Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?

So what? Some people took some of the WTC dust with them, but you don't pay attention to that part. But in terms of the heavy duty steel, you'd need quite a lot of equipment to walk away with something that size. A great deal of it, perhaps the most crucial parts, were allegedly stolen. A story from the London Telegraph, 250 tons of scrap stolen from ruins, has this to say concerning the matter:
By David Sapsted in New York Last Updated: 10:53PM BST 28 Sep 2001
THE theft of more than 250 tons of steel from the ruins of the World Trade Centre is being investigated by the FBI and New York police who believe that it was organised by one of the city's Mafia families....

It is estimated that the scrap metal value of the 255 tons so far recovered would be about £10,000. The detective said: "That is not a great deal in itself but the operation to steal from the WTC was obviously not going to be limited to the 255 tons we have found."...

Wrong; FEMA controlled the investigation. From 9/11 Research's Access Restrictions - The Closure of Ground Zero to Investigators:
While the steel was being removed from the site of the three largest and most mysterious structural failures in history, even the team FEMA had assembled to investigate the failures -- the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) -- was denied access to the evidence. 1 The Science Committee of the House of Representatives later identified several aspects of the FEMA-controlled operation that prevented the conduct of an adquate investigation: 2

* The BPAT did not control the steel. "The lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for investigation before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence."
* FEMA required BPAT members to sign confidentiality agreements that "frustrated the efforts of independent researchers to understand the collapse."
* The BPAT was not granted access to "pertinent building documents."
* "The BPAT team does not plan, nor does it have sufficient funding, to fully analyze the structural data it collected to determine the reasons for the collapse of the WTC buildings."

Gene Corley complained to the Committee that the Port Authority refused to give his investigators copies of the Towers' blueprints until he signed a wavier that the plans would not be used in a lawsuit against the agency. 3

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/105731/46ccb8cd/bouwkunde_gebouw_delft_stort_in_topic.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Could it atleast be a sub forum and have someone -other- then Stryder lead it, someone who won't close down threads he himself initially approved when he gets tired of them? Also, it would be nice if certain insults weren't allowed to allow for a more civil discussion. I know you like to think of people like me as 'crazies', but what if we're right? Then you'd be impeding the progress of revealing the truth.

 

Well, I guess this thread is now for all aspects of 9/11, since the WTC discussion here has now been closed. I'm assuming it wasn't a demolition? In any case, the building may have been poorly constructed.

 

that is a steel frame building collapsing from fire alone and no 767 crashed into it unloading 10,000 gallons of fuel either.

 

The link you provided was, I believe, in German. Certainly not in english. I've never heard of this collapse before. I don't even see any evidence that it wasn't a controlled demolition. Perhaps you can read German, but I can't; do you have an english link so I can verify what you say?

 

Dutch.

 

Ok, Dutch; it's still not a language I understand

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

the

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

is getting old. every post you respond to me has that. WHY?

i prefaced the clip in my post.

 

First of all, not all my responses to you have that smiley. Secondly of all, my

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

is not the same as

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. It's also not meant to be interpreted as the same thing either; I use it in place of you saying the wry grin on my actual face that it's meant to invoke.

I see no preface.

 

every other post then.

yes it is.

every other post then.

preface was the wrong word to use, wanted to see how you would wiggle around and use that intentional error to your advantage.

 

I was taking a look at Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 and was reminded of an issue that I think is frequently unaddressed:
Bin Ladens allowed out of U.S. after 9-11 - Former White House official confirms operation said to be rumor.

Here's an excerpt from Michael Moore's movie:
The FAA has taken the action to close
all of the airports in the United States....

But really, who wanted to fly?


No one, except the bin Ladens.

We had airplanes pick up...

...Osama bin Laden's family and other Saudis...

...and transport them out of the U.S.

The White House approved planes...

... to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis.

At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes...

... carried the Saudis and bin Ladens...

... out of the U.S. After September 13th.

In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family...

... were allowed to leave the country.

Osama's always been portrayed as the black sheep in the family...

...that they cut off all relationship with him in 1994.

It's more complicated than that.

Moore: Osama has had contact with other family members?

Right. In the summer of 2001, just before 9l11, one of Osama's sons...

...got married in Afghanistan, and several family members...

...showed up at the wedding.

Moore: Bin Ladens?

That's right. So they're not cut off completely. That's an exaggeration.

 

Even that's not true.

John, you don't define what I mean by certain symbols, sorry.

"wiggle around"? John, what word, exactly, -would- have been the right word? You posted a link and nothing else, to a page with a video of the partial collapse of a building, with the text in Dutch. I assume that you think that the building wasn't taken down by any type of controlled demolition. I haven't seen any direct evidence of this, but I'll buy it for now. In any case, there's no evidence that I can see that that building was a steel framed building.

 

And what does that mean? Many government officials were able to fly that day, not only Saudi

 

i assumed you read my post after your initial response. office fire, steel fram building, no explosive, no super thermite\nano thermite\thernite\thermate.

and what would you think it was made of.
:wallbang:

 

You seem to be implying that the bin laden family were all government officials. If this is what you mean to say, do you have any evidence to support this claim? Anyway, here's another good excerpt from Michael Moore's film:

This is retired FBI agent Jack Cloonan. Before 9/11, he was a senior agent on the joint FBl-CIA al Qaeda task force.

Jack: I, as an investigator, would not want these people to have left. I think, in the case of the bin Laden family, it would have been prudent to hand the subpoenas out, have them come in, get on-the-record. You know, get on-the-record.

Moore: That's the proper procedure?

Jack: Yeah.

 

John, why can't you make this a little easier for me? You know, by putting all of the relevant material in a single post? There are times when, due to your dislike of quoting people, I have trouble even knowing who you're responding to.

It was perhaps a concrete framed building, as was the Windsor Tower in Madrid. Even so, it seems like it the partial collapse didn't need much fire, which certainly contrasts with the only other example I know of a partial collapse due to fires, the Windsor tower. The Windsor Tower had a concrete frame, and yet it still put up more of a fight then that. Perhaps it was very poorly designed, or perhaps it got a bit of help from some explosives. I know nothing about the building in that video clip other then what I can see in the actual clip.

 

i am not implying that they were all govt. officials.

i suppose they could have interviewed them but i really dont know what someone would expect to get and you cannot just force people to interview because a relative committed a crime or is a suspect. most likely you would have to go to them but that is neither here no there. And of course you dont know when and if they were interviewed at a later time.

 

who else would i be responding to?