Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Steel Away

I noticed this while reading David Ray Griffin's Omissions & Deceptions last night, but it also gets highlighted in Loose Change a little after 36:05:

200,000 tons of steel shatters into sections no longer than a couple feet long.

This is of course ridiculous, as this picture shows:



It may be just part and parcel of the Loosers' penchant for exaggeration, like the "untouched" cable spools in front of the Pentagon. Griffin's a little more cautious (Chapter 2):

7. Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections that were no more than 30 feet long.

Of course, the implication is that the building was demolished so that the steel beams and columns would be no more than 30 feet long. But what does this mean? Well, let's go back to the 47 steel columns that were at the core of the building. These columns extended the full height of the structure.

The two towers were about 1360 feet high each (1368 for Tower One, 1360 for Tower Two). So obviously the 47 steel columns were all 1360 feet or more (obviously slightly more since there were basement levels). If we divide that by the 110 stories in each tower we can see that the average height per floor was about 12 feet.

This means that in order to demolish the WTC towers so that most of the steel beams came down in sections that were no more than 30 feet long, they would have had to set charges every 2.5 stories, or on approximately 44 of the floors. Times 47 columns equals no less than 2,068 charges.

But even that won't do the job. Why? Because the buildings crumbled from the outside, not the inside. Some Truthers claim that the core should have survived. So the outside columns would have to be set with charges, once again on about 44 of the floors of each building, on about 240 columns this time.

But there's an even easier way to prove that the steel did not come down in sections "no longer than a couple feet long" (Loose Change) or "30 feet long" (Griffin). And in a delicious bit of irony, we can prove their mistake thanks to the efforts of another conspiracy theorist.

9-11 Eyewitness had a great view to film the collapse of the North Tower. The building first falls at 37:57, and at about 38:24 we see this:



It's not the greatest image, but it's much more obvious in the video footage. If you look in the middle of the picture there are several dark vertical shadows behind the smoke. These are clearly steel columns (like I say, it's much more obvious in the movie). As we watch, they teeter, then fall towards the building in the foreground (which I believe is World Financial Center 3). The cameraman even mentions that piece (he calls it a spire) at about 55:20.

But those steel columns appear to be at least 50 stories high, or about 600 feet. So even if those columns ended up in neat pieces 30 feet long, it was not due to "Controlled Demolition" because those columns were still intact after the building fell. I suspect that if they did indeed end up in pieces 30 feet long it was because that's where the columns were welded together and that they broke into those sections from the shock of the fall (or to be more precise, the shock of the landing). Or, far more likely, that they were cut into those sections post collapse so that the steel could be transported.

This is one of those little things that bugs me about the CT crowd. Despite the enormous destruction of 9-11, they always want to believe that the plotters wanted to limit the damage, by making the buildings collapse neatly (a farcical notion) into easily transported debris. It's like they believe President Bush said something like, "Okay, you can bring down the towers and Building 7, but I don't want any more damage than that. And let's hit the Pentagon on the side that was recently reinforced."

29 Comments:

At 31 May, 2006 08:53, Blogger Jujigatami said...

In the weeks after 9/11 I watched trucks cart away GIGANTIC steel beams.

At ground zero, there were teams of welders and a giant claw on a kind of crane that would chop the beams into managable pieces to be loaded on the trucks.

I watched the workers cut the massive twisted beams and load them, then truck them away. Some of the beams were so large they needed oversize escorts through the city. But even those were probably no longer than 50 or 60 feet in length. THEY HAD BEEN CUT DOWN FOR TRANSPORT!!!!!!

I'm sure where these nutbars get the "small pieces" theory is that somewhere someone saw the beams at the dumpsite and said "all of those are small pieces." No shit Sherlock, they needed to be cut down to be transported to the dump.

 
At 31 May, 2006 09:00, Blogger BG said...

Pat,

I appreciate the depth of your research here. Taking the time to find the quotes form DRG, and to relate appropriate footage from 911 Eyewitness are welcome details.

I find myself pulled in many directions right now, and can't justify taking a huge amount of time here.

I admit, seems like putting up refutations of your incorrect conclusions is not going to faze you. I've always believed that taking the time to discuss the topics you and James post here, although not likely to change your minds, might have the possibility to reach others.

As an aside, I didn't enjoy "Crossfire" when it was on CNN, and I don't enjoy emulating it here. It is painful to see demonstrated here at this blog how arguably intelligent, capable, well-meaning people can simply find their way to almost completely opposite conclusions.

I hope others will take up the cause of making the argument supported by the facts (Controlled Demo), but I don't think I've go the heart to keep spending time putting out the honest truth only to have it fall on deaf ears.

In trying to be fair to you, Pat, I do respect the point you made in another post: not a single structural engineer has officially taken issue of the govt. explanation of the collapse of the WTC.

In my view of what really happened on 9/11 and how powerful forces behind the cover up are, I don't find that surprising. However, I respect that the average person on the planet doesn't have the access to background information or a functioning media apparatus to shed the light needed to suspect the Macheivellian forces behind 9/11.

 
At 31 May, 2006 09:17, Blogger undense said...

pat,

I doubt they broke where the columns were welded together, unless there were some bad or weak welds (which could happen but is doubtful because such welds are mag particle or ultrasonically inspected). Commonly, welds are stronger than the materials they bond.

 
At 31 May, 2006 09:21, Blogger undense said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 31 May, 2006 09:34, Blogger Chad said...

BG -

Your arguments have not fallen on deaf ears. They do however lack any shred of solid proof. The implications of your theories are enormous - the accusation and implication of the US government in killing 3,000 of it citizens to start a war for oil.

And neither you nor nesnyc have yet to present one shred of "evidence" that cannot easily be refuted logically and rationally.

Speculation and coincidence do not make for a solid argument on your part. And that's all CTers can present. And when they run out of that, they present the fact that they can't present facts as evidence of a cover-up, thereby reinforcing their "facts".

It's an extremely convenient method of argument for people who find reality not to their liking.

 
At 31 May, 2006 09:39, Blogger undense said...

I hope others will take up the cause of making the argument supported by the facts (Controlled Demo), but I don't think I've go the heart to keep spending time putting out the honest truth only to have it fall on deaf ears.

You are confusing your beliefs with truth again, bg.

 
At 31 May, 2006 09:47, Blogger undense said...

In trying to be fair to you, Pat, I do respect the point you made in another post: not a single structural engineer has officially taken issue of the govt. explanation of the collapse of the WTC.

What are you talking about? Virtually all structural engineers who have looked at the WTC collapse agree it was a collapse initiated by the aircraft impact, which partially undermined the strucural integrity of the towers, subsequently compounded by the fires. Once the collapse began the dynamic loading caused the lower stories to give way.

That's the official government story as well.

Do you just ignore or make up stuff about the things you don't want to believe?

 
At 31 May, 2006 10:18, Blogger Pat said...

Undense, read what BG said again. For once, he's agreeing with you.

 
At 31 May, 2006 10:19, Blogger James B. said...

It is more than that.

1. Any evidence, no matter how unreliable the source can be used to support the CT.

2. Any evidence, which is in doubt should be interpreted in a way to support the CT, even using such absurd logic as interpreting similes as literal truth,"the plane sound like a missile" or "it was like a bomb went off"

3. Any evidence to the contrary of the CT was planted by those involved in the coverup

4. Any evidence which would support the CT, but does not exist, is proof of a coverup.

5. Any evidence which is used to support the CT, which is shown to be false, was put there by the people involved in the coverup in order to discredit the CT.

So basically, using this type of logic, they can't lose.

 
At 31 May, 2006 10:46, Blogger undense said...

Undense, read what BG said again. For once, he's agreeing with you.

Ahh, I see. My apologies to bg for misinterpreting his statement.

 
At 31 May, 2006 11:01, Blogger Chad said...

Any evidence which is used to support the CT, which is shown to be false, was put there by the people involved in the coverup in order to discredit the CT.

I actually just got done reading a debunking of Loose Change by another conspiracy theorist. He seems to believe that Avery and the In Plane Sight guy (von Kleist?) are plants of the government used to discredit the CTers because the evidence they present is so crappy that there's no way any sane person would take it seriously.

You know you're in trouble when even the people who agree with you are against you.

 
At 31 May, 2006 11:14, Blogger undense said...

You know you're in trouble when even the people who agree with you are against you.

That's another issue with the CTs. They are all over the page with their theories. They seem to pretend they are a homogenous whole, a unified movement, but they can't come to any concensus.

If truth is self-evident and makes itself known, why can't they all agree on what that truth is? Not to sound like I'm channeling Sean Connery, but there can be only one.

 
At 31 May, 2006 11:21, Blogger James B. said...

That is why they claim they are "just asking questions", if they had to actual come up with a coherent sequence of facts and theory, the whole thing would collapse under its own ridiculousness.

Pat actually did an entire post on how Loose Change is part of the disinformation campaign. Paranoid group, they are.

 
At 31 May, 2006 18:24, Blogger JoanBasil said...

I'm reading the Griffin book now, too, and would recommend it to all. His point is that the 9/11 Commission did a very poor job and they worked at doing a lousy job.

Why should we non-experts be trying to figure this out? Why did the 9/11 commission omit mention of the 47 steel core columns? Its absurd that they did that.

 
At 31 May, 2006 18:27, Blogger Pat said...

BTW, undense, thanks for the point about the welds that's something I didn't see earlier.

 
At 31 May, 2006 20:09, Blogger undense said...

Why should we non-experts be trying to figure this out? Why did the 9/11 commission omit mention of the 47 steel core columns? Its absurd that they did that.

Why should the 9/11 Report mention the core columns? It was a timeline of events and a compilation of the responses that occured by various agencies. It was not any sort of structural analysis of the towers.

iow, you're setting up a straw man to knock down.

 
At 01 June, 2006 04:24, Blogger JoanBasil said...

Surely, the 9/11 Commission members knew that these were the only steel frame buildings ever to have collapsed from fire and so it would behoove them to explain that anomaly???

Though I can't really, honestly say "surely" because I'm reading Griffin's 9/11 Omissions and Distortions and the 9/11 Commission is pretty brazen about ignoring what they want to ignore in the service of the official version. They ignored the head of Pakistan's Intelligence service giving "Mohammed Atta" $325,000 so why shouldn't they ignore 47 core columns.

 
At 01 June, 2006 09:35, Blogger undense said...

Surely, the 9/11 Commission members knew that these were the only steel frame buildings ever to have collapsed from fire and so it would behoove them to explain that anomaly???

What part about "It (the 9/11 Report) was not any sort of structural analysis of the towers." didn't make sense to you, joan?

You know. If the CTs want to investigate a strange physical anomoly, maybe they should check why words go in one of their ears, comes out the other, and meets so little resistance in between.

 
At 01 June, 2006 14:10, Blogger Jujigatami said...

Surely, the 9/11 Commission members knew that these were the only steel frame buildings ever to have collapsed from fire and so it would behoove them to explain that anomaly???

Perhaps the comission assumed that the people reading its report were smart enough to realize the buildings collapsed not only from fire, but that a big plane hit the buildings too.

Obviously, they assumed wrong.

 
At 01 June, 2006 14:10, Blogger Jujigatami said...

Surely, the 9/11 Commission members knew that these were the only steel frame buildings ever to have collapsed from fire and so it would behoove them to explain that anomaly???

Perhaps the comission assumed that the people reading its report were smart enough to realize the buildings collapsed not only from fire, but that a big plane hit the buildings too.

Obviously, they assumed wrong.

 
At 01 June, 2006 14:34, Blogger shawn said...

Griffin's a nutcase, I've been working on a debunking of his first book.

 
At 01 June, 2006 14:46, Blogger undense said...

Perhaps the comission assumed that the people reading its report were smart enough to realize the buildings collapsed not only from fire, but that a big plane hit the buildings too.

Obviously, they assumed wrong.


Funny how the CTs always neglect to mention that part when pulling out the tiresome "no steel frame buildings have ever collapsed from fire" talking point.

They also seem to imply that all steel frame structures are the same and that structures of the same design of the WTC have caught fire. By why niggle about plane impacts and those other annoying details when a superficial statement can dupe people who won't bother to check?

 
At 02 June, 2006 03:12, Blogger jackhanyes said...

Idiots. The "clearly center columns" are in fact the outer support walls of the tower. Fast forward the 911 eyewitness video to 1:22:33 to see for yourself.

Looks like Pat had one of those "logical fallacy" moments. If you don't know what that is, talk to Shawn. He's loves to use the word when ever he faced with a logical challenge.

 
At 02 June, 2006 03:28, Blogger jackhanyes said...

Does any OS's know why themite could be brought into the buildings, even past the bomb sniffing dogs?

Hint: Thermite has something in common with airplanes.

 
At 02 June, 2006 03:53, Blogger jackhanyes said...

Oh wait, I reread it. Pat did a bait and switch. He baited the rebutal with the 47 center columns, then switched it later to talk about the 30 foot other wall sections.

Nice work slick willy.

 
At 02 June, 2006 05:03, Blogger undense said...

Another CT that can't read. How unsurprising.

The columns, center or outer, were not neatly cut into sections to bring the building down by CD, as the nutjobs claim.

If you want some more evidence of that, look through the hi-res pictures here:

http://tinyurl.com/ndcyt

In particular, look at the picture WTC44.jpg. If there was a CD, they sure did a lousy job of taking out the central core columns down at the bottom.

Idiots indeed.

 
At 02 June, 2006 15:51, Blogger jackhanyes said...

I think they did a surberb job. The photo shows six, maybe eight, columns in cased in masonry three maybe four floors in height. That’s 85% percent removal rate at the base and 0.995358% overall removal rate. If that “a lousy job” then you’re a perfectionist.

 
At 03 June, 2006 15:01, Blogger insidejob said...

here are a couple of good web pages that make strong arguments that the makers of Loose Change and In Plane Site were part of a deliberate disinformation campaign - they blend false claims with true claims in order to discredit the truth movement. there is very strong evidence that 9-11 was an inside job, and a lot of serious researchers are putting it together, and Loose Change and In Plane Site both ignore most of the real evidence, while blending in a lot of false claims. mixing false claims with true claims is a common disinformation tactic. the cover of the Loose Change DVD actually sandwiches 2 false claims with 2 true claims. the websites below give strong evidence that both videos were intended to throw people off the scent of the real evidence of an inside job. the author of the first site writes "if it (Loose Change) is not naive, foolish, uninformed and ignorant, then it is the work of a calculating mole or at best a naïf who has been used by such." in other words, the authors of Loose Change may be trying to throw us off from the real evidence of an inside job, or they may have good intentions but have been fooled somewhat by, for example, the maker of In Plane Site:

http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/2005_07_21_Michael_Green_Loose_Change_analysis.htm

http://www.oilempire.us/loose-change.html

Rumsfeld's "slip-up" about a "missile" hitting the Pentagon was an intentional part of the Flight 77 red herring (Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, but they are intentionally perpetuating the red herring to throw people off, make us argue, and discredit us, and I think the whole hoax probably originated from Rumsfeld and others as a deliberate tactic.

People are right to debunk Loose Change, but 9-11 was definitely an inside job.

here is a link to a bunch of eyewitness accounts of people who saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. it would make no sense at all for the conspirators to try to hit the Pentagon with a missile, when they were perfectly capable of hitting the WTC towers with airplanes, or at least getting terrorists to do so by using ISI operatives as middle-men, especially considering that it doesn't make any sense that they would risk people seeing the missile or something other than what they said hit the Pentagon. there were so many people around to see what actually hit, and they did see it:

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

this site talks about the removal of the passengers' bodies:

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/13_AP70bodiespentagon.html

too many people would have had to have been in on the conspiracy for them to have hit the Pentagon with a missile (emergency responders galore, numerous FBI agents, CIA personnel, and so on).

the real question to ask ourselves is, why won't Rumsfeld release the videos that actually show Flight 77? why do they keep releasing only videos that show nothing, when they have the videos from the Sheraton Hotel (eyewitnesses there actually watched the tapes over and over in horror before they were confiscated - so they would have noticed if it was a missile instead of a 757) and the Freeway camera. they are trying to bait us. it's reeeally clear to me now. that's why Rumsfeld had his little 'slip-up' about a 'missile' hitting the Pentagon, and that's why Fox News and CNN showed clips from Loose Change (Fox News actually interviewed Dylan Avery), while they completely ignore the real truth movement, the real documentaries (Denial Stops Here, The Truth and Lies of 9/11, The Great Conspiracy, and the footage from the 9/11 Citizens Commission hearing in New York City), and the powerful evidence and numerous improbable 'coincidences,' (such as the inexplicable and methodical collapse of Building 7, which was housing files for numerous ongoing SEC investigations and was housing elements of the CIA and Secret Service, the presence of sulfidation and rapid corrosion in the steel beams, indicating the use of thermate cutter-charges, the unexplained evacuations of the WTC Towers in the three weeks prior to the attacks, Larry Silverstein's unprecedented privatization of the WTC just 6 weeks prior with an insurance policy specifically covering acts of terrorism and a 3.5 billion dollar payout, which was way more than Silverstein had paid, the multiple war games on 9-11 that crippled the Air Force's ability to respond, the 3-year project reinforcing that particular section of the Pentagon that was hit by Flight 77 against an attack of just such a nature, and the completion of that renovation on the very day of the attacks, put-options on Boeing and American Airlines stock in the weeks before the attacks, the Mossad agents (implicating Israel, the American government's bosom-buddy), Silverstein's connections with Israel, the mailing of Anthrax to Democratic officials (Anthrax which was found to have come from a U.S. military lab), Porter Goss' meeting on the morning of Sept. 11th with the Pakistani general who had had $100,000 wired to Mohammed Atta - all these improbable 'coincidences' that, when multipled (the multiplication rule of the laws of probability), make the probability that 9-11 was not an inside job about 1 in 1,000,000.

There are disinformation websites out there: The site www.911myths.org claims to be an objective website, saying that it only wants to show that some claims are without merit, but the site seems to me to be a deliberate disinformation website. They cherry-pick the claims that they can most easily cast doubt on, and they never mention the numerous and damning true claims – the real evidence. They don’t allow people to contact them to refute their claims (and thus test their objectivity), and their dishonesty is often obvious. For example, in “debunking” the claim that progressive collapse hasn’t happened before, the website mentions L’Ambience Plaza and the Ronan Point apartment building. They expect website visitors to not actually look into what actually happened in these 2 incidents:

L'Ambience Plaza was still in the early stages of construction and was using a special construction method – the lift-slab system – and wasn’t doing it properly. the Ronan Point incident, which happened in London in 1968, is most often cited by disinformation websites, although they don’t tell you what actually happened - this incident actually consisted of one tiny corner of balconies, and the collapsed balconies were short cantilever sections supported by the building's main structure - so there were no steel beams to prevent this little corner of balconies from collapsing progressively. To use these incidents to “debunk” the clear evidence of controlled demolition, without mentioning what actually happened, shows deliberate dishonesty.

first, my humble assessment of what happened: hijackers were involved, but they were puppets of Washington insiders, without knowing it. Pakistani intelligence agency (ISI) was the middle-man. Israeli intelligence agency (Mossad) and Israeli government knew the attacks were coming, and may have been directly involved (note - this isn't saying 'the Jews did it.' there are many many Jewish people who oppose the Israeli government, including Israelis). Flight 77 definitely hit the Pentagon, and the missile claim was a deliberate red herring to discredit the truth movement. the CIA recently released videos, but they don't show anything more than the 5 previously-released frames, and this is more bait, considering that they definitely have videos that clearly show Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon (such as from the Sheraton Hotel). they may be planning to later release the videos that actually show Flight 77 at some point and say, "look fools. here's flight 77 hitting the Pentagon." The war games on Sept.11, under the direction of Cheney and Rumsfeld, were a smokescreen and an excuse to explain why the Air Force did not respond for over an hour. Finally, without a hint of uncertainty, WTC 1, 2, and 7 were definitely brought down by controlled demolition. WTC 7 is the most damning:

(1) WTC (a) WTC 1, 2, and 7 were the first 3 steel-frame buildings in history to (allegedly) collapse due to fire. Several steel-frame skyscrapers around the world have had huge fires that burned throughout several floors for several hours, and none of these buildings collapsed. The official explanation of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 claims that the impact of the aircrafts weakened the structures (which of course they would have to some degree), but NIST actually admits to fudging its models to make them more plausibly (to the casual researcher) explain the collapses, and it also simply lies and contradicts itself. For example, they alter the path of flight 175 so they can argue that it damaged the core columns. The report is misleading in many other ways. much more here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

The NIST Report completely ignores building 7, saying it will be considered “at a later date.” The Bush-appointed, 10-member corruption-squad known as the 9-11 Commission also ignored building 7 - most Americans don't even know about building 7, because the media have ignored it. Also, if you look at the video of the North Tower’s collapse, you can see that the top portion above the impact zone actually collapses in on itself from the bottom up, before the rest of the collapse proceeds (b) WTC 7 is the most obvious - no jet hit this building, and although some mention that the fuel tanks in the building may have contributed, FEMA said they were all intact, and, as already noted, fires do not make steel-frame buildings collapse, and random fires could not, by any stretch of the imagination, make a steel-frame building collapse so methodically into a neat little rubble pile within its own footprint, maintaining perfect radial symmetry all the way down, and falling at freefall speed. This only happens with controlled demolition. Unfortunately, most people are unaware of building 7, but the word is spreading thanks to many serious researchers. FEMA was actually able to obtain sections of the steel beams from WTC 7, and it found sulfidation in combination with rapid corrosion – a trademark of the use of thermate (the military version of thermite) cutter chargers – the presence of sulfidation and rapid corrosion can only be explained by the use of thermate. the fires in WTC 7 were only on partial sections of 2 floors, and even if the fires had engulfed the building for days, it would not have collapsed. Silverstein's slip-up about 'pulling it' also gave it away. his publicist later claimed that Silverstein meant 'pulling' the firefighters out of the building. 'pulling' is a term commonly used to refer to controlled demolition. FEMA has actually admitted that it cannot explain the collapse of building 7 (b) the official explanation ignores the thermal conductivity of steel. There would have been a massive heatsink from the steel beams, and the heat would have spread to other parts of the steel-beam mesh, rather than weakening nearby beams (b) the 'Pancake Theory', used to describe the collapse mode, has never existed as a collapse mechanism theory in structural engineering prior to 9-11. ‘Pancaking’ has happened before, but to one building (L'Ambience Plaza) that was still in the early stages of construction and was using a special construction method – the lift-slab system – and wasn’t doing it properly, and what happened wasn’t called ‘pancaking’ before 9-11. the term 'progressive collapse' has been used before, but no steel-frame building has ever collapsed due to this mechanism. the Ronan Point incident, in 1968, is most often cited by disinformation websites, although they don’t tell you what actually happened - this incident actually consisted of one tiny corner of balconies, and the collapsed balconies were short cantilever sections supported by the building's main structure - so there were no steel beams to prevent this little corner from collapsing progressively. (c)'squibs', a trademark of controlled demolition, can be seen in the videos of the collapses, and are especially obvious in WTC 7. the offical story attempts to explain them away as concrete dust and debris being pushed out of the windows by the force of the collapse, but they occur much below the level of collapse, and they occur just prior to the initiation of collapse in WTC 7. (d) Marvin Bush's contract with Stratesec(Securicom), the company that provided security for the WTC, United Airlines, and Dulles Internation Airport, was set to end on 9/10/01, the day before 9/11. (e) I've verified that there were several unexplained evacuations in the WTC towers in the weeks prior to the attacks: Ben Fountain, a financial analyst with Fireman's Fund, was coming out of the Chambers Street Station, headed for his office on the 47th floor of the south tower. "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on." (Source: People Magazine. Sept. 12th 2001). (f) Battalion Chief Orio J. Palmer had reached the 78th floor of the South Tower by 9:48 -- 11 minutes before the explosive collapse began -- and reported via radio "two isolated pockets of fire." (g) all three buildings maintained prefect radial symmetry as they collapsed – if the buildings had collapsed due to randomly-placed fires (which simply doesn’t happen – even full-fledged infernos don’t make steel-frame buildings collapse), they would not have fallen straight down into their own footprints (h) as Professor Steven Jones of BYU points out, flowing pools of molten steel were reported by eyewitnesses – impossible with hydrocarbon fires, but easily explained by the use of thermate cutter charges (i) the temperatures simply were not hot enough, and weren’t sustained long enough, to weaken the steel, let alone melt it, in such a short period of time, especially considering the thermal conductivity of steel (j) the explosive force of the collapses cannot be explained by mere gravity – debris was ejected out several hundred feet – huge steel beams were found 300 feet away.


Pakistani Intelligence Agency (ISI, which was founded by the CIA and still has close ties with the CIA, like Al Qaeda) was the middle-man between Washington insiders and the clueless terrorists:

October 9, courtesy of the Times of India:
"While the Pakistani Inter Services Public Relations claimed that former ISI [Pakistani intelligence] director-general Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad sought retirement after being superseded on Monday, the truth is more shocking. Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday that the general lost his job because of the 'evidence' India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Center. The U.S. authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by [Omar Saeed] at the instance of General Mahmud [Ahmad]."

September 9—two days before 9/11 — Karachi News made the following observation:
"ISI Chief Lt-Gen [Mahmud Ahmad's] week-long presence in Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council . . . What added interest to his visit is the history of such visits. Last time Ziauddin Butt, [General Ahmad's] predecessor, was here during Nawaz Sharif's government, the domestic politics turned topsy-turvy within days. That this is not the first visit by [General Ahmad] in the last three months shows the urgency of the ongoing parleys."

Israeli intelligence agency (Mossad) and government insiders knew the attacks were coming, and may have been involved in them:

Mossad agents were filming the towers before the airplanes even hit them, and began dancing and celebrating when the planes hit and when the towers collapsed :
This is a link to the article originally published by ABC News:

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/noframes/read/1405

Source: ABC News, Saturday, June 22nd, 2002.

“A counterintelligence investigation by the FBI concluded that at least two of them were in fact Mossad operatives, according to the former American official, who said he was regularly briefed on the investigation by two separate law enforcement officials.”

Source: The Forward, March 15th, 2002

This has been reported on by several mainstream media outlets, but has simply been forgotten

Larry A. Silverstein – signed a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center 6 weeks before the attacks. A $3,500,000,000 insurance policy, specifically covering acts of terrorism, was included in the lease. This lease was an unprecedented privatization of the WTC complex. After 9/11, Silverstein demanded $7 billion, claiming that the two planes constituted two separate acts of terrorism.

Larry A. Silverstein is a close friend of Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Ehud Barak: “Shortly after the events of September 11, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called Larry Silverstein, a Jewish real estate magnate in New York, the owner of the World Trade Center's 110-story Twin Towers and a close friend, to ask how he was. Since then they have spoken a few more times. Two former prime ministers - Benjamin Netanyahu, who this week called Silverstein a "friend," and Ehud Barak, whom Silverstein in the past offered a job as his representative in Israel - also called soon after the disaster.”

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=97338&contrassID=3&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0


Flight 77 and the Pentagon:

JUNE 2001: The Pentagon initiates new instructions for military intervention in the case of a highjacking. these new instructions state that, for all "nonimmediate" responses (whatever that means), the Department of Defense must get permission directly from the Secretary of Defense (Rumsfeld).

Source: Joint Chiefs of Staff Document:

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf
http://www.911review.com/means/standdown.html



October 24, 2000: the Pentagon conducted the first of two training exercises called MASCAL (Mass Casualty), which simulated a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon.

Source: The U.S. Army Military District of Washington (MDW)

Charles Burlingame had actually retired 20 years earlier, but he still participated in the MASCAL exercise at the Pentagon, a year before the attacks:

Charles F. Burlingame III was the pilot of flight 77. He was an F-4 pilot in the Navy, and as his last Navy mission, he had helped craft Pentagon response plans in the event of a commercial airliner hitting the Pentagon.

Source: Associated Press. August 22, 2002

http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/pen08.html

Barbara Honegger, who worked in the White House under Reagan, points out another coincidence. Researching press reports, she found a 9/16/01 Washington Post story about the pilot of AA flight 77 that, on the morning of 9/11, was said to have crashed into the Pentagon.

Here's Barbara Honegger:

...the main pilot of the 9-11 Pentagon plane, former Navy and then Navy Reservist pilot Charles Burlingame, had recently, in a Reserve assignment at the Pentagon, been part of a Task Force that drafted the Pentagon's emergency response plan on what to do in case a plane hit the building - which his own plane then did. It is therefore very possible - in fact extremely likely, if not certain - that this 'task force' that Flight 77 pilot "Chick" Burlingame was part of was the Cheney counterterrorism preparedness task force, and that the Pentagon plane pilot, therefore, directly knew and even worked with/for Cheney. and

Burlingame's 9-11 Pentagon plane not only hit the Pentagon that morning, it struck a Command and Control center for that morning's counterterrorism "game" exercise, killing most, if not all, of the "players". We know this because Army personnel from Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey were on special duty assignment at the Pentagon that morning for an emergency response exercise and were killed when Burlingame's plane hit. Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey also happens to be the headquarters for White House/Presidential communications, including therefore probably also for Air Force One (this is discoverable) -- and recall the warning "Air Force One is next" and the 'secret code' which was called into the White House that morning which WH press secretary Ari Fleischer revealed as a means of explaining why Pres. Bush left Florida for a military base and did not return to the White House. This "warning" was probably called into the White House, if true, by either the Ft. Monmouth White House communications headquarters and/or the Ft. Monmouth counterterrorism exercise "game" players temporarily at the Pentagon that morning.

This means the pilot of Flight 77 participated in MASCAL in October of 2000, an exercise which simulated a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon.


Flight 77 hit the one and only section of the Pentagon that had been renovated to withstand just such an attack:

"Luck — if it can be called that — had it that the terrorists aimed the Boeing 757 at the only part of the Pentagon that already had been renovated in an 11-year, $1.3 billion project meant to bolster it against attack. That significantly limited the damage and loss of life by slowing the plane as it tore through the building and reducing the explosion's reach." Source: USA Today (1/01/02)

“Not all the offices were occupied that morning because of the renovation. In addition, the outer ring had been reinforced by floor-to-ceiling steel beams that ran through all five floors. Between them was a Kevlar-like mesh, similar to the material in bulletproof vests, which kept masonry from becoming shrapnel. Together, the beams and the mesh formed a citadel that kept the top floors from collapsing for about 35 minutes, time enough for some people to escape. New blast-resistant windows above the crash site didn't shatter. A new sprinkler system kept the fires from consuming the entire place.
When the plane hit wedge 1, workers were just a few days away from completing a three-year renovation of that section."

Source: USNews (12/10/01)


“The Pentagon has been undergoing some structural upgrades and retrofits, including new blastproof windows made of KevlarT that were, fortuitously, in place on the side of impact. This reinforced section of the building had a significant effect on reducing the extent of damage.”

Source: Fire Engineering Magazine (11/02)

"The 1,000,000-square-foot wedge was five days away from completion when it was struck by hijacked American Airlines Flight 77." Source: Annual Status Report to Congress (3/01/02)


FAA delayed reporting the hijackings for an hour, whereas it was bound by law to report them. The top FAA officials were appointed by Bush, and were close friends of Bush.

Norad (Pentagon) response was delayed, once FAA finally reported.

The jets that responded would have made it in time if they had flown at full speed. Why didn’t they fly at full speed? The Pentagon (Norad) must have given this order.

Several war games had been planned by Rumsfeld and Cheney on September 11th, in which most American fighter jets were off fighting imagined enemies. A particularly telling detail is that the CIA was conducting an exercise on Sept. 11th, under Cheney’s direction, that simulated a plane hitting NRO (National Reconnaissance Organization headquarters (near Dulles Airport, Virginia) - this was not a "terrorism" exercise but it did result in the evacuation of most NRO employees just as the "real" 9/11 was taking place, making it more difficult for the nation's spy satellites to be used to track the hijacked planes.


Terrorists were given visas based on incomplete forms. President Bush appointed James Ziglar commissioner of the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) one month before September 1lth

 
At 02 July, 2006 13:32, Blogger fish said...

What are your 50,000 thoughts a day creating?

Our thoughts create our reality. This is a simple truth known by all people involved on the spiritual path. It is one of the most taught universal principles in the personal development field. Yet it is one of the most misunderstood!

People practice visualisation, affirmations, they use hypnosis, subliminal programming or countless other tools to transform their lives. However they fail to recognise one key area in their lives that hinder these wonderful techniques from being effective.

They sit day after day visualising their perfect scene and yet nothing happens. Why? They have followed all the instructions to the letter! They have chanted and imagined! They have formed a colourful, vibrant scene in their minds and affirmed that this is their reality. Then all of a sudden things get worse! What is going on?

Would you like to know the secret? Would you like to know why these people get no results? Would you like to hear one powerful statement that explains everything?

Yes?
Good. I will tell you why these people get no results or even opposite results to those they are aiming for -simply because of the following truth. Consciously controlled thoughts such as visualisations do not materialise - ALL thoughts materialise!!!
Most people believe that if they visualise for 10 minutes a day their lives will magically transform. This is not the case. You must change your core thinking. You think approx. 50,000 thoughts a day. How many of those thoughts are working against your ten minute visualisation?
You can control the thoughts that enter your mind by changing the way you view the world. You can decide which thoughts you give energy to and which thoughts you discard.

The thoughts that you follow and give energy to become more dominant than the thoughts you discard. Your subconscious mind records these as your dominant picture on the issue at hand. You then move towards this picture because your subconscious mind starts making your outside world reflect the picture that you have stored internally.
Your mind should be on whatever you want. The picture you need to have is a positive vision of you already having achieved your goal. To realise this vision you need to focus and concentrate. Remember thoughts are real, they create your reality.
Let's say you have been visualising a new house. You spend your ten minutes in meditation picturing yourself living in your dream home. You finish your session and get up feeling positive that you will achieve your goal. Then during the day you get a heating bill through the post and exclaim "Oh no look how expensive this is I cannot afford to heat this house". Where is your focus in the present moment? What are you affirming? You are telling your subconscious mind that you cannot deal with what you have. You are affirming that your life is not how you want it to be. If you knew without doubt that within a week you would be moving to your new home would you honestly be worried about a heating bill? Perhaps other doubts creep in like "I should be happy with what I have", or "I will never get this house looking the way I want it" and so on and so on.
These thoughts that are not aligned with your goal. You are not giving complete attention to what you want. Whilst you are dealing with these other lines of thought your attention is not on your goal.
If you are aware of your thoughts you will suddenly realise that you have spent much more energy on counter productive thoughts than on creating a dominant picture of the goal you want.
Point your focus in the direction of you're the life you want. Think about what you want NOT what you don't want. It's that simple.

Your focus determines your reality. Change your focus and you change your life. personal development

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home