Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Peter McKenna]

Sid,

Wilkinson evaluated the twin towers. Like myself, he didn't have much in details of the design of WTC 7, and the unique design of the twin towers, due to thier hieght, made this a unique design problem for structural engineering and academia. I especially found the photos interesting.

The upshot of the site was that the collapse had much to do with the tremendous heat load and combustible laoding/damage between the floors and perimeter support.

I answer to your question I know of no similar failure, I really don't think there was one where the buildings were exterior wall supported design. There have been other plane crashed into high rises. The empire state building comes to mind, but there the building didn't collapse, although it experienced significant damage. The difference being the design differences between the WTC and the Empire State Bldg. were radically different. The WTC twin towers had a unique design to be able to attain the height of the bldgs.

But the question i have is why would conspirators go to such lengths to plant demolition materials for the WTC towers? The damage itself created the effect of extereme terror, and in my mind the attackers carfeully chose the most vulnerable targets for this type of attack.

The question about your focusing on the towers is really about not focusing on other factors which seem to me to be much more worthy of attention.

Anyway to answer you question, as far as I know, this is a very unique circumsatance. No other buildings of close to this height have been attacked as such, nor have any such buildings collapsed in this maner that I know of.

Peter

Thanks Peter

You ask:

why would conspirators go to such lengths to plant demolition materials for the WTC towers? The damage itself created the effect of extereme terror, and in my mind the attackers carfeully chose the most vulnerable targets for this type of attack.

If I (and millions of others) are correct, 9-11 was essentially a false-flag operation.

It was designed to set up an archetypal villain - Islamic extremism - providing cover for a series of unprovoked assaults on target nations with large Moslem populations and a stringent crack down on civil liberties.

In that context, spectacular is good.

Shock and awe is better.

There may well have been other reasons why the towers had to come down to fulfil this insane plan. Several have been suggested. Not knowing these villains personally, I can only speculate on their motives.

The waters have undoubtably been muddied by a substantial amount of deliberately seeded disinformation - using both official and unofficial channels. Some theories about 9-11 are crackpot. Others may be very accurate. Some are confusing mistures of sane analysis and rubbish.

But the willful destruction of evidence, the absurb subsequent official investigations, the glaring lack of mass media follow-up on some topics that scream out for it... these all point to a major conspiracy involving several collaborating 'intelligence services' (or senior elements therein), key elements within the western mass media and at least a handful of complicit politicians. That is not, BTW, intended to be an exhaustive list of conspiring forces. There may be others, even better shielded from scrutiny than the above.

How, for example, were the insurance / reinsurance companies bought off?

Usually those guys don't like losing billions without putting up a fight.

There has to be some very big money involved, if this scenario is correct.

Sid,

Yes,

The points you just made are salient to 9/11 as conspiracy.

I am especially interested in connections between the flight schools and CIA links. I can't remember where I read this unfortunately (sorry) but, the fact that a group of linked (by prior intelligence) Islamic students taking flying lessons for passenger jets, with linked authorizations and backgrounds (Mossoui was also linked to this group) should have lit up red alarms.

If someone wanted to use a foreign agent for such an operation, a religious martyr (i.e. suicide bomber) would be an ideal candidate.

The motive would be to create a state of terror and use that to undermine civil rights of the US. Also to use as a pretext to war in Iraq and maintan presence in middle east and Afghanistan.

This established means motive and oportunity.

[Jack White]

Sid,

Wilkinson evaluated the twin towers. Like myself, he didn't have much in details of the design of WTC 7, and the unique design of the twin towers, due to thier hieght, made this a unique design problem for structural engineering and academia. I especially found the photos interesting.

The upshot of the site was that the collapse had much to do with the tremendous heat load and combustible laoding/damage between the floors and perimeter support.

I answer to your question I know of no similar failure, I really don't think there was one where the buildings were exterior wall supported design. There have been other plane crashed into high rises. The empire state building comes to mind, but there the building didn't collapse, although it experienced significant damage. The difference being the design differences between the WTC and the Empire State Bldg. were radically different. The WTC twin towers had a unique design to be able to attain the height of the bldgs.

But the question i have is why would conspirators go to such lengths to plant demolition materials for the WTC towers? The damage itself created the effect of extereme terror, and in my mind the attackers carfeully chose the most vulnerable targets for this type of attack.

The question about your focusing on the towers is really about not focusing on other factors which seem to me to be much more worthy of attention.

Anyway to answer you question, as far as I know, this is a very unique circumsatance. No other buildings of close to this height have been attacked as such, nor have any such buildings collapsed in this maner that I know of.

Peter

Thanks Peter

You ask:

why would conspirators go to such lengths to plant demolition materials for the WTC towers? The damage itself created the effect of extereme terror, and in my mind the attackers carfeully chose the most vulnerable targets for this type of attack.

If I (and millions of others) are correct, 9-11 was essentially a false-flag operation.

It was designed to set up an archetypal villain - Islamic extremism - providing cover for a series of unprovoked assaults on target nations with large Moslem populations and a stringent crack down on civil liberties.

In that context, spectacular is good.

Shock and awe is better.

There may well have been other reasons why the towers had to come down to fulfil this insane plan. Several have been suggested. Not knowing these villains personally, I can only speculate on their motives.

The waters have undoubtably been muddied by a substantial amount of deliberately seeded disinformation - using both official and unofficial channels. Some theories about 9-11 are crackpot. Others may be very accurate. Some are confusing mistures of sane analysis and rubbish.

But the willful destruction of evidence, the absurb subsequent official investigations, the glaring lack of mass media follow-up on some topics that scream out for it... these all point to a major conspiracy involving several collaborating 'intelligence services' (or senior elements therein), key elements within the western mass media and at least a handful of complicit politicians. That is not, BTW, intended to be an exhaustive list of conspiring forces. There may be others, even better shielded from scrutiny than the above.

How, for example, were the insurance / reinsurance companies bought off?

Usually those guys don't like losing billions without putting up a fight.

There has to be some very big money involved, if this scenario is correct.

Sid...the insurance companies had to pay TRIPLE, because Silverberg's

lawyers got the court to rule that EACH BUILDING WAS A SEPARATE

INCIDENT for claim purposes. However, I think the insurance companies

are appealing the decision, since I have not googled it lately. Try googling...

WTC 911 INSURANCE SILVERBERG

and get the latest scoop.

Jack

[Len Colby]

Who is Silverberg?

[Sid Walker]

Who is Silverberg?

It was a typo Len.

But I imagine you can guess?

I would bet on a fair jury convicting Mr S of conspiracy to murder - and scores of other charges, if they could also be brought, from insurance fraud to gross breaches of pollution regulations.

Of course, he might skip the country and head for refuge somewhere nice and sunny.

Edited January 29, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Len Colby]

Since there is zero evidence he did anything illegal (at least regarding 9-11) conviction seems unlikely. Why would he flee to Australia?

Edited January 29, 2007 by Len Colby

[Ron Ecker]

I would bet on a fair jury convicting Mr S of conspiracy to murder - and scores of other charges, if they could also be brought, from insurance fraud to gross breaches of pollution regulations.

I had hoped that the insurance companies would challenge the official story of why the towers fell rather than cough up the loot. Did they not have the guts to do it? Or can whole insurance companies be paid off? Or did they really believe the story? Insurance companies are not supposed to be easily fooled.

[Jack White]

Who is Silverberg?

It was a typo Len.

But I imagine you can guess?

I would bet on a fair jury convicting Mr S of conspiracy to murder - and scores of other charges, if they could also be brought, from insurance fraud to gross breaches of pollution regulations.

Of course, he might skip the country and head for refuge somewhere nice and sunny.

Of course I meant Larry SilverSTEIN. I was in the navy with a guy named SilverBERG.

I suppose now Colby will accuse me of anti-semitism. I have a bad memory for names.

Jack

[Len Colby]

Who is Silverberg?

It was a typo Len.

But I imagine you can guess?

I would bet on a fair jury convicting Mr S of conspiracy to murder - and scores of other charges, if they could also be brought, from insurance fraud to gross breaches of pollution regulations.

Of course, he might skip the country and head for refuge somewhere nice and sunny.

Of course I meant Larry SilverSTEIN. I was in the navy with a guy named SilverBERG.

I suppose now Colby will accuse me of anti-semitism. I have a bad memory for names.

Jack

Calm down White just having a little fun at your expense.

Are you going to offer any evidence he gained financially from the destruction of the WTC complex and 7 WTC? I'd like to see the math since he has been making lease payments on an empty plot of land for over 5 years and will continue to so for many years and will have to bear must of the expense of rebuilding that seems doubtful.

Also you have you facts wrong as we've come to expect he didn't argue the 3 collapses were 3 separate incidents but that the two airplane collisions into two separate buildings were two separate attacks 7 WTC was covered by other insurance.

[Sid Walker]

Who is Silverberg?

It was a typo Len.

But I imagine you can guess?

I would bet on a fair jury convicting Mr S of conspiracy to murder - and scores of other charges, if they could also be brought, from insurance fraud to gross breaches of pollution regulations.

Of course, he might skip the country and head for refuge somewhere nice and sunny.

Of course I meant Larry SilverSTEIN. I was in the navy with a guy named SilverBERG.

I suppose now Colby will accuse me of anti-semitism. I have a bad memory for names.

Jack

Calm down White just having a little fun at your expense.

Are you going to offer any evidence he gained financially from the destruction of the WTC complex and 7 WTC? I'd like to see the math since he has been making lease payments on an empty plot of land for over 5 years and will continue to so for many years and will have to bear must of the expense of rebuilding that seems doubtful.

Also you have you facts wrong as we've come to expect he didn't argue the 3 collapses were 3 separate incidents but that the two airplane collisions into two separate buildings were two separate attacks 7 WTC was covered by other insurance.

Len

As you appear to have the relevant factsfile at your fingertips, any chance of a breakdown of the WTC insurance arrangements?

Which companies were involved?

What sums have been paid out?

What claims are pending (if any)?

I presume you don't have to rely on press clippings and web material like we plebs.

How about levelling the playing field on this one?

Show us what you've got on the well-insured Mr S and his occasional partner Mr L.

Don't make us stab at the truth, pleading to be corrected!

You seem like a nice man.

Please stop being stingy with your insider's insights.

Edited January 29, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Matthew Lewis]

I think the fact that he first tried to buy less insurance (only $1.5 billion) and had to be talked up but still bought less than he could have is very telling.

http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html

[Scott Deitche]

I am a veteran researcher who would like to open a discussion of the events of 9-11 on this website. I know that many of you who have done research in other conspiracy areas (JFK, MLK, Watergate) also have done work and have opinions about the events of 9-11.

.. A closer look shows many parallels with Dallas. I'd suggest all read the book by Peter Lance called Triple Cross. While I differ slightly on his final conclusions, his research clearly shows that both the WTC first bombing and the 9-11 WTC 'whatever' were connected - and both infiltrated [at best] and instigated [at worst] by operatives with connections to and inside of [or run by] the US intelligence community at its most covert levels.

Am I reading the same Triple Cross as you? I'm reading a book (like his previous one Cover Up) which beyond a shadow of a doubt shows the role of Al-Queda, Bin Laden, and especially Ramsei Yousef in the planning not only of 9/11, but the bombing of the USS Cole, the embassies in Africa, and other acts of terrorism.

I see the book showing the real conspiracy- a post Cold-War intel community with no direction, competing federal agencies engaged in territorial pissings with each other, lapses in judgement, and a New York City FBI office that was more concerned with busting 80 year old Italian bookmakers and getting on the front page of the Daily News than piecing together a CLEAR conspiracy of terror that started before the first Trade Center attack.

But then again I'm not done with it yet

[Scott Deitche]

.. A closer look shows many parallels with Dallas. I'd suggest all read the book by Peter Lance called Triple Cross. While I differ slightly on his final conclusions, his research clearly shows that both the WTC first bombing and the 9-11 WTC 'whatever' were connected - and both infiltrated [at best]and instigated [at worst] by operatives with connections to and inside of [or run by] the US intelligence community at its most covert levels.

Am I reading the same Triple Cross as you? I'm reading a book (like his previous one Cover Up) which beyond a shadow of a doubt shows the role of Al-Queda, Bin Laden, and especially Ramsei Yousef in the planning not only of 9/11, but the bombing of the USS Cole, the embassies in Africa, and other acts of terrorism.

I see the book showing the real conspiracy- a post Cold-War intel community with no direction, competing federal agencies engaged in territorial pissings with each other, lapses in judgement, and a New York City FBI office that was more concerned with busting 80 year old Italian bookmakers and getting on the front page of the Daily News than piecing together a CLEAR conspiracy of terror that started before the first Trade Center attack.

But then again I'm not done with it yet

Edited January 29, 2007 by Scott Deitche

[Len Colby]

Who is Silverberg?

It was a typo Len.

But I imagine you can guess?

I would bet on a fair jury convicting Mr S of conspiracy to murder - and scores of other charges, if they could also be brought, from insurance fraud to gross breaches of pollution regulations.

Of course, he might skip the country and head for refuge somewhere nice and sunny.

Of course I meant Larry SilverSTEIN. I was in the navy with a guy named SilverBERG.

I suppose now Colby will accuse me of anti-semitism. I have a bad memory for names.

Jack

Calm down White just having a little fun at your expense.

Are you going to offer any evidence he gained financially from the destruction of the WTC complex and 7 WTC? I'd like to see the math since he has been making lease payments on an empty plot of land for over 5 years and will continue to so for many years and will have to bear must of the expense of rebuilding that seems doubtful.

Also you have you facts wrong as we've come to expect he didn't argue the 3 collapses were 3 separate incidents but that the two airplane collisions into two separate buildings were two separate attacks 7 WTC was covered by other insurance.

Len

As you appear to have the relevant factsfile at your fingertips, any chance of a breakdown of the WTC insurance arrangements?

Which companies were involved?

What sums have been paid out?

What claims are pending (if any)?

I presume you don't have to rely on press clippings and web material like we plebs.

How about levelling the playing field on this one?

Show us what you've got on the well-insured Mr S and his occasional partner Mr L.

Don't make us stab at the truth, pleading to be corrected!

You seem like a nice man.

Please stop being stingy with your insider's insights.

No Sid weren't not part of the same "Jewish conspiratorial network", this info is part of the public record. You can read up on the subject here:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html (Note that the various pages are filled with links to back the author's claims)

[Len Colby]

Rodney King said it well:

"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?

Meanwhile, at the risk of being tiresome, I would like to ask my question again:

On 9-11, according to the official version of events (and taking into account the extensive video documentation from the day), THREE steel framed tower blocks collapsed, in their own footprint, at near free-fall velocity.

Again, according to the official version of events, this occured in the absence of controlled demolition.

Has such a thing ever occured anywhere else in the history of humankind?

Any takers?

If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition.

The probability that the official story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero.

Len's question:

How many buildings with thousands of gallons of diesel stored in them have had 500,000 TON 1368 foot tall buildings collapse next to them and had uncombated fires burn in them for several hours and not collapsed?

Has such a thing ever occured anywhere else in the history of humankind?

Any takers?

If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition.

The probability that the Controlled Demolition story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero.

By the way Sid - I'll be easy on you - find me just one.

My Point:

Sid's question may sound impressive and relevant but it is rhetorical nonsense. I can no more find an example of a building collapsing the same way as the towers, than he can find an example of a building surviving the same amount of damage as the towers and not collapsing.

The reason is simple - 9-11 was unprecedented. The scope of the terrorist attack was unprecedented. The method of attack was unprecedented. The construction and scale of the targets was unique.

Given all that, is it really all that surprising that the resulting damage was unprecedented?

Your point, Len, is obfuscation.

A steel framed concrete towerblock is a rather resilient structure. That's why they are common in modern cities.

No steel framed concrete towerblock, to my knowledge, has ever been known to collapse - straight down and at near free-fall velocity - because the steel framework effectively melted due to internal fuel fires.

There ARE cases of tower block collapse that are similar to what was observed on 9-11. Those are cases of controlled demolition, in which high-temperature explosives were stragically deployed.

There are NO cases - I understand - of such collapses that did NOT involve controlled demolition.

If there are such cases, please let us all know.

If there aren't, this extraordinary co-incidence affecting THREE buildings in Manhatten on that day and only on that day is one heck of a smoking gun...

No you're refusal to answer my question is obfuscation. There never were collapses like 9-11 before or after 9-11 because never before or since have buildings like them been subject to what they were. 1 WTC and 2 WTC were near identical buildings struck by near identical planes in similar ways thus the similarity of their collapses is hardly coincidental. 7 WTC was also a steel frame central core building which suffered extensive impact dammage (from falling debris) and was filled with large quantities of fuel (disel). It's fire were uncombatted for several hours. Numerous firemen said it was poised for collapse hours before it did.

CTists can only point to a handful of large office fires in steel framed central core buildings, none of the collapsed but none of them had pre-fire structural dammage or thousand of gallons or jet fuel or disel in them. In one case in Philadelphia the FD and the structural engineers they consulted feared a "pancake style structural collapse". There have been several cases of lowrise steel framed buildings that have collapsed that collapsed due to fire. In one case a theater fireproofing similar to the WTC's was used. http://debunking911.com/firsttime.htm (see the 2nd half of the article based on my research)

Interestingly "isde jobbers" like to point to the Edifico Windsor fire in Madrid but it was basiclly a concrete building, the unprotected steel outter columns collapsed after about an hour.

[Steve Ulman]

{bolding added}

Rodney King said it well:

"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?

Meanwhile, at the risk of being tiresome, I would like to ask my question again:

On 9-11, according to the official version of events (and taking into account the extensive video documentation from the day), THREE steel framed tower blocks collapsed, in their own footprint, at near free-fall velocity.

Again, according to the official version of events, this occured in the absence of controlled demolition.

Has such a thing ever occured anywhere else in the history of humankind?

Any takers?

If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition.

The probability that the official story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero.

Len's question:

How many buildings with thousands of gallons of diesel stored in them have had 500,000 TON 1368 foot tall buildings collapse next to them and had uncombated fires burn in them for several hours and not collapsed?

Has such a thing ever occured anywhere else in the history of humankind?

Any takers?

If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition.

The probability that the Controlled Demolition story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero.

By the way Sid - I'll be easy on you - find me just one.

My Point:

Sid's question may sound impressive and relevant but it is rhetorical nonsense. I can no more find an example of a building collapsing the same way as the towers, than he can find an example of a building surviving the same amount of damage as the towers and not collapsing.

The reason is simple - 9-11 was unprecedented. The scope of the terrorist attack was unprecedented. The method of attack was unprecedented. The construction and scale of the targets was unique.

Given all that, is it really all that surprising that the resulting damage was unprecedented?

Your point, Len, is obfuscation.

A steel framed concrete towerblock is a rather resilient structure. That's why they are common in modern cities.

No steel framed concrete towerblock, to my knowledge, has ever been known to collapse - straight down and at near free-fall velocity - because the steel framework effectively melted due to internal fuel fires.

There ARE cases of tower block collapse that are similar to what was observed on 9-11. Those are cases of controlled demolition, in which high-temperature explosives were stragically deployed.

There are NO cases - I understand - of such collapses that did NOT involve controlled demolition.

If there are such cases, please let us all know.

If there aren't, this extraordinary co-incidence affecting THREE buildings in Manhatten on that day and only on that day is one heck of a smoking gun...

No you're refusal to answer my question is obfuscation. There never were collapses like 9-11 before or after 9-11 because never before or since have buildings like them been subject to what they were. 1 WTC and 2 WTC were near identical buildings struck by near identical planes in similar ways thus the similarity of their collapses is hardly coincidental. 7 WTC was also a steel frame central core building which suffered extensive impact dammage (from falling debris) and was filled with large quantities of fuel (disel). It's fire were uncombatted for several hours. Numerous firemen said it was poised for collapse hours before it did.

CTists can only point to a handful of large office fires in steel framed central core buildings, none of the collapsed but none of them had pre-fire structural dammage or thousand of gallons or jet fuel or disel in them. In one case in Philadelphia the FD and the structural engineers they consulted feared a "pancake style structural collapse". There have been several cases of lowrise steel framed buildings that have collapsed that collapsed due to fire. In one case a theater fireproofing similar to the WTC's was used. http://debunking911.com/firsttime.htm (see the 2nd half of the article based on my research)

Interestingly "isde jobbers" like to point to the Edifico Windsor fire in Madrid but it was basiclly a concrete building, the unprotected steel outter columns collapsed after about an hour.

Just to add to Len's post -

The WTC Towers were not a "concrete towerblock" design. The outer walls formed one part to the vertical support system, with the central steel core the second.

The design of the central core is one of the faults in the WTC Tower design, as noted in the various studies of 9-11. The central core consisted of vertical steel columns, cast in place floors with sheetrock walls. Some believe that if there had been concrete or concrete block walls, many of the people trapped on the upper floors might have been able to escape.

Sid – before you decide that the collapse of the Towers can only be explained by a controlled demolition (CD) I would suggest that you become familiar with the design and construction of the towers, as well as with the methods, techniques and physics involved with CD’s. You also need to fully understand the respective roles of explosives and gravity in a CD.

Once you fully understand these things, it’s really not hard to understand why the Towers and WTC-7 collapsed the way that they did. Unless, of course, you simply want to believe that it had to be a CD – if that’s the case then we’re all wasting our time here.