13 Reasons To Question The Official Story

reply to post by ShaunHatfield


maybe i ll start a serious thread over some weeks, when i hopefully have more time for investigation and re-membering, so, i keep it short:


- misinformation/communication around the exercises in the morning: most military were convinced the hijacks were part of the exercises...even a lack of movement after the WTC attacks
- no scramble fighters launched, and if, they went in a wrong direction, or left from an airfield not close by
- several versions of the flight manifests, final version took years
- no real video proof of Pentagon impact: frames cut out, tapes of security cameras in Pentagon area taken by FBI....the released tape of the gas station contains also weird anomalies
- all the people involved in the cleanup of WTC, after : the air is safe to breath, no danger
- it was very long denied the black boxes were found
- flight 93: shot down, yes or no?
- fake phone calls from flight (? dunno the right number)
- 19 hijackers: 7 were alive and kickin'....corrected meanwhile?
- other intelligence agencies knew of the attacks, weeks and longer in advance
- no footage of Pentagon cams of impact
- it seems Pentagon has also a defense system: why didn't it react?
- firefighters weren't allowed to enter WTC 7 to fight the fires


just of top of my head without looking online


apologies for the off-topic

reply to post by ShaunHatfield

Then why is it reasonable for a truther to demand the same? Why is the hypocrisy so heavy in the truth movement... Truthers question EVERY SINGLE word the MSM says.. Except if they slip and make an error, that fits the truthers delusion.. THEN and only then are the MSM really telling the truth.. Its pathetic at this point..

Here's a good example of your trustworthy, honest, do-no-harm media: In fact they're so trustworthy that they can accurately predict the future! Astounding! It's not like they were being handed scripts because media is controlled and BBC played their part on 9/11, nah, they got lucky!

I just realized I am arguing a losing argument.. NO amount of proof could change your mind.. And to date all I have seen from the truth movement... is just that a big pile of "movement"

Dude why are you even posting things like this? "No amount of proof"....what proof? What proof have you contributed to this thread? Exactly which of the 13 points in the OP have you debunked? Can you provide me with this "proof" that I must have missed when I wasn't reading your anti-truth posts close enough?

I quit.. It is not worth it.. I am going to ignore all delusions from this point on.. have a nice day, and thanks for the realization.

I won't miss you, you didn't address the OP in any of your posts so I encourage you to stop posting your off-topic anti-truth garbage without actually bringing any of this proof to the table that you claim I'm ignoring.

But one last thing, you forgot to answer this question that was in the post you responded to:

Do you agree that the collapse of those buildings, especially WTC 7, have many characteristics that match up with a controlled demolition?

reply to post by trebor451


Here are some polls that will refresh your inaccurate view of how many people doubt the official story:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c4571e97555f.jpg[/atsimg]

A Third of U.S. Public Believes 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

48% Support New Investigation

70 Million Americans Support New Investigation


[color=limegreen]Important--everyone read this: When I said "stay on topic" in the OP, I didn't mean on the topic of 9/11 in general, I meant on the topic of the 13 points explained in the OP. Don't take the discussion in a completely different direction that isn't even mentioned in the OP. Quoted from the OP:

Please stay on topic, because 9/11 threads always go in another direction, and sure enough 2 pages into the discussion people are talking about Lloyd England or something that's not even addressed the OP.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Thanks, and you are correct.

I'm wiping the foam from my mouth, stepping off my soapbox and staying on topic.

reply to post by TupacShakur


my apologies too. If i find the time, over 2 weeks and later, i ll start what some are asking for, cause it looks like they won't do it

peace

reply to post by pteridine

So the answer is "no," they did not test the hat trusses. That means that the falling antenna could have been failure of the trusses and not the core.

As to your rhetorical questions and mini-rant; I don't know why they did not test the hat trusses. Maybe it is a hat truss coverup conspiracy or maybe the engineers thought that testing the trusses was not important.

Yep, maybe they didn't test them because they didn't have enough money, or didn't see that as important. Or who knows, maybe they did in fact test them but the results showed that fire cannot make them fail so they omitted that test. Maybe they even knew that the core failed because of thermite rather than steel and chose to not investigate it.

Regardless of why they didn't test them, I think we can both agree that this is one of many unanswered questions that a new, better funded and more thorough investigation can answer.

Sweet thread OP. Great work putting this together. I cant believe people STILL believe the 'official' story that they have been spoon fed by the media.

Anyone interested should watch the Loose Change documentarys. Both the original and the Final Cut. Maby that will open their eyes a little...

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by trebor451

 

Here are some polls that will refresh your inaccurate view of how many people doubt the official story:

blah blah blah

 

[color=limegreen]Important--everyone read this: When I said "stay on topic" in the OP, I didn't mean on the topic of 9/11 in general, I meant on the topic of the 13 points explained in the OP. Don't take the discussion in a completely different direction that isn't even mentioned in the OP. Quoted from the OP:

Please stay on topic, because 9/11 threads always go in another direction, and sure enough 2 pages into the discussion people are talking about Lloyd England or something that's not even addressed the OP.

edit on 3-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post

LMAO...and you go off talking about polls.

And if those "polls" are so dad-gum accurate, then *why*, 10 years after the fact, you people remain a laughing stock and you can't get ANYONE to even support what YOU think is a slam dunk., specifically the April "I know I took settlement money from American Airlines but now I want more and I'm saying there was no American Airlines jet" Gallop lawsuit? Why has that been the *only* high-profile lawsuit you have ever come *close* to being a participant in? If it is such a slam dunk, why was Gallop and her lawyers slammed with a sanctions of *at least* $15,000 for filling a frivolous and bogus lawsuit?

If there were any veracity to your "poll" claims, any legitimacy at all, any shred of truth to such claptrap, you would have had your "investigation" by now, your kangaroo courts would have been held, your ignorance would have been on display (defense at the Pentagon? 93 shot down? no scramble fighters launched?), your "experts" would have trumped the day and some weird, vile, convoluted obscene version of America would be in place. As it is, your "poll" numbers are trumped up myths of push-polling or creative question-asking or outright lies, nobody in any sort of "Truth" movement really gives a damn about any new "investigation" or else somebody in those tens or hundreds of millions could have/would have ponied up the money for it (or, conversely, get everyone who you claim supports this crap to kick in $1 and you have tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and you can hold your OWN "new" investigation). You don't have any kangaroo courts going on because you *have* no case, your experts are fools and morons and idiots who lack even the most common ability to rub two brain cells together and understand that terrorist organizations have been around for centuries and the fact that this al Qeada organization planned and executed this is absolutely nothing out of the ordinary in geo/international political world.

So, all you people can take your blinders off, pull your head out of the sand or your backside, wherever it is, and get along with your lives in some meaningful, productive way...or you can keep acting the gargantuan fool, tilting at your "Bush dID iT !!!@@@11!!" windmills and your "Double Sooper-Sekrit Squirrel Conspiracy to Invade Iraq and Afghanistan to get Oil oh My 10 years Later and We Don't Have Oil!!!" BS and remain mired in insignificant existence with your laser-guided space-based destructo beams and your hologram aircraft and your cruise missiles at the Pentagon and and your loading up of frozen cadavers at the pentagon for representative body parts and your dreams of thermite/thermate or explosives or wherever you people are now with your wild 9/11 wet dreams.

Doesn't matter to me what you do. You all are nothing but entertainment in my book, in any event.

reply to post by trebor451


Dude just stop posting. None of that off-topic crap you're spewing relates to the OP, so unless you want to discuss any of the 13 points in the OP and actually try to debunk them, stop wasting our time with your emotion fueled nonsense.

reply to post by trebor451
And after being damaged slightly building 7 dropped the same exact way as the others and you don't find that a small bit suspicious? I do and feel it is worth checking into more. You seem to have a pre-conceived bias toward this topic and do not seem like you are on a quest for the truth.
As for the other stuff, I am not smart enough to determine one way or the other, I simply think it is interesting and I hope discussion on the towers continues to happen, it's healthy.

Originally posted by bing0
reply to post by ShaunHatfield

 

maybe i ll start a serious thread over some weeks, when i hopefully have more time for investigation and re-membering, so, i keep it short:


1- misinformation/communication around the exercises in the morning: most military were convinced the hijacks were part of the exercises...even a lack of movement after the WTC attacks
2- no scramble fighters launched, and if, they went in a wrong direction, or left from an airfield not close by
3- several versions of the flight manifests, final version took years
4- no real video proof of Pentagon impact: frames cut out, tapes of security cameras in Pentagon area taken by FBI....the released tape of the gas station contains also weird anomalies
5- all the people involved in the cleanup of WTC, after : the air is safe to breath, no danger
6- it was very long denied the black boxes were found
7- flight 93: shot down, yes or no?
8- fake phone calls from flight (? dunno the right number)
9- 19 hijackers: 7 were alive and kickin'....corrected meanwhile?
10- other intelligence agencies knew of the attacks, weeks and longer in advance
11- no footage of Pentagon cams of impact
12- it seems Pentagon has also a defense system: why didn't it react?
13- firefighters weren't allowed to enter WTC 7 to fight the fires


just of top of my head without looking online

edit on 3/8/11 by bing0 because: typo

1) It is common in the military to ask "Is this an excersise?" There was a lack of imagination on the morning of 9/11. Contrary to truthers belief, nobody thought of this attack. You will probably say "Well they were training for it" Wrong, they were training for a hijacking and an exploding aircraft, not an aircraft being used as a missile. Which might I add, was being tested on the 6th thru the 9th, with one sceduled for an hour after the first plane hit... Debunk that!
2)

The FAA and other air traffic control centers alerted NEADS (the Northeast Air Defense Sector, a part of NORAD) of the four hijackings, though with little or no advance notice for NEADS or NORAD to mount a response.
After that NORAD still does not scramble the planes. Here is a quote by Major General Larry Arnold during his 9/11 Commission Testimony, explaining what happens next.

...hijacking is a law enforcement issue as is everything that takes off from within the United States. And only law enforcement can request assistance from the military, which they did, in this particular case. The route, if you follow the book, is that they go to the duty officer of the national military command center, who in turn makes an inquiry to NORAD for the availability of fighters, who then gets permission from someone representing the Sec. of Defense. Once that's approved, then we scramble aircraft.

They had a maximum 9 minutes advanced notice of the first jacking of American Airlines Flight 11
They were notified about United Airlines Flight 175 at 9:03 AM, the same time that it crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center
They had four minutes advance notice of American Airlines Flight 77
They were notified about United Airlines Flight 93 at 10:07 AM, after it had already crashed.

Truthers, while NOT trusting the Govt. seem to believe that our military and Norad are some kind of super human agency that has the US airspace on "lock down"
Even after 9/11 things are still slow, in January 2002 Charles Bishop took off in a Cessna without his instructor, flying dangerously low over a military airbase, and the time intercept would have been about 55 minutes if the plane wouldn't have crashed[12]. Even with beefed up intercept procedures after 9/11, planes only 10 minutes from Washington, the time to scramble was 18 minutes, and the intercept several minutes later.

3) Just like every single story on earth.. there is speculation and opinions in the beginning, then come the facts.

4) The 85 video horse has been beaten, killed and trampled on... As far as I know ALL relevant videos have been released.. Unless you have proof (real proof, not some prison planet BS). Which we both know all you could produce is theories and or opinions.

5) And? I think the only REAL mistake, is being to cheap to pay for it.. Even if the responders were told it was dangerous, they still would have been in there rescuing people.. If you have to be told to put a mask on, when there is smoke, you have bigger problems than a mask. Period!

6)It was also said that they were missing serial numbers.. FALSE .. There were several reports that they didn't match the planes.. also FALSE.. You see in this world of "There is a conspiracy in EVERYTHING, anything is possible, and facts are simply obstacles.

7) I think there is a good chance that 93 was shot down. And? I wouldn't tell the people either. If I was a Govt., getting ready to go after the people that attacked us, I would go with the inspirational path too... Are you kidding?? "Lets roll" was more inspirational to our troops and citizens, than Pretty woman was to hookers.

8) You are right... Phone calls from that altitude on a cell phone would be impossible.. THAT'S WHY THEY WERE MADE FROM THE SEAT PHONES... You really can't be this uninformed, can you?... That was proven and debunked like 9 years ago.. Do you really even know ANYTHING about 9/11 and the conspiracies surrounding it??? Or are you new to the delusion?

9)Also proven to be false... If I go and kill a Dave Baker on Monday, I bet you "One Million Dollars muhahaha" That I can go find 30 more on Tuesday....

On September 23, 2001 the BBC and the Daily Telegraph reported that some of the hijackers were actually alive and well. They reported they had found Waleed al-Shehri, who reportedly was living in Casablanca, Morocco. Reported also was that Abdulaziz al-Omari, Saeed Al-Ghamdi, and Khalid al-Midhar, three other hijackers, were still also living in the middle east.

All of the reports have since been acknowledged as cases of mistaken identity by the publications involved. The problem may have arisen because the FBI names were common Arabic and Islamic names. Another possible way confusion could have arise is because many of the hijackers varied the spelling of their names, for example Hani Saleh Hanjour, also used "Hani Hanjoor", "Hani Saleh", "Hami Hanjoor"

Do NOT MISS the part where it says "by the publications involved" So the people they were looking for, were cases of mistaken identity... Debunk that!!!! This is what I hate to death about truthers.. You guys keep filling your little sponge bob back packs with all of these facts... You don't even vet your facts.. Its pathetic and a sign of the gene pool being tainted!

10) I have heard that the hijackers had come on to our radar and we dropped the ball looking deeper into it... Can you provide me with the proof that they knew ahead of time.
11) No cams of impact? Or do you mean "The video that they released is not good enough for me "(insert lisp and mouth breathing)
12) Your joking right??? Have you done ANY research?? Even people in this forum here, will tell you this has been debunked and is completely ignorant..

"it seems Pentagon has also a defense system: why didn't it react?"

This claim is of course ridiculous to anyone who does even the most superficial research, even a “scholar”. The Pentagon, in fact, is located less than 2 miles, and directly in the flight path of Reagan National Airport. SO on Auto, ever single plane landing at Regan would be blown to pieces, and if on Manual, you wouldn't be able to react quick enough to do anything...

This one is a perfect example of "Truther want to believe, and be right so bad, that you don't vet any info you take in..

It is a well known fact, that in 2001 the Pentagon DID NOT have an active air defense system.. Prove me wrong!

13)You are 100% correct. Do you know why? Or is this where you are going to employ super truther assumption skills???

They didn't go in because of the south side of 7, there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
The firefighters headed toward 7. The got just about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He told them "forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there", so they turned around and just stopped.

In true truther form, you will not even take the time to look into these things. If you were not so desperate to prove your little warped version, you could easily look into the real facts, and find the truth.

Don't fret, I completely understand that you have far to much time invested into this fantasy. To admit error now, would be a blast to your ego..... A major blast!

reply to post by trebor451


There is a very good chance that I just fell in love with you.... All kidding aside... I think we have reached a point where, NOT a single one of these "truthers" will ever admit they are wrong.. They are using previously debunked theories and old proven falsehoods. Their ego's could not handle the blow that realization would cause.

The time invested, the fury they put into their posts... They would have to change friends, apologize to friends and relatives, change their ATS names... You see, they have far to much invested at this point..

It would be tantamount to trying to climb back up the water of a waterfall, after the decent.

It is a sad position that truthers are in... No cake for you.... truthers!

Some members on this forum are bringing up "facts" that have been proven wrong ago.. Even staunch truthers know these to be false and plain wrong.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by ShaunHatfield

 

Then why is it reasonable for a truther to demand the same? Why is the hypocrisy so heavy in the truth movement... Truthers question EVERY SINGLE word the MSM says.. Except if they slip and make an error, that fits the truthers delusion.. THEN and only then are the MSM really telling the truth.. Its pathetic at this point..

Here's a good example of your trustworthy, honest, do-no-harm media:

In fact they're so trustworthy that they can accurately predict the future! Astounding! It's not like they were being handed scripts because media is controlled and BBC played their part on 9/11, nah, they got lucky!

I just realized I am arguing a losing argument.. NO amount of proof could change your mind.. And to date all I have seen from the truth movement... is just that a big pile of "movement"

Dude why are you even posting things like this? "No amount of proof"....what proof? What proof have you contributed to this thread? Exactly which of the 13 points in the OP have you debunked? Can you provide me with this "proof" that I must have missed when I wasn't reading your anti-truth posts close enough?

I quit.. It is not worth it.. I am going to ignore all delusions from this point on.. have a nice day, and thanks for the realization.

I won't miss you, you didn't address the OP in any of your posts so I encourage you to stop posting your off-topic anti-truth garbage without actually bringing any of this proof to the table that you claim I'm ignoring.

But one last thing, you forgot to answer this question that was in the post you responded to:

Do you agree that the collapse of those buildings, especially WTC 7, have many characteristics that match up with a controlled demolition?

edit on 3-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post

"Do you agree that the collapse of those buildings, especially WTC 7, have many characteristics that match up with a controlled demolition?"

A tranny has a lot of the same characteristics as a woman, but isn't. What do you think your question will accomplish?

Buildings falling - yes they share that trait.
Did you expect me to use my imagination and just start assuming things?

Quote: What is good for the goose is not always good for the gander.

Building 7 is the smoking gun, it wasn't hit by a plane but it fell, blah blah blah

From a firefighter that was on his way to building 7 when he was instructed to fall back

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

reply to post by TupacShakur


You made this statement in your OP.. Can you please clarify for me:

"The horizontal ejection of extremely massive steel beams, and the completely pulverization of concrete further backs up a controlled demolition: "

Can you explain in detail how a controlled demolition would explain the pulverized concrete. Better yet, can you explain how a controlled demolition would have ANY affect of the concrete.

Please and thank you.
Shaun

Originally posted by ShaunHatfield
reply to post by trebor451

 

Their ego's could not handle the blow that realization would cause.

The time invested, the fury they put into their posts... They would have to change friends, apologize to friends and relatives, change their ATS names... You see, they have far to much invested at this point..

It would be tantamount to trying to climb back up the water of a waterfall, after the decent.

lol....ego rubber.....read your posts.....you are the one who has an ego, and not a small one. And sorry to say, you don't impress me atm

if i get the chance, i ll start a thread over a few weeks, and there you get the chance to unleash your ego. But i have higher duties for a while, sorry

keep breathing, and please, stay on topic? And don't drown in your ego......

Originally posted by ShaunHatfield

 

Stretch reality to fit opinions... Tweak facts to fit theories.. Believe what benefits you, yet deny what hurts the delusion.. I quit.. It is not worth it.. I am going to ignore all delusions from this point on.. have a nice day, and thanks for the realization.

reply to post by ShaunHatfield

You made this statement in your OP.. Can you please clarify for me:

YOWZA, an official story believer actually addressing the OP in an on-topic manner? Is there some kind of mistake here? I must be dreaming....

"The horizontal ejection of extremely massive steel beams, and the completely pulverization of concrete further backs up a controlled demolition: "

Can you explain in detail how a controlled demolition would explain the pulverized concrete. Better yet, can you explain how a controlled demolition would have ANY affect of the concrete.

This backs up a controlled demolition because if it were a gravity driven collapse, chunks of steel weighing thousands of pounds would not be ejected horizontally hundreds of feet at up to 70mph. Very powerful explosives on the other hand could do this.

Also the concrete is literally being turned into dust during the "collapse". We don't see slabs of concrete in the debris like with the following image, instead we just see the building turn into a flour-like powder during the collapse, another feat that explosives perform. [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0c1c40a9d6cf.jpg[/atsimg] [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d4f8b5f325ae.jpg[/atsimg]
You can actually see the tower exploding in waves that move down the tower in this video:

This paragraph taken from this article (provided by bing0) explains the energy required to fragment concrete and steel:

Dwain Deets, the former Chief of Research Engineering and Director for Aeronautical Projects at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, wrote to Mark and told him that he had listened to our interview on “The Real Deal” and said: “Excellent interview. A step toward trimming back claims that overshoot the evidence.” He also sent a diagram illustrating certain detonation velocities as well as the sonic (speed of sound) velocities in various materials. [color=limegreen]Thus, for a high explosive to significantly fragment a material, its detonation velocity has to be greater than the speed of sound in that material, which requires a detonation velocity of at least 3,200 m/s to fragment concrete and 6,100 m/s to fragment steel–far beyond 895 m/s for nanothermite.

So while the famed nanothermite is incapable of turning concrete into dust, a more powerful explosive such as RDX (detonation velocity of 8750 m/s) or HDX (detonation velocity of 9100m/s) could have done the destruction.

IMO, nanothermite could have been used to weaken certain components of the buildings structure, possibly even setting off the initial drop of the top section, and once that was done, the more high powerered explosive did the real damage by progressively exploding the building in a top-down demolition and bringing the tower to the ground.

reply to post by ShaunHatfield

A tranny has a lot of the same characteristics as a woman, but isn't. What do you think your question will accomplish?

Funny, but a transvestite is a grossly (figuratively and literally) inaccurate comparison. Sure, a tranny may have implants and a wig, but the tranny doesn't have every single characteristic that a woman does.

Controlled Demolition Vs WTC 7:
Controlled demolition: When a building is imploded, the core is taken out first so the building falls in on itself. This results in a kink or fault. You can observe this as well as the other characteristics in many videos at Implosion World. Check out Schuylkill Falls Tower to see a fault as the building collapses.

WTC 7: When WTC 7 fell, there was a kink or fault meaning that the buildings core failed first.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/10b76f1dd03c.jpg[/atsimg]
Match accuracy: 100%

Controlled demolition: The buildings core structure is severed symmetrically and within milliseconds of each other to ensure that the building falls straight down rather than tipping over. Check out the Philips Building demolition on Implosion World to see a good example.

WTC 7: The building fell straight down and symmetrically, which means that the most of the core columns were severed symmetrically and within milliseconds of each other, otherwise the building would not have fallen straight down. Match accuracy: 100% [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ac61a07a46d5.jpg[/atsimg] Here were the columns that were damaged (Provided by NIST/FEMA): [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f0003de429eb.jpg[/atsimg] Based on the damage, the tower would not have collapsed symmetrically.

Controlled demolition: The floors are destroyed in a way that the floor above it doesn't collide with it to ensure a quick, smooth, near free-fall collapse. The Philips Building also illustrates this nicely.

WTC 7: The building free-fell, meaning that the material in between the floors that should have slown the collapse in accordance with the Law of Conservation wasn't there to slow it down. The material must have been removed in order for this to happen.

Match accuracy: 100%

Transvestite Vs Woman:
Transvestite: Breast Implants.

Woman: Real breasts.

Match accuracy: 0%

Transvestite: Penis.

Woman: Vagina.

Match accuracy: 0%

Transvestite: Deep voice and large adams apple.

Woman: (Usually) high pitched voice and small adams apple.

Match accuracy: 10%

Transvestite: Wig, or they can grow long hair.

Woman: Long hair unless they have a short haircut.

Match accuracy: 75%

So your analogy sucked basically.

Buildings falling - yes they share that trait.

It's not nearly as oversimplified as you make it out to be: "Oh, it fell down. Controlled demolitions make buildings fall down. Big deal."

Did you expect me to use my imagination and just start assuming things?

No, I don't expect you to imagine crazy scenarios, I expect you to look at the characteristics that the collapse of WTC 7 and controlled demolitions share, and consider the damage that the building sustained and use your mushy thinking thing inside of your skull.

Even if you disagree that it was a controlled demolition, you have to acknowledge that it matches all of the traits of one. Free-fall, symmetrical collapse, a core failure which produces a fault, and even explosions as reported by many witnesses.

From a firefighter that was on his way to building 7 when he was instructed to fall back

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day

OK, the building was damaged, can you point out where I said it wasn't damaged? I'm not saying there wasn't any falling debris/fire damage. What I am saying is the damage that the building sustained is incapable of producing a symmetrical free-fall implosion, however explosives can produce those things.

Tom Sullivan explains best exactly why WTC 7 could not have possibly collapsed as it did due to fire/falling debris damage: That's an interview from the AE911 documentary that comes out next month, and will take the controlled demolition theory to a whole new leve.

and this i can add, cause i posted it lately. A Dutch demolition expert, concluded after seeing the footage and pictures, back in 2006, that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition job. He died some weeks ago in (maybe) suspicious circumstances

here a phone interview in 2007. The other links i posted in that same thread i won't bother you with, cause its a total of 20 minutes + ( this post )

reply to post by TupacShakur


Concrete cores are something I've changed my mind about. I was arguing with a most annoying fellow about said cores, I was claiming they were there, and he was claiming even my avatar proved they were not.

So I went digging to prove him wrong and found information to support my hypothesis, even a paper from Oxford university:

At the heart of the structure was a vertical steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and stairwells. Steel beams radiate outwards and connect with steel uprights, forming the building's outer wall.

So he countered with this:

Yes the Oxford quote is wrong NO CONCRETE no drawing shows it and NO PHOTOGRAPH during construction shows it.

Provided links to the gypsum plank details and the story of the people in the lift sheetrock round the steel as fire protection.

The sheetrock was blown of section round the core into the stairwells if you check links on net!

Also a little tip Your SORRY Jims video fakery thread had be closed ( and rightly so) because of his WACKO no plane ideas!!

Well, he's right about that, it seems mid construction the building codes were changed, negating the necessity for concrete cores in the towers. So although they may have encased the base of the core columns in concrete, it appears they may well not have used it above that point.

It's another riddle, in that there are no photographs of the thousands of concrete trucks or concrete buckets, plus there are no records of the floor pours either, other than one or two videos and a few photos. Where are the hundreds of full page glossy photos taken by the dozens of concrete contractors who must have taken photographs of their work in the famous WTC? There are no records of them, there are no records of gravel or sand, or cement deliveries to the site if they were mixing it on site.

Its a conundrum.

Here's a discussion we had about it:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by TupacShakur


Add that to the fact that the post collapse pics of WTC 7 show the outer walls on top of the rest of the collapsed building...





That is evidence the building landed, and was designed to land in its footprint.