investigate 9/11

[BeetrootsResolution]

My uncle sent me this and thought it was an appropriate time to share it with you

The Truth?

janh....so did I But I bet the guy knows his arse from a hole in the ground, and is probably right. But who'd read that, when there is a spiffy film to watch

Ruty, agree with you 100%

Sorry jools, I'l a CIA plant who had to discredit you!

My dh is now up...his main scepticism lies here....

ariel view

If you look at the buildings.....
WTC 6 is next to tower 1 (inbetween WTC 7 and Tower 1)

WTC 7 is completely gone....
WTC 6 was hit by the top of tower 1....you can see the hole where it was hit

Why does WTC 7 not have at least one of its four walls still standing...as WTC 6, 5 and 4 all have walls standing..and all took direct hit from falling debree from tower 1

Because they think that WTC 7 was 'on fire' internally for most of the day before it fell down.., There was a large amount of fuel inside to power emergency generators.

Due to the understandable concentration on te two towers, WTC7 was largly left, up to the point that it fell down.

www.911myths.com/index.html

and interesting site

Yeahbutnobutyeahbutno - OK, I'll grant you the explanation that the plane impact damage may possibly account for the weird and wonderful way WTC1 & 2 fell, despite the fact that the fires up there weren't so bad, and nothing like as long and fierce as those fires in other skyscrapers elsewhere which still stood - but the fires in WTC 7 were nothing, even with tanks of fuel in the basements. (Will find a couple of pics in a minute)

WTC 7's collapse is very very sus.

Also WTC7 collapses too fast and in too uniform a pattern, if you visit www.wtc7.net and watch the collapse videos the building takes approx 12 secs to completley implode in on its self. Surely the laws of Physics and Logic wont allow this to happen.

Since 9/11 and pre 9/11 no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire, The Windsor building in Madrid burnt for 36 hours the entire top 20 floors of an 80 storey building. There was a partial collapse of the top floors but the floors below remained intact.

WTC7 is the key, because this building was not destroyed by fire or terrorists or impact damage from WTC1. This building was destroyed by the American Administration.

In september 2000 Dick Cheney, Paul Wofowitz, and Condi Rice all under signed a document for a right wing think tank called PNAC (Project for the New American Century) in one release they say that to speed up the process to a greater military role within the world America will need to be subject to "a pearl harbour like event"

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) arrived in NY on 9/10 and set up a crisis management bunker 2 blocks from the WTC site, on 9/11 Mayor Guilliani goes to this crisis centre and not his own, His own Mayor of New York Crisis Management Centre is on the 30th floor of WTC7, Why didn,t he go there? Because he knew that it would be flat by 5.30pm

WTC 7 fires and other pics.

ludaloo - the thing about the laws of pghysics is that they're often surprising.

But as it goes, if I throw a toy aeroplane at one of ds's towers, it will implode in less than 7 seconds. shall I make a video about it?

HI Senora

As you rightly say the laws of Physics are suprising

If so

Why do WTC1 and WTC2 collapse uniformly approx the same speed and in the same manner, this should not of happened. two different impact in different areas of identical buildings should not have produced identical collapses.

You see the world and its people watch TV, we all saw the planes hit the buildings, so our acceptance that this is the truth is set by these images. What happens after cannot be questioned because the intial untruth was seen by us all and so cannot be judged. You are already programmed by the images.

the 'small' fires in wtc7 and comments from the fire fighters aon site at the time

this is the link to the firemen

I don't know, I'm not a structural engineer. The idea that they might collapse in the same way doesn't sound wholely ludicrous though given that they were both hit in the top half of the building.

From ludaloo's earlier post:

There was a lot of smoke in those pics of WTC7 but not much flame - how hot could it have been? The only physical damage was falling masonry from WTC1 - no jet-powered ramming of the central core.

And if the collapse was caused by some uneven physical damage, why did it go down so straight and neat?

look here

Watch the third one down..the CBS video.

It collapses in the exact same manner as a controlled demolision. It falls from the inside...so the outer walls fall inwards and not outwards.

WTC7 was the most secure building on the site..it contained the offices of the CIA, US secret Service the IRS (Inland Revenue Service) The ENRON Investigation was being carried out from WTC7
and after its collapse was subseqeuntley cancelled. And a very empty Mayor of New Yorks Emergency Mangament command Bunker.
And a whole hosts of Banks. (You really need to see the numbers on the Put Options purchased on American Airlines to understand the importance of the Banks)

Also

The 9/11 Commission report

Published in 2004ish

Does not mention WTC7 once, according the the highest ranking US government sponsored report in to 9/11 WTC7 never happened

Why, because it poses to many questions, and offers no answers.

I don't know why it went down they way it did, and neither does (I think) anyone on this board. There are conspiracy theorists who say, 'well why did it fall that way? Guess it must be an internal detonation then' But the one question doesn't lead to the answer they give.

How did the blue stones in Stonehenge get there? We don't know, It must be space aliens then!

the paper I posted does go some way to explain how the Twin towers fell, but it is hard to understand, and frankly beyond me in many, many parts. Doesn't mean that it can't be true though.

Oh and the internal falling thing....apparantly these buildings are desingned internally so that they do just that......makes them safer

Message withdrawn

I think the focus on OBL was simply because for possibly the first time, there was neither a nation to gon to war with nor the possibility of catching the actual terrorists.

also re the bomb theory: wasn't the wtc bombed before? and it didn't fall down. it was specifically designed to withstand a bomb. But it wasn't designed to withstand a hit from a large plane.

serious question, you don't think that maybe it was terrorists, and that the Americans then used that fact to justify all that came after???? I have no problem with believing that

Why have the huge conspiracy? It happened, and the Americans then used it to justify their later acts?

You are right there socci

Of what benefit is it to Bin Laden to flatten the world trade centres??? Why would Bin Laden want the entire American Armed Forces to turn up on his door step??

How do the American Government benefit from such an event???
They can now invade Iraq! Can ignore the UN and the will of the whole world!

It was attacked earier with a bomb in he basement.

Which is why the terrorists flew a plane into it. Unless you believe the conspiracy theorists who'd have you belive that the CIA blew it up from inside, and the planes were remotly controled and emplty, or filled with gased passingers and crew....just why would the CIA do this? if the thing was blown up from the inside????

except that Bin Laden was no friend of Saddam. If the CIA set it up, don't you think they would have painted a more believable 'trail' to Iraq?

why would it help bin laden. Because he is a terrorist, and wanted to spread fear and terror in the american population. remember the anthrx scares after it? remember the drop in the stock markets, remember people not wanting to fly?

That is what terrorists want to do, to scare people into changing their patterns of behavior.

And as for not wanting the americans to go looking for him....they guy would welcome martyrdom.....he'd have his vergins on tap, and would be spreading the seeds of further terrorist attacks to avenge his death. you shouldn't think that the guy is working on the same idiological view point as we are....he isn't!