTC is not cheaper then trying to contain or remove it. I dont have numbers to prove it but I'm going to go with common sense on that one.
In the situations in my area, it has always been cheaper to get rid of the old and start over again when the problem is asbestos. I'll admit I don't have the numbers either to prove it.
In the situations in my area, it has always been cheaper to get rid of the old and start over again when the problem is asbestos. I'll admit I don't have the numbers either to prove it.
for a smaller building maybe, maybe even a mid size building, but the WTC buildings were some of the largest structures in the world. cant be cheap to take those down. just cant. I live next the site of the future trump hotel and tower. a 90 story building. before contruction started the old building had to be removed. this is how big it was..
do you read? or only the parts you want to see. I clearly stated why I think wtc 7 "could have come down on purpose" and why I think its iilogical for tower 1 and 2 to be brought down on purpose.
Right so they went to all the trouble in the weeks running upto 9/11 to set up explosives in wtc 7 but left towers 1 and 2?
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Right so they went to all the trouble in the weeks running upto 9/11 to set up explosives in wtc 7 but left towers 1 and 2?
what makes you think it took weeks to set up explosives in wtc7? IF, and a big if, wtc 7 was brought down on purpose, it could have been done without much notice at all. the building was extremely damaged. and IMO it came down due to that extensive damage
what makes you think it took weeks to set up explosives in wtc7? IF, and a big if, wtc 7 was brought down on purpose, it could have been done without much notice at all. the building was extremely damaged. and IMO it came down due to that extensive damage
Ok right, so now your saying that they set up the explosives on 9/11 while the building was on fire?
And all in a few hours, wow that must have taken alot of men to set that up, why did no one mention seeing all this demolition experts running in and out of the building on that day, and if it was that easy to set them up in a few hours why all this talk of it would have taken weeks to plan and set up explosives in the run to 9/11 in towers 1 and 2?
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Ok right, so now your saying that they set up the explosives on 9/11 while the building was on fire?
And all in a few hours, wow that must have taken alot of men to set that up, why did no one mention seeing all this demolition experts running in and out of the building on that day, and if it was that easy to set them up in a few hours why all this talk of it would have taken weeks to plan and set up explosives in the run to 9/11 in towers 1 and 2?
I dont know what it takes to bring down a heavily damaged building. im not a demolition expert and neither are you.
I dont know what it takes to bring down a heavily damaged building. im not a demolition expert and neither are you.
it takes WEEKS to set up a high-rise for demo,WEEKS!!!!!!!
no fuckn way did jet fuel cause the collapse!
WTC Construction Certifiers Say Towers Should Have Easily Withstood Jet Fuel Temperatures
Kevin Ryan/Underwriters Laboratories | November 12 2004
The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great importance.
Dr. Gayle,
Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.
As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.
There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory."
We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.
The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.
There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and “chatter”.
Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.
Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters Laboratories
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot". Mark Twain
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
the building was extremely damaged. and IMO it came down due to that extensive damage
okay. this bothers me. do a search on pictures of building 3-7. there are archives of pictures. compare building 5 and building 7 relative to their damage. why would 7 fall and not 5, considering the damage? it doesn't make sense to me, but im not an expert.
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
okay. this bothers me. do a search on pictures of building 3-7. there are archives of pictures. compare building 5 and building 7 relative to their damage. why would 7 fall and not 5, considering the damage? it doesn't make sense to me, but im not an expert.
exactly, your not an expert. and more importantly, you werent there. some of the major support columns could have been extremely damaged. its completely possible a major support column was damaged and couldnt hold the weight of all the floors above. 2 110 story buildings fell right next to it. all that debris could easily have fucked something up, badly.
and regardless, as I have stated before in this thread, IF wtc 7 was brought down on purpose, so what? it was hours after the attacks and no one was in or around the building. NO injuries were a result of that building falling down. thats really all the matters. in silverstein's infamous interview, he said everyone was away from that building before they "pulled it".
exactly, your not an expert. and more importantly, you werent there. some of the major support columns could have been extremely damaged. its completely possible a major support column was damaged and couldnt hold the weight of all the floors above. 2 110 story buildings fell right next to it. all that debris could easily have fucked something up, badly.
and regardless, as I have stated before in this thread, IF wtc 7 was brought down on purpose, so what? it was hours after the attacks and no one was in or around the building. NO injuries were a result of that building falling down. thats really all the matters. in silverstein's infamous interview, he said everyone was away from that building before they "pulled it".
So the timing wouldn't come across as an odd coincidence to you?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
exactly, your not an expert. and more importantly, you werent there. some of the major support columns could have been extremely damaged. its completely possible a major support column was damaged and couldnt hold the weight of all the floors above. 2 110 story buildings fell right next to it. all that debris could easily have fucked something up, badly.
could have been its completely possible could have easily fucked something up, badly
those are assumptions. would you agree?
in an ongoing investigation, NIST is actually testing for thermite as a possible heat source.
and regardless, as I have stated before in this thread, IF wtc 7 was brought down on purpose, so what? it was hours after the attacks and no one was in or around the building. NO injuries were a result of that building falling down. thats really all the matters. in silverstein's infamous interview, he said everyone was away from that building before they "pulled it".
so what? you have to be kidding. yes, we all agree that no injuries resulting from the falling of that building is a fucking great thing. duh. that is what matters most. BUT, that is not all that matters. if they did take it down purposefully and then cover it up, that indicates a cover up. why lie about it if you didn't have more to hide?
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
by the way. you didn't answer my question. look up some pictures and tell me why the other buildings didn't collapse, especially 5.
I cant tell you why, like I said, I wasnt there to inspect the damage. and even if I was, im not a stuctural engineer. dont ask me stupid questions. you cant base facts on a picture
so what? you have to be kidding. yes, we all agree that no injuries resulting from the falling of that building is a fucking great thing. duh. that is what matters most. BUT, that is not all that matters. if they did take it down purposefully and then cover it up, that indicates a cover up. why lie about it if you didn't have more to hide?
no im not kidding you. no injuries is a great fucking thing. IF they decided to bring down a useless building that had a chance of falling anyway, why not do it before it could injury or kill anyone.
I can live with that
no they weren't, but the explanation of the WTC collapses is that fire weakened the steel to the point were the buildings fell. the buildings survived the impacts, as they were designed to do.
a majority of the jet fuel, particularly in the south tower crash, was burned up in the fireball outside of the building. the fires were at their hottest immediately following the crashes, gradually losing heat as time went by. firefighters in the south tower said the fires were almost out when they got up there.
the fires had died down. the buildings were standing with no one expecting a collapse. then all of a sudden.. down they went. (and also, building 7 was not hit by a plane, nor was it engulfed in flames)
you can base certain facts, but it does not complete the puzzle; no. what i was trying to get you to see was that wtc 7 sustained minor damage from fires. the other buildings sustained far greater damage from fires. wtc 5 was a 'raging inferno', yet it did not collapse. with this, i conclude that it was quite an anomoly for wtc 7 to collapse at all, and even more anomolous to fall in the same manner that the towers did. coincidence, unlikely,... thank goodness NIST is exploring the idea of explosives. it will be a great weight of my shoulders once they prove one way or the other.
IF they decided to bring down a useless building that had a chance of falling anyway, why not do it before it could injury or kill anyone.
I can live with that
are you claiming that wtc 7 could have been purposefully taken down the same day of the tragedy by the authorities of nyc? if so, when would they have planted the explosives to bring it down? and why would they hide it from the public?
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
Comments
call me crazy, but those floors were alot of square feet. isnt it possible the firefighters were on the opposite side of the fire.
firefighters are amazing people. i'm sure they were able to be in very herendous conditions.
Is what a "raging 800c fire"?? The fires this guy saw? There's nothing from the transcript that really gives us an indication.
I believe, and it is well known, that the US government knew that there was going to be an attack on America using highjacked airliners.
a) The 8/6 Presidential Memo
b) John Ashcroft from July on, when he received the word that commercial airlines were at risk, began flying private chartered flights
c) The Willy Brown phone call from Condoleeza Rice on 9/10, warning Brown not to fly to New York or DC the next day
d) The fact that Jeb Bush shortly before 9/11, when he knew the President would be in Florida on 9/11, declared a state of Matial Law specifically mentioning to keep the peace against possible terrorist threats
"Based on the potential massive damage to life and property that may result from an act of terrorism at a Florida port, the necessity to protect life and property from such acts of terrorism, and inhibiting the smuggling of illegal drugs into the State of Florida, the use of the Florida National Guard to support FDLE in accomplishing port security training and inspections is "extraordinary support to law enforcement" as used in Section 250.06(4), Florida Statutes."
I believe that WTC 7 was brought down by demolition, and because if WTC 7 was brought down that way, it makes it a lot easier to believe that if they would do that to 7, why not Towers 1 and 2.
I believe that the government DID NOT have a direct role in planning the attacks. I do believe however that people who are involved in the government would allow manipulate a series of events to allow this to happen and pave the way for the agenda they could pass through this administration.
a)The head of Security at the WTC and the Boston airport, where the planes came from, was the Presidents brother. Does that mean I think the President was in on it? No. I think this was way over his head.
b)The fact that no jets were scambled because they happened to be hundreds of miles south doing training. This reminds me a lot of the Kennedy assassination where the military was given a stand down order involving Kennedy in Dallas.
I believe that Flight 93 was shot down. Do I fault the government for that? No. Do I think they glorified the whole "Let's Roll" theory? Yes. Just like they did with Pat Tillman. Many people stated that there was a plane tailing 93 and circled the area right after it hit the ground, then it took off.
I believe I am not smart enough to know what steele melts at or what kind of reaction Thermite produces. However, I do know politics, and I do know corrupt politics. There are members of this administration who are more corrupt than anything I have ever come across or studied. I then believe that knowing of the the events that were doomed to happen to our nation, that members of this administration who were involved in organizations outside of their government role, put a stand down order out, and the events of 9/11 were allowed to happen to give them the authority to carry out their agenda which they had been looking for an excuse for a long time.
I hope you can understand why I believe what I do. I know politics and the way it works behind closed doors. That's why I believe what I do, I know how things like this work.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
ok good now we are getting somewhere. good response. we actually arent that far off. well kinda.
I dont know if flight 93 was shot down. my gut feeling is that it was not. even if it was, I dont fault the government for doing so. its an incredibly hard call to make. I will go by the black box recording and taped phone calls from the people on board that leads me to believe they rushed the cockpit and caused the terrorist to crash the plane.
I do not believe anyone in our governement, at any level, knew to what extent we would be attacked. I agree that we knew an attack was coming. but we always know that. we have this alert system now that raises the alert level. i'm sure we are always getting intelligence suggesting we will be attacked but when their plans are that good, we can stop it, we can only hope to. like when new york's subway system was put on alert. they must of know they wanted to attack the subway system. could they have gotten a bombs off in the subway even if we knew it was coming? of course.
before 9/11 we were not in a defensive position. neven with good intelligence its hard to imagine such an attack will happen. obviously we learned that it can, and security has tighten up in many areas of our country. I see it everyday on the streets on downtown chicago.
I also will contend that I have my doubts about wtc 7. but lets think logically about this. IF this building was brought down on purpose, is it really a big deal? the building was probably beyond repair and more importantly they seemed to make sure no one was in or around the building. NO injuries were reported from this building going down. is it shady that they (might have) lied about it? sure. but I dont know what the truth is. I'm just happy no one was hurt by that collapse. the building came down, ok, lets build a new one and move on.
but if wtc 7 then why not towers 1 and 2 you say? 1 and 2 came down with hundreds of firefighters and rescue workers still inside. why purposely kill all those people when it could have been done hours later. (assuming it was a controlled demo you can bring it down whenever they wanted). building 7, IF brought down on purpose, was done so much later with no one around.
I don't think anyone had anything to gain by there, which is sad, if people did not die. Think of what happened in the days, weeks, months, and years after 9/11. Patriotism was at an all time high. The approval for this administration was near record highs for any administration. They were basically given a blank check because of the events that took place on that day, and no one cared how they spent it. Anything that can get done to get back at those who attacked us that day was ok. Anything to avange the deaths of our citizens was OK.
A lot of people had a lot to gain because these poor souls gave their life.
It just amazes me how much everything has changed since September 12th, 2001. The world was on our side, the US citizens were united, and that was all lost when this administration went too far. Not just the war in Iraq, but everywhere.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
the administration would still had its "blank check" regardless if they brought down the buildings on purpose with all those innocent people still inside. many people died from the intial impact and people jumping. plus the united feeling that americans had on sept 12th was becuase we were attacked on our soil. the number of dead wasnt very relevant. could have been 1 or 3000. the effect would still be the same.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
9/11 perpetrated because of "asbestos nightmare"......ok I've added that one to the list
In seriousness, good posts before this one. I don't agree, but at least you're talking some sense.
Ok so you believe that building 7 could have been brought down on purpose, then so could have towers 1 and 2.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings. [Arctic Beacon]
I'm not saying 9/11 was done because of asbestos, but it would make a case for possibly demolishing the buildings
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
First and foremost, I'd factcheck your friends at Arctic Beacon -- I'm not aware of any request ever made by the PA to demolish the buildings nor do I think that ever would have happened. To suggest that the "only reason the building was still standing" was because they couldn't tear it down is ridiculous.
Secondly, you cannot seriously believe that WTC was alone in the skyscraper world as an asbestos-laden and partially vacant building. That describes the majority of skyscrapers in every major city in this country.
Finally, if all of the above were even true, none of it would provide a shed of evidence that would mean those buildings were deliberately demolished. I've said it before and I'll say it again, motive != complicity.
do you read? or only the parts you want to see. I clearly stated why I think wtc 7 "could have come down on purpose" and why I think its iilogical for tower 1 and 2 to be brought down on purpose.
I have looked into it and have read other sources. I grabbed this Arctic Beacon article because it was the first one I had found on a quick search. I don't totally buy into the asbestos theory, someone asked why the building would be brought down, and I believe it would be a lot cheaper to tear down and build a new one than to eliminate all of the esbestos. That was my whole point of posting that. For the record though, I do not have enough information on the asbestos and PA to come to a clear answer.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
this is very true. any building built before the early 80s (not exactly sure but its close) had abestos. there are several buildings in chicago that have tons of asbestos. it buildings like the size of the WTC, it is much more cost effective to try and contain or remove the stuff as oppsed to demolishing the building.
either way, I dont see this being a reason for someone in our government to ok a plan for planes to fly into the building and have bombs planted throughout. which is essiential what would have had to happen.
tearing down a building the size of the WTC is not cheaper then trying to contain or remove it. I dont have numbers to prove it but I'm going to go with common sense on that one.
In the situations in my area, it has always been cheaper to get rid of the old and start over again when the problem is asbestos. I'll admit I don't have the numbers either to prove it.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
for a smaller building maybe, maybe even a mid size building, but the WTC buildings were some of the largest structures in the world. cant be cheap to take those down. just cant. I live next the site of the future trump hotel and tower. a 90 story building. before contruction started the old building had to be removed. this is how big it was..
http://photos.innersource.com/group/10766
this took almost a year to take down floor by floor.
Right so they went to all the trouble in the weeks running upto 9/11 to set up explosives in wtc 7 but left towers 1 and 2?
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
what makes you think it took weeks to set up explosives in wtc7? IF, and a big if, wtc 7 was brought down on purpose, it could have been done without much notice at all. the building was extremely damaged. and IMO it came down due to that extensive damage
Ok right, so now your saying that they set up the explosives on 9/11 while the building was on fire?
And all in a few hours, wow that must have taken alot of men to set that up, why did no one mention seeing all this demolition experts running in and out of the building on that day, and if it was that easy to set them up in a few hours why all this talk of it would have taken weeks to plan and set up explosives in the run to 9/11 in towers 1 and 2?
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
I dont know what it takes to bring down a heavily damaged building. im not a demolition expert and neither are you.
it takes WEEKS to set up a high-rise for demo,WEEKS!!!!!!!
no fuckn way did jet fuel cause the collapse!
WTC Construction Certifiers Say Towers Should Have Easily Withstood Jet Fuel Temperatures
Kevin Ryan/Underwriters Laboratories | November 12 2004
The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great importance.
Dr. Gayle,
Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.
As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.
There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory."
We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.
The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.
There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and “chatter”.
Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.
1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html 2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187 3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf 4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php 5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11) 6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf
Kevin Ryan
Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters Laboratories
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
so you believe government officals spent weeks planting bombs throughtout WTC 1,2 and 7
I believe it can. there is no way to know exactly what happen at the point of impact.
okay. this bothers me. do a search on pictures of building 3-7. there are archives of pictures. compare building 5 and building 7 relative to their damage. why would 7 fall and not 5, considering the damage? it doesn't make sense to me, but im not an expert.
~Ron Burgundy
exactly, your not an expert. and more importantly, you werent there. some of the major support columns could have been extremely damaged. its completely possible a major support column was damaged and couldnt hold the weight of all the floors above. 2 110 story buildings fell right next to it. all that debris could easily have fucked something up, badly.
and regardless, as I have stated before in this thread, IF wtc 7 was brought down on purpose, so what? it was hours after the attacks and no one was in or around the building. NO injuries were a result of that building falling down. thats really all the matters. in silverstein's infamous interview, he said everyone was away from that building before they "pulled it".
So the timing wouldn't come across as an odd coincidence to you?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
could have been its completely possible could have easily fucked something up, badly
those are assumptions. would you agree?
in an ongoing investigation, NIST is actually testing for thermite as a possible heat source.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Oct06.pdf
by the way. you didn't answer my question. look up some pictures and tell me why the other buildings didn't collapse, especially 5.
so what? you have to be kidding. yes, we all agree that no injuries resulting from the falling of that building is a fucking great thing. duh. that is what matters most. BUT, that is not all that matters. if they did take it down purposefully and then cover it up, that indicates a cover up. why lie about it if you didn't have more to hide?
~Ron Burgundy
no im not kidding you. no injuries is a great fucking thing. IF they decided to bring down a useless building that had a chance of falling anyway, why not do it before it could injury or kill anyone.
I can live with that
you can base certain facts, but it does not complete the puzzle; no. what i was trying to get you to see was that wtc 7 sustained minor damage from fires. the other buildings sustained far greater damage from fires. wtc 5 was a 'raging inferno', yet it did not collapse. with this, i conclude that it was quite an anomoly for wtc 7 to collapse at all, and even more anomolous to fall in the same manner that the towers did. coincidence, unlikely,... thank goodness NIST is exploring the idea of explosives. it will be a great weight of my shoulders once they prove one way or the other.
that is not what i used the "are you kidding" for. of course i agree that it was fucking great when human life was spared when wtc 7 collapsed.
are you claiming that wtc 7 could have been purposefully taken down the same day of the tragedy by the authorities of nyc? if so, when would they have planted the explosives to bring it down? and why would they hide it from the public?
~Ron Burgundy