Before this post, I'd like to correct one of the links in my earlier post - the Air Traffic Controller:
Compare that opinion with this story posted on USA Today:
Notice how they completely avoid any mention of normal protocol for intercept, any attempt to contact NORAD or the Pentagon, and write that the
controller spent all the time telling planes to get out of the flight's way.
Here's the opinion of another ATC:
Here's another news story, notice how passive the story is from the ATC - nothing about regular protocol, they don't take any action until the
hijacked flight is approaching Washington DC, when they call the White House directly (ha!). Intercepts are only mentioned passively "by this time
NORAD has scrambled 2 fighters", and in another "I thought Langley had scrambled some fighters". In other words, complete bull#. It's a lie.
Analysis from 14:36 to 17:10, it's in German, but has subtitles, first video on forum.
He has not lost his job for incompetence, so the only conclusion can be official cover-up of false flag.
(by the way, that whole video is related to the overall event, there's even more in it, and it's all pretty heavy hitting)
Let's talk about explosives in the towers, shall we? Out of all that I posted before, that's probably what's going to be attacked logically the most.
The most steadfast defenders of the OS think they have that angle covered.
First however, I'd like to show where I have made a mistake, specifically in including the angle cut pillars, as that was done afterward by cleanup
I also saw video elsewhere showing the workers actually doing that.
I stand corrected. However, at the same time, there is enough evidence from witnesses on the scene and afterward concerning the number of blasts.
Also, going with the hypothesis that the people within the government planned this event, which is supported by the extremely high number of
improbable coincidences that day as well as the one time refusal to operate by the country's air response system, it would be logical to assume that
whoever it was did not want the buildings to have any chance to only suffer minimum damage. They were built to extreme specifications and were some
of the strongest buildings on the planet. I'll let the witnesses speak for themselves:
In this one, you can ignore Alex Jones if you like, but it has videotaped testimony on the scene by Barry Jennings, where he says he was in WTC 7 and
heard repeating explosions all around him. He then said that the stairwell collapsed and later when finding their way down, they were walking over
bodies. There's a hit piece by the BBC on Jennings mentioned, probably something along the lines of questioning his competence about the bodies and
the explosions. Note: Jennings died shortly after saying he'd been threatened and told to shut up.
To add to the testimony above (not the same tower, this was tower 2):
These three guys are in the hospital, injured, and are doing an interview with a TV station. They mention explosives, say the stairwell in that
building had collapsed as well, mention laying on the ground and people stepping on them while going past. Now, in light of that, does Barry Jennings
testimony sound more logical now? The same events happened in both buildings.
Here's a slow motion video - check out all the little focused blasts going all the way down preceding the collapse front. Also has the firefighters
talking specifically about it, which is probably a good part of why they have their firefighters for 9/11 truth website right now:
These witnesses already had all the relevant information apparently:
"secondary explosions going off every 15-20 minutes", talks about police believing there may have been explosives in the building, firefighter:
"There's a bomb in the building, start clearing out", basically this one is full of references. Note especially the firefighter who said an explosion
came UP the stairs (9:01)....
Why had the fires reached 2800 degrees F, and why are the fires still burning after 8 weeks? In the below video, someone is questioning Dr Gross
about "molten steel". While I accept the debunkers' statement that the amount of molten metal leaking from the 80th floor of the building is probably
from the plane, what I am paying attention to here is the listed high temperature and a direct statement by Dr Gross of how that is impossible under
his theory of how the building collapsed.
The NIST analysis lead Dr Gross agrees, there is no possible way that the fires could have reached anywhere close to that temperature. This video
shows him making that argument, along with the backup information stated here. Also, as steel has a melting temperature of 2750 F, that 2800 F would
explain the molten steel. Out of Dr Gross' mouth - "no possible way for the fires to have reached that temperature". The only other explanation?
Here's some simple modeling of the scenario:
Oh, and by the way for those that would demean William Rodriguez, the janitor who tells everyone he heard explosions inside the tower? That man is a
hero. He risked his life to rescue 15 people, making it out just in time before the collapse. Yet some would call him crazy or a traitor.
edit on 2-10-2010 by diginess because: Edited to show the whole German language clip is related, not just the 14:36-17:10 which relates
specifically to the ATC