I see. Are you merely speculating or is there any precedent for this claimed effect in the context of building demolition?

It seems a strange technique for bringing down a building. What would have happened if they had over done it and the collapse had started from the lower levels and they would have had to try and explain how that could happen when the planes crashed high up the buildings?

Angel Gabriel Joined: 09 May 05
Replies: 560 18 Sep 10 23:02   


The Key individual who pushed the privatization of the WTC complex was the Jew Ronald Lauder, who has funded a school for the Mossad. Lauder also pushed for the privatization of the former Stewart Air Force Base where the flight paths of the two planes that hit the WTC towers converged.

Lewis M. Eisenberg was the Chairman of the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey, and authorized leasing the WTC complex to Larry Silverstein 6 weeks before 9/11. The mall at the WTC complex was leased to the Westfield Company, headed by Jew Frank Lowy and his sons. Silverstein insured the WTC towers against acts of terrorism only 2 weeks before the attacks on 9/11.




And your point is what?

boggle     07 Oct 10 15:40 
Rodriguez who describes being thrown upwards by the floor lifting from beneath his feet, as a huge explosion occurs beneath him. The thing is the conspiracy sceptics never actually look at the evidence, they just make obvious assumptions.

I watched the firemen video on that website, then scrolled down to one of the other videos where Rodriquez was being interviewed.

So what does he have to say about the ‘huge explosions’ that occurred beneath him that sent him flying in the air?

Rodriguez: We hear like a big rumble, not like an impact, like a rumble like something moving furniture in a massive way. All of a sudden we hear another rumble…

That was what he said live on TV on the day. Rumbles - nothing about huge explosions underneath him, nothing about being thrown upwards.

There’s a considerable difference between the way he tells it at the time and the way it’s being told later.


boggle     07 Oct 10 15:40 
Rodriguez who describes being thrown upwards by the floor lifting from beneath his feet, as a huge explosion occurs beneath him. The thing is the conspiracy sceptics never actually look at the evidence, they just make obvious assumptions.

I watched the firemen video on that website, then scrolled down to one of the other videos where Rodriquez was being interviewed.

So what does he have to say about the ‘huge explosions’ that occurred beneath him that sent him flying in the air?

Rodriguez: We hear like a big rumble, not like an impact, like a rumble like something moving furniture in a massive way. All of a sudden we hear another rumble…

That was what he said live on TV on the day. Rumbles - nothing about huge explosions underneath him, nothing about being thrown upwards.

There’s a considerable difference between the way he tells it at the time and the way it’s being told later.[/i]

OOH hello, what's Willie Rodriguez saying here at 1.10? Yes you muppet, because i've seen more than a few random clips, I've actually spent some time .

And the filmed damage at the start of this clip in the lobby was no way caused by an impact 78 floors up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcg8hMEmTVE&feature=related

Sunset Cristo     05 Oct 10 19:04 
Klaus Kinski Joined: 27 Apr 08
Replies: 387 17 Sep 10 01:37   


What do you mean by "pulled" AG? Are you saying that they attached high tension wires to the building and pulled it down with heavy items of plant? In demolition terms that's what pulled means. Makes sense when you think about it.



No it doesn't. Why does it make sense to you?

I think you're missing my point SC.
I have worked in demolition and pulled means attaching wires to the building and pulling it down. (That makes sense doesn't it?)
In the conspiracy theorist's video's they show demolition workers talking about "Pulling it" ie pulling it down with wires. The conspiracy theorist's represent their words as though they were blowing up the building which of course they were not. God knows what Silverstein meant when he said pulled. Pulling the people away from the building seems as good a bet as any.

A very impressive academic analysis comparing the veracity of two accounts relating to the 7/7 attacks, one being an episode of the BBC's Conspiracy Files programme and the other being a documentary called 7/7 Ripple Effect. 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20833633/What-Happened-at-Canary-Wharf-on-7th-July-2005

It concludes:

Conclusions
The purpose and contribution of this paper is to theorise the effects of applying different theories of truth in the evaluation of research findings. By using different theories of truth to structure critical analysis, the paper shows how both findings and theoretical conclusions can be affected. Further, it also shows that each theory of truth, when applied, reveals different insights into complex social activities. Far from these being in contradiction with each other, each application of a different theory of truth has the potential to reveal different domains of reality that exist concurrently. As such, the paper supports the argument for alethic pluralism on the basis that truth is not a stable concept across different domains of thought: using multiple theories of truth adds, rather than detracts from, the search for insight and knowledge (Darwin, 2004).
To summarise and conclude, this paper has presented two theories on the bombings that took place in London on 7th July 2005. The first was presented in the internet documentary 7/7 Ripple Effect released in 2007. When this became popular, a BBC response titled Conspiracy Files: 7/7 was broadcast in June 2009. Based on the evidence presented in this paper, it is by no means clear which documentary is spreading the most “highly divisive and damaging message”. Neither documentary can claim neutrality either in its starting premise, or its analysis of evidence. If 7/7 Ripple Effect is ‘fabricated’, then the claim it is divisive would have some merit. However, this research has not found any instance of fabricated evidence: it is an example of critical journalism that draws wholly on public news sources to formulate a controversial, but plausible, theory. After deploying three different theories of truth to develop insights into new and existing evidence, it is the BBC / Government theory that has a lower level of correspondence with known ‘facts’, is incoherent to the point of being implausible, and is more likely to distort its reports because of institutional controls and political pressures.
If a government agency has deliberately escalated the “war on terror” through the use of ‘false flag’ terrorism, then the BBC’s continued defence of the official story will undoubtedly be more divisive and damaging than the claims published in 7/7 Ripple Effect. Moreover, the large number of press reports uncovered during the research for this paper (outlining a ‘lock-down’ and ‘shooting’ at Canary Wharf) adds to the evidence base for the theory put forward in 7/7 Ripple Effect. As a result, the case for a public inquiry outside the scope of the Inquiries Act 2005 continues to grow.

The impressive J7 website endorses two "alternative" films on 7/7:
http://julyseventh.co.uk/j7-films-ludicrous-diversion-seeds-of-deconstruction.html

The J7 website says the following about 7/7 Ripple Effect:
http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j-for-justice-77-ripple-effect.html

Slavoj Zizek,
teaches students at the EU graduate school

There is no EU graduate school.  There are various schools/universities which teach EU graduates. In fact, most if not all universities do so. This source sounds about as authoritative as one claiming to be a lecturer in Media Studies at "The University of Hatfield on the A1".




I think this should read


Žižek is a senior researcher at the Institute of Sociology, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, and a professor at the European Graduate School.[


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavoj_%C5%BDi%C5%BEek

I don't think you have a mental disorder Angel.
You're wrong. You're the victim of confirmation bias, which we all are from time to time. You jump from subject to subject and you have never fulfilled my request for the Angel version of 9/11. So all those things - but I don't think you have a disorder.

Gene, on the other hand, needs looking at. There in his last post, again the desire to see a pattern, a plan in random events. And a failure to answer a question. And the desire to twist what someone has said to suit his own purpose. It's not good.



Imo they both have personality disorders. They both refuse to look at the evidence and answer questions. Sad really.

AG
When you say you may step back,that's a fairly common sentiment,in my opinion,
with "us" conspiracy theorists.You obviously think that we haven't been told the truth about 9/11,but with the amount of stuff you end up reading it's easy to end up less than 100% committed to your original beliefs.Even though you still believe,there's still a slight doubt.I'm exactly the same,and anyone I know who has the same beliefs shares those doubts.
Yet,the official believers - Pandorica being the epitome of such a person - have no doubts whatsoever.Throughout this thread they have insulted us continuously - get a job,trailer park trash,schizo,paranoid etc etc.
Not once have any of them ever expressed any doubt ,in fact they have been most strident and dogmatic -the very things they would accuse you and me of.


This is a blatant lie. I have said on this thread more than once that I have 3 or 4 unanswered questions about 9/11.You are using double standards again.My self and others have also been insulted on this thread, you of course ignore this fact. You again show you are prejudiced.

Gene Hackman Joined: 07 Feb 02
Replies: 2170 21 Sep 10 21:40   


AG
The only "evidence" any of these people have provided is to say that the official story is true,because they have been told that it is.




Another blatant lie. Evidence has been presented all the way through this thread by myself,masher,pandorica,sparkmaster and many others. You have chosen to ignore that evidence. This is intellectually dishonest of you. And you have lost all credibility with me.You are a proven liar.

Readers should imagine the possibilities for themselves, because the most serious constraint on current policy [nonaggression] is lack of imagination. An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America's history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans' fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse. Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great "success" or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible. Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after."

Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission Report, Philip Zelikow, writing in 1998, for a study funded by the the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the Herbert S. Winokur Public Policy Fund, for the Visions of Governance in the 21st century project

Its Capitalism Gene and the shady ones progress. The truth is hidden and the agenda goes forward. Civil liberties are being eradicated and technology will rule our rites of passage. Welcome to the machine.


Capitalism is far from perfect, but I'll take that any day compared to Communism. You think civil liberties are being attacked in our country you try living in North Korea or China. You probably wouldn't even be allowed to have this debate in those countrys.

[b]Pandy
If the US government and the 9/11 commission can't avoid a thousand questions being raised about their version of events,then I'm pretty sure that I can't come up with an alternative version that wouldn't raise even more questions.
How many people would be involved?.....hundreds,maybe a thousand,would be party to exactly what happened.
How many involved at the fringes and have serious doubts about the official version,but in no way could ever come forward with anything concrete?.....


But no one has. Beggers belief.


many thousands.
As you say,all the "evidence" is there,provided by the authorities mentioned,which is very hard to debunk.
If anyone comes forward,Pilots,Engineers,Academics -and says anything -then they are castigated for being in it only for the money,or they are accused of showing disrespect to the dead,or they are paranoid,or schizophrenic.[/b]




And your point is what. people always name call people who disagree with them. it has been done by both sides on this thread.

Time will be the judge of what happened on 9/11.
My very brief version?....No plane hit The Pentagon...No flight brought down by passengers(shot down by military)....WTC7 down by controlled explosion.


And still you persist. Baseless assertions with no evidence given to back up your beliefs. Pathetic really.

When,and if,it does finally emerge in many years time what did happen then just remember how wrong you were.
I've had enough of this thread now tbh.Neither side is very much closer than when we started.



Now you are making inane predictions.

djwebby Joined: 06 Mar 07
Replies: 1560 26 Sep 10 10:54   


Why would anyone be looking for people taking things in.  Sections of the tower were off limits for periods of time weeks before 9/11.  Time to take things in and not be seen and to have the demolition work done ffs.




What is your source that Sections of the tower were off limits for periods of time weeks before 9/11?

slartybartfast Joined: 10 Jul 04
Replies: 942 27 Sep 10 00:41   


Any idea why LHO was allowed to return from the USSR after renouncing the USA and at the height of the Cold War, Pandorica?



Others were allowed to do this as well. He never formally gave up his US citizenship.

Some sixty percent of the world's economies will be so in debt by 2060 that their debt will be downgraded to "junk" status, effectively bankrupting the countries, says a report from Standard & Poor's ratings agency, which also warns that attempts to deal with the problem could cause social instability.

Three leading Washington 'conservatives' -- the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol, American Enterprise Institute's Arthur Brooks, and Heritage Foundation's Ed Feulner -- have co-written an article chiding Tea Party activists for not enthusiastically backing America's imperial foreign policy and oversize military. The three worry along with other neoconservatives that average citizens are more interested in defending America than in bombing, invading, and occupying other nations.

Of course, the neocon mantra is that perpetual war is necessary to protect the U.S. In this view, America is a helpless giant, at risk everywhere around the globe. The U.S., the world's sole superpower, the most powerful and dominant nation ever at any point in human history, supposedly is threatened by such behemoths as Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Cuba, Serbia, Haiti, and Somalia. If Washington does not subsidize wealthy allies and engage in global social engineering, forcibly remaking friends and foes alike, America's adversaries may strike and extinguish human liberty, creating a new Dark Age.

You didn't explain anywhere about the BBC and WTC7.



Yes he did, your not listening.when these kind of incidents happen there is often confusion. When the incident happened on 7/7 it was reported that bombs were not involved. Just recently the Linda Norgrove incident was reported that the Taliban had killed her not the US special forces.You seem to think that these people always lie and can't be trusted. Why didn't they lie about Linda Norgrove. The truth would probably have never come out. who would know? Only those that were on the ground and those at the top of the military.

Btw,it's not my job to explain anything.It is you,as a believer in the official version,that explains the story,and me (and others) that question that version.


It's your job to give evidence for why your don't believe the official version. You have not done this.

I think you are very naive in your simplistic approach to this subject.
For example:
Did you ever explain how this secret conspiracy reached stockbrokers who then traded in company shares rather than doing the more mundane thing of reporting the matter?



Already been debunked on this thread.

Somebody has the chance to make a lot of money by acting on a tip-off,and you expect them to report it to the authorities?
This information would only have reached a very small number of very powerful and influential people.The people in a position to receive such information are hardly likely to go and report it are they?

you haven't given any evidence that any such thing happened.


I don't know if you've noticed but people have always made money from bad things happening.It's very naive of you to expect that type of thing not to happen in this case.

So what? This proves nothing.


The same applies to the lightly loaded planes.Those that had been warned against travelling - if that was the case - wouldn't have been told exactly what was going to happen,they would have just been advised against travelling, that's all.Again,those people would be in no position and have no inclination to report that they had been warned.


Pure speculation. That's you all over. No evidence given again.No position and no inclination. Why wouldn't they?

Anyway,explain the BBC thing please.




See above

slartybartfast Joined: 10 Jul 04
Replies: 948 27 Sep 10 21:43   


I wonder how many Americans emigrated from the US to the USSR at that time (a small number I would guess) and subsequently returned (and with a Soviet wife in tow, too). I would guess that subset would be a very small number.



True. This proves nothing though.

A couple of facts:

LHO was a known FBI informant.


So you say. prove it?

He was taught Russian at the US Military Language School in Monterey.

The KGB kept him under constant surveillance when in the USSR, apparently suspecting him to be a spy and not a genuine emigre (a suspicion that may have been backed up by his short residency).

He was an average to poor shot, just passing the last of his shooting tests as a marine by two points (191 v a pass mark of 190) and getting the lowest of three grades. He did do better in an earlier test when he got a low mid-grade score.


Not true.



During his Marine Corps service in December 1956, Oswald scored a rating of sharpshooter (twice achieving 48 and 49 out of 50 shots during rapid fire at a stationary target 200 yards [183 m] away using a standard issue M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle), although in May 1959, he qualified as a marksman (a lower classification than that of sharpshooter). Military experts, after examining his records, characterized his firearms proficiency as "above average" and said he was, when compared to American civilian males of his age, "an excellent shot


http://wapedia.mobi/en/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle#7.



Even if he was a poor shot may be he just got lucky.Or some one else was shooting as well.

Yet none of the expert marksmen tasked by the House Select Committee on Assassinations with repeating the feat alleged by the Warren Commission regarding 22/11/63 could do so.



Other experts later proved them wrong.

In an effort to test the rifle under conditions which simulated those which prevailed during the assassination, the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the U.S. Army's Ballistics Research Laboratory had expert riflemen fire the assassination weapon from a tower at three silhouette targets at distances of 175, 240, and 265 feet (81 m).[63] Using the assassination rifle mounted with the telescopic sight, three marksmen, rated as master by the National Rifle Association, each fired two series of three shots. In the first series the firers required time spans of 4.6, 6.75, and 8.25 seconds respectively. On the second series they required 5.15, 6.45, and 7 seconds. The marksmen took as much time as they wanted for the first target at 175 feet (53 m), and all hit the target. For the first four attempts, the firers missed the second shot at 240 feet (73 m) by several inches. Five of the six shots hit the third target at 265 feet (81 m), the distance of President Kennedy from the sixth floor window when he was struck in the head.[64] None of the marksmen had any practice with the assassination weapon beforehand except to work the bolt.

CBS conducted a firing test in 1967 at the H. P. White Ballistics Laboratory located in Street, Maryland. For the test 11 marksmen from diverse backgrounds were invited to participate: 3 Maryland State Troopers, 1 weapons engineer, 1 sporting goods dealer, 1 sportsman, 1 ballistics technician, 1 ex-paratrooper, and 3 H. P. White employees. CBS provided several Carcano rifles for the test. The MC rifle WC-139 was not used in this test. The targets were color coded orange for head/shoulder silhouette and blue for a near miss. The results of the CBS test were as follows: 7 of 11 shooters were able to fire three rounds under 5.6 seconds (64%). Of those 7 shooters, 6 hit the orange target once (86%), and 5 hit the orange target twice (71%). Out of 60 rounds fired, 25 hit the orange (42%), 21 hit the blue portion of the target (35%), and there were 14 misses on the target (23%).

One volunteer was unable to operate his rifle effectively so the following statistics are based on the 10 remaining shooters. The average time of all 10 was 5.64 seconds. The mode was 5.55 seconds and the mean was 5.70 seconds. The average for the top five shooters was 5.12 seconds, and for the bottom five shooters 6.16 seconds. There was a high occurrence of jamming during the test. On average the rifles jammed after 6 rounds. The most rounds fired without jamming were 14, 11, 10 in a row. The least was 0 (back to back).

The first shooter to lead off the experiment was Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper. The record of his effort: 5.0 sec: 2 orange, 1 blue / 6.0 sec: 2 orange, 1 blue / NT (jam at 3rd cartridge)/ 5.2 sec: 1 orange, 2 low / 5.0 sec: 1 orange, 2 blue. Sherman was able to fire 8 rounds before his rifle jammed. Of all shooters, the fastest times were: 4.1 sec, 4.3 sec, 4.9 sec, 5.0 sec. The best accuracy was 3 orange in 5.2 seconds. The rifles were oiled and allowed to cool down between shooters. CBS reporter Dan Rather attended this experiment.

During the investigation by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (1976–1978), the lead attorneys for the Committee, Robert Blakey and Gary Cornwell, were allowed to use WC-139 at an FBI firing range. The attorneys wanted to see how fast the bolt action could be operated. Blakey was able to fire two rounds in 1.5 seconds and Cornwell fired two rounds in 1.2 seconds. This was an experiment to test a possible theory that Oswald in his excitement may have pointed and fired, as opposed to aimed and fired. Some critics of the Warren Commission had claimed it was impossible to fire a Carcano rifle in less than 2.3 seconds. Both the CBS and HSCA tests proved conclusively this claim is not accurate.[65]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle





O'Donnell and Powers, two of JFK's aides who were present, both former soldiers, told the FBI and WC that two shots came from the grassy knoll.




This is not what his testimony says.


Mr. O'DONNELL. My reaction in part is reconstruction---is that they came from the right rear. That would be my best judgment.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any reaction by any of the other people around in any specific direction?
Mr. O'DONNELL. The agents all turned to the rear. I would think, watching the reaction of the President when the shot--the first shot hit--that it would be automatic it would have to have come from the rear. I think any experienced agent would make that assumption immediately.
Mr. SPECTER. And was the reaction of the agents which you have referred to as coming from the rear, to the right rear or to the left rear?
Mr. O'DONNELL. The reaction I note would be right rear. And, again, looking at the manner of the President's movement, I would think you would have to feel the thrust of the shot was from the right rear.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, what was there about the President's movement which leads you to that conclusion?
Mr. O'DONNELL. He was leaning out waving. He may have just been withdrawing his hand. And the shot hit him, and threw him to the left. He slumped on Mrs. Kennedy.
Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to determine a reaction on that slumping movement, as to whether it was the first, the second, or the third shot?
Mr. O'DONNELL. It was not the third shot. Whether it was the first or second, I would not know.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you think it could have been the second shot?
Mr. O'DONNELL. Yes; I do. If I had to pick one of the two, I think it might have been the second shot. It seemed to be--but, again, it is a foggy recollection--it seemed to have been that his movement coincided--with such a slight difference of time, that is just guesswork



http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/odonnell.htm



Dave Powers said


At that time we were traveling very slowly, no more than 12 miles an hour. In accordance with my custom, I was very much concerned about our timing and at just about that point I looked at my watch and noted that it was almost exactly 12:30 p.m., Which was the time we were due at the Trade Mart. I commented to Ken O'Donnell that it was 12:30 and we would only be about five minutes late when we arrived at the Trade Mart. Shortly thereafter the first shot went off and it sounded to me as if it were a firecracker. I noticed then that the President moved quite far to his left after the shot from the extreme right hand side where he had been sitting. There was a second shot and Governor Connally disappeared from sight and then there was a third shot which took off the top of the President's head and had the sickening sound of a grapefruit splattering against the side of a wall. The total time between the first and third shots was about 5 or 6 seconds. My first impression was that the shots came from the right and overhead, but I also had a fleeting impression that the noise appeared to come from the front in the area of the triple overpass. This may have resulted from my feeling, when I looked forward toward the overpass, that we might have ridden into an ambush


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/powers1.htm



He said the sound might have come from the front area of the Triple underpass. Says nothing about Grassy Knoll. The acoustic a notoriously deceptive in Dealey Plaza.






There's loads more.



Keep them coming, but do some research first.

IMO JFK's killing was a military coup d'etat that has dominated the course


Possibly, but you have provided no evidence so far.