Something will come of it,and Dennis Kucinich wont let it drop, even if the Americans wont take him seriously
Why The Towers Fell
- Thread starter I think not
- Start date
- Status
Something will come of it,and Dennis Kucinich wont let it drop, even if the Americans wont take him seriously
Do you think this is new? His opponents have been trying to get him impeached for years. Kuncinich can stamp his feet all he wants but you sort of answered the reason why he won't get impeached...people don't take him serious and people don't take...
"IMPEACH BUSH!"
...people serious. His term is almost up. It is over...the IMPEACH BUSH campaign will end in a whimper. Congress is more focused on getting either McCain or Obama elected. The Democrats would not dare try this now.
Sooooo sorry. :lol:
Not my problem pal ..:lol: but i tell you this if Obama is elected your wars will continue, and your economy will go down the tubes, he is a another puppet master ,and if or should i say when he gets in you will be in a worse situation then your in now, but like i say i don't care as we have or own problems with our corrupt government here with our own deceiver g.brown
Exactly this is how they make there moneys war and oil , and they don't care who they kill to get it, people are too wrapped up in there own 9-5 lives, to bother about world affairs ,until its too late GMOs ,bio-fuel ,and such like will cause a global famine soon enough, why do you think the rich are investing in there own seed banks now.? by the time the world realises that there crops are infected or diseased then it will be to late,and food riots will increase,a police state will be enforced that's when these FEMA camps that have been set up already will start to fill up and what about the coffins,they too perhaps
Rex 84 and Operation Garden
Fema coffins for real!!!!!!!!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wYp85QMJd1Q
Fema's Coffins for the American People !!!
You must see this!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=od29Ece8OsE
Arizona Senator Karen Johnson Reads 9/11 Truth Into the Record
SENATOR KAREN JOHNSON attended the 2006 9/11 Truth conference in Phoenix and has now brought the need to reexamine 9/11 to the Senate floor (June 10, 2008 Archives). Her speech was detailed and descriptive, urging her fellows to recognize that what they saw that day (and in materials she provided them) was not a building collapse but rather the result of explosions. She has stood by Blair Gadsby as he has valiantly gone without food for many days now in front of Senator John McCain's Phoenix office in the effort to obtain a couple of hours with Senator McCain on the 9/11 issue. Watch Senator Johnson's powerful delivery here. 2008 9/11 Ballot Initiative in New York
Please help to get 45,000 New York City signatures by mid-May for a referendum on the November ballot to create a new, independent Commission with subpoena power. Because this is a citizens' ballot-initiative campaign, the Commission would be legally recognized. Its primary purpose would be to REINVESTIGATE 9/11 and to attend to the plight of the First Responders. Direct your New York City friends to www.nyc911initiative.org, where they can learn more.
Oscar-Winning Actress Questions 9/11
Environmental activist, former spokesperson for Greenpeace, now a 9/11 skeptic! MARION COTILLARD, who scarfed up the year's best-actress awards, made statements on Paris Premiere, Paris Derniere about the collapse of the Twin Towers. "We see other towers of the same kind being hit by planes -- are they burned? There was a tower, I believe it was in Spain, which burned for 24 hours. It never collapsed. None of these towers collapsed. And there [New York], in a few minutes, the whole thing collapsed." Marion may be referring (first) to the Empire State Building which was struck by a plane decades ago, generating the caution taken by World Trade Center architects and engineers to ensure that the Twin Towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing airliner. The second reference is to the Windsor Tower in Madrid, which burned inferno-style for an entire weekend and still remained upright, its steel frame resilient. Ms. Cotillard is certainly using her brain, thank goodness, and setting quite an example!
Shell Game or Shill Game? We weren't going to say anything, but now we're just going to ask. A new book has just come out called "The Shell Game," heavily promoted by many in the 9/11 movement as a boon to our cause, and, amazingly, this book hit the NY Times bestseller list having barely reached the stores! How? The 9/11 movement was urged by its author and publicity team to rush out and buy copies ($27 each) and promote the book like crazy to "everyone you know." In addition, as publishers who decide to create a bestseller often do, dozens of free copies were mailed to 9/11 Truth organizers and participants (including the bigwigs). Many admitted that they had not read the book, but were promoting it because they were told to create a buzz. Some began to read the book and stopped after a few chapters because "it was LIHOP." Others made it all the way through and decided it was "not that bad." Many did not seem to know quite why they were promoting it, other than that the author was linking from his website to 9/11 websites.
What is "The Shell Game" all about? Read one 9/11 Truther's review here. While this is a very fair and balanced review, giving Mr. Alten credit for trying to "impact a certain audience which 9/11 Truth might not otherwise reach," of note is the fact that the book altogether dodges the issue of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7, which is what most 9/11 Truthers believe themselves to be all about. In addition, Mr. Alten [blames] 9/11 on a combination of the Neocons and their Arab patsies, without explaining how the Neocons got there in the first place and/or who the "Arabs" really are. A study of the origins of false-flag terror will give you the answers, but they are not in Mr. Alten's book.
Quote from the jacket: "Though the novel is written as fiction, it is filled with all-too-real details provided by insiders in the oil industry, military and Middle Eastern affairs that extrapolates (sic) real events from the past and present that will lead us down a path of self-destruction ... unless we stop the insanity now!" What this means is up for grabs. Real events "will lead us down a path of self-destruction" (a prediction? and how?) "unless we stop this insanity" (whose?) now!
Full of diatribes on peak oil, global warming and Islamic fundamentalism, paging through "The Shell Game" feels a bit like surfing TV. Also, if Joe Public rushes to read the book because it's on the bestseller list (thanks to 9/11 Truthers), and then learns from 9/11 websites that the buildings were brought down by explosives, will he believe the Arabs put the bombs in the buildings?? Where are the perps? Not in Mr. Alten's book.
In the first week of February, Mr. Alten's book fell from 31st on the NYT bestseller list to 33rd place. He dispatched a frantic email to 9/11 Truthers imploring them to buy more books to help him get a movie deal. "This movie deal would pay me a million dollars (and I desperately need the deal) and here I am risking it all ... my career, my deal with [my] producer ... all to reach the masses on Shell Game so that America can hear the truth about 9/11." What truth?, and join the club, Bub. We'd all love a million-dollar movie deal. Alten again is urging Truthers to "buy as many copies of The Shell Game as [you] can afford, but at least one each week for two weeks." He needs to get on The Daily Show, Anderson Cooper and Letterman! And, he says, "the difference between #33 and #15 [on the NYT bestseller list] is about 12,000 sales in a week."
So, folks, should we push even harder for Steve? He got a free marketing force from us already, and now he wants more. Will the public translate LIHOP into MIHOP from a menu of Muslim-bashing and peak oil? From page 121: "Oil fuels the economy, the economy fuels the military, and it was a combination of all three that gave birth to the three groups vying for control of the Middle East: the House of Saud, the Neo-Conservatives and the Islamic extremists. All three played a part in the events of 9/11, and all three will be involved when a nuclear detonation wipes out an American city." Fair and balanced? You decide.
Japanese Parliament Member Questions 9/11
January 12, 2008 - Yukihisa Fujita, of the Japanese House of Councillors, made a 20-minute statement raising questions about the events of 9/11 to members of the upper house of the Diet (parliament) of Japan. "How could terrorists attack the Pentagon?" was one question, presented with photos of the famous hole in the building. Fujita showed more photos -- the Twin Towers exploding, the famous Naudet Brothers' "boom-boom-boom" firemen, the implosion of Building 7. He reminded the Councillors that Japanese nationals were killed that day, which was a crime that ought to be properly investigated. The Japanese government, said Fujita, had simply relied on the official story peddled by the United States, blaming Al Qaeda for the deed. Why not look further, as so many people in America were now doing? (Read more and watch the YouTube video here!)
More...
Oscar-Winning Actress Questions 9/11
Shell Game or Shill Game? We weren't going to say anything, but now we're just going to ask. A new book has just come out called "The Shell Game," heavily promoted by many in the 9/11 movement as a boon to our cause, and, amazingly, this book hit the NY Times bestseller list having barely reached the stores! How? The 9/11 movement was urged by its author and publicity team to rush out and buy copies ($27 each) and promote the book like crazy to "everyone you know." In addition, as publishers who decide to create a bestseller often do, dozens of free copies were mailed to 9/11 Truth organizers and participants (including the bigwigs). Many admitted that they had not read the book, but were promoting it because they were told to create a buzz. Some began to read the book and stopped after a few chapters because "it was LIHOP." Others made it all the way through and decided it was "not that bad." Many did not seem to know quite why they were promoting it, other than that the author was linking from his website to 9/11 websites.
What is "The Shell Game" all about? Read one 9/11 Truther's review here. While this is a very fair and balanced review, giving Mr. Alten credit for trying to "impact a certain audience which 9/11 Truth might not otherwise reach," of note is the fact that the book altogether dodges the issue of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7, which is what most 9/11 Truthers believe themselves to be all about. In addition, Mr. Alten [blames] 9/11 on a combination of the Neocons and their Arab patsies, without explaining how the Neocons got there in the first place and/or who the "Arabs" really are. A study of the origins of false-flag terror will give you the answers, but they are not in Mr. Alten's book.
Quote from the jacket: "Though the novel is written as fiction, it is filled with all-too-real details provided by insiders in the oil industry, military and Middle Eastern affairs that extrapolates (sic) real events from the past and present that will lead us down a path of self-destruction ... unless we stop the insanity now!" What this means is up for grabs. Real events "will lead us down a path of self-destruction" (a prediction? and how?) "unless we stop this insanity" (whose?) now!
Full of diatribes on peak oil, global warming and Islamic fundamentalism, paging through "The Shell Game" feels a bit like surfing TV. Also, if Joe Public rushes to read the book because it's on the bestseller list (thanks to 9/11 Truthers), and then learns from 9/11 websites that the buildings were brought down by explosives, will he believe the Arabs put the bombs in the buildings?? Where are the perps? Not in Mr. Alten's book.
In the first week of February, Mr. Alten's book fell from 31st on the NYT bestseller list to 33rd place. He dispatched a frantic email to 9/11 Truthers imploring them to buy more books to help him get a movie deal. "This movie deal would pay me a million dollars (and I desperately need the deal) and here I am risking it all ... my career, my deal with [my] producer ... all to reach the masses on Shell Game so that America can hear the truth about 9/11." What truth?, and join the club, Bub. We'd all love a million-dollar movie deal. Alten again is urging Truthers to "buy as many copies of The Shell Game as [you] can afford, but at least one each week for two weeks." He needs to get on The Daily Show, Anderson Cooper and Letterman! And, he says, "the difference between #33 and #15 [on the NYT bestseller list] is about 12,000 sales in a week."
So, folks, should we push even harder for Steve? He got a free marketing force from us already, and now he wants more. Will the public translate LIHOP into MIHOP from a menu of Muslim-bashing and peak oil? From page 121: "Oil fuels the economy, the economy fuels the military, and it was a combination of all three that gave birth to the three groups vying for control of the Middle East: the House of Saud, the Neo-Conservatives and the Islamic extremists. All three played a part in the events of 9/11, and all three will be involved when a nuclear detonation wipes out an American city." Fair and balanced? You decide.
Japanese Parliament Member Questions 9/11
More...
- Mrs. Kucinich on "911 Mysteries" and more
- History Channel 9/11 Conspiracies Special
- 9/11 Truthers respond to Bill Maher
- 9/11 Truth at Portland International Airport
- Tiny newspaper converts township
- ANTI-WAR ACTIVIST CINDY SHEEHAN WAKES UP TO 9/11
- San Diego 9/11 Truth squad and Susan Davis
- Morons and Magic: A Reply to George Monbiot
- News stations messed up on Building 7!
- From the Columbus Dispatch
http://www.911weknow.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1The day the fantasy died. We were no longer "protected by our oceans." The government was taken by surprise. All of normalcy was shattered that morning, our spirit kicked in the gut, our American confidence diabolically destroyed.
Who were the Beelzebubs that plotted to murder our innocent? Nineteen photos revealed the next day. Hijackers. Muslims. Commanded by a madman hiding in a cave. Or so we were made to believe.
Welcome to the world of …
You may or may not have swallowed the "official story." Some of us were alert enough to shake our heads and say, "Those buildings came down much too fast." Others blocked the disaster from their minds, living life as they thought they had known it. But the scenery had changed. The buzzwords were born. "Nine Eleven! September Eleven! September Eleventh!" Everywhere you went, they were jabbered.
Our consciousness had been altered
What if it wasn't an accident?
What if it wasn't beyond our control?
What if it was all planned?
I doubt anything is ordered enough after a collapse of a building to be airtight. Take a piece of coal, set it out into trhe open and light it. does it get very hot. Yes. Take another piece of coal and put it in a confined space with a small airway and light it. It will burn hotter because of the concentration of air. Air does not just feed fire. Fire sucks air frome wjerever it can get it.
Ted Olson's Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials
by David Ray Griffin
Global Research, April 1, 2008
David Ray Griffin
Late in the day on 9/11, CNN put out a story that began: “Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN.” According to this story, Olson reported that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77,” saying that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters.”2
Ted Olson’s report was very important. It provided the only evidence that American 77, which was said to have struck the Pentagon, had still been aloft after it had disappeared from FAA radar around 9:00 AM (there had been reports, after this disappearance, that an airliner had crashed on the Ohio-Kentucky border). Also, Barbara Olson had been a very well-known commentator on CNN. The report that she died in a plane that had been hijacked by Arab Muslims was an important factor in getting the nation’s support for the Bush administration’s “war on terror.” Ted Olson’s report was important in still another way, being the sole source of the widely accepted idea that the hijackers had box cutters.3
However, although Ted Olson’s report of phone calls from his wife has been a central pillar of the official account of 9/11, this report has been completely undermined.
Olson’s Self-Contradictions
Olson began this process of undermining by means of self-contradictions. He first told CNN, as we have seen, that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone.” But he contradicted this claim on September 14, telling Hannity and Colmes that she had reached him by calling the Department of Justice collect. Therefore, she must have been using the “airplane phone,” he surmised, because “she somehow didn’t have access to her credit cards.”4 However, this version of Olson’s story, besides contradicting his first version, was even self-contradictory, because a credit card is needed to activate a passenger-seat phone.
Later that same day, moreover, Olson told Larry King Live that the second call from his wife suddenly went dead because “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well.”5 After that return to his first version, he finally settled on the second version, saying that his wife had called collect and hence must have used “the phone in the passengers’ seats” because she did not have her purse.6
By finally settling on this story, Olson avoided a technological pitfall. Given the cell phone system employed in 2001, high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners were impossible, or at least virtually so (Olson’s statement that “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well” was a considerable understatement). The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004.7
However, Olson’s second story, besides being self-contradictory, was contradicted by American Airlines.
American Airlines Contradicts Olson’s Second Version
A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed that AA’s website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: “That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”8
In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might reply that Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario is rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed in 2001, it has also been contradicted by the FBI.
Olson’s Story Contradicted by the FBI
The most serious official contradiction of Ted Olson’s story came in 2006 at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. The evidence presented to this trial by the FBI included a report on phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. In its report on American Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted “0 seconds.”9 According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone.
Back on 9/11, the FBI itself had interviewed Olson. A report of that interview indicates that Olson told the FBI agents that his wife had called him twice from Flight 77.10 And yet the FBI’s report on calls from Flight 77, presented in 2006, indicated that no such calls occurred.
This was an amazing development: The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and yet its report undermined the well-publicized claim of the DOJ’s former solicitor general that he had received two calls from his wife on 9/11.
Olson’s Story Also Rejected by Pentagon Historians
Ted Olson’s story has also been quietly rejected by the historians who wrote Pentagon 9/11, a treatment of the Pentagon attack put out by the Department of Defense.11
According to Olson, his wife had said that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers.”12 This is an inherently implausible scenario. We are supposed to believe that 60-some people, including the two pilots, were held at bay by three or four men (one or two of the hijackers would have been in the cockpit) with knives and boxcutters. This scenario becomes even more absurd when we realize that the alleged hijackers were all small, unathletic men (the 9/11 Commission pointed out that even “[t]he so-called muscle hijackers actually were not physically imposing, as the majority of them were between 5’5” and 5’7” in height and slender in build”13), and that the pilot, Charles “Chic” Burlingame, was a weightlifter and a boxer, who was described as “really tough” by one of his erstwhile opponents.14 Also, the idea that Burlingame would have turned over the plane to hijackers was rejected by his brother, who said: “I don't know what happened in that cockpit, but I'm sure that they would have had to incapacitate him or kill him because he would have done anything to prevent the kind of tragedy that befell that airplane.”15
The Pentagon historians, in any case, did not accept the Olson story, according to which Burlingame and his co-pilot did give up their plane and were in the back with the passengers and other crew members. They instead wrote that “the attackers either incapacitated or murdered the two pilots.”16
Conclusion
This rejection of Ted Olson’s story by American Airlines, the Pentagon, and especially the FBI is a development of utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson, there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington. Also, if Ted Olson’s claim was false, then there are only two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife.17 In either case, the official story about the calls from Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should we not suspect that other parts were as well?
The fact that Ted Olson’s report has been contradicted by other defenders of the official story about 9/11 provides grounds for demanding a new investigation of 9/11. This internal contradiction is, moreover, only one of 25 such contradictions discussed in my most recent book, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press.
by David Ray Griffin
David Ray Griffin
Late in the day on 9/11, CNN put out a story that began: “Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN.” According to this story, Olson reported that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77,” saying that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters.”2
Ted Olson’s report was very important. It provided the only evidence that American 77, which was said to have struck the Pentagon, had still been aloft after it had disappeared from FAA radar around 9:00 AM (there had been reports, after this disappearance, that an airliner had crashed on the Ohio-Kentucky border). Also, Barbara Olson had been a very well-known commentator on CNN. The report that she died in a plane that had been hijacked by Arab Muslims was an important factor in getting the nation’s support for the Bush administration’s “war on terror.” Ted Olson’s report was important in still another way, being the sole source of the widely accepted idea that the hijackers had box cutters.3
However, although Ted Olson’s report of phone calls from his wife has been a central pillar of the official account of 9/11, this report has been completely undermined.
Olson’s Self-Contradictions
Olson began this process of undermining by means of self-contradictions. He first told CNN, as we have seen, that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone.” But he contradicted this claim on September 14, telling Hannity and Colmes that she had reached him by calling the Department of Justice collect. Therefore, she must have been using the “airplane phone,” he surmised, because “she somehow didn’t have access to her credit cards.”4 However, this version of Olson’s story, besides contradicting his first version, was even self-contradictory, because a credit card is needed to activate a passenger-seat phone.
Later that same day, moreover, Olson told Larry King Live that the second call from his wife suddenly went dead because “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well.”5 After that return to his first version, he finally settled on the second version, saying that his wife had called collect and hence must have used “the phone in the passengers’ seats” because she did not have her purse.6
By finally settling on this story, Olson avoided a technological pitfall. Given the cell phone system employed in 2001, high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners were impossible, or at least virtually so (Olson’s statement that “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well” was a considerable understatement). The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004.7
However, Olson’s second story, besides being self-contradictory, was contradicted by American Airlines.
American Airlines Contradicts Olson’s Second Version
A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed that AA’s website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: “That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”8
In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might reply that Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario is rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed in 2001, it has also been contradicted by the FBI.
Olson’s Story Contradicted by the FBI
The most serious official contradiction of Ted Olson’s story came in 2006 at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. The evidence presented to this trial by the FBI included a report on phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. In its report on American Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted “0 seconds.”9 According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone.
Back on 9/11, the FBI itself had interviewed Olson. A report of that interview indicates that Olson told the FBI agents that his wife had called him twice from Flight 77.10 And yet the FBI’s report on calls from Flight 77, presented in 2006, indicated that no such calls occurred.
This was an amazing development: The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and yet its report undermined the well-publicized claim of the DOJ’s former solicitor general that he had received two calls from his wife on 9/11.
Olson’s Story Also Rejected by Pentagon Historians
Ted Olson’s story has also been quietly rejected by the historians who wrote Pentagon 9/11, a treatment of the Pentagon attack put out by the Department of Defense.11
According to Olson, his wife had said that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers.”12 This is an inherently implausible scenario. We are supposed to believe that 60-some people, including the two pilots, were held at bay by three or four men (one or two of the hijackers would have been in the cockpit) with knives and boxcutters. This scenario becomes even more absurd when we realize that the alleged hijackers were all small, unathletic men (the 9/11 Commission pointed out that even “[t]he so-called muscle hijackers actually were not physically imposing, as the majority of them were between 5’5” and 5’7” in height and slender in build”13), and that the pilot, Charles “Chic” Burlingame, was a weightlifter and a boxer, who was described as “really tough” by one of his erstwhile opponents.14 Also, the idea that Burlingame would have turned over the plane to hijackers was rejected by his brother, who said: “I don't know what happened in that cockpit, but I'm sure that they would have had to incapacitate him or kill him because he would have done anything to prevent the kind of tragedy that befell that airplane.”15
The Pentagon historians, in any case, did not accept the Olson story, according to which Burlingame and his co-pilot did give up their plane and were in the back with the passengers and other crew members. They instead wrote that “the attackers either incapacitated or murdered the two pilots.”16
Conclusion
This rejection of Ted Olson’s story by American Airlines, the Pentagon, and especially the FBI is a development of utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson, there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington. Also, if Ted Olson’s claim was false, then there are only two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife.17 In either case, the official story about the calls from Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should we not suspect that other parts were as well?
The fact that Ted Olson’s report has been contradicted by other defenders of the official story about 9/11 provides grounds for demanding a new investigation of 9/11. This internal contradiction is, moreover, only one of 25 such contradictions discussed in my most recent book, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press.
The 47 story World Trade Center Building 7, also known as the Solomon Brother's Building, collapsed in 6.5 seconds (almost freefall speed) on the afternoon of September 11 at 5:25pm.
This footage has not been seen on television since the initial broadcasts for one obvious reason - it looks a lot like controlled demolition.
Note that the Penthouse drops a fraction of a second before the rest of the building, and there is a 'kink' or wedge shaped fault in the roofline as the building falls straight down into its own footprint.
This indicates that the inner columns failed first. In controlled demolition, the inner/middle columns of a building are cut before the outer so that the structure falls inward rather than outward.
Somehow, the BBC reported that WTC7 had collapsed approximately 20 minutes before it actually did. BBC's Jane Stanley reports the collapse, yet WTC7 can be seen standing over her left shoulder.
The 'official' explanation of the collapse is fire. Prior to September 11 2001, no high-rise steel structure had collapsed due to fire, nor have any since.
The following is a quote from Chapter 5, page 31 of the 2002 FEMA report on the WTC:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."
To this day the issue is still yet to be resolved. FEMA did not consider explosives in its analysis of the WTC7 collapse.
[SIZE=+2]What Caused Building 7's Collapse?
Building 7 was 5 times as tall as deep.
To bring this building down into its footprint required that all 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns be destroyed simultaneously.
Any asymmetry in damage would cause asymmetric collapse:
the building would topple.
No combination of rubble impact damage, fires, or fuel tank explosions could have destroyed all columns simultaneously, as required to cause a vertical collapse.
Only controlled demolitions have achieved vertical collapses of upright steel structures.
what is the differance to this and the empire state building
Not only did Building 7 fall as if shattered by controlled demolition; it emitted smoke like other buildings being demolished.
The dusty smoke emerged across the north facade, in areas not affected by fire.
Some pieces of steel showed rapid oxidation, intergranular melting, and sulfur residues.
[/SIZE][/SIZE]
This footage has not been seen on television since the initial broadcasts for one obvious reason - it looks a lot like controlled demolition.
Note that the Penthouse drops a fraction of a second before the rest of the building, and there is a 'kink' or wedge shaped fault in the roofline as the building falls straight down into its own footprint.
This indicates that the inner columns failed first. In controlled demolition, the inner/middle columns of a building are cut before the outer so that the structure falls inward rather than outward.
Somehow, the BBC reported that WTC7 had collapsed approximately 20 minutes before it actually did. BBC's Jane Stanley reports the collapse, yet WTC7 can be seen standing over her left shoulder.
The 'official' explanation of the collapse is fire. Prior to September 11 2001, no high-rise steel structure had collapsed due to fire, nor have any since.
The following is a quote from Chapter 5, page 31 of the 2002 FEMA report on the WTC:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."
To this day the issue is still yet to be resolved. FEMA did not consider explosives in its analysis of the WTC7 collapse.
[SIZE=+2]What Caused Building 7's Collapse?
To bring this building down into its footprint required that all 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns be destroyed simultaneously.
Any asymmetry in damage would cause asymmetric collapse:
the building would topple.
No combination of rubble impact damage, fires, or fuel tank explosions could have destroyed all columns simultaneously, as required to cause a vertical collapse.
Only controlled demolitions have achieved vertical collapses of upright steel structures.
what is the differance to this and the empire state building
[SIZE=+2]Evidence of Explosives
The dusty smoke emerged across the north facade, in areas not affected by fire.
Some pieces of steel showed rapid oxidation, intergranular melting, and sulfur residues.
[/SIZE][/SIZE]
Ive just taken a snapshot of this video
The 9/11 Truth Movement pushes common sense
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vJAxLpK9IE4
Not very clear i admit, but as you can see at the bottom near the CNN symbol is a definite squib, how many floors below is that squib 20-25-40 you tell me if pressure buildup is forcing air to pop the windows out, why is this so far down from the collapsing building....????
check it out on the video provided it ain't no window popping its an explosion ....FACT...
A closer shot with arrow
Last edited:
[SIZE=-1]Halfway through Building 7's 6.5-second plunge, [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]streamers suggestive of demolition charges emerged from the facade.[/SIZE]
Building 7 was the third skyscraper to be reduced to rubble on September 11, 2001. According to the government, fires, primarily, leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper.
The team that investigated the collapse were kept away from the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report in May, 2002, the evidence had been destroyed.
Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent?
http://wtc7.net/
It looked like it to me asshat. Airplanes can't destroy skyscrapers by flying into them, it's the physics asshat.
i watched both not very good similarities there cnd bear your still in denial m8 explain the squib in my pic if you can ....????
http://wtc7.net/collapsecause.html
http://wtc7.net/demolition.html
Not very good similarities?
Ya that's the point. A controlled demolition, looks completely different!!!
So of course your fantasy 'squibs' don't look anything like what really happens when a building is taken down by a controlled blast.
I have a question for you...what's a 'squib'?
Not very good similarities?Ya that's the point. A controlled demolition, looks completely different!!!
So of course your fantasy 'squibs' don't look anything like what really happens when a building is taken down by a controlled blast.
I have a question for you...what's a 'squib'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squib_(explosive)
911 WTC Basement Explosions video and photographic proof
Video showing Basement damage from explosives with eye witness testimony. From the documentary "9/11 Mysteries".
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zuq0ANHxvlM
Hundreds of professional engineers and architects, working independently of the government, have made statements and produced original research on the use of explosives and controlled demolition in the WTC on 9/11.
For Example:
William Rice, BS CE, MS CE, PE -- Licensed Professional Engineer, State of Vermont. He worked on structural steel and concrete buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia for two of the nation's largest building construction companies; the Austin Company and the George A. Fuller Construction Company. Former Professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses for over 20 years. * Essay Vermont Guardian 3/1/07: "Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11. ... The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton's Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases. Even if Newton's Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didn't exist. Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and "debunks" the message rather than provide investigative reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days for the president's 9/11 Commission to start an "investigation" into a tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commission's investigation also didn't include the possibility of controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the "unusual and unprecedented" manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed. http://www.vermontguardian.com
I answered yours you answer mine cndbear what is the puff of smoke (squib) here in the picture....??????
i use the word squib as this is what evey one uses to describe these, so i use it too, as i would expect you to understand this meaning of the word SQUIB...????
- Status