posted 04-06-2004 10:00 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mech:
This admission appeared in a PBS documentary originally aired in Sept. of 2002 entitled "America Rebuilds". Mr Silverstein's comments came after FEMA and the Society of Civil Engineers conducted an extensive and costly investigation into the curious collapse of WTC 7. The study specifically concluded that the building had collapsed as a result of the inferno within, sparked, apparently, by debris falling from the crumbling North Tower.

In the documentary Silverstein makes the following statement;

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

[This can be heard in the audio file http://www.infowars.com/audio/PullIt.mp3 Thanks to Sir Dave 'tmo' Soule for transfering this from the video to an MP3 file. "America Rebuilds", PBS Home Video, ISBN 0-7806-4006-3, is available from ]http://shop.pbs.org/products/AREB901/.]

Mr. Silverstein's comments stand in direct contradiction to the findings of the extensive FEMA report. They even negate Kevin Spacey's narrative in the very documentary in which they appear; "WTC 7 fell after burning for 7 hours." If it had been generally known that the building was "pulled" wouldn't Mr. Spacey have phrased it that way?

In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six." There can be little doubt as to how the word "pull" is being used in this context.

---

Apples to Oranges.

Comparing terms used by two different contexts is pointless.

Have you ever been to a controlled demolition? I have. I have witnessed several in fact. One of these involved several buildings over a 1/2 mile long site. The sound of the charges going off is incredibly loud. You can clearly hear the demolition charges going off a half mile away. If you are closer, you not only hear the charges, you can feel the pressure wave in your chest as they go off. These are not the rumbles and booms of a collapsing building either, they are sharp, clear reports. It would have been impossible for any demolition charges to have gone of in either the towers or in 7 without some audio evidence to the fact. There is none.

posted 04-06-2004 11:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mech:
Nah...mabye they are simply SHILLS and not really NY firefighters.

Either that or they are simply out of the loop.

---

:LOL:

Or maybe the sites that you are getting your info from are filled with “shills” for the anti-government crowd.

Either that or they are out of the loop, . . . of reality, that is.

:LOL:

Obviously you don’t know many firefighters. When they aren’t out on a call, or washing their trucks, they can usually be found sitting around on their recliners gossiping like a bunch of old hens.

posted 04-06-2004 11:42 AM            

More like PRO US CONSTITUTION and ANTi-CORRUPTION and ANTI-DECEPTION.

Wolf...

As far as I'm concerned you can believe it was CIA ASSET USAma Bin Laden that pulled off 9-11 untill the cows come home.

I know what the DOCUMENTED, MAINSTEAM reports say. One only has to look. You REFUSE to and call it "Anti-Government". LAME tactic.

posted 04-06-2004 11:47 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mech:
. LAME tactic.

---

posted 04-06-2004 12:55 PM            

My findings were preliminary and I thank you for your input on factors I missed. I believe in looking at things from all angles not just one angle or one point of view.
And that's what this is all about. Debate and take a look at the alternatives to issues, scrutinze and analyze everything that is reported by our mass media. For our media has failed us a govt watchdogs.

However, there is something still nagging me about those pictures, something I'm not grasping yet but I will figure it out.

So I ask of you,larson, and anyone else do the math (as will I) and lets see what we come up with. ( I have not seen or heard of anyone looking and analyzing the plane holes before)
Prove me wrong!!!

And even if I am wrong about this I didn't fail, the important thing is that we tried and didn't take what the media and gov't said without question.

Just some food for thought!

posted 04-06-2004 01:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ANONYMOUS:
I have not seen or heard of anyone looking and analyzing the plane holes before). Prove me wrong!!!

---

Hey Anonymous! Welcome to CTC! You're stirring it up already huh? Good for you!

posted 04-06-2004 02:18 PM            

1 - http://www.beverlyunderground.com/issue2/rabbithole.htm

2 - http://users.adelphia.net/~earthwatch/#top

3 - http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3

4 - http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/collapse.htm

5 - http://members.fortunecity.com/911/wtc/clifton.htm

6 - http://www.serendipity.li/wtc3.htm

posted 04-06-2004 08:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by increase 1776:
Did you learn that at Yale or the Academy?

---

LOLOL! That was a good one!

posted 04-06-2004 08:47 PM            

Unbelievable!

Welcome Anony! Speaking of holes, did you see the movie "Holes?" LOL! Loved it! Just had to throw that in! THORRY!!! JBE's links should confirm your theories and suspicians! And I would ask: What about wind shear of the wings? How could all of a wing enter a steel edifice without shearing off? Makes no sense to me!

1776 & A, OK, you know, we ran quite a long discussion and debate on the demolition theory? If you could search the "other trails" pages, you'll find a great deal of well-thought out debate including links and member logic! Key word "demolition" --- . Mech's posted article on this just added to our previous thread's information--- more witnesses, more
science and logic as to steel and stresses, and more evidence for motivation in terms of "pulling" both towers since tower 7 was "pulled." If you both care to read the threads, maybe JBE could dig up the link? I'm not good at digging up links! Dang! And hope it's all still there since the big shake up!

Don't forget The O'Franken Factor and Majority Report on
http://www.airamericaradio.com

As I've expressed before, 9/11 remains the central launching point of this regime's overt departure into the NWO zone. Complicity or blind acquiesence? I feel the former with a dash of Isreali help! And at the upper levels, pure Reichstag planning with a dash of Isreali help!

The truth is coming out, however trickling!

And we have the power to turn it all around!

bc

posted 04-06-2004 09:49 PM            

And because you asked – here are my favorite 9/11 threads (WTC 7 is included throughout):
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/001884.html
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/001445.html
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/001754.html
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/001397.html
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/000440.html
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/001900.html

posted 04-06-2004 09:51 PM            

Here are the figures and information I though would be helpful with your research.

posted 04-07-2004 01:27 AM            

Boomer Chick, haven't seen the movie but I'll have to check it out.
Thank you for your support and info.

However, Larsen did make a good point earlier about the factors i didnt consider (angle of the plane as opposed to just the length of the hole). So I went back and did some additional research, I believe I covered all the bases now.

So the plane was about 156' long ( the right size for a Boeing 767). Yet this still leaves many unanswered questions:

1.Why didn't the wings break off when they were striking a steel constructed building?
2. Wouldn't the hole be larger than the object going thru it? (if anybody has info on impact damage of other similiar entry blasts please provide.)
3. The hole fits the supposed planes size exactly. This i have shown. Also planes are symmetrical so the position of the center of the plane should be easy to determine and yet if you look at the pic where the center of the plane should be you still see "intact columns" (!!!!) and debris that shouldn't be there if the plane's main body went through.!!!!!!!!!!!
Any other questions that i'm not catching about the pic and the data please add.

So with these factors and the movie clips and the eyewitness accounts the idea that it was a American Airlines boeing 767 that hit that tower is starting to crumble like dubbya's credibility!

Mech just an fyi on the pic you posted earlier: using the pixels and columns for measurement the woman is of the right dimemsions to be genunine. That is very horrific if it is true. I can't imagine what she must have felt. D*mn them if they orchastrated this. That is just as sick as the victims who plummeted to their deaths.

Never Forget!!!!

Justice will avenge their deaths and see to the real perpetrators of these war crimes !!!

posted 04-07-2004 03:37 PM            

Yes, A, Larson made a good point about angles of planes, but not about the fires! I was only pointing out his inaccurate assumptions in his firemen-related reply. Good logic on the airliner thought train!

Larson is capable of making good points, too! I just zero in on his incorrect ones!

Truth comes first and then justice!

The truth is ever rising to the surface!

Thanks to truth seekers!

bc

posted 04-07-2004 08:52 PM            

9/11: 80 Minutes of Unilateral Disarmament
by Morgan Reynolds

What happened on 9/11, and why? Answers swirl in confusion and mystery two-and-a-half years later. Yet the events of that day and their aftermath are the pivot point of the 21st century, the linchpin of U.S. foreign policy and the principal reason our President offers for the merit of his reelection. There can be no more compelling political events to understand.

Unfortunately, the administration’s behavior repeatedly demonstrates that it does not want any serious, objective inquiry into the facts of 9/11. Curious, isn’t it? Consistent obstruction would make Columbo suspicious, and it ought to make us suspicious too. In the land of the (fractionally) free and home of the brave, some are brave enough to think outside the government box, and these inquiring minds want to know. Set yourself free, throw off the federal blinders and follow the evidence. This is the opposite of the "conspiracy theory" approach.

Before the necessary descent in details, let’s look at the big picture first: How could such a horrific crime against the homeland succeed? The answer has got to be: "It takes a lot." That’s true whether you favor the "grand incompetence" theory or the "government complicity" theory. Whatever, it takes a lot of stuff working together.

Nineteen young Arab men reportedly armed with some really, really sharp razor blades wreak mass destruction in the homeland – that’s what government wants us to buy into. My reaction: you’ve got to be kidding! Your evidence had better be good, very, very good. Nineteen guys from the Middle East (I’ll abstain from gratuitous insults against these guys for the sake of their families) up against our Goliath Department of Defense with all its fancy hardware and (pretty damned capable!) personnel and the score? David 100, Goliath zip. Total humiliation for our military. C’mon! Goliath stutters and stumbles around for 80 minutes, doing his best Hamlet, and never gets it together? The skies over America totally undefended? In the biggest assault on the United States since Pearl Harbor? Even at Pearl, a couple of guys got up in the air, didn’t they? Agreed, government is incompetent but, pardon my prejudice, nineteen low-tech losers did all this? Really!? It’s quite a story. And yet it’s sacrilege to ask any challenging question about this story, government’s involvement or its holy war on terror, consecrated by the lives lost on 9/11.

Ask and you’re in the cross hairs of the Bush slime machine. Ask former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, or former counter-terrorism chief Richard A. Clarke, the latest in a growing line of former, now-critical government officials, what a nasty bunch this Bush group is. Therefore, I come to praise David Ray Griffin, a professor of philosophy of religion at Claremont School of Theology in southern California, for his enormous courage in writing The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11.

Most importantly, The New Pearl Harbor puts all the tough issues into a dispassionate, scientific package. It follows the evidence where it leads and to put it mildly, finds the shifting government explanations wanting, preposterous for the most part. It’s a rare book that can make a major difference in history. Yes, Griffin builds on the work of hundreds of other investigators but he is the first to put it all together in a coherent and well-written analysis.

Strong evidence contradicts virtually all of the official account, opaque as it is, but here’s my top six:

Fact: Authorities abstained from standard operating procedures to respond to hijackings for a crucial 80 minutes.
Fact: Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC 7 building could not have been caused by the two airliner crashes and subsequent jet fuel fires, leaving demolition (controlled explosions) as the best explanation. Further, government officials prevented a forensic examination of the debris, especially the steel, suggesting a cover-up.
Fact: Photographic evidence shows that the hole in the Pentagon façade was 18 feet in diameter, tops, and there is no evidence of wreckage from a Boeing 757. A large plane like the Boeing 757, as asserted by government, could not fit in such a hole, and related physical evidence and eyewitness testimony suggests a much smaller aircraft like a guided missile caused the death and destruction at the Pentagon.
Fact: Passenger cell phone conversations, crash site debris and government deletion of the last three minutes of the cockpit voice tape suggest authorities ordered Flight 93 shot down over Pennsylvania after learning that passengers were gaining control and might return with live hijackers.
Fact: Not one employee at the FAA, Defense, WMCC, NORAD or any other culpable civilian or military branch of government has been reprimanded or dismissed for incompetence. The official fable is that indecisive employees, both civilian and military, stood around and dithered, wondering what to do, thereby creating an unprecedented systemic failure. Remember Payne Stewart, professional golf champion? The Air Force went up to check his fatal Lear jet flight on 25 October 1999. Routine. Turning off a transponder is illegal, much less calls from flight attendants at 8:21 a.m. confirming the hijack of Flight 11, fully 25 minutes before that first collision with a WTC Tower at 8:46 a.m., plenty of time to intercept it far from New York City.
Fact: High officials in the Bush government openly expressed their wish for a "new Pearl Harbor" because of all the benefits it would bring, and got their wish within 12 months.
Of course, there is lots more than these six facts, especially specific intel government ignored pre-9/11 and its continual obstruction of field investigators. In mid-August, for example, FBI headquarters denied Minneapolis FBI agents a search warrant for Zacarias Moussaoui’s computer and other possessions, despite a damning French intelligence report that showed him to be a threat. Frenzied agents were blocked at every path. But the same happened to FBI agents in Phoenix, Chicago, and New York and on and on.

But let’s just amplify on the first two facts above. Second only to the loss of 3,000 innocent lives and its associated property damage is the paramount fact about 9/11, namely, there was an 80-minute "outage" in standard response. Airliners or, indeed general aviation, running around willy-nilly are a threat to public safety. So flying in authorized "channels" was strict policy before 9/11, not just after. FAA regulations had instructed air traffic controllers that an aircraft emergency exists when "there is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with…any aircraft…If…you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency." Any deviation from plan and non-response is considered a real emergency.

The FAA manual specified what happens at the intercept of an totally unresponsive plane, quoting Griffin: "Rocking wings…conveys the message: ‘You have been intercepted.’ The commercial jet is then supposed to respond by rocking its wings to indicate compliance, upon which the interceptor performs a ‘slow level turn, normally to the left, on to the desired heading.’ The commercial plane then responds by following the escort." Non-response, according to standard procedures, risks a shoot down. Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder, a NORAD spokesman, told the Boston Globe that NORAD's "fighters routinely intercept aircraft" and explained, "Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane’s path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile."

According to military regulations, a hijacking meant that the National Military Command Center "will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exceptions of requests needing an immediate response…forward requests for DoD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval." Immediate response means that many people in the line of command would have had the authority to prevent AA Flight 11 from slamming into WTC North. Anybody who believes that highly-trained military commanders, the guys in the killing and maiming business, sit around and dither over a potential loss of civilian life during a military emergency, paralyzed, even with well-established procedures in place, needs to get back in touch with planet earth.

The Secretary of Defense was at the Pentagon the morning of 9/11, busy discussing terrorism with Congressman Christopher Cox, pleading for more money and impressing him with his predictive powers. At 8:44 a.m., according to AP, Rumsfeld said, "There will be another event. There will be another event." Two minutes later, AA Flight 11 slammed into WTC North. Watching television at 9:35 a.m., Rumsfeld wowed Cox again by saying, "Believe me, this isn’t over yet. There’s going to be another attack, and it could be us." A few moments later, at 9:38, the Pentagon was hit. Attacks in New York? No fighters were put over Washington.

I remember watching both wounded WTC Towers on television and my first reaction was, "Those buildings won’t fall." When they did, I couldn’t believe it. After the airliners penetrated and jet fuel was burning (that couldn’t last long), the buildings were quiet, motionless, and stable. Photos show that the fires were small and the dark smoke indicated that they were suffocating. Such fires could never bring the temperature up enough to melt steel. That’s why no steel-framed building before the alleged 9/11 exception has ever collapsed solely because of fire.

Further, the South Tower was struck 17 minutes later than the North Tower, yet collapsed 29 minutes earlier. This is suspicious in view of the fact that the South Tower fire was much smaller (the plane hit the corner and dumped most of its fuel outside). The only explanation that fits all the physical facts is controlled demolition: internal explosions at various levels shattered the three buildings and rapidly collapsed them within 10 seconds, including the "mysterious" collapse of the 47-story, steel-framed WTC 7. The physical facts support a "politically-incorrect, engineering theory," if there ever was such a thing, at every turn. For example, rather than collapsing into broken pieces, 100,000 tons of concrete in the floors were vaporized into the dust we saw in the air and on fleeing people. That takes an enormous amount of energy. We’re supposed to believe that a suffocating hydrocarbon fire high up in each Tower caused this? Physically impossible.

But where’s that Boeing 757 that was AA Flight 77 if it didn’t crash into the Pentagon? Danged if I know. There were unconfirmed reports of a plane crash in Ohio and Kentucky but it’s unexplained. And how could any group even contemplate such a conspiracy? Ever since the 1898 Spanish-American war, the dossier of foreign policy betrayals is thicker than you might think. The Gulf of Tonkin incident, for example, was completely bogus but perceived as real enough at the time to boost lucky Lyndon into a "war president."

Well, that’s enough for now. Facts are stubborn things. Read the book. Educate yourself and others. Prepare to be regaled by government’s investigation of itself, courtesy of the 9/11 Commission this July. Failing to ask disturbing questions about physical evidence or anything else, its report on the parade of Kabuki artists lying before it will make for some "fantastic" reading.

March 26, 2004

Morgan Reynolds [send him mail], retired professor of economics at Texas A&M University and former chief economist, US Department of Labor, lives in Hot Springs Village, Arkansas.

Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com

posted 04-07-2004 09:53 PM            

http://www.media-criticism.com/911_video_fakes_01_2004.html

Tragedy can teach us many things. Some of the lessons we draw from September 11, 2001 are surprising.

For starters, jets flying 450+ M.P.H. into steel buildings make no noise on impact. This is verified with two sources. If you rent the Naudet Brothers’s documentary “911”, fast-forward the tape to where the firemen investigate the gas leak. Seconds later Gedeon Naudet presumably shoots American Airlines 11 (AA 11) flying into the North Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC). We hear the sound of the plane. We hear the explosions. We hear people yelling with astonishment. However, there is no audio of the impact.

Similarly, CNN broadcast footage which shows the same anomaly. (This is said to be from an amateur shooting from the Battery; i.e., the famous shot of United Airlines 175 striking the South Tower seen from the south.) In the audio sequence we hear the sound of the jet plane arriving, the explosions and then people reacting with horror at the spectacular fireball. However, there is no impact sound.

All of the other footage that the TV networks aired of planes striking the WTC disaster is silent. There appears to be no audio of the impacts of either Flight 11 or Flight 175 striking the World Trade Center.

Another lesson learned from 9-11 is that jet planes flying 450+ M.P.H. into steel buildings do not have any parts break off and fall to the ground below. Let’s begin with the already-mentioned CNN video from the south. When reviewing the videotape we can see that UA 175 actually enters the South Tower without any part of a wing, no part of the fuselage, not even a beverage tray breaking off on impact.

Previous experiments on land with heavy objects (e.g., cars, rockets) striking walls at high speed all show large amounts of metallic confetti produced at the juncture of the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object. Still, all of the video footage aired by the news networks capture UA 175 striking and entering the South Tower like a hot knife cuts through melted butter. The extent to the trauma caused from the plane's impact with the building is typically a single flash which quickly appears and disappears in the span of a single frame.

Another surprise with the video footage of UA 175 striking the South Tower is that it is silver. This is the color of American Airlines’s fleet. Unfortunately, United Airlines has a grey and dark-blue color scheme.

Strangely, UA 175 is also not affected by the Sun. For example, sometime during the day of 9/11/01 CNN broadcast more “amateur” footage of UA 175 from a position east of the WTC. In this footage we see the jet arriving in silhouette. It remains in shadow until it disappears into the South Tower.

Yet, UA 175 presumably struck the South Tower at 9:03 a.m. on 9/11/01. It was a beautiful day. The Sun was coming low and to the east at that hour. When shooting UA 175 from the same compass point it should not be in silhouette as it arrives. Now, perhaps the WTC blocks its light as UA 175 draws near. Still, with UA presumably hundreds of feet away from the Twin Towers there is nothing to block the eastern light. The video footage with it arriving from this compass point should not be showing a jet in silhouette.

Shooting video of jet planes which are not affected by sunlight and which do not leave any sound (or material) behind when colliding with immense steel towers might be a challenge for some videographers. However, most of the known amateurs who managed to shoot this highly unique catastrophe employed the professional technique of zooming-out just prior to the arrival of the moment of maximum visual interest.

Consider the spectacular footage of UA 175 striking the South Tower that is currently being sold by Camera Planet. We see (silver) UA 175 arriving. It quickly disappears behind a building. The camera operator suddenly executes a manual zoom-out. The zoom is accomplished in only one second. A small fraction of a second after the camera is zoomed-out UA 175 briefly reappears (in shadow). Then it strikes the South Tower and a spectacular fireball results.

What’s unusual about this? Let's remember how they are made. Zooms are either made manually or automatically. Manual zooms are made by reaching for the lens and turning it. Automatic ones are accomplished by reaching for and then holding down a button on the camera. The Camera Planet zoom-out was made in one second suggesting that it was a manual zoom.

The camera operator starts out presumably holding the camera with two hands, using the stronger of the two as the primary one. While holding it this way he follows the once-in-a-millenium-low-flying jet coming in to strike the South Tower of the World Trade Center. The moment the plane disappears from view he grabs his lens and radically alters the picture. Fortunately, this alteration concludes milliseconds before the plane reappears. There is no problem with grabbing the lens and turning it without hesitation in the correct direction. The zoom-out also doesn't go too far. Finally, the subject does not need reframing mid-way through it. (I'm assuming the author is male because a man takes credit in Camera Plant's voiceover.)

Perhaps this footage was simply a miraculous fluke. Curiously, almost all of the other footage that the TV networks broadcast of UA 175 striking the South Tower features an interesting zoom-out just as the action gets most interesting. New York City was chock full of amateur videographers that day who are highly skilled at making zooms midway through sensational subject matter.

CNN’s infamous view from the south shows the camera is examining the WTC in relative close-up as the North Tower burns. Suddenly, the amateur shooting it expertly zooms out. A second later UA 175 arrives.

Other footage aired by the TV networks from a vantage point east of the WTC show the North Tower close. Then the camera zooms-out, briefly waits and UA 175 arrives.

Pavel Hlava, the lucky Czech immigrant construction worker who managed to shoot both the North and South towers getting hit (between taking the Brooklyn Battery tunnel) has allowed his video to be screened exactly once on network television (09/13/03, Good Morning America. Also Fox News has reported that his agent, Walter Karling, will not give out his phone number and will not speak to the Associated Press.). Still, Hlava’s footage of the South Tower hit, which was very similar to CNN’s footage from the south, follows the pattern. Hlava features a close-up of the North tower burning. Then he expertly zooms out just as UA 175 arrives.

Why did all of these amateur videographers risk losing their subject zoom-out just as UA 175 arrives? Didn’t they feel that the subject matter was already of intense interest to them? Surely this scene didn't need dramatic embellishment added.

The lessons learned from 9/11/01 are unbelievable. The video documentation reveals that jets can fly into steel buildings silently and as efficiently as a hand enters a glove. The Sun also doesn't shine on UA 175; UA 175 remains largely shrouded in shadow even when it is videotaped from the direction of the morning light on a cloudless day. In addition, there are many amateur videographers in New York city with proven credentials with live footage that rival the professionals who cover the Super Bowl. Space precludes mentioning other serious logical problems with the footage.

Either all of these things are true or the TV networks screened video sequences that were fabrications. Thus, tragic events of international consequence are no longer being covered by the news media today. They are being manufactured with needed deceptions taken care of with the assistance of the national news media.

posted 04-08-2004 10:43 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolf_Larson:
Nice picture, Mech. How many of the perimeter columns have been completely severed?

---

More important that not all perimeter columns were severed.

Columns not severed would act as hinges, bending as the building collapsed into the area of greatest damage.

No evidence yet shows cause for simultaneous collapse of all columns on all floors, sequentially, and uniformly;
as would be required for the pancaking that clearly occurred.

posted 04-08-2004 03:01 PM            

I finally seen the pod and the flash on the crash into the wtc 2. Using the frame by frame it does seem as if something is being shot out of the pod which is then followed by an orange flash before the plane makes contact with the building. I found the clip earlier on one of the links posted but now I can't seem to find it on any of them. (it was a closeup of wtc 2 being hit)

Here's something that came to my mind today:

But first, I've read statements that have been made about the debris from the wtc being hauled off and shipped overseas to be scrapped and sold. I tried finding info on this but i couldn't find much with detail. Does anyone have a good link(s) about this?

Ok,here goes, it is a well known fact that ballistics and forensics experts can lift residue from a gunshot blast off someones clothes, deterimine dna and fingerprints data so logic should be that if an explosive or group of explosives went off in the wtcs wouldn't there be explosives residue left behind on the concrete, steel, and sounding area? If this were to be found that is all the evidence needed to indicate what really happened that day.

I strongly believe that if the debris was scraped someone out there had to have kept a piece of it, someone who said wow this is to important to be scrapped and kept it. If scraps were saved and the demolitons theory is true there should be residue proving a demo blast. Does anyone know of tests conducted on the debris or surrounding buildings to prove a controlled blasts? (Even the smoke should have left some sort of chemical signature)

posted 04-08-2004 03:49 PM            

All the salvageable debris was shipped for scrap to Communist China.The rest went into Fresh Kills landfill UNDER GUARD.

911: THE ROAD TO TYRANNY

http://www.c0balt.com/resources/911/download.shtml

OR.

GO TO

http://tv.phaseiii.org/

Sign up for an account and you get 60 MB of downloadable documentary movies for free every month.