"Paper Fires" Brought The Buildings Down !

a reply to: Salander

Virtually all the facts and evidence show it was an inside job.

That is false because countries around the world issued warnings to the United States that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were in the stages of carrying out their terrorist attack on the United States by using hijacked airliners as weapons.

Bin Laden Admits 9/11 Responsibility, Warns of More Attacks

A tape aired by Al-Jazeera television Friday showed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden admitting for the first time that he orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and saying the United States could face more.

www.foxnews.com...


Al-Qaeda released martyr videos for most of the 9/11 hijackers

The Al Jazeera satellite network shows an hour-long video about al-Qaeda containing footage given to it from al-Qaeda of some of the 9/11 hijackers, including a martyr video from hijacker Abdulaziz Alomari (see September 9, 2002 and September 9, 2002).

9/11 Hijackers


WARNINGS THAT THE DANGER WOULD COME FROM THE AIR

BRITAIN, WARNING #1: Al-Qaeda is planning to use aircraft in "unconventional ways", "possibly as flying bombs"

the British intelligence agency, gives a secret report to liaison staff at the US embassy in London. The reports states that al-Qaeda has plans to use "commercial aircraft" in "unconventional ways", "possibly as flying bombs." [Sunday Times, 6/9/02]

BRITAIN, WARNING #3: An Al-Qaeda attack will involve multiple hijackings

Early August 2001 ©: Britain gives the US another warning about an al-Qaeda attack. The previous British warning (see July 16, 2001) was vague as to method, but this warning specifies multiple airplane hijackings. This warning is included in Bush's briefing on August 6. [Sunday Herald, 5/19/02]

CAYMAN ISLANDS, WARNING #2: Three al-Qaeda agents are part of a plot "organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines"

August 29, 2001: Three men from either Pakistan or Afghanistan living in the Cayman Islands are briefly arrested in June 2001 for discussing hijacking attacks in New York City (see June 4, 2001). On this day, a Cayman Islands radio station receives an unsigned letter claiming these same three men are agents of bin Laden. The anonymous author warns that they "are organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines." The letter is forwarded to a Cayman government official but no action is taken until after 9/11 and it isn't known when the US is informed. Many criminals and/or businesses use the Cayman Islands as a safe, no tax, no questions asked haven to keep their money. The author of the letter meets with the FBI shortly after 9/11, and claims his information was a "premonition of sorts." The three men are later arrested. Its unclear what has happened to them since their arrest. [Miami Herald, 9/20/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01, MSNBC, 9/23/01] FTW

EGYPT, WARNING #1: An undercover agent learns 20 al-Qaeda agents are in the US, four have received flight training

Late July 2001 (D): CBS later has a brief mention in a long story on another topic: "Just days after Atta return[s] to the US from Spain, Egyptian intelligence in Cairo says it received a report from one of its operatives in Afghanistan that 20 al-Qaeda members had slipped into the US and four of them had received flight training on Cessnas. To the Egyptians, pilots of small planes didn't sound terribly alarming, but they [pass] on the message to the CIA anyway, fully expecting Washington to request information. The request never [comes]." [CBS, 10/9/02] This appears to be one of several accurate Egyptian warnings based on informants (see June 13, 2001 and August 30, 2001). Could Egypt have known the names of some or all of the hijackers? Given FBI agent Ken Williams' memo about flight schools a short time before (see July 10, 2001), shouldn't the US have investigated this closely instead of completely ignoring it?

GERMANY: Terrorists will use airplanes as weapons to attack "American and Israeli symbols"

June 2001: German intelligence warns the CIA, Britain's MI6, and Israel's Mossad that Middle Eastern terrorists are planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack "American and Israeli symbols, which stand out." A later article quotes unnamed German intelligence sources who state the information was coming from Echelon surveillance technology, and that British intelligence had access to the same warnings. However, there were other informational sources, including specific information and hints given to, but not reported by, Western and Near Eastern news media six months before 9/11. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/14/01, Fox News, 5/17/02] FTW

ITALY: Muslims warn of an attack on the US and Britain using hijacked airplanes as weapons

September 7, 2001: Father Jean-Marie Benjamin is told at a wedding in Todi, Italy of a plot to attack the US and Britain using hijacked airplanes as weapons. He isn't told time or place specifics. He immediately passes what he knows to a judge and several politicians. He states: "Although I am friendly with many Muslims, I wondered why they were telling me, specifically. I felt it my duty to inform the Italian government." Benjamin has been called "one of the West's most knowledgeable experts on the Muslim world." Two days after 9/11, he meets with the Italian Foreign Minister on this topic. He says he learned the attack on Britain failed at the last minute. [Zenit, 9/16/01] He has not revealed who told him this information, but could it have been a member of the al-Qaeda cell in Milan (see August 12, 2000 and January 24, 2001), which appears to have helped with the 9/11 attacks?

JORDAN: A major attack using aircraft is planned inside the US

Late summer 2001: Jordanian intelligence (the GID) makes a communications intercept deemed so important that King Abdullah's men relay it to Washington, probably through the CIA station in Amman. To make doubly sure the message gets through it is passed through an Arab intermediary to a German intelligence agent. The message states that a major attack, code named The Big Wedding, is planned inside the US and that aircraft will be used. "When it became clear that the information was embarrassing to Bush Administration officials and congressmen who at first denied that there had been any such warnings before September 11, senior Jordanian officials backed away from their earlier confirmations." Christian Science Monitor calls the story "confidently authenticated" even though Jordan has backed away from it. [International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/02] FTW

RUSSIA: Russian intelligence clearly warns the US several times that 25 or so terrorists, including suicide pilots, will attack the US, targeting "important buildings like the Pentagon"

Nothing about a false flag in those warnings issued to the United States.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FamCore

No, I think that would be an incredible waste of taxpayer money.

So instead this happened, and it wasted more than taxpayers money it wasted thousands of lives both soldiers and civilians.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I don't see what that has to do with this being an incredible waste of tax payer money:

Wouldn't it be cool if the next president we elected took a stand and conducted a large-scale investigation of this and the bogus 9/11 commission report?

It certainly doesn't change the fact that such an undertaking would still be an incredible waste of tax money or anything.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

DOD wasting trillions responding to a false flag operation is a bigger waste of money, but I take it your ok with that money being spent?

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Krazysh0t

DOD wasting trillions responding to a false flag operation is a bigger waste of money, but I take it your ok with that money being spent?

Well I don't think 9/11 was a false flag. So there you go.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Because [an investigation] was done once already and nothing has surfaced to overturn those results. We may not know EXACTLY everything that went on that day, but we are sure we have a pretty good idea.

Nothing has surfaced to overturn the results of the official investigation? That's news to me. Enough people have come forward over the years with information and experiments that raise serious questions in regards to the "official report". Yet the mainstream dismiss and scoff at them for no other reason besides the fact that are challenging the official story. Those who claim to be stewards of science, bury their heads in the sand and simply kowtow to the official narrative instead of following the scientific method.

The official investigation has so many oddities within it that it is legitimately a farce.

Let's take a look at some of the NIST findings for WTC7, shall we?
(The section on WTC7 begins at 1hrs 26mins and concludes at 1hrs 37mins - in case the timestamped link did not work properly.)


Keep in mind that this is 10mins of presentation, taken from a 5hrs video (of a 4 day event). Watch the video, there are so many anomalies, inconsistencies and errors in the "official investigation" that it's not funny. This doesn't even touch on any of the whacky conspiracy stuff, it doesn't have to get into any of that. It just looks at a building that collapsed, and the explanation given for that collapse - and that explanation fails horribly.

At the very least it warrants more investigation. Anybody denying so has ulterior motives.

a reply to: Fut004

Yea yea, I've heard all of this flimsy evidence before. It still doesn't overturn physics and rationality. I'll pass.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Fut004

Yea yea, I've heard all of this flimsy evidence before. It still doesn't overturn physics and rationality. I'll pass.

That's what I thought.

originally posted by: Fut004
Those who claim to be stewards of science, bury their heads in the sand and simply kowtow to the official narrative instead of following the scientific method.

Guess we know where you stand, Krazysh0t.

a reply to: Fut004

I guess we do. You win all the Internets today. Proud of yourself? OR maybe I just don't feel like rehashing arguments I've already reviewed and had with other people, but nah when ONE guy calls me to analyze HIS evidence, I have to drop everything to refute or discuss it. Otherwise I'm not following the scientific method.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Fut004
OR maybe I just don't feel like rehashing arguments I've already reviewed and had with other people...

Alright, fair enough.
Can you kindly point me in the direction of the thread where you've discussed the NIST report for WTC7? I'd love to read through it to see how you've provided further proof to support NIST's findings and/or further proof to refute claims that the NIST report was bogus.

Thanks.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Lazarus Short
Now, let's review this video because 175 pounds of thermite failed to burn through a steel beam.

Jonathan Cole, a professional Civil Engineer, took the time to experiment with thermitic materials and recreations of the steel beams that comprised the structure of the WTC Towers. He even comments directly on the NatGeo experiments.
You may find his experiments quite interesting, although I'm sure you'll just dismiss it as crackpottery without even watching it.

(In case the time-stamped Youtube link did not work correctly, Jon Cole's presentation begins at 3hrs 27mins, he begins to discuss the validity of thermitic materials at 3hrs 37mins, and he concludes at 3 hrs 50mins.)

paper fires - nope.

luckily for everyone this guy (video below) totally nailed it, from his street-level viewpoint, within minutes! his handler let it run, so the boy did good

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Fut004

Yea yea, I've heard all of this flimsy evidence before. It still doesn't overturn physics and rationality. I'll pass.

Physics and science do not support the official story. Except for those 3 buidings that day, there has never been an example of a modern steel building collapsing at virtual free fall speeds from fire. Never. And that is because fire codes and science have taught us how to build them properly. It is absurd to suggest that fires on 8 of the upper floors would cause the entire building to collapse at almost free fall speeds, yet that's what you've been told and that's what you believe. Many americans are scientifically illiterate, and with all due respect, you appear to be one of them.

a reply to: Salander

there has never been an example of a modern steel building collapsing at virtual free fall speeds from fire. Never.

You forgot to mention the really really big jets hitting the buildings.

That's like saying there has never been a passenger ship sink because the rivits were sub standard and therefore the Titanic was a conspiracy. Never mentioning the iceberg.

We sure can be glad that skyscraper in Dubai didn't have any papers in it.
Phew! That would have been a messy one

originally posted by: Salander
Except for those 3 buidings that day, there has never been an example of a modern steel building collapsing at virtual free fall speeds from fire.

As WTC 1 & 2 did not fall at "near free fall speed" as you can easily see by just watching a video of their collapse, why do you claim that they did?

Many americans are scientifically illiterate

That would be you actually, claiming WTC 1 & 2 fell at near free fall speed!

a reply to: hellobruce

We really should get rid of the phrase "falling at free fall speeds".
Might I suggest we replace it with something like "the tops of the building accelerated toward the ground much much faster than they went up when they were built"?

a reply to: hellobruce

Just out of curiosity, from your own calculations, how much seconds would WTC buildings 1 & 2 need to take to collapse to be considered as "free fall speed"?

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Just a side note, debunkers like to play with semantics, the correct term would be "free-fall acceleration" in which case the buildings did fall at near "free-fall acceleration" not "free-fall speed" which is the max velocity reached.

originally posted by: TXRabbit
We sure can be glad that skyscraper in Dubai didn't have any papers in it.
Phew! That would have been a messy one

Umm, toilet paper? I suppose it was not ignited, or the building would have ended up as a smoking debris pile.

originally posted by: Flatcoat
in which case the buildings did fall at near "free-fall acceleration"

Still wrong, have you even bothered to watch a video of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2?

As if you had you would not make such a silly claim!