Wednesday, August 17, 2005

WTC Lie?

What you are about to read may anger you. I warn you the truth is not always what it seems. To often our world is shaped by sound bites and spin doctors. You know what they want you to know. After all who are we, but a people to produce taxes , and a herd to be steered when they see fit. Is it all conspiracies and back door deals?
No. Though , I can say this to find the root cause, find those who profited the most from such actions. Our civil liberties have been vastly curtailed as of this tragedy. The government no longer needs to abide by certain parts of the constitution. Arrests which must happen before 48 hours can now be ignored by simply calling someone a person of interest. Now, they can hold you indefinitely without charging you or without allowing you a phone call or even a lawyer. Because, after all you haven’t been charged with anything. Your just someone of interest, a person who may or may NOT have committed a crime.

To those who know this erosion of our civil liberties began back in the 1960’s , which was then accelerated in the 1980’s with the passage of the RICO act. That’s when they skipped the part in the constitution which says the government is not allowed to seize a person’s property. What? You say the RICO act was to help us fight the bad guys. It was enacted to defend us poor helpless citizens. Really? Cause now the government can seize your property and cash simply because they suspect you of dealing drugs or committing a felonious act with another person. Did you hear what I said? SUSPECT, not PROVE! Oh, they’ll give it back after You show them that Your not a Drug Dealer or a Mafioso.
Really, tell that to the hundreds if not thousands of people who no longer have their property or cash. Cause, after all in order to sue the government , you must get permission from the government. Don’t you just love that little trick? Guess how many people over turn a Federal decision? The answer is in the low single digits and those are the people who have the money and the where with all to fight the government. The poor and disabled don’t even have a prayer.

Let me finish by saying this I am a proud American. I love this country to the point I would, if needed give my life to see the torch of Liberty burn on. I would ask my son or daughter to serve if I had children. My family has served in the military in one form or another since Jamestown. My ancestors , Davidson ,came across on the Mayflower and they , Stone, also signed the Constitution of the United States of America. My Grandfather was wounded on Iwo Jima his name is on a plaque on Veterans blvd. My Father served during the Vietnam war and my brothers serve at this very moment in both the Air Force and the Army. So, I am not a nay-sayer, a person who does not love this country with all his heart. I happen to believe for the blood and sacrifice of those who gave their lives the truth should be the beacon by which we steer this great land into an uncertain future.

Part 1

In view of the $30 billion given annually to the FBI, the CIA and other U.S. "intelligence" agencies, why were these agencies completely unaware (or so they say) of this conspiracy before they saw its results on CNN? And why has this (apparent) incompetence been rewarded with yet more billions? The four AA and UA jets took off with an average occupancy rate of 27%. That four
airliners from major airlines leaving from the East Coast around 9 a.m. on a weekday for the West Coast would all have such low occupancy rates is highly unlikely. Was the booking system tampered with in order to ensure such low occupancy rates (so that the passengers from all four planes could eventually be loaded onto UA Flight 93 for elimination)? Why would hijackers intending to crash planes into the WTC hijack jets taking off from Boston rather than from someplace closer such as JFK Airport in New York? Why would hijackers intending to crash a plane into the Pentagon hijack a jet from Dulles Airport near Washington DC (and thus close to the Pentagon) and allow it to fly for 40 minutes away from its target before turning around and flying another 40 minutes back to it (knowing that interception by military jets during this time would in normal circumstances have been very likely)? AA Flight 77 (the jet which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon) was allegedly hijacked at about 9 a.m., at about the same time as the Twin Tower impacts, and its change of course back toward Washington, or its transponder having been turned off, would have been known to flight controllers, who were aware of the impacts; why, then, were U.S. Air Force jets not scrambled to intercept AA Flight 77 forty minutes before it (allegedly) hit the Pentagon, when there were U.S. Air Force jets at seven locations normally ready to take off at ten minutes' notice? Why are the FAA, the FBI, the CIA and the NSA refusing to release any transcripts of communications from the four doomed Boeings on September 11th or any records at all relating to signals of any form transmitted by those jets? Where are the black boxes (the flight data recorders and the cockpit voice recorders) from all four jets? These black boxes are designed to survive any crash. Have they been examined by experts from the National Transportation Safety Board, the agency which normally investigates airplane crashes? If the answer is NO, then, why not? In particular, what is on the FDR and the CVR from UA Flight 93, the jet which crashed in Pennsylvania? Why, exactly, did this jet crash? Was it shot down? "Workers at Indian Lake Marina [six miles from the place where UA Flight 93 crashed] said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash [or the attack on the jet] at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday." (Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Sept. 13, 2001) If this plane was not shot down, but rather remained intact until hitting the ground, how could this debris travel the six miles from the crash site to Indian Lake in minutes when there was only a 10 mph wind blowing? (For wind-borne debris to travel six miles in, say, six minutes requires a 60 mph wind.) Were the conversations between the pilots of the other three hijacked planes and air traffic controllers recorded? If so, what did those pilots say? Were those recordings seized by the FBI? Were (alleged) transcripts given by the FBI to the mainstream media? Were those transcripts fabricated to provide false evidence in support of the "Arab hijackers" story? Does the Fireman's Video show that the plane which hit the North Tower did not have engines attached to the wings and thus was not a Boeing 767? Does it reveal that missiles

were fired from this plane just before it hit?

Since no public TV cameras were trained on the North Tower at the time of impact, what was the source of the transmission of the North Tower impact which George W. Bush says he saw before he went into the classroom in Florida? Why did he do nothing (except continue listening to a little girl's story about a goat) for half an hour after he was informed that the second jet hit the South Tower (and that America was "under attack")? Did Bush have prior knowledge of the WTC attack? Considering that all persons on board all four planes died, how did the FBI come up so quickly with a list of names of the alleged nineteen Arab hijackers — including aliases used by fourteen of them, in some cases seven aliases (see the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2001-09-27)? Why were there no Arab names on the passenger lists at all? Did the FBI prepare in advance a list of the names (and aliases) of the (alleged) "Arab hijackers" on those flights? Why did the South Tower collapse first, 56 minutes after it was hit, rather than the North Tower (which was hit first and collapsed 1 hour and 44 minutes after being hit), even though the fire in the North Tower (the alleged cause of the collapse) was more intense? If the outer perimeter walls of the Twin Towers were connected to the central cores only by lightweight trusses, how was wind load on the towers transmitted to the central core (as it must have been because the floors did not buckle in a strong wind)? What exactly was the nature of the structural connections between the outer perimeter wall and the central core of the two towers? Is it not false that this consisted only of lightweight flimsy trusses? Is it not the case that the connection was actually made with 32,000 tons of steel beams? Why are the architect's plans of the Twin Towers not publicly available? Would jet fuel burning in an enclosed space (with little oxygen available for combustion) actually produce temperatures high enough (1538°C, i.e. 2800°F) to melt massive steel beams (and all the steel beams, since steel conducts heat efficiently) enclosed in concrete in just 56 minutes? If so, wouldn't the Twin Towers have buckled and bent, and toppled over onto the surrounding buildings in the Lower Manhattan financial district, rather than collapsing neatly upon themselves in the manner of a controlled demolition? Were the Twin Towers re-engineered in the mid-1990s to make possible a collapse-on-demand if that were judged necessary? Was FEMA aware of this? Do blueprints of the Twin Towers in the possession of the past owners reveal any evidence of this? Why were such huge quantities of ash and dust produced? How could fire convert concrete into dust? Has the ash been chemically analyzed to determine what it really is and how it might have been produced? Were any tests done on the debris for the presence of radioactivity? Is it not the case that the Twin Towers collapsed, not because of airliner impacts and fires, but because they were expertly demolished (even though we do not yet know

exactly how this was accomplished)?

Who stood to benefit from the complete destruction of the Twin Towers? What was the actual size of the entrance hole made by the object which hit the Pentagon?

Is it not the case that photographic evidence reveals that it was in fact at most just a few meters in diameter, much too small to have been made by a Boeing 757 jet, but just the right size for a missile?
Why were no aircraft fragments, identifiable as coming from a Boeing 757, recovered from the Pentagon crash site? Why were no remains of the approximately sixty passengers and crew on the jet, which allegedly hit the Pentagon returned to relatives for burial? Why was the debris from the collapsed Twin Towers removed from the site with no forensic examination? Why was almost all of it sold to scrap merchants and shipped abroad where it would not be available for scientific examination? In September the Securities and Exchange Commission initiated an inquiry to establish who benefited from the unusually high numbers of put options purchased prior to September 11 for shares in companies whose stock prices subsequently plummeted, on the supposition that whoever was behind the hijacking was also behind most of the purchases of these put options. Why has this inquiry stalled? Why have those who benefited from the purchases of these put options not been identified (or at least, not publicly)? Is it not the case that this atrocity was planned and carried out by elements at high levels of command in the U.S. Air Force, the CIA, the Justice Department and FEMA (possibly with the involvement of well-placed civilians outside the government), acting under orders from, or with the approval of, high officials within the U.S. Administration, and that those same elements are now directing a propaganda campaign against the American people to justify a war of aggression in Asia and the Middle East aimed at controlling the oil and mineral wealth of those regions? Why is the U.S. mainstream media ignoring questions like these?

Part 2

But still. TWIN towers did not fell down because of the heat! Twin towers were both hit in different manner (1st was hit high in the middle of the tower, 2nd was hit at the side much lower than 1st tower). Why did both towers fell in exactly the same way? Why would both towers fall fairly uniformly as IF they were demolished by a matter of explosives put inside of them?
I know several people who are engineers and they have seen the crash. They said that the

towers fell in a highly suspicious way. There are numerous indicators that something other than fuel fires caused the towers to
collapse, including:
The immense clouds of dust and apparent disintegration of some 425,000 cubic yards of concrete The short duration and low temperature of the jet fuel fires The unexplained fire and collapse of 7 WTC, the 47-story Salomon Brothers Building The fact that the rubble burned for more than three months despite being constantly sprayed with water
The report from the medical examiner that many of the dead had been "vaporized" Jet fuel DOES NOT BURN HOT ENOUGH to melt steel. By the intensity of the planes in the video clip you could see that the temperature was not high. Furthermore there were lots of black smoke. Black smoke is rubber burning! Do you know what happens when something heats up? It expands, and bends. There were no such thing in WTC’s crash. PART 3
Ok, is it just me, or did anyone else recognize that it wasn't the airplane impacts that blew up the World Trade Center? To me, this is the most frightening part of this morning. ... If you watch the time sequence, you'll see that it happens like this: - A plane hits tower #1, blowing a hole in it high up. The expected things then happen: - The building stays up. A reinforced concrete building is *extremely* strong. Terrorists set off a large bomb *inside* that building without significant damage. ... - The second plane hits the second tower, lower and moving faster. It blows a bigger hole through it, showering debris on the street, but the building is clearly still standing and still
looks quite solid.

- The second building begins burning, also from the impact point up.

- Perhaps a half hour later, the fire in the first building *goes out*. It is still smoldering and letting off black smoke, but there is no flame. ...
- The fire in the second building goes out. - Then, later, the second building suddenly crumbles into dust, in a smooth wave running from the top of the building (above the burned part) down through all the stories at an equal speed. The debris falls primarily inward. The tower does not break off intact and collapse into other buildings. ... The crumbling comes from the top (above the damage). It moves at a uniform rate. All of the structural members are destroyed in a smooth pattern, so there is no remaining skeleton. The damage is uniform, symmetric, and total. In summary, it looks exactly like a demolition — because that's what was. - The first tower collapses in a similar demolition wave.

There's no doubt that the planes hit the building and did a lot of damage. But look at the footage — those buildings were *demolished*. To demolish a building, you don't need all that much explosive but it needs to be placed in the correct places (in direct contact with the structural members) and ignited in a smooth, timed sequence. ... " Demolition experts say that towers are the most difficult buildings to bring down in a controlled manner. A tower tends to fall like a tree, unless the direction of its fall is controlled by directional charges. The WTC towers "smoke-stacked" neatly, falling within the boundaries of their foundations. Skeptics say this could not have happened coincidentally and it must have been caused by strategically placed and precisely timed internal charges. Videotape images may reveal these internal charges precipitating the controlled demolition of the towers and WTC 7. Romero is vice president of research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and
Technology, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures, and often assists in forensic investigations
into terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar explosions and studying the effects.
After being hit by the aircraft, the twin towers appeared to be stable. Then without
- warning, at 9:58 a.m. the south tower imploded vertically downwards, 53 minutes after being hit. At 10:28, 88 minutes after being struck, the north tower collapsed.

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said. If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," he said.

Part 3

Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work, and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents a gallon on the open market. Let us consider: One plane full of jet fuel hit the north tower at 8:45 a.m., and the fuel fire burned for a while with bright flames and black smoke. We can see pictures of white smoke and flames shooting from the windows. Then by 9:03 a.m. (which time was marked by the second plane's collision with the south tower), the flame was mostly gone and only black smoke continued to pour from the building. To my simple mind, that would indicate that the first fire had died down, but something was still burning inefficiently, leaving soot (carbon) in the smoke. A fire with sooty smoke is either low temperature or starved for oxygen — or both. But by 10:29 a.m., the fire in north tower had accomplished the feat that I find so amazing: It melted the steel supports in the building, causing a chain reaction within the structure that brought the building to the ground. And with less fuel to feed the fire, the south tower collapsed only 47 minutes after the plane collision, again with complete destruction. This is only half the time it took to
destroy the north tower. I try not to think about that. I try not to think about a petroleum fire burning for 104 minutes, just getting hotter and hotter until it reached 1538 degrees Celsius (2800
Fahrenheit) and melted the steel (steel is about 99% iron; for melting points of iron and steel see (Celsius/Fahrenheit conversion tool at I try not to wonder how the fire reached temperatures that only bottled oxygen or forced air can produce. And I try not to think about all the steel that was in that building — 200,000 tons of it (for WTC statistics see or

I try to forget that heating steel is like pouring syrup onto a plate: you can't get it to stack up. The heat just flows out to the colder parts of the steel, cooling off the part you are trying to warm up. If you pour it on hard enough and fast enough, you can get the syrup to stack up a little bit. And with very high heat brought on very fast, you can heat up one part of a steel object, but the heat will quickly spread out and the hot part will cool off soon after you stop. Am I to believe that the fire burned for 104 minutes in the north tower, gradually heating the 200,000 tons of steel supports like a blacksmith's forge, with the heat flowing throughout the skeleton of the tower? If the collapse was due to heated steel, the experts should be able to tell us how many thousands of tons of steel were heated to melting temperature in 104 minutes and how much fuel would be required to produce that much heat. Can a single Boeing 767 carry that much fuel? Thankfully, I found this note on the BBC web page ( or "Fire reaches 800 [degrees] C — hot enough to melt steel floor supports." This is one of the things I warned you about: In the 20th Century, steel melted at 1535 degrees Celsius (2795 F) (see, but in the 21st Century, it melts at 800 degrees C (1472 F). Strange Huh?

Part 4

Several witnesses and survivors reported hearing bombs going off inside the World Trade Center. Louie Cacchioli, a firefighter with Engine 47 in Harlem, New York. Cacchioli told People Magazine the following: "I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building." People Magazine. “” ‘United in Courage.’ ---The September 12, 2001 issue.

Part 5

The cremation of a body requires a temperature of over 3000 degrees Fahrenheit for close to half an hour in order to reduce it from 170 pounds to three or four pounds of ashes - and that did not occur when the airplanes struck the World Trade Center. So why all the ash? Explosives would explain the ash while fire can not.

Part 6

Who benefited when the World Trade Center towers collapsed? Who controlled access prior to Sept. 11? These burning questions continue to be ignored by the mainstream media.
Larry Silverstein, lease-holder of the World Trade Center, and Lewis Eisenberg, the man who negotiated the lease, are key supporters of Israel who have both held high positions in the largest Israeli fundraising institution in the United States.
Silverstein and his Australian-Israeli partner, Frank Lowy, are the real estate developers who obtained 99-year leases on the rental and retail spaces of the World Trade Center shortly before the catastrophe of Sept. 11.
Although their leased property is destroyed, the lease-holders themselves stand to gain billions of dollars from insurance.
Eisenberg, the former chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, personally arranged the privatization of the World Trade Center property and oversaw the negotiations that delivered the leases into the private hands of Silverstein and Lowy.
Eisenberg was recently appointed finance chairman of the Republican National Committee.
How did these well-known supporters of Israel come to control the property? What actually caused the buildings to collapse? There are two schools of thought.
There is the “official” theory that hijacked planes crashed into the towers and the subsequent fuel fires caused the twin towers to fall.
The second theory, however, argues that other devices, such as explosive charges, were used to collapse the towers in a kind of controlled demolition for which the planes provided a useful distraction.
There remain significant amounts of eyewitness testimony and evidence to support the theory that explosives contributed to the collapse of the twin towers and Seven World Trade Center, which fell for no apparent reason during the afternoon of Sept. 11.
Seven WTC was a 47-story building built by Silver stein on property leased from the Port Authority.
There are video recordings and photographs which appear to show explosions occurring at the base of the towers prior to and during the collapses.
In a remarkable three-dimensional image published in the German magazine GEO EPOCHE, which dedicated the December 2001 issue to 9-11, there are five or six large and deep craters to be seen beneath the rubble. At least four huge craters are seen where the twin towers stood and one is squarely at the center of Seven-WTC. Another photograph shows what appears to be a sand-colored blast originating at the base of one of the towers and growing into an immense cloud of dust.
If explosive charges were used to collapse the towers, the question of who had access to the buildings prior to 9-11 emerges. Silverstein controlled access to the towers from the end of July when he obtained the 99-year lease.
Who Silverstein is and how he obtained these leases for a fraction of their value are questions that have been completely avoided by the mainstream media.
Silverstein is the New York City commercial landlord who built Seven World Trade Center in 1987. Silverstein won, with Lowy’s Westfield America, a 99-year right-to-lease of the World Trade Center from Eisenberg, the former chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey on July 26, 2001. While Silverstein controlled the 10.6 million-square-foot office space in the WTC complex, Westfield leased the 427,000 square-foot retail mall.

Eisenberg was the key person in negotiating the lease for Silverstein and Westfield, who were in fact the low bidders in the final bidding process on the 110-story towers.
While the high bid came from Vornado Realty Trust, its path was reportedly blocked by demands to pay back taxes. In March 2001 the company pulled out after failing to reach a purchase agreement with Eisenberg. When Vornado pulled out, the door was opened for Silverstein and Lowy. Lowy obtained the retail lease in April while it took Silverstein until the end of July to obtain funding for the down payment.
One lender, GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corp., accused Silverstein of misallocating insurance money paid out after the Sept. 11 attack. In a complaint filed on Jan. 14 in the State Supreme Court in Manhattan, the lender, GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corp., asserts that Silver stein used some insurance money to pay lobbyists in Albany and in Washington to try to limit his liability to the victims.
Eisenberg is a “New York moneyman” and a former Democrat who supports the liberal wing of the Republican Party. He has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to “pro-choice” Republican candidates. The newly appointed finance chairman for the Republican National Committee, Eisenberg has also served as a vice president of the strong arm of the Israeli lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
When New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman appointed Eisenberg chairman of the Port Authority in February 1996, Forbes magazine said the formerly disgraced Goldman Sachs partner “got real lucky.”
“What a strange political appointment,” the magazine said, “considering the part he played in the sex scandal that rocked Goldman and the financial community in the late 1980s.”
Eisenberg quit Goldman Sachs after his secretary accused him of sexually harassing her.
“The truth ended up being that, yes, they had a brief affair, but, no, she was never harassed,” Forbes wrote, adding, “all charges were dismissed, though Eisenberg did resign.”
Silverstein is engaged in a lawsuit to double his insurance pay-off and may win as much as $7.1 billion from the insurance companies by arguing that the destruction of the towers was two insured events instead of one. The property was insured for $3.55 billion. Silverstein Properties Inc. had asked the judge to rule on the one-loss-or-two issue in a lawsuit against 20 of the 22 insurers on the property. District Judge John S. Martin Jr. rejected a motion for summary judgment in June.
A trial is scheduled Sept. 3, although a request for a delay by the insurers is under consideration.
While Silverstein Properties, a family-owned business, is “disappointed that the issue was not decided at this time, they are confident that they will prevail at trial,” said Howard Rubenstein, a spokesman for Silverstein.

Your Part

Your opinion is your own. In fact I encourage you to respond with you thoughts and opinions. The preceding was taken from many sources both on the Internet as well as publications which I have endeavored to both name and note. I am not saying that this is the truth. I’m just saying…..

Bobby Anding

No comments: