9/11 Redux - Page 13 - Ajarn Forum

Farangrakthai · 1st May 2008, 09:59

Keeshou, any thoughts on Scoop: UQ Wire: The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11

read like a good mystery novel or an eye awakening?

Farangrakthai · 2nd May 2008, 08:10

We Are Change UK Question former BBC Report Phil Hayton-- who is 'amazed' that such a 'significant' event has no official explanation

Quote:

Quote:

Vlogging The Apocalypse :: Video :: EARLY BBC CRASH ANCHOR AGREES MAY BE CONSPIRACY

Tags: BBC WTC ANNOUNCED ON TV BEFORE IT FELL

EARLY BBC CRASH ANCHOR AGREES MAY BE CONSPIRACY

BBC Anchor Who Reported on WTC7 Collapse Early Agrees There May Be a 'Conspiracy'

We Are Change UK Question former BBC Report Phil Hayton-- who is 'amazed' that such a 'significant' event has no official explanation

esoteric1 · 4th May 2008, 08:31

9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda

Quote:

There is a crucial link between the anti-war movement and the 9/11 truth movement, because exposing the truth about 9/11 destroys the justification for those wars.

We are told not to discuss conspiracy theories, but if 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four planes, outfoxed the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, and perpetrated these atrocities under the control of a guy off in a cave in Afghanistan, then 9/11 involved a conspiracy.

If we can’t talk about conspiracies, we can’t talk about 9/11. Why would this administration want to suppress public discussion of 9/11? To conceal the truth about the war or to conceal the truth about 9/11?

continue at:

Dr._James_H._Fetzer_2008-04-22_9-11_and_the_Neo-Con_Agenda

Farangrakthai · 5th May 2008, 16:18

good to see local U.S. newspapers starting to pick up the story.

Quote:

azcentral.com | Phoenix Arizona News - Arizona Local News
We deserve the full truth about 9/11

Tale of Building 7's collapse suggests official complicity, persistent obstruction

May. 3, 2008 12:00 AM
Regarding "Drinking the 9/11 Kool-Aid" (Editorial, April 24):

After three government investigations and more than six years, we still don't have answers on 9/11.

Why, for example, did Building 7 collapse? It wasn't hit by a plane, as the towers were. The 9/11 Commission Report completely ignores Building 7. The Federal Emergency Management Agency report discounts fire as a cause and concludes that the reasons for the collapse of Building 7 are unknown and require further research. But when FEMA issued this report, it already cleared the site and disposed of the dust and steel (evidence from a crime scene), thus possibly committing a felony and complicating any "further research."

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, a federal agency, which evaluated the collapse of the towers, has yet to issue its report on Building 7. "We've had trouble getting a handle on Building 7," said the acting director of their Building and Fire Research Lab.

Yet a number of private-sector engineers, architects, and demolition experts have not had that problem. They think Building 7 came down by controlled demolition. The building collapsed suddenly, straight down, at nearly free-fall speed. People heard the explosions, and saw the squibs and the characteristic billowing clouds of pulverized concrete so unique to demolitions. There is no reason to think that Building 7 came down for any other reason than explosive demolition.

And speaking of pulverized concrete, fire does not pulverize concrete. Even the collapse of one floor upon another wouldn't pulverize concrete the way the Twin Towers disintegrated.

Think back to that day: Those towers didn't just fall down. If they had, we would have had huge chunks of concrete breaking apart and falling into a massive pile of rubble. The buildings likely would have toppled erratically sideways and left a much larger pile of debris.

But that's not what we witnessed. The towers didn't collapse - they disintegrated.

We watched them explode into dust, not knowing exactly what we were seeing. Very little intact concrete was found in the rubble. The sheer energy required to pulverize that much concrete into dust can only come from an explosive process.

Reputable scientists, engineers, architects and firemen with no political angle dispute the 9/11 Commission report and say that the evidence indicates the Twin Towers and Building 7 came down due to controlled-demolition explosions. Tests corroborate the presence of thermite, an explosive used in building demolitions, at the site of the Twin Towers and Building 7.

Thermite also explains the pools of molten steel in the basement, which no one has been able to otherwise explain and which the National Institute of Standards and Technology simply denies. Why is the government refusing to even consider demolition as a possibility? What are they afraid of?

Time magazine reported in September 2006 that 36 percent of Americans believe the government was complicit in 9/11. A Zogby poll reported that 51 percent of Americans want Congress to investigate 9/11 further.

Even the co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission are upset with the commission report. They have accused the CIA and the military of "obstructing" the investigation. Former Commissioner Max Cleland resigned, stating that the Commission was "compromised." Former FBI Director Louis Freeh has criticized the report for its inaccuracies and unanswered questions.

The events of 9/11 have never been properly investigated. It's about time they were.

The writer, a Republican from Mesa, represents District 18 in the Arizona Senate.

esoteric1 · 5th May 2008, 18:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

good to see local U.S. newspapers starting to pick up the story.

almost 7 years later.

getting back into the nitty-gritty of the how:

"fire caused the steel to weaken in the WTC towers" and precipitated the collapses."

both fires did not burn all that long before the collapses, and the tower that took the second hit which was more of a glancing blow(and the resulting fire burned a less amount of time) collapsed first. Explain?

This may be the same article I posted above, but the comments after the article are interesting.

Backing my claims about 9/11 questions | Opinion | eastvalleytribune.com

Larkinny · 9th May 2008, 00:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by keeshou

It's made the event more real to me, than if it had just been on the news. My mother went to New York after the event to be with her sister and my nephew's wife and child.

Then you of all people, along with everyone else who lost loved ones, should be absolutely outraged at those who were given the job of investigating 9/11 and instead conducted a whitewash, a cover-up along with deception and flat out lies to prevent the public from actually finding out what happened.

keeshou · 9th May 2008, 07:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinny

Then you of all people, along with everyone else who lost loved ones, should be absolutely outraged at those who were given the job of investigating 9/11 and instead conducted a whitewash, a cover-up along with deception and flat out lies to prevent the public from actually finding out what happened.

Why do you think I get so upset at the shoddy investigations that you post? If you were interested in finding the truth, instead of just developing conspiracies for your personal pleasure, I'd be interested in your blanket allegations. Instead, I constantly see grandiose plots using massive amounts of planning and extreme technology with armies of technicians to blow up a building that has had an aiplane crash into it and been on fire.

Why bother? The damage was done when the planes crashed into the two buildings and I don't mean the physical damage, I mean the psychological effect it had. If anyone was stupid enough to want to go to all of the trouble of wiring a controlled detonation of a burning building, how can you ascribe all of the intelligence you garner on them when you attribute them with the faculties to pull off this same plan?

To what end? The buildings were hit, the concept of the terrorist was placed. Who would have cared if the buildings didn't fall in a controlled descent? You have too many people involved in a plot with no point.

All of these only detract not add to those who died in the catastrophe. It doesn't make anyone more heroic if they died in a terrorist operation or a government conspiracy, the point is that they were there doing what they thought was going to save lives without regard for what was going to happen to their life.

Larkinny · 11th May 2008, 02:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by keeshou

Why do you think I get so upset at the shoddy investigations that you post?

Considering their limited resources, all these scientists, engineers, metallurgists, aeronautical engineers, and so on, have done a pretty good job of pointing out the OCT's failings. I don't see how you can seriously call their work shoddy.

Quote:

Why bother? The damage was done when the planes crashed into the two buildings and I don't mean the physical damage, I mean the psychological effect it had.

Do you know about the PNAC document?

The authors noted that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."

Christopher Maletz, assistant director of the PNAC, was asked about what was meant by the need for “a new Pearl Harbor.”

“They needed more money to up the defense budget for raises, new arms, and future capabilities. Without some disaster or catastrophic event” neither the politicians nor the military would have approved".

The “new Pearl Harbor,” in the form of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, provided the necessary catalyst to put the global war plan into effect. Congress quickly allocated $40 billion to fund the “war on terrorism” shortly after 9/11.

Key figures in this were Wolfowitz, Feith, and Perle. All three are fanatical Zionists (some claim they are dual citizens) and are linked, along with Wurmser, to the PNAC document's predecessor, A clean break: a new strategy for securing the realm, by the Israeli thinktank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies.

Quote:

If anyone was stupid enough to want to go to all of the trouble of wiring a controlled detonation of a burning building, how can you ascribe all of the intelligence you garner on them when you attribute them with the faculties to pull off this same plan?

Follow the money. Billions were made from the destruction of those buildings.

Quote:

You have too many people involved in a plot with no point.

I've given a good explanation for this already.

But don't you, who lost a loved one, feel bitter at the authorities who deliberately conducted a sham investigation, a cover up? Don't you feel you've been cheated?

keeshou · 11th May 2008, 07:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinny

Do you know about the PNAC document? The authors noted that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor." Christopher Maletz, assistant director of the PNAC, was asked about what was meant by the need for “a new Pearl Harbor.”

Which is my point, Larkinny. The buildings were hit by two airplanes, whether it was terrorists or as the CT claims remote control airplanes, why go to the trouble of wiring the building with explosives when it's obviously going to drop (or be rendered unusable) after the planes have hit it? Look at it the other way, what would have happened if the planes never hit the buildings? If, as you r sources say, the buildings were wired to explode, then someone would have had to detonate them with no explanation. Otherwise someone would have seen the wiring.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinny

Follow the money. Billions were made from the destruction of those buildings.

How much do you think it would cost to wire all of those buildings with explosives, pay the people to do it covertly and then there is the cost of four large commercial airlines fitted with special equipment so that they can be remotely flown into the buildings. If I follow your money trail I find a bigger black hole then the money you claim they made.

Still you don't see the biggest flaw in this plot and that is the thousands of people that would have been involved in this type of operation. What happened to all of the passengers on the flights that were supposed to have hit those buildings, what about all of the personal needed to wire the buildings, build the planes and launch missiles at the pentagon? Where are these people, did they each receive a million dollars to shut up? If so, there is another black hole for those billions.

Not the shrewdest "Dr. Evils" you've ever seen, are they?

Farangrakthai · 11th May 2008, 08:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by keeshou

why go to the trouble of wiring the building with explosives when it's obviously going to drop (or be rendered unusable) after the planes have hit it?

to destroy the evidence so it could be shipped off to China as scrap metal, as it was

and also, Silverstein and others claimed before 911 that they wished to demolish the towers and build newer, more modern towers, but it couldn't even be considered because of the resulting aspestis and other that would pollute the city as it ended up doing and thousands have become ill and some died because of the air.

See this article for details, including referenced articles from mainstream press:

Quote:

Larry Silverstein

Larry Silverstein, the president of Silverstein Properties, only uses $14 million of his own money for the deal. His partners put up a further $111 million, and banks provide $563 million in loans. [Brill, 2003, pp. 156 ] The Port Authority had carried only $1.5 billion in insurance coverage on all its buildings, including the WTC, but Silverstein’s lenders insist on more, eventually demanding $3.55 billion in cover. [American Lawyer, 9/3/2002 ] After 9/11, Larry Silverstein will claim the attacks on the World Trade Center constituted two separate events, thereby entitling him to a double payout totaling over $7 billion. [Daily Telegraph, 10/9/2001 ; Guardian, 8/18/2002 ] Eventually, after several years of legal wrangling, a total of $4.55 billion of insurance money will be paid out for the destruction of the WTC (see May 23, 2007 ). Most of this appears to go to Silverstein Properties

Quote:

Originally Posted by keeshou

then there is the cost of four large commercial airlines fitted with special equipment so that they can be remotely flown into the buildings

here is a theory about Dov Zakheim, Pentagon Comptroller, whom some call a high level "Zionist Gangster":

Quote:

http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/...cle_1047.shtml

Following Zakheim and Pentagon trillions to Israel and 9-11

Perhaps not coincidentally in May 2001, when Dov served at the Pentagon, it was an SPS (his firm’s) subsidiary, Tridata Corporation, that oversaw the investigation of the first “terrorist” attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. This would have given them intimate knowledge of the security systems and structural blueprints of the World Trade Center. From the '90s through 2001, WTC Security was handled by Securacom, a Kuwait-American firm, on whose board Marvin Bush, the president’s brother, sat. After 9/11, Securacom was let go, changed its name to Stratosec, and was delisted from the Stock Exchange in 2002.

According to Conspiracy News.net writers Shadow and ‘Pax’ in Dov Zakheim and the 9/11 Conspiracy, (and I suggest you look at this link) “According to the SPC website (4), a recent customer at that time was Eglin AFB, located in Florida. Eglin is very near another Air Force base in Florida-MacDill AFB, where Dov Zakheim contracted to send at least 32 Boeing 767 aircraft, as part of the Boeing /Pentagon tanker lease agreement. (5)
”As the events of September 11, 2001 occurred, little was mentioned about these strange connections, and the possible motives and proximity of Dov Zakheim and his group. Since there was little physical evidence remaining after the events, investigators were left only with photographic and anecdotal evidence.