Steven Gaal Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 (edited) POST # 8 ----------------------------- Saturday, July 21, 2012Reply: Gage's Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Fraud. WTC7 "small fires" lie EXPOSED! Published on Jul 20, 2012 by RepresentativePress Reply: Photographs and video footage have vindicated Gage, as they show the same phenomenon of negative low air pressure occurred with WTC 1 after the collapse of WTC 2 making it appear as if the entire building was on fire. Skip to 10:25 in the following clip to see video of the above effect and proof that the majority of smoke around WTC 7 came from WTC 5 & 6. Click here to see just pictures showing that most of the smoke came from WTC 5 & 6. The foreknowledge of the collapse spoke of in this video is another interesting aspect to all of this because the fires it shows are unsubstantial compared to other skyscraper fires, and we need only look to other footage taken by Steve Spak on 9/11 of WTC Building 5 for an example. As AE911Truth points out in an article which compares the other WTC buildings that did not collapse to the three that collapsed completely, "World Trade Center Building 5 was fully engulfed in flames - burning far more extensively than the few small isolated pockets of fire in WTC 7. If any WTC building was going to collapse by 'normal office fires' (the official cause of WTC 7’s destruction) it would be this one. Yet, it did not collapse." END POST # 8 ############################################################### Cowardly AIA Panders to Political Correctness ---------------------------------------------------------------------- http://911debunkers....-political.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- One thing I have absolutely zero respect for is when people critique a book or documentary film without even reading or watching it. A recent article in Architect Magazine seems like a clear example of this, except the author supposedly did watch the film he's critiquing. You wouldn't think it though. The article is about AE911Truth's movie Expert's Speak Out. On page two, the author writes: The accusations of Gage’s organization are the typical hodgepodge of pseudo-scientific claims. Along with other esoteric and debunked technical arguments, he says that melted steel was visible at the Ground Zero site proving that the fires burned too hot to have been caused by jet fuel; that because the buildings collapsed at “near free fall speed” there must have been a controlled demolition; and that traces of a thermite reaction found in the World Trade Center debris proves that explosives were used. All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics. The last paragraph in particular leads me to suspect that this guy wasn't paying much attention to the film at the screening. The architects and engineers in the film not only address the FEMA and NIST reports and the ASCE/Bazant papers, they cite data from sources such as these to support the demolition hypothesis. And neither FEMA, NIST, the ASCE or Popular Mechanics even acknowledged the existence of the thermite evidence in their reports and articles, let alone debunked it. Throughout the article, the author repeatedly links to pages of the website Debunking911, as well as Frank Greening's hilarious "paper" arguing that natural thermite reactions could have occured in the buildings. It's clear he hasn't done much research into this controversy. ScrewLooseChange and JREFers are reporting with glee that the AIA is distancing themselves from AE911Truth, as if that somehow proves the 1700 A&Es are full of crap. It doesn't. All it proves is that the AIA is more concerned about its own reputation than anything else and is too cowardly to question the system. When someone makes a statment full of vague assertions and typical establishment rhetoric and talking points, such as those in the paragraphs I quoted, it's called pandering. The AIA - much like RIBA last year - are playing politics and they should be ashamed. Related: Article Letter to AIA President Marvin Malecha from R. Gage, AIA ################################################ Gee who wrote Architect Magazine Article sited above ????? Colby's anti-GAGE friend Jeremy Stahl of Slate. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1374 http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2010/12/washington-post-fair-game-valerie-plame http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3700.htm http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/07/25/ny-times-government-censors-control-major-news-outlet-151551/ --------------------------- wiki Slate is a US-based English language online current affairs and culture magazine created in 1996 by former New Republic editor Michael Kinsley, initially under the ownership of Microsoft as part of MSN. On 21 December 2004 it was purchased by the Washington Post Company. Since 4 June 2008 Slate has been managed by The Slate Group, an online publishing entity created by the Washington Post Company to develop and manage web-only magazines.[1] A French version (slate.fr) was launched in February 2009 by a group of four journalists, including Jean-Marie Colombani, Eric Leser, and economist Jacques Attali. Between them, the founders hold 50% in the publishing company, while the Slate Group holds 15%.[2][3] Since June 2008, David Plotz has served as the editor of Slate.[1][4] He had been the deputy editor to Jacob Weisberg, Slate's editor from 2002 until his designation as the Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of The Slate Group.[1] The Washington Post Company's John Alderman is Slate's publisher.[5] Slate (ISSN 1091-2339), which is updated daily, covers politics, arts and culture, sports, and news. Edited August 5, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 5, 2012 Author Share Posted August 5, 2012 (edited) POST # 8 ----------------------------- Saturday, July 21, 2012Reply: Gage's Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Fraud. WTC7 "small fires" lie EXPOSED! Published on Jul 20, 2012 by RepresentativePress Reply: Photographs and video footage have vindicated Gage, as they show the same phenomenon of negative low air pressure occurred with WTC 1 after the collapse of WTC 2 making it appear as if the entire building was on fire. Skip to 10:25 in the following clip to see video of the above effect and proof that the majority of smoke around WTC 7 came from WTC 5 & 6. Click here to see just pictures showing that most of the smoke came from WTC 5 & 6. LOL so a truther says so therefore it's true? The photos are too low res. to show much of anything but and were taken just after the south tower collapsed which obvious would affect airflow dust from it is mixed with smoke from the north tower and it is hard to distinguish one from the other in the 1st two but the black smoke as opposed to white-gray dust is only coming out of the top of 1 WTC in the other two. None of course show 7 when was on fire. The photos on the linked page don't appear and the video shows the exact opposite of what he claims. The foreknowledge of the collapse spoke of in this video is another interesting aspect to all of this because the fires it shows are unsubstantial compared to other skyscraper fires, and we need only look to other footage taken by Steve Spak on 9/11 of WTC Building 5 for an example. As AE911Truth points out in an article which compares the other WTC buildings that did not collapse to the three that collapsed completely, "World Trade Center Building 5 was fully engulfed in flames - burning far more extensively than the few small isolated pockets of fire in WTC 7. If any WTC building was going to collapse by 'normal office fires' (the official cause of WTC 7’s destruction) it would be this one. Yet, it did not collapse." END POST # 8 There is very little clear footage or images of the south face of 7 which is where the fires were concentrated most show heavy smoke, some show heavy flames and or damage to the facade. Numerous firefighters who were there, several who had decades experience, attested to the heavy fires, damage and instability of 7, this trumps speculation by paranoid bloggers trying to fit their preconceived views to the available evidence. Are we to suppose the FDNY were deranged and/or lying? ############################################################### Cowardly AIA Panders to Political Correctness ---------------------------------------------------------------------- http://911debunkers....-political.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- One thing I have absolutely zero respect for is when people critique a book or documentary film without even reading or watching it. A recent article in Architect Magazine seems like a clear example of this, except the author supposedly did watch the film he's critiquing. You wouldn't think it though. The article is about AE911Truth's movie Expert's Speak Out. On page two, the author writes: The accusations of Gage’s organization are the typical hodgepodge of pseudo-scientific claims. Along with other esoteric and debunked technical arguments, he says that melted steel was visible at the Ground Zero site proving that the fires burned too hot to have been caused by jet fuel; that because the buildings collapsed at “near free fall speed” there must have been a controlled demolition; and that traces of a thermite reaction found in the World Trade Center debris proves that explosives were used. All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics. The last paragraph in particular leads me to suspect that this guy wasn't paying much attention to the film at the screening. The architects and engineers in the film not only address the FEMA and NIST reports and the ASCE/Bazant papers, they cite data from sources such as these to support the demolition hypothesis. False dichotomy one does not preclude the other but from what I've seen of the film and other AE911Truth productions the papers and reports were only dealt with superficially if not outright misquoted. For example one of the few (if not the only) SEs in the group with highrise experience said “NIST would have us believe it was typical office fires, scattered office fires that brought this building down” but NIST did NOT say the fires were scattered And neither FEMA, NIST, the ASCE or Popular Mechanics even acknowledged the existence of the thermite evidence in their reports and articles, let alone debunked it. BS the thermite theory was addressed and debunked on pages 55 – 8 of the Popular Mechanics book funny that a couple of paragraphs above he wrote he had “absolutely zero respect for is when people critique a book or documentary film without even reading or watching it” Throughout the article, the author repeatedly links to pages of the website Debunking911, as well as Frank Greening's hilarious "paper" arguaing that natural thermite reactions could have occured in the buildings. It's clear he hasn't done much research into this controversy. Sthal linked to many sources Ionly saw a few links to Debunking911 and have no idea why you and the other kook have a problem with this. I only saw one link to the Greening paper. The spplied link hardly refuted it. A truther who claims he's an engineer compared thermite reactions to preparing a “fruit crumble” but all the chemical reactions is for the heat to be applied to the necessary elements. ScrewLooseChange and JREFers are reporting with glee that the AIA is distancing themselves from AE911Truth, as if that somehow proves the 1700 A&Es are full of crap. It doesn't. All it proves is that the AIA is more concerned about its own reputation than anything else and is too cowardly to question the system. When someone makes a statment full of vague assertions and typical establishment rhetoric and talking points, such as those in the paragraphs I quoted, it's called pandering. The AIA - much like RIBA last year - are playing politics and they should be ashamed. A more rational interpretation is that the vast majority of architects and engineers don't want to have anything to do with Gage or his group, which represents less than 0.1% of US As & Es and thus far has fail ed to publish any papers in legitimate architectural or engineering journals, because they see no merit in their claims. Related: Article Letter to AIA President Marvin Malecha from R. Gage, AIA ################################################ Gee who wrote Architect Magazine Article sited above ????? Colby's anti-GAGE friend Jeremy Stahl of Slate. http://www.fair.org/...x.php?page=1374 http://www.motherjon...e-valerie-plame http://www.informati...article3700.htm http://blog.alexande...-outlet-151551/ --------------------------- wiki Slate is a US-based English language online current affairs and culture magazine created in 1996 by former New Republic editor Michael Kinsley, initially under the ownership of Microsoft as part of MSN. On 21 December 2004 it was purchased by the Washington Post Company. Since 4 June 2008 Slate has been managed by The Slate Group, an online publishing entity created by the Washington Post Company to develop and manage web-only magazines.[1] A French version (slate.fr) was launched in February 2009 by a group of four journalists, including Jean-Marie Colombani, Eric Leser, and economist Jacques Attali. Between them, the founders hold 50% in the publishing company, while the Slate Group holds 15%.[2][3] Since June 2008, David Plotz has served as the editor of Slate.[1][4] He had been the deputy editor to Jacob Weisberg, Slate's editor from 2002 until his designation as the Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of The Slate Group.[1] The Washington Post Company's John Alderman is Slate's publisher.[5] Slate (ISSN 1091-2339), which is updated daily, covers politics, arts and culture, sports, and news. What exactly is the relevance of the babble above, it seems to be nothing more than an elaborate ad hom., that goes more or less like this: the WP editorial acted shamefully regarding the Plame affair, the WP owns Slate, Stahl works for Slate, therefore nothing he writes can be taken seriously. But the crux of his argument is that the AIA wants to have nothing to do with Gage and that is pretty much incontestable since they hired Stahl and he quoted their spokesman. Nor have any truthers challenged his claim that no architects came to see Gage's presentation at their HQ, in fact a video posted by a truther Gage only counted 2 engineers and 1 architect at a showing of the film and it seems to have counted himself. Edited August 5, 2012 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/ Saturday, July 21, 2012 Reply: Gage's Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Fraud. WTC7 "small fires" lie EXPOSED =========================================================================== Reply: Photographs and video footage have vindicated Gage, as they show the same phenomenon of negative low air pressure occurred with WTC 1 after the collapse of WTC 2 making it appear as if the entire building was on fire. Skip to 10:25 in the following clip to see video (below) of the above effect and proof that the majority of smoke around WTC 7 came from WTC 5 & 6. Link here http://www.infowars.net/articles/march2007/200307building7.htm to see just pictures showing that most of the smoke came from WTC 5 & 6. Debunking Screw Loose Change: The Movie 1/7 Now to the official reports. As stated by the BBC program excerpted by RepresentativePress, "According to the official investigators, the main fires were concentrated on floors 6 through to 13, except floor 10. And there were fires initially on some of the upper floors." The "Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation" webpage states that the sprinklers from the 21st through the 47th floor were working. The FEMA report, section 5.3.3, states that, "Concrete floor slabs provided vertical compartmentalization to limit fire and smoke spread between floors." So, the highest out of control fire was on the 13th floor, the sprinklers from the 21st through the 47th floor were working, and the building was designed to limit fire and smoke spread between floors. It is also important to note that the fire shown by RepresentativePress is of the southeast wall, not the south face of the building covered in smoke. As WTC7.net points out, "This photograph ***** (of the southeast wall) from FEMA's report, and others like it, appear to be the only evidence of emergent flames." o-o--o-o *****http://www.wtc7.net/b7fires.html (see below also) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ start side bar The Fires in Building 7 (see above link for photos and other links for this article below) Building 7 had a number of fires of limited extent and unknown duration before its precipitous total collapse at 5:20 PM. Official reports assume that debris from the fall of the North Tower ignited fires at 10:29 AM. This photograph from FEMA's report, and others like it, appear to be the only evidence of emergent flames. Photographs of the building's north face show only small, barely visible fires. Photographs of the building's east face, apparently from the mid-afternoon, show flames emerging from an isolated section of the 11th floor. Photographs of the building's west face, apparently from the late afternoon, show several areas with smoke stains, but don't show any flames. There appear to be no photographs of Building 7 from a time shortly before its collapse that show large active fires. The photograph below, taken in the afternoon, shows the upper half of Building 7 from the south. There are no signs of fire. FEMA's report blamed the collapse of Building 7 primarily on fires, though it was inconclusive. NIST's investigation placed much more weight on claims of severe structural damage to the building. Nonetheless, all theories of the collapse that exclude demolition are necessarily primarily fire theories, since the building collapsed almost seven hours after incurring any structural damage from North Tower fallout. It is thus striking that other skyscraper fires exhibited fires that were far more extensive and long-lasting that Building 7's, but none of these other buildings collapsed. Despite the fact that the fires in Building 7 were relatively small and short-lasting compared to other office fires, a decision was made not to fight them. Chapter 5 of FEMA's Report implies that lack of water was the basis for this decision: It appeared that water on site was limited due to a 20-inch broken water main in Vesey Street. Although WTC 7 was sprinklered, it did not appear that there would have been a sufficient quantity of water to control the growth and spread of the fires on multiple floors. In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities. This explanation is highly dubious given that Building 7 was only about two blocks from the Hudson. (POSTED IN FAIR USE) ================================ end side bar ################################ BACK TO http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/ We also have visual evidence of fire on the north face. The foreknowledge of the collapse spoke of in this video is another interesting aspect to all of this because the fires it shows are unsubstantial compared to other skyscraper fires, and we need only look to other footage taken by Steve Spak on 9/11 of WTC Building 5 for an example. As AE911Truth points out in an article which compares the other WTC buildings that did not collapse to the three that collapsed completely, "World Trade Center Building 5 was fully engulfed in flames - burning far more extensively than the few small isolated pockets of fire in WTC 7. If any WTC building was going to collapse by 'normal office fires' (the official cause of WTC 7’s destruction) it would be this one. Yet, it did not collapse." If WTC 7 was possibly poised to collapse it is strange that there were no widespread reports that WTC 5 might do the same given the severity of the fires. The evidence indicates that there were very few individuals that concluded WTC 7 would come down based on direct observation, but rather parroted information passed down by individuals that also somehow predicted the unprecedented and unexpected fall of the Twin Towers, as evinced by the fact that so many firefighters bet their lives on the fact that the Towers were reported to be able to sustain such damage and fire. For the few who did believe WTC 7 might come down based on their own observations it must be pointed out that their opinion would have been skewed after just seeing two 110 story skyscapers crush themselves. As Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor AdamT. pointed out in his post "Debunking Joseph Nobles: Other Buildings," "Many debunkers have suggested that the partial collapse of WTC 5 supports the theory that fire could have brought down Building 7. In fact, if anything, it does just the opposite." ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From the book Mounting Evidence - Why We Need a New Investigation of 9/11 by Dr. Paul W. Rea, published September 2011: The WTC-7 Fires... The fire reports ranged widely. While no one has talked about a towering inferno or even a huge conflagration, Fire Capt. Brenda Berkman did affirm “fire on every floor” (S. Hagan and M. Carouba Women at Ground Zero p. 213). But perceptions do differ, even among professionals, and it would be easy to confuse a lot of smoke with a lot of fire. Mark Jacobson, a journalist who’d reported large fires, recalled “the whole building wasn’t on fire”; instead, he wrote, “there was a lot of fire coming out of a few floors” (NY Magazine 3/37/06). The photographic record also supports the conclusion that the building experienced medium to hot fires on a few floors. Even those promoting the hypothesis of destruction from fire damage have come in way under Capt. Berkman’s estimate. According to NIST, itself a prime defender of this theory, fires burned on only ten of the building’s 47 floors—and only on six did they grow and burn out of control (NCSTAR1A p. xxxvi). Moreover, officials with Consolidated Edison (Con Ed) of New York who entered WTC-7 said “there was a fire, but they did not think the building would collapse” (http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00174.pdf). Thus Con Ed personnel apparently felt the building was safe to enter, reporting only “a fire,” not the “large fires” claimed by many proponents of the fire theory. It was the Fire Department, then, that predicted the building was going to collapse. Granted, a walkthrough is not an inspection of a tall building. But if in fact the fires were small, on what basis did building security personnel and the FDNY chiefs make a different determination? ######################################### Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Colby's anti-GAGE friend Jeremy Stahl of Slate. http://www.fair.org/...x.php?page=1374 http://www.motherjon...e-valerie-plame http://www.informati...article3700.htm http://blog.alexande...-outlet-151551/ --------------------------- wiki Slate is a US-based English language online current affairs and culture magazine created in 1996 by former New Republic editor Michael Kinsley, initially under the ownership of Microsoft as part of MSN. On 21 December 2004 it was purchased by the Washington Post Company. Since 4 June 2008 Slate has been managed by The Slate Group, an online publishing entity created by the Washington Post Company to develop and manage web-only magazines.[1] A French version (slate.fr) was launched in February 2009 by a group of four journalists, including Jean-Marie Colombani, Eric Leser, and economist Jacques Attali. Between them, the founders hold 50% in the publishing company, while the Slate Group holds 15%.[2][3] Since June 2008, David Plotz has served as the editor of Slate.[1][4] He had been the deputy editor to Jacob Weisberg, Slate's editor from 2002 until his designation as the Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of The Slate Group.[1] The Washington Post Company's John Alderman is Slate's publisher.[5] Slate (ISSN 1091-2339), which is updated daily, covers politics, arts and culture, sports, and news. // END ((Gaal)) ************************************************************************************************** ************************************************************************************************** What exactly is the relevance of the babble above, it seems to be nothing more than an elaborate ad hom., that goes more or less like this: the WP editorial acted shamefully regarding the Plame affair, the WP owns Slate, Stahl works for Slate, therefore nothing he writes can be taken seriously.// END COLBY ############################################################## One time Mr. Colby made a remark of incredulity that a poster was investigated by other posters. Incredulity was what 'I' felt at this remark. There is long and deep history of looking into those holding to the 'offical' story of the JFK matter. It started with looking into book authors, newspapers (especially WashPo) , magazine (especialli LIFE) and networks (especially CBS). The investigation into establishment official story advocates started first with small conspiracy magazines followed by books and then finally the internet. The internet postings on said establishment whores has been going on for more than 20 years,thus 'my' incredulity. Though in recent years this area of debate has waned .John Simkin has in particular has delineated much (much) on this very site about connections of the WashPo to the intelligence community/establishment that compromize their veracity regarding intelligence related super issues like Watergate and JFK assassination. Why would one not consider 911 a super intelligence issue and wonder about the credibilty of the WASHPo ????? *********************************************************** JOHN SIMKIN 10/11/07 Members of he Georgetown Set were mainly supporters of JFK over Nixon. That was due to social, political and partisan reasons. Interestingly, they were also keen that LBJ should become his running-mate. The idea was first suggested by Philip Graham of the Washington Post. Graham, the key figure in the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird, had been campaigning strongly for Johnson to get the nomination. However, when Graham arrived at the Democratic Party Convention in Los Angeles on 8th July, Johnson told him that Kennedy would win by a landslide. Graham then had a meeting with Robert Kennedy and was finally convinced that Johnson had indeed lost his race to be the presidential candidate. According to Katharine Graham, her husband and Joe Alsop (another key member of the Georgetown Set), arranged a meeting with John Kennedy on 11th July. Alsop started the conversation with the following comment: “We’ve come to talk to you about the vice-presidency. Something may happen to you, and Symington is far too shallow a puddle for the United States to dive into.” Graham then explained the advantages that Johnson would “add to the ticket”. What is more, it would remove Johnson as leader of the Senate. (Katharine Graham, Personal History, pages 282-283). ############################# On the super intelligence matter of 911 Jeremy Stahl of Slate has ZERO credibility IMHO. ((Gaal)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 7, 2012 Author Share Posted August 7, 2012 http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/ Saturday, July 21, 2012 Reply: Gage's Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Fraud. WTC7 "small fires" lie EXPOSED =========================================================================== Reply: Photographs and video footage have vindicated Gage, as they show the same phenomenon of negative low air pressure occurred with WTC 1 after the collapse of WTC 2 making it appear as if the entire building was on fire. Skip to 10:25 in the following clip to see video (below) of the above effect and proof that the majority of smoke around WTC 7 came from WTC 5 & 6. Link here http://www.infowars....07building7.htm to see just pictures showing that most of the smoke came from WTC 5 & 6. Debunking Screw Loose Change: The Movie 1/7 This is the exact same text from one of Gaal's earlier posts as pointed out the images do NOT show what the toofer claimed. See below a screen capture of the frame from the video he cited and a higher resolution copy. The smoke clearly is coming from 7. And please do watch the video, a few seconds after the still there is video which shows even more clearly the origin of the smoke. This photograph from FEMA's report, and others like it, appear to be the only evidence of emergent flames. Photographs of the building's north face show only small, barely visible fires. Photographs of the building's east face, apparently from the mid-afternoon, show flames emerging from an isolated section of the 11th floor. Photographs of the building's west face, apparently from the late afternoon, show several areas with smoke stains, but don't show any flames. There appear to be no photographs of Building 7 from a time shortly before its collapse that show large active fires. The photograph below, taken in the afternoon, shows the upper half of Building 7 from the south. There are no signs of fire. NIST did not say "the upper half of Building 7" was on fire. There are no known images clearly showing the lower half of the south façade, it is either blocked by other buildings or covered in dark smoke. We do however have the accounts of numerous firefighters were there, truthers would have us believe they were lying or deluded. Also since 7 had about an acre of floor space lack of flames in the widows does not prove there was no fire in that section. See these links for fire and smoke from 7: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html http://debunking911.com/pull.htm FEMA's report blamed the collapse of Building 7 primarily on fires, though it was inconclusive. NIST's investigation placed much more weight on claims of severe structural damage to the building. Nonetheless, all theories of the collapse that exclude demolition are necessarily primarily fire theories, since the building collapsed almost seven hours after incurring any structural damage from North Tower fallout. It is thus striking that other skyscraper fires exhibited fires that were far more extensive and long-lasting that Building 7's, but none of these other buildings collapsed. Toofers have failed to show that the fires were small and short lived, many of the building they compare it to were constructed differently i.e. they had concrete frame and/or did not have long unsupported floor space. Despite the fact that the fires in Building 7 were relatively small and short-lasting compared to other office fires, a decision was made not to fight them. Chapter 5 of FEMA's Report implies that lack of water was the basis for this decision:It appeared that water on site was limited due to a 20-inch broken water main in Vesey Street. Although WTC 7 was sprinklered, it did not appear that there would have been a sufficient quantity of water to control the growth and spread of the fires on multiple floors. In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities. This explanation is highly dubious given that Building 7 was only about two blocks from the Hudson. (POSTED IN FAIR USE) OK so the firefigthers at the scene who said they didn't have water were lying, they are in on the murder of hundreds of their comrades. Get back to us with evidence that a) the FDNY had the ability to pump water from a river AND if they did they could have pumped enough with enough pressure to have made a difference at 7 which was about 1500 from the Hudson, https://maps.google....&ie=UTF-8&hl=en ================================ end side bar################################ BACK TO http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/ We also have visual evidence of fire on the north face. The foreknowledge of the collapse spoke of in this video is another interesting aspect to all of this because the fires it shows are unsubstantial compared to other skyscraper fires, and we need only look to other footage taken by Steve Spak on 9/11 of WTC Building 5 for an example. As AE911Truth points out in an article which compares the other WTC buildings that did not collapse to the three that collapsed completely, "World Trade Center Building 5 was fully engulfed in flames - burning far more extensively than the few small isolated pockets of fire in WTC 7. If any WTC building was going to collapse by 'normal office fires' (the official cause of WTC 7’s destruction) it would be this one. Yet, it did not collapse." If WTC 7 was possibly poised to collapse it is strange that there were no widespread reports that WTC 5 might do the same given the severity of the fires. The evidence indicates that there were very few individuals that concluded WTC 7 would come down based on direct observation, but rather parroted information passed down by individuals that also somehow predicted the unprecedented and unexpected fall of the Twin Towers, as evinced by the fact that so many firefighters bet their lives on the fact that the Towers were reported to be able to sustain such damage and fire. For the few who did believe WTC 7 might come down based on their own observations it must be pointed out that their opinion would have been skewed after just seeing two 110 story skyscapers crush themselves. Once again it suggested the FDNY was either in on it or deluded. Sorry the assessment of firefighters, many of whom had decades experience and training, who were there trumps the speculation of a douchebag blogger who wasn't (there). Buildings 5 and 6 did not have floor unsupported spans as long as those in 7, 2 or 1, despite this they both partially collapsed As Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor AdamT. pointed out in his post "Debunking Joseph Nobles: Other Buildings," "Many debunkers have suggested that the partial collapse of WTC 5 supports the theory that fire could have brought down Building 7. In fact, if anything, it does just the opposite." ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I have no idea what the video is supposed to prove. From the book Mounting Evidence - Why We Need a New Investigation of 9/11 by Dr. Paul W. Rea, published September 2011: The WTC-7 Fires... The fire reports ranged widely. While no one has talked about a towering inferno or even a huge conflagration, Fire Capt. Brenda Berkman did affirm “fire on every floor” (S. Hagan and M. Carouba Women at Ground Zero p. 213). But perceptions do differ, even among professionals, and it would be easy to confuse a lot of smoke with a lot of fire. Mark Jacobson, a journalist who’d reported large fires, recalled “the whole building wasn’t on fire”; instead, he wrote, “there was a lot of fire coming out of a few floors” (NY Magazine 3/37/06). Rea is a professor of humanities and thus has no relevant expertise, his book was self published. Funny that you quote him say there was "a lot of smoke" when at the beginning of your post you pimp the notion there was little if any smoke. Once again we have a crank with no relevant expertise who wasn't there presuming to know more than the firefighters who were. Heavy smoke is an indicator of fire. Also his Jacobson citation is clearly false, there are no months with 37 days. There was an article by Jacobson published in New York on 3/19/06 where he mentions seeing 7 collapse but the quote does not appear. I have not found an evidence he ever WROTE this. Some truthers claim he said in a 70 minute video http://nymag.com/pri...features/16464/ The photographic record also supports the conclusion that the building experienced medium to hot fires on a few floors. Even those promoting the hypothesis of destruction from fire damage have come in way under Capt. Berkman’s estimate. According to NIST, itself a prime defender of this theory, fires burned on only ten of the building’s 47 floors—and only on six did they grow and burn out of control (NCSTAR1A p. xxxvi). Moreover, officials with Consolidated Edison (Con Ed) of New York who entered WTC-7 said “there was a fire, but they did not think the building would collapse” (http://media.nara.go...11MFR-00174.pdf). Thus Con Ed personnel apparently felt the building was safe to enter, reporting only “a fire,” not the “large fires” claimed by many proponents of the fire theory. There is no indication when the Con Ed workers entered the building other than it was after 10:30 AM and before 4:15 PM. Nor is there any indication of what their expertise was. Between some unidentified Con Ed workers and veteran FDNY commanders I'll go with the assessment of the latter. There is no indication the Con Ed workers thought the fires were small. It was the Fire Department, then, that predicted the building was going to collapse. Granted, a walkthrough is not an inspection of a tall building. But if in fact the fires were small, on what basis did building security personnel and the FDNY chiefs make a different determination? ######################################### Once again they had the expertise and were there the same cannot be said of the douche who wrote the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 7, 2012 Author Share Posted August 7, 2012 Colby's anti-GAGE friend Jeremy Stahl of Slate. http://www.fair.org/...x.php?page=1374 http://www.motherjon...e-valerie-plame http://www.informati...article3700.htm http://blog.alexande...-outlet-151551/ --------------------------- wiki Slate is a US-based English language online current affairs and culture magazine created in 1996 by former New Republic editor Michael Kinsley, initially under the ownership of Microsoft as part of MSN. On 21 December 2004 it was purchased by the Washington Post Company. Since 4 June 2008 Slate has been managed by The Slate Group, an online publishing entity created by the Washington Post Company to develop and manage web-only magazines.[1] A French version (slate.fr) was launched in February 2009 by a group of four journalists, including Jean-Marie Colombani, Eric Leser, and economist Jacques Attali. Between them, the founders hold 50% in the publishing company, while the Slate Group holds 15%.[2][3] Since June 2008, David Plotz has served as the editor of Slate.[1][4] He had been the deputy editor to Jacob Weisberg, Slate's editor from 2002 until his designation as the Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of The Slate Group.[1] The Washington Post Company's John Alderman is Slate's publisher.[5] Slate (ISSN 1091-2339), which is updated daily, covers politics, arts and culture, sports, and news. // END ((Gaal)) ************************************************************************************************** ************************************************************************************************** What exactly is the relevance of the babble above, it seems to be nothing more than an elaborate ad hom., that goes more or less like this: the WP editorial acted shamefully regarding the Plame affair, the WP owns Slate, Stahl works for Slate, therefore nothing he writes can be taken seriously.// END COLBY ############################################################## One time Mr. Colby made a remark of incredulity that a poster was investigated by other posters. Incredulity was what 'I' felt at this remark. There is long and deep history of looking into those holding to the 'offical' story of the JFK matter. It started with looking into book authors, newspapers (especially WashPo) , magazine (especialli LIFE) and networks (especially CBS). The investigation into establishment official story advocates started first with small conspiracy magazines followed by books and then finally the internet. The internet postings on said establishment whores has been going on for more than 20 years,thus 'my' incredulity. Though in recent years this area of debate has waned .John Simkin has in particular has delineated much (much) on this very site about connections of the WashPo to the intelligence community/establishment that compromize their veracity regarding intelligence related super issues like Watergate and JFK assassination. Why would one not consider 911 a super intelligence issue and wonder about the credibilty of the WASHPo ????? *********************************************************** JOHN SIMKIN 10/11/07 Members of he Georgetown Set were mainly supporters of JFK over Nixon. That was due to social, political and partisan reasons. Interestingly, they were also keen that LBJ should become his running-mate. The idea was first suggested by Philip Graham of the Washington Post. Graham, the key figure in the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird, had been campaigning strongly for Johnson to get the nomination. However, when Graham arrived at the Democratic Party Convention in Los Angeles on 8th July, Johnson told him that Kennedy would win by a landslide. Graham then had a meeting with Robert Kennedy and was finally convinced that Johnson had indeed lost his race to be the presidential candidate. According to Katharine Graham, her husband and Joe Alsop (another key member of the Georgetown Set), arranged a meeting with John Kennedy on 11th July. Alsop started the conversation with the following comment: “We’ve come to talk to you about the vice-presidency. Something may happen to you, and Symington is far too shallow a puddle for the United States to dive into.” Graham then explained the advantages that Johnson would “add to the ticket”. What is more, it would remove Johnson as leader of the Senate. (Katharine Graham, Personal History, pages 282-283). ############################# On the super intelligence matter of 911 Jeremy Stahl of Slate has ZERO credibility IMHO. ((Gaal)) It's still an ad hom. You are proposing that not only shouldn't we trust anyone who worked for the WaPo but we should trust anyone who works for is subsidiaries - like Slate, Newsweek, the Daily Beast or various TV stations and local papers - even when they are writing for other publications. Get back to us with evidence he lied, back to us with evidence it is not true the AIA disowned Gage and AE911T or that is was not true no architects came to see Gage and the AIA's HQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 (edited) http://www.scientist.../Fullerton.html Michael Fullerton Present or Most Recent Position: Software developer at CyberMatrix Corporation Fields: Psychology/Computer Science Degrees and Schools: BSc Psychology/Computer Science University of Calgary, 1995 Statement on 9/11: "The laws of physics can't be violated no matter how powerful, how controlling you are. If history is any judge and the people truly responsible for 9/11 are not stopped and exposed, the ultimate consequences can be truly horrific. Science is the most important vehicle to understanding. It is the key to explaining what really happened on 9/11. Psychology is the key to understanding why people did 9/11, how they manipulated others into believing monumental lies and how to prevent them from inflicting future harm." Additional Information: "I am a software designer specializing in scheduling and other time management applications. I am also interested in aconscience personality disorders (psychopathy/sociopathy) and ponerology, the study of how evil develops on a large social scale." Papers: A Scientific Theory of the WTC 7 Collapse Foreign Policy Journal, March 07, 2011. http://www.foreignpo...wtc-7-collapse/ NIST WTC 7 9/11 Theory Violates the Laws of Physics Full Body Scans - Continuing Loss of Liberty due to Crackpot 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Why the Harrit Nano-thermite paper has not yet been debunked 9/11 Truth Common Ground Website: Vernon 9/11 Truth ######################### http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/index.html http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/rubblepile.html The Tidy Pile of Rubble The 47-story tower was converted into a pile of rubble lying almost entirely within its footprint. The rubble pile was less than 3 stories high. The fall visibly damaged only one adjacent building. Taking a building down into its footprint is the objective of controlled demolition. It does not happen by luck or accident. Edited August 11, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 11, 2012 Author Share Posted August 11, 2012 LOL if you are so desperate you're resorting to citing a “paper” about the collapse of 7 WTC by “a software designer specializing in scheduling and other time management applications” which appears on an onbscure website then you might as well give up. The author claimed “the controlled demolition theory does explain all the observables: the rapid onset of collapse, the largely symmetrical collapse into the building’s footprint, the roof line kink causing the building to fall in on itself, minimizing damage to other buildings, the intricate roll to the south at the end of the collapse away from valuable real estate” funny that he contradicts himself in a single sentence describing the collapse as “largely symmetrical” but then mentioning the “roll to the south”. So if the building fell straight-down, this is evidence of CD, if fell towards the most heavily damaged side thid also evidence of the same, I guess the expert on scheduling software thinks 7 should have fallen AWAY from the most dammaged side. The collapse was not “ largely symmetrical” and the “roll to the south” started at the beginning of collapse. Also the “onset of collapse” was NOT rapid. The technical penthouses fell in about 6 seconds before the north facade. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk&feature=player_embedded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 The Tidy Pile of Rubble Your picture (Colby # 23) of the very,very small rubble pile is great !!! The 47-story tower was converted into a pile of rubble lying almost entirely within its footprint. The rubble pile was less than 3 stories high. The fall visibly damaged only one adjacent building. Taking a building down into its footprint is the objective of controlled demolition. It does not happen by luck or accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 12, 2012 Author Share Posted August 12, 2012 The Tidy Pile of Rubble Your picture (Colby # 23) of the very,very small rubble pile is great !!! The 47-story tower was converted into a pile of rubble lying almost entirely within its footprint. Maybe physics are different in the Gaaliverse but in the universe gravity goes straight down. Buildings in Brazil and other poor countries have collapsed due to construction defects, they fell pretty much into their footprints The rubble pile was less than 3 stories high. That's hard to tell from the photo, how tall should it have been? Why would CD compact the rubble more than a fire induced collapse? The fall visibly damaged only one adjacent building. It occupied a full block so all " adjacent building(s)" were across the street. It fell, as expected, towards its most heavily damaged side, i.e. to the south i.e. towards the already collapsed North Tower. 2 - 3 buildings were damaged by its collapse Taking a building down into its footprint is the objective of controlled demolition. It does not happen by luck or accident. So says a nurse, point to a qualified structural or forensic engineer who specificity endorses this claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 (edited) 2 - 3 buildings were damaged by its collapse //end COLBY (very,very small damage,Gaal) So says a nurse, point to a qualified structural or forensic engineer who specificity endorses this claim. //end Colby AS I RECALL WHEN IVE READ THIS BEFORE IN WHAT COULD BE TERMED "TRUTHER" LITERATURE, IT COMES FROM DEMOLITION PEOPLE (Gaal). +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ BEFORE I WENT TO PHARMACY SCHOOL< I DID ALOTA SCIENCE AND THE PROFESSORS WANTED ME TO BE A SCIENTIST EDUCATION year and half electronics (had one elective in this of medical electrical repair that was sponsored by the local hospital),year biology, botany, anatomy,physiology,microbiology,BS PHARM (year pharmology,medicinal pathology,compounding,dispensing) had logic, Calculus 2 semesters,year physics,year chemistry, quantitative chem,organic chemistry 2 semesters,biochem two semisters, a weird thing called medicinal chemistry in Pharm School, semester helping chemistry professor with research in dopamine receptors and laser spectroscopy.Had of course regular stuff like sociology ,history,art history & english & Psych ,but supplemented with extra liberal arts stuff like additional psych, Russian LIT class and also Contemporary American Novel, Renaissance Art History,Modern Art History,Speech Debate (not regular speech), environmental anthropology and comparative religion. ============ AS to Nursing School RN (two year program) there is a whole bunch of stuff like pharmacy calculations,medical law & also a special deeper health class, physical education helping disabled and the numerous nurse courses. (they waved pharmacology for me since I took nursing post PHARM SCHOOL) .Nurse courses had a great deal of info about disease and clinical care . I did take a 8 week College level course in Dialysis post nursing school. ++++++++++++ Two years College courses and became Respritory Therapist (CRTT now called CRT) I know ventilators real well for a nurse . Using LTV 1150 tonight. ++++++++++++++ AT END OF EACH PHARM/Nurse/RT did internship working under someone. YUP about 12 & half years of college & then post college 450 +plus books on :history & CT & alternative medicine & investing (technical analysis) PLUS numerous events around current issues like A BOMB,radiation,investing,alternative medicine and yes CT events /lectures. ( CPR & keeping up with required CEUs for RN Licence of course) ++++++++ Im not going to even go into my theological studies/classes or me being for 6 months a Buddhist monk. Yup just a nurse ............................ Edited August 12, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 13, 2012 Author Share Posted August 13, 2012 Sorry nothing in your education qualifies to pontificate on structural collapses, get back to us with a citation to a qualified structural or forensic engineer who specificity endorses yours claims above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Colby's a priori assumption all experts of 911 are discredited and incorrect. Gaal provides to Colby 911 truth expert Colby concludes Gaal's 911 truth expert is discredited and incorrect that being said...... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2008/11/does-new-footage-of-wtc-7s-collapse.html +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_other.htm Jeremy Baker: Was WTC 7 a Dud? As the North Tower fell, a massive cloud of debris shot into the sky and enshrouded most of lower Manhattan ... In seconds, this dense cloud of powdered debris rose and obscured the surrounding buildings. Then, when most of WTC 7 was hidden from view, the conspirators pushed the button on the explosive system in this building as well ... [but] nothing happened. For whatever reason, the explosive system in WTC 7 had failed and the building stubbornly remained intact. In an instant, the success of an elaborate plot to entirely destroy a New York City landmark ... had fallen into confusion. Eventually the explosive system was brought back online and the only thing left to do was wait for the fires to build. But ... the fires never grew to convincing proportions. ... [but] Building 7 had to go. If WTC 7 was indeed an operations and control center for this sprawling conspiracy, it was, essentially, a crime scene that needed to be destroyed ... [so] when they could wait no longer, they put an end to the spectacle at 5:25 PM, dropping Building 7 neatly within its footprint, an obvious controlled implosion so perfect it would have earned any demolition company a bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 13, 2012 Author Share Posted August 13, 2012 Colby's a priori assumption all experts of 911 are discredited and incorrect. Gaal provides to Colby 911 truth expert Colby concludes Gaal's 911 truth expert is discredited and incorrect that being said...... I have no idea what you're babbling about, which qualified engineer have you cited? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++http://911debunkers....s-collapse.html +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://www.serendipi...t/wtc_other.htm Jeremy Baker: Was WTC 7 a Dud? As the North Tower fell, a massive cloud of debris shot into the sky and enshrouded most of lower Manhattan ... In seconds, this dense cloud of powdered debris rose and obscured the surrounding buildings. Then, when most of WTC 7 was hidden from view, the conspirators pushed the button on the explosive system in this building as well ... [but] nothing happened. For whatever reason, the explosive system in WTC 7 had failed and the building stubbornly remained intact. In an instant, the success of an elaborate plot to entirely destroy a New York City landmark ... had fallen into confusion. Eventually the explosive system was brought back online and the only thing left to do was wait for the fires to build. But ... the fires never grew to convincing proportions. ... [but] Building 7 had to go. If WTC 7 was indeed an operations and control center for this sprawling conspiracy, it was, essentially, a crime scene that needed to be destroyed ... [so] when they could wait no longer, they put an end to the spectacle at 5:25 PM, dropping Building 7 neatly within its footprint, an obvious controlled implosion so perfect it would have earned any demolition company a bonus. Rampant speculation from someone with no relevant qualifications, and it fails to explain the instability in 7 noted by the FDNY hours before collapse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Rampant speculation from someone with no relevant qualifications, and it fails to explain the instability in 7 noted by the FDNY hours before collapse. // end Colby http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc7_dud.htm Two button pushes. Consistant with the below scenario but just adding partial explosions first button push,explains all.(Gaal) Was WTC 7 a Dud? by Jeremy Baker ] Facts support the theory that World Trade Center Building 7 was originally meant to implode seconds after the North Tower's collapse The following is a condensed version of the main premise presented in the original article "Silverstein, Giuliani, WTC 7 and 20-20 Hindsight." WTC 7 The strange circumstances surrounding the unusual collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 have become a focal point for the researchers, writers and activists who have committed themselves to reopening the books on 9/11. Many of these people believe that the anomalous collapse of Building 7 is a 9/11 smoking gun, the Achilles' heel in the official version of what occurred on that day. The obvious controlled demolition of the building, proven so conclusively in several videos we have of its collapse, has been supported by other key pieces of evidence as well. These points taken together have proven to the satisfaction of most 9/11 researchers that WTC 7 was brought down not by fires weakening its superstructure, as claimed by the authorities, but was instead destroyed by an explosive system that could only have been installed in the building prior to 9/11. After allegedly being struck by the North Tower's plummeting debris, fires were said to have been ignited in WTC 7 that grew throughout the day and finally compromised the building's steel structure, causing it to suddenly drop like a stone late in the afternoon. But gaping holes in this scenario have done nothing but arouse suspicion and disbelief in those who've carefully examined the evidence. Rather than presenting a viable scenario for Building 7's destruction, the inexplicable features of its collapse have instead helped to fuel broader speculation that 9/11 was essentially an inside job, an attempt by traitors within our own ranks to generate support for imperialist agendas that could otherwise never withstand the light of day. So, for those who agree that WTC 7 was indeed brought down with a preplanted explosives system — the last act in a "psy-op" that included the destruction of the entire World Trade Center complex on 9/11 — then the next question becomes: Why did the conspirators wait until the end of the day to do it? What possible reason would they have to keep WTC 7 up all day long? In the four years or so since the unofficial citizens investigation into 9/11 began, no one has offered any sensible answers to this question. But the list of compelling reasons why waiting seven hours after the attacks to bring Building 7 down was not a good idea is long and hard to ignore. If keeping WTC 7 up for so long after the attacks has proven so threatening to the plot's success and its subsequent coverup, why would the plotters have done it? Only two possibilities logically present themselves; 1) there was some absolutely critical but, as yet, undetermined reason to keep the building intact for so long, or 2) it wasn't originally meant to come down when it did. Since absolutely no compelling case has been made for the former possibility, circumstances appear to support the latter. Is it possible that WTC 7's explosive system didn't operate as planned, a disastrous glitch in an otherwise well conceived plan? The following is a presentation of points that appear to support this theory, one that paints a dramatically different picture of what theorists previously thought had occurred throughout the day on 9/11. Piecing together a factual account of what happened that afternoon is certainly difficult without confirmation from inside sources, but surely the known facts support a scenario similar to this one: The conspirators, possibly operating out of the mayor's Office of Emergency Management (OEM) on the 23rd floor of WTC 7, first, orchestrated the collision of the planes into their targets, igniting fires that spread throughout the upper floors of both towers and allegedly causing structural damage to the building's steel superstructure. They then armed and programmed the explosive system in the safely distant South Tower and, at the optimum moment, pushed the button and brought the building crashing to the ground. Next, they programmed the explosives in the North Tower and, if the conspirators were indeed situated in the mayor's emergency bunker, chose this moment to exit WTC 7 and move to a secure location before taking the next steps in their plan. This scenario is supported by comments Rudy Giuliani made to ABC News and Peter Jennings; "We were operating out of there [the OEM] when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse, and it did collapse before we could get out of the building." This confirms that Giuliani was indeed manning his OEM bunker and that Tower Two (the first building to fall) collapsed before the mayor and his people were able to (or chose to) exit WTC 7. The perpetrators, now relocated to a backup position, then prepared for the demolition of the North Tower and WTC 7. This secondary control center may also have been referred to in another report that the mayor was operating out of "a makeshift command post at 75 Barkley Street," just north of and adjacent to WTC 7. There, the conspirators waited for the appropriate moment and then remotely detonated the explosives in the North Tower and brought it down as well, the building shredding itself in a way oddly identical to the South Tower's collapse. As the North Tower fell, a massive cloud of debris shot into the sky and enshrouded most of lower Manhattan, much as it had after the collapse of the South Tower. In seconds, this dense cloud of powdered debris rose and obscured the surrounding buildings. Then, when most of WTC 7 was hidden from view, the conspirators pushed the button on the explosive system in this building as well, the thick cloud of debris obscuring any signs that WTC 7 was being intentionally demolished. After the smoke had cleared and the events of the day were relegated to history, any lingering questions as to why WTC 7 came down seconds after Tower One's collapse would be easily fielded with a list of invented but plausible excuses that, in the absence of visual evidence to the contrary, would be quite believable. In the wake of the attacks, the stories about debris from Tower One impacting the electrical substation and 40,000 gallon deisel tank located on Building 7's ground floors — causing massive internal explosions that kicked the building's feet out from under it — would've made good sense, providing a satisfactory if implausible excuse for those who had doubts about Building 7's demise. The 32 story Marriott Vista hotel, located between the Twin Towers, was completely leveled by the collapse of these buildings and has been all but forgotten in a world that barely recalls the life and times of WTC 7. But, as fate would have it, things didn't go according to plan. Incredibly, when the conspirators pushed the button on WTC 7, nothing happened. For whatever reason, the explosive system in WTC 7 had failed and the building stubbornly remained intact. In an instant, the success of an elaborate plot to entirely destroy a New York City landmark (one that, according to many people who lived and worked in the area, had been obsolete for years and become a blight on lower Manhattan) had fallen into confusion. Faced with a plan that had gone terribly awry, the conspirators then scrambled to bring the demolition system in WTC 7 back online, a task that may have taken hours, well past the time when the handy cloud of debris had dissipated. In the meantime, a new scenario had to be concocted to "cover" what would otherwise be the forthcoming but completely unexplained collapse of WTC 7. In their desperation and haste, the perps finally made the decision to reenter Building 7 and set fires that they hoped would spread and eventually serve as a pretext for the building's collapse. The fire-caused-the-collapse scenario would likely serve them well considering the fact that they'd used the same scheme in the towers earlier that day. Though its difficult to pin down exactly what happened next, some facts support the following scenario, or variations thereof: The perpetrators reentered WTC 7 and climbed to the 7th floor, the location of the OEM's emergency generators (this floor would become the scene of the lower of the two fires that were soon to be burning in the building). If, as many theorists suggest, the conspirators were indeed OEM men, they would not only have had access to this floor (in a building that had been evacuated and presumably secured), they would also have had deisel fuel in abundance to use as an accellerant to spark their dummy fire. Next, they ascended to floor 12, one of three floors occupied by the SEC, and sparked blazes in this location as well (floor 12 was the location of the upper of the two fires that were photographed burning in the building). Besides creating another flash point for fire, this may have been done to assure that, in case the explosive system failed again, incriminating evidence in this location was certain to be destroyed no matter what might occur. The conspirators then exited the building and watched the fires grow, hopefully to a crescendo that would serve as a plausible pretext for the building's collapse. Eventually the explosive system was brought back online and the only thing left to do was wait for the fires to build. But, as we saw, the fires never grew to convincing proportions. Despite their best efforts and training, the conspirators were completely unprepared for this contingency, and it showed. Even as late as 3 PM, the fires in WTC 7 were still marginal and struggling. Unlike the towers, these fires were oxygen starved by windows that hadn't been shattered and couldn't be opened. In fact, the fires remained so small they were barely visible from outside the building until quite late in the day and never approached the size necessary to pass them off as the catalyst for the building's collapse. The insignificant fires burning in WTC 7 have always been a sticking point for 9/11 researchers who rightfully doubt that fires so small could ever have brought the building down. Indeed, in all the history of firefighting, no steel-framed high-rise has ever collapsed due to fire. Even in the case of major infernos that entirely engulfed such buildings in the past, no office fire had ever burnt hot enough to compromise the strength of the massive steel beams that support these structures. The physics simply do not support this phenomenon — that is, of course, with one exception. On 9/11, the laws of physics were apparently suspended and three such anomalies occurred. Those who argue that the towers fell because the planes caused structural damage inaddition to fire damage cannot, however, apply this theory to the anomalous collapse of WTC 7. But, despite the difficulties confronting the perpetrators, the bottom line was that Building 7 had to go. If WTC 7 was indeed an operations and control center for this sprawling conspiracy, it was, essentially, a crime scene that needed to be destroyed. It was also the only WTC building left standing, making the plan to level the entire complex incomplete. This theory is supported by the fact that, throughout the day, absolutely no effort was made to save this extremely sensitive and valuable building (one that housed several key governmental and intelligence agencies) that was being threatened by only modest fires. This is all the more baffling when you consider that WTC 7 must have had a built in fire suppression system of some kind as well, one that presumably would have made short work of such a marginal threat. So, despite the fact that, even towards the end of the day, the fires in WTC 7 remained barely significant (from a fire engineering standpoint), the culprits finally made the decision to pull the plug on WTC 7 and rely on their formidable propaganda machinery to bulldoze any doubts that might arise. The conspirators couldn't logically wait any longer because a burgeoning army of firefighters and rescue workers had recovered from their shock and were descending on Ground Zero to begin the lengthy search and rescue effort that began that evening. For those who desperately needed the building destroyed, it was then or never and, in an effort to finally wrap things up, they put the demolition process in motion by clearing personnel from around the base of Building 7. Then, when they could wait no longer, they put an end to the spectacle at 5:25 PM, dropping Building 7 neatly within its footprint, an obvious controlled implosion so perfect it would have earned any demolition company a bonus. Needless to say, the theory outlined above is a significant departure from beliefs previously held by the broad community of 9/11 conspiracy advocates concerning what happened to WTC 7 that afternoon. Any paradigm shift of this magnitude relating to an event as grave as 9/11 will likely undergo intense scrutiny, as it should. But we needn't go far to find precedent for the scenario outlined above. All we need do is go back in time six years, to 1995. There are many intriguing correlations between the September 11th attacks on the WTC and the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. Both events enabled draconian domestic security provisions to be signed into law shortly thereafter. Both sites were quickly and discretely cleaned up by the same company, Controlled Demolition, Inc., whose conduct, in both cases, sparked criticism from fire investigators who felt that not enough had been done to examine the evidence. In addition, both attacks employed much the same scheme: a primary event "covered" the real cause of the destruction — explosive systems preplanted in the buildings. In OK City, a rental truck packed with crude explosives "covered" the simultaneous detonation of bombs planted in the Murrah Building. In Manhattan, two passenger jets caused destruction that "covered" the tower's eventual demolition — again, the result of bombs previously planted throughout the Twin Towers. But there's another parallel that bears examination, one that does much to support the theory at hand. After the smoke had cleared in downtown OK City, it was discovered that two of the bombs planted in the Murrah Building had failed to explode, a fact that was reported nightly on local TV news programs for a week or two after the bombing. And these reports were more than just rumors. Sources included FBI agents, police and firefighters. The OK City bomb squad was called out as well and got to work disarming these charges before they could do any more damage. Even Oklahoma governor Frank Keating confirmed the story to the media before it disappeared from the airwaves forever (Alex Jones presents an excellent montage of these reports in his video 9/11 The Road to Tyranny). Consider how this astonishing fact conflicts with what are by now historical accounts that the building was destroyed only by the crude fertilizer bomb constructed and detonated by lone wolf Timothy McVeigh. And any allusions we may have had that the guys who orchestrated the attacks of 9/11 were criminal masterminds who had covered every angle is neatly dispelled when we consider this previously botched job. Certainly this kind of breakdown on the part of shady, covert operatives, or "asteroids," is not unprecedented. Imagine the state of mind of the conspirators as they watched their plan to destroy one of the world's most recognizable landmarks (and, of course, violently murder thousands of innocent people) unfold before their eyes. Even the most jaded covert operative wouldn't likely remain unrattled after having perpetrated such an outrage. Again, the idea that these guys were able to calmly meet every contingency or work magic under that kind of pressure certainly shouldn't be taken for granted. And let's not forget what Deepthroat said to Bob Woodward during his investigation into yet another botched "op": "Truth is, these aren't very bright guys and things got out of hand." And well they may have. Reentering Building 7 in a spur of the moment attempt to ignite crude fires is a potentially dangerous enterprise. Whatever the conspirators may have used to spark their fires, the potential for trouble with an ill-considered plan for arson is high. Reports that a body was found in the remains of Building 7 are intriguing for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that other reports claim that there were no casualties in WTC 7 whatsoever. Nonetheless, the US House of Representatives website posts a tribute to Secret Service Special Officer Craig Miller whose body was found in the rubble of Building 7 after he'd apparently perished during the "rescue effort" that day. But what really happened to Officer Miller — Secret Service Special Officer Miller? Not a firefighter. Not a rescue worker or cop — a secret service special agent. Who on earth were you rescuing, Officer Miller? WTC 7 had been evacuated. Could this man have been an amateur arsonist who got too close to his fire? Could he have sabotaged the explosive system in WTC 7 because he got cold feet about his role in one of the cruelest deceptions in history and paid for it with his life? This man's autopsy records might shed some light on the matter. The story of WTC lessee Larry Silverstein claiming to have 'pulled' WTC 7 is well known among 9/11 researchers. The only explanation that's ever been offered in his defense was that he meant 'pull' the firefighters out of the "dangerously burning" building. But if that were true, why didn't Officer Miller get the message? Not only were the suspicious facts of his death ignored by the media but Officer Miller was then posthumously granted hero status as someone who had allegedly died during the phantom "rescue effort" in this empty building. We saw this phenomenon applied to many key governmental figures in the wake of 9/11 — officials who, instead of being held accountable for their criminal negligence in regard to the attacks, were afterwards sold as "American heroes" and sometimes even promoted. And, as you'll see, nowhere was this ploy more at work than in the case of "Man of the Year" and "America's Mayor," Rudy Giuliani. WTC 7, or the Solomon Brothers Building, had been owned by Manhattan real estate mogul Larry Silverstein since the '80s and was the HQ for his development company, Westfield America, for years. Building 7 was also the NYC home of the Secret Service, SEC, DoD, IRS, CIA and a handful of private financial institutions. But WTC 7 also housed Rudy Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management (OEM), long considered by theorists as a possible operations center for the attacks. This $13 million doomsday bunker, meant to be used in the event of a catastrophe like a terrorist attack or natural disaster, was oddly located in the midst of thenumber one terrorist target in the western hemisphere. Isn't one ill-advised to locate their emergency command facility where it will likely be destroyed in the event of an actualemergency? This incomprehensible choice of venues for the mayor's emergency bunker is even more troubling when you consider the fact that the WTC had already been attacked once in 1993. This extremely unheroic plan to locate the OEM at the WTC then went on to prove its absurdity on 9/11 when, according to the official account, the occupants of the OEM were forced to abandon it after the first tower collapsed. This and other compelling points support the hypothesis mentioned above, that the OEM was just a front for the conspirators attack operations center. Now that would explain the poor choice of locations. Many researchers believe that shadowy elements within the agencies housed in WTC 7 are prime suspects in this sprawling conspiracy. To these theorists, Building 7 is a kind of nexus for the planning and execution of what may well have been the most audacious "black-op" or, more accurately, "false flag" operation in the history of covert actions. If they are correct, Building 7 was literally a nest of suspicious activity and its remaining intact may well have been a catastrophe for those who were counting on its destruction. As 9/11 researchers are well aware, Larry Silverstein took over control of the entire World Trade Center just a few weeks before the attacks of 9/11, the first time the WTC had changed hands in thirty years and the first time it had come under private control. In an interview in a 2002 PBS documentary called America Rebuilds, he described being on the phone with the FDNY commander on the afternoon of 9/11 and coming to the conclusion that there had "been such terrible loss of life maybe the smartest thing to do is, is 'pull' it," (referring to WTC 7). Then, according to Silverstein, "they made that decision to 'pull' and we watched the building collapse" (the same documentary quotes a demo worker, "well, we're getting ready to 'pull' building 6," moments before its burnt out carcass was demolished — a comment that appears to connect the word "pull" even more closely to the actual act of demolition). Many have asked how he could possibly have been so careless as to make such an admission publicly. But what if circumstances compelled him to do so? What if his comments were a discrete response to growing suspicions surrounding the botched attempt to 'pull' WTC 7 earlier in the day? The powers-that-be have brazenly used PBS programming to spin other aspects of 9/11. The NOVA program that espoused the theory of the "pancaking" of the Twin Tower's floors is infamous in the 9/11 skeptics community. PBS programs relating to 9/11 typically feature "experts" who unanimously support the party line. With WTC 7's obvious demolition caught on film from at least three excellent perspectives, it's an understatement to say that the conspirators had a big problem on their hands. Could it be that Silverstein's comments about 'pulling' WTC 7 were a carefully choreographed "hang out" of the issue? Using Karl Rove-like sleight of hand, he offers a vague accounting of the anomaly delivered to us on an almost subconscious level. Paradoxically, his comments may have been intended to steer us in the exact opposite direction — that, despite how it may have appeared, heroes in high places stepped up and made the tough choices. The expression 'pull' relates to the word 'demolition' in much the same way that the expression 'wind up' relates to the word 'pitch.' In this sense, Silverstein's use of the word 'pull' to mean 'demolition' seems clear and may also have served to cover the sudden and suspicious evacuation of personnel from around the base of WTC 7 shortly before its bizarre suicide. A photographer on the scene described the evacuation of firefighters as they "prepared for the collapse of Building 7...I was 150 yards away when I saw the firefighters raising the flag." What? It's understandable that, given the events of the day, the authorities might consider preparing for this extremely remote possibility, just to be safe. But for these guys to 'pull' Building 7 and then have it come down right on cue when there's absolutely no precedent for such a phenomenon is just too much coincidence to stomach. There are other factors to be considered as well. The alleged damage to Building 7's south face, caused by debris from the collapse of Tower One, was the official cause of the fires that the authorities then sanctioned as being the "likely" cause of the building's collapse. Hundreds of photos of Ground Zero taken throughout the day show every detail of the devastation, yet pictures of Building 7's damaged south face, "raging" fires and billowing smoke are conspicuously absent. Certainly this spectacle would have caught the eye of any photographer recording the aftermath of the attacks. Doesn't this lack of photographic evidence support the idea that, after things went wrong that morning, photographers on the scene would have their materials confiscated and vetted by the authorities, much as they had been at the Pentagon (and Oklahoma City for that matter)? Any photographs of the suspicious lack of damage to Building 7 (evidence that would prove the official account untenable) would disappear forever. Isn't it extremely suspicious that absolutely no pictures of WTC 7's south face have ever been released to the public, an astounding revelation when you consider the key role this alleged debris damage played in the days events. In addition, aerial photos of Ground Zero appear to confirm that the debris raining down from Tower One's collapse fell well short of WTC 7. These photos show a huge crater in the roof of WTC 6 (the low-rise building standing between Tower One and Building 7), the result of damage caused by this debris. This crater provides a clear imprint of the limits of the destruction and, despite some bits and pieces of rubble that made their way across a full city block to WTC 7's location, the bulk of the truly destructive wreckage clearly fell safely short of Building 7. Another even more stunning fact is that pictures of the two buildings flanking WTC 7 clearly show that they were barely scratched by the debris that had somehow, according to Popular Mechanics magazine, "scooped out" 25% of Building 7's depth. In fact, both of these structures still stand in near pristine condition, shoulder to shoulder with WTC 7, despite their being well within the same radius of destruction. And what about the debris from the identical South Tower (or Tower Two)? Did it cause similar damage to its neighbors? Apparently not. The photos in question also show that the Banker's Trust Building, a building similar in size to WTC 7 (but not a WTC building), standing just across the street from the South Tower, suffered no such catastrophic damage and it certainly didn't catch on fire and collapse. And another thing. We all remember 9/11. The eyes of the world were focused on lower Manhattan. Helicopters were circling the area all day long, the television coverage never let up, not even for commercials. Are we really to believe that no aerial video exists of WTC 7 going down, especially when the FDNY was apparently preparing for its collapse — film clips that would surely tell the story of what happened to Building 7 and clearly show the damage (or lack thereof) on the south face of WTC 7? As mentioned before, Building 7's fires (meager though they were) and its billowing cloud of black smoke would surely have attracted the attention of videographers recording the aftermath of the attacks from above — dramatic images reminiscent of the smoking towers aired earlier that day. It's always been a keen frustration to 9/11 researchers (and a chilling example of media suppression) that the only videos we do have of Building 7 falling to the ground were all distant shots taken from the north, precisely the wrong angle to shed light on the matter. If dropping Building 7 late in the day on 9/11 was really part of the original plan, wouldn't the plotters have concocted a far more believable and well-constructed scenario to "cover" its collapse (much as they had for the Twin Towers and the Murrah Building), especially when they knew that Ground Zero would be center stage on every TV and computer screen on the planet that night? Instead we got tiny, insignificant fires, and a long list of nagging questions that have only served to arouse widespread suspicion. What does the body of a Secret Service Special Agent in the rubble of WTC 7 most likely indicate; 1) that a well-planned scheme had just gone off without a hitch, or 2) that some kind of major breakdown had occurred that day? How could Officer Miller have died except by malfeasance? WTC 7 had been evacuated before it was hit by falling debris and the lazy fires building in its belly couldn't possibly have caught a healthy Secret Service agent off-guard. Under the circumstances, isn't the absurd claim that this man died during the "rescue effort" that day clearly a smokescreen for something that's being carefully kept under wraps? Isn't it odd that the FDNY seemingly just gave up on such an exceedingly important and valuable building as WTC 7, one that had only marginal fires burning on two floors? Wouldn't the conspirators have preferred wrapping things up in one fell swoop that morning rather than prolonging the spectacle any longer than necessary? Why wasn't Rudy Giuliani kept well away from what was obviously an attack on lower Manhattan? And the bewildering notion that the conspirators originally planned to spend the day in the OEM orchestrating the aftermath of the attacks in the upper floors of a burning building is really stretching credulity to the breaking point. All of the anomalies listed above and the many disturbing questions following in the wake of WTC 7's suspicious collapse would have been neatly and easily dispensed with had the building been demolished while hidden beneath the dust cloud kicked up by Tower One's collapse. But with clear video footage of Building 7's belated and obvious demolition, the talk of the electrical substation and deisel tank exploding and causing the collapse has always rung hollow and has generated rather than mollified suspicion. Nothing about WTC 7 remaining intact throughout the day before finally and obviously being demolished has ever made any sense at all. But if WTC 7 was brought down as it was hidden by the debris cloud rising from the rubble of Tower One, no one would have asked another question about it and what many theorists consider to be a 9/11 smoking gun would have vanished into obscurity. Certainly this theory is supported by the evidence and deserves consideration by the broad community of 9/11 skeptics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now