Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Evan Burton]

Peter's 911 position is somewhat like saying...

"I don't believe the Warren Report, but I do believe Oswald shot JFK."

Jack

I understand where Peter is coming from; it might not be too dissimilar to my own.

Some people ask me if I "...agree 100% with the official report...". No, I don't; I agree perhaps 99% with it.

I believe that hijackers took over aircraft and flew three of them into buildings.

I believe that the buildings collapsed because of damage sustained during those attacks.

I do not believe there was any type of controlled demolition or planting of evidence.

I do not believe that they were knowingly assisted by any government personnel.

I do believe that there was a failure in the intelligence reporting and evaluation system, and key people are not being held responsible for those failures (note use of word failure, not a deliberate act of sabotage).

I do believe that there were failures / incompetency / dereliction involved in systems and people at various government & military levels with regard to the response to the attacks, and that those people / systems have not been made accountable.

[Sid Walker]

Peter's 911 position is somewhat like saying...

"I don't believe the Warren Report, but I do believe Oswald shot JFK."

Jack

I understand where Peter is coming from; it might not be too dissimilar to my own.

Some people ask me if I "...agree 100% with the official report...". No, I don't; I agree perhaps 99% with it.

I believe that hijackers took over aircraft and flew three of them into buildings.

I believe that the buildings collapsed because of damage sustained during those attacks.

I do not believe there was any type of controlled demolition or planting of evidence.

I do not believe that they were knowingly assisted by any government personnel.

I do believe that there was a failure in the intelligence reporting and evaluation system, and key people are not being held responsible for those failures (note use of word failure, not a deliberate act of sabotage).

I do believe that there were failures / incompetency / dereliction involved in systems and people at various government & military levels with regard to the response to the attacks, and that those people / systems have not been made accountable.

Yes, Evan - you support the mainstream view that 9-11 was essentially as we have been told. The official account always allowed plenty of room for Bush-bashing and the usual bipartisan bickering (Dems v Reps),

But Peter gave a different set of concerns... that actually put him much closer to my position - and, I imagine, to Jack's.

He said:

Some of the facets of 9/11 which merit a great deal of suspicion (in my opinion) are the insurance windfalls of the WTC building tenants, the collapse of WTC 7

Unlike you, Evan, he has expressed concern about some major loose ends that have not been the subject of mainstream debate - indeed, these issues have kept alive in mainstream discourse only by "outsiders" who question 9-11 in a quite fundamental way.

I think Jack has a point. From my persepctive, it does seem odd that Peter has bought a portion of the package - but appears quite comfortable with other oddities that seem glaring to me. On the other hand, people don't necessarily accept the "whole package" of disbelief in one go, and in any case it's not clear exactly what that is or should be.

So I think Jack may have been a little too harsh here - although I strongly support his right to make the comment.

As for saying claiming a statement is 'disinformation' - and thus implying the other person is purveying disinformation - should that really be an offence on the forum? I don't think so.

Apart from anything else, purveying disinformation can be done quite innocently. I now believe I spread disinformation myself, from time to time during most of my adult life, without intending to do so. That's to say, I repeated stories I believed were true - yet I now believe I was wrong and furthermore that these erroneous stories were deliberately fabricated.

An example is the attack on Pearl Harbor.

I innocently repeated the official story, on various occasions, believing that it was a surprise attack that caught Roosevelt off-guard.

I now know better. What's more, I'd have been grateful if it had been pointed out to me sooner.

Edited April 8, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Evan Burton]

As for saying claiming a statement is 'disinformation' - and thus implying the other person is purveying disinformation - should that really be an offence on the forum? I don't think so.

Apart from anything else, purveying disinformation can be done quite innocently. I now believe I spread disinformation myself, from time to time during most of my adult life, without intending to do so. That's to say, I repeated stories I believed were true - yet I now believe I was wrong and furthermore that these erroneous stories were deliberately fabricated.

I see there being a difference between disinformation and being wrong; the former is knowingly saying false or misleading data (i.e. akin to lying). That's why I suggest simply saying someone is wrong or words to that effect.

Perhaps we should all discuss the matter? I could start a separate thread, and members could put forward their views for John and Andy to consider when making a determination.

[Jack White]

My definitions:

DISinformation...an untruth which is deliberately originated by someone. It is

still DISinformation regardless of the person who later may be espousing it, whether

or not they are witting of the lie. If it was DISinformation when it reaches you, it is

STILL DISinformation when you pass it on, whether or not you are witting of the lie.

MISinformation...an untruth which is originated by someone who is merely MISTAKEN

in their facts and often without knowledge that the basis is untrue. If it is MISinformation

when it reaches you and you pass it on, you are only guilty of not checking the facts, but

it is still MISinformation.

A CROCK OF DISINFORMATION is a compilation of deliberate lies, such as Posner's

"Case Closed". If you bought that book and read it and tell others what it says, you are

spreading a "crock of disinformation".

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

My definitions:

DISinformation...an untruth which is deliberately originated by someone. It is

still DISinformation regardless of the person who later may be espousing it, whether

or not they are witting of the lie. If it was DISinformation when it reaches you, it is

STILL DISinformation when you pass it on, whether or not you are witting of the lie.

MISinformation...an untruth which is originated by someone who is merely MISTAKEN

in their facts and often without knowledge that the basis is untrue. If it is MISinformation

when it reaches you and you pass it on, you are only guilty of not checking the facts, but

it is still MISinformation.

A CROCK OF DISINFORMATION is a compilation of deliberate lies, such as Posner's

"Case Closed". If you bought that book and read it and tell others what it says, you are

spreading a "crock of disinformation".

Jack

WHAT A CROCK! You have offered no solid proof that what you called "disinformation" was false, what you offered was simply opinion. What you did do was call the poster of the information you disagreed with a xxxx which is against the forum rules.

[Sid Walker]

For those who still have an open mind about 9-11, the following article in The Canadian may be of interest.

It is footnoted. However, I'd like to slip in a health warning about some of the references. Eric Hufschmid is a disinformationalist, IMO. Yet a lot of the early work he did on 9-11 contained valid insights. That's how he established a reputation in the "9-11 truth Movement" - and thereby became of value as an asset. He blew his cover, effectively, last year. However, a lot of people still innocently draw on his material, believing it to be reliable.

Having said that, I think the following summary of the case against the (very sparse) official version of events re: WTC-7 is useful.

9/11 facts on the Sudden Implosion of WTC Building 7 are inconsistent with official Muslim conspiracy scenario

by David R. Kimball

“It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth … For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.”

-- Patrick Henry

“The important thing is to never stop questioning.”

-- Albert Einstein

Everyone remembers the Twin Towers exploding at 9:59AM and 10:28AM EDT on September 11, 2001. Comparatively few people can recall that there was a third massive skyscraper, also a part of the World Trade Center, which fell very rapidly to the ground on that day. This was World Trade Center Building 7.1

One reason that few remember WTC Building 7’s collapse is that after September 11th it has been treated, both in the media and in The 9/11 Commission Report, as if it didn’t happen.

“The total collapse of the third huge skyscraper late in the afternoon September 11th was reported as if it were an insignificant footnote... most people never saw video of Building 7’s collapse… Incredibly, it is virtually impossible to find any mention of Building 7 in newspapers, magazines, or broadcast media reports after September 11th.” 2

“The Commission avoids another embarrassing problem – explaining how WTC 7 could have collapsed, also virtually at free-fall speed – by simply not mentioning the collapse of this building.” 3

The collapse of Building 7 at 5:20PM EDT was in itself a major event; the sudden and unexplained fall to earth of a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper is certainly news. Why has there been almost no mention of this in the U.S. corporate mass-media, and why was there no mention of Building 7’s collapse in The 9/11 Commission Report? These are questions of great significance, and they cry out for answers. To be able to approach any kind of explanation, however, first some pertinent and verified facts of the Building 7 aspect of 9/11 need to be scrutinized.

The following eleven facts have been compiled from the research of reputable sources – those who have dared to question and have devoted innumerable hours into discovering what really happened on 9/11.

FACT 1: WTC Building 7 was one of the largest buildings in downtown Manhattan. It was 47 stories tall, about half the height of the Towers, and took up an entire city block. It was 300 feet from the closest Twin Tower (the North Tower, WTC 1), and was a steel-framed, concrete structure.4

FACT 2: WTC Building 7 – on its 23rd floor – housed an Emergency Command Center for the City of New York that Mayor Rudolph Giuliani had built in the mid-1990’s. On the morning of September 11th, Mayor Giuliani did not go “to his Command Center – with its clear view of the Twin Towers – but to a makeshift, street-level headquarters at 75 Barkley Street.” WTC 7 also held the offices of numerous government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Defense, the CIA, the Secret Service, the IRS, and the Security and Exchange Commission.5 Late 2001 was the time of “the height of the investigation into Enron, so the majority of Enron’s SEC filings were likely destroyed when World Trade Center 7 came down.”6

FACT 3: WTC Building 7 was not hit by airplane or significant debris on September 11th. It had been evacuated after the planes hit the towers. By the afternoon of September 11th, there were a few small fires of unknown origin evident in the building, and these small fires could be seen in only a few of the hundreds and hundreds of windows in the building.7

FACT 4: On 11 September 2001, at 5:20PM, EDT, World Trade Center Building 7 suddenly and rapidly collapsed. Beginning with the penthouse, all 47 stories of it imploded into its own footprint in less than seven seconds. Three different videos of Building 7’s vertical collapse – two from CBS video broadcasts, and one from an NBC news camera – can be seen online here: http://wtc7.net/videos.html

FACT 5: On 16 September , NASA flew an airplane over the World Trade Center site, recorded infrared radiation coming from the ground, and created a thermal map. The U.S. Geological Survey analyzed this data, and determined the actual temperature of the rubble. This map shows that five days after the collapse of Building 7, the surface temperature of a section of its rubble was 1,341º F.8 This high a temperature is indicative of the use of explosives.

“WTC 7’s rubble pile continued to smolder for months.”9

FACT 6: Fire Engineering magazine is the 125-year-old paper-of-record of the fire engineering community. Bill Manning, editor-in-chief, wrote an Editor’s Opinion in the January, 2002 edition. His editorial, $elling Out the Investigation, pointed out that destruction of evidence – the hurried removal of rubble which should be examined by investigators – is illegal. He also issued a “call to action”. To quote excerpts:

“For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions … is on the slow boat to China …”

“I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.”

“Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the ‘official investigation’ blessed by FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half baked farce [emphasis mine] that may have already been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members – described by one close source as a ‘tourist trip’ – no one’s checking evidence for anything.”

“The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.”

“Firefighters, this is your call to action. …contact your representatives in Congress and officials in Washington and help us correct this problem immediately.” 10 11

FACT 7: In May of 2002, FEMA published their report #403 titled World Trade Center Building Performance Study. This report claims that the fires caused the building to collapse, but that the specifics of how this is supposed to have occurred “…remain unknown at this time.”12

FACT 8: The collapse of WTC Building 7 shows five characteristics of a controlled demolition:

It “dropped directly into its own footprint in a smooth, vertical motion”;

It “collapsed completely in less than seven seconds”;

“Dust streamed out of the upper floors of Building 7 early in its collapse”;

“WTC 7’s roof inverted toward its middle as the collapse progressed”; and

“WTC 7’s rubble was mostly confined to the block on which the building stood.”13

FACT 9: “Larry Silverstein is a rather large player within the realms of 21st Century real estate, finance, and politics.”14 He “…had taken out a long lease on the World Trade Center only six weeks before 9/11. In a PBS documentary entitled ‘America Rebuilds’, originally aired in September of 2002, Silverstein made the following statement about Building 7:

‘I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse.’” 15 16

FACT 10: “It is inconceivable that anyone could be running around placing explosives in exactly the right places all within seven hours. In fact, implosions take a minimum of two weeks and up to two months to plan and place the charges. The fire department of New York does not even train their personnel to do controlled demolition. They are done by highly skilled experienced specialists who plan and test far ahead.”17

FACT 11: “… [George W.] Bush’s brother, Marvin Bush, and his cousin, Wirt Walker III, were principles in the company [stratesec, formerly named Securacom] that was in charge of security for the World Trade Center, with Walker being the CEO from 1999 until January 2002.”18

In summation: A major aspect of 9/11 has been excluded from the entire U.S. media after September 11th, and was also omitted from The 9/11 Commission Report. This was the sudden fall to earth, on September 11th, 2001, of World Trade Center Building 7. Not hit by airplane or significant debris, 300 feet from the closest Twin Tower, and with just a few small fires burning within it, at 5:20PM EDT this massive concrete and steel-framed 47-story skyscraper imploded into its own footprint in less than seven seconds. Its rapid implosion had all of the characteristics of a controlled demolition, and the World Trade Center leaseholder, Larry Silverstein, stated in so many words that the building had been collapsed by demolition. It takes weeks, if not months, to prepare the demolition of a building as large as WTC 7; this implosion could not have been engineered and implemented in seven chaotic hours on September 11th. Therefore, a question emerges:

Who had the means and expertise to engineer such a demolition and acquire needed materiel, and who had access to WTC Building 7 PRIOR TO September 11, 2001 in order to place the explosives?

An inquiry into the answer to this question might be a good place to begin a search for the real perpetrators of 9/11. Do we, the citizens of the United States, have the courage and honesty necessary to initiate an actual investigation, or will we continue living a Lie – and reap the consequences?

Footnotes

1 Jim Hoffman,

2 Jim Hoffman,

3 David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report – Omissions and Distortions (Olive Branch Press, 2005), 28

4 Don Paul and Jim Hoffman, Waking Up From Our Nightmare (Irresistible/Revolutionary, 2004), 5-20

5 Don Paul and Jim Hoffman, 18

6 Barry Zwicker, The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw, Global Outlook magazine (Issue 9, Fall/Winter 2005), 19

7 Eric Hufschmid, Painful Questions – An Analysis of the September 11th Attack (Endpoint Software, 2002), 62-65

8 Eric Hufschmid, 69-70

9 Don Paul and Jim Hoffman, 10

10 Eric Hufschmid, 5-6

11 Fire Engineering magazine, January 2002

12 Eric Hufschmid, 7-8

13Don Paul and Jim Hoffman, 8-10

14 Don Paul and Jim Hoffman, 20

15 David Ray Griffin, 28

16 For video footage of Silverstein’s statement, see Eric Hufschmid’s video Painful Deceptions, edited and narrated by ReOpen911.org (911busters.com, www.EricHufschmid.net).

17 Narration from Eric Hufschmid’s video Painful Deceptions, edited and narrated by ReOpen911.org

18 David Ray Griffin, 31-32

Edited April 9, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Kevin M. West]

WHAT A CROCK OF DISINFORMATION!

Check out the true FAQs at http://911proof.com/FactSheet.html

Also... http://911proof.com/1.html

Jack

Jack, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop calling me a xxxx, especially without proof. If you can refute something I've said, go for it.

[Marcel Dehaeseleer]

On September 9/11 I had the strange feeling of déjà vu !

Obviously! I know now that I was, and You were also, prepared for the Show!

"Déjà vu" is the title of Jerry Bruckheimer’s last production!

But,... Jerry also produced the blockbusters "Armageddon" in 1998 and "Pearl Harbor" in 2001!

Strange feeling...

See also: That's militainment

[Kevin M. West]

On September 9/11 I had the strange feeling of déjà vu !

Obviously! I know now that I was, and You were also, prepared for the Show!

"Déjà vu" is the title of Jerry Bruckheimer’s last production!

But,... Jerry also produced the blockbusters "Armageddon" in 1998 and "Pearl Harbor" in 2001!

Strange feeling...

See also: That's militainment

Maybe I'm stupid, but I don't get your point.

[Sid Walker]

In this clip Kucinich not only says he is interested in a 9/11 inquiry - but states that there will be one done by the Domestic Policy Committee which he chairs - perhaps beginning around September of this year.

[Kevin M. West]

Yes but an inquiry about what? Wether or not it was an inside job, or how and why we failed to defend ourselves, or wether or not there was any foreknowledge specific enough that we should have known it was coming? There are many things that deserve inquiry that have nothing to do with it being an inside job.

[Sid Walker]

Towering Inferno In Caracas

"(Fire) burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors, reaching the roof."

Remarkably, the building did not collapse, nor did the BBC incorrectly report its collapse before it collapsed.

This is indeed good news for city dwellers. The laws of nature appear to be recovering.

Venezuelan Interior Minister Jesse Chacon said at the time: "There is a problem because the building is made of steel. Because of the high temperatures, the structure could collapse".

Happily, he was wrong. Not enough scientific understanding. Too much CNN.

Edited May 1, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Sid Walker]

By 2005, concerns that the laws of nature had undergone an inexplicable shift gradually began to subside.

Reporting on the day-long inferno in Madrid, CNN commented:

100 firefighters worked 24 hours to extinguish the blaze in the city's eighth-tallest building, the 32-story Windsor Tower. The fire was said to be the worst in Madrid's history.

"Don't Fall Down," read Monday's front-page headline on the free newspaper Que given to morning subway and bus commuters.

The office tower was heavily damaged but did not collapse as feared.

No "pancaking", either:

...several top floors collapsed onto lower ones. Firefighter official Fernando Munilla expressed concern that the entire building -- which at about 106 meters (350 feet) high is among the 10 tallest in Madrid -- could collapse.

"If the partial collapses keep happening, it would be lying to say it's impossible that the whole building couldn't fall down," he said.

Lying to say it's impossible?

Nicely put.

It'll be interesting to see whether the forthcoming report on the collapse of WTC-7 borrows this quaint expression.

Where is that report, BTW?

Why does it take FIVE YEARS to produce a report on the apparently inexplicable (and unquestionably unexplained) collapse of a 47-story building in NYC?

Impeach! Impeach! Impeach!

[Len Colby]

Uuuuuuh Sid both buildings (Madrid and Caracas) were concrete framed and were much smaller than the WTC according to the "official theory" it was the WTC's long trusses that did it in. Speaking of which you have yet to address the obvious bowing of perimeter columns in both towers.

Actually the Madrid building was partially steel, it had steel perimeter columns which weren't fire protected. They started collapsing after about an hour and took the floor slabs they helpped support along with them. Let's also not forget that both of the concrete buildings were so badly damaged they had to be destroyed.

This old news on this forum, try and keep current!

[Sid Walker]

Uuuuuuh Sid both buildings (Madrid and Caracas) were concrete framed and were much smaller than the WTC according to the "official theory" it was the WTC's long trusses that did it in. Speaking of which you have yet to address the obvious bowing of perimeter columns in both towers.

Actually the Madrid building was partially steel, it had steel perimeter columns which weren't fire protected. They started collapsing after about an hour and took the floor slabs they helpped support along with them. Let's also not forget that both of the concrete buildings were so badly damaged they had to be destroyed.

This old news on this forum, try and keep current!

Caracus inferno: 56-story

Madrid inferno: 32-story

WTC-7 'inferno': 47=story

I'd say that makes them roughly comparable, but apparently the workmanship in NYC is below third world standard. Those shonky American builders!

Sorry for bringing up old news, Len. I know we're supposed to be mesmerised by the latest "Islamic terrorist atrocity" and forget about past absurdities.

Excuse me for retaining a memory.