Retired USAF pilot Col. Guy S. Razer says 9/11 was 'inside job' perpetrated by US government

reply to post by GhostLancer

1. September 10th, 2001, SECDEF Rumsfeld announces that 2.3 trillion dollars is unaccounted-for in defense (Pentago) spending.

And again, the falsehood of 2.3 trillion dollars missing from the Pentagon piggy bank rears its head. Tis amazing that some people STILL hang onto this.

PBS Newshour Feb 12, 2001 (long ways from Sept 10)

The inspector general of the Pentagon said there are 2.3 trillion dollars in items that they can't quite account for.

www.pbs.org...

Rumsfeld's actual words on Sept 10.....

According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.

Finally, the most accurate description of the problem..

In fiscal 1999, a defense audit found that about $2.3 trillion of balances, transactions and adjustments were inadequately documented. These "unsupported" transactions do not mean the department ultimately cannot account for them, she advised, but that tracking down needed documents would take a long time. Auditors, she said, might have to go to different computer systems, to different locations or access different databases to get information.

By the way the above paragraph is from an April 2002 news story......which destroys the "Rumsfeld announced it on the 10th and Flight 77 destroyed the records on the 11th, and no one remembered it on the 12th" crap that comes from the "truth" movement.

And one more...Senator Robert Byrd during Rumsfeld's confirmation hearings Jan 11, 2001....

That audit report found that out of $7.6 trillion in department-level accounting interest, 2.3 trillion in entries either did not contain adequate documentation or were improperly reconciled or were made to force buyer and seller data to agree. This DoD-IG report is very disturbing....

reply to post by backinblack


Your post makes absolutely no sense, and Im not going to spend the time trying to figure out what post you mined for yours.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by backinblack

 

Your post makes absolutely no sense, and Im not going to spend the time trying to figure out what post you mined for yours.

Which means I posted things that you believers posted that don't suit your agenda..
Saying that the Pentagon was "bomb proof" doesn't fit your ideals, right??

So is that poster now on our side???
Or do you merely ignore their posts??

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by randyvs

 

You are wrong. It does not matter how thick the steel is. The heat excites the atoms in the steel. It does not need to melt. It does not matter how thick the steel is. You go on talking about something that you do not even know about. This is a stupid conversation to have. Learn about how heat affects the atomic structure of steel.

I started working on commercial buildings in 1982 as an ironworker. I think hang'in iron for almost 30yrs.
Connecting, bolting up, rigging and using a torch on this stuff everyday. Most likely even you can see how a person would just come to know what will and won't happen concerning a steel structure. Do you think the fire weakened those vertical columns all the way down? Do you understand that there were forty seven verticle columns running from the ground to the top floor? In each of the towers? Those same columns are a part of those buildings to prevent exactly what you see happen in the videos. Although you sure can't tell when you watch the demo. The columns are non existent as far as I can tell. Why? They were compromised is the only answer. You can't just randomly heat maybe a small percentage of those columns throughout a few floors and have the effect.

edit on 26-2-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

I know it is late and most of everybody is offline.(well most of us here Backnblack.lol). I just got off of work and I thought I would keep this long distance, long time thread a chuggin. I am currently on the NIST website and I am reading the investigation report. I personally do not find all of it that wrong and impossible. Here is a little explanation on the towers coming down. Since I always see people complaining about the report, I thought I would post a little here.

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
"… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.:

“…
wtc.nist.gov...


I am sorry but I do not see a problem with the explanation. It was designed to support only static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to downward momentum. I am not trying to be hasty or question your experience but as an iron worker you should know that engineers design buildings to certain load specifications and stress handling capabilities such as fatigue.

If the steel or structure encounters any stresses, sudden impact, or distortion caused by heat, outside of the design specifications, failure of the structure can(and did) happen. This is why there are design specifications, to try to prevent catastrophy on a mass scale. Obviously these design specifications were not good enough to withstand the sudden impact and withstand the heat stresses that were introduced into the structure.

Like I said, I am just pointing out that this story sounds legit for the reason the towers fell. I think that there is more to the whole story of 911 and why it happened.

I know it is late(early for some) and I have a few minutes to spare and I thought I would make this post.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Hemisphere

 

Riddle me this. Why are we not being told that fires can bring down these skyscrapers? If so, why are skyscrapers still being erected? It would seem the risk to human life is tremendous and only balanced against monetary gain

Are you involved with a firm that designs/constructs/owns skyscrapers? If you were, and were claiming that you didnt know fire could kill a building, then I would respectfully suggest that you change careers. The danger of fires in skyscrapers has been around ever since they started building tall buildings. Look up the quote from Herbert Levine (creater of spray on asbestos fire proofing) when he was told that they were going to stop using his (or one based on hiss) product while they were building the Towers.

Not in the least. No expertise. Just a rational question regarding what is now considered common knowledge. Planes can take down a skyscraper. I remember very clearly, years after 9/11 a failing airplane landing in the Hudson. Was I the only one that noticed? I think it was in all the papers.

Airplane crash-lands into Hudson River; all aboard reported safe

There it is! You had me going there. Simply evidence that with extremely tall buildings and three major airports the possibility exists for "stuff" to happen. The Hudson incident occurring years after 9/11 and I would expect that flight path pre-cautions and such were reviewed and other preventative measures in place. I repeat, I am no expert on such matters. Would shorter buildings be destroyed by a plane? I would think so but one would also think that potential loss of life would be compounded by cramming more people ever higher into the same ground level footprint. Again, just a guess on my part. I would also suspect that there is increased difficulty encountered by emergency services as the buildings get increasingly taller. But I'm no expert in such matters as I admitted earlier.

I will take your word on the Levine quote. This asbestos anecdote gives even more credence to my questions. You seem to be implying that shortcuts are taken regarding fire safety in these new skyscrapers. Have I misinterpreted? My original questions stand.

Why are we not being told that fires can bring down these skyscrapers? If so, why are skyscrapers still being erected? It would seem the risk to human life is tremendous and only balanced against monetary gain.

That is an interesting note on the sprayed asbestos. What type of asbestos was used? When was it installed? I also read that the towers were built without sprinkler systems and only later retro-fitted. Is that true? I am relying on the expertise you acquired at the "firm that designs/constructs/owns skyscrapers" where you are employed.

reply to post by backinblack


No, it means you took an unrelated sentence from another post and compared it to a sentence from my post. And I am not going to take the time to go through 22 pages of posts trying to find the post that you mined. If you want to provide the complete context, then thats another story. Till then, there is nothing for me to comment on.

Well, I will comment on this..

Saying that the Pentagon was "bomb proof" doesn't fit your ideals, right??

No such thing as a bomb proof building. Bomb/blast resistant maybe, but not bomb proof. Anyone who has studied military history knows this. Not that it really relates to the Pentagon anyway,,,,

reply to post by Hemisphere

I will take your word on the Levine quote. This asbestos anecdote gives even more credence to my questions. You seem to be implying that shortcuts are taken regarding fire safety in these new skyscrapers. Have I misinterpreted? My original questions stand.

Shortcuts? No. It means that when they were running scared from asbestos back in the 70s, they switched to another type of coating that was, guaranteed by ITS engineers to do the job as well as the discontinued asbestos coating. Hmmm, seems to be a thread developing here....engineers saying their product will handle something.....and then finding out, the product does not quite live up to its hype.

And my original post stands, an everyday citizen who doesnt work in the fields I posted, would not necessarily know about the hazards involved with tall buildings......till an event is all over the newspapers.

That is an interesting note on the sprayed asbestos. What type of asbestos was used? When was it installed? I also read that the towers were built without sprinkler systems and only later retro-fitted. Is that true? I am relying on the expertise you acquired at the "firm that designs/constructs/owns skyscrapers" where you are employed.

Nope, not employed in those fields. The majority of my employment has been either killing people and breaking things or making sure that when the pilot pulls the trigger, the weapons falling off his aircraft are killing people or breaking things.,,,,Well there is also the several firefighting schools I have attended and then the experiences of seeing first hand what office fires can do to various metals.

reply to post by vipertech0596


So how is it that only those 3 buildings that are backboned with steel, and not various metals, are the only ones out of thousands to experience not only collapse but total annihilation...

Beyond laughable sir.

Oh wait, there was some damage done to them too, maybe THAT'S what caused it.

With your amazing info i am NEVER going into a building over 3 stories high again, i am likely to die in the event of any ordinary office fires.

Cripes for safety reasons all buildings should have warning signs of the dangers of fire completely destroying the buildings and surrounding areas with super hot fires that take almost a year to stop smoking, a total lack of oversight !!

reply to post by GrinchNoMore


I knew that me posting the information a few posts above would fall upon deaf ears,or blind eyes. There is a perfectly plausable explanation for how the buildings failed. It is a pretty detailed description. Anybody with a shred of engineering knowledge or even a snipit of reasoning, or is able to understand structural integrity in the slightest bit, will agree that the structure below could not withstand the downward force of the falling floors above. I do not understand how someone couldn't understand this.

But hey, true truthers do not appreciate real information that explains the "false information" that so many cling on to. To tell you the truth, I do not think that half of the people on ATS have even read the reason why the towers fell. Everybody just seems to keep spitting the same old questions that have been answered and everybody keeps on dissmissing the facts.

I do not understand how some people just do not get the fact that the towers were super heavy and super tall. If subjected to stress outside of the design specifications anything can and will fail.

A design specification provides explicit information about the requirements for a product and how the product is to be put together. It is the most traditional kind of specification, having been used historically in public contracting for buildings, highways, and other public works, and represents the kind of thinking in which architects and engineers have been trained. Its use is called for where a structure or product has to be specially made to meet a unique need. For example, a design specification must include all necessary drawings, dimensions, terms, and definitions of non-standard terms, and the materials used must be described fully to include thickness, size, color, etc.

en.wikipedia.org...

Here is a little sentence that I took out of the explanation.

Its use is called for where a structure or product has to be specially made to meet a unique need.

I do not think the specific need for the towers was to sustain that kind of damage. But anyways, I notice that some do not want to acknowledge real information. That is ok. We are on a conspiracy site. No wonder people think that conspiracy theorists are nuts.

reply to post by RustyShakleford92


For a start, the Enron case files were in builing 7, and there was several billion in gold under the WTC towers, not to mention several quadrillion in bonds & bank records in the towers.
Terrorist attack or the biggest heist in history?
...And the insurance paid out, twice

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by RustyShakleford92

 

For a start, the Enron case files were in builing 7, and there was several billion in gold under the WTC towers, not to mention several quadrillion in bonds & bank records in the towers.
Terrorist attack or the biggest heist in history?
...And the insurance paid out, twice

I will clarify that building number 7 is a little suspicous(in my own opinion). I will read the detailed report sometime and see what it has to say for myself. My posts above was mainly about the north and south towers. I do believe that money was the motive in what was to be the worst tragedy in my lifetime.(so far, and I hope it stays that way).

reply to post by liejunkie01


I think it bears repeating, RE: [Building 7).....it is just one more "made up" conspiracy idea. Because, what is conveniently ignored by the so-called "truth movement" is the fact that just about every building it the vicinity of the two Twin Towers had to be demolished. Look at any online resource, to see the diagrams of the resulting clean-up and demolitions.

In other words....WTC 7 was going to be brought down regardless! It did everyone a favor, after sustaining the damage, and fires...and due to its unique design, of collapsing on its own. Rather than the more dangerous job, later on, of bringing it down by conventional means. Which, of course, would have been deemed necessary anyways....

This is such a silly, non-issue.....it points clearly to the many weaknesses in the "TM" claims.......but, those "true believers" are easily misled.....

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by vipertech0596

 

So how is it that only those 3 buildings that are backboned with steel, and not various metals, are the only ones out of thousands to experience not only collapse but total annihilation...

Beyond laughable sir.

Oh wait, there was some damage done to them too, maybe THAT'S what caused it.

With your amazing info i am NEVER going into a building over 3 stories high again, i am likely to die in the event of any ordinary office fires.

Cripes for safety reasons all buildings should have warning signs of the dangers of fire completely destroying the buildings and surrounding areas with super hot fires that take almost a year to stop smoking, a total lack of oversight !!

edit on 27-2-2011 by GrinchNoMore because: (no reason given)

And posts like this are why I tend to ignore you. You must have missed the key events that started the chain reactions that day. Plane crashing into WTC1, plane crashing into WTC 2 and WTC 1 collapsing into WTC 7.

I could also point out a few fairly recent examples of buildings that have suffered partial collapses from fire alone. But, for now, I think I will let you live on in your special little world.

reply to post by playswithmachines


The gold was recovered and the Enron criminals went to jail. What was the point of your post again??? Oh, yes Ken Lay and Jeff Skillet conspired to knock down the Twin Towers in the hopes they would also knock down WTC 7 and destroy the files to be used in their trials in HOUSTON, Texas.

(You do realize they would have had to destroy buildings in TEXAS to destroy the Enron files right?)

reply to post by weedwhacker


I agree, as I have been reading throughout this thread. People are easily swayed one way or another. I personally just want the facts about what went on. I have read enough and even went up to my instructor and asked him in his own opinion on how the buildings fell. I did this last week. He is a very smart man and will tell people if the msm story is bullcrap. I have found the true reason for the collapse and it is well known information by the true engineers and I will stand by the information I had explained to me. There is no reason for me to believe otherwise.

Wow I am starting to agree with weedwhacker more and more.


EDIT: sorry I didn't reply sooner. I wait around a few minutes on a reply and move on to the sea of threads on ATS.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Then you bring up the support columns. Yes there were steel reinforced support columns. However, your post was discussing the walls...

My post was concerning the overall construction of the Pentagon. Sure, there might not be steel-reinforced WALLS on every ring, but there are numerous (plenty) of concrete and/or steel-reinforced concrete support columns. As I stated in that post, someone here in this thread provided an image of the layout showing all of the support columns. Between the defensive effect of the walls (even unmortared brick provides resistance I'd imagine) and ESPECIALLY the support columns, no airliner created primarily of aluminum should have penetrated so deeply into (and, evidently, *through*) so many walls and support columns. This 757 cut through these support columns like they were butter, if we *believe* the OS.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
The truly absurd part would be the continuing belief that the Pentagon was some super strong, heavily armored, heavily defended building.

edit on 27-2-2011 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)

If what I have read is correct, areas/sections of the Pentagon had recently undergone renovations and structural hardening in response to a rise in suspicion of terrorist attacks. Did someone mention that this particular section had undergone structural reinforcement prior to the attack? Even without such improvements, which if I remember correctly happened, the Pentagon is no Hollywood soundstage, like a fake wild western frontier town comprised mainly of facade. There is substance to it.

Unless there is a facet to the ballistics world of which I am painfully unaware, they don't make bullets out of aluminum. I bet that even if they did and you fired an aluminum bullet from an M-16 into a wooden building, --I bet the aluminum bullet would not penetrate very far into wood. Let alone wood layered with dry wall and bricks (mortared or not) and cemet and concrete. And steel. Aluminum just doesn't do that well, even at high velocity. Sure, an airliner hitting a building is going to cause damage, and in turn it's going to get shredded and broken and torn all to bits. What should NOT happen is for it to act more like a bunker buster than a mere passenger jet. Further, a lack of ENOUGH wreckage, along with some ground anomalies (lack of damage to those large cable spools and the lawn) prove that there was no airliner. Something else struck the Pentagon. Something smaller and something that packed a good punch.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by GhostLancer

 

1. September 10th, 2001, SECDEF Rumsfeld announces that 2.3 trillion dollars is unaccounted-for in defense (Pentago) spending.

And again, the falsehood of 2.3 trillion dollars missing from the Pentagon piggy bank rears its head. Tis amazing that some people STILL hang onto this.

Really, you REALLY have not seen the reports from the major news networks that clearly show and prove that Rumsfeld announced this on Sept. 10th, 2001?

How about this CBS report: www.youtube.com...

It clearly includes the date of Rumsfeld's announcement. Or is CBS "still hanging onto this," too? You can't go back and CHANGE REALITY by lying over and over again about something that this many people already know about and is on public record in countless places. If you are going to *believe* the OS and try to hold it up like a leaking waterballoon, at least get your facts right, unless of course you are just blatantly saying anything to confuse people and keep them from the truth, in which case I hope every carbonated beverage you ever have for the rest of your life is flat and without fizzle.

reply to post by GhostLancer


Thank you for showing you dont bother to read the posts. I gave you several places that show the 2.3 trillion...had nothing to do with actual missing money...and you accuse me of not catching the story....LOL.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by GhostLancer

 

Thank you for showing you dont bother to read the posts. I gave you several places that show the 2.3 trillion...had nothing to do with actual missing money...and you accuse me of not catching the story....LOL.

My assertion was SIMPLY that SECDEF Donald Rumsfeld announced a situation concerning an unaccounted-for sum of 2.3 trillion dollars of defense spending ONE DAY PRIOR to 9-11. You are trying to create drama and confusion around this simple fact. It is NOT working despite your efforts. Your carbonated drinks are sure to be flat.

reply to post by GhostLancer


No, you are the one that is trying to create a "story" involving what is pretty much a non-issue when it comes to the events of 9/11. Not me. I am pointing out that the truth movement use Rumsfeld's speech as some sort of proof that the attack on the Pentagon was an inside job.