Jump to content
The Education Forum

The inevitable end result of our last 56 years


Recommended Posts

David Ray Griffin writes a terrific article about the collapse of WTC 7 in the newest "garrison" magazine (I have an article in there as well).

Shouldn't we wait until a plausible explanation for the Surfside building collapse is available? Watching the security camera footage, I see a similar "free fall" during the first part of the collapse and then another free fall during the final collapse, after the remaining building seems to be leaning a bit. 

Also, I see several small, bright explosions in this footage (very similar to WTC 1 and 2). We shouldn't rule out anything yet (including foul play in Florida).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 7.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Dr. Gregg Wager said:

David Ray Griffin writes a terrific article about the collapse of WTC 7 in the newest "garrison" magazine (I have an article in there as well).

Shouldn't we wait until a plausible explanation for the Surfside building collapse is available? Watching the security camera footage, I see a similar "free fall" during the first part of the collapse and then another free fall during the final collapse, after the remaining building seems to be leaning a bit. 

Also, I see several small, bright explosions in this footage (very similar to WTC 1 and 2). We shouldn't rule out anything yet (including foul play in Florida).  

Griffin's work is excellent.  It should be studied by everyone who wants to understand 9/11.

As for the steel substructures of WTC1 and WTC2, they bore no meaningful resemblance to the Surfside building.*

Among other major differences, the WTC towers were constructed of massive exterior and interior steel core columns.  The only way the towers could have collapsed to Ground Zero at near free fall acceleration on 9/11 is if the massive steel interior and exterior columns of the entire building were abruptly demolished.

The gravitational force of collapsing/pancaking upper floors-- not observed on 9/11--would not have sufficed, in any case, to demolish the lower steel substructures.  They were already strong enough to sustain the weight of the upper floors.

But the towers didn't pancake.  They were explosively pulverized into the atmosphere of lower Manhattan.

As for WTC-7, it's a no-brainer that it was also demolished by pre-planted explosives on 9/11.  The bogus NIST computer "simulation" didn't even pretend to explain the observed total free fall collapse of WTC-7.

 

* Official Reports Misrepresented the Towers' Construction

https://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

low_core.jpg
Portion of photograph in the collection of the Skyscraper Museum

The detailed architectural drawings make clear what official reports have apparently attempted to hide: that the Twin Towers had massive core columns, and those columns ran most of the height of each Tower before transitioning to columns with smaller cross-sections.

Based on construction photographs exhibited in the Skyscraper Museum and illustrations from the Engineering News Record , 9-11 Research had established by mid-2005 that, low in the Towers, the sixteen core columns that bounded the long faces of the buildings' cores had dimensions of 54 by 22 inches. The detailed drawings show that these columns maintained these dimensions through about the 66th floor.

Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' "collapses" -- FEMA's and NIST's -- are highly misleading about the core structures. Neither FEMA's Study nor NIST's Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings. Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely.

So effective was FEMA at concealing the nature of the cores that the 9/11 Commission Report , citing the FEMA Report, denied the very existence of the core columns.

 

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Monero emerges as crypto of choice for cybercriminals

Untraceable "privacy coin" is rising in popularity among ransomware gangs.

by Hannah Murphy, Financial Times – 6/22/2021

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/06/monero-emerges-as-crypto-of-choice-for-cybercriminals/?utm_source=digg

“For cybercriminals looking to launder illicit gains, bitcoin has long been the payment method of choice. But another cryptocurrency is coming to the fore, promising to help make dirty money disappear without a trace.

While bitcoin leaves a visible trail of transactions on its underlying blockchain, the niche “privacy coin” monero was designed to obscure the sender and receiver, as well as the amount exchanged.”

 

Steve Thomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/18/2021 at 8:47 PM, W. Niederhut said:

Under the circumstances, do you agree with the decision by Mitch McConnell and 34 Trump-aligned Senators to filibuster the bill authorizing a Congressional investigation of January 6th?

Good points W. The problem as I see it is that I do not believe the US government has the integrity to objectively investigate almost anything related to national or international politics. Especially in any instance where intelligence networks/operations are involved. We very rarely have "investigations" that expose entire operations, there seems to usually be too many cover story possibilities. Agendas take precedent over any evidence these days. I am aware Trump aligned forces acted stupidly and dangerously to some degree and I assume those senators did not want more light shown on that and/or did not believe the FBI would ever be outed.

 

As far as Kirk's outburst is concerned, I do not watch corporate media, Tucker included, but from the little I have seen (clips etc) he at least will have some decent people on and not be afraid to make fun of the Warren Report for instance. As for the rest of your assumptions of my views based on a zero hedge article link, thanks for the chuckle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Griffin's work is excellent.  It should be studied by everyone who wants to understand 9/11.

As for the steel substructures of WTC1 and WTC2, they bore no meaningful resemblance to the Surfside building.*

Among other major differences, the WTC towers were constructed of massive exterior and interior steel core columns.  The only way the towers could have collapsed to Ground Zero at near free fall acceleration on 9/11 is if the massive steel interior and exterior columns of the entire building were abruptly demolished.

The gravitational force of collapsing/pancaking upper floors-- not observed on 9/11--would not have sufficed, in any case, to demolish the lower steel substructures.  They were already strong enough to sustain the weight of the upper floors.

But the towers didn't pancake.  They were explosively pulverized into the atmosphere of lower Manhattan.

As for WTC-7, it's a no-brainer that it was also demolished by pre-planted explosives on 9/11.  The bogus NIST computer "simulation" didn't even pretend to explain the observed total free fall collapse of WTC-7.

 

* Official Reports Misrepresented the Towers' Construction

https://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

low_core.jpg
Portion of photograph in the collection of the Skyscraper Museum

The detailed architectural drawings make clear what official reports have apparently attempted to hide: that the Twin Towers had massive core columns, and those columns ran most of the height of each Tower before transitioning to columns with smaller cross-sections.

Based on construction photographs exhibited in the Skyscraper Museum and illustrations from the Engineering News Record , 9-11 Research had established by mid-2005 that, low in the Towers, the sixteen core columns that bounded the long faces of the buildings' cores had dimensions of 54 by 22 inches. The detailed drawings show that these columns maintained these dimensions through about the 66th floor.

Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' "collapses" -- FEMA's and NIST's -- are highly misleading about the core structures. Neither FEMA's Study nor NIST's Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings. Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely.

So effective was FEMA at concealing the nature of the cores that the 9/11 Commission Report , citing the FEMA Report, denied the very existence of the core columns.

 

W. Niederhut: 

 

I have never looked into the 9/11 scene; too much on my free-time plate with the JFKA. 

But one question: I understand a false-flag op, and taking down the WTC as a false-flag op makes "sense," if one accepts it as such (it goes without saying I oppose all violence). 

But what would be the point of taking down WTC7? The additional propaganda value would seem minimal, even non-existant. 

Well, if 9/11 was a false flag op, it was successful, and for the long run. Today's headline: 

"U.S. carries out air strikes against Iran-backed militia in Iraq, Syria" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

W. Niederhut: 

 

I have never looked into the 9/11 scene; too much on my free-time plate with the JFKA. 

But one question: I understand a false-flag op, and taking down the WTC as a false-flag op makes "sense," if one accepts it as such (it goes without saying I oppose all violence). 

But what would be the point of taking down WTC7? The additional propaganda value would seem minimal, even non-existant. 

Well, if 9/11 was a false flag op, it was successful, and for the long run. Today's headline: 

"U.S. carries out air strikes against Iran-backed militia in Iraq, Syria" 

Benjamin,

      I agree with David Ray Griffin's analysis that 9/11 was most likely a false flag op used as a "New Pearl Harbor" type event to mobilize popular support for widespread military interventions in the Mideast and Central Asia by the Bush-Cheney administration.  And, in fact, George W. Bush's approval rating sky-rocketed to 90% after 9/11-- as Henry Kissinger correctly predicted in December of 2000, after the 5-4 Bush v. Gore ruling by the SCOTUS.

     As for WTC7, it was built and owned by Larry Silverstein, the same man who was awarded the leases for WTC1 and WTC2 by the Port Authority in July of 2001.  Silverstein, ultimately, collected $4.5 billion from a consortium of insurance companies that underwrote the policies for the WTC in the summer of 2001.

     Silverstein stated in a video recording that he, "Told them to pull it" (i.e., WTC7) shortly before WTC7 collapsed in a free fall demolition late in the day on 9/11.   But who was he referring to as "them?"  The NYFD does not conduct building demolitions, and an expert demolition of a 47 floor steel skyscraper like WTC7 would have required lengthy, advanced preparation by a crew of demolition experts.

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

W. Niederhut: 

 

I have never looked into the 9/11 scene; too much on my free-time plate with the JFKA. 

But one question: I understand a false-flag op, and taking down the WTC as a false-flag op makes "sense," if one accepts it as such (it goes without saying I oppose all violence). 

But what would be the point of taking down WTC7? The additional propaganda value would seem minimal, even non-existant. 

Well, if 9/11 was a false flag op, it was successful, and for the long run. Today's headline: 

"U.S. carries out air strikes against Iran-backed militia in Iraq, Syria" 

I lived in Manhattan during 9/11 and remember a colorful newspaper (the New York Observer) which I wrote a few music reviews for in 2001. Every issue had a large color caricature of a prominent New Yorker on it. I remember the caricature of Larry Silverstein when he got the 99-year lease to the World Trade Center only a few months before 9/11. He was fast becoming one of the biggest land developers in Manhattan and a scheme to demolish the buildings on WTC to collect insurance (twice it turned out--considered two terror attacks because there were two airplanes) and then rebuild would make him a ruthless operator indeed (not to mention mass murderer).

Many people also don't mention that 9/11 was an election day for Mayor, and I had gone out early to vote (that is, before the planes hit--the election was of course cancelled later in the day). Local news interrupted the Today Show with the first news of a plane hitting the north tower, but there was a complete blank in terms of news gathering after that until all four planes were down. No one could identify the flights or what airport they had departed from. Even a hijacking by itself would have been national news and would have interrupted any scheduled program not more than five minutes after it occurred. An air traffic controller in Connecticut heard a broadcast from Flight 11 and knew the plane had been hijacked 20 minutes before it hit the north tower. Not one word until more than an hour later.    

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Benjamin,

      I agree with David Ray Griffin's analysis that 9/11 was most likely a false flag op used as a "New Pearl Harbor" type event to mobilize popular support for widespread military interventions in the Mideast and Central Asia by the Bush-Cheney administration.  And, in fact, George W. Bush's approval rating sky-rocketed to 90% after 9/11-- as Henry Kissinger correctly predicted in December of 2000, after the 5-4 Bush v. Gore ruling by the SCOTUS.

     As for WTC7, it was built and owned by Larry Silverstein, the same man who was awarded the leases for WTC1 and WTC2 by the Port Authority in July of 2001.  Silverstein, ultimately, collected $4.5 billion from a consortium of insurance companies that underwrote the policies for the WTC in the summer of 2001.

     Silverstein stated in a video recording that he, "Told them to pull it" (i.e., WTC7) shortly before WTC7 collapsed in a free fall demolition late in the day on 9/11.   But who was he referring to as "them?"  The NYFD does not conduct building demolitions, and an expert demolition of a 47 floor steel skyscraper like WTC7 would have required lengthy, advanced preparation by a crew of demolition experts.

So, Silverstein was part of a 9/11 false-flag op, in order to profit from insurers? Did he also retain redevelopment rights? 

I guess 9/11 false-flag op required a number of personnel to install an elaborate system of demolition devices in all three towers? Were the demolition devices masked as something innocuous? Why did nobody notice? 

Also, back to the original question: There seems little propaganda value in WTC being demolished. Was this a favor to Silverstein to increase his insurance claims? 

Did the insurers never become suspicious? My brother once worked for an insurance company as an investigator.  They tend to investigate suspicious and large claims (although they also tend to just raise rates and get regulatory bodies to agree). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gregg Wager said:

I lived in Manhattan during 9/11 and remember a colorful newspaper (the New York Observer) which I wrote a few music reviews for in 2001. Every issue had a large color caricature of a prominent New Yorker on it. I remember the caricature of Larry Silverstein when he got the 99-year lease to the World Trade Center only a few months before 9/11. He was fast becoming one of the biggest land developers in Manhattan and a scheme to demolish the buildings on WTC to collect insurance (twice it turned out--considered two terror attacks because there were two airplanes) and then rebuild would make him a ruthless operator indeed (not to mention mass murderer).

Many people also don't mention that 9/11 was an election day for Mayor, and I had gone out early to vote (that is, before the planes hit--the election was of course cancelled later in the day). Local news interrupted the Today Show with the first news of a plane hitting the north tower, but there was a complete blank in terms of news gathering after that until all four planes were down. No one could identify the flights or what airport they had departed from. Even a hijacking by itself would have been national news and would have interrupted any scheduled program not more than five minutes after it occurred. An air traffic controller in Connecticut heard a broadcast from Flight 11 and knew the plane had been hijacked 20 minutes before it hit the north tower. Not one word until more than an hour later.    

 

Dr. Wagner: See my q's for WN. 

Love the LA Philharmonic, but left L.A ten years ago....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

So, Silverstein was part of a 9/11 false-flag op, in order to profit from insurers? Did he also retain redevelopment rights? 

I guess 9/11 false-flag op required a number of personnel to install an elaborate system of demolition devices in all three towers? Were the demolition devices masked as something innocuous? Why did nobody notice? 

Also, back to the original question: There seems little propaganda value in WTC being demolished. Was this a favor to Silverstein to increase his insurance claims? 

Did the insurers never become suspicious? My brother once worked for an insurance company as an investigator.  They tend to investigate suspicious and large claims (although they also tend to just raise rates and get regulatory bodies to agree). 

 

I know it came down to a big battle in court whether Silverstein should be paid twice for two separate attacks, and Silverstein won. It would have been a brave insurance investigator indeed to challenge what had become a false flag operation blamed on Al-Qaeda terrorists. We hear a lot about Project for a New American Century (PNAC) being part of the plan (which included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz), as well as William Kristol (whose father Irving was an editor for one of the CIA's front publications during the Cold War). Gore Vidal was an early skeptic and also mentioned a probable role for Zbigniew Brzezinski as someone who advocated a New Pearl Harbor (Vidal eventually recanted his suspicions). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steve Thomas said:

image.png.36f90273978c371c03185a126f8c680d.png

image.png.dec4d416d212622caff041df339cd5a7.png

image.thumb.png.280d8e91add0c32f6e79c2b3e989aead.png- ENDQUOTE -

If there was no fraud, why are all these States spending so much time effort exposing it?

That's kind of the logic we, as a country, were forced to endure for four years.

Steve Thomas

If Trump really had the scorched earth policy down, he'd drain the swamp by announcing that, "I just learned today that Bill Barr did X, Y and Z during Iran-Contra, and I'm appalled."  But it's probably on Barr's resume by now.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2021 at 12:06 AM, Benjamin Cole said:

So, Silverstein was part of a 9/11 false-flag op, in order to profit from insurers? Did he also retain redevelopment rights? 

I guess 9/11 false-flag op required a number of personnel to install an elaborate system of demolition devices in all three towers? Were the demolition devices masked as something innocuous? Why did nobody notice? 

Also, back to the original question: There seems little propaganda value in WTC being demolished. Was this a favor to Silverstein to increase his insurance claims? 

Did the insurers never become suspicious? My brother once worked for an insurance company as an investigator.  They tend to investigate suspicious and large claims (although they also tend to just raise rates and get regulatory bodies to agree). 

 

Oh, yes indeedy, Larry had the redevelopment rights in his contract, planning for future work on the site regardless of calamity.

Suspicious to insurance investigators?  Read the Dark Overlord files releases.  WTC damage was so potentially costly, the insurance was subrogated through an international chain of re-insurers.  It was "Too big to fail," and too expensive and time consuming to contest for long.  The only hitches were the dodge of collecting twice on two plane crashes, plus the potential liability of the single aircraft manufacturer (Boeing), the two airlines, and the two airport security companies.  They were still parsing that in 2007; redevelopment of the site was slow due to the prolonged litigation boondoggle.  But in the end, no one was to blame...

FYI, Silverstein Properties only owned WTC 1, 2, and 7.  Port Authority of NY/NJ retained the other buildings, and a mall development company called Westfield owned the underground shops.  So the WTC 7 collapse - situated between two buildings that suffered relatively minor damage and didn't fall - was lucky for Larry.  Whew!

Estimates of conventional demolition of WTC 1 and 2, factoring in the asbestos containment, have gone as high as seven to nine billion dollars.

Steal a little and they'll throw you in jail,

Steal a lot and they'll make you king.

-- Bob Dylan

Regardless of the suspicion put on the Bush family-related company Securacom, actual security for Silverstein Properties at WTC in 2001 was handled by Kroll, Inc., sometimes called a "corporate CIA."  Kroll would have presided over the security defying power-down described below:

 

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...