History Channel "Expert" Spins Conspiracy Yarn
JamMastaE
Posts: 444
Contradicts official story, claims WTC 7 fires began before either tower had collapsed
Paul Joseph Watson
Thursday, August 23, 2007
One of the experts the History Channel cited to debunk claims that the collapse of WTC 7 was a controlled demolition during its 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction special Sunday night, spun a wild conspiracy yarn of his own, claiming that Building 7 burned for eight hours having caught fire before either of the twin towers collapsed.
Matthys Levy, P.E. is a structural engineer and also author of the book Why Buildings Fall Down.
He was one of the chief engineers for a study commissioned by WTC leaseholder Silverstein Properties Inc. to support a $7 billion insurance claim for the destruction of the World Trade Center complex. The investigation concluded that the twin towers collapsed as a result of the failure of support columns but the study did not touch upon why Building 7 fell.
Regarding WTC 7, "The initial fires started around 9:30 in the morning, so the building was allowed to burn for eight hours," Levy told the History Channel during Sunday night's broadcast.
However, according to the FEMA report and the official story, the fire broke out an hour later, immediately following the collapse of the north tower, having survived largely unscathed the collapse of the south tower over 30 minutes earlier.
At 10:29 a.m., WTC 1 (the north tower) collapsed," reads Chapter 5 of the FEMA report, "Sending its debris into the streets below. The extent and severity of the resulting damage to WTC 7 are currently unknown. However, from photographic evidence and eyewitness accounts discussed below, it was assumed that the south side of the building was damaged to some degree and that fires in WTC 7 started at approximately this time."
The report concludes by stating, "Approximately 7 hours after fires initiated in WTC 7, the building collapsed."
Levy's wild conspiracy theory, that fires in WTC were initiated before the collapse of either tower at around 9:30am and that the building burned for eight hours, seems to hint at some kind of sabotage, since the official story dictates that the cause of the fires was debris from the collapse of the north tower at 10:29am.
For the fires to have started half an hour before the collapse of the first tower, which was located on the opposite side of the complex, and a full hour before the collapse of the closer second tower, Levy seems to be hinting that some kind of foul play was involved.
To make such an assertion defies common sense, directly contradicts the official FEMA investigation into the collapse of WTC 7, and is also hurtful to the family members of the victims of 9/11.
Why the History Channel gave a platform to this nonsense and failed to point out the blatant factual inaccuracy of Levy's claim is baffling.
Perhaps Popular Mechanics' "experts" James Meigs, Benjamin Chertoff and their tea boy Davin Coburn should move the full weight of their Hearst Publishing yellow journalism empire behind a move to debunk this kook!
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=2642.0
Paul Joseph Watson
Thursday, August 23, 2007
One of the experts the History Channel cited to debunk claims that the collapse of WTC 7 was a controlled demolition during its 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction special Sunday night, spun a wild conspiracy yarn of his own, claiming that Building 7 burned for eight hours having caught fire before either of the twin towers collapsed.
Matthys Levy, P.E. is a structural engineer and also author of the book Why Buildings Fall Down.
He was one of the chief engineers for a study commissioned by WTC leaseholder Silverstein Properties Inc. to support a $7 billion insurance claim for the destruction of the World Trade Center complex. The investigation concluded that the twin towers collapsed as a result of the failure of support columns but the study did not touch upon why Building 7 fell.
Regarding WTC 7, "The initial fires started around 9:30 in the morning, so the building was allowed to burn for eight hours," Levy told the History Channel during Sunday night's broadcast.
However, according to the FEMA report and the official story, the fire broke out an hour later, immediately following the collapse of the north tower, having survived largely unscathed the collapse of the south tower over 30 minutes earlier.
At 10:29 a.m., WTC 1 (the north tower) collapsed," reads Chapter 5 of the FEMA report, "Sending its debris into the streets below. The extent and severity of the resulting damage to WTC 7 are currently unknown. However, from photographic evidence and eyewitness accounts discussed below, it was assumed that the south side of the building was damaged to some degree and that fires in WTC 7 started at approximately this time."
The report concludes by stating, "Approximately 7 hours after fires initiated in WTC 7, the building collapsed."
Levy's wild conspiracy theory, that fires in WTC were initiated before the collapse of either tower at around 9:30am and that the building burned for eight hours, seems to hint at some kind of sabotage, since the official story dictates that the cause of the fires was debris from the collapse of the north tower at 10:29am.
For the fires to have started half an hour before the collapse of the first tower, which was located on the opposite side of the complex, and a full hour before the collapse of the closer second tower, Levy seems to be hinting that some kind of foul play was involved.
To make such an assertion defies common sense, directly contradicts the official FEMA investigation into the collapse of WTC 7, and is also hurtful to the family members of the victims of 9/11.
Why the History Channel gave a platform to this nonsense and failed to point out the blatant factual inaccuracy of Levy's claim is baffling.
Perhaps Popular Mechanics' "experts" James Meigs, Benjamin Chertoff and their tea boy Davin Coburn should move the full weight of their Hearst Publishing yellow journalism empire behind a move to debunk this kook!
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=2642.0
"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
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
keep smoking crack pal.
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
Jam, I'm on your side. But, for me, to continue to put energy into the minutiae of this political debate is pointless, and a deliberate public distraction.
I know and trust that the people who have looked at this, and continue to do the research are going to continue to do a good job of keeping us informed. Just like you are doing.
Thanks.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Tuesday's History Channel program on 9/11 Conspiracies * Fact or Fiction shows how powerful our movement has become, and how contemptible our opposition is. The deck was stacked, the animations were distorted and fantastic, and the framework was rather nasty, but this was, of course, NBC News (read General Electric) which is now a hedge fund in drag. And even NBC News, often the slimiest of the networks, has been forced to pretend to refute numerous factual criticisms of the official story, one by one. I say pretend because most of the refutations were simply blanket denials, with no facts or reasoning beyond mere assertions that the 9/11 truth theses are not true, offend the families, are disgusting, or "corrosive," and other meaningless verbiage.
Some of the attempts at substantive refutation involved dodges and subterfuges that seemed new, at least to me. It sounded like one of their pseudo-experts was arguing that the wings of the alleged airplane at the Pentagon had broken off through hitting objects on the Pentagon lawn. If that was so, where are the wings and the jet engines on that pristine Pentalawn? This pitiful construct is self-contradictory and destroys itself. We also heard that building 7 was hollow at the base, quite an achievement under the New York City building code. The bottom of building 7 was, we now discover, an amphitheater, with no support columns, but only trusses! I guess if your argument is ruptured, then you need a truss. Another pseudo-expert thought that a commercial aircraft could transform itself into an artillery shell or tank round and punch through the Pentagon rings that way, despite the obvious difficulty. CIA man Michael Scheuer says all the evidence points to al Qaeda, but where is all that evidence, Mike? There was none in this program, to be sure. Otherwise, Mike was reduced to some pitiful whining that there are too many decent patriotic people in the CIA * a moot point.
Some of the little people had obviously been leaned on to get them to change their testimony. But that was done with a nominalist stupidity worthy of William of Okham, the dumbest philosopher of the late Middle Ages. The wretched New York TV reporter had to say that he had reported secondary explosions, but not bombs. What precisely is the difference, when heard from afar? The poor Shanksville coroner had said that after a few minutes at the crash site, he had stopped being a coroner because there were no bodies. Now he says that he meant that he became an undertaker. Again, what is the distinction he is driving at? Where there bodies yes or no?
Most of the refutations were weak, fishy, lame, and unconvincing. In particular, any time they have to bring on Chip Berlet, that well-known gutter-dwelling character assassin and mercenary of the foundations, you know they are in big trouble, and he was quite prominent. I believe strongly in the victory of reality over fabrication and lies, and I suspect that this was the response of many viewers tonight. If we had a focus group, we could be sure, but I think more 9/11 came into the world than there were doubters who fell back into the official version based on this program.
But look at all the important factual material they had to present. The viewers got to see the squibs coming out of the twin towers. They got to see building 7 coming down, with ample comparisons to controlled demolition cases. They got to hear and see the infamous Silverstein. They got to see the singed hole in the internal rings of the Pentagon. They got to see the Shanksville crater. They got to hear about false flag operations from a chorus of authoritative voices, and for that there was no refutation. They also got a good source list for further research: Loose Change was prominent, as were Alex Jones and 9/11 Mysteries. Thierry Meyssan, the founder of our worldwide movement, got more recognition tonight than he has ever received in this country, and it is about time * his book the Big Lie is and remains a classic. They go to know David Ray Griffin, Bob Bowman, Jim Fetzer and many more. There was even a plug for my own 9/11 Synthetic Terror. Any serious, intelligent person * and there still are some * knows exactly where to go to find out more, and that can only be a big plus.
I have seen real raving slanders from NBC News, and they look different. Slanders are a relentless barrage of terms like Nazi, communist, SS, anti-semite, racist, white supremacist, Ku Klux Klan, and so forth, with no substance at all. There were only a few intervals when things began to get ugly in that way, and I do not think they convinced anybody.
Most revealing of the moral bankruptcy, intellectual cowardice, and overall weakness of the NBC spin machine were the themes they left out completely. Most glaring was that, even though he was allowed a couple of brief comments, literally all of Professor Steven Jones' work on thermite-thermate as the key to the controlled demolition of the twin towers was completely ignored. They seem to have concluded that refuting this would be a hopeless task.
They also avoided the most critical pieces of political evidence. There was not a word about the crucial "Angel is next" message accompanied by an array of top-secret code words received by the Secret Service, which is the one documented instance during the day when the invisible government-rogue network, the authors of the coup, actually came out of the shadows and spoke. Then, there was not one mention of the twenty-five plus (25 plus !!!) drills, exercises, and maneuvers which were either in progress on 9/11, had recently been concluded, or were in advanced stages of planning. Viewers who know 9/11 only through this program would not know that there was a single drill going on, even though the Kean-Hamilton commission did talk about Amalgam Virgo, at least during the hearings, and Vanity Fair last summer did acknowledge that some air drills were going on.
There was discussion about the pros and cons of cell phone calls, but not a mention of the August 2001 drill at the Department of Transportation that had a scenario of a hijacked aircraft with cell phone calls coming in. Similarly, the program was much concerned with the intrinsically weak thesis of a stand-down, without once delving into the dozen or so Air Force drills that were ongoing and that really do explain the lack of air defense * along with the activities of a certain Colonel Marr. In my dealings with the NBC producer and his team, I went out of my way to stress these two points * "Angel is next" and the 25+ drills. At the Austin conference where much of this material was taped, I made an entire speech on "Angel is next," Bush's movements on 9/11, and the drills. But not a word got through. Several speakers, myself included, also pounded them as much as possible about the question of the NEW 9/11 and the looming war with Iran. At rally at the University of Texas tower, we already had the report about Cheney saying on Face the Nation that morning that his main fear was not of terrorist armed not with airline tickets and box cutters, but of a nuclear bomb in a US city. But the NBC people were not interested in that one, either.
The NBC program also tended to allege that the 9/11 truth movement sees Bush and Cheney as the prime movers and directors of 9/11 * an absurd thesis. Bush is a moron, and Cheney is a moribund old drunk with four heart attacks, quadruple bypass surgery, and a pacemaker that has to be serviced every couple of years. I tried to make the NBC people understand the idea of an invisible government much older than Bush and Cheney, going back in the present form at least to 1895, when J.P. Morgan forced President Grover Cleveland to knuckle and under and give Morgan and London total control over the US public debt. NBC was not having any of that, either.
I would urge people in the movement to ponder why specifically these themes were so totally excluded from a broadcast which was otherwise reasonably wide-ranging. I would argue that our oligarchical enemies in the invisible government are very much afraid of issues like the Jones thermite-thermate thesis, "Angel is next," Bush's movements on 9/11, the 25+ drills of 9/11, and the new 9/11. They do not much like to hear the invisible government itself talked about, either. Based on this, I would appeal to the 9/11 truth movement as a whole to redouble its attacks on precisely these themes to maximize the damage to the myth-mongers. Hammer them home mercilessly, for their power is enormous. We need to focus on the best scientific-technical evidence, and the best political evidence, as represented by these issues.
Part of the genius of the 9/11 truth movement is our ability to make even the financier-controlled media spread our ideas and work for us. Despite the worst intentions of NBC News, I would say that this is what they have accomplished. They have kept 9/11 truth research in the public eye. There is an old Broadway saying * "A knock is a boost." In other words, if we are so obscure and so crazy, why do we merit any attention at all? Two-hour documentaries are not cheap and need to get some ratings. Clearly we are not so obscure as NBC News would have us believe. In fact, if we can hold off the new 9/11 for a few more months, 2007 may turn out to be our finest hour.
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
every one of us will deny it but if you look through history and connect the dots; you'll find the common denominator.
so when you say that we can't believe anyone; that means we can't believe you either.
No one has the full story on 9/11. A lot of people think they do.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
i am continually confused how the government is chastized for not following the alleged overwhelming evidence that an attack was coming, and then chastized for not providing evidence OBL and Co. we involved.
the difference between an exposion and a bomb from a far? they both sound like booms. thats the point. concrete or floors collapsing also sound like booms.
the distinctin was a crononer provides cause death "we knew what the cause and manner of death was, so it became less of a coroners case and more of a funeral directors."
The problem with your argument is bolded. A lot more than alleged. There was more than just a little bit of alleged information...a lot more...and everyone knew in advance. Bush lied about it plain and simple...and they all keep lying to us.
The are creating more war not trying to prevent it.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
so full of it
Just you like believed the stickers on the back of my truck draws attention to myself. Bullshit.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Regardless this is pointless, if you believe there is a conspiracy I doubt anyone is changing your mind and that's ok. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I believe like I did from day one, this government these people, not intelligent enough to pull anything that creative off without anyone talking. This like most if not all disasters was a multi facited failure on a lot of levels.
Pac.
This is the problem. Maybe you need to research some of these folks OTHER than Bush. I doubt ANYONE will challenge the assertion that Bush is a raving puppet. That is HIS JOB in this game. He draws away any blame by way of stupidity ... "how could any one that dumb be a criminal?" ... well you are right ... EXCEPT ... Cheney, Wolfowitz, Condoleeza, Powell, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld ... all these players are incredibly powerful, shrewd, perceptive, cunning, and dangerous ... most all of them were in positions of power in the excecutive or DoD at LEAST as far back as Regan\Bush Sr ... and some, like Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz go back to the Nixon era ...
and whats WORSE is most every single one of them were all togeather plotting and weasling the whole time, ESPECIALY once GHW Bush went out of office and Clinton came in ... after that they were all huddled up in PNAC literally PLOTTING AND SCHEMING about what to do if & when they got back in to power ...
DO NOT LET THEM OFF THE HOOK BY CALLING THEM STUPID. They are ANYTHING BUT!
Most of them are shrewd business men\women to boot: Condoleeza, 9 years on the board of Chevron [OIL]. Cheney was CEO of Halliburton [OIL Services], here's one i really love: they send Wolfowitz over to THE WORLD BANK in 2005 as the president of it ... hmm ... a man who has been runing our countries defenses sense the '70s now runing the "world" bank ... lol ... anyhow ...
HERE IS THE POINT
(i know, you thought that WAS the point)
They did not have to "pull off" anything ...
Look at the FACTS (and these are real FACTS):
*There were war games going on at the EXACT time of 911 that confused the hell out of our air defenses ... Pilot Asks FAA "is this real world or excercise?" ... several of these war games dealt with HIJACKED PLANES CRASHING IN TO STRATEGIC & RECOGNIZABLE BUILDINGS
* In the weeks following 911, EVERY official in the administration denied any prior knowledge of such an attack. DESPITE THE ABOVE FACT
EVERYONE saying "no knowledge of planes used as weapons" and then Dan Rathers saying "Oh. But They DID Know"
* FBI\CIA KNEW that Atta and several others were in our country WELL BEFORE 911, but any time anyone in the FBI wanted to bring action against them, they were yelled at, and told NOT TO INITIATE ANY CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION! Video Documenting SPECIFIC WARNINGS issued by FBI Field Officers IGNORED, BLOCKED, or OBSTRUCTED
*One of the EXPLICIT stated aims of the PNAC: Rebuilding America's Defenses paper was to build up troop levels in the middle east, to establish permanent bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, and to secure our position on top of oil concerns in the region ... oh ... and this would be hard to get American public support for with out a catlystic event like A NEW PEARL HARBOR ... 100% FACT
* Bush and Cheney REFUSED to testify before congress about 911, UNLESS togeather, NO WITNESSES, NO CAMERAS OR RECORDINGS, NOT UNDER OATH, NO PRESS, NOTHING!
* Condoleeza only testified under the condition that she could NEVER be required to testify AGAIN, no other administrative officals could be dragged up to testify etc ...
* Bush tried to appoint KISSINGER as the head of 911 commission. You may want to google "kissinger and associates" to see what businss Kissinger runs ... it is a global security consulting business and it is so LOW PROFILE that they don't have a website, and he doesn't want you to know about it AT ALL, and that is on TOP of other much more OBVIOUS conflicts of interest here ...
* Instead, bush appoints Phillip Zelikow ... LOOK IT UP ... he has MASSIVE ties and loyalties to Condoleeza and the bush administration. He had virtualy total control of the scope and direciton of the ENTIRE 911 Commission
* 911 Commission originaly received less than ONE QUARTER of the funds of the Clinton\Lewinsky investigation!
*It took OVER ONE YEAR to set up the 911 commission AFTER 9\11 ... in contrast, the WARREN COMMISSION was set up IN SEVEN DAYS after the JFK assassination!
*The 911 Comission lies about the time Cheney arrived in the command bunker by a near 30 minutes as contrasted with Norman Mineta's testimony: Mineta's Testimony and Clarification by Mineta that he WAS NOT confused, and that he IS baffled by the 911 Commission account of this timeline
*Rumsfeld, who could have given the shoot down order, was NO WHERE TO BE FOUND at the time he was needed
*Go watch both of those Norman Mineta videos and try to figure out WHAT Cheney WAS talking about if it wasn't a "SHOOT DOWN" order? [this is the only bit of "speculation" but Mineta seems to indicate that it was NOT a "Shoot Down" order, so WHAT order WAS it !?!]
*News reports suggest that the head of Pakistani ISI ordered $100,000 wired to Mohammed Atta
*News reports show that the same guy above was meeting with our defense officials IN AMERICA the week before 911 (WHAT THE FUCK YOU SAY? Yeah this is from Prison Planet. READ IT! IT IS TRUE
*The 911 Report only mentions the funding of 911 Hijackers ONCE ... IN A FOOTNOTE ... and that footnote says "ultimately though, who funded the hijackers is of little practical significance" ... WHAT THE FUCK AGAIN?
I feel like i am forgetting a few things that i intended to include, but i get so "in the moment" that i can never remember all of it.
TO CONCLUDE:
Cheney and the PNAC crew HAD AN AGENDA, which, AS STATED, required a catlystic 'NEW PEARL HARBOR'
The FBI KNEW and HAD EXPLICITLY WARNED about the possibility of an attack
IF the field memebers of the FBI tried to take action, they were stopped dead in their tracks
We were conducting eerily similar war games on the morning of 9/11 which, by audio evidence, PROVE our defenses were confused
Our defense secretary was MIA that morning, and the 911 report tries to make us think Cheney wasn't there either!
The adminstration LIED repeatedly about knowing ANYTHING about the possibility of such an attack using airplanes, even though it CLEARLY had evidence to the contrary
Bush and Co. tried their best to keep an investigation from even happening! (WHY?)
Bush and Co. tried and SUCCEEDED in getting a adminstration insider and loyalist appointed as HEAD of the commission
Bush and Co. refused and tried their best to never testify.
Bush and Co. ensured that the 9\11 commission ommited or avoided serious questions in the report (why is who funded 9\11 of "little practical significance"? ARE YOU SHITTING ME?)
After 9/11 our country did EXACTLY WHAT PNAC WANTED ... Afghanistan & bases there, Iraq and bases there, and soon ... very soon ... IRAN!
SO:
They had a plan which required a catastrophic terrorist attack on american soil in order to get their ball rolling with.
They had evidence and intelligence to suggest that such an attack was coming, and knew several known terrorists were in our country.
They blocked any action on such intelligence.
They may or may not have worked with the gentleman who funded the terrorists.
They had wargames going on the morning of 9\11 that confused our defenses
They lied about everything, and tried to cover up important information in the published report.
They got their wish. To the letter!
IS THIS A MULTI-FACTED FAILURE OR EXACTLY WHAT THEY "PLANNED" PACOMC79?
If I opened it now would you not understand?