BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 04:59 AM

CarolC, and LH: just to be clear, I don't think anyone here is unintelligent. Far from it. I said that knowing CarolC and others to be highly intelligent and lucid, causes me to be surprised that some of the conclusions expressed here have been reached. Please don't mistake what I said.

I simply think that you are wrong, and I know that this conspiracy theory is mostly based on a strong desire not to believe in a world where such tragic and stupid and pointless things can happen. I understand that. Like a lot of conspiracy theories, it starts with the conclusion that is desired and then everything else is carefully selected and interpreted working back from the conclusion to the initiating event.

And that reverse engineering of an otherwise unsuspported conclusion will akways be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 05:08 AM

Royston, the term "conspiracy theory" has no place in a logical and rational discussion of this subject. It is an ad hominem argument that is designed for only one purpose - to smear those to whom it is applied, and thereby silence them. It is not a rational argument or counter argument. I can understand that you need to believe the official version, even with no evidence to back it up, because it's traumatic to think that the US government could possibly be responsible for something as tragic and disturbing as what happened on 9/11. This is a very understandable impulse. But it's not science.

So give me the scientific explanation of how it was possible for the towers to fall.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 06:59 AM

CarolC,

You can read the official explanation. It is the explanation that I believe, it is the explanation supported by science that is within my personal experience of construction, fire, explosion and impact (I work as a field-investigator in the marine insurance industry - everything from ships to port and terminal infrastrucutre, offshore and energy infrastructure.)

That you believe the official reports to be other than accurate, logical and factual then that is your prerogative, just don't expect anyone to take that leap of faith with you.

Take note: My respect for you and others is undiminished. I remain simply surprised at the conclusions you come to.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 07:30 AM

Royston, there is no official explanation for the failure of the core.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 07:39 AM

In fact, rather than give an explanation of what made it possible for the core to fail, the government prefers to pretend that it never existed.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Mr Happy
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 08:52 AM

What does it mean 'official explanation'?

Is it the US Govt. account?

Since the event, there's been alternative, yet independent research culminating in other qualified explanations.

Which do we believe?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 11:59 AM

So, royston...WHAT caused Building 7 to come down in exactly the same way that the Twin Towers did?

There was no plane, remember.

Yet, seven hours later, it ....ooopsadaisy....fell down...

boom boom boom...

down down down...

Did you watch that video I posted earlier, about huge towers around the world that burned for up to 24 hours, yet were still left standing? Did you see the plane that crashed into the Empire State Building in the 1940s yet, it was still left standing?

Did you listen to the video of John F. Kennedy saying how he was going to fight the secrecy, open up the Amercian Government as never before....

Did you bother to read anything I posted, other than the bit about the BBC, which was actually to do with freedom of speech being removed from someone who had been told to stop talking about social issues..because it was upsetting the proles, which related to Little Hawk's post about 1984?

Or did you just ocme in here to do your ususal Lizzie Bashing?

This thread is really interesting and I'm sure I'm not the only one who's learning a lot by reading it.

Go back, look at those videos, and when you have, please explain to me why Building 7 came down in the way it did. Indeed, why it came down at ALL.

Sorry, but I believe the architects, the engineers and the firefighters, rather than a bunch of Corporate Bosses who also happened to be politicians in a cabinet that was awash with Corporate Bastards, headed by a man so stupid that they could tell him anything, get him to do anything and he would. He was their Ideal President, because Bush enabled them, through his utter stupidity to do whatever they damn well wanted.

And if you truly believe there was no conspiracy, then explain to me why Greece has no money, England has no money, the banks have no money...yet the Bankers have billions of pounds in bonuses!

WAKE UP!!!!


And then, watch the machinations of the trial of Splitting the Sky, which starts tomorrow. Watch ALL the videos of his that I posted above, read his story, watch him try to arrest Bush, watch HIM getting arrested...and listen to what he says, because he knows one helluva lot more than most of us on this forum, and he's been willing to risk his life to try to draw the world's attention to the corruption and lies that are all around us!

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 12:44 PM

"mostly based on a strong desire not to believe in a world where such tragic and stupid and pointless things can happen."

Royston, let's assume that the official report is correct and that Osama Bin Laden and various people in Al Qaeda planned and carried out the 911 attacks all by themselves...with no domestic assistance from American sources in the US government or its covert agencies.

If so, the results definitely were tragic. But they weren't pointless! Osama Bin Laden's whole reason for wanting to strike at the USA has always been clearly explained in things he has said when issuing his statements. He is angry at the USA because of:

1. the presence of American military forces in Saudi Arabia
2. the presence of American military forces in other parts of the Arab world, which he sees as a form of colonialism
3. the USA's continual support of Israel, and the unresolved plight of the Palestinians

He wanted to strike back privately at the USA over those issues, since the Arab governments will not do so. He wanted to do major financial damage to the USA, since he felt that would be the most effective way of eventually getting the USA to pull its forces out of the Middle East. He wanted to provoke the USA into a series of extremely costly wars in various places, wars which would eventually bankrupt the USA.

He's fighting an empire. He has concluded that the American empire's weakest link is not its military, which is the world's strongest by far, but its financial structure.

For him to have attacked the WTC buildings would not be pointless at all. The destruction of those buildings would do major financial damage in the first place and would most definitely provoke the USA into a series of costly foreign wars.

*****

Now, suppose instead that 911 was a plot hatched in the USA by people in the Project for a New American Century...people like Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, the Bushes, etc...

They wrote a paper in the 90s on the need for a "Pearl Harbour-level event" which was what they felt would be required in order to take the next steps in establishing the USA as the undisputed superpower and boss of the whole world. Such an event would be needed in order to get the American public onside to support at series of foreign wars aimed at securing control of various oil-producing areas in the Middle East and the Caspian Sea region. The countries which would need to be attacked included Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and possibly Syria...perhaps Pakistan, depending on how things went there.

There was no way the American public could possibly be persuaded to support such a series of wars unless the USA were first openly attacked by someone.

But by whom???? No one out there is stupid enough or suicidal enough to openly attack the mainland USA on the level that Japan did in 1941 at Pearl Harbour, because such an attack would doom any government which carried it out.

So no Muslim government was going to do it. A bit of a problem there for the people in the PNAC!

They had to instead get some non-governmental outfit to either do the attack...or take the blame for it. So they decided upon Al Qaeda...a very small and not very capable group of people gathered around Osama Bin Laden.

They may have made it easy for Al Qaeda to set up the attack by just keeping an eye on their preparations and not stopping them...in which case the guys in Al Qaeda would just think, "Gosh, things are going well there. I think we're going to pull this thing off!"

That's one possibility.

Another possibility is that Al Qaeda personnel didn't do any of it...though I doubt that...but it is possible. You can remotely control a modern airliner or other large plane and fly it into any building you want using computers, and you can knock out its crew with gas in the cockpit, etc. There are ways to do that.

You can further prepare the buildings by placing exposives in them over a period of several weeks prior to the attack so that a controlled demolition can be done after the airplanes make the highly visible public hits on the buildings.

The purpose of the airplanes would be to give people a visual foreign "enemy" to blame for the attack, namely Al Qaeda. If the airplane hits themselves were not enough to bring the buildings down, then the pre-placed explosives would do the rest.

The control center from which radio signals would be sent to the detonators would be Building 7, which would itself be destroyed to remove all evidence after Buildings 1 and 2 came down. The physical evidence would be removed from the site as quickly as possible after the attack (which was done).

Those buildings were losing money steadily. They were unviable in a financial sense. They had asbestos all through them which by law would have to be removed...at a gigantic cost! The handiest thing for the new owners to do, under the circumstances, was to insure the buildings for the maximum $$$ possible, then destroy them...supposedly by a foreign terrorist attack...and cash in.

All these are theories. I don't know which conspiracy theory is nearest to the truth...the government's or various others...but there was certainly a conspiracy.

Any one of those conspiracies would have been far from pointless. It makes sense from Bin Laden's point of view to knock down those buildings and get the USA embroiled in financially devastating wars. It makes sense from the PNAC's point of view to knock down those buildings and get the imperial expansionist policy they wanted in the world. It makes sense from the WTC's new owners to knock down those buildings, get rid of a financial sinkhole, and cash in on the insurance.

It makes sense any way you look at it...if you are an ammoral son of a bitch who doesn't care how many people die in order to advance a plan that you think benefits you.

Now, watch this video:

Firefighter speaks on 911 coverup.

Watch it and give it fair consideration. This guy is a firefighter. He speaks on behalf of himself and many other firefighters who were there on 911, and who feel there was a coverup of a controlled demolition of the 3 buildings which came down. Those are eyewitnesses. They are professionals. Like you, they feel well qualified to judge the evidence of their own eyes, but they see it differently from you.

There are many qualified and intelligent people on both sides of the argument. Neither side can just be casually dismissed as "tinfoil hat" people. One has to consider all the evidence, all the eyewitnesses, and all the opinions.

I don't know for sure what happened on 911. I can only wonder, and continue to read whatever I can find about it. I don't consider the case "closed".

Subject: RE: Is this the WTC?
From: GUEST,johnny prophet
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:42 AM

911 was an inside job. Ask yourself. Did The New World Order declare war on the Constitution and Bill of rights. Does Temple of Set leader General Michael Acquino know what happened? I do believe it's the second largest Satanic cult under the Church of Satan. Does he have the answers. Maybe he can save us form the other devils in the military, house and congress if he is a patriot. Investigate 911. Someone in the military should know unless they are afraid the Anthrax created at Fort Detrick Md. will be sent to them if they sing as it was sent to that office.
Killing Congressmens secretaries who wanted to investigate 911? Wasn't another senators plane from Minnesota shot down when he wished to investigate? The families are right. This Nation is dummied down totally. I didn't use spell check so am i a dummy too? God bless the families. God save those who have an agenda for a new world order contray to our law. Turn them from darkness to Christ.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 02:48 AM

Excellent post, Little Hawk, and I agree with so much you say there. I never knew this bit though...

"Now, suppose instead that 911 was a plot hatched in the USA by people in the Project for a New American Century...people like Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, the Bushes, etc...

They wrote a paper in the 90s on the need for a "Pearl Harbour-level event" which was what they felt would be required in order to take the next steps in establishing the USA as the undisputed superpower and boss of the whole world. Such an event would be needed in order to get the American public onside to support at series of foreign wars aimed at securing control of various oil-producing areas in the Middle East and the Caspian Sea region. The countries which would need to be attacked included Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and possibly Syria...perhaps Pakistan, depending on how things went there."


....Geez!


A New American Century - Wiki



Part 1 of 10 - The New American Century - Youtube -

Parts 2 - 10 are all easily available from the first link...

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 03:22 AM

It's not just the PNAC people.

Zbigniew Brzezinski (who worked with both Democrat and Republican presidents) was writing very similar things also.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 04:45 AM

LH, LC, CarolC

I just said that I think you are wrong. I haven't questioned your parentage or accused you of being child-murderers.

Keep calm!

The biggest problem with the controlled demolition theory is where were the explosives put and how were they kept from being involved in the uncontrolled fire that burned for hours before the buildings came down?

Thank whatever deity you pray to that the hjiackers weren't able or intelligent enough to fly those planes into the twentieth floor: because if they had, the outcome would have been a whole new world of catastrophe.

But, you see, now I am getting involved in this - and I have no intention of being so.

My judgement and experience tells me that there is nothing to fault the "official" reports of that day.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 05:00 AM

Royston, why are you telling me to keep calm? All I did was ask you to provide some evidence for your assertions. If this is too much for you, I don't know why you would project your own distress onto me.

So far, I have given you three opportunities to back up your assertions with some evidence. So far you have not answered any of my questions. So I ask again - what made it possible for the cores to fail? How was this possible? You have told me twice that you have some expertise in this area. Fine, show me what you've got. How did the cores fail?

If you can't support your assertions with any evidence, you really are only going on faith, which is not rational or logical. It is superstitious.

Remember, you're the one who came on the thread and accused those of us who want more information of not being rational. People who accept that we don't have proof of anything are being rational. People who believe they know what happened without any proof are not being rational.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 05:13 AM

Also, to answer this question...

The biggest problem with the controlled demolition theory is where were the explosives put and how were they kept from being involved in the uncontrolled fire that burned for hours before the buildings came down?

The answer is, I don't know. You're the one who claims to know what happened. I do not make any such claim. The only thing I claim to know is that we don't know what happened, and we need to have a thorough investigation to find out.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 08:53 AM

CarolC,

The cores of the WTC towers were not the principal load-bearing members - that was done by the external steel columns. The cores provided some static (gravity) load bearing, but were mainly a central structure for tying the external columns (by way of the floor trusses and slabs) to keep them from splaying in or out.

The planes sliced each sliced a large proportion of the external columns and, for what it's worth, sliced the cores. That is why people could not get up and down past the crash-sites.

With the load bearing connections from the upper floors to ground cut at the crash sites, and the raging fires, it was only a matter of time before the partly or wholly unsupported upper floors collapsed.

As the floors are tied together, the collapsing floors immediately above the crash sites, dragged down the higher floors and that dyamic load caused the cascade failure of everything below it.

That is what you see when the top parts of the towers keel over slightly before dropping like pancakes and tearing down the rest of the buildings.

It's what you see as the floors continue to fall, tearing away from the cores, like a banana being peeled. The disintegration of the cores can be seen proceeding at a pace just behind the falling away of the floors. The cores are what guided the collapsing floors and external columns down in a straight line.

I'm sorry, CarolC, it just isn't at all complicated.

Now if people are going to make an extraordinary claim that this was a controlled demolition - for that is an extraordinary claim - then this is what must be done to support it.

* Find a way of rigging the buildings with explosives at a particular floor without anyone noticing.

* Find a way of protecting the explosives from being involved in a high energy impact, jet-fuel explosion, and then general fire that burns for hours in an unpredictable and uncontrolled way.

* Get two planes to crash into exactly the place that you planted your explosives, without interfering with the explosives.

Sorry CarolC - I am not some sort of leading expert, but I have a degree of practical experience and knowledge of these issues. What I saw and what I have read makes perfect sense. The controlled demolition theory does not. The cores are not the big deal, people are wrong to think that they provide a lot of support for the gravity load of a super-tall building. They do not. The people who propose controlled demolition as a theory, need to explain how the explosives were installed, installed in just the right place for the subsequent plane-attacks and how they were protected from early detonation.

WTC 7 was another structure supported largely by its steelwork. It was on fire from the early morning until it collapsed later that day. It was hit by the collapsing North Tower. It had a deficient sprinkler system. Firefighters were in the building throughout the day and reported the spreading fire, lack of water pressure and structural damage from falling debris. at 14:00, fireighters noticed the SW corner of the building was bowing outwards and they evacuated it at 15:30. It collapsed at about 17:20.

It just isn't complicated.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 09:01 AM

You're wrong about the cores, Royston. They were the principal load bearing members. And they were designed and constructed to be able to hold up many times the weight that they actually held up. The perimeter construction served the purpose of holding up the outside edges of the floors, and allowing the building to have some flexibility so it could absorb some of the forces from the wind.

The towers were built with maximum redundancy in mind and the designer of the building said he designed them so that they could withstand several airplane crashes.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 09:02 AM

...several airplanes the size of the ones that hit the towers, along with the fires that would accompany such crashes.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 09:10 AM

Also, the connections between the cores and the floors were the weakest part of the construction. So if the floors are peeling away from the core, there is nothing whatever that could cause the cores themselves to fail below the level of the crashes. The core construction was stronger by many orders of magnitude than the connections between the floors and the core. With the scenario you describe, and given how the cores and the buildings were constructed, if your scenario is the correct one, the cores would have remained standing.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 09:16 AM

In closing, I will just say that the reason you believe that the cores were not the major load bearing members is because the government has promoted that lie. But that lie is easily debunked by looking at the blueprints, listening to the man who designed the buildings, and looking at the pictures of the buildings as they were being constructed. There is only one reason why the government would lie about the construction of the cores. And that is because they have something to hide.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 10:32 AM

Royston, why did Building 7 collapse in exactly the same way...er..when no plane had flown into it?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 10:39 AM

CarolC

I challenge you to prove that Minoru Yamasaki (archtitect of the TWC towers) supports your claims about the structural load-bearing inolvement of the cores. Because I know how the building was designed to stand and I know that you cannot prove that comment, because it is wrong. Sorry, Carol, it' just that simple.

The angle braces that hold the floor trusses to the core structure are the weakest links - the ones involved in the fire failed. That started the collapse. The weight of the collapsing upper section overwhelmed everything below it, a combination of the falling debris and the undamaged floor slabs tearing away at the fabric of the core structure, explains everything that you see in all the photos and videos of the collapses.

CarolC - do you seriously imagine that the core structure has any independent strength? You say that the core should have stood independently. Do you really believe that? That a 400m concrete column can stand on its own?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Mr Happy
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 10:39 AM

Lizzie,

From Royston's last post above:

WTC 7 was another structure supported largely by its steelwork. It was on fire from the early morning until it collapsed later that day. It was hit by the collapsing North Tower. It had a deficient sprinkler system. Firefighters were in the building throughout the day and reported the spreading fire, lack of water pressure and structural damage from falling debris. at 14:00, fireighters noticed the SW corner of the building was bowing outwards and they evacuated it at 15:30. It collapsed at about 17:20.

**********

I've highlighted the relevant bits to make it easier for you

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 11:39 AM

I'll leave the technical debates about buildings cores and such to the rest of you.

I'd like to comment instead about the geopolitical plans espoused by the people in the PNAC and by Zbegniev Brzezinski...

The funny thing is, there's nothing all that unusual about such plans being made by people in a dominant military power. That kind of thing has been done by most, if not all, dominant and expanding geopolitical powers. They always hatch a variety of possible contingency plans to see how they might be able to enlarge their "footprint" on the world, as it were. Those plans usually involve the possibility of war, if necessary to achieve an objective (assuming that less violent methods cannot accomplish said objective).

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union the world became a very unstable place, because there was no longer a balance of power in the world betwee the 2 largest imperial systems: the Soviets and the American military-industrial collossus. With the Soviets falling apart and much of their former empire splintering into small independent states, there was a huge opportunity for corporate "carpetbaggers" to rush in and take financial advantage...which they did, of course. There was also a huge opportunity for playing various political games, and that provoked further instability in the world.

This soon morphed into terrible wars in the Balkans, during Clinton's administration. It also produced a series of wars in the Middle East and in other areas.

It was natural for imperial planners in the USA to seek every possible advantage and every way of increasing the USA's strength and power in the world following the collapse of the Soviets. All empires attempt to take advantage of such situations when they arise. They extend their power into the vacuum....and the local people usually resist the extension of that power...and wars follow.

The USA had pressing strategic reasons to secure power over key oil-producing areas in the Middle East and in the Caspian...given the fact that we have probably already reached "peak oil" and are on the downslope toward more and more expensive oil and a shrinking supply.

Outright official colonialism isn't politically acceptable anymore...so one achieves it now by causing "regime change" in a small country, and by then putting in a client regime which does what you tell it to in regards to oil policy. That is, you do that if bribery and other forms of influence can't accomplish it first. The last resort in achieving regime change and putting a client government in place is to invade and conquer a country, tell the world that you are doing it to give them "democracy" (Ha! Ha! Ha! Rolling on the floor here...) Anyway, you invade them, crush their army, bring down their government, put in a bunch of puppet pet politicians who are toothless phonies, create the appearance of democracy by producing at least two political parties to run against each other...but you don't allow the creation of any political party which represents the people of the old regime. It's a very nicely orchestrated piece of propaganda nonsense to give the world the impression that you attacked the place out of the goodness of your heart and to help the people, when in fact you were simply adding another key piece to the jigsaw puzzle of your imperial order.

Hence, war in Afghanistan and war in Iraq.

But how do you get your own public to support going to war when there is no overt cause or real threat that would make them want to go to war against Iraq or Afghanistan?????

Well, you invent supposed threats, number one. But that may not prove sufficient to get your public to agree to fighting an unprovoked war.

Okay....you provide an overt cause. An attack on the USA. If no one else will do it, you do it yourself and put the blame on someone else. If no other national government will do it, you find a few fanatical idiots somewhere in the population of the other country and you help them accomplish an attack on the USA...there will be way of helping them, and they won't even realize that you are helping them...all the better.

One way or another, whatever works, you make sure that some kind of attack occurs...something that will infuriate the American public enough so that they lose all coherent judgement and give support to foreign wars for which there is no rational justification.

And that is why I think there was a domestic plot to in some way orchestrate or enable the 911 attacks, and a plot at high levels...whether or NOT there was a controlled demolition of any building...whether or NOT the attack was committed solely by 19 hijackers from Al Qaeda....I think it was part of an overall much larger strategic plan hatched by people in the USA.

I don't KNOW so. I merely think so. It seems very likely to me...because it provided precisely the "Pearl Harbor-level event" that the planners in the PNAC desired in order to make the geopolitical moves they wanted to make in the new century...and these were moves they considered absolutely NECESSARY to the future postion of the USA, and that's why they would do it. They would feel that the cost was justified by the result.

Too convenient by half to be mere happenstance, if you ask me.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 11:45 AM

Carol, LH, Lizzie and others,

Look, I should have stuck to my instincts and stayed out of this because I do not want to end up falling out with people that I don't really have a disagreement with. If that makes any sense.

The thing about the collapse theories is that they probably take the debate away from where it should be - did the US government allow the 9/11 attacks to happen?

Now that is a far more worthy subject of debate and investigation.

But did the US government demolish the WTC towers using twin plane-strikes as a cover? I'm sorry, but that I believe that is folly and utterly diversionary.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 11:58 AM

Thank you, Mr. Happy.   

Apologies, Royston, I didn't see your post earlier on.


I still find it very hard to believe that Building 7 fell down in exactly the same way.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:00 PM

You might be right, Royston. I see no reason to have a falling out between any of us over talking about this. People develop very strong opinions about these kind of things, because they are things that go emotionally very deep. I remember well the day that it all happened and how shaken everyone was by it. People were talking about it on the street and in restaurants to other people they didn't even know. I'd never seen anything like that since the day(s) on which John and Robert Kennedy died. It was an absolutely terrible feeling.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:00 PM

Royston, I challenge you to have a look at the blueprints and the photographs of the core as it was being built that I've already posted here in this thread. It wasn't a concrete column. It was a massive structure of very highly reinforced steel columns and crossbraces. It occupied the majority of the buildings' footprints. You are the one who is wrong. Stunningly wrong, at that, if you think it was a concrete column. In the meantime, I'll find the interview with the designer.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:02 PM

And I'm totally with Little Hawk, theory wise.

Royston, did you ever believe that the banks would run out of money, steal it from us, then award themselves billions of pounds/dollors of our money as bonuses for doing such a great job?

There are people out there in positions of power who have NO conscience whatsoever.

And......they are running our world.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:04 PM

Yes, indeed, Lizzie. They play a very big game, and the only thing that ever matters in that big game is winning.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:37 PM

Yup...

I've a great deal of respect for the Firefighters, Engineers and Architects who are daring to stand up and be counted..because they are up against some of the deadliest and most dangerous people in this world.

Today is the start of Splitting the Sky's trial. Tomorrow, Cynthia McInney is speaking on his behalf. Will they listen to her? Or will they try to paint her as being 'a little different'?


I find it intriguing that Splitting the Sky is standing trial, right at this moment in time I'd imagine, whilst the man he tried to arrest remains free, despite being seen as a War Criminal by many hundreds of thousands of people.

George Bush is free.
Splitting the Sky is on trial.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:41 PM

Below concerns a story from 2008 when Senator McInney was prevented from leaving the US to speak in Damascus on Human Rights..

Taken from here:



"....Has McKinney been put on a terrorist watch list merely for speaking out in support of 9/11 first responders and passionately questioning the official 9/11 story?

As many will recall, McKinney was perhaps the first major public figure to doubt the official version of events way back in 2002, which at the time was tantamount to treason.

McKinney has since become a vocal advocate for the 9/11 truth movement and appeared at numerous 9/11 truth conference and events.

She also made headlines for attempting to get answers on what had happened to $2.3 trillion dollars that was quietly declared "missing" from the Pentagon budget the day before 9/11...."

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:45 PM

Donald Rumsfeld talking about the loss of that $2.3 TRILLION from the Pentagon, the day before 9/11

Rumsfeld on Youtube 8/11

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Confere
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:58 PM

fact check....Cynthia McKinney was never a senator...

and the only way you can tolerate her 'loose cannon' behavior is to already buy into her basic conspiracy theories....which obviously is not too difficult for some. "I 'believe' that XYZ happened" is a lot easier than "I 'know' that XYZ happened".....

"From false premises, anything follows."

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 01:11 PM

Thanks, Bill. My mistake. 'Congresswoman'.


The trouble is, we don't KNOW, that's the problem. And when you have so many people who design buildings, build buildings and deal with buildings on fire who are disputing what has been put down in the report, then it's only common sense to start looking a little deeper.

After all, WHAT does the US government have to hide?

If all it takes to reassure people is to answer the questions now being asked, truthfully, then they should stand up and answer them, inviting them in.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 01:12 PM

and the only way you can tolerate her 'loose cannon' behavior is to already buy into her basic conspiracy theories....which obviously is not too difficult for some. "I 'believe' that XYZ happened" is a lot easier than "I 'know' that XYZ happened".....

"From false premises, anything follows."

This sounds like a perfect description of the official version of events and its adherents. But you don't know that her premises are false. You only know that they are unproven. All else is merely belief.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 01:20 PM

Lunch break, no time to read this all right now, but you know that the core collapsed first, before any outer supports:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_smoking_gun.html

Look at the stuff about the mast, at the top of the page. And those were HUGE support columns. Govt-controlled wikipedia has changed its tune over the past few years and now talks about the walls being the load-bearing element, but that's not true.

As far as Brzezinski, he's the man now running America's foreign policy. He did under Carter and he's doing it under Obama. Brzenskinski's goal is to create what he calls a crescent of fire in the Middle East. A crescent of wars (Pakistan & Iran will complete the crescent). This crescent will deny China oil from the Mid east and block it's overland trade routes to Africa. China will be forced to turn on the former Soviet Union for natural resources. That's the Brzezinski plan.

The Neo-con wars and the Obama wars are all built on the 9/11 lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 01:24 PM

Lizzie (talking about WTC 7): "I still find it very hard to believe that Building 7 fell down in exactly the same way.

It was on fire from the morning to the time it collapsed at 17:20.

The Southwest corner of the building was bending outwards (pulling away the support for the floors) from 14:00 onwards and that's why the firefighters abandoned it at 15:30 - because they could see it was going to collapse.

Just like the WTC towers, fire weakened the steel support structure and left floors unsupported. It was exacerbated by impact damage (from falling debris). Eventually one or more floors collapsed causing a cascade failure.

Like I say, that is how and wht any (and all) tall building(s) will fail if a fire burns long enough and/or if there is sympathetic structural damage.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 01:32 PM

ichMael: The Neo-con wars and the Obama wars are all built on the 9/11 lie. "

You could be right, but the WTC towers did not have to collapse to achieve the neo-con objectives.

All this crap about controlled demolition blah blah blah is a smokescreen.

It makes people who question 9/11 on those grounds look stupid. Because the controlled demolition idea is a stupid idea.

By association it makes anyone that questions 9/11 look stupid. But there are intelligent questions to ask about 9/11.

It makes it impossible to engage on the real issue of if/why the US government allowed the terrorists to do what they did. Any attempt to question that big issue is drowned out by the wilder freakshow of the collapse theorists.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 01:34 PM

Building 7 had just undergone a multi-million dollar reinforcement and refurbishment makeover. It was the regional headquarters of the FBI, CIA, NSA...just about every intelligence organization you could name. At the time, it was one of the most hardened buildings in the world.

And it suffered very little damage from falling debris. Look at the photos of the OTHER buildings in the WTC complex. They suffered MUCH more damage and remained standing. WTC fell into its own footprint at freefall speed. Jane Standley on BBC reported it falling twenty minutes before it actually did. She was reading from a script. The video of her reading that, with the building still standing over her shoulder, is on the internet.

Most likely, the plane that went down in Shanksville was supposed to hit Building 7 (the command bunker for the operation), a little while after the first two impacts, to give the collapse some believability. But a rogue general shot down the Shanksville plane, and the criminals were left with their asses hanging out in public. The owner of the building announced it was going to be "pulled" late in the day, firefighters told people to get back because the building was about to come down, and it was demolished. Video of Silverstein saying it would be pulled, and video of firefighters telling people to get back can be found on the internet. And they didn't wire that building in an hour. It was pre-planned.

Or was it all just a coincidence? Or maybe it was just people screwin' up.

Jeez.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 01:36 PM

CarolC

A note about concrete construction. You can pour a concrete form really, really quickly. If a concrete core structure was even remotely capable of standing unsupported, then civil engineers would pour the full 400 or more metres of concrete in one fell swoop, clear the concrete plant and contractors off site for a fraction of the cost and then let the steelworkers catch up at leisure.

But it doesn't work that way. The core can't stand without the outer structure and the outer structure can't stand without the core. In super-tall buildings, the outer structure is the principal load bearing element.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 01:39 PM

There are a long series of USA wars which were started over some surprisingly fortuitous "attack" by some supposed foreign party. ;-) The sinking of the Maine in Havana Harbor was a spectacular example. God knows why the ship blew up, but the least likely candidate for causing it to do so was the Spanish! They were desperate to avoid war with the USA...a war they could only end up losing. Yet the Spanish got the blame for it in the American media, of course, and the war went ahead.

The sinking of the Lusitania was the best excuse in WWI. The ship was probably carrying munitions illegally, and it was probably deliberately exposed to extreme risk by the German U-boats in hopes that it would be sunk, but they wouldn'd have told anyone about that, would they? In that case it would have been the British admiralty who were the primary schemers in the matter, not the USA.

Then there were the supposed attacks on the US fleet by North Vietnam in the Tonkin Gulf...which enabled Lyndon Johnson to pass a resolution putting massive USA forces into Vietnam.

Those attacks were a complete fiction. They never happened. But American media bought it, and Congress responded accordingly.

Then there was FDR's need to somehow get the USA into WWII, despite a public and a Congress who didn't want to go to war. So he put an embargo on Japan's overseas sources of oil and steel....which absolutely guaranteed that Japan would go to war within a year or less. I think Roosevelt was probably shocked and horrified by the tremendous amount of damage the unexpectedly capable Japanese Navy did at Pearl Harbor when the war came...I doubt he thought they would hit Pearl Harbor at all...but he did get his war. Mission accomplished.

Another example: The American people were ambivalent about whether or not to go to war over Saddam's invasion of Kuwait...UNTIL they heard about the Iraqi army killing Kuwaiti babies by taking them out of hospital incubators! The story was completely untrue. But it was believed by everyone at the time, and it was reported even by Amnesty International, who later apologized for having unwittingly spread disinformation.

The American people, like people in pretty much any nation, do not particularly want to fight a war unless it becomes unavoidable. Then they go off patriotically and fight it.

The people in the PNAC needed a casus belli to get the American people onside for wars in the Middle East and central Asia. It had to be done somehow. I can think of no better way of getting it done than to either directly arrange....or indirectly enable someone else to carry out a terrorist attack like the one on 911.

Matter of fact, I keep wondering when and if they'll arrange for something similar or even worse to justify a full scale attack on Iran...possibly even using "tactical" nuclear weapons. I shudder to think of it, but there is nothing these people might decide to do which would surprise me.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 01:41 PM

I wish folks would start to learn that so many conspiracy theories are an essential part of the plan for perpetrators to "get away with it"

The wilder conspiracy theorists are the enablers of the real, more subtle, conspiracies.

Forget cores, forget explosives, forget WTC7.

Go back to the beginning and look at the alleged 'failures' of intelligence and all the reasons why all the chances to stop the terrorists 'failed'.

That is the conspiracy, if there is one. Everything else is just consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 01:51 PM

The neocons SAID they needed an event, Royston. In the PNAC document.

Anyway, to me, the most conclusive evidence that the govt did the job is what they did afterward. The coverup. No time to go into all that now.

But this is something new. Because the world dosn't give a damn about the 9/11 crime (why doesn't Britain sue over the deaths of their people in the WORLD Trade Center?), because these animals are continuing to get away with their crime, we have things like The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010 working its way through the U.S. senate:

http://assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/ARM10090.pdf

A person is considered a "high value detainee" if they fulfil one of the following criteria.

(1) poses a threat of an attack on civilians or civilian facilities within the U.S. or U.S. facilities abroad; (2) poses a threat to U.S. military personnel or U.S. military facilities; (3) potential intelligence value; (4) is a member of al Qaeda or a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda or (5) such other matters as the President considers appropriate.

In the Chris Matthews clip I posted before he's frothing about "truthers," but he also mentions that you may be a terror risk if you have tax problem or had a disability claim denied. The 9/11 attacks allowed for the redefining of Domestic Terrorism in the PATRIOT Act, and now we're ALL terrorists. Television will convince you that "Truthers" should be locked up, and then who will it be?

9/11 was designed to dupe Americans into surrendering control of domestic and international affairs to a group of mafioso bankers.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Confere
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 02:00 PM

"If all it takes to reassure people is to answer the questions now being asked, truthfully, then they should stand up and answer them, inviting them in."

When people get it into their heads that a conspiracy 'probably' exists, there is no end to the questions and demands for 'investigations'. Each answer and each investigation only sets off a new round of questions & demands for answers. It is, as we see, possible to object to or be suspicious of, even the most honest and expert answers and reports. The embedded assumption seems to be "...even *I* can see the flaws in your answers. Someone must be either stupid and careless or lying."

There is no way out of this circular pattern. If you try to answer after a certain point, you will never finish answering, because the built-in assumptions is always that "it couldn't have happened that way", therefore there WAS faked data, lying by investigators and hidden plots. Qusetions about how, if it is so obvious that fakes and lying are involved, no one in authority can see it and re-open the case are just met with.."they refuse because they are hiding something!". There is no-way-out of this circular set of demands

Above, Royston & I have been asked to 'prove' our silly 'faith-based' opinions, and I have declined to do this, and my explanation...that it is not my job or my expertise or my inclination to "show" how it all happened simply is ignored, or I am insulted for my refusal.

I said that **IF** one feels they see a flaw in the official reports,(which I think satisfy ME) it is their right to question those responsible for the reports thru some sort of official channels...not by demanding *I* explain what has already been explained to my satisfaction.

Many, many of the claims can be traced back to Prof. Stephen Jones...who, if you want to question motives, already HAD a theory about political agendas and conspiracies when he began asking for 'samples' of dust to test...4-5 years after the event.

ONE MORE TIME... I am not qualified to evaluate blueprints or metallurgical standards....but I CAN recognize a circular argument and know when to opt out of one.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 02:03 PM

I wish folks would start to learn that so many conspiracy theories are an essential part of the plan for perpetrators to "get away with it"

Royston--

The U.S. govt has controlled the debate on 9/11 from day one. They control television, and they disseminate the talking points. They treat certain things as given and then establish the parameters of what will be defined as "kooky."

But if you stand back and look at the govt story, you'll see that it is the wildest conspiracy theory of all. The Cavemen of Tora Bora were sent out from by Osama. The Cavemen couldn't even fly Cessnas, but they did trick flying to slam into the WTC towers. They also got NORAD to stand down. They even got Dick Cheney to issue an override order on the plane coming into the pentagon.

A ten year old would roll his eyes at that story.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=cheney+mineta+testimony+youtube&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=

Watch Mr. Mineta (U.S. Transportation Secy in 2001), describe how Dick Cheney allowed the plane to hit the pentagon.

Lunch over.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 02:33 PM

ichMael,

Errm, you seem to agree with me?

I said that the conspiracy - if there is one - is in how/why terrorists got the planes and then flew them unopposed into the NY skyline.

It is not in whether spooks blew down the buildings with explosives or not. That argument is diversionary.

It is also designed to divert the attention of people from the fact that a comparable fire or combination of fire and structural damage in a similar building, will have the same awful consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 04:22 PM

"I wish folks would start to learn that so many conspiracy theories are an essential part of the plan for perpetrators to "get away with it""

Your point is well taken, Royston. I do think that a great many well-known conspiracy theories have been deliberately planted in the national dialogue by the very group of high-level conspirators who arranged for 911 to occur. It's a classic Black-Ops disinformation propaganda campaign designed to confuse people, distract people, waste their energy chasing false trails, set them against one another, and discredit ALL related conspiracy theories about 911 merely by association.

A very effective means of protecting the original perpetrators, wouldn't you say?

I also think that if people as high up as, say, Dick Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and key people in the intelligence services were involved......and if a later USA administration found out about it or knew about it....they would NOT utter a peep about it publicly. They would never admit it had happened. It would never be uncovered by any succeeding administration, and you know why? Because it would have a catastrophic effect on the American political system, America's position in the world, and the American public's trust in their own government, and no American government could contemplate opening that can of worms. Plus, it would totally invalidate 2 foreign wars and occupations to which the USA has deeply committed itself, and no American government would be willing to see that happen either. Like Japan in its tragic China war adventure (late 30s to 1945), the USA will go to any lengths to avoid giving up on what they have already committed themselves to in their Middle Eastern wars.

Too much damage would occur if the truth was revealed. Accordingly, if they have covered up a high level domestic conspiracy in regards to 911, they will continue to cover it up till hell freezes over, no matter WHO gets elected president. No matter which party is in office. No matter what.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 04:39 PM

****

In regards to Japan's lengthy war in China, which eventually got them into a world war, that was launched on a false pretext too. The Japanese claimed that they Chinese army had attacked them at a bridge between Japanese and Chinese-controlled areas on the mainland.

The Japanese charge was untrue. It was they who had initiated the fighting, but they blamed the Chinese for doing it. Millions of people died on account of that trumped-up excuse for war, and it's typical of the way aggressive empires arrange excuses for going to war. The vast majority of their people always believe the excuses, and always believe that the war is an act of self-defense.

Hitler arranged a false "Polish" attack on a German radio station just before the Germans invaded Poland. Same basic deal...an attack that was not made by the people who were blamed for it. And the German people believed the official story, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: frogprince
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 05:38 PM

It's obvious from what has been said that WTC7 had been pre-wired with very slow working explosives, so that it would show more gradual signs of impending collapse, in an effort to throw off the clever people who were apt to see through the conspiracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 05:43 PM

I think you may have it, frogprince! Maybe mixed with those fizzy things you drop in Coke.

200?