Final WTC7 Report Released

[sunny]

can anyone spin a hypothetical scenario that describes by what process any proof with functional value greater than what's available now might be obtained, and by what process it could then be used to bring about the desired result, which is....[YOUR CHOICE HERE]?

Or, alternatively, a scenario by which the currently available evidence can be used for a larger or more clearly defined goal than wider propagation

?

Hell I don't know.. Why do you ask me such difficult questions?

I just want somebody to pay and pay hard for...everything that's been happening in this country and to other countries and I want it to stop. Yeah, it's pie in the sky. Yeah it's useless to want any kind of truth or justice. Doesn't stop me though. I just keep hoping that if we/they can get through to people something might could be done. It's not much but it's really all we have.

[compared2what?]

can anyone spin a hypothetical scenario that describes by what process any proof with functional value greater than what's available now might be obtained, and by what process it could then be used to bring about the desired result, which is....[YOUR CHOICE HERE]?

Or, alternatively, a scenario by which the currently available evidence can be used for a larger or more clearly defined goal than wider propagation

?

Hell I don't know.. Why do you ask me such difficult questions?

I just want somebody to pay and pay hard for...everything that's been happening in this country and to other countries and I want it to stop. Yeah, it's pie in the sky. Yeah it's useless to want any kind of truth or justice. Doesn't stop me though. I just keep hoping that if we/they can get through to people something might could be done. It's not much but it's really all we have.

However leaky, creaky and corrupt it is, there's a rule of law here, ostensibly. And if everyone would quit swinging for the fences, and just try to get a man or two on base -- ie, get any kind of lawsuit that entitles the plaintiff to discovery wrt any angle of the events of that day into court -- that might be a plan with a goal from which other goals would naturally evolve.

I'm just saying. There's a lot of law that gives, let's say, shareholders standing to sue for various causes that involve document production, to name the first line of theoretically realistically possible inquiry to spring to mind. I can think of others in rough outline. And an actual attorney could probably do better than that!

No one even ever hears me when I say it, though. It's like if you're not offering massage-with-happy-ending, you might as well stay home on this subject as go out at all.

[compared2what?]

Another constructive but less work-intensive option would be to a pick a different factual strand that does what the case for CD does irrefutably do as it presently stands: Provide a framework for exposing the laxity, inadequacy and dishonesty of the official story.

Except with this key difference: Make it something that congress has a way of advancing in its oversight role, the key questions and witnesses for which can be faxed to them in one or two bullet=pointed pages!

For example, Bandar al Sultan's financial support for the alleged West Coast hijackers.

Then work up a few images and slogans that suggest that anomaly is the one that leads to a slam-dunk, and repeat them several hundred thousand times, along with a request to call or write your representative instead of a request to propagate the information as the kicker.

What would be the problem with that? I don't have the graphic or tech skills, but I'd work on the copy and coordination, happily.

[sunny]

ie, get any kind of lawsuit that entitles the plaintiff to discovery wrt any angle of the events of that day into court -- that might be a plan with a goal from which other goals would naturally evolve.

I like that idea, but who could be sued and by whom? The NIST report just cleared Silverstein. (if the report could be discredited, however...) Who else?

[compared2what?]

ie, get any kind of lawsuit that entitles the plaintiff to discovery wrt any angle of the events of that day into court -- that might be a plan with a goal from which other goals would naturally evolve.

I like that idea, but who could be sued and by whom? The NIST report just cleared Silverstein. (if the report could be discredited, however...) Who else?

As I said, shareholders have a lot of ways into court. So anyone who owned stock in a company adversely affected by the attacks at the time of the attacks might have a case that wasn't dismissible on its face, you'd just have to find the person, then do a lot of tedious forensic accounting. Which is no fun and a lot of work with no guaranteed pay-off. But it has the advantage of being possible.

ON EDIT: Though I don't know what the statutes of limitations are on that kind of action, and my guess would be that they're not very long.

However, the point is: No one is limited to working with material already under consideration. Go read federal, state or local statutes for different kinds of fraud; get familiar with aviation law; securities regulations; whatever; see what avenues of investigation suggest themselves, and then see if any part of what your intuition suggested can be verified.

That's the kind of work that the internet should facilitate -- it's a task too big for one mind, and too dull for most people to concentrate on for long, but perfect for many people doing a little bit at a time within a common set of data and record-keeping.

[Nordic]

Anyone else wonder about the timing of this? I mean, it's what, three weeks after the Ivin's neat little wrap-up, during the Olympics, and sort of reeks of yet another "oops, gotta wrap up this loose end before the election" kind of thing.

This to me reads almost exactly like the Ivins story.

"Nothing to see here, we've figured it all out, TRUST US, move right along".

Any idiot can use their eyes and watch WTC 7 fall and see that it fell from the bottom up. The bottom was just disintegrated right out from under it and the collapse was a total free-fall.

Just like any idiot can read about the Anthrax case and see nothing but holes in the Ivins story.

But it's the "official wrap-up" to the terror that was inflicted on the people of the U.S. back in 2001.

Mission Accomplished indeed.

[8bitagent]

For example, Bandar al Sultan's financial support for the alleged West Coast hijackers. .

That's the tragically hilarious, if not painfully ironic thing Compared2What.

We GOT the government, caught with blood stained hand prints.

High level Saudi officials, including Prince Bandar's company and wife,
were sending tens of thousands of dollars specifically to some of the 9/11 hijackers through a BUSH RAN bank called Riggs...hijackers WHO were living with a high level million dollar FBI informant in San Diego...UNDER THE DIRECTION of the Saudi intelligence directorate. (Saudi GID)

Hell it's even worse than this:
http://www.msnbc.com/avantgo/839269.htm

At least five of the officials hurried out of the country with the bin Ladens were balls deep in 9/11 and the al Qaeda network.

We know that Qatar's elite, who make millions with Guiliani, helped shelter KSM and Osama from FBI arrests in 1996, with Washington DC higher ups telling the FBI to back off.

We know the hijackers had fully paid for credit cards that were used after 9/11, we know the hijackers had handlers...informants and a wide network of support in America. Including the airports where the flights took off.

And just what is a company like Ptech, an al Qaeda front, doing with
so many US government tentacles in it?

All this goddamn energy placed on "physical anomalies", when even if there was something to these...what's it even prove? Whose to say, if this fictional bomb placement story was true, that the "government" even put them in.

Most truthers arent even aware that the 9/11 story takes place WAY before Bush and the neocons took office. That would be, Clinton's era.

But yes, let us focus on the towers. Let's just pull up a blanket and spiritually meditate...

...because if we pray REALLL hard, and say "the towers were brought down with controlled demolition" enough times, it might make it true!

[Jeff]

.

The usual paradox.

Failure of one or two columns due to fire and irregular damage causes the whole building to neatly implode in a fashion that at least visually mimics a near-perfect controlled demolition.

But:

A planned demolition would have required massive placements of explosives and pre-cuttings of every single column in the building. Otherwise it would have been impossible!

True that.

But there's also the You couldn't do that if you tried! factor to take into account. Like, say, here, and in many mundane examples from life.

Criminal and complex intention will always take a lot of planning to pull off, while accidents can just look that way.

[compared2what?]

For example, Bandar al Sultan's financial support for the alleged West Coast hijackers. .

That's the tragically hilarious, if not painfully ironic thing Compared2What.

We GOT the government, caught with blood stained hand prints.

High level Saudi officials, including Prince Bandar's company and wife,
were sending tens of thousands of dollars specifically to some of the 9/11 hijackers through a BUSH RAN bank called Riggs...hijackers WHO were living with a high level million dollar FBI informant in San Diego...UNDER THE DIRECTION of the Saudi intelligence directorate. (Saudi GID)

Hell it's even worse than this:
http://www.msnbc.com/avantgo/839269.htm

At least five of the officials hurried out of the country with the bin Ladens were balls deep in 9/11 and the al Qaeda network.

We know that Qatar's elite, who make millions with Guiliani, helped shelter KSM and Osama from FBI arrests in 1996, with Washington DC higher ups telling the FBI to back off.

We know the hijackers had fully paid for credit cards that were used after 9/11, we know the hijackers had handlers...informants and a wide network of support in America. Including the airports where the flights took off.

And just what is a company like Ptech, an al Qaeda front, doing with
so many US government tentacles in it?

All this goddamn energy placed on "physical anomalies", when even if there was something to these...what's it even prove? Whose to say, if this fictional bomb placement story was true, that the "government" even put them in.

Most truthers arent even aware that the 9/11 story takes place WAY before Bush and the neocons took office. That would be, Clinton's era.

But yes, let us focus on the towers. Let's just pull up a blanket and spiritually meditate...

...because if we pray REALLL hard, and say "the towers were brought down with controlled demolition" enough times, it might make it true!

8bit, as you know, I know.

My point is: Why repeat it to each other? Why not think about what it takes to turn that one indisputable and intriguing factlet into an image and a logo and a paragraph that's easy to understand, or whatever other first building block step anyone wants to take?

It doesn't have to be CD or some other complete and full answer to the entire damn thing, either/or. Everything has to start somewhere.

[8bitagent]

8bit, as you know, I know.

My point is: Why repeat it to each other? Why not think about what it takes to turn that one indisputable and intriguing factlet into an image and a logo and a paragraph that's easy to understand, or whatever other first building block step anyone wants to take?

It doesn't have to be CD or some other complete and full answer to the entire damn thing, either/or. Everything has to start somewhere.

Have you seen this?
http://www.historycommons.org/news.jsp? ... 393703-423

It's from February, and is one of the most DAMNING and to me shocking
items of 9/11 truth revelations I've ever seen. And it comes straight from the FBI, who in a weird way were partially the guys trying to stop 9/11. (I say in part, as we also have deep FBI informants and handlers crawling all over the enterprise)

I agree with you, enough ruminating on forums and blogs.

I'd love to see every "truther", progressive, "patriot", ect. write the media, authorities and government and move away from the "physical anomalies"...which have gotten us NOWHERE fast.

The FBI, police, media and countless witnesses describe a wide network of people who knowingly helped the 9/11 hijackers both financially and physically within America in the two years leading up to the 9/11 attacks. So why isn't this ever discussed or expanded upon? Why are we now told they had no help?

Why did the 9/11 commission say the money trail ultimately didnt matter? Is it because it leads directly to Pakistani ISI, Saudi officials, Dubai and a Bush ran bank?

Why are lowly taxi drivers being tried for the crime of 9/11, when one of the main top architects of 9/11 and mastermind of a lot of the main al Qaeda blamed attacks...a former CIA/FBI/special forces man named Ali Mohamed...why is he under witness protection in upstate New York? A high level terrorist whose wife is friends with FBI Agent Jack Cloonan?

Why are we told 9/11 was merely the work of an independent group named al Qaeda, when high level Saudi officials, Saudi royals, Saudi intelligence, the heads of Pakistani ISI, and Dubai's government and banking system have been proven to have been involved?

Why has there not been one real trial for the crimes of 9/11, if the government has a clear cut case against al Qaeda , KSM and Ramzi Bin Alshidh?

Why were the hijacker's credit cards continuing to be in use even after the events of 9/11/2001?

Why has there been a blackout on the evidence that the hijackers had people working at the airports used to help them?

I just saw an insanely exhaustive investigative look into the Chandra Levy mystery in the Washington Post...why don't they or any other media have the balls to investigate the biggest story of the century?

[MacCruiskeen]

Jack Riddler's unanswerable question was apparently posed to Sunder, who couldn't answer it:

Another reporter appeared to temporarily stump Sunder with a very basic but perfect question. Throughout the presentation Sunder spoke about building seven as if it were particularly susceptible to collapse by even moderate fires because of the design. However Sunder would later go on to explain that it would require a very large amount of explosives to bring it down by demolition.

The great question was, why if the buildings were so vulnerable to collapse due to regular fires alone, wouldn’t they also be equally vulnerable to failure with just a small number of explosives? Sunder’s initial response was, “Can you repeat the question?” seemingly trying to buy himself more time. He then proceeded to stumble through some convoluted explanation for why only fire could be responsible. The questioner then asked about a combination of both fire and explosives to which Sunder seemed to deflect and refer to the NIST paper without elaborating further. Sunder seemed caught off guard and uncomfortable.

Submitted by Buru Dragon on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 5:03am.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/17269#comment

[FourthBase]

“Can you repeat the question?” seemingly trying to buy himself more time.

Check!

[nathan28]

However leaky, creaky and corrupt it is, there's a rule of law here, ostensibly. And if everyone would quit swinging for the fences, and just try to get a man or two on base -- ie, get any kind of lawsuit that entitles the plaintiff to discovery wrt any angle of the events of that day into court -- that might be a plan with a goal from which other goals would naturally evolve.....

No one even ever hears me when I say it, though. It's like if you're not offering massage-with-happy-ending, you might as well stay home on this subject as go out at all....

Another constructive but less work-intensive option would be to a pick a different factual strand that does what the case for CD does irrefutably do as it presently stands: Provide a framework for exposing the laxity, inadequacy and dishonesty of the official story.

Except with this key difference: Make it something that congress has a way of advancing in its oversight role, the key questions and witnesses for which can be faxed to them in one or two bullet=pointed pages!

For example, Bandar al Sultan's financial support for the alleged West Coast hijackers.

Then work up a few images and slogans that suggest that anomaly is the one that leads to a slam-dunk, and repeat them several hundred thousand times, along with a request to call or write your representative instead of a request to propagate the information as the kicker.

What would be the problem with that? I don't have the graphic or tech skills, but I'd work on the copy and coordination, happily.

Ah, the sweet sound of sanity. You are absolutely correct, there is no reason to swing for the fences, especially if you strike out trying. It doesn't matter whether they are cheating or not. NIST is full of shit, I'm sure they'll start saying bridge collapses are "reasonable" events

I support an effort to lay this at Bandar's feet so much. I have said time and time again that someone needs to look into Riggs Bank, goddamnit. But no one fucking listens. The short form is: no one cares. They want to live out some political thriller with a spectacular event, while no one else will even admit what's happened. I'm trying not to despair over this, because frankly I'm more worried about Cold War 2.0. Something of the humanist in me revolts at the idea of history being buried, but then again, there are cities submerged on continental shelves of which we'll never learn aboout.

It's like Martin Luther King, Jr. An Atlanta civil jury found that there was a conspiracy to kill him. Do you remember hearing about that?

[MacCruiskeen]

The BBC's recent grotesque propaganda exercise, "The Third Tower", provides one of the strongest reasons for suspecting that WTC7 (at least) was demolished: the sheer blatant dishonesty of the corporate-and-state media efforts to demonstrate that it wasn't.

Prime example: They built that entire programme around the brave but obscureBarry Jennings, without once mentioning that he was accompanied throughout his ordeal in WTC7 by the prominent but pusillanimous Michael Hess, who just happens to be New York's corporation counsel and Rudolph Giuliani's best buddy and business partner.

More than a month ago, I wrote a polite email to the BBC, asking them: a) why they had distorted Jennings' testimony so egregiously; b) why Michael Hess was literally unmentionable; and c) whether they had even attempted to interview Hess at any time. The BBC did not condescend to reply. So I am now re-submitting that email as an official complaint, to which those powerworshipping careerist fucking bastards are legally obliged to respond.

[barracuda]

Jack Riddler's unanswerable question was apparently posed to Sunder, who couldn't answer it:

The answer of course, is that there was considerably more damage to the building than mere fires, as has been shown here time and time again. Sorry to play devil's advocate.