9/11 Building 7 UAF engineering report continued.

Latest News Forums Discussion Forum 9/11 Building 7 UAF engineering report continued.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 161 total)
  • Author
  • #50132 Reply

    I am starting this forum because I have been repeatedly accused of deliberately sabotaging the original one. My accusers could have opened a replacement thread; they did not do so even after I suggested it; I really do not understand what passes for thinking in such minds.

    #50134 Reply


    …or, if you know how, type out a full a-tag link manually. When naked links are posted the forum software embeds content from the link target. When the thread becomes long the embedded content makes the page very demanding, taking ages to load and requiring excessive memory on users’ systems.

    I’m unlikely to post much on this forum having said all I wish to say on the original. WTC7 probably just collapsed, most likely due to appalling design and construction (as documented by the UAF report), though I do wonder if a very brave team rigged demolitions (WTC7 was on fire, distorting, leaning and making alarming creaking noises!) on the afternoon of 9/11 – surviving firefighters had been ordered not to search for their missing comrades in the vicinity of WTC7 due to the risk of it collapsing. The New York Fire Department was on the verge of mutiny, so maybe some kind of deal was done, though the only reason I can think of for keeping such an emergency demolition secret would be to encourage conspiracy theorists. To those who claim this to be impossible in such a short time, military demolition teams do this as their day job, behind enemy lines.

    The UAF report makes reference to four other engineering investigations of WTC7’s collapse; the FEMA Building Performance report, the NIST report, the ARUP report and one I can’t remember the name of, so there is plenty of material to investigate for anyone genuinely interested. Two reports were produced for two court cases; WTC7 was built above an electricity transformer substation, which it destroyed when it collapsed. Con Edison, owners of the substation, sued the owners of the WTC claiming that WTC7 collapsed due to faulty design and construction. Con Edison won, but the verdict was overturned on appeal. I mention these matters because demolition theorists generally don’t seem to know, and instead of examining this copious evidence they merely parrot things they find on Truther websites.

    g and free-fall are NOT the same thing; see my comments on the original thread. Contrary to Chandler, acceleration at g does not prove free-fall, eg. a vehicle could accelerate horizontally at g but it would not be in free-fall. Try to use your brains! And buildings subject to controlled demolition typically fall slower than g anyway.

    For the record, I am not a supporter of the “official story”. I think that the 9/11 attacks were quite possibly a Gladio B operation. Gladio B, exposed by whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, is a “strategy of tension” operation similar to the original Gladio operation in Europe, but using Jihadists in the place of violent right-wing extremists. Gladio B is run by NATO Secret Services, and 9/11 was used as the pretext to make the invasion of Afghanistan (for the Unocal pipeline) a NATO operation. NATO has no government of its own, so NATO Secret Services lacks government oversight.

    But there is little suspicious about the collapses of the Twin Towers; they collapsed as any structural engineer would have expected them to under the circumstances; structural failure inducing progressive collapse. The Twin Towers were of the most lightweight construction ever implemented in such tall buildings; occupants complained that they swayed excessively in high winds, spilling coffee out of cups on desks, making the floor assemblies creak, and causing tower computers to fall over. They had been fitted with thousands of viscous dampers (ie. shock absorbers) to prevent occupants from suffering motion sickness.

    9/11 was NOT used as a pretext for the invasion of Iraq; that was fake “weapons of mass destruction” and fake informants such as ‘Curveball’. Nor was it used as a pretext for the devastation of Libya (fake massacre in Benghazi), nor the infiltration of Jihadists into Syria (“Assad is a dictator”).

    The real scandal of the 9/11 Commission Report is that it was 60% based on confessions extracted under torture. It is well established that torture produces false confessions; it also permanently corrupts the evidence trail. Condoleezza Rice authorised the CIA torture programme; she should be your target rather than the mediocre engineers and desk-jockeys of NIST.

    Conspiracy theorists, your pristine thread awaits you; enjoy your boring circle-jerk 😀

    #50147 Reply

    I am starting this forum because I have been repeatedly accused of deliberately sabotaging the original one.

    Start as you meant to continue, eh Clark. Your very first sentence in this new forum contains two deceptions:

    (1) The thread you link to isn’t the original 911 thread. The original is https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/ and you deliberately sabotaged that one too (read the final page for proof). You killed off a long-running (8 years) very popular (11807 posts) feature of Craig’s website out of petulance.
    (2) You imply that the accusations are false but the evidence is there to be seen – you exploited a bug in the blog software which makes a thread unstable when too many videos are embedded. The 1st sentence in your next comment proves you know about this vulnerability yet you continued to add trivial and irrelevant videos until it made browsers crash.

    So this is my first and last comment here. I want open discussion and you won’t tolerate it.

    #50148 Reply

    Node, these personal accusations are off-topic, as will be my defence against them.

    I was referring to the original UAF Report thread. Yes, there is the much earlier 9/11 Post of Craig’s, which became entirely overtaken with arguments about building collapses. There is much more to 9/11 than that; it seems to me that building collapses serve as a very effective distraction from the points I raised in the second comment of this thread.

    As a moderator I repeatedly reopened the original 9/11 Post; it was Craig who instructed site admin to close it. I was unaware of the problem in the forum software, so I was incapable of exploiting it. When I discovered it I warned others and tried to get it fixed. As a last resort I opened this forum, but…

    It is the height of irony that you accuse me of sabotage, and yet you vow to boycott the thread.

    #50149 Reply

    Node, February 8, 11:39: – “…a bug in the blog software which makes a thread unstable when too many videos are embedded”

    No it’s not just videos; the software embeds content upon posting any naked link.

    #50271 Reply
    Paul Barbara

    I am so pleased Clark has condemned ‘Naked’ links on here – I’m a bit of a prude myself.
    Still, I know Clark is a bit sensitive on ‘Lucky Larry’, so here is a very short video, which I will just write the title to (simply search video + title):
    ‘EXPLAIN THIS – Plans to Rebuild WTC-7 Over 1 Year Before It’s Destruction’.
    I’ve spent years on 9/11, and this is a new one on me. ‘All roads lead to Rome’, or in this case, an ‘Inside Job’.

    #50275 Reply

    “EXPLAIN THIS” – Sure. WTC7 was a dreadful building, worse in its own ways than even the Twin Towers. The UAF Report documents that column loads were wildly uneven, with column 79 carrying far more than most others, nearly four times the load of column 65. WTC7 was built partly on foundations laid years earlier, intended for a building around a third of the weight of WTC7. A quick scan of the UAF Report reveals steel members running this way and that, at odd angles, supported by further ad-hoc components. Further, this report establishes that global collapse of the building would have ensued from the failure of just six core columns. WTC7’s design looked like it had been cobbled together from spare parts to place the maximum office space on the least support at minimal expense; replacement was the best fate for it, so it is entirely to be expected that rebuilding had been considered.

    #50281 Reply

    The video Paul Barbara refers to is here.

    Silverstein took the lease of the WTC complex only six weeks before the attacks, but he says that the plans for the replacement WTC7 were drawn up eighteen months before, in April 2000. So whoever had the plans drawn up, it presumably wasn’t Silverstein Properties. So the alleged conspiracy has to be extended, as they always seem to. This theory also needs yet more conspirators to arrange the attack on the Pentagon. One of my tests for a “conspiracy theory” is whether the alleged conspiracy has to be expanded without limit.

    Paul, rather than just linking to that uninformative and rather anti-Semitic* video, I think you should do some research and find out who did have WTC7’s replacement designed. And as the video alleges that the attacks were essentially an insurance fraud, you should also find out and post how much it eventually cost Silverstein Properties to redevelop the WTC complex; without that information, the video’s claim that the insurance payout was excessive is merely malicious gossip.

    * Anti-Semitic tropes from 04:00 onward – slowing Silverstein’s voice to make him sound sinister, and then repeating, with reverb, “but at least I got the money” over and over, because everyone knows that money is all Jews care about. Videos like this are an appeal to unpleasant emotions; you should link to documentary evidence instead.

    #50282 Reply

    “Paul, rather than just linking to that uninformative and rather anti-Semitic* video…”

    Sorry Paul, you didn’t link to it, you provided a search term. But my arguments still apply.

    #50283 Reply

    The reason the WTC buildings were so poor was that the Port Authority has an exemption from state building “codes”, ie. regulations. Building codes have been improved in response to the collapses on 9/11.

    #50292 Reply

    Truther pseudocode:

    include supports_demolition, supports_big_hole_in
    include db(truther_sites)
    def string claim
    def float veracity
    def int count, wow
    get claim
    / veracity = supported_by_evidence(claim) / These lines commented out as
    / if veracity > 0 append_to_case(claim, veracity) / supported_by_evidence() not
    / endif / executable on Truther CPUs.
    wow = supports_demolition(claim, wtc1)
    wow = wow + supports_demolition(claim, wtc2)
    wow = wow + supports_demolition(claim, wtc7)
    wow = wow + supports_big_hole_in(claim, wtc5)
    if wow > 0 {
    for count = 1 to truther_sites_known
    repost (claim * rnd(10)) truther_site(count)
    next count}
    goto start:

    #50303 Reply
    Paul Barbara

    @ Clark February 18, 2020 at 14:33
    My understanding is that Larry Silverstein designed and owned WTC 7 from the outset, and six weeks prior to 9/11 signed the deal to lease the rest of the WTC buildings.
    So it was ‘Lucky Larry’ who designed the new WTC 7 in 2000.
    ‘BOMBSHELL! Larry Silverstein designed NEW WTC-7 in April of 2000’.
    ‘…And as the video alleges that the attacks were essentially an insurance fraud, you should also find out and post how much it eventually cost Silverstein Properties to redevelop the WTC complex; without that information, the video’s claim that the insurance payout was excessive is merely malicious gossip…’
    I don’t believe 9/11 was designed as an insurance fraud (nor do I believe that is implied in the video, or believed by anyone I know) or that Larry Silverstein had any part in planning 9/11, but certainly he took full advantage of the planning, of which he had to be aware, to make a financial (and literal) ‘killing’. The implication is that Larry Silverstein was fully aware of the plans for 9/11, and used it to maximum effect.
    What you don’t seem to understand, is Silverstein paid only some $15 million dollars as his share of the first installment, and that was it! That was all it cost him, as he only paid that one initial installment (the other $100 million was apparently paid by his backers, who were presumably adequately reimbursed). That was a tiny fraction of the prohibitive price it would have cost to have the asbestos removed, or to have the Twin Towers manually dismantled.
    And of course the Twin Towers had never been a popular place to work, never been fully occupied, and never made money. So the iconic landmark Towers were in reality a massive White Elephant, a financial drain, and condemned because of asbestos (though people were still using it, I don’t know how that worked).
    And he had enshrined in the insurance, right to rebuild on the extremely valuable site.
    An absolute dream come true. He had miraculously turned a huge albatross around his neck, into a golden opportunity.
    All are agreed that WTC 7 was a very peculiar building, but he had just spent millions on it before making the plans for the new building in 2000. One presumes he had not been made aware of the plans for 9/11 before he spent the millions refurbishing WTC 7, but only learnt later, probably when he started making the plans for the new WTC 7. Again, another albatross miraculously transformed into a golden opportunity.

    #50304 Reply

    Evidence, Paul, evidence. You claim that Silverstein paid or didn’t pay this or that, but without evidence it’s just tittle-tattle. Transactions produce paper trails. Property deals get reported in trade magazines, and maybe in announcements by the parties involved or the authorities. You need to produce a robust case. By that I mean official figures or court records – there must be thousands of court exhibits – not just some allegations on a Truther website or a YouTube vid.

    See, what you’re doing looks very bad. On the face of it, Silverstein was a victim of an attack on his property, so what you’re doing appears to be victim-blaming. I have no idea, but people he worked with, colleagues, friends of his may have been killed or injured that day. You say there was some conspiracy which saved his life by setting up his dermatology appointment, but you present no evidence for this, and if it’s not so Silverstein was probably traumatised by his narrow escape, and possibly mortified if anyone he knew was killed or injured.

    You claim that Silverstein Property had a “right to rebuild”, but I read that the insurance policy specified an obligation to rebuild in the event of payout. I have no more evidence than you, but it’s you making allegations, not me. Surely the insurance policy must have been presented in the insurance court cases, making it publicly available, yet I have never seen it on any of the Truther websites that make such allegations.

    You say that Silverstein Properties had undertaken “refurbishment”; are you sure? Maybe tenants had paid for it. You haven’t presented a paper trail. If rebuilding plans had been drawn up, for when was rebuilding proposed? The millions for refurbishment are nothing against the billions for rebuilding, and you don’t stop replacing tyres just because you plan to get a new car in two years time.

    What about payouts for collateral damage? The collapses of the Twin Towers destroyed gas, electricity and water mains. They damaged roads and an underground railway station, and who knows what else. Are you just assuming that the Port Authority paid for all this, and the clean-up? Paperwork, paperwork. There have been dozens of court cases; Con Edison sued Silverstein Properties, Silverstein Properties sued Airport security companies, etc. etc. etc. It’s not like there are no documents available, in fact going through them all would be a massive task, but all I’ve ever seen on Truther sites is allegations without any supporting documents, or at best just a couple of citations out of potentially thousands, with no attempt to put them in context or summarise the court case.

    It looks like lazy, sensationalist, prejudiced victim-blaming. People get very angry about this because it’s so much like what the Nazis did – accused the Jews of conspiring against everyone else, and on the basis of that blame tried to exterminate them all, causing a massive six-year war.

    Do you see my point?

    #50326 Reply

    Having said all that, yes, I’d forgotten that Silverstein Properties had WTC7 before leasing the rest of the WTC complex, but you’re right about that and I remembered when you mentioned it. I think it makes no difference; property maintenance is routine, and the prices probably don’t look big if the context is examined.

    Beware confirmation bias; any mundane event can look suspicious if you’ve already decided upon the verdict. We must never start from the verdict and work backwards; that’s how the witch trials executed thousands of innocent women, and what landed Lucia de Berk in prison for years. This is why I keep banging on about Chandler’s stuff; it’s seductively simple but totally wrong and misleading. It wrongly makes people so sure that explosives are required to satisfy Newton’s laws that they turn the rest of their thinking back to front.

    #50355 Reply

    Hi all,
    Great to see a discussion on WTC87 here. I have not been following the discussion, so I would be interested to know whether the university of Fairnbanks Alaksa PhD study on WTC7 has been discussed?
    I am not aware of any heath-robinson construction issues at WTC7 so any documented information on this would of course be useful. The engíneering community has though looked at the collapse of all of the towers on that day and finds that at a minimum the official explanation (NIST) can not be true and that this is a reason to reopen the investigation. The NIST explanation of WTC7 is not believable or credible or even vaguely mathematically correct. Uni Fairbanks Study

    The free-fall issue is quite straightforward – if the top of a building falls to earth at a rate very close or equal to free fall acceleration, then the material of the building below can not be offering any mechanical resistance at all, or else the top of the building would slow down. If the building below has no structural integrity then that means that the steel beams have already been cut which is what happens in a controlled demolition. +

    #50359 Reply

    A bit like these then?

    #50360 Reply

    I read the UAF report and posted my thoughts here. None of the conspiracy theorists bothered to reply, so it can’t be called a discussion.

    “I am not aware of any heath-robinson construction issues at WTC7 so any documented information on this would of course be useful.”

    Try the UAF Report! It shows that column 79 was carrying almost four times the load of column 65, for instance. Also Con Edison sued Silverstein Properties for WTC7’s faulty design, and won. Read the ARUP report? Had you even heard of it? It too is mentioned in the UAF Report, so you can’t have read the UAF Report.

    The rooflines of buildings subject to controlled demolition fall a lot slower than g, whereas according to Chandler’s measurements, the roofline of WTC7 briefly exceeded g. That can’t happen in free fall, so it wasn’t free fall. So it looks like the core fell first, dragging the outer shell after it.

    Learn Newtonian physics rather than pretending to understand it, and read reports rather than pretending to have read them.

    #50361 Reply
    #50362 Reply

    And it’s not worthy of yet another investigation. There have now been five engineering investigations of WTC7. It stood, severely damaged and ablaze, for over six hours before it collapsed. It had been fully evacuated and it killed or injured no one. The cost of another report would be better spent on enforcing building standards properly.

    #50380 Reply

    Here is an interview with Danny Jowenko, a Dutch demolition designer, who died in a car crash in 2011:

    Jowenko maintained that the Twin Towers collapsed under their own weight due to damage and fire (which agrees with my own consideration), but that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition. Truthers insist that rigging such a demolition takes weeks or months, but Jowenko says that with a well coordinated, hard-working team of thirty to forty, it could have been done on the afternoon of 9/11. In fact he claims that there are various options to achieve this, and some of them are quite quick and easy, but he is very surprised that it would have been done in a building that was on fire, as WTC7 was.

    Jowenko points out that, under normal circumstances, all asbestos must be removed from a building before a demolition licence will be granted, that an inspection is required to gain a certificate that all asbestos has gone, and this process requires much of the time. He speculates that the Mayor may have permitted the rapid demolition of WTC7, and it was kept secret because the asbestos had not been removed. He talks about insurance, and criticises the US political system for being overly dominated by big money.

    I had seen this part of the interview before but I had not heard it because it was part of a Truther video; the relevant part of the discussion was played at about double speed and the original audio had been silenced and dubbed over with narration. I am surprised to discover just how much Jowenko’s opinion converges with my own.

    #50381 Reply

    Damn, I forgot my own advice about not posting ‘naked’ links (sorry Node, I’m only human).

    Here is the video of Danny Jowenko.

    MODS, if you can be bothered, please clean up my previous comment, and maybe Kempe’s too. I don’t know if embedding has been blocked in the forum software, but on my system a gap is left for the embedded content but nothing appears in it, so to see what Kempe had linked to I had find the URL in the page source.

    #50383 Reply

    Danny Jowenko’s remarks have caused me to revise my balance of probabilities again; I think he could well have been right. An emergency demolition with thermite could explain the “partially evaporated steel” documented in the FEMA Building Performance Report. Keeping this purported demolition secret could explain why Con Edison’s court victory was overturned on Silverstein Properties’ appeal, and why part of that appeal was settled out of court with the technical response to the ARUP report withheld from the public – I think these legal details are right, I’m working from memory here, but check the UAF Report which is where I discovered them.

    It could also explain why NIST kept much of their WTC7 report secret, and why their collapse scenario is such a bodge. And NIST’s purported “public safety” excuse for withholding some of their data?…

    Well the firefighters must have known about any sudden, unlicensed demolition, and indeed, famously, there is video of firefighters warning people away from WTC7 saying it’s about to “blow up”. I have always thought it impossible that the New York firefighters would help cover up any demolition of the Twin Towers, because hundreds of the Brothers were killed in the collapse of WTC2…

    But in the aftermath of 9/11 firefighters were dying from asbestos-induced illnesses. But admission of a sudden unlicensed demolition would have made accomplices of any firefighter who knew; firefighters themselves could have been held partly culpable for the asbestos contamination. Could NIST’s “public safety” issue be to do with compensation and health-care costs for retired firefighters injured by asbestos? If NIST had revealed this potential secret demolition, would compensation and health-care payments have been interrupted while the matter went back to court? And would that have provoked a strike by the firefighters? I’d call that a “public safety issue”.

    #50385 Reply

    I’ve just quickly checked the UAF Report; see PDF pages 31 and 32, document pages 20 and 21. The court case was called “Aegis Insurance Services, Inc. versus 7 World Trade Center Company, L.P.” in 2010, and the two opposing engineering reports were the Arup and Nordenson report and the Weidlinger report. The latter was not produced in court, and didn’t become public until 2016.

    For anyone genuinely interested in WTC7’s collapse, I reckon the court case would be the best source of information and clues. But of course such diligent work is unnecessary, and indeed probably counterproductive, for those who just want to parrot Twin Tower demolition theory, as all Truthers seem to. Go on someone, anyone – please surprise me!

    #50387 Reply

    Yep, I’m definitely tending more towards this fast-and-dirty demolition theory. What were the authorities’ choices? WTC7 was burning, distorting and creaking (all this can be found in testimony). They couldn’t extinguish the fire because of cracked water mains, and massive demand for firefighting all over the WTC complex. If they were to leave it to burn it might partially collapse, in all probability asymmetrically. But it’s surrounded by other buildings on three sides so it would very likely damage at least one of them, and they’d have another damaged, burning building. The problem of unstable, burning buildings would just proliferate. The most sensible thing would be to bring it down as vertically as possible and as soon as possible.

    But by bringing it down they’d be deliberately adding asbestos and other toxins to the already contaminated air; the authorities would have to pay compensation for the illnesses caused. Worse, when those who got asbestosis or other illnesses died, anyone party to the demolition could be prosecuted for manslaughter or even murder. So they did it in a way that gave plausible deniability to everyone involved.

    So yes; it was, and remains, a conspiracy. A conspiracy of silence.

    #50441 Reply

    There are all types of neurological disorders that in turn manifest unique types of trolling.
    Clark’s affliction requires exacting your frustration in painstaking fashion. He’s not interested in being enlightened he’s only interested in holding court.

    It’s interesting to me though how the discussion of phony terrorism is itself an act of terror. A drowning of the truth.

    The best cure here is to move on as you have all sufficiently documented Clarks absurdity while also informing any readers with excellent insightful information. (previously closed thread – because of Clark)


    The one true test has always been whom the acts of terrorism were intended for and who they most affected. The originators of these attacks were intelligent enough to evade the worlds greatest military power, the NSA, FBI, CIA. Yet they could not envision that they were giving the very 1% in power who set the policy that afflicts them, the ones who pull the strings of government, who are immune to life’s daily struggles, their publics full support to reign devastation upon the terrorists own people, families, and lands. They somehow couldn’t think through to the next logical step.

    The American public can’t get the 1% / corporate owned and controlled government to do anything. We don’t set policy. Attacking buildings, public gatherings, marathons is an attack on the public. The winners are the 1% through expansion of the police state & diminishment of rights. True terrorism against whomever the attackers perceived as their oppressors would have been targeting those who actually pull the strings. Anything else is phony. That’s how you can always tell. We’re not talking about mentally ill gunmen here we’re talking about an incredibly sophisticated, well funded and organized attack.

    There is only one game since the history of civilization began and that is staying in power at all costs.
    You only hold that power by controlling your own people. If you don’t control your own people you can not project that power against rivals and you won’t be in power very long. Therefore your own people are your #1 enemy.

    #50442 Reply

    Well, ‘redacted’, I agree with everything you’ve written below the dotted line, which is why I mentioned in my second comment of this thread..:

    For the record, I am not a supporter of the “official story”. I think that the 9/11 attacks were quite possibly a Gladio B operation. Gladio B, exposed by whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, is a “strategy of tension” operation similar to the original Gladio operation in Europe, but using Jihadists in the place of violent right-wing extremists. Gladio B is run by NATO Secret Services, and 9/11 was used as the pretext to make the invasion of Afghanistan (for the Unocal pipeline) a NATO operation. NATO has no government of its own, so NATO Secret Services lacks government oversight.”

    Maybe you missed that bit? But physics is my ‘thing’ and the Twin Towers did what you’d expect them to if they weren’t laced with explosives. I’m trying to help, you see, by warning you that you’re barking up the wrong tree and making fools of yourselves with the scientific and engineering communities. All you’re going to achieve with WTC7 is a vendetta against the firefighters, one of the major 9/11 victim groups.

    But suit yourself, you lot always do.

    #50443 Reply

    And I apologise for being long-winded, but it’s because I’m sort of thinking aloud, and putting my thought process as thoroughly on display as I can; an act of personal transparency.

    Thanks for using the thread I opened for you. I hope you enjoyed the 9/11 Post, which I reopened multiple times. “hey, thanks, Clark”. You all lose interest without the likes of me, and threads on the main blog default to closing automatically if no one posts a comment for a couple of weeks.

    #50444 Reply

    “All you’re going to achieve with WTC7 is a vendetta against the firefighters”

    “Move back, that building’s about to blow up”

    The firefighters knew. But there’s no way they were in on the overall 9/11 attacks. WTC7 is serving as a very effective distraction. Who is being played? Me? Or your lot? Why are you going after a bunch of engineers and academics rather than, say, Condoleezza Rice?

    #50458 Reply

    ‘Redacted’, look, why not just talk to me? I try to be reasonable most of the time. I always try to be honest about what I think and why I think it, and if someone has a good case and/or good evidence, I’m happy to change my mind. I like learning new things; I like refining my understanding of events and the world. There’s plenty of space for discussion; we can start any number of these threads.

    #50459 Reply

    And the same goes for anyone else; it gets lonely just posting my own thoughts as they develop.

    I’d never heard that Danny Jowenko section before; I’d seen it, without audio, and I’d wondered what they’d been talking about. So above I recount that I heard it, what was discussed, and in what way it changed my mind a bit. But for that apparently I am accused of “neurological disorder, trolling, affliction, not interested in being enlightened and only interested in holding court”. Such accusations hurt me; please, just discuss with me.

    #50460 Reply
    michael norton

    Redacted, that is interesting, the only game is staying in power.

    “You only hold that power by controlling your own people. If you don’t control your own people you can not project that power against rivals and you won’t be in power very long. Therefore your own people are your #1 enemy.”

    You seemed to have perfectly described President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
    one of the biggest bastards in the World.
    Certainly one of the most controlling bastards.

    #50494 Reply
    Paul Barbara

    @ Clark,

    I am not going to try to chase down court documents to show that Silverstein only paid one monthly installment on the WTC lease, and that it was a pittance, nor that he had the clauses inserted into the insurance covering for destruction by terrorist attack and giving him the right to rebuild on the site if the buildings were destroyed. These things have been accepted for years by the Truther community.
    For interest, assuming Silverstein knew about the asbestos problem, why would he have bought the lease anyway? It was uneconomic to remove the asbestos by hand, or to demolish the buildings by hand, and illegal to bring them down with controlled demolishion. How ‘Lucky’ was he? If ‘9/11’ didn’t happen, he would have bought a massive White Elephant, a huge money drain. Silverstein may be a lot of things, but he was not a foolhardy business man (like Bush Jr. or Trump).
    Two more things – I know you believe Barry Jennings was mistaken or confused when he said he looked one way, and the Tower was there, looked back and it was gone. But that was what he said (in essence), which means he was saying the Twins were still standing when the stairs EXPLODED under him and his companion. But even if he did make a mistake or was confused (which I don’t buy) how do you cope with the stairs ‘exploding’? Rubble, even if Tower 2 had collapsed, would not have been able to bring down the 8th floor stairs, or do you think it could have? If so, how? And don’t say they rigged the WTC 7 with explosives, because there would have been no reason to bring it down before the Towers came down, and even if one Tower had come down before the stairs exploded, it would have just occurred, so plans would not even have been possible to have been made, never mind implemented.
    And Danny Jowenko (like Barrie Jennings) died in very strange circumstances. A single-car fatal crash, head-on into a tree (like Michael Hastings). Have you ever heard of ‘Boston Brakes’? It is a method of taking control of a car from a distance, like the Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot.

    #50496 Reply
    Paul Barbara

    @ Clark
    Please check out my latest post on the Vaccine Forum, it’s pretty horrific.

    #50497 Reply

    Are you claiming that Silverstein, or more likely Silverstein Properties or some such, stopped paying the lease after the attack?

    “These things have been accepted for years by the Truther community.”

    My experience is that five kinds of baloney “have been accepted for years by the Truther community”. The reason for that is that anyone who dares challenge any of it gets this kind of treatment, or told that they should be “taken out and shot”. Really. ‘Redacted’ just there accused me of being brain damaged, just like Dave accused me of having “sold my soul”, and none of you ever call them out for it. It’s bullying, and that’s why the Truther scene is full of nonsense.

    Barry Jennings contradicted himself in the first and second parts of the interview. That’s no big deal in accounts of traumatic events; it’s not an insult, it’s just a fact. It is known that the collapse of WTC1 caused the “explosion” because that’s when the lights went out, and that time is known because it’s also when the alarms stopped sounding, because the emergency power was destroyed. I’m sure it did seem very much like an explosion; Hess thought so too, but it wasn’t. Yes, debris falling from nearly half a kilometre up could certainly have damaged the 8th floor stairs; some of it fell from the 110th floor so of course it could. WTC7 had an enormous gash in its front from the falling debris.

    If Jowenko’s death is suspicious, why don’t you listen to what he said? He said that if asbestos didn’t need to be removed and an asbestos-free certificate obtained, WTC7 could have been rigged with explosives on the afternoon of 9/11. Yeah, I know that car computer security breaches have been demonstrated and control systems can be interfered with; computer security is a (fairly minor) interest of mine. Jowenko also said that the Twin Towers just collapsed without explosives; he was completely adamant about that.

    #50498 Reply

    Sorry, until you raise your standards I can’t be bothered. I know physics, not immunology. I’m sure I could pull it apart if I invested enough time but life is too short.

    #50526 Reply
    Paul Barbara

    @ Clark March 2, 2020 at 01:06
    Yes, I am claiming they only ever paid the first month’s installment of the lease on the buildings.
    Jowenko did not have the evidence of the dust samples with spheroids of iron and and unreacted nanothermite when commenting on the Twin Towers. Where you aware of the CIA-developed ‘Boston Brakes’, developed for disposing of ‘enemies’? And just three days after he was quoted in a high-profile Press Tv interview by Dr. Alan Sabrosky, Jowenko had his ‘car accident’.
    ‘Danny Jowenko is Dead, 3 Days After Sabrosky Interview Implicates CIA/Mossad in 911’:
    ‘…Jowenko gained further noteriety when former Director of Studies at the US Army War College, Dr. Alan Sabrosky, said in a radio interview in 2010, that his skepticism of the official 911 story was prompted by Jowenko’s testimony. Jowenko’s death comes three days after Sabrosky gave an exclusive interview to PressTV in which he again reiterated his belief, which he says is common knowledge in some intelligence circles, that elements within both the CIA and Israeli Mossad planned 911. Dr. Sabrosky holds the General of the Army Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research at US Army War College.

    He holds that the attacks were planned and executed in order to achieve dovetailing foreign policy goals, foremost the invasion and Balkanization of Iraq. Sabrosky says this has long been a goal among “Neo-conservatives” associated with the think-tank Project for a New American Century (PNAC.)…’
    ‘… Dr. Sabrosky says: Quote:
    Only two intelligence agencies had the expertise, assets, access and political protection to execute 9/11 in the air and on the ground: our CIA and Israel’s Mossad.

    Sabrosky describes hearing Jowenko’s analysis as the moment in which he first suspected that what he had been hearing in intelligence circles “was true.” [SIZE=-1] Sabrosky has noted that in 1996, an important policy paper was written for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” which advocated overthrowing Saddam, saying: [/SIZE]​
    “Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.”

    The authors of this paper later became key members of George Bush’s foreign policy team, almost all of whom were members of Project for a New American Century, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.[/SIZE] Perle was Chairman of Bush Defense Policy Advisory Committee until 2004. Douglas Feith was Bush’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. In what many have called a wish for a Pearl Harbor-like attack on American soil such as that which justified the American entrance into World War II, PNAC said in “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”:
    “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor” – Project for a New American Century, Sept. 2000…’
    ‘…Jowenko’s death comes as the latest of what many 911 Truth advocates call an unlikely string of deaths of key 911 witnesses. The most famous of these is former chief of New York City’s Emergency Management Response Team, Barry Jennings , who was the last official out of the Emergency Command Center in WTC 7 before its collapse. Jennings said on camera that he had heard explosions from within the building that he knew were not fuel tanks or boilers, as a former “boiler man.”…’
    ‘…Earlier this year, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under three different administrations Steve R. Pieczenik said in a radio interview that he is prepared to tell a federal grand jury the name of a top general who told him directly that 9/11 was a false flag attack (inside job.) Pieczenik served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Nixon, Ford and Carter, while also working under Reagan and Bush senior. Pieczenik said in a radio interview:
    “It was called a stand-down and false flag operation in order to mobilize the American public under the false pretense that we had been attacked by Al Qaeda and bin Laden which is an absolute unmitigated lie. I was even told by a general on the staff of Wolfowitz, I will go in front of a federal committee and swear on perjury who that name was so we can break this open…”

    Paul Wolfowitz was one of the cabal in the Bush administration who openly expressed the need for “a new Pearl Harbor,” as a member of Project for a New American Century (PNAC.)…’.

    And remember Barry Jennings saying he was led out through the rubble-strewn lobby and told by First Responders ‘Not to look down’ (a most strange thing to say, given as that is the first thing one should do to avoid tripping over rubble in circs like that).
    Jennings didn’t look down, but said he knew ‘he was walking over bodies’.
    I, and I’m sure you, have never walked over bodies, but I know I could tell the difference between concrete and plaster rubble and bodies, and I suspect you could too.

    ‘..Barry Jennings contradicted himself in the first and second parts of the interview.,’

    Where? And if a large enough amount of rubble, adequate to devastate stairs (a very strong part of any high-rise), you think Jennings and his partner would mistake it for an explosion?
    I don’t, any more than he mistook the explosions he heard for ‘boiler explosions’.

    #50535 Reply

    Paul, I’ve read all that stuff a hundred times. It’s standard Truther lore, repeated almost identically on countless websites.

    The Twin Towers collapsed in exactly the way that Newtonian physics predicts. Simulating that with explosives would not only be heinously complex and prone to failure, it would have been entirely pointless. If someone brought you an engine with a broken timing belt and mashed up valves and cylinder heads, you wouldn’t insist that the cylinder head had been removed, the damage carved by hand with a cold chisel, the cylinder head replaced and the timing belt broken deliberately to make it look like typical engine damage. The belt broke and the top end got mashed; simple.

    Iron spherules are very common. They are made during welding, but you can also make them easily with a blow torch and steel wool.

    I can’t interpret the thermite paper (so I very much doubt that you can either), though from memory, the energy of reaction didn’t look very impressive. But dust could have come from lots of sources other than explosives planted in the Twin Towers. There were explosives and ammunition stored on-site at the ATF offices if I remember right, and if WTC7 was rigged and brought down that afternoon, that’s another source.

    People die in hospital all the time. You can’t just pick one out and claim it’s suspicious. You can ‘prove’ anything with that ‘reasoning’. Millions of people believe in horoscopes, so when they die in hospital, does that mean someone’s killing them to suppress the truth?

    I can’t spend any more time on this; believe what you like. But you should at least have the common decency to object to the sort of abuse that ‘Redacted’ posted above, and the gross anti-Semitism from the likes of Dave on the other UAF thread.

    #50537 Reply

    Paul, one final point; you claim that most people believe things merely because they’re repeated endlessly in the MSM. But to my observation, most Truthers believe things merely because they’re repeated endlessly on Truther websites.

    Someone like me comes along and tries to work it out for themselves – I look up the structure of the Twin Towers, I visualise it as a one-hundredth scale model, I calculate momentum transfer between falling floor assemblies, I find construction images to see if the truss seats were substantial or flimsy, I look at the aftermath to see if bolts stripped out, I watch and summarise countless videos of the collapses, I listen to and acknowledge firefighters’ videos and testimony (I did all this on the 9/11 Post), I actually read and critique the UAF report, and I apply critical thinking…

    What’s your response? You just parrot a load of Truther material at me, like some scared sheeple might parrot MSM at a Truther.

    So I give up; believe what you like. I have wasted my effort.

    #50539 Reply

    Grief, I’d said I give up, but there are two other points here.

    Paul, you write like you think I believe the Osama bin Laden / al Qaeda cover story, but I don’t, and I never did. If you look at my second comment at the top of this thread you’ll see that I tend toward the notion that 9/11 was a Gladio B operation by NATO secret services. I keep repeating this, but Truthers consistently think that anyone who disputes Twin Tower pre-rigged demolition must believe the cover story.

    I think the best description of Osama bin Laden is probably misguided militant holy man, an exiled renegade who saw through the rank hypocrisy of the Saudi state ‘religion’ called Wahhabism, but held true to the core of his faith.

    And Jennings wasn’t important because his ‘explosion’ testimony is more reasonably interpreted as falling debris. From what you’ve posted above, Steve R Pieczenik is far, far more important – a whistleblower who would name a critical witness to call before a Grand Jury. So rather than Jennings, what happened to Pieczenik?

    #50557 Reply
    Paul Barbara

    @ Clark March 3, 2020 at 09:42
    I did read your comment about 9/11 being likely a Gladio 2 event. And I agree with you that OBL was a good religiously driven man (indeed, I remember reading an article, probably in the Guardian or Observer, where OBL was being interviewed in a hut in Afghanistan where shells were being emptied of explosive, which was piled up and spread all over the floor, and IED’s were being produced. OBL said something to the effect: ‘One shell on here and we all meet our maker’.
    OBL was being praised to the rooftops then in the West, because he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan.
    So do you believe OBL had anything to do with it?
    Do you believe in the ’19 hijackers’ narrative?
    Or that Boeing airliners containing passengers were involved in the Twin Tower, Pentagon and ‘Field Crash’?
    Pieczenik is still around; he has very good contacts and friends in the Agencies.
    Here he is in February 2020 on Alex Jones’ show:
    I don’t know how to just have a word that you can click on to bring up a link.
    If you try to explain it to me, please be very detailed, because I am useless with computers.
    But Barry Jennings’ ‘I knew I/we was/were walking over bodies’?

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 161 total)
Reply To: 9/11 Building 7 UAF engineering report continued.
Your information: