The tin-foil hat conspiracy brigade

[maroonlegions]

'Smoking gun'

 

However, a group of architects, engineers and scientists say the official explanation that fires caused the collapse is impossible. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth argue there must have been a controlled demolition.

 

 

FIND OUT MORE...

The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower is on BBC Two on Sunday 6 July at 2100 BST

Visit The Conspiracy Files website or catch up using the iPlayer

 

Q&A: The collapse of Tower 7

Timeline: WTC 7

The BBC and the 'missing' tape

 

The founder of the group, Richard Gage, says the collapse of the third tower is an obvious example of a controlled demolition using explosives.

 

"Building Seven is the smoking gun of 9/11? A sixth grader can look at this building falling at virtually freefall speed, symmetrically and smoothly, and see that it is not a natural process.

 

"Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance", says Gage, "they don't go straight down through themselves.";)

 

Conspiracy theories

 

There are a number of facts that have encouraged conspiracy theories about Tower Seven.

 

* Although its collapse potentially made architectural history, all of the thousands of tonnes of steel from the skyscraper were taken away to be melted down.;)

 

 

 

you cannot deny what the ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS are saying about the collapse of tower 7, they know a lot more about it than most people and their evidence cannot be swept under the carpet because it does NOT SUIT THE OFFICIAL EXPLANATION OF THE COLLAPSE, thats the big smoking gun that the authorities are bricking it over in their cover up.

[coppercrutch]

'Smoking gun'

 

 

you cannot deny what the ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS are saying about the collapse of tower 7, they know a lot more about it than most people and their evidence cannot be swept under the carpet because it does NOT SUIT THE OFFICIAL EXPLANATION OF THE COLLAPSE, thats the big smoking gun that the authorities are bricking it over in their cover up.

 

This is the very reason I am very wary of these 'dismiss all the conspiracies once and for all' type of programmes. A little too convenient. Will be interesting to watch though.

[maroonlegions]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_080112_twenty_five_u_s__mil.htm

 

 

 

this story is a real fecking mindblower from these military personal.

[Acey]

WTC being reported on before it had even collapsed !!?? Still no official confirmation as to where this information had come from. Dodgy all round IMO.

 

It came from Reuters.

 

There's a BBC article on it...here it is:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html

[Acey]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_080112_twenty_five_u_s__mil.htm

 

 

 

this story is a real fecking mindblower from these military personal.

 

No it's not. Just because they're "in the military" doesn't make their (mis)interpretation of the evidence any more valid.

 

Besides, questions like, "Where were the wings from the plane that crashed into the Pentagon?" have already been answered.

 

Read this: http://www.loosechangeguide.com

[coppercrutch]

It came from Reuters.

 

There's a BBC article on it...here it is:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html

 

Cheers.

 

BTW just watched about half an hour of that 'debunking' video. Interesting stuff and a few points they make are totally right. However they are simply looking at the events from the completely polar opposite of the wannabe conspiracy believers. Some of their rebuttals are pretty vague and meaningless IMO. Some however are very reasonable.

 

If that vid is supposed to simply disprove the conspiracy theorists then IMO it has failed drastically. And that from only watching the first half hour.

 

Having listened to both sides of this argument I still think there are a lot of things that do not add up.

[coppercrutch]

It came from Reuters.

 

There's a BBC article on it...here it is:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html

 

As an aside a few things in this do not sit well IMO.

 

(1) The question of these BBC tapes 'going missing'.

 

"The next morning I got a call to say the tapes had been found. They'd just been put back on the wrong shelf - 2002 rather than 2001. Not so sinister after all."

 

So do we just take this guys word for it !!?? He says the tapes were there all along jst on the wrong shelf. Now they are in the right place so nothing sinister. That is one of the lamest rebuttals I have ever heard.

 

(2) Where the incorrect report of WTC7 coming down came from.

 

You said this came from Reuters. You are wrong. Read the statement from Reuters again.

 

This info came from an unnamed source. Again very convenient and it appears this rebuttal worked as you fell for it yourself.

 

There is so much of this about that does not add up. The Reuters example above perfectly illustrates that. You came back with what you have been told to believe - namely that this info came from Reuters. In fact it came from "a local news story".

 

Name of this local news ? The person who circulated this ? The newspaper involved ? As far as I can see this has just been left open. Again very convenient and all without naming names.

 

None of this proves anything of course but it all just adds up to something dodgy IMO !!

[coppercrutch]

1st obvious problem. We were just told the fire alarms in WTC7 were out of function on the day because of an 8 hour test. That is very strange. Large disaster recovery/Fire system tests are ALWAYS done on weekends.

 

This is because there will be far fewer people in the buildings to be affected by the normal systems being un-operational for the outage period.

 

Either their plan for DR testing goes against all the normal rules. Possible.

 

Or this is just another dodgy unanswered problem......

[coppercrutch]

The debunking video stated "No demolition experts agree with the conspiracy theorists".

 

On the BBC there was just a 30 year demolition expert who clearly stated that this was done by demolition - nothing else in his opinion.

 

So that is another 'de-bunking' that has just been de-bunked itself !!!

 

Again there are far too many of these little things that exist. Dodgy I tell ye !!

[Acey]

As an aside a few things in this do not sit well IMO.

 

(1) The question of these BBC tapes 'going missing'.

 

"The next morning I got a call to say the tapes had been found. They'd just been put back on the wrong shelf - 2002 rather than 2001. Not so sinister after all."

 

So do we just take this guys word for it !!?? He says the tapes were there all along jst on the wrong shelf. Now they are in the right place so nothing sinister. That is one of the lamest rebuttals I have ever heard.

 

How's it lame? If you wanted nobody to see the tapes, why not destroy them, and sit on the "they're lost" theory?

 

(2) Where the incorrect report of WTC7 coming down came from.

 

You said this came from Reuters. You are wrong. Read the statement from Reuters again.

 

This info came from an unnamed source. Again very convenient and it appears this rebuttal worked as you fell for it yourself.

 

There is so much of this about that does not add up. The Reuters example above perfectly illustrates that. You came back with what you have been told to believe - namely that this info came from Reuters. In fact it came from "a local news story".

 

Stop being an arrogant ***ser. I obviously read the article, which is why I went to the trouble of finding it again for you. The BBC did get their information from Reuters, and used this to report on the "story" as they had it (which makes me right, actually). Reuters did indeed get it from a local news report. Are you suggesting that Reuters is corrupt? Get a grip.

 

Name of this local news ? The person who circulated this ? The newspaper involved ? As far as I can see this has just been left open. Again very convenient and all without naming names.

 

Convenient for whom?

 

None of this proves anything of course

 

Correct.

 

but it all just adds up to something dodgy IMO !!

 

It's very hard to prove that things didn't happen in cases like this. It's even harder when people just hide behind phrases like "doesn't sit right" and "something doesn't add up".

[Craig R]

How anyone can still believe that building was deliberately brought down by explosives is beyond me.

[coach]

if anyone can prove to me a plane hit the pentagon, ill give them ?100

[Craig R]

if anyone can prove to me a plane hit the pentagon, ill give them ?100

 

What more evidence do you need than numerous eye-witness reports, plane debris found all over the site, and the fact that a plane and its passengers have disappeared off the face of the earth?

[coach]

What more evidence do you need than numerous eye-witness reports, plane debris found all over the site, and the fact that a plane and its passengers have disappeared off the face of the earth?

 

im well aware of stuff thats made the media

 

i want someone, anyone, to PROVE 100% right now, that a plane hit the pentagon.

 

ok, joke over.

 

there is NO WAY to prove one did hit.

there is no REAL documented proof

 

this pic surfaced a while back..PROOF AT LAST THEY CRIED

 

so, a plane does this :

your telling me...

that a plane, folded into that WEE hole..

everthing burnt to dust..

 

but a large shiney piece of metal was left over.

 

 

ok..then

[Craig R]

im well aware of stuff thats made the media

 

i want someone, anyone, to PROVE 100% right now, that a plane hit the pentagon.

 

ok, joke over.

 

there is NO WAY to prove one did hit.

there is no REAL documented proof

 

this pic surfaced a while back..PROOF AT LAST THEY CRIED

 

so, a plane does this :

your telling me...

that a plane, folded into that WEE hole..

everthing burnt to dust..

 

but a large shiney piece of metal was left over.

 

 

ok..then

 

What proof are you expecting?

 

Can you prove 100% that it didn't? Because posting a photo and saying 'I don't think that plane would fold into that hole' isn't really cutting it as hard evidence.

[coppercrutch]

How's it lame? If you wanted nobody to see the tapes, why not destroy them, and sit on the "they're lost" theory?

 

How is it lame ?!! They simply said, "oh we lost them but we've now found them so its all ok". They haven't handed them over, they didn't even show the so called lost tapes in the programme !!

 

 

Stop being an arrogant ***ser. I obviously read the article, which is why I went to the trouble of finding it again for you. The BBC did get their information from Reuters, and used this to report on the "story" as they had it (which makes me right, actually). Reuters did indeed get it from a local news report. Are you suggesting that Reuters is corrupt? Get a grip

 

Touchy !! Just coz I pointed out you have been sucked in. Nothing to be embarrassed about. I am sure with much of the stuff I talk about I have been sucked in to. Simply pointing out to you that you BELIEVED what they had told you.

 

The information DID NOT COME FROM REUTERS. It was PASSED ON to Reuters from some unnamed, un-verifiable 'local news story' that has no name, proof or reference details behind it.

 

Simple question. Before I pointed that out did you realise that info did not come from Reuters ? Not trying to catch you out or anything just want you to show how easy it is for little snippets of 'facts' to be passed onto the general population. We suck it up like it is all true (Myself included) until somebody points out the truth. Scary stuff and it happens all around us.

 

Not saying Reuters are corrupt. Just stating that they have yet to tell us with ANY REAL INFORMATION where this 'story' came from.

 

For me simply saying 'the local news' means nothing. Why not tell us who the local news station are so they can be asked why they had this story ? As I said all very dodgy.

[coach]

What proof are you expecting?

 

Can you prove 100% that it didn't? Because posting a photo and saying 'I don't think that plane would fold into that hole' isn't really cutting it as hard evidence.

 

EXACTLY !

[coppercrutch]

EXACTLY !

 

In that pic there is a boy standing on the right videoing the entire thing. I can't remember that ever being released ?

 

Why not...

[Craig R]

EXACTLY !

 

So you admit you have no evidence to support the theory that it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon then?

[Craig R]

In that pic there is a boy standing on the right videoing the entire thing. I can't remember that ever being released ?

 

Why not...

 

I don't think he would have been standing there as the plane hit.

 

You can see quite clearly here footage of the firefighters battling the fire, along with some eyewitness reports who saw the plane hit.

[Acey]

so, a plane does this :

your telling me...

that a plane, folded into that WEE hole..

everthing burnt to dust..

 

but a large shiney piece of metal was left over.

 

 

ok..then

 

Coach, read this.

 

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg2.html

 

It deals with what you're talking about.

 

Can I send you my paypal details?

[Acey]

In that pic there is a boy standing on the right videoing the entire thing. I can't remember that ever being released ?

 

Why not...

 

Because he's an amateur?

[coach]

So you admit you have no evidence to support the theory that it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon then?

 

Yip, we both have nothing.

 

you would think that one of the most heavily guarded buildings on THE PLANET...would be able to throw more proof at us, that this.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paWiZ2Y8fRg&feature=related

[Craig R]

Yip, we both have nothing.

 

you would think that one of the most heavily guarded buildings on THE PLANET...would be able to throw more proof at us, that this.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paWiZ2Y8fRg&feature=related

 

No we don't both have nothing.

 

My side of the arguement has eyewitnesses and physical evidence recovered from the site. Your side just has a theory that a plane wouldn't make a hole that shape.

[coach]

Coach, read this.

 

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg2.html

 

It deals with what you're talking about.

 

Can I send you my paypal details?

 

one of many good websites.

[coach]

No we don't both have nothing.

 

My side of the arguement has eyewitnesses and physical evidence recovered from the site. Your side just has a theory that a plane wouldn't make a hole that shape.

 

tell me you have read up on both sides though ?

 

i have

 

and it doesnt really add up.

 

1st. do u really think some lads with boxcutters took down 4 planes ?

[Sconnie]

tell me you have read up on both sides though ?

 

i have

 

and it doesnt really add up.

 

1st. do u really think some lads with boxcutters took down 4 planes ?

 

The passengers thought they had bombs, which would have kept them from attacking the terrorists as they had no idea they were about to fly straight into a building. The passengers on the plane heading for The White House realised the bomb was a fake and decided to attack, but they couldn't get control of the plane and they crashed into a field.

 

When you've got some nutter screaming Allah with what appears to be a bomb strapped to him, you don't attack him.

[Acey]

How is it lame ?!! They simply said, "oh we lost them but we've now found them so its all ok". They haven't handed them over, they didn't even show the so called lost tapes in the programme !!

 

"Handed them over" to whom? What would anyone watching the tapes hope to find? The tapes are of BBC World News' output on 11/9/2001, lest we forget. The BBC do have the tapes from "BBC News 24", which I believe is exactly the same output. If that's the case (i.e. if I'm not wrong in thinking that), then the whole thing is moot.

 

Touchy !! Just coz I pointed out you have been sucked in. Nothing to be embarrassed about. I am sure with much of the stuff I talk about I have been sucked in to. Simply pointing out to you that you BELIEVED what they had told you.

 

There are much less arrogant ways of putting it than "sucked in". By your logic, any time anyone believes anything, they have been "sucked in". Using sensationalist language does you no favours.

 

The information DID NOT COME FROM REUTERS. It was PASSED ON to Reuters from some unnamed, un-verifiable 'local news story' that has no name, proof or reference details behind it.

 

Simple question. Before I pointed that out did you realise that info did not come from Reuters ? Not trying to catch you out or anything just want you to show how easy it is for little snippets of 'facts' to be passed onto the general population. We suck it up like it is all true (Myself included) until somebody points out the truth. Scary stuff and it happens all around us.

 

Your original "source?" question states:

 

"WTC being reported on before it had even collapsed !!?? Still no official confirmation as to where this information had come from."

 

Presumably you were referring to the BBC reporting on it, seeing as that's where you were most likely to have seen the reports. The BBC got their information from Reuters. So yes, it did. Semantics, I know, but I don't appreciate being told in no uncertain terms that I'm wrong, when the original question was poorly (or, at best, ambiguously) worded.

 

To answer your question, yes, I assumed that the information had not originated with the Reuters news agency, given that their style of "breaking news" reporting is to lift from local sources.

 

Not saying Reuters are corrupt. Just stating that they have yet to tell us with ANY REAL INFORMATION where this 'story' came from.

 

For me simply saying 'the local news' means nothing. Why not tell us who the local news station are so they can be asked why they had this story ? As I said all very dodgy.

 

Not necessarily a local news "station". Could have been someone phoning it in, could have been radio, could have been TV. Either way, what would "revealing" that sort of thing achieve? If you asked the culprit "why" they had the story, presumably they'd tell you that someone reported it erroneously. Ultimately, it all comes down to the same thing; someone not seeing what they thought they saw.

[Acey]

one of many good websites.

 

So it answers your questions, right?

 

Can I have my ?100?

[Acey]

tell me you have read up on both sides though ?

 

i have

 

and it doesnt really add up.

 

1st. do u really think some lads with boxcutters took down 4 planes ?

 

 

Read the conspiracy stuff first, then read "debunking the conspiracy" stuff. Then think about it from an unbiased perspective. There's only one side that comes out on top, and it isn't the conspiracy side.

[chester copperpot]

 

Read the conspiracy stuff first, then read "debunking the conspiracy" stuff. Then think about it from an unbiased perspective. There's only one side that comes out on top, and it isn't the conspiracy side.

 

 

 

Eh?

[Craig R]

Eh?

 

Not hard to understand. He is suggesting that if you read up on the conspiracy theories, then read up on the actual facts that debunk these theories, then any rational person can see that the latter comes out on top, and is far more likely to be true.

[coppercrutch]

Not hard to understand. He is suggesting that if you read up on the conspiracy theories, then read up on the actual facts that debunk these theories, then any rational person can see that the latter comes out on top, and is far more likely to be true.

 

I watched half an hour of this 'debunking' yesterday. Not much was 'debunked' in my opinion. They gave their viewpoints. The other side have given their viewpoints. I still think something is very dodgy.

 

The problem I have is there is 'evidence' that we all know is false. Atta's passport being found in one piece being the most obvious. Even the most ardent 'de-bunker' has to admit that was planted and did not fly out of the guys pocket when he flew face first into a building.

 

Now the reason this little thing bothers me ? If we know that a small bit of evidence like that has been tampered with then what else has been tampered with ? It opens up a whole lot of possibilities.

 

If they have lied about the little things then why not the big things ?

[Guest juvehearts]

I'm no fan of US foreign policy but 9/11 should be taken for exactly what it was: a repugnant attack on a secular democratic republic by a band of theocratic facists.

 

 

I think yorur wrong Gman & everyone else,

 

these terrorists were window cleaners on a strike over better pay because they were getting ripped off by their employers the WTC.

 

they took it too far & decided enough was enough! .

 

think about it!

[maroonlegions]

No it's not. Just because they're "in the military" doesn't make their (mis)interpretation of the evidence any more valid.

 

Besides, questions like, "Where were the wings from the plane that crashed into the Pentagon?" have already been answered.

 

Read this: http://www.loosechangeguide.com

 

 

READ THIS BELOW, and were did they misinterpret ate , these people KNOW what THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, even architects and engineers who have came forward and took too pieces the official explanation why the towers crumbled , it points to a CONTROL explosion.

 

 

 

 

High School Physics Prooves

Towers were Demolished with Explosives.

 

When I talk to people about the building collapses on 9/11/2001, most people have never even heard about the destruction of World Trade Center Building No. 7, the 47 story steel office tower that fell into its own footprint at 5:20 on the evening of 9/11. But even people who know about building 7 will indicate that they don't feel competent to have an opinion about the plausibility of the official explanation for the twin towers collapse. They will say things like "I'm not a structural engineer." or "I'm no architect."

 

I contend that you don't have to be a structural engineer or architect to see that the official story, to the extent that there is one, is strictly impossible. Even knowledge of basic High School physics is enough to prove that the official explanation can not be squared with the rapidity of collapse or the plumes of concrete dust observed on 9/11.

 

 

9/11 Commission Report Fails High School Physics Test

 

Newton's law of gravity tells us exactly what to expect from falling bodies. A falling object experiences a constant acceleration of 32ft/sec^2. We can calculate that the time it would take for an object to fall from the top of one of the 1350ft WTC towers is 9.2 seconds without accounting for air resistance. When air resistance is included, for example, for a brick falling from that height, we would expect it to take about 12 sec. This is very close to the approximately 10 seconds it took for the towers to fall as reported in the official Kean-Hammilton-Zelikow report or the 10 to 13 seconds as independently measured from observation of various videos of the collapses. The bottom line is that the towers fell at essentially free fall speed.

WTC Tower Exploding

 

Another fundamental law of physics is the conservation of energy and it applies to falling bodies as well. An object, as it falls, converts its gravitational potential energy (due to height above ground) into kinetic energy (speed). If that object has to use some of its energy for something else, like pushing air out of the way, then there will be less energy available as kinetic energy so it will take a bit longer to reach the ground. As we've seen in the example of a brick falling from the top of the tower, even just the energy required to move air out of the way is enough to slow the free fall time from 9.2 seconds to 12 seconds.

 

In the "official" explanation of the collapse, the so-called "pancake theory", the floor above gives way and crashes into the floor below it, which gives way and together they fall on the next floor below, and so on. The falling floor must use a considerable amount of its energy to break loose the floor below. In addition, to account for the observed dust plumes, the crashing together of the floors has to crush the concrete floor slabs into a fine powder and that takes a very substantial amount of energy as well. Additional energy is then required to eject those tons of crushed concrete at high speed in all directions because that's what was observed on 9/11. All of this energy must be subtracted from the original potential energy of the falling floor, which means there is much less energy available as kinetic energy(speed) so the floors must be falling much slower than they would otherwise.

 

How much slower? You don't have to be an engineer to realize that the energy required to crush the concrete into fine powder and blow it out of the buildings at high speed is many times more energy than what is required just to move air out of the way;). If the energy required to move air out of the way of a falling brick could increase the fall time from 9.2 sec. to 12 sec, the requirement to not only move air, but also crush concrete, and eject tons of crushed concrete dust laterally at high speed, should have increased the fall time considerably.

 

The fact that the buildings were observed to fall at essentially free fall speed, means that all of the gravitational potential energy of the building was in fact converted to the kinetic energy of falling. The fall speed accounts for all of the gravitational potential energy available. There is no gravitational energy available to break steel, crush concrete, eject dust or do anything else but just fall.

 

The Conservation of Energy Law forces us to conclude that there had to be some additional source of energy. Some source of energy to pulverize the concrete and send it in all directions at high speed as a fine powder. Some additional energy to knock out the heavy steel beams that had supported the building for 40 years so that the top of the building could free fall unimpeded to the ground in just over 10 seconds.

 

What was the source of the additional energy? Since the 9/11 commission neglected to investigate the mater:eek:,

[maroonlegions]

 

Read the conspiracy stuff first, then read "debunking the conspiracy" stuff. Then think about it from an unbiased perspective. There's only one side that comes out on top, and it isn't the conspiracy side.

STILL UNANSWERED 9/11 MIRACLES

 

by Allen L Roland

 

http://www.opednews.com

 

 

Tell A Friend

 

Calculated clash ? the September 11 attacks in 2001 marked a turning point in the history of the US empire

 

Eventually, hopefully during our lifetime, Pandora's Box will be fully opened regarding the 9/11 cover-up and the world will reel in shock and awe ~ when the monstrous truth is known to one and all : Allen L Roland

 

Every six months I return to the 9/11 scene, not to fan the flames but, instead, to review apparent truths ~ particularly in light of the growing awareness of the ongoing deceptions and lies of the Cheney/Bush Administration.

 

Americans are not quite ready to look into the Pandora's Box of 9/11 because the implications are truly breathtaking and staggering but as each shocking abuse of power of the Cheney/Bush regime is revealed to America ~ the public becomes more open to the possibility of a monstrous deception beneath the unanswered 9/11 miracles.

 

If one accepts the " Official Version " of the events that occurred on 9/11 or in the days leading up to it, one must conclude that a series of miracles occurred ~ suggesting factitiously the hand of higher powers.

 

Here they are ( Courtesy of Alex James )

 

Allen L Roland http://blogs.salon.com/0002255/2008/02/19.html'>http://blogs.salon.com/0002255/2008/02/19.html

 

THE MIRACLE

 

On the day of the hijackings the US Government is running drills with its Air Force where it is simulating "Multiple Hijackings of Aircraft" within the United States of America. This drill causes great confusion amongst Air Traffic Controllers as it provides a "Cover" for the real Hijackings. Without these drills it is very possible that the Aircraft that were hijacked could have been intercepted far earlier. Certainly one has to consider this some sort of "Miracle"

 

Surely "The hand of ???"

 

The Miracle

 

Months prior to the hijackings the US Government changes the rules of engagement for hijacked Aircraft. Now in order to send up planes to intercept, the approval of the Defense Secretary, one Donald Rumsfeld, is required. Unfortunately he goes missing for 30 minutes, on the morning of the attacks, again impeding the ability of intercepts to be flown. Not only this but on the day of those intercepts, supersonic US fighter aircraft that are scrambled suddenly have a top speed of only around 200 MPH.

 

Surely "The Hand Of ???"

 

The Miracle

 

The US President is on a pre-scheduled event in a school in Florida. The Government has no idea of how many Aircraft have been hijacked or what the targets of the hijackers are. Indeed, given that the president?s location that morning had been televised, the President himself might well be a target. Yet, rather then rush him to safety as they are trained ~ and expected ~ to do, the Secret Service is certain the President is not at risk. They let the President sit in the classroom and continue with his story about a pet goat for the next half hour ~ even after he was told the second tower was hit. A miracle of faith if anything.

 

Surely "The Hand of ???"

 

The Miracle

 

Five Israeli Citizens manage to be across the river from the WTC towers and are in place to film the planes crashing into the towers. Great is their Joy as they realize that the United States will certainly discover that Al Qaeda is the Culprit and this will lead to the destruction of Israel's many enemies. How they came to be there is certainly a miracle, and that the attack lead to the destruction of their arch enemies, the Iraqis, even more so. Why, after traces of explosives were detected their vans by bomb-sniffing dogs these men were inexplicably released by the police, only adds to this miracle. (They later admitted during an interview on Israeli television that they had been sent to the the United States ?to document the event?, but no one asked them who sent them.)

 

Surely "the Hand Of Yahweh"

 

The Miracle

 

No steel-framed buildings in the history of construction had ever suffered total structural collapse due to fires, yet on this single day, within hours of one another, THREE buildings collapse after fires burn through them. This even after Firefighters claim to have had the fires under control.

 

Surely "the Hand of ???"

 

The Miracle

 

All three towers collapse neatly into their own footprints, exactly as they do in controlled demolitions, at freefall speeds?I.e., in the same time it would take apples dropped from the roofs. All 110 floors fell as if nothing existed beneath them but air.

 

Surely "the Hand of ???"

 

The Miracle

 

The owner of the buildings slips up on national television and admits that he ordered one of the towers (building 7) to be ?pulled?. A ?Pull??jargon for controlled demolition?requires months of planning and preparation. Yet, no one to this day has asked this man how he managed to achieve this incredible feat in a matter of hours, and amidst the chaos of 9/11. The 9/11 Commission surely must also have assumed this to be a miracle because they did not even address this in their report. That the insurance company paid out 7 billion dollars without even the slightest investigation?even after the owner?s admission of a ?pull??only compounds the magnitude of this miracle.

 

Surely "the Hand of ???"

 

The Miracle

 

Jet fuel is essentially refined kerosene. It burns without problem in millions of steel stoves, heaters and furnaces around the world every day. Yet on 9/11, in less than an hour, this innocuous substance MELTED all the massive steel beams of three skyscrapers and caused the structures to collapse like pillars of sand in less than 10 seconds. How do we know the steel melted? Firefighters and other first responders reported seeing molten metal ?flowing like rivers? in the basements of the collapsed buildings for several weeks.

 

Surely "the Hand of ???"

 

The Miracle

 

Six months before the 9/11 attacks, the cluster of buildings that constitute the World Trade Center are purchased by a private investor for a relatively paltry sum of $200 million. (That was the first time in its 33-year history the complex had changed ownership). The new owner has the foresight (again miraculous, no doubt) to insure the buildings against terrorist attacks. The buildings were never seen as being profitable. In fact, because of their extremely high asbestos content, the structures had actually been condemned. Yet to destroy and rebuild them by conventional means would have been prohibitively expensive. It is indeed a miracle that the investor was paid $7 billion by the insurance companies after the attacks. A miraculously handsome return on an investment of $200 million.

 

Surely "The hand of ???"

 

The Miracle

 

Immediately following the acquisition of the WTC complex, the new owner makes it a priority to change Security companies. The CEO and a director of the new security company are none other than George W. Bush?s brother, Marvin Bush, and cousin, Wirt Walker III. It is a double-miracle that this same company is also responsible for providing security to American Airlines and the Dulles airport ~ both closely associated with the 9/11 attacks.

 

Surely "The hand of ???"

 

The Miracle

 

Billions in profits are made off put options shortly before 9/11 wherein investors made up to $15 billion in a frenzy of trading betting that certain stocks would fall in value over the next few days. These included stocks in the two Airlines that would suffer most from 9/11. In fact, the profits were so staggering and unprecedented that it caused Bloomberg News to exclaim: ?This would be the most extraordinary coincidence in the history of mankind if it was a coincidence. This could very well be insider trading at the worst, most horrific, most evil use you?ve ever seen in your entire life. It?s absolutely unprecedented.?

 

Little did Bloomberg News know that it was in fact a miracle.

 

Surely "The Hand of ???"

 

The above mentioned miracles are but a small sampling of those that occurred on 9/11. People who do not believe higher powers had a hand in these are surely blinded. The number of coincidences that occurred in those few days is mind boggling. Terrorists? passports that Miraculously survived fireballs and landed blocks away...the Miraculous bag that did not make the flight that included the names and details of every hijacker...Persons receiving Miraculous warnings out of the ether not to fly on that day...Cell phones Miraculously working from 30,000 feet where they had never worked before...People who couldn?t fly a little Cessna performing Miraculous corkscrew maneuvers in Jumbo jets...The list of Miracles on 9/11 is virtually endless.

 

????? has certainly spoken

 

Or is this the evil work of man ?

 

To be continued .....

 

Allen L Roland http://blogs.salon.com/0002255/2008/02/19.html

Freelance Online columnist Allen L Roland is available for comments , interviews and speaking engagements ( [email protected] )

Allen L Roland is a practicing psychotherapist, author and lecturer who also shares a daily political and social commentary on his weblog and website allenroland.com He also guest hosts a monthly national radio show TRUTHTALK on http://www.conscioustalk.net

 

 

 

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:

REOPEN 9/11 INVESTIGATION

 

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

 

http://www.allenroland.com

 

Allen L Roland is a practicing psychotherapist;), author a

 

 

AND THEY SAY A FEW CANNOT CONTROL THE WORLD .PIECE OF CAKE eh.