9/11 - Conspiracies Abound.

[Ocklawaha]

Rather then the typical theories, IE:Pearl Harbor attacked the Japanese Fleet, Kennedy murder was a Mafia Hit, and Elvis, JFK, Marilyn Monroe and Adolph were seen on a Nazi U-Boat off the coast of Ponte Vedra singing, 'Love Me Tender...' Check out the stellar quality of the contractors and the materials that slapped these spindly buildings together. You won't have to be an expert to realize the quality of the product was something far short of 'Made in China.'

A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.

ANALYSIS

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

Severely eroded I beam cross sections from WTC, composition of A36 steel plate. Oxidation and intergranular melting; unetched.


Eutectic formation (iron oxide-iron sulfide), etched 4% natal.

Compare with the steel in a railroad rail:


http://www.journalamme.org/papers_vol28_1/2813.pdf


Structure of S49 rail track made of new bainitic steel RB370.

http://www.volpe.dot.gov/coi/pis/docs/integrity/bainitealloys.pdf

[finehoe]

Something to keep in mind:  Mitt Romney Foreign Policy Team: 17 of 24 Advisors Are Bush Neocons

Veterans of the Bush/Cheney administration “pepper” Romney’s foreign policy team and the so-called “Cheney-ites” are winning the GOP presidential nominee’s ear.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/10/romneys-team-starts-to-look-like-bushs/?page=all

[PeeJayEss]

There is more than enough "evidence" disputing the 9-11 Commission findings to support a serious, independant, re-examination of what happened. The single largest piece of evidence is the demolition of building WTC 7. When
1000 demolition experts review the actual film ("real evidence") of the actual building free falling (more "real evidence")  onto the streets of New York and UNANIMOUSLY AGREE THAT THE BUILDING WAS BROUGHT DOWN BY DEMOLITION EXPERTS, YOU HAVE ALL THE REAL EVIDENCE ANY SANE RATIONAL HUMAN NEEDS.

The important question is who put the explosives in place, and why? When the owner of the building looks right into a camera and states "We've decided to "pull" the building," what the hell do you think he's talking about?

That thing about 1000 demo experts is just plain untrue. And "pull" is not used in demolition to signify "blow up," though it makes sense that it might have something to do with pulling firefighters out of a building because it is on fire and broken to bits.

All your idiotic WTC 7 bs is explicitly debunked right here:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Please stop.

[Tacachale]

Nowhere did I, or am I, suggesting that 9/11 didn't take place exactly as stated.

Was just pointing out the flawed nature of the "secrets can't be kept by more than 3 people" argument, because it's an illogical argument that cannot be tested due to the very nature of secrecy itself.

I'm a sucker for the facts.

An NIST report detailing the weakening of the steel structure of the World Trade Center due to fire before ultimately buckling and collapsing is a fact. You can use that to build a logical argument.

"It's impossible for people to keep secrets" is not.

It's a totally different context and caliber of supposed "secrets". The Russian mine was never widely known and it's still not clear how significant it really is. On the other hand, 9/11 was witnessed by thousands, and millions more on TV, and has been exhaustively studied for 11 years.

There is more than enough "evidence" disputing the 9-11 Commission findings to support a serious, independant, re-examination of what happened. The single largest piece of evidence is the demolition of building WTC 7. When
1000 demolition experts review the actual film ("real evidence") of the actual building free falling (more "real evidence")  onto the streets of New York and UNANIMOUSLY AGREE THAT THE BUILDING WAS BROUGHT DOWN BY DEMOLITION EXPERTS, YOU HAVE ALL THE REAL EVIDENCE ANY SANE RATIONAL HUMAN NEEDS.

The important question is who put the explosives in place, and why? When the owner of the building looks right into a camera and states "We've decided to "pull" the building," what the hell do you think he's talking about?

That thing about 1000 demo experts is just plain untrue. And "pull" is not used in demolition to signify "blow up," though it makes sense that it might have something to do with pulling firefighters out of a building because it is on fire and broken to bits.

All your idiotic WTC 7 bs is explicitly debunked right here:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Please stop.

This is falling back on the fallacy that one error, or a point perceived to be an error, can completely undermine all other evidence and reasoning. Not only is that line of thinking faulty, this isn't even an error to begin with. The general consensus in the engineering and structural mechanics communities is that the towers, including Tower 7, fell due to the impact and fires from the plane crashes. This has been studied extensively in the linked paper and other peer-reviewed articles, as well as by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and Popular Mechanics, as I discovered in the first few minutes of googling.

[Adam W]

There is more than enough "evidence" disputing the 9-11 Commission findings to support a serious, independant, re-examination of what happened. The single largest piece of evidence is the demolition of building WTC 7. When
1000 demolition experts review the actual film ("real evidence") of the actual building free falling (more "real evidence")  onto the streets of New York and UNANIMOUSLY AGREE THAT THE BUILDING WAS BROUGHT DOWN BY DEMOLITION EXPERTS, YOU HAVE ALL THE REAL EVIDENCE ANY SANE RATIONAL HUMAN NEEDS.

The important question is who put the explosives in place, and why? When the owner of the building looks right into a camera and states "We've decided to "pull" the building," what the hell do you think he's talking about?

That thing about 1000 demo experts is just plain untrue. And "pull" is not used in demolition to signify "blow up," though it makes sense that it might have something to do with pulling firefighters out of a building because it is on fire and broken to bits.

All your idiotic WTC 7 bs is explicitly debunked right here:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Please stop.

I pulled a muscle in my shoulder a couple of weeks back. My Doctor told me it wasn't a big deal, but maybe it's actually a big conspiracy.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

AE911Truth Evidence Goes to Court Feb 25, 2013

Can 9/11 truth history be made in a simple building like the Horsham Magistrates’ Court?
On February 25, in the small town of Horsham in the United Kingdom, there will be a rare and potentially groundbreaking opportunity for the 9/11 truth movement. Three hours of detailed 9/11 evidence is to be presented and considered in a court of law where the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) will be challenged over the inaccurate and biased manner in which it has portrayed the events and evidence of 9/11.

Over the last 16 months, BBC has been challenged strongly by individuals in the UK over two documentaries that they showed in September 2011 as part of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, namely ‘9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip’ and ‘The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On’. Formal complaints were lodged with BBC over the inaccuracy and bias of these documentaries, which, according to 9/11 activists, was in breach of the operating requirements of BBC through their ‘Royal Charter and Agreement’ with the British public. This document requires BBC to show information that is both accurate and impartial. These complaints were supported by the US-based educational charity Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), which submitted detailed scientific evidence to BBC to buttress the complaints. The evidence focuses in particular on the confirmed free-fall of WTC 7 and NIST's 2008 admission of this fact. In addition, over 300 AE911Truth petition signers supported these complaints by sending letters to BBC, requesting that BBC show this evidence to the public.

As a continuation of this process with BBC, documentary film maker Tony Rooke has decided to take a personal stand on this issue. People in the United Kingdom are required to pay an annual TV licence fee which is used to fund BBC’s operations. Tony has refused to pay his TV licence fee on the basis of specific anti-terrorism legislation.
Section 15 of the UK Terrorism Act 2000, Article 3, states that it is offence to provide funds if there is a reasonable cause to suspect that those funds may be used for the purposes of terrorism. Tony’s claim is that BBC has withheld scientific evidence which demonstrates that the official version of the events of 9/11 is not possible and that BBC has actively attempted to discredit those people attempting to bring this evidence to the public. According to Rooke, by doing this, BBC is supporting a cover-up of the true events of 9/11 and is therefore potentially supporting those terrorist elements who were involved in certain aspects of 9/11 who have not yet been identified and held to account.

Rooke has been charged with a crime for not paying his TV Licence Fee. However, he has lodged a legal challenge to this charge and has now been successful in being granted an appearance in a Magistrate’s court, where he has three hours available to present his evidence to defend himself against the charge. Tony has put together a formidable team to support him in presenting the evidence, including the following two outstanding 9/11 researchers:

Professor Niels Harrit
Professor Niels Harrit, Ph.D, led the team of scientists that discovered thermitic material in the WTC dust
Dr. Niels Harrit is a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen and is one of the world’s leading experts on the scientific evidence that contradicts the official story of 9/11. Professor Harrit's team of scientists in Copenhagen proved that there was nano-engineered thermitic residue, both ignited and unignited, throughout the dust of the three WTC towers. He led the team and published the peer-reviewed study in an official scientific journal. He is also an expert on the other aspects of scientific evidence indicating controlled demolition of the three towers.
Professor Harrit was interviewed for a major documentary with BBC in 2011 where BBC clearly attempted to harass and discredit him rather than look at the scientific evidence, which was devastating to the official story of the destruction of the Twin Towers. Professor Harrit's team took the precautionary step of recording this interview, as well as the interaction before and after the interview, which clearly shows the harassment and highly inappropriate conduct by BBC

Tony Farrell
Former UK intelligence official Tony Farrell has publicly questioned the official 9/11 story, and has been granted 3 hours to present the 9/11 evidence in a UK court of law.
Tony Farrell is a former Intelligence Analyst for the South Yorkshire Police Department. He was fired in 2010 because he felt compelled by his conscience to tell the truth in his official report and state that, due to his extensive analysis of the events of 9/11 and the 7/7 London bombings, he considered that the greatest terrorist threat to the public did not come from Islamic extremists but from internal sources within the US and British establishment. He is now dedicating his life to helping to expose the evidence and he is challenging his dismissal through international court.

Other members of Rooke’s presentation team include:

Ian Henshall: Leading UK author on 9/11 and founder of the UK group ‘Re-investigate 9/11’

Ray Savage: Former counterterrorism officer who demonstrates the official 9/11 story is not true

Peter Drew: UK AE911Truth Action Group Facilitator

In addition to these presenters, there are detailed written testimonies of evidence and support from four other 9/11 researchers which will be deployed to bolster to Tony’s defence:

Richard Gage, AIA: Founder/CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Dwain Deets: Former NASA Director of Aerospace Projects

Erik Lawyer: Founder of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth

Jake Jacobs: Veteran US airline pilot and member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth

The evidence about 9/11 that will be presented by the various individuals above has rarely, if ever, been seen in any court of law in the United Kingdom, so this court case represents a unique and valuable opportunity for the 9/11 Truth movement.

We encourage all AE911Truth supporters and petition signers in the UK to attend this court hearing â€" the more the better. An outpouring of support will strengthen the message that the 9/11 truth movement needs to be heard and that there needs to be a new and independent 9/11 investigation.
The date and location of the hearing are as follows:

February 25th at 10:00 am
Horsham Magistrates’ Court [Court 3]
The Law Courts
Hurst Road
Horsham
West Sussex
England
RH12 2ET
For further information, please contact Peter Drew, AE911Truth UK Action Group Leader, at truthfor911 [at] hotmail.co.uk

[Adam W]

That article is ridiculous. It is written to make it sound as if the BBC is being put on trial. It isn't.

A guy didn't pay his TV licence and he got caught. And he is being taken to Magistrates' court. Apparently he has chosen to base his defence on a theory that he is not required to pay his licence fee because the BBC is not fulfilling its obligations. I doubt it will fly. In fact, I know it won't. The judge will probably not even give him three hours. But even if he does, it will be simply a matter of: Do you have a television?

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

That article is ridiculous. It is written to make it sound as if the BBC is being put on trial. It isn't.

A guy didn't pay his TV licence and he got caught. And he is being taken to Magistrates' court. Apparently he has chosen to base his defence on a theory that he is not required to pay his licence fee because the BBC is not fulfilling its obligations. I doubt it will fly. In fact, I know it won't. The judge will probably not even give him three hours. But even if he does, it will be simply a matter of: Do you have a television?

Thank you for that summation, your Hono(u)r.

I think we can just forward your statement above to the high courts and just be done with this little complaint.  Nothing more to see here, move along.

[Tacachale]

More of this crap? Nothing will come of this conspiracist ranting, just as nothing has come of it before.

[MusicMan]

Adam and Tacachale,

Where do you guys stand on the Warren Commission report on the asassinantion of JFK? I assume you believe every word of it, since it is the official report of the US government. 

Why do you have such a hard time understanding that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives? It's crystal clear to the untrained eye, and all the demolition professionals who have seen the footage agree. I mean, it's right there for anyone to see: the building was brought down, it did not fall perfectly into it's own footprint because of a small fire burning on a few floors.

Why not post the video footage so any one interested enough can see for themselves? Or at least post a link to Youtube showing the building falling.

[BridgeTroll]

It's crystal clear to the untrained eye

Key words... "untrained eye"...

and all the demolition professionals who have seen the footage agree.

In fact... the exact opposite is true...

[Adam W]

That article is ridiculous. It is written to make it sound as if the BBC is being put on trial. It isn't.

A guy didn't pay his TV licence and he got caught. And he is being taken to Magistrates' court. Apparently he has chosen to base his defence on a theory that he is not required to pay his licence fee because the BBC is not fulfilling its obligations. I doubt it will fly. In fact, I know it won't. The judge will probably not even give him three hours. But even if he does, it will be simply a matter of: Do you have a television?

Thank you for that summation, your Hono(u)r.

I think we can just forward your statement above to the high courts and just be done with this little complaint.  Nothing more to see here, move along.

High court? Not even.

All the Magistrate is going to do is listen to whether or not he has a valid reason for not having to pay a TV licence. The issue of whether or not the BBC is upholding its end of the bargain is something that is far outside the remit of that court.

The licence is required by law. If this guy has a problem with the quality of BBC's programming, the proper route is to file a complaint with OFCOM, not refuse to pay his TV licence.

Even if the court were to listen to all these "experts" and conclude that the documentaries in question were factually deficient, they would still have to show that the BBC intentionally misled the public. And even if they did that (which they wouldn't be able to do, because there is no way they would have any evidence of that), they still wouldn't be able to show that he didn't have to pay his TV licence. Because maybe the BBC violated its charter. So what? Complain to OFCOM.

And besides, paying the licence fee is not funding terrorism - that link is ludicrous. The BBC is not a recognised terrorist organisation (at least not in the eyes of the UK government or any other government), so again, the guy hasn't got a prayer.

He's an idiot.

[Adam W]

Adam and Tacachale,

Where do you guys stand on the Warren Commission report on the asassinantion of JFK? I assume you believe every word of it, since it is the official report of the US government. 

Why do you have such a hard time understanding that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives? It's crystal clear to the untrained eye, and all the demolition professionals who have seen the footage agree. I mean, it's right there for anyone to see: the building was brought down, it did not fall perfectly into it's own footprint because of a small fire burning on a few floors.

Why not post the video footage so any one interested enough can see for themselves? Or at least post a link to Youtube showing the building falling.

We're not talking about the Kennedy assassination. My issues with 9/11 conspiracy "theorists" has nothing to do with whether or not the US government endorses a particular version of events. It has to do with people finding small bits they don't understand or pieces of the puzzle that may be missing and then forming entire stories or *ahem* "theories" to explain the missing bits. But these stories are never supported by facts - it's always conjecture.

I'd believe that WTC7 was brought down by explosives if there was actually any evidence that the building was actually brought down by explosives.

[peestandingup]

Everyone's an armchair expert nowadays apparently. Not saying whether it was or wasn't a coverup, how would I know? How would any of us really know?? You don't. All we can do is ask questions & try to make sense of the information that we've been given/allowed to see.

Here's a breakdown of the official story & the inconsistencies. This was from 2007, so maybe some of the info is old now or been proven true/false? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a36_CwzA0bk&t=40m8s

[Tacachale]

Adam and Tacachale,

Where do you guys stand on the Warren Commission report on the asassinantion of JFK? I assume you believe every word of it, since it is the official report of the US government. 

Why do you have such a hard time understanding that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives? It's crystal clear to the untrained eye, and all the demolition professionals who have seen the footage agree. I mean, it's right there for anyone to see: the building was brought down, it did not fall perfectly into it's own footprint because of a small fire burning on a few floors.

Why not post the video footage so any one interested enough can see for themselves? Or at least post a link to Youtube showing the building falling.

We're not talking about the Kennedy assassination. My issues with 9/11 conspiracy "theorists" has nothing to do with whether or not the US government endorses a particular version of events. It has to do with people finding small bits they don't understand or pieces of the puzzle that may be missing and then forming entire stories or *ahem* "theories" to explain the missing bits. But these stories are never supported by facts - it's always conjecture.

I'd believe that WTC7 was brought down by explosives if there was actually any evidence that the building was actually brought down by explosives.

What he said.

Everyone's an armchair expert nowadays apparently. Not saying whether it was or wasn't a coverup, how would I know? How would any of us really know?? You don't. All we can do is ask questions & try to make sense of the information that we've been given/allowed to see.

Here's a breakdown of the official story & the inconsistencies. This was from 2007, so maybe some of the info is old now or been proven true/false? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a36_CwzA0bk&t=40m8s

I suppose that qualifies as "a" breakdown of sorts, unfortunately it's a pretty absurd one even compared to typical truther nonsense. For one thing, there's no "official story", or at least not one particular official story. For another, singular "inconsistencies" in the widely accepted account of events don't derail the entire thing even if there's something to them (for the most part there isn't). And they certainly don't prove the various conspiracy theories to be somehow correct or plausible.