The 7/7 Report

[sparticus]

In response to the Q, are there insiders who have spoken out on the theories of pods, missisles, disappearing planes, faked phone calls and WTC demolition

Answer: No, off the top of my head I can't recall any, unless in relation to the POSSIBILITY of WTC demolition, you count inside reports of security stand downs at the WTC complex in the days and week prior to 9/11 and firefighters and others reporting secondary explosions (which may or may not actually have been demolition charges). In relation to WTC investigation there are people like Kevin Ryan, but I know you don't count him as credible

There are many challengers who do not act like 'conspiraloonspuds'

 

[tarannau]

There are many challengers who do not act like 'conspiraloonspuds'

You are aware that two of the main 9-11 conspiracy theorists on this board are currently spouting a load of guff about aliens controlling our society/'race', yoda-Mason comparisons and allsorts of humorously hatstand rubbish on the general forum. Go read if you haven't - they're a hoot.

Most of us here are cynical of Govt intentions. But there's a huge difference between that and 'challengers' who inflate their importance as 'truth seekers' and have no concept of reasonable evidence or balanced reporting.

 

[editor]

Answer: No, off the top of my head I can't recall any, unless in relation to the POSSIBILITY of WTC demolition,

So, not a single shred of evidence or a whistleblower in sight, then.

 

[Jazzz]

Bullshit. The Antagonist linked to my blog and directed people there, he deliberately misquoted my u75 account to say there were no bombs, leavig out the bits where I described the bomb.

But this was exactly what I said - this chap said the explosions were as a result of power surges rather than bombs. But he didn't say there weren't explosions.

This was just one guy, and of course I don't condone any abuse that you have received, nor his silly bus theory, nor anyone accusing you of being MI5, but I was just objecting to laptop's version which has sceptics coming out of the blue to attack you because there was plenty coming the other way too.

Anyway that will be all from me on that I guess there is little to be gained from raking over it.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

BK, please bear in mind that it would be an absolute pleasure, the next time you hold one of these meetings, to be there in a supporting role, and should any of these "9/11 truth movement" idiots so much as let a pin drop whilst you are speaking then hypothetically they could be dragged out and given a taste of free speech.

I'd like to think they would need to think twice before calling any of the survivors liars.

And I'd like to photograph them.

And maybe even crack a few in the head.

I'm sure I'm not alone.

I'd rather hope you were.

 

[sparticus]

So, not a single shred of evidence or a whistleblower in sight, then.

No, there is evidence to challenge the official accounts of the triple tower collapses and reasons to question the shifting official accounts of the mobile phone calls. It is then a question of testing this evidence, but the evidence exists in the forms of video footage, technical anlaysis, etc, and I know you are familiar with it.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Of course, official accounts are never complete and never wholly consistent and always involve a certain amount of arse-covering from any number of the individuals involved. Which ensures that it can always be challenged: which ensures that there's always plenty of tedious and obsessive fuckers who will do precisely that.

 

[editor]

No, there is evidence to challenge the official accounts of the triple tower collapses and reasons to question the shifting official accounts of the mobile phone calls. It is then a question of testing this evidence, but the evidence exists in the forms of video footage, technical anlaysis, etc, and I know you are familiar with it.

Forget the conspiraloon interpretations about 'evidence', I'm talking about the complete absence of whistle-blowers from an operation that would have involved thousands of people, either directly or indirectly, coupled with a conspiracy of silence from experts who presumably would have no problem spotting the supposedly blatant 'anomalies' claimed by unqualified bedroom 'truth seekers.'

Five years on and not a peep from people privy to the story of the century! Imagine how much they'd get for telling the press their story - and yet no one's come forward from anywhere in the world.

Remarkable!

 

[Azrael23]

Yeah I`d imagine theres a great incentive if you were involved in 9/11 to want to talk about it.

I can see you as a detective now...

"Ok guys, you can go home, don`t worry about it"

"But sir we have 2000 bodies here!"

"exactly such a brutal atrocity must have involved at least 40 people.....we just have to wait for the whistleblowers if anything suspicious did happen here"

"but sir!?"

"shut up!!! YOU LOON!!!....goddamn rookies...." *lights cigar..

 

[editor]

"shut up!!! YOU LOON!!!....goddamn rookies...." *lights cigar..

That's a load of gibberish.

Still, anything to avoid addressing the issues, eh?

 

[Azrael23]

Its not gibberish, I`m just taking the michael!

Yeah Im avoiding the issues...its because I`m scared of your witty retorts and outbursts of knowledge.

 

[editor]

Its not gibberish, I`m just taking the michael!

Yeah Im avoiding the issues...its because I`m scared of your witty retorts and outbursts of knowledge.

If you're unable to come up with anything approaching intelligent, relevant - or indeed, sane - responses kindly leave the thread and go play elsewhere.

 

[nino_savatte]

No, there is evidence to challenge the official accounts of the triple tower collapses and reasons to question the shifting official accounts of the mobile phone calls. It is then a question of testing this evidence, but the evidence exists in the forms of video footage, technical anlaysis, etc, and I know you are familiar with it.

Really? Let's see it then.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Oh, let's not and say we did.

 

[Azrael23]

But whats the point in demanding to see something your only going to dismiss? You`ve made your mind up, lets hope for all our sakes your right....

I hope you realise the conquences of what happened that day, and whose gained from it? Nothing happens in isolation. You got to see the big picture (sorry for the cliche)

 

[Blagsta]

But whats the point in demanding to see something your only going to dismiss? You`ve made your mind up, lets hope for all our sakes your right....

I hope you realise the conquences of what happened that day, and whose gained from it? Nothing happens in isolation. You got to see the big picture (sorry for the cliche)

YOU HAVEN'T GOT ANY EVIDENCE.

Will you go away now? Or (even better) see your GP? I'm sure there's an intelligent person there underneath the delusions and paranoia.

 

[editor]

But whats the point in demanding to see something your only going to dismiss?

How about you produce some credible evidence first?

If it's credible, well sourced, it will be hard to dismiss but I look forward to the challenge.

Oh, of course. I forgot.
You haven't got any credible evidence so you make stuff up instead.

 

[vimto]

So what happened to American Air Defences after the first plane flew into the first tower of the WTC?

Serious btw.

Sounds fishy to me

 

[laptop]

So what happened to American Air Defences after the first plane flew into the first tower of the WTC?

Which bit of "total fucking confusion" is so hard to understand?

 

[vimto]

Which bit of "total fucking confusion" is so hard to understand?

So why dont you enlighten me then dear sir

 

[vimto]

No conspiralloon theories if you dont mind laptop

 

[editor]

Sounds fishy to me

Hey! Here's an idea! Why not do some research for yourself first and then present an argument based on something a little more meaningful than "sounds fishy?"

You could start here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1253.shtml

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Hey! Here's an idea! Why not do some research for yourself first and then present an argument based on something a little more meaningful than "sounds fishy?"

You could start here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1253.shtml

That first one is interesting, hadn't seen a good explanation of the WTC 7 collapse untill now.

 

[Jazzz]

So why dont you enlighten me then dear sir

If I can help out laptop, I assume he is referring to the plethora of wargames being undertaken on the day of 9/11, and which weren't stopped when the real thing kicked off

It is clear that at least five if not six training exercises were in operation in the days leading up to and on the morning of 9/11. This meant that NORAD radar screens showed as many as 22 hijacked airliners at the same time. NORAD had been briefed that this was part of the exercise drill and therefore normal reactive procedure was forestalled and delayed.

The large numbers of 'blips' on NORAD screens that displayed both real and 'drill' hijacked planes explain why confused press reports emerged hours after the attack stating that up to eight planes had been hijacked.

Also, the redeployment of fighter jets to exercises meant that only 14 fighter jets were left to protect the entire continental United States.

 

[Jonti]

That first one is interesting, hadn't seen a good explanation of the WTC 7 collapse untill now.

The explanation of the collapse of the WTC twin towers was well publicised very soon after the collapse, and the Popular Mechanics article gives the explanation I've long understood to be the one accepted by structural engineers. Good work.

But, as a matter of fact, that particular article does not deal with the WTC7 collapse at all -- it only discusses the collapse of the twin towers.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

The explanation of the collapse of the WTC twin towers was well publicised very soon after the collapse, and the Popular Mechanics article gives the explanation I've long understood to be the one accepted by structural engineers. Good work.

But, as a matter of fact, that particular article does not deal with the WTC7 collapse at all -- it only discusses the collapse of the twin towers.

WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."
<sniped for length>
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

No, no mention of WTC 7 at all. (That'll teach ya to read more carefully ) (Page 5, 1/3 down to end of page)

 

[Jonti]

Steady, that's a claim, not an explanation.

Admittedly the articles are light on real explanatory power, but I've understood the explanation of the WTC Twin Towers collapse as being a lot to do with the load bearing walls used in its construction; and the high temperature of the blaze ignited by the enormous amounts of kersosene spilled into the buildings struck by the planes. The article does not state the same method of construction was used for WTC7 as for the Twin Towers; nor does it claim that WTC7 was struck by a plane, as were each of the Twin Towers.

So it seems one needs an explanation specific to that particular structure and the circumstances of its collapse, and that is not provided by the cited article. There may well be a fuller account (more science, less assertion) elsewhere. I'd like to see it, that's all.

 

[editor]

But, as a matter of fact, that particular article does not deal with the WTC7 collapse at all -- it only discusses the collapse of the twin towers.

I often wonder why I bother posting up links if people can't be arsed to read them properly.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

etc etc etc

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Steady, that's a claim, not an explanation.

Well since you didn't read it at all the first time i shouldn't be surprised that you didn't read it propperly the second.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

 

[Jonti]

My whoopsie. I got into a firefight elsewhere and had only checked the specific (first) link you mentioned, rather than just treating as a starting point as suggested.

Normal service will resume shortly.

eta: I understand now. I'd read through from the link supplied until I found the page which starts with the heading THE WORLD TRADE CENTER

But the relevant info about WTC7 is on page 5 which starts with the heading Seismic Spikes