WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall
In its draft report, released in August 2008, NIST attempted to cover up evidence that WTC7 fell at free fall, but the cover up was transparent. In its final report, released in November 2008, NIST finally acknowledged free fall, but couched it in a bizarre framework that continues to deny its clear significance. ae911truth
http://rattube.com/blog1/2008/12/08/wtc7-nist-finally-admits...
911 Truth: The Bogus NIST Report & The Lingering Questions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBZTsa6j0Ag&feature=channel_page
John Gross (NIST) denies (Lies) existence of molten metal at UT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcqf5tL887o
9/11 Truth: What Happened to Building 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEuJimaumW4&feature=channel
Collapse Footage WTC7 from multiple angles:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6o0o1yXkGV8&feature=channel
ZERO.Investigation.Into.911
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2296490368603788739
911 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PawC4u1U7k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG6i6WBHM3U&feature=related
Is the Media lying about 9/11/2001?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2PZ1yn6r-c&feature=channel_page
9/11 Blueprint for Truth presented by Architect Richard Gage, AIA
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8182697765360042032...
Frequently Asked Questions
Question 1. How could the attacks be faked in such a massive operation? Surely one of the hundreds of people involved would step forward and declare what they know to the media.
Answer: Three major elements in the operational security of the September 11 Black Op would not be guessed by the average citizen, this amounting to a fourth element.
First, most of the participants in the operation had no idea they were participating in it. Instead, they thought they were involved in a war game scheduled for that day (coincidence number 123). For example several fighter wings had been flown out of the area as part of the games, providing scant air cover in the event. Later, when 911 itself resulted in the call down of all commercial aircraft, this would have made it possible to land three of the hijacked flights in the confusion, while substitute aircraft took over. Thus, 911 acted as its own cover, in effect, as well.
Second, many of the key participants in the operation already belonged to intelligence agencies from one of the participating countries, principally (at a guess) the CIA, MI6, and Mossad. All three agencies are known to have black ops and Mossad, in particular, has a very long history in explosive ordnance disposal (EOD, as it is known in the trade. (This branch of special operations has little to do with “disposal” and much to do with “explosives.”) No intelligence officer is likely to blow the cover on an operation to which he/she is fully committed. Even if an intel type decided to tell all, he or she would be scheduled for immediate “extreme prejudice” treatment, not to mention the barrier he or she would face in the next paragraph.
Third, as our own experience with the media suggests, stories that directly contradict the spin are unwelcome, to say the least, even from undercover agents. The extremely sensitive nature of the story would trigger a series of consultations up the chain of ownership to the top, from which a flat “no” would be issued. The mere possibility of Israel being involved in such a story would send owners into a panic. It is a matter of public record that all five principal owners are committed zionists for whom Israel can do no wrong. (See the MEDIA tab at the top of our index page for further information.)
Question 2. The mere possibility that the attacks were faked just sounds preposterous to me. Who could believe such a thing?
Answer: The true nature of 911 could be called “the secret that keeps itself.” It had predecessors in both American and middle eastern history in which the true perpetrators of “terrorist” acts had already been painted as victims, in effect, by the media. From the Gulf of Tonkin incident which triggered the Vietnam War back to the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1945 which enabled the creation of the the state of Israel, the attack of 911 is hardly an isolated example. Moreover, the Operation Northwoods plan (now public under the FOIA) called for hijackings of passenger aircraft, blowing up a US ship, and orchestrated terrorism in American cities - all to be blamed on Fidel Castro.
Question 3. What benefit would the perpetrators of the 911 attacks, the ones you claim are most probably behind them, get from such an operation?
Answer: In a nutshell, American and British Oil interests would benefit hugely from the resulting invasions of Afghanistan, namely in a pipeline corridor from the central Asian oil fields to the existing middle eastern pipeline network, including new terminal facilities at Haifa. The Iraqi oil fields are the main prize, however. They are likely to remain in American hands for the foreseeable future. The ultimate profits from such operations are enormous and swell the coffers of companies owned by the Bush (Carlyle Group and Zapata Oil) and Cheney (Halliburton) Families, not to mention Unocal and other oil giants. There would be additional benefits to the arms industry in the manufacture of arms and war materiel to accommodate the new conflict.
In addition, a global master plan for the conquest of the Middle East had already been worked out by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) drawn up by the neocon element in Washington. The plan even called for a “new Pearl Harbor” as the trigger that would set it in motion.
Finally, Israel would get a green light for a new wave of oppression in Gaza and the West Bank. World opinion would not turn against draconian new projects such as “The Wall,” if neighboring Islamic Countries (including Palestine) were viewed generally as a source of terrorism. There appears to be a long-term plan in effect, one that passes from government to government in Israel. The plan calls for a “divide and conquer” strategy by which all of Palestine will eventually become part of Israel.
Question 4. If the attacks of September 11 were faked, what about the long string of terrorist attacks and suicide bombings attributed to Al Qaeda?
Answer: Al Qaeda is almost certainly a long-term black operation that began shortly after the end of close cooperation between Ousama Bin Laden and the Mujahadeen with the United States in Afghanistan during the 1990s. Bin Laden, who is known to have suffered from terminal kidney disease, was visited by the CIA section chief in a hospital in Dubai in mid-2001. He survived just long enough after 911 to issue a statement that the attacks were not his work or the work of any Muslim. The denial appeared in a Pakistani newspaper, but was ignored by western news sources. In the words of one of a Panel member from the intel community, “Al Qaeda is us.”
In view of the fact that the same pattern of anomalous circumstances surrounds both previous and subsequent attacks attributed to Al Qaeda (see OTHER ATTACKS - this website), Al Qaeda appears to serve as a kind of universal boogeyman to herd frightened western legislators into a neo-fascist political program that will, in the long run, result in dictatorial powers concentrated in the hands of a small cadre in Washington.
Question 5. If you people are right, why aren’t you all dead by now?
Answer: If you’re asking why we haven’t been "taken care of" by the true perpetrators, the answer is twofold. a) There are far too many of us to be "taken care of" without raising more suspicion than the perpetrators could handle. There are now literally hundreds of 911-skeptical websites, thousands of people working on the issue, and millions of people who have reached the same degree of skepticism or suspicion. (b) We assume that the perpetrators have enough control/influence over the mainstream media to keep 911 issues off the page and off the screen. (See the answer to Question 1.) Thus, they may not be particularly worried about our efforts - so far.
If they are worried, they will launch (or already have launched) a disinformation campaign. This would consist of one or more elements in an internet setting of articles and websites: Limited Hangout (a partial analysis, along with blame placed on the military-industrial complex, for example); Well-poisoning (the appearance of an investigative effort accompanied by stories or ads that refer to UFOs, mental telepathy, or what have you); Blackballing (a mixture of name-calling and misdirected analysis that leaves the impression that legitimate websites are either run by "conspiracy nuts" or are themselves engaged in a disinformation campaign run by terrorists); Denial of Evidence (a specific piece of 9/11 evidence is analyzed with seeming care - but for the omission of one or two crucial elements. The analysis may conclude that a particular video or photo or document was faked, unreliable, or in some other way unacceptable as evidence.)
The fact that websites with some of these qualities already exist (not a large percentage) creates problems with interpretation; there would be no easy way to distinguish such a website mounted by a trained psyops professional from one designed by a well-meaning but off-track investigator.
Question 6. Are you saying the Jews are behind 911?
Answer: Certainly not. Although Israel is ostensibly a Jewish state, its actions in the middle east are in direct conflict with Jewish Law, ethics and morality. The European (Khazarite) Jews may be described as double victims, suffering not only from centuries of persecution after the fall of Muslim Spain, but from the deceptive practices adopted by the Zionist planners responsible for Israel. Myths such as “a land without people for a people without land” (both questionable propositions) misled thousands of settlers in the Jewish proto-state, followed by millions later.
As a general rule, zionist organizations in the west have only one tool with which to counter revelations of the myth-building exercise. Whoever makes such claims is labeled an “anti-semite,” a peculiarly ironic charge under the circumstances.
"The use of 'conspiracy theory' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent and other points of view, and information that might be inconvenient for a policy agenda." - Chris Sanders, Oil, Smoke & Mirrors
John F. Kennedy said "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest -- but the myth -- persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."
For Those Who Do Not Recognise That Something Is Amiss
Have you discovered whether you want to know the truth?
Have you gotten that far?
Something is amiss alright
Sure there is something amiss. As Ron Paul said, the government is out of control and their foreign policy caused massive blow-back on 9-11.
Register as Republican and Vote for Ron Paul
A Personal Decision
Have you ever found yourself caught between several hundred million people and their most cherished lies? After writing a letter to a government scientist, pleading with him to clarify a report of his work, I found myself in just that situation. The letter was circulated on the internet and for a brief time I became a reluctant celebrity. Of course I stand behind what I wrote, although it was originally intended as a personal message, not an open letter. Since many have asked for clarification, here is my message to all.
To me, the report in question represents a decision point, not just for the US, but for humanity as a whole. We're at a point where we must decide if we will live consciously, or literally give up our entire reality for a thin veneer of lies. In the US these lies include cheap propaganda that passes for journalism, police-state measures that promise security, and mountains of debt that paint a picture of wealth. Additionally we've adopted many implicit self-deceptions, like the idea that we'll always enjoy a limitless share of the world's resources, no matter where these are located or who might disagree.
All people lie to themselves. It's one of the most important things we have yet to accept about our own nature. We lie to ourselves to justify our past actions, to protect our self-image, and to promote ourselves relative to others. This lying is at the root of many of our problems (e.g. nationalism and racism). Until we see this, and strive to understand if not control it, the resulting problems will continue unchecked and the outcome will be certain. Any organism or society that makes self-deception its modus operandi will make many bad, and ultimately fatal, decisions. The day will come when we are collectively fooling ourselves in such a way that we essentially trade everything we have for what's behind our fantasy curtain. It appears that day is near.
The official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a key part of our current self-deception. More importantly, this story may be our last chance to see just how critical our situation is so that we can all stop, and begin working together to solve the real problems we face. These problems, for the US and the world as a whole, amount to a growing storm of factors including environmental changes, resource depletion, and growth in resource usage.[1,2] Undoubtedly the secret Energy Taskforce report of May 2001 would verify this, and help us to understand that our government is responding to some of these threats with a carefully laid out plan. This plan assumes that people cannot rise above their own natural, ego-based self-deception, and therefore few of us will survive the coming storm. In essence, they're betting against us.
Anyone who honestly looks at the evidence has difficulty finding anything in the official story of 9/11 that is believable. It's not just one or two strange twists or holes in the story, the whole thing is bogus from start to end.[3] In my previous job I was in a position to question one part, the collapse of three tall buildings due to fire. But this isn't really a chemistry or engineering problem, and may be best approached initially through statistics.
The three WTC buildings in question weren't all designed the same way and weren't all hit by airplanes. The only thing they seemed to have in common were relatively small and manageable fires, as indicated by the work of firefighters right up to the moment of collapse. From the government's report we know that only a small percentage of the supporting columns in each of the first two buildings were severed, and that the jet fuel burned off in just a few minutes.
To follow the latest "leading hypothesis", what are the odds that all the fireproofing fell off in just the right places, even far from the point of impact? Without much test data, let's say it's one in a thousand. And what are the odds that the office furnishings converged to supply highly directed and (somehow) forced-oxygen fires at very precise points on the remaining columns? Is it another one in a thousand? What is the chance that those points would then all soften in unison, and give way perfectly, so that the highly dubious "progressive global collapse" theory could be born? I wouldn't even care to guess. But finally, with well over a hundred fires in tall buildings through history, what are the chances that the first, second and third incidents of fire-induced collapse would all occur on the same day? Let's say it's one in a million. Considering just these few points we're looking at a one in a trillion chance, using generous estimates and not really considering the third building (no plane, no jet fuel, different construction).
How convenient that our miraculous result, combined with several other trains of similarly unlikely events, gives us reason to invade the few most strategically important lands for the production of oil and natural gas. As I said, this is not about chemistry or engineering. Our continued dependence on this highly improbable story means that we have a desperate need to believe it. It is, in fact, a psychology problem.
Solving the problem is a personal challenge, and involves at least three-steps. First, we have to admit we were wrong, and that we were fooled. This is not easy for most people, but congratulations to the neo-cons for noticing that their political opponents seem to be least able to admit they were wrong on any significant issue. Secondly, we have to see that terrorism is actually much worse than we feared because the terrorists are in charge. Such a pause on a national scale would be dramatic to say the least. If we get to the third step we begin to realize the scope of change necessary to move forward in a conscious manner. Obviously the US government must be substantially changed and/or forgiven. New cooperative, multinational agreements would need to be implemented immediately.[4]
If you make it through step one and care enough about people to work for step three, you may face ridicule and isolation. You may lose your income and some friends, but if we continue down the same path there's a real chance you're going to lose those anyway. On the upside you may be able to hold on to some sense of integrity. The only thing you can be certain of is that we're all in this together. No matter how you voted, what credentials or positions you hold, or what faith you have in people, you will face the consequences of our collective self-deceptions. Now is the time for each of us to decide between a stormy reality and what's behind the fantasy curtain.
THE TOP 40 REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/76559
"The use of 'conspiracy theory' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."
"The use of 'Conspiracy Theorist' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."
Ron's A Good Man!
If he changed his mind would you change yours?
At the end explains Rhino to a tee..
As a general rule, zionist organizations in the west have only one tool with which to counter revelations of the myth-building exercise. Whoever makes such claims is labeled an “anti-semite,” a peculiarly ironic charge under the circumstances.
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
NEW THREAD...
THE TOP 40 REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/76559
"The use of 'conspiracy theory' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent and other points of view, and information that might be in
"The use of 'Conspiracy Theorist' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."
Good post
Thanks. Keep up the good work.
here is some more info which many people have never seen or heard of, or others may have forgotten.
-----------
I have until recently been challenging people to find the 19 Arabs on the passenger and crew lists at CNN. I have just today discovered that CNN scrubbed the compelete lists but have retained articles on individuals. So I used the Internet Wayback Machine located at http://www.Archive.org and found these results
To look at those passenger and flight crew lists for the allegedly hijacked planes please go here. If you bookmark this page, you can click on the links and get the other 3 memorial lists. I have provided all the other lists directly below as well.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010...victims/AA77.victims.html
The above URL is for Flight 77 only. Please go here for Flight 11:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010...victims/AA11.victims.html
And here for Flight 93:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010...victims/ua93.victims.html
And here for Flight 175:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010...ictims/ua175.victims.html
--------------------
"All men in power should be distrusted.." -James Madison
"All men in power should be distrusted.." -James Madison
One of the main issues with the 9/11 movement is their total
inability to focus.
They are charging off in a thousand directions.
WTC 7 is the only thing to talk about...why?
It is the only 9/11 point that is easy to understand.
It is WHY the LEADERS of the 9/11 movement have always evaded WTC 7...because they are committed to the failure of the 9/11 movement.
They have been successful.
I have communicated with 6 different so called leaders of the movement. People who have been on TV. Who have published mainstream books...PHD's....been on radio and publish or contribute to major 9/11 websites.
Out of the six 3 told me to buy their book or DVD. I asked them if the proceeds went to the families of the 3000 dead. No was the answer in all three cases.
My suggestion that they focus on WTC 7 (the subject of this thread) was skirted and ignored by all except one.
Good bye 9/11 movement. Coopted like the peace movement.
Please take my suggestion and refrain from trying to identify men who will never be identified.
Stick with the building that fell down on national TV FOR NO REASON.
Tell people who will listen to research demolition engineering on the web for 30 minutes and then study steel building design for an hour.
The NIST paper is BASED on Americans ability to accept what the media tells them as truth. "Thermal expansion" is absolutely ridiculous.
The people in power NEED you to NOT research. They need you to fight amongst yourselves and they need you to go off on tangents.
Tell folks the truth. It is the only thing that will work.
Unify
How can you say it fell for no reason?
- Debris from the WTC1 tower slammed into it, which is clear in videos, and ripped a 20 story hole near the base. Firemen, photographs and video testify to this.
- Five diesel generators started on fire which caused a massive inferno
- Firefighters couldn't fight the fire, and it burned all day at temperatures > 1000 C. Steel loses half its strength at 450C and 2/3 strength at 600C.
It is no mystery why this building came down.
Register as Republican and Vote for Ron Paul
Oh, forget about the diesel
In its new draft report based entirely on computer models, NIST contradicts its previous statements that suggested the building was destroyed due to fires caused by diesel fuel. This was despite the fact that, after several years of investigation, NIST still believed that the diesel fuel had made all the difference. NIST used its partner, Popular Mechanics, to communicate the diesel fuel theory.
In a March 2005 article that was later expanded into a farcical book, Popular Mechanics (PM), claimed "investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel." Sivaraj Shyam Sunder, the leading deceiver for NIST and PM, expounded on this claim by stating "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."7
But like the previous explanations for the towers (remember the pancake theory?), the final explanation for WTC 7 bears no resemblance to the earlier versions. NIST simply states in its new report that the diesel fuel played no role in the destruction of WTC 7.
"However, fuel oil fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7." (NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii)
Oddly enough, no one in the major media seemed to notice. Even the New York Times, which had published scores of articles referring to WTC 7 and diesel fuel since 9/11, played along with this complete reversal without skipping a beat. Reporter Eric Lipton, who previously had written of WTC 7's "disastrous blaze fed by diesel fuel", simply suggested that NIST's Sunder, in explaining his new theory, was being very patient with the "conspiracy theorists".8
THE TOP 40 REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/76559
"The use of 'conspiracy theory' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."
"The use of 'Conspiracy Theorist' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."
Oh, forget about the damage caused by the falling towers, too
For years, we were also told that WTC 7 fell because 25% of the building was "scooped out" by falling debris from the towers. This completely unsupported claim came from a media driven exaggeration of another statement Sunder made to his supporters at PM. Sunder claimed that "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."9
Of course, one third of one quarter only makes one twelfth, not 25%, but that was not important. As with the other official stories and exaggerated media versions of them, everyone knew that the goal for NIST and the Bush Administration was to make people stop thinking about it. That's probably why so many of the official/media legends centered on food analogies. There was the pancake theory, and licorice steel, and the donut (WTC 6). And as with those, the "scooped out" phrase sent the blood running quickly from the brain to the stomach in anticipation of an ice cream treat. Celebrities like Denis Leary and Alan Colmes just ate it up and regurgitated it, as did Matthew Rothschild, Manuel Garcia, and every other pretentious supporter of the official conspiracy theory.
It turns out that the "scooped out" nonsense was just more speculative deception. NIST knew that it would never be able to support such a claim with real science, as even the simplest evaluations disputed it. It was evident that the debris pattern at Ground Zero was incredibly asymmetrical, and NIST probably didn't want to have to explain that anyway. But no one would believe that falling debris had "scooped out" so much of WTC 7, while the buildings immediately adjacent to WTC 7 incurred essentially no damage at all from the falling towers. Not even Larry could be so lucky.
Additionally, it was clear that such extreme, asymmetric damage would have caused an asymmetric collapse, not a straight down free-fall speed collapse as we see in the videos. In the end, NIST gave up on the "scooped out" explanation, stating:
"Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7." NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii
For those who were looking for easy answers, this new story means that the blood must leak back to the brain after all. But NIST is hoping that, by now, we've forgotten how to think altogether.
THE TOP 40 REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/76559
"The use of 'conspiracy theory' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."
"The use of 'Conspiracy Theorist' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."
Links don't work... and will you post this on the new thread?
THE TOP 40 REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001
"The use of 'conspiracy theory' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent"
"The use of 'Conspiracy Theorist' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."
dissident
i'm curious about a news flash today about closing gizmo. apparently, closing gizmo will be difficult as they have "terrorists" there that haven't yet been brought to trial. do you think the reason for that is because of what a trial would stir up? and how likely is it that any of them will be found guilty and if not, what will the public do- i mean, since most buy into the story, won't they be outraged and finally, there is SO MUCH evidence th is just waiting to come out of these "terrorists" mouths- i think maybe the trials are put on permanent hold. what do you think and thanks for the links
~peace
~peace
Please post on the new thread...Thanks
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/76559
"The use of 'conspiracy theory' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent and other points of view, and information that might be in
"The use of 'Conspiracy Theorist' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."
yes this is important stuff , should have it's own thread.
~Mikael / Peace, love, Light and unity ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Stop the NWO....It's just illumi..Naughty !
Oh, forget about the diesel fuel
In its new draft report based entirely on computer models, NIST contradicts its previous statements that suggested the building was destroyed due to fires caused by diesel fuel. This was despite the fact that, after several years of investigation, NIST still believed that the diesel fuel had made all the difference. NIST used its partner, Popular Mechanics, to communicate the diesel fuel theory.
In a March 2005 article that was later expanded into a farcical book, Popular Mechanics (PM), claimed "investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel." Sivaraj Shyam Sunder, the leading deceiver for NIST and PM, expounded on this claim by stating "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."7
But like the previous explanations for the towers (remember the pancake theory?), the final explanation for WTC 7 bears no resemblance to the earlier versions. NIST simply states in its new report that the diesel fuel played no role in the destruction of WTC 7.
"However, fuel oil fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7." (NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii)
Oddly enough, no one in the major media seemed to notice. Even the New York Times, which had published scores of articles referring to WTC 7 and diesel fuel since 9/11, played along with this complete reversal without skipping a beat. Reporter Eric Lipton, who previously had written of WTC 7's "disastrous blaze fed by diesel fuel", simply suggested that NIST's Sunder, in explaining his new theory, was being very patient with the "conspiracy theorists".8
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/76559
"The use of 'conspiracy theory' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent and other points of view, and information that might be in
"The use of 'Conspiracy Theorist' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."
Who did it and why is the job of a law enforcement person
"How" is what is being discussed here.
The question is simple.
How do you explain the collapse behavior observed by four different camera angles on national TV?
The building was dropped.
Gravity PULLED the building down into a neat pile.
If fires can be used to explain this collapse behavior so be it.
They had to cut the 47 support columns in the basement simultaneously to achieve the collapse behavior observed on CBS, ABC, CNN, NBC etc.
If a person with training can explain how this occurred I will acknowledge them. Until then, cutting charges getting detonated simultaneously in the basement of WTC 7 is how the building was brought down for the simple reason that it is the most elegant explanation for the collapse behavior.
It could have been effing space aliens for all I know and if it was? The space aliens used effing cutting charges on the support columns in the effing basement...the lil buggers.
Unify
Well...
"It could have been effing space aliens for all I know and if it was?"
I think that just about sums up your post right there.
and...
"They had to cut the 47 support columns in the basement simultaneously to achieve the collapse behavior observed on CBS, ABC, CNN, NBC etc."
Buildings don't just collapse if you cut the bottom supports.
Observe-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiNrzmbdC1Q&feature=related
CHA-CHING!
I want to add to that ...
The building did not collapse from the bottom up ...
clearly from the video it collapsed from the top down.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
Yep and they can demo buildings from the top down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R20V9mt5m54
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
You obviously did not read tstorey's comment ...
because if you did, you would realize how stupid that statement is.
Of course I agree with you, but that was not the issue.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
A very big Thanks to everyone who has provided
all the hard research and data here. It is an amazing source. It should be saved.
I am taking paper copies of this thread with me to Toronto for Christmas with family. I am tired of all the "well how can you prove it was an inside job " questions....
Wish me luck in opening minds!
Oh and best wishes to All for blessings this Christmas.
cw
Best of Luck just make sure and delete agent BBagnall's dribble!
"The use of 'conspiracy theory' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent and other points of view, and information that might be in
"The use of 'Conspiracy Theorist' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."
And yet, by that statement alone you have proven
your ultimate hypocrisy. You believe in freedom and yet you advocate only presenting those viewpoints that agree with you.
If your beliefs are so infallible, then what are you afraid of?
Oh yeah, and i'm getting paid. Like 200,000 a year. Just to point out flaws in your logic.
CHA-CHING!
It was meant for amusement only... settle down.
"The use of 'conspiracy theory' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent and other points of view, and information that might be in
"The use of 'Conspiracy Theorist' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."
I'm
not lauging at your weak attempts to pass off stupid statements as humor.
CHA-CHING!
the Negativity
shows you are starting to become desperate
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
HA! Thanks!! This thing is a book
a big book, a really big book...
You might even want to copyright your portions before I clean it up....
though I promise not to sell any of it...
cw
Is there a link the 'final' NIST report?
on the NIST site?
Don't give me a 9/11 truther site.
Who sabotaged WTC buildings?
A theory: The people who placed the detonation charges in Buildings 1, 2 and 7 were put on the 4 commercial jets that were supposedly hijacked. Those planes were replaced by the military planes and/or weapons that hit New York, Pentagon and Shanksville. Then the real commercial flights were diverted to secret locations and the perps were "disappeared." There were no bodies to be recovered at Shanksville, the Pentagon or New York. Now there is no one left to spill the truth about how the WTC buildings were sabotaged.
After 9-11, do you trust anyone in government to tell you the truth about anything?