Jump to content

The Truth Behind 9/11


Recommended Posts

And from tis you are really implying the owner of the building rigged it with explosives and demolished it for the insurance?


Honestly what is the link - there isn't one, at all.


The fire department had been saying the building was liable to collapse since the early afternoon due to the damage from the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.


Question: why didn't they blow it instantly along with the the twin towers - then all this argument about was it damaged or not would be moot - no one could say.


Plus look at this video at Youtube


Look at the segements between 5:45 and 5:55 you can see the debris hitting the building.


And at 6:33-6:36 this shows the extent of the fire coming out of the building - the smoke isn't associated with the collapsed twin towers - its coming out of WTC7.


I've linked to this before, but 90% of the videos of WTC 7 miss out the collapse of the east penthouse - check out the first few seconds of this

at 22 seconds the Penthouse collapses into the building - its only at 28 seconds the main collapse occurrs.


And again look at the smoke coming out of the building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What seems likely is that a time was set for the demolition and sent out to agents in the media.


Who then, for some unknown reason, went on to tell their minions but failed to add the crucial "don't say it's blown up before it has, hush hush top secret!"?


Crikey! For such secretive coves, these conspiracy folk are awfully free and easy with what they choose to blab to their work colleagues, and indeed the world.


With regards to how 'implausible' it is that the Towers collapsed due to impact and heat, a professional structural engineer and academic (i.e. someone who happens to know more than dick all about the processes that occur in such a scenario) seems to think that it's plausible, more so in fact than wacky theories involving explosives.


Oh, and before anyone mentions Jeff King: he's not a structural engineer, or a scientist, and he's certainly not a research scientist at MIT. He did graduate from MIT, but with a degree in electrical engineering and he hasn't even worked in that field for the past 25 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to awnser crozza the flight was scheduled to depart at 8:00 a.m. and did not leave until 8:42 am due to heavy traffic


this time delay threw the whole opperation into freefall.the crew/ passengers regaining control also went against the days plans

pure speculation but were would the delay place flight 93 on the map and within the days timeline.that the bbc now seems to to trying to alter.


to reply to vin/ who is one off the few people left on the planet still unconvinced. or just a now obvious fourum plant i will post this letter taken from wrh readers page to the taxpayers funded bbc


READER: To: Richard Porter BBC news

But your "explanation" was that the BBC couldn't have done it, so it didn't happen, and besides, you've lost the tapes so you can't check! And you don't need to anyway, because someone on Youtube said that the BBC wasn't involved! Now you're asking me to believe that it was common knowledge that WTC7 was going to collapse??? Not only did you know it was going to collapse, but you knew WHY - a conclusion even the official reports have not yet reached, over 5 years later!! Your "explanations", such as they are, change like the weather!


Perhaps then you'd care to explain how ALL the media didn't know it was going to collapse in advance, if it was such common knowledge, and how some of them were so shocked when it happened - and still are to this day! Perhaps you'd care to explain how and why it is therefore that IF it was such common knowledge that WTC7 was going to collapse, any mention of it today in most media companies has to be cleared at Director level - and permission is nearly always refused???!!! Most news broadcasters won't show the collapse of WTC7 on Prime Time TV! Why have there been no documentaries about it? After all, it was, according to you, common knowledge! Why the secrecy? Why the refusals to talk until you're cornered?


But you trip yourself up, Richard. In one breath you expect the world to believe you check every item (see your Editor's blog for that) and yet now you say "it got on the wires and we reported it too! That's how it works!" Yes, you did - you reported on it, and it hadn't happened! But you didn't do what you SAID you did, did you? You didn't check it for accuracy, did you? That much is obvious by the fact that as Jane Standley is talking about its collapse, the building is clearly still standing behind her! Nor did you qualify it! So what we have here is the BBC at the very least repeating verbatim what "came through on the wire" before checking on it. So once again, what was that wire source? There must have been one - you just admitted as much! And surely you're not telling us that the BBC is reporting on things without checking on sources AGAIN??!! My God, is it Andrew Gilligan all over again, only even worse, actually on 9/11? Consider this.


At approx 4 minutes into the broadcast starting at 16:54 EST (which would put the time at 16:58 approx.), the studio anchorman said:


"We've got some news just coming in, actually, that the Salomon Brothers Building in New York, right in the heart of Manhatten, has ALSO collapsed. This DOES fit in with a warning from the British Foreign Office a couple of hours ago to British citizens that there is a a real risk, uh, let me get the exact words, that the British Foreign Office, the foreign department of the British Government, said there was a strong risk of further atrocities in the United States. And it does seem as if there now is another one with the Salomon Brothers building collapsing. We've got no word yet on casualties, uh, one assumes that the building would have been virtually deserted."


Then at approx. 15:30 into the broadcast (which would put the time at 17:10 approx.) he said:


"Now, more on the latest building collapse in New York, you might have heard a few moments ago, I was talking about the Salomon Brothers Building collapsing. And indeed it has! Apparently that's only a few hundred yards away from where the World Trade Centre Towers were. And it seems that this was not the result of a new attack, it was because the building had been weakened, uh, during this morning attacks. We'll probably find out more about that from our correspondent, Jane Standley. Jane, what can you tell us.."


So, from the time of the studio receiving word that WTC7 had fallen at16:58 EST, to the next mention of it, 12 minutes passed. And during that time, the BBC did nothing to check the accuracy of the initial report!!! Despite your claims, the BBC did not (COULD not have!) verify a report, the very existence of which is sinister in the extreme! So think about it. Not only do we have the BBC complicit in the 9/11 attacks to a lesser or larger extent (that has yet to be established, when the BBC eventually admits who was the source of the information that WTC7 had falled before it actually had!), we ALSO have the BBC displaying massive incompetence! All it would have taken was a quick Google search to confirm which building was WTC7 - and yet in the 12 minutes from receiving their orders at 16:58, the BBC did NOTHING!!!


Let's also examine the BBC's claims that "you lost your footage"... The BBC's management policy, which can be viewed here (if you aren't aware of it):




says this about backups:


The following components to be retained:-


· Two broadcast standard copies of all transmitted/published TV, Radio and BBCi output – one to be stored on a separate site as a master


· One browse-quality version for research purposes, to protect the broadcast material


· All supporting metadata to enable research and re-use


· A selection of original (i.e. unedited) material for re-use/re-versioning purposes


· Hardware/software/equipment to enable replay/transfer of the media


So, a MINIMUM of two separate copies - and yet the BBC claims to have lost it!!! Perhaps you'd care to explain THAT!! Are we talking about incompetence on a massive scale here? Refusal or inability to follow management policy? AS WELL AS possibly complicity in conspiracy to mass murder!!! Whichever way you slice it, the BBC doesn't come out smelling of roses!


And thanks, I know how a newsroom operates - I work in the Media...! ;-)




bbc....... bloody big cockup

Edited by tameelf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

to reply to vin/ who is one off the few people left on the planet still unconvinced. or just a now obvious fourum plant i will post this letter taken from wrh readers page to the taxpayers funded bbc


That's right, I'm with the NSA. That is the only thing you're right about, however. 9/11 happened exactly as the official version states, the real Mossad/CIA/BBC/RAC/Argos conspiracy is more personal. To put it bluntly, we're the ones who've been feeding crazy conspiracy theories to the public via a number of deep cover agents who've infiltrated the lunatic fringe. The aim behind this is to conduct a rigorous experiment that measures precisely just how much demented twaddle about conspiracies and secret plans we can pump right into your brain before it explodes. Not sure why we're doing this, I suppose it could have limited military applications, but mainly it's just for the fun of it.


The medical staff say it shouldn't be too long now - your language skills and motor functions are already deteriorating on a daily basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the major issue currently being raised is that both the BBC and CNN were saying that WTC7 would or had collapsed prior to it doing so.


This is being used to prove that it was demolished.


Why? Couldn't it be seen as showing that it was known how badly the building was damaged and so precautions were taken to tell people of it collapse. In the confusion of the day - may collapse became has collapsed.


Was it known that WTC7 was badly damaged:


See this link


Fire Chief Frank Fellini: "The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. ... We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down." (Interview, 12/3/2001)


Fire Chief Daniel Nigro: "The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain." (Daniel Nigro, "Report from the Chief of Department," Fire Engineering,9/2002)


Fire Chief Frank Cruthers: "Of primary importance early on in the operation was the structural condition of 7 World Trade Center. Assistant Chief Frank Fellini had been approached by several chiefs who were concerned about its stability. It had been heavily damaged in the collapse and was well-involved in fire. Chief Fellini had looked at it and described to us some damage to its south side; he felt that structural components of the building had been comprised. So when Chief Dan Nigro arrived at the command post, he convened a meeting of staff chiefs, and this was a major subject of the meeting. We were all in accord about the danger of 7 WTC, and we all agreed that it was not too conservative of a decision to establish a collapse zone for that building, move the firefighters out of the collapse area, and maintain that strategy." (Frank Cruthers, "Postcollapse Command," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)


These people were the surviving decision makers on the day - remember a large proportion of the New York Fire Departments command structure had died earlier in the day.


Are these reports accurate?


See this Youtube Video.


Steve Spak (bet he was bulled at school cos of his name!) took the film and provides commentary on the events.


Look at these pictures of the damage:






There was fire out of control throughout the building - on almost every floor - these were left unfought. And the damage was extensive - 15 storey sized holes visible through the smoke at the bottom of the building. The upper floors would have taken a greater impact just from the way debris falls - it will hit the top first. Unfortunately this damage isn't visible in the photos because the smoke from the fires in the building was too thick - and the conspiracy theorists say the building was only lightly damaged - huh?


Initially I was sceptical the tapes were original, but now with the CNN and BBC tapes - with both BBC World and BBC News saying the building had collapsed before it did - I agree they are genuine.


My take on it: reports from the evacuees from the area and from the fire fighters in the confusion changed about to collapse to collapse - the BBC reporter says reports are very, very, sketchy. I bet the BBC was getting multiple confusing reports - it has collapsed, it hasn't collapsed, it will collapse. They made a judgement call - it was wrong. How does that prove the building was deliberately demolished - it doesn't!


The idea Mr Elf has that this whole thing was correographed with minute to minute timing and because flight 93 was delayed taking off in the early morning they released the collapse press release too early is just the biggest joke possible. He says he works in the media - in that case he should know how competitively these organizations are out to scoop each other. He paints a picture of mass collusion, hundreds of journalists being stopped reporting the story of the century. Toss - how do we know about the firefighters oral testimonies about the day - the New York Times fought through the courts to get them released.


Would Al Jezzera, or Xinhua, or Interfax give a toss about reporting the truth - if it was out there? Why aren't these organizations breaking the story - my opinion - there is no story to break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting video. Shows how by 'joining the publicly available dots' the true picture is yet to come out, yet remains largely unreported. 30% of questions from the victim's families only touched upon by the 911 commission and 70% unanswered - a commission with only 10% of the budget that was used to investigate Bill Clinton's 'affair'.


Anyone with an ounce of commonsense watching the 'testimonies' and seeing what the newspapers have been allowed to report knows this is going to come out one day. What is particularly worrying was the ABC reporter discussing how much editorial control of ABC and many newspapers has been removed from journalists since 911.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting video. Shows how by 'joining the publicly available dots' the true picture is yet to come out, yet remains largely unreported. 30% of questions from the victim's families only touched upon by the 911 commission and 70% unanswered - a commission with only 10% of the budget that was used to investigate Bill Clinton's 'affair'.


Anyone with an ounce of commonsense watching the 'testimonies' and seeing what the newspapers have been allowed to report knows this is going to come out one day. What is particularly worrying was the ABC reporter discussing how much editorial control of ABC and many newspapers has been removed from journalists since 911.


What I think very ironic is that Paul Thompson has used the main stream media and books published to make his timeline etc. He hasn't relied on any secret sources: just what was published in the NYT, the New Yorker, Newsweek, The Daily Telegraph, The Times, etc etc and coverage from CNN, CBS, ABC, CSPAN etc.


If he's entirely using these sources where's the media coverup, or editorial misdirection?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to enjoy this thread as there always appeared to be a little bit of intelligent debate. Generally it was of some theory being stated or reported and debunked by Chinahand with links to independent reports. Now it just appears to be more and more links to youtube and the finger being pointed as somebody jumps up and down and shouts see, see, see. I exonerate Chinahand from this as generally he puts together a summary and explanation backed up by qualified parties which is simple to understand.


The BBC tapes seem to have made it all worse. Initially I assumed they might be fakes, especially as they have taken five and a half years to appear. I also note that although the conspiracy theorists are jumping on the BBC for not having copies little mention has been made of the fact that whoever put in on youtube and presumably has the majority of it recorded has not made the rest available or provided a whole copy to the BBC to assist them to look into it. I find it remakable also that within 24 hrs of the BBC World tape appearing magically within 24 hrs another appears in respect of News 24 which has again not previulsy been seen. It seems to me that it can be treated as equally suspicious as the tapes being lost is whoever holds the copies is not providing the full copies just small snipits. But that is an even handed view point which to many would never do.


Either way I remain a confirmed sceptic until somebody can get independent thirty party experts to show and agree how you would rig all the buildings with explosives so they would fall, how long it would take X men to rig, how much or how little internal demolition would be required to plant the explosives, the volume of such explosives and how you could do in such a way that no body would notice it being rigged in the relevant timescale. Then I would like to see evidence of the explosions or explosives and people coming forward who undertook the work. Actually come up with anybody of the vast number who must have been involved who says "its a fair cop gov I dun it" Come up with something concrete and proovable in respect of the theories and how it was done and I might start listening again. Presently all I can see it pure speculation with no proof. That includes the BBC tape which only show them reporting a building has collapsed when it had not. It is not proof of any conspiracy nor is there any proof that it is any more than a balls up by the BBC. It might be but presently there has been no proof. Prove to the contrary and I will look at again. I believe the same day the BBC, as were all news channels reporting there were several other hijacked planes, this was subsequently shown to be false, but that is accepted as being confusion and not conspiracy.


It would also if the theory could be consistent as previous Flight 93 did not crash but was landed elsewheere, where nobody knows, now all of a sudden it was shot down as it was late to hit its rendevous at WTC7. As a simple little sole I struggle to understand how conspiracy theorists can argue one day it did not crash and then the following day agree it did as this fits their new theory! Either it crashed or it did it not.


Rant over and good night and oh if it is only people who governments etc are paying who are accept the official version and not the conspiracy theories can somebody put them in touch as I do not appear to have had my cash! A fistfull of used tenners will do nicely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...