Provable facts about 911

[Terry]

Isn't it about time we made a concerted effort to list the provable irregularities about 911 ?

For instance, Silverstein stated that they had decided to pull WTC 7.
Assuming this was decided as the course of action after the first tower went down, we need to know if enough time had elapsed from this decison to the actual collapse, for a team of demolition experts to rig a 47 story building for a controlled demolition. I mean how long would it normally take ? I would have thought days not hours and thats in a safe building not one on fire.

And also the irregular tradings in the trade markets prior to 911, it's often quoted as evidence but surely this is provable from existing records.

There must be many other provable facts.

[Ravenmoon]

Are you new to this stuff terry? The answers are already out there to these questions

[ian neal]

Here are some examples of compilations of evidence challenging the official version

http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html
http://www.911proof.com/

and there are many more

Welcome BTW

[festival of snickers]

http://www.letsrollforums.com/phpwebsite/

has a forum and stuff

[petros]

I'm fairly new to all this too. I would be good to have say an A4 sheet with the best known controversies on it, say, to give to others with reputable websites on.
I think the Pentagon lawn and the photos before the collapse are undeniable.

WTC Building 7 and the Silverstein remark although there is footage of building 7 very much on fire on the other side.

The fact that the tower's vertical support columns came down neat sliced up to be driven away! And molten metal and the +1000oC temperatures at ground zero.

I would be a handy resource.

[Stefan]

The Silverstein bit is not solid proof of anything - I wish it would go away.

So many people seem to think it's a winning argument but what does it actually say?

"He says he meant pull the fire fighters out, but we think he's lying and he meant demolish the building, and if he did mean that then he's lying because you can't wire a building for demolition in a day!"

How convoluted can you get? And at the end of the day people will just say "maybe he did mean pull the fire fighters out".

Then you have to say "But they were pulled out for hours before the building collapsed"

Then they say "How do you know he didn't mean it happened immediatly after"

"He said 'and then we watch it collapse' that suggests it happened immeditaley"

"But not neccesarily"

Do you see what I mean? It's hopeless as an argument and isn't even evidence in itself.

Sorry. This whole Pull It thing is one of my pet peeves.

[Ravenmoon]

You're not wrong stefan, it's an endless roundabout,he said,he meant etc, much better to stick to known physical facts .

[GazeboflossUK]

Even though when he said "pull it" I am sure he meant demolish, I too am tired of this being used as a major smoking gun.
It was a great moment when it was first discovered - I remember it well - But it's one of the those things that has had it's life and now is a dead horse in terms of how far we can take it.....he says he meant something different and there is nothing we can do about that.

What we can do is look at him, his dealings and such....blah blah etc.....I'm sure you all know about his insurance stuff by now.

[GazeboflossUK]

Also, the fact that there are many other witnesses now saying they were told WTC7 was going to be demolished and some have even said they heard the countdown.

I think finding more of these people who were there & involved, talking & interviewing them is obviously the best way to go on this particular aspect.....aquiring new information.

I mean, there's even a New York City official on record saying that bombs were going off shortly after WTC7 was evacuated...


I laugh sometimes.....because I'm talking about these aspects and all you really have to do is watch the building fall.....*sigh*

[telecasterisation]

[kbo234]

[telecasterisation]

[gruts]

Paul Thompson's 9/11 timeline is a great place to look for provable facts:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

for example....

February 27, 1993: WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Jumbo Jet Hitting It

In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center. Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the Twin Towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.” [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993] The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner ( Boeing 707—DC 8 ) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made. [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 131-132; Lew, Bukowski, and Carino, 10/2005, pp. 70-71] The other structural engineer who designed the towers, Leslie Robertson, carried out a second study later in 1964, of how the towers would handle the impact of a 707 (see Between September 3, 2001 and September 7, 2001). However, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), following its three-year investigation into the WTC collapses, will in 2005 state that it has been “unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.” [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 13 ]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a022793skilling#a0 22793skilling

[chek]

[gruts]

true - skilling didn't live to see 9/11 and I wonder if he would have changed his story if he had.

robertson's claims that they only anticipated a plane travelling much more slowly (eg if it was coming in to land and was lost in fog) and didn't factor in the fuel, contradict skilling's 1993 statement completely, which is why it would be great to see the original documents that have mysteriously disappeared....

btw - there's a thread about this on the DU forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg& forum=125&topic_id=125395&mesg_id=125395

[kbo234]