9/11 documentary

Home Forum Chat Forum 9/11 documentary

Viewing 45 posts - 91 through 135 (of 1,456 total)
  • 9/11 documentary
  • pondo
    Member

    9/11 flight speed video.

    That’s never right, is it? Speed of sound’s over 700mph at sea level, 510 knots is less than 600mph innit?

    Three_Fish
    Member

    Because the top of the building did collapse first, then the weight and impact of the top part of the building falling down over stressed the lower part which then collapsed.

    For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Nobody has yet disproved Newton’s Third Law. NIST/The 911 Commission stated that one tower was demolished in 9 seconds, the other in 11. From where did the tops of each tower obtain sufficient potential energy to seemingly overcome NTL, and the Law of Momentum Conservation, continuing to the ground at an virtually constant rate and not just come to a stop after crushing the equivalent of its own mass?

    Hmmmmm……….

    THe nose cone of a plane after hitting a bird…..

    whitestone
    Member

    @daidtaylforth – those aren’t charges, they are debris being blown out of the sides of the building by the pressure wave caused by the mass of the tower above the impact point as it descends under gravity.

    That upper mass fell because the fires below it weakened the steel structure to the point where it no longer had the capability to support it. Once it began to descend there was no stopping it as the structure was designed for a static load not a dynamic one. Also the towers didn’t fall over simply because they were so big – each occupied roughly one acre of ground – the centre of gravity of the upper floors never moved sufficiently away from the centre line of the building for it to be a possibility. Once that mass began to descend then it was always going to fall “through” the building below. The south tower collapsed first, even though it was struck 20 minutes after the north tower, because the impact point was 15 floors lower than the impact point on the north tower so there was more mass above so the structure didn’t need to have weakened as much before it failed.

    The fire crews that headed up to tackle the blaze were always going to be ineffective, the fires were on several floors, covered in burning aviation fuel. For comparison a football pitch is roughly 1.5 acres so with at least three floors on fire that’s two football pitches of conflagration to extinguish.

    Sky scrapers are not designed to withstand dynamic loads, they resist the static load of the weight of the top. If that is moving at a speed downward then that imparts a far greater force on the structure below. The moving mass of the upper structure has a force equal to mass x acceleration. Acceleration is 9.81m/s/s so the force is ten times the mass. Way above the factor of safety applied to structures so no surprise the lower structure was over stressed and collapsed.

    Speed of sound at sea level is over 700mph depending upon atmospheric pressure, but the aircraft were not traveling that fast even by watching them on TV they were not going anywhere near that fast. Not sure what the NTSB report actually reads, but even if it is a conspiracy theory that makes even less sense that the NTSB would publish impossible data. They’re well aware of the speed of sound at sea level and the fact a normal commercial airliner can’t get anywhere near it apart form in a steep dive. I can only think there was an error in the data or the measurement of the speed.

    pondo
    Member

    NIST/The 911 Commission stated that one tower was demolished in 9 seconds, the other in 11. From where did the tops of each tower obtain sufficient potential energy to seemingly overcome NTL, and the Law of Momentum Conservation, continuing to the ground at an virtually constant rate and not just come to a stop after crushing the equivalent of its own mass?

    They took longer to fall than that, and the dynamic load of the falling upper floors was far higher than, I think, the static load you’re thinking of. Have a read of this, interesting site.

    https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM

    THe nose cone of a plane after hitting a bird…..

    Really? That’s your evidence?

    A 757 weights over 100,000kg. A weight of 100,000kg travelling at a couple of hundred mph is not going penetrate a skyscraper? A sky scraper is a thin walled structure, should be no surprise an aircraft can penetrate it. Plus once it has hit the momentum of the fuel will travel forward and ignite and blow out the other side – these are all open plan buildings with no structural internal walls, just a structural central core.

    So what are you saying? That this was all just some form of mass hallucinogenic thing where they put something int he water so all the eye witnesses hallucinated aircraft crashing into the buildings and what we watched on TV was just CGI? because that sounds so much more plausibleplausinbe

    jimjam
    Member

    wobbliscott – Member

    Unfortunately, you’re wrong. I have a friend who’s certainly above average intelligence and a brilliant designer, and he buys into all of this. I shared an office with another guy for four years who is a legitimate genius imo and he also went deep into these conspiracies.

    It only takes about three “facts”. Steel melts at C. Jets can’t fly at Y. The building fell like Z…and you have the fuel for a conspiracy. And unless these “facts” happen to be in your area of professional expertise it requires a lot of study and energy to understand and disprove them. This is the part they don’t do.

    1. your genius mate doesn’t understand aerodynamics or the performance envelopes of aircraft because aircraft can fly at low speed down to about 200mph or less depending on the aircraft, its weight, the wind direction and strength. They’re designed to fly at 40k feet where the air is thin – so flying at low altitudes where the air is like soup in comparison is easy peasy. No really, it is not a challenge at all and certainly not witchcraft. It’s perfectly explainable and understandable. I’m of average intelligence at best and certainly not a genius and fully understand and comprehend it, and indeed in a proper flight simulator have flown a jumbo jet at low speed underneath the Golden Gate bridge, so it is entirely possible.

    2. your genius mate has not yet grasped the fact that melting steel has nothing to do with the structural failure of the towers. Steel has lost half of its strength at around 600 degrees c – it’s not even glowing red at that temperature, so no surprise the towers collapsed under the heat of burning jet fuel – which might burn naturally in still air at about 1500 degrees, but can achieve much higher temperatures if oxygen is pumped into it – like the updrafts created when jet fuel is burning in a confined space….say like in a sky scraper. The combustion temperatures in aircraft jet engines achieve well over 2000 degrees C and could go much hotter…and they run off jet fuel.

    3. plenty of experts and specialists have confirmed the building collapsed completely and definitely in accordance to expectations given the failure mechanism.[/quote]

    In your panic to come off as pompous and condescending you’ve failed to correctly read or understand my post and you’re making my point for me.
    I wasn’t trying to construct an argument, nor was I repeating the specific hair brained theories of my friends and former colleagues. Notice that I’ve put the word facts into quotation marks twice and instead of stating any kind of metric I’ve just used letters.

    My point was that it’s the presence of multiple questionable or incongruous issues which opens these rabbit holes in the conspiracy theorists mind and without expertise in multiple fields it’s impossible to fully rebuke or rebuff them.

    So taking 9/11 as an example someone who wants to disprove the conspiracy theorists needs to have expertise in aerodynamics, aviation, architectural/structural engineering, metallurgy, demolition….etc etc etc

    Even if you happen to actually be a world renowned expert in one of those fields the conspiracy theorist will simply switch to another “fact” or more “evidence” of something else. Something which renders your expertise in the previous field irrelevant, and you are suddenly back on a level playing field of guesswork and supposition.

    maxtorque
    Member

    Three_Fish

    For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Nobody has yet disproved Newton’s Third Law. NIST/The 911 Commission stated that one tower was demolished in 9 seconds, the other in 11. From where did the tops of each tower obtain sufficient potential energy to seemingly overcome NTL, and the Law of Momentum Conservation, continuing to the ground at an virtually constant rate and not just come to a stop after crushing the equivalent of its own mass?

    Ok, lets assume the building did fall at more than 1 g (it didn’t btw, video and semsmic evidence suggest the collapse took between 12 and 15 seconds, which is about 0.7g)

    But assuming it did accel at more than 1 g, explain how an explosive demolition could do this?

    To do that, there would have to be thrusters of some sort fitted to the top of the building to push it down, and as each tower had a mass of about 500,000 tonnes, to just be say 10% greater accel than freefall would require a force of 50,000 tonnes, equivalent to 15 Saturn V rockets mounted upside down on the top of the building and all firing at once and for the entire duration of the fall.

    Did you see 15 S5 moon rockets on the roof?

    Three_Fish
    Member

    That upper mass fell because the fires below it weakened the steel structure to the point where it no longer had the capability to support it. Once it began to descend there was no stopping it as the structure was designed for a static load not a dynamic one.

    The upper mass (supposedly) fell onto the lower mass because the supporting structure failed. Please explain how you believe it managed to overcome NTL and LMC and continue beyond its own equivalent mass and continue at the same rate of descent through the rest of the structure.

    pondo
    Member

    Not sure what the NTSB report actually reads, but even if it is a conspiracy theory that makes even less sense that the NTSB would publish impossible data. They’re well aware of the speed of sound at sea level and the fact a normal commercial airliner can’t get anywhere near it apart form in a steep dive. I can only think there was an error in the data or the measurement of the speed.

    The linked video talks about 510 knots as though it’s over mach 1, which an airliner couldn’t achieve. Mach 1 couldn’t be achieved, I agree, but 510 knots is way under that, even at sea level.

    jonnyboi
    Member

    consider the devastation caused (and the massive fireball) by one small fighter jet at the shoreham airshow. Yet these balloons think a picture of a bird strike at take off speed is evidence that 9/11 was faked.

    Guess what. It wasn’t, you’re wrong, no one takes you seriously, and you are literally wasting your life trying to prove otherwise

    whitestone
    Member

    @wobbliscott – 404 knots for the first plane and 523 knots for the second. The second plane had descended from 28,500ft at a fast rate so it’s likely to have had some momentum from that:

    From Wikipedia: “At 08:58, the plane was over New Jersey at 28,500 feet, heading toward New York City. In the five minutes from approximately 08:58 when Shehhi completed the final turn toward New York City until the moment of impact, the plane was in a sustained power dive, descending more than 24,000 feet in 5 minutes 4 seconds, for an average rate of over 5,000 feet per minute.[14] New York Center air traffic controller Dave Bottiglia reported he and his colleagues “were counting down the altitudes, and they were descending, right at the end, at 10,000 feet per minute. That is absolutely unheard of for a commercial jet.”

    So not level flight.

    pondo
    Member

    The upper mass (supposedly) fell onto the lower mass because the supporting structure failed. Please explain how you believe it managed to overcome NTL and LMC and continue beyond its own equivalent mass and continue at the same rate of descent through the rest of the structure.

    It’s in the link I posted;
    “If a story is 4 meters high, it will take an object about 0.9 seconds to fall one story, by which time it will be going 9 m/sec. So once the collapse starts, the overlying structure will be falling at 9 m/sec by the time it has fallen one story. If we crush the collapsing story into rubble half a meter thick and expect the collapse to stop at that point, what kinds of forces are involved? We go from 9 m/sec to zero in half a meter, or 1/18 of a second. However, during that deceleration the velocity is decreasing, and the average velocity turns out to be half of the initial velocity, so the crunch time is 1/9 second. So the acceleration is -9 m/sec divided by 1/9 sec = -81 m/sec2, or about 8 g’s.

    This is the difference between a static load and a dynamic load. In the north tower, with about ten stories above the impact, the dynamic load was about equivalent not to ten stories but to eighty, nearly the total height of the building. I doubt if the tower at that level was engineered to support eighty stories – why waste the steel? Actually the loads are much greater because the initial collapse involved a fall of about three or four stories, not just one, and the dynamic loads on the points that actually resist the fall – the welds and the rivets, will be far greater. If you try to stop the collapse in the millimeter or so a rivet or weld can deform before failing, you’re talking hundreds of g’s. In the south tower, where the top 25 or so stories fell, the impact load at eight g’s would be equivalent to 200 stories, or twice the total height of the building. Some conspiracy buffs argue that engineering standards require a safety factor several times the actual load on the structure, but the dynamic loads would far overwhelm those standards.

    This, by the way, is the reason controlled demolition works at all. If physics worked the way 9-11 conspiracy buffs think, once you blew the lower stories of a building, the upper part would just drop and remain intact. Of course it doesn’t because once the building begins to fall, the dynamic loads are far beyond the static strength of the building.”

    n your panic to come off as pompous and condescending

    I wouldn’t know how to be pompous or condescending – i was going for sarcastic. But in any case i’ve obviously taken your note in a way it was not intended to come across and for that i’ll apologise for my mistake. I took it as you endorsing the conspiracy theories because your clever colleagues/friends believed in them.

    jonnyboi
    Member

    So not level flight.

    Eye witness

    We sort of expected him to veer off and go into the Hudson. But he just rose a little bit, his altitude, leveled off, and he was headed straight for the Trade Center.

    And you wonder why no one takes you seriously

    whitestone
    Member

    @threefish – which bit of “the building was not designed to withstand dynamic loading of the structure above” don’t you understand? Newton’s third law has nothing to do with it.

    @jonnyboi – The quote I used was about the plane that crashed into the south tower, yours is about the plane that crashed into the north tower, 100 knots slower speed.

    jimjam
    Member

    wobbliscott – Member

    I took it as you endorsing the conspiracy theories because your clever colleagues/friends believed in them.

    No, not even slightly. You’ve obviously taken exception to the fact that I referred to my friend as a genius, which he is. He’s just not a genius in multiple engineering fields.

    @wobbliscott – 404 knots for the first plane and 523 knots for the second. The second plane had descended from 28,500ft at a fast rate so it’s likely to have had some momentum from that:

    From Wikipedia: “At 08:58, the plane was over New Jersey at 28,500 feet, heading toward New York City. In the five minutes from approximately 08:58 when Shehhi completed the final turn toward New York City until the moment of impact, the plane was in a sustained power dive, descending more than 24,000 feet in 5 minutes 4 seconds, for an average rate of over 5,000 feet per minute.[14] New York Center air traffic controller Dave Bottiglia reported he and his colleagues “were counting down the altitudes, and they were descending, right at the end, at 10,000 feet per minute. That is absolutely unheard of for a commercial jet.”

    So not level flight.

    That explains it then. Seems a fact those pilots were conveniently ignoring in that youtube video then who were talking about S&L flight.

    No, not even slightly. You’ve obviously taken exception to the fact that I referred to my friend as a genius, which he is. He’s just not a genius in multiple engineering fields.

    Yes, I don’t take the fact someone is an expert or a genius as proof or even assumption of proof that their point of view is correct. I am cynical and awkward like that, but its saved my ass several times in my job. In most arguments there are experts and geniuses on both sides. Our world is complicated and rarely is there a an absolute black and white / right or wrong situation – it’s all shades of grey. Except with 9/11 conspiracies.

    maxtorque
    Member

    Three_Fish
    The upper mass (supposedly) fell onto the lower mass because the supporting structure failed. Please explain how you believe it managed to overcome NTL and LMC and continue beyond its own equivalent mass and continue at the same rate of descent through the rest of the structure

    A building is, in fact, mostly free space (air) It has to be, because we need to put things, like people, furniture etc inside it. It is NOT a solid block.

    The WTC was a very unique design.
    Due to it’s height, and the necessity to support the high wind sheer forces, but bear a relatively low distributed floor loading (it was just a commercial office building remember, housing, desks, filing cabinets and people, not some heavy storage or machinery), it was designed with load bearing outer walls and thin suspended floors . To withstand bending loads, you get the stiffest structure with the least mass by making the supporting structure as wide as possible, so this is a sensible approach for a very tall, lightly loaded building.

    In fact, this very design was probably intrinsic into why the towers didn’t actually collapse immediately due to the initial impact itself, because they were very stiff and had very good load sharing capability (compared to a traditional lattice girder type steel frame)

    When the heat of the fire, and the damage from the original impact finally caused the outer structure to bulge too much, those vertical walls buckled (try it, get a drinking straw, put a book on it, then tap the middle of the straw. it’s hold the book when straight, but not when buckled) and at that point, the thin floors what were hung off the external walls simply cascaded down into each other. The outer frame can be seen in numerous pictures and video’s bending outwards and opening like a banana as the floors concertina down the middle.

    With the walls bending outwards, as the building collapsed breaking the “hooked on floor supporting structure”, there is relatively speaking nothing of any significance to hold the floors up, and especially so given the massive dynamic load. Try another experiment. Put your hand flat on a table, then put a hammer on your hand, ok, no worries. Now drop the same hammer onto your hand from 1 foot above, now tell me there’s no difference….)

    The entire WTC structure was built on a massive underground void, with car parks, subway stations and malls, and into this the above ground structure fell, unstoppably pancaking everything into a dense, but relatively small pile of debris showing above ground (remember, this is a steel framed building, not a concrete one, so the actual ratio of structure to space is pretty small due to the high strength of steel)

    ^^^ note the outer structure still standing, nearly straight, but with no evidence of any floors

    jimjam
    Member

    wobbliscott – Member

    No, not even slightly. You’ve obviously taken exception to the fact that I referred to my friend as a genius, which he is. He’s just not a genius in multiple engineering fields.

    Yes, I don’t take the fact someone is an expert or a genius as proof or even assumption of proof that their point of view is correct. I am cynical and awkward like that,[/quote]

    Well just to reiterate, I mentioned his intellect merely to make the point that conspiracy theorists are not necessarily stupid people.

    Our world is complicated and rarely is there a an absolute black and white / right or wrong situation – it’s all shades of grey. Except with 9/11 conspiracies.

    The irony is that 9/11 was a conspiracy. A group of islamists conspired to fly some jets into some buildings.

    warton
    Member

    So a fire from office furnishings was hot enough to cause wtc 7 to perfectly drop at free fall speeds?

    Sorry, I haven’t read the whole thread, but one thing that really, really annoys me is the WTC7 argument.

    one question. Why?

    lets say it is a government plot, lets say drone planes flew into the WTC, and lets say they then blew up the towers.

    why then would anyone involved say “I know, what we need to do is blow up a building that wasn’t hit by a plane, that won’t attract any attention, will it”

    Why? If anyone can sensibly answer that question, I’m all ears.

    bullheart
    Member

    Shithouse thread.

    Needs more Ling.

    3/10

    jimjam
    Member

    warton – Member

    why then would anyone involved say “I know, what we need to do is blow up a building that wasn’t hit by a plane, that won’t attract any attention, will it”

    Why? If anyone can sensibly answer that question, I’m all ears.

    That’s because some super secret top government data or something was kept there.

    Premier Icon richmars
    Subscriber

    I heard WTC7 was lizard HQ.

    consider the devastation caused (and the massive fireball) by one small fighter jet at the shoreham airshow. Yet these balloons think a picture of a bird strike at take off speed is evidence that 9/11 was faked.

    Guess what. It wasn’t, you’re wrong, no one takes you seriously, and you are literally wasting your life trying to prove otherwise

    You seem to be taking it quite seriously, as do others in this thread……

    maxtorque
    Member

    jimjam.

    That’s because some super secret top government data or something was kept there

    er, if it was so secret, couldn’t they just have, you know, moved it?

    jimjam
    Member

    maxtorque – Member

    jimjam.

    That’s because some super secret top government data or something was kept there

    er, if it was so secret, couldn’t they just have, you know, moved it? [/quote]

    No it was far handier to wage a proxy war with the Russians in Afghanistan by spending trillions arming the mujahadeen and promising them that if they beat the Russians the would have the full support of the British and American governments and then abandon them after the Russians were beaten causing a civil war which led to a power vacuum which allowed the Taliban to gain control of the country creating the perfect environment for Bin Laden to organise Al Qaeda and plan a terrorist plot to fly commercial jet aircraft into the twin towers….as a distraction to get rid of whatever they needed to get rid of in tower 7.

    Obviously.

    neilwheel
    Member

    Everyone needs a hobby…/thread.

    Premier Icon slowoldman
    Subscriber

    Ah, now I get it. Makes perfect sense.

    No it was far handier to wage a proxy war with the Russians in Afghanistan by spending trillions arming the mujahadeen and promising them that if they beat the Russians the would have the full support of the British and American governments and then abandon them after the Russians were beaten causing a civil war which led to a power vacuum which allowed the Taliban to gain control of the country creating the perfect environment for Bin Laden to organise Al Qaeda and plan a terrorist plot to fly commercial jet aircraft into the twin towers….as a distraction to get rid of whatever they needed to get rid of in tower 7.

    Obviously.

    Pff, next you’ll be saying that opiate production in Afghanistan has increased massively since the 2001 allied invasion.

    Or that Huffman aviation involved in the training of the 9/11 hijackers had a history of involvement in the covert drugs trade.

    That Mohammed Atta certainly knew how to party…

    Ask Rudi Dekkers, Wally Hillard or Michael F Brassington

    warton
    Member

    That’s because some super secret top government data or something was kept there

    and the massive fire wouldn’t have destroyed it?

    jimjam
    Member

    jivehoneyjive – Member

    Pff, next you’ll be saying that opiate production in Afghanistan has increased massively since the 2001 allied invasion.

    So you’re telling me that the British invaded Afghanistan in 1838 so they could fight three wars, surrender control 100 years later, approve and collaborate with Regan and his proxy war against the Russians 60 years after that so that they could conspire to create a terrorist event that would facilitate an invasion that allowed them to increase production of opium so they could make money from drugs that hadn’t been invented when they invaded almost 200 years prior?

    I guess I’ll look into it.

    tjagain
    Member

    So why has there not been a single whistleblower? It would have taken many hundreds of people many weeks to wire the buildings for demolition. During this time thousands of workers were using the building daily. Not one saw anything funny? NO det cord, no removed supports, no evidence of anything

    All the conspiracy theories are laughable piffle

    Aig, I dunno what you mena…

    Stable countries don’t do much for the arms trade though bae…

    In other news, sure I read somewhere that HSBC was formed as a result of the Opium Wars…

    I don’t know much about these things, but given his time in Afghanistan, perhaps Sherard Cowper-Coles can help elaborate on such matters.

    jonnyboi
    Member

    Is this thread a honey trap?

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    tjagain – Member

    So why has there not been a single whistleblower?

    Pff, the lack of whistleblowers is proof of the conspiracy- think about it. With this many deniers, if it weren’t a conspiracy we’d still have fake whistleblowers coming out with fake accounts of the conspiracy, that’s just how people are. The only way there can be no whistleblowers, is if the illuminati kill them all before they go public, using HAARP to read their minds

    rene59
    Member

    It wasn’t the government or the illuminati what done it, it was patriarchy.

    tjagain
    Member

    don’t you start Northwind. Remember I know you set the reichstag fire. If you don’t shut up I’ll grass you up

    A quick google suggests there is indeed a fair few whistleblowers…

    Whilst I’m not 100% on everything James Corbett mentions, here are a few examples:

    The 9/11 Whistleblowers

    The 9/11 Commission – The myth that the 9/11 commission report represents an adequate investigation into the events of 9/11 is perhaps best exposed by the commissioners themselves, 6 out of 10 of whom have questioned the commission and its conclusions personally (namely Kean and Hamilton, Kerrey, Roemer, Lehman and Cleland). Commission co-chairman Thomas Kean once famously remarked that the Commission was “set up to fail.” Commission members considered bringing criminal charges against Pentagon officials who had deliberately lied to them about the military’s complete lack of response on that day. One of the commissioners, Max Cleland, even resigned because the commission had been “deliberately compromised by the president of the United States.”

    911 Commissioner Bob Kerrey claims 911 was a 30 year conspiracy

    Richard Andrew Grove – In 2000, Richard Andrew Grove was working for Silverstream Software, a software development company specializing in enterprise architecture software. By October of that year he had landed the firm their largest client in the company’s history: Marsh & McLennan. After finding evidence that Silverstream was overbilling Marsh by nearly $7 million and being told to keep quiet by both his own management and those he confided to at Marsh, he was fired. After his termination, he was invited to present his evidence at a staff meeting in Marsh’s offices where Marsh employees who were suspicious of such transactions themselves were gathered. That meeting was on the 98th floor of the World Trade Center. It was the 11th of September, 2001. And everyone who was in attendance at the meeting died there that day. Grove, who had been late for the meeting, survived. His remarkable story, as well as subsequent events, led him to start piecing together how 9/11 helped financial institutions and insurance companies cover up billions of dollars in fraud by eliminating those who were asking questions about it.

    Richard Grove, Wall Street Whistleblower

    Sibel Edmonds – In the wake of 9/11, Sibel Edmonds heeded the FBI’s call for Middle Eastern language experts to support their counterterrorism unit. Fluent in Turkish and Azerbaijani and conversational in Farsi, she joined the FBI as a translator on September 15, 2001. She soon discovered gross negligence and criminal conspiracy in the FBI and State Department, including deliberately mistranslated documents in the Bureau’s possession before 9/11 that contained information about the attacks, nuclear spies being facilitated by top government officials and foreign operatives who were taken in for questioning after 9/11 being released because they were connected to those spy rings. A 2005 report from the Office of the Inspector General determined that none of Edmonds’ allegations can be refuted. In 2009, Edmonds revealed that Osama Bin Laden had been working for U.S. intelligence right up to the day of 9/11.

    Sibel Edmonds: Bin Laden Worked for U.S. Right Up Until 9/11 PT1

    William Bergman – In August 2001 the Federal Reserve Board of Governors issued a non-routine supervisory letter warning Fed banks to be vigilant in monitoring suspicious activity reports. At the same time, the United States’ economy was experiencing its largest June-August spike in M1 money supply since 1947, with more than $5 billion being added to the currency in circulation over that period. Piecing this information together at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago two years later, economist Bill Bergman wondered if the sudden infusion of currency might have been an indicator of foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks, as those with assets in danger of being frozen in the wake of such an attack would naturally want to liquidate their holdings before an investigation could occur. When Bergman wrote to the Board of Governors to ask for clarification as to why they had issued their supervisory letter, he was told that he had committed “an egregious breach of protocol in calling the Board staff and asking the question.”

    Coleen Rowley – When the so-called “20th hijacker” Zaccharias Moussaoui was detained on August 15th, 2001, agents in the Minneapolis FBI field office immediately sought a criminal warrant to search his belongings. Management at the FBI dealing with the request threw up numerous obstacles to the agents, and even withheld information from them, including the now-infamous Phoenix Memo written by an agent in Arizona warning of terrorists training in flight schools for a possible upcoming attack. The request was denied and agents were prevented from searching Moussaoui’s laptop, which contained information that would have tipped the FBI off to the 9/11 plot. The Minneapolis field office Chief Counsel, Coleen Rowley, has been very public with her disgust at the conduct of FBI management during the case and its subsequent review, and she has supported causes like NYC CAN which seek to re-open the 9/11 investigation.

    J. Michael Springmann – A 20-year veteran of the State Department’s Foreign service, J. Michael Springmann served 18 months as the head of the visa section at the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in 1988-89. During that time he repeatedly rejected visa applications from unqualified individuals only to have his decisions overturned by the head of the consulate. When he returned to Washington, he discovered that the Jeddah consulate was being used as a place for funnelling Afghan mujahedeen into the U.S. for training, facilitated by the CIA on behalf of their asset, Osama bin Laden. The Jeddah consulate would be the very office that issued 15 of the alleged 9/11 hijackers’ visas to enter the United States. After numerous complaints up the chain of command, Springmann’s contract with the State Department was not renewed.

    Jeddah, Visa Express & J. Michael Springmann

    Robert Wright – In the 1990s, Special Agent Robert Wright of the FBI’s Chicago field office spearheaded an investigation into terrorist financing codenamed Vulgar Betrayal. The investigation uncovered information about Yassin Al-Qadi, a terrorist financier who would go on to be designated a global terrorist financier by the U.S. treasury in the wake of 9/11. Vulgar Betrayal led to information about the African embassy bombings in 1998 and resulted in the seizure of $1.4 million of terrorist financing. Despite the investigation’s remarkable success, however, Wright was taken off of Vulgar Betrayal in 1999 and reduced to a paper pusher. In 2002, Wright went public with information about how his investigations had been systematically starved for funds, hindered and obstructed by FBI management and revealed that he believes 9/11 could have been prevented if he had been allowed to continue his investigation. The Bureau prevented him from releasing a book about his experience. He was threatened with legal action if he revealed any details about what he had been investigating.

    Indira Singh – As a risk management consultant for J.P. Morgan in 2001, Indira Singh was tasked with implementing the next generation of risk management software for the firm. Working for one of the largest financial institutions in the world, Singh wanted to choose a reputable software vendor for the task, one with a proven track record of working with the sensitive information of important clients. She solicited a presentation from Ptech, an enterprise architecture software firm whose clients included some of the most sensitive departments in the U.S. government, including the FBI, the Department of Defense, the Treasury, the IRS, the US Navy and the White House. After performing due diligence on the company, Singh discovered that it had been started in part by funds from Yassin Al-Qadi (the same Specially Designated Global Terrorist that Robert Wright’s investigation had been focused on). She discovered many other disturbing links between Ptech officers and suspected terrorist organizations. Ptech had been conducting tests on the interoperability of FAA and NORAD computer systems in the event of an emergency on the morning of 9/11. When she tried to bring this information to the FBI in Boston she was told by one agent that she was in a better position to investigate the case than the Bureau was.

    Indira Singh Testimony

    Barry Jennings – Barry Jennings was the Deputy Director of Emergency Services for the New York City Housing Department. On the morning of 9/11, he received a phone call informing him that a plane had hit the World Trade Center and asking him to go to the Office of Emergency Management in World Trade Center Building 7. Arriving at the office with New York City Corporation Counsel Michael Hess, the men discovered that the OEM had been abandoned. When they attempted to leave there was a series of explosions inside the building, trapping them in the stairwell. Eventually Jennings and Hess were rescued by firefighters, and as they were leaving World Trade Center 7, they had to step over a number of bodies. Jennings’ account contradicts the official government explanation of the collapse of World Trade Center 7 at 5:20 p.m. that day, which stated there were no explosions or casualties in the collapse. Jennings died on August 19, 2008 under extremely suspicious circumstances.

    Barry Jennings Uncut

    False flag events are not new, The Nazi’s did one and blamed the Polish – Reichstag fire.

    Except they didn’t blame the Polish. And whether the Nazis set the fire themselves or had a stroke of good luck when a Dutch communist (who was an arsonist) did it has been a bone of contention for over 80 years.

    tjagain
    Member

    It was Northwind I tell you

    jimjam
    Member

    You know where it says – Member beside a name? Can I suggest Jivehoneyjive’s be changed to TL;DR.

Viewing 45 posts - 91 through 135 (of 1,456 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.