Ten Things We Learned About 911 In 2004

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   
If the mainstream media would report this stuff, the Bush administration would be toast.



Ten Things We Learned
About 911 In 2004
Rigorous Institution
Blogspot.com
1-5-5

1. The World Trade Center Black Boxes were recovered, though officials perpetuate the lie that they weren't.
rigorousintuition.blogspot.com...

2. FEMA really did arrive early in New York City, for the "bioterror drill" Tripod II, and Rudi Giuliani's testimony to that effect before the 9/11 Commission is its only public testimony which remains officially untranscribed.
www.scoop.co.nz...

3. The Total Information Awareness program was ready to roll out before Sept 11, and John Poindexter's office was established in the Pentagon no later than Sept 12.
www.legitgov.org...

4. A recording of six air traffic controllers' same-day detailing of their communication with two hijacked planes on September 11 was purposefully destroyed by the FAA.
www.nytimes.com...

5. NORAD was conducting a live-fly simulation of multiple hijackings on the morning of 9/11, which effectively hamstrung a fighter response already compromised by exercises which took the bulk of interceptors far from the eastern seaboard.
www.fromthewilderness.com...

6. Dick Cheney was running a separate command and control communications system on 9/11, which whistleblower Indira Singh recognized as having "the exact same functionality I was looking to utilize [for] Ptech," the high tech terrorist and intelligence cut-out that "was set up in the basement of the FAA" for two years before the attacks. (Go to this page 911busters.com... to download video testimony of Mike Ruppert and Indira Singh on this subject.)
www.fromthewilderness.com...
justicefor911.org...

7. George Bush was unwilling to reluctantly meet members of his reluctantly struck 9/11 Commission unless Cheney accompanied him, both were unsworn, their words were unrecorded and untranscribed, the meeting was private and in the White House, and the members' notebooks were confiscated afterwards.
www.cnn.com...

8. That John Ashcroft made the case for Sibel Edmonds' State Secret Privilege gag order by claiming that disclosure of her testimony would "cause serious damage to the national security interests of the United States" suggests he is at least an accessory after the fact (Daniel Ellsberg believes Ashcroft deserving of jail time for his role in obstructing justice), as Edmonds has been able to say that her testimony involves "specific information implicating certain high level government and elected officials in criminal activities directly and indirectly related to terrorist money laundering, narcotics, and illegal arms sales."
bellaciao.org...

9. Donald Rumsfeld confirmed what we knew all along, that Flight 93 was shot down, and the corporate media flew into damage control for the Pentagon, saying the Secretary "misspoke" and "stoked conspiracy theories."
www.cnn.com...


10. As Pakistan wound down the search for Osama bin Laden and "prohibited" American forces based in Afghanistan from making cross-border incursions into the Tribal Areas, Musharraf was rewarded with the approving words that his continuing rule remains an internal matter for Pakistanis. (Afghanistan was, arguably, more cooperative in their attempt to bring bin Laden to justice, and Iraq was not a rogue nuclear state.)
www.rednova.com...
www.dawn.com...

We're getting there. Of course, they are there already, and have been for years.
But we're catching on.

rigorousintuition.blogspot.com...

www.rense.com...




posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Great cut and paste.


Good compilation of data though I must say.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Great cut and paste.


Good compilation of data though I must say.


Muchas Gracias.


Love that avatar, skippy.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   
How about some other things we learned, (or at least you should have if you have been paying attention to these forums)

  1. A commercial jet aircraft actually did hit the pentagon. There is ample evidence to support this as well as multiple eye witness testimony.

  2. Seismic evidence does NOT indicates any underground nuclear explosions prior to the WTC collapse.

  3. Standard office cubicle set ups, like that in the WTC, can burn longer then expected and reach temperatures as high as 1200 degrees

  4. Steel loses up to 60% of its strength when exposed to temperatures of 600 to 800 degrees C.

  5. The term pull has a totally different meaning to a firefighter then it would to a demolition contractor.

  6. If the FAA is considering lifting the ban on in-flight cell phone use, then in-flight cell phone use must be possible.

  7. There a difference between heat and temperature. The idea that burning jet fuel can only reach a certain temperature and no higher is just plain wrong.

  8. Structural damage to WTC 7 was observed almost 4 hours before it collapsed.

  9. Even a typical office/ house fire can generate temperatures high enough to soften steel, melt glass etc.

  10. Boeing 757s use a couple of different types of wheel rims.





posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   
RE: point 8

WTC7 may have had structural damage, but enough to make it neatly collapse in on itself like that? The only pictures I've seen showed fairly minor damage to the side facing the towers, and I don't believe fire alone could have caused such a collapse.

Please shower me with links if this can be explained properly as I don't have the time or energy to wade through 30 page threads on the subject



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   


Notice the big hole in the middle of WTC 6 which was between the towers and WTC 7. Obviously there was a lot of structural damage to the adjacent buildings.


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


firehouse.com

In my opinion, a bulge in the side of a building is evidence of severe structural damage.

As for the way the building collapsed, just what did you expect to see? How many uncontrolled collapses have you witnessed? How were they different? What were the different structural elements involved? What kind of framing was used in this mystery building that you are comparing the collapse of WTC 7 too? How is it the same or different from WTC 7?





Look again at that picture. There are pieces of WTC 7 all over the place. It doen't look to neat to me.


[edit on 7-1-2005 by HowardRoark]

[edit on 7-1-2005 by HowardRoark]

[edit on 7-1-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Curio
RE: point 8

WTC7 may have had structural damage, but enough to make it neatly collapse in on itself like that? The only pictures I've seen showed fairly minor damage to the side facing the towers, and I don't believe fire alone could have caused such a collapse.

Please shower me with links if this can be explained properly as I don't have the time or energy to wade through 30 page threads on the subject


Don't hold your breath.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Muchas gracias, EC. Your Spanish, she is good. Are you Spanish?

I like seeing all of the facts in one page. Great reference material


Dios permita que tengas un buen dia



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   

There appears to be no basis for the claim that the large spikes preceded the collapses, nor that the energy indicated by those spikes was more than could be accounted for by the approximately 110 megawatt-hours of gravitational energy stored in the elevated mass of each tower. And there is stong evidence contradicting the idea that the seismic spikes indicated underground explosions including:

911review.com...



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   
You have voted HowardRoark for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.



as for the rest of this thread... blah blah blah blah blah... blame bush... blah blah blah...

getting real sick of crap !!!



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Here's an idea.....

Don't read it then


[edit on 8-1-2005 by Curio]



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
How about some other things we learned, (or at least you should have if you have been paying attention to these forum


one question!
did we learn what caused the 50 story plume of smoke that erupted from bldg 6 before either tower had collapsed?





your comments on the seismic activity are unfounded

THE SEISMOGRAPH

More explosive evidence comes from the seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC. This facility recorded strange seismic activity on September 11 that has still not been explained.
The above image is a seismographical readout at the time of the attacks and collapse of the WTC. You can clearly see on the top line the small peaks of the planes impacts.

But here is where it gets interesting, check out those two really BIG spikes on the 3rd and 4th lines. Those spikes represent the collapse of the towers. Notice the shape of these spikes, the highest peak is actually at the beginning. A strange anomaly when you consider the nature of a collapse is more gradual than explosive, with the vibrations becoming more and more intense as each floor collapses onto the next.

But this isnt the case in the seismograph.

The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. Not only that, but these two unexplained spikes are more than twenty times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses!

This seismic record shows that as the collapses began - a huge seismic spike marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth.
***************************************
also your bldg7 comments are illogical-steel reinforced concrete does not collapse due to fire hence the "need" for demolition techniques



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   
teo things,

1) That video has already been shown to be a hoax.

2) Read the quote above and follow the link to a CONSPIRACY SITE that admits that the seismic claim is wrong!!!!!!!!!

What you are mising is that each of those black lines represents 30 minutes from left to right. Thus accorsing to your logic, it took each building several minutes to collapse. This is not true. THey came down in about 10 to 12 seconds, which incidentally is how much time is represented by those big spikes.

Go google up the original report from the university and read it.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

1) That video has already been shown to be a hoax.


thats interesting i would would really like to hear about it- i have a cousin who started recording cnn in between the first and second impact and captured the sequence in question-maybe its worth something?


Originally posted by HowardRoark
THey came down in about 10 to 12 seconds, which incidentally is how much time is represented by those big spikes.


this fact alone is proof enough that demolitions were used-first of all a structure that is collapsing due to strucural failure is not to going to freefall-second it wouldnt have collapsed within it own footprint the way both towers did



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 12:28 AM
link   
some links did not work, other links that did work had current news that were not in regard to the lead-in, and many were from extreme sites that I would not find any more credible than Rense.

I just wanted you to know that I did try and see your point, ECK.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Curio
Here's an idea.....

Don't read it then


[edit on 8-1-2005 by Curio]


What a concept!

DG, I picked up a little bit of Spanish back when I was with my Puerto Rican love..

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sunofone

Originally posted by HowardRoark

1) That video has already been shown to be a hoax.


thats interesting i would would really like to hear about it- i have a cousin who started recording cnn in between the first and second impact and captured the sequence in question-maybe its worth something?


The sequence in question shows the north tower. The roofline is distorted to make it look like you are seeing both towers, when in fact you are only seeing one. The south tower is directly behind the north tower and is not visible in that sequence. The smoke and dust plume is from the collapse of the south tower.



Originally posted by HowardRoark
THey came down in about 10 to 12 seconds, which incidentally is how much time is represented by those big spikes.


this fact alone is proof enough that demolitions were used-first of all a structure that is collapsing due to strucural failure is not to going to freefall-second it wouldnt have collapsed within it own footprint the way both towers did



That statement alone tell me you have no concept of structural engineering or the forces involved in the collapse.

Are you familiar with the terms “live load” and “dead load?”

How were the floor trusses connected to the perimeter columns?

How many connections were there per joist?

How many floors did a single exterior column section span?

Are you proficient enough in physics and mathematics to calculate the impact force of a mass falling 10 feet? How about 20 feet?

What was the potential energy of the top 25 floors of each tower?

What direction does gravity go?

How far would you have to displace the top of the building in order to move the center of gravity outside of the building footprint?


When you can answer these questions, Sunofone, then we will talk, until then, rest assured that you have no idea what you are talking about.





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join