I can't believe this! Thanks Tucker!

He actually admitted Steven claimed the government did it?

BUT WHEN DID STEVEN SAY THAT? OH, WAIT HE DIDN'T!

They are completely throwing this in our faces.

agreed, dz

the line that got me was "... so evil, that your tax dollars go in to support it make you complicit in it" -- I love how Tucker turns it all around.... the implication that I'm complicit with Cheney's 9/11 simply because I pay taxes (rather than be put in jail to be tortured). Right. Twisted logic fits this guy as well as that stoopid bow tie.

yeah.. that and assuming there is no motive.. its the same crap they said about those that questioned the intentions of the iraq war..

When I listened to the video, it was clear that Jones had half of his sentences edited out. I mean like the first half or the middle half or the second half of a sentence!

If you want to see/hear an obvious one, go to just before the 1:00 mark. Tucker asked Jones to sum it up, and Jones says, "But to sum up.." and the rest of his sentence is chopped out, and the video cuts to "the horror scene" of the smoldering buildings. Man! What an underhanded psyOps event! It wasn't about needing to give Jones more time; it's about honest reporting.

Joining the first part of one sentence with the last part of a sentance in the next paragraph is unethical, immoral, and is surely against the law.

I pulled up the Tucker Carlson transcript from the show, while I listened to the video. The trascript even has (as of this moment, at least) the second half of his sentence. The transcript reads, "But to sum up that I have looked at the official reports by FEMA, and so on..." So, by cutting out the second half of his sentence, is the Tucker show wanting to make it seem that Jones hasn't even looked at the FEMA report?

Here's what I'd like to ask Tucker.
Sir, are you willing to be questioned under oath? If not, what does that say? (Jones' honesty isn't in question.)

If he's willing to, ask him how much he was paid to do that smear job, and by whom was he paid. There will be the proof.

Here's where I got the transcript:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10050494/

1. tucker wouldn't show building 7 dropping in its own footprint. even after the B.Y.U. professor repeatedly asked him to.

2. what a fucking pussy

3. john stewart was right

4. fuck off tucker you prick!!

5. what is G.E., and Tucker so afraid of...THE TRUTH!!!!!!!???

I haven't been "radical" for a long time now, but this PISSED ME OFF.

I have said for a while now... we have lost our anger.

Well guess what Dubya/Cheney...

I AM FURIOUS!!!

Want to get refired up?
http://www.tbtmradio.com/geeklog/public_html/staticpages/index.php?page=...

Could 9/11 aware citizens start a national boycott of this holiday season?

We have made immense progress raising public awareness, but the governement lackeys still try to maintain the illusion that 9/11 questions have been satisfactorily answered. Get a clue fellas – this 911 truth movement is not going away until there is a real, scientifically valid investigation.

As a timely reminder – photos of the first public, national 9/11 activism event, held just two short years ago on Nov. 29, 2003 by the National 9/11 Visibility Project can be viewed here:
http://snapshots.graphicswithstyle.com/

(take our questions to the public!)

I'd like to see Carlson get Networked like the 1976 movie.

live on screen.

If they wont report the news/story, become the news story.

in 1775-6 Loyalists were often dealt with.

Tucker is correct. You should'nt pay taxes to murderers. However he has the leaving the country thing backwards. We should send the murderers to the Haig and take back our country.

I'd guess *ucker was one of those MK-Ultra or Project Monarch mind control sex slave boys. Guessing the elite pedophiles really dicked him up good too, coz he's so pretty. He reminds me of one of those manequins in the Sears boys section, esp with that hair.

My response to Bowtie:

The U.S. government killed more than 3,000 of its own citizens. -- Tucker Carlson (you like that out of context quote)

Noone is saying that Tucker, Mr bowtie. Using your logic, then when they find a bad cop or when a bank is robbed and its deemed an "inside job", then that WHOLE banking institution had a grand conspiracy to steal money? Or the whole police department is bad?

This is poor logic. Most successful criminals hide their cover and hiding your crime under the cover of government or conspiracy seems like the way to go.

Using your same logic, since we tortured at Abu-Ghraib and only a few soldiers were responsible, a few "bad apples", then using Tucker logic it would mean that since a few soldiers did it, then THE ENTIRE MILITARY conspired to torture?

You really need to put the word "conspiracy" aside and do a small, objective coincidence analysis on this one, its WAY TOO IMPORTANT TO PUSH ASIDE AND BE AN APOLOGIST. I think you will be surprised what you find when you use your brain and get past the red tape of a "conspiracy theory".

If I ever get caught for a crime (I don't commit crimes -- hypothetical), I hope its a "conspiracy", that way normal investigative techniques and processes will be thrown aside and people who accuse me will be enemies of freedom and should leave the country.

It was not THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT. A small "cabal" within the government maybe? Someone who knew about terror drills on the same day they could take advantage of. I mean the official conspiracy theory of 19 Arabs is a small cabal right? I just happen to think that it would be easier for a small cabal within reach of important power in our government is much more plausible, judging by who benefited most and trillions in profiteering. The motive alone should have normal investigators and journalists going mad over finding this answer. That was before state run media. You are in a powerful position Mr. Carlson, at least give it a fair shake, play the WTC7 videos, get firefighters on who saw and heard explosions in lower levels (there are plenty). You really don't want to go down in history as another apologist and brown shirt do you? I liked you a bit before your comments that people who want to clean up their government should leave the country, well Mr. Carlson, ones who do not want to clean up the government or find the cause of this should keel over, because they are very sick.

We saw our own Shock and Awe on 9/11, and PNAC got their "New Pearl Harbor". Bush "hit the trifecta" with 9/11. Those guys are so lucky.

A measly little independent investigation never hurt anyone right? What's so scary about investigating it further to put it to rest if there is nothing there. Even you, Tucker, know the truth, but some can't handle it, especially ones that have supported some of the perpetrators. I think that makes YOU complicit in it, not the people who want to root these "bad apples" from the government.

>>>
And the conspiracy theory of 19 Arabs that attacked the greatest military in the history of the world over the pan of 2+ hours, (9 hijackers have been found still alive (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm )), is the better of the two conspiracies to believe in. This coming from the guys who also had the WMD conspiracy theory that they sold everyone for war. Yeh better trust these guys in power, this "cabal" as Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff put it.

Only the three Silverstein buildings collapsed, very interesting. He made about 6 billion profit (lucky guy – not to mention the multi trillion defense industry, energy companies, gas prices, political control, quick civil rights diminishes right after etc etc (Total information awareness launched 1 day before 9/11 and Patriot act prepared 8 days after). Kool-aid is good.

Not even self interest will sway huh?:

Silverstein is a man of interest for those that question 9/11 for several reasons. From his infamous "pull it" comment, to the mysterious 'collapse' of WTC7, to his monstrous return on investment in the World Trade Center just weeks before 9/11:

Larry Silverstein, backed by a number of investors, signed a 99-year lease for the World Trade Center complex just seven weeks before the World Trade Center was destroyed in 2001. Silverstein already owned 7 World Trade Center which was also destroyed in the attack. Silverstein was awarded an insurance payment of more than three and a half billion dollars to settle his seven-week-old terrorist insurance policy. In addition, the Silverstein group sued the insurers liable for the World Trade Center for another three and a half billion dollars, claiming that by an obscure clause in their contract, the two planes constituted two separate terrorist attacks. Most of the insurers prevailed in a trial (Silverstein was never granted an additional $2.3 billion in extra insurance money as a result) while others are still in litigation.

From THE NEW YORK TIMES:

Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?”

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Grego...
NYC firefighter: “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . [W]e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.”

Link to quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Cachi...
From The San Francisco Chronicle / SFGate.com:

Captain of Emergency Medical Services: "somewhere around the middle of the world trade center there was this orange and red flash coming out ... initially it was just one flash then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode ... and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides ... as far as could see these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building"

Link to quote:
http://sfgate.com/gate/pictures/2005/09/10/ga_karin_deshore.pdf
"When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go...
...There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down. I stood there for a second in total awe, and then said, "What the F###?" I honestly thought it was Hollywood."

- Eye-witness Jeff Birnbaum, president of Broadway Electrical Supply Co., New York

Link to quote:
http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric_broadway_electrical_supplys/
911blogger.com

How could bombs have been planted in the heavily-populated trade centers without people noticing?

The answers are, actually, pretty straightforward.

Why Were Bombs Used?

Planes alone would not have scared the American people to the point where we would have relinquished -- for the sake of security -- traditional American ideals of fighting only defensive wars and of having broad personal freedoms (we weren't necessarily following these ideals; but Americans at least believed in them). The war in Iraq and the wholesale suspension of personal liberties -- through the Patriot Acts and secret executive orders -- could not have happened without the "shock and awe" of the collapse of the Twin Towers.
...

How Were Bombs Planted?

...
there was a power down in the Twin Towers on the weekend before 9/11, security cameras were shut down, and many workers ran around busily doing things unobserved, according to a network administrator working at a large corporation housed in the Twin Towers

ON SEPT 11th WE were the recipients of “SHOCK and AWE”. If you do push this aside Tucker, your kids have to grow up in this new fear mongering America as well. We need to get it back on track and not support fear-mongers and Benedict Arnold profiteers who put America and Americans on no kind of pedestal.

re: hitting the trifecta, here's a trivia question for DAN RATHER(and anyone else). What day did George W. Bush first use a line underlying his 'trifecta." e.g. 'I have repeatedly said the only time to use Social Security money is in times of war, times of recession or times of severe emergency.Â’

Have you guys seen MartialLaw 911 - Rise of the Police State?

911 - Alex Jones: Martial Law 911 Rise of the Police State HQ

http://www.mininova.org/tor/146176

on 9//11 everyone should see
http://www.archive.org/download/MartialLaw911/martial_law_p01_bb.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/MartialLaw911/martial_law_p02_bb.wmv http://www.archive.org/download/MartialLaw911/martial_law_p03_bb.wmv

(Alternative links if the above don't work)

http://premedtutor.com/videos/martial_law_p01_bb.wmv http://premedtutor.com/videos/martial_law_p02_bb.wmv http://premedtutor.com/videos/martial_law_p03_bb.wmv

Jon Stewart on Crossfire: "Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200410160003

Hahaha, check it this is from ages ago but Jon Stewart just canes this Tucker Carlson guy.

" i work at a university, so i guess the easiest thing for me to do is drop a copy of his paper into every physicists mail box... "

I would target physicists, civil engineers, material science engineers, and applied mathematicians most of all. Afterwards, there are also chemists, engineers of all stripes, and "pure" mathematicians.

"with some collaborating, we could come up with a packet of info, a kit, if you will, of the best available info...."

True, but we already have Jones's draft, as well as Hoffman's dust/energy paper. I would focus on those RIGHT NOW.

"but leaving out the political assumptions and governmental coverups and such."

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, HERE. It's already a leap for guys like this to look at the hard evidence, because it's not exactly in their field. (Even the civil engineers, due to some breath taking anomalies, in particular the telescoping/powderizing collapse of the spire that survived the initial collapses.) Why complicate the issue? You will surely scare off some potential converts.

"All those people like Ruppert who say the physical evidence isn't important is misleading."

I wouldn't beat up Ruppert over this. He explained his reasoning, which is based on his (extensive) life's experience.

However, I do feel he's absolutely wrong. Hundreds of thousands of tons of physical evidence put this at a scale that his experience did not prepare him for.

I love it! Stewart tore him a new a-hole. Beautifull. Tucker is such a jerk. When the lights go out, I want him.

dz:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8063563/#051116a

Tucker:

That was probably a mistake. Talking about 9-11 is a lot like discussing someone else's religion: You can do it, but you've got to tread carefully. Most of the time, it's best to stick to platitudes and move on. The subject is still too raw for debate, particularly here in the New York area. (The little town where I live lost six people on September 11th; the town next door lost more than 20.) Professor Jones wasn't up to the job. If you saw last night's show, you know what an uncomfortable six minutes it was. If not, I'll summarize: Jones was almost totally incapable of explaining his own ideas. By the end of the interview I understood no more about his hypothesis than when it began. He was an epically bad guest.

He's screwing himself.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8063563/#051116a

(haloscan screwing up or is it me having problems??)

sl-

we have a great engineering program here, so i will definitely target them as well.

when i meant packet, i meant putting together the most relevant info that carries no political overtones...indeed like Hoffman and Jones...i guess i should have said "brainstorm to come up with every piece possible". I have many sources to pull together but i thought a comprehensive list would help, which i don't have (unless someone already has this and can forward it to me)

what i ultimately meant was something along the line of those big envelopes we all get when we go to conferences, which usually contain informative stuff, videos, papers, presentations, etc...sh!t like that.

i already keep copies of various DVD's in my car so that in case someone comments on the various bumper stickers i have, i can hand them a dvd to further open their minds.

the political elite, it seems, will do nothing, so the truth must come from the bottom up.

as for Ruppert, i don't beat up on him at all. I greatly respect the work he has done and the direction he has pointed me in...but for him to say what he did was disheartening to say the least...and completely inaccurate....if JFK researchers had this much evidence in the first couple of years after, not only would they have the criminals in jail but 9-11 probably would have never happened either (yes, i believe the same family is involved in both atrocities and cover-ups)...that family is nothing but a bunch of war profiteers and they have singlehandedly destroyed everything that is good about America...i'll be damned if i let these devils drive me out of my country!! (sorry! see that is what i am trying to keep out of a physical evidence discussion...too much emotion to get to the heart of the matter, which can close down all rational thought processes for individuals)

Complaining about and to Tucker is like complaining to the Nazi PR department about Hitler's policies. I'm afraid that the Truth will never ever actually come out on Mainstream media stations such as MSNBC and the like. Well it will come out but in the way that they want to show it that is...It plays right into their hands to have disclosure on the big networks in that in this way they can control and manipulate the truth to how they see fit. If they can get you on it is only to ridicule you or paint you as some sort of extremist which is what they did to Prof. Jones of BYU. What is needed is an end around and an attack of sorts on smaller, local media and academic leaders at universities and colleges as well as pronging at BIG MEDIA. The movement should be very wary and careful though when dealing with BIG MEDIA as they have a lot to lose in this matter. They are totally complicit in promoting the BIG LIE. They were a neccessity in carrying out this act. They were covering the back end so to speak, promoting the cover story. And because of this they will never let the Truth come out cleanly without some type of slander, ridicule or spin. All the BIG MEDIA organizations must be destroyed. Taken out. They can no longer be trusted. Ever. In ideal scenario, we need whistleblowers to come forward from CNN, MSNBC, et al to help weed out the decision makers who helped manufacture agenda and the story. I guess what I'm trying to say is BEWARE OF BIG MEDIA, when you confess to them, you confess to your enemy.

Blue: I understand what you're saying.

I'm just curious what's going to happen when everyone starts demanding answers and suddenly the MSM has no one to tailor to. ;)

" Complaining about and to Tucker is like complaining to the Nazi PR department about Hitler's policies."

but but but, he PROMISED he'd keep an open mind, and and... oh never mind.

I meant to point to this earlier, haven't seen it on 911blogger, but Prof. Jones was on Greg Syzmanski's radio show on Monday 11/14, the one which reports the guest was Mordecai Vanoonoo-- Vanoonoo was the 2nd guest, first was Jones:

http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Greg05.html

MSNBC Studios Telephone #: 201 583 5000

I just called, and spoke to Tucker's secretary... when you call, ask for "The Situation".

Tucker's Challenge

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20051116145832940

Tucker Carlson is either as silly as his bow tie would indicate, or he's looking for a way to expose the truth behind 9/11. Today he posted "9/11 Theorist Clearly Hits A Nerve," regarding public response to his Monday night show with BYU Professor, Steven Jones.

Carlson first insinuates Jones is "insane," then accuses him of being unable to articulate his hypothesis, calling him "an epically bad guest." Apparently, Jones was expected to clearly articulate the hypothesis presented in a 26-page scientific paper in six minutes, minus Carlson's repeated interruptions promoting the official line. (Let's also not forget that 'The Situation' refused to show footage of the WTC7 collapse, which would have essentially made the case despite Carlson's best attempts to prevent Jones from doing so.)

"We've never had an e-mail response like the one we got," Carlson says, "...the overwhelming majority wrote to thank me for my 'courage' in putting him on, and to complain that we didn't give him more time to explain the conspiracy. In other words, a lot of people seem to think it's possible that the U.S. government had a hand in bringing down the World Trade Center buildings."

No kidding?

Carlson then tones down his rant from what he originally said on the show last night, (video here) when he moves into his attack on 9/11 skeptics. "If you really...even considered it a possibility - how could you continue to live here? You couldn't. You'd leave the United States on the next available flight and not come back. You'd have no choice."

I guess he missed Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel's comments yesterday: "To question your government is not unpatriotic – to not question your government is unpatriotic. America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices." Or perhaps he slept through the history class lessons about true patriots who have fought for their country by exposing and demanding accountability for traitorous acts.

The significance of this little column, in addition to recognizing on mainstream television that there are a LOT of Americans who "connect" with Jones in demanding 9/11 truth, however, is saved for the last paragraph:

"So if evidence ever does arise that the government lied substantially about what happened on September 11th, we'll be on it immediately. I promise."

Now there is a challenge we can accept! I know, firsthand, the level of true patriotism and commitment among the 9/11 truth community, and I'm willing to make a promise, too: Mr. Carlson is about to receive more evidence than he ever even imagined might exist. Help me hold him to that promise...

Oh, no, I would never suggest you subject yourself to the pain of enduring mainstream "news" programming on a regular basis by watching 'The Situation.' But I can assure you, and Tucker, that it will be monitored, and we'll let you know whether he keeps his promise!

In the meantime, as he requests at the end of his column, "Keep those e-mails coming to Tucker@msnbc.com."

Well Professional, that would be the point of total critical mass and the arrival of an American Bastille Day.

I just had this conversation on my board, and it made sense, so I wanted to post it here...

Someone said...

"Well ya he did allow the proffesor to make his case. I know they didn't play the 9/11 footage but that wasnt his fault. I mean if he didn't' want to hear it he wouldn't have been on the show in the first place."

And I responded with...

They DID NOT allow him to make his case. Part of his case has to do with the footage itself. The reason they had him on, in my opinion, was to slander him, and make him look like a fool. Which is one of the reasons they had him on so fast. You think he's the first person to mention the hypothesis of demolition? Of course not. Yet, he was the first "credible" person to do so. So they had to "nip it in the bud" as quickly as possible. Not for people who follow this site, but for the "minions" of people out there who believe EVERYTHING the television tells them. Those are the people we're trying to convince to get off their asses, so those are the people they target.

Now, if someone like me goes to someone, and says, "Hey, did you know that a Physics Professor from BYU thinks the WTC was brought down by pre-planted explosives, and not by fire which was originally thought?", and they would say, "Yeah, I saw that guy on TV. He was a real moron."

THAT, and ONLY that is what they're trying to accomplish.

It's no different than when Jeremey Glick was on the "O'Reilly Factor". In fact, they almost did the same thing. They wouldn't let him speak, or make his case, and the next day, they accused him of something he didn't say, which was that Bush was behind 9/11. Neither Jones or Glick said that on TV, yet, that's what they lied about them saying... because as you know, anyone who even thinks that is a "Unpatriotic Nutty Conspiracy Theorist Tinfoil Hat Wearing Fruitcake".

dz, Many thanks for your response.

I did download the first one you had posted, here. Thanks for posting that one, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to see it at all! [PLEASE do not delete it.] From your comment, it appears that a weird file may explain what I found.

It's quite amazing that the jumps are right at strategic points, only cutting up Jones, and never cutting up Tucker, from what I remember. With these little nano-bites cut out, Jones seems to never complete a thought. The first really-really obvious one is just before the 1:00 mark in the *.mov file.

Tucker asked Jones to sum it up, and Jones says, "But to sum up.." and the rest of his sentence is chopped out, and the video cuts to "the horror scene" of the smoldering buildings. A PsyOps team could not have done a better job! Even if the skips aren't there, the subliminal message is still the same. Instead of showing Jones' WTC7 clip of the "collapse," which Jones had provided to them, Tucker showed repetitions of the "emotional horror scenes" that were used on 9-11 to train people not to THINK. That "smoldering-building" image seems to be used as a visual cue to the masses that it's time to go back into their non-thinking trance and wait for instructions.

____________________________
video format:

I have a Mac, which can play most most files that are posted ...except for MSNBC and prisonplanet. Sometime last spring, MSNBC changed their video formatting and there is still no update for my Mac. Prisonplanet is the only site I know where just going to the site will produce a full-system crash 80% of the time. If it has a video on the prism planet page, my Mac will crash 100% of the time. (I sent an email to Alex Jones about this, but only got a form letter back that had nothing to do with what I said.) I have a laptop and a desktop Mac, and both respond to that site the same way.

So, I am VERY grateful for your posting the *.mov format. Thanks, again!
____________________________

I found the video I was referring to in my earlier post, having the missing sound-bites:
http://homepage.mac.com/douglas_ascott/iMovieTheater12.html
Name of video: SteveJonesonTheSituation.mov
It's 25.4 Mb, and is of decent quality (except for the missing bites).

PLEASE don't delete it. There must be others like me, who have no other way of seeing this video. (Perhaps note the skips, if you aren't able to replace the file.)

Thanks.

That's right... I can't play MSNBC movies either... not even in Windows Media Player...

I liked Dr. Jones's half-smile--his friend Dr. Griffin probably prepared him for what he would find. BTW, this guy is a heavyweight, not just any old professor--he's one of the folks who could not repeat the (in)famous Cold Fusion experiments--something *ucker fails to mention. "Distinguished" would have been nice.

On a negative note, there were many highly scientific books by noted academics about the JFK assassination, and it made not a whit of real difference. The problem is that if you really delve into this, using only cold logic and Occam's razor, you still reach some sort of creepy occult level that means that you start to doubt your own sanity; very Orwellian, and not good if you're in academia (as I am), as once you get blacklisted in a profession, you ain't never getting a job again. So there is a real atmosphere of fear out there in the universities. I have made offhand comments at conferences, and usually do get positive responses--people ARE trained to think objectively and deeply in many fields. But universities are EMPHATICALLY not controlled by professors--they are controlled by bureaucrats put into power by Boards of Regents that are representatives of the major local, state, national, and international economic interests.

John, nice post. Regarding material about JFK, do you think things will be different this time around with the blessing of the internet?

I like Mooney's quote though:

Scientific inquiry is not or should not be dictated by politics (Mooney, 2005).

He's still talking about this on Wednesday's show. I'm paraphrasing, but he says: We'll have much more about this coming up later. Anyway, when he gets to the end, he say's a few words about this whole leave-America-thing, and he plays about three voice-mails. On the last one, that really got me, the caller says that he was there, and he can say emphatically that there were no bombs in the buildings. And (did I hear this right?) as far as Bldg. 7 goes, he says that it ... get ready for this ... THAT IT BURNED FOR SEVERAL DAYS!!!

And Tucker didn't say a thing! Just let that one slide. Think Tucker owes us a correction on that?

sorry ... don't know how I did that ... double post

Most of the WTC collapse theories just fall short. However, a lot of them are compiled by very learned people. This is your biggest clue as to where you should look.

The second building hit was the first to fall. That's your second-biggest clue. Somehow, some way, the impact of the first building being hit influenced that.

Both buildings came down like flour being poured from a bag into a bowl. It was as if the metallic facade was the only thing still holding them up.

The only possible explanation for everything we know is that they were junk to begin with. I'd say the same thing about the materials supplied to the Army Core of Engineers to reinforce the levee before it broke in New Orleans.

Al Qaeda is really excited about Canary Wharf in London and the Shalom Tower in Tel Aviv. I can take a guess why.

Al-CIAduh is really excited about Canary Wharf in London and the Shalom Tower in Tel Aviv. I can take a guess why.

does Silverstein own these properties or something?

"Al-CIAduh is really excited about Canary Wharf in London and the Shalom Tower in Tel Aviv. I can take a guess why.

does Silverstein own these properties or something?"

The 1906 San Franciso earthquake exposed a great many fraudulent construction practices. I contend that the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 did likewise. Attacks on Canary Wharf and the Shalom Tower will likely prove the same and the terrorists know this.

As for "Al-CIAduh," I believe that al Qaeda is guided by extreme Zionists whose mission is to spread anti-Semitism wherever possbile to terrify secular Jews into their camp and to discredit a democratic, non-adventurer Israel among world leaders.

Basically, the works of the Zionists aiding al Qaeda are essentially blood libel. Here are some links on understanding blood libel against the Jews...

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_letters/

That deals with the 1888 kosher Jack the Ripper murders. A letter and a hooker's kidney were sent to a vigilante group in the hopes of getting a pogram going.

http://judicial-inc.biz/Grimes.htm

This Hezbollah site gives a detailed look at how children were slain kosher style in 1950's Chicago, which had a huge concentration of both Holocaust survivors and recent Eastern European immigrants. (Read: powderkeg.)

http://judicial-inc.biz/frank_collins.htm

How could a neo-nazi leader be a Jew? Read and find out. Be sure to ask yourself "whose interest was that in?"

I am tired of some saying, "where's the smoking gun."

- The visual evidence of the WTC building's collapse, to me, is compelling. The towers were in free-fall speed yet FEMA's report supports a pancake theory. If this pancake theory were true the towers would have met resistance with each floor that collapsed, thus slowing the fall to a crawl. The internal columns would have still been present. The towers, respectively, only took around ten seconds to fall each. FEMA's support of a bogus theory proves the guilt. There is no doubt in my mind that the buidlings were imploded. Further evidence of explosions can be found by many witness' testimonies (including CNN new broadcasts reporting found explosives), seismic data, and even the buidlings lease owner, Larry Silverstein, admitting on PBS's Why the Towers Fell Documentary that WTC building seven was "pulled". Knowing this, if one goes back and watches the event, the eveidence stands in front of you like a ten-foot guerilla. The question of the fires bringing down a steel building. The fires were hot, but not from jet fuel. The initial fires passed and were under control (as reported by firefighters). One could clearly see people on the ledges of the building; they we're running from smoke - not fire. Days after 911 their were 3000 degree temperatures (well past the temp that jet fuel can reach) at the site. The only thing that gets that hot folks, is explosives. No Steel builing has ever collapsed due to fire, but on one day we are expected to believe that it happened three times. The fact that buidling 7 was imploded should start boiling your blood. The explosives had to have been planted in the days prior!

The Article The Secrecy-Shrouded Building Holding Giuliani's Command Center Gives Us Some Info On Building 7:

Building 7 was the dark flat-topped 47-story skyscraper immediately north of the World Trade Center super-block, across Vesey Street. Its designation as 7 World Trade Center is somewhat misleading: whereas WTC 1 through 6 surrounded the WTC plaza and were completed in the 1970s, Building 7 was 300 feet from the plaza and its construction did not begun until 1985. 1 It was of an entirely different architectural style than the other six buildings. It was completely destroyed late in the afternoon on September 11th.

Building 7 was privately owned from the beginning, in contrast to the other six buildings, which were publicly owned until the summer of 2001. Building 7 was formerly the headquarters of the junk-bond firm Drexel Burnham Lambert, which contributed to the savings and loans collapse and $500 billion bailout of the latter 1980s.

Emergency Command Center
The 23rd floor of Building 7 had received 15 million dollars' worth of renovations to create an emergency command center for then-Mayor Rudolf Giuliani. The features of the command center include:

Bullet- and bomb-resistant windows
An independent, secure air and water supply
The ability to withstand winds of 160 mph
These renovations were applied only to the 23rd floor. 2 3 The command-center bunker was the the subject of much ridicule when it was created. 4

Structural System
Building 7 was a 100% steel frame building. Like most modern skyscrapers, it had a series of columns ringing its perimeter, and a bundle of columns in its core structure. Its perimeter columns numbered 58 and its core columns numbered 25, according to the rather vague description provided in FEMA's WTC Building Performance Study. The following figure from the report shows the shape of the building and some details about the structural system. The top four illustrations show the perimeter structure, the middle one shows the footprint, and the bottom three show seven floors of part of the core structure. However, it does not combine views of the core perimeter structure (above) and the core structure (lower portion of below).

____________________-

I Wonder why this buidling was destroyed since it's fire's we're minor and it was located at a safe distance from the WTC. It seems that all the evidence needed to be destroyed, including the steel, which was sold to China and India. My word they destroyed the crime scene. The fact that the steel came off perfectly sized to fit the bed of the construction trucks is no coincidence. This is a tradmark of demolition. I could go on and on, but I don't have the time.

I think the government wants conspiracy theories surrounding the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings. They certainly feed them well enough with their press releases.

I still have to say that the WTC was built out of the equivalent of green cheese. Remember, while this massive rescue effort was going on, a demolition crew was supposedly dispatched and was ready to blow up two buildings (the second building hit was blown up first, good job boys!) in just over an hour. Oh, and there was no real need for a "coat of looking" as well.

Before it's "orwellized," be sure to see the Simpsons episode where Homer tries to find a urinal in the WTC. That'll give you a rough idea of how much space that place took up.

If we knew the truth of what people take payola for, like say drivers licenses for the totally incompetent, we'd exercise extreme caution in everything we did. Everything.

www.urbanterrorists.com
Act American II
Great 911 Video!!!!!!!

If you're making the decision to "pull" two massive buildings within minutes (not hours) of being struck with jets loaded with at least over 50,000 gallons of jet fuel each, what are you unleashing on public opinion?

First of all, you're eroding confidence in the major corporations to place a major component of their operations in such a precarious place as a massive office building. That's a huge blow to what remains of urban real estate investment.

The world needs more nuclear power. Expect large-scale opposition to the location of power plants anywhere near a sizable labour force.

Terrorists will know that they can cause an unthinkable nightmare to a landmark if only they can cause enough damage to immediately have the target declared structurally unsound. The deaths of hundreds of first responders would just be gravy. If you can get at a jet, that effect is yours. Al Qaeda is not the only threat out there and if we push hard enough on cash-heavy Columbian drug lords, we'll learn that.

Need I go on? People will also learn that we fudge casualty numbers during major catastrophes.