It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Former Bush Administration Economist Believes WTC Felled by Controlled Demolition

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   
The behavior of the US government after 9/11 certainly gives reasonable cause to wonder about complicity. I get quite worried that people will become complacent about real danger because they are too busy blaming their own government.

Al Qaeda has been supported by CIA and Interpol, but they are their own entity. Yes, they were infiltrated for monitoring reasons, but information coming from those informants is being forsaken.

Al Qaeda is the operational arm of the International Islaamic Front. They aren't finished.

Michael Riconosciuto met Bin Laden under the authority of Sir Dennis Kendall (his brother was head of Interpol), he modified Chinese missiles so that they could shoot down Russian aircraft in Afghanistan without being a threat to US aircraft. He was also ordered to procure informants within Al Qaeda as a measure of protection if the group ever turned against US interests. I am in possession of numerous letters written by Michael prior to 9/11 detailing his efforts and specific information he attempted to provide to assorted authorities. A few of his letters have made it onto the internet, but the most critical ones contain information that would compromise people who could be of help here.

The lack of effort to utilize Michael's contacts demonstrates a desire to see war, an inevitable outcome when we consider who is in charge in the US. It's not like the US government doesn't know who Michael is.

FOIA/PA documents in my possession prove the US government lied about Riconosciuto's ties to the intelligence community during his trial for drug manufacturing. Some of these documents are covered in B1 and B3 exemptions (Executive Order, NSA, CIA). Interestingly, EPA reports withheld from the defense also showed no drug lab contamination, perhaps because Michael's lab was actually used for mining research. He was threatened with arrest or worse prior to signing an affidavit for a congressional investigation on Inslaw's stolen PROMIS software. He was told he would be protected if he included statements about the threats in the affidavit. When he was arrested a week later on bogus charges, congress did nothing. Apparently, keeping PROMIS a secret is more important than US security.

How much of this is negligence and how much is outright criminal behavior? I guess that's what I want to know.




posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   
anyone in the business , or who noses around a bit , knows about PROMIS

and about the young man who lost his life pursuing a story , cuz he was a patriot

namely , danny casolero

I still find it odd , that if what you say is true, they wanted to keep it secret , they why did they screw over INSLAW , and bring all that attention to it ?
a lawsuit , and front page news , when all they had to do was write a check ?

it don't add up !

I think there's something else goin' on there...

BTW , the judge who found the gov't in contempt was not reappointed

they put one of their own in there

we got big big big problems...



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0951
.................
Still hot ? - hmm, perhaps that has something to do with insulating effects of the tons and tons of debris on top of the basements, service ducts, or other structural cavities that the metal ended up pooling into.


Heat propagates, even if you encase it in tons of rock the heat would propagate to the surrounding rocks and eventually dissipates, more so when it is not in contact with a source of power to keep it in a liquid, or molten state.

If the whole place was encased in aluminum, which it was not, the heat would have been contained a bit longer but it will not last for 5 weeks. At least not without a source of power to keep it molten.



Originally posted by 0951
Ignoring the Dimonia micro-nuke theory, if one wanted to compromise the steel supports, and do so discretely, would one have any other options than thermite, FAE's and similar explosive methods ? What about some form of plasma cutting ?


Speculating again with no evidence to support this?...

If we are going to speculate I could come up with some scenarios also...

How about this. The US government used a time machine to bring back Samson, they told him that Dalila was in the towers and she was with another man in one of the rooms. The explosions heard throughout the building were Samson's punches against the walls and his shouts for his wife....

i am not trying to make a joke, i am just trying to show how speculating without any evidence is just stupid.

BTW, if there were any explosions before the collapse how come none of them are registered in the seismic readings?



Originally posted by 0951
... but returning to facts - did the source not suggest that there was evidence that there had been pools of molten steel, not that there were still pools of molten steel ?


Supposedly the... claim was that there were pools of molten steel which lasted for 5 weeks. The word molten implies that a solid substance is melted and kept in a liquid state (molten) due to heat source powerful enough to do this. Using the word molten implies that the once solid substance, is still in a liquid state.


SMR

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 01:05 AM
link   
What happened to debunking my post Muaddib

I guess you cant find any false info in what I posted huh?
I figured it would go untouched by you and Howard


And just to add to your last paragraph there Muaddib,
There was 'EVIDENCE' of those pools of molten steel.That does NOT mean that they were STILL in liquid form.You are once again misleading people with false assumptions.
By stating there was evidence of molten liquid implies that they saw what was ONCE these pools.

Just like I had explained before with my first hand account with the San Diego fires, my jet ski's 'showed evidence' of pools of molten aluminum.By the time I saw them, they had already hardened.But evidence shows they were once moltem pools of aluminum.

Stop twisting words around to support your dis-info!

[edit on 27-6-2005 by SMR]



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   
anila, and how exactly did you come by with this information and these documents?....

What is the evidence that the CIA and interpol support/supported Al Qaeda to this day or when 9/11 happened?



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
.....................
As for the 'squibs' Why do they shoot out from small cavities?
If this so called 'pancake' effect took place, would it not do this much larger? If you see the video's and there are many of both towers, you can see they shoot out many floors below, some WAAAY before the crubling section.


Compressed air from the floors above as they were collapsing would have made the pulverized concrete fly all over the place and compressed air does "shoot out" from any openings it can find....


Originally posted by SMR
It as if they shoot out of one or two windows.If this so called pancake effect took place, we would be seeing many more and much larger.


What experience and what degrees do you have to make such statement valid?


Originally posted by SMR
Lets see here:
Southwark Towers, PA
Looks familiar doesnt it?


Nope, it does not look familiar. Those towers were not hit by aircraft crashing into them...and i am sure neither one of those buildings had jet fuel burning inside of them...


Originally posted by SMR
Now I urge you to go and watch the buildings at this site.


Again, what kind of experience do you have in this and what degrees do you hold to make such assertions in the matter?

[edit on 27-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
What happened to debunking my post Muaddib

I guess you cant find any false info in what I posted huh?
I figured it would go untouched by you and Howard


Do i really have to lay it out to you piece by piece?.....


Originally posted by SMR
And just to add to your last paragraph there Muaddib,
There was 'EVIDENCE' of those pools of molten steel.That does NOT mean that they were STILL in liquid form.You are once again misleading people with false assumptions.
By stating there was evidence of molten liquid implies that they saw what was ONCE these pools.


No....if these claims were to imply that steel beams had been melted, they would have used the word melted, not molten. Anyone working in demolition would know the difference between molten and melted steel i would think.... Anyways...where is the proof of these molten pools of steel which remained in that state for 5 weeks"?


Originally posted by SMR
Just like I had explained before with my first hand account with the San Diego fires, my jet ski's 'showed evidence' of pools of molten aluminum.By the time I saw them, they had already hardened.But evidence shows they were once moltem pools of aluminum.

Stop twisting words around to support your dis-info!

[edit on 27-6-2005 by SMR]


Read the statement again....it claims that the pools of molten steel remained in that state for 5 weeks....

dis-info?.... so facts and common sense is dis-info?....huh..go figure, i wonder what "Deny Ignorance" means to people like you....


SMR

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 01:35 AM
link   
You are not following along are you Muaddib...
Let me put it in pictures so you can understand better....I feel like a kindergarden teacher sometimes


First, why did you edit your post not to show the images?I just saw it show my posted image now it is not?More misleading from a master of disinfo?

SQUIBS, SQUIBS EVERYWHERE OH MY!

This shows what squibs are.See the squibs?This was how they started the demolition.



This shows squibs just like the image above.Can you saw S Q U I B S ?
This is WTC showing .... squibs.



I have posted many images showing these as well as video that shows many going off on several floors.This is NOT air as air would be pushing out several areas not just single windows.
We see what the air pushes out when we see images like
Notice the ROW along the building showing AIR push out?


SMR

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 01:47 AM
link   
And BTW, when I posted about you not being able to debunk my post, I was refering to the one on page 10 which you skipped over entirely.You chose to skip over it because you could not deny the facts in that post.


Originally posted by SMR
'IT' , not just 'PULL' The words uttered are PULL 'IT' He then gets lazy and just says PULL ......

"I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it!' Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building ........... collapse."

So, looks like it WASNT the fire commander who suggested it, but good ole' Larry himself! and then they granted that wish by Larry.

Little more info you...

How did everybody know the building was about to collapse since the fire commander ordered firefighters away from the WTC 7 at 11:30 am—seven hours before it collapsed—so why would the firefighters need to be pulled out when the firefighters were never in the building to fight the fires in the first place?

"...the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities.
It appears that the sprinklers may not have been effective due to the limited water on site and that the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day.
WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY. -FEMA: WTC Building Performance Study, Chp 5 (05/02)

How ya like them apples



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 01:47 AM
link   
ever wonder just exactly, "who",

is on here

and its' their job ?

...hehehehe...anyways ;



nice catch on the squibs ...



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by toasted
ever wonder just exactly, "who",

is on here

and its' their job ?

...hehehehe...anyways ;
............


OMG...they caught me already..... HOLD EVERYTHING OFF.... I REPEAT......HOLD EVERYTHING OFF.... THE TOASTED ONE KNOWS WHO I AM.....
ooooh boy.....



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
You are not following along are you Muaddib...
Let me put it in pictures so you can understand better....I feel like a kindergarden teacher sometimes


Oh boy....this coming from someone who has no degrees whatsoever, except maybe high school, and claims to know about buildings and how they should or should not fall or how air should be expanding in a certain way because of his high school physics?......


Originally posted by SMR
First, why did you edit your post not to show the images?I just saw it show my posted image now it is not?More misleading from a master of disinfo?


Simply because you already posted the image, i already got a notice, not the first one, from a mod not to quote entire sentences and to keep quotes to a minimum..... WOW, that should make a whole new conspiracy from the likes of you....

You keep seeing them apples flying everywhere around you....don't you?.....


Originally posted by SMR
SQUIBS, SQUIBS EVERYWHERE OH MY!

This shows what squibs are.See the squibs?This was how they started the demolition.


Again...do tell us what is your experience and what are your degrees to make such statements that what we are witnessing in those photos are by-products of explosions and not compressed air blowing the pulverized concrete?.......

[edit on 27-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 02:32 AM
link   
toasted
In order to pay Inslaw, a record would have to exist detailing who was using the license. Not acceptable for high level spying. It is stupid, isn't it? They could have arranged a bulk payoff and nobody would have been wiser. Even so, they would have gotten away with the theft if someone from Quebec hadn't called Bill Hamilton and asked for support in French. Earl Brian and his friends wanted PROMIS and tried to squeeze it out of Bill Hamilton because they knew what it was worth. They used their influence to force Hamilton into bankruptcy. Hamilton wouldn't sell, so they stole it.

Something not to be overlooked here is that there were also rogues involved, with personal interests and influence. Corruption is structurally facilitated and will continue to be until government evolves, but in the end it is individuals who must be held accountable for these actions. Michael was framed, that involved criminal intent on the part of individuals. It doesn't help to blame the government.

Mauddib
I am very close to Michael, I receive documents from him directly and speak with him often by phone. This is very dangerous information for me to reveal because people who have helped Michael in the past, and their families, have been murdered. When Ian Spiro, his wife Gail and 3 children were murdered, Ian was blamed, it was called a murder/suicide. Gail and the children were sleeping when they were shot in the head. Ian and Gail were helping Michael with his case and holding critical files for him. Neil Abernathy was also holding files for Michael. Michael went on record that he was in fear for Neil's life after sensitive mail revealing that Neil was holding records for Michael was discovered tampered with. The Abernathy murder investigation was the premise used by detective Sue Todd and RCMP/NSIS investigators Randy Buffum and Sean McDade to visit Michael in prison. This set off an international incident and resulted in considerable media attention. Just recently, David McGowan and his family, six people were murdered. All but David were shot to death as they slept and David is being blamed for the murders. It should be noted that David was looking into reopening the Alvarez murder investigation, to which Michael is a witness. David's predecessor opted not to take such a course of action after his family was threatened. The man in that job at the time of Michael's arrest (both these individuals unnamed for their protection, they are avoiding attention) followed Michael around the countryside and is on tape explaining how Michael was transferred from prison to prison to keep him from assisting with the investigation. Fred Alvarez and friends were killed, just as Michael's friend Paul Morasca, because of concerns over activities at Cabazon reservation. These illegal activities were so serious that it is still deadly to discuss or look into them. Gary Webb's suicide is suspicious considering that he was exchanging letters with Michael for three months prior and had received a Power of Attorney authorizing him to question Michael's former attorney.

I don't want to end up like David McGowan and his family. I have two beautiful children. I have been a bit more open about my role helping Michael lately because secrecy can be deadly.

I don't want a fight with the US government. I would like to see some horrible people taken out of positions of power and rendered harmless, and I would like to see some real efforts to prevent the next wave of attacks.

As to your second question, I have never seen evidence of US or Interpol involvement with Al Qaeda in post Soviet/Afghanistan days. I'm doubtful about that.

Furthermore, I have had a very enlightening talk with Abid Jan, a journalist from Pakistan who has been granted asylum in Canada. He was writing a book about the root causes of terrorism and had an opportunity to interview Bin Laden two weeks prior to the attacks. He said Bin Laden scoffed at his attempts to find solutions with words and said the US needed to be brough down to size before they would listen to reason. He strongly foreshadowed a major event on the horizon that would serve such a purpose.
Points of interest, Abid Jan noticed no signs of ill health. He also noted that Bil Laden had difficulty keeping cell phone communications open with his men in the next town, Abid Jan didn't seem to feel as though he could adeptly organise an attack under the circumstances, although Bin Laden was clearly prepared to take credit for whatever was coming and was obviously involved to some degree.


SMR

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Your a piece of work Muaddib


This isnt about my 'education'.Why wont you just answer the questions rather than insist that nobody has an education in this field? You cant thats why.Once again you turn it around because you have NO answers.
It doesnt matter if I have the expertise or not.If you think all I have is a highschool education, then why not show us all that I have nothing higher than that highschool education?And by the way, thats one more assumption you make to add to your list of assumptions.You know nothing of me, my education, or otherwise.
All you do is turn it around when you dont have answers.
ASSumption


Oh boy....this coming from someone who has no degrees whatsoever, except maybe high school...


Now lets get to it.


Originally posted by SMR
SQUIBS, SQUIBS EVERYWHERE OH MY!

This shows what squibs are.See the squibs?This was how they started the demolition.



Again...do tell us what is your experience and what are your degrees to make such statements that what we are witnessing in those photos are by-products of explosions and not compressed air blowing the pulverized concrete?.......


Lets see.For one, I got the photo from a DEMOLITION SITE.They are inFACT squibs being used to take down that building that happens to have their site URL watermarked in it.

Why anyone would believe a word you spew out of your mouth is beyond me.You can only answer the simple things that have already been answered.You change the tone around when you cant answer something.You skip over posts that have FACTS that you cant debunk.

Muaddib,
I certifiably debunk YOU !



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   
anil,

thx

----------------
smr,

...I didn't mean you...



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by anila
Mauddib
I am very close to Michael, I receive documents from him directly and speak with him often by phone. This is very dangerous information for me to reveal because people who have helped Michael in the past, and their families, have been murdered.
..................


Who in the world is this Michael?... and why would you say this information you have already given is dangerous, you have not given much information at all, just told us a story which i am not certain whether is true or not. It's nothing against you, but why should we believe the few things you have told us?



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
Your a piece of work Muaddib


This isnt about my 'education'.Why wont you just answer the questions rather than insist that nobody has an education in this field?


Your education does matter because "you are trying to build castles out of clouds." You don't make any sense at all, you believe that what you are saying is the truth nomatter the evidence anyone else shows. If you were giving reasonable evidence for your arguments, I would take you more seriously, but you make no sense at all.


Originally posted by SMR
You cant thats why.Once again you turn it around because you have NO answers.


i can't?....what in the world have i been talking about then?.... i guess i was trying to reason with a wall, very stupid of me...


Originally posted by SMR
It doesnt matter if I have the expertise or not.


Yes it does, because you are trying to claim that looking at a picture and with your...erroneous information that you know that the wtc was brought down with explosives.... if you actually look at videos of controlled demolitions they always look as if collapsing from the ground up....not from the middle of the building, like the wtc towers collapsed. Although the charges are usually detonated from the higher floors downward in controlled demolitions, but it is done in sequence and very fast. In fact the detonations are so fast, that the top floors do not have enough time to collapse first, thus we see many of the buildings collapsing from the ground up.


Originally posted by SMR
If you think all I have is a highschool education, then why not show us all that I have nothing higher than that highschool education?And by the way, thats one more assumption you make to add to your list of assumptions.


I don't need to prove it, you have proved that yourself. You just don't realize it. Someone who has knowledge in a topic will actually have something reasonable to say and it will make sense. BTW, you are not the only one that does not make much sense around here.

The twin towers collapsed from the exact point where they were hit by the planes downwards. If you look carefully at one of the pictures you gave, the top half of one of the buildings is seen to be falling vertically, not straight down and "too perfect" like some people around here are claiming. This part of the collapse was vertical because it was the same point where one of the planes hit the tower, which would make that side of the building weaker than the oposite side, hence the vertical collapse of that part of the building. The tons of building material falling on the floors below made the rest of the towers collapse.

BTW, the large puffs of pulverized concrete you see in controlled demolitions are also actually made by the compressed air as the structures collapse upon themselves, not by the explosives. Explosives only give small squibs.

In controlled demolitions charges are put throughout a building and the "charges explode rapidly in sequence", from the top to the bottom. This is not seen in the videos of the towers collapsing.

This is a picture of a controlled demolition.



The large squibbs you see at the bottom of the building were caused by compressed air and not by the explosives.


Originally posted by SMR
You know nothing of me, my education, or otherwise.


I don't need to, your own responses tell me how much you know about the topic at hand.


Originally posted by SMR
Lets see.For one, I got the photo from a DEMOLITION SITE.They are inFACT squibs being used to take down that building that happens to have their site URL watermarked in it.


That does not make you an expert. You want to see the opinion of a true expert about this?. Here let me give you some excerpts and a link.


I've watched the building fall a million times and never seen anything that would make me think there was abny controlled demolition. I have a degree in construction and have spent the last 5 years doing materials testing. The impact removed a major part of the loadbearing structure causing more weight to be applied to the remaining. The COMBINED intense heat from the buring fuel (ie jet fuel and combustionable material present plus the artificailly cooled and dried air throughout via climate control systems) and the increased pressure was more than enough to change weaken the rest of the LOADBEARING structure on a MOLECULAR level far past its capacity.

Nothing else was need for failure after gravity truned the upper floors into giant piledrivers which cause a massive breakdown and PULVERIZATION of building materials. I know you can't evinsion this past the reference to stacking up cracker boxes and toppling them in the kitchen floor but the mass of building material is quite different than that. The amazing thing, (as I have posted on so many other post like this) isn't that they failed bu that they withstood the weight distribution for so long. No, a fire itself probably could not have done them in but remove part of the structure that distributes the rest of the load to the ground (and rock) and include intense heat too ( or not as it probably would have failed without the heat) and you begin to see things happen that cannot be explained in layman's terms. Please can we move on?


Excerpted from.
www.abovetopsecret.com...




Originally posted by SMR
Why anyone would believe a word you spew out of your mouth is beyond me.
Because i make a lot more sense than you ever do.


Originally posted by SMR
You can only answer the simple things that have already been answered.You change the tone around when you cant answer something.You skip over posts that have FACTS that you cant debunk.


There isn't much to debunk, because you don't have a sound and reasonable theory.


Originally posted by SMR
Muaddib,
I certifiably debunk YOU !


And you are a certifiable nutcase.


BTW SMR, how in the world do you debunk a person?......


---edited to add more comments---

[edit on 27-6-2005 by Muaddib]


SMR

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Once again, turn it around and talk about something different and once again, you resort to insults.

You have not proven one thing with your babble and my, along with others evidence have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that explosives were used.
Your last image is rediculous.You are pointing to the bottom of the buildiing which IS air.I am pointing out the evidence of squibs in the upper portions.But like I said, you try and mislead people.I wont fall for it.

You are not worth trying to prove anything to as I now see what your agenda is.
Go ahead and preach your false misleading info.I, along with some others will not read into your mis-info.

BTW, just so you know, I have friends that work in demolition and have been on site a few times.I dont need to be an expert to see with my own eyes what a controlled demo looks like.
I also come from a family in the construction business that have worked around the world on many projects.I was brought up to do the same, but took another direction.Taking drafting classes all through highschool as well as doing ROP construction during the summers.I was on a crew that built 15 portable class rooms for other schools.From hammer and nails to welding, I did it.Now I know you'll say that doesnt make me educated in the field, but you cant just go out and do this stuff without knowing what your doing.

Dont go saying I dont know about this stuff when I have experienced it first hand.Your choice to believe me, I dont care.

Take your misleading dis-info some place else.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   
I have personally witnessed numerous controlled demolitions. In every case, there was one very obvious indication that the charges were going off. THE SOUND.

Unless they used "hushaboom" on the towers or WTC 7, there would have been very distinct and audible bangs from the charges that would have been heard by everyone in Manhattan that day.

Debunk that!



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
Once again, turn it around and talk about something different and once again, you resort to insults.


Well, what else would you call someone who is trying to debunk a person and not an argument?.....

You can't debunk a person SMR..... you can debunk arguments....not people....


Originally posted by SMR

You have not proven one thing with your babble and my, along with others evidence have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that explosives were used.


This is the problem with people like yourself. You build castles with clouds and you show in your own statements your ignorance of the topic at hand. Yet you keep claiming you know better and present theories which make no sense and do not stand to scrutiny.


Originally posted by SMR
Your last image is rediculous.You are pointing to the bottom of the buildiing which IS air.I am pointing out the evidence of squibs in the upper portions.But like I said, you try and mislead people.I wont fall for it.


Why in the world would i be trying to mislead anyone?.... I don't work for the government, and noone is paying me for posting in here.


Originally posted by SMR
You are not worth trying to prove anything to as I now see what your agenda is.


That's because you can't prove it. The only agenda i have is the truth.


Originally posted by SMR
Go ahead and preach your false misleading info.I, along with some others will not read into your mis-info.


Misleading information?.... Can you point to what misleading information i am presenting?



Originally posted by SMR
BTW, just so you know, I have friends that work in demolition and have been on site a few times.I dont need to be an expert to see with my own eyes what a controlled demo looks like.
............


Sorry kid, your arguments makes no sense, and i am certain you do not have the experience needed, nor the common sense and knowledge, to make an informed decision on this topic.



[edit on 27-6-2005 by Muaddib]



new topics




 
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join