FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Maggie Hansen]

Yes, I've seen some of the strange melted, bent and eroded pieces that were not destroyed. Thank goodness for them. They tell a very different tale, I think, than the official version...and then there is the molten steel that certain people would like to just plain deny the witness reports and even photos of......Still all too much of the evidence was removed and quickly. Why? Why were there restrictions on people going into the debris pile to investigate and photograph? Why was only <1% of the steel examined in any way? [what kind of a real investigation would look at <1% of the evidence?] Why the false tale of the air safe to breathe. Etc. Et al. The seeming incompetance was not just the failure to identify and intercept the planes.....it seems to still continue - but I think this is just a cover for something much more sinister.

As for the huge support beam reduced to the thinness of paper [and showing erosion holes, as well (and eutectic chemical alteration)!], I guess it was because there was a paper fueled fire

This one photo below can not IMO be explained in any way by the official version - so it is 'explained' by not explaining it - much as the unexplainable parts about Dallas were handled by officially not explaining them. I'm sure the long delayed 'explanation' [and never to have been forthcoming had it not be DEMANDED] of the collapse of WTC7 will be a real 'fascinating' read.

Peter, Peter, Peter... that's not molten steel. That is the orange sculptural installation from the foyer of tower 12

[Evan Burton]

Peter,

Are you able to tell us when that image was taken?

[Evan Burton]

Thank you for that Peter, although I would suggest that the 911 Research information be taken with caution:

This image was purportedly taken by Frank Silecchia. I've seen it a number of times. When I ran a Google search on "Frank Silecchia", I got a whole bunch of hits on a construction worker who found a cross of steel beams among the rubble and became a sort of folk hero of the faithful shortly after 9/11.

I can find no reliable information on whether or not he took this picture. For me, it leaves the source of the picture deeply in doubt. There are few clues to determine whether or not it's even taken at Ground Zero.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=155...amp;postcount=2

Frank Silecchia seems to me more involved with the establishment of the WTC Cross and possibly suffering from health problems due to his efforts during the WTC cleanup.

I can't seem to find anything that actually confirms he was the photographer, and the date on which it was taken. I think that the date that is was taken and confirming it was taken at the WTC site are important.

Peter,

Are you able to tell us when that image was taken?

It hardly matters. Even the official version didn't get steel up to yellow-hot temperatures and there are drips of metal coming off it - and there were reliable and multiple sighings of pools of molten [flowing] steel - as well as [later] cooled lumps of same - called meteorites. This must have been during the clean-up and not in the first days - no very hot metal was found on the top layers in the first days [cooled by air and water sprayed upon if ever there]. I'm sure there is a way to date the photo, but again, it doens't matter for my point. Molten metal and ultra-high temperatures were found for weeks - well over a month, if I remember correctly. Molten metal was not covered in the official version.....nor were LHO's intelligence connections. [i.e. ignored]

OK I found the date of the photo Sept 27th Source: Frank Silecchia

Professor Steven Jones has cautiously determined the temperature to be:

"as a salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (1550 - 1900oF, 845 - 1040oC)."

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&...sa=N&tab=wi

[Dave Greer]

There is visual (photo) evidence that at one time the wind at the WTC was from

the north.

However, apparently at some point the wind shifted direction, if this passage

I found today on the internet is reliable:

"From the Seattle Times

Dust choked downtown for nearly 20 minutes, blocking out the sun and leaving a layer of film on cars, streets and storefronts. The dust cloud reached nearly as high as the top of the Bank of America Tower and drifted northwest about 8 miles an hour."

Note that it says the dustcloud DRIFTED NORTHWEST. Early photos show it going SOUTH.

Was there a wind shift?

Jack

Jack

That passage refers to the dust cloud which was created when each building collapsed, rather than the pall of smoke from the top of the building while the fires burned.

I don't think the dust cloud only went north-west, it spread out in all directions, being channelled through the surrounding streets. The smoke cloud continued to drift southwards, as evidenced by the photos and video taken from NYC, and the satellite images taken on the day. There's no evidence for a sudden and drastic change of wind direction at the height of the towers.

Which still leaves the claim about WTC6 exploding as the north tower was hit right where we left it: not only unsupported by any video or photographic evidence, but palpably falsified by the photographic and video evidence.

[Dave Greer]

I think now there were at least three directions for the wind [and obviously all the intermediate directions] and there must be times and directions known that would help time-position some of the photos]. Most of us have seen the satellite [where are the ones from the time OF the attacks and just after!*] photo showing the entire lower manhattan and a smoke plume going off toward the Southwest. I believe that was quite a bit after the attacks but before the collapse - but of the time it was taken I am really not sure. The direction and general time matches the photo with the Statue of Liberty - although in that one it may be headed more toward the South. I also found this report that the wind changed direction 180 degrees - BUT WHEN?!

Peter

The satellite image showing smoke blowing off to the south-west was taken on Sept 12th (see link).

There are many satellite images taken on 9/11 on the net, here's one taken from the ISS, showing the smoke plume being blown to the south (actually slightly east of south)

Other images taken on 11th and subsequent days can be found here.

More satellite images here:-

http://home.att.net/~south.tower/911Russia...spaceflight.jpg

http://home.att.net/~south.tower/911Russia...files/mixed.jpg

http://home.att.net/~south.tower/911Russia...es/Terrared.jpg

Source

I can't find any evidence anywhere of the smoke plume being blown in any direction other than (slightly east of) south on the 11th of September.

[Ron Ecker]

Why implement recommendations based on flawed conclusions?

One recommendation that was implemented was a national intelligence director. I remain mystified that the CIA, whose director was top dog in U.S. intelligence, allowed Congress, which it has long controlled so efficiently, to pass such legislation. One more unanswered question about 9/11.

What was so bad about the Afghan government that the US conducted a terror campaign against it?

The purpose was to set what Carter's adviser Brzenski (sp) called the "Afghan trap," to lure Russia into the fight and thus give Russia "its own Vietnam." Which raises another unanswered question, which is why the peace-loving Carter signed off on this human slaughter business. Was he scared into complying by the "assassination attempt" in Los Angeles?

[Maggie Hansen]

One recommendation that was implemented was a national intelligence director. I remain mystified that the CIA, whose director was top dog in U.S. intelligence, allowed Congress, which it has long controlled so efficiently, to pass such legislation. One more unanswered question about 9/11.

Given the spectacular uselessness of the intelligence service in general and in particular their failure to foresee 911 or even the end of the Soviet Union/Cold War instead of setting up yet another intellegence apparatus they should dismantle them all and put all the spooks to good use dismantling cluster bombs. Save themselves a lot of money too.

The purpose was to set what Carter's adviser Brzenski (sp) called the "Afghan trap," to lure Russia into the fight and thus give Russia "its own Vietnam." Which raises another unanswered question, which is why the peace-loving Carter signed off on this human slaughter business. Was he scared into complying by the "assassination attempt" in Los Angeles?

Yes, Carter's actions are interesting and it is uncharacteristic. The Soviets really didn't want to go into Afghanistan. They knew it would likely not go well.

[Matthew Lewis]

For your info, (no conclusion or opinions offered)

Weather observations at JFK on 11 September 2001

found here

http://english.wunderground.com/history/ai...;theprefvalue=1

Wind observed coming from variations of NW to North until late afternoon. Specifically at time from impact to collapse (my comments italicized, wind speed and direction bolded)

METAR KJFK 111151Z (0751 AM) 32006KT 10SM FEW250 19/14 A3011 RMK AO2 SLP197 70069 T01940144 10200 20172 51013

METAR KJFK 111251Z (0851 AM) 31010KT 10SM FEW250 21/14 A3013 RMK AO2 SLP203 T02110139

METAR KJFK 111351Z (0951 AM) 35007KT 10SM FEW010 SCT250 23/13 A3014 RMK AO2 SLP205 FU FEW010 FU PLUME DSNT NW DRFTG SE T02280133 (note mention of plume direction added)

METAR KJFK 111451Z (1051 AM) 34006KT 10SM FEW010 SCT250 24/12 A3013 RMK AO2 SLP203 SFC VIS LWR SW-NW FU FEW010 FU PLUME DSNT NW DRFTG S-SE T02440122 50006 (again, the mention of the plume)

METARS are direct observations of current conditions used primarily by the aviation world. They are issued hourly unless the condition changes enough to issue a special report. If the wind is variable or gusting, that will be noted also.

METAR tutorial for those interested in reading the rest of each line (translations of each also on first page referenced)

http://english.wunderground.com/metarFAQ.asp

I'm still looking for the weather as forecast for that day (TAF format) but TAFs seem harder to find, at least in my quick search.

[Jack White]

I think now there were at least three directions for the wind [and obviously all the intermediate directions] and there must be times and directions known that would help time-position some of the photos]. Most of us have seen the satellite [where are the ones from the time OF the attacks and just after!*] photo showing the entire lower manhattan and a smoke plume going off toward the Southwest. I believe that was quite a bit after the attacks but before the collapse - but of the time it was taken I am really not sure. The direction and general time matches the photo with the Statue of Liberty - although in that one it may be headed more toward the South. I also found this report that the wind changed direction 180 degrees - BUT WHEN?!

Peter

The satellite image showing smoke blowing off to the south-west was taken on Sept 12th (see link).

There are many satellite images taken on 9/11 on the net, here's one taken from the ISS, showing the smoke plume being blown to the south (actually slightly east of south)

Other images taken on 11th and subsequent days can be found here.

More satellite images here:-

http://home.att.net/~south.tower/911Russia...spaceflight.jpg

http://home.att.net/~south.tower/911Russia...files/mixed.jpg

http://home.att.net/~south.tower/911Russia...es/Terrared.jpg

Source

I can't find any evidence anywhere of the smoke plume being blown in any direction other than (slightly east of) south on the 11th of September.

Greer did not look very hard. Peter posted a satellite view that is 82 degrees

different than the one he posted.

Jack

[Dave Greer]

Give it a break!....there are lots of photos showing the wind [or smoke/dust] blowing southwest and west-southwest and other directions. I've already posted some above and won't waste more time on that.....why not say the WTC never existed, so never was destroyed?

Now you're just being ridiculous. You haven't posted any images showing evidence of wind blowing in anything other than a south to south-easterly direction. The satellite image you posted was taken on September 12th, NOT 11th.

TIME-OUT!

I have a feeling the discussion is getting sidetracked. The reason we started looking at wind direction was in response to this study by Jack.

The fundamental problem with Jack's study isn't really the wind direction issue, but the fact that he's failed to correctly identify the image on the left (in terms of time). It is part of a video sequence shot while, and soon after, the south tower was collapsing. This has been proven by seeing the footage in it's entirety. It has also been admitted by the author of "9/11 In Plane Sight" (who was initially a proponent of the "WTC6 exploding" issue) to be taken just after the south tower collapsed. The image on the right was clearly taken while the south tower was collapsing, and slightly before the image on the left. The dust cloud hasn't yet had time to billow up above WTC7.

That is why the issue got side-tracked. I should have just posted the above paragraph instead of getting embroiled in a discussion about the wind-direction. The wind-direction is a red herring that I shouldn't have wasted my time chasing.

[Dave Greer]

Greer did not look very hard. Peter posted a satellite view that is 82 degrees

different than the one he posted.

Jack

You didn't read my post. The satellite image Peter posted was taken on Sept 12th, not 11th.

The wind direction is a red herring. The problem is that you mis-identified the frame from the CNN footage as being before the south tower collapse. Looking at the entire footage proves that the frame is soon after the south tower collapsed.

You should follow Dave Von Kleist's example, admit you mis-identified the frame, withdraw the study, and move on.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

We can make a poll here, if you like.

Yes please. Jack will guard the guardians, which is fine by me!

If anyone would like to suggest a clarification in the wording of the proposition, that might also be constructive.

[Steve Mcdonagh]

Question for Stephen Turner:

Steve, are you and Len Colby friends?

Thanks in advance.

Steve

[Steve Mcdonagh]

Question for Charles Drago:

Charles, do you have a copy of your 'warning' (the one that was deleted) and if so (if not you can summarise it's content) would you please forward me a copy via PM or Email please?

Thanks in advance,

Steve

[Craig Lamson]

Question for Charles Drago:

Charles, do you have a copy of your 'warning' (the one that was deleted) and if so (if not you can summarise it's content) would you please forward me a copy via PM or Email please?

Thanks in advance,

Steve

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?act=Search