Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

What FACTS did Dubya know before 9/11, that PROVE he could have prevented the tragedy? Truthers/tinhats this does NOT apply

1) Daily briefings post 8/6/11 have not been released. Why are they still classified? Must we wait for another 50 years to learn the truth of how damaging they must be for Dubya's administration?

2) On learning of the 1st airplane crash, Dubya responded by immediately looking at his watch and then freezing in total shock. Why was it so crucial for him to verify the time?

3) Who are the top researchers/investigative reporters following the details of this case? I'm very knowledgeable on top secret info that would answer the above questions.

by Anonymousreply 15605/13/2015

[quote]3) Who are the top researchers/investigative reporters following the details of this case? I'm very knowledgeable on top secret info that would answer the above questions.

Take your meds, OP.

by Anonymousreply 112/05/2012

Dick Cheney falsely claimed that only the president had the authority to shoot down a plane full of passengers. If that were the case Bush was negligent in failing to issue shoot-down orders before the plane allegedly struck the Pentagon a full 30 minutes AFTER Bush was informed that the USA was under attack.

by Anonymousreply 212/05/2012

R1, Never in my life have I been on any meds. I would demand a lie detector test before discussing anything, to prove my honesty. I will NOT allow you or anyone else to derail this thread, like the tinhats and birthers and haters on the last thread.

Perhaps since YOU are so quick to judge, you can answer my questions as stated. What was in the daily briefings post 8/6/11 that required them to be classified?

by Anonymousreply 312/05/2012

R1, Bush knew in advance that "the White House was threatened." The plane instead crashed in the middle of an empty field in PN. Why else was he physically taken far away from what would have logically been the safest place for him to dictate a further course of action?

by Anonymousreply 412/05/2012

[quote]Never in my life have I been on any meds.

Untreated mental illness is not something to brag about, OP, no matter how much it helps to explain things for us.

by Anonymousreply 512/05/2012

Hey I don't deny that Bush knew in advance. OP sounds like a nutcase claiming to have top secret info. Do you talk to space aliens too?

by Anonymousreply 612/05/2012

R5, Are you the same nutjob who also hurled false accusations when I said that MR would lose, and lose badly in NV? YOU sound like the INSANE one that totally ignored logic pointing to Obama's guaranteed win.

Only those totally without moral character cruelly attack those with whom they disagree.

I expect that the threats will get worse as I gain the avenue to prove my point. Bush did not plan 911; he just chose to ignore the very specific and detailed info that he was given post 8/6/11.

by Anonymousreply 712/05/2012

R1, R6, Of course I don't talk to space aliens. In fact I don't believe there is life other than on Earth, unless you are considering some form of basic plant-based organism.

I happen to live in a city where the 911 perpetrators visited. They hung out within a mile of where I resided and worked. The entire area was thus crawling with FBI investigators after the attack. So how do you logically know that I am not aware of "inside info?" I have had many close friends from the Mid East as well. Most that live near to me were questioned post 911.

R1, R6, Instead of trying to derail my thread, why don't you try and address the questions I've already posed? Here's another one for you. Since the daily briefings were stopped 8/6/11, exactly when were they continued post-911?

by Anonymousreply 912/05/2012

[quote]Never in my life have I been on any meds.

Maybe now's the time, hon. Just a thought. Especially if you've had this SAME SINGLE CONSPIRACY THEORY lolling around in your head now for ELEVEN YEARS.

[quote]Only those totally without moral character cruelly attack those with whom they disagree.

But calling someone who disagrees with you an "insane nutjob" is totally fine? Pot, meet kettle.

by Anonymousreply 1012/05/2012

You say you have top secret info that would answer your own questions.

So what is it you're looking for?

Why not release the information you have to major media people? Or your congresspeople? What is holding you back?

by Anonymousreply 1112/05/2012

how about Kurt Eichenwald at the NYT?

by Anonymousreply 1212/05/2012

R10, R11, I told you I don't believe in conspiracy; just extreme incompetence and negligence on the part of the Bush adm in ignoring specific info. I was scheduled to go on a talk show right after 911; the subject was too hot and the show "was killed." There is a press block on much of the info anyway, and I'm not positive how to go around it.

You would have to know more about me personally to know why I now think that this is a good time to reveal what I know. Suffice to say that I no longer need an outside income. This was not the case earlier. I did approach someone very powerful in the world of entertainment, who had media connections, fairly recently. He was aware of some of the info that I know, without me having to discuss all of it. I have now totally given up on his promises of assistance. Once burned, twice shy.

I do not know "major media people." As I said I would not reveal anything without first being given a lie detector test. If I were "tinhat," then why would I make that a requirement? I know that there are those on DL who have contacts that I don't. That's why I posed the request here for honest investigative reporters.

Contact Congresspeople? Are you kidding me? I tried to get them to investigate blatant fraud in the Census Bureau that I and my friends personally witnessed; they wouldn't even do anything about that.

A poster who cruelly attacks another as "on" or "needing meds," without knowing anything about them, or what they can have experienced, is indeed IMHO an insane nutjob without a heart. I've seen it many times on DL. Considering many posters have been attacked for who they are in the past, I am horrified that they now attack others. You may recognize my many posts defending strangers that are likewise falsely accused for no valid reason. Yes I have learned to retaliate against those who will falsely attack me on DL and elsewhere.

by Anonymousreply 1312/05/2012

What is the significance of 8/6/11, almost ten years after 9/11? Are you saying that the Obama administration has information of a huge cover up and is not revealing it for security reasons?

by Anonymousreply 1412/05/2012

lithium

by Anonymousreply 1512/05/2012

[quote]As I said I would not reveal anything without first being given a lie detector test. If I were "tinhat," then why would I make that a requirement?

I don't think anyone's questioning whether YOU believe your claims are true; the question is whether they ARE true, or even COULD be true, or have even a SCINTILLA of truth -- which, based on the manic nature of your posts and abject refusal to admit to any specific detail, they do not.

Just because you can pass a lie-detector test doesn't mean something is true, hon. It merely proves you THINK it's true.

by Anonymousreply 1612/05/2012

R8, R12, I've already tried googling both men. They must have a private email address, that would work better than contacting a huge publication, and being ignored by a layer of secretaries. I'd rather not comment publicly at this time, as the info I have is quite involved and lengthy.

R14, I'd be shocked if the Obama Adm isn't aware of the huge coverup.

by Anonymousreply 1712/05/2012

R16, Exactly what "detail have I refused to admit to" IYHO? I will say that my story is very involved, and too lengthy for a few posts on DL.

How would you like me to prove that I was in discussions to appear on a talk show, at that time?

by Anonymousreply 1812/05/2012

[quote]Exactly what "detail have I refused to admit to" IYHO?

Where do you live? What talk show were you scheduled to go on until your supposed topic became "too hot" to discuss? Do you think your life will be in danger if you answer these questions on a gay gossip board? Do you think most people, in general, are out to get you?

by Anonymousreply 1912/05/2012

[quote] What talk show were you scheduled to go on until your supposed topic became "too hot" to discuss?

It must have been a radio show, Coast to Coast maybe

by Anonymousreply 2012/05/2012

OP, why don't you contact the DL poster who posted a thread seeming to know something big was going to happen the morning the Osama Bin Ladin kill raid occurred?

by Anonymousreply 2112/05/2012

Of course it was NOT a radio show. I have even never heard of Coast to Coast; I don't listen to the radio.

Actually it was Dr. Keith Ablow. I had stated my requirement that a lie detector test be administered before I would reveal any information. I was told that Dr. Ablow could easily tell that I was NOT lying. I regret there was a press block on the subject matter.

by Anonymousreply 2212/05/2012

R19, I do not think that ANYONE is "out to get me, ever." I live in Las Vegas; I was working at Bellagio right before 9/11. My exit interview with the head of HR at that time was approx 8/13/01. I have since interviewed at Wynn, (Mr. Steve Wynn knows who I am) and have worked for other casinos. You might be aware of the very extensive background checks casinos do before hiring. Obviously I would not have been hired if it was deemed that I was or needed to be on lithium. Yes I was subjected to a repeated barrage of very personal questions, that in CA I do believe would have been illegal to ask. (ex. Why won't you tell us what your long since dead father did for a living? Why won't you give us the addresses&phone numbers of all of your siblings' places of work?)

Being on a gay gossip board has nothing to do with anything, except that I firmly believe that some posters/readers are very logical, brilliant and have direct connections to media that I lack. In contrast others seem to enjoy really dissing and insulting others, something I find very offensive. I have always tried to post helpful comments to benefit others. Please note my many articles attacking "pray the gay away therapy."

I don't know why my style of writing is now being questioned. I try my best to communicate clearly; obviously I'm not a professional writer.

I would prefer to dismiss from my mind any thoughts that I might have ever been in danger. Still it's very strange when people know very personal things about me that I did not tell them. Maybe others just love to gossip. Won't be the first time in my life that I have been dissed for "just standing out."

by Anonymousreply 2312/05/2012

R21, How would I contact that poster? I was not on DL at that time.

by Anonymousreply 2412/06/2012

You're going about this wrong OP. You have to look back to Rumsfeld changing the air force interception protocol.

by Anonymousreply 2512/06/2012

The 9/11 stand down. Pretty much every explanation of this from the military or the White House was an easily verifiable whopper, including an article from Aviation Week with so many lies it has the perverse effect of suggesting that the trillions we've spent on an "air force" since Vietnam have been stolen and there are no planes.

by Anonymousreply 2612/06/2012

If you have a legit story, and aren't some delusional/mentally ill crank, Eichenwald will listen.

by Anonymousreply 2712/06/2012

I see you have trouble getting your mail, too.

by Anonymousreply 2812/06/2012

R27, Thank you very much. Makes all of the dissing I sometimes get on DL worth it, just to get the right info. I assure you that I am not delusional or a crank, and look forward to proving that fact. I already emailed a quick note to Eichenwald. I was just concerned that I didn't have the best possible email to reach him directly. He must get flooded with inquiries.

R28, Guess what? NV new Jr Senator just told me that NV Postmaster General's new assistant has so many, angry residents complaining about poor delivery, that it will be a few days before she will contact me. In the meantime, I actually got mail delivery today. Wonder where the mail from yesterday went?

by Anonymousreply 2912/06/2012

Try Robert Windrem at NBC News.

Story (from 9/2012) he did on Eichenwald's op ed at link. I guess Eichenwald is not with NYT anymore.

by Anonymousreply 3012/06/2012

R24, try Manvox. I understand he posts there.

by Anonymousreply 3112/06/2012

R30, I am trying to follow up with all suggestions. Do you have a valid email for Robert Windrem?

by Anonymousreply 3212/06/2012

[quote]I assure you that I am not delusional or a crank[quote]

Good one Duh-vida.

by Anonymousreply 3301/10/2015

I guess it IS true, there isn't a conspiracy that she doesn't believe in.

by Anonymousreply 3401/10/2015

[quote] I have since interviewed at Wynn, (Mr. Steve Wynn knows who I am) and have worked for other casinos.

That is the funniest shit I have read this week.

by Anonymousreply 3501/10/2015

[quote]On learning of the 1st airplane crash, Dubya responded by immediately looking at his watch and then freezing in total shock. Why was it so crucial for him to verify the time?

Good grief, D@vida R0chelle, are you forgetting that he was reading "My Pet Goat"? He wanted to figure if there would be enough time to finish the chapter before the next plane hit.

Interesting how your view of Dubya has changed in two years, R0chelle Kanter/OP. Two weeks ago you were singing his praises in comments in the "Daily Mail." Do you still post there or have you been banned?

by Anonymousreply 3601/10/2015

[quote]I would demand a lie detector test before discussing anything, to prove my honesty.

Ha! As we can see, the PATHOLOGICAL Liar has been using her lie detector claim for more than two years. And the way she gets so upset about meds and tosses out claims of not taking meds, makes it certain that it's just the opposite.

by Anonymousreply 3701/10/2015

Anyone who believes the official story of 9/11 is a boob.

by Anonymousreply 3801/10/2015

Most attempts to "get" Dubya based on what he knew fail because people believe that simply giving him facts is not proof that he retained them. We need to get away from this ridiculous condescension. He was and is a brilliant criminal and traitor.

by Anonymousreply 3901/11/2015

Dubya knew all the letters from A-Z but he sometimes got his M's and W's mixed up.

He could also count to 36.

by Anonymousreply 4001/11/2015

miss OP has issues

by Anonymousreply 4101/11/2015

OP. I know its been a few years since you posted this but if you still check this thread, perhaps you can help.

I was taking a shit in a Bellagio restroom when the toilet next to my stall overflowed, drenching my shoes in urine and feces.

Will you buy me a new pair of shoes?

by Anonymousreply 4201/11/2015

[quote]I happen to live in a city where the 911 perpetrators visited. They hung out within a mile of where I resided and worked. The entire area was thus crawling with FBI investigators after the attack. So how do you logically know that I am not aware of "inside info?"

Because logically speaking being in the same city, even being within a mile, does't mean shit.

By your logic, there must be a massive number of people whe are privy to this "inside info" simply for being in the same city.

I was once on the White House tour. I was IN the White House, therefore I am privy to all White House inside info.

by Anonymousreply 4301/11/2015

[quote]OP. I know its been a few years since you posted this but if you still check this thread, perhaps you can help.

OP may be busy with her bff Kirstie Alley. They're both suffering from saggy tits and are seeking a solution.

by Anonymousreply 4401/11/2015

I'm pretty sure he knew the Alamo had no basement.

by Anonymousreply 4501/11/2015

[quote]You might be aware of the very extensive background checks casinos do before hiring. Obviously I would not have been hired if it was deemed that I was or needed to be on lithium.

Obviously D@vida has no idea what goes into a background check in Nevada, and really knows NOTHING about HIPAA laws.

She must think that the background check to OK her to scrub toilets is the same background check for working at Area 51.

by Anonymousreply 4601/11/2015

For example, John Hinckley Jr. spent the fall of 1978 in Midland, Texas, working for George W. Bush. That doesn't appear significant to anybody?

by Anonymousreply 4701/11/2015

[quote]I'm pretty sure he knew the Alamo had no basement.

Probably not. He's still trying to finish reading "My Pet Goat" and hasn't gotten around to watch "Pee-wee's Big Adventure."

by Anonymousreply 4801/11/2015

It is so irritating OP added "no tin hats" in a subject speculating about an event whose 'official narrative' is essentially nonsensical. But carry on, sensible person.

by Anonymousreply 4901/11/2015

OP

You will never convince anyone here to look at facts.

Facts, be they liberal or conservative, only apply to the other side.

by Anonymousreply 5001/11/2015

[quote]It is so irritating OP added....

No matter what she posts, nobody takes OP seriously. She's the loon who announces that George Clooney is her persoanl manager and the Mayor of Hollywood, then, the next day she'll announce that he's anti-American and married into a terrorist family.

by Anonymousreply 5101/11/2015

ohhh

by Anonymousreply 5201/11/2015

^personal manager

by Anonymousreply 5301/11/2015

Just bumping the crazy lady thread

by Anonymousreply 5401/14/2015

Come back Duhvida. We want to know if this is the week you think Dubya screwed up or is this the week you think he's America's greatest president, ever???

by Anonymousreply 5501/14/2015

Pretty much eveybody warned them. And they can't pretend they didn't foresee the method. They stopped such a plot in 2005, it had been on television as a movie May 15, 2001, and extraordinary precautions were taken for the Genoa G8 summit that year because of a threat from hijacked airlines.

Who warned us? British intelligence and the Cayman Islands Afghanistan Argentina's Jewish community Egyptian intelligence German intelligence Jordan intelligence Russian intelligence Italian government Xrael

by Anonymousreply 5601/14/2015

Link to the above facts

by Anonymousreply 5701/14/2015

That was 1995 for the stopped plot, sorry.

by Anonymousreply 5801/14/2015

What about Condaliar Rice? Wasn't she shopping for shoes in Paris? She planned on catching up on her memos when sh got back. Or was that Katrine when she was shopping for shoes? National security was her thing as well as buying shoes.

by Anonymousreply 5901/14/2015

It's easy to second guess after the fact, but please,there are probably 10,000 potential threats to the U.S. and its citizens being monitored every single day.

by Anonymousreply 6001/14/2015

Not confirmed by that many countries R60.

Condoleezza was the one who warned Willie Brown, did she not?

by Anonymousreply 6101/14/2015

[quote]there are probably 10,000 potential threats to the U.S. and its citizens being monitored every single day.

Bet OP (Duh-vida) is one of them

by Anonymousreply 6201/14/2015

.

by Anonymousreply 6305/09/2015

Stop attacking the OP and listen to what he has to say.

Agree or disagree with content.

by Anonymousreply 6405/09/2015

Alright r64. I disagree that Dumbvida has any "top secret" evidence having to do with 911. If she really thought she had any information she would have posted endless threads about it and kept the threads going till they either reached 600 posts or untill Webby shut her crazy down.

Any normal person who had information wouldn't have sat on it for 10+ years and then came here looking for help finding an investigative reporter.

This is Dumbvida Poo Shoes we're talking about, she of the MANY unbelievable and foolish threads

by Anonymousreply 6505/09/2015

How Orwellian that "truther" has become such a weaponized and perjorative term. We find ourselves in a world where comfortable lies are much preferred over disturbing truths. Dubya probably had limited advance knowledge re 9/11 but after it went down was mandated by his handlers to go along with the official "narrative" or else. Cheney, Rice et al… another story.

by Anonymousreply 6605/09/2015

Dubya knew nothing of the attacks in advance. He was incompetent, not a monster.

by Anonymousreply 6705/09/2015

Your tin foil hat goes very well with your caftan, OP

by Anonymousreply 6805/09/2015

As with America's entry into WWII, when the economy isn't doing well , a war justifies massive government spending!

by Anonymousreply 6905/09/2015

His stiff posture in the photo op in the classroom (black kids down front, nice touch) is not of surprise, but of resignation. Like when your partner confronts you about cheating.

No doubt the grown-ups told him 9/11 was necessary, but still he knows the gravity of what they've done. Of what's coming.

by Anonymousreply 7005/09/2015

Come on. Just look at who profited the most from 9/11 to know who ordered it. How much did W and especially Cheney make from 9/11? How much power to do what ever the hell they wanted to this country did W/Cheney get from 9/11? What did Bin Laden get...ZIP!??

by Anonymousreply 7105/09/2015

Dubya was a puppet. While Cheney definitely profited big time and played a key role, he was only at the managerial level of the operatiion, which took over 2 decades to plan, not one of the architects. It was a crime w/i crime w/i a crime…like one of those Russian dolls.

Wonder how long before this thread gets closed or deleted. It won't be long.

by Anonymousreply 7205/09/2015

[quote]Wonder how long before this thread gets closed or deleted. It won't be long

One can only hope.

by Anonymousreply 7305/09/2015

[quote]Never in my life have I been on any meds. I would demand a lie detector test before discussing anything, to prove my honesty.

It sounds like D@vida is back.

by Anonymousreply 7405/10/2015

No defender of the official story on DL has ever provided an adequate explanation for how WTC 7 could come down in the precise manner of a controlled demolition without the use of explosives. You cannot say that it did not come down in the precise manner of a controlled demolition because all the videos of the event show that it did.

Until someone can tell us plainly and irrefutably how structural damage from falling debris done to one corner of a four-cornered building, combined with fires that burned haphazardly on two floors for seven hours, could cause 47 stories of steel and concrete to come down symmetrically, and at free-fall speed, in seven seconds flat, the only logical conclusion is that it was a controlled demolition.

This one aspect of 9/11 is proof positive that the entire event was an inside job. That is why the 9/11 Commission decided to ignore the collapse of WTC 7 altogether when it issued its "final report" on the subject.

by Anonymousreply 7505/10/2015

[quote]there are probably 10,000 potential threats to the U.S. and its citizens being monitored every single day

Ummm, no. And if it were true, then lots of people should have been sacked for the 200 air force bases, hundreds of national guard, naval air, and other bases; and 15,000 planes and 30,000 pilots in the national security infrastructure who were unavailable to shoot down any threats.

by Anonymousreply 7605/10/2015

As soon as I read R3, I knew we were dealing with the crazy Bellagio maid with the shitty shoe problems. She couldn't tell the truth if her life depended on it. Even her name is fake.

There are days when she attacks Rethugs like Bush and then there are days when she attacks Dems. It probably depends on which meds she's on at the time.

Her personal manager, Mr. Clooney, needs to get her into treatment.

by Anonymousreply 7705/10/2015

Still with the ad hominem attacks R77. That's just so... Republican.

by Anonymousreply 7805/10/2015

Attacks? Where? Go to her Bellagio thread and you can read all about her shitty shoes. That's not an attack. She started that thread.

Go to her U.S. postal service thread and see her attacks on all Democratic office holders in Nevada. That's not an attack. She started that thread.

Go to imdb and check F.A.R.T.: The Movie to see the only film that R0chelle the "actress" ever got credit for. Google her D@vida R0chelle name and you'll find pages and pages of her fights with people who have caught her in lies along with a few places where she's been banned. There are no attacks, just proof of her activities.

by Anonymousreply 7905/10/2015

You all know this thread started three years ago, right?

"No defender of the official story on DL has ever provided an adequate explanation for how WTC 7 could come down in the precise manner of a controlled demolition without the use of explosives."

Adequate to you, you mean. And that would be impossible because you have closed your mind to reason. The rest of the world is satisfied with the answer given by actual working brains.

by Anonymousreply 8005/10/2015

Not true R80.

by Anonymousreply 8105/10/2015

I'd expect no less, r81. Feel free to blather on about "pulling" the building and gold in the basement and "no fire could take that building down."

by Anonymousreply 8205/10/2015

23 angles

by Anonymousreply 8305/10/2015

The last two minutes of the video clearly indicate people understood the building would be taken down deliberately if it did not collapse.

by Anonymousreply 8405/10/2015

...And then it collapsed.

by Anonymousreply 8505/10/2015

R80, there has been no satisfactory answer given by officials for how WTC 7 collapsed.

NIST declared, after years of fudging figures, that it had identified a "new phenomenon" of thermal expansion that caused fire to act like a controlled demolition. But their computer models do not begin to replicate the actual event as recorded by several videos.

Let me repeat: there has been no provable explanation given by officials for how WTC 7 collapsed. Anyone who thinks there has been is either ignorant of the subject or else they are lying to deceive others.

R80 is "satisfied" with an official explanation that has never been provided. That is how willfully ignorant and close-minded R80 is. He tells you you must accept the "proof" that no one from the government ever gave (or ever can give, for that matter.) I am willing to debate the topic all day long. I have truth and provable science on my side, all he has to manipulate your opinions are insults, lies, and propaganda.

by Anonymousreply 8605/11/2015

I have no doubt that there was intelligence that Bush was privy to that some kind of attack was imminent.

I believe he was simply in denial. Face it, before 9/11 that kind of successful attack on American soil was unfathomable. We got lucky in 1993 that the attack on the towers basically failed.

Anyone who says Bush knew the specifics of the attacks (date, time, method) is full of shit.

by Anonymousreply 8705/11/2015

[quote]Anyone who says Bush knew the specifics of the attacks (date, time, method) is full of shit.

Cheney and Rumsfeld, on the hand....

by Anonymousreply 8805/11/2015

A provable explanation given by officials for how WTC 7 collapsed.

by Anonymousreply 8905/11/2015

The purpose of the article at r89 is to dismiss and laugh at 'conspiracy theorists'.

The pancaking of floors the article describes didn't happen. It came down all at once starting from the bottom. Concrete and steel structures don't pancake.

There's only one way that can happen.

Other skyscrapers have had stronger fires that burned for hours longer and still they remained standing. How can that be explained?

by Anonymousreply 9005/11/2015

For starters, his "recollection" about watching the first plane hit the first tower--on a television, in the back of his limousine.

But the first plane impact wasn't televised.

Bush claims that only after he was advised that a *second* plane had hit, did he realize blah, blah, blah...

GWB was probably kept fairly far outside the information loop (Dick was calling the shots, obviously).

Bush was intended to function--in his ignorance-- as a useful idiot.

Which he did, masterfully.

by Anonymousreply 9105/11/2015

"That is how willfully ignorant and close-minded R80 is."

Right back atcha, sister.

by Anonymousreply 9205/11/2015

HERE is a summary of what NIST claims caused the collapse of WTC7:

The fires caused sufficient thermal expansion in the steel beams on the east side of WTC 7 to force the steel girder connecting Columns 44 and 79 to lose its connection with the latter, and to damage the floor framing on floors near Column 79. The loss of that girder’s connection to Column 79, along with fire–induced damage to the floor systems around Column 79, caused Floor 13 to collapse. The collapse of Floor 13 caused all the floors below it down to Floor 5 to collapse.

Column 79, being left with inadequate lateral support, buckled between Floors 5 and 14. This buckling caused the downward movement of Column 79 (which caused the collapse of the east penthouse). Columns 80 and 81, having also lost support, buckled, causing all the floors on the east side of WTC7, which had been weakened by the fire, to collapse. All the other interior columns then failed, leaving the building a hollow shell. After most of the collapse had already occurred in the building’s interior, where it could not be seen from the outside, the exterior columns failed, completing the collapse.

by Anonymousreply 9305/11/2015

HOWEVER, each of these points in this fantastic scenario is problematic: Though PM claims that the fires in WTC7 reached temperatures ranging from 299°C (570°F) to 593°C (1,100°F), scientists on both sides of the argument have concluded that the fires could not have become this hot and could not have reached the temperatures claimed by NIST.

The fire that NIST claims started the collapse (via thermal expansion of long-span beams) had actually burned out in the area of the collapse more than an hour before the collapse. It could not, therefore, have caused the collapse at 5:20 p.m., as NIST claims.

Examination of the photographs in the Final Report shows that the fire had burned out in the area of the collapse more than an hour before the collapse. NIST arbitrarily added 10% to the result of their Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS). This is simply not done in a scientific analysis.

NIST applied this arbitrarily increased temperature for 4 hours of heating, ignoring their statement that the fires lasted only 20 to 30 minutes in any location.

Popular Mechanics repeats NIST’s claim that the failure of column 79 caused the collapse of the entire building, even though the scientific evidence contradicts this theory.

NIST applied the 4 hours of heating in 1–½ seconds over the entire northeast part of the floor, again creating an unrealistic situation and result.

NIST heated the steel beams, but not the concrete slab above, and then claimed that the temperature differential caused the shear studs to fail. In reality, the fire would have heated them both nearly uniformly – without significant differential expansion. No thermal expansion or material degradation was considered for the concrete slab.

Concrete expands at 85% the rate of steel. Leaving this expansion out of the calculations in order to show failure of the shear studs is both unscientific and fraudulent.

by Anonymousreply 9405/11/2015

David Ray Griffin noted in The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven: Why NIST’s Final 9“11 Report is Unscientific and False: The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven: Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False:

If NIST did engage in fraudulent science, this would not be particularly surprising. NIST is an agency of the US Department of Commerce. During the years it was writing its World Trade Center reports, therefore, it was an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration. In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists put out a document charging this administration with “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.” By the end of the Bush administration, this document had been signed by over 15,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science.

Moreover, a scientist who formerly worked for NIST has reported that it has been “fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm,” with the result that scientists work ng for NIST “lost [their] scientific independence, and became little more than ‘hired guns.’” Referring in particular to NIST’s work on the World Trade Center, he said everything had to be approved by the Department of Commerce, the National Security Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget–“an arm of the Executive Office of the President,” which “had a policy person specifically delegated to provide oversight on [NIST’s] work.”

by Anonymousreply 9505/11/2015

Why do you think posting the same-old truther stuff is going to prove your point? No one cares about your delusional fantasies.

by Anonymousreply 9605/11/2015

[quote]In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists put out a document charging this administration with “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.” By the end of the Bush administration, this document had been signed by over 15,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science.

R96 wants you to believe that 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science are simply dealing in deluded fantasies when they point out that the government-funded NIST is willing to distort science for political ends.

by Anonymousreply 9705/11/2015

Note that R96 resorts to petty insults because facts don't support his argument.

by Anonymousreply 9805/11/2015

Actually, r96, it's your shrill, belittling response that's easily ignored or otherwise disregarded.

And it in no way obviates the TRUTH of what went down on "Amazing Coincidence/Suspension of the Laws of Physics Day," aka 9-11.

THANK YOU, r93, r94, r95

by Anonymousreply 9905/11/2015

Yes, thank you for posting the same old conspiracy garbage we have seen for ten years. You have performed a great service.

by Anonymousreply 10005/11/2015

R100 is a poopy-head. His mother wears army boots and he beats off to pictures of George W. Bush patting Jeff Gannon on his bald head.

There! That is how to conduct a scientific argument the way R100 does.

by Anonymousreply 10105/11/2015

Really, r100?

See, the ridiculous thing about your brand of posting, is that it won't make other people stupid, or reduce their capacity for critical thinking.

Revel in your anonymity while you can; as time goes on, shills such as yourself will stick out like turds in a punch-bowl.

Things might get uncomfortable.

Mazel tov, asshole!

by Anonymousreply 10205/11/2015

Offer me something new. Offer me proof of your alternate theory. Proof that meets the same standard you set for all other proofs.

Or just keep tossing insults at me because that will convince everyone.

by Anonymousreply 10305/11/2015

Nice try.

Only an idiot would believe that you snark is rooted in some sort of healthy skepticism.

You are posting with an agenda.

As for "something new?" Been in a coma, have you?

by Anonymousreply 10405/11/2015

"your snark"

by Anonymousreply 10505/11/2015

So...you have nothing.

by Anonymousreply 10605/11/2015

Can someone explain why after all the destruction and horror of 9-11, why was it so important for the conspirators to level WTC7? Couldn't they have left that building standing and still used everything else as a reason to go to war?

by Anonymousreply 10705/11/2015

plenty of things in WTC 7 that rich people would benefit from having incinerated...

by Anonymousreply 10805/11/2015

WTC was a literal treasure trove for investigative (SEC) and other documentation.

Study-up on what disappeared amid its controlled demolition destruction.

Luckily, it was fully insured.

And if you haven't seen it, check out the vid of the British propaganda channel (BBC) reporting WTC7's total collapse--as a fait accompli--some minutes before it actually took place.

by Anonymousreply 10905/11/2015

"And if you haven't seen it, check out the vid of the British propaganda channel (BBC) reporting WTC7's total collapse--as a fait accompli--some minutes before it actually took place."

See, this is where you people lose me. You actually think the conspiracy included so many people that even the BBC was in on it. And yet no actual evidence of the conspiracy has actually been uncovered.

by Anonymousreply 11005/11/2015

Who, exactly, do you think is responsible for the "programming" generated by the corporate media?

Think of 9-11 as a military operation. With its propaganda arm playing its role, as required.

by Anonymousreply 11105/11/2015

Also, r110, the BBC mouthpiece in question on that fateful day was charged with "reporting" what she had been told to report; the "facts," under those circumstances, had absolutely no bearing.

It makes the video--WHERE YOU CAN STILL SEE THE INTACT BUILDING OVER HER SHOULDER--all the more surreal and absurd.

by Anonymousreply 11205/11/2015

The brain trust at BBC thought they could just "fix it in post." LOL

by Anonymousreply 11305/11/2015

Yeah, she misspoke. It happens all the time in reporting. That's a much more logical conclusion than that all the people necessary to be in on the supposed conspiracy including all the people in the BBC messed up feeding her the approved dialogue.

by Anonymousreply 11405/11/2015

There's a reason that people have abandoned the mass media in significant numbers in the past decade.

That (the BBC farce) was a moment when the "man behind the curtain" was exposed, ass hanging in the wind.

by Anonymousreply 11505/11/2015

[quote]"There is quite an incredible spread of relationships. You don’t need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are [Central Intelligence] Agency people at the management level." --William B. Bader, former CIA intelligence officer, briefing members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein

"The Agency's relationship with [The New York] Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. [It was] general Times policy ... to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible." --The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein

by Anonymousreply 11605/11/2015

NIST also acknowledged that for a time the collapse of WTC did happen at freefall speed since this is easily verified from the many videos.

There is only one way for this to occur: all supports have to be removed simultaneously. It's just so blatant.

Lynn Margulis (RIP) was one of many prominent scientists who publicly pointed out that this was not science, as NIST with a premise and then bolstered that using specious information and untruths.

It's chilling that truth is now a suspect concept.

by Anonymousreply 11705/11/2015

[quote]Yeah, she misspoke. It happens all the time in reporting.

Misspoke?

The BBC reported people running for their lives from a falling building ... that was still standing.

They reported that no one had been killed by the collapse of the building ... that was still standing.

They reported that fire and structural damage were determined to be the cause of the collapse of the building ... that was still standing.

Obviously they were reciting scripted details for a staged event. CNN also reported that the building collapsed about an hour before it really did. Obviously WTC 7 was rigged with explosives and intended to come down that day. (Its bomb-proof emergency command center was possibly the control room where the demolition of the Twin Towers was conducted.)

Only the demolition of WTC 7 was delayed apparently; and just as apparently neither CNN nor BBC got the memo to hold off on announcing its destruction.

by Anonymousreply 11805/11/2015

"Obviously they were reciting scripted details for a staged event."

Prove it.

"Obviously WTC 7 was rigged with explosives and intended to come down that day."

Prove it.

"(Its bomb-proof emergency command center was possibly the control room where the demolition of the Twin Towers was conducted.)"

Prove it.

by Anonymousreply 11905/11/2015

R119, what are the odds that they would correctly GUESS all those elements of the story that they reported accurately a full twenty minutes BEFORE IT HAPPENED?

Do you suppose that, when in doubt, the BBC just makes up events complete with corroborative details and passes them off as fact?

At 5:00 pm EST the BBC reported people running for their lives from the collapse of WTC 7 and they declared to no one had been killed in the event.

At 5:25 pm EST their prescient reporting came true. How do you explain that?

by Anonymousreply 12005/11/2015

I want the same sort of proof you demand of the official story.

by Anonymousreply 12105/11/2015

R120, the official story falls apart under the weight of its own falsehoods. We don't know exactly what did happen but we do know that the official story cannot be true.

If you want to know exactly what happened, you will have to ask the Neo-cons and their pals in Tel Aviv, as they are the ones who planned and executed 9/11.

by Anonymousreply 12205/11/2015

Tel Aviv? How exactly is Tel Aviv involved in this?

by Anonymousreply 12305/11/2015

I don't understand. Tel Aviv has what to do with the WTC?

by Anonymousreply 12605/11/2015

r122 while your point that the official story is demonstrably false is a valid one, you also contradict yourself.

You say: 'We don't know exactly what did happen ...If you want to know exactly what happened, you will have to ask the Neo-cons and their pals in Tel Aviv'.

r123 asks a legit question: Who are these 'pals in Tel Aviv" and where's the evidence that they had any involvement?

by Anonymousreply 12705/11/2015

It's amazing for far out of your way you are going to NOT say what the essence of the conspiracy was. It's almost as if you think something will happen if you type it out.

by Anonymousreply 12905/11/2015

Well, since you insist on playing dumb:

Look for "Israel did 911."

The document you'll want to read is subtitled "All The Proof You Need."

by Anonymousreply 13005/11/2015

Awesome! So at last you expose yourself not only as a conspiracy-thumping tinhat, but an anti-semite, banking-conspiracy-fuckwad as well!

Ladies and gentlemen, the true face of Truther-dom!

Well done.

by Anonymousreply 13205/11/2015

I couldn't tell you what the weather was like today. I'm too busy grinding the bones of Christians for matzoh

...or whatever lunatic anti-semitic thing you dream sons of Abraham do, you fucking asshole.

by Anonymousreply 13305/11/2015

Why can't all of you post under a name? It would make following your ridiculous comments much easier if I were looking for Bob or Pete rather than R5 or R71.

Sigh... one can wish for simple things...

by Anonymousreply 13505/11/2015

Fuck you, r136.

by Anonymousreply 13805/11/2015

R136 - Your pal Hitler would be proud of your logic.

by Anonymousreply 14005/11/2015

It makes sense they used the British for our domestic interference, and they undoubtedly used the CIA on 7.7.

This is how NATO works. The evidence is of who did what is always in some file on the other side of the ocean.

by Anonymousreply 14505/11/2015

The answers to 9.11 lie in Brussels. To 7.7 in Virginia.

by Anonymousreply 14605/11/2015

Some of the things GWB knew: He knew when he went to Genoa for a G8 summit that security officials were concerned airliners would be hijacked and used as weapons.

The Italian government installed missiles at the Genoa airport to counter the threat.

[quote] The millionaire terrorist, Osama bin Laden, has been linked to an alleged plot to assassinate the US president, George Bush.

published in the UK Guardian July 10, 2001

by Anonymousreply 14705/11/2015

explain please r146.

by Anonymousreply 14805/11/2015

The CIA knew.

by Anonymousreply 15005/12/2015

[quote]"The US shouldn't give high clearances to J*ws, because when asked to help, we're willing to do anything for the love of our country, Israel." -- Spy Jonathan Pollard during interrogation by the FBI. Make note that Pollard was born in the US and his spying put America in serious nuclear risk back in the 1980s.

by Anonymousreply 15105/13/2015

People In The Know: how did we fit into the above schemes, 911 days after 9/11?

by Anonymousreply 15205/13/2015

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

by Anonymousreply 15305/13/2015

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

by Anonymousreply 15405/13/2015

Sadam not connected to 9/11. Safdam did not have weapons of mass destruction. These were the arguments for war. Don't pretend the argument to invade had anything to do with earlier UN resolutions.

by Anonymousreply 15505/13/2015

Snowden says we had all the information, we just couldn't makes sense of it.

by Anonymousreply 15605/13/2015
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.