Evan Burton

I'll post this again: Eyewitness accounts from people who saw the fires at WTC7.

Once the fires developed, according to witness accounts and photo evidence gathered in the NIST investigation, there were confirmed fires on at least 16 floors: 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 29, and 30.

"The building was fully involved in fire." – Photographer Steve Spak

"I had a clear view down Washington Street of Building Seven, which was on the north edge of the site. All forty-seven stories were on fire. It was wild. The MPs said the building was going to collapse. I said, "Nah, I don't know." And then all of a sudden I watched the building shake like an earthquake hit it, and the building came down." –Ground Zero Superintendant Charlie Vitchers (Glenn Stout, Charles Vitchers, and Robert Gray. Nine Months at Ground Zero. Scribner, 2006 15-16) Note: Vitchers may have only seen the building from the north side. There may not have been visible fires on most floors there. His quote is included to show how impressive the scene was.

First responder accounts. Unless otherwise noted, accounts are from the FDNY oral history transcripts.

1. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca

2. ...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn

3. I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...z/visconti.html

4. All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes

5. When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.

–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

6. The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110472.PDF

7. Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.

8. At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa

9. Chief Cruthers told me that they had formed another command post up on Chambers Street. At this point there were a couple of floors burning on Seven World Trade Center. Chief McNally wanted to try and put that fire out, and he was trying to coordinate with the command post up on Chambers Street. This is after searching for a while. He had me running back and forth trying to get companies to go into Seven World Trade Center. His radio didn't seem to be working right either because he had me relaying information back and forth and Chief Cruthers had me --

Q. So everything was face-to-face? Nothing was by radio?

A. Yeah, and it was really in disarray. It really was in complete disarray. We never really got an operation going at Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Captain Michael Donovan

10. Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transc...e-reports02.pdf page 48.

11. At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings. –M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transc...e-reports03.pdf page 49

[Note: the fires in 7 were probably not mainly due to damage from the south tower, but from the north.]

12. So yeah then we just stayed on Vesey until building Seven came down. There was nothing we could do. The flames were coming out of every window of that building from the explosion of the south tower. So then building Seven came down. When that started coming down you heard that pancaking sound again everyone jumped up and starts.

Q: Why was building Seven on fire? Was that flaming debris from tower two, from tower two that fell onto that building and lit it on fire?

A: Correct. Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and what-not. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block. –Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy

13. "We were down about a block from the base of the World Trade Center towers about an hour ago. And there was a great deal of concern at that time, the firemen said building number 7 was going to collapse, building number five was in danger of collapsing. And there's so little they can do to try to fight the fires in these buildings, because the fires are so massive. And so much of the buildings continues to fall into the street. When you're down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes, and so it's an extremely dangerous place to be."

–CBS-TV News Reporter Vince DeMentri http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.....explosions.wmv

14. Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's going on there. I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved.

Now you're trapped in the rubble and the guys who are there are fighting the worst high-rise fire in the history of New York or history of the world, probably, I don't know, 40, story building fully involved, I guess that was probably the worst.

I was, needless to say, scared to death that something else was going to fall on us, that this building was going to come down and we were all going to die, after surviving the worst of it. [Note: I deleted the link this account, and searching the net for the text doesn’t turn up anything. This sounds like an account from north tower stairwell B survivor. Anyone who knows for sure, let me know.]

15. And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. ... the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. –Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.

16. The time was approximately 11a.m. Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. –PAPD P.O. William Connors http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transc...e-reports04.pdf page 69

17. "There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse.

We're kind of caught in traffic and people and things, and everything's going on. We hear over the fire portable, "Everybody evacuate the site. It's going to collapse." Mark Steffens starts yelling, "Get out of here! Get out of here! Get out of here! We've got to go! We've got to go! It's going to collapse." I turned around, and I piped up real loud and said, "Stay in the frigging car. Roll the windows up. It's pancake collapsing. We'll be fine. The debris will quit and the cloud will come through. Just stay in the car." We pulled the car over, turned around and just watched it pancake. We had a dust cloud but nothing like it was before. –Paramedic Louis Cook

(Building 7 fire makes rescuer of NT stairwell victim’s route impassable, just before collapse):

I remember it was bad and I'm going to get to a point where we came back that way on the way up. We couldn't even go that way, that's how bad the fire was, but by the time I was coming back it was rolling, more than a couple of floors, just fully involved, rolling.

...So now it's us 4 and we are walking towards it and I remember it would have at one point been an easier path to go towards our right, but being building 7 -- that must have been building 7 I'm guessing with that fire, we decided to stay away from that because things were just crackling, falling and whatnot. So as I’m going back, that fire that was on my right is now on my left. I’m backtracking and that fire is really going and on the hike towards there, we put down our masks, which at this point started to realize maybe it would have been good thing if we had this mask on the way back, but then again between the fire and about halfway when I was on the way back, I got a radio call from the guys that we left and it was Johnny Colon the chauffeur of 43, who was effecting a different rescue. He was carrying somebody out.

He had called me and said “Hey Jerry don’t try and get back out the way you went in which was big heads up move because he said that building was rolling on top of the building that we were passing. That building was on fire and likely to collapse more too.

Between Picciotto asking me are you sure we can get out this way because it really didn’t look good with that fire and my guy telling me that you better not because of the area we crawled in was unattainable now too. ...we started going back the other way.

Q: Would that be towards West Street?

A: That would have been back towards what I know is the Winter Garden....[west]

–Firefighter Gerard Suden

18. I remember Chief Hayden saying to me, "We have a six-story building over there, a seven-story building, fully involved." At that time he said, "7 has got fire on several floors." He said, "We've got a ten-story over there, another ten-story over there, a six-story over there, a 13-story over there." He just looked at me and said, "xxxx 'em all. Let 'em burn." He said, "Just tell the guys to keep looking for guys. Just keep looking for the brothers. We've got people trapped. We've got to get them out." –Lieutenant William Ryan

19. I walked around the building to get back to the command post and that's when they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down. ...They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said 'we know.' –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy

20. We were champing at the bit," says WCBS-TV reporter Vince DeMentri of his decision to sneak behind police barricades and report from 7 World Trade Center a half-hour before it collapsed. "I knew the story was in there." But after he and his cameraman slipped past officers, they lost all sense of direction. "From outside this zone, you could figure out where everything was," he says. "But inside, it was all destruction and blown-out buildings, and we had no clue. I walked into one building, but I had no idea where I was. The windows were all blown out. Computers, desks, furniture, and people's possessions were strewn all over." He found a picture of a little girl lying in the rubble. Then he realized that No. 7, aflame, was about fifteen to twenty feet ahead of him. "I looked up Barclay Street," he says. "There was nobody out. No bodies, no injured. Nobody. There were mounds of burning debris. It was like opening a broiler." http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/featu...5183/index.html

21. They are worried that number 7 is burning and they are talking about not ceasing operations.

–Deputy Commissioner Frank Gribbon

22. There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to -- they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down as it was on fire. It was too dangerous to go in and fight the fire. –Assistant Commissioner James Drury

23. We assisted some FDNY personnel who were beginning to attempt to fight the fire at 7 WTC. We assisted in dragging hose they needed to bring water into the building. –Kenneth Kohlmann PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transc...e-reports04.pdf page 26

24. My first thoughts when I came down a little further into the site, south of Chambers Street, was, "Where am I?" I didn't recognize it. Obviously, the towers were gone. The only thing that remained standing was a section of the Vista Hotel. Building 7 was on fire. That was ready to come down. –Charlie Vitchers, Ground Zero Superintendent http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/profile...vitchers_t.html

25. The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower, and there was fire on every floor." – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)

26. At that point, Seven World Trade had 12 stories of fire in it. They were afraid it was going to collapse on us, so they pulled everybody out. We couldn't do anything. – Firefighter Maureen McArdle-Schulman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 17)

27. The 7 World Trade Center was roaring. All we could think is we were an Engine Company, we have got to get them some water. We need some water you know. With that, we positioned the rig, I don't know, 3 quarters of a block away maybe. A fire boat was going to relay water to us. I don't know if I have things in the right order, whatever, if we were getting water out of a hydrant first. Jesus Christ --

Q. Captain said you were getting water. You were draining a vacuum?

A. It was draining away from us. Right. We had to be augmented. I think that's when the fire boat came. I think the fire boats supplied us. Of course you don't see that. You just see the (inaudible) way and you know, we are hooking up and we wound up supplying the Tower Ladder there. I just remember feeling like helpless, like everybody there was doomed and there is -- I just felt like there was absolutely nothing we could do. I want to just go back a little bit.–Firefighter Kevin Howe

28. "When I got out and onto a clear pile, I see that 7 World Trade Center and the customs house have serious fire. Almost every window has fire. It is an amazing site. –Captain Jay Jonas, Ladder 6. (Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002. P. 103)

29. Firefighter TJ Mundy: "The other building, #7, was fully involved, and he was worried about the next collapse." (Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002.)

30. 7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved. It was unbelievable. –Firefighter Steve Modica http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/modica.html

31. So I attempted to get in through the Barkley Street ramp which is on Barkley (sic) and West Broadway, but I was being held back by the fire department, because 7 World Trade, which is above the ramp, was now fully engulfed.

–PAPD K-9 Sergeant David Lim http://www.911report.com/media/davidlim.pdf

32. We could hear fires crackling. We didn’t know it at the time, but No. 7 World Trade Center and No. 5 World Trade Center were immediately adjacent to us and they were roaring, they were on fire. Those were the sounds that we were hearing. ...At the same time, No. 5 World Trade Center, No. 6 World Trade Center and No. 7 World Trade Center were roaring. They were on fire. And they were right next to us. So we have all that smoke that we’re dealing with.

–FDNY Capt. Jay Jonas http://archive.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/jonas.htm

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitness...untsofwtc7fires

I can believe that one or two people might mistake what they saw, but that many people - including professional firefighters - who talk about the building being ablaze? I trust what multiple people - who were there - say.

David,

What I am saying is that something that a member considers "inflammatory" may not be considered so by other members. As always, if you have concerns, raise them with a Mod. If you are unhappy with the Moderator's decision, raise the matter with John and Andy.

And yet no-one does anything.

As one poster stated, if there were large reserves of oil involved, "regime change" would've been planned and acted upon....

I can't disagree with that, David.

Perhaps they could find a "valuable resource" to spur on some help?

And yet no-one does anything.

I didn't see anything new. People claimed things, but we still haven't seen any proof. I thought Bill Nye came off as rather obnoxious at times, though he did raise some good points.

Jack,

Do you know what air routes are above your area, and in which directions they are oriented?

As always:

- They match normal contrails.

- You have nothing to prove that they are anything but a normal contrail.

If you ever get an airborne sample of one which analysis says does contain unusual chemicals, I'll pay attention. Until that time, it is simply baseless speculation.

Also, no need to start a new thread for each time you take a photo. I'll merge this into the main "chemtrail" thread in due course.

John agrees with the policy that the content of a PM or e-mail should not normally be made public unless the concerned parties agree to it - particularly if both are Forum members. In some circumstances, there may be good reason for this policy to be waived; contact a Moderator BEFORE posting to seek advice.

Please note that this policy is not in regard to "inflammatory" material in a signature line; it is regarding text from private communication being made public. Something may be inflammatory to some people but be well within the Forum rules. Free speech works in many directions. If you have concerns regarding a post (or something in a signature line) then bring the concern to the attention of a Moderator.

Look forward to it. Thanks Ron!

BTW, that is 4 JUL in US time?

Brian,

Have a read of this material, and see if it changes your mind.

2. Len - Do NOT quote from a private communication UNLESS all parties have agreed. If you feel that the content of a PM is relevant and needs to be revealed, speak to John or Andy; they will make a decision on it. This includes signature lines. First & final warning on the matter.

Thank you.

Evan

I understand that being a moderator here is a difficult balancing act however I believe removing the text of Peter's unsolicited e-mail to me was inappropriate for reasons I spelled out on on a thread whether this issue has already come up

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=148970

Len

Len,

Point noted. I know where you are coming from, and I can't say I totally disagree with you but my experience is that the practice should not be allowed unless both parties agree. I'll contact John for a decision on the matter.

Thanks.

Burton is also famous for his contentless but negative and nasty posts such as "Bollocks!" and other childish tripe.

I should also remark, IIRC, I used the term ONCE. Other moderators said they thought it inappropriate, so - although I thought it harmless enough - I removed it.

Now, in keeping with the call for more rigid enforcement of the rules:

1. Please take any further complaints about moderators to the complaints thread; off-topic posts will be MOVED (not deleted) to an appropriate thread.

2. Len - Do NOT quote from a private communication UNLESS all parties have agreed. If you feel that the content of a PM is relevant and needs to be revealed, speak to John or Andy; they will make a decision on it. This includes signature lines. First & final warning on the matter.

Thank you.

BTW, I do have to apologise for letting the thread go off topic - that was my bad. Jack, sorry for letting that happen.

We can discuss the stealth matter further in a new thread, if people like.

I stand corrected it seems, I understood “go operational” as to be used in missions other than training. Perhaps Evan or Matthew can shed light on this.

It can be a little grey at times, but generally when an aircraft system goes operational, it means that it is no longer considered to be interim or introductory; it is the same as any other weapon system. For instance, we obtained the operational release for the Seahawk at the end of the 1980s but it wasn't used "in anger" until the early 1990s.

Many weapon systems are operational yet never are "used in anger".

*sigh*

Jan, your words again:

Stealth was categorically and officially denied throughout the 80s

Now, once more, sections of the quotes you yourself provided:

On 22 August Secretary of Defense Harold Brown held a press conference to clarify the stealth "leak." ... the purpose of confirming the leaks, Brown insisted, was to create a "firebreak" and prevent further information about the program being revealed.

The breaking of stealth information drew attention from the House Armed Services Committee...

Testimony given by Secretary Brown in which he explained his justification for the official announcement of stealth was deemed flimsy by the committee.

Thus, the third option, official revelation, was chosen as a way of preventing further leaks. How focusing on the press conference about stealth technology would limit such attention on the matter was never fully explained by Secretary Brown.

Neglecting the fact that stealth technology had been written about in the technical media for several years, the report concluded that the official announcement did "serious damage...to the security of the United States and our ability to deter or to contain a potential Soviet threat."

...explanation by Secretary Brown, supported the belief that the official disclosure was undertaken, for political purposes by the Carter administrations...

These are your own quotes - the stealth programme was acknowledged in 1980. Sure, they didn't say exactly what they were working on (the F-117 was being kept secret), and yes it was designed to try and limit what was known / not known. Yes, it was a "political game". I have no problems with that. They may have even tried to misdirect... but they admitted the existence of a stealth programme.

This is in DIRECT contradiction to your statement that it was "...categorically and officially denied throughout the 80s...". Even Blind Freddy can see that.

Len is right, Jan. The stealth programme was revealed in 1980.

The existence of the F-117 was not officially admitted until 1988 (the date you mentioned), but your statement was:

Stealth was categorically and officially denied throughout the 80s until it was finally admitted in 1988. It is therefore prima facie evidence that thousands of people can be privy to a secret for years and years without that secret leaking in any substantial form. As Cook states, professional defence & aerospace journalists (including those from Janes), had heard whispers of Stealth, but they were all amazed when the technology itself was revealed.

And we know the stealth was admitted in 1980. Your own post #24 says:

On 22 August Secretary of Defense Harold Brown held a press conference to clarify the stealth "leak." At the conference, Brown confirmed the details published in the media. The purpose of confirming the leaks, Brown insisted, was to create a "firebreak" and prevent further information about the program being revealed. Unsurprisingly, official confirmation of a supposedly secret program was seized upon as an ideal political weapon by Republicans, who accused the Carter administration of revealing secret military technology to rebuff their own claim that President Carter had neglected defense matters.

Gen Richard H. Ellis, then commander of the Strategic Air Command, said in a letter to Gen Lew Allen, Jr., USAF chief of staff at the time, that the release of such information, the announcement of a possible stealth bomber in particular, "brought the hair up on the back of my neck." He indicated that the reports gave the Soviets years of advance warning of the projects and time to prepare countermeasures that would greatly reduce the effectiveness of the systems.15 These remarks seemed to ignore the reports on stealth published in earlier years that gave more detailed information than was leaked in 1980. Given the emphasis placed on such technical media as Aviation Week & Space Technology in the aerospace community, as well as the ability of Soviet intelligence organizations to gain informationon other "black" programs, it seems unlikely that the Soviets first learned about the existence of stealth programs from the 1980 leaks.

President Carter responded to the criticism by downplaying the degree of detail revealed and in turn criticized his opponents for not classifying stealth when the program entered development under the Ford administration. Carter claimed that stealth had been out in the open during public testimony for initial contract assignment until his administration classified the program in 1977. The leaking of information about the program was inevitable, he claimed, given that thousands of workers were involved with the projects.16

The breaking of stealth information drew attention from the House Armed Services Committee, which prepared a report that was released in early February 1981. The origin of the report is probably linked to the fact that the committee was specially briefed on stealth technology two days before the media revelations, was given less information than was later leaked, and was told that the matter was highly secret. The report questions the official executive branch explanation for revelation of stealth data. Of particular interest was testimony by Benjamin Schemmer, then editor of Armed Forces Journal, who withheld publication of an articleon stealth in 1978at the request of the Department of Defense. In August 1980, he was approached by Under Secretaryof Defense for Research and EngineeringWilliam J. Perry, who encouraged him to publish amodified version of the article no later than 21 August, one day before Secretary Brown's press conference on stealth.17

etc, etc.

As I said, you are INCORRECT that the stealth programme was officially denied until 1988 but correct in that the F-117 in particular was not officially acknowledged until 1988.

I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

Good God! Jack is RIGHT!!! The evidence is here:

BTW, I am NOT saying there is no such thing as an "Aurora" aircraft; it's just that reports have been around since the early 90s, and I would have thought that any such project would have been announced by now.

Stealth was categorically and officially denied throughout the 80s until it was finally admitted in 1988.

Actually, you are wrong here. The Carter Administration admitted the existence of the stealth programme on 22 AUG 80, although specific details were not given. Details of the F-117 were not officially released until 1988. RCS was well understood, even during WWII. Even the German Navy used radar absorbent paint on U-boat periscopes.

I do wonder if the Aurora actually exists. There could well be an advanced recon aircraft about, but I am not really sure why it's existence would be kept secret. It's an interesting topic.

The "Truth Movement" (AKA People Who Disagree With The Findings Of The 9/11 Commission And Believe Official Collusion)

Evan,

Do you agree with the preposterous findings of the 9/11 Commission that the core of WTC1 and of WTC2 was a hollow shaft...

Ron,

I'm not sure where your quote is located. The only matching section is on page 541, note 1 to the Notes to Chapter 9. It says:

The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped.

This is not an unfair comment, especially when the context in which it is used has nothing to do with strength, building performance, etc. So no, I do not find it preposterous at all.

See here for building plans.

Of course, they'll claim the legal system was in on it or controlled by the NWO or (insert your conspiracy theory here).

and what appears?

None of the preposterous claims of the government, govenment-grovelling-media, 911-government-controlled-commission, NIST-governmental-arm-investigation or anything other of the official conspiracy version... (By Evan: From here on in, it's just blah blah blah as always. Read Peter's post if you are interested, but I won't waste bandwidth repeating it; you get the idea)

Inaccurate, as well as predicable!

How do you know they weren't normal contrails? Did you test them?

What?! Bring science into it? Perish the thought! Innuendo is all that is required.

I agree that the term is rather over-arching, but we've had this discussion before. The fact remains that none of the major 9-11 claims have ever been supportable.

Ron,

I always have to look at various claims and try to categorise them. For my own use, I have claims that can be technically proven or disproven, claims where there can be scientific evidence. Then there are claims that probably cannot be proven or disproven with certainty, e.g. motivations, etc. Sometimes there are claims that are in a grey area between the two.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again now to help clarify my position: I believe that four airliners were hijacked, that three were flown into buildings, and one crashed in a field. I believe that the damage to, and if applicable collapse of those, buildings hit by aircraft occurred without any controlled demolition, laser beams, missiles, etc. I believe that various US government departments (DoD, FAA, etc) did not knowingly / actively facilitate any of the events on that day.

Although I have not seen any evidence of such, I am open to the suggestion that one of the hijacked aircraft was brought down by US military forces in order to stop it reaching an area where it could cause significant damage and that the US government now does not want such an understandable act to be made public.

I'm open to the suggestion that the hijackers who carried out the events of that day were financed & supported by an organisation or persons who, although purporting to represent some Islamic faction or extremist group, were in fact a "front organisation" representing other interests. These other interests may include rogue elements of the US government, US domestic but non-government groups, or foreign interests.

So I would support further enquiries into 9/11 - mainly because I don't believe all the people who were responsible for individual or systemic failures that day are being held accountable - but also, if warranted, detailed examination of the financial aspects of the hijackers.

I return to the fact, though, that none of the 'conspiracy' claims has yet been supported by facts or been able to withstand scientific examination / peer scrutiny. Wood, Jones, Gage, Griffin, Ross, Ryan, Rodriguez, Haas, Reynolds, etc, are wrong.

A dark moment in UN history...

THE UN security council failed to agree on declaring Zimbabwe's run-off election illegitimate today in the face of South African opposition. Instead, it merely issued an oral statement of regret over the one-candidate presidential vote.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23936674-401,00.html