FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Research Treasure Trove
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 88
Location: Michigan

PostPosted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WANTED: link to video showing CNN's live broadcast of 2nd plane prior to impact.

WANTED: link to video showing no tilt of upper 30 stories during collapse in South tower.

Plenty of verbal reference, never seen it on video. HELP!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Probably not this one?

Maybe this one?

Is this strange or is it just me? The person who fils has no reaction as the plane hits...

Other ones:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5INJm_Y8hTA (?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sB7wg5qLUUo (part reenactment/ propaganda, part real footage)

Just watched 9/11 Mysteries; refers to some doubtful sources, but contains some footage that I at least haven't seen before...
http://www.911weknow.com/911-mysteries-movie.html (a lot of 'fakes' referenced here)

This mainstream documentary about Flight 175 also has a few interesting aspects:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJKeCl_dIEo
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCK6LbgV_L0
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIEmMVCF6os
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHktnT2bSuY
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzbimCro8RQ
Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-sZw0Fnbhc


"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 395

PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 9:34 pm    Post subject: Re: Here's something... Reply with quote

Continuity wrote:
Here's an angle I've not heard before:

What do the Statue of Liberty and WTC Towers have in common?

An architects' two cents worth:

The Statue of Liberty had to be repaired due to galvanic corrosion in air. Not what most think is possible but in ocean environments, very possible. Normally galvanic corrosion is only a factor in an electrolyte such as sea water and the stern drive on the boat - having steel and aluminum components - erodes, turns brittle and snap - it fails - if electrolytic grounding plates are not installed.

"""The galvanic reaction between iron and copper was originally mitigated by insulating copper from the iron framework using an asbestos cloth soaked in shellac. However, the integrity and sealing property of this improvised insulator broke down over the many years of exposure to high levels of humidity normal in a marine environment. The insulating barrier became a sponge that kept the salted water present as a conductive electrolyte, forming a crude electrochemical cell as and Volta had discovered a century earlier."""

In 1989 - there were plans to erect scaffolding and disassemble the WTC towers and rebuild them. Cost projection was around $5.6 billion. One of the architects shows up to work one day and the MIB's were there - had confiscated all of the plans, specs, details, etc for WTC. They even confiscated their office cubicles and had tape on the floor outlining where they went.

Reason - the exterior cast aluminum WTC panels had been directly connected to the steel superstructure of the building, thus causing galvanic corrosion. In short, the "life cycle" of the WTC was not 200 - 300 years, more like 30 years or so.

The exterior skin of the building - in being aluminum and connected directly to the super structure - was making the building weaker every day.

That could explain why there appears to be explosives set only about every 25 floors. Once the failure started, the brittleness of welds, rivets, bolts, etc would fail much easier as the loads became progressively greater on the way down.

That same process would also explain why the concrete was "powderized" over time because electrolytic processes weaken concrete too by "debonding" the Portland that causes concrete to bond in the first place. However, bear in mind that the "concrete floors" were not load bearing reinforced concrete. They were supported by what was a weakening by the day superstructure and cross members.

There was a 1989 meeting and the folks at the architectural firm [Emory Roth, the project architect that took over after the design architects completed the conceptual drawings] that had their office, records, plans and specs seized - were told that the $5.6 billion "take it down, rebuild it" project was cancelled and in about "10-12 years" they would "blow it up and start over". Consider that - and consider that NYC and the US Govt could not stand the global embarrassment of being so stupid or negligent that they did not consider the effects of galvanic corrosion on the superstructure. That is structural design 101 in architectural school and why they want architects to take physics and chemistry for Christ's sake. I did.

I am an architect by the way, quit practicing in 1988.

Found at: http://100777.com/node/1074

I agree... I think the Galvanic corrosion angle hasn't been looked at enough...

I have a friend that has done some actual industrial testing of accellerated corrosion, and has indicated the extreme significance of this tid-bit of information, and the implications it has on the "why" aspect to this crime.

Anyone got any more information??

Larry "Lucky Larry" Silverstein
by 911 inside job
Thursday Sep 7th, 2006 10:07 AM

asbestos arson landlord

Larry "Lucky Larry" Silverstein

You've got to be lucky to make $4 Billion killing on a 6-month investment of $124 Million

Larry Silverstein is the New York property tycoon who purchased the entire WTC complex just 6 months prior to the 9/11 attacks. That was the first time in its 33-year history the complex had EVER changed ownership.

Mr. Silverstein's first order of business as the new owner was to change the company responsible for the security of the complex. The new security company he hired was Securacom (now Stratasec). George W. Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, was on its board of directors, and Marvin's cousin, Wirt Walker III, was its CEO. According to public records, not only did Securacom provide electronic security for the World Trade Center, it also covered Dulles International Airport and United Airlines - two key players in the 9/11 attacks.

The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for many years to the Bush family. KuwAm has been linked to the Bush family financially since the Gulf War. One of its principals and a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, Mishal Yousef Saud al Sabah, served on the board of Stratesec.

Now, consider: The members of a small cabal owned the WTC complex, controlled its electronic security, and also controlled the security not only for one of the airlines whose aircraft were hijacked on 9/11, but the airport from which they originated.

Another little "coincidence" -- Mr. Silversten, who made a down-payment of $124 million on this $3.2 billion complex, promptly insured it for $7 Billion. Not only that, he covered the complex against "terrorist attacks".

Following the attacks, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy ($7B), based on the two -- in Silverstein's view -- separate attacks. The insurance company, Swiss Re, paid Mr. Silverstein $4.6 Billion - a princely return on a relatively paltry investment of $124 million.

There's more. You see, the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe. From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception by the NY Port Authority -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?

The towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. 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.

The projected cost to disassemble the towers: $15 Billion. Just the scaffolding for the operation was estimated at $2.4 Billion!

In other words, the Twin Towers were condemned structures. How convenient that an unexpected "terrorist" attack demolished the buildings completely.

WTC Building 7 was a part of the WTC complex, and covered under the same insurance policy. This 47-story steel-framed structure, which was NOT struck by an aircraft, mysteriously collapsed 8 hours later that same day into its own footprint at freefall speed - exactly in the manner of the Twin Towers.

WTC 7 collapsed at 5:20pm http://wtc7.net

How could this have happened? Mr. Silverstein gave the world the answer when he slipped up during a PBS television interview a year later, on 9/11/2002:

"I remember getting a call from the...er...fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

As anyone who knows anything about construction can tell you, "Pull" is common industry jargon for a controlled demolition.

One thing is for sure, the decision to 'pull' WTC 7 would have delighted many people. Especially because it has been reported that thousands of sensitive files relating to some of the biggest financial scams in history - including Enron and WorldCom -- were stored in the offices of some of the building's tenants:

a.. US Secret Service
b.. NSA
c.. CIA
d.. IRS
e.. BATF
f.. SEC
g.. NAIC Securities
h.. Salomon Smith Barney
i.. American Express Bank International
j.. Standard Chartered Bank
k.. Provident Financial Management
l.. ITT Hartford Insurance Group
m.. Federal Home Loan Bank

The Securities and Exchange Commission has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed by the collapse of WTC 7. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. ..."Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases."

Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking [about WorldCom] was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center. The bank says that back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack.

Inside WTC 7 was the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. "All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran.

What a neat, complete, and fortuitous turn of events was 9/11.

Incidentally, it's worth noting that one of Lucky Larry's closest friends - a person with whom it's said he speaks almost daily by phone - is none other than former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

More on that cozy little relationship later...


So, in effect, they killed 6 (or so) birds with 1 stone.

1) Get rid of a really bad investment (WTC complex).
2) Wipe the books (f thru m above)
3) Start the "War on Terror"
4) Kick start their failing 'economy' (based on a fiat currency), inject eventually billions $$ into MIC.
5) Secure control of oil
6) and now the latest ... Secure "sacred knowledge" <-whatever the fuck that is.
7) ??

Getting the world to debate endlessly on "how" they did it is the Op. Here they have us licked, with the "orgy" of evidence, and an endless stream of "Truth" droid/fakes to spew endless nonsense about the "how" part.

Anyone add anything?

One day the cows will sprout wings and fly away...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Hocus Locus

Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 850
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out

PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the Galvanic corrosion angle hasn't been looked at enough...

I have a friend that has done some actual industrial testing of accellerated corrosion, and has indicated the extreme significance of this tid-bit of information, and the implications it has on the "why" aspect to this crime.

Anyone got any more information??

Nothing definite, only an opinion and observations -- this meme... which might have had its idea-genesis in this 8 Feb 2006 Google groups post,

1989 - the architects and engineers were working on a plan to erect scaffolding and take the buildings down one floor at a time to remedy asbestos and structural defects due to galvanic corrosion.

1991 - the PANY&NJ commences litigation seeking $500 million to $1 billion for asbestos removal.

1993, February 26 - World Trade Center bombing by Islamic terrorists. Many have written that it appears that the FBI let this bombing happen. This attack could have been to seek insurance company funds, which is what the Port Authority was after any way in the lawsuit during this
exact period in time.

2000, September 12 - the Port Authority issues bids for removal of asbestos.

2000, October 17 - WTC bids due to remove asbestos

May 14, 2001 - the 3rd Circuit US Court of Appeals rules in favor of the insurers that they are not liable.

July 24, 2001 - Larry Silverstein signs the 99 year lease on WTC.

September 11, 2001 - both WTC towers lay in rubble, the demolition accomplished. Mission Accomplished.

November 14, 2002 - 3rd Circuit upholds Judge Bissell's decision that the insurers are not liable for asbestos claims.

February 5, 2004 - Jury Set For World Trade Center Insurance Case - Feb 05, 2004; A Manhattan federal judge yesterday named five women and seven men to a jury in the $7 billion legal fight between developer Larry Silverstein and his Twin Towers insurance companies. (New York

December 6, 2004 - Silverstein wins jury award for $2.2 billion in insurance payments.

and emerged as a complete novella-exposť, by a fellow who evidently likes to pay lawyers to take his own deposition, I'm sure it wasn't free. Could this be a cheap way to truthfully use the 'ohmigosh this is real' ad-word deposition, in the deposition itself? Like the historically-for-sale title of 'Baron von Blank' -- buying a title in the Truth Movement?

The novella appears on or around 26 Aug 2006 in a posted link to this page The top page of the site has since become riddled with nautical lingo, a note that they have "taken to the high seas", and a reminder to "vote for "Hugo Chavez" on Dec 2nd. Hey, Rupe?

((( While the 8-Feb-2006 newsgroup poster may have heard a whisper in the ear or on the web, or just posed an intuitive leap as-fact ... the 26-Aug-2006 poster Mark Graffis I recognize -- as a friend from our Freenet (greetz Graf, you Google-hound!), he some 40 miles overseas, as long as 12 years ago, already stalwart explorer, observer and clipper of interesting netabilia -- just a vignette to illustrate that fixing on the one who emerged an item might not be one attempting to 'seed' it; by extention, Mr. Deposition may be a frustrated author who decided to market a clever story as '9/11 truth' to see how it would fly. )))

As to galvanic corrosion -- ''Don know much about chemistry book -- but by intuition such corrosion would have to be surface corrosion and it would be at its very worst at the actual junctions where dissimilar metals actually joined. Now the Towers aluminum had absolutely no structural role whatsoever, as iluustrated in this discussion of perimeter columns with its pre-aluminum cladding photos. So the connections between aluminim and steel were not in the same places, not the same joins, as the steel-to-steel bolts and spandrels that held 'em up -- ergo but I'm-no-chemist, damage from the galvanic effect would be present where aluminum met steel, but since aluminum met steel in many places that were not structural places, the postential impact of this effect on any particular steel piece would be dissipated and distributed electrically, just as for heat. Ships' propellers and hulls are known to be attacked systemically by GC.

Now to stir up some more trouble, I could fly an offshoot theory to make this possible on the scale that would be required -- if one took a hell of a lot of juice (in this context, high current not voltage) and a 'hot' to, say, the aluminum cladding at the top of the structure, polarity such that this massive flood of current rises up from ground/bedrock to the cladding, leaching steel onto aluminum (if such is possible, there's a factor involved)... yes I could bring about the type of accelarated galvanic corrosion that makes aircraft carrier folk lose sleep at night. But in order for such juice to not tickle humans the wrong way (people having direct contact with the cladding inside) the potential would have to be isolated from that of the electric mains, and that means really big transformers. I would say, such as those at ground floor of WTC7 but that would create too much of a stir, I believe Con-Ed had better use for them.

The other thing to keep in mind is that in terms of effect, the theory's proponent uses Statue of Liberty as a selling point -- look at this conductivity table of metals. Given that (I think) ratio of electrical conductance is a big-time factor... look at the ratio of pure copper (cladding for the Liberty Lady) versus the 'steels'. Now look at the various aluminums, running from ~60 down to ~20% IACS, to steels. We see that compared to the Lady, the WTC towers' galvanic potential would fall in a different order of magnitude. Other factors may affect this and I'm not a rocket scientist either... and I admit I've awoken with Eureka! theories that were absurd seconds into awakening, but GC does not seem like 'the cake', as motive or even imminent end-of-life factor.

Crazy Eddie plays with electricity...
~Half remembered moment of 'The Muppet Show'

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..."
~Isaac Asimov
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hocus Locus

Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 850
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out

PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 10:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And consider the Lovely Lady of Liberty why don't we. If they had at least two planes, and they were in the neighborhood, and they really hate our freedoms, why was it not One Tower, One Lady? A more serious psychological attack could not be contemplated.

If the planners hit One Lady, One Tower and planted cutting charges, claiming that the other tower and WTC7 had collapsed in a fit of sadness and pseudo-karmic resonance, the whole precept of the operation could not have come off any less absurd than it did, and from the standpoint of a comic-book terrorist, definately effective.

The only answer that makes sense for the sparing of the Lovely Lady... is that the folks that planned the whole show have no wish to risk being torn limb from limb into tiny strips and fed to cockroaches, which considering the sentiment and resources of New Yorkers, would be a likely outcome.

I could sell that to a jury. In the tradition of Darrow. (Scopes v. State, 152 Tenn. 424, 278 S.W. 57 (Tenn. 1925)

This is a 'quintessential' circumstantial argument for the 'inside job'. History tell us, in times of extreme trauma such argument can be all that is required to motivate lynch mobs. Or juries.

The roaches are gathering.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 3199
Location: Capacious Creek

PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 1:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Sway and Creek of the WTC

Empire State Building Crash, 1945
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 3199
Location: Capacious Creek

PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 1:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Police Scanner, 7 WTC Collapses

Port Authority Audio Tour (very "vintage" Laughing )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

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.