Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Hopefully my last posting on the WTC 6 issue.

(1)

Dave Vonkleist, producer of "truther" video "9-11 In Plane Sight", changes his position on the WTC 6 "explosion" in the light of new evidence (which has also been presented on this thread).

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6swp29fhzlM

From the 3:20 mark...

Until more evidence is discovered to support the contention of a separate explosion at the world trade center, I think it's safe to assume that this rising plume was the first of many, which were the result of the collapsing south tower, which was hidden from view in this camera angle.

(2)

Bob and Bri's home video, shot from the location indicated below in Battery Park. Includes several zooms on WTC6, and no evidence of a fire in WTC6, or dust plume, until AFTER the first collapse.

http://wtcbpc.blogspot.com/2006/09/video.html

tribecapointe.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Background:

July 4 - Tink Thompson started the thread Fetzer’s Folly in which he pointed out that a photo from a study back Jack published in a book edited by Fetzer which was captioned “WTC-7, above right, during the attack on the Twin Towers, appears undamaged except for a modest fire at street level.”

July 5 – Jack facing irrefutable proof makes a half hearted admission of error (emphasis mine)

The "fault" if any is mine. Jim asked me to do the photo section on a very rush

basis after the book was already typeset, and the publisher insisted on a photo

section. I hurriedly put together the eight page section. The WTC 7 image I chose

was one I had saved several years earlier from a website which had described

the red at the bottom of the building as a fire. There are many similar photos

showing a small fire in the same location…

A few hours later Fetzer posted the following:

Jack has found a replacement photograph that we will use in the second printing of THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY.

Since then I have asked for clarification on 6 occasions: July 8, 12, 13 (2x), 14 (2x) but neither Jack nor Fetzer posted the supposed “replacement photograph” or responded to my inquiries.

So I’ll try one more time:

1) Did Jack really find “a replacement photograph that [they] will use in the second printing of THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY”?”

2) If so why hasn’t said photo been posted to the applicable thread? If, as I suspect, this was not the case, why did Fetzer make this false claim?

Since I asked politely 6 times on the applicable thread and gotten no response I feel justified in starting this one. I hope that it will not breakdown into a discussion about other 9/11 issues but be reserved for the specific point of Fetzer’s claim.

Making repeated demands of other members is INTIMIDATION, against forum etiquette.

I do not respond to intimidation. Fetzer made NO FALSE CLAIM. I am under no obligation

to post here or anywhere any photo. I sent him a "replacement phootograph" which he

will substitute in the next printing. Wait for the book. Colby's message constitutes bullying

and harassment.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

I reported what a member here emailed me privately. He does not post here

because he holds a government job working with many company CFOs, and

cannot afford to be seen as part of any controversy. I will say that he has

studied 911 for seven years, and finds that the government's official conspiracy

theory makes no sense at all.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me make this clear. I do not question Dr. Thompson's motives. But he seems

to have certain "blind spots". Let me offer an analogy.

In the JFK case, he becomes distressed when the validity of the Zapruder film

is questioned, though the many proofs of alteration are clear.

In the 911 case, he becomes distressed about any mention of Building 7 being

brought down by controlled demolition, though experts say that CD is obvious.

It looks exactly like CD. People on TV even said so, and that it was "about to

come down". Listen to Dan Rather's on-scene description; he thought it was CD.

I do not know why he holds these opinions contrary to expert opinion and common

sense.

Too bad.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me make this clear. I do not question Dr. Thompson's motives. But he seems

to have certain "blind spots". Let me offer an analogy.

In the JFK case, he becomes distressed when the validity of the Zapruder film

is questioned, though the many proofs of alteration are clear.

In the 911 case, he becomes distressed about any mention of Building 7 being

brought down by controlled demolition, though experts say that CD is obvious.

It looks exactly like CD. People on TV even said so, and that it was "about to

come down". Listen to Dan Rather's on-scene description; he thought it was CD.

I do not know why he holds these opinions contrary to expert opinion and common

sense.

Too bad.

Jack

But, don't you see? He could change a few words in your post, and say the same thing about you.

Kathy

Link to post
Share on other sites

As John pointed out “The whole idea of this forum is to encourage dialogue between people with different views” one of the rules that he established to encourage this dialogue is that posters make reasonable efforts to document their claims.

-You claimed “ there are many similar photos showing a small fire in the same location…”

- You claimed that even on the south face there were only small fires

- Fetzer and now you claimed that you found a “replacement photo” and sent it to him for publication. The original photo was supposed to show “WTC-7…undamaged except for a modest fire at street level” so logically the replacement should show an undamaged south façade post north tower collapse.

All I’m asking you to do is make the required "reasonable" effort to document your claims. If you have good reason not to post the photo explain what it is. But to be quite frank I don’t believe you found such a photo because I don’t believe such a photo exists. Especially after being embarrassed by having to admit error in the other thread why wouldn’t you or Fetzer want the forum to see the photo? Rather you posted the Cushman photo which even you acknowledged is too low res to see if there is any damage.

I predict we'll never see said photo nor be given a good reason for not posting it.

Your crocodile tears about “harassment” are rubbish if you’d provided a reasonable answer to a reasonable question I wouldn’t have pressed you. I wasn’t asking you about some intimate personal secret. Also not long ago you were quite insistent that us “debunkers” take your silly truth/false quiz accusing us of being “afraid” to do so and then ignored my reply when I did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me make this clear. I do not question Dr. Thompson's motives. But he seems

to have certain "blind spots". Let me offer an analogy.

In the JFK case, he becomes distressed when the validity of the Zapruder film

is questioned, though the many proofs of alteration are clear.

In the 911 case, he becomes distressed about any mention of Building 7 being

brought down by controlled demolition, though experts say that CD is obvious.

It looks exactly like CD. People on TV even said so, and that it was "about to

come down". Listen to Dan Rather's on-scene description; he thought it was CD.

I do not know why he holds these opinions contrary to expert opinion and common

sense.

Too bad.

Jack

But, don't you see? He could change a few words in your post, and say the same thing about you.

Kathy

And you don't know. Tell us about your 911 studies. Tell us how you know

that 911 was not controlled demolition. Tell us that you can prove the authenticity

of the Z film. The truth knows no sides.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
As John pointed out “The whole idea of this forum is to encourage dialogue between people with different views” one of the rules that he established to encourage this dialogue is that posters make reasonable efforts to document their claims.

-You claimed “ there are many similar photos showing a small fire in the same location…”

- You claimed that even on the south face there were only small fires

- Fetzer and now you claimed that you found a “replacement photo” and sent it to him for publication. The original photo was supposed to show “WTC-7…undamaged except for a modest fire at street level” so logically the replacement should show an undamaged south façade post north tower collapse.

All I’m asking you to do is make the required "reasonable" effort to document your claims. If you have good reason not to post the photo explain what it is. But to be quite frank I don’t believe you found such a photo because I don’t believe such a photo exists. Especially after being embarrassed by having to admit error in the other thread why wouldn’t you or Fetzer want the forum to see the photo? Rather you posted the Cushman photo which even you acknowledged is too low res to see if there is any damage.

I predict we'll never see said photo nor be given a good reason for not posting it.

Your crocodile tears about “harassment” are rubbish if you’d provided a reasonable answer to a reasonable question I wouldn’t have pressed you. I wasn’t asking you about some intimate personal secret. Also not long ago you were quite insistent that us “debunkers” take your silly truth/false quiz accusing us of being “afraid” to do so and then ignored my reply when I did.

Len,

I completely agree. White ran his mouth, and as usual can not support his claims. Typical of the species. No evidence to put up, and to ignorant to shut up.

Edited by Mike Williams
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the lead to Bob and Bri's home video. That's new to me and quite detailed in what it shows. So now, in addition to the still photo showing the roof of WTC6 undamaged after the collapse of the South Tower at 9:59 AM we have video showing the same thing.

Hopefully my last posting on the WTC 6 issue.

(1)

Dave Vonkleist, producer of "truther" video "9-11 In Plane Sight", changes his position on the WTC 6 "explosion" in the light of new evidence (which has also been presented on this thread).

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6swp29fhzlM

From the 3:20 mark...

Until more evidence is discovered to support the contention of a separate explosion at the world trade center, I think it's safe to assume that this rising plume was the first of many, which were the result of the collapsing south tower, which was hidden from view in this camera angle.

(2)

Bob and Bri's home video, shot from the location indicated below in Battery Park. Includes several zooms on WTC6, and no evidence of a fire in WTC6, or dust plume, until AFTER the first collapse.

http://wtcbpc.blogspot.com/2006/09/video.html

tribecapointe.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

If one is going "to get to the truth through evidence" one has to stick with the evidence. So let's do that.

I'd be very interested in your view of the latest disagreement over evidence. Jack claims that WTC6 "exploded" at 9:04 AM. We now have both still photos and videotape showing the roof of the building undamaged shortly after 9:59 AM. The CNN footage showing a cloud of smoke that Jack claimed was smoke from the explosion was marked "9:04 AM" by someone. It is part of the CNN footage which was shown during an interview with Clancy at 11:53 AM. The footage is a rerun of the collapse of the South Tower at 9:59 AM. CNN footage around 9:04 AM is quite different. The "evidence" Jack put forward for an explosion at 9:04 AM is really footage taken later during the collapse of the South Tower and has nothing to do with WTC6.

If Sylvia Meagher were around these days, I think she would point this out and then ask, "Is there any evidence for the explosion of WTC6 at 9:04 AM?" You don't do this. You content yourself with making a number of general remarks and ignore the back and forth of the last few days. If we are "to get to the truth through evidence", why do this?

Josiah, All, I hope we are all trying to get to the truth via the evidence - as any other 'means' would just be cherry-picking evidence to fit a preconceived and prefered predjudice. That said, we each have a general viewpoint as to what happened and what didn't - who told the truth and who didn't, etc. As in all complex cases there is evidence that seems to contradict some things, at first. Some points about Dallas are still actively debated with the original 'evidence'. Interesteing you bring up SM who I had and have very positive feelings for. However, she (for whatever reasons) took a great dislike to Garrison and his investigation, and I think history has proven her misguided on that aspect - though the main body of her work still stands. While Garrison might not have been trying to bring the 'big boys' into his Courtroom, he certainly was targeting some of those who were connected to them and he was correct [iMO] on who, generally, some of those 'big boys' were [and some of them worked to defeat his prosecution]. Back to 9/11 - the 'gestalt of it'. Again, IMO, the Government lied about foreknowledge; about not being able to stop the planes; about when some things happened and why; about many details - no, not all. Why? Then they didn't want an investigation and when they did W and Chaney went in holding hands, no oaths, no recordings, etc. Suspicious? The 'investigations' were all controlled [like Dallas] to limit what could be discussed and conclusions made. A huge shift in American freedom [or loss of it] came as a result and two wars fought - huge new profits for a few and misery for most of the rest. Shades of Dallas, IMO. Obviously, whole books have been written on this and I'm just putting in a few sentences. Now, to some of the details and debating them. There are many - more than in Dallas I'd say and, sadly, much is being hidden or is just lost in the huge 'mix' - new bits keep emerging and, sadly, a few of them are found to be constructed as disinfo - part of the game. Others are without malice mislabeled or mis-interpreted. We all know the drill. Sides form and some put on blinders to only see what fits their side. Others keep an open mind and all shades in between. I'm not pointing fingers here at you or anyone - just speaking generally. We have the range on this Forum and out there in cyberspace and the society at large. You can say that Jack's point here has been debunked - or was years ago - but 'ya haven't yet convinced me, or Jack, or many others. This is not going to be easy - for either side to convince the other. Some will never be convinced by 'evidence' - it is all a matter of 'religion or patriotism' to them. Others will use the evidence to decide what was and what was not happening. I'd like to think you and I both are among that group. I think Jack is. You certainly know from Dallas that people sometimes slowly changed their viewpoint on one aspect; and amazingly a few switched sides completely. The back and forth of honest investigators works toward the truth coming out - it also sometimes generates a lot of heat, which like in physics is waste energy. Speaking of physics - where did all the extra energy come from to pulvarize the concrete and buildings? There was not enough in the PE of the gravitational fall! This debate is not going to be quick, sadly, NOT AS QUICK AS NEEDED, as I think America is very near its graveside, if this and related matters are not soon elucidated, exposed, and acted upon. Carry on. Next round. Bong....

Link to post
Share on other sites

You say that I became "distressed" (odd word) when "the validity of the Zapruder film was questioned though the many proofs of alteration are clear." What I became "distressed" about were the silliness of the socalled "proofs of alteration" that you believe are clear. Do I have to mention "Moorman in the street" or "the seven-foot woman" or the other examples of misinterpretation of photos which you advanced and then were shot down? The fact is that only you, Fetzer and a small coterie of hangers-on believe the Zapruder film was altered. The assassination research community has spoken, and, sorry, you lost. The same thing happened there as happened on this thread with your mistaken claim that WTC6 "exploded" at 9:04 AM. The "evidence" you put forward blew up in your face. And, as before, with the Zapruder film you steadfastly refuse to admit it.

The "controlled demolition" of WTC7 has been explained earlier on this thread. You are just wrong when you say "that experts say CD is obvious." Experts in the field have developed a painstaking account of how the building collapsed and say precisely the opposite.

I find it revealing that you have chosen to offer no comeback whatsoever to the devastating criticism of your "9:04 tape." Is that because there really is no comeback?

Let me make this clear. I do not question Dr. Thompson's motives. But he seems

to have certain "blind spots". Let me offer an analogy.

In the JFK case, he becomes distressed when the validity of the Zapruder film

is questioned, though the many proofs of alteration are clear.

In the 911 case, he becomes distressed about any mention of Building 7 being

brought down by controlled demolition, though experts say that CD is obvious.

It looks exactly like CD. People on TV even said so, and that it was "about to

come down". Listen to Dan Rather's on-scene description; he thought it was CD.

I do not know why he holds these opinions contrary to expert opinion and common

sense.

Too bad.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
As John pointed out “The whole idea of this forum is to encourage dialogue between people with different views” one of the rules that he established to encourage this dialogue is that posters make reasonable efforts to document their claims.

-You claimed “ there are many similar photos showing a small fire in the same location…”

- You claimed that even on the south face there were only small fires

- Fetzer and now you claimed that you found a “replacement photo” and sent it to him for publication. The original photo was supposed to show “WTC-7…undamaged except for a modest fire at street level” so logically the replacement should show an undamaged south façade post north tower collapse.

All I’m asking you to do is make the required "reasonable" effort to document your claims. If you have good reason not to post the photo explain what it is. But to be quite frank I don’t believe you found such a photo because I don’t believe such a photo exists. Especially after being embarrassed by having to admit error in the other thread why wouldn’t you or Fetzer want the forum to see the photo? Rather you posted the Cushman photo which even you acknowledged is too low res to see if there is any damage.

I predict we'll never see said photo nor be given a good reason for not posting it.

Your crocodile tears about “harassment” are rubbish if you’d provided a reasonable answer to a reasonable question I wouldn’t have pressed you. I wasn’t asking you about some intimate personal secret. Also not long ago you were quite insistent that us “debunkers” take your silly truth/false quiz accusing us of being “afraid” to do so and then ignored my reply when I did.

Len,

I completely agree. White ran his mouth, and as usual can not support his claims. Typical of the species. No evidence to put up, and to ignorant to shut up.

trolling again, Sgt. Mikey? Things slow at lancer or are you lost?

Link to post
Share on other sites
[...]

The assassination research community has spoken, and, sorry, you lost.

[...]

I'm amazed JFK's murder is treated as some sort of researcher type competition... What's the first place prize? A "free pass" to the 6th Floor Museum for a year....

By-the-way, the assassination research community has grown considerably since the 70's. You did not think it would stay static over all these years did you? Or that 6 Seconds in Dallas was the last word?

Link to post
Share on other sites
What's not 'kosher' with the official version - in a nutshell....

Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade

Center

by Dave Heller, article originally appeared in Garlic and Grass

While it may be difficult to awaken everyone from their state-induced fog

of fear, we are at a critical point in history which requires us to try.

We truly must take an objective look at the facts and evidence

surrounding 9-11.

While none of the many 9-11 researchers knows exactly what happened on

that fateful day in September almost 3 years ago, any sensible person can

easily spot dozens of inconsistencies in the official story that is being

forced upon us.

And these inconsistencies are huge. They range from the apparent stand-

down of our immense military arsenal (for over an hour and a half) to the

small hole and lack of debris at the Pentagon. There was Bush's bizarre,

uninterrupted photo op in a Florida elementary school, and then there is

the matter of the remains of Flight 93 being scattered over eight miles

of Pennsylvania farmland, a fact which suggests the plane may have been

shot down. The official story seems wrong on all of these points.

But the focus of this article is on just one point: the odd collapse of

the three buildings in the World Trade Center complex.

How I First Began to Question: WTC7

The World Trade Center (WTC) contained seven buildings. The Twin Towers

were called buildings One (WTC1) and Two (WTC2). They collapsed in truly

astounding fashion, but the event that caused me first to question the

official story about the events of 9-11 was viewing videos of the

collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7).

If you've forgotten, WTC7 was a 47-story building that was not hit by an

airplane or by any significant debris from either WTC1 or WTC2. Buildings

3, 4, 5, and 6 were struck by massive amounts of debris from the

collapsing Twin Towers, yet none collapsed, despite their thin-gauge

steel supports.

World Trade Center Buildling 7 implodes

Viewing the Collapse of WTC7

The 9-11 commemorative videos produced by PBS and CNN are best. Both

clearly show WTC7's implosion.

Lower resolution Internet movies are also available.

WTC7, which was situated on the next block over, was the farthest of the

buildings from WTC1 and WTC2. WTC7 happened to contain the New York City

Office of Emergency Management (OEM), a facility that was, according to

testimony to the 9-11 Commission, one of the most sophisticated Emergency

Command Centers on the planet. But shortly after 5:20 pm on Sept. 11, as

the horrific day was coming to a close, WTC7 mysteriously imploded and

fell to the ground in an astounding 6.5 seconds.

6.5 seconds. This is a mere 0.5 seconds more than freefall in a vacuum.

To restate this, a rock dropped from the 47th floor would have taken at

least 6 seconds to hit the ground. WTC7, in its entirety, fell to the

earth in 6.5 seconds. Now, recall, we're supposed to believe that each

floor of the building "pancaked" on the one below. Each of the 47 floors

supposedly pancaked and collapsed, individually. Yet WTC7 reached the

ground in 0.5 seconds longer than freefall. Is this really possible?

Judge for yourself. Watch WTC7 go down. It takes 6.5 seconds. Take out

your stopwatch.

What About Towers One and Two?

The odd, swift collapse of WTC7 made me reconsider the Twin Towers and

how they fell. As I had with WTC7, I first studied video footage

available on the web. Then I acquired and watched a DVD of the collapses,

frame by frame.

What struck me first was the way the second plane hit WTC2, the South

Tower. I noticed that this plane, United Airlines Flight 175, which

weighed over 160,000 pounds and was traveling at 350 mph, did not even

visibly move the building when it slammed into it. How, I wondered, could

a building that did not visibly move from a heavy high speed projectile

collapse at near freefall speed less than an hour later?

WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 are the buildings in gray.

Next, I turned my attention to steel beams that fell in freefall next to

the building as it collapsed. The beams were falling at the same rate

that the towers themselves were descending. Familiar with elementary

physics, including principles of conservation of energy and momentum,

this seemed quite impossible if the towers were indeed "pancaking," which

is the official theory.

The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. I calculated that from that

height, freefall in a vacuum (read, absolutely no resistance on earth) is

9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the

tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds.

So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. Just

like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to

fail individually.

As I was considering this, another problem arose. There is a principle in

physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy. There is also the Law

of Conservation of Momentum. I'll briefly explain how these principles

work. Let's assume there are two identical Honda Civics on the freeway.

One is sitting in neutral at a standstill (0 mph). The other is coasting

at 60 mph. The second Honda slams into the back of the first one. The

first Honda will then instantaneously be going much faster than it was,

and the second will instantaneously be going much slower than it was.

This is how the principle works in the horizontal direction, and it works

the same in the vertical direction, with the added constant force of

gravity added to it. Jim Hoffman, a professional scientist published in

several peer-reviewed scientific journals, took a long look at all of

this. He calculated that even if the structure itself offered no

resistance, that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were

hovering in mid-air, the "pancake" theory would still have taken a

minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. So, even if the building

essentially didn't exist, if it provided no resistance at all to the

collapse, just the floors hitting each other and causing each other to

decelerate would've taken 15.5 seconds to reach the ground.

But of course the buildings did exist. They had stood for over 30 years.

The floors weren't hovering in mid-air. So how did the building provide

no resistance?

Yet another observation one makes in watching the collapsing towers is

the huge dust clouds and debris, including steel beams, that were thrown

hundreds of feet out horizontally from the towers as they fell. If we are

to believe the pancake theory, this amount of scattering debris, fine

pulverized concrete dust, and sheetrock powder would clearly indicate

massive resistance to the vertical collapse. So there is an impossible

conflict. You either have a miraculous, historical, instantaneous,

catastrophic failure that occurs within a fraction of a second of

freefall and that kicks out little dust, or you have a solid, hefty

building that remains virtually unaffected after a massive, speeding

projectile hits it. You either have a house of cards or a house of

bricks. The building either resists its collapse or it doesn't.

And we know the WTC Towers were made of reinforced steel and concrete

that would act much more like bricks than cards.

Thus, put simply, the floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings

fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to

reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how?

What About the Fires?

The official story maintains that fires weakened the buildings. Jet fuel

supposedly burned so hot it began to melt the steel columns supporting

the towers. But steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire,

since they're built from steel that doesn't melt below 2750 degrees

Fahrenheit. No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is really just refined

kerosene, will burn hotter than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit.

Steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire.

It's also odd that WTC7, which wasn't hit by an airplane or by any

significant debris, collapsed in strikingly similar fashion to the Twin

Towers. There wasn't even any jet fuel or kerosene burning in WTC7.

According to the 9-11 report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA), "the specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the

building to collapse remain unknown at this tim."

Aside from its startling nonchalance, this statement makes a rather

profound assumption. Again, no building prior to 9-11, in the 100-plus

year history of steel frame buildings, had ever collapsed from fire.

Satellite shot of WTC ruins

The flattened ruins are WTC1 and WTC2 (in the middle), and WTC7 (at the

bottom)

This fact was known to firemen. Hence their unflinching rush up into the

skyscrapers to put out the fire. Partly it was bravery, to be sure, but

partly it was concrete knowledge that skyscrapers do not collapse due to

fire. Yet after 100 years, three collapsed in one day.

Did the FEMA investigators not think to ask the New York City Fire

Department how they thought the fire started, or how the fires could have

caused the astounding, historical collapse? This would seem to be an

elementary step in any investigation about a fire. Instead, they chose to

leave the cause of the collapse "unknown."

Conclusion

So if the science in this article is correct (none of it goes beyond the

tenth grade level), then we know that the floors of the three WTC

buildings were not pancaking but were falling simultaneously. We also

know that fire is an insufficient explanation for the initiation of the

collapse of the buildings.

Why, then, did the three WTC buildings fall?

There is a method that has been able to consistently get skyscrapers to

fall as fast as the three buildings of the World Trade Center fell on 9-

11. In this method, each floor of a building is destroyed at just the

moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall

simultaneously ? and in virtual freefall. This method, when precisely

used, has indeed given near-freefall speed to demolitions of buildings

all over the world in the past few decades. This method could have

brought down WTC7 in 6.5 seconds. This method is called controlled

demolition.

A controlled demolition would have exploded debris horizontally at a

rapid rate. A controlled demolition would also explain the fine,

pulverized concrete powder, whereas pancaking floors would leave chunks

of concrete. Controlled demolition would also explain the seismic

evidence recorded nearby of two small earthquakes, each just before one

of the Twin Towers collapsed. And finally, controlled demolition would

explain why three steel skyscrapers, two of which were struck by planes

and one of which wasn't, all collapsed in essentially the same way.

WTC collapses with huge explosions

The massive energy required to pulverize concrete into microscopic dust

suggests the use of explosives

Ongoing Questions

But having established that all three WTC towers had to have been

assisted in their failures, I asked myself, Who could have planted the

explosives to blow up the buildings in a controlled demolition? Could

fundamentalist Muslim fanatics have gotten the plans for those buildings,

engineered the demolition, and then gotten into them to plant the

explosives?

This seemed improbable. And after learning that WTC7 housed the FBI, CIA,

and the OEM, it seemed impossible. Then I thought, Why would terrorists

engineer a building to implode? Wouldn't they want to cause even more

damage to the surrounding buildings and possibly create more havoc and

destruction from debris exploding away from the building? And if they'd

planted explosives in the buildings, why would they have bothered

hijacking and flying planes into them? Perhaps WTC7 was demolished to

destroy evidence that would answer these questions. To this day, I don't

know. But this is how I began to question the official story about 9-11.

Recently I learned that President Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, is a part

owner of the company that not only provided security for both United and

American Airlines, but also for the World Trade Center complex itself. I

also discovered that Larry Silverstein, who had bought the leasing rights

for the WTC complex from the NY/NJ Port Authority in May of 2001 for $200

million, had received a $3.55 billion insurance settlement right after 9-

11 - yet he was suing for an additional $3.55 billion by claiming the two

hits on the towers constituted two separate terrorist attacks! He stood

to make $7 billion dollars on a four month investment. Talk about motive.

In conclusion, I'll repeat myself. None of the many 9-11 researchers can

definitively say exactly what happened on that fateful day in September

almost 3 years ago. But any sensible person can easily spot dozens of

inconsistencies in the official story that is being forced upon us. And

the fact is, most of the available 9-11 evidence points to at least some

level of government complicity or foreknowledge.

Please, read more for yourself. Don't take my word for it. Most of all,

do not buy the double-speak that visible politicians and the media use to

discount any question about 9-11. Clearly, there are no "conspiracy

theories" surrounding 9-11. The official story itself affirms that there

was obviously some kind of conspiracy. It's just a question of which

conspiracy occurred. We know it wasn't mere coincidence that several

hijackers happened to be on several different airplanes and happened to

hijack them at the exact same time and happened to pick the World Trade

Center as a target. The real question is, "Who was involved in the

conspiracy?"

Dave Heller, who has degrees in physics and architecture, is a builder

and engaged citizen in Berkeley, California.

http://www.physics911.net/closerlook.htm

Thanks, Peter...evidently Dr. Thompson did not read this.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
A member who mostly reads without posting much emailed me today with

a suggestion. He reads everything he can about the events of 9-11 and

finds the NOT-TRUTHERS personal attacks and counter-information both

disruptive and a detriment to learning. [...]y.

Something should be done to curb the name-calling and disputes.

Jack

Quite ironic that Jack claims that those who disagree with him are all intentionally deceptive, compares them to Goebbels and objects to the fact that most don't live in the US and/or work for the government - then starts a thread complaining about "personal attacks" "a-homs" and "name-calling"

It is his shadow popping through - but at 101 I guess it is too late for him to individuate :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...