The MIHOP BOOK list:

http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/

here's a link to a trailer from "america rebuilds" - maybe he's on there somewhere: LINK

personally i believe that wtc7 was simply overcome with grief at the loss of it's two companions.
______________

@ James Ha

I did not write that Silverstein didn't make the "pull it" comment. I've watched him make the comment clear as day in the video Martial Law 9-11.

What I wrote that I want to see proof of, is that Silverstein made the exact comment of "decided to pull it ... and then we watched the building collapse" in that exact order. So the only way to see that, is by watching the actual America Rebuilds documentary.

I strongly believe that Silverstein did not say it like that, but that Alex Jones or someone working with and/or for him, edited the footage of the original Silverstein interview from America Rebuilds, by putting the first part "decided to pull it" and a possibly much later comment of Silverstein recounting when WTC 7 actually collapsed much later "and then we watched the building collapse" together.

I don't trust Alex Jones anymore. I've seen him lie many times, and do many things that are just ridiculous, that have not benefited 9/11 truth.

I want to see the actual America Rebuilds Larry Silverstein interview section, and see if the Martial Law 9-11 Larry Silverstein WTC 7 section has been altered by Alex Jones or someone working with and/or for him.

Do you honestly know of anyone, anywhere, that promotes the Larry Silverstein "pull it" comment, that have seen the actual America Rebuilds documentary of him saying it exactly as it's shown in Alex Jones's Martial Law 9-11?

I don't.

And so far, no one, anywhere online has provided me with the actual America Rebuilds documentary as evidence.

But I am quite sure that everyone uses Alex Jones's Martial Law 9-11 video clip as their evidence.

I want proof that Martial Law 9-11's version is an exact copy of the original America Rebuilds version; I won't settle for anything less, because Alex Jones has lied about other things regarding 9-11, and several are included in other clips from Martial Law 9-11.

So, do you have the proof?

I want to see it!

By saying that, I am not letting Larry Silverstein off the hook.

What's even more interesting to me, is that Larry Silverstein and his two children -- who worked in the World Trade Center [North tower], above the jet impact points -- ALL, magically did NOT arrive for work at the WTC complex until AFTER Flight 11 struck the North tower. I FIND THAT VERY SMOKING GUN-ISH. All of Silverstein's family, who should have been at work, above the Flight 11 impact point in the North tower of the WTC, were NOT at work on time, and were therefor SAFE.

Larry Silverstein was suppose to be at work at the tower doing something business wise, but his wife demanded he go to his alleged dermatologist appointment. And his children were "late" according to a mainstream news report. I thought that I bookmarked the article, but I just searched my bookmarks, and even did a Spotlight search, but couldn't find it.

Jon Gold, I believe you were the one who posted the article I'm refering to, in a recent 911Blogger comment board a few weeks ago. It is about Silvertsein and his two children who worked at the WTC, all not arriving for work on time, and not being trapped in the North tower. Do you know what article I'm refering to? If so could you please post a link to it. It's a mainstream news article. Thanks.

Back to James Ha.

If you think about it -- reasonably and logically -- do you honestly think that someone who could be complicit in the inside job controlled demolition destruction of the World Trade Center, including WTC building 7, would actually admit that in a televised interview for the PBS documentary?

Seriously. Coudl you even fathom that as being a remote possibility?

That is fucking retarded!

His comment was obviously about pulling the firefighters out of WTC 7; not about pulling the building down.

And to Anonymous, that I forgot to mention in my above reply.

You make yourself look agent-ish and shill-ish with how you tried to attack my comment about Silverstein, without making any mention of anything taht I wrote to Tom. It would appear that your comment was merely to ditract the attention away from what I wrote about Tom being incorrect and lying.

So you attempted to distract that attention away from Tom.

Do you work with Tom? Are you the same person, Mr. Anonymous? Did both of those messages -- Tom's and Yours -- orginate from the same IP? Covering your tracks/lies via distracting away to attack me with a moot point about my Silverstein comment?

I'm suspicious of you now, Anonyomous. Congratulations.

No Larry Silverstein in the trailer, whatsoever.

I don't trust Whatreallyhappened whatsoever. So I won't be looking at that website, as I think that they wouldn't show a true version of the trailer for America Rebuilds.

Based upon a lot of things that I've seen and listened to -- that have been fueling suspicions -- Whatreallyhappened is pumping out a lot of the exact same lies as Alex Jones. And the site owner of Whatreallyhappened has been a guest on Alex Jones's show too many times to remember.

I don't trust either of them, but I actually will go watch the trailer there.

But any other links?

Since I don't see a [commentable] post of its own on the main 911Blogger page, I'd just like to say that the Bohemian article on Griffin is pretty good. It would have been nicer if they'd of included some more of what makes Griffin think that 9/11 was an inside job, though. But it's a good article regardless.

I hope there is NOT another attack today, as they are having more "drills" in D.C. today! Heads up out there! Keep eyes and ears peeled!What does it tell you people that even BEFORE 2nd tower fell, George Tenet who has DUEL citizenship between Israel and U.S. said Bin Laden's "fingerprints" were all over 9-11 attacks, NOW FBI says NO evidence to connect Bin Laden to 9-11? Get a clue,sheep! 9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, PERIOD!

Across this nation candidates are running for office...I call on you to bring this information to them in a clear concise way find out who's running near you http://www.fec.gov...MOST DON'T EVEN KNOW, how do you want change to take place? If you have the privlage to know...you have the duty to act.

I think NOW the list of MIHOP BOOKS is complete.

thx Sittin Bull

I also added some Huuuuuugely important books by Prof Boyle.

Must I stress that BIOTERRORISM and CHEMICAL attack is the *personal* pet-project of Dick Cheney and likely to be the next false-flag DOMESTIC U.S.A. terror crime?

Boyles Book gives details of PRIVATE CORPS being in charge of Bio Chem Warfare in the U.S.A. and the book is dirt-cheap:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0932863469/rc3389-20&v=glance

please read it and pre-empt the attack by protesting AT OAK RIDGE

http://www.mapquest.com/directions/main.adp?go=1&do=nw&2si=gdt&un=m&2gi=...

Guys, can we please stop repeating the Silverstein "pull it" argument? I see a lot of people claiming it to be "CD slang", but seriously, how do you know this? Do you know anyone in the business? I have not seen any evidence to prove this statement.

And why would he tell the chief of the fire department to detonate the building, in response to not being able to put out the fires (like he says in the video)? That just doesn't make any sense.

Also, why on earth would he admit the demolition like that? That's contrary to everything else the 911 truth movement believes; if he's an inside guy there's just no way he would say that aloud.

I cringe whenever I see people make this argument. It's just so OBVIOUS that he's telling the firemen to evacuate the building. Weak arguments like this will only hinder the truth movement, imho.

Phew, sorry, just had to vent that after seeing the truth911.net page. Otherwise very nice site :)

"My 9/11 website is coming along well. It is a good place to send people who have never heard anything about 9/11."

Why waste your time? A far better place for the truth is right here:
http://www.911myths.com.

Glad you guys liked the site. I wanted to point out the one unique audio file that i have of william rodriguez because i cut and pasted it from a longer interview. The url for that is www.flatplanet.net/truth911/willmp3.mp3

It's also linked under media on the main page. www.truth911.net

In response the the "pull it" term. In the same documentary, a guy used the term "pull" when they blew up building 6. Also, there were no fire fighters ever in the building, so the explanation that he was talking about pulling fire fighters doesn't make a lot of sense.

At the same time, i agree that i have seen little evidence to show that "pull" is a common CD term and that silverstein may not know that term. But the quote certainly does raise questions.

an anon lurker,
you really have a good sense of humor, the sarcasm was almost overwhelming.
I almost felt compelled to direct you to Controlled Demolition Inc. for shits and giggles, but it was hard to muster the strength while laughing so hard.
Also for consideration:
"So what did Larry Silverstein mean when he stated: "I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, may be the smartest thing to do is, is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." He could not have meant that they should "pull" the firefighters from the building because there weren't any firefighters in the building, at least according to FEMA, NIST, and Frank Fellini, the Assistant Chief responsible for WTC 7 at that time. And if he meant "pull the firefighters" then why did he say "pull it", with no reference to anything other than the building? The argument that "pull" is not used to mean "demolish" a building is belied by the other footage in the PBS documentary. And consider the timing: "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." Could it really be possible that some (nonexistent) fire brigade was removed from the building and just at that moment ("then") the building collapsed? Is there really any doubt here about what Silverstein meant?"

Source: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/050106silversteinanswer...

"It's just so OBVIOUS that he's telling the firemen to evacuate the building. Weak arguments like this will only hinder the truth movement, imho."

His site is nothing more than a repetition of what we know is NOT true about WTC 7. It didn't fall symetrically, it didn't fall free-fall, it WAS significantly damaged, there WERE fires buring for many hours, and there is NO evidence of explosives.

To go on ignoring the evidence is just plain silly.

BTW, who was it that was contracted to do the clean up work at ground zero and dispose of the molten metal?

"He could not have meant that they should "pull" the firefighters from the building because there weren't any firefighters in the building,..."

Uh, don't you bother to read the testimony? There were firefighters IN WTC 7 up to two hours before it collapsed.

"And if he meant "pull the firefighters" then why did he say "pull it", with no reference to anything other than the building?"

He meant "pull the firefighting effort" as the term is used frequently by firefighters. AND since there WERE firemen in the building, your claims fall flat.

In any case, demolition experts NEVER use the term "pull it" to refer to demolition jobs. They sometimes use it to refer to mechanically "pull" remains of a building down.

Now the curious part is these facts about Silverstein and the firefighting effort have been known for years yet you are here repeating falsehoods. Why?

"Also, there were no fire fighters ever in the building, so the explanation that he was talking about pulling fire fighters doesn't make a lot of sense."

FALSE. There were indeed firefighters in the building up until two hours before the collapse.

This is well known and should not be confusing to you.

"BTW, who was it that was contracted to do the clean up work at ground zero and dispose of the molten metal?"

There was no molten metal to be disposed of.

Please show me where you got this information: "Uh, don't you bother to read the testimony? There were firefighters IN WTC 7 up to two hours before it collapsed."

show me a link please.

Tom, whatever makes you sleep well at night.
God Bless

I have not seen any good evidence saying there were firefighters in WTC7. Please provide this evidence. Show us a link, since the following sources are all credable, supporting the fact that there were no fire fighters in wtc 7.

Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005) as saying: "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y

The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."

And an article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7/archive/nytimes_112901.html

His site is nothing more than a repetition of what we know is NOT true about WTC 7. It didn't fall symetrically, it didn't fall free-fall, it WAS significantly damaged, there WERE fires buring for many hours, and there is NO evidence of explosives.

To go on ignoring the evidence is just plain silly.
tom | 06.19.06 - 5:21 am | #

_______________-

Hey Tom,

Do you mean badly damaged like this building (that kept standing)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oklahoma_City_bombing.jpg

It's amazing to me that we have such a fantastic example of building damage (from terrorism, no less) that no one uses as a fulcrum for their arguments here. I'll start. If the Oklahoma City building was still there, with it's undeniablly catastrophic damage, then why did ALL THREE of the Trade Center towers fall? Tell me that, Tom
?

>There was no molten metal to be >disposed of.
>tom | 06.19.06 - 5:28 am | #

False guess. There's VIDEOS of it! + firefighters had their boots melting underneath them, long after the "fires" were put out.

"I'll start. If the Oklahoma City building was still there, with it's undeniablly catastrophic damage, then why did ALL THREE of the Trade Center towers fall? Tell me that, Tom"

It's really easy, Stuart. OK was of a completely different design and construction, under completely different circumstances. You're comparing apples and oranges.

You don't need me to instruct you on that. You can learn it for yourself.

"False guess. There's VIDEOS of it! + firefighters had their boots melting underneath them, long after the "fires" were put out."

We all know there were fires burning into Dec 2001. Just tell us how that is evidence of molten metal. Do you have a photo of molten metal and firemen walking through it?

Picture of "molten steel" AFP:
http://www.flatplanet.net/truth911/molten1.gif

Video: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/red_hot_ground_zero_l...

molten metal was found in the basements of both twin towers and at WTC 7. - Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) (the company responsible for the cleanup)

tom: can you show us anything to prove your statement: "Uh, don't you bother to read the testimony? There were firefighters IN WTC 7 up to two hours before it collapsed."

all this information can be found on my website at www.truth911.net

You don't need me to instruct you on that. You can learn it for yourself.
tom | 06.19.06 - 6:21 am | #

_____--

Tom,

Perhaps you could enlighten us with your extensive knowledge of structual engineering, then. In fact, it would appear that the OK building was not built to the same specifications as the Trade Center Towers. You're right about that. The WTC towers were DESIGNED to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, and were OVERDESIGNED to withstand absurdly rare contingencies. This is public record.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious! And of course, the circumstances WERE very different, but that's not the point, now is it? The real crux is structural integrity, not that the buildings reside in different cities, or had different people working inside of them, or that planes were involved (of course, that's not true for all the WTC buildings, is it?).

Since the relatively generic design of the OK building was able to withstand such immense force without collapsing, I guess your next post will consist of evidence pertaining to why I'm right...

But, obviously if you're posting here with such miraculous insight as "You can learn that for yourself.", I should defer to your vast knowledge. I'm sure you have an audience now, please help us out. Oh, and would you kindly refrain from writing things like "Look it up for yourself.", it would be most helpful if you'd just include some evidence next time.

Thanks,
S.

There's no doubt that before WTC7 fell, heavy smoke can be seen from various videos ouring completely out of an entire side. Otherwise, all we have to go on is the numerous firefighter testimony.

For me WTC7 is not the smoking gun. To me complicity doesnt rest on physics, but funding and facilitation.

Hey, what's that tall building next to "WTC-7" in Alex's photo^? There were no tall buildings next to WTC-7 like that!

Now the shills are even posting false photos claiming to be WTC-7!!!

3 WFC's closest corner was around 400 feet away from the closest corner of the twin towers,

FEMA Building Performance Report for the World Trade Center, chapter 1, maps and graphics, especially page 1-12, figure 1-9A, with scale in feet, pdf online,

http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm

pockybot, the entire official 9/11 fable is riddled with inconsistencies and outright nonsense. It's designed for excessively gullible people and has as such worked amazingly well. :)

It occurs to me that the appearance of trolls like Tom and Conspiracy Smasher is a good thing.

It shows we are winning.

You hear that trolls? Your shilling only makes us stronger.

They are good for only one thing: honing your arguments and logic.

Be careful though, because their comments are designed to breed pessimism and apathy.

One more thing trolls - you want to know what really gives you away? Want to know what really confirms our suspicions? We can't get anybody in the mainstream to touch these questions with a ten-foot pole.

Why is it that we have to rely on online shills like Tom and Conspiracy Smasher for anything resembling an explanation of these events? If it is all so easy to explain, why doesn't somebody mainstream just explain it?

Don't try saying it has been explained because I am not a lobotomized automaton. I demand more than a Wizard of Oz "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" answer.

No problem, FrankV. There are some more good pics & info re: that area on this page:
http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/?comments=yes&medium=image&keyword=wtc

"If it is all so easy to explain, why doesn't somebody mainstream just explain it?"

Exactly. Great point. :)

Oh man, the top newsstory on CrooksandLiars is a blog that claims the US will stage a terror attack and blame it on Iran, and that they plan to attack Iran by the fall:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/19.html#a8773

Gee, I thought CrooksandLiars works to ban talk back comments hinting at US false flag "theories". Hypocrites! I say go post and hit em hard with proof of prior US false flag terrorism.

So; which force propelled a 600 thousand pound (270 tons) steel assembly at high speed about 400 feet to bury it into 3 WFC ?

"Aonoymous" said"
"Hey, what's that tall building next to "WTC-7" in Alex's photo^? There were no tall buildings next to WTC-7 like that!

Now the shills are even posting false photos claiming to be WTC-7!!'

Are you a loon "Anonymous"? I posted that picture as an indicator that the damage was NOT heavy enough to cause a collapse. And do you think that the referenced site, www.wtc7.net, is a "shill" site?

How dare you hide behind your "Anonymous" cloak and throw out "shill" accusations.

Wait a minute. Now I get it. YOU are the shill. I'm slow on the uptake sometimes. Nice try.

If WTC 7 was so obviously NOT a CD, why does the mainstream media treat it like it has leprosy?

I mean, if there is nothing to hide, why not show the building collapse? It has not been shown in order to ensure that much of the population (who only get their info from mainstream corporate TV) is clueless about it.

Their hope is that, by the time everyone knows about it, it will be far too late to do anything about it.
Show people WTC 7 before the government has a chance to concoct an alibi!

WTC 7 IS THE KEY, more than anything else, because it is ON TAPE. Everything else is debatable - WTC 7 is UNDENIABLE REALITY. The government's muteness obliterates any lingering doubts about complicity.

Make this your motto:
HAVE YOU SHOWN ANYONE WTC 7 TODAY?

Gangster, some more WFC pics here: http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2005/04/14912.php

Gangster, etc: thank you for the links.

Here is a video (by Alex jones) of Stephen Jones talking about WTC 7.
Please note you'll need to move forward to 16:19 on the video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=529253447051382848&q=911+truth

I think he does a good job of summing up
the WTC 7 issue (based on current knowledge anyway).

Thank you guys.

Alex, you & whoever fabricated this pic of WTC-7 is BUSTED! http://www.wtc7.net/damageclaims.html

The pic purports to show a the southwest corner of wtc-7 with a huge gash starting at floor 18. That means the building across the street is 20 floors or more!!! WTC-7 had no tall buildings anywhere near it; it stood alone. Look at a map: http://www.directionsmag.com/images/articles/128_wtc-map.jpg

YouÂ’re busted!

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

Unrelated news:
June 19, 2006 -- American Media, which owns the tabloids National Enquirer, The Star, and The Globe, and which scooped the mainstream media on Gary Hart's affair with Donna Rice on "Monkey Business II"; Bill Clinton's affair with Gennifer Flowers and salacious details about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky; and Jesse Jackson's illegitimate child has published details of the George W. Bush-Condoleezza Rice relationship and his problems with First Lady Laura Bush in the current, June 26, 2006 issue of The Globe. WMR is quoted in the story.

They got it right about extra-marital affairs of Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, and Jesse Jackson. Now, they have the goods on George W. Bush. There goes Dubya's "5 percent poll bounce." Word from the South: This story ain't playing well among Dubya's white, fundamentalist base, his last bastion of support.

The nerve of these peole. Rowley was all over busting pastsy Moussaoui and now she is getting criticism in a report?

Rowley Criticized Over Moussaoui Probe
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5896704,00.html

Alex, why do you & the NIST report have a FAKE photo WTC-7 in them???

"Anonymous" coward: If you have an issue with the site I linked to, take it up with them: www.wtc7.net.

I'll say it again, because you seem to have reading challenges: I used the photo to demonstrate that the damage it indicates would NOT cause a vertical collapse.

Now please go play someplace else, little Anony.

Anonymous, I'm sorry for anything negative I ever said about you. I realize now that you're probably mentally handicapped, so I should have been more sensitive. Forgive me.

I like your "map" though. It looks like there's no grass or pavement or anything around the buildings so all pictures showing those things must be fake too.

I'll show you how honest I am. If anything, if that is a pic of WTC-7, perhaps, it is of the westsouth corner, not the southwest corner.

There is a difference. The westsouth corner is said corner when looking at it head-on from the west. The southewest corner would be said corner, when looking at it head-on from the south. In other words, that might be a pic of the westside of WTC-7 showing damage on the southern end of the west side.

In any event, that NIST report is not very meticulous, now is it? How many other misrepresentations are in it???

These arguments go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and, well... you get the idea. How many of you have gotten off your computers today to hand out flyers at your local mall, super market, movie theater, etc...

No one is more guilty than me for spending too much time on the computer, but I do serve a purpose. I collect information so it's there.

Senseless arguments are a waste of time. Just get off the computer, get out there, and start spreading the message.

Alex & Carn: I asked this of Tom earlier, but he declined to answer. "

"What is your purpose in coming here to try to sow doubt where there is none? Do you work for some gov’t contractor who provides paid bloggers to “help shape” opinions on the Web? You seem like a fraud to me."

Since he declined to answer and you 2 look like his supervisors, I ask you the same question.

Point well stated, Jon.

However, these "hired guns" like Tom, Alex, carn, etc., are prostitutes hired by the pimps that committed mass murder, so they do disgust me though.

So, which force propelled a 270 ton steel assembly 400 feet to bury it into 3 WFC ?

Wake up shills.

We also canÂ’t allow these shills to infest truth sites unchecked. Sometimes you have to spay Raid on the vermin when they get out of hand.

I have very bad news for the paid shills who are protecting the 9/11 mass murderers. Their treachery is clearly that of an ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT!

Accessories after the fact--are people who receive, comfort, or assist a felon knowing that he has committed a felony, or is sought in connection with the commission or attempted commission of a felony. See 234 A. 2d 284, 285. The term thus applies to anyone who obstructs justice by giving comfort or assistance to a criminal offender in an attempt to hinder or prevent his apprehension or punishment. 378 F. 2d 540, 542.

SHILLS, YOU WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE!!!

C&L, deleting 9/11 comments again.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/19.html#a8773

good ole helen thomas:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/06/19/thomas-slams-wh-press-i_n_23309...

Jon, when things go silent on a thread, why donÂ’t you occasionally bring up a point or two on the trail of evidence that you are very knowledgeable about. (If this is ok with dz.) We may spend too much time here on only physical evidence as opposed to all of the behavioral evidence weÂ’ve accumulated. (Just a suggestion, of course)

For example, could you refresh our memories about the $100K wired to Atta from Pakistan, and the reports of Atta & other “hijackers” partying on one of Jack Abramoff’s casino boats? Why is this (and all of the similar evidence) significant?

new article on Steven Jones:
http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=j2dll9sp4mf4rtkp62dhg6yxsm3jt43c

its actually on the front page, you can see it here:
http://chronicle.com/

As the stolen elections 2000 and 2004 were one of my top research issues, I arrange a little bit "postponing Gore the real winner", as follow up to the Thom Hartmann article on alternet and our discussion if we can add this to motives for pushing the attacks of 911 to happen:

http://alternet.org/rights/37153

***

A media review of the outcome was postponed for months

http://www.mediachannel.org/affalert418.shtml

Did Al Gore win after all? US newspapers would rather not say
By Charles Laurence in New York
(Filed: 21/10/2001)

THE most detailed analysis yet of the contested Florida votes from last year's presidential election - with the potential to question President Bush's legitimacy - is being withheld by the news organisations that commissioned it.

Results of the inspection of more than 170,000 votes rejected as unreadable in the "hanging chad" chaos of last November's vote count were ready at the end of August.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?sSheet=/news/2001/10/21/ixhom...

"I think the dataÂ’s ready, but weÂ’re not. WeÂ’ll publish when weÂ’re ready."

John Broder, a New York Times reporter and member of the steering committee overseeing the analysis

http://www.makethemaccountable.com/coverup/index.htm

Now, however, spokesmen for the consortium say that they decided to "postpone" the story of the analysis by the National Opinion Research Centre (NORC) at the University of Chicago for lack of resources and lack of interest in the face of the enormous story of the September 11 attacks and the subsequent "war on terrorism".

Newspapers were saying last week that the final phase of the analysis, the actual counting of the 170,000 votes, had been "postponed" but would become known at an appropriate time.

America's liberal newspaper establishment originally set up the commission in the belief that it would discover that Al Gore was the winner of the Florida count.

Their hope for a Gore victory appears to have been sacrificed on the altar of patriotism and a perception that America needs to be led into war by a strong president.

"Our belief is that the priorities of the country have changed, and our priorities have changed," said Steven Goldstein, the vice-president of corporate communications at Dow Jones and Co, the owners of the Wall Street Journal.

Catherine Mathis, a spokesman for the New York Times, said: "The consortium agreed that because of the war, because of our lack of resources, we were postponing the vote-count investigation. But this is not final. The intention is to go forward."

However David Podvin, an investigative journalist who runs an independent web page, Make Them Accountable, said he had been tipped off that the consortium was covering up the results.

He refused to disclose his source other than to describe him as a former media executive whom he knew "as an accurate conduit of information" and who claimed that the consortium "is deliberately hiding the results of its recount because Gore was the indisputable winner".

He also claims that a New York Times journalist who was involved in the recount project had told "a former companion" that the Gore victory margin was big enough to create "major trouble for the Bush presidency if this ever gets out".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?sSheet=/news/2001/10/21/ixhom...

Just in case anonymous is confusing anybody, which shouldn't be the case if you're paying attention:

9/11 was an inside job, Bush and co should burn, controlled demolition was most certainly used, NORAD stood down, etc.

Hopefully the fact that I have questions about what hit the pentagon and think "pods," "holograms," and "cgi" are ridiculous theories won't make anyone other than retards like "anonymous" think I'm paid by the government.

"Anonymous": you are a liar and a coward... and a pathetic one at that. You won't even use your own name, you slimy weasel. Anyone familier with my posts know that you are being slanderous towards me, and some other fine posters.

That is my final reply to you. I realize I'm only falling into your obvious attempt at distraction if I continue to honor your excrement with a response.

Jon: You said "These arguments go on and on and on and on" You are absolutely correct. Believe it or not, I was thinking just earlier today about how I, for one, need to be more active. Typing back and forth with 13 year olds (mentally or emotionally)is a waste of precious time.

"The Brigham Young college of engineering issued an even stronger statement on its Web site. "The structural engineering faculty," it read, "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." However, his supporters complain, none of Mr. Jones's critics at Brigham Young have dealt with his points directly."

I don't think Brigham Young would be proud of these cowards!

Do these "righteous" Mormons owe allegiance to God or to Bush/Cheney???

Dr. Jones is a most pious man carrying out a holy mission!

Wow Jon, you're like the godfather of 911 truth. NOBODY (but you) could have imagined using Truther in a pseudonym relating to 9-11 Truth. You ROCK dude!! We owe you so much for your contributions. Anon, what do standdowns and pet goats have to do with anything? Obviously those things happened. but they didn't cause the towers to fall on heroic firefighters--that was Silverstein and Co. regardless of what his well-heeled representatives are paid to say online. :)

jeezus christ, what is wrong with some of you today? hello, different people have different opinions, if you want yours respected then you should respect others as well..

the idea that Gold is 'part of the strategy of those who are complicit' is really messed up.

please, relax people.

Jon, I do believe you should NOT criticize the physical evidence, just defer on it to others if you're not comfortable debating it. No need to help shills try to rebut any of it, you know.

"Anon, Jon doesn't WANT the movement to promote CD and Pentagon missiles, even though everyone can see how obvious they are."

;) You got me.

Of course, Anon, we're doing that--hammering with ALL kinds of truth. Jon however wants to omit truth that implicates Israel and Silverstein. Next thing he'll do is call me an anti-semite--just watch!

"however wants to omit truth that implicates Israel and Silverstein."

Just out of curiosity, how many Mossad/Israeli/Silverstein/Controlled Demolition/Professor Jones threads do I have on my forum?

Israel and veiled anti-semitism are staples of the troll disinfo agents.

They are trying to associate 9/11 truth with crazy zionist conspiracies. Muddy the waters so everyone lumps them together.

Better come up with a new strategy trolls.

I just have no reason to believe that Jon is a Mossod agent or a fanatical Zionist who would favor Israel over the U.S.A.!

the idea that Gold is 'part of the strategy of those who are complicit' is idiotic.

Beautiful irony "dz", so why should I respect your opinions? Are you saying I'm an idiot for thinking someone here might not be sincere?

Commentary

Zarqawi the scourge defeated, Osama not wanted for 9/11?

By Jerry Mazza

Online Journal Associate Editor

Jun 16, 2006, 00:27

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/printer_912.shtml

"""As everyone and his brother, including Jordanian intelligence, rushes in to claim a piece of the Zarqawi kill, his fellow-Afghanistan-Mujihadeen and super-star terror-meister, Osama bin Laden, fade into Not Wanted by FBI for 9/11 status, that is, the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, according to an article by Enver Masud. What?

What’s going on here? I thought that’s why Bush declared The War on Terror in the first place and went to Afghanistan to “smoke him out.” But hey, what do I know, what do we know? We only live here.

In fact, Masud writes, “The FBI page states: "Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world." What, first the FBI suppressed the warnings he and his boys were about to make the hit,” according to whistleblowers Kathleen Rowley and agent Robert Wright to name a few, and now the Federal Bureau of Instigation is retracting his being the central bogeyman of 9/11 and TWOT?. Did anybody tell Bush? Check if he’s operating on the old or new scenario.

Osama must be a wreck, wherever he is. He’s busted down to a non-entity and here’s Zarqawi coverage up the whazoo. In fact, Rex Tomb (love the name) of the FBI’s public affairs unit is said to have said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama (he says Usama, I say Osama, let’s call the whole thing off), Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” What? No hard evidence?

I feel like the comic Lawrence Black, screaming “Then what the fuck did you send an army there for and blow up a country and kills thousands of Afghans and American soldiers? Was it really all about securing territory for the Unocal pipelines and kicking the Taliban out of the way? I mean all those bearded beauties are crawling back and the dope production is back up . . . arrrgh!!!”

Excuse me. Then, who is the Number One Suspect for 9/11? DonÂ’t tell me you, too, think that it could be Dick Cheney and George Bush? After Osama or along with him, theyÂ’re the ones most mentioned, along with Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers and General Ralph Eberhart, the unholy group of conspirators. ......."""

Israel and veiled anti-semitism are staples of the troll disinfo agents.

They are trying to associate 9/11 truth with crazy zionist conspiracies. Muddy the waters so everyone lumps them together.

Better come up with a new strategy trolls.
Anonymous | 06.19.06 - 2:37 pm | #

BANG! There it is, took a while, but there it is!

"Beautiful irony "dz", so why should I respect your opinions? Are you saying I'm an idiot for thinking someone here might not be sincere?"

No, you're an idiot for thinking I'm not.

Real Truther, going off on this wild Jon/Jewish tangent is not helpful. Please cool it.

crazy zionist conspiracies, eh? so, what were all those spies doing in America before during and after 911? And were they or were they not at least in part made up of Israeli intelligence? Simple question, simple answer. Oh wait i know--Zionists don't conspire--just Bush. oops my bad!

could Zionists get NORAD to stand down?

I don't get it.

I think it's time to loose "Real Truther."

(He's likely not the other "real truther" lower case)

Beautiful irony "dz", so why should I respect your opinions? Are you saying I'm an idiot for thinking someone here might not be sincere?

im saying thinking Jon Gold isn't sincere is pretty crazy, perhaps because I've got some form of respect for his efforts - just like anyone who is out there promoting 9/11..

i was just asking you to chill out, i don't see anything gold has said about silverstein or the mossad in this thread.

and you don't have to respect my opinions (in fact i don't general express any due to the infighting), but you do have to respect the policies here, all im asking is everyone chill a bit and stop focusing on attacking one another.

Real Truther, going off on this wild Jon/Jewish tangent is not helpful. Please cool it.

Anonymous, are you afraid of the truths that are being spoken? they are being spoken everywhere--better get used to them.

Just out of curiosity, is Israel the only country that has spies in the U.S.?

HTF said Mussod agents definetely were not invlolved? No one here said this. STFU, "Real Truther."

when did anyone in this thread say it wasn't ok to discuss mossad ties to 9/11? i dont think anyone has.

"when did anyone in this thread say it wasn't ok to discuss mossad ties to 9/11? i dont think anyone has."

I asked him if Mossad involvement was a fact or theory. I asked him if a helicopter firing a missile into the Pentagon was a fact or theory. I asked him if exploding a trash bomb in Schenksville was a fact or a theory.

He took offense to that.

And, he never answered the question.

I don't give a shit for the Mussod, Zioinism, Zionists, Mormons, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Catholics, Baptists, etc.

Whoever did 9/11 is guilty of mass muder. You're just spouting anti-Semetic bullshit to bait Jon & ball-up this thread!

Pockybot,
thanks for posting that link
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-330418413919565384&q=Press+for+...
Press for Truth does look pretty compelling.

Are Bush, Cheney, both Clintons, Rummy, Rove, Gonzalez, etc. Jews???

Hmm let's see, the FBI has said that information connecting these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. OK, you can give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that those connections are benign, but to me that says involvement, and sorry, but what do YOU think they were doing here? And do tell me which other countries are spying on the US, and how you know they are!

funny how angry he got saying that everyone is trying to coverup mossad ties when at the same time he attacks others for talking about ISI ties..

We KNEW about ISI funneling money to Atta AND meeting with Goss and Graham. But since those Arabs were patsies, it DOESN'T MATTER. They committed NO CRIMES related to 9-11. So why do you focus on them? Again, because YOUR job is to throw the 911 truth movement off of Israel's trail. Puh-leeze, it is SO obvious, just STOP. You're embarrassing yourself AND Israel for trusting shills like you to do the job--yeesh!

here's an idea, how about talk about it all and stop attacking one another?

OK, you can give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that those connections are benign

when did jon say to give them the benefit of the doubt?

seems like you are taking out your frustrations on jon, as if he is your enemy, as if he is doing the things you are accusing him of.

Are Bush, Cheney, both Clintons, Rummy, Rove, Gonzalez, etc. Jews???

Nice Anonymous, what the heck does that question mean? You're making sound as if I said "The Jews were responsible for 9-11."

Except that i didn't. I said that zionist agents were involved. see www.masada2000.org for a long list of Jews that Zionists would rather see dead. Really, read their SelfHatingIsraelThreatening (SHIT) list.

Did Cheney and Rumsfeld give Silverstein and Mossad the OK? More than likely. Why are you trying so hard to put racist words in my mouth when all I'm saying is that some people want to leave Israel completely out of this? Who is being attacked here?

"But since those Arabs were patsies, it DOESN'T MATTER. They committed NO CRIMES related to 9-11. So why do you focus on them?"

Oh, but it does matter. Show them to be patsies incapable of flying airliners, show they were really CIA drug trafficer patsies in training, show that the were funneled money via ISI, and you got some damn good proof of an inside job!

Isreal could well have a huge part in all of this 9/11 shit. Who said it didn't. No one here, rable-rouser!

Again, the patsies did nothing to kill anyone on 9-11. Silverstein did, but Jon Gold prefers to focus on the patsies then on the demolition of the towers where most people died and where the evidence is more than substantial for CD. Seems fishy to me.. What, this forum is incredibly free of shills then? Or I'm the shill for questioning what over one hundred Israeli spies were doing in America before 911? This is great!

Who said it didn't?

Israel and veiled anti-semitism are staples of the troll disinfo agents.

They are trying to associate 9/11 truth with crazy zionist conspiracies. Muddy the waters so everyone lumps them together.

Better come up with a new strategy trolls.
Anonymous | 06.19.06 - 2:37 pm | #

That person did. A person who like you won't even take a recognizable pseudonym. And it's rabble, not rable. Common ESL mistaike don't worry! ;)

The Israeli spies, IMO, are incrimminating, but not huge enough to solve 9/11.

Silverstein did, but Jon Gold prefers to focus on the patsies then on the demolition of the towers where most people died and where the evidence is more than substantial for CD. Seems fishy to me..

Is he not welcome to focus on the subject matter he wishes? did he bash the crap out of someone who does question controlled demolition? i've never seen him do that.

if your looking for shills just hang out, you will meet them soon enough, but thinking Jon Gold is one is crazy, and i say that as the owner of this website. he has contributed to this site in a lot of different ways, just like a lot of users here, and i get pretty ticked seeing someone bash them over differences of opinions and ignoring their numerous contributions.

so, with that said, chill, everyone.

Its not that there isn't lots of juicy evidence, its just that the free fall collapse of WTC7 is so simple for people to understand and so impossible to refute that controlled demolitions were used. For god's sake, the owner of the building admitted it. There are firemen on tape warning people that its going to come down.

KISS = keep it simple stupid (and we win)

dz and tim... I really appreciate your feedback. I wasn't thinking in terms of an international reader... I just planned on passing/posting the flyer around locally... but you've got me thinking I should make a second version. Thank you.

Saturday, June 17, 2006
Flight of Capital

http://rigint.blogspot.com/2006/06/flight-of-capital.html

They say I shot a man named Gray and took his wife to Italy.
She inherited a million bucks and when she died it came to me.
I can't help it if I'm lucky. - Bob Dylan

This may be old news to you, but just a quick note here of something I'd missed about Flight 77, thanks to "Bismillah" and the RI forum, that I hope you won't miss, too.

At least among those with a mind for such things, it's fairly well-remembered that on September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld made the shocking announcement that the Pentagon "couldn't track" $2.3 trillion of its transactions. "Iroquois" observes, "What's interesting to me is that he made his press release on a Monday. In DC, I always see bad news given on a Friday, usually late in the afternoon on Friday. The exception, of course, would be when someone happens to know that there is a far bigger story coming out."

And we know that Flight 77, allegedly piloted by an incompetent, made an aerobatic, spiralling descent over Washington, effecting a 270-degree turn to strike the Pentagon from a western approach at ground level. The side struck was the only one with an exterior wall hardened against attack, and was relatively empty while renovation continued.

Relatively. The unfortunate construction workers perished outside, but who were the expendables within?

From The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, December 20, 2001: "One Army office in the Pentagon lost 34 of its 65 employees in the attack. Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck."

The Arlington County After-Action Report noted that the "impact area included both the Navy operations center and the office complex of the National Guard and Army Reserve. It was also the end of the fiscal year and important budget information was in the damaged area." And Insight Magazine editorialized that "the Department of the Army, headed by former Enron executive Thomas White, had an excuse [for not making a full accounting]. In a shocking appeal to sentiment it says it didn't publish a "stand-alone" financial statement for 2001 because of "the loss of financial-management personnel sustained during the Sept. 11 terrorist attack."

High Crimes of State often come down to the movement of capital, and so the high criminals generally share the gray and black economics of common felons. Money is money; it's the magnitude of the heist that's different, and the means to effect and cover-up the crime. And part of the cover-up of the Pentagon heist has been the no-plane shell game, played smartly by Rumsfeld himself who "misspoke" that a "missile" had struck the Pentagon the same week Thierry Meyssen's original no-plane website was launched.

It's such disinformation that has drilled irrelevance and folly into a once potentially dangerous and angry army of authentic skeptics.

Here is the international version of my flyer, ready for world use :) (thanks to dz and tim):
http://www.freewebs.com/alexcarson/911%2Dflyer%2Dint.gif

Here's the original, American version: http://www.freewebs.com/alexcarson/911%2Dflyer.gif

Another interview from today:

Ty Rauber: Director of "Who Killed John O'Neill

http://culhavoc.blogsome.com/2006/06/19/interview-ty-rauber-director-of-...

Interviewed by Jack Blood/Deadline Live; excellent interview.

*commercial free

-Culhavoc

How's this for a coincidence theory? LOL.

The War On Waste

LOS ANGELES, Jan. 29, 2002
The Pentagon. (AP)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

Quote

"How do we know we need $48 billion since we don't know what we're spending and what we're buying?"
Retired Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan

(CBS) On Sept. 10, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, "the adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy," he said.

He said money wasted by the military poses a serious threat.

"In fact, it could be said it's a matter of life and death," he said.

Rumsfeld promised change but the next day – Sept. 11-- the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten.

"""One Army office in the Pentagon lost 34 of its 65 employees in the attack. Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck."""

http://www.s-t.com/daily/12-01/12-20-01/a02wn018.htm

Greg | Homepage | 06.19.06 - 4:48 pm | #

-and-

Blob | 06.19.06 - 5:13 pm | #

Those are 2 must-read posts!

What also adds to the interest is the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Defense who is in charge of all the Pentagon's money was Dov S. Zakheim, who not only is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations as well as an ordained Orthodox Jewish rabbi and some say is a dual Israeli/American citizen, but who is also a member of the PNAC, along with Donald Rumsfeld, and was a contributing author of the PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" that essentially talked about needing a "new Pearl Harbor" to build up American's military might exactly one year before it happened.

Some of Zakheim's former jobs are interesting too. He was vice president of a defense contractor, System Planning Corp., which made remote control and flight termination products and was chief executive officer of SPC International Corp., a subsidiary specializing in political, military and economic consulting.

So that is why they hit that section of the Pentagon and why they didn't use a Boeing 757 to do it.

In this post, i want to try to educate everyone about the pentagon and hopefully you will all revise your theories and what hit the pentagon. A PLANE DID HIT THE PENTAGON. This plane, i do not think was flight 77, but it would have been a very similar plane. Though there wasn't much debris, there was some, nothing that could identify it as flight 77. The 16" hole theory also has to go. Since below that hole (where the water is being sprayed) there is damage where a plane would fit. Eyewitness testimony from people like loyd the cab driver, i have heard second hand his account, and he describes a big 2 engine plane like at the airports. On my site, i have revised my offical claim to: flight 77 and the pentagon remains a mystery. which is a far more accurate statement. The arguments of the 330 degree turn descendeing 5000... etc. are still vaild arguements why hani handour (sp?) could not have been flying the plane. The video footage that was never released would have shown a plane i think, but it would not have been flight 77. It would have been a smaller plane, how much smaller, i'm not sure. But a plane did hit the pentagon. Things like the hole in the C ring, i think were man made, in addation to the many "blow outs". Then obviously the collapse the the outer rings may not have been spontaneous and explosives were likely used. There was definately debris from an airplane, however i think the engines would have been recovered and survived the crash had it been flight 77. Anyways, Dylan is working with Russel pickering from pentagon research to totally re-do the pentagon for the final edition of loose change. (including small facts like the nearby hotel was not the sharadon, but some other one, i forget the name). The talk by Ken Jenkins from Chicogo is good at explaining why the evidence from the pentagon should not be used publiclly. "the evidence will contradict itself". To learn more, go to www.pentagonreseach.com for all the info on that. Anyways, there's my two cents, most of this info is on my site. check it out. http://www.truth911.net

peace

1. Forget Al Franken people. Randi Rhodes, Janeane Garafalo, Mike Malloy and the co founder of Air America on the AA radio network are ON our side. That's like some of the top radio hosts on there

2. I think people focus tooo much on the Israeli thing. I've researched it, and it is part of a puzzle...but it is nowhere near the main picture. I've noticed that the biggest disinformation sites online seem to focus on focusing obsessively on Zionists/Israel and attack prominent 9/11 Truth movement people.

Yes, must-reads Blob, thanks. And this page has Realplayer video of CBS News on the Missing TRillions,
http://whereisthemoney.org/
http://whereisthemoney.org/video/cbs2.3trillion.rm

This is the CBS article
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

And more on Zakheim here
http://www.oilempire.us/remote.html#zakheim

Of course you need the 30 minute music mix Intro to PNAC to go with all that;
http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/pdr_pnac.mp3

Alex sits in for a guest host spot on KLBJ in Austin to discuss the decimation of the bill of rights and constitution, including illegal immigration, Bush's sinking poll numbers, the global warming hoax, the 2006 Bilderberg meeting, and the controlled demolition of Building 7.

i love Alex Jones, but "global warming hoax"? oh jesus. leave the science to the scientists AJ.

RFK Jr. plans suit over 2004 election

RAW STORY
Published: Monday June 19, 2006

Print This | Email This

Robert Kennedy Junior told PR Week that he is considering litigation against people responsible for what he says was a stolen 2004 election.

Excerpt follows:

#
PRWeek: Is there a next step?

Kennedy: I've been meeting with attorneys... to devise a litigation strategy. And I would say that very soon we'll be announcing lawsuits against some of the individuals and companies involved.

PRWeek: Who exactly would that litigation be targeting?

Kennedy: I wouldn't say, right now.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/RFK_Jr._plans_suit_over_2004_0619.html

Lloyd the cabbie is a joke.

He´s driving along close to the Pentagon minding his own business as a big plane whizzes by hits a light pole and hurls it on his car. He stops gets out and another car stops and its driver starts heping Lloyd get that pole off the cab. THEN they hear a loud boom from the Pentagon and see that huge flash.

So, pole hits car. Lloyd stops car, gets out etc. as per above. How long does that take? 2 seconds? Think people.

www.truth911.net | Homepage | 06.19.06 - 5:51 pm | #

IMO, I believe it was most likely a drone or a missle.

Also,

"The 16" hole theory also has to go. Since below that hole (where the water is being sprayed) there is damage where a plane would fit."

The plane would fit, basically through the 1st floor windows? So close to the ground?

I know blob, and it was going 530 mph, don't forget.

And what the heck was that on the recently released Pentagon video? Sure didn't look like any B-757 to me.

(Why does it seems like "just drop the Pentagon month"?)

Guys, the engines of a 757 extend eight feet below its body. You're really stretching it if you want to cram it all into the first floor. :)

Internet Archive Gaps

leading up to 9/11.

archive.org covered up until
2003

Just something to research.

no offense meant to blob, but i've always referred to whatever hit the pentagon as blob77. not to be confused with blob11, yosemitesam175 or invisible93. the 911 airshow.
________________

Internet Archive Gaps

ual.com gap between 8/23 and 9/11

time.com gap between 7/21 and 9/11

msnbc.com gap between 8/23 and 9/11

latimes.com gap between 8/22 and 9/11

cnn.com gap between 8/23 and 9/11

cbsnews.com gap between 8/26 and 9/13

bloomberg.com gap between 8/26 and 9/12

abcnews.com gap between 8/12 and 9/11

abc.com gap between 8/3 and 9/16

Heh, that's OK James, actually I took that nick for exactly that reason after the blob video was disclosed. :)

"Internet Archive Gaps"...

I'm sure it's all just a coincidence. LOL.

Sunday, August 15, 2004

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004...ide-to-911.html

The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11

Sorry,

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guid...

" Hey Tom, what does disproving WTC7 theories or whatever have to do with the FACT they knew this attack was coming and allowed/made sure it would happen? Forcing the FBI to back off al Qaeda/Osama, standing down air defenses on 9/11, covering Pakistani ISI involvement. You can't sit here and debunk these, which I find the key factors in US complicity."

It didn't happen.

"Nice glaze over my WTC7 reference. Remember, the building that fell without being hit by an airplane?"

Very well.

"Right, of course that was your next point."

I've already addressed it. Do you need a reminder?

"BTW, a full fuel load of kerosene does not pack enough potential energy to melt steel columns like the ones found in WTC one and two."

LOL. Why are you so behind the times? The fuel fires set the contents of WTC 1 and 2 on fire, Anyone watching any of the dozens of videos of the towers knows that already. Why don't you?

And we're all smart enough to know that NO steel was melted - as is VERY clear in NIST - but softened as expected.

"My point is that the WTC structures were built much stronger than the OKC building, and yet fell as though they were made of loose soil. That's the point, Tom. Get it now?"

LOL. You're a one-man comedy team, Stuart. WTC 1 and 2 were built to satisfy many standards and of an entirely different design than OK. Why are you haveing such a hard time understanding fundamental facts? There is NO comparison between WTC 1 and 2 and any other building, nor did any other building suffer aircraft hitting them at high speed.

These are fundamental facts that you are going to eventually have to quit denying.

"That's why I'm relying on other sources, like the 9/11 Commission report, and the NIST report."

You've just admitted that you haven't a clue what the reports said.

"Why are you posting here if you think that all of 911blogger readers are impossible to debate with? What are you doing if not trying to convince others of your viewpoint?"

Do facts intimidate you so much, Stuart?

"A building exhibiting all the characteristics of a demolition has never NOT been a demolition."

Logical fallacy. Known as "affirmation of the consequent."

Look it up.

"Yeah, it had all the characteristics of CD and therefore was a CD. The probability of these being non-CD collapses is virtually zero."

Logical fallacy. Known as "affirmation of the consequent."

Look it up.

Tom, I think you should stick to your flying pig farm. You're wasting your time here.

"Flight 11 [that hit the North tower] took-off at 7:59am, and flew for 49 minutes before impact. That's 49 minutes worth of fuel used during take-off and flight; not a full fuel load. You should correct your lie."

Not a lie. I'll be more specific. A fuel load for a transcontinental flight adjusted for a light passenger load less flight time.

Happy?

Far less than the fuel load that would have been on a 707 when the assumption was that a crash would be a jet lost in the fog on landing at JFK or LaGuardia - AFTER a flight.

Nonetheless, I assume you saw the videos of the fuel exploding. If you didn't, you should look at the videos.

"Also, regarding the South tower impact, the majority, as in, almost ALL of the jet fuel exploded out the Eastside of the tower instantaneously after aimpact--burning up completely OUTSIDE the tower."

Incorrect - I guess that makes you a "liar".

Both fuel loads exploded from within the buildings outwards, much fuel did not burn immediately and was INSIDE each tower, and much fuel caused explosions in the towers. Know fact you can't deny.

"Yet, the South tower miraculously collapsed first, after having had the least amount of burning jet fuel inside it; after having had Flight 175 nearly miss the South tower altogether, impacting close to the corner of the building, damaging far less central core columns than Flight 11's impact with the North tower, when Flight 11 flew directly into the center of the tower, straight into the North tower's central core columns; and when the South tower also burnt for the shortest duration of the two--a whole 30 minutes less!"

So far you've screwed up on your facts. You ignored the fact that WTC 2 was hit far lower than was WTC 1. What does that mean to anyone schooled in high school physics?

It means the obvious: there was far more MASS above the damaged area of WTC 2 than WTC 1, a much greater mass pressing down on the damaged area of WTC 2 than in WTC 1.

What else does it mean? That WTC 2 began to collapse as expected by the known damage on the structure, that is, it LEANED toward the damaged side at the intitiation of collapse clearly seen in all of the videos of the collapse.

"So kindly get right the fuck out of here with that jet fuel fires brought down the towers bullshit. Thanks."

Swearing is illegal here. You know full well that the fuel fires initiated the buring of office furniture and material and created far more than enough heat to weaken the damaged structure.

So kindly get yourself an education.

"He is just a paid goon who would sell his own mother for a few bucks. Just ignore him."

That's a sure sign of your nervousness. There is no need to be afraid of facts.

""Pull" is common demolition lingo."

Not for explosive demolition. Sorry.

"1. Would a building with very extensive damage to one side, fall in the "freefall" manner wtc 7 appeared to?"

It didn't. Free fall is around 6 seconds for a building that height. It took WTC 7 13 seconds from inititation of collapse.

"Is it possible a different angle would show the collapse to be any less vertical?"

All collapses are governed by gravity. Buildings fall down. The well-known CBS video clearly shows that collapse inititiation occurred internally 7 seconds before the final fall of the structure.

"3. Why are major voices in our movement, such as Profs Griffen and Fetzer, still claiming that WTC 7 had just "a couple of small fires"? While this statement is accurate to a point, the exclusion of the REST of the story (documented heavy damage to south side of WRC 7) is very concerning."

Correct.

The claims of "a couple of small fires" is a popular claim but without basis in fact. People here need to question those like Jones and Fetzer rather than following them like religious figures.

They don't depend on scientific evidence but on "belief." Just look at their website.

"except that silverstein later qualified his pull it comment by claiming he meant the firemen, so he must have actually made that comment."

It actually proves he meant the firemen since he used the term correctly. If he had mistakenly slipped up or thought that anyone would think he meant "demolition", he would have immediately clarified it on the video.

Just pure and simple logic.

"Ergo, you can't just say something is "possible" to put a controversy to rest. You have to prove how probable it is. Eventually nothing is 100% impossible."

Read what I wrote. It is exactly what is EXPECTED.

"that's odd because prof. jones and his students clock it at less than 7 secs. and jim hoffman says that wtc7 fell at near the rate of free-fall. how fast is that? and if i'm not mistaken they used the cbs video as their reference."

Sure they do because they WON'T use the video of the full shot here:

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc_7_cbs.mpg

That video CLEARLY and IRREFUTABLY shows the first penthouse collapsing 13 seconds before the end of the building collapse, demonstrating that the collapses were taking place internally. Jones is dishonest to say otherwise.

"I wrote about Tom being incorrect and lying."

And I have consistently shown you that I am corrct and never have to lie about facts.

You'd better catch up with the truth.

tom is just confusing the arguement to make it seem as though others are dishonest.. the top of the building took ~7 to hit the ground, but the 'collapse' took about ~13 seconds if you start the clock from when the penthouse started to fall..

he is just trying to confuse the point that the building fell in near freefall speeds by arguing that the collapse started when the penthouse fell, despite the fact that that has nothing to do with the arguement that the top corners of the building only took ~7 seconds to drop 47 stories.

its the same dishonesty that tom's favorite site 911myths.com does in reference to the molten metal at ground zero. they confuse the subject of molten metal versus molten steel and summarize it with conjecture to leave the viewer with the understanding that there was no molten metal at the site, something which is completely untrue.

http://we-dont.gotdns.org/~culhavoc/images/steven.jones.wtc.samples.1.jpg

its just more of the same from s.king, 911truther, 911poller, and now tom - confuse the issue, and tell us all how we are the ones who need to catch up with him.

Read what I wrote. It is exactly what is EXPECTED.
tom | | 06.20.06 - 8:26 am | #

this is the same guy who will tell you that the collapses of the two towers was exactly what was expected as well.

that's why they've pushed off the final findings of WTC7 almost two years now, and thats why there were 3 different investigations into the towers collapsing (FEMA, Silverstein, NIST), and all three had different conclusions (pancake theory, column failure theory, sagging truss theory + ignore everything past start of collapse).

yeah, its what's expected - whatever might have happened, thats whats expected when you shill for the government explanation.

Tom: "And I have consistently shown you that I am corrct and never have to lie about facts."

Your selective reading skills are incerdible, Tom. Since you didn't allow yourself to see what I wrote in reply to you higher up in this comment page, I'll re-post it for you.

Tom: "They each withstood the impact of 767's with a full fuel load"

Ummmmmmmm, no. You're incorrect.

Flight 11 [that hit the North tower] took-off at 7:59am, and flew for 49 minutes before impact. That's 49 minutes worth of fuel used during take-off and flight; not a full fuel load. You should correct your lie.

Flight 175 [that hit the South tower] took off at 8:14, and flew for 49 minutes before impact. Again, that's 49 minutes worth of fuel used during take-off and flight; not a full fuel load. You should correct your lie.

Also, regarding the South tower impact, the majority, as in, almost ALL of the jet fuel exploded out the Eastside of the tower instantaneously after aimpact--burning up completely OUTSIDE the tower. Yet, the South tower miraculously collapsed first, after having had the least amount of burning jet fuel inside it; after having had Flight 175 nearly miss the South tower altogether, impacting close to the corner of the building, damaging far less central core columns than Flight 11's impact with the North tower, when Flight 11 flew directly into the center of the tower, straight into the North tower's central core columns; and when the South tower also burnt for the shortest duration of the two--a whole 30 minutes less!

So kindly get right the fuck out of here with that jet fuel fires brought down the towers bullshit.

You lied about the amount of jet fuel, Tom.

Now acknowledge that you propagated an incorrect statement regarding the amount of jet fuel in Flight's 11 & 175 at time of impact; and the amount of actual jet fuel deposited inside the World Trade Center towers.

ps. I won't argue back and forth with you and waste my time. So if that's what one of your tactics are, don't be surprised when I don't respond further to you.

http://www.wtcdemolition.com/

This whole thread is full of shills. One wonders what use this forum is to the truth movement--seems more like a forum for shills to confuse the issues that are clearly beyond debate.

Shills lie. They say things like Building 7 collapsed in 13 seconds. Where do they get this?

Another thing shills do is try to glean information from you. Jon Gold in a post above lists a whole bunch of things he says he has done to spread his version of 911 truth. Given that he thinks the government orchestrated the attacks by using the ISI as intermediary between themselves and real hijackers, I think maybe he should do less, not more than he is doing.

Presumably Jon thinks I will list all of MY 911 truth actions so that those who are here taking notes (and don't think they're not) can study what they're up against.

Fat chance "Jon". Anonymity is key--there is no sense in revealing who you are since it has no bearing on the facts we're discussing. You, though, as a shill, presumably think you seem more credible because you have a "name". Nonsense. Anyone can tell that your job here is to walk talk and act as if you were real truther so as to have 911 truth "street cred".

I know I said I wouldn't post here anymore but when I read what followed my departure, with "Tom"spreading lies and "Jon" not helping to rebut, it was clear that my work here was not done.

I encourage every real truther to at the very least branch out to other forums--too long at one and you become vulnerable to the really tricky shills. Of course we have to fight people like "Jon" and "Tom" everywhere they rear their heads, but at the same time we can't neglect other sites where they and their associates are likely spreading the same disinfo.

Again, let's be clear--Silverstein was totally in on the demolition of the building he built and owned since the 80s (#7) and the asbestos filled twin towers he leased 6 weeks before 911. Silverstein is a well-known Zionist shill and more than likely the Israeli spies running amok in the US before and during 911 were working with him on the demo, as well as managing patsies like Mohammed Atta.

The Project for a New American Century intended all along to join the US and Israel in common cause by staging a fake attack and blaming Islamists. there is no evidence, other than planted passports, etc. that any Arabs or Muslims were involved in any destruction on 9/11.

It is not anti-semitic to suspect and/or accuse, with plenty of cause, the intelligence service of any country, even if that country happens to be Israel. Neither the Israeli people nor American or any other Jewish communities were consulted on this or approved of it. "The Jews" nonsense is just something that certain criminals find useful to hide behind.

Both the American and Israeli people have been victimized by this globalist right wing movement, but their victimization pales in comparison to the victimization of Muslims and Arabs as a result of their being falsely accused.

To discourage people from learning the truth about any aspect of 9/11 that directly involves the destruction (i.e. the decoys are not important) is unproductive and quite frankly a sure mark of shilldom.

The truth as I tell it is the truth coming to be known by more and more people--the "truth" promoted by shills pretending to be truthers is designed to divide the movement by throwing around accusations of racism with no basis, just because Israel happens to have been involved. Let me repeat--anyone who implies that anti-semitism is behind the drive to reach the truth about covert Israeli activites against the US has their priorites somewhere very different than for the safety of American citizens.

with that, real truther OUT. I'll see you in the streets.

real truther -
Silverstein was totally in on the demolition of the building he built and owned since the 80s

you're right he did build and own wtc7, i'm glad that you reminded us of that - but in the lease of the remaining wtc he only put up 14 mil of his own and it's likely that he had silent partners behind the scenes.
but he IS a punk ass opportunist, he DID say pull it and the removal of wtc1 & 2 DID work out to his and the port auth's immense benefit. and as janedoe says:
the explanations of the collapse that have been given by the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST are not physically possible.
________________

Thanks James, way to suck me back in when I'm trying to make a point! :)

Of course he had other investors, thanks for pointing that out. We should also not forget that building 7 housed offices of the SEC, IRS, secret service, and CIA, and that lots of evidence was destroyed in the "acciedntal" collapse. Silverstein was clearly in cahoots with some elements of the government. Normally someone whose property is destroyed inexplicably is put under a microscope. Not so Mr. Silverstein. Why? And not just he but his tenant Giuliani has profited handsomely by going into the "security" business. You don't have to be from New York to know these are gangsters pure and simple, and that the war on terra is a protection racket on a global scale.

the war on terra is a protection racket on a global scale.

wow, i had never looked at it in that light.

the war on terra is a protection racket on a global scale.

wow, i had never looked at it in that light.

Really? I think it makes sense--pay the protection money (i.e. let us be in charge and steal everything) or suffer the consequences (and we'll make sure you do.)

In any case, sorry for the bluster and what may be perceived as ad hominem attacks on other participants in this forum. If I've mischaracterized Jon Gold then I owe him an apology as well. If not, then I will try to be less combative in my disagreements with him nonetheless.

"he is just trying to confuse the point that the building fell in near freefall speeds by arguing that the collapse started when the penthouse fell, despite the fact that that has nothing to do with the arguement that the top corners of the building only took ~7 seconds to drop 47 stories."

LOL! Now that you realize there is NO way you can get around the fact the CBS video didn't lie and that it took 13 seconds for WTC 7 to collapse, you want to pretend that the reason it collapsed - the failure of the internal structure - did not occur.

Do you have any other "new" physics you want to promote, anonymous?

"yeah, its what's expected - whatever might have happened, thats whats expected when you shill for the government explanation."

It's funny that all of the information proving irrefutably that WTC 7 took 13 seconds to collapse came from a CBS video of a broadcast that was live.

It's quite easy to show that you are the shill here.

It's funny that all of the information proving irrefutably that WTC 7 took 13 seconds to collapse came from a CBS video of a broadcast that was live.

how long did it take the corners of the top floor of the building to drop 47 stories? ~7 seconds, not ~13, like i said, you are just trying to confuse the issue.

i will give you that the onset of collapse to the completion of collapse was ~13 seconds, but the time it took the building to fall was ~7 seconds - if you can't decern between the two then you are being a bit dishonest.

"Ummmmmmmm, no. You're incorrect.

"Flight 11 [that hit the North tower] took-off at 7:59am, and flew for 49 minutes before impact. That's 49 minutes worth of fuel used during take-off and flight; not a full fuel load. You should correct your lie."

Red Herring.

You have revealed yourself, - Ø®£Z -.

It was not a lie - I was incorrect. And I admitted it above. So that your refusal to acknowledge that I replied:

Not a lie. I'll be more specific. A fuel load for a transcontinental flight adjusted for a light passenger load less flight time.

Happy?

Far less than the fuel load that would have been on a 707 when the assumption was that a crash would be a jet lost in the fog on landing at JFK or LaGuardia - AFTER a flight.

Nonetheless, I assume you saw the videos of the fuel exploding. If you didn't, you should look at the videos.

Now you deny that I wrote it. So you can now admit you were wrong - or you are a liar, if you prefer.

Such Red Herrings and strawman arguments like yours are common with 9/11 conspiracy buffs who can't support their claims.

"Now acknowledge that you propagated an incorrect statement regarding the amount of jet fuel in Flight's 11 & 175 at time of impact; and the amount of actual jet fuel deposited inside the World Trade Center towers."

It's time for you to fess up.

"ps. I won't argue back and forth with you and waste my time. So if that's what one of your tactics are, don't be surprised when I don't respond further to you."

Your evasions already gave you away. You know you can't refute the truth.

Bye, bye - Ø®£Z - .

ps. I won't argue back and forth with you and waste my time. So if that's what one of your tactics are, don't be surprised when I don't respond further to you.

"To discourage people from learning the truth about any aspect of 9/11 that directly involves the destruction (i.e. the decoys are not important) is unproductive and quite frankly a sure mark of shilldom."

I looked at your site and I would classify it as one of the worst shill sites around. You actually think people are stupid.

"i will give you that the onset of collapse to the completion of collapse was ~13 seconds, but the time it took the building to fall was ~7 seconds - if you can't decern between the two then you are being a bit dishonest."

The latter is irrelevant. Don't you yet understand why?

s.king / 911truther / 911poller / tom,

i am really getting tired of your obsesion with this site, but since it is apparent you will continue to return to this site, just know that i see you well before i ban you, i let you hang out and proove yourself, see if you are ever going to post any real information (which i have many times told you i am more than open to hear), or just have hypothetical arguements with no real substance, and each time the latter is the case..

so, next time you come back, come back with some real information, have a real discussion, or i wont give you the benefit of the doubt any further.

thanks.

Laughing at Tom still lying.

This Tom guy is funny, in a retarded kind of way.

Does anybody have David Griffin's email address?

tom,

i deleted your post, because i am not going to be painted to be a strawman in which you can attack, where upon you can tell me what i think, how you are right, i am wrong, you ask a dozen questions, and i am put on the defensive.

if you want to have any real discourse feel free to email me - as i have suggested in the past - and when you do be sure to forward me the list of questions you had for Dr. Jones, otherwise you can just continue to question me, and ill continue to question you.

p.s. my comments about you providing 'real information' and 'real substance' was an allusion to posting references, or links to the information which supports your arguement.. otherwise coming here to constantly question others opinions while providing no support for your own opinions really serves no purpose. and this isn't a forum, this is for comments, if you want a discussion or arguement take it to a forum or newsgroup - im sure you know plenty of them. otherwise just stop by and post a comment like 'i do not agree with this and think it is wrong, here are links and explanations as to why i have this opinon', i garauntee you comments like that would not be deleted here.

like i said, email me, just be sure to foward me those emails too.

ya, in your face tom! ha ha just kidding.
_____----
does anyone know anything about the upcoming 911 debate with janedoe v. some stand-in govt. reps? isn't that some time this summer?
_________________

WTC 7's collpase time was 13+ seconds as the CBS video shows.

Please stop lying about it.