911
See other 911 Articles
Title: CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed: 'We Blew Up WTC7 On 9/11'
Source:
Your News Wire
URL Source: http://yournewswire.com/cia-911-wtc7/
Published: Jul 15, 2017
Author: Baxter Dmitry
Post Date: 2017-07-15 11:46:40 by Hondo68
Keywords: Follow the money, classic controlled demolition, many loose ends
Views: 51547
Comments: 108
79-year-old retired CIA agent, Malcom Howard, has made a series of astonishing claims since being released from hospital in New Jersey on Friday and told he has weeks to live. Mr. Howard claims he was involved in the “controlled demolition” of World Trade Center 7, the third building that was destroyed on 9/11. Mr. Howard, who worked for the CIA for 36 years as an operative, claims he was tapped by senior CIA agents to work on the project due to his engineering background, and early career in the demolition business. Trained as a civil engineer, Mr. Howard became an explosives expert after being headhunted by the CIA in early 1980s. Mr. Howard says has extensive experience in planting explosives in items as small as cigarette lighters and as large as “80 floor buildings.” The 79-year-old New Jersey native says he worked on the CIA operation they dubbed “New Century” between May 1997 and September 2001, during a time he says the CIA “was still taking orders from the top.” Mr. Howard says he was part of a cell of 4 operatives tasked with ensuring the demolition was successful. Mr. Howard says the World Trade Center 7 operation is unique among his demolitions, as it is the only demolition that “we had to pretend wasn’t a demolition job”. He claims he had no problem going through with the deception at the time, because “when you are a patriot, you don’t question the motivation of the CIA or the White House. You assume the bigger purpose is for a greater good. They pick good, loyal people like me, and it breaks my heart to hear the shit talk.” [John Kerry Admits WTC 7 Was Brought Down By Controlled Demolition] But even he admits that now, looking back, “Something wasn’t right.” “No good has come from this. This isn’t the America we envisioned.” Explaining how the building was bought down, Mr. Howard says, “It was a classic controlled demolition with explosives. We used super-fine military grade nanothermite composite materials as explosives. The hard part was getting thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms into the building without causing too much concern. But almost every single office in the Building 7 was rented by the CIA, the Secret Service, or the military, which made it easier.” Mr. Howard explains that WTC 7 was “loaded with explosives in strategic places” in the month leading up to the day that changed the course of American history. On September 11th, while the North and South towers burned, fuses were ignited in World Trade Center 7, and nanothermite explosions hollowed out the building, destroying the steel structure, removing the reinforcements, and allowing the office fires to tear through the rest of the building, hollowing it out like a shell. World Trade Center 7 collapsed into its own footprint at 5:20pm, seven hours after the destruction of WTC 1 and 2. The building shocked witnesses by coming down at the speed of freefall, indicating that it encountered zero resistance on the way down. Mr. Howard and his colleagues had done their job. “When the building came down, it was such a rush. Everything went exactly to plan. It was so smooth. Everybody was evacuated. Nobody was hurt in WTC 7. We were celebrating. We kept watching replays of the demolition, we had the whiskey and cigars out, and then all of a sudden the strangest thing happened. We all started to worry that it looked a bit too smooth. We watched the tape again and again and again and we started to get paranoid. It looked like a controlled demolition. We thought shit, people are going to question this. And then we heard that people from the street were reporting that they heard the explosions during the afternoon. When we were told that the BBC botched their report and announced to the world that the building collapsed 20 minutes before it actually did… At that point we really thought the gig was up.” According to the official 9/11 report issued by the government, WTC 7 collapsed due to “uncontrolled fires” that were caused by debris that floated over from WTC 1 and 2, which had been hit by passenger planes. If the official narrative was true, WTC 7 would be the first tall building in the world to ever collapse due to uncontrolled fires, and the only steel skyscraper in the world to have collapsed into itself, due to “office fires.” Mr. Howard and his colleagues feared the public would see through the official narrative and rise up against the government, demanding to be told the truth. “There were so many loose ends, so much evidence left behind. We thought the public would be all over it. We thought there would be a public uprising that the media couldn’t ignore. They’d be funding investigations and demanding to know why they were being lied to. We thought they’d find chemical composites in the area that would prove Building 7 was blown up. “We thought there would be a revolution. It would go all the way to the top, to President Bush. He’d be dragged out of the White House. “But none of that happened. Almost nobody questioned anything. The media shot down anyone who dared question anything they were told.” Follow the money Mr. Howard claims he has “no direct knowledge” about the destruction of North and South Towers of the World Trade Center, explaining that “CIA operations are very specific” and that it is common to be working on a larger project while only understanding a small piece of the puzzle. [9/11: Larry Silverstein Designed New WTC-7 One Year Before Attacks] But he has advice for investigators seeking to understand the entire puzzle and work out who was behind the most devastating attack on American soil in history. “Follow the money.” “When you want to find out who is behind something, just follow the money. Look at the trades made just before 9/11. These are the guys that knew what was coming. The sons of CIA agents, government officials. Close relatives of the most powerful men in America. Cheney, Rumsfeld. They all got rich. It wasn’t just the contracts awarded to their friends in the construction business and the wars and the kickbacks.” “It was insider trading.” Many countries including Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Monaco launched insider trading investigations in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, believing that if they could prove Al-Qaeda operatives profited on the stock market then they could prove the terror organization was behind the attacks. And all the evidence pointed to heavy insider trading around 9/11. Italy’s foreign minister, Antonio Martino, said: “I think that there are terrorist states and organizations behind speculation on the international markets.” German central bank president, Ernst Welteke, said his researchers had found “almost irrefutable proof of insider trading.” Even CNN reported that regulators were seeing “ever-clearer signs” that someone “manipulated financial markets ahead of the terror attack in the hope of profiting from it.” Mr. Howard says that a serious study of who profited on the stock market from 9/11 would “tear the heart out of the oligarchy in America.” “There is only one organization that spans the entire world, and let me tell you now, it isn’t and it never was al-Qaeda.” It’s the CIA. “There could never be a real investigation. The entire shadow government, as you call them now, are implicated.” The 79-year-old, spending his final weeks at home, said he doesn’t expect to be taken into custody following his confession because “then they’d have to go after everyone else. They will just use the media to attack me. They are all on the payroll to suppress everything around 9/11.” 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-58) not displayed.
.
.
.
#59. To: Liberator (#48)
I do not know what happened there, but don't read too much into it. Cops or firefighters on video were telling people to clear the area, that the building was going to come down. Faults had allegedly been observed by FDNY, leading them to question the structural integrity of the building. They were in the street saying the building was going to come down. It would seem the most likely explanation is BBC just had a miscomunication. The beeb reporter might not have known which building was 7WTC, even had she been looking in that direction. Only 1WTC and 2WTC were famous before 9/11.
A difficulty with a thermate theory is the synchronization needed on every floor to achieve a vertical drop into the building's own footprint. Unless the resistance at each floor is uniform on all sides (or removed), the descending part will tend to shunt off to the least resistant side.
The old "cock-up" story, pull it! The link I posted above has two of Prof. Jones' papers. I have five reports he wrote from his analysis / experiments. Edit: residue is the wrong word, tho it conveys the meaning. I am referring to the deposits of burned thermate on surfaces as evinced by the effects of it on those surfaces.
You've really stepped in it now! LOL
Reply Anthem #62 re 9-11, Steven Jones My comments pointed to the problems with any offered collapse mechanism being consistent with the observed phenomena and the laws of physics. The buildings appear to have been brought down, but the mechanism is not clear. The problem with thermate is how to cut the columns or beams on all sides at the same time with time synchronization to within a fraction of a second. Thermate is a pyrotechnic. It burns through steel. It is not normally used in controlled collapse. As far as I can tell, it is unusable as the primary agent. Dr. Jones does not claim that any building was brought down primarily by thermate. Explosives are used which cause structural failure of a column in a fraction of a second. A heat source is not as predictable on the timing of structural failure of columns on all sides of a building on multiple floors. Miss one by a little bit and the whole thing shunts sideways. That is why explosives are used. This is part of speculation, never established as fact. I am very familiar with Dr. Jones and his papers. His research paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" was first posted as a full professor of physics at BYU on his physics department website. BYU announced a review. Jones took down the article on September 7, 2006 and resigned on January 1, 2007. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones Jones subsequently presented the WTC research in lectures at Idaho State University, Utah Valley State College, University of Colorado at Boulder and University of Denver, the Utah Academy of Science, Sonoma State University, University of California at Berkeley, and the University of Texas at Austin. On September 7, 2006, Jones removed his paper from BYU's website at the request of administrators and was placed on paid leave. The university cited its concern about the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Jones' work and that perhaps Jones' research had "not been published in appropriate scientific venues" as reasons for putting him under review. The review was to have been conducted at three levels: BYU administration, the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, and the Physics Department. However, BYU discontinued the review. Some of Jones' colleagues also defended Jones' 9/11 work to varying degrees, and Project Censored lists his 9/11 research among the top mainstream media censored stories of 2007. Jones' placement on paid leave drew criticism from the American Association of University Professors and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Both organizations have long been critics of BYU's record on academic freedom. Jones "welcomed the review" because he hoped it would "encourage people to read his paper for themselves," however the school abandoned the review and Jones elected to retire, effective January 1, 2007. Dr. Jones revised study paper does not claim demolition by thermate/pryotechnics. He hypothesises that a combination of explosives and incendaries were used on the core columns on lower floors, and cutting charges were detonated up higher. Regarding 7WTC, Dr. Jones argues for a serious investigation that it was brought down by pre-positioned cutter-charges; i.e., explosives. For 1WTC and 2WTC he argues for the ancillary use of thermate on the lower floors in addition to the primary use of explosives. The requisite precise timing cannot be achieved with incendaries. He claims incendaries were used to weaken the columns and explosives to achieve actual structural failure. His paper further asserts that his hypotheses deserve thorough scientific scrutiny. Such assertion openly declares that the hypothesis has not received thorough scientific scrutiny at the time asserted. At page 1 of Dr. Jones' revised study paper, the abstract states, In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges. At page 42 of his revised study paper, Dr. Jones states, At page 43 of his revised study paper, Dr. Jones states, In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the carefully planned use of explosives/incendiaries. I have presented ample evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is scientifically testable and yet has not been seriously considered in any of the studies funded by the US government. Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists part 2 of 7 - Nano-thermite found in the WTC dust [Also Dr. Steven Jones and his research paper.] Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists part 3 of 7 -Thermate, thermite and glowing aluminium
Guilty as charged.
I find nothing to dispute in your post (except the videos, which Jones refuted, IIRC). I didn't go into details in my short post, preferring to refer to his documents. Bottom line, there is significant evidence that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.
PS It has been more than 10 years since I studied this in detail. I am not particulary interested in going back into it, I was just a bit stunned that people on this forum have not made the effort to understand the case made by Jones, the most careful of the challengers to the official conspiracy theory.
I'm just glad we finally reached the inevitable nano-thermite portion of the discussion.
I do not find the publications of Dr. Jones persuasive. They are in pay for play junk science publications. 7WTC may be a classic demolition job but 1WTC and 2WTC are different. They are pulverized or turned to dust in mid-air and settled as a covering of fine dust particles up to miles distant. Thermite and thermate did not do that. Fire did not do it, and neither did gravity. http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=52077&Disp=6#C6"> I only found one link to one paper at your #6. The link for "download page" was: I am aware of the Bentham Journal mentioned in one of the Youtube videos I provided, and also EuroPhysics News. Bentham's play for play journal has a less than sterling reputation. Peer reviewed science it is not. Neither is Europhysics News. Bentham was caught in a scam where it accepted a paper for publication which was gibberish by a computer program with authors claiming to have been from the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology (CRAP). Articles where the author pays for publication in a junk science journal tend not not be scientifically persuasive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentham_Science_Publishers In 2009, the Bentham Open Science journal The Open Chemical Physics Journal published a study contending dust from the World Trade Center attacks contained "active nanothermite".[9] Following publication, the journal's editor-in-chief Marie-Paule Pileni resigned stating, "They have printed the article without my authorization… I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them".[10] In a review of Bentham Open for The Charleston Advisor, Jeffrey Beall noted that "in many cases, Bentham Open journals publish articles that no legitimate peer-review journal would accept, and unconventional and nonconformist ideas are being presented in some of them as legitimate science." He concluded by stating that "the site has exploited the Open Access model for its own financial motives and flooded scholarly communication with a flurry of low quality and questionable research."[11] Beall has since added Bentham Open to his list of "Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers".[3] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bentham_Science_Publishers Bentham was founded in 1994 and enjoyed a reputation as a small but reputable and scholarly publisher. In April 2007, it announced that it would open more than 300 open access journals by the end of the year, though it later cut this to 200.[1] The journals work on the model where the journal is available free, and authors pay to have their paper published. A new journal will often contact people in the field noting the journal's existence and requesting submissions. However, Bentham took it as far as repeatedly spamming people[2][3], often irrelevantly,[1] and offering scientists membership on its journals' editorial boards out of the blue.[4] (As of August 23, 2014, the Scientificspam.net DNS-based blocklist lists the 117.20.26.0/23 network from which Bentham spams in its entirety.) Membership of a journal's editorial board can be quite prestigious, but when people realised what sort of company they were dealing with and withdrew their acceptance, Bentham kept their names on the masthead and ignored all demands for removal.[1] In April 2009, the Open Chemical Physics Journal published an article advocating 9/11 conspiracy theories without anyone bothering to inform the journal's editor, who promptly resigned.[5] This aroused the interest of the curious, and Bentham was busted in 2009 accepting a paper for the Open Information Science Journal consisting of random sentences computer-generated with SCIgen, whose imaginary authors both worked at the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology (CRAP).[6][7] The editor of said journal also quit when he found out what the publisher had done.[8] Bentham's director of publication claimed they merely sent a fake acceptance to flush out the hoaxer,[4] but no-one believes him. Bentham's questionable behaviour, and the extensive documentation of it, led directly[3] to the formation of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association,[9] which endeavours to serve as a mark of respectability in OA publishers. Not only is Bentham not a member, OASPA has blogged specifically concerning it.[10] Annoyingly, the scams continue. http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/09/criticism-of-oa-publisher-bentham.html News from the open access movement Friday, September 11, 2009 Criticism of OA publisher Bentham Jeffrey Beall, Bentham Open, The Charleston Advisor, July 2009; self-archived September 10, 2009. A review of OA publisher Bentham Open. Excerpt: The site states that, “All submitted articles undergo a fast but rigorous peer-review procedure, followed by prompt submission of an article for publication.” However, the journals contain articles that take unpopular views on topics and were likely unacceptable in mainstream journals. An example is the article entitled, “Cosmological Constraints on Unifying Dark Fluid Models” that appears in The Open Astronomy Journal. The article offers the dark fluid model as an alternative to the widely-accepted theories establishing dark matter and dark energy in cosmology ... Because the dark fluid theory is not accepted by mainstream cosmologists, it is likely that if this article were submitted to any mainstream journal it would be rejected, and the author sought to publish it here because of the less-rigorous or façade-like peer-review process. Alternatively, the author submitted the article to Bentham Open because he knew that merely by paying the fee he could get his work published. ... In many cases, Bentham Open journals publish articles that no legitimate peer-review journal would accept, and unconventional and nonconformist ideas are being presented in some of them as legitimate science. ... Another example comes from The Open Chemical Physics Journal. In the article “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” the authors conclude that some of the dust found in the World Trade Center debris is unexploded bomb material. They lead the reader to conclude that planted explosives were the real source of the World Trade Center buildings’ collapse, and not the aircraft that struck them. This article has helped fuel 9/11 conspiracy theories. Thus, Bentham Open is a place for people to publish their theories, theses, and ideas that are out of the mainstream. There is no journal impact factor data for these journals because the data takes three years to compile and all the journals Bentham Open offers are less than three years old. In response to an e-mail inquiry regarding rejection rates for Bentham Open journals, company representative Mehwish Akhter replied, “Rejection rate is different for different journals. Normally it’s 25–30%.” The membership plan that Bentham Open Access offers is highly questionable, especially the individual membership. The cheapest individual membership is $1,600, and at this rate an author receives a 5 percent discount on author fees. For an article that costs $800 to publish, the discount is $40; to break even at that membership level, an author would need to publish 40 articles. Clearly, very little thought has been put into Bentham’s membership plan; it appears only to be a way to generate revenue for the company from the naive. The Open Access model is a good one, for it makes research freely available to everyone. However, Bentham Open is exploiting the good will of those who established the Open Access model by twisting it and exploiting it for profit. Just because a journal is Open Access doesn’t make it legitimate or high quality. ... Bentham Open’s emergence into scholarly publishing in 2007 has served mainly as a venue to publish research of questionable quality. The site has exploited the Open Access model for its own financial motives and flooded scholarly communication with a flurry of low quality and questionable research. By linking to sites such as Bentham Open, libraries are diluting scholarly research and making it more difficult for scholars to sort through the abundance of journal articles available. ... N.B. This review was written before the Bentham fake article hoax from earlier this year. See also our past posts on Bentham. - - - - - - - - - - The article 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses, is written by truthers Steven Jones, Robert Korol, Anthony Szamboti, and Ted Walter. There is the Europhysics News itself. http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf Page 1 of the issue of Europhysics News states: The article is on pp. 21-26. Page 21 is a basic cover page. Page 22 of the issue of Europhysics News leads off with: This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors. http://www.snopes.com/journal-endorses-911-conspiracy-theory/ [Excerpt] As a magazine, the editorial policy of EPN is to publish news and views, which are sometimes controversial. EDP Sciences recognizes that the article discusses some speculative and controversial issues. However EPN and EDP Sciences believe that the best (and the most scientific) way to settle such issues is to publish them and have an open discussion with all due arguments in which the truth will finally emerge. A counter article is to be published by EPN in the next issue. http://www.skeptical-science.com/critical-thinking/scientific-proof-911-inside-job/ [Excerpt] There are two rather important points to start with … 2. The article does not contain output from a formal study, it is just a magazine article The editors did also add the following note: This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors. In other words, they are telling you clearly that it is not scientific, and is instead just speculation.
Dr. Judy Wood published Where Did The Towers Go?. It does an excellent presentation of the observed phenomena from 9/11. While her directed energy weapon theory of what could account for the phenomena is controversial, to say the least, her presentation of what was observed to have happened is excellent. At page 124, she addressed "thermitic material" found in the dust. A report has come out stating that "thermitic material,(59) was found in dust samples from lower Manhattan after 9/11/01. The authors of the report did not say they found thermite, but only that they found "thermitic material." What is "Thermitic Material?" Presumably, the term refers to the ingredients of thermite, which is a substance made of aluminum powder and iron oxide (rust). The Twin Towers were steel structures with aluminum cladding. "Steel is a term used for iron to which between 0.02 to 1.7% carbon has been added."(60) Typical low-carbon steel (e.g. ASTM A36) contains 99% iron. We know that a large portion of the towers was turned to dust (see Chapter 9, Dustification). And iron dust in atmospheric conditions will immediately rust. So it is natural and to be expected that materials the buildings were made of would be found in the nano-dust of their remains. The surprising thing would be if this nano-dust from the buildings did not contain "thermitic material." That the article is identified as having been "peer reviewed" is intended to imply the validity of the study. However, "peer reviewed" no longer means what it once did. Shortly after Bentham published the article about "thermitic material," The Boston Globe ran a news story about a hoax submission (an article made up of nothing but computer-generated nonsense) to another Bentham journal. This second article also passed "peer review."(61, 62) Others have written about this deliberately fraudulent study.(63) The buildings were turned to dust, and therefore the dust would be expected to contain traces of all materials that were in the buildings.
Presumably.
I would read it differently. "Thermitic" suggest more general thing - thermite-like. It does not have to be aluminum and iron oxide, you need metal oxide and a substance that will binds oxygen from the oxide generating heat. Perhaps there are more exotic non-metallic exothermic thermites?
By whatever definition, it is exceedingly difficult to see how to synchronize the failure of large steel columns with the use of heat as the primary agent. LibertyDefender84 Published on May 16, 2015 This is a 47 minute challenge about Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper, which collapsed at 5:20pm on September 11th, 2001. The challenge is to watch this 47 minute video and try to maintain your belief in the official story of what happened on September 11th, 2001. This is a difficult challenge because this video features testimony from Structural Engineers, Architects, Demolition Experts, and eyewitnesses who provide evidence that Building 7 collapsed as a result of a controlled demolition. After looking at the evidence, it will be challenging to maintain the belief that fire caused Building 7 to collapse in the manner that was observed.
No thanks. The 9/11 hucksters have re-made the same videos over and over. If I want preaching, there's plenty of churches around here.
Well, there is always the NIST report. Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1A) http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610 At page xxxvii: Structural damage from debris did not cause the collapse. NIST identifies specific fire observations and their earliest times. "Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 194] "A larger area of the west face near the south edge is visible in the photograph shown in Figure 5-1 10, which was taken shortly after Figure 5- 109 at 12:27:30 p.m. At this time flames were not evident in window 22-14A, but light smoke continued to flow from the window. Higher up on the face, smoke was coming from the six adjacent open windows 29-11 to 29-14A on the 29th floor, with heavy flames filling windows 29-11 and 29-12. As discussed in Section 5.5.2, the condition of windows 29-13A to 29-14A immediately following the collapse of WTC 1 could not be determined, while the glass was intact in windows 29-11 and 29-12. This suggests that the fire burning on this floor had opened windows 29-11 and 29-12 by 12:27:30 p.m." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 196] "Prior to 12:10 p.m., there was no evidence of fire on the upper floors of WTC 7. Between 12:10 p.m. and 2:10 p.m., the only fires directly or indirectly observed were on Floors 19, 22, 29, and 30." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 194] - - - - - "Between roughly 2:00 p.m. and the collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20:52, fires were observed spreading on the 7th floor through the 13th floor, with the exception of the 10th floor. One short video clip indicated that a small fire was present on the north side of the 14th floor shortly prior to the collapse. In the following descriptions of these fires, approximate times are used. Details are included in the previous subsection." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 243] "7th Floor. Early indications of a developing fire were observed on the west side of the 7th floor shortly after 2:00 p.m." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 243] "8th floor. The earliest fires observed on the 8th floor were on the north face in windows near the center of the face. As late as 3:22 p.m., there was no indication of fire in this area, but about 17 min later a substantial fire spreading to the east was visib le between windows 8-47C and 8-53C." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 243] "9th Floor. There was no indication of fire in the available imagery on this floor until late in the day. Shortly before 4:00 p.m., a small area of fire was observed in windows 9-54A and 9-54B on the west side of the north face. There are no images suggesting how fire reached this location." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 244] "10th Floor. No fires were observed burning on this floor." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 244] "11th Floor. A fire was first observed on this floor at 2:08 p.m. on the east face." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 244] "12th Floor. The first observation of a fire on the 12th floor was on the east face around 2:08 p.m." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 245] "13th Floor. The first visual evidence for burning on the 13th floor was seen on the east face around 2:30 p.m." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 245] "14th Floor. A low resolution image recorded around 5:03 p.m. indicated the presence of a fire between Columns 45 and 46 on the north face. Fire at this location or elsewhere on the floor was not evident in similar images recorded roughly ten minutes earlier and six minutes later. This was the only observation of a fire on this floor." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 246] "Fires on Other Floors. With the exception of the fires on the 19th, 22nd, 29th, and 30th floors discussed at the start of this section, there is no direct visual evidence of fires on other floors of WTC 7. Heavy smoke was observed coming from the opening created on the south face of WTC 7 by debris falling from WTC 1. This smoke suggests that internal burning was taking place, but provides little indication of specific locations. Light smoke was observed at the height of the louvers on the east side of the 5th and 6th floors around 4:10 p.m. It was not possible to identify the source of this smoke. [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 246] SOURCE: NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Volume 1
They always rush so quickly to dismiss the ConEd substation that it makes me suspicious that it played a major role in the collapse.
Structural damage played no major role, ConEd fuhgedaboutit, and the fires were unremarkable and just allowed to burn all day. Shyam Sunder stated, "WTC7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings." Sunder also stated WTC7 "fell because thermal expansion, a phenomenon not considered in current building design practice, caused a fire-induced progressive collapse." The official explanation for 7WTC is not persuasive. I wonder what design practice building codes were created to prevent office fire induced thermal expansion leading to progressive collapse of entire tall buildings?
Web Archive has 4 days from major networks archived https://archive.org/details/911/day/20010911 Seems sometimes you don't do much research before you make claims. The REAL question, of course, is who wrote what the news readers are repeating? It's been traced to Reuters but that's where the trail ends. That's like saying your lettuce came from Safeway. Funny how the BBC "lost" the tapes, then "found" them and issued an apology. Almost as funny as when the Moon Landing tapes were "lost". So is that proof that we at the BBC are part of a huge sinister conspiracy or is there a simpler explanation? The mystery of the missing tapes didn't last that long. One very experienced film librarian kindly agreed to have another look for us one night. There are more than a quarter of a million tapes just in the Fast Store basement at Television Centre. The next morning I got a call to say the tapes had been found. They'd just been put back on the wrong shelf - 2002 rather than 2001. Not so sinister after all. And this is most interesting, what are the odds that Jane Standley would be cut off twice in one day when talking about WTC7 This bit of history has been mostly overlooked. Everyone is concentrating on the previously posted afternoon broadcast. But it's very suspicious, isn't it. I'm guessing you've never seen that, have you. How about this? Explain how the beam slipping off that column due to "thermal expansion" from office fires can cause the entire building to collapse (3 seconds of free fall) in 7 seconds please. TIA
Interesting jwpegler. Thanks for sharing.
As though NSA wasn't capable of replacing archive.org's videos if they chose to do so after the fact.
How can't we? Building 7 was STILL standing when the reporter-ette pronounced her "news." Considering how often and to what extent we've discovered the Mass Media LIES as a matter of conditioning the serfs and practicing Mind-Control; subverting history, and creating alternative reality, what we CAN and SHOULD do is *presume* the MSM's reporting/propaganda is run though a series of filters as their overlords wish. Cops or firefighters on video were telling people to clear the area, that the building was going to come down. Faults had allegedly been observed by FDNY, leading them to question the structural integrity of the building. They were in the street saying the building was going to come down. It would seem the most likely explanation is BBC just had a miscomunication. "Mis-communication" is the default convenient excuse. How can we buy it, Nolu, given the total lack of credibility of he Media and its obvious function as Propagandists and NOT actual "reporters"? The problem NOW is the credibility of THAT as well as ANY reporting, so-called "observations" and "witnesses" on 911, specifically the presumption of inevitability that Building 7 *was* going to come down in any case. It's just one more layer of lies that should and could have been avoided. But moreover, it proved that certain Media sources are given scripts by some un-named "authoritahs." planted "witnesses," Then there's TWA FL 800 and *that* yuge LIE and so-called "investigation."
LOL
Did the NSA force the BBC to make that statement above? The BBC admits everything you said was questionable. It's right there. That's all you have to say after your "arguments" RE:Jane Standley have been utterly destroyed? Again: Please explain how the beam slipping off that column due to "thermal expansion" from office fires can cause the entire building to collapse (3 seconds of free fall) in 7 seconds. You can do it.
Web Archive has 4 days from major networks archived Well done. And this is most interesting, what are the odds that Jane Standley would be cut off twice in one day when talking about WTC7 This bit of history has been mostly overlooked. Everyone is concentrating on the previously posted afternoon broadcast. But it's very suspicious, isn't it. Beyond suspicious. Conspicuous might be the word. Yes, Standley's moments, reporting, and reaction is STILL archived. Great job of digging that out. Yup, "History" itself was revised on the spot. THE priceless reaction and moment of truth can be found at 2:18 just after the BBC questioner asks about Building 7. The elites MUST maintain control over all its monkey business. 911 was tricky, yet still they pulled off the biggest charade in recorded human history (other than the Vatican's centuries of shenanigans and historical revisionism that hid/erased the pre-Flood history.) I'm guessing you've never seen that, have you. I don't think it matters to TC. As I suggested, many well-meaning, logical intelligent people just can NOT fathom or accept the notion that our gubmint has been hijacked and been conspiring AGAINST the Founders' Republic for quite some time. Funny how the BBC "lost" the tapes, then "found" them and issued an apology. Almost as funny as when the Moon Landing tapes were "lost". Again -- excellent work. I'll admit to believing fairly recently the Moon Landings were indeed FAKE. This is upon considering the credibility -- or lack thereof of a gubmint and its ministry of propaganda (the MSM) that has lied at will about the the truth, their intent, and their actions since WW2 (and frankly, well before.)
You might want to check out the article I posted a couple of days ago. Did Elon Musk just confirm that the moon landings were faked? Follow the links too - quite interesting. Not particularly a fan of Elon Musk, but some good questions are posed. No, it doesn't. Years back, I was willing to at least listen to 9/11 Truther CTs. But I find the Truthers to be arrogant and condescending and completely unable to present evidence that could pass muster in a court of law. So I have changed and the bar now is set very very high. Right now, the credibility of Truthers with me would be comparable to that of Scientologists. Maybe the Scientologists have a slight advantage.
Nope. You are the crackpot, you are the one making the assertion. The burden of proof is entirely on you. It's up to you to produce evidence in a court of law that passes muster. If what you say is true, there are some very big lawsuits to be won, in the billions. Yet no law firm has ever been willing to bring Truther lawsuits to court. That's because they know these crackpot theories would not survive for five minutes in a courtroom.
Or they fear being killed.
Or they think it's a load of crackpot nonsense cooked up on the internet. Probably one or the other.
Building 7 was STILL standing when the reporter-ette pronounced her "news." You can consider the obvious, that it was not it was not a deliberate attempt to fool anyone. The building is in the background. It just seems far more likely that someone relayed all the talk on the ground that the building was coming down (like very soon), and someone else took it to mean the building is coming down (like, as we speak it is collapsing). There is an overabundance of visual evidence that 7WTC was a demolition. The BBC goof is a distraction.
Three (3) seconds of freefall -- zero resistance. The lower floors had to move out of the way before the falling floors reached where they had been.
Aww, you should be nicer to me than that, Sport, because I've introduced you to the truth about Jane Standley and her premature calling of the collapse of WTC7. You really didn't know anything at all about it yet you were making false and embarrassing statements. And this is the thanks I get? ROFL Whatever are you babbling about? I provided videos, statements from the BBC and an archive of videos from 9/11. I countered your erroneous assumptions and guesses with absolute truth. What exactly are you asking me to prove now? What did I say? What "crackpot theories" specifically are you talking about? And by the way, You're all in favor of a new investigation, right? Look, pal, I can understand you're a little bruised after being beaten up a bit here, but you really should try to hide it better. Your errors and hilarious assumptions were embarrassing enough. I've seen you here for a long time, parading around from thread to thread, pretending you are an expert on everything under the sun. Well just consider this a little speed bump on your road to Greatness. You'll forget this entire 911 lesson soon enough, I'd bet on it. No doubt, the next time Jane Standley rears her pretty English head you might just pretend you never learned the truth that was presented here, because I'm guessing you're the type that doesn't like to be corrected. In any event old chap, Carry On!
TC believes that the investigation carried out by the 9/11 Commission is the final word on what really happened. Luckily, the news anchors knew who did it within minutes, the pundits knew within hours, the Administration knew within the day, and the evidence literally fell into the FBI’s lap. But for some reason a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists demanded an investigation into the greatest attack on American soil in history. It was lied to by the Pentagon, the CIA, the Bush Administration and as for Bush and Cheney…well, no one knows what they told it because they testified in secret, off the record, not under oath and behind closed doors. It didn’t bother to look at who funded the attacks because that question is of “little practical significance“. Still, the 9/11 Commission did brilliantly, answering all of the questions the public had (except most of the victims’ family members’ questions) and pinned blame on all the people responsible (although no one so much as lost their job), determining the attacks were “a failure of imagination” because “I don’t think anyone could envision flying airplanes into buildings ” except the Pentagon and FEMA and NORAD and the NRO. Oh, my sides! You have always been an unabashed supporter of the "official" fed.gov conspiracy theory and unwilling to honestly look at any facts posted. That much hasn't changed. But I find the Truthers to be arrogant and condescending... Pot - meet kettle. Roar on. Your little Kookorama recedes from the public mind year by year. Time and public apathy are your enemy. Are you so sure anyone even cares what happened on 9/11 any more? I mean, other than your fellow-kooks.
The "official" fed.gov conspiracy theory that you so desperately cling to is a joke. Are you so sure anyone even cares what happened on 9/11 any more? 9/11 was the mechanism for establishing a police state here in America. Care to count the number of freedoms we have lost since that day? I don't want to enable your kookery.
The limits of debate in this country are, are, are established before the debate even begins. And everyone else is marginalized, and made to seem there to be communist or some sort of disloyal person. A kook...there's a word... and now it’s conspiracy, say, they made that something that’s, that is, that is should not be even entertained for a minute that powerful people might get together and have a plan, it doesn’t happen you are a kook, you are a conspiracy buff. George Carlin As long as Carlin makes you feel better about being a kook, it's fine by me.
Comments (100 - 108) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest And has ANY one YET explained the live report from the BCC that Building 7 HAD ALREADY COLLAPSED??
#60. To: Anthem, Tooconservative (#50)
There is plenty of evidence that thermate (a type of thermite) was used to bring the buildings down.
#61. To: nolu chan, Liberator, pull it (#59)
It would seem the most likely explanation is BBC just had a miscomunication
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#62. To: nolu chan (#60)
(Edited)
A difficulty with a thermate theory is the synchronization needed on every floor to achieve a vertical drop into the building's own footprint.
It is not a difficulty. I saw your comments above, which are consistent with a controlled demolition. Thermate residue* found on the building remains and on cars in the surrounding area is a part of the evidence.
#63. To: nolu chan (#60)
A difficulty with a thermate theory is the...
#64. To: Anthem, Tooconservative (#62)
It is not a difficulty. I saw your comments above, which are consistent with a controlled demolition. Thermate residue* found on the building remains and on cars in the surrounding area is a part of the evidence.
Thermate residue* found on the building remains and on cars in the surrounding area is a part of the evidence.
The link I posted above has two of Prof. Jones' papers. I have five reports he wrote from his analysis / experiments.
On September 22, 2005 Jones presented his views on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and World Trade Center 7 at a BYU seminar attended by approximately 60 people. Jones claimed that a variety of evidence defies the mainstream collapse theory and favors controlled demolition, using thermite. The evidence Jones cited included the speed and symmetry of the collapses, and characteristics of dust jets. Later, Jones claimed he had identified grey/red flakes found in the dust as nanothermite traces. He has also claimed that the thermite reaction products (aluminium oxide and iron-rich microspheres) were also found in the dust. He called for further scientific investigation to test the controlled demolition theory and the release of all relevant data by the government. Shortly after the seminar, Jones placed a research paper entitled "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" on his page in the Physics department Web site, noting that BYU had no responsibility for the paper.
ABSTRACT
Remarkably, the controlled demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives/incendiaries, near simultaneously, along with cutting charges detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus near symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs -- really very standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermate (whose end product is molten iron) used on some of the steel columns readily accounts for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles as well as the sulfidation observed in steel from both the WTC 7 and Towers rubble piles (points 1 and 2 above). I believe this is a straightforward hypothesis, much more probable actually than the official hypothesis. It deserves thorough scientific scrutiny, beyond that which I have been able to outline in this treatise.
AFTERWORD
#65. To: Tooconservative (#63)
You've really stepped in it now! LOL
#66. To: nolu chan (#64)
#67. To: nolu chan (#64)
#68. To: nolu chan (#64)
#69. To: Anthem (#67)
I was just a bit stunned that people on this forum have not made the effort to understand the case made by Jones, the most careful of the challengers to the official conspiracy theory.
Bentham Open journals claim to employ peer review;[4] however, the fact that a fake paper generated with SCIgen was accepted for publication, has cast doubt on this.[5][6][7] Furthermore, the publisher is known for spamming scientists with invitations to become a member of the editorial boards of its journals.[8]
Bentham Science Publishers straddles the fine line between "open access journal publisher" and "vanity press scam."
Open Access News
... The site is supported by fees charged to the author upon publication of an article, and the fees are high. ... The Bentham Open site makes no mention of [fee waiver/reduction in cases of financial need], but in response to an e-mail inquiry, a representative stated that authors from developing countries are granted a discount of 30 to 50 percent off the publication fee charges. ...
But a new forensic investigation into the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers on 9/11, published in Europhysics News – a highly respected European physics magazine....
Europhysics news is the magazine of the European physics community. It is owned by the European Physical Society and produced in cooperation with EDP Sciences. The staff of EDP Sciences are involved in the production of the magazine and are not responsible for editorial content. Most contributors to Europhysics news are volunteers and their work is greatly appreciated by the Editor and the Editorial Advisory Board.
NOTE FROM THE EDITORS
For their part, EPN released a statement after having been pressed by podcaster Stephen Knight:
EPN is a magazine that publishes a range of news and views to stimulate discussion – unlike peer reviewed research which would be published in a scholarly journal. EDP Sciences [their parent company] follows the most rigorous peer review standards for its journals of which EPN is not one.
First a Few actual Facts
1. Europhysics News is not a peer-reviewed science journal, it is just a magazine
#70. To: Tooconservative, Anthem (#68)
(Edited)
I'm just glad we finally reached the inevitable nano-thermite portion of the discussion.
3. "Thermitic Material" in the Dust
#71. To: nolu chan (#70)
The authors of the report did not say they found thermite, but only that they found "thermitic material." What is "Thermitic Material?" Presumably,...
#72. To: nolu chan (#70)
What is "Thermitic Material?" Presumably, the term refers to the ingredients of thermite, which is a substance made of aluminum powder and iron oxide (rust).
#73. To: A Pole, Tooconservative (#72)
I would read it differently. "Thermitic" suggest more general thing - thermite-like. It does not have to be aluminum and iron oxide, you need metal oxide and a substance that will binds oxygen from the oxide generating heat.
Take the 47 Minute Building 7 Challenge!
#74. To: nolu chan (#73)
Take the 47 Minute Building 7 Challenge!
#75. To: Tooconservative (#74)
The 9/11 hucksters have re-made the same videos over and over.
Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. The building withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed and subsequently withstood fires involving typical office combustibles on several floors for almost seven hours. The debris damaged the spray-applied fire resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams, only in the vicinity of the structural damage from the collapse of WTC 1. This was near the west side of the south face of the building and was far removed from the buckled column that initiated the collapse. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001. The transfer elements such as trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs that were used to support the office building over the Con Edison substation did not play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7.
#76. To: nolu chan (#75)
The transfer elements such as trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs that were used to support the office building over the Con Edison substation did not play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7.
#77. To: Tooconservative (#76)
They always rush so quickly to dismiss the ConEd substation that it makes me suspicious that it played a major role in the collapse.
#78. To: Tooconservative (#55)
No one has it. We also have no verification of exactly when that aired. We also know that the text crawl was not in sync with the rest of the broadcast.
And why are there no other corroborating videos except this one from the BBC?
The BBC is an entirely isolated piece of evidence with no other corroborating sources. We don't even know if that was actually a live feed.
BBC: It is certainly true that on 9/11 the BBC broadcast that WTC7 had collapsed when it was still standing. Then the satellite transmission seemed to cut out mysteriously when the correspondent was still talking. Then Richard Porter admitted in his blog last year that the BBC had lost those key tapes of BBC World News output from the day.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html
#79. To: Operation 40 (#78)
#80. To: Operation 40 (#78)
The REAL question, of course, is who wrote what the news readers are repeating? It's been traced to Reuters but that's where the trail ends. That's like saying your lettuce came from Safeway.
#81. To: nolu chan (#59)
(Edited)
I do not know what happened there, but don't read too much into it.
#82. To: A K A Stone, jwpegler (#79)
Interesting jwpegler. Thanks for sharing.
#83. To: Tooconservative (#80)
(Edited)
As though NSA wasn't capable of replacing archive.org's videos if they chose to do so after the fact.
#84. To: Operation 40, tooconservative (#78)
("No one has it. We also have no verification of exactly when that aired. We also know that the text crawl was not in sync with the rest of the broadcast.")
#85. To: Liberator (#84)
I'll admit to believing fairly recently the Moon Landings were indeed FAKE.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#86. To: Liberator (#84)
I don't think it matters to TC.
#87. To: Operation 40 (#83)
Again: Please explain how...
#88. To: Tooconservative (#87)
#89. To: A K A Stone (#88)
Or they fear being killed.
#90. To: Liberator (#81)
How can't we?
#91. To: Operation 40, Tooconservative (#83)
Please explain how the beam slipping off that column due to "thermal expansion" from office fires can cause the entire building to collapse (3 seconds of free fall) in 7 seconds.
#92. To: Tooconservative (#87)
Nope. You are the crackpot,
The burden of proof is entirely on you. It's up to you to produce evidence in a court of law that passes muster.
If what you say is true,
there are some very big lawsuits to be won, in the billions. Yet no law firm has ever been willing to bring Truther lawsuits to court. That's because they know these crackpot theories would not survive for five minutes in a courtroom.
#93. To: Operation 40, Tooconservative (#92)
And by the way, You're all in favor of a new investigation, right?
The investigation was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail, a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was based on testimony extracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed. It failed to mention the existence of WTC7, Able Danger, Ptech, Sibel Edmonds, OBL and the CIA, and the drills of hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings that were being simulated at the precise same time that those events were actually happening. “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#94. To: Tooconservative, Liberator (#86)
Years back, I was willing to at least listen to 9/11 Truther CTs.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#95. To: Deckard (#94)
#96. To: Tooconservative (#95)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#97. To: Deckard (#96)
#98. To: Tooconservative (#97)
kookery
Give these people a voting day every year, so that they’ll have the illusion of meaningless choice, meaningless choice that we go like slaves and say, Joe, I voted.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#99. To: Deckard (#98)
George Carlin
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]