9-11 was an inside job

[jaqeboy]

Boston 911 Truth did an action yesterday on the Boston Common:

[youtube=425,350] iZs26Xk_DrQ [/youtube]

They're a great group and plan to do actions on the 11th of each month, except probably next month, when everyone will be converging on New York, Ground Zero.

[alohamonkey]

Interesting article about the revision of physics in the post-9/11 world.

http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/august2007/150807_not_collapse.htm

China's Tallest Building Catches Fire, Does Not Collapse
World Financial Center in Shanghai miraculously defies physics

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
   


Shanghai's World Financial Center, the tallest building in China upon completion, defied all known physics yesterday afternoon when it caught fire but did not collapse, a modern day miracle in light of the commonly accepted premise that since 9/11, all steel buildings that suffer limited fire damage implode within two hours.

Anyone who has visited Shanghai's Pudong district will note that the World Financial building eerily resembles the twin towers in New York that were destroyed on 9/11, which is why the sight of it catching fire yesterday would have led many to immediately fear the imminent collapse of the structure.

"According to an eyewitness, the building caught fire around 4:35 p.m., and floors above the 40th floor were shrouded with dark smoke. The fire was fierce, burning debris fell from the building. Many people fled the building in panic," reports Epoch Times.

"According to Mr. Deng, a local resident, floors above the 30th floor were engulfed in thick layers of smoke, while the top of the building was also smoking."

Officials put the time of the outbreak of the fire at 4pm and said that was extinguished by about 6pm. The south tower of the WTC burned for just 56 minutes before collapsing, while the north tower lasted around an hour and 45 minutes. According to the official transcripts of the firefighter tapes, fires in both towers were almost out immediately before the collapses.

The World Financial Center in Shanghai bravely remains standing after fires gutted its top floors, a modern day miracle of science and a bizarre contradiction to the officially revised version of physics that came into effect on September 11, 2001.

The saving grace that could have rescued the Shanghai tower from imploding may have been the fact that it was not hit by a plane, as the twin towers were on 9/11.

However, the absence of a jet strike wasn't enough to prevent WTC 7 from crumbling into its own footprint within 7 seconds later that fateful afternoon.

Residents of Shanghai should rejoice that the building defied the revised version of basic physics that officially came into effect at 9:56am on September 11, 2001, and remained standing, avoiding a potential death toll of thousands. 

The population of Madrid were similarly blessed in February 2005 when the 32-story Windsor Building (pictured above) was gutted by intense fires for 28 hours but did not collapse.

Hundreds of buildings worldwide suffered major fires that gutted the entire facade of their structure before 9/11 and did not collapse, but since the twin towers behaved differently, rather than consider an alternative explanation for the collapse of the towers, experts simply decided to reverse the fundamental precepts of all known physics to make it easier for everyone to understand.

Since that time, it has been commonly accepted that limited fires in tall buildings are 99% certain to cause an almost instantaneous collapse.

[KBCraig]

I'm certain it was just an oversight, but Mr. Watson neglected to mention the 300,000 pound airplane slamming into the World Financial Center at 590 mph, dumping 10,000 gallons of burning fuel into the interior.

That did happen, right?

[jaqeboy]

I'm certain it was just an oversight, but Mr. Watson neglected to mention the 300,000 pound airplane slamming into the World Financial Center at 590 mph, dumping 10,000 gallons of burning fuel into the interior.

That did happen, right?

No, the World Financial Center Buildings were not hit by an airplane and they all still stand.

Three World Financial Center did sustain heavy damage when the World Trade Center towers collapsed, though, but it was patched up.

[KBCraig]

I'm certain it was just an oversight, but Mr. Watson neglected to mention the 300,000 pound airplane slamming into the World Financial Center at 590 mph, dumping 10,000 gallons of burning fuel into the interior.

That did happen, right?

No, the World Financial Center Buildings were not hit by an airplane and they all still stand.

Okay, just checking, since Watson seemed to think he was making a cute point comparing the WFC to the WTC.

Three World Financial Center did sustain heavy damage when the World Trade Center towers collapsed, though, but it was patched up.

A building in Shanghai was damaged by a collapsing building in NYC?

[Braddogg]

Yeah . . . the phrase "limited fire damage" was an interesting one.

[alohamonkey]

I'm certain it was just an oversight, but Mr. Watson neglected to mention the 300,000 pound airplane slamming into the World Financial Center at 590 mph, dumping 10,000 gallons of burning fuel into the interior.

That did happen, right?

KB, I guess I should preface my posts since nobody here knows me that well.  My issue with the official story of 9/11 doesn't revolve around the Twin Towers (WTC 1 and WTC 2).  No plane crashed into WTC 7 and it had much smaller and contained fires than the building in this article . . . yet it collapsed at free-fall speed.  If something was used to bring down that building, like the landlord Larry Silverstein said . . . then I have issues with the whole "official" story. 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5wGnEneYa5M (please ignore the song on this link)

[alohamonkey]

I'm certain it was just an oversight, but Mr. Watson neglected to mention the 300,000 pound airplane slamming into the World Financial Center at 590 mph, dumping 10,000 gallons of burning fuel into the interior.

That did happen, right?

I just went back through the article and I found this:

"The saving grace that could have rescued the Shanghai tower from imploding may have been the fact that it was not hit by a plane, as the twin towers were on 9/11.

However, the absence of a jet strike wasn't enough to prevent WTC 7 from crumbling into its own footprint within 7 seconds later that fateful afternoon."

Watson does address the fact that no plane hit the World Financial Center and then offers an alternate comparison that you choose to ignore.  NO plane hit WTC 7. 

[alohamonkey]

Yeah . . . the phrase "limited fire damage" was an interesting one.

Compare the fires in this link:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5wGnEneYa5M

I would say that the fires are definitely "limited" in WTC 7 compared to the Windsor Building. 

Also, look at some of the pictures of the fire in Shanghai's World Financial Center building here:
http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/august2007/150807_not_collapse.htm

Those fires are defnitely more intense than the ones at WTC 7. 

[jaqeboy]

This is a good video on WTC7 and controlled demolitions:

[youtube=425,350]90ChRS3KzT0&NR[/youtube]

[jaqeboy]

Even I Question The 'Truth' About 9/11

By Robert Fisk

26 August, 2007
The Independent
(posted at countercurrents.org)

[Russell Kanning]

I'm certain it was just an oversight, but Mr. Watson neglected to mention the 300,000 pound airplane slamming into the World Financial Center at 590 mph, dumping 10,000 gallons of burning fuel into the interior.

That did happen, right?

except that he did mention it

[E-ville]

Here is my main issue with 911.. building 7 was demolished.. even the owner (Silverstien) admitted it on PBS... there is tape of him saying "they decided to pull the building"...

So we have fact by the owner to blow the building up..  The biggest problem with this is the building fell a few hours after the planes hit the towers..  Thats important why?

There saying that in all the confision of the events, the rescue efforts etc.. they made a rational descision to demolish this very large office building, they went in to the disaster zone and preped and wired the entire building for demo while its on fire, then demolished it.. all in a few hours...  How could that all be done in the confusion.. and how so fricken quickly when there is feet of mangled building from the towers falling..

It takes alot longer than hours to wire and prep a building for demo..  you have to get every column exposed and prepped, haul in hundreds of pounds of high explosives while the building is on fire,wire it all and then demo it.. even in ideal conditions it takes days to weeks to do this properly..  and the demo was perfect, it fell perfectly into it's foot print..

This shows that the building was set to demo, before the planes hit, its not like the building was built with a self destruct button and they just had to push it.. 

So our government would destroy buildings and kill innocent people to start a war, We think this is really bad, what about the stuff we still have not found out about yet..

I used to not believe the JFK and Roswell conspiracy stuff..  but now after seeing this utter crap going on... I have no idea what's really the truth..

All I do know is anything the feds deal with should never ever be trusted.

[Braddogg]

Here is my main issue with 911.. building 7 was demolished.. even the owner (Silverstien) admitted it on PBS... there is tape of him saying "they decided to pull the building"...

So we have fact by the owner to blow the building up..  The biggest problem with this is the building fell a few hours after the planes hit the towers..

From prisonplanet.com, quoting from the aforementioned PBS interview: Silverstein states, "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."  (I had to edit their grammar for clarity . . . .)

So Silverstein is on the phone with the FDNY, mentions the loss of life, and later in the sentence suggests the commander "pull it."  I have no idea how the jump was made from that comment to "Silverstein admitted to PBS that he had WTC7 demolished with professional explosives."

[error]

And in that context, what does "pull it" mean?