FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
9/11 Audio: Twin Towers Built for Demo
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 439, 440, 441  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
MichaelC



Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 1968

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Were the towers not already quite obsolete and facing a high vacancy rate, also requiring removal of asbestos? So this was also a very convenient - and extremely profitable - insurance fraud.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bornfree



Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 509

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 1:49 pm    Post subject: Re: Flying steel beams and radio controlled demolition. Reply with quote

Hugh Manatee, can I use your sigfile in a toondoo I'm making. Inciteful thinking!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jirons



Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 172

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hugh Manatee
Quote:
Plus the demolition was carefully-timed and seems to have been radio-controlled since when the top of one tower started to tip over it was blown up into debris. That means the ability to adapt to what was seen took place and means it wasn't just a timing-fuse initiated demolition.


You seem to suggest that the detail of demolition was fine tuned as it was in progress. Do you mean someone is staring at a visual display and frantically pressing buttons, split second by split second?

If so, this does not sound like a credible scenario. Who is going to be able to do this, even without the awareness that thousands are being murdered in cold blood?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 6644

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hugh... Have you listened to the audio?
Your points were covered in discussion.

Quote:
Hugh Manatee: Fintan, steel beams DID get hurled hundreds of feet out from the blasts. Tons of them.

As Christopher covers, a few beams were hurled some distance.
This was where floor circuits did not work and thus the explosive
power of the core blast was transferred to the perimiter, pushing
the beams away a distance.

This happened with a SMALL number of perimiter steel members.
A traditional demo would have hurled ALL the beams a distance.

Quote:
Hugh Manatee: : Plus the demolition was carefully-timed and seems to have been
radio-controlled since when the top of one tower started to tip over it was blown up into debris.

You can do all this with standard delay timers.
Christopher covered this in the audio.

There are many theories with a wide range of proposed ways the Towers
could have been brought down. But the strength of Christopher's
argument is that he works backwards from the observed demolition
characteristics and the visible final results.

When you do that, you find you can rule out all the other theories.


Last edited by Fintan on Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Hugh Manatee



Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 77
Location: In Context

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:32 pm    Post subject: Re: my sig quote Reply with quote

bornfree wrote:
Hugh Manatee, can I use your sigfile in a toondoo I'm making. Inciteful thinking!


Have at! TV and movies are the results of all that MKULTRA research and cream-of-the-crop research that CIA co-opted from the Ivy League labs after WWII.

A good book on this is Christopher Simpson's 'The Science of Coercion: 1945-1960.'

The human brains adapts to light images whether real or disinfotainment. And spooks have confirmed how to cook it up juuuuust right.

My motto: "Text Only" lol.

_________________
What shall we watch tonight?
Propaganda, social engineering, role modeling, conditioning, adrenalin markers, or desensitization?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
duane



Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 554
Location: western pennsylvania

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i took the picture of the steel beams (figure 6) to show to my brother-in-law. he owns a railroad car repair shop. he is very familiar with welding and cutting steel with torches. i asked him him if he could make that cut, while the steel was still inside the building, using an airliner with jet fuel as a torch and controlling it from a cave in aftganastan. (in 1/10 a second!) he gave a nervous laugh. i suggested C-4 and that the building was built to be imploded. he agreed the that made sense as opposed to wiring it after it was built and access to the beams restricted. He said, gee, those are some pretty sneaky terrorists!

i thinka lot of people middle aged and above have a feeling something is wrong but are stressed out with their jobs and daily lives to actively pursue this. (when you get to your fifties and sixties you'll understand)
i think however they are glad someone is taking the lead on this and these older people will stand up when the case can be made.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jeroen



Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 60

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
@atm: The WTC had become or/and was designed to adhere to the principle of obsolescence of function.

That makes sense. But not with explosives in them, that's insane. What if they go off? And what if the wrong person lets them go off? Perhaps that was covered in the 2 hour audio, but definitely not on Chris' worthless web page. Maybe something was built in to make placement of explosives easier.
Definitely C4 layers, because Chris says so:

And those white spots must be warhead canisters since Colin Powell says so:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Craig W



Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 330

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Could a popular TV show have been the origin of the WTC's explosive secret and the seed of 911?

This appears frivolous but the timing is very interesting...

Quote:
EXPLOSIVES PUT IN WTC CONCRETE WHEN CONSTRUCTED-1

Posted By: Jedediah_Smith
Date: Tuesday, 29 October 2002, 9:43 p.m.

Agent 86 Prevents Kaos' Destruction of D.C. Government Buildings
or How the WTC Was Really Demolished

I almost spat my morning cereal across the room at the TV. I knew all along it had explosives! But what I had just seen and heard actually told how they did it! Ever since I first saw pictures of the WTC catastrophe, it was obvious that explosives had been detonated in the collapse, similar to a controlled demolition. There were too many unanswered questions, too many "coincidences," too many inconsistencies between the evidence and "expert" opinions, and even among their own explanations. But what clinched it for me was, of all things, an episode of the 1960s television comedy "Get Smart." Before you dismiss me as insane, recall the old intelligence rule, "If you want to hide something, put it out in the open," which was never more true than in this case.

I was still half-asleep munching my breakfast, watching "Get Smart." This show was supposed to have been a "spoof" of James Bond movies, featuring Don Adams as Maxwell Smart (Agent 86), but in actuality it was closer to reality than one might think. For starters, the show was a fight between the good guys, "CONTROL," and the bad guys, "KAOS." This was a perfect portrayal of the Hegelian dialectic, the creation of a problem, i.e. Kaos, to provide the opportunity for a solution, Control. The "solution" of course is continual, creeping enslavement of the populace as our liberties are eroded.

The show also featured high-tech gadgetry as gags that sometimes didn't seem quite so laughable, if you paused to think. Even the producers of the show publicly admitted that the CIA called them and wanted to know where they were getting some of their ideas. And because "truth is stranger than fiction," when you want to introduce the truth to the public, sometimes you have to do so by mixing truth and fiction.

It is also an axiom of criminal psychology that, upon completing his crime, a criminal will be so proud of his "accomplishment" that he must brag about his feat. He will either leave clues and/or purposely tell people, because he perceives his evil behavior as being intelligent and can't keep his mouth shut.

In the case of the WTC, the criminals spilled the beans in episode 52 of "Get Smart," entitled "Smart Fit the Battle of Jericho" (whatever that means) which was initially aired on Saturday, February 18, 1967 at 8:30 P.M. on NBC. In this episode, a Kaos front, the Joshua Construction Company, is run by Kaos agent Frank Lloyd Joshua. Their buildings have a bad habit of blowing up. The Chief, head of Control, gives Smart his orders to infiltrate the company and find out how they were hiding nitroglycerine used to blow up the buildings. I was still half-asleep and had failed to grasp the episode's significance until the point where Smart infiltrates a construction site and picks up a brick, only to discover it is hollow. He then realizes that they were hiding the nitroglycerine in the hollow bricks. After seeing this, it hit me like a ton of (nitro-filled) bricks, "Of course, they blew up the WTC by putting explosives in during construction!"

Furthermore, as part of their plot, Kaos was constructing government office buildings in Washington, D.C., and waiting until the office buildings were fully occupied to detonate the explosives with all the workers inside. They were purposely underbidding all the other contractors because Kaos was subsidizing the company so that they could get the government contracts, even at a loss. A German Baron who owned an explosives company that supplied the Germans in WWI and WWIII was supplying the explosives. Joshua told Smart that all Kaos had to do was shoot a bullet at the bricks to initiate a chain reaction detonation of the explosives to bring down the whole building (a miniature version of 9/11). At the end of the episode, the Chief and Max are at the site and the Chief asks, "Where did you put the nitroglycerin?" Smart replies, "Oh, don't worry, Chief, I put it in a safe place. I put it in the cement." The workers were just mixing the cement then. I could swear that the first time I saw the episode, the show then closed with a big explosion. But the second time I saw it several months later, the show ended less dramatically, with Smart and the Chief realizing that the building would still blow up when occupied.

I'm sure when this episode aired originally in 1968, American viewers all got a big laugh out of it. Who would ever believe, a foreign-owned construction firm putting explosives inside government office buildings and blowing them up? The groundbreaking for the WTC was August 5, 1966. This episode aired only 197 days after the WTC groundbreaking. The steel construction didn't even begin until August 1968, and the ribbon cutting wasn't until April 4, 1973. This whole thing was just wayyyyyy too coincidental for me to accept.

No, it was beyond coincidental; it actually told how they did it.

I was always suspicious of the construction of the WTC, thinking that would have been a perfect time to sabotage it. It was designed by a foreigner, Minoru Yamasaki. But the closing comedic moment, when Smart puts the nitro in the cement, was a telling clue. Previously I had only considered the possibility of explosives being placed at strategic locations, but, what if they had actually mixed the explosives in the concrete used in the WTC?

According to Eagar and Musso (2001), the construction of the WTC consisted of a center core, which held up the entire structure, and an outer series of steel columns designed to laterally stabilize the WTC. The inner core and outer columns were connected by steel joists covered by concrete to form the floors. There were no bricks in which to hide explosives, however, concrete would be the perfect medium.

But, given the circumstances of the revelation of this clue, I next decided to briefly research the background of the "Get Smart" producers.

A BRIEF BACKGROUND ON THE CREATORS OF "GET SMART"

It is very difficult to get much information about those involved with the creation of the "Get Smart" TV series. It turns out it was produced by a company called Talent Associates, which was formed in 1948 by David Susskind. Previous to this, he was a talent scout for MCA. According to Dr. John Coleman (1996) MCA has always been an arm of British intelligence, MI6, and the Committee of 300. Their long-term goal (stress on "long-term") has been to destroy America since our revolt in 1776. Some of their methods included exporting social change, such as British rock and roll along with drugs, free love, homosexuality, etc. Television was one of their favorite mediums, using companies like MCA and seemingly innocuous TV programs like the Ed Sullivan show, to introduce social change by pushing the envelope of acceptable behavior. This might seem laughable compared to today's TV fare, but recall that Sullivan was the first to show Elvis, and was allowed only a waist-up view. They have also attempted to disrupt our culture through "talk" shows, which is really evidenced by their vulgarity today.

In 1958 Susskind hosted a local New York talk show called "Open End." It started at 11 p.m. and would not end until all participants were exhausted. Susskind's talk shows were noted for their controversial and confrontational nature. His most notorious interview was with Soviet head Nikita Kruschev. He interviewed many famous people over his career. On October 10, 1971, Susskind established a first on American television when he hosted seven lesbians. This is a perfect example of how the Committee of 300 would destroy the social fabric of America through the public discussion of such despicable behavior. Later on March 2, 1974, Susskind again hosted gay and lesbian activists.

By the time of "Get Smart," Talent Associates consisted of Dan Melnick and Leonard Stern, in addition to founder Susskind. The story goes that it was Melnick who wanted to spoof Bond (yet another MI6 creation, designed to glorify spying for the British monarchy, etc.). The above mentioned episode 52 was written by a man named Arne Sultan. Being the writer of this episode, some aspects of his life could really provide some more clues, but he is really covered up well and I can't find out anything about him.

One is impressed by the knowledge the creators of the show had concerning certain details of intelligence, which suggests that they had inside information. For example, in one episode, various U.S. intelligence agencies try to infiltrate what they think is an enemy front organization. In a hilarious twist, it finally turns out that all the members of the "front" are actually the members of the various American agencies, and there are no legitimate or enemy employees. I have a problem believing that the average comedy writer of the 60s would have ever thought of this.

It's also interesting that Kaos is not confined to just one country, but is a conglomeration of countries such as Russia, China, etc. with their spies in the U.S., all joining forces to destroy America. While during the Cold War these countries obviously cooperated with one another against us, it was not to the extent of the situation America faces today. The scenario depicted in the TV series more closely resembles our current state of affairs, not that of the '60s. Now we face an evil, sinister force, which transcends national boundaries and has sent its terrorist agents right to the heart of our nation's capitol. Exactly what did the producers of "Get Smart" know?

Furthermore, the occasional appearance of the Admiral, who gives orders to the Chief, shows an inside knowledge of how things work. Few people even today are aware of the existence, much less the importance, of the Office of Naval Intelligence. Rayelan Allan's husband, Gunther Russbacher, was a high-ranking ONI intelligence officer and she tells of the times when Admirals used to sit around her dinner table talking about high-level government affairs. Also of interest, Rayelan says that generally the Admirals and the Navy officers are highly intelligent and against the New World Order (NWO), whereas the "Get Smart" Admiral character is a senile old man. The creators of the show seem to be poking fun at the Navy. Besides the stunning revelations of episode 52, even a cursory investigation into the background of "Get Smart" reveals that whoever created and wrote it exhibited an inside knowledge of government intelligence activities.

PROBLEMS WITH THE OFFICIAL WTC COLLAPSE EXPLANATIONS

Before I proceed with the explosives investigation, I want to touch on some problems with the official explanation, which is that the steel weakened or melted from the heat, couldn't support some of the floors, and they fell down neatly on top of one another in a domino effect. There have been many good reports refuting this on the Internet and I won't go into them in detail.

But a few things have direct relation to the theory I will discuss. Throughout this report I will quote and dissect the paper written by Eagar and Musso (2001) because Dr. Eagar is the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT, and there are some serious inconsistencies in some of his statements. MIT has a strong relationship with the government, so it is naturally going to spout the government line.

First, it seems obvious that explosives were used. The collapse looked just like a normal controlled demolition, and even Van Romero, VP for research at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology said so publicly (Uyttebrouck, 2001). Witnesses such as firefighters said they heard bombs going off inside the buildings. I think I'll go with the eyewitness testimony rather than the government propaganda.

Second, according to Eagar and Musso (2001), the building essentially fell into its own footprint. Consider the more extreme case of the second tower hit, which was way off the mark and almost missed the building. There is no way the building could have received equal heating on all sides. Therefore, the obvious, more likely scenario would have been that, if the building materials did indeed reach a melting temperature, those on the struck side of the building would have fallen first due to the greater heat of the fire. As these joists, chunks of concrete, etc. fell, they would have fallen floor upon floor only on the struck side. This would have lead to the exact opposite result of what we saw, that of an organized collapse of each floor completely around the building.

Furthermore, with all the heat concentrated on one side of the building, this would have melted the steel on that side before the other. Logically, this should have lead to a situation whereby the building would have leaned to the weaker side, and eventually fallen over onto surrounding buildings, yet this did not occur.

A third problem is that, supposedly, the angle clips supporting the outer end of the joists gave way first and allowed the floors to fall down on top of one another. OK, so why didn't the center core remaining standing, like the spindle on a phonograph player with a stack of record sitting on the turntable? In fact, both ends of the joists were supported with angle clips, so they should have fallen and left the center core relatively intact.

SOME INCONSISTENCIES IN REPORTED "FACTS"

I want to discuss briefly some "inconsistencies," to say the least, that I found in preparing this paper. In particular I want to address the opinions of Dr. Thomas Eagar of MIT, who has become one of the major apologists for the official explanation, which document the lengths to which the government will go to hide the truth.

Dr. Eagar Can't Remember How High the Rubble Is (Where Did All the Debris Go?)

Eagar and Musso (2001) state that, "In essence, the building is...about 95% air, explaining why the rubble after the collapse was only a few stories high." I was disappointed that officials from MIT would make such an inaccurate statement. In actuality, the building is 89.5% air. This can be calculated as follows:

Each building was 208' square and 1353' tall. The area of both buildings totalled 86,528 ft2. The total volume of the buildings was 117,072,384 ft3.

The total volume of concrete used was 425,000 yds3. There were 200,000 tons of steel used. I used the standard density of steel which is 8.0 kg/dm3.

200,000 tons x 907.2 kg/ton = 181,440,000 kg of steel

181,440,000 kg x dm3/8.0 kg = 22,680,000 dm3 of steel

22,680,000 dm3 x m3/1000 dm3 = 22,680 m3 of steel

22,680 m3 x yd3/0.765 m3 = 29,647.1 yds3 of steel

Therefore the total volume of the construction materials should have been approximately:

425,000 yd3 + 29,647.1 yd3 = 454,647.1 yd3

454,647.1 yd3 x 27 ft3/yd3 = 12,275,471.7 ft3

[100 - (volume of construction materials/volume of building)] x 100 = percent air

[100 - (12,275,471.7 ft3/117,072,384 ft3)] x 100 = 89.5%

An engineering professor should not be 5% off on such an easy calculation. Now we can calculate what the height of the debris pile should have been:

volume of construction materials/surface area of building [i.e. debris pile] = height of debris

12,275,471.7 ft3/86,528 ft2 = 141.9' high

This is approximately 14 stories of debris, not the "several stories" quoted by Eagar and Musso (2001). It appears that they are trying to underestimate the debris height on purpose. What are they trying to hide? Actually, this figure is a minimum for the debris height and should have been higher. Air would have been mixed with debris and there would have been voids, etc. which would have inflated the height. Furthermore, this figure is as if all the steel was melted down in a block, when in actually the outer columns were hollow and had a greater volume.

In another printed statement, an interview by NOVA, Eagar changed his story and said: "The World Trade Center collapse proved that with a 110-story building, if 95% of it's air...you're only going to have about five stories of rubble at the bottom after it falls." Dr. Eagar can't even consistently state the height of the debris pile.

Discrepancies in Steel Temperature

Two MIT professors (Buyukozturk and Ulm, 2001) said that "Some 60 tons or more of jet fuel could have easily caused sustained high temperatures of 1,500 F [816oC] and higher."

But Eagar and Musso (2001) stated that "it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750-800oC range."

Then in the very same journal issue, Barnett et al. (2001) report that: "A section of...beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined...[Analysis] strongly suggests that the temperatures...approached ~1,000oC...

So even the MIT experts cannot agree on the WTC temperature. And how could a building adjacent to the WTC towers have experienced a higher temperature?

Eagar Changes His Mind About Skyscrapers Tipping Over

Bollyn writes that: "Demolition experts say that towers are the most difficult buildings to bring down in a controlled manner. A tower tends to fall like a tree, unless the direction of its fall is controlled by directional charges."

In the NOVA interview, Eagar says, "I once asked demolition experts, 'How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?' They said, 'Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives.' I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself...The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big."

I like that scientific answer: "They're too big." Would you accept this from one of your students on an exam at MIT, Dr. Eagar? Exactly what happened to make you change your mind?

What's the Temperature, Doc?

Eagar and Musso (2001) said "It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425oC..." Then in the NOVA interview, Eagar said, "You can permanently distort the beams with a temperature difference of only about 300oF [149oC]."

So what is the right temperature to affect steel? And if steel distorts at only 300oF, why aren't there more WTC-type collapses of buildings on fire?

He goes on to say in the interview, "But the steel still had plenty of strength, until it reached temperatures of 1,100oF to 1,300oF...Eventually the steel lost 80 percent of its strength, because of this fire that consumed the whole floor." Elsewhere in the interview Eagar says, "the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds."

How could he possibly know this if the entire building was obliterated? And if it is true, then why wasn't an equal amount of smoke seen emerging from the entire perimeter of the building?

The Angle Clips Did It

Eagar also says in the interview, "But the steel still had plenty of strength, until it reached temperatures of 1,100oF to 1,300oF. In this range, the steel started losing a lot of strength...Once you started to get angle clips to fail in one area, it put extra load on other angle clips, and then it unzipped around the building on that floor in a matter of seconds."

This scenario is virtually impossible. According to Eagar and Musso (2001) the floor joists extend from the outer columns to the inner column, which bears the weight of the entire structure. The joists only serve to tie the inner and outer "tubes" together, and to support the weight of their own floor. They are supported at either end by angle clips. At these temperatures the concrete would have been burned away, leaving the exposed steel. At that point each joist supported no weight whatsoever, and the angle clips only supported the weight of the joist. If the angle clips did fail, the end result would be that the joist simply fell on the next floor. There was nothing at all to make anything become "unzipped around the building on that floor in a matter of seconds."

Nova and Eagar Tell a Baldfaced Lie

While reading the NOVA interview of Dr. Eagar, I saw something that at first glance shot holes in any explosive theory, which requires explosives in the weight-bearing inner core (and location of the stairs and elevators). The following exchange took place:

"NOVA: "Miraculously, a number of firefighters survived inside Tower One. They were on the third or fourth floor in a stairwell, and immediately after the collapse they looked up and saw blue sky above their heads--their part of the stairwell survived. How is that possible, with all the force of that 500,000-ton building coming down?"

Eagar goes on to supply some cock-and-bull explanation for this supposedly truthful event. I thought, I don't remember hearing this story, and it seems impossible. I later searched on the Internet and could find no other references to the alleged "miracle." Then I realized that it had to be a lie concocted to throw people off the trail. Since the inner core supported the buildings, it had to have explosives to drop the structures, but "survivors" there would preclude this possibility.

The following facts totally disprove this fabrication. Tower One, the North Tower and site of the supposed miracle, collapsed at 10:29 a.m., 39 minutes after the South Tower collapsed. David J. Prezant, MD, Deputy Chief Medical Officer of the Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY) is a highly credible witness who was there when the twin towers collapsed. From Zucker (2001):

"...[Dr. Prezant] described the conditions immediately following the first tower's collapse: 'The particulate matter was so thick that the sky was literally black,' adding that it was 'dark as midnight, with incredible dust, particulate matter all around me that was suffocating [and] difficult to swallow.'"

In other words, when the supposed firefighters were allegedly gazing up at the blue sky above the North WTC Tower, credible witnesses testify that the sky was "dark as midnight."

Why on earth would NOVA and Eagar spout such an outright lie, which totally destroys their credibility? Was it to draw the public's attention away from something, like the inner core perhaps? Such lies document the lengths to which the conspirators will go to obfuscate the truth.

OFFICIALS REFUSED TO HAND OVER BLUEPRINTS AND TEST STEEL

As incredible as it seems, the N.Y. Port Authority, the quasi-governmental agency in charge of the WTC, refused to hand over the blueprints to the WTC. The city impeded the investigation to the point where the cause of the collapse can likely ever be determined. From Shin (2002):

"An inquiry into exactly what caused the twin towers to collapse after they were hit...may have been undermined by the hasty recycling of steel wreckage that could hold vital clues, experts told Congress yesterday.

"About 80% of the structural steel from the World Trade Center was scrapped without being examined by even one fire expert..."

"...'The lack of significant amounts of steel for examination will make it difficult, if not impossible, to make a definitive statement as to the specific cause and chronology of the collapse,' said Glenn Corbett, a fire science expert from John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan who testified before a House Science Committee inquiry into the collapse and the ensuing investigation...

"The lead investigator in the case, Gene Corley of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said the Port Authority refused to hand over blueprints for the twin towers-crucial for evaluating the wreckage-until he signed a waiver saying his team would not use the plans in a lawsuit against the agency.

"'This is the first time I have signed something like that,' Corley said...'"

And from Lipton (2002):

"...The Giuliani administration started to send World Trade Center steel off to recycling yards before investigators could examine it to determine whether it might hold crucial clues as to why the buildings fell. The full investigative team set up by FEMA was not allowed to enter ground zero to collect other potentially critical evidence in the weeks after the attack, and it did not get a copy of the World Trade Center blueprints until early January, a delay House members found infuriating...

"None of the investigators...had subpoena power, meaning that they could not order the city to stop sending the steel off for recycling or demand a copy of the building blueprints."

SOME GENERAL UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

Now I will list some questions that have gone unanswered in my mind from the beginning. You undoubtedly have some of your own, but these are some I had that only the explosive concrete theory can answer thus far. I will attempt to explain them later in the paper.

Why did the second building that was hit end up being the first one to fall?

Why so little debris? As already proven, it should have been a lot higher than "a few stories."

Why no chunks of concrete found? Eyewitnesses and photos document that no significant-sized pieces of concrete were remaining.

Why so much dust? A normal building collapse, even with controlled explosives, does not generate such tremendous quantities of dust. Experienced witnesses said there was "incredible" amounts of dust (see description below).

Why were remains of survivors so vaporized? This should not have happened if the building simply collapsed from a fire.

What is the cause of the "WTC cough?" Doctors still have no clue as to what caused it. Dr. Prezant says, "It's a persistent cough,...a sore throat, and interestingly enough,...an accompanying GI irritation." (Zucker, 2001)

EXPLOSIVES MIXED IN CONCRETE ANSWERS ALL OF THE ABOVE


Edited to remove rest of long article - see link above for remainder.

_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj


Last edited by Craig W on Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:03 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wu Li



Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 573

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have seen the video he speaks of in the audio.
I do believe I saw it on PBS (NO it wasnt the one with silverstien but a much older one I saw at least a couple of years or so before the towers were destroyed.
Although, it may have been a part of a Historic NY series I am thinking of with just pieces of it. I bet you PBS has the whole thing. I must remember and ask friends. I am an enormous history buff and now you FINTAN have created a mess for me BAHHH! Confused . I must figure out this film of the Build.
Also everyone must remember that construction plans are just that, just construction plans. During the process, redlines are made and placed in to the documentary group(in this case drafters) who would have kept a running record of all changes made within the process.
Ultimately what is created is a ASBUILT PLAN SET which is distributed to all pertainant parties. Think about this? Who would have the ASBUILT PLAN SET FOR THESE TOWERS? HMMM ONLY A FEW PEOPLE OR AGENCIES>Wink

NOW I will listen to the rest of the audio.
This is interesting. I kind of remember something about the coating but still have not placed it to rebarb. However his point is correct in saying he would not be drilling through this grid.

Back to the audio Cool

_________________
"Fear is the passion of slaves."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jeroen



Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 60

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The groundbreaking for the WTC was August 5, 1966. This episode aired only 197 days after the WTC groundbreaking. The steel construction didn't even begin until August 1968, and the ribbon cutting wasn't until April 4, 1973. This whole thing was just wayyyyyy too coincidental for me to accept.

And what if it had aired 237 days after groundbreaking? Or 1001 days? Wayyyy too coincidental too? Perhaps Discovery Channel had a "demolition week" (you know, like shark week) xxx days after groundbreaking--omygod!
Quote:
Before you dismiss me as insane, recall the old intelligence rule, "If you want to hide something, put it out in the open," which was never more true than in this case.

Never heard of this "old intelligence rule" and putting it in a tv show can hardly be called "out in the open", but it does seem to make sense to show some disinfo in a tv show. And I won't dismiss the writer as insane because his writing style seems to be too good for that. His arguments though *are* insane.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DrewTerry
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey Craig -

I am curious about the timing of the article?
Craig W wrote:
This appears frivolous but the timing is very interesting...

It was written in 2002; is that what you are referring to or is it something else?

Thanks!
Back to top
Wu Li



Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 573

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can buy the rebarb element of the conversation.
I just wrote a whole opinion of this Audio and through this have deleted it and chosen to write this.
A long time ago I got into a discussion of large skyscrapers with a friend. I realized that if these buildings were to out live their worth then at some point they would have to be eliminated.
Money as debt becomes a costly proposition. The growth of a city in our time should become esthetic and mobile or intrinsic.
If it become static then it must come into motion and no longer belong.
I buy this idea as it pertains to the Globilisation project we all speak to.
It is obvious what has happened with the WTC and I would ask those who deny the current audio to look towards the enormous building projects which are taking place within the middle east and Asia.
Surely these buildings must be filled with the same technology and greater.
Check out these enormous buildings.
I do believe the WTC Towers were designed to fail perfectly and this failure has led to scientific DATA which is leading towards much larger structures.
Has anyone thought of this factor?
The demo of a controled structure in order to build higher and higher?

All part of the Globalists masquerade.
As Fintan said many birds and many stones.
Sorry I fucked that up.
OR as RICKY said
"Getting two birds stoned at once"
It's all very intriguing.
Idea

_________________
"Fear is the passion of slaves."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hugh Manatee



Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 77
Location: In Context

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:41 pm    Post subject: Whaa?.... Reply with quote

First, the idea that construction with hundreds of union laborers and a high degree of safety culture which is the norm for such a construction site would include men just routinely including highly-dangerous explosives as they build a monument to last many decades is...PREPOSTEROUS.

Can you picture the challenge of secretly including explosives in this work environment?
And then getting them to work just right decades later?

C'mon. Be serious. William Rodriguez and the guy who told us of the power being shut off the weekend before Tuesday, the 11th BOTH described evidence of unknown construction happening on floors that were supposed to be vacant.

And there was that elevator project for months before the day of the crime.

Oh, and this bit demolishes the rest of that long Maxwell Smart post and the author for me, thank you-
Quote:
On October 10, 1971, Susskind established a first on American television when he hosted seven lesbians. This is a perfect example of how the Committee of 300 would destroy the social fabric of America through the public discussion of such despicable behavior. Later on March 2, 1974, Susskind again hosted gay and lesbian activists.


Uh, I don't think MI6 unleashed homosexuality on Murika as a 'bioweapon.'
sheesh.

_________________
What shall we watch tonight?
Propaganda, social engineering, role modeling, conditioning, adrenalin markers, or desensitization?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ormond



Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd like to ask everyone for a moment to turn off any tv or radio, get the room quiet, and take a few minutes to think back to the first time you saw the towers fall on television way back in 2001....

Fast forward past the planes hitting the buildings and the fireball of fuel .... forget the planes. Just isolate your reaction when the Towers suddenly dropped.

See if you can visualize the room the tv you saw it on was in. Where you were. Be there and remember your first assumption of what was happening.

What was your mind's first impression seeing the towers fall suddenly straight down.

What was your first impression? What did it look like to you?

Comments?

_________________
The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hugh Manatee



Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 77
Location: In Context

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wu Li wrote:

Also everyone must remember that construction plans are just that, just construction plans. During the process, redlines are made and placed in to the documentary group(in this case drafters) who would have kept a running record of all changes made within the process.


No, this building was uniquely tapered in steel beam dimension to spread the mass out so there was less at the top than at the bottom.

Every single steel beam was labeled for where it went in the jigsaw puzzle.
This is why all the steel was rapidly disposed of, it would've been easy to do an autopsy on the building and know what happened.

So I don't think there was much if any variation from the extremely thoroughly tested design which was over-designed for strength by many factors due to the height, winds, and proximity to airports.

_________________
What shall we watch tonight?
Propaganda, social engineering, role modeling, conditioning, adrenalin markers, or desensitization?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 439, 440, 441  Next
Page 2 of 441

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.