< HOME  Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Bob McIlvaine: US gov behind 9/11



Father of 9/11 victim Bobby McIlvain talks to Jon Gold of 911blogger.com about the 9/11 commission and how he has come to the conclusion that the US government orchestrated 9/11.

34 Comments:

At Tuesday, March 14, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

He looks like such a kind, honest man. It's so infuriating to know that his life was shattered for the insane greed of a handful of people.

God how I pray that the truth comes out while the families of the victims are still alive.

 
At Tuesday, March 14, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

This is what a controlled demolition actually looks and sounds like:

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/images/client/beirut_hilton.mpg

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/images/client/jlhudson.mpg

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/images/client/kingdome.mpg

Compare to the so-called proof of the 9/11 "controlled explosions."

Now lets look at our 9/11 "conspiracy proof" videos....

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.1.demolition.nj.1.wmv
http://enigs.xmule.ws/fox_lc2e.mpg

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/

Oh wait, we cant hear anything in most of those wtc videos. What a surprise. Never fear, you can get good close up audio and video from a documentary called "9 11" - the story of one fire department who responded to the scene and experienced the situation first hand.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00006B1HI/102-9855072-5739358?v=glance&n=130

The more I read and see, the less convinced I am that this was a controlled demolition. Initially I thought it remotely plausible. I now think it minutely plausible.

Questions that need to be answered by those who claim it was a controlled demolition:

- When would explosives have been placed?
- How many devices would be required to destroy these structures?
- How large would the devices be?
- How were they placed without witnesses? (NOTE: buildings were open 24/7)
- How were they concealed (to avoid discovery before the attack)?
- How were they detonated and how were those detonations timed?
- Provide a loudness estimate in decibel of each explosion, then of each series, and explain why this would or would not be heard by bystanders.
- Explain in detail how a controlled collapse can be executed top down, provide at least two working models.

 
At Tuesday, March 14, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

That said - of course the man seems to be a kind man whose life was shattered.

This does not mean that it was in fact a structured plan of the US/Israel that shattered his life.

 
At Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Blogger vper1 said...

Miss R, i'm not saying who the culprit was, but look here's some more examples of controlled demo:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture7%20(squib1).jpg

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586&q=professor+jones

(first slide)

Please point exactly why you believe the official version, that fire caused the buildings to collapse.


Also the questions you stated are extremely ambiguous, you're asking for SOLID CONCRETE EVIDENCE. You're forgetting the 9/11 commission failed to provide SOLID CONCRETE EVIDENCE to back up their CONSPIRACY THEORY.

 
At Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Blogger vper1 said...

Miss R, you sound proficient enough to handle this...

A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon
by Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer

To the members of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven:

I would like to give you my input as to the events on September 11, and why it is a physically provable fact that some of the damage done to the Pentagon could not have occurred from a Boeing 757 impact, and therefore the 9/11 Commission report is not complete and arguably a cover-up. I will not speculate about what may have been covered up, I will only speak from my professional opinion. But I will explain why I do not believe the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757.

I am a Mechanical Engineer who spent many years in Aerospace, including structural design, and in the design, and use of shaped charge explosives (like those that would be used in missile warheads).

The structural design of a large aircraft like a 757 is based around managing the structural loads of a pressurized vessel, the cabin, to near-atmospheric conditions while at the lower pressure region of cruising altitudes, and to handle the structural and aerodynamic loads of the wings, control surfaces, and the fuel load. It is made as light as possible, and is certainly not made to handle impact loads of any kind.

If a 757 were to strike a reinforced concrete wall, the energy from the speed and weight of the aircraft will be transferred, in part into the wall, and to the structural failure of the aircraft. It is not too far of an analogy as if you had an empty aluminum can, traveling at high speed hitting a reinforced concrete wall. The aluminum can would crumple (the proper engineering term is buckle) and, depending on the structural integrity of the wall, crack, crumble or fail completely. The wall failure would not be a neat little hole, as the energy of the impact would be spread throughout the wall by the reinforcing steel.

This is difficult to model accurately, as any high speed, high energy, impact of a complex structure like an aircraft, into a discontinuous wall with windows etc. is difficult. What is known is that nearly all of the energy from this event would be dissipated in the initial impact, and subsequent buckling of the aircraft.

We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9 feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of concrete was a nearly perfectly cut circular hole (see below) in a reinforced concrete wall, with no subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. (If we are to believe that somehow this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this sixth final wall.)


EXIT HOLE IN PENTAGON RING-C
American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, is alleged to have punched through 6 blast-resistant concrete walls‹a total of nine feet of reinforced concrete‹before exiting through this hole.


It is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean cut circle, period. When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete wall fail in this manner, it should have caved in, in some fashion.

How do you create a nice clean hole in a reinforced concrete wall? with an explosive shaped charge. An explosive shaped charge, or cutting charge is used in various military warhead devices. You design the geometry of the explosive charge so that you create a focused line of energy. You essentially focus nearly all of the explosive energy in what is referred to as a jet. You use this jet to cut and penetrate armor on a tank, or the walls of a bunker. The signature is clear and unmistakable. In a missile, the explosive charge is circular to allow the payload behind the initial shaped charge to enter whatever has been penetrated.

I do not know what happened on 9/11, I do not know how politics works in this country, I can not explain why the mainstream media does not report on the problems with the 9/11 Commission. But I am an engineer, and I know what happens in high speed impacts, and how shaped charges are used to "cut" through materials.

I have not addressed several other major gaps in the Pentagon/757 incident. The fact that this aircraft somehow ripped several light towers clean out of the ground without any damage to the aircraft (which I also feel is impossible), the fact that the two main engines were never recovered from the wreckage, and the fact that our government has direct video coverage of the flight path, and impact, from at least a gas station and hotel, which they have refused to release.

You can call me a "tin hat", crazy, conspiracy theory, etc, but I can say from my expertise that the damage at the Pentagon was not caused by a Boeing 757.

Sincerely,
Michael Meyer

 
At Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Blogger vper1 said...

Please debunk his letter, and be specific and provide me SOLID evidence of a boeing hitting the pentagon. Not mixed eyewitness accounts, not unknown debris, I want to SEE IT.

 
At Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Blogger vper1 said...

How do you create a nice clean hole in a reinforced concrete wall? with an explosive shape charge. An explosive shape charge, or cutting charge is used in various military warhead devices. You design the geometry of the explosive charge so that you create a focused line of energy. You essentially focus nearly all of the explosive energy in what is referred to as a jet. You use this jet to cut and penetrate armor on a tank, or the walls of a bunker. The signature is clear and unmistakable. In a missile, the explosive charge is circular to allow the payload behind the initial shape charge to enter what ever has been penetrated.

Much has been written about the collapse of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. Very easy to apply the laws of physics and engineering principles here. Once again it violates the laws of physics to have these buildings fall at nearly free fall speed. There is no plausible explanation in Popular Mechanics, a NIST report, etc that can properly explain this.
Many have stated the "official" story must be correct because "our government could not possibly have done this". But do we really know how our government works??

Many have stated that a major newspaper would break this story, but do we really know the truth on how political power is brought to bear on what shows up in the paper??

As average citizens, we can only speculate as to how our government really works, and who really controls what is printed in the mainstream press, but the laws of Physics provides an irrefutable explanation of what can and can not happen. It provides a clear window into the truth, an explanation for events that can be proven.

Continued

 
At Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

you know, vper, I can't understand why some people dismiss the theory that something other than a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

I find it incredible that, based on the evidence, anyone would think that one did.

 
At Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

vper1,

You want to see...what exactly?

911myths.com addresses this latest point quiet well.

http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_rings_and_the_exit_ho.html

Oh right, this is "inaccurate."

What about this? Well over 100 witnesses recount seeing a plane flying into the Pentagon.

http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html

Another article debunking the myth that a 757 didn't fly into the Pentagon.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Then again, there is no convincing you, even with the best Noam Chomsky-designed site in the world. Your mind is made up. Just don't pretend to actually look at evidence or ask others to look at evidence when making up their minds, if you won't extend the same courtesy.

C'est la vie.

 
At Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Blogger vper1 said...

No Miss R I think your mind was made up long before you started researching. I remember some of your posts stating you thought the buildings were demolished 'for saftey reasons'.

Keep referencing government sources though I'm starting to change my mind.

Just keep in mind everytime this administration uses 9/11 to their advantage.

 
At Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Blogger vper1 said...

9/11 -- The Gift That Keeps on Giving

(I feel a rant coming on......)

So what if the Bush administration wants to conduct illegal wiretaps, they are fighting the terrorists!

So what if the Bush administration wants to attack a country that has never attacked us and was not a threat to us, they are fighting the terrorists!

So what if the Bush administration wants to take away all my liberties, they are fighting the terrorists!

So what if the Bush administration outs a CIA operative in order to smear a political opponent, they are fighting the terrorists!

So what if the Bush administration has encumbered more foreign debt in the past five years then all of the preceding administrations did combined, they are fighting the terrorists!

So what if the Bush administration paid American journalists to write deceptive and administration-friendly news stories, they are fighting the terrorists!

So what if the Bush administration hasn't enacted an exit plan in Iraq, they are fighting the terrorists!

So what if the Bush administration has destroyed the United States' reputation overseas, they are fighting the terrorists!

Wanna break the law? Invoke 9/11!

Wanna start a war? Invoke 9/11!

Wanna piss on the Constitution? Invoke 9/11!

Wanna make sure your family business profits off the war? Invoke 9/11!

Wanna fuck with people you just don't like? Invoke 9/11!

Wanna make your political adversary look like a treasonous bastard? Invoke 9/11!

I'm so sick and tired of 9/11. The Bush regime uses 9/11 like a heroin addict uses a spoon. It's the ultimate political weapon. Meanwhile, ignorant bastards keep driving around town in their cars with their "9/11- Never Forget" bumper stickers. That's akin to a southern slave in the 1800's wearing a shirt that says "I Need to Be Whipped Some Mo' Masseh"

For fuck's sake, who has gained the most from 9/11? Who? Isn't it obvious?

Terrorists? Who the fuck are these terrorists? The only terrorists I see are the ones sitting in Washington D.C. fucking over my country. Who is fighing against those bastards, that's what I wanna know.

The only terrorists I see are the ones handing out tax breaks to the rich while the poor fight over the scraps. Why isn't the Army fighing those dangerous thugs?

The only terrorists I see are the CEOs making $27 million dollars while the grunts make $17,000 (Walmart). Shouldn't we call in the Navy SEALS?

My government is one big organized crime family. That's the way I see it. Like any strong crime family, you gotta have muscle. And we certainly have the muscle. We make up 5% of the world's population, and yet we are responsible for 50% of all money spent on defense worldwide. "Luca Brasi swims with the fishes!"

Speaking of which, when can we begin calling "military defense" by it's rightful name? It should be called "military offense." For pete's sake, we've been on the offense for about 60 fucking years now. I think the days of "defense" are long gone, aren't they?

Yes indeed, 9/11 is the ultimate lotto prize for the neocon pigs. Full Spectrum Dominance? Try Full Spectrum Fascism.

Oh they danced and danced, drank lots of wine, and listened to lots of Wagner and Beethoven. Meanwhile their "brave leader" was out there fighing against the scourge of communism, the scourge of the Jews, and the scourge of everything else that wasn't Nazi. Yup, the Germans in the early 1940's were asleep too. Their leader had saved them from the communists who, after all, were accused of burning down the Reichstag building. (Oh wait, Hitler actually set the building on fire himself. Sounds so familiar?) Ah yes, because Germany was "under attack", they let Hitler enact the Enabling Act, thereby giving him dictatorial authority over Germany.

Dictatorial power. Where have I heard that before?

Yup, it all goes back to that eleventh day in September, 2001. The day when our country did a swan dive off the top of the World Trade Center, straight fucking down!

9/11-- the gift that keeps giving.

 
At Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

So the fuck what???

The government made political hay out of 9/11. This proves zippo!!!

I am sorry, but the evidence being presented showing demolitions simply do not hold up against the evidence. And in what way is the 911myths.com site so terrible?

And since when do victims' families believe the government is behind 9/11?? A couple do. We are supposed to take those couple to mean the vast majority?

Unlike everyone else on this board, I work in Lower Manhattan. My family lives in a building overlooking the hole in the ground. I have quizzed my family and coworkers (including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, where I interned one summer) about every aspect of 9/11. I met the very guy who designed the Silverstein contract, which states Silverstein has to pay $120 million even if there is no WTC.

I went in with an open mind. I wanted to know everything they had to say. I have gotten a huge cumulative load of information from firefighters, policemen (yes, I asked random cops and firefighters about 9/11), people on the street, and the government. All fo rmy own edification. None of it points to these claims.

Please point to one aspect of the websites I linked to which is inaccurate.

If none of those sites satisfy you, what about this one, which includes an analysis by a professor of fire science.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=9&c=y

Because of some complaints that I only link to articles, I even copied and pasted the text for you all, which I am about 100% positive you will not read and/or dismiss.

----------

THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.

Widespread Damage
CLAIM: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."

FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.

"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

 
At Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

And for the record, I said a while back that if there was a controlled demolition, it could have been for safety reasons. I did not say it was for safety reasons.

I now do not believe there was a controlled demolition. I once thought it possible, but looking at all the evidence has convinced me there was no controlled demolition.

 
At Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

Oh, for the record, the Popular Mechanics Magazine has much for where the above came from.

 
At Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Blogger vper1 said...

Reply to Pop Mech

 
At Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Blogger vper1 said...

Another reply to Pop Mech

 
At Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Blogger vper1 said...

Yet another reply to Popular Mech

 
At Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Blogger vper1 said...

Problem with 911myths explained in rev 5.4 of Jones' paper:

Molten aluminum poured onto rusted steel: no violent reactions observed at all.



Thus, we find substantial evidence supporting the current conjecture that some variation of thermite (e.g., solid aluminum powder plus Fe2O3, with possible addition of sulfur) was used on the steel columns of the WTC Tower to weaken the huge steel supports, not long before explosives finished the demolition job. Roughly 3,000 pounds of RDX-grade linear-shaped charges (which could have been pre-positioned by just a few men) would then suffice in each Tower and WTC 7 to cut the supports at key points so that gravity would bring the buildings straight down. The estimate is based on the amount of explosives used in controlled demolitions in the past and the size of the buildings. Radio-initiated firing of the charges is implicated here. Using computer-controlled radio signals, it would be an easy matter to begin the explosive demolition near the point of entry of the planes in the Towers.

"Superthermites" use tiny particles of aluminum known as "nanoaluminum" (<120 nanometers) in order to increase their reactivity. Mixed with fine metal oxide particles, such as micron-scale iron oxide dust, nanoaluminum in superthermite becomes explosive:

Nanoenergetics refers to a broad class of energetic materials and formulations that exploit mechanisms and properties that exist only at the nanoscale. For example, aluminum is a highly reactive metal when produced as nanopowder (size <100 nm). Metal powders are an important subset of nanoenergetics. Today it is well known that nanoenergetics can increase performance of explosives, propellants and pyrotechnic devices. The interest and appeal of nanoenergetic formulations lies in their ability to release energy in a controllable fashion, coupled with their higher energy density, relative to conventional organic explosives…. Recent advances in particle synthesis technology allow commercial scale production of nanoaluminum. (See http://www.nanoscale.com/markets_nanoenergetics.asp and, regarding bombs, http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/01/wo/wo_gartner012105.asp?p=1 .)

The possible use of nanoaluminum and superthermite on 9/11 should be further investigated.

Are there any examples of buildings toppled by fires or any reason other than deliberate demolition that show large pools of molten metal in the rubble? I have posed this question to numerous engineers and scientists, but so far no examples have emerged. Strange then that three buildings in Manhattan, supposedly brought down finally by fires, all show these large pools of molten metal in their basements post-collapse on 9-11-2001. It would be interesting if underground fires could somehow produce molten steel, for example, but then there should be historical examples of this effect since there have been many large fires in numerous buildings. It is not enough to argue hypothetically that fires could possibly cause all three pools of molten metal.

Furthermore, we have seen published reports that "molten steel [or other metal] flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet" -- how could building fires have caused that effect? Has it ever been seen before? We know of no such instances. However, thermite-derivative reactions as conjectured would produce molten flowing iron, as observed.

The very high temperatures (corresponding to salmon-yellow colors) of the molten metal observed in videos and photographs are difficult to explain in the context of the official theory that fires finally caused the collapse of the WTC Towers and WTC 7. Highly exothermic reactions other than hydrocarbon fires, such as the thermite reaction which produces white-hot molten iron as an end product, are clearly implied by the data. In addition, the use of explosives such as HDX and RDX should also be considered. The official reports by NIST, FEMA and the 9-11 Commission strikingly omit mention of large quantities of molten metal observed in the basement areas of WTC 7 and the Towers. The fact that the official reports do not adequately address the issue of molten metal found at the sites provides compelling motivation for continued research on the WTC collapses.

 
At Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

I started reading your article denying PM, and then I started laughing, because it spoke of drone aircrafts flying.

Um...tell that to the family members who lost their loved ones in the flights that crashed.

It then spoke of the breach of Norad procedure and said such a breach of procedure was impossible to be sheer negligence. Um, no.

The bottom line is that Katrina proves everything.

If instead of the levee bursting due to a hurricane, it was a bomb that burst the levees, the reaction from the Bush administration would have been the same.

If the incompetence seems to extensive to be real, that is because the incompetence of the Bush administration is so extensive, it has never been seen before.

I am not praising Bush. If anything, I think he is too incompetent to plan 9/11!!

I am sorry, but criminal negligence and incompetence does not mean actual planning of 9/11.

 
At Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

And for the record, the BYU professor who wrote that is not a structural engineer.

I am not, either. But that is why I rely on facts said and written by ACTUAL structural engineers.

 
At Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Blogger vper1 said...

Uhm, Miss R what drone are you refering to? The one proposed in Operation Northwoods?

Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a 1962 plan to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro as part of the U.S. government's Operation Mongoose anti-Castro initiative. The plan, which was not implemented, called for various false flag actions, including simulated or real state sponsored terrorism (such as hijacked planes) on U.S. and Cuban soil. The plan was proposed by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders, including the highest ranking member of the U.S. military, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer.

The proposal was presented in a document entitled "Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba," a collection of draft memoranda (PDF PDF) written by the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) representative to the Caribbean Survey Group. The document was presented by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13 with one paragraph approved, as a preliminary submission for planning purposes.


Bush isn't stupid, he's smart in a psychopathic kind of way.

 
At Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Blogger vper1 said...

And for the record, the BYU professor who wrote that is not a structural engineer.

I am not, either. But that is why I rely on facts said and written by ACTUAL structural engineers.


You mean like Judy Wood?

 
At Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Blogger vper1 said...

You don't even need a PHD to break apart 9/11, just some common sense.

 
At Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

Okay, I had typos that made the post make no sense, so I had to delete and start over.

vper1,

Please explain the scores of dead victims. The phone records. Please explain this.

You actually believe a drone flew into the WTC/Pentagon?

Operation Northwoods explains nothing. It does not explain the scores of dead victims and phone records, testimony of air traffic controllers, and 911 phone records. Just because a drone aircraft operation was thought about as an idea decades ago does not mean it was implemented.

There is some evidence that points to explosions of the Towers, but even that is well refuted by facts. (which I have linked to) However, a belief that drone planes flew into the Towers? WHOA.

That has about as much credibility as stating the Holocaust didn't exist.

I am sorry, but for you to actually think there were DRONE AIRCRAFTS, given the massive evidence to the contrary...

There is only one explanation for this. You hate America so much you are blinded by your hate and you cannot think rationally.

Btw, this bias really helps you in your "cause" to spread the "truth." *said sarcastically*

I wonder if you live in America. If you do...why? Why do any of you live in America if you hate it so intensely? Why not move to Iran, a nation y'all applaud? What is your reason for living in a nation you despise with every core of your essence?

I am not saying everyone who dissents or disagrees should move. But I read comments on this board saying America is evil at the FOUNDATION! How the very idea of America is evil. Assuming this notion is shared by others who frequent this site and live in America...why are you living here? I really do not get it.

And for clarification, I am not requesting you leave America. Rather, I am asking why you do not leave on your own. Why do you want to live in a nation you hate?

 
At Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Blogger vper1 said...

Thanks for the laugh Miss R.

 
At Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

HAHA, you're welcome.

And Judy Wood was wrong.

She stated there was no fire in the lower floors. In fact, the elevator shaft burst into fire, and the core of the building itself was on fire. This is well documented. The entire elevator shaft was on fire, and she did not account for this.

Nice try with the attempt at science, though.

 
At Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Anonymous CB said...

The Popular Mechanics article was designed to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement. All its claims are nothing but red herrings and strawmen. A sham.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/index.html


There were a few small fires in WTC 2, according to a battalion chief. Nothing major.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/audiotape.html


The reason structural engineers fall for the government's version of events is caused by their unwillingless to look at the evidence that NIST does not provide. According to NIST, their report "does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached"

According to Dr Jones' paper, most of the evidence for controlled demolitions comes after collapse initiation.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Also, for their computer simulations, NIST says: To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input

And now NIST refuses to show their computer simulations to leading structural and fire engineers who call for them. From Jones' paper: An article in the journal New Civil Engineering (NCE) has come to my attention at the end of the draft-process which lends support to concerns about the NIST analysis of the WTC collapses. It states: World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned


So, they change the input so the buildings would collapse, and now they won't share their simulations with leading engineers. I wonder why?

CB

 
At Thursday, March 16, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

miss r said: I wonder if you live in America. If you do...why? Why do any of you live in America if you hate it so intensely? Why not move to Iran, a nation y'all applaud? What is your reason for living in a nation you despise with every core of your essence?

I am not saying everyone who dissents or disagrees should move. But I read comments on this board saying America is evil at the FOUNDATION! How the very idea of America is evil. Assuming this notion is shared by others who frequent this site and live in America...why are you living here? I really do not get it.

And for clarification, I am not requesting you leave America."


Actually, your comments in general, and this one in particular make it CRYSTAL CLEAR what you mean. You do not seek the truth, but indeed aim to subvert it and drive away those who dare to question it.

But, we're not going away miss r. Like it or lump it, honest Americans are here to stay.

The helpless and the hopeless in America who always knew that the "American Dream" was a marketing scam designed to dupe the masses into complacency have just been joined by the disillusioned and rightfully indignant.

We don't know what the truth is, But, we know what it IS NOT.

WE DEMAND to know THE TRUTH and we will not stop until we get it - your pompous, childlike tirades notwithstanding.

-------------

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. --Schopenhauer

 
At Thursday, March 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've investigated on my own and come to conclusion that there is definitely something fishy about the official version. Just too many coincidences and too darn convenient. Unfortunately, because the only people that know what happened on 911 are the ones that orchestrated it, there is no way to tell which one of these theories is correct.

One of the things that always surprised me is how people are so easily duped. Have they really been able to do such reprogramming of people that wasn't even possible in communism (and I come from a communist country where there was a lot of programming)?

A question that should be asked is not how did 911 happen (as I said it's almost impossible), but why? The answer to this question is easily deductable by looking back at events that happened after 911.

Another thing: In war the soldiers are expandable and forced to follow orders, while the generals are the ones giving the orders. There are only a handful of generals. The rest of us are soldiers. All clear?

 
At Friday, July 10, 2009, Blogger Ron said...

Yeah, like the Al Qaeda.

 
At Monday, January 16, 2012, Blogger NYguy said...

The video was 2006. Whatever happened to the book Bobby talked about? Did it ever get published?
911 will always be a mystery. You just can't explain away the powder dust and free fall collapse with office fire.

 
At Sunday, August 12, 2012, Blogger Rick said...

The largest "elevator modernization" and asbestos removal projects in history were underway in the months up until 9/11, by Ace Elevator Inc and other contractors. Workers were in the elavator shafts, and above ceiling panels by night - plenty of time and opportunity to plant explosives covertly. The workers must be found and interviewed.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home