OWNER OF WTC ADMITS EXPLOSIVES WERE USED!

Listen to this PBS interview with Larry Silverstein, owner of the WTC, describing how he had Building #7 demolished!


"The Fire Department were not sure that they were gonna be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we´ve had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. They made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"


 http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html



COMMON SENSE

The towers fell in roughly 10 seconds, that is, that they fell at about the same rate that an object falls through air.

The fact that the towers fell this quickly (essentially at the rate of free-fall) is conclusive evidence that they were deliberately demolished.

Believing that there is nothing wrong with the towers collapsing so quickly, is roughly analogous to believing that people pass through closed doors as quickly as they pass through open doors.

The fact that they fell at such a rate means that they encountered essentially no resistance from the supposedly undamaged parts of the structure. That is, no resistance was encountered from any of the immensely strong parts of the structure that had held the building up for the last 30 years. This just doesn't happen, unless, of course, the lower part of the building has lost its structural integrity (And this is usually due to the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as seen in controlled demolitions).

You have seen the evidence. The footage, the eyewitness reports, the seismographs, the infrared shots, the molten steel. They all point to one thing…

The World Trade Center was not destroyed by terrorists. It was a controlled demolition, an inside job!


 http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html



We propose the creation of an Independent International Truth Commission on the events of September 11, 2001 to hear evidence from witnesses and experts, deliberate on this material, and issue findings to the broadest possible spectrum of world public opinion. Our approximate model would be the Bertrand Russell War Crimes Tribunal held in Sweden and Denmark in 1967

 http://iitc.911review.org/index.shtml

No its not conclusive, or even the slightest bit of, proof. You are off your chuffing head.

but you can't fool all the people all the time!


lies are much more repeated that truth, by now

 http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html

And the fool has fallen for a nutters theory.

"lies are much more repeated that truth". Really, so what you say is true then. Go and Get a tonic from a head doctor.

I'm just remenbering some FACTS

 http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html

ive never liked the whole conspiracy thang, but you should check this out, maybe they have a point this time

i havent got time to check the validity of this guys sources, but if theyre correct then the evidence is pretty fucking damning

i have checked out the other side of the story, structural engineers saying it was gravity that brought down the towers, but to be honest they sound like theyre clutching at straws

think its important to remember the official line

al quaeda used a bunch of inexperienced pilots whod never even flown a 757 before to perform incredibly complex ariel tricks, it just dont add up

i mean its not a very good plan is it, what if theyd missed, i reckon its probably harder than you think to fly a plane into a skyscraper, and even harder to hit the pentagon without even leaving skidmarks on the lawn in front of it

i kind of think youd have to be a trained military pilot to pull off a job like that

so reluctantly im coming round to the conspiracists point of view

where i dont sit very comfortably, but i just cant buy the official line anymore

"Facts" like yours keep Dr. Check-up-from-the-neck-up in business. However, you have my sympathies if you think that you are under surveillance.
Wacky "facts" (conspiracy theories) dont do much for the reputation of this site, but in the interests of free speech you deserve not to be insulted (which I have already done).

And from nowhere conveniently arrives catgurl, the sceptic who is won over; she's not a nutter, it must be true.

catgurl says: "structural engineers saying it was gravity that brought down the towers, but to be honest they sound like theyre clutching at straws"

(As an aid memoir - gravity makes things fall to the ground unless they are being held up by a force - in this case steel frames that bend, break, melt and burn)
I watched a program on chanel 4 over a year ago in which the chief architect of the the twin towers explained the flaws in the design of the buildings that led to their collapsew. It was totally plausible, understandable, and believable. In a sentence - they were designed to withstand a hit from a plane, and a large fire - but not both at the same time.
The hit from a massive 747, and the explosive from laden fuel tanks combined with a flawed design had catastrophic consequences which the world witnessed.

"al quaeda used a bunch of inexperienced pilots who never even flown a 757 before to perform incredibly complex ariel tricks, it just dont add up"

The AQ pilots had subtantial training at US flight schools. What complex ariel tricks? I did see or hear about the Aeroplains doing a-loop-de-loop spelling out "Al-Qa-Eda is the Greatest" with their trailing smoke in the sky. They would have had no problems simply flying head on.


"i kind of think youd have to be a trained military pilot to pull off a job like that"

Why a military pilot especially, civialian pilots fly 747's. Again, they just flew straight into the buildings, no flash or showing off.

And the whole Al-Qaeda thing is a conspiray theory

The US(and west) wants one simple, evil, enemy for the sake of its propaganda. The "world Al Queda terrorist network" nonsense serves that purpose , just as 'communism' served that purpose before.

This offers the opportunity for the continuous or permanent war, described first and so prophetically by Orwell in his classic 1984, and referred to again in Michael Moore's powerful film Farenheit 911.

By refusing to negotiate with or recognise what these groups are fightenning for, and declaring a military "war on terrorism" shows they are choosing this path. Anything can then be justified in the name of fighting terroism.

It is not just the politicians who are calling for this but the overwhelming majority of the media - inlcuding in what was once called the liberal media in this country. There is a conspiracy of silence in addressing the motivations of terrorists - a blinding silence.

The journalist, editor or politician will not even raise the doubts in their mind for fear of being vilified. There are a few notable exceptions and it is the supposedly left/liberal commentators who heap scorn on them and attempt to keep them in check. You can recognise this bunch of self proclaimed lefties, liberals, democrats, human rights promotors, by how much they said they hated Michael Moore's film, probably a lot more than Bush himself did.

So independent media is very important, but not for propagating conspiracies theories at the meaningless end of the spectrum. That are more important ones to expose.

Yes 11s. Santa Claus is a conspiracy. And Scoobie Doo is a phoney.

yes, and the pentagon hole was big enough for a boeing, too

"they were designed to withstand a hit from a plane, and a large fire - but not both at the same time"

So what were these engineers expecting to happen when they were hit by a plane? That the plane just stuck out with its nose embedded in the building? And its fuel conveniently waiting in the wings (literally) for the fire department to come and drain them?

The C4 documentary was PR masquerading as a documentary. Or haven't you noticed that the 'news' has been hijacked by these so-called news packages. How many times did we hear about the latest Marks and Spencers bid recently (at a time when M & S are supposed to be suffering from poor sales? And that Nokia have introduced their first clam shell phone? All this on the BBC, supposed non-commercial broadcaster.

11s is right. The most incredible conspiracy theory is the official story. Swallowed hook and all because it was on the TeeVee.

Read 'Brave New World Revisited' by Aldous Huxley and find out information is implanted through trauma in the same way that it is extracted through trauma. So, whilst the planet watches in shock as planes smash into the WTC the official story is deeply embedded. Not too difficult to believe, really.

Meanwhile, every time anybody mentions anything but the 'official story', the goon squad come out and start making the usual insinuations of paranoia and mental illness. Oh, how funny! How very funny that millions live in perpetual fear! That our human rights are being revoked. That police powers are such that they no longer need an excuse to arrest anybody. And how funny that anybody who dissents is considered mentally ill and that the powers to detain the mentally ill without due process have been extended. Kind of like Soviet Russia really.

How very funny!

A few points for Zif.

I think you are bullshiting and have never seen that C4 documentary.

No one knew what would happen if a fuel laden 747 flew into the world trade building. Now we all know.

Now I dont think it is beyond the US government to sponsor terrorist acts to justify war, because they have done it before. For example in Vietnam: bombs were set off in busy city centres in the south killing many innocents and blamed on communists in the north.

They could have sponsored this one because it can be seen to serve their political objectives, but it looks very unlikely. Claiming that the world trade was also wired up with explosives dicredits any conspiracy. Infact you unlikely story has the effect of giving credence to the "official story" because yours is so bizarre. So whose really in the 'goon sqaud.'


Many people dont appreciate the difference between loony tunes nutters and mental illness. Clearly you are one of them.

The last point leads into to the big problem. I think its good to refer to classic literature but do rememberthat it is fiction, and don't use it as factual evidence. This is your problem. You have found a small hole, the 'pentagon hole', which for all anyone really knows was dug by Scoobie Doo. And because a 747 wont fit through it - there's a conspiracy. Your conspiracy theories will be used to tar genuine campaigners and dissenters.

Oh! Prozac! I, of course mean you, Fluoxetene. The central tenet of your argument seems to be whether or not I saw a documentary on Channel Four on Thursdat night. Well, how shall I prove that? By quoting from one of the interviewees? Michael Meacher? Who wrote the forward in the UK edition of the book (which you have, no doubt, read) 'The New Pearl Harbor' by Professor David Ray Griffin of Claremont School of Theology in California. Or quote Ellen Mariani who is suing the Bush administration or her Lawyer, Phil Berg? Or perhaps I should mention all the evidence which was somehow overlooked whilst making this piece of crap!

To suggest that engineers could not be expected to know what might happen when 'a fuel laden 747 flew into the world trade building' is risible. About as credible an excuse for putting a cat in a microwave.

You then say, 'Infact you unlikely story has the effect of giving credence to the "official story" because yours is so bizarre'. Sorry, but what story is that? I haven't actually presented a story.

Finally, you then show your ignorance by saying, 'I think its good to refer to classic literature but do rememberthat it is fiction, and don't use it as factual evidence.' That had me for a while. What work of classic literature had I referred to? I was puzzled. Oh, you mean 'Brave New World Revisited'. A work of non-fiction written by Aldous Huxley in 1958 as an assessment of the real world in comparison to his 1932 prophesy 'Brave New World'.

Go away and read 'The New Pearl Harbor' and then present a rebuttal of his evidence. Try to do this without use of words like 'paranoid' and 'nutter' as insults are not admissible evidence.

Right, I got 'The New Pearl Harbor' out from Blockbuster, and watched it with my dog, and neither of us was much impressed. They overdid the love interest this time around. Didn't see much relevance apart from the blindingly obvious.

Lets examine the documentary that you didn't see. I note how you have falsely represented me with a lie, that you put at the centre of my argument - although it wasn't even part of my argument, just a throw away line, but probably a factual comment.

I was referring to a last year’s documentary on channel 4, full of architects and engineers who described in the most precise detail how the world trade towers collapsed. See above for the following comment by Gelly, which prooves you too were refering to sad documentary too:

"I watched a program on channel 4 over a year ago in which the chief architect of the twin towers explained the flaws in the design of the buildings that led to their collapse. It was totally plausible, understandable, and believable. In a sentence - they were designed to withstand a hit from a plane, and a large fire - but not both at the same time."

which you then go on to refer to in your subsequent posting above. This is the documentary I claimed you bullshitted about seeing, and you are getting around now by referring to some TV program last week. Nice try.

To simplify my point: when the twin towers were built, aeroplanes were much smaller, slower and contained less fuel. Also when one hits a high rise building its going to do massive damage, that's a given - that's the cat getting warmer in the microwave, to make some sense of your ridiculous analogy. The fire proofing on the internal box metal structure failing and the metal supports burning and buckling is the cat cooking from the inside out in the microwave, and the building folding in on itself and collapsing.

Just because I misread "Brave New World Revisited" for Brave New World, doesn't make my arguments wrong, or yours right. The point you were trying to make is that Trauma was used to get across the 'official story'. I wasn't traumatised by watching it, or its aftermath, on TV. Neither was anyone I know, or have heard about, included my brother and his family and friends who live in Manhattan.

You claim I used the word: 'Paranoid'. I didn't. So you probably are. And I like using the word: "nutter" thanks. Nutter, nutty, nuttier, nuttiest, complete nutter ... .

If you can base your story on evidence and facts then fair enough. But making clearly ridiculous claims weakens other more prosaic alternative, explaination which are probably true but just dismissed as conspiracy theory nonsense. But I dont object to the more outlandish claims being explored but in the right place. Not on Indymedia. Try ITV or the BBC news/current affairs - they already broadcast tons of rubbish. If you want to sell lemons, go to a market where they already sell them.

I agree that the US is not beyond using terrorism itself, as an excuse to start a war that it needs. It did exactly that to start the war in Vietnam by blaming communists terrorists from the north for blowing up innocent civilians, where in fact the US secretly funded the terrorism.

And today we have a permanent war against "terror" that fits in well with the US policy. Not just to replace the fight against "communism" per se, but to enable it to achieve geo-political and economic goals. They need to fight an external, all evil threat to bind the nation, and give the hyper power a role if it is to sustain itself. The likes of Britain rides on its back. Other European powers would like some input to and return from the US policy but are being denied, probably because the US can no longer help and restrain the competition.

In George Orwell's 1984, the idea of the permanent war is necessary to sustain the fascist, totalitarian government. Michael Moore, too, refers to this in perhaps the most politically radical and powerful sequence of his Film Fahrenheit 911 - that's why all the liberals hate it so much because they refuse to believe that the worlds leading liberal democracy is on the road to fascism.

This subversive idea, that Moore just touches on, undermines their whole hypocritical belief system. These days, even more so after Belsen, you can barely hear any whispers from liberals, liberal/lefties saying the causes of terrorism should be addressed. They make George Orwell the equivalent liberal-lefty apologist of his day look like a extreme left libertarian. Today they just want to ride with the beast

I have seen some official documentary explaining the colapse.
But there's some problems, starting with there was only two planes, and three buildings collapse.


 http://physics911.org/

Physics911.org is an independent initiative which inter alia presents the work of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven.

11s, one way of getting your problems: "But there's some problems, starting with there was only two planes, and three buildings collapse", is to do a sort of mind experiment.

Think of ten-pin bowling; one ball hurtling towards the pins - ten are knocked over. Strike! Now, quickly, think of two planes and only three buildings. Strike! Does that help or do we need to do some work on Newtons Laws of Physics.

You cant restart reading at top of page, or follow the links, but it seems you're not interested on facts...

Fluoxetene

1. Yes, I did see the documentary you refer to. That I thought you were referring to the documentary on Channel Four last Thursday was a genuine mistake. I was unimpressed with the engineering analysis. The simple reason being that they appeared to use a conclusion to deduce the evidence. That might sound like a glib statement but you may recall that the real evidence was shipped out for recycling before it could undergo analysis. So it would not be possible to say that the metal had reacted to the heat in any particular way. That could only have been the product of conjecture. But that the towers both fell at free-fall speeds is evident - no resistance from any of the floor supports which were said to have given way. Perhaps this might have been understable as the collapsed structure approached ground level but its descent was fairly linear and for that senario it would have been necessary for the acceleration of the structure's collapse to have been greater than 9.81m/s/s. Also you may have seen in the Naudet brothers' film firefighter witnesses' recollections of the collapse.

Whether your statement about 'The New Pearl Harbor' on DVD was supposed to be sarcastic obfuscation or not - who knows! But I reckon I will file that comment along with all the other insubstantial gybes. If you are not aware of the book 'The New Pearl Harbor', however, you might be interested to know that the title comes from a statement in a document called 'Rebuilding America’s Defenses' published by 'The Project for the New American Century' -  http://www.newamericancentury.org - which is a so-called Neo-Con think tank established in 1997 and whose signatories are:

Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz

You probably recognise some of those names. In the document from September 2000 it says:

'A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.'

It goes on to say:

'Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.'

Professor David Ray Griffin used this in the title of his book.

For the record, you say that when the WTC was built planes were much smaller. Really? WTC Tower One was completed in 1972 and WTC Tower Two in 1973. The first test flights of the 747 were in 1969. According to the official report both flight 11 and 175 which hit the WTC were 767s (not 747 as you stated earlier) and are nowhere near the same size. A 747 is 231ft long and has a span of up to 211ft. A 767 is up to 159ft long with a span of 156ft. So your assertion that,'when the twin towers were built, aeroplanes were much smaller, slower and contained less fuel' is utter nonsense. In fact until very recently the 747 was still the biggest commercial airliner in the sky. Add ing to that that Concorde had been flying to New york since 1969 really stews your case!

My metaphore about cats and microwaves was referring to dumb excuses, ie. noy knowing what to expect, not pyrotechnic or calorific values. Guess i should have explained.

And you weren't traumatised by the events of September 11th. And neither was your brother in Manhatten. Well, aren't you all brave? You still swallowed the bait, though. Maybe you had a little wobble but your ego won't allow you to own up on national TeeVee.

Maybe you didn't say 'paranoid', maybe you didn't say 'conspiracy' or 'theorist' but peoplewho try to prove a point wrong just by name-calling generally do. Maybe you didn't say it. But you think it.

I really suggest you familiarise yourself with certain things, like The Project for the New American Century, the Council on Foreign Relations, Operation Northwoods (the Northwoods Document). The new 'truth' about the original Pearl Harbor and umpteen precedents for it, the burning of the Reichstag and Rome.

Zinfandel

.

I now little of the finer detail of the plane crashes on 9/11. So showing that I have got the details wrong in no way backs up your hypothesis, that the towers were, additionally, blown up with high explosives. Even contradicting a so called experts hypothesis does not prove yours, because no one will know exactly what happened.

There was great surprise by the experts that the towers collapsed but the documentary I saw last year made a convincing case that those planes hit, exploded and started a chain of destruction that caused the collapse.

It does not matter that the planes were far smaller than what I said. We are talking about large, fast planes full of fuel, that's enough. Nothing you have said has made me change my mind, even though I got many insignificant facts wrong.

Many saw what happened, both on TV and on the ground. What I saw made sense. What you claim does not.

Again just because the Nazi burnt the Reichstag, and the US promoted terrorism in Vietnam to give them an excuse to declare war is immaterial.

Or that Dick Cheney or some other neo-conservative hinted that a large terrorist atrocity would help their Project for a New American Century (which I am familiar with) doesn't mean the Neo-cons planned 911. For one, it is immaterial that they are too incompetent to do so and get away with it; for two, that they would be too easily exposed.

Coincidences are just coincidences, not proof of conspiracy. On a personal level it is the root of paranoia. On wider level it can lead to implausible conspiracy theories.

The best I can say about your theories is, that if the Neo-cons did organise all this - then they are evil geniuses who have got away with it and they will never be found out no matter how many times you watch, and measure the rate of, those two towers falling. Or no matter how many times you look at some blurred picture, or film, of a hole in the pentagon wall and try and fit a plane though it.

I'll give you some credit, you haven't mentioned alien abductions. As I have said there's no harm in perusing these ideas, in the right context.

That's the best one I've seen yet from this artist! Keep em coming!

H. Gelly Fluoxetene, you said in your last post and made similar suggestions in earlier posts:

"So showing that I have got the details wrong in no way backs up your hypothesis that the towers were, additionally, blown up with high explosives"

"Even contradicting a so called experts hypothesis does not prove yours, because no one will know exactly what happened"

"What you claim does not"

"The best I can say about your theories"

But what have I claimed? All I have done is countered all your evidence. All you have done is wither backwards and finally conceded that everything you have said is false, yet still claim to be right!

I haven't claimed that the WTC was blown up, though the owner of WTC7 (Larry Silverstein) is on record as admitting as much is true of that building, he said that they decided to 'pull it':

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PULLIT.mp3

It doesn't bother me that you and your like persist in resorting to sly comments like, 'I'll give you some credit, you haven't mentioned alien abductions'. As I previously pointed out, it only shows weakness in your assertions. So far, everything you have said either defies physical laws, defies logic or has been proven false and retracted.

You could at least do me the courtesy of reading what I write before you fling it sideways in order to charge in with unfounded allegations.

some one above said:

"Read 'Brave New World Revisited' by Aldous Huxley and find out information is implanted through trauma in the same way that it is extracted through trauma. So, whilst the planet watches in shock as planes smash into the WTC the official story is deeply embedded. Not too difficult to believe, really."

and I can remember clearly how it happened, literally, on national UK TV as we watched, bemused, shocked, wondering, traumatised (I'm not ashamed to admit it - most sensible people would be at least a bit traumatised by any of the world's terrible massacres if they'd seen them played out live on tv).

were my randomly collected crew of friends the only ones to see the image of osama bin laden's peaceable (in this context read smug, satisfied) smile dramatically overlaid on an image of the rubble, accompanied by mood music? I can't remember what channel it was but probably bbc, itv or c4, the three we flipped between all that long afternoon and evening.

and how many times did the words 'al quaida', 'obl', even 'palestine' appear in mainstream media on that and following days? how many times did 'international law', 'due process', 'full and open enquiry' appear by comparison?

Oh aye, we were all implanted, hard and fast. and the faith so many people still place in the officially propagated conspiracy theory simply proves it.

one of those apparently conned says:

"Again just because the Nazi burnt the Reichstag, and the US promoted terrorism in Vietnam to give them an excuse to declare war is immaterial.

Or that Dick Cheney or some other neo-conservative hinted that a large terrorist atrocity would help their Project for a New American Century (which I am familiar with) doesn't mean the Neo-cons planned 911. For one, it is immaterial that they are too incompetent to do so and get away with it; for two, that they would be too easily exposed."

without recognising the obvious:
one - that they were clearly not so incompetent that they would not allow the event to go ahead (not the same as planning it themselves, but just as effective for their goals) and
two - that they have been exposed, very thoroughly, and it is only the widespread popular preference for following authority and labelling dissenters as nutters that has kept them out of jail. oh and the fact that the neo-cons only have a hold of the biggest armoury on the planet and who really wants to stand up to lunatic bullies on that scale?

oh well. you'll all only believe what you want anyway.

xx