Trying to resolve 9/11

originally posted by: tulsi
bldg. 7 which received nonplane hologram,

still collapsed into its own footprint just llike WTC 1&2 which did get the holo treatment

what are the odds 3 would just collapse the same way as 1 + 2 did without any impact!

the odds are controlled demo!

Without any impact?

Bizarre how many egspurt reesurchurs don't have a clue about building 7

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: tulsi
bldg. 7 which received nonplane hologram,

still collapsed into its own footprint just llike WTC 1&2 which did get the holo treatment

what are the odds 3 would just collapse the same way as 1 + 2 did without any impact!

the odds are controlled demo!

Without any impact?

Bizarre how many egspurt reesurchurs don't have a clue about building 7

And the answer to "what happened to building 7 makes the 'own footprint' claim look pretty ridiculous too

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Trucker1
And then of course the news lady mentioning a fallen building that hadn't even fallen yet

Now that's a mouthful!


Looking back, would not be surprised if reporting 10-20 mins early was also part of the script cause that's how ruthless MSM in cohorts with NWO are.

a reply to: letni


WTC 7 was exhibiting signs it would fail, and a wall started to bulge. The area was cleared around WTC 7 in the fear it would succumb to the damage from the towers’ collapse, and fire related thermal stresses.

7 World Trade Center

en.m.wikipedia.org...

At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[36] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[37] Around 3:30 pm, FDNY Chief Daniel A. Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.

www.911myths.com...

Fire chief Daniel Nigro says further assessment of the damage indicated that it was severe:

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.
www.cooperativeresearch.org...

www.911myths.com...

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
www.firehouse.com...

Lets see? Someone told the reporter about a whole CD system that was impossibly installed in WTC 7 floor by floor unnoticed? A CD system that impossibly survived WTC 7 being hit by the debris, and wide spread fires? A CD system that actuated with no physical, video, audio, visual, seismic evidence?

Or the reality a reporter was confused by reports of WTC 7 failing structurally, the area was cleared, and jumped the gun to be the first to report a perceived event?

originally posted by: letni

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Trucker1
And then of course the news lady mentioning a fallen building that hadn't even fallen yet

Looking back, would not be surprised if reporting 10-20 mins early was also part of the script cause there's no way a reporter would report the collapse of a burning 47 storey building without a script

originally posted by: letni

2. How did Building 7 also collapse just like WTC 1+2 without a plane supposedly flying into it, too?

I wonder if being hit by a collapsing skyscraper and then burning uncontrolled for seven hours might have had something to do with it

With these Q codes coming out it has got me thinking about one aspect of 9/11 in a new light. The day before $2.3 Trillion was announced as missing, a lot of people have scratched their heads on this one. Why was the value 2.3? None of the black war economy makes sense and they could of picked any number.

2.3 Trillion => 2.3 3

Invert the numbers

322



Just one of those things I am putting out there in trying to resolve this issue.

There a backstory that shows 9/11 was a conspiracy.

We have the names of people who provided money and logistical support for 9/11. In discussions this often overlooked

All these people avoided criminal charges.

Prince Bandar ( US- Saudi Ambassor)
Prince Turki al-Faisal.
Osama Bassnan ( Saudi Spy) met 9/11 hijackers in Los Angeles
Prince al-Waleed bin Talal
Zacarias MousShayk
Fahad al-Thumairy ( Saudi consular official)
Saleh al-Hussayen ( Saudi official meeting with the 9/11 hijackers the day before Sep 11th
Omar al-Bayoumi ( a Saudi spy) regular contact meetings with the 9/11 hijackers

Pakistan government official.
General Mahmud Ahmed HI, Director-General of the Inter-Services Intelligence. He wired 100,000 dollars to Mohammed Atta bank accounts, weeks before 9/11. Atta was the alleged Ringleader of Al Qaeda attacks against America.


Two high ranking Al Qaeda members who got all details about the Saudi Arabia government Involvement with 9/11
Abu Zubaydah ( locked up in US government secured cell indefinite)
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ( Locked up in US government cell indefinite) He is on record saying he never worked for Bin Laden. US intelligence claimed he was the mastermind of 9/11. If Khalid did not work for Bin laden who did he work for?

CIA connection. At very least had foreknowledge of the attacks and did everything to stop law enforcement agencies discovering the plot.
Tom Wilshere wikispooks.com...
George Tenet en.wikipedia.org...
Cofer Black en.wikipedia.org...

They're likely more people under the radar. Rumsfield a candidate, he knew.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

What does any of that have to do with there being zero evidence of planted pyrotechnics bringing down the WTC.

Hard to say NIST is lying when they right out state this is their most educated guess.

So, by all means. State what conspiracy fantasy you most favor over fire related collapse. Then cite actual supporting evidence.

Not my business to find how they accomplished this demolition at WTC7.

Fire related collapse is not the most probable cause. Fires have never collapsed a steel beam building . It least likely cause when there no precedent or history for it. NIST failure to adequately explain the failure on 9/11, you can't then ignore the alternative, some people brought down the building down by controlled demolition.

There visual evidence observable evidence the building was not brought down by fire. Freefall is the biggest clue the columns were taken out by explosives.

Still waiting for that example of a building with a similar construction which suffered similar damage and DIDN'T collapse.

Any time you're ready

If you haven't got any examples to compare it to then how can you possibly make a comparison?

originally posted by: kwakakev
With these Q codes coming out it has got me thinking about one aspect of 9/11 in a new light. The day before $2.3 Trillion was announced as missing, a lot of people have scratched their heads on this one. Why was the value 2.3? None of the black war economy makes sense and they could of picked any number.

2.3 Trillion => 2.3 3

Invert the numbers

322

Just one of those things I am putting out there in trying to resolve this issue.

FYI, the $2.3 trillion was known to be missing before Bush was elected.

They did not discover it was missing on September 10, they held hearings on that day, and deposed Rumsfeld and a secretary among others.

We know that because Congress takes a long time to move, to accomplish anything.

In order for the auditors to be organized and tasked with the audit, months of planning was involved, meaning the knowledge of the missing funds was gained many months before.

Point being that it was not Bush's fault that the funds were missing. Dov Zakheim first went to work in DoD when Reagan was in office. That's how long the heist has been going on, or even longer.

a reply to: Salander

Hey salander, let’s hear how you think the crew and passengers of flight 77 ended up dead at the pentagon?

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

With my current understanding of the explosives used, they where a high grade military product designed to fit the unique specifications of the job. Cost wise was at least 2-3x usual explosive costs, maybe even as much as 10x with all the logistics added. I do not know, but do suspect that a wireless detonation method was used. A wireless method of detonation can accommodate more easier with part of the demolition sequence taken out by a plane.

If it was a wired system of detonation then part of collapse sequence could of been disrupted from the airplane strike. When looking closely at the top section... disintegrate? It looks like it all went to plan with all the unaffected charges doing what they where made to do.

Wow are we all still trying to resolve 9/11? Man, some things never change!

I don't go for the traditional Controlled Demolition that you speak of here. (As well I think Thermite is a red herring.)

I think you are correct to question the Official Story but incorrect in that you do not question explosives.

IMO the others are correct it wasn't a Controlled Demolition (In the Traditional sense.) Meaning no wired or even wireless detonator explosives being systematically placed throughout the towers. There are many problems with this angle.

Namely exposure risk, logistics, telltale evidence in the rubble etc.

As well regular CD work is usually done on regular buildings, reinforced concrete largely, who knows how you'd have to wire up WTC 1 & 2 being mostly steel? To be assured of complete success that is. You're not going to try to pull this all off if you're not absolutely sure of a successful outcome. I liken it to the board game Risk. You want to take over Brazil say, so you pile up the armies, you want a cakewalk scenario, to waltz right in unopposed. 9/11 was a Cakewalk.

Plus, as is repeatedly noted, there isn't any evidence!

I like though, your looting angle, perhaps requiring the odd covert blast here and there. I myself don't discount the use of charges and explosives on 9/11, nor even the use of thermite, I just think that though those things may have been present they are not what brought the towers down in the main.

It sure would be cool not to use explosives but 18 years later people still think you did. That's Brilliant.

I don't know about Gage or anyone in the so called truth community.

If there's a period of free fall I can live with that. The 3 months under the pile heat/burning, ok. That a good size chunk found itself in a building across a street, ya it's real evidence. Whatever the first responders are dealing with medically, we got that.

It seems to me there are simple 1 to 1 things that need questioning.

Like it seems the buildings blew up - Explosives!
It seems the fire was hot and hard to put out - Thermite!
It looks like first responders are falling disproportionately ill - Asbestos!

It's like there's an answer for everything! But are they correct? Who the hell knows?!

a reply to: NWOwned

So what points of the presentation by Richard Gage do you disagree with and what evidence do you have to support these conclusions?

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: NWOwned

So what points of the presentation by Richard Gage do you disagree with and what evidence do you have to support these conclusions?

This has been covered repeatedly in this thread. Why don’t you go through this thread, and quote the cited arguments in this thread Richard Gauge is wrong, and then provide a counter argument.

David Icke - "The Trigger" Book Launch Live From Derby


Well Done David Icke.

He has done his homework, makes a lot of common sense and asks some good questions. I do agree with his perspective of events.

a reply to: kwakakev

Does the individual support controlled demolition when there is zero evidence pyrotechnics brought down the WTC?

a reply to: neutronflux

No.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

No.

So, has your view on controlled demolition / thermite at the WTC changed? Why, or why not?

a reply to: neutronflux

No my view is the same. It is just the logical response to your question. If there was no evidence for controlled demolition then David Icke would not support it. If you choose to be blind to the facts that is your problem.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

No my view is the same. It is just the logical response to your question. If there was no evidence for controlled demolition then David Icke would not support it. If you choose to be blind to the facts that is your problem.

I think we have debated the facts in this thread. What “facts” am I blind to?

For WTC 7....

As far as supposed CD on the the exterior columns. The video evidence contains no sparking and flashing visible at the windows. No visible action from a shockwave with the force to cut steel columns. For cutting charges, no visible breaching/melting of the façade.

Then you have to get past wiring and detonation systems surviving hours of fires.

Then there is a certain expected sound level indicative of an explosive with the force to cut steel columns. Because the explosive has to be strong enough to create a shockwave with the pressure to cut steel columns.

Also. No evidence of “glowing” metal from the visible columns of the WTC 7 pile.

Then AE truth claimed the fires were no hotter than normal office fires? Is that false? I guess that rules out floor to floor, column to column thermite fueled fires that burn at 3000 Fahrenheit?

What do you not get there is zero evidence of CD