9/11 - Expose the Cover-up

Army Of Truth · Post by **Army Of Truth** » December 11th, 2006, 2:55 pm

I recently opened my eyes to the New World Order/Satanic Communist Conspiracy that President Ezra Taft Benson, David O. McKay, and J. Reuben Clard spoke vehemently against by watching the documentary "9-11, In Plane Site" by Dave VonKleist. Anyone who sees this with an open mind will have to admit that there is a ton of evidence pointing to a cover-up while there is NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. Another video I highly recommend for first timers is "9-11 Loose Change 2" by Dylan Avery.

The more research one does, the more you will see the hand of intelligence involved in every step of this elaborate and well orchestrated cover-up. This is the same "secret combination" spoken of in the Book of Mormon that eventually brought the Nephite and Jaredite civilizations to their ultimate destructions. The same "conspiracy theory" that President Benson mentions in the April 1972 General Conference entitled 'Civic Standards for Faithful Saints" in which he says "There is no conspiracy theory in the Book of Mormon - it is a conspiracy fact."

The 9/11 cover-up needs to first be exposed in order to understand the chaos our nation is currently going through. What chaos you ask?
1. The Patriot Act I and II and Homeland Security Act which are all eroding away our constitution,
2. The NSA secretly Spying on Americans which is now no longer secretive,
3. The "fake" Bin Laden video tapes,
4. The "staged" Terror plot in in 2002 on the LA Library Tower,
5. The staged terror plot in Miami concerning "home grown" terrorists,
6. The torture and murders at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib,
7. The unconstitutional endless war (started by lies about WMD) in Iraq soon to move to Iran,
8. The Bird Flu scare,
9. The North American Union (aka Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America) that will take away America's borders, America's money (turned into Amero's) and America's sovereignty,
10. The Military Commisions Act which takes away Habeas Corpus,
11. The John Warner Defense Authorization Act which abolishes Posse Comitatus,
12. The current debate over Net Neutrality,
13. the Hate Laws that are still trying to be passed that will make all Christians preaching the bible criminals ( S.966 - LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2003, S.1145 - Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2005)
14. The Real ID Act that will require a 'National ID' of all American Citizens starting in May of 2008,
15. The RFID chip technology that civil rights groups see as the "mark of the beast",
16. Kellogg Brown and Root Concentration Camps. KBR was awarded $385 Million contract by Homeland Security in January 2006 to construct more camps throughout America. (Nice...I already feel safer.)
17. The complete media scare and fear tactics used on Americans to get us (brainwash us) to hate Muslims, Mexicans, Jews, etc, etc, etc...

I challenge all truth seekers out there to ask yourselves, do I seek truth? Does truth determine if I accept something, or does political affiliation or public acceptance determine that? If something were true, wouldn't it be better for me to know than not to know? Didn't Jesus say, "the Truth shall make you free"? (John 8:32)

In all honesty and spirit, I know that 9-11 was a conspiracy fact. I have all the facts to prove it. There are no facts to prove the official government "outrageous conspiracy theory".

Check out my flyer here for more truth:

http://www.sea-organics.com/Sea-Organic ... 0Color.doc

For more even more facts, check out my 10-page report here:

http://www.sea-organics.com/Sea-Organic ... IDENCE.doc

May this help open the eyes of my fellow brothers and sisters in the gospel so that we can all recognize that we are indeed in the last days that John "the Revelator" saw. God bless and peace out!

ShineOn · Post by **ShineOn** » December 11th, 2006, 3:06 pm

Amen, brother. I was all for the Iraq War. I voted for Bush in 2000. I listened to Rush Limbaugh all the time. I was even a delegate for the Republican Party. Then a short time after the Iraq War (sometime in summer of 2003) I heard Condi rice say something like, "We need to learn everything we can about that day (9/11) so that nothing like that can ever happen again." So I did. Oops. I learned too much.

FYI, a lot of other good videos: (I have bought and watched multiple times every video on 9/11)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_consp ... s#Videos_2

SwissMrs&Pitchfire · December 11th, 2006, 3:33 pm

That is so danged funny ShineOn! Good to see you on board Army of Truth!!!

ShineOn · Post by **ShineOn** » December 11th, 2006, 3:44 pm

I was actually doing my National Guard AT on 9/11. Military intelligence. Maybe some time we should have a "what were you doing that day?" thread.

SwissMrs&Pitchfire · December 11th, 2006, 4:05 pm

No time like the present.

I had just thrown away like TV #2 (I think) so I checked the news on the net and went to math class at Utah State. When the wife picked me up (after that class) I bailed on my next class and wished I had the stupid TV. Oh course I said right off that both towers should not have fallen, and certainly not like they did.

I was with Bush for the most part right up until it became abundantly clear that he was for amnesty and against border protection. There is just no explaining that away!

On my mission this guy said that no one would ever share a drink with him till he tried to quit drinking, works with TVs too! Every time I huck ours out they rain from the sky! Funny that!

ChelC · Post by **ChelC** » December 11th, 2006, 4:43 pm

I was getting ready for work and turned on the morning news, and never went to work. My phone didn't ring either, no one cared about having their copier fixed that day.

I watched it all day long, I was stunned by it. I will always remember the sounds. I never suspected anything about them falling, I thought it was crazy, but I was very trusting! I'm still not sure what to believe about it all.

Tribunal · Post by **Tribunal** » December 11th, 2006, 5:23 pm

So Army of Truth - do you see all sixteen of your points as proof that there is a conspiracy? Who are the conspirators? Can you identify them?

ShineOn · Post by **ShineOn** » December 11th, 2006, 8:14 pm

Tribunal, naming names is not what is required to show that there are major problems with the official explanation about what happened on 9/11. A lot of people make the mistake of wanting the whole entire story, as if to say, "ok, if hijackers didn't do everything, then who did it, and how? Where are the planes? How can so many people cover it up?" Those questions are trying to be answered, but they come after showing that the government's story cannot be true. It is not necessary to have an alternative explanation just to prove one explanation wrong.

If I saw a broken lamp, and I asked my son how it got broken, and he said that his sister did it, I can prove that statement to be wrong be explaining that his sister has been gone all day at a friends house. I don't have to show exactly how the lamp did break. But I do know that my son was not telling the truth.

If the official story doen't fit together, if there is evidence to the contrary, if physical laws contradict, then that's it, there's something wrong with the official story. There is a lot of uncertainty about 9/11, but it is clear to me that there are major problems with the official story such that it cannot be all true. For those already convinced of government involvement, they will try to figure out a better explanation. However, if they do not produce a better explanation, or if some of the explanations are unbelievable, that doesn't somehow make the offical story possible or true.

I must say that it was very hard for me to admit to myself that I actually believed that the official story could not be true. I did not like the implications. I did not like thinking that I was going to be identified with conspiracy theorists. This actually only caused me to learn and learn and learn more and more to make sure that I was convinced that the official could not be true. I would say that it takes a bit of courage, even just keeping quiet. Everything seems uncertain, and you don't know exactly who to trust of what to believe. This caused me to look at all sorts of things and events I tooks for granted. I don't think shadow people control everything that goes on. I don't think that is quite possible. But I do think that there are some events, some motivations that are manufactured and manipulated. Some of them are admitted, like the Gulf of Tonkin, and sometimes they get caught, like Watergate.

As for the truth coming out, I think it already has. The problem is not exposure, it's people being willing to accept it. The bigger the lie, the easier it is for the people to believe it. If people think that it is impossible for our government to have anything to do with 9/11, then no amount of evidence, no logic, nothing will make any difference. People usually will not look into it themselves but rather find an expert or a talking head that agrees with them in order to make them feel better. Hence the 9/11 commission report, the Popular Mechanics debunk article, NIST, etc.

But nowadays, I don't even think 9/11 is necessary to get people to wake up to our awful situation regarding our eroding rights and the concentration of power in government. There are so many other examples of government abuses. By their fruits ye shall know them. the Patriot Act, the admission from the government that no WMDs were in Iraq, the prisoner abuses, the Miltary Commsisons Act, they all are terrible by themselves. Republicans never would have allowed them to be passed if a Democrat were in office, and if not for 9/11. 9/11 with a Repubican President are what allowed all this other terrible stuff to happen. And it's just going to get worse. And if a dirty bomb goes off, or a city gets nuked, or a virus hits, good bye to the constitution and the protections it lists, and a whole lot of people will just go right along with it. It doesn't take that many people for the evils designs of conspiring men to be enacted because a lot of people have been deceived into believing what they say and think it is actually right.

Tribunal · Post by **Tribunal** » December 12th, 2006, 1:39 am

ShineOn wrote:Tribunal, naming names is not what is required to show that there are major problems with the official explanation about what happened on 9/11. A lot of people make the mistake of wanting the whole entire story, as if to say, "ok, if hijackers didn't do everything, then who did it, and how? Where are the planes? How can so many people cover it up?" Those questions are trying to be answered, but they come after showing that the government's story cannot be true. It is not necessary to have an alternative explanation just to prove one explanation wrong.

So it would literally be a conspiracy THEORY, right? So in this THEORY it is the government's burden to prove its innocents. A government official needs to prove that they did not cover up what you claim they know or did in order to be innocent from 9/11.

If I saw a broken lamp, and I asked my son how it got broken, and he said that his sister did it, I can prove that statement to be wrong be explaining that his sister has been gone all day at a friends house. I don't have to show exactly how the lamp did break. But I do know that my son was not telling the truth.

Well then let me rephrase the question - who's not telling the truth? That begs the question that if you believe a government official is not telling the truth, then what is the truth? More THEORY? Do you speculate what a group of government officials did to prove your THEORY?

If the official story doen't fit together, if there is evidence to the contrary, if physical laws contradict, then that's it, there's something wrong with the official story. There is a lot of uncertainty about 9/11, but it is clear to me that there are major problems with the official story such that it cannot be all true. For those already convinced of government involvement, they will try to figure out a better explanation. However, if they do not produce a better explanation, or if some of the explanations are unbelievable, that doesn't somehow make the offical story possible or true.

I agree with you here that the entire explanation provided by the government cannot be all true, but is it because of a coverup or is it because government is providing their THEORY of the event? If your THEORY doesn't agree with their THEORY does that mean that they were part of a conspiracy? If my THEORY doesn't agree with your THEORY does that mean that you are part of the conspiracy?

I must say that it was very hard for me to admit to myself that I actually believed that the official story could not be true. I did not like the implications. I did not like thinking that I was going to be identified with conspiracy theorists. This actually only caused me to learn and learn and learn more and more to make sure that I was convinced that the official could not be true. I would say that it takes a bit of courage, even just keeping quiet. Everything seems uncertain, and you don't know exactly who to trust of what to believe. This caused me to look at all sorts of things and events I tooks for granted. I don't think shadow people control everything that goes on. I don't think that is quite possible. But I do think that there are some events, some motivations that are manufactured and manipulated. Some of them are admitted, like the Gulf of Tonkin, and sometimes they get caught, like Watergate.

What implications? You are speculating when you believe that government as a whole conspired when their THEORY didn't agree with yours. You are speculating even more when you claim that President Bush, or some other leader in the US government, conspired.

Is it possible that 19 or 20 men conspired to bring down passenger planes into buildings? Sure! It could happen! Is it possible that the 19 or 20 who conspired had the backing of a government or two? Sure! It could happen! Is it possible that the United States government was one of the governments that backed the 19 or 20? Has that been demonstrated or do you just disagree with their THEORY of events and that's why you claim they are part of the 9/11 conspiracy?

As for the truth coming out, I think it already has. The problem is not exposure, it's people being willing to accept it. The bigger the lie, the easier it is for the people to believe it. If people think that it is impossible for our government to have anything to do with 9/11, then no amount of evidence, no logic, nothing will make any difference. People usually will not look into it themselves but rather find an expert or a talking head that agrees with them in order to make them feel better. Hence the 9/11 commission report, the Popular Mechanics debunk article, NIST, etc.

It already has? So what's the truth? Prove it! I'm sure that someone in the US government could have conspired in 9/11 but do we know who? Do you believe it was the President? Secretary of Defense? State?

This is like disciplining a child because you know they have or will do something wrong. You don't know what it is or will be but you know it will happen. You have a THEORY!

But nowadays, I don't even think 9/11 is necessary to get people to wake up to our awful situation regarding our eroding rights and the concentration of power in government. There are so many other examples of government abuses. By their fruits ye shall know them. the Patriot Act, the admission from the government that no WMDs were in Iraq, the prisoner abuses, the Miltary Commsisons Act, they all are terrible by themselves. Republicans never would have allowed them to be passed if a Democrat were in office, and if not for 9/11. 9/11 with a Repubican President are what allowed all this other terrible stuff to happen. And it's just going to get worse. And if a dirty bomb goes off, or a city gets nuked, or a virus hits, good bye to the constitution and the protections it lists, and a whole lot of people will just go right along with it. It doesn't take that many people for the evils designs of conspiring men to be enacted because a lot of people have been deceived into believing what they say and think it is actually right.

I totally agree with the first part of this statement but then when you list the abuses. Have you read the Patriot Act? Can you cite where the problem lies with the Patriot Act? Where in the Patriot Act are our rights abused?

And do you think an omission from our government that WMD's do or did not exist may be just the government trying to coverup something else?

Could it be that WMD's did exist but because going public would implicate the Russians, French, and others, our government decided to bite the bullet and say they didn't exist to begin with and this was just bad intel?

Could the intel of so many nations, many who are not our friends, be so inaccurate? Would they actually mislead the world into believing Iraq did not or does not possess WMD even though they were allied with Iraq and didn't want the US to go there in the first place? Sounds like a conspiracy THEORY to me!

We can all put together the pieces of a puzzle and decide what the picture should look like, but does that make it so? What if I don't have all the pieces? What if I'm adding too many pieces? Do I have the correct picture or should I just blame it on my THEORY?

ChelC · Post by **ChelC** » December 12th, 2006, 9:43 am

We cannot convict the government, we can't blame them without proof, but we can suspect they did it. There is such a thing as motive... not enough to convict, but enough to suspect. I don't think anyone here thinks if it were the government it was more than a handful of people within it.

Trib - ya think OJ is innocent because that's the way the verdict went? You'd better, no one proved his guilt (except him), it could have been the housekeeper, you have no right to say otherwise. That's a dumb argument IMO.

SwissMrs&Pitchfire · December 12th, 2006, 9:47 am

When the prophet says that our government has been infiltrated for years and then something bad and stinky rotten happens why can I not put two and two together and suspect that they did it. "They" after all is pretty vague and I'm not out hanging anyone from any trees so it's not like my burden of proof has to be the same as a court of law. You'd have to be an LDS idiot not to suspect that the "more highly organised, more cleverly disguised" did it.

jbalm · Post by **jbalm** » December 12th, 2006, 10:38 am

Have you read the Patriot Act? Can you cite where the problem lies with the Patriot Act? Where in the Patriot Act are our rights abused?

Have you read it? All 130 some odd pages (not including annotations)? If so, have you followed up on all of the references to ther other statutes that it extends and/or modifies?

Here is one citation that is particularly egregious:

H.R.3162
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001
SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT.

Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the following:

`SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.

`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--

`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and

`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

`(b) Each application under this section--

`(1) shall be made to--

`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or

`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and

`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.

`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).

`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.

Of course to fully appreciate this portion of the PATRIOT Act (that name always makes me laugh a little inside), you would have to familiarize yourself with FISA, found at 50 USC sec. 1821 et seq., which allows for law enforcement to issue their own warrants without judicial oversight (which is just as good as no warrant at all), in violation of the 4th Amendment.

You might note subsection (d) above, which prohibits the recipient of of one of those "warrants" from discussing it with an attorney, spouse, or anyone else except the guy who pulls the information out of the storeroom. That single sentence violates the 1st and 4th Amendments, and could potentially violate the 5th and 6th Amendments as well.

I submit that just this one portion of the PATRIOT (snicker) Act is problematic in that it is abusive of our rights.

Army Of Truth · Post by **Army Of Truth** » December 12th, 2006, 11:26 am

First off, great points ShineOn and jbalm! Well said!

As for your question Tribunal, I not only see these 17 points (I added another one) as proof of a 9/11 Communist/NWO/Satanic Conspiracy but there a hundred more points as I have not even scratched the surface of these "hidden things of darkness". However, since I see that you have not done much reading and/or research on these subjects, I don't want to put any meat before milk only to have you ask more questions. I will show you plain and simple truths that you cannot dispute, unless you don't want to. And if you don't want to for your own reasons, that is your agency to "kick against the pricks". I don't want to be the one calling President Ezra Taft Benson, President David O. McKay, President J. Reuben Clark a "conspiracy theorist". Not that you are, but are insinuating this if you think I am as I am sticking to facts and evidences after hundreds of hours of my own reading and research.

You want proof? Can you handle truth? Here's 3 facts that every "conspiracy theorist" I've talked with never explains. (note: if you have facts to prove your case, you are no longer a theorist; hence, I call all backers of the officail theory "conspiracy theorists" because no one has yet had one shred of factual evidence other than hearsay from the media. Did you know that not even the FBI has enough evidence to convict Osama? http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm So if you have evidence that the FBI doesn't, please send it to them.) Sorry, I digressed a bit.

1. Have you seen pictures of the Pentagon before the collapse? There is a 16 by 20 foot hole, with no debris on the untouched lawn. I can send you pics of this if you haven't seen this. (CNN and Fox sure didn't show any of these pics) Now I ask you since the burden of proof is on you; (you are the one saying a 757 commercial plane hit the Pentagon) where is the plane? Show me just one shred of evidence like one of the two 9-foot RB211 six ton Rolls Royce steel engines, any piece of the fuselage, the 125-foot wings, the tail, the passengers, etc.? I can show you pictures of the single 3-foot engine that was found which coincidentally has all the properties of the AE3007 Rolls Royce engine that is used in the Global Hawk UAV. Think about that for a minute - what evidence do you have to support the gov't theory? (and you can't use CNN, Fox News, or Bush as "evidence")

2. What about WTC building 7? Why did it mysteriously fall around 5:30 on the evening of 9/11 when no plane hit it? If you've seen the video of the collapse, it collapsed just like a controlled demolition within 6 seconds. On top of these facts, we have Larry Silverstein himself (who coincidentally assumed a 99-year lease on the WTC towers on July 24, just six weeks before Sept. 11) on a PBS interview on Sept. 2002 where he said to "pull it" concerning building 7. If you know anything about building demolitions, you will know that "pull it" means to explode the charges to demolish a building. On top of this, Larry made a handsome collection of $7.2 billion, collecting twice on $3.6 billion for each tower being that they were "separate occurences".

3. Pools of molten steel were found at the WTC site many days after 9/11. Now since steels melts at 2750°F and jet fuel burns at a maximum temperature of 1800°F (in a controlled environment like an oven), how did this molten steel appear defying all laws of physics? (I have pictures and testimonies of people who saw this molten steel which coincidentally also was not shown on any major mass media network.) On top of this, how and why did both 110-story WTC Towers fall within 10 seconds? This is free-fall speed! This fact obliterates the "pancake theory" as a 110-story building cannot collapse on its own footprint at the same speed a bowling ball takes to free-fall from the top of the towers. This, again, defies the law of physics and gravity. So how did Osama suspend the law of physics and gravity that day? You have the burden of proof since you are the one who believes this outrageous theory.

Now, I don't want to speculate as to who did this or who exactly was involved as I don't know because I wasn't there. However, if you want answers, why don't we start with asking Dick Cheney who seemed like he was in control that day. He was the one that ordered a stand down of all anti-aircraft batteries to not shoot down flight 77 (as it approached the Pentagon) as Norman Mineta testified at the 9-11 commission hearings. Maybe he would also explain the complete stand down of NORAD, NMCC, and FAA that was completely grounded for over 70 minutes, until after the Pentagon was hit and it was too late to do anything else. Yet another coincidence. It would be the same as if I asked you "Give me the names of those who killed JFK?". (Unless of course, you actually believe that Oswald acted alone.) The same organization and evil forces alive then are still alive and well today.

Now, about the PATRIOT ACT. Yes, I have read it - all of it. I keep a copy of it too. Have you read it? Here are some sections that clearly take away our rights as American citizens. The "all powerful" government (defacto dictatorship) now has the power to:

1. SEARCH YOUR HOME AND NOT EVEN TELL YOU. (SECTION 213)

2. COLLECT INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT BOOKS YOU READ, WHAT YOU STUDY, YOUR PURCHASES, YOUR MEDICAL HISTORY AND YOUR PERSONAL FINANCES. (SECTION 215)

3. LABEL YOU A “TERRORIST” IF YOU BELONG TO AN ACTIVIST GROUP. (SECTIONS 411, 802)

4. MONITOR YOUR E-MAILS AND WATCH WHAT INTERNET SITES YOU VISIT. (SECTION 216)

5. TAKE AWAY YOUR PROPERTY WITHOUT A HEARING. (SECTION 806)

6. SPY ON INNOCENT AMERICANS. (SECTIONS 203 AND 901)

7. PUT IMMIGRANTS IN JAIL INDEFINITELY. (SECTION 412)

8. WIRETAP YOU UNDER A WARRANT THAT DOESN’T EVEN HAVE YOUR NAME ON IT. (SECTION 216)

Please do some research and look up these facts and truths that I've given you here. If an elephant was in your living room and you were blind-folded and you needed to see what it was, would you just touch the tail and make your theory? or would you try to touch the head, the legs, the body, the tail, the nose, push it, smell it, talk to it, etc, and then try to make a better informed theory? I know that you are a seeker of truth deep inside as you wouldn't be registered here if you weren't.

I will close off with this quote:

"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Author Unknown

Hope these facts help!

ShineOn · Post by **ShineOn** » December 12th, 2006, 12:41 pm

Tribunal, take it one step at a time.

Some questions you asked:

Who's not telling the truth?

Too fast. You have to determine what is not true. Then you look at who told it to you. In this discussion we have just talked about how one would go about finding out if the official story was true or not.

Do you speculate what a group of government officials did to prove your THEORY?

You're not paying attention. I don't have a theory I am trying to prove. You must understand this point. We are not talking about competing theories. We are only talking about whether the official story is true.

If your THEORY doesn't agree with their THEORY does that mean that they were part of a conspiracy? If my THEORY doesn't agree with your THEORY does that mean that you are part of the conspiracy?

Again, we are not battling theories. Just determining whether the official story is true.

You are speculating when you believe that government as a whole conspired when their THEORY didn't agree with yours.

Wrong again (did you even read?). Does the evidence fit THEIR THEORY (the official explanation)? That's the question, not is my theory better (since I am not proposing one).

Is it possible that 19 or 20 men conspired to bring down passenger planes into buildings?

We are not talking possiblilties of hypotheticals. We are no talking about whether 19 hijacker could bring down buildings. we are talking about did the 19 hijackers the FBI identified bring down the WTC towers in the way the government said they did. "Can" something happen is different than "did" something happen. However, if you can prove that something "cannot" happen, then you have also proven that it "did not" happen in a particular case.

So what's the truth? Prove it!

How about proving that the official story was false? Would that be sufficient?

One step at a time. You can't rush through it.

Tribunal · Post by **Tribunal** » December 12th, 2006, 3:46 pm

People - let's not assume that because I take the other side or I ask critical questions about your critical statements that I don't believe that conspiracies exist, I do! Let's also not assume that because I'm challenging you to provide more than a blanket THEORY on conspiracies that I haven't done my homework because I have.

I only work half the month and spend the other half researching subjects such as history, government, constitution(s), conspiracies, and the Church.

Don't make the mistake of believing my questions are out of ignorance!

There appears to be too many egos around here and it cracks me up when some take pride in believing in or being knowledgable in conspiracies. This is nothing to be proud of!

ShineOn · Post by **ShineOn** » December 12th, 2006, 4:15 pm

Let's get more specific. Let's look at WTC 7.

This was a little more than 40 stories tall. It was not hit by a plane. It fell about 5pm on 9/11.

Here is its location in relation to the two big towers (note that WTC 6 is in yellow, but we are focusing on 7):

Damage to the building after to two big towers collapsed:

Smoke:

Animation of collapse (might take a second for it to load):

Better video of collapse here

That's a good start. We can refer to more as needed.

If we are to show the that the official story is true or false, we need to ask, what is the official explanation of why WTC 7 fell? So...why did it fall? (Remember, we are testing the official explanation, not trying to come up with an alternative).

rcronk · Post by **rcronk** » January 8th, 2007, 10:27 am

For a lot more information on WTC 7, please see the posts I wrote at the following links. They contain links to other photos and video of the damaged south side along with testimony of firefighters who were there on the scene who determined through transits that the building would collapse on its own and set up a collapse zone and pulled everyone out of it several hours before it did. It also discusses the most likely structural collapse sequence based on the fire and damage NIST knew about. They contain a lot of other information too:

Part 1: http://ldspatriot.wordpress.com/2006/12 ... es-and-me/

Part 2: http://ldspatriot.wordpress.com/2006/12 ... me-part-2/

Part 3: http://ldspatriot.wordpress.com/2006/12 ... me-part-3/

Part 4: http://ldspatriot.wordpress.com/2007/01 ... me-part-4/

My Introduction: http://ldspatriot.wordpress.com/2006/12 ... ert-cronk/

ShineOn · Post by **ShineOn** » January 8th, 2007, 10:55 am

What is the official explanation of why it fell?

rcronk · Post by **rcronk** » January 8th, 2007, 11:24 am

The first part of what happened to WTC 7 deals with the damage inflicted upon it from the north tower. From the "Part 2" link above:

rcronk wrote:there is firsthand testimony gathered from firemen and rescue personnel during the few weeks after 9/11 during debriefing interviews. Several links to these interviews posted at http://www.nytimes.com can be found here ( http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm ). Some of this information also comes from http://www.firehouse.com.

In summary, the firefighters at WTC 7 say that there was a huge 20-story tall hole down the south side of WTC 7 that went inside the building 1/4 to 1/2 of the depth of the building, there was a large bulge between floors 10 and 13 that they put a transit on to measure its movement to predict collapse potential, there were strange creaking noises coming out of WTC 7, the building was leaning to one side, they saw from the structural damage combined with transit and laser doppler vibrometer data (another tool used to measure collapse potential) that the building would soon collapse on its own.

They set up a collapse zone a couple of hours before it collapsed to let it fall. Once it fell, they went back in to work on the debris pile. There are photos and video of the severe damage and smoke billowing out of the entire south side of WTC 7 here( http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm ) and here ( http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html ).

I have never seen these photos or video in a demolition theory presentation. I was only shown the basically undamaged north side and a small part of the southwest corner that’s damaged. I think they do this to create a need to investigate a demolition theory in the first place. Maybe I’m wrong though. Maybe they just didn’t look hard enough for evidence that would go against investigating a demolition theory.

This next part is from the "part 1" link I posted above and it discusses what NIST thinks happened to WTC 7's internal structures as a result of the damage and fires:

rcronk wrote:1. An initial local failure at the lower floors (below Floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event), which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 sq ft

2. Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse, as large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse

3. Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of Floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure

4. Events resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure

In my view, this combines some heavy architecture with physics. The missing link that you did not mention in your presentation is item #3 in the above list. The key architectural pieces involved are trusses 1 and 2. The architecture of floors 5 through 7 was unique because they had a transfer system between floors 5 and 7 that included the two trusses that are at the core of the collapse. This system of cantilever girders and trusses was supposed to be a kind of converter of loads between the Con-Edison substation (that WTC 7 was built on top of) and WTC 7 itself. The two buildings had different architectures and so there needed to be a conversion point between the two. The debris impacted and damaged components adjacent to truss #2. If trusses 1 and 2 failed, they would pull the whole line of columns over simultaneously since they were all attached in the middle of that transfer area between floors 5 and 7. “Floor 5 - which did not have any exterior windows and contained the only pressurized fuel distribution system on the south, west and north floor areas - is considered a possible fire initiation location”. Because there were no windows on that floor, fire observations from outside the building would not be possible. The orange section of the graphic below shows that a large portion of the south face was destroyed by debris from the towers and that this damage tore into WTC 7 about 1/4th of the thickness of that side of the building. This is part of the damage that weakened components near truss #2.

In summary, there was massive damage to the south side of WTC 7 which started fires on many floors. The structure was moving and creaking for several hours before it actually fell. The fire chief (most likely chief Daniel Nigro) spoke to Mr. Silverstein and they agreed it wasn't worth risking more lives to fight fires in the unstable WTC 7 and so they decided to pull the contingent of firefighters from the area and they then watched it collapse - just like the firefighters said.

The demolition theory supporters don't mention any of this and that is why I am suspicious of them. Especially after I have emailed, discussed, and handed them papers containing this information and they rejected it flatly.

ShineOn · Post by **ShineOn** » January 8th, 2007, 12:29 pm

What is the official explanation? We need to see exactly what the government says, not what supporters of the official story have said.

rcronk · Post by **rcronk** » January 8th, 2007, 12:35 pm

That <b>is</b> the official explanation. I quoted from NIST above and I summarized some of the firefighter and photographic testimony that NIST used to make its assertions. I added my own explanation to put it into context.

It's funny because when I hear the actual official explanation in context with the evidence that it came from, it sounds reasonable. When I hear the official explanation from CT's, it sounds ridiculous because they take it out of context and ignore the evidence that it was created from.

ShineOn · Post by **ShineOn** » January 8th, 2007, 12:44 pm

This is the official explanation from the government as to why WTC 7 fell?

1. An initial local failure at the lower floors (below Floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event), which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 sq ft

2. Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse, as large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse

3. Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of Floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure

4. Events resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure

rcronk · Post by **rcronk** » January 8th, 2007, 12:46 pm

More specifically, that is the summary of the mechanism by which WTC 7 fell. That summary is in the NIST report. The rest of the detail that this summary is based upon is in the report also.

ShineOn · Post by **ShineOn** » January 8th, 2007, 12:51 pm

Here's their presentation on that report:

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach ... 2Dec06.pdf

What you quoted is the "Working Collapse Hypothethis." They hope to have a "Draft report" by Spring 2007. They say themselves that "No findings or conclusions will be presented as the investigation is ongoing." (p. 2). They also say, "This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation." (p. 4). This is from Dec. 12, 2006.

So...what's your take on that? You accept the hypothesis?

rcronk · Post by **rcronk** » January 8th, 2007, 1:11 pm

Based on the evidence (photographic, video, and firemen and EMS testimonies) I have seen, I think their "Working Collapse Hypothesis" is reasonable.

I would like to bring up that there are two general issues here that the demolition folks bring to the table that hopefully will be addressed completely in the final report:

1. The building couldn't have collapsed at all because there's not much damage.
2. The building couldn't have collapsed so quickly and uniformly.

Based on the evidence I've seen, I think item 1 above is obviously false. According to firefighters, it had the potential of collapsing - enough to set up a collapse zone around it hours before it collapsed and to have those firefighters sitting on their hands for hours waiting for it to collapse. So, in my mind, item 1 belongs to the firefighters on the scene whose lives depend upon their ability to predict the collapse of a building that they are working on - regardless of exactly how it will fall.

Item 2 is really more for structural engineers (like the ones who worked on the report at NIST) to address and from what I have read of that report as a non-expert, I think NIST has done a good job of showing how it could have not only collapsed but how it could have collapsed in the way that it did.

I'm ok with NIST's findings on item 2 changing in a future report as more analysis is done, regardless of who ends up finishing that report. In fact, I think giving the report to a third party to finish it is a good idea that would hopefully bring a new look at the issues.

9/11 - Expose the Cover-up

9/11 - Expose the Cover-up

PLEASE READ MY FLYER ABOVE FOR VIDEOS AND MORE EVIDENCE

Login • Register