Powerful Documentary Movie Raises WTC Demolition Issue!

[Dancing_Dave]

Show this one to ALL your best friends:
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/Secret-Evil-of-911.wmv

What an insightful combination of deep documentary and music! Show this to friends and change their lives.

For a more detailed physical understanding of the demolition issues, first put on The Bush Dynasty Blues station for background music:
http://www.artistlaunch.com/artist8.asp?artistid=6312

Then watch this scientist's slideshow about the WTC:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/index.html

ANY CITIZEN can understand these two presentations...and then their lives will be forever changed.

[Dancing_Dave]

1. Clarification of Real Estate Fraud Motive

It's important for citizens to understand the real estate fraud motive behind the demolition of the Towers on 9/11 too:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO403B.html

This allowed a criminal deal to be struck between Larry Silverstein and the Bush Administration, which had it's own political reasons for needing the 9/11 "New Pearl Harbor". Means, motive and opportunity for the multi-billion dollar mass murder propaganda crime of the century all came together on 9/11/2001.

Marvin Bush, Karl Rove, Paul Gargano, and Dick Cheney also seem to have been involved in the deal.

[Dancing_Dave]

4. Better clarification of the demolition/insurance scam

Here's more key info to understanding how the scam went down in New York:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html

Anyone who lives in a big American city, should be very familiar with this sort of scam! ;-)

I'll fill you all in on the connections to Washington and Bush shortly.

[Dancing_Dave]

2. Scam.com discussion of Bush Administration end of 9/11 deal

It's interesting to hear some citizens expressing ideas about the 9/11 propaganda scam at another site now:
http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=414&goto=nextoldest

:yourock:

[Dancing_Dave]

3. Eisenberg of Port Authority and Republican National Committee

Is actually the guy who negotiated the lease deal which brought in Silverstein, who could get the insurance contracts needed to make the 9/11 demolition of the WTC profitable:
http://911review.com/motive/insurance.html

It would have looked to suspicious for the Port Authority itself to be seeking a whole bunch of new insurance policies on it's old buildings in the 2001. But it seemed legit enough, for Silverstein, as new lease holder to be getting new insurance policies.

The story of the whole devils bargain is a bit complicated, but we have the essentials of this mystery solved.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. Insightful isn't the word for it

Insipid is more like it. Okay, this is the first third of the video, along with my comments.

(Tasteless juxtaposition of 9/11 footage with inappropriate head banging song.)

SHOCK

AND

AWE

Slow down...

sit back...

prepare to think...

critically, logically...

not just believing what you've been told...

learn to spot inconsistent stories...

and outright lies.

Sounds good to me *cracks knuckles*

In memory of all the innocent victims of the events of September 11, 2001 ...victims both in the U.S. and overseas wars that were justified and rationalized by the "attacks" on that fateful day.

The official story:

1) Jef fuel fire caused WTC 1 & 2 to collapse due to weakened support beems

2) WTC 7 collapsed from fire on one side of the building

That's a gross oversimplification of what NIST engineers are working with:

WTC 1

* Aircraft impact damaged the perimeter columns, mainly on the north face, resulting in redistribution of column loads, mostly to the adjacent perimeter columns and to a lesser extent, the core columns.

* After breaching the building’s perimeter, the aircraft continued to penetrate into the building, damaging floor framing, core columns and fireproofing. Loads on the damaged columns were redistributed to other intact core and perimeter columns mostly via the floor systems and to a lesser extent, via the hat truss (the steel structure that supported the antenna atop the towers and was connected to the core and perimeter columns).

* The subsequent fires, influenced by the impact-damaged condition of the fireproofing:
o Softened and buckled the core columns and caused them to shorten, resulting in a downward displacement of the core relative to the perimeter. This led to the floors (1) pulling the perimeter columns inward, and (2) transferring vertical loads to the perimeter columns; and
o Softened the perimeter columns on the south face and also caused perimeter column loads to increase significantly due to restrained thermal expansion.
* Due to the combined effects of heating on the core and perimeter columns, the south perimeter wall bowed inward and highly stressed sections buckled.

* The section of the building above the impact zone began tilting to the south as the bowed south perimeter columns buckled. The instability rapidly progressed horizontally across the entire south face and then across the adjacent east and west faces.

* The change in potential energy due to the downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued.

WTC 2

* Aircraft impact damaged the perimeter columns, mainly on the south face, resulting in redistribution of column loads, mostly to the adjacent perimeter columns and to a lesser extent, the core columns.

* After breaching the building’s perimeter, the aircraft continued to penetrate into the building, damaging floor framing, core columns and fireproofing. Loads on the damaged columns were redistributed to other intact core and perimeter columns mostly via the floor systems and to a lesser extent, via the hat truss.

* The subsequent fires, influenced by the impact-damaged condition of the fireproofing:
o Caused significant sagging of the floors on the east side that induced the floors to pull the perimeter columns inward on the east face;
o Softened and buckled the core columns on the east side and caused them to shorten, which transferred significant additional load to the perimeter columns on the east face primarily through the floor system and to a lesser extent, the hat truss; and
o Softened some of the perimeter columns that were exposed to high temperatures toward the northern half of the east face.
* Due to the additional loads on the perimeter columns on the east face and the inward pulling of those columns, the east perimeter wall bowed inward and highly stressed sections buckled.

* The section of the building above the impact zone began tilting to the east and south as both the east perimeter columns and the impact-damaged south perimeter columns buckled. The instability rapidly progressed horizontally across both faces and across the north face.

* The change in potential energy due to the downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued.

WTC 7

The working hypothesis, for the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, if it holds up upon further analysis, would suggest that it was a classic progressive collapse that included:

• An initial local failure due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column, which supported a large span floor area of about 2,000 ft 2, at the lower floors (below Floor 14) of the building,

• Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse bringing down the interior structure under the east penthouse, and

• Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of Floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

But I understand that it's hard to fit all of that into one screen...

Chapter 1: The Weakest Link (shot: simulation of WTC 7 collapse from south)

WTC Building 7 (shot: WTC 7, from ground, shot from northeast)

This building has two small fires on it's side

Completely wrong. Just utterly wrong, wrong, wrong. Here's a list from the NIST interim report, back in June 2004, of what they knew even then:

L.2.2 Observed Fire Locations

Photographs and videos were used to determine fire locations and movement within WTC 7. Most of the available information is for the north and east faces of WTC 7. Information about fires in other areas of the building was obtained from interviews, and is summarized as follows:
From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
• No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas
• No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th Floor from the exterior, stairwells or lobby areas
• In the east stairwell, smoke was observed around Floors 19 or 20, and a signs of a fully involved fire on the south side of Floor 23 were heard/seen/smelled from Floor 22.
• Interviews place a fire on Floor 7 at the west wall, toward the south side, at approximately 12:15 p.m.
• From West and Vesey Streets near the Verizon Building, fires were observed in floors estimated to be numbered in the 20s and 30s.
Looking from the southwest corner at the south face:
• Fire was seen in the southwest corner near Floor 10 or 11
• Fire was seen on Floors 6, 7, 8, 21, and 30
• Heavy black smoke came out of a large, multi-story gash in the south face
Looking from the southeast corner of the south face:
• Fire seen on Floor 14 (reported floor number) on south face; the face above the fire was covered with smoke
• Fire on Floor 14 moved towards the east face
Looking at the east face:
• Fire on Floor 14 (reported floor) moved along east face toward the north side Photographs and videos were used with these interview accounts to document fire progression in the building. The fires seen in photographs and videos are summarized:
Before 2:00 p.m.
• Figures L–22a shows fires that had burned out by early afternoon on Floors 19, 21, 22, 29, and 30 along the west face near the southwest corner.
2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
• Figure L–24a shows fires on east face Floors 11 and 12 at the southeast corner. Several photos during this time show fires progressing north.
3:00 to 5:00 p.m.
• Around 3 p.m., fires were observed on Floors 7 and 12 along the north face. The fire on Floor 12 appeared to bypass the northeast corner and was first observed at a point approximately one third of the width from the northeast corner, and then spread both east and west across the north face.
• Some time later, fires were observed on Floors 8 and 13, with the fire on Floor 8 moving from west to east and the fire on Floor 13 moving from east to west. Figure L–24b shows fires on Floors 7 and 12.
• At this time, the fire on Floor 7 appeared to have stopped progressing near the middle of the north face.
• The fire on Floor 8 continued to move east on the north face, eventually reaching the northeast corner and moving to the east face.
• Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

Yeah. Just two small fires. This is what's known as an outright lie.

Overlay: shot of WTC from much earlier in day with two fires - it fades out)

,,,which offically causes the collapse...

(NE shot unfreezes and the building collapses - fade to black)

Would two small fires cause a steel structure to uniformly collapse in near perfect symetry? (fade in overlay picture beside text, then picture and text, text crumbling, slide offscreen)

...and fall exactly on its footprint? (fade in: overhead shot of collapsed WTC 7)

Shouldn't a failure on one side cause something like this....

(Clip: a controlled demolition of an eleven story steel structure - the structure falls over like a domino as planned)

Well, it didn't fail on one side. It failed inside the building. That's why it fell down inside of itself. When people say "two small fires on the side", this is a "straw man". That means they are using a complete misrepresentation of what's being claimed, exposing it as silly, then telling you to believe something even more ludicrious.

Instead, WTC 7 looked like this... (clip: a controlled demolition of a fifteen story hotel - one side falls asymmetrically, followed by second, then the top topples over like a domino)

Controlled Demo... (people observing the collapse start running from the cloud of dust)

Such as this (another clip of a demolition - again the collapse is asymmetrical, one corner followed by a second, and then the back end...)

Did you catch that? WTC 7 was a symmetrical collapse, so it had to be a controlled demolition, just like all of those other asymmetrical controlled demolitions. The forty seven story WTC 7 should have acted like the eleven story controlled demolition that fell over on its side as planned. Except, as noted above, the fires were all over, and the initial failure didn't happen on the side. It happened in the middle of the building. But still, WTC 7 should have looked like this controlled demolition, not those!

Ain't logic grand?

And lastly, from the owner's mouth. a man who stood to collect billions in terrorism insurance claims

admits in a PBS special "America Rebuilds" that they deliberately demolished WTC 7

(Clip: PBS Special, the famous quote from Silverstein we all know and love)

Be sure to catch the part of this clip showing copious amounts of smoke billowing up from those "two small fires"

What does "pull it" mean?

In demolition slang it means to bring the building down

And in firefighter slang it means to abandon any efforts of fighting a particularly dangerous fire. Who was Silverstein talking to, a demolition guy or a firefighting guy?

Listen to a worker speaking of the "offically" demolished WTC 6...*

*also from PBS "America Rebuilds" (another clip from PBS special - the worker says "We're getting ready to pull building six")

How about that? The demolition worker used the demolition meaning, and Silverstein talking to the fire commander used the firefighter meaning. Yay, context!

The offical line that building 7 collapsed because of fire is so ridiculously implausible...

oh my dear Lort, they're not just ripping off PBS, but Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody as well...

(fade in clip of Alex Jones: "because 7 wasn't hit by aircraft, caught fire later in the afternoon, and collapsed." Queen: Open your eyes... "Geometrically it imploded and collapsed on itself")

Immediate reaction by Dan Rather (clip of CBS News - Dan says it was just like "a building deliberately destroyed, destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down" - it was so good, they repeated it)

So why the offical line that WTC 7 fell because of fire...

Alex Jones: "How did they get explosives in the building? When it takes days and weeks to do it, if they decided to destroy it on 9/11? (Pause) You can't do that. Even it takes hours to do that, the building was on fire on the 7th and 12th floors..."

But there were only two small fires, Alex. Oh, wait, you're saying they had to have put the explosives in beforehand, just like normal demolitions? So it was all planned. So Silverstein, in the very same statement in which he rock-solid admitted, God's honest gospel truth, that they demolished WTC 7, was also lying about making the decision on 9/11. So Silverstein, thus an untrustworthy witness, should have his entire testimony impeached, including the part where he admits to demolishing WTC 7...oh, darn. Logic can be so cruel.

Oh, yeah, and Alex? Fires also on floors 23, 29, 10, 11, 6, 8, 21, 30, 14, 22, 13, and 9. And those are just the ones we saw.

Well, that's the end of Chapter One. And it was the Weakest Link. That means that was their best case. It doesn't get any better from here. But spotting inconsistent stories and outright lies sure is fun!

By the way, all misspellings in the text of the video are verbatim.

[Dancing_Dave]

6. The only reason you don't get it

Is because you don't WANT to get it. It's your job to oppose it with whatever spurious arguments you can quickly manufacture for the naive. But that's not my job in this world.

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Oh, I get it.

You will, of course, explain how my arguments are spurious, because I'm not inclined to accept your simple assertion that they are.

For example, here's one of my arguments:

The tape says that there were just two small fires in WTC 7. I show the evidence that there were many, many, many more fires in WTC 7. Much of the first chapter of this tape bases its arguments on the idea of there being two small fires (just like WTC 7 had a great deal of its structure based on that unusual transfer beam that straddled the electrical substations under the building). So by showing that there were far more than two small fires, I undermine most of the entire first third of the tape.

Now please explain how disproving a major assumption of the video is spurious.

[Dancing_Dave]

8. Would you care to show us photos of these raging infernos in WTC 7

hot enough to melt steel?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

9. Photos WTC7

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7.html

Photo of Fire on Building 7's Southeast Wall
This photo shows the largest fires observed in Building 7 on September 11, 2001.



Photo of Building 7's North Face Showing Fires
This photo shows the north face of Building 7 on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. There are no signs of damage to this face, such as broken windows, but fires are visible inside the building.



Photo Showing Building 7's Southern Walls
This photo was taken sometime in the afternoon of September 11, before Building 7 collapsed. Building 7 is the skyscraper in the upper right of the photograph. The partially crushed and burned-out remains of Building 4 are in the middle of the photograph and Building 5 is the dark object to the right. The fact that fires are no longer visible in these buildings suggests it is the mid- to late afternoon.

The southwest facade and southeast-facing wall of Building 7 are visible but there are no signs of fire.

[vincent_vega_lives]

13. If you check out page 5-20 of this report

It has some good pic of the "small fire"

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

[Bolo Boffin]

11. Appendix L of the June interim NIST report

has many pictures that you've never entered into evidence.

The links have been published here many times. Many times. Here it is, yet again.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/progress_report_june04.htm

There is a great deal of information there, but the pictures you seek are in Appendix L: Interim Report on WTC 7.

And by the way, "melt" steel? That's a straw man. Well before its melting point, steel enters an elastic stage where stress and weight can deform it to failure. The more you ignore this, the more we can safely ignore your conclusions.

[Dancing_Dave]

16. Never do this elastic stage result in the pattern of controlled demolition

We can see in the pictures of WTC7 being "pulled".

Like the NIST, you ignore most of the event you claim to explain.

:puke:

[Bolo Boffin]

19. Let the reader judge

...who's ignoring what.

[demodewd]

20. Building 6

Have you seen the pics of Building 6..totally engulfed in flames..and yet it remained standing?

[Bolo Boffin]

21. Building 6

Have you seen the pictures of Building 6?

The ones I've seen show just over a third of the eight story structure still standing. The rest collapsed when the North Tower fell on top of it, all the way into the basement.

Was 6 built over an electrical substation? Did 6 have anything like the complicated transfer truss system that 7 had as a result? Did the remaining structure of 6 have anything close to the mass that WTC 7 was dealing with?

There are clear reasons for non-equivalence between 6 and 7. Why don't you try comparing apples to apples? Why don't you try reading Appendix L of the interim NIST report?

[seatnineb]

15. Yeah!.......2 SMALL fires....

.........and you can keep quotin' your bullshit NIST report....cos' it ain't gonna make one iota of difference.......

[seatnineb]

23. Edit: Replied to Wrong Post

[LARED]

10. I started to watch the video from plaguepuppy's site

and quit right after the outright lie about the "offical story" (not to meantion they spelled beams beems)

If they can't even get that right, why bother to watch the rest of the tripe.

[spooked911]

12. I agree-- the typos kind of kill their credibility

They can't even spell Afghanistan?

Give me a break.

[Dancing_Dave]

17. How is that supposed to be to relevant

To any argument he is making?

The guy is a scientist, not an English teacher. So what? :smoke:

[LARED]

18. What guy is a scientist? n/t

[LARED]

27. I finally realized you are talking about PlaguePuppy

Assuming I am correct, you are correct; he's a scientist, A biologist by training.

[vincent_vega_lives]

14. Plaguepuppy

Now there's a name we haven't seen around here in a while.

I think he lost it when he started posting ponographic pics.

[Bolo Boffin]

22. Continuing my analysis

Since any rebuttal to my analysis of the video so far seems to be best summarized by "Nuh-uh!", I take it that I'm doing a good job and am pressing on.

In my last installment, I didn't include the foreword to this grim piece of disinformation. I call it disinformation based solely on my analysis of the first chapter, in which basic facts about WTC 7 are misrepresented (the number of fires, the working hypotheses for collapse) and misinterpreted (Silverstein's comment), which result in such strange arguments as "the collapse should have looked like this controlled demolition instead of that one." Anyway, here's that quote:

"People who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction."
-James Baldwin

That's so true, Mr. Baldwin. I'm going to make that my new signature.

So onward and downward. As always, the misspellings and grammatical mistakes in the transcript are verbatim.

Chapter 2: Melting Towers

Let me save myself a lot of time. We're going to hear a lot about the "melting point of steel" in this chapter. This is, again, a straw man. Steel doesn't have to get close to the melting point to become dangerous in a steel structure. Steel is usually quite elastic (meaning it will regain its initial shape after a deforming stress is removed), but enough heat will move it into a "plastic" stage, where stress will deform the steel structure permanently. The steel from the WTC towers shows all signs of having been in this plastic stage, the temperatures for which do not begin to approach the melting point of steel. Whenever you hear someone bring up the melting point of steel to show that the collapse of the WTC towers was deliberate, this person is confusing the issue.

(shot: ABC coverage of the collapse of the south tower in slo-motion)

(shot: footage of the North Tower collapsing, also in slo-motion - the footage breaks up into blocks and slides off screen)

Melting point of steel: 1535° C

Max temperature of non-pressurized hydrocarbon fire: ~825° C

Difference: ~710° C

The surface temperature of the Sun is 6000° C, a difference of 5175° C. It has just as much relevance to the plastic deformation of load-bearing steel as the melting point of steel.

No other modern steel structure skyscraper has collapsed from fire

PDF: Historical Survey of Multi-Story Building Collapses Due to Fire

(picture: 1 New York Plaza fire) Not the 1 New York Plaza Fire Which suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970

Nor the First Interstate Bank Fire of May 4, 1988 which burned for 3 1/2 hours

Not even the One Meridian Plaza Fire of February 23, 1991 which burned for over 18 hours!

None of these buildings had their structures severely compromised by airplanes being crashed into them or other buildings falling into them.

None of these buildings had the revolutionary design of the WTC towers.

And all of these other buildings were normal office fires - the fires in the two towers were started simultaneously over a large area of the building.

Why the Towers Fell: NOVA: Now, there have been fires in skyscrapers before. The Hotel Meridien in Philadelphia had a fire, but it didn't do this kind of damage. The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind, to go from one corner and start burning the other corner.

That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for -- a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side.

On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse. There was so much fuel spread so quickly that the entire floor got weakened all at once, whereas in a normal fire, people should not think that if there's a fire in a high-rise building that the building will come crashing down. This was a very unusual situation, in which someone dumped 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in an instant.

What was the nature of the fires in the Twin Towers?

"First principles, Clarice. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature?"

Sorry. I digress.

(sound: emergency channel)...Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor...

Two isolated pockets of fire...

It's good to actually hear those words while reading them. The words on the page don't begin to convey the urgency and stress in that firefighter's voice.

And while I'm here, to represent this single statement as the sum total of the fires in the towers...it just boggles the mind. That firefighter was on one floor. He couldn't have seen even all of that floor! He's reporting on one small section of the WTC towers.

But, hey! Since we've got that "two small fires" meme going, let's work it for all it's worth, right? :eyes:

(picture: WTC tower under construction) ...causes all 287 columns to weakened to the point of collapse at the same instance to cause the telescoping collapse of the towers.

There is absolutely no evidence that all 287 columns weakened to the point of collapse simultaneously. None, nary. The simultaneous collapse of all 287 is not a necessary part of what we saw that day. The CTs want to believe that it is so, because that is a basic premise of their argument. But there is no evidence presented to establish that premise. No premise, no argument.

Apparently the only evidence given here is stated thusly: The only way for the towers to telescope together is for all 287 columns to fail simultaneously. That's not true. It's a gross overstatement of what had to happen. Check out the actual working hypothesis from NIST above to see what we're actually talking about.

(footage of firefighters talking: 1:"We made it about a block?", 2: "We made it at least two blocks, and we started running...floor by floor started popping out" 2 indicates a pancaking effect with hands, 1: "It was as if, it was almost like they had denonated", 2: "Yeah, denonated..." 1: "denonated, planned to take down a building, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom")

(footage: WTC 2 collapsing - regular speed)

(footage: back to firefighters - 1:" boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom" 2:"...all the way down.")

(footage: rewind the firefighters - 1: "It was as if, it was almost like they had denonated", 2: "Yeah, denonated..." 1: "denonated, planned to take down a building, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom" 2:"...all the way down. I was watching it and running. And then you just saw this cloud of shit chasing you down...", 3: "Where did you go?" 1: "You couldn't outrun it" 2:"You couldn't outrun it." 3:"What did you do?" 2: "I jumped under a battalion(?) car, just hid under the car, it was way too dark.")

(footage: Alex Jones "Also we have the still images from Fox News, of video showing the puffs of smoke down the sides of 7, down 1 and 2, of the classic demolition charges going off, boom, boom, boom" hand mimics the squibs puffing out "boom boom boom, before the building collapsed. Boom boom boom boom boom? Ssssssssssss!" hand pushes the building down)

Doo whacka doo whacka boom boom boom.

It's just so clear that the firefighters and Alex are talking about two different things. Yet the way Alex appropriates the "boom" sounds, he's purposefully misdirecting the meaning of what the firefighters are conveying. The firefighters aren't talking about Alex's precious little squibs. They're talking about the actual collapse.

Remember Alex specifically says that the "boom boom boom" happens before the buildings collapse. The firefighters' "boom boom boom" are their description of the floors falling into each other, as their hand gestures make clear. And they're also very clear that it was "as if" it was a demolition. They aren't saying it was - they said it was "almost like" a controlled demolition.

From the editing, it's also obvious that the makers of this video either intended to mislead the viewer so blatently, or have no ability to distinguish between what Alex is saying and the firefighters are saying. Either way, their credibility lies in tatters.

Now from this point, the analysis might be confusing, because the video is doing two different things. It's playing a recording of NBC reporter Pat Dawson talking about some information he'd received from Albert Turi, chief of safety for the NYFD. It also continues to put up pictures and statements. They're not always relevant to each other, so your mind has to follow both the audio and the images. Note: this makes the critical thinking this documentary expresses the desire to inspire almost completely impossible. It's a tactic more worthy of Jim Jones and L. Ron Hubbard than Edward Morrow. So I apologize if it becomes difficult to follow the thread of the film. I'm going to debunk when necessary.

Evidence of secondary explosions

Sound recording of NBC newscast... (footage of WTC 2 beginning to collapse looped - freeze frame in mid collapse)

What would cause the side of the building pop out like this?

From the NIST interim report (p. 14):

Finding 1a.19: NIST’s preliminary analyses of a single floor truss assembly if it were subjected to a severe fire suggest the following sequence of events:

• The floor truss first experiences increasing vertical deflections at mid-span as it pushes (expands) outward and exerts a compressive lateral load on the exterior column. The exterior column begins to displace outward at the floor connection.
• Web diagonals begin to buckle at 340°C, the mid-span deflection continues to increase, but the horizontal displacement of the exterior column begins to decrease. The maximum horizontal displacement of the exterior column is approximately 0.7 in. when the diagonals begin to buckle. (The interior column is assumed to have no lateral displacements at the floor level, as it is braced by the core framing.)
• The shear connectors (steel-knuckle-to-concrete slab connections referred to as knuckles) at each end of the truss begin to fail as the steel and bottom surface of the slab reach 400°C, with such failures moving progressively inward from the truss ends. The failure of web diagonals and knuckles at the ends of the truss reduce the bending rigidity of the floor truss at the ends, further increasing the floor sag and decreasing the lateral outward force exerted on the columns.
• The truss bearing angle slips until the bolt is bearing against the edge of the slotted hole. The bolt shears off at the interior seat connection at approximately 500°C. The floor truss sag increases to 20 in. when the bolt fails.
• The interior end of the reinforced slab continues to carry vertical loads as the truss bearing angle continues to slip. At 560°C, the exterior column begins to be displaced inward as the floor truss continues to sag and exert vertical and horizontal tensile loads.
• At 650°C, the truss slides off the interior seat, followed by the gusset plate fracture at the exterior connection at 660°C.

All temperatures well within the range of the "maximum temperature of non-pressurized hydrocarbon fire". The horizontal ejections are these trusses failing right down the line. When one went, it increased the stress on its neighbor which was also suffering the same stress. It was like a zipper across the side of the building.

(footage: WTC 1 beginning to collapse, looped - freezeframe)

What would cause these lateral jets of debris to explode out of the building.

Popular Mechanics: Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Yes, that venting is below the edge of the exterior cloud of destruction, but the facade of the building below that destruction "line" is still doing its job, which was to provide lateral support for the building. The outer tube is funneling the destruction down into the structure, but at times the internal cloud is venting out.

(loop the WTC 1 footage again)

Each floor is 39" thick; the top 4" is a poured concrete slab, with interlocking vertical steel trusses underneath.

(NBC sound recording gets to the money quote: Chief of Safety Albert Turi recieved news of the possibility of a secondary device, another bomb going off)

Here's something else Turi said: "The next thing I heard was Pete say what the . . . is this? And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out. I later realized that the building had started to collapse already and this was the air being compressed and that is the floor that let go."

Explosions do not mean bombs. Reports of possibilities of bombs do not mean bombs. Bombs mean bombs. Anybody got any other evidence of a bomb besides rumors about a bomb that have been repudiated by the guy we got the rumor from in the first place?

Might as well get this over with too: the link above says something about how somebody got to Albert Turi and other firefighters and told them to shut up if they knew what was good for them. Alex Jones is the sole reporter credited with that information. I'd have to say I'm not too inclined to believe him at this point.

Oh, by the way. Here's something else Albert Turi said: "I knew right from the start that there was no way this Fire Department could extinguish six or eight floors of fire, fully involved, in a high-rise building,'' said Albert Turi, the deputy assistant chief of fire safety, according to an interview transcript obtained by The New York Times and reported in Wednesday's editions.

Two isolated pockets of fire were the only fires burning? Riiiiiight.

How is reinforced concrete turned into dust and ejected laterally from the building?

This comment again demonstrates the sheer inability of conspiracy theorists to comprehend the incredible amounts of energy that were unleashed when the towers finally fell.

Let's keep it simple. The top sections of both towers were like the rock. The earth was like the hard place. What got caught in between was ground to dust.

Now keep this in mind: Turi's already repudiated what follows. It was based on his initial impression of the collapse and other speculations that followed from that wrong impression. This report was invalidated one month after the 9/11 attacks. Yet here the makers of this video are, still hawking it.

(Dawson: "about a hour after the first crash there was another explosion")

Another explosion?

(the letters explode as Dawson continues "in one of the towers here. He thinks there were actually devices planted in the building....)

Planted in the building!

("he thinks one of the devices was on the plane that crashed into the towers... the second device, Turry thinks, he speculates, was planted in the building...)

Well, then. I think we're due for an outright misquote, which has already been retracted by the newpaper that printed it when the attributed author demanded they do so, don't you?

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse."

Van Romero, an explosives expert and former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center and New Mexico Tech, Sept. 11, 2001

Popular Mechanics: Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001.

How would the terrorists gain access to WTC 1, 2 and 7 to plant the expolsives?

Would they have the expertise?

Who would?

This is like a little lead-in to the next chapter, so I'll let it rest with this: no explosives were planted, so all three statements are completely irrelevant to what happened on 9/11.

The video's case isn't just not proven - it's completely implausible, and is based on wild speculation, misinterpretation, and shoddy reasoning all frosted over with a extra helping of propaganda.

So far. Maybe the next chapter will redeem the whole project...you think???

[seatnineb]

24. You flatter yourself......

Building#5 took a pummeling in terms of fire........



Yet was still standing nearly 3 weeks later....



As for building#7............

[Bolo Boffin]

26. It's one of my many failings...

You're changing the subject. This chapter was about WTC 1 and 2. Do you have something you'd like to say about those buildings?

As far as building 5, did it have the same kind of initial structure damage that 1, 2, and 7 had? Did it have the same kind of unusual design that 1 and 2 had? Was it built over an electrical substation, with the same kind of unusual transfer truss design, as 7 was? Did it have a fire start simultaneously over wide areas of several floors, like 1 and 2? Did it have large tanks of diesel fuel for running electrical generators, like 7?

Are you comparing apples to apples here?

[seatnineb]

28. This apple has one-kick-ass fire.....

But it did not collapse........

By the way.........

Got any photos to prove that there were huge fires in WTC7..........

Didn't think so...........

[Bolo Boffin]

29. Once again...

I direct your attention to Appendix L of the interim report.

And once again, you're still talking about WTC 7. This chapter is about 1 and 2. Got anything to say about that?

[seatnineb]

35. NIST= Not Interested (in) Seeing Truth

I Snowman10-25-2001, 11:54 AM
heard a woman the morning of the incident on a live radio interview. She said right before the building collapsed she heard another loud explosion like a bomb. I am not sure exactly where she was in proximity to the building, but obviously it seems she would had to be outside of the building to survive.

If she was close enough to hear a bomb noise then how did she survive the collapsing of the building? This I do not know nor can remember what was said in the interview about her location.

It also seems I heard few other people reporting to hear similar sounds but I cannot specicially remember the cases now.

Regardless, it seems all such reports have now been swept under the table and I doubt we will ever know the real truth.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-4198

[Make7]

36. explosions could be heard coming from the burning building

From CTV:

TV footage showed bright orange flames shooting out the sides of the Windsor Building, believed to be empty and located near one of Madrid's main boulevards. Muffled explosions could be heard coming from the burning building.

The fire started around 11:30 p.m., local time, Saturday and was burning out of control more than two hours later.

About three hours after the fire started, the top floors of the building _ at least six of them _ collapsed in a shower of flaming metal debris.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1108268248581_24

Do you think the bombs planted in this building caused the partial collapse of the top floors? Do you think the perpetrators planned to bring the whole building down?

-Make7

[seatnineb]

46. Were those muffled sounds............

........the sounds of the top floors collapsing?

[Make7]

58. Muffled EXPLOSIONS.

I find it difficult to believe someone would report explosions unless they heard them and they were indeed explosions.

You aren't suggesting that other sounds could be mistaken for explosions are you?

From your post #35:

She said right before the building collapsed she heard another loud explosion like a bomb. I am not sure exactly where she was in proximity to the building, but obviously it seems she would had to be outside of the building to survive.

If she was close enough to hear a bomb noise then how did she survive the collapsing of the building? This I do not know nor can remember what was said in the interview about her location.

It also seems I heard few other people reporting to hear similar sounds but I cannot specicially remember the cases now.

I wonder if any structural failure was occurring in the WTC right before the building collapsed. What do you think? Maybe the building's structure would have evaporated silently and then the sound would have started when it was external visible to everyone that the building was indeed collapsing. But it didn't happen that way because we have proof that there were bombs to initiate the collapse:

• We have the tests that confirm trace amounts of explosives. (Oh , wait - we don't have any tests that found any traces of explosives.)
  
• We have eyewitnesses who saw the bombs in question. (No, we don't seem to have any of those either.)
  
• We have witnesses with experience dealing with explosives that can verify that they heard blasts caused by high explosives. (None of those either. Hmm....)
  
• We have people with no explosives experience stating for certain that they heard explosions like bombs and bomb noises.

What exactly do we have?

-Make7

[seatnineb]

62. What do we have ........

.........I'll let you be the judge........

[Make7]

69. What is that picture supposed to prove?

You have posted the same picture three times in this thread with these comments as the only text in those posts:

seatnineb wrote:
From Post #41: Kiss goodbye to your venting cover...

seatnineb wrote:
From Post #43: Yeah...really...

seatnineb wrote:
From Post #62: What do we have...I'll let you be the judge...

None of which explains what you believe this picture to be or what you think it proves. I am hoping you will give us some explanation as to the possible relevance of that picture.

The picture shows brightly colored objects in front of a building that hasn't sustained any damage at all in the area shown in the photograph. So obviously the objects did not come from inside that part of the building. Which proves absolutely nothing as far as I can tell. What is that picture supposed to prove?

-Make7

Edit for clarity.

[seatnineb]

70. Thanks.....but I'll just let the pictures do the talking........

......and judging by your all too predictable responses so far....

I think they have proved their points.........

[Make7]

71. Thanks for clearing that up. Maybe someone else can explain it.

I still don't know what that picture is supposed to prove. Seems strange that the person that posted the picture won't even give a brief explanation when asked for it.

Maybe someone else out there could possibly explain that picture to me. Anybody? Does anybody understand? Anyone at all? Please tell me.

Thanks,
Make7

[seatnineb]

78. It is supposed to prove

....that something exploded on the lower floors of one of the towers at
9:55 am on the morning of 9/11/01.........

Nothing more.....

Nothing less.....

[Make7]

94. Thanks for answering, but...

...how does it prove that?

The flaming debris shown is outside the building. There is no damage to the building anywhere in the picture. Now, if one still believes that gravity will cause objects close to the earth to fall towards the center of the planet, that would mean that the objects in the picture are falling from above the area of the picture. (Possibly from where the building was on fire.)

How do you know the location of the event that caused the debris in the picture you posted? You said "something exploded on the lower floors of one of the towers". How can you tell that? All I can tell is that something happened to cause burning debris to fall from above the area captured in the picture.

Make7

[seatnineb]

97. And you can't see the explosion?

That figures......

[Make7]

98. Please explain where the explosion is.

The debris is outside the building.

The building is not damaged in the area of the photograph.

Where exactly is the explosion?

What am I missing?
_____________________________________

To make sure I'm understanding you correctly, let's review some explanations of the "pictures" you posted:

seatnineb wrote in Post #78:
It is supposed to prove that something exploded on the lower floors of one of the towers at
9:55 am on the morning of 9/11/01.........

Nothing more.....

Nothing less.....

seatnineb wrote in Post #91:
The orange stuff is debris that was being ejected or blown out from the higher floors......

seatnineb wrote in Post #92:
I don't know what the cause of this explosion/fire is.........

But that ain't gonna stop me from posting photos of it.

So the pictures "prove that something exploded on the lower floors of on of the towers" because "the orange stuff is debris that was being ejected or blown out from the higher floors"? And you don't know whether it is an explosion or fire? And you have no idea what caused it? Am I finally understanding your argument?

-Make7

[seatnineb]

99. Do these help?

Or should I call you Denial7?

[Make7]

104. You know what would help....

... a link to the video, or information on how we could get a look at the original footage.

I'm sure you'll be more than eager to share that information with all of us here. You seem to go out of your way to be upfront and as transparent as possible with the evidence you present.

Thanks,
Denial7

[seatnineb]

106. No problem.

Sorry to dissapoint you Denial7......

But those screen captures are not from something like :
9/11 In Plane Sight.....

Rather they come from the:
In Memoriam To New York City 9/11/2001 DVD which is narrated by the noble (then) Mayor Rudolph Guiliani no less.......

Interested in a copy are we?

[Make7]

108. I'm not disappointed.

I'm surprised - you actually answered a question in a relatively straight forward manner. Thanks.

Is that really you?

-Denial7

[AZCat]

72. This is as bad as a Rorschach test

Didn't see what I see in the picture I posted?

Well, then you must not understand and can't see what really happened, or worse - you are one of those horrible people that won't see the truth behind 9/11 (or something).
/sarcasm

If you want to advance an argument, it is helpful if you explain your evidence, instead of playing childish games by claiming that it rebuts other points without explaining why.

[seatnineb]

76. Wrong.

Those pictures obviously show an explosion.............

Do you have a problem with that......

[LARED]

73. Yes, the responses were very predictable

When someone posts a picture with no comment or explanation it is quite predicable that people will ask what it means.

I bring this up because your post seems to indicate that the responses have been something other than someone asking what it means.

[seatnineb]

77. Those photos mean.............. EXPLOSION

Would you beg to differ?

[Bolo Boffin]

39. Stormfront?

You're linking to Stormfront.org?

Really?

[LARED]

40. Yeah, even David Duke is right once in while

Or so I,ve heard.

It amazing whom the Ct'er will cozy up with.

[seatnineb]

42. Cozy with the truth.......

Gee whiz LARED.........

What was going on........

53 floors below the point of impact of flight 175..........

9:06AM - onwards
Am now holding onto our room's door... clinging to it as if my
life depended on it... as the building was still swaying
violently... I hear and see more "smaller" explosions...electricity was cut off...
http://www.kronykronicle.com/wtc/wtcacct.html

[LARED]

44. Lets see

about three minutes after the tower is stuck by a jumbo jet traveling 3 - 4 hundred miles per hour, you are surprised to hear these details. What the hell do you think happens to a building that was impacted hard enough to register on 3+/- on the Richter scale?

Have you ever heard a serious electrical short circuit. Sounds just like an explosion. Ever hear a glass window pop out from being over stressed? Sounds like an explosion. As the building swayed do you think all the walls and piping stayed intact? Or perhaps some of those explosion were pipes bursting, or equipement ruturing?

Get real. Stick with the David Duke web sites.

[seatnineb]

47. How about 20 minutes AFTER the impact.....

<09:22> <incognito> another explosion

<09:23> <Commonman> a second explosion inside the building now


http://www.financialchat.com/chat_logs/ActiveTrader.Fin...

[LARED]

48. Hearing or having explosions in a building on fire

like the WTC is not a surprise.

Your link does not work

[seatnineb]

49. Did people hear and see explosions during the WTC fire of 1975?

[LARED]

51. I don't know. I do know

a jet did not hit the tower in 1975.

[seatnineb]

63. Wheres the jet?

I know LARED..........

Niether of the 2 buildings featured below were hit by planes.........

Windsor Building in Madrid......


WTC7


Now which one completely collapsed?

[LARED]

65. We all know the answer to that question.

So what? I'm sure by now you're aware the buildings were constructed differently.

Is there a point to your constant changing of the subject?

[seatnineb]

67. Yeah.....so what!

Can't see no signs of a raging fire on WTC7....

So what?

[LARED]

68. Now you're getting it

So what?

So what that there is not a raging fire in the image you posted. That does not mean there was not a fire that damaged the building. Does it have to be a RAGING fire? Can it just be a regular uncontrolled fire burring for many hours without any effort to control, in a building with a very unique design.

[seatnineb]

43. Yeah ...really..........

[Make7]

74. Perhaps you could explain the picture you posted. Thanks. eom.

[seatnineb]

75. If you paid some attention.............

.........you would realize that it was not one picture........

....but several.........













......the kind of pictures that the likes of you would wish that the public at large would not see.........

[LARED]

79. This shows explosions????

Unknown height on tower or which tower, or what time it took place or even why you believe this is evidence of an explosion.


And this is proof of something???????

You will need to much better that this.

[seatnineb]

80. Why LARED........you sound a touch agitated.............

[LARED]

83. Agitated??? Not in the least

Bemused perhaps.

[seatnineb]

86. Bemused and agitated.....and no rebuttal in sight........

Pretty much par for the course............

[LARED]

88. Let me try this once more

Expecting a rebuttal implies you actually made an argument.
You have not done that. You only posted some pictures with a statement that it shows an explosion. Not only does it not look like an explosion, it has no context, no way to judge size or distance or any of those trivial things one uses if making an judgment.

[seatnineb]

89. Rubbish.

You know the tower.

You know the time.

You know the area of the tower.

[LARED]

90. Correct except for one small detail

you claim it's an explosion, but fail to state why. It could be lots of things, and until you make a case for why it's an explosion, you have not made a argument.

[seatnineb]

92. Ahhh...........

For once we are in agreement.........

I don't know what the cause of this explosion/fire is.........

But that ain't gonna stop me from posting photos of it.

[LARED]

93. I didn't ask you what caused it I asked why

you think it's an explosion.

As for what I think it is. It could be any number of things

A burst gas pipe. A fire that flared up when air hit it. An electrical short. Fuel igniting. Something burst into flames from heat.

It could be a reflection on the camera. A digital artifact. I guess it could even be an explosion of some sort. Why, I've no idea. A small burst alone like that is meaningless.

What you can't do is look at the image and know what it is.

[seatnineb]

96. Agreed.

I agree with the following........

A burst gas pipe. A fire that flared up when air hit it. An electrical short. Fuel igniting. Something burst into flames from heat.

It would have been nice to have seen the NIST iclude an analysis in their report.....

After all .......

They did use other photos of Luigi Cazzaniga in their report.....

[seatnineb]

81. Keep going LARED.........

.........there is nothing more amusing than seeing you and your ilk useing all your wordsmithery bullshit skills to try and get out of the mess that you always find yourselves in........

Are you seriously telling me that you can't see the clock in the photo.

Are you seriously disputing that the camera is not pointing towards the bottom half of the tower?

And if the explosion that is shown is not an explosion.......

Then what is it?

Please do tell.

[LARED]

84. Messes are just unsolved problems

.........there is nothing more amusing than seeing you and your ilk useing all your wordsmithery bullshit skills to try and get out of the mess that you always find yourselves in........

A mess you say?

Are you seriously telling me that you can't see the clock in the photo.

I can see a clock

Are you seriously disputing that the camera is not pointing towards the bottom half of the tower?

Not at all.

And if the explosion that is shown is not an explosion.......

Assuming you mean the thing that looks like a fire, how do you know it's an explosion. You don't tell anyone what time this photo was taken, nor why you think it's an explosion. The pictures without some context are worthless.

Then what is it?

Why not tell me where, and what time it happened, and I will be more than happy to give you my take on it.

[seatnineb]

85. Keep going ............

You crack me up LARED........

In the words of LARED.....
The thing that looks like a fire

A thing that looks like a fire it is then.........

That thing that looked like a fire occured at 9:55am(5 minutes before collapse) and the best part of 40 floors below the point of impact
of flight 175 in the south tower.......

[LARED]

87. What's the orange looking stuff that's falling down?

[seatnineb]

91. The orange stuff is debris......

.........that was being ejected or blown out from the higher floors......

[k-robjoe]

82. Something wrong

I get the same photo 6 times over.

[Make7]

95. Okay, you got me....

...you did post two different pictures before this. And I somehow missed the vast and obvious differences between them when viewing each one separately in a different post. Just so everyone can see my lack of attention to detail, here they are:





I don't know how I could have possibly made the mistake of thinking they were the same, but I did. You have proved your point that the pictures that you previously posted are not exactly the same. Well done. Perhaps you could now explain how that is at all relevant to the discussion. Or perhaps not.
_________________________________________

You actually figured it out. I periodically come to the September 11 forum at DU to suppress you, and only you, from posting such damning pictures by asking you what you think they mean and then maybe not agreeing with you. My plan is to destroy the 911 skeptic movement one internet poster at a time. That shouldn't take too long - how many could there possibly be?

:) Make7

[seatnineb]

100. Sure ......you wanna see the location........

Maybe I should have emphasized that this is a video......

Luigi Cazzaniga begins with a wide angle.........



And then zooms in towards the lower half of the tower.......





Before focusing on the lower half...........



Happy......

You know what happens next.

[Make7]

101. I know! I know! I know what happens next!

This small "explosion/fire", which you agree could be a number of things other than explosives, obviously causes little or no damage to the building and seems to have extremely little, if any, effect at all on anything.

Well I'll be damned - I did know what happened next.

But I can hardly wait for your next installment. Perhaps you have some pictures, umm.. make that videos, of George W. Bush placing C-4 charges in the South Tower. Maybe even one on the north side, about 40 floors below the impact of Flight 175. I wish you wouldn't be so stingy with all this damning evidence you have. Oh, well - I guess I'll just have to wait. I'm on the edge of my seat....

-Denial7

[seatnineb]

105. Ohhhhhhhh.............so you can see it now!

But this is a pretty bold statement....

In the words of Denial7
This small "explosion/fire", which you agree could be a number of things other than explosives, obviously causes little or no damage to the building and seems to have extremely little, if any, effect at all on anything.

Well you could be right....

But then again Denial7, were you on the lower floors of the south tower on 9/11/01?

Around the 20th floor, we started seeing smoke
http://www.ivillage.co.uk/newspol/newspolfeatures/newsviews/articles/0,10233,164564_180647-1,00.html

What was goin on down there?

[Make7]

107. I'm disappointed.

I thought you would be able to tell me what was going on down there and how it was instrumental to the collapse (minutes later in a different part) of a 500,000 ton building.

The elusive smoking gun seemed so close at hand - only to slip away yet again...

-Denial7

[seatnineb]

109. I don't know what was going on down there......

........but something was going on down there........

Although its(flight 175) spectacularly televised impact was above Elliott, at first he and those around him thought an explosion had come from below. An incredible noise - he calls it an "exploding sound" - shook the building, and a tornado of hot air and smoke and ceiling tiles and bits of drywall came flying up the stairwell.

"In front of me, the wall split from the bottom up," he says.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0917/p1s1-usgn.html

[Make7]

110. Why don't you get back to us when you figure it out. n/t

[seatnineb]

111. No.........I'll just keep on a quotin' the testimony

.....from those who were there.....including Fox News......

There is an explosion at the base of the building..white smoke from the bottom...something has happened a the base of the building...then, another explosion.

..........and there ain't shit that you can do bout' it

[Make7]

112. Please do.

I wouldn't want actual research to divert you from continuing to post here.

Shall I summarize?

In this thread you have:

• Said that sounds of explosions could be caused by things other than demolition charges.
  
• Said that you don't know what caused the "explosion" in the pictures you posted.
  
• Said that you did not know what was going on in that part of the building.
  
• Said that I might be right when I said that that "explosion" was most likely not very significant to the events that day.
  

Please do not stop - you almost had me with:

"Thanks.....but I'll just let the pictures do the talking........

......and judging by your all too predictable responses so far....I think they have proved their points........."

I was almost convinced that I was the one that planted demolition charges in the WTC. Almost.....

Keep trying...

-Denial7

[seatnineb]

113. A Denial.

I know......

Because in the world of Denial7....

This will suffice.....

We have people with no explosives experience stating for certain that they heard explosions like bombs and bomb noises.

Gee....

Is that the best ya got....

Keep trying!

[Make7]

114. Please enlighten us.

If you have any evidence of demolition charges then please just post it.

-Scared7

[seatnineb]

115. Nice try..........

But I'll just let you chew on the testimony......

At least two big explosions occurred in the two hours following the plane crashes.

Debris from the explosions was filling the air as far away as Brooklyn.

"The two explosions were incredible and at the point of explosions, all you could see outside were personal belongings and office supplies raining outside,"
http://www.sfgate.com/today/terror.shtml.

Happy chewing......

[Make7]

116. Well, you've finally convinced me.

You've convinced me that you don't have any actual evidence. Nice work!

-Denial7

From http://www.sfgate.com/today/terror.shtml:

Reports that a car bomb exploded outside the State Department were denied by federal officials. There also was an unconfirmed report of an explosion in the Capitol Building.

From http://www.poconorecord.com/report/911-attack/000296.htm:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon was struck by aircraft, a car bomb exploded outside the State Department...

I wish someone would investigate the car bomb that went off outside the State Department that day. Do you have any eye-witness reports of people who saw that?

-Scared7

[seatnineb]

117. I'm afraid you are going to have to try harder.........

Date Posted: 9/11/01 8:07am Subject: RE: Plane Crashes into World Trade Center
apparently there was NO car bomb at the state department.
Although there was the sound of an explosion, there was no car bomb.
And still 1 plane unaccounted for.

http://boards.theforce.net/Your_Jedi_Council_Community/...

Where did the sound of that explosion come from?

The Pentagon, by any chance ......long after flight 77 had hit?

As for the WTC.......

Well people were seeing all sorts of wierd shit.........

As we pulled ‘round the corner, we stopped the rig, and a cop walked over to us and said, `I saw them shoot a missile launcher off that building, you guys better be careful up there.’ He thought it was a missile launcher, he saw it out of the corner of his eye, you know he probably saw you know the smoke line of the jet engine and maybe just assumed. He said you know be careful, watch yourselves in there, he thought that they might shoot again at it.
www.mrbellersneighborhood.com/sec8/WTCMarmion - 24k


And there ain't shit you can do to refute it............

[Make7]

118. But people reported there was a bomb.

You are not suggesting that people could possibly make mistakes when reporting events?

So...someone thinks they heard a car bomb at the State Department, but you think what they really heard was coming from the Pentagon? Isn't the State Department almost 1.5 miles, and across the river, from the Pentagon? It's hard to believe that someone hearing explosions could make a mistake like that.
_______________________

I think we may finally be getting somewhere. This eye-witness account of a missile being fired into the WTC at about the same time as "Flight 175" is supposed to have crashed into the South Tower is pretty damning evidence.

Although...I am wondering what stopped you from using a photo in your post. There must be video or pictures of it available - there are so many videos and pictures of the WTC at the time of the "impact" of the South Tower, someone must have captured the missile launch, trajectory, or impact.

Look, I'd like to take this police officer's word for it, but even the fireman you quoted doesn't seem to believe him. (Interesting choice for a quote BTW.) But I'm sure with all the people watching, filming, and photographing the Twin Towers at that time, you'll have no problem coming up with plenty of corroborating evidence to prove your point.

-Scared7

[seatnineb]

119. You ran out of excuses a long time ago...........

So we have false reports of a bomb explosion at the state departement....

But we did have further explosions that were heard from as far away as Alexandria.........

<Diogenes> We just had a HUGE SERIES OF EXPLOSIONS somewhere near where I live.....

<10:11> <Diogenes>Alexandria

<10:13> <Diogenes> Sorry all... I was on the phone...

<10:13> <hot> second explosion at pentagon!!!

<10:13> <dumper> @nd explosin at pent.

<10:13> <ResearcherA1> pentagon 2nd expl.

http://www.financialchat.com/chat_logs/ActiveTrader.Fin...

Official story conspiracy theorists such as yourself tell the world that.....

Flight 77 hit at 9:37am

And.........

That the wall of the Pentagon crumbled at 9:57am.......


So Denial,were are these explosions coming from at 10:13am?

Or are explosions a common occurence in downtown Washington D.C?

As for the Woolworth Building...............well something happened there to arouse the suspicions of the NYPD......

http://maebrussell.com/9-11/Picture+7.jpg

http://maebrussell.com/9-11/Picture+7.jpg

http://maebrussell.com/9-11/Picture+3.jpg

[Make7]

120. How disappointing.

Your previous quote was about a missile launch that happened at close to the same time as the impact of Flight 175, but these pictures are from after both towers had collapsed. Are they supposed to show a missile launch? What were they firing at? The rubble?

:scared:Denial7

[seatnineb]

121. Who knows what was going on..........

.....but something was going on in the woolworth building during and after the attacks........

At one point in the radio dispatches, there is a report of a "possible missile launching from the Woolworth Building," a landmark a few blocks away.

Another person called out: "They're shooting at the Trade Center from the Woolworth Building."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/113055p-102094c.html

http://maebrussell.com/9-11/Picture+3.jpg

And as usual........

There ain't shit you can do to refute it..........

[Make7]

122.

Approximately 9:04 a.m., Police channel 26:

Male: Just be advised, a second plane hitting... struck the building.

Male: Be advised, the building has already been shut down.

Male: Just be advised, another aircraft has struck the building.

Male: All right, that's a copy.

Male: This is N-8-5, eight-one, Sea Air. We have a visual on that. Uh, not known if it was a second plane. Possibly a missile...

Male: Confirmation on, uh, missile launchers shooting this building.

Male: No confirmation... . Be advised, we need you to respond to Windows on the World, conditions have deteriorated at that location, with 100 people trapped on the 105th floor.

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/6648563.htm

World Trade Center police channel 07:

Male: Either... either a plane crashed into the Trade Center, or a rocket hit the Trade Center. And, uh, people are all over the place, dead... .

Male: The first one they think was a guy shooting the missiles off the Woolworth Building. And the second one they think is an airplane that was circling to watch it, and hit the World Trade.

Female: Oh, man. And both towers are hit?

Male: Both towers. So I ain't going home for a while. I don't know what you want to do, son...

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/6648563.htm

Port Authority Police Officer Steve Maggett takes a call from the wife of a World Trade Center worker:

Caller: Yeah, hi, can you tell me which trade center the plane crashed into, which building?

Maggett: Both, both... two times, two times, dear.

Caller: So, my husband works in the building.

Maggett: You're going to have to call back later on. Right now,... we got so many phone calls, and fire departments, everybody here, we just know right now it was two buildings... we're not sure if it was plane crashes or an explosion. Call back later on, and we will be able to tell you a little bit more information.

Caller: What time did it happen?

Maggett: Five minutes ago and 20 minutes ago.

Caller: Five minutes ago and 20 minutes ago.

Maggett: Yes, dear, I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to disconnect you to take another call.

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/6648563.htm

The caller's story was outrageous: Someone had fired missiles at the World Trade Center's north tower from atop the nearby Woolworth Building. Terrorists in a plane watching the attack then plowed into the south tower.

http://www.wnbc.com/news/2439367/detail.html

The Woolworth Building, itself once the tallest in the world, was cited as a possible source of the attack.

"Can you send somebody over to the Woolworth Building to check the roof?" a Port Authority police officer asked. "There's a possible ... they said it was ... we just had a second explosion, possibly a missile from the roof of the Woolworth Building."

"The Woolworth Building?" replied a police operator.

"Yeah, on ... on Broadway," the officer said.

http://www.wnbc.com/news/2439367/detail.html

"It's a fire bomb," one caller told authorities.

"A helicopter crash," said a second man calling the Port Authority police.

"Possible aircraft explosion," offered a PA police officer in another phone call.

http://www.wnbc.com/news/2439367/detail.html

Another Port Authority officer, speaking by phone with his mother, presented an even grimmer picture.

"Don't even go out," he told her. "I mean, they got planes on the radar. They think they are going to start crashing all over Manhattan."

Another officer told his wife, "It looks like we're going to be at war. They're attacking all over the country."

http://www.wnbc.com/news/2439367/detail.html

There was only one thing for certain, as the transcripts showed -- words uttered over and over and over.

"Yeah, well," said Cashin, "we don't know exactly what's going on."

http://www.wnbc.com/news/2439367/detail.html

[seatnineb]

123. Is that the best you got?

There is a difference between not knowing what is going on and saying that nothing is going on.

Like the the Woolworth Building superintendent........

pa-police-reports02.pdf page 19)
R.P. Mendenhall
The Port Authority of NY & NJ Memorandum
Page 1

"He(WW Building superintendent) advised us (NYPD) that it wasn’t a missile it was an aircraft, a big aircraft. He further advised that he was on the roof(of the WW building) when it crashed into Tower Two. At this time we left the building and started to run back towards the Barclay Street ramp.”

Sorry..........

But that does not cut it............

Something was going on!

pa-police-reports02.pdf page 19)
R.P. Mendenhall
The Port Authority of NY & NJ Memorandum
Page 1

"I looked up to the roof of the Woolworth building and there appeared to be smoke coming from the very top of the building."

[Make7]

124. No.

I just find it difficult to debate you when you readily admit that you don't know what is going on concerning the issues that you bring up. Because I agree with you - you do not know what is going on.

Actually, I was really waiting for you to post the other four pictures from that series that can be found here:

http://www.maebrussell.com/9-11/Trade%20Center%20Building%20Explosion.html

Perhaps even posted with a kind word or two about how I am inattentive and trying to hide things from the public. (I have to say that I am a little bit disappointed, but I'm sure I'll get over it.)

I hope you're not upset that I posted a link to that site. You were probably going to do that next post - sorry if I stepped on your toes a little. And I probably should have just posted the pictures instead of linking to the webpage. You said it's a missile. They say it's an explosion. Who are we to believe? Oh wait, that's right, you said that you don't know what it is. Maybe we should believe the explosion theory then.

seatnineb wrote:
There is a difference between not knowing what is going on and saying that nothing is going on.

Like the the Woolworth Building superintendent........

pa-police-reports02.pdf page 19)
R.P. Mendenhall
The Port Authority of NY & NJ Memorandum
Page 1

"He(WW Building superintendent) advised us (NYPD) that it wasn’t a missile it was an aircraft, a big aircraft. He further advised that he was on the roof(of the WW building) when it crashed into Tower Two. At this time we left the building and started to run back towards the Barclay Street ramp.”

Sorry..........

But that does not cut it............

Something was going on!

I never said there wasn't anything in those two pictures from the series of the Woolworth Building that you posted. I just asked if it was supposed to show a missile launch. Which you answered by saying that you don't know.

You started this "missile launch from the Woolworth building" issue with a quote from someone who claimed that someone fired missiles at the WTC at the time of the impact of Flight 175. And now you quote the superintendent saying that it was not a missile and that he was on the roof at the time. Did he not notice the missile, or did he just forget to mention it? (Brilliant debate tactic. Should I just stop posting and let you refute yourself from now on?)

Anyway, since the eyewitness reports are so contradictory, let's concentrate on the pictures. ("..the kind of pictures that the likes of {me} wish that the public at large would not see..")

Okay, what do we have:

• the pictures don't show a missile launch
  
• the pictures don't show an explosion
  
• the pictures show something
  

At least it's possible to see what's going on in the videos.

Is it time for a new subject yet?

:scared:Denial7

[seatnineb]

125. No.

Because if anything............

I am actually surprised that you did not quote the Superintendent much earlier........

But I guess if you had ,you would have to have quoted the entire statement.......which would not have been to your advantage.

As for me..........

I am raising questions.

Not providing answers.

You on the other hand provide answers.

Answers that you cannot substantiate.

Sorry Denial7.........but I don't belong to your "nothing to see here folks....move along" posse................

[Make7]

126. Answers here.

seatnineb wrote:
I am raising questions.

Not providing answers.

You on the other hand provide answers.

Answers that you cannot substantiate.

That explains an awful lot. You are just raising questions. Do you expect others to provide you with the answers? Why don't you research something and come up with a conclusion or two? At least then we'll know that you are trying to find some answers.

I'm sure in your thorough research about the "missiles" fired from the Woolworth Building you have watched these videos:

http://thewebfairy.com/911/video/woolworth.mpg
http://thewebfairy.com/911/video/woolworth.mpeg
http://thewebfairy.com/911/video/trulywierd.fast.mpg
http://thewebfairy.com/911/video/trulywierd.mpg

That is the answer to that "series of pictures" you posted. Are you even really trying to figure any of this out?

:scared:Denial7

[seatnineb]

129. Wrong answer.

The NYPD NEVER checked the roof of the Woolworth Building for themselves.

Instead they relied on unamed and unidentified security officers who worked at the Woolworth Building.




pa-police-reports02.pdf page 19)
R.P. Mendenhall
The Port Authority of NY & NJ Memorandum
Page 1


"At this time Detective deMello and myself ran to the Woolworth building.
As we entered I immediately asked for the head of security. An un-identified black male in a security uniform ran forward and asked how he could help. I told him I needed a secure elevator to the roof, his response was “follow me”. We walked to a bank of elevators when the doors of one car opened. Two men stepped out of the elevator. A man appearing to be Hispanic identified himself as the building superintendent; he was wearing an ID card on his shirt. The security guard seemed to know him so we took him at his word. He advised Detective deMello and myself that the roof was secure. I told him that we had a report that a missile had been fired from the roof of this building and he advised us that it wasn’t a missile it was an aircraft, a big aircraft. He further advised that he was on the roof when it crashed into Tower Two. At this time we left the building and started to run back towards the Barclay Street ramp.”

Nothing to see here folks..........move along.

[Dancing_Dave]

130. This is very significant!

Thanks for bringing it to my attention!
:yourock:

[Make7]

132. Thanks.....but I'll just let the videos do the talking........

......and judging by your all too predictable unwillingness to discuss them....

I think they have proved their points......... (see Post #70)

http://thewebfairy.com/911/video/woolworth.mpg
http://thewebfairy.com/911/video/woolworth.mpeg
http://thewebfairy.com/911/video/trulywierd.fast.mpg
http://thewebfairy.com/911/video/trulywierd.mpg

:) Make7

[seatnineb]

134. Yeah!..........and so will I!

Remember our anomolouse friend......

I'll give you a reminder.........



Well....it was seen from another angle.........



Nothing to see here folks.....do as Make7 tells you.....and move along..........

[Make7]

25. Nuh-uh!

:) Make7

[Bolo Boffin]

30. Uh-huh!

;)

Really, though, I've put actual work into rebutting that video (at least two or three hours) and not one taker for challenging what I've said.

That makes me sad. :cry:

But I'l get over it.

:bounce:

[Make7]

31. I thought I was challenging you.

:)

Perhaps your rebuttal was done too well. :shrug:

It's sometimes difficult to tell around here.

Maybe if some more people see it. :kick:

-Make7

[seatnineb]

32. Sure It's a rebuttal......to bad it's a poor one........

[LARED]

33. Humm, I thought it was pretty good rebuttal

Judging by the lack of any substantive response (including yours) I'd say the CT crowd is dumbfounded.

[seatnineb]

34. Yeah......dumbfounded by the crapness of the rebuttal..........

[LARED]

38. Very powerful rebuttal

An image with a red box around venting. Very good.

[seatnineb]

41. Kiss goodbye to your venting cover...........

[LARED]

45. Well, you have provided a very interesting image

What you think it means, I've not a clue

[seatnineb]

50. FEMA and the NIST.......where are you?

[LARED]

It means FEMA and NIST???

How odd

[seatnineb]

64. Does it?

You said it.......

[LARED]

66. I said what????? (n/t)

[LARED]

52. It means FEMA and NIST???

How odd

[LARED]

55. I've no idea why it quadruple posted (n/t)

[LARED]

53. It means FEMA and NIST???

How odd

[LARED]

54. It means FEMA and NIST???

How odd

[Make7]

37. Nuh-uh!

[Bolo Boffin]

56. Final Part of My Analysis

Pat Dawson: If there is a war against terrorism that started, rather ongoing right now, it started here at about a quarter to 9 this morning...

That's part of Pat Dawson's report from chapter 2, which I didn't transcribe for clarity. After viewing this last chapter, I see the significance of using the first part of that NBC report, along with the dedication from the beginning of the film:

In memory of all the innocent victims of the events of September 11, 2001 ...victims both in the U.S. and overseas wars that were justified and rationalized by the "attacks" on that fateful day.

These references to America's current foreign policy find their fruition in the upcoming chapter of our little exercise in propaganda.

Chapter 3:

Why?

(Cue Van Halen's Right Now)

(Footage: Ted Koppel - "It's not immediately evident, and no one in this administration is talking about it openly, but the war on terrorism could produce major dividends for the United States."

"In Central Asia, the Caspian region, enormous and valuable oil resources..."

Koppel, over graphic of pipeline route appearing on map: "Crossing war-torn Afghanistan, to Pakistan, and eventually, India"

"September 11th, the extraordinary events, the tragic events of September 11th, did create a new reality. As with every event, there are opportunities which arise from them."

Koppel: Indeed, it may well be that Washington has already begun to take advantage of those opportunities.

Colin Powell, from the UN: "America will have a continuing interest and presence in Central Asia, of a kind which we could not have dreamed of before."

Koppel: "All in the name of the war on terrorism."

Footage of fighter jets, tanks, soldiers on the ground, a Wanted Dead or Alive poster of Osama which morphs into Saddam's Ace of Spades card.)

Well, so far, so good. The Bush Administration took the initiative and put into play plans they had already hoped to go after. It's too bad that this summary of a Nightline report was preceded by such ludicrous arguments - it undercuts the power of what Koppel's saying.

Of course, in context of the film, the filmmakers are suggesting that Bush and company planned and executed the 9/11 attacks so that they could proceed with their oil and war plans apace. Since the arguments that people other than al-Qaeda planned those attacks have failed so spectacularly, we can safely ignore that and still keep this section clear.

Now did the Bush Administration drag its feet on international terrorism, hoping for an attack to blame on Saddam? What a devilishly difficult thing to prove. It's clear that they ignored clear and present warnings about Osama's plan's for an attack on America. But always with this crowd, they walk the line of plausible deniability. It's one of the first lessons of political power. How precisely could you prove that they drug their feet on al-Qaeda with the express motive of encouraging an attack that they could exploit?

Well, short of finding a memo stating just that with Bush's authentic signature, I can't think of a way. That isn't the kind of thing crafty people commit to paper anyway. (Retrofitting planes with missile pods and double helixes of shaped charges, though - that's not something you could draw up on the back of a napkin).

But did they need this attack to take on Saddam? Yes, it proved very useful, but did they need it? Couldn't they have ginned up a few fake documents to spread around, documents that showed Saddam was after more WMDs and thumbing his nose at world opinion? Isn't that what they were doing?

And, really, is there anybody here who believes that if Saddam could have gotten sanctions lifted, that he wouldn't have tried to start building his arsenal again? Please. He wasn't the threat that Bush made him out to be, and it would be quite a while before he could ever get into that kind of position again. But the man was not the friend of freedom by a long shot. And as is becoming clearer, he was also losing his grip in Iraq. Imagine if Iraq had fallen into the hands of Uday or Qusai.

That case could have been made to the world. A united effort to once and for all end the reign of Saddam Hussein in Iraq could have been done peacefully. We had options.

But 9/11 changed everything. Nobody denies that Bush took that and turned it into a bridge for his own devices. But no one is ever going to prove that the Bush Administration planned the 9/11 attacks by trying to prove that the WTC buildings fell because of controlled demolitions. Because that didn't happen.

This, however, did:

Afghanistan

Iraq

Imminent Threat

(Footage: Bush spouting plausibly deniable statements about Saddam's WMD)

Create Fear

Justify War

Create An Enemy

Raise The Stakes

(Footage: Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush spouting plausibly deniable statements about Saddam's nuclear capability)

("Iraq has never had the capability to do that. They didn't have it in the first Gulf War, they didn't have it in this war, and they don't have it, any way of getting it in the future.")

And for that, we have the Israelis to thank. But I digress...

David Albright: "Leaders will use worst case assessments that point to nuclear weapons to generate political support because they know that people fear nuclear weapons so much."

Yep, yep, and yep.

(Footage: American soldiers, Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice)

(Ray McGovern: "The ties to al-Qaeda was just a scare tactic to exploit the trauma, the very real trauma, that the American people have felt since 9/11, and to associate that trauma with Iraq. As you know from the polls, most Americans believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, and it was a very successful, very deliberate, and very unethical and immoral operation on the part of the PR people in this administration.)

Very well put, Mr. McGovern.

(Crank the Van Halen)

What's Tomorrow?

Here's a preview...

(Footage: "Is there a chance that some of your civil liberties may slip, while we guarantee the security of this country? Maybe. May be.)

Footage: Satellites that can zoom in on a few feet. Prisoners may be implanted with devices that keep them within the parameters of an "invisible fence" like dogs. Subliminal message implanted in your subconscious. Diane Sawyer tells us about people volunteering to have identity microchips planted into their bodies. Andy Rooney says people may stop flying otherwise, and if that means he can't go to the Giants games, then the bastards have won.)

Okay, what was that Ray McGovern was saying about using fear tactics? I guess if it's good enough for the goose, it's good enough for the gander...but when somebody's trying to scare you, think really hard about what they're asking you to believe will save you.

FREEDOM TO QUESTION, DISSENT?

(Cue Alanis Morissette's Uninvited)

(Footage: Bill O'Reilly: "It's our duty as loyal Americans to Shut Up Publicly. We expect every American to support our military, and if they can't do that, to shut up.

Bill O'Reilly, to WTC victim's son: "So you keep your mouth shut.")

What a dildo.

DON'T SHUT UP

THINK FOR YOURSELF

ASK QUESTIONS

DEMAND ANSWERS

I plan on it.

THERE'S MORE AT STAKE THAN YOU THINK

Oh, really?

(Footage: September 11, 1990 - George H.W. Bush: "What is at stake is more than one small country. It is a big idea, a new world order..."

Gary Hart, 11 YEARS LATER: "There is a chance for the POTUS to use this disaster to carry out what his father, a phrase his father used only once, and hasn't been used since, and that is a new world order..."

Uh oh. Tell me this isn't wandering off into Skull and Bones paranoia...

SO WHO HAS A VOICE?

(Morley Safer: "Skull and Bones.")

:smacks hand on forehead:

(Safer continues: "The elite secret society whose members include some of the most powerful men of the twentieth century.")

YOU'RE UNINVITED

(Safer interviewee: "Power and privilege that are cloaked in secrecy. It's not supposed to be the way we do things. We're supposed to do things out in the open in America.)

(Safer (over some skull pictures from S&B house): "There's also an obsession with death and its trappings."

Why am I reminded of creationism here? People who believe something already, and then cobble together the worst kinds of logical explanations, not to actually explain something, but confuse the issues just enough to get you to throw a couple of bucks their way? Hmm. That's just so random of me. Let's continue...

(Tim Roberts, interviewing Bush: You were both in Skull and Bones, the secret society." Bush: "It's so secret we can't talk about it." Roberts: "What does that mean for America?")

(Tim Roberts, interviewing Kerry: "You bother were in Skull and Bones, a secret society at Yale. What does that tell us?" Kerry: "Not much, 'cause it's a secret.")

Let me tell you what this tells us. Here's two men. Both found themselves at Yale for different reasons. One earned his way there and was excited and proud of the accomplishment. The other got in because his family had always gone there and had the money to get him in. Both found themselves in Skull & Bones for different reasons. One was tapped because he was a campus leader, articulate and passionate, who showed extraordinary promise as a future leader of men. The other got in because his family had always gotten into S&B. Both took different paths after college - one served honorably and with incredible distinction in Vietnam, while the other got into the National Guard, thanks to his father's connections, and managed to screw even that cushy job up. John Kerry continued to show his leadership by taking part in the effort to end the Vietnam War, going to the Senate, and exposing several threats to America's liberties like the BCCI scandals. George W. Bush finally sobered up, sleazed his way through a few failed business (always failing upwards with the help of his daddy's friends), and finally became Governor of Texas, then Preznit of them United States.

The two of them found themselves paired again in a race for the White House. And this time, the legacy tap took the prize again. Which goes to show you that when the chips are down, it's more important to have old money connections than personal excellence and drive.

Plus, having your supporters own the companies that make the voting machines doesn't hurt either.

SECRET EVIL OF 9-11

(Crank the Morissette)

DID THE TERRORISTS HAVE HELP?

OR WERE THEY THE HELPERS?

(Footage: Bush - "The hijackers were instruments of evil who died in vain. Behind them is a cult of evil, which seeks to harm the innocent and thrives on human suffering...)

(Picture of Bonesmen surrounding skulls,)

(Bush footage resumes: "Theirs is the worst kind of cruelty, a cruelty that is fed, not weakened, by tears. Theirs is the worst kind of violence, pure malice while daring to claim the authority of God. We cannot fully understand the designs and power of evil. It is enough to know that evil, like goodness, exists, and in the terrorists, evil has found a willing servant.)

(Rewind that one: "...evil has found a willing servant.")

(Rewind it again, and this time, slow it down so Bush's voice gets all deep and Darth Vadery, I swear to God: "EVIL HAS FOUND A WILLING SERVANT.")

I must thank the makers of this film. I haven't laughed like that for ages. That was at least ten minutes of low, mordant chuckling which seemed to be able to build into outright hooting endlessly. The neighbors started banging on the wall. That was priceless.

This film springs from deep wells of wingnuttery. We're talking Patriot land here - those kooks who haunt sites like Stormfront.org and the American Free Press, who think Timothy McVeigh was framed, who think David Koresh was a victim of the FBI.

DON'T BE EVIL'S SERVANT

Let's take a look at what the servants of righteousness have on their iPods:

Music by:
Guns 'n Roses - Coma
Guns 'n Roses - Dead Horse
Sarah MacLachlan - Hold On
Queen - Bohemian Rhapsody
Bullet Boys - Rock Candy
U2 - Mothers of the Disappeared
Guns 'n Roses - November Rain
Van Halen - Right Now
Allanis Morissette - Uninvited

This is also know as the list of recording artists who would sue the asses off the filmmakers if they ever found out about this film - that is, what was left of their asses after the MSM news corporations got done with them.

Fireman radio recording used in this film provided by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

This they got permission for? Whatever.

(Recue the Pat Dawson report about a secondary device going off.)

Yadda yadda yadda.

You know, if I was a paranoid type, I'd think that the people who'd be embarrassed by the very real questions being displayed by the third chapter (until we ventured off into Illuminatiland) might have put something like this together to undermine those who might ask real questions. After all, if they could pull off associating Saddam Hussein with al-Qaeda (and to most Americans, that would be only slightly more difficult than associating Michael Jackson with pedophilia), then associating attempts to question the administration's rush to war with 9/11 kookiness would be a piece of cake.

But I've learned a long hard lesson over my life: never attribute to malice what incompetence suffices to explain. I can't see cynicism daring to try that slowdown of Bush at the end of the film. It's such misguided overkill! Only true believers could put something like that together.

And so we come to the end of our "powerful documentary movie". I hope you enjoyed your picture show...I know I did.

[Dancing_Dave]

57. Everyone I send this to is deeply moved...

And the music adds a lot to the video's consciousness raising power. For one thing, the songs make the evidence and issues much more memorable. It puts people in the mood to discuss explosions, demolition, secrecy, cover-ups, hidden agendas and so on.

In a conscise, effective video like this, it is not possible to include all relevant evidence and every technical argument. What a video like this does well is break the ice, opening the issue for more people to discuss.

And the number of people discussing these issues in a variety of forums is growing everyday now. Debates about what really happened on 9/11/2001, and who all was behind it, are becoming part of the fabric of everyday life.

[Bolo Boffin]

59. So it doesn't bother you

that the video uses bad evidence and outright lies and distortions? It doesn't bother you that in the name of correcting disinformation, you are clouding and confusing the real issues even more than they are?

[Dancing_Dave]

60. Neither you nor the NIST is even describing the explosive disintigration

Of the WTC Towers that we have plenty of pictures of. You could start by reading the "explosions" and "dust clouds" sections at 911 Review:

http://911review.com/attack/wtc/explosions.html
http://911review.com/attack/wtc/dustclouds.html

[Bolo Boffin]

61. I've no doubt that

you're completely entrenched in your beliefs. That's fine.

But the least you can do is deal with my rebuttal and show where it's wrong. I've got no intention of working my way through every link you provide, only to have you flip out another one and say, "You're not dealing with this."

There's three posts up above. Show where I'm wrong. I know how to admit when I'm wrong. Show me where my reasoning is wrong up above.

You posted the link to your video. Now defend it.

[Dancing_Dave]

102. Well, this video does serve to provoke discussion!

Among my friends who watched it, there's less dedication to the official Bush Regime 9/11 Myth than you find with some "stuborn" posters here...so they're more interested in moving on to other testimonies of multiple explosions, political and economic motives for the set-up and so on.

But one way or another, at least this video does break the ice and get people talking about something very interesting, mysterious, and important.

[meppie-meppie not]

103. agreed! at least it sparks debate and gets some folks heads out

of the sand, hopefully, long enough to interrupt their koolaide drinking. We're supposed to be loony because we won't buy into the "official line" but they aren't because they want to swallow a story that has so many loop holes in it that it puts Swiss cheese to shame. They run around trying to hide, destroy, or cover up evidence while we try and uncover their BS workings. All I can say is keep the debate going, keep on digging till the truth sees the light of day against all their defensiveness. JMO

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[staticstopper]

128. Ever look at "In Shadow of no Towers"?

"In the Shadow of No Towers is New Yorker Art Spiegelman's extraordinary account of 'the hijacking on 9.11 and the subsequent hijacking of those events' by America."

He shows what the towers looked like to him as he fled for his life - the framing of the tower glowed red - like he could see the skeleton of the building right before it collapsed.

When i watched the Q +A on c-spans book notes, he makes it very clear that he is not CT but that is indeed what he saw.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[philb]

133. a list of sites with evidence regarding bombs at WTC

some of them discussed here
http://www.flcv.com/wtcexplo.html