Final WTC7 Report Released

[8bitagent]

Yay Hugh posted more 9/11 Porn!

It's kind of funny, I was doing some grocery shopping at Target, and they had a $2 dollar Matchbox toy replica of an American Airlines plane near the counter...I just so had to buy it. You know, so I could have a little piece of 9/11 with me:)

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Your A&E info-spam raises question, all of which I am aware of, but doesn't offer the finality and dogma of your suppositions. If the case for CD rests on that tiny dust mote, then we're lost.

This isn't a reading of 'Horton Hears a Who.'

There are MULTIPLE proofs of controlled demolition.

Ain't nothin' boring about that.

Re-reading your A&E documentation, I think I can conclusively say that this is at least one statement of yours which is incontrovertably mistaken. CAUSE THAT POST IS BORING.

But thanks for the death-porn. Right back atcha.
.....

I'm perplexed why you would take such a shallow reading of history.

It is irrelevant whether you find the secret murder of 3000 people to kick-start a permanent war of mass murder and torture... "boring" or "death-porn."

Mass murder, torture, and war is not for your entertainment.
Righting injustice is what it is, not what you want it to be.

Are you one of those who reach for the remote when you don't like what you see?

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Yay Hugh posted more 9/11 Porn!
.....

What an appalling post.
And Jeff deletes MY posts. Irony.

It isn't "porn" to the more than a million killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and the millions displaced and the untold numbers of wounded and terrorized and looted and starved in those countries, others, and the US.

It isn't "porn" to the families of Fallujans turned into dog-eaten corpses.
Grab your remote! Write your movie script!



Which Side Are You On?
by Florence Reese

Come all of you good workers
Good news to you I'll tell
Of how that good old union
Has come in here to dwell

(Chorus)
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?

My daddy was a miner
And I'm a miner's son
And I'll stick with the union
Till every battle's won

They say in Harlan County
There are no neutrals there
You'll either be a union man
Or a thug for [Bush and] Blair

Oh, workers can you stand it?
Oh, tell me how you can
Will you be a lousy scab
Or will you be a man?

Don't scab for the bosses
Don't listen to their lies
Us poor folks haven't got a chance
Unless we organize

[isachar]

Paul Joseph Watson

July 10, 2008

The former New York City chief emergency manager Jerome Hauer, whose office was on the 23d floor of WTC 7, was also a building collapse specialist, according to a recently uncovered New York Times article. Hauer has attracted suspicion from the 9/11 truth movement because of his zeal to push the official story in the hours after the attack when details were still sketchy.


Jerome Hauer: Pictured in 1996 with Rudy Giuliani.

Hauer was also Managing Director of Kroll Associates - the company that provided security for the WTC complex on 9/11 - and he also betrayed advance knowledge of the anthrax attacks a week before they happened.

In a July 27 1999 NY Times article unearthed by 9/11 Blogger entitled What Could Go Wrong? It’s His Job to Know, Hauer is given a glowing write-up by journalist Randy Kennedy.

“There is one story he tells in which this fascination is quite literal….But another illustration, a bit more metaphorical, is hard to miss when you walk into his office on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center, otherwise known as ”the bunker,” the $13 million bulletproof, hurricane-proof, blackout-proof emergency crisis center opened by the city last month.”

The article describes Building 7 for what it was, a structurally reinforced immovable object built for the express purpose of standing strong in a crisis situation, not the weakling tinderbox that allegedly became the first steel building in history to collapse from fire damage alone, according to debunkers like the BBC, the History Channel, Popular Mechanics and others.

Indeed, as the NY Times quotes Larry Silverstein as stating in 1989, WTC 7 designers “Built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building’s structural integrity,” a solid structure that was again improved upon that year with “More than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding.”
The article describes Hauer’s role, “As the city’s chief emergency manager, Mr. Hauer oversees the response to building collapses, of which there have been no shortage over the last three years.”

“For much of his professional life, it has been the task of Jerome M. Hauer, 47, to know a lot about how things work so that when they stop working — when they fall down, when they get blown down or blown up, when they freeze or burst or burn out — he knows what to do. Like all self-described emergency junkies, he sits around all day thinking up horrifying ways for things to be destroyed and people to die and then hoping that all his plans stay on the shelf.

Interesting therefore that Hauer would have his office in the middle of a 47-storey building that collapsed into its own footprint within 7 seconds in the late afternoon of 9/11 having been hit by minimal debris and suffering limited fire damage.

The article emphasizes the emergencies Hauer would list in his resume that he was an expert on, “Helicopter crash, subway fire, water main break, ice storm, heat wave, blackout, building collapse, building collapse, building collapse.”

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, Hauer appeared on CBS News with Dan Rather and immediately set about crafting a surprisingly affirmative explanation for the events and spun a yarn that soon became the official story.

Hauer was suspiciously keen to stress that the buildings were not demolished by explosives but by the planes that hit them, despite this being a complete reversal of what chief WTC architects and designers had concluded during studies about the impact of planes into the twin towers beforehand.

Hauer also pointed the finger directly at Bin Laden as the script began to unfold.

“[M]y sense is that just the velocity of the plane and the fact that you have a plane filled with fuel hitting that building that burned, that the velocity of the plane certainly had an impact on the structure itself. And then the fact that it burned and you had that intense heat probably weakened the structure as well. And I think it was simply the planes hitting the buildings and causing the collapse,” Hauer told Rather.

Rather also asks Hauer if the attacks could have been carried out without state sponsorship. Hauer replies: “I’m not sure I agree that this is necessarily state-sponsored. It… certainly has the fingerprints of somebody like bin Laden.”

Hauer was surprisingly “accurate” with his foreknowledge of how the official story would later appear to confirm all of his initial presumptions despite the chaos surrounding the attacks in the hours after they took place.

On 9/11, Hauer was Managing Director of Kroll Associates, a security firm intertwined with the military-industrial complex that was also coincidentally in charge of security for the entire World Trade Center complex on that fateful day.

Furthermore, it was Hauer that reportedly advised the White House to begin taking Cipro, an antibiotic which is effective against anthrax, on the very day of 9/11 and one week before the first anthrax letter was received.
Two months after 9/11, Hauer was part of a Council on Foreign Relations panel that released a document entitled Independent Task Force on America’s Response to Terrorism, which in part called for alternative explanations behind 9/11 to be countered.

Hauer’s almost instant and precise summation of the cause of building collapses that were completely unprecedented in history, along with his “expertise” in the characteristics of controlled demolition, in addition to his foreknowledge of the anthrax attacks and his position with Kroll Associates, justifiably continue to attract interest amongst researchers in the 9/11 truth movement.

http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data ... 1218305640

means, motive, opportunity

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Paul Joseph Watson

July 10, 2008
.....

Hauer was also Managing Director of Kroll Associates - the company that provided security for the WTC complex on 9/11.....
.....
The article describes Building 7 for what it was, a structurally reinforced immovable object built for the express purpose of standing strong in a crisis situation, not the weakling tinderbox that allegedly became the first steel building in history to collapse from fire damage alone, according to debunkers like the BBC, the History Channel, Popular Mechanics and others.

Indeed, as the NY Times quotes Larry Silverstein as stating in 1989, WTC 7 designers “Built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building’s structural integrity,” a solid structure that was again improved upon that year with “More than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding.”
....
means, motive, opportunity

Oh, great. Isachar posted more fact porn.

[barracuda]

It is irrelevant whether you find the secret murder of 3000 people to kick-start a permanent war of mass murder and torture... "boring" or "death-porn."

It's only irrelevant to you, not to me. I don't need to be barraged by mind-control images of mass murder by you everytime we have these discussions. The images are freely available on the web if I care to have the fear-conditioning reinforced. But thanks again for doing the perp's work for them. Water carrier.

If you still don't know, what part of the Architects and Engineers presentation of evidence do you shrug off and find merely "boring?"

I think I dragged enough over to make the case and then some.

Yeah, no shit, "then some". Where to start. How 'bout some pulled out quotes?

mostly into its footprint

Note qualifier.

near free-fall speed

Note qualifier.

Where did the molten metal come from? Why do FEMA and NIST deny its existence?

Questions not answers.

We know that the elevators were being modernized by Ace Elevator during the 9 months prior to 9/11.

Inferred conjecture masquerading as deduction.

This is the World Trade Center exploding.
This is an acknowledged explosion.
Can you tell the difference?

I see dozens of differences. For starters the "second" image is was taken at ground level, is much smaller in scale and the first picture is not necessarily an explosion at all. This is a trick question and not a very good one.

virtually free-fall speed! But this could only have been accomplished by removing the columns ahead of the fall — with explosives.

Note qualifier, and jump to conclusion.

Numerous Squibs (mis-timed explosions), etc...

There is nothing scientific offered in this entire paragraph. These "squibs" have scant resemblance to demolition charges.

There are no "pancakes" stacked up at the bottom of either tower!

This is a deliberate misunderstanding of the pancake collapse theory which is just as rude as that theory itself.

They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions,

Interesting, but how many similar fires were tested for thermite traces? How many similar fires have ever happened? In other words, there is no control here whatsoever.

It takes thousands of degrees to bend steel like this without buckling. Thermate cutter charges create over 4,500°F. Fires — even with jet fuel — create only 1,700°F maximum.

Inferred conclusion.

The Smoking Gun: Microspheres carry signature of Thermate!

This is hardly the common understanding of what constitutes a smoking gun. Hyperbole.

The gravitational potential of the building at 100,000KWH does not account for the concrete pulverization or the rapid expansion of the dust clouds.

Highly debatable. That's a lot of potential.

This is all that is left of the concrete floors, gypsum wall board, steel decking, office furniture, office machinery, filing cabinets.

A simple untruth, or deliberate lie. There was a lot more debris than just dust, for crissake.

[barracuda]

Now you are saying that Jerome Hauer and Larry Silverstien did the job? Or what are you saying? And thanks for the song and the picture. Exactly what again have you organized, Hugh? Cause I'm waiting for your call-to-action. And I don't own a "remote".

And isn't posting little songs one of those things you usually bitch about all the time? Let me clue you in on a big secret: EVERYONE ON THIS BOARD IS ANTI-WAR.

Now what?

[compared2what?]

Has anybody actually read the website Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth?

Guess not. Obviously not. Do it. Now.

Yes. I read the entire thing last time you suggested it, which was within the last several weeks, I believe. It was then that I noticed they didn't claim to have proven that controlled demolition was involved. Please look at your own example:

False. They do assert that CD is proven.
Just not as front-and-center on the website as is warranted, a case of a presentation not sufficiently cogent for activism. And I'm encouraging them to be clearer about what is proven and what is impossible so this misunderstanding will not continue.

http://www.ae911truth.org/twintowers.php

Quote:

Which 20 story building will fall to the ground first? Until 9/11/01 most physicists would have agreed that the one that didn't have to crush though 100,000 tons of steel would fall first — at free-fall speed. On 9/11, the example on the left "collapsed" at virtually free-fall speed! But this could only have been accomplished by removing the columns ahead of the fall — with explosives.

The highlighted words make a claim. And I'd be happy if they proved it. But they don't. Not scientifically, nor in any other way. Because they don't have enough data to prove that or any other claim, scientifically, or in any other way. Let's break it down to it's basic components:

(1) The buildings fell at virtually free-fall speed (and though it isn't explicitly stated in that quote, almost straight down into their own footprints).

(2) That's faster than material supported by intact steel beams can fall, per the laws of physics;

(3) Ergo, there were no steel beams; and

(4) The only conceivable way they could have been destroyed was by explosives planted prior to the impact, but triggered after it.

The problem with point (1) is that the only evidence for it is video, which might not have recorded the fall accurately in real time, and which definitely can be speeded up with no effort at all, practically. There isn't any chain of custody for the footage in question, and therefore nothing preventing it from being tampered with. Here, as throughout, I'm not arguing that happened. I have no idea if it did or didn't. That's my point, because neither do the architects or engineers. The video simply doesn't meet the generally accepted professional criteria for what constitutes reliable scientific data.

Point (2) seems to be undisputed, but it's not capable of being offered as proof of anything, since the amount of time it took the towers to fall isn't provable. Assuming that it is accurate, it's absolutely very intriguing evidence of [something] wrt the events of that day, but what [something] is an open question, not a scientifically demonstrated fact. As Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice -- friend and affiliate to Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth remark:

Any comprehensive theory describing the means and methods of controlled demolition applied to the WTC buildings is necessarily speculative, particularly given the paucity of artifacts that survived the Ground Zero cleanup operation. However, specific sets observations may indicate the use of certain demolition methods, perhaps as part of wider array of methods. One such set of observations has been adduced by Dr. Steven E Jones as evidence of the use of aluminothermics in the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers.

As far as I'm aware, there's no evidence for point 3 itself at all. The absence of steel beams at the time of the fall is inferred from unproven Point (2), as well as from the similarly unproven.....

....Point (4). Okay. The affirmative evidence for this conclusion is based on:

-- eye- and ear-witness accounts of explosions prior to the collapse, which are not scientific and don't constitute proof;
-- metallurgic analysis of a very small amount of material from the debris pile -- some of it "thought" (to quote the analysts) to have come from someplace in one of the twin towers, and some of it "thought" to have come from WTC7 -- which indicated that it had been exposed to much higher temperatures than a diffuse jet-engine-fuel-based fire can generate, and which was physically and chemically compatible with the use of thermite/thermate, which aren't accounted for by the available data or the officially promulgated events;
-- Various indicators of what was described as molten steel at the site, which likewise aren't accounted for by the available data or the officially promulgated events.

The position of the Architects and Engineers, as stated by them, is therefore that the story offered by the government does not explain the complete and rapid collapse of the buildings on that day, with which I totally agree, They also, to quote Dr. Jones, conclude that there is "a need for scientihfic scrutiny" and that "the evidence is compelling that the destruction of the WTC buildings involved planted cutter charges (such as explosives iaand incendiaries.)" Which -- I don't think I need to point out -- is not equivalent to proof. That doesn't mean that I dismiss it, nor do I think it should be dismissed. But it's also absolutely not so overwhelmingly obviously the most promising route to truth and justice that exists that only an enemy of truth or justice or a sucker would consider it not to be a scientifically proven fact, for no better reason other than that it isn't one.

I'm with the Architects and Engineers 100 percent in their call for an adequate investigation, as I am with anyone who calls for any adequate investigation of any of the demonstrable lies and/or omissions and/or implausible explanations and/or very selective explanations that make up the official story.

But it really doesn't help that cause to overstate the case or to understate the less-than-enormous amount of evidence on which it's based, imo.

Or to dismiss all alternate theories other than yours as baseless without further elaboration. Which brings us to the asterisks I put on the Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice quote earlier, which in fairness, I should note is immediately preceded by this paragraph:

The principle alternative to the official theory that the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 suffered spontaneous structural collapses is the theory that they were destroyed through controlled demolition by pre-positioned devices. This is the only serious alternative to the official theory, since the other theories -- such as those involving exotic weapons or accidental explosions -- lack even rudimentary plausibility. Given this dichotomy, a disproof of the collapse theory in its most general form constitutes a proof of the demolition theory in its most general form.

I note it in fairness because it definitely does assert proof, though it's from an affiliate group, not the archs 'n' engs. So there's that. But it's hardly what you'd call science. Or scholarship. Or, for that matter, proof. It's an assertion of proof, unsupported by anything other than itself. Which I don't accept whether it emanates from the state or from its opponents. Because in a free society, it's not an acceptable method of public discourse. It's not an effect strategy. Is my point.

Did any of this get through to you at all? I hope it did, in all good faith and fondness, and that if it didn't, you understand that what would then be our disagreement isn't personal, nor, to the best of my ability to guard against such things, is it owing to confirmation bias or hatefulness or unjustified pessimism or unjustified optimism (and so forth)i. We just disagree. Which is fine. I mean, with me. As I hope it is with you.

c2w

[compared2what?]

Yay Hugh posted more 9/11 Porn!

It's kind of funny, I was doing some grocery shopping at Target, and they had a $2 dollar Matchbox toy replica of an American Airlines plane near the counter...I just so had to buy it. You know, so I could have a little piece of 9/11 with me:)

That's hilarious, 8bit. All the people I know whose spouses, friends, and business associates were killed on that day -- the last of which is a category I'm in, in a minor way -- will split their sides laughing when I tell them, I'm sure. As will the much larger number of people I know who suffered some non-fatal but nevertheless permanent and debilitating loss as a direct result of those particular planes flying into those particular buildings on that particular day. Which is not a little airplane, admittedly. But in its own way, it's also a little piece of 9/11 that they (and again, I) can always have with them (or me). So we now share more than a joke, really. It's a beautiful thing.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Excuse me. Everyone believe the government. Sorry to waste your time!

[barracuda]

Excuse me. Everyone believe the government. Sorry to waste your time!

And there it is. Hugh, just because we believe that CD is not PROVEN doesn't mean we accept the .gov story; it doesn't even mean we don't believe in CD. So shove your sanctimonious crap up your virtual ass. If anything, statements like these read to the lurrkers as if you've given up. A nuanced position on the mechanics of the destruction of the towers is compatible with ANY civil action in favor of

investigation of the crime

retribution for the victims

punishment for the perps

ending the wars

replacing the existing .gov with a better one as required by the declaration of independance

Belief in a dogmatic position will turn people away from your cause if they already have dogmas which they use to walk down the street. Don't be so smug about it. Smugness is highly unpersuasive. We're on the same side, I think.

[compared2what?]

Hugh, is there some part of the below that's unclear in its rejection of the government's explanation?

The position of the Architects and Engineers, as stated by them, is therefore that the story offered by the government does not explain the complete and rapid collapse of the buildings on that day, with which I totally agree,

Or how about this?

I'm with the Architects and Engineers 100 percent in their call for an adequate investigation, as I am with anyone who calls for any adequate investigation of any of the demonstrable lies and/or omissions and/or implausible explanations and/or very selective explanations that make up the official story.

If so, what can I do to make it clearer?

[8bitagent]

Yay Hugh posted more 9/11 Porn!

It's kind of funny, I was doing some grocery shopping at Target, and they had a $2 dollar Matchbox toy replica of an American Airlines plane near the counter...I just so had to buy it. You know, so I could have a little piece of 9/11 with me:)

That's hilarious, 8bit. All the people I know whose spouses, friends, and business associates were killed on that day -- the last of which is a category I'm in, in a minor way -- will split their sides laughing when I tell them, I'm sure. As will the much larger number of people I know who suffered some non-fatal but nevertheless permanent and debilitating loss as a direct result of those particular planes flying into those particular buildings on that particular day. Which is not a little airplane, admittedly. But in its own way, it's also a little piece of 9/11 that they (and again, I) can always have with them (or me). So we now share more than a joke, really. It's a beautiful thing.

I guess you didn't get the reference, Compared2What. I was referring to a crucifix...I was making a point.

9/11 "Truth" has become a religion of faith. I'm sorry if that offends you, to me it's no laughing matter even if I use snarky sarcasm to make a point. Maybe you should read to see what I mean?

On one hand, you have all these liberals and right wingers
deriding us all as crackpot lunatics insulting the families for daring to ask questions.

One could only imagine being derided as "nuts" for wanting clarity on what happened to a loved one's family member.

On the other hand, you have so many 9/11 activists focusing all their attention on what I call the church of controlled demolition.
11th day Septemberists. Penta-gospels. You get the idea

And yeah, I do think about that. Maybe too much. Whenever I hear some lefty or centrist twit praddling on about how 9/11 doesnt matter anymore, I ask if it matters that so much of the real 9/11 heroes are ailing due to pulminary fibrosis and acute breathing disorders.

To the Bob Mcilvanes and the Donna O'Connors out there, 9/11 isnt some GOP catchall phrase or some "thing of the past".

I've met with 9/11 victim's families and survivors, I've had my walls shattered to hear what they and victims of war have gone through. Maybe I've spent a little too much time thinking about that. It makes me angry to think how much hate, destruction and fear was wrought from Vessey and Church.

Call me names, but I know where my heart is. And I know if there's to be REAL justice, it's in the Goddamn money trail and real provable trail of the hijackers as well as the dealings of where Saudi Arabia and Pakistan lead.

Not showing endless tower pictures of death and yelling about "melting points".

Is that going to help the 9/11 family members? By starving ourselves outside Mccain's office in Arizona begging people to "look at the towers!"
Passing out dvds that claim there was no passengers, that Bush blew up the towers and a missile hit the Pentagon?

Whose making the joke out of 9/11?

YES, 9/11 "Truth" has become a religion of faith. We should ALL wear
American Airlines planes around our necks and pray:)

[Nordic]

Gosh, I love "divide and conquer".

Works every time.

We've all been mind-fucked and we continue to be mind-fucked.

Let's face it, none of us here really KNOW anything.

We know what we don't know. But we don't really know anything. Except Hugh, of course, but he has the certainty of the mentally ill. It's best to just ignore him, even when he's right.

9/11 was, I think we can all agree, the most diabolical, stupenduously successful, murderous act of PSYOPS in history.

It still blows my mind when I think about it, and when I learn more and more about all the weirdness of it (the numerology aspect for instance).

People forget how it worked on that day -- the sheer horror of someone doing the formerly unthinkable (to most of us) -- hijacking a passenger plane filled with passengers and deliberately crashing it into an enormous skyscraper, also filled with people.

I remember when they did something quite like this in Die Hard II and I was so appalled by the fact that they put this in a MOVIE that I hated the movie. (plus it was directed by Renny Harlin, ugh).

So the sheer horror of what was happening made people accept almost anything that followed -- the buildings collapsing for instance -- the collapse was one more unthinkable blow to our psyches that day, in fact the collapse was the real coup-de-grace of the PSYOPS, the knock-out punch, the thing that truly caused most people to experience a mental trauma. Then with Ghooliani's comment about how many people "must have died" in there, all those people just reduced to ashes and dust.

It was unthinkable horror, suddenly real. And there wasn't anything we could do about it but take it.

So we took it. I remember thinking "how the hell did the buildings collapse" in that little voice in the back of my head, but I accepted it, completely, because it WAS unthinkable, just like the attacks had been unthinkable. And when Building 7 collapsed later in the day, I barely remember it. Most people barely remember it. A hell of a lot of people I talk to don't even realize a third building collapsed.

But years later, after having forgotten all about WTC7, I watched it collapse. And with the objectivity of years having gone by, and not having the collapse really have registered in the first place, my eyes told me "that's a demolition". Just use your eyes.

So if you separate yourself from the PSYOPS affects of that day upon your own mind, and your own psyche, you can really see quite clearly what happened.

Imagine if you'd never heard of it, you'd been Rip Van Winkle and slept through the whole thing and awoke, say, today and people started telling you about it and you started researching it in bits and pieces ....

For one thing you would realize that it's ludicrous that two amateur pilots could steer commercial jetliners AT FULL SPEED into such relatively tiny targets with such uncanny accuracy ....

Even an experienced pilot might have trouble hitting it so perfectly ....

But military-grade GPS does it every time.

And that's just for starters.

As this disucssion shows, and shows every time it comes up on this board, there is a hell of a lot of emotional attachment to what people THINK happened that day.

Please realize we don't KNOW anything. But we can use our eyes and our common sense. We've been lied to from so many different directions that pretty much everything that ANYBODY says is useless to our own minds.

Just use your own minds and your own common sense. Forget everything you've been told.

And you realize the whole thing was a very intricate, highly planned, technologically amazing and diabolically successful MAGIC trick. A truly epic and evil magic trick.

Designed to fuck our heads.

Which it did. As is in abundant evidence in this discussion.

[compared2what?]

8bit, It's manifestly self-evident from everything I've ever posted that I'm not a member of what you view as a church, and was not speaking as one when I objected to your comment.

To once again be as clear as I can be: I was not objecting to your opinion. I was objecting to the foolish, shallow self-regard implied by your apparent belief that reporting your small, uncreative, and unilluminating symbolic gesture to the forum was a meaningful, effective or intelligent contribution to a discussion of how and why a brutal and horrifying massacre took place.

Because it really wasn't.