- This topic has 245 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by Clark.
September 17, 2019 at 13:22 #47222Clark
– “do you also deny you are trying to undermine and/or get the thread removed?”
That idea was proposed by the commenter called Node.
If I wanted the thread to die, the easiest way would be for me to stop commenting. You lot would reaffirm your agreement about theatrical explosives (while studiously ignoring the contradictions between your various ‘theories’) and then lose interest.
History confirms this; if you look through the dates on the 9/11 Post, you’ll find two long gaps after the WordPress software had closed comments automatically because no one had commented in a long time. On both occasions it was me, as a moderator, who reopened comments.
So your personal accusation against me is not merely unfounded, but directly contradicted by facts. But that’s typical of those known as “Truthers”.September 17, 2019 at 13:52 #47223Clark
And I do all this because I have an infantile need to trust Western governmental authority, or because I’m a member of the conspiracy, right?
Odd, really, since I have stated my suspicion that 9/11 was a Gladio B / covert NATO / arms manufacturers’ operation. So maybe you’re paid or enthralled by them and that’s why you’re trying to smear me? This accusation has at least as much evidence as yours, ie. it’s utter bunk.September 17, 2019 at 23:49 #47229Dave
You say you have suspicions of foul play, but can you narrow it done a bit more?September 18, 2019 at 12:41 #47244Clark
Grief, any meaningful answer to this would be ridiculously long.
In short, I suspect a conspiracy within the industrial-military-secrecy complex. National boundaries are mostly irrelevant; 9/11 looks as though powerful murderous authoritarian psychopaths arranged and facilitated an attack upon Earthly life itself. It was supremely effective. As humanity entered the new millennium, neoliberal degradation of everything biological (including human quality of life) was the most urgent issue by far. Openness and cooperation were (and remain) the most necessary responses, but 9/11 successfully generated hitherto unseen levels of conflict and suspicion.
Sorry; I’m busy now. More on this topic later.September 19, 2019 at 01:12 #47251Clark
The 9/11 attacks themselves were foul play.
I think the reports of the various investigations were broadly correct, ie. hijackers managed to take control of aircraft and crash them in suicide attacks, but the hijackers couldn’t have succeeded without help from within US authorities. I wouldn’t trust the details, eg. the purported identities of the hijackers, or which of them were purportedly the pilots. I think it’s very likely that they were indeed “Islamic” extremists, because these are the people who can be induced to perform suicide attacks.
But here’s the first deception, which is that Wahhabism is a form of Islam. Wahhabism is the state “religion” of the Gulf Monarchies, especially Saudi Arabia, and it is an abuse and a perversion of religion, just as Judaism is abused and perverted by some in Israel (including by some very prominent rabbis) to indoctrinate extreme nationalism and hatred of non-Jewish Middle Easterners. For decades, brutal Wahhabist indoctrination has been central to projection of power by the al Saud family. Religion by its nature (faith) is vulnerable to perversion by state power, and it has happened time after time in history; the first half of Old Testament is pretty much a manual of it.
The second deception is that the hijackers were “al Qaeda”, and forcing such confessions seems to have been the major objective of the torture programme. But who is a member of “al Qaeda” and who isn’t? And what is “al Qaeda” anyway? Answering these questions requires background knowledge and careful consideration of the context, all of which has been glossed over or more usually entirely omitted by both government and media.
Sorry, I’m only just getting started here, but it is time I went to bed.September 19, 2019 at 12:49 #47257Dave
or for a lay down!September 19, 2019 at 13:42 #47259Node
Everybody has an opinion on what happened on 9/11, but I suggest some opinions carry more weight than others. A New York fire department, the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District, were amongst first responders, lost 2 firefighters on the day and many more are suffering chronic health effects. In July 2019, all five commissioners of the fire dept approved a resolution to officially support a new investigation into the events of 9/11, claiming …
… the overwhelming evidence presented in said petition demonstrates beyond any doubt that pre-planted explosives and/or incendiaries — not just airplanes and the ensuing fires — caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings, killing the vast majority of the victims who perished that day.
Why should their opinions carry more weight?
# They are experts on fires and structural design.
# They were in the ‘privileged’ position of hearing and seeing the events of 9/11 close up, with their own senses.
# Afterwards they were able to compare and share such information with other professional first responder groups.
# They are aware that the careers of other professionals who have similarly spoken out have suffered yet they have still spoken out.September 19, 2019 at 13:57 #47260Clark
Frankly, I don’t believe this. Something dubious has to have happened here; it’s from A&E9/11″Truth” so that’s entirely possible. I expect that it is some kind of selective quote, or misquote, or the “all five commissioners of the fire dept” are not what that phrase seems to imply.
Node, care to post more detail before I trace this back to source myself?
Here is what senior fire and safety professionals said at the time:September 19, 2019 at 14:36 #47262Clark
The Franklin Square and Munson Fire District does exist, and it has a website:
There seems to be nothing about this “historic event” on their website. It even has a news section, and a memorial page for a fire-fighter of their district who was killed on 9/11, yet there is nothing about this. Has it already been retracted by any chance?September 19, 2019 at 14:43 #47263Clark
From the Franklin Square Munson Fire District’s Facebook account:
– “Due to the recent vote by the Board of Fire Commissioners in regards to their resolution on launching a new 9/11 investigation, the department has received multiple questions and emails on the topic. The opinions of the Franklin Square and Munson Board of Fire Commissioners does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Chiefs, Officers and Members of the Fire Department.
– Please direct all questions about the resolution to Commissioner Chris Gioia 516-488-1858 Ext 141″September 19, 2019 at 14:56 #47269Node
The Franklin Square and Munson Fire District 9/11 Resolution
Whereas, the attacks of September 11, 2001, are inextricably and forever tied to the Franklin Square and Munson Fire Department;
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, while operating at the World Trade Center in New York City, firefighter Thomas J. Hetzel, badge #290 of Hook and Ladder Company #1, Franklin Square and Munson Fire Department of New York, was killed in performance of his duties, along with 2,976 other emergency responders and civilians;
Whereas, members of the Franklin Square and Munson Fire Department were called upon to assist in the subsequent rescue and recovery operations and cleanup of the World Trade Center site, afflicting many of them with life-threatening illnesses as a result of breathing the deadly toxins present at the site;
Whereas, the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District recognizes the significant and compelling nature of the petition before the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York reporting un-prosecuted federal crimes at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and calling upon the United States Attorney to present that petition to a Special Grand Jury pursuant to the United States Constitution and 18 U.S.C. SS 3332(A);
Whereas, the overwhelming evidence presented in said petition demonstrates beyond any doubt that pre-planted explosives and/or incendiaries — not just airplanes and the ensuing fires — caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings, killing the vast majority of the victims who perished that day;
Whereas, the victims of 9/11, their families, the people of New York City, and our nation deserve that every crime related to the attacks of September 11, 2001, be investigated to the fullest and that every person who was responsible face justice;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District fully supports a comprehensive federal grand jury investigation and prosecution of every crime related to the attacks of September 11, 2001, as well as any and all efforts by other government entities to investigate and uncover the full truth surrounding the events of that horrible day.
Feel free to do your own research.
Please don’t involve me in your discussions with other posters, as you did above.September 19, 2019 at 18:11 #47273Clark
– “Please don’t involve me in your discussions with other posters, as you did above.”
Do you deny that it was your suggestion that I was trying to get the 9/11 Post closed, despite the fact that I repeatedly reopened it? Both Dave and Paul Barbara have leaped onto that bandwagon. So it’s OK for you to impute motive; you raise no objection when other commenters use your slur against me, yet you object to me pointing out that you were the source. Cool.September 19, 2019 at 18:41 #47274Node
I don’t want to discuss anything but 9/11 on this thread.
You said you didn’t believe my post at 13.42. Now your own research proves it’s true. Care to now address my point, which is that the opinion of a group of fire experts who witnessed the events of 9/11 from close-up, can not be lightly dismissed?September 19, 2019 at 19:16 #47275Clark
Sorry, I seem to have missed the rational basis for your ridicule, Dave. Fancy that.September 19, 2019 at 19:38 #47277Clark
I wrote: ‘“all five commissioners of the fire dept” are not what that phrase seems to imply’, and it looks like I was right. These are administrators; it seems that one of them was a litigation manager and another a pharmacist.
As I posted above, the Chiefs, Officers and Members of the Fire Department name Chris Gioia as the driving force behind this. He really was a fire chief, and present at 9/11. However, he didn’t come to this conclusion at the time. It was years later that he was fooled by A&E9/11″Truth” peddling Chandler’s misapplied physics argument:
– “Then I’m like, all right, but you know, I’m going through. I’m surfing the web, and then I hit Architects and Engineers website, and this website had it all together, and it presented it in a logical fashion, yeah, all right, this is what happened. Then they back it up with professional people, and they… backed up by eyewitness testimony and how certain things are just not possible. You can’t suspend the laws of physics. Gravity only operates downward. It doesn’t operate from outward. The laws of science most certainly do apply. The laws of the building, the way the buildings were constructed, that applies. If you put theories to the test, which they have, then you prove that it’s not really a theory anymore, or you eliminate things that just are impossible to happen.
– That coalesced in my mind. Then after, I would say, two or three years of doing research and digging, digging through testimony, and looking at pictures, and hitting various websites, it pretty much was obvious that the official government narrative is not really what happened that day. It’s absolutely far from the truth, and it’s not a good thing.”
In other words, Gioia formed his opinion in much the same way as other Truthers; it was something he read on the web.
Whereas, the overwhelming evidence presented in said petition demonstrates beyond any doubt that the Loch Ness Monster and/or sea serpents — not just an iceberg and failure of the bulkheads — caused the destruction of the Titanic, killing the vast majority of the victims who perished that day
QED!September 19, 2019 at 22:10 #47278Clark
From an interview on A&E9/11. Gioia:
– “You can run again for another five-year term. You could actually stay in office. The other four commissioners have been in office 10, 15, maybe 20 years, so I’m pretty much the new kid on the block. The other members… We have another ex-chief, who’s sitting on the board, as well. He was chief of the department back in the late ’80s or the early ’90s. That would actually be Commissioner Malloy. Then you have Commissioner Saltzman, who is a member of Engine Company Number Three. You have Commissioner Lyons, who is a member of Engine Company Number Two. Commissioner Joseph Torregrossa, he’s the chairman, and he’s also a member of Engine Company Number Two.”
Three serving fire-fighters and a former chief.
Gioia says that he was less than two miles away. He heard the first impact, he watched through a surveying instrument like a telescope, he saw the fire and damage, and he saw the blast of the second impact. But then he drove home, where his wife told him that both towers had collapsed. He then saw it on TV.
Have any of the others given interviews or anything? Could do with
* * * * * * *
Node, since you’re here, shouldn’t we try discussing the UAF report? I seem to remember reading a bit of the draft, maybe a year ago (?), and it referred to a court case and an appeal between, er, the Con Edison electricity company and the Port Authority? Or maybe their insurance companies? And the engineering reports submitted to court. Didn’t Con Edison win, but then the Port Authority got it overturned on appeal?September 19, 2019 at 23:57 #47279Node
Really? You made up a sarcastic ‘quote.’ How does that advance the discussion?September 20, 2019 at 00:01 #47280Node
“Three serving fire-fighters and a former chief.”
I don’t understand your point. You are reinforcing mine. Namely : experienced firefighters who were present on 9/11 don’t believe the official narrative.
Clark September 11, 2019 at 09:56 — “Node … I’m unlikely to read the UAF report in detail …”
Clark September 19, 2019 at 22:10 — “Node … shouldn’t we try discussing the UAF report?”
er…. no.September 20, 2019 at 01:14 #47282Clark
So far, we have one bloke who saw the Twin Towers on fire, didn’t see them collapse, and years later discovered A&E9/11″Truth” and, like millions of others, has believed the dozen or so phrases they keep repeating ever since. His company have said he doesn’t talk for them, and we’ve yet to hear from his four fellow local commissioners, apart from a single ‘aye’ each.
So at one end we have a claim of breaking Newton’s laws which doesn’t hold up. At the other we’ve got some rather minor fire department administrators with whatever technical authority they carry. It’s pretty thin really, isn’t it?
No I haven’t yet read the UAF report in detail, so why not try and find something to interest me? Haven’t you read it at all? I thought you said you wanted to discuss this stuff? A bit too objective maybe? You feel more comfortable projecting a handful of characters who say what you want as authority figures?September 20, 2019 at 02:41 #47283Node
OK, let’s see what we DO agree on. I’ll make some claims, you tell me if you agree or disagree.
(1) The 5 commissioners have professional knowledge of fires and how they affect buildings.
(2) Some if not all of the 5 commissioners were present at ground zero on 9/11.
(3) The 5 commissioners personally know many other first responders.
(4) You have no special knowledge of fires, were thousands of miles away when it happened, have never spoken to any eye-witnesses, and have ‘learned’ what you know from the internet and TV.September 20, 2019 at 05:46 #47284SA
The facts about 9/11 seem to be lost in the very details of discussions about the physics of collapse of buildings. The facts are damning enough. Planes were highjacked and two hit the twin towers, a third hit the pentagon and a fourth went down in a field. There was a serious lapse in security both in allowing this to happen and in the lack of remedial measures in the heart of the US establishment this heavily populated and surveilled area. No officials were castigated., reprimanded or lost their job. The whole incident was then used to invade Afghanistan and the. Iraq under false pretences with major loss of life and constant turmoil in the ME. No conspiracies there, and no consequences for the authorities. Meanwhile people on both sides of this discourse who or really on the same anti war side are tearing each other apart for the sake of proving the unprovable with no chance of succeeding because the evidence has been ?deliberately destroyed. This controversy is the utmost distraction.
Meanwhile KSA oil installations are bombed. The Houthis claim they have done it but to distract from the fact that there has been another major security lapse, we will be sold another war this time with Iran by putting the blame, without evidence, on that country. It we are still busy discussing the unprovable and tearing each other apart.September 20, 2019 at 10:22 #47286Node
“… for the sake of proving the unprovable with no chance of succeeding …”
I believe the UAF report which is the subject of this thread does prove that at least one of these buildings were brought down by explosive demolition. “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”
There is no plausible scenario whereby one building was pre-rigged for demolition while the other two were destroyed by planes, so the whole official narrative fails.
As you say, this event was used as an excuse to justify slaughter on a global scale. It is important that history exposes the lie, or they will use the same trick again on our grandchildren.September 20, 2019 at 15:35 #47289Clark
– “I believe the UAF report which is the subject of this thread does prove that at least one of these buildings were brought down by explosive demolition”
And that’s all this is; a belief. Would it have been possible to design a structure such that it would collapse like WTC7 did? Of course. To what extent did WTC7’s structure resemble such a structure? Well, quite a bit actually, with its core suspended on a truss straddling a major electrical installation. Can UAF prove that the truss couldn’t or didn’t fail? Not without the debris.
– “There is no plausible scenario whereby one building was pre-rigged for demolition while the other two were destroyed by planes…”
Eh? What makes that so implausible? I can get around it just by acting a bit more paranoid than your typical conspiracy theorist. WTC7 could have been pre-rigged just to raise false suspicions of WTCs 1 and 2 being pre-rigged! Genius! Get a vocal minority barking up a non-existent tree, throw the hounds off the scent and taint any putative Truth Movement, and all at a fraction of the risk of being exposed. WTCs 1 and 2 would have required special, timed, sequenced, theatrical rigs to simulate top-down collapse, and without the sound of sequenced explosives, both of which would have had to work perfectly first time without a rehearsal, and both having to initiate at the damaged zones where damage to charges and control systems was most likely. Big ask! Much easier to let WTCs 1 and 2 collapse as they would anyway, but bring WTC7 down in the routine, bottom-up demolition fashion, with seven hours or so to patch up any damage to the rig. Since WTC7 was half the size of either WTCs 1 or two, that’s around a fifth as many people using the buildings who might notice preparations in progress. Or even better, get a military or ex-military team to rig it after the attacks, and if you get found out you can say that you just brought down a damaged building for safety reasons; plausibly deniable. I can see why you’re not a planner for the NWO.
Really, Truthers are remarkably disappointing. The demolition scenarios seem quite imaginative until you realise that they all come pre-cooked off the ‘web, and the Truthers don’t actually apply any imagination of their own.
– “…so the whole official narrative fails”
That’s a remarkably narrow interpretation of the “official narrative”. It basically reduces the official narrative to “WTCs 1 and 2 weren’t pre-rigged with explosives”. But that does seem to be what most Truthers mean by “the official narrative”.September 20, 2019 at 15:50 #47290Clark
You haven’t established (1), (2) or (3). (3) seems likely but irrelevant, since Gioia’s own serving teams have already disowned his position. There is already some evidence against (1) and (2). I posted all this earlier.
(4) is close, though I learned physics at school, university, and as a personal interest 🙂September 20, 2019 at 16:34 #47293Node
“And that’s all this is; a belief.”
And that’s your belief.
“Eh? What makes that so implausible? I can get around it just by …”
… then you describe an implausible scenario. You prove my point again.
“That’s a remarkably narrow interpretation of the “official narrative”. It basically reduces the official narrative to “WTCs 1 and 2 weren’t pre-rigged with explosives”. But that does seem to be what most Truthers mean by “the official narrative”.”
Er, yes, that is a pretty fair summary of the official narrative. I just don’t understand what you’re getting at half the time.September 20, 2019 at 16:37 #47294Clark
Te hee hee. I just realised what Judy Wood’s BBE model is, and Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration of WTC1” doesn’t come out of it well.
Anyone with a genuine interest in physics, I’d be happy to explain…September 20, 2019 at 16:54 #47295Clark
– “And that’s your belief”
No, it’s a fact. Had WTC7 been pulled down by massive internal springs or winches, the UAF report wouldn’t be able to prove otherwise. Had WTC7’s structure deviated from its plans, UAF couldn’t prove otherwise.
You a New Ager? There is more than belief.
– “yes, that is a pretty fair summary of the official narrative”
What stunning ignorance! I suppose the 9/11 Commission Report must read simply “WTCs 1 and 2 weren’t pre-rigged with explosives”, over and over again for hundreds of pages.September 20, 2019 at 17:05 #47297Clark
– “then you describe an implausible scenario”
But it’s a fraction as implausible as your own! It requires only one conventional demolition rig, and eliminates two never-seen-before, silenced, theatrical, and indeed unnecessary demolition rigs.
C’mon, admit it, you still accept Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration”, don’t you? But you won’t discuss the physics in case he’s wrong.September 20, 2019 at 17:13 #47298Node
OK, Clark, I’m going to stop discussing this with you. It’s pointless. Your statements are “hard facts” while mine are “beliefs”. I’m a “New Ager” with “stunning ignorance” while you have a “genuine interest in physics.”
FFS, you won’t even concede that firemen “have professional knowledge of fires and how they affect buildings.”
Pointless.September 20, 2019 at 20:36 #47304Dave
Clark’s role is to repeatedly say Black is White, to ensure the debate continues and so it can be said not everyone agrees what really happened. He certainly has a remarkable imagination. I notice his new posting is with XR which is a corporate green sales team promoting the Globalist climate change agenda.September 20, 2019 at 21:37 #47305Clark
The icecaps are melting away Dave.
The test of science is whether it makes accurate predictions; Hansen testified to congress in 1988. The thirty year lead science gave us has been squandered; for a decade it has been a matter of simple observation. Each year emissions rise, so each year the problem gets harder to fix; it would have been easy if we’d started in 1988.September 20, 2019 at 22:03 #47306Clark
It’s not my fault you can’t tell fact from your own beliefs. All UAF can say is “we tried and failed to replicate NIST’s results, but if we did these things to our simulation, we got these results”. That’s obvious, and it’s a long way from proving explosives.
– ‘FFS, you won’t even concede that firemen “have professional knowledge of fires and how they affect buildings.”’
You didn’t even bother to check; Franklin Square and Munson Fire District is a volunteer department, and commissioners are administrators. Are commissioners awarded honorary membership of an engine company? Really Node, you’re trying to invest massive authority in these obscure bureaucrats, just because they say what you already believe, even though scientific matters are not decided by authority, and I linked to contradictory statements by far senior fire-fighters who demonstrated their superior knowledge of structures, and Gioia even stated that he got his ideas not from events of the day, not from fire-fighter colleagues, but years later when he browsed into A&E9/11″Truth”, just like most other Truthers. He even said he was trying to get other fire departments on board, contradicting your assertion that other fire-fighters he knows already share his position.
Grief, Node, your folly is staring you in the face, yet you seem utterly blind to it.September 21, 2019 at 00:19 #47307Clark
The thing is, the groups that blessed us with 9/11 are the same groups that brought us non-existent WMDs in Iraq, global warming, and global warming denial. If you can’t see the alliance between the various neoconservative bodies – the petrochemical interests and the pro-arms, pro-war interests, between the Right in the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UK – then you can’t be looking properly.September 21, 2019 at 17:08 #47311The back teeth, up to, fed
I wonder if someone could have a quiet word with Clark. He is killing this thread. Attempts at debate drown in his verbiage. Most of his posts contain personal insults, contrary to blog rules. Some rather big hitters in the 9/11 scene joined the debate but Clark drove them off with his persistent bickering. He is damaging Craig’s blog in this respect. Of course Clark is entitled to his point of view but not at the expense of everyone else. He doesn’t respond to appeals for restraint. Please do something.
[ Mod: Thanks for your assessment, Node. However, persistently posting counterarguments doesn’t break any existing rules for commenters. How is this “at the expense of everyone else”? There’s currently no provision for any kind of numerical quota for commenters, nor any scheme for introducing mandatory balance. ]September 22, 2019 at 00:08 #47316Clark
Whatever comment or argument you may have had, about the UAF report or the related topics on this thread, I apologise for averting you from posting them.September 22, 2019 at 13:36 #47319Node
Interesting to note that William Binney spoke at an event hosted by The Lawyers committee for a 9/11 Enquiry. Craig admires him greatly and has shared the stage with him at several events, including being a guest speaker when Binney was presented with the Sam Adams Award.
Binney was for many years Technical Director of The National Security Agency (a national-level intelligence agency of the United States Department of Defence) so presumably knows a thing or two about 9/11 not generally available to the public. He’s certainly not someone who can be portrayed as a weak-willed individual conned by the likes of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.September 22, 2019 at 14:55 #47323Clark
There is clearly much about the 9/11 attacks that we have not heard the truth of, and a more thorough investigation would be a good thing.
But there is a chasm of difference between “spoke at an event hosted by” and “agrees with every line of”. The Lawyers Committee seems to have been taken in by the popular over-interpretation of Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration of WTC1”; many people have, and it is not a lawyer’s field.
It is a shame in so many ways. It confounds critical thinking, it discredits the call for better investigation, it undermines people’s understanding of science and technical discussion, it encourages wild conspiracism which encourages people to distrust a large proportion of everyone they interact with including friends and neighbours, it is divisive, it crowds out political analysis, it takes people’s eyes off the ongoing criminality, and it seems to make most of its adherents extraordinarily blinkered.
Twin Tower demolition theory is a major liability.
I hope the Lawyers’ Committee get their new investigation. But if it rejects Twin Tower demolition theory, people like you have already made it clear that you will denounce it as a stitch-up, whereas if it finds for Twin Tower demolition theory in the form promoted by Truthers, a travesty of justice and science will have been committed – the collapses did NOT break Newton’s laws.September 22, 2019 at 15:20 #47325Node
You have replied to my post but only 2 sentences are relevant to it, so I’ll ignore the rest.
<i>There is clearly much about the 9/11 attacks that we have not heard the truth of, and a more thorough investigation would be a good thing. But there is a chasm of difference between “spoke at an event hosted by” and “agrees with every line of”. </i>
Nobody agrees 100% with anybody, so your point is trivial. The actual point is that an intelligent well-informed person, personally known to and respected by someone we both know and respect, chose to support such an event in the full knowledge that his support would be scrutinised. My secondary point is that he cannot be dismissed as naive.September 22, 2019 at 19:31 #47331Node
So Bill Binney has publicly shown his support for The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, a nonprofit public interest organization. What is this committee trying to achieve? It has filed a petition with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York demanding that the U.S. Attorney, pursuant to its duty under a federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 3332, present to a Special Grand Jury extensive evidence of federal crimes relating to the destruction by explosive demolition of three World Trade Center Towers on September 11, 2001 that resulted in extensive loss of life.
The US Attorney has agreed to do so.
The petition was accompanied by 57 exhibits and presented extensive evidence that explosives were used to destroy three WTC Towers on 9/11. That evidence included independent scientific laboratory analysis of WTC dust samples showing the presence of high-tech explosives and/or incendiaries; numerous first-hand reports by First Responders of seeing and hearing explosions at the World Trade Center on 9/11; expert analysis of seismic evidence that explosions occurred at the WTC towers on 9/11 both prior to the airplane impacts and prior to the building collapses; and expert analysis and testimony by architects, engineers, and scientists concluding that the rapid onset symmetrical near-free-fall acceleration collapse of these three WTC high rise buildings on 9/11 exhibited the key characteristics of controlled demolition.
That is what Bill Binney has thrown his weight behind!!September 22, 2019 at 20:14 #47332Dave
There is little prospect of anyone being prosecuted for 9/11 because it was government policy to facilitate the attack for purposes similar to Pear Harbour. In other words it was a political decision not a legal one (as with proroguing of Parliament and declaring war) and in a democracy you can’t punish leaders for war crimes, because democracy requires a peaceful transfer of power to work, and leaders facing prosecution wont surrender power. Only leaders of vanquished nations get prosecuted.
However eventually truth works its way into the political mainstream and those elected by a knowing electorate change policy accordingly, hence why you got Trump, Brexit and Corbyn.
- The topic ‘Engineering Prof releases draft report on 9/11 collapse of WTC Bldg 7 in NYC’ is closed to new replies.