There! IRAN did 9/11!!

http://powerlineblog.com/pda.html

same with ugly graphics:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014044.php

Little Goebbels are everywhere in the USA... constructing a bloodthirsty fantasies because .... ah... please help me out:

an inferiority complex?
only two braincells?
brainwashed?
..

guess who does the most progressive reporting??

FOX:

Now some fresh pickings from the Political Grapevine:

Legitimate Concerns?

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright says the issues raised by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his 17-page letter to President Bush are "not irrelevant." Speaking in Seattle, Albright urged the United States to engage in direct talks with Iran, saying, "Rather than thinking it's a clash of civilizations, I think we are in a battle of ideas."

Some of the Iranian president's ideas as expressed in that letter include questioning the basis for the existence of Israel; suggesting that U.S. security services were behind 9/11; and saying that democracy has failed in the world.

the other news-sources are engaged in a cover-up, as usual

A minority those who mention 9/11:

http://news.google.com/news?scoring=d&q=%229%2F11%22+iran+letter+bush

Threads: 9,739
Posts: 56,013
Thread Views: 776,423 (Ø 80 times)
Registered Members: 602
Visitors: 434,691*
Website Hits: 3,286,470*

Top 20 of 1107 Total Search Strings
# Hits Search String
1 64 3.23% yourbbsucks.com
2 40 2.02% ybbs
3 38 1.92% truther
4 37 1.87% 9/11 videos
5 36 1.82% sibel
6 31 1.56% 9/11 forum
7 28 1.41% emoticon
8 25 1.26% shemale
9 20 1.01% yourbbsucks
10 19 0.96% sexy bitches
11 14 0.71% 9 11 videos
12 12 0.61% les jamieson
13 11 0.56% 911 truther
14 11 0.56% butt
15 11 0.56% hot bitches
16 11 0.56% sex smilie
17 10 0.50% crystalsprivate
18 10 0.50% sibel kekili
19 9 0.45% 9-11 videos
20 9 0.45% bohemian groove

That may very well be true.

My God your fast!

I meant too bad half ARE John Gold. You know what I meant.

"8 25 1.26% shemale"

I'm concerned about that particular search string.

surely the hand of Allah!

New article by Mike Whitney, with the following gem:

It’s all been lies; Iraq, Iran, 9-11, Katrina, the war on terror; “a vast tapestry of lies” as Harold Pinter noted. Not a speck of truth to any of it.

The entire article is worth reading. Click here

Jon, thanks. Somewhat interesting.

What I meant is:

After you post a link to your bbs in this HaloScan.. do you then observe kinda life how many people visit your BBS? And related: How many people click on a link coming from THIS HALOSCAN over, say, 5hours?

NEWS:

Murdoch, a reactionary warmonger
SUPPORTS HILLARY:

http://wsws.org/

don't knock WSWS .. they have EXCELLENT background articles...one can learn a lot.

Has anyone seen this?

http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/wtc/02-SP02Screen.pdf

http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/wtc/02-SP02Screen.pdf

WOW and check out the other publications:

http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/wtc/

Maybe you can give him a ring:

http://civil.eng.buffalo.edu/~reinhorn/PublicationsList.htm

and ask him if he could imagine
explosives having borught down WTC7..
and record the call for us!

Hey all--

I've been researching 911 Truth for a few years now, and had never heard that WTC 7 may actually have been far more damaged than many believe. Here is a quote from a Captain Boyle, a fireman on the scene during the collapse: "So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good."
You can see the interview at:
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html
What's everyone's thoughts on this?
I'd always heard there were minimal fires in WTC 7. Still, I don't see how it could have collapsed vertically, even if damage to one side was extensive. Thanks.

Alex,

There are many different versions of the WTC7 damage from first-hand witness recellection, none of them identical;

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20060129&...

"...The fires in building 7 were, according to all the photographic evidence, few and small. So why would the decision-makers in the department have decided to pull firefighters out of building 7 and have them simply stand around waiting for it to collapse?

The chiefs gave a twofold explanation: damage plus fire. Chief Frank Fellini said: “When [the north tower] fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing” (NYT, Fellini, p. 3).

There are at least two problems with each part of this explanation. One problem with the accounts of the structural damage is that they vary greatly. According to Fellini’s testimony, there was a four-floor hole between the third and sixth floors. In the telling of Captain Chris Boyle, however, the hole was “20 stories tall” (2002). It would appear that Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for NIST, settled on somewhat of a compromise between these two views, telling Popular Mechanics that, “On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out” (Popular Mechanics, March 2005).

The different accounts of the problem on the building’s south side are not, moreover, limited to the issue of the size of the hole. According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, the problem was not a hole at all but a “bulge,” and it was “between floors 10 and 13" (Hayden, 2002).

The second problem with these accounts of the damage is if there was a hole that was 10 or 20 floors high, or even a hole (or a budge) that was 4 floors high, why was this fact not captured on film by any of the photographers or videographers in the area that day?

With regard to the claims about the fire, the accounts again vary greatly. Chief Daniel Nigro spoke of “very heavy fire on many floors” (NYT, Nigro, p. 10). According to Harry Meyers, an assistant chief, "When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories" (quoted in Smith, 2002, p. 160). That obvious exaggeration was also stated by a firefighter who said: “[Building 7] was fully engulfed. . . . [Y]ou could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other” (NYT, Cassidy, p. 22).

Several of the testimonies, however, did not support the official line. For example, medical technician Decosta Wright said: “I think the fourth floor was on fire. . . . [W]e were like, are you guys going to put that fire out?” (NYT, Wright, p. 11). Chief Thomas McCarthy said: “[T]hey were waiting for 7 World Trade to come down. . . . They had . . . fire on three separate floors . . . , just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said ‘we know’” (NYT, McCarthy, pp. 10-11).

The second problem with the official account here is that if there was “very heavy fire on many floors,” why is this fact not captured on any film? The photograph that we have of the north side of the building supports Chief McCarthy’s view that there was fire on three floors. Even if there were fires on additional floors on the south side of the building, there is no photographic support for the claim that “the flames [on these additional floors went] straight through from one side of the building to the other.”

Moreover, even if the department’s official story about the collapse of building 7 were not contradicted by physical evidence and some of the oral histories, it would not explain why the building collapsed, because no amount of fire and structural damage, unless caused by explosives, had ever caused the total collapse of a large steel-frame building.[73] And it certainly would not explain the particular nature of the collapse---that the building imploded and fell straight down rather than falling over in some direction, as purportedly expected by those who gave the order to create a large collapse zone. Battalion Chief John Norman, for example, said: “We expected it to fall to the south” (Norman 2002). Nor would the damage-plus-fire theory explain this building’s collapse at virtually free-fall speed or the creation of an enormous amount of dust—additional features of the collapses that are typically ignored by defenders of the official account."

Thanks, reprehensor, for the info.

I maintain the vertical collapse of WTC 7 is still highly suspicious - and needs to be investigated thoroughly. However, we in the 911 Truth movement must clear up misconceptions as we find them. Here is a photo of the Southwest side of WTC 7 - there is no fire, but PLENTY of smoke:
http://www.eyepull.com/wtc7.jpg

It seems hard to believe that "a few isolated fires" (as has been claimed by many in the movement) would cause this massive smoke output. Anyone with any other info on this?

Remove Bush,
Thank you for that interesting link
http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/wtc/02-SP02Screen.pdf

Am I reading this right? The author is saying that these 3 near identical collapses are from 3 different "mechanisms?" (Bottom of page 3 and bottom of page 18)

Alex: All photos of WTC-7 that IÂ’ve seen with dense smoke were taken just after one of the Towers fell or shortly before WTC-7 imploded. (It's the latter in the photo you linked to.)

Furthermore, the article you cited indicates that the dense smoke from WTC-7 was indeed from incendiaries or explosives preceding itÂ’s controlled demolition (note the incendiaries thermite? burning the firefighter's eyes):

..."We did that for a little while. It took a while to get the hose there because there was a White Plains company helping us and they had some different fittings. So we got water to 22, but then thatÂ’s when they said all right, number 7 is coming down, shut everything down. I donÂ’t know what time that was. It was all just a blur.
Firehouse: Did they shut the tower lines and remove them from there?
Boyle: No, just left them. Everything was left where it was. Just shut everything down, moved everybody back.
Firehouse: Could you see building 7 again from there?
Boyle: Seven, no. You got a half block away, you couldnÂ’t see it, couldnÂ’t see a damn thing. All we heard was they were worried about it coming down, everybody back away. We ran into the people running around for water for the eyes because everybodyÂ’s eyes were burned and I donÂ’t know who they were. I think it was the doctor and some other people. They were just running around, washing peopleÂ’s eyes out.
We were there about an hour or so until number 7 came down and everything was black again.
Firehouse: So number 7 comes down. Everything went black?
Boyle: It was like it was night again. First, we went to Liberty and Church and that was the big pile from the south tower that came down. There was a pile there, had to be 15, 20 stories high with guys roaming around on the pile.
That was the first time I really saw one of the towers fully down. I had no idea. It was an amazing site, stunning, it was surreal. Guys were climbing around in the pile, but I figured we had to try to hook up with Chief Fox again, so we headed north on Church and we ran into Fox again on Church and they were putting the tower ladders back into operation.

And while IÂ’m at it, IÂ’ll link you to a building with holes in it! Here is World Financial Center 3 (WFC-3) near the Towers (scroll down):
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/u...
Now thatÂ’s damage!!! So why didnÂ’t WFC-3 collapse???

Lastly, the over-insured leaseholder, Larry Silverstein, stated on PBS that he & the Fire Dept. "pulled" WTC-7.

Hi Anonymous, thanks for the response.

There is no proof that the smoke in the photo is from incendiaries or explosives. So I'm afraid until we know more, the explanation of the smoke coming from WTC 7 in the photo is still up for grabs.

I'm aware of the infamous "Pull-it" line from Silverstein. What I don't get is, if the meaning of his statement is in question, why did the insurance companies award him compensation? I need to do more researching into that area.

Ok Alex, but there is also no proof that the smoke in the photos is not from incendiaries or explosives either.
Please keep in mind that massive, overbuilt, steel-framed skyscrapers do not totally crumple into an unrecognizable pile of rubble on their own.

I don't think the insurance companies were going to challenge the U.S. Gov't story. Also, whose to say that key officicers of the insurence companies didn't get a cut for paying out.

Sorry, who's to say...

Anon., you said:
"but there is also no proof that the smoke in the photos is not from incendiaries or explosives either."

I understand that... that's why I said that the explanation for the smoke in the photo was "up for grabs" until it can be determined.

You also said: "don't think the insurance companies were going to challenge the U.S. Gov't story." I didn't say anything about the Gov. story. I said that if the meaning of Silversteins "pull" comment was uncertain - if there were any chance that he actually meant that WTC7 was demolished - why would the insurance compnies pay out? I'm simply asking - I haven't investigated this area enough yet.

Alex, what do you make of this raging inferno? I think you're beat.
http://www.peaceproject.com/graphics/postcards/CA1-huge.jpg

Get away from using the Madrid fire as an example since it was a concrete building and the steel frame surrounding it on the top dozen stories collapsed as the picture you link to shows.

"Please keep in mind that massive, overbuilt, steel-framed skyscrapers do not totally crumple into an unrecognizable pile of rubble on their own."

What is that supposed to mean? Clarify, please.

Anon said: "Alex, what do you make of this raging inferno? I think you're beat."

Anon, are you really reading my posts?
I'm NOT arguing against the WTC 7 collapse being highly suspicious. My original point was in pointing out the
need to keep clarifying 911 Truth as more information comes in. If there was more damage to WTC 7 than is commonly spoken about in the 911 Truth Movement, we need to update our knowledge base, not continue to parrot what others say. If we don't, we lose credibility. I don't know how to say it any clearer.