9/11 Conspiracy Theory - NOT! How to Demolish a Building

[eots]

People are always adding speculation to facts in an attempt to re-write or, add to history.

This is one of those cases and regardless of how much time and money is spent in all the 'investigations' to come, nothing truly new (and true) can ever be added.

says who ?

 

[dilloduck]

not surprised your willing to fund billions for a invasion of another country based on lies or just accept the missing trillions from the pentagon but not to know the truth ,that you want me to pay for .the mock commission had a budget of 3 million so 6 might buy some real answers a small price to pay in relation to all that

WHY----There will ALWAYS be people who will absolutely REFUSE to believe what they don't want to hear. Show me any official inquiry that everyone believes and considers to be precise, definative and complete.

 

[eots]

in this case not even the commission members themselves feels that way...certainly we have to do better than that

 

[dilloduck]

in this case not even the commission members themselves feels that way...certainly we have to do better than that

Honestly--just what exactly do you expect to find out ? That there is something else that you have no control over?

 

[eots]

Honestly--just what exactly do you expect to find out ? That there is something else that you have no control over?

I would expect to find out that there was prior knowledge of 9/11
and the exact time and targets where known ,that NORAD was manipulated in to a stand down that building 7 was a planed demolition as where the towers

I alone don't have control...we the people however..and I fear nothing

 

[dilloduck]

I would expect to find out that there was prior knowledge of 9/11
and the exact time and targets where known ,that NORAD was manipulated in to a stand down that building 7 was a planed demolition as where the towers

I alone don't have control...we the people however..and I fear nothing

Then there is no way another inquiry would be of any benefit at all. You have already decided what the "truth" is. How about if I just agree that there was a big old nasty plot. Would it make you feel any better?

 

[eots]

Then there is no way another inquiry would be of any benefit at all. You have already decided what the "truth" is. How about if I just agree that there was a big old nasty plot. Would it make you feel any better?

NO it would not, only this would

Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11:
"We want truthful answers to question. … As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things:
An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.
Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.
The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry."

 

[eots]

America's Number One Collapse Expert Thought WTC Bombed
FDNY commander said south tower implosion "too even" to be caused by jet fuel

Prison Planet | September 10, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson

A man described as "the premiere collapse expert in the country" thought the collapse of the south tower of the WTC was caused by explosives and not jet fuel, before the implosion of the north tower killed him on 9/11.

Deputy Chief Ray Downey, the head of the FDNY's Special Operations Command, was also described by colleagues as "the most knowledgeable person on building collapses there was," and 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer referred to Downey as a "very, very respected expert on building collapse."

According to a World Trade Center Task Force interview with FDNY' Chaplain Father John Delendick, immediately after the collapse of the south tower at 9:59am, Delendick met with Downey below the nearby World Financial Center and asked him if jet fuel had brought about the bizarre and sudden implosion of the building. According to Delendick, Downey "said at that point he thought there were bombs up there because it was too even."


Deputy Chief Raymond M. Downey, Commanding Officer of the Special Operations Command (SOC), died in the line of duty, while helping others escape from the fire and collapse scene of the twin towers at the World Trade Center on Tuesday, September 11, 2001.
Downey was a highly respected figure, having commanded rescue operations at both the 1993 WTC bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. His colleagues simply referred to him as "God" or "The Master of Disaster".

Downey was a 39-year FDNY veteran and the most highly decorated firefighter in its history.

Fire Chief Mike Antonucci , Downey's best friend, said that Downey's hobby was "To study building collapses, what affected the engineering of buildings, how they [would] weaken and how he could respond and stay safe."

The weight of Downey's eyewitness testimony and his conclusion that bombs brought down the south tower is of massive significance as we approach the anniversary of 9/11, a date of mourning for Downey's family due to the fact that he was tragically killed later that day following the collapse of the north tower as he tried to help others escape.

Downey's testimony is added to the assertions of hundreds of leading academics, scientists, former government and military officials and researchers , who have all questioned the impossible collapse of both the twin towers and WTC 7, and singled out incendiary or explosive devices as the only means by which the structures could have fell in the manner they did.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well except there is no evidence he said anything of the sort, he did not "testify" to anything, he died in the attack. He did not have time to study anything, read investigators reports or research and investigate himself.

Now your using dead heroes to play your idiotic games.

I am still waiting, what happened to the aircraft, passengers and crew of the other two aircraft? Why have literally hundreds of investigators from local through federal government been in on the cover up? For 6 years?

How is it that no air craft debris was at the Pentagon AND the wrong debris was there? it can not be both, they EXCLUDE one another.

What missile causes the damage at the Pentagon?

How come no one ever saw any explosives, damaged walls, cut up support beams and the wiring to set it all off in the three buildings you claim were brought down by explosives?

Where are the Pilots, flight crew, ammo techs, ready room personnel, ground crews, security, Tower personnel and the myrid other people that run an air base to testify about the supposed order to stand down? Why have all these people remained silent for 6 years?

How is it Bush and company planned and executed this attack in less than 9 months with no leaks before during or after going on six years BUT they can not keep secret supposed invasion plans for Iran?

 

[eots]

Well except there is no evidence he said anything of the sort, he did not "testify" to anything, he died in the attack. He did not have time to study anything, read investigators reports or research and investigate himself.

Now your using dead heroes to play your idiotic games.

I am still waiting, what happened to the aircraft, passengers and crew of the other two aircraft? Why have literally hundreds of investigators from local through federal government been in on the cover up? For 6 years?

How is it that no air craft debris was at the Pentagon AND the wrong debris was there? it can not be both, they EXCLUDE one another.

What missile causes the damage at the Pentagon?

How come no one ever saw any explosives, damaged walls, cut up support beams and the wiring to set it all off in the three buildings you claim were brought down by explosives?

Where are the Pilots, flight crew, ammo techs, ready room personnel, ground crews, security, Tower personnel and the myrid other people that run an air base to testify about the supposed order to stand down? Why have all these people remained silent for 6 years?

How is it Bush and company planned and executed this attack in less than 9 months with no leaks before during or after going on six years BUT they can not keep secret supposed invasion plans for Iran?

wheres bin laden , how many people have been arrested for the crime of 911
why cant we see the film footage of the Pentagon .why does physics make the collapse wtc 7 impossible .how was mk ultra , the liberty ,mosadec etc etc ever kept secret for so long

 

[eots]

September 2000: PNAC Report Recommends Policies that Need ‘New Pearl Harbor’ for Quick Implementation
People involved in the 2000 PNAC report (from top left): Vice President Cheney, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Cheney Chief of Staff I. Lewis Libby, Undersecretary of State John Bolton, Undersecretary of Defense Dov Zakheim, and author Eliot Cohen. [Source: Public domain]The neoconservative think tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC) writes a “blueprint” for the “creation of a ‘global Pax Americana’” (see also June 3, 1997). The strategy document, entitled, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century,” is written for George W. Bush’s team before the 2000 Presidential election. The document was commissioned by future Vice President Cheney, future Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, future Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Florida Governor Jeb Bush (Bush’s brother), and future Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff Lewis Libby. [Project for the New American Century, 9/2000, pp. iv and 51 ]
The document outlines a “blueprint for maintaining global US preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests.”
PNAC states further: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
PNAC calls for the control of space through a new “US Space Forces,” the political control of the Internet, and the subversion of any growth in political power of even close allies, and advocates “regime change” in China, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, and other countries.
It also mentions that “advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”
However, PNAC complains that thes changes are likely to take a long time, “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” [Los Angeles Times, 1/12/2003] One month later during a presidential debate with Al Gore, Bush will assert that he wants a “humble” foreign policy in the Middle East and says he is against toppling Saddam Hussein in Iraq because it smacks of “nation building” (see October 11, 2000). Around the same time, Cheney will similarly defend Bush’s position of maintaining Clinton’s policy not to attack Iraq, asserting that the US should not act as though “we were an imperialist power, willy-nilly moving into capitals in that part of the world, taking down governments.” [Washington Post, 1/12/2002] Author Craig Unger will later comment, “Only a few people who had read the papers put forth by the Project for a New American Century might have guessed a far more radical policy had been developed.” [Salon, 3/15/2004] A British member of Parliament will later say of the PNAC report, “This is a blueprint for US world domination—a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world.” [Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 9/7/2002] Both PNAC and its strategy plan for Bush are almost virtually ignored by the media until a few weeks before the start of the Iraq war (see February-March 20, 2003).
Entity Tags: Project for the New American Century, Peter Rodman, Paula J. Dobriansky, Saddam Hussein, Steve Rosen, North Korea, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William J. Bennett, Vin Weber, United States, Syria, Steve Forbes, Norman Podhoretz, Richard ("Dick") Cheney, Lybia, Donald Rumsfeld, Donald Kagan, Eliot A. Cohen, Dan Quayle, China, Aaron Friedberg, Midge Decter, Elliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Frank Gaffney, John Ellis ("Jeb") Bush, Francis Fukuyama, Lewis ("Scooter") Libby, Iraq, Hasam Amin, Henry S. Rowen, Fred C. Ikle, George Weigel
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion

October 11, 2000: Candidate Bush Falsely Asserts ‘Humble’ Middle East Foreign Policy Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush describes a Middle East foreign policy he would implement that is very different from the policy described in the papers that his advisers have drawn up. On this day, Bush takes part in the second presidential debate with Democratic candidate Al Gore. The topic is foreign policy. Questioned when it would be appropriate to use American military force, especially with regard to the Middle East, Bush responds, “Our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power. And that’s why we’ve got to be humble and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom… If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll view us that way, but if we’re a humble nation, they’ll respect us.” Bush dismisses toppling Saddam Hussein in Iraq because it smacks of what he calls “nation-building.” He criticizes the Clinton administration for not maintaining the multilateral anti-Iraq coalition Bush Sr. had built in the Gulf War. Author Craig Unger will later comment, “To the tens of millions of voters who had their eyes trained on their televisions, Bush had put forth a moderate foreign policy with regard to the Middle East that was not substantively different from the policy proposed by Al Gore, or, for that matter, from Bill Clinton’s. Only a few people who had read the papers put forth by the Project for a New American Century might have guessed a far more radical policy had been developed.” [Salon, 3/15/2004] Just one month before, the Project for a New American Century released a position paper that went completely unnoticed by the media at the time (see September 2000). Many future Bush administration officials, including Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz are involved with the paper. It articulates a bold new policy to establish a more forceful US military presence in the Middle East. Regarding Iraq, it states, “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” [Salon, 3/15/2004] From Bush’s first cabinet meeting in January 2001, the focus will be on getting rid of Hussein. Secretary of Treasury Paul O’Neill will later recall, “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go… From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime. Day one, these things were laid and sealed” (see (January 30, 2001)). Cheney similarly misstates his true foreign policy intentions. In an NBC interview during the 2000 presidential campaign, Cheney defends Bush’s position of maintaining Clinton’s policy not to attack Iraq, asserting that the US should not act as though “we were an imperialist power, willy-nilly moving into capitals in that part of the world, taking down governments.” [Washington Post, 1/12/2002]
Entity Tags: Al Gore, Project for the New American Century, Richard ("Dick") Cheney, George W. Bush
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline
September 11, 2001: Bush Administration Said to Have No Clear Foreign Policy An editorial in the Washington Post published hours before the 9/11 attacks reads, “When it comes to foreign policy, we have a tongue-tied administration. After almost eight months in office, neither President Bush nor Secretary of State Colin Powell has made any comprehensive statement on foreign policy. It is hard to think of another administration that has done so little to explain what it wants to do in foreign policy.” [Washington Post, 9/11/2001] Two months before Bush’s election, many key members of Bush’s future administration signed a Project for the New American Century report that advocates a very aggressive US foreign policy. One British Member of Parliament will later call it a “blueprint for US world domination”(see September 2000). Yet there has been little sign of the foreign policy goals advocated in this report in the eight months before 9/11.
Entity Tags: Bush administration, George W. Bush, Colin Powell
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline
October 29, 2001: Rumsfeld Establishes Office of Force Transformation
Arthur Cebrowski. [Source: Publicity photo]Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announces the establishment of a new unit within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, called the Office of Force Transformation (OFT). Rumsfeld had called for the establishment of this office “as part of President Bush’s broad mandate to transform the Department of Defense. This transformation process challenges the organizational status quo with a new architecture for American defense in order to ensure an overwhelming and continuing competitive advantage for America’s military for decades to come.” He appoints retired Navy Vice Admiral Arthur Cebrowski—the former president of the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island—as its director. [US Department of Defense, 11/26/2001] Also recruited for this new department, as assistant for strategic futures, is Thomas Barnett, a senior strategic researcher at the Naval War College. As the “vision guy,” Barnett’s job is “to generate and deliver a compelling brief that would mobilize the Defense Department toward generating the future fighting force demanded by the post-9/11 strategic environment.” Barnett claims that, over time, senior military officials will come to cite his brief as “a Rosetta stone for the Bush Administration’s new national security strategy.” [Barnett, 2004, pp. 5-6] Prior to 9/11, Barnett was the director of a research partnership between the Naval War College and the Wall Street bond firm Cantor Fitzgerald, called the New Rule Sets Project (see May 1, 2000-June 4, 2001). Considering that the OFT is a personal initiative of the defense secretary, it is interesting that Rumsfeld was in the late 1990s one of the founders of the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC) (see June 3, 1997). [BBC, 8/25/2005; Washington Post, 6/12/2006; Federal Computer Week, 9/4/2006] In September 2000, PNAC published a strategy document called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (see September 2000). Among other things, this laid out the need to establish “four core missions” for US military forces, one of these being to “transform US forces to exploit the ‘revolution in military affairs.’” The OFT appears to be fulfilling this mission. However, the PNAC document had continued, “the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” [Project for the New American Century, 9/2000, pp. iv and 51 ]
Entity Tags: Office of Force Transformation, Donald Rumsfeld, Thomas Barnett, Art Cebrowski
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline

February-March 20, 2003: Stories About PNAC Global Domination Agenda Gets Some Media Coverage With war against Iraq imminent, numerous media outlets finally begin reporting on PNAC’s role in influencing Iraq policy specifically, and US foreign policy generally. PNAC’s plans for global domination had been noted before 9/11 [Washington Post, 8/21/2001] , and PNAC’s 2000 report (see September 2000) recommending the conquest of Iraq even if Saddam Hussein is not in power was first reported in September 2002 [Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 9/7/2002] , but there are few follow-up mentions until February 2003. (Exceptions: [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 9/29/2002; Bangor Daily News, 10/18/2002; New Statesman, 12/16/2002; Los Angeles Times, 1/12/2003] ) Many of these articles use PNAC to suggest that global and regional domination is the real reason for the Iraq war. Coverage increases as war gets nearer, but many media outlets still fail to do any reporting on this, and some of the reporting that is done is not prominently placed (a New York Times article on the topic is buried in the Arts section! [New York Times, 3/11/2003] ). One Newsweek editorial notes that “not until the last few days” before war have many reasons against the war been brought up. It calls this “too little, too late” to make an impact. [Newsweek, 3/18/2003] (Articles that discuss PNAC before war begins: [Philadelphia Daily News, 1/27/2003; New York Times, 2/1/2003; PBS, 2/20/2003; Observer, 2/23/2003; Bergen Record, 2/23/2003; Guardian, 2/26/2003; Mother Jones, 3/2003; BBC, 3/2/2003; Observer, 3/2/2003; Der Spiegel (Hamburg), 3/4/2003; ABC News, 3/5/2003; Salon, 3/5/2003; Independent, 3/8/2003; Toronto Star, 3/9/2003; ABC News, 3/10/2003; Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 3/10/2003; CNN, 3/10/2003; Guardian, 3/11/2003; New York Times, 3/11/2003; American Prospect, 3/12/2003; Chicago Tribune, 3/12/2003; Globe and Mail, 3/14/2003; Japan Times, 3/14/2003; Sydney Morning Herald, 3/15/2003; Salt Lake Tribune, 3/15/2003; Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 3/16/2003; Observer, 3/16/2003; Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 3/16/2003; Toronto Star, 3/16/2003; Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 3/17/2003; Globe and Mail, 3/19/2003; Asia Times, 3/20/2003; Age (Melbourne), 3/20/2003] )
Entity Tags: Project for the New American Century
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline
September 6, 2003: British Cabinet Minister Hints US Government Knew of 9/11 in Advance
Michael Meacher. [Source: Global Free Press]British government minister Michael Meacher publishes an essay entitled, “The War on Terrorism is Bogus.” Meacher is a long time British Member of Parliament, and served as Environmental Minister for six years until three months before releasing this essay. The Guardian, which publishes the essay, states that Meacher claims “the war on terrorism is a smoke screen and that the US knew in advance about the September 11 attack on New York but, for strategic reasons, chose not to act on the warnings. He says the US goal is ‘world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies’ and that this Pax Americana ‘provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis.’ Mr. Meacher adds that the US has made ‘no serious attempt’ to catch the al-Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden.” [Guardian, 9/6/2003] Meacher provides no personal anecdotes based on his years in Tony Blair’s cabinet, but he cites numerous mainstream media accounts to support his thesis. He emphasizes the Project for the New American Century 2000 report (see September 2000) as a “blueprint” for a mythical “global war on terrorism,” “propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda—the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies” in Afghanistan and Iraq. [Guardian, 9/6/2003] Meacher’s stand causes a controversial debate in Britain, but the story is almost completely ignored by the mainstream US media.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

wheres bin laden , how many people have been arrested for the crime of 911
why cant we see the film footage of the Pentagon .why does physics make the collapse wtc 7 impossible .how was mk ultra , the liberty ,mosadec etc etc ever kept secret for so long

In other words you have no response. Thanks for playing.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Cut and paste is NOT your friend. But look on the bright side, you have a new buddy on the board just as delusional as you.

 

[Toro]

Cut and paste is NOT your friend.

No kidding.

I couldn't read that last post even if I wanted to.

 

[rOckNrOllsCar11]

No kidding.

I couldn't read that last post even if I wanted to.

I agree, it's a difficult piece to get through but you should.

How many flags must go up before the dots are connected?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I agree, it's a difficult piece to get through but you should.

How many flags must go up before the dots are connected?

Yes, I ask the same question, how many ignorant delusional theories must be defended against before the delusion is stopped.

Again, perhaps you can answer seen EOTS is unable. Where did the planes go? Where are the passengers and crew? Why have hundreds of investigators ranging from local to Federal government allowed the coverup to occur? Why have hundreds of Airmen, Air National Guard and air traffic controllers allowed the conspiracy to continue? What kind of missile hit the Pentagon, from where was it fired, from what source was it obtained, who fired it? How come people saw a plane hit the pentagon but NO ONE saw a missile? Which is it? No debris or the wrong debris?

Who Hijacked the air planes? If it was terrorists why were they doing Bush's bidding? Or how did Bush get detailed information on how, when and where they were going to attack before they did? If the other two planes never crashed, who hijacked them?

For explosives and demolotion to have occurred on the 3 buildings someone would have had to do it, and a lot more than a couple guys, they would have had to be experienced and trained in that type of work. Why have they remained silent all these years? Who were they? How come THOUSANDS of workers and visiters to the three buildings never saw any wiring, any explosives, no cut and prepared support beams and supports, no demolished walls?

Why have all the people in the NY City Government remained silent on the plan to destroy building 7 and their order to stay away?

Yes, your right there are a HELL of a lot of questions, most dealing with how delusional EOTS and his buddies are. Shall we add you to the list?

 

[eots]

YouTube - Marvin Bush & the WTC Power-Downs Just Prior to 9/11!Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truthhttp://www.ae911truth.org/9/11 911 9-11 truth http://www.911blogger.com/
[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=refFo_uITRE[/ame] - 101k -


YouTube - DONALD Rumsfeld pours out word from his mouth ...
can you do a search for that video about rumsfeld and ...
20 sec -
[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcR2MGzmn3o[/ame]

 

[eots]

911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB !!!!!!

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 ...This webpage provides responsible criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report by survivors of 9/11 and family members of those who perished.
www.patriotsquestion911.com/media.html - 388k -

 

[eots]

Ex-Italian President: Intel Agencies Know 9/11 An Inside Job
Man who blew the whistle on Gladio tells Italy's largest newspaper attacks were run by CIA, Mossad
Prison Planet | December 4, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson

Former Italian President and the man who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio Francesco Cossiga has gone public on 9/11, telling Italy's most respected newspaper that the attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad and that this was common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies.

Cossiga was elected President of Italian Senate in July 1983 before being winning a landslide 1985 election to become President of the country in 1985.

Cossiga gained respect from opposition parties as one of a rare breed - an honest politician - and led the country for seven years until April 1992.


Cossiga's tendency to be outspoken upset the Italian political establishment and he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio - a rogue intelligence network under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

Gladio's specialty was to carry out what they coined "false flag operations," terror attacks that were blamed on their domestic and geopolitical opposition.

Cossiga's revelations contributed to an Italian parliamentary investigation of Gladio in 2000, during which evidence was unearthed that the attacks were being overseen by the U.S. intelligence apparatus .

In March 2001, Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony, "You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force ... the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security."



Cossiga's new revelations appeared last week in Italy's oldest and most widely read newspaper, Corriere della Sera. Below appears a rough translation.

"[Bin Laden supposedly confessed] to the Qaeda September [attack] to the two towers in New York [claiming to be] the author of the attack of the 11, while all the [intelligence services] of America and Europe ... now know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the CIA American and the Mossad with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part ... in Iraq [and] Afghanistan."
Cossiga first expressed his doubts about 9/11 in 2001, and is quoted in Webster Tarpley's book as stating that "The mastermind of the attack must have been a “sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel.”

Coming from a widely respected former head of state, Cossiga's assertion that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and that this is common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies is highly unlikely to be mentioned by any establishment media outlets, because like the hundreds of other sober ex-government, military, air force professionals, allied to hundreds more professors and intellectuals - he can't be sidelined as a crackpot conspiracy theorist.

 

[the other mike]

My favourite 9/11 conspiracy theory is that it was blown up by thermite. Or is it termites? I can never remember.

Anyways, for anyone who is interested, here is how to destroy a building.

The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down.

Demolition blasters load explosives on several different levels of the building so that the building structure falls down on itself at multiple points. When everything is planned and executed correctly, the total damage of the explosives and falling building material is sufficient to collapse the structure entirely, so cleanup crews are left with only a pile of rubble.

In order to demolish a building safely, blasters must map out each element of the implosion ahead of time. The first step is to examine architectural blueprints of the building, if they can be located, to determine how the building is put together. Next, the blaster crew tours the building (several times), jotting down notes about the support structure on each floor. Once they have gathered all the raw data they need, the blasters hammer out a plan of attack. Drawing from past experiences with similar buildings, they decide what explosives to use, where to position them in the building and how to time their detonations. In some cases, the blasters may develop 3-D computer models of the structure so they can test out their plan ahead of time in a virtual world.

Wow, that sure sounds like a lot of work. It must have taken months to tour the WTC, load up the explosives and take out the support structures. All without any of the 50,000 people who work there knowing.


Amazing, isn't it!

According to Brent Blanchard, an implosion expert with the demolition consulting firm Protec Documentation Services, virtually every building in the world is unique. And for any given building, there are any number of ways a blasting crew might bring it down. Blanchard notes the demolition of the Hayes Homes, a 10-building housing project in Newark, New Jersey, which was demolished in three separate phases over the course of three years. "A different blasting firm performed each phase," Blanchard says, "and although all of the buildings were identical, each blaster chose a slightly different type of explosive and loaded varying numbers of support columns. They even brought the buildings down in different mathematical sequences, with varying amounts of time factored in between each building's collapse."

Those guys in New Jersey sure are stoopid. What took them three years took the Bush-linked government experts in the CIA/FBI/NSA/NHL 10 seconds!

Generally speaking, blasters will explode the major support columns on the lower floors first and then a few upper stories. In a 20-story building, for example, the blasters might blow the columns on the first and second floor, as well as the 12th and 15th floors. In most cases, blowing the support structures on the lower floors is sufficient for collapsing the building, but loading columns on upper floors helps break the building material into smaller pieces as it falls. This makes for easier cleanup following the blast.

Don't believe any of this nonsense about "support structures" needing to be taken out. That's just gobbledeegook designed to confuse you about what really happened on 9/11.

Actually, it was the termites that quietly ate away the support structure of the two buildings. Termites don't eat steel, you say? Yes they do. The CIA has been developing Supertermites for just this event.

Oh, wait, was it thermite?

The first step in preparation, which often begins before the blasters have actually surveyed the site, is to clear any debris out of the building. Next, construction crews, or, more accurately, destruction crews, begin taking out non-load-bearing walls within the building. This makes for a cleaner break at each floor: If these walls were left intact, they would stiffen the building, hindering its collapse. Destruction crews may also weaken the supporting columns with sledge hammers or steel-cutters, so that they give way more easily.

The easiest way to take out the support structures is to hire some scary looking foreigners to fly planes into the buildings.

Or holograms.

Next, blasters can start loading the columns with explosives. Blasters use different explosives for different materials, and determine the amount of explosives needed based on the thickness of the material. For concrete columns, blasters use traditional dynamite or a similar explosive material. Dynamite is just absorbent stuffing soaked in a highly combustible chemical or mixture of chemicals. When the chemical is ignited, it burns quickly, producing a large volume of hot gas in a short amount of time. This gas expands rapidly, applying immense outward pressure (up to 600 tons per square inch) on whatever is around it. Blasters cram this explosive material into narrow bore holes drilled in the concrete columns. When the explosives are ignited, the sudden outward pressure sends a powerful shock wave busting through the column at supersonic speed, shattering the concrete into tiny chunks.

What about thermite? Hello?

Demolishing steel columns is a bit more difficult, as the dense material is much stronger. For buildings with a steel support structure, blasters typically use the specialized explosive material cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, called RDX for short. RDX-based explosive compounds expand at a very high rate of speed, up to 27,000 feet per second (8,230 meters per second). Instead of disintegrating the entire column, the concentrated, high-velocity pressure slices right through the steel, splitting it in half. Additionally, blasters may ignite dynamite on one side of the column to push it over in a particular direction.

Thermite!

The people writing this piece are morons.

They probably worked for Popular Mechanics. I heard on the Internet that the author is best friends with a guy who he takes the subway with whose wife knows another woman who has a maid who is sisters with a dog walker of a rich guy who kennels his dogs with the Bushes. Or was it cats? I can never remember.

Blasters determine how much explosive material to use based largely on their own experience and the information provided by the architects and engineers who originally built the building. But most of the time, they won't rely on this data alone. To make sure they don't overload or under-load the support structure, the blasters perform a test blast on a few of the columns, which they wrap in a shield for safety. The blasters try out varying degrees of explosive material, and based on the effectiveness of each explosion, they determine the minimum explosive charge needed to demolish the columns. By using only the necessary amount of explosive material, the blasters minimize flying debris, reducing the likelihood of damaging nearby structures.

Well, that explains the first WTC bombing in 1993. Bush, even though he had just been elected governor of Texas, already knew he'd be President seven years hence - see, he had already bee chosen by the Bilderbergs and the Illuminati - was attempting to take out the structural support of the WTC by planting a van bomb in the garage of the WTC.

Or maybe it was a hologram!

Think about it!

Well, I'd go on, but I'm bored now.