Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Peter McKenna]

"...uses established engineering models..."

"Dr Seffen, a Senior Lecturer in the Structures Group in the Department of Engineering..."

"Dr Seffen's new analysis, which will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal of Engineering Mechanics..."

That's no good, Len; you know that. A qualified person publishing in a peer-reviewed journal of the subject being discussed? Rubbish.

You need unqualified people giving scientifically unsound theories being reviewed by people are likewise unqualified to assess the work. Maybe a philosopher talking about engineering in a sociology magazine. Now THAT'S evidence!

The images and evaluatons I have read of the twin tower (WTC 1 and 2) collapses seem to be analyzed and explained in succinct, rational, well suported, and believable doumentation. I have read the NIST report, and some trade peices from the ASCE, as well as mainstream articles. The pieces are well cited in the public domain and threads on this forum.

The collapse of WTC 7, however, is a different story. Not only do the images of the collapse of WTC 7 invite criticism of the theory that the WTC 7 collapse was the result of anciliary damage from the WTC 1 and 2 collisions, also, there are strong indications and peer opinion (from some demolition experts) that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

I am not typically a purveyor of conspiracy theory, but I must admit that the WTC 7 collapse looks (to use a highly technical term;) 'Fishy'.

This POV has been attacked by certain (un-named, but with the initials JW) Conspircay Theorists, due to the 'All of Nothing' philosophy, and subsequent out of hand rejection of my POV since I do not subscribe to most of the 'Truther's' POV on 9/11.

However if I was a conspiracy theorist, I would concentrate on WTC 7 to the exclusion of most everything else. Once this is explained, either 1, some amount of conspiracy has been established, or, and more likely, 2, the nagging questions many have concerning this anomaly will be answered, tying up, what for me is a big loose end.

I do not subscribe to the 'All or nothing' POV and resent any condescension for suspicion of a mere few parts of the mainstream 'official' account. I do not understand why the CT'ers do not employ a systematic approach and address these less prococative issues. That would seem to provide a sound base form which to extrapolate further theory.

TJust 'IMHO' a more logical way to proceed, if I was a 'Truther'. I f someone has a alternate (reasonable) explanation for the behavior of WTC 7m I would be very interested in reading it.

Edited September 15, 2007 by Peter McKenna

[Craig Lamson]

Wasn’t this supposed to be some top secret operation? Why share it potentially with not only every firefighter at the scene (or monitoring that frequency) but an unknowable number of unknown people listening and possibly recording that frequency on a scanner?

It's possible that those on the scene had no idea it was "a secret operation" and were just following orders to bring down the building. (That's how conspiracies work. A few know, everybody else follows orders.) Even Silverstein seemingly failed to comprehend for a time that the demolition was the result of a secret operation, though he must have known that the rigging was secretly done. He stated on national TV that a decision was made to "pull" the building. He subsequently tried lamely to explain the statement away.

Silverstein was saved BTW on 9/11, by another grand 9/11 coincidence, because his wife had made a doctor's appointment for him that morning, and he just begged her to cancel it so he could go have breakfast in that restaurant high in the tower as usual, and the wife said no way.

A cousin of George Bush who was supposed to be in the tower was also serendipitously saved that morning by moving a meeting to across the street. Doesn't the Lord work in mysterious ways?

I often wonder what it would take for the official 9/11 story to start to stink for you. I don't think anything would do it.

Sheesh, Ecker pimps yet another untruth. Please...ANYONE...show Ecker his statement that Silverstein says "pull' the building is fact. Oh you can't? why am I suprised. Amazing what truthers consider as evidence.

There are MANY stories of people who were to be in those towers and for one reson or another were not. SHeesh.....

Something smellls alright...

[Guest David Guyatt]

Follow the money, I say.

Silverstein Properties Inc is a real estate “group” and yet their website only lists Larry Silverstein as the management team. Odd. A “group” usually has other members on the board to oversee that it’s investments are properly handled. So my question is who are the undisclosed members of the “group”?

In any event, Silverstein bid for WTC lease in collaboration with Westfield America – the US arm of the Westfield Group that was founded in Australia in 1960 and was founded by Frank Lowy, a Czech who migrated to Australia after WWII. The Silverstein bid for WTC was beaten by $50 million from Boston Properties/Vornando Reality bid (note that Boston Props was founded in 1970 by Mortimer Zuckerman – a former Cabot & Forbes squire). Despite winning the bid, Boston/Vornando withdrew their offer and, by default, Silverstein and his mysterious “group” were handed the keys.

The entity selling the lease was the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey -- which I have on good authority is Mafia.

The WTC 7 building was insured by Industrial Risk Insurers – partly owned by Swiss Re and also the WTC was insured by a bundle of insurance companies (two dozen of them it seems) under the lead manager Royal & Sun Alliance of the UK and its US affiliate.

If I had the time, I would be inclined to follow every single financial association and every affiliation of every one of the main players in this drama (Twin Towers and WTC7) -- check out the incorporation papers of each entity, track down the associations and biography of each member of each managment committee etc -- because the whole thing has, for me, a certain smell about those involved in the money side of things.

David

[Evan Burton]

One of the world's largest gold depositories was stored underneath the World Trade Center, owned by a group of commercial banks. The 1993 bomb detonated close to the vault, but it withstood the explosion, as did the towers. Seven weeks after the September 11th attacks, $230 million in precious metals were removed from basement vaults of 4 WTC, which included 3,800 100-Troy-ounce registered gold bars and 30,000 1,000-ounce silver bars.

In a joint statement Friday, NYBOT and ScotiaMocatta, the metals trading division of Canada's Bank of Nova Scotia, said the metals had been relocated and were again available to guaranty delivery of futures contracts exchange traded at the COMEX metals division of the NYMEX.

"All of the silver, gold, platinum, and palladium stored in its vaults at 4 World Trade Center have been successfully relocated by an Exchange-approved carrier to a newly Exchange-licensed Brink's Inc depository in Brooklyn," they said.

Spurred by authorities who wanted to demolish the building, by the potential for crime, and by whatever has always driven men to hunt for gold, emergency crews dug through the rubble and got a first glimpse of the gleaming booty on Oct 30.

Guarded by a small army of heavily armed federal agents, city policemen and firefighters began the massive task of moving about 12 tonnes of gold and 30 million ounces of silver. The hoard was estimated to be worth at least $230 million.

There were about 3,800 100-Troy-ounce registered gold bars in the underground COMEX warehouse. While gold is very dense, the task of loading the indestructible yellow metal onto armoured Brinks trucks was not nearly as cumbersome as moving the silver.

http://www.rediff.com/money/2001/nov/17wtc.htm

Nothing happened to the gold. It's just one of those things the Truthers spread disinformation about, hoping no-one will check on the actual details.

Edited September 15, 2007 by Evan Burton

[Evan Burton]

This story might not be true; I'm waiting to have things verified. There have been a number of claims from the Truth movement which have been proven to be inaccurate to downright lies. I'm waiting to hear more from the other first responders who can apparently verify his claims. Some points have been raised about his account:

- He claims to have been in the collapse zone but only about 40 feet from Amy Goodman... who was about a mile away.

- He says he didn't hear a countdown but assumes that what it was, but then says he did hear a countdown and so did others. Which is it?

- Why wasn't the Red Cross person trying to get away?

I'd like to also verify this guys claims about being ex-USAF Special Ops SAR or something. A couple of people who ARE in that world said the wrong terminology was used. Probably nothing, but others have tried to raise their credability by giving themselves titles they haven't earnt.

[Ron Ecker]

Here's a link to an article on Silverstein from the Wall Street Journal. It's mainly about rebuilding so I don't know how helpful it is in following the money. But it includes the story about his doctor's appointment on 9/11:

Larry Silverstein began spending every morning at the World Trade Center shortly after he inked a 99-year deal to operate the complex in July 2001. The New York developer would have breakfast at Windows on the World, the restaurant on the 107th floor of the North tower, and then meet for several hours with tenants. But on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, he was at home, dressing for a doctor's appointment his wife had made for him, instead of at his usual table at Windows. "I had said to my wife, sweetheart, cancel my doctor's appointment. I have so much to do at the Trade Center," he recalls. "She got very upset and told me I had to go. As it turns out, that saved my life."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110010066

[Michael Hogan]

Nothing happened to the gold. It's just one of those things the Truthers spread disinformation about, hoping no-one will check on the actual details.

From the same article Evan referenced:

On top of that, it is believed that other treasures were kept in the vaults, including additional precious metals, jewels and securities. But there has been no information on whether these valuables were there or recovered.

....There have been a number of claims from the Truth movement which have been proven to be inaccurate to downright lies.

The same might be said about the 9/11 Commission and their report to the American people.

Edited September 15, 2007 by Michael Hogan

[Guest David Guyatt]

Peter,

I've herad the rumours and speculation but nothing apart from that. What may be interesting is that the NY depositary would almost certainly have contained bullion actually belonging to other banks and entities -- rather than US owned gold per se.

I would also raise the speculative argument that even if crushed beneath a tumbling tower, precious metal would have been recovered (maybe not easily but heck, look what efforts have been taken in the past regarding the recovery of treasure in deep sea wrecks), and thereafter fairly easily resmelted without loss of weight or value (other than fractionally, perhaps). Records of ownerhsip would've have been kept elsewhere, as is customary, so no loss of value to the actual owners is likely to have taken place.

I also don't see anyone running away with this metal after the tower went down.

My own view is that this is probably a red herring. Unless, of course, new information arises that provides other insights.

But I would still suggest that one day someone should follow all the money trails surrounding ownership, lease and insurance companies, representing lawfirms, representing banks, individuals and any other reasonable connections. A possible template (for me anyway) is the Empire State building that I have written about elsewhere (very "mob" and "CIA" plus other shady connections involved).

David

[Ron Ecker]

I was disappointed that the insurance companies apparently made no effort to bring up the possibility of fraud in the court squabble over settling with Silverstein. It was all about interpretation of insurance clauses (what is one occurrence as opposed to two). I would think that insurance companies that can pay out billions in claims can hire lawyers good enough to raise reasonable doubt about the collapse of the buildings on 9/11, particularly WTC7. But then I'm just a troofer, so what do I know.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Duane,

I seem to remember my son telling me that there was a suggestion of how the explosives (if such there were) got into the building. Maybe I'm misremembering now, but I thought that the security firm operating the towers, was a Bush relative and that the weekend before the attack there was a unexpected power outage that killed all the camers, and that during that period lots of unidentified workmen - supposedly responding to the power crash - were going in and out of the buildings for some hours.

If the foregoing is true, there at least is an opportunity for such skullduggery.

David

[Ron Ecker]

David,

I believe it was Scott Forbes of Fiduciary Trust who first broke the story about the power down. Here's an interview with him:

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12/scott...-interview.html

[Len Colby]

That's no good, Len; you know that. A qualified person publishing in a peer-reviewed journal of the subject being discussed? Rubbish.

Evan's sarcasm aside, presumably there is no need to read the actual article or wait for the peers to review.

Let's just accept his conclusions now....why wait? After all, he lectures at Cambridge.

His paper passed peer review in a prominent engineering journal. So far papers from the "inside job" camp have only passed "peer-review" and "inside job" publications. And yes having a a degree in civil engineering from and teaching at one of the world's top universities does make him more qualified than Drs. Fetzer and Jones

[Len Colby]

It will be interesting to see how Agent Colby will pretend to refute this one .

This from the guy who accuses me and others of goading

Well, maybe not so interesting after all .

If my points are so weak or absurd you should easily be able to refute them.

As with the others one wonders why it took him years to say anything. He has a grudge with the department and has been reading a lot of “inside job” propoganda, might this have colored his memory

So now you are accusing the 9/11 HEROS , most of whom are now dying , of lying ?

Bartmer is sick I don't know if he is dying, I haven't heard about Singh or the airforce guy being sick. They could either be lying or more likely their recollections were colored by later events. Bartmer said he only started questioning 9/11 after some friends got him drunk and showed him Loose Change. Only after that did his experience at 7 WTC seem suspicious to him

[Len Colby]

I often wonder what it would take for the official 9/11 story to start to stink for you. I don't think anything would do it.

Solid evidence of something foul that stood up to scrutiny. Barmer's claims are contradicted by numerous firefighters who were there all afternoon by his own account he got there just before it collapsed, Singh seemed unsure of what she heard etc etc

[Len Colby]

David,

I believe it was Scott Forbes of Fiduciary Trust who first broke the story about the power down. Here's an interview with him:

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12/scott...-interview.html

Strange thousands of people worked in the towers and no one else reported this. Mr. Forbes is a bit shaky on the details which change a bit between retellings.

Bush's brother was on the board of a company partially responsible for installing electronic security in the towers till June 2000