Loose Change - a must see

by **Dreams End** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:07 pm

I think it is clear that it is known who did those put options but not why the info wasn't released. Since we know there is plenty of uncomfortable overlap with various "friendly" business and government types, it likely would be embarrassing and also show that "friends" knew about the upcoming attacks. Now, how far it goes toward proving absolute collusion....well, if we knew who they were.......

by **Qutb** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:22 pm

I once again recur to the 911myths site, this time on the <a href="http://www.911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html" target="top">subject</a> of eyewitnesses reporting explosives. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>#6, some people talk about "bombs in the basement", or at least on the lower levels, during the WTC collapse. It’s been suggested that smoke visible outside the towers may have been the result of thermite, for instance. But where are the matching reports from inside the towers? There were people who survived in the stairwells and lower levels, and we’ve yet to see any of them talk about explosions or smoke from below as the buildings collapsed. And if the buildings were weakened at the basement levels, why did the very lower stories remain standing? Let's also not forget #7, the explosion reports are spread from (just before) impact right up to the collapse itself. Is it characteristic of controlled demolition to set of bombs apparently randomly over about an hour? Or does it make more sense to believe that accounts of explosions some time before collapse were related to impact damage, the fire, fractured gas mains or whatever? And then there's #8. How many witnesses who talk of bombs, detonators and so on, had experience they could use as a comparison? How many would know what a bomb might sound like in that environment, and how it would different from the sound of a collapse? That seems particularly relevant to us. If the WTC supports could simply no longer support the weight of, say, 20 floors of the WTC, then you would have thousands of tons of building collapse onto the floor below, along with the failure of many steel columns. This will make a loud “boom”, debris will fly out, flames will be pushed into the air. How are witnesses going to describe this, without using words like "explosion", or "bomb"? Given that by this time most people realised it was a terrorist attack, is it at all surprising that some may even have believed (at the time) that bombs were involved? There’s no need to take our word for it, either. 911Myths.com visitor Brandon Wright discovered a video of another collapse preceded by what sounds like enormous explosions (and were described by at least one witness as “like bombs”), yet actually came from metal failing under extreme stress. Read more, and listen to the audio evidence yourself here. On balance, then, the witness reports don't surprise us at all, and there's no doubt the collapse (and some events prior to it) involved what looked, and felt like explosions. That doesn't begin to prove that bombs were the cause, though -- it'll take considerably more evidence to do that.<hr></blockquote>

by **Qutb** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:25 pm

BTW, in the original 9/11 thread, I posted several eyewitness reports on people in the lobby (/-ies?) set on fire and turned into "human torches". One of the Naguet brothers were among those who witnessed this. That would definitely point to jet fuel. The elevator door in the same lobby was blown open and people observed incinerated people in front of it. Also, eye witnesses who escaped down the stairwells reported a very strong smell of jet fuel all the way down.

by **chiggerbit** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:45 pm

Since we know there is plenty of uncomfortable overlap with various "friendly" business and government types, it likely would be embarrassing and also show that "friends" knew about the upcoming attacks. Let's see, what is the subject of the sentencing part of Moussaoui's (?) trial? Something about whether, if he had spilled the beans, his information could have succeeded in saving one single life, right? That might make an interesting precedent.... if we could just bring the put option traders to trial. And as Noriega of Panama can tell any non-Americans, we don't let national borders interfer in matters of "justice". and the trading won't really shed any light on anything once you get beyond the official story. I totally disagree. If we had had a real investigator such as Fitz instead of the ridiculous cast of agents on the 9/11 commission, I'll bet we would know a lot more today. The traders are like threads. Pull on one thread by bringing a person to trial, and watch all the other threads unravel. I just about gagged when I saw the list of members appointed to the 9/11 commission. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 3/31/06 1:55 pm

by **FourthBase** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:52 pm

Human torches, blown open door, incinerated people... Could have been a separate bomb. If that someone smelled jet fuel as they began their descent... Couldn't the odor have been scorched into their nostrils? You explained away "explosive" eye and ear witnesses... But you're willing to take a nose witness at face value?

by **Qutb** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 5:02 pm

4th base, I don't get your point. I don't doubt people heard loud bangs. I doubt they heard bombs. Those, you see, are two different things. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Human torches, blown open door, incinerated people... Could have been a separate bomb.<hr></blockquote> What's more likely to create "human torches": a bomb or burning jet fuel (effectively, napalm)? BTW, <a href="http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html" target="top">here's</a> 911myth's take on the "molten steel". I think it deserves a read.

by **FourthBase** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 5:10 pm

The person might have smelled jet fuel the whole way down just like I'm still smelling a fart I let rip a half hour ago. The smell is scorched in the nostrils and brain long after it's physically there. Is there a link to the description of "human torches"? Because it sounds like it could just be a metaphor for someone on fire. Was there a peculiar hue to the fire? Is there no bomb ingredient or flammable clothing that could produce that same effect? Finally, are you talking about the guys who also filmed the North Tower impact?

by **Qutb** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 5:38 pm

And of course, 911myths has some <a href="http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html" target="top">thoughts</a> on the put options too, which I found interesting.

by **Qutb** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 5:43 pm

The Naguet bros were the guys who filmed it, yes (spare me the theories about them being agents etc). Human torches wasn't a metaphor, it's described as people literally on fire, which one of the Naguet brothers said was too horrible to film. These reports aren't difficult to find. I posted some links in the original CD threads.

by **whipstitch** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 5:51 pm

From <a href="http://www.explosive911analysis.com/">www.explosive911analysis.com/</a> ... <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Many Turned Into Human Torches, Patients Say Houston Chronicle "Mutuanot was in the lobby of Tower One when she heard the first explosion. Thinking it was a bomb like the terrorist attack in 1993, she turned to run, looking over her shoulder as flames leaped from a freight elevator shaft cooking her back and legs and right cheek." <a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/terror/aftermath/1051698.html">www.chron.com/disp/story....51698.html</a> According to the website of Otis Elevators, who installed and serviced the elevator systems within WTC 1 and WTC 2, each tower contained only 1 freight elevator that served both the sub levels of each tower and the floors within the impact zone of AA Flight 11 at WTC 1: "In addition to normal freight service one freight elevator in each of the towers will serve a total of 112 stops from the fifth basement to the 108th floor." <a href="http://www.otis.com/otis150/section/1,2344,ARC3066_CLI1_RES1_SEC5,00.html">www.otis.com/otis150/sect...C5,00.html</a> However ... it seems that this particular freight elevator was in use during the impact of AA Flight 11 at WTC 1. Not only did it's operator and passenger survive the impact of Flight 11 but they also did not report evidence that would suggest the presence of any powerfully explosive fireball within the elevator's shaft: "Arturo (Griffith) was running 50A, the big freight car going from the six-level basement to the 108th floor. When American Airlines Flight 11 struck at 8:46 a.m., Arturo and a co-worker were heading from the second-level basement to the 49th floor... Arturo heard a sudden whistling sound and the impact. Cables were severed and Arturo's car plunged into free fall. The emergency brakes caught after 15 or 16 floors. The imploding elevator door crushed Arturo's right knee and broke the tibia below it. His passenger escaped injury." <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/life/sept11/2002-09-10-surivivor-griffiths_x.htm">www.usatoday.com/life/sep...iths_x.htm</a> It therefore seems, that the explosive force reported to have come from a freight elevator shaft servicing the WTC 1 lobby, should therefore have come from one of the several freight elevators servicing only the sub-levels of WTC 1 to points below the impact zone of AA Flight 11 and not the single freight elevator that serviced sub-level floors and floors within the impact zone of AA Flight 11. This therefore tends to suggest that the explosion emanating from a freight elevator as described above, may then have originated from the sub-levels of WTC 1 and not the impact zone of AA Flight 11 at WTC 1. This theory would tend to coincide with descriptions of explosions that are alleged to have in fact originated from the sub-levels of WTC 1: "William Rodriguez ... worked at the World Trade Center ... As he was talking with others, there was a very loud massive explosion which seemed to emanate from between sub-basement B2 and B3. There were twenty-two people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first explosion ... "When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and everything started shaking." said Rodriguez" <a href="http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=7762">www.theconservativevoice....ml?id=7762</a> "Mike Pecoraro ... worked as a Stationary Engineer on a roving crew that serviced all of the buildings at the complex ... decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop ... arrived at the C level ... found the machine shop gone. "There was nothing there but rubble", Mike said. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press gone!" ... made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. "There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything" he said ... decided to ascend two more levels to the building's lobby ... ascended to the B Level, one floor above ... astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up "like a piece of aluminum foil" and lying on the floor." <a href="http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029">www.chiefengineer.org/art...qnum1=1029</a> The official version of events would have one believe that the same jet fuel fireball that created the afore mentioned massive sub-level damage to WTC 1, would also leave an elevator car occupying the same shaft this fireball supposedly traveled through, practically unscathed by comparison. <hr></blockquote>

by **FourthBase** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 6:12 pm

Whipstitch, that's what I thought. Thanks for the links. There goes the official jet fuel fireball elevator shaft theory! Qutb?

by **NewKid** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:09 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>No. I very much doubt it, if you mean "planned and executed from the beginning by US military/intelligence/the Bush administration". It pretty much flies in the face of everything we know (to the extent that we really know anything etc etc). <hr></blockquote> That's quite an extraordinary statement. I can't imagine you really believe that Qutb. I know you're LIHOP pretty much, which is fine, but if you really think it flies in the face of everything we know, please elaborate further.

by **NewKid** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:14 pm

On the options and all the trading, as I recall the intitial media talk was that it was Bin Laden or his associates that were doing the trading and then that was later denied. So if Bin Laden were behind it, I have to assume that would be a big part of the case against him. But again, given Bin Laden's company, I can see why that wouldn't help much to reveal who might be behind it. I think what the trading shows is that there is widespread belief in financial circles and certain segments that something big will happen involving the airlines and the towers and the markets. There's so much prior warning and knowledge that unless we can identify who is making the trades and go question them, the insider trading stuff won't really take us anywhere beyond that.

by **Qutb** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:38 pm

I'm not really interested in that discussion, New Kid. It would take waaay too much time and I doubt it would be very constructive. Let's just agree to disagree on that. I think it's quite an extraordinary statement to say that this was an extraordinary statement. I would rather say that the opposite would be a more extraordinary thing to say. I guess the problem is that today, the information overload is so great that everybody must pick and choose the information they accept and reject to a much greater degree than before. The concept of "consensus reality" is really dated, because there's no such thing any more. So what I think I know is not the same as what you think you know (wow, that sounded like a Rumsfeldism didn't it). If you look for it though, there's a wealth of information about radical Islamist movements around the world, about the "Arab Afghans"/al-Qaida/whatever you want to call them, about their desire to fight a war against America, about Takfiri movements "infiltrating" Western societies, about an Islamist network in America, about the hijackers and their bios, their training in Afghanistan and elsewhere, about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Youssef, and the Bojinka plot, about Ayman al-Zawahiri, about the 11 countries that warned the United States about the 9/11 plot, from the head of Indonesian intelligence in 1998 to the Egyptians just a week before it happened, etc etc. But you may of course, rightly or wrongly, choose to dismiss all that as propaganda/legends/patsies and so on, and instead focus on other information that I may, rightly or wrongly, dismiss as baseless speculation. 4th base, I have no idea if what that guy wrote is correct or not. Maybe I'll have time to look into it sometime.

by **Qutb** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:52 pm

Returning once more to 911myths, for their <a href="http://www.911myths.com/html/william_rodriguez.html" target="top">comments</a> on Rodriguez. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>We're not quite sure what the suggestion is here. Why would a bomb in the basement be required to go off as the plane hit? What's the point? It wasn't aimed to demolish the building, presumably. It increased the risk of detection, required more effort in planting and hiding it, careful timing, and yet (if there were bombs elsewhere in the building) would achieve nothing at all. It might weaken the structure, you're saying? Why? The towers collapsed from the impact point down, not from the base. There’s nothing a bomb 90+ floors below could do to affect that. And remember, the very base of the towers were left standing. This part of the structure is all that remained, which is why a few people survived in the lower stairwells and basement levels. No sign of it being weakened there.<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Still, that's another argument. Our first concern with Rodriguez is the way his story has expanded since its first hearing, reported soon after the attacks. William Rodriguez worked on the basement level of the north tower and was in the building when the first plane struck his building. "We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off." http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/new.york.terror/ Nothing as definitive here, nothing specific about timing, no use of loaded words like "explosions". Why not? Of course, even here we still have a pair of events, rumble one and rumble two. Is there a possible explanation for this? Maybe so. As you'll probably remember from watching the initial impact video, the first plane didn't explode on the outside of the building. It disappeared inside first, the explosion following a fraction of a second later. Now, how is Rodriguez going to hear the explosion? He's a long way below, but plainly something like this is going to reach him through the air. The speed of sound is 767 miles per hour (http://library.thinkquest.org/19537/Physics4.html) at 20 degrees, which means it'll travel 1,124 feet in a second. That's actually a reasonable approximation of Rodriguez distance from the impact site, actually, so we'll live with it for now. Except, to clarify, that's just sound through the air. Sound travels through steel more than 17 times faster, 13,332 mph (http://library.thinkquest.org/19537/Physics4.html), which means the impact sound (and related physical effects as the building flexes) could reach someone 1,124 feet away in under 0.06 of a second. The 9/11 Commission reported another consequence of the explosion. A jet fuel fireball erupted upon impact and shot down at least one bank of elevators.The fireball exploded onto numerous lower floors, including the 77th and 22nd; the West Street lobby level; and the B4 level, four stories below ground http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-302.html This could provide a third source of sound and physical manifestations of an explosion, following immediately after the other two. Others say that the fireball couldn’t have caused such effects that far down, but there is some supporting evidence. Consider this from a worker below Rodriguez: ...the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where they were and “sit tight” until the Assistant Chief got back to them. By this time, however, the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke. “We smelled kerosene,” Mike recalled... http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/underground/underground_explosions.htm Kerosene? That would be consistent with an explosion caused by jet fuel. Anyway, put it all together and we have something that looks like this. The plane hits the building. The first sound and effects of this reaches Rodriguez potentially before the explosion has taken place. The jet fuel explodes, the sound of the initial impact and this reaching Rodriguez through the air almost a second later. Then we have the sound of the fireball shooting down elevators close to Rodriguez location. This would presumably occur virtually at the same time as the second, airborne sound, but would also be distinct from that as a sound (it would appear to come from somewhere else). Mixed up in all this is the reaction of the building. Seismic records of the first impact show major movement for over ten seconds (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html) as the structure flexes from the initial impact. How would that manifest itself in the lower levels? Would workers there realise that any noticeable effects were separate from the other events, or would they tie them together, and think they were caused by (say) the fireball in the elevator? It's important to note that we don't have the answers here. We don't know exactly how Rodriguez story ties in to the whole, which "rumble" relates to which event. However, it's plain that the first version of his story is quite different to the second. And as you see in the first quote, it’s expanding with details that he can’t possibly know, like explosions occurring “before” the airliner hit. He didn’t see the impact, that’s an after-the-fact interpretation. If this were a court of law then that kind of comment would be taken out, and we’d consider only what he experienced himself. We're also not convinced that Rodriguez could reliably tell whether an explosion occurred above, or beneath him, especially if he's talking about the elevator fireball. And as the initial flex of the building, and impact sound, would have arrived through steel around a second before sound carried through the air. Perhaps there are other explanations here than "bombs in the basement".<hr></blockquote> Edit: it seems that reports of "explosions in the basement", jet fuel down the elevator shafts, and people being burned alive in the lobby all pertain to the north tower. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=qutb>Qutb</A> at: 3/31/06 5:00 pm

Loose Change - a must see

Re: Put Option Accounts

Re: Put Option Accounts

Re: Put Option Accounts

Re: Put Option Accounts

Re: Put Option Accounts

Re: Put Option Accounts

Re: Put Option Accounts

Re: Put Option Accounts

Re: Put Option Accounts

Re: Human Torches

Re: Human Torches

Re: Human Torches

Re: Human Torches

Re: Human Torches

Re: Human Torches

Who is online