| |
  
|
||||||||||
"9/11 Truth in Ten Minutes" - pure scientific evidence for those who seek truth
Submitted by imperium8infinitum8 on Tue, 08/05/2008 - 01:50
Here is a quick video on the events of 9/11. All the information is cited, sound arguments, convicing.... this video is dedicated to all the paulites who still believe the official story: » |
|
|||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
Lets get the other bldgs. straight....jzneff....
First, we start with a picture of the area:
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e75/jrb112476/486px-WTC_Bu...
Second, the bldgs.:
Bldg. 3: Marriott World Trade Center Hotel was a 22-story[1] steel-framed building with 825 rooms. The hotel was connected to the North and South tower, and many went through the hotel to get to the Twin Towers. It was destroyed.
Bldg. 4: Four World Trade Center was a 9-story low-rise office building in the southeast corner of the site, in Lower Manhattan, New York City. It was damaged beyond repair as a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks and was later demolished. LATER DEMOLISHED!!
Bldg. 5: 9-story low-rise office building built 1970-1972. The entire building was demolished by January 2002 as part of the WTC removal project. The World Trade Center (E) subway station was located under the building, and access into the station was available through the building. Floors 4 through 9 suffered partial collapse and/or fire damage. Floors 1-3 were undamaged. Some of the collapse was due to impact from steel and debris from World Trade Center 1 (North Tower). Other collapsed sections were due to fire damage. Portions of internal collapse and burnout were found on upper floors, mainly floors 6-8. The exterior facade suffered severe fire damage. The upper floors (5-9) were on fire after the second tower collapse. So, basically, your WTC 7 COMPLETE collapse onto itself excuse due to fire/damage doesn't add up.
Basically, you had buildings 5 and 6 bearing some of the debris load, therefore there is NO WAY the debris from the towers makes WTC 7 fall the WAY it did.
Thanks for the info...
Not a day goes by that I do not learn more about the crime or the cover-up of 9/11.
Most people that I talk to still do not even know about the collapse of WTC7--I didn't know until 2006. It's time for the unwashed masses to wake up!
"Truth, crushed to Earth, shall rise again." -William Cullen Bryant
----
The Antidote to neoCon Koolaid: www.dvds4delegates.com
"We really do have...a once in a lifetime opportunity to take the Republican Party back to where it was." -Kent Snyder, 1959-2008
----
"...a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." -John F. Kennedy
Video has been removed by
Video has been removed by the user.
Anthrax Attack Was State-Sponsored Terror (But the State Was Ame
Anthrax Attack Was State-Sponsored Terror (But the State Was America)
The chief biological inspector for the U.N. Special Commission from 1994 to 1998 - who describes himself as one of the "four or five people in the whole country" who could make the type of anthrax used in the 2001 attacks - noted in testimony to Congress:
"I have maintained from the first descriptions of the material contained in the Daschle letter that the quality appeared to be such that it could be produced only by some group that was involved with a current or former state program in recent years. The level of knowledge, expertise, and experience required and the types of special equipment required to make such quality product takes time and experimentation to develop. Further, the nature of the finished dried product is such that safety equipment and facilities must be used to protect the individuals involved and to shield their clandestine activity from discovery."
Similarly, a manufacturer of specialized anthrax equipment said:
"You would need [a] chemist who is familiar with colloidal [fumed] silica, and a material science person to put it all together, and then some mechanical engineers to make this work . . . probably some containment people, if you don't want to kill anybody. You need half a dozen, I think, really smart people."
The U.N. biologist mentioned above also said that the equipment to make such high-tech anthrax does not exist at Fort Detrick, where Ivins worked. People who work at Fort Detrick have confirmed this.
In other words, a lone scientist couldn't have done it without the support of a whole government laboratory. And Fort Detrick was not one such potential laboratory.
What Does the FBI Say?
Until 2006, the FBI seemed to support this conclusion, but then suddenly and inexplicably changed its mind. According to the New York Times, the FBI changed its mind and took the position that the anthrax was not high-tech -- and thus could have been produced by a "lone nut" -- based upon a single paper published by one of its scientists.
The new theory was shown to be unsupported by any evidence in a various scientific papers
(see this and this). And even the editor of the journal in which the new FBI hypothesis was published later criticized the article:
"The statement should have had a reference. An unsupported sentence being cited as fact is uncomfortable to me. Any statement in a scientific article should be supported by a reference or by documentation."
In other words, the FBI scientist just made up the new claim that the anthrax was not so high-tech that it had to have been made by a government-sponsored bioweapons program.
So why did the FBI change its tune, based upon an unsupported statement by one of its scientists?
Well, if the evidence pointed to state-sponsored terror, ruled out states the U.S. government wanted to blame the attack on (such as Iraq), and actually pointed towards America as being the "state sponsor", the government might want to distract people from the true culprits, right? Especially given that producing weaponized anthrax violates laws to which the U.S. is a signatory, and could constitute war crimes, right?
Indeed, on September 4, 2001, the New York Times revealed that the government was going to produce a highly-potent anthrax strain at a military lab in Ohio.
And Dugway Proving Grounds had been producing high-grade, dry, weaponized anthrax for quite some time before the attacks, and had shipped Ames strain anthrax "back and forth" with Fort Detrick.
Since 16 labs and many hundreds of people had access to the exact strain of anthrax used in the attacks, a state-sponsored operation could have been set up almost anywhere in the U.S.
They needed a patsy to pin the attacks on and deflect the fact that this was a false flag operation which also implicated an illegal bioweapons program.
The anthrax attacks was a crime in search of a patsy.
And see this.
Posted by George Washington at 9:35 AM
Older Post Home
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/08/anthrax-attack...
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
Video has been removed...............
What's going on here? I continually go to video links posted here to find the video has been removed by the user.
it's not the user that is deleting them.
hence censorship.
Spread the word and donate - http://www.dvds4delegates.com/
The war on your mind -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klSek88t54w
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
OK, time to set the record straight...
All you people that STILL doubt that the towers were brought down by explosives need to listen to the people with brains.
I give you the Scholars for 9/11 Truth video "Improbable Collapse":
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782
May your eyes be opened. Enjoy!
To the skeptic, that just
To the skeptic, that just further establishes these conspiracy theories as matters of religious belief, not fact. Dr. Jones primarily uses the same technique as used by creationists to criticize evolution. Specifically, creationists erect strawmen, claim that evolution can't possibly explain this, that or the other thing, and thus by implication creationism must be true, even though no real alternate theory has been presented.
Same thing here. Dr Jones does not bother to show evidence of how this conspiracy was pulled off, he mostly argues that anomalies exist in the "official" explanation. But his own anomalies are not even consistent with each other. First he starts talking about thermite, then goes on to talk about explosions. Well thermite is not an explosive, and what explosions were heard were not nearly loud enough to be characteristic of the implosion of a building of that size. Especially if it had not been pre-weakened first.
Further, I am absolutely aghast at his explanation for the extreme heat found as much as seven days later and the finding of molten metal. How does one manage to earn a PhD in physics and not understand the difference between heat and temperature?
For example, a blow torch has a very high temperature but relative to a bon fire, very little heat. You can for instance, put your finger within a few inches of the flame of a blow torch with little discomfort, yet may find discomfort at distances as far as 5 to 10 feet from a bon fire. IOW, temperature is an instantaneous or point value while heat is a measure of energy.
Thermite is like the blow torch. It burns at a very high temperature, but only for a very short period of time, and affected only a relatively small amount of mass. Thus it does not possess a lot of heat. OTOH, the fires burned at much lower temperature, but they burned for an hour to an hour and a half for WTC1 and 2 and seven hours for WTC7, and involved much more mass. Thus like the bon fire, these fires possessed significantly more heat.
So the fact that the ground was still hot seven days later better supports the theory that fire significantly contributed to bringing down the buildings, rather than thermite.
But since he, like most defenders of these conspiracy theories, argues by anomaly, how about these anomalies.
1> The NYFD and all of the major networks were reporting up to two hours before WTC 7 fell that it was in imminent danger of collapse. The BBC even misread it and claimed that WTC 7 had already collapsed. If it were really taken down by implosion, shouldn't it have come as a surprise?
2> What happened to the 40,000+ gallons of diesel fuel used for the generators in building 7? The two 6000 gallon tanks below grade were found empty and the ground was not found to be contaminated by diesel fuel. Note: Once power was pulled from building seven the fuel would start pumping to the generators, and that fuel line runs right up the south face of the building. The same south face which was significantly damaged by the collapse of the north tower. Hmm, think that might have contributed to the fires?
So where is the alternate conspiracy theory, explaining among other things; what type of demolition material was used; where was it placed; how was it was snuck into buildings having activity 24/7/365; how was it hidden in buildings with primarily exposed super structures (WTC 1 & 2 anyway); why was there no residue found in the debris of ignition systems; why were no columns or trusses showing evidence of being cut by thermite or blasted by explosives; were the buildings pre-weakened as in any conventional demolition or was vastly more demolition material used to compensate; and on and on. Until those and other issues are addressed, there is no alternate conspiracy theory, it remains simply a list of anomalies to be explained. Even if the NIST theory is completely wrong, it provides no evidence for any conspiracy theory.
Regards,
Eric
To the skeptic no evidence is sufficient. To the believer, no evidence is necessary.
There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
— Ed Howdershelt
Don't forget, Eric:
The Official Story, "OBL/KSM sent 19 suicidal freedom-haters with box cutters to hijack four jets and smash into buildings to bring America to her knees..." is itself a conspiracy THEORY... with no admissible evidence nor indictments.
You on the other hand, HAVE been indicted for curiously participating in an ongoing psychological perception war aimed primarily against the American people, to cover-up the glaring anomalies (such as WTC7, a 2 scenario paradox at the Pentagon, and the "Let's-Roll-to-the-empty-hole" in Shanksville) which serves to perpetuate a bankrupting War On Terror (a complete absurdity), and a demonstrable ongoing crime against humanity.
Why you do this, I really have no idea... yet continuing as you do, you only make yourself sound ever more foolish, if not down right despicable.
Er, why is it exactly that
Er, why is it exactly that you are entitled to your anomalies but I am not entitled to mine? :)
There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
— Ed Howdershelt
This is an excellent video,
This is an excellent video, but it was NOT made by Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
Zeitgeist and spreading the message
This is my first post on the Daily Paul. Over the weekend I watched a great movie called: Zeitgeist. It is about the myths of religion, 9/11, and who really owns the media. After watching it, I shared it with several of my friends and family on my blog. I was hoping to get some Daily Paulers to come over to my blog and post some comments about what you think of the movie. Do you think the movie is based on reliable evidence? Can you give further research links for people to investigate?
I believe the best way to get other people to look into Ron Paul and his ideas is by talking to new people who have never heard the message. This means going to other blogs on the internet and leaving messages as well as talking to people on the streets.
The link to my blog is: http://www.racheliva.blogspot.com/ and the link to the movie Zeitgeist is here.
Please read this...
I've posted this a number of times in relation to the WT7 collapse, and really have gotten ignored and called nasty names...and I haven't seen a single rational response to this. In very simple terms, this is why I believe WT7 collapsed.
note: this is conjecture unless I state otherwise
1) Fact: WT7 was built on a Con Edison substation, with a cassion foundation that was never intended to hold a building more than 20-25 stories. WT7 was 47 stories
2) Conjecture: There were several fires in WT7. I know, not enough to cause a massive building collapse, but i'm sure you can conceded that this building was burning.
3) Conjecture: There was some appreciable damage done to the external structure to WT7. Certainly not enough to cause building failure, but there was some damage done.
4) Pure conjecture: WT7 stood a few hundred feet from the 2 largest buildings to collapse in human history. There was likely a tremendous amount of force piledriven into the ground, which caused measurable shaking and likley shifted a great deal of material.
5) Fact: Shoddy fireproofing: Thanks to the tree huggers, you can't coat reinforced beams with asbestos any more.
None of these factors seems powerful enough to bring the building down on their own. Judging by the video's of the collapse, this building failed at the ground level and collapsed from the bottom up.
So in summary, you have a underground foundation that had a massive amount of weight, more than it was ever built to hold. You have some structural damage to the facade, as well as some fires burning. You also had 2 very violent tetonic events, which not only shook the building but also may have shifted the foundation it was built on.
This building was visably buckling and moving hours before the collapse. When the owner said "pull it" he was likely referring to the firefighting effort because he'd just seen 3000 people die, and didn't want any more needless deaths trying to save his building. The BBC reported on the collapse, because they were given (wild conjecture) a note from a NYC official telling them of a imminent collapse, and they weren't familiar with the word imminent. They ran with the story and got it wrong.
If the 9/11 commision report is the government's attempt to spin and whitewash an inside job...you would have thought they could have paid for some better spin doctors, because I could have written that report better on my toilet.
Please, stay rational and civil and tell me where the weaknesses are in this story...in short, if Uncle Sam were to tell you this same tale, how would you respond?
What do you think about the war on drugs?
How about Operation Wall Street?
Shout it today!
http://www.youshouts.com/index.php
Hey jzneff...
ALL the answers are on "Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice" - http://www.stj911.com/index.html
If you had actually read what people have been kind enough to point you to you might come to understand some basic physics and common sense. You would see science and physics proving that the buildings were brought down with explosives.
Ever hear of the Pentagon? The evidence (or lack there of) on that site is yet another smoking gun proving that the government or those that actually run the government, are LYING.
Do your own damned research and quit pestering us with your deceit and stupidity.
----------------------------------------------------
Ron Paul 2012 - Not just for America, for the World!
Lol...
number 4 is the most laughable excuse of all...what about the other wtc buildings that were CLOSER to the towers that didnt collapse upon themselves? Fires would NOT have caused a collapse like that, why cant you see that??
The other buildings
They were very small buildings...less than 10 stories and bearing significantly less weight than WTC7.
What do you think about the war on drugs?
How about Operation Wall Street?
Shout it today!
http://www.youshouts.com/index.php
I love brainless disinfo.
Makes me feel like I am putting pressure because you are here. Real scientific answer there oil boy.
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
LOL
Yeah...you're really getting to the heart of the matter with your posts.
"Bull$%^$...your %$%^ disinfo $#%$% troll $%$% get the $%$% out of my website...for I am %$% growing $#%$# #$%$ HHO and you are $%$% for that $%$%."
Trust me...even your fellow truthers are embarrassed to have you argue on their side.
Keep making fun of my analysis on crude...for it's dropping faster than you can make foul mouthed childish comments.
Move out of Mommy's basement, then you can call me brainless.
What do you think about the war on drugs?
How about Operation Wall Street?
Shout it today!
http://www.youshouts.com/index.php
LIke I said I am tired of beating you over the head with
Facts. Numbscull. Excuse me if I don't spell things out a thousand times for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VfvqO4wVLM
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
I noticed you didn't provide any sources
I noticed you didn't provide any sources for your "facts." Care to provide them now or would you like for us to just trust you like the Big Brother Government expects us to just trust them that 9/11 was unavoidable and not fire a single individual and promote some of those who were responsible for the break down in defense of Washington, D.C. and NYC on 9/11?
----
The Antidote to neoCon Koolaid: www.dvds4delegates.com
"We really do have...a once in a lifetime opportunity to take the Republican Party back to where it was." -Kent Snyder, 1959-2008
----
"...a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." -John F. Kennedy
Which fact are you questioning?
I put 2 facts in there.
1) The WTC7 was built on the Con Ed substation...
2) Fireproofing beams using asbestos was against the law when WT7 was built
Which of those are you questioning, and what sources would you trust? I'm guessing you don't trust any MSM sources...it's a nasty catch-22, the only sources you trust are other truthers.
What do you think about the war on drugs?
How about Operation Wall Street?
Shout it today!
http://www.youshouts.com/index.php
On it?
1) Or over it? I don't believe they would alow a building to be built without a strong enough foundation.
2) Does that mean that there was no fireproofing? I doubt that also.
I am gross and perverted, I'm obsessed and deranged, I have existed for years but very little has changed, I'm the tool of the government and industry too. Have you guessed me yet??
I'm the slime oozing out from your TV set.
OK
1) Over it...you find it hard to believe that city planners and archtects would make a bonehead decision? I'm sure it happens a lot.
2) Nope...there was fireproofing, but I have never found anything that insulates against heat as well as asbestos.
What do you think about the war on drugs?
How about Operation Wall Street?
Shout it today!
http://www.youshouts.com/index.php
Yes I find
it hard to believe, in fact they probably paid more attention to having a strong foundation due to the fact it was over a con ed station.
2) I am sure the fireproofing was just as good or better than asbestos, and what do tree huggers have to do with asbestos not being used anymore? Maybe the millions of cases of lung cancer had something to do with it!!
My asbestos tree has pretty fireproof flowers in the spring. : )
I am gross and perverted, I'm obsessed and deranged, I have existed for years but very little has changed, I'm the tool of the government and industry too. Have you guessed me yet??
I'm the slime oozing out from your TV set.
forbidden fruit...
Let's see the "mainstream" sources. Demonstrate for us just how few and far between the coverage of WTC7 by the "mainstream" media has been.
----
The Antidote to neoCon Koolaid: www.dvds4delegates.com
"We really do have...a once in a lifetime opportunity to take the Republican Party back to where it was." -Kent Snyder, 1959-2008
----
"...a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." -John F. Kennedy
Try this one
This is from wikipedia.org article on 7 World Trade Center
The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967.[3] The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft (55,700 m²).[4] The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building covering a larger footprint than originally planned when the substation was built.
What do you think about the war on drugs?
How about Operation Wall Street?
Shout it today!
http://www.youshouts.com/index.php
"crappy job of investigation"
"...built on a Con Edison substation, with a cassion [sic] foundation that was never intended to hold a building more than 20-25 stories."
To support this assertion, you're relying on the following, apparently: Salvarinas, John J. (1986). "Seven World Trade Center, New York, Fabrication and Construction Aspects". Proceedings of the 1986 Canadian Structural Engineering Conference, Vancouver: Canadian Steel Construction Council
According to this source, "Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The fifth floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the seventh floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames."
Thus, WTC7 was engineered with a hybrid caisson foundation, consisting of old and new caissons, based on the unique needs of the designers to incorporate the Con Ed substation and an existing shipping/receiving ramp into their design plans.
Thus, WTC7 was engineered and built with a hybrid caisson foundation, consisting of old and new caissons, intended to hold a 47-story building.
Considering all of that, someone could arguably label your assertion that WTC7 was "...built on a Con Edison substation, with a cassion [sic] foundation that was never intended to hold a building more than 20-25 stories" as intellectually dishonest.
Also, neither of the sources that you cited support your "shoddy fireproofing" assertion.
So much for your "facts."
I would also add that the NIST progress report that you cite does not tackle the question of how uncontrolled hydro-carbon fires could have caused observed ground temperatures of 1100+ degrees Fahrenheit five days later on 9/16/2001, according to a NASA/ U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) thermal imaging/spectrometer on that date, at the site of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 which was not struck by an aircraft, thus not exposed to burning jet fuel.
Perhaps in answering that question NIST could improve their chances for success in trying "to determine why and how WTC 7 collapsed" since fire is so central to their current hypothesis.
----
The Antidote to neoCon Koolaid: www.dvds4delegates.com
"We really do have...a once in a lifetime opportunity to take the Republican Party back to where it was." -Kent Snyder, 1959-2008
----
"...a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." -John F. Kennedy
Ok
So you have a hybrid foundation, fusing old and new elements of structural support. I would take that to mean that neither structure was capable of supporting the building themselves, but together they could support the structure.
If you ask me...sounds like they made a hybrid foundation to save the money it would have cost to actually demolish the Con Ed station and do it right the first time.
So if one of the two structural supports were to fail, or if the diaphram were to become damaged (this was on the 5th floor, where there was definite damage from the falling twin towers) than the building may have become unstable.
Would you not agree that this is very atypical of the way skyscrapers are designed?
What do you think about the war on drugs?
How about Operation Wall Street?
Shout it today!
http://www.youshouts.com/index.php
Stop Stupidity now.
So let me get this right. The base of the building caused every joint member and support as well as weld and bolt to magically loose all strength at once and fall into a pile of dust. You are laughable at best with your attempt at spreading disinfo.
Your assumption is like asking me to believe in Santa Claus.
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
The Collaspe
Was just so clean and uniform and neat. A nice neat package, if you will, ready for instant removal as like a construction site. Then all evidence hauled off without examination, quickly as in secret.
I find it hard to impossible that a building would fall in this manner without assistance.