CIA Agent Gives Sworn Statement:‘We Brought Down the Twin Towers on 9/11

[middleview]

How do you explain the physics of two aircraft collapsing three steel-framed skyscrapers into their footprints?

Feel free to review the Nist study.

How do you explain the motivation behind concocting an incredibly complex scheme rather than a simple one? Why even involve the planes at all? Just hook up explosives in the basement and blame trucks parked in the garage as in the 1993 attempt? Nah...let's involve thousands of people at the airlines, FAA, air traffic control, the military, the CIA, the insurance companies (policies on the planes)...and on and on.

 

[middleview]

I guess I'll just go with you thinking Trump is a Russian spy then. Thanks!

No. You'll go on trying to tell people you can read minds....the fact is that even you do not believe I think Trump is a Russian spy.

 

[Queen Titania]

No. You'll go on trying to tell people you can read minds....the fact is that even you do not believe I think Trump is a Russian spy.

Common knowledge, old bean

 

[Queen Titania]

Do you care to speculate on what Russell's opinion of the official 911 report would be?

It has taken 50 years of de-educating the masses for them to believe such a thing - what do you suppose he would have thought? Especially considering his opinion of those who lust for and take Power -

 

[georgephillip]

Feel free to review the Nist study.

How do you explain the motivation behind concocting an incredibly complex scheme rather than a simple one? Why even involve the planes at all? Just hook up explosives in the basement and blame trucks parked in the garage as in the 1993 attempt? Nah...let's involve thousands of people at the airlines, FAA, air traffic control, the military, the CIA, the insurance companies (policies on the planes)...and on and on.

Do you believe WTC 7 collapsed from "office fires"?

 

[georgephillip]

It has taken 50 years of de-educating the masses for them to believe such a thing - what do you suppose he would have thought? Especially considering his opinion of those who lust for and take Power -

I only asked because Russell's closest US public intellectual apparently is not a skeptic of the official 911 report?

 

[Queen Titania]

I only asked because Russell's closest US public intellectual apparently is not a skeptic of the official 911 report?

You insult Russel just because I mentioned him? Low --------------

 

[middleview]

Do you believe WTC 7 collapsed from "office fires"?

From office fires? No. Do I think it was from explosives planted in the building? No.

 

[middleview]

Do you believe WTC 7 collapsed from "office fires"?

Do you think WTC 7 was not damaged by the collapse of the towers? I noticed that your link only shows pictures from the side of the building away from the towers....no sign of damage from that side....try looking at the other side...

 

[georgephillip]

You insult Russel just because I mentioned him? Low --------------

That was not my intention.
Chomsky disappointed may of his fans by defending the official version of 911.
I was just wondering if you believe Russell would have made the same mistake?

 

[Queen Titania]

That was not my intention.
Chomsky disappointed may of his fans by defending the official version of 911.
I was just wondering if you believe Russell would have made the same mistake?

Insult upon insult -------------

 

[georgephillip]

From office fires? No. Do I think it was from explosives planted in the building? No.

How do you explain WTC7's roughly 2.5 seconds of free-fall acceleration documented by David Chandler?
http://www1.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/872-freefall-and-building-7-on-911-by-david-chandler.html

 

[georgephillip]

Insult upon insult -------------

Could you be a little less specific?

 

[georgephillip]

Do you think WTC 7 was not damaged by the collapse of the towers? I noticed that your link only shows pictures from the side of the building away from the towers....no sign of damage from that side....try looking at the other side...

I saw evidence of a controlled demolition.
'Not sure what you are looking at.

 

[middleview]

I saw evidence of a controlled demolition.
'Not sure what you are looking at.

I saw the amount of damage to the front of the building facing the towers. I saw the explanation of how much support was lost when the center of the building was cratered by the debris from the tower. I saw the flames, probably from the diesel fuel. I heard about the fire department pulling their people out to avoid losing any more firemen.

 

[middleview]

The two passenger jets that supposedly hit the twin towers never took off... the physical jets remained in service for 8 and 9 years after 09/11/2001.

The passenger lists were just that... passenger lists. You have no idea if anybody on those lists died. But you can be damned sure the people in the towers saw the explosives and testified to them.

You can be damned sure the families of those who died knew all about their loss...even now they bury the parts we've recovered and identified.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/9-11-victims-remains-identified-nearly-16-years-later/ar-AApDjjL

 

[georgephillip]

I saw the amount of damage to the front of the building facing the towers. I saw the explanation of how much support was lost when the center of the building was cratered by the debris from the tower. I saw the flames, probably from the diesel fuel. I heard about the fire department pulling their people out to avoid losing any more firemen.

I think we can reject the contribution from diesel fuel:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/

"The report clarifies a number of widely debated issues concerning the collapse, particularly the role of the building's many diesel fuel tanks and the importance of structural damage from falling WTC 1 debris.

"Both of those factors have been cited by investigators as possibly contributing to the collapse; the 2006 Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts mentions both hypotheses.

"However, the final NIST report downplays both scenarios, concluding that the diesel fuel stored in tanks (and intended to power backup generators) did not burn long enough or hot enough to account for structural failures."

For me, the question of 2.5 seconds of free-fall acceleration is the one needing an answer.

 

[middleview]

I think we can reject the contribution from diesel fuel:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/

"The report clarifies a number of widely debated issues concerning the collapse, particularly the role of the building's many diesel fuel tanks and the importance of structural damage from falling WTC 1 debris.

"Both of those factors have been cited by investigators as possibly contributing to the collapse; the 2006 Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts mentions both hypotheses.

"However, the final NIST report downplays both scenarios, concluding that the diesel fuel stored in tanks (and intended to power backup generators) did not burn long enough or hot enough to account for structural failures."

For me, the question of 2.5 seconds of free-fall acceleration is the one needing an answer.

Did you read the popular mechanics article? It supports my view of WTC7. It was not controlled demolition. It was damage first caused by the collapse of the tower and then by the resulting fires.

 

[middleview]

I think we can reject the contribution from diesel fuel:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/

"The report clarifies a number of widely debated issues concerning the collapse, particularly the role of the building's many diesel fuel tanks and the importance of structural damage from falling WTC 1 debris.

"Both of those factors have been cited by investigators as possibly contributing to the collapse; the 2006 Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts mentions both hypotheses.

"However, the final NIST report downplays both scenarios, concluding that the diesel fuel stored in tanks (and intended to power backup generators) did not burn long enough or hot enough to account for structural failures."

For me, the question of 2.5 seconds of free-fall acceleration is the one needing an answer.

The question I have is "who in hell thinks that this would have been a good plan to piss people off to motivate a war"....if you can offer a reason for an over engineered plan to destroy these buildings in an extended series of collapses in which, at any point, things could go wrong...then I'd consider the idea that there was a plot that wasn't originated in Afghanistan.

As it is the simple explanation works best. WTC 7 collapsed because a substantial amount of debris from WTC 1 hit right in the middle of WTC 7 and started fires that, given the damage to supporting structures from the impact, weakened the other two trusses.

 

[georgephillip]

Did you read the popular mechanics article? It supports my view of WTC7. It was not controlled demolition. It was damage first caused by the collapse of the tower and then by the resulting fires.

I don't place much credence in Popular Mechanic's explanation of how two commercial airliners collapsed three steel-framed skyscrapers. In particular I find their rebuttal to David Chandler's allegation of WTC7's 2.5 seconds of free fall acceleration less than convincing.
http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/676-debunking-popular-mechanics.html