The 9/11 Chronicles: Part One, Truth Rising

[Craig R]

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, that has been left to your imagination, but large quantities of high grade explosives fit the bill.

 

 

 

well, mmmm, that has put the cat amongst the pigeons eh;)

 

Not really. The fact that nobody in the building noticed an extensive network of explosives that would be required to take down a building in such a manner, and that a loud series of explosions were not heard when it was coming down, completely makes a nonsense of this theory.

[maroonlegions]

Not really. The fact that nobody in the building noticed an extensive network of explosives that would be required to take down a building in such a manner, and that a loud series of explosions were not heard when it was coming down, completely makes a nonsense of this theory.

 

so explosives cannot be hidden eh:p and loud explosions WHERE heard prior to the collapse so your surmise is complete nonsense

[maroonlegions]

Not really. The fact that nobody in the building noticed an extensive network of explosives that would be required to take down a building in such a manner, and that a loud series of explosions were not heard when it was coming down, completely makes a nonsense of this theory.

 

 

 

so even when the summery of the law of physics proves that the buildings could not come down the way they did but by a controlled explosion you still ignore these facts , who do we trust the media government based explanation or people in the know, the summery on the law of physics would stand up in a court of law as damning evidence.

[maroonlegions]

Not really. The fact that nobody in the building noticed an extensive network of explosives that would be required to take down a building in such a manner, and that a loud series of explosions were not heard when it was coming down, completely makes a nonsense of this theory.

 

 

 

Here's another reason the 9/11 fire-mediated collapse theory has to be wrong.

 

by Joseph Smith Page 1 of 1 page(s)

 

http://www.opednews.com

 

Tell A Friend

 

The notion that the WTC towers collapsed because fire weakened the steel is laughable.

 

The fact that other steel-framed, steel-cored buildings have suffered much longer burning, much larger in extent and, demonstrably, hotter

fires, and yet never collapsed, shows how difficult it is in practice to bring down one of these buildings from fire.

 

 

Apparently, these buildings are robust structures, highly over-built to handle heavy wind loads; and it seems you would need to heat a large volume of steel, uniformly, over a wide cross-sectional area of the structure, to even have a chance of making one collapse in the neat, symmetrical manner witnessed (to the extent it is even, theoretically, possible to do this without resorting to explosives in the first place).

 

The easiest way to see that these buildings were rigged for demolition is to start by considering the fact that, between the time Flt. 175 hit WTC2 and the time the building collapsed, only 56 minutes had elapsed;) And 56 minutes, simply, isn't enough time to develop a fire hot enough, nor large enough in extent, to even have a remote chance of getting enough steel hot enough to be a factor.

 

The best way to see the absurdity of the fire-mediated collapse theory is to make some simplifying assumptions...and apply some simple math and physics to the problem.

 

Say, for the sake of argument, that you?re concerned with one floor of the building. Assuming that you have an unlimited supply of readily combustible fuel available (which is, obviously, not true, but let's be generous), and there is no heat loss by convection, conduction or radiation (another ridiculous assumption, but let's give the shills every advantage).

 

Now, the rate at which the temperature rises on that floor will be determined by the composite thermal mass of the building materials associated with that floor, and the rate at which you can bring in oxygen to burn the fuel. Assuming, say, about 5E5 kg of steel, and about 1.4E6 kg of concrete, per floor (taking internet based numbers at face value), with specific heats of about 450 and 3300 J/kg*C, respectively, simple algebra shows that you would have to release about 3.27E12 Joules of energy to uniformly bring the temperature from ambient up to, say, 700 degrees C (starting to get into the interesting range, but probably still not high enough to cause a collapse).

 

The problem is that for WTC2, you have to release this huge amount of energy in only 56 minutes. That means you would have to burn somewhere on the order of 30,000 gallons of jet fuel in 56 minutes. That means you would have to supply air to the fire inside the building at a rate somewhere in the neighborhood of 6E5 cubic feet per minute.

 

That's right, in order to bring the temperature of one floor of a WTC tower from 25 to 700 degrees centigrade, uniformly, in a short 56-minute time frame, you would have to supply about 600,000 cubic feet of air per minute...for each of those 56 minutes. And that?s a ridiculously high number. And even if you did find a way to create such blast furnace like conditions, the fact of the matter is that you would convect a significant portion of the heat away, just like what happens in a fireplace; in order to let fresh air in, you have to let the heated, oxygen-depleted air escape.

 

If you were lucky, and the process was, say, 50% efficient (meaning the airflow only carried away half your heat), you would need to double everything, which would mean burning 60,000 gallons of jet fuel ;)in 56 minutes, while feeding the fire with over one million cubic feet of air per minute.

 

By way of the above numbers, the absurdity of the "official" version of events is laid bare for all to see.

 

 

 

no feel free to debunk any of the above ,cos there are too many EXPERTS in certain fields on here but each to his own view on reality.

[Craig R]

The fact that other steel-framed, steel-cored buildings have suffered much longer burning, much larger in extent and, demonstrably, hotter

fires, and yet never collapsed, shows how difficult it is in practice to bring down one of these buildings from fire.

 

How many of these buildings also had their structures severely damaged by the collapsing debris of another tower right next to it?

[Craig R]

so even when the summery of the law of physics proves that the buildings could not come down the way they did but by a controlled explosion you still ignore these facts , who do we trust the media government based explanation or people in the know, the summery on the law of physics would stand up in a court of law as damning evidence.

 

Why do you ignore the facts that nobody noticed any explosives inside the building and that the fire crews didn't hear the loud series of explosions that would have occurred if it was brought down in this way?

[maroonlegions]

How many of these buildings also had their structures severely damaged by the collapsing debris of another tower right next to it?

 

okay, so why did these other buildings collapse in exactly the same way:rolleyes: , surely if they were severely damaged by as you say debris from other buildings they would not have come down like PANCAKES, they would possibly went over like a falling tree. does not add up.the heat theory that debunks the official fairy story again would stand up in any court of law.

[maroonlegions]

Here's what really happened....

 

 

You know it to be true.

 

 

 

:107years::107years:, quality, never thought of him.

[maroonlegions]

so WHY DID THE BBC report the collapse of the building 20 MINS BEFORE IT HAPPENED, there is no conspiracy eh, and pigs will fly. :107years:

 

 

To: The British Broadcasting Corporation

 

So Mr. Richard Porter of the BBC wants the whole 'BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell' scandal (and believe me, it IS a scandal even if you don't see it on the evening news) to just go away. The BBC is under the impression that knocking down a couple of straw-men and proclaiming 'nothing to see here folks' is going make us all just forget the monumental '****** up' which is the BBCs attempt at damage control. The BBC is also under the impression that it is only a few 'lone nuts' out there hammering the YouTube and Google Video counts and that this story is going to lose all it's steam by next week.

 

Well Mr. Richard Porter. This is where you are so very wrong...

 

We the Undersigned formally demand the following information from the BBC.

 

1. Who was the source who told your station that the Salomon Building had collapsed?

 

2. Who from the BBC ordered YouTube and GoogleVideo to immediately start pulling the videos from their sites the day this story broke?

 

3. Who from the BBC ordered Archive.Org to block and then remove their copies of the footage which (until this story broke) were freely available online?

 

4. Who is responsible for and what were the circumstances surrounding the '******-up' which led to the loss of BBC World News' 9/11 footage?

 

5. Who cut reporter Jane Standley's live feed from NYC at 5:18pm (EST) on 11/09/01?

 

Until you answer these 5 questions IN FULL, you can expect the BBC's phones to be ringing daily with people asking these 5 questions over and over until they are answered.

 

Take a good look at the number of signatures here Mr Porter. These are the people who are demanding these answers and these are the people who WON'T go away.

 

Welcome to the Digital Age Mr. Richard Porter. You're either a news outlet or a supermarket tabloid. Which is it?

 

Sincerely,

 

The Undersigned

 

View Current Signatures

 

 

 

 

The No more Stonewalling from the BBC re WTC 7 Petition to The British Broadcasting Corporation was created by and written by Mark Young ([email protected]). This petition is hosted here at http://www.PetitionOnline.com as a public service. There is no endorsement of this petition, express or implied, by Artifice, Inc. or our sponsors. For technical support please use our simple Petition Help form.

 

share: blogger del.icio.us digg facebook furl reddit slashdot send to a friend

 

Send Petition to a Friend - Petition FAQ - Start a Petition - Contributions - Privacy - Media Kit - Comments and Suggestions

PetitionOnline - DesignCommunity - ArchitectureWeek - Great Buildings - Search

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/wtc7bbc/petition.html

dg

[Craig R]

so WHY DID THE BBC report the collapse of the building 20 MINS BEFORE IT HAPPENED, there is no conspiracy eh, and pigs will fly. :107years:

 

A simple error based on bad information given to them through Reuters.

 

I'm not sure how this backs up your conspiracy theory anyway. Why would they say it was brought down before it was if it had been through explosives? That wouldn't make sense either.

[Durdmeister]

Why are so many people so unwilling to believe that this attack was done by some crazy people who believed their God wanted mass murder? No government would try and pull off something like this and even if they did I seriously doubt they would tell the BBC what was going to happen just that little bit before it did! For those who believe these conspiracy theorys, do you believe that Osama Bin Laden was working with the US government at the time?

[Craig R]

the heat theory that debunks the official fairy story again would stand up in any court of law.

 

Prove it.

[Craig R]

so explosives cannot be hidden eh:p and loud explosions WHERE heard prior to the collapse so your surmise is complete nonsense

 

No, the amount of explosives required to take down a building of that size cannot be hidden. I've seen interviews with firefighters who were there that day who categorically state that the building was crumbling in front of them long before it's collapse, and that they did not hear a series of explosions that you would get from a controlled demolition. I believe them.

[maroonlegions]

I remember a programme on channel 4 that was on about 6 months to a year after 9/11. The architects of the WTC buildings themselves explained why the building had gone down the way it did. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of the programme, but someone else here might.

 

 

And your whole theory about the planes being flown by remote control? WTF? Seriously do you believe this *****?:107years:

 

What is the purpose of the plane hijack if the planes were being controlled remotely?

 

Did the terrorists just hijack the plane and then siti in the cockpit while some government minion got his remote control out?

 

What about flight 93, did the remote control run out of batteries or something?

 

Why not just fly all commercial planes with 'remote control'?

 

What is the point in this theory?

 

 

 

 

 

New autopilot will make another 9/11 impossible

By CHRISTOPHER LEAKE

Last updated at 22:37 03 March 2007

 

* commentsComments (19)

* Add to My Stories Add to My Stories

 

Enlarge the picture to see how 'autoland' will work

 

A hijack-proof piloting system for airliners is being developed to prevent terrorists repeating the 9/11 outrages.

 

The mechanism is designed to make it impossible to crash the aircraft into air or land targets - and enable the plane to be flown by remote control from the ground in the event of an emergency.

 

Read more...

? Iraq war 'helped terrorists recruit in Britain'

? Terrorists are seeking to carry out more targeted attacks

 

Scientists at aircraft giant Boeing are testing the tamper-proof autopilot system which uses state-of-the-art computer and satellite technology.

 

It will be activated by the pilot flicking a simple switch or by pressure sensors fitted to the cockpit door that will respond to any excessive force as terrorists try to break into the flight deck.

 

Once triggered, no one on board will be able to deactivate the system. Currently, all autopilots are manually switched on and off at the discretion of pilots.

 

The so-called 'uninterruptible autopilot system' - patented secretly by Boeing in the US last week - will connect ground controllers and security services with the aircraft using radio waves and global satellite positioning systems.

 

After it has been activated, the aircraft will be capable of remote digital control from the ground, enabling operators to fly it like a sophisticated model plane, manoeuvring it vertically and laterally.

 

A threatened airliner could be flown to a secure military base or a commercial airport, where it would touch down using existing landing aids known as 'autoland function'.

 

After it had landed, the aircraft's built-in autobrake would bring the plane safely to a halt on the runway.

 

Boeing insiders say the new anti-hijack kit could be fitted to airliners all over the world, including those in the UK, within the next three years.

 

The latest move to combat airline terrorists follows The Mail on Sunday's disclosure three weeks ago that scientists in Britain and Germany are developing a passenger-monitoring device.

 

This will use tiny cameras linked to specialist computers to record every twitch, blink, facial expression or suspicious movement made on board flights in order to identify potential terrorists.

 

A Boeing spokesman said : "We are constantly studying ways we can enhance the safety, security and efficiency of the world's airline fleet.

 

"There is a need in the industry for a technique that conclusively prevents unauthorised persons gaining access to the controls and threatening the safety of passengers.

 

"Once this system is initiated, no one on board is capable of controlling the flight, making it useless for anyone to threaten violence in order to gain control.";)

 

Print this article Print this article

Read later Read later

Email to a friend Email to a friend

Share this article:

 

 

 

Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below?

 

They already used this on 9/11!

 

Boeing Fitting Aircraft With Illegal Parts? Chip that was illegally installed in 2000 could have been utilized to execute 9/11 attacks.

 

Prison Planet | March 7, 2007 - Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones.

 

Are Boeing fitting their aircraft with illegal devices that could enable terrorists to remotely hijack airliners and crash them into high profile targets? In light of what happened on 9/11, Boeing's blanket denial that this practice has taken place is both highly suspicious and a threat to national security.

 

According to the Seattle Times, "The QRS-11 chip, made by a unit of BEI Technologies in Concord, California, is just over 1-? inches in diameter and weighs about two ounces. It sells for between $1,000 and $2,000.

 

 

 

 

so it is possible that these were used on 9/11 and the pilots did not know and went to there sad deaths.

[Makween]

Serious post for the conspiracy theorists - if you're so interested in looking at the evidence, here's some reading material for you :

 

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

 

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

 

I'll assume that you've read them, lads?

 

Go on. You're all going on about looking at the evidence, surely you won't mind looking at evidence that actually contradicts your idiotic beliefs?

[maroonlegions]

A simple error based on bad information given to them through Reuters.:107years:

 

I'm not sure how this backs up your conspiracy theory anyway. Why would they say it was brought down before it was if it had been through explosives? That wouldn't make sense either.

 

you are not making sense, very easy to just dismiss this bbc blunder but to rule out the possibility that the media is being controlled and they did infact know it was about to collapse but fecked up their report big time is naive, it backs up it because these details are ignored and debunked to fit in with the official story, the fact is they got their timing wrong on the report by 20 MINS and why NO explanation has been given from the BBC on line petition , again does not add up.

[maroonlegions]

I'll assume that you've read them, lads?

 

Go on. You're all going on about looking at the evidence, surely you won't mind looking at evidence that actually contradicts your idiotic beliefs?

 

 

 

idiotic believes are those that hold on to the story that one plane could bring down a highly strong steel structure , did you infact read the summery of what kind of heat it would take to generate the melting :107years: of thick steel , mmm.Nice to see some of you evidence comes from a government source .

[deesidejambo]

I'll assume that you've read them, lads?

 

Go on. You're all going on about looking at the evidence, surely you won't mind looking at evidence that actually contradicts your idiotic beliefs?

 

That won't work. NASA announced that they are launching a probe in November 2008 to photograph the moon, which will be able to see the Apollo landing sites. Despite NASA affirming that the pictures will be genuine and can be audited, the Apollo Conspiracy dudes have already said that the photos will be faked in advance, despite there being no need to fake them.

 

Conspiracy Theorists have their place to challenge established beliefs, but the thicko ones go to extreme lengths and won't accept any evidence put in front of them. The Apollo situation shows that they decide in advance that they are not going to believe the evidence, so there is no point in discussing it with them.

[maroonlegions]

That won't work. NASA announced that they are launching a probe in November 2008 to photograph the moon, which will be able to see the Apollo landing sites. Despite NASA affirming that the pictures will be genuine and can be audited, the Apollo Conspiracy dudes have already said that the photos will be faked in advance, despite there being no need to fake them.

 

Conspiracy Theorists have their place to challenge established beliefs, but the thicko ones go to extreme lengths and won't accept any evidence put in front of them:rolleyes:. The Apollo situation shows that they decide in advance that they are not going to believe the evidence, so there is no point in discussing it with them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why No One Could Have Predicted The Collapse Of WTC 7

Building was specifically designed to have floors removed without collapsing

Steve Watson

Infowars.net

Thursday, March 1, 2007

 

This week has seen a cornucopia of news come pouring forth with regards to what happened to World Trade Center building 7 on September 11th 2001. The catalyst for this has been the discovery that the BBC reported the building had collapsed a full thirty minutes before it actually fell on 9/11.

 

The BBC, instead of attempting to explain how it could have reported this, has attempted to both evade and cloud the issue. The truth is that no one could have possibly predicted the building would collapse and here's why.

 

Aside from the fact that previous to 9/11 no steel framed building in history had ever collapsed due to fire damage, Building 7, otherwise known as the Salomon Brothers building, was intentionally designed to allow large portions of floors to be permanently removed without weakening the structural integrity of the building.

 

In 1989 the New York Times reported on this fact in a story covering the Salomon leasing of the building which had been completed just two years earlier.

 

Salomon had wanted to build a new structure in order to house its high-technology operations, but due to stock market crash in 1987 it was unable to. The company searched for an existing building that they could use and found one in Larry Silverstein's WTC 7.

 

The Times reported:

 

BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space...

 

In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project.

 

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need...

 

MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station.

 

The entire article can be read here.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Want to start your own blog or website, get the word out and support Alex Jones? Infowars.net offers

high-quality webhosting services at very competitive prices, and most importantly, with

infowars.net, privacy is paramount! We don't sell the names of our customers to marketing

firms or the government. Click here for more info.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

What this amounted to, as the Times pointed out, was that WTC7, specifically designed to be deconstructed and altered, became "a building within a building". An extraordinary adaptable and highly reinforced structure for the modern business age.

 

This is of course also partially the reason why in 1999 the building was chosen to house Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's $13 million emergency crisis centre on the 27th floor.

 

Remember that on 9/11 only eight floors of the building were subject to sporadic fires. The official NIST report failed to comprehensively identify how the building could have collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint given the damage that it had sustained.

 

A follow up report due soon has been forced to take into account a hypothetical situation whereby explosives were used to demolish the building, primarily because every other explanation thus far has failed to explain how it could have come down.

 

Furthermore, as has been thoroughly documented, building 7 was the furthest away in the WTC complex from the twin towers. Buildings much closer sustained massive amounts of damage from the collapse of the towers and did not come anywhere close to full scale symmetrical collapse.

 

Given all this information it is quite clear to surmise that if you were going to "predict" the collapse of any building in the WTC complex following the destruction of the towers, building 7 would have most certainly been BOTTOM of the list.

 

Building 7 now becomes the key to unlocking the 9/11 fraud. What was witnessed on 9/11 was a perfectly symmetrical collapse, with no resistance, of a steel-framed "Building within a building". A perfectly symmetrical collapse of a building that was designed from the ground-up to have entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity.

 

We have an owner who let slip that the building was "pulled" and we have firefighters on video telling people to get back as the building was going to "blow up". We have the BBC reporting the collapse before it happened and a follow up desperate attempt to avoid the issue by claiming that it cannot verify anything because it has lost the entirety of its broadcast recordings from 9/11.

 

Furthermore, the BBC continues to play dumb by responding to questions other the fiasco by intimating that it is being suggested that they were "in on the conspiracy". Here is the latest response we have received from the BBC regarding the matter after continuing to press them for an explanation:

 

Hello and thank you for your email in reaction to claims made in an

article published online.

 

The notion that the BBC has been part of any conspiracy is patently

ludicrous. We reported the situation as accurately as we could, based on

the best information available. We cannot be categorical about the exact

timing of events that day - this is the first time it has been brought

to our attention and it was more than five years ago. If in the chaos

and confusion of that day our correspondent reported that the building

had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been a genuine error.

With regards

 

BBC World Customer Relations

 

What is ludicrous is that the BBC expects us to believe it has lost its tapes of the most important event of the 21st century. No one is suggesting BBC is complicit in any conspiracy, and its attempt to frame this issue in that way is a blatant attempt to make the questions that it has not answered go away.

 

Why did the BBC report the collapse of one the most structurally reinforced buildings in New York before it collapsed and what was their source?

 

In further developments more BBC video from the day of 9/11 has been unearthed in which a correspondent, within hours of the towers coming down, claims the reason for the collapses is because of their design. He then then provides blatantly false information about the designs to justify the statement, without referring to any sources and negating the fact that the towers had 47 massive central core columns.

 

Was this another "****** up" on the part of the BBC or were they once again going off scripted information that was being spoon fed to the media? Certainly it is startling that the subsequent official FEMA report, after months of investigation, gave more or less the same explanation as to why the towers fell as is witnessed in this BBC news footage from just hours after the towers fell.

 

As for the BBC's shockingly arrogant and dismissive "it was more than five years ago comment", as long as the truth continues to be withheld we will continue to target those who are aiding its suppression.

Comments (187) | Trackback

 

 

 

so you calling all experts who challenge the official story thick, :107years:mmm,:107years: they do know what they are talking about , more than me and you but again people choose what to believe no matter the evidence:cool:

[Makween]

idiotic believes are those that hold on to the story that one plane could bring down a highly strong steel structure , did you infact read the summery of what kind of heat it would take to generate the melting :107years: of thick steel , mmm.Nice to see some of you evidence comes from a government source .

 

Did you read them, or are you just going to post constant articles full of credulous, ill informed nonsense? By the way, the one point that you tried to make there is actually addressed in the articles that I gave links to.

 

PS, are you going to comment on the two links that aren't from a government source?

 

PPS, if they totally disprove the credulous nonsense that you keep posting, what does it matter what source they come from?

[maroonlegions]

I'll assume that you've read them, lads?

 

Go on. You're all going on about looking at the evidence, surely you won't mind looking at evidence that actually contradicts your idiotic beliefs?

 

 

 

http://www.davidicke.com/content/category/6/19/32/ and i take you have read all these:rolleyes: eh.

[Makween]

http://www.davidicke.com/content/category/6/19/32/ and i take you have read all these:rolleyes: eh.

 

Hang on, you're using David ****ing Icke as a source? Is he not the wacko who thinks that giant lizards run this country behind the scenes?

 

Did you read the links? Thought you were interested in searching for the truth...

[jamboinglasgow]

so WHY DID THE BBC report the collapse of the building 20 MINS BEFORE IT HAPPENED, there is no conspiracy eh, and pigs will fly. :107years:

 

 

To: The British Broadcasting Corporation

 

So Mr. Richard Porter of the BBC wants the whole 'BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell' scandal (and believe me, it IS a scandal even if you don't see it on the evening news) to just go away. The BBC is under the impression that knocking down a couple of straw-men and proclaiming 'nothing to see here folks' is going make us all just forget the monumental '****** up' which is the BBCs attempt at damage control. The BBC is also under the impression that it is only a few 'lone nuts' out there hammering the YouTube and Google Video counts and that this story is going to lose all it's steam by next week.

 

Well Mr. Richard Porter. This is where you are so very wrong...

 

We the Undersigned formally demand the following information from the BBC.

 

1. Who was the source who told your station that the Salomon Building had collapsed?

 

2. Who from the BBC ordered YouTube and GoogleVideo to immediately start pulling the videos from their sites the day this story broke?

 

3. Who from the BBC ordered Archive.Org to block and then remove their copies of the footage which (until this story broke) were freely available online?

 

4. Who is responsible for and what were the circumstances surrounding the '******-up' which led to the loss of BBC World News' 9/11 footage?

 

5. Who cut reporter Jane Standley's live feed from NYC at 5:18pm (EST) on 11/09/01?

 

Until you answer these 5 questions IN FULL, you can expect the BBC's phones to be ringing daily with people asking these 5 questions over and over until they are answered.

 

Take a good look at the number of signatures here Mr Porter. These are the people who are demanding these answers and these are the people who WON'T go away.

 

Welcome to the Digital Age Mr. Richard Porter. You're either a news outlet or a supermarket tabloid. Which is it?

 

Sincerely,

 

The Undersigned

 

View Current Signatures

 

 

 

 

The No more Stonewalling from the BBC re WTC 7 Petition to The British Broadcasting Corporation was created by and written by Mark Young ([email protected]). This petition is hosted here at http://www.PetitionOnline.com as a public service. There is no endorsement of this petition, express or implied, by Artifice, Inc. or our sponsors. For technical support please use our simple Petition Help form.

 

share: blogger del.icio.us digg facebook furl reddit slashdot send to a friend

 

Send Petition to a Friend - Petition FAQ - Start a Petition - Contributions - Privacy - Media Kit - Comments and Suggestions

PetitionOnline - DesignCommunity - ArchitectureWeek - Great Buildings - Search

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/wtc7bbc/petition.html

dg

 

 

If you actully watched the program the bbc did about the consiracy last week it explains this. The reporter says it was confusion that led to her saying that, as well as confusion in the reuters newsroom which had sent that info. They appoligised for the mistake the next day yet this was never covered. If you watch the program it explains it alot better than I can.

[maroonlegions]

Did you read them, or are you just going to post constant articles full of credulous, ill informed nonsense? By the way, the one point that you tried to make there is actually addressed in the articles that I gave links to.

 

PS, are you going to comment on the two links that aren't from a government source?

 

PPS, if they totally disprove the credulous nonsense that you keep posting, what does it matter what source they come from?

 

 

 

Did you read them, or are you just going to post constant articles full of credulous, ill informed nonsense?, KETTLE, POT ,BLACK.

[Makween]

Did you read them, or are you just going to post constant articles full of credulous, ill informed nonsense?, KETTLE, POT ,BLACK.

 

I'm fully aware of the conspiracy theories. I've also taken the time to research the other side of the argument. Can you say the same?

[jamboinglasgow]

I give you JFK for that one, unless you believe that it was Lee Harvey himself, you surely don't do you?

 

I do indeed it was Lee Harvey who killed JFK. I studied American history in 2nd Uni and my lecturer turned to the class and said "For all those who believe that JFK was not assinated by LHO then read the warren report. I have."

 

I used to believe it but then realised that if you look at any major event and dig hard enough or look at it hard enough you will find things which could be construed as a possible conspiracy. As nothing in life is perfect.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I thought the Daily ****** had blamed a Lithuanian called Vladimir Romanov for 9/11.

 

I just have one question. If "remote control" was used to fly these planes and Mohammed Atta et al were actually innocent passengers, how were the pilots complicit in the conspiracy? Yep, we'll happily commit suicide for the neo-con dream, apparently.

[makateer]

idiotic believes are those that hold on to the story that one plane could bring down a highly strong steel structure , did you infact read the summery of what kind of heat it would take to generate the melting :107years: of thick steel , mmm.Nice to see some of you evidence comes from a government source .

 

Like I said, I have seen the programme where the architects themselves explained why it collapsed.

 

You still didn't explain the point in remote controlling the planes into the building? And why did Flight 93 crash?

 

Also, why only plant explosives in the twin towers? Surely it would be easier to demolish the smaller Pentagon building? Or if we are going down this route, blowing up the Whitehouse would have made a far bigger statement?

 

 

:wacko:

[maroonlegions]

Hang on, you're using David ****ing Icke as a source? Is he not the wacko who thinks that giant lizards run this country behind the scenes?

 

Did you read the links? Thought you were interested in searching for the truth...

:107years: iam but like mulder said TRUST NO ONE .

 

 

 

AH NOW HERE WE BEGIN THE DEBATE IN A MUCH FAIRER WAY EH, Its your way to character assassination thats thrown his evidence out with the bath water , oh, ickey boy , so it has to be all nonsense , very small minded way to do research eh and what if any books have you read by him , AND A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE KNOW HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO HIS SITE ON 9/11 DOES THAT MAKE THEM ANY THE LESS MORE CREDIBLE, JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH SOMEONE DOES NOT MAKE THEIR EVIDENCE ANY THE LESS CREDIBLE. so what if he thinks REPTILIANS are behind the real control of this world , just because it sounds mad does not mean it is not impossible , remember it was not long ago that most people thought the world was FLAT:p:107years: and anyone who disagreed were labeled mad , mind you i could post a few links on the subject of SHAPE SHIFTING REPTILIANS BUT COPULD YOU BE BOTHERED TO READ IT, MMM, NAE, EASERY TO JUST RIDDICULE EH.

[maroonlegions]

I'm fully aware of the conspiracy theories. I've also taken the time to research the other side of the argument. Can you say the same?

 

 

 

THIS IS JUST SOME OF THE INFO I HAVE READ.http://www.davidicke.com/content/category/6/19/32/ , PLENTY MORE ON THIS SITE , NOT BAD FOR ONE WHO IS MAD EH. THE OTHER SIDE HAS BEEN HIGHLIGHTED TO ME but when you make your mind up and feel the evidence even at an early stage is so strong for the conspiracy and people in high places of TRUST and government have been either found out to be lying or holding back then you trust them no more , natural human reaction eh.

[maroonlegions]

Why do you ignore the facts that nobody noticed any explosives inside the building and that the fire crews didn't hear the loud series of explosions that would have occurred if it was brought down in this way?

 

 

 

eh, did the people inside the buliding and fire crews inside or near not perish when the buildings collapsed:rolleyes:, so how is that, explosives i think can come in many sizes and could be well hidden and if small enough, iam thinking of semtex, pretty small dose required to do a very big bit of damage eh.

[wibble]

Did you mean that MJ ? I find it quite amusing after reading so much rubbish or have I missed this as another bleedin part of a conspiract theory ?

 

Did I mean what? That Israel knew? It was widely reported in the mainstream press at the time that Mossad knew exactly what was going to happen. It came out when a woman reported that there was a van load of "Arab looking" men in a suspect looking van jumping up and down with joy and high fiving each other as they watched the towers fall. They traced the van and found that it was used by a laundry that was a cover operation for a Mossad cell. Later investigations found Mossad cells were tracking most of the hijackers and knew exactly what was about to happen.

[makateer]

Wibble!

 

[maroonlegions]

Prove it.

 

Here's another reason the 9/11 fire-mediated collapse theory has to be wrong.

 

by Joseph Smith Page 1 of 1 page(s)

 

http://www.opednews.com

 

Tell A Friend

 

The notion that the WTC towers collapsed because fire weakened the steel is laughable.

 

The fact that other steel-framed, steel-cored buildings have suffered much longer burning, much larger in extent and, demonstrably, hotter

fires, and yet never collapsed, shows how difficult it is in practice to bring down one of these buildings from fire.

 

 

Apparently, these buildings are robust structures, highly over-built to handle heavy wind loads; and it seems you would need to heat a large volume of steel, uniformly, over a wide cross-sectional area of the structure, to even have a chance of making one collapse in the neat, symmetrical manner witnessed (to the extent it is even, theoretically, possible to do this without resorting to explosives in the first place).

 

The easiest way to see that these buildings were rigged for demolition is to start by considering the fact that, between the time Flt. 175 hit WTC2 and the time the building collapsed, only 56 minutes had elapsed And 56 minutes, simply, isn't enough time to develop a fire hot enough, nor large enough in extent, to even have a remote chance of getting enough steel hot enough to be a factor.

 

The best way to see the absurdity of the fire-mediated collapse theory is to make some simplifying assumptions...and apply some simple math and physics to the problem.

 

Say, for the sake of argument, that you?re concerned with one floor of the building. Assuming that you have an unlimited supply of readily combustible fuel available (which is, obviously, not true, but let's be generous), and there is no heat loss by convection, conduction or radiation (another ridiculous assumption, but let's give the shills every advantage).

 

Now, the rate at which the temperature rises on that floor will be determined by the composite thermal mass of the building materials associated with that floor, and the rate at which you can bring in oxygen to burn the fuel. Assuming, say, about 5E5 kg of steel, and about 1.4E6 kg of concrete, per floor (taking internet based numbers at face value), with specific heats of about 450 and 3300 J/kg*C, respectively, simple algebra shows that you would have to release about 3.27E12 Joules of energy to uniformly bring the temperature from ambient up to, say, 700 degrees C (starting to get into the interesting range, but probably still not high enough to cause a collapse).

 

The problem is that for WTC2, you have to release this huge amount of energy in only 56 minutes. That means you would have to burn somewhere on the order of 30,000 gallons of jet fuel in 56 minutes. That means you would have to supply air to the fire inside the building at a rate somewhere in the neighborhood of 6E5 cubic feet per minute.

 

That's right, in order to bring the temperature of one floor of a WTC tower from 25 to 700 degrees centigrade, uniformly, in a short 56-minute time frame, you would have to supply about 600,000 cubic feet of air per minute...for each of those 56 minutes. And that?s a ridiculously high number. And even if you did find a way to create such blast furnace like conditions, the fact of the matter is that you would convect a significant portion of the heat away, just like what happens in a fireplace; in order to let fresh air in, you have to let the heated, oxygen-depleted air escape.

 

If you were lucky, and the process was, say, 50% efficient (meaning the airflow only carried away half your heat), you would need to double everything, which would mean burning 60,000 gallons of jet fuel in 56 minutes, while feeding the fire with over one million cubic feet of air per minute.

 

By way of the above numbers, the absurdity of the "official" version of events is laid bare for all to see.

 

that should suffice i think , lot of sense there eh.

[Chester™]

I do indeed it was Lee Harvey who killed JFK. I studied American history in 2nd Uni and my lecturer turned to the class and said "For all those who believe that JFK was not assinated by LHO then read the warren report. I have."

 

Would that be the same Warren report that was widely criticised (on both sides) for withholding evidence crucial to the case? The same Warren report that ignored witnesses (and refused to call them) that stated they saw LHO in the cafeteria when shots were fired? The same Warren report criticised by both sides for allowing (and refusing to challenge) law enforcement agencies to destroy critical evidence before the Commission sat? A report, some of whom's major players on the Commission, doubted and have reported a level of scepticism? A report that since the FOA, has been roundly criticised by many for being a bit substandard?

 

Ive a friend who sat exactly the same course as you and his lecturer said the same, except he didnt think the findings were fair or accurate.

 

Im not saying im in favour of either theory, but I think to fully take the Warren Commission report at face value without looking at further released documents that relate to it is slightly naive.

[maroonlegions]

No, the amount of explosives required to take down a building of that size cannot be hidden. I've seen interviews with firefighters who were there that day who categorically state that the building was crumbling in front of them long before it's collapse, and that they did not hear a series of explosions that you would get from a controlled demolition. I believe them.

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9OpZjlmIeI&feature=related:cool:

[maroonlegions]

Why do you ignore the facts that nobody noticed any explosives inside the building and that the fire crews didn't hear the loud series of explosions that would have occurred if it was brought down in this way?

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuq0ANHxvlM&feature=related

 

can you ignore this.

[doctor jambo]

Was there a conspiracy- NO

Why?

Because the simple act of commiting a terrorist atrocity on America that killed only the airline passengers and crew, let alone anyone in the towers would have been sufficient grounds for the US to attack any country it damn well pleased

If two car bombs had gone off inNew York and killed 40 people they would still have gone for Afghanistan

[wibble]

By all means ignore all the conspiracy videos etc. I find some of them take a tiny fact and spin it a mile, but here is a list of links to mainstream media reports from around the event that document all of the same points that have ended up in the conspiracy theories.

 

Some, or most, of these facts have never been revisited in any investigation. Some show the behaviour of the USA administration and secret service as being absolutely bizarre if not downright suspicious.

 

These links are to articles that appeared on all the mainstream news sites, they are not the thoughts of conspiracy junkies. There's easily enough evidence to suggest that we have not been told anything like the truth.

 

http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html

 

 

Fox news report about Mossad's prior knowledge of the attack

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LecYbWM5Oao

 

We are talking FOX NEWS here. No conspiracy theorists there FFS!!!!!

[maroonlegions]

Was there a conspiracy- NO

Why?

Because the simple act of commiting a terrorist atrocity on America that killed only the airline passengers and crew, let alone anyone in the towers would have been sufficient grounds for the US to attack any country it damn well pleased

If two car bombs had gone off inNew York and killed 40 people they would still have gone for Afghanistan

 

 

 

its not just about invading countries , its using the attacks to justify ,introducing a host of things like, ID cards, micro chipping, centralizing positions OF power , infact creating any excuse to takeaway more freedoms from people under the disguise of fighting terror, they are using a stepping stone effect , rather than just saying right we want to control you and here it is, they get their slowly, they create the problem ,they wait for the public out cry of do something about it and hey presto they have and offer the ready made solution that suits their agenda, PROBLEM, REACTION, SOLUTION.

[Taffin]

Then read this and make your own mind up:

 

http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/

 

Whilst I don't want to get into the debate on 9/11, I am not convinced that site is all that reliable.

 

Taken from his conclusion page:

 

So, the conclusion is, the film is 100% a complete lie, complete farce, made up garbage.

 

But hey, you don't have to believe me, I'm not the one making outrageous claims that religion is only meant to control you, and that it is connected with 9/11, which in turn with the Federal Reserve will give you a microchip... with no evidence of consequence.

 

Is it really that outrageous to claim that religion is only meant to control you? What other purpose does it serve?

 

And surely Religion is connected to 9/11 as it was religious fundamentalism that fueled it.

 

So really, his conclusion sound, well, a bit bollocks.

[wibble]

Read through the list of mainstream news stories from around the time and then make up your mind if something stinks about all of it. You don't need to go to wacko sites to see that theres a lot of covering-up going on.

[deesidejambo]

Read through the list of mainstream news stories from around the time and then make up your mind if something stinks about all of it. You don't need to go to wacko sites to see that theres a lot of covering-up going on.

 

It wouldn't surprise me that there is covering up going on. After all they got attacked in their own back yard and there may well have been warnings that were ignored.

 

However, that is different to saying that the US planned the attack themselves, using remote controlled aircraft, with a building already wired with explosives which withstood the impact and subsequent fires which burned for a long time before the explosives were detonated. And all so they could control their own population. Interesting that none of the families have taken the US Gov't to Court over that.

 

I prefer the rather boring explanation that it was indeed terrorists.

[Acey]

Right; I got suspended for two weeks for posting the Hulk-Hogan-destroys-the-towers picture a year or two ago, so I demand justice!

 

As for you, maroonlegions, you're entitled to believe whatever hogwash (that's right, hogwash) you want, but there are better ways to present it than:

 

heres an article

 

[article]

 

HMMMMMMMMM WHAT SAY YOU NOW :107years: EH EH EH EH EH HMMMMMMMM EH EH :107years: HMMMMMMM

 

It kind of discredits your views if you appear to be a bit dim.

[deesidejambo]

Right; I got suspended for two weeks for posting the Hulk-Hogan-destroys-the-towers picture a year or two ago, so I demand justice!

 

As for you, maroonlegions, you're entitled to believe whatever hogwash (that's right, hogwash) you want, but there are better ways to present it than:

 

heres an article

 

[article]

 

HMMMMMMMMM WHAT SAY YOU NOW :107years: EH EH EH EH EH HMMMMMMMM EH EH :107years: HMMMMMMM

 

It kind of discredits your views if you appear to be a bit dim.

 

Are you saying that it was Hulk Hogan that did it? Jeez. And I thought he was an OK guy. Do you have any articles by someone to prove it, or better still, pictures.

[Ivan Drago]

Right; I got suspended for two weeks for posting the Hulk-Hogan-destroys-the-towers picture a year or two ago, so I demand justice!

 

As for you, maroonlegions, you're entitled to believe whatever hogwash (that's right, hogwash) you want, but there are better ways to present it than:

 

heres an article

 

[article]

 

HMMMMMMMMM WHAT SAY YOU NOW :107years: EH EH EH EH EH HMMMMMMMM EH EH :107years: HMMMMMMM

 

It kind of discredits your views if you appear to be a bit dim.

 

 

Hulk Hogan would kick Benoits ass. Much more of a family man as well.

[Acey]

Hulk Hogan would kick Benoits ass. Much more of a family man as well.

 

Aye; that guy in a coma had it coming to him, brother.

 

[deesidejambo]

Hulk Hogan would kick Benoits ass. Much more of a family man as well.

 

Didn't Benoit top himself? That means he takes his secret to the grave so it must have been him that did the Twin Towers. Maroonlegions can use that as evidence.

[Acey]

Didn't Benoit top himself? That means he takes his secret to the grave so it must have been him that did the Twin Towers. Maroonlegions can use that as evidence.

 

HIS WIFE AND SON HAD JUST EXPOSED HIM FOR GUARDING THE CONSPIRACY SO HE KILLED THEM TOO EH HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM :107years:

[spud]

:107years: iam but like mulder said TRUST NO ONE .

 

 

 

AH NOW HERE WE BEGIN THE DEBATE IN A MUCH FAIRER WAY EH, Its your way to character assassination thats thrown his evidence out with the bath water , oh, ickey boy , so it has to be all nonsense , very small minded way to do research eh and what if any books have you read by him , AND A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE KNOW HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO HIS SITE ON 9/11 DOES THAT MAKE THEM ANY THE LESS MORE CREDIBLE, JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH SOMEONE DOES NOT MAKE THEIR EVIDENCE ANY THE LESS CREDIBLE. so what if he thinks REPTILIANS are behind the real control of this world , just because it sounds mad does not mean it is not impossible , remember it was not long ago that most people thought the world was FLAT:p:107years: and anyone who disagreed were labeled mad , mind you i could post a few links on the subject of SHAPE SHIFTING REPTILIANS BUT COPULD YOU BE BOTHERED TO READ IT, MMM, NAE, EASERY TO JUST RIDDICULE EH.

 

Ah, the old flat Earth conspiracy, which derives from the writings of Washington Irving (no relation to the Hobbo pen pusher) in 1828. In fact, Pythagoras had postulated that the Earth was spherical in the 6th century BC, Aristotle had reached the same conclusion by 330Bc and Eratosthenes had measured the Earth's circumference by 240 BC.

 

Another conspiracy bites the dust.

 

Maybe the general level of "research" on this thread needs to show a bit of improvement.