Howard Zinn: The Truth of 911 May Never Be Known

[georgephillip]

Howard Zinn questioned nearly every aspect of "American Exceptionalism" over the course of his adult life, yet he believed searching for the truth of 911 was "a diversion."

"Howard Zinn was an American historian, political scientist, social critic, activist and playwright. He is best known as author of the best-seller 'A People's History of the United States'. Zinn has been active in the Civil Rights and the anti-war movements in the United States. Howard Zinn passed away on January 27, 2010. Zinn was raised in a working-class family in Brooklyn, and flew bombing missions for the United States in World War II, an experience he now points to in shaping his opposition to war."

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3553

ZINN: There are some issues which are interesting but which are diversions from what we really have to do. This is one of them. I doubt that an independent commission—and I grant it, we don't know all the facts about 9/11, and we could probably learn a lot more. And maybe there was a conspiracy. Who knows? But I believe it's one of those issues that can never be fully answered, like the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It'll go on and on and on. People will write books and talk about it. It will be an enormous waste of good energy. So it's not that I doubt any of the doubters; it's not that I doubt that there are very troubling questions to be answered. I just don't think that it leads anywhere."

Hypothetically, if the Truth of 911 reveals a genuine conspiracy at the top levels of the US Government that allowed two airplanes to collapse three steel-framed skyscrapers into their footprints, would it change your vote in November?

 

[Days]

The afternoon fires set in WTC7, hours after flying debris from the morning collapse of the twin towers had long since landed and burned out, were allowed to burn, FEMA didn't permit the firemen to enter the building, then late in the afternoon, WTC7 was evacuated. The collapse of the building was announced on live television before it happened, or as it happened. The next morning, on live radio interview, Silverman (owner of WTC) explained how he had a conversation with the fire chief and recommended "pulling" WTC7, and upon his recommendation "the decision was made to pull the building... and they pulled it".

 

[georgephillip]

The afternoon fires set in WTC7, hours after flying debris from the morning collapse of the twin towers had long since landed and burned out, were allowed to burn, FEMA didn't permit the firemen to enter the building, then late in the afternoon, WTC7 was evacuated. The collapse of the building was announced on live television before it happened, or as it happened. The next morning, on live radio interview, Silverman (owner of WTC) explained how he had a conversation with the fire chief and recommended "pulling" WTC7, and upon his recommendation "the decision was made to pull the building... and they pulled it".

I remember hearing about the decision to "pull the building," but I've never been clear on how long that process would require or how many workers would have been necessary?

I believe there are still, to this day, a large number of Americans who think there were only two skyscrapers toppled on 911

 

[Days]

I remember hearing about the decision to "pull the building," but I've never been clear on how long that process would require or how many workers would have been necessary?

I believe there are still, to this day, a large number of Americans who think there were only two skyscrapers toppled on 911

Think about the meaning of Silverman's words. Ask yourself, was this a human effort or was this an act of God?

Silverman recommended pulling the building.

A decision was made... to pull the building.

Then the building was evacuated and there is video of firemen pointing at WTC7 and saying, "watch that building, it is about to come down".

Then the news of the building's collapse was released to the television stations, scripts were written, and the news of its collapse was aired on multiple stations, the process began about 90 minutes before the building was demolished.

... and then they pulled it.

 

[georgephillip]

Think about the meaning of Silverman's words. Ask yourself, was this a human effort or was this an act of God?

Silverman recommended pulling the building.

A decision was made... to pull the building

It's my understand the phrase "pull the building" implies a controlled demolition which uses large amounts of high explosives to collapse the structure into its own footprint.

 

[Boca]

Might try reading the science from structural engineers who weren't emotional looney tunes.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

The additional problem was distortion of the steel. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity.

To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.​

v

 

[Days]

It's my understand the phrase "pull the building" implies a controlled demolition which uses large amounts of high explosives to collapse the structure into its own footprint.

It is how everyone in the demolition industry refers to the execution of the job, literally: pull the building down into its footprint, you have it exactly right. But the "demolition deniers" refuse to acknowledge that.

How about this idea, "the decision was made to... "

WTH is that? The building collapsed naturally by an act of God after that???

"the decision was made to... " = human effort.

Silverman made the recommendation to pull the building...
"We should just pull it"

"the decision was made to pull the building"

"and then they pulled it"

... and then the building is evacuated and people are moved back from the perimeter... not a single loss of life at WTC7

... at the same time it is broadcast on live television that the building had already "collapsed from structural damage" - blaming it on a natural collapse instead of explosives, but the building hadn't even collapsed yet, the only thing that had happened was the building was wired for demolition and the decision was made to pull it and the building was evacuated and the surrounding perimeter cleared for demolition, but the building was still standing...

When Silverman said to the fire chief, "you know, we've had such great loss of life, maybe we should just pull it" ... what was he talking about? He was saying right there, that the 3 buildings were wired for demolition but carrying out the hoax - demolishing the two towers with people still in them - had taken enough lives, they didn't need to kill any more people, so let's just pull the building; normal practices, evacuate it and clear the perimeter, no more hoaxes, so nobody else dies. And they did exactly that. That's why Silverman was under the misconception the next morning that WTC7 was not part of the hoax, that's why he spilled the beans.

 

[Queen Titania]

It is how everyone in the demolition industry refers to the execution of the job, literally: pull the building down into its footprint, you have it exactly right. But the "demolition deniers" refuse to acknowledge that.

How about this idea, "the decision was made to... "

WTH is that? The building collapsed naturally by an act of God after that???

"the decision was made to... " = human effort.

Silverman made the recommendation to pull the building...
"We should just pull it"

"the decision was made to pull the building"

"and then they pulled it"

... and then the building is evacuated and people are moved back from the perimeter... not a single loss of life at WTC7

... at the same time it is broadcast on live television that the building had already "collapsed from structural damage" - blaming it on a natural collapse instead of explosives, but the building hadn't even collapsed yet, the only thing that had happened was the building was wired for demolition and the decision was made to pull it and the building was evacuated and the surrounding perimeter cleared for demolition, but the building was still standing...

When Silverman said to the fire chief, "you know, we've had such great loss of life, maybe we should just pull it" ... what was he talking about? He was saying right there, that the 3 buildings were wired for demolition but carrying out the hoax - demolishing the two towers with people still in them - had taken enough lives, they didn't need to kill any more people, so let's just pull the building; normal practices, evacuate it and clear the perimeter, no more hoaxes, so nobody else dies. And they did exactly that. That's why Silverman was under the misconception the next morning that WTC7 was not part of the hoax, that's why he spilled the beans.

How long does it take to prepare such a building for its 'pulling' eh Days?

 

[Days]

How long does it take to prepare such a building for its 'pulling' eh Days?

It took about 3 months to wire the 3 WTC buildings that were demolished on Sep 11, 2001.

 

[georgephillip]

Might try reading the science from structural engineers who weren't emotional looney tunes

If I'm understanding your link correctly, it is referring to the Twin Towers only; why do you believe TWO commercial airliners were capable of collapsing THREE steel-framed skyscrapers into their footprints at nearly free-fall acceleration?

 

[georgephillip]

How long does it take to prepare such a building for its 'pulling' eh Days?

Thanks.
That is my question also.
As I understand the procedure, it takes days, not hours.

 

[georgephillip]

It took about 3 months to wire the 3 WTC buildings that were demolished on Sep 11, 2001.

Do you have any idea how many workers were required to accomplish that task?

 

[georgephillip]

It is how everyone in the demolition industry refers to the execution of the job, literally: pull the building down into its footprint, you have it exactly right. But the "demolition deniers" refuse to acknowledge that.

How about this idea, "the decision was made to... "

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/poll-more-americans-believe-world-trade-center-7-was-demolished-on-911-than-believe-the-governments-explanation.html

"Poll: More Americans Believe World Trade Center 7 Was Demolished On 9/11 than Believe the Government’s Explanation"
"Posted on September 11, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog"

I wonder if either Trump or Hillary will touch this one tomorrow (9/11/2016)?

 

[Days]

Do you have any idea how many workers were required to accomplish that task?

not really, but someone who researched it, should be able to tell you that. I'm just aware of the time line of events over the summer leading up to 09/11.

09/11 was a psyop. It was a joint government/media hoax that involved real demolition. Without the networks cooperation, the government could never have pulled off 09/11. It required jamming a huge volume of complex lies down our throats and forcing them onto us continuously for years afterward. And contrary to what Middleview pretends didn't happen, there was hundreds of whistle blowers, but they kept mysteriously dying.

 

[Days]

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/poll-more-americans-believe-world-trade-center-7-was-demolished-on-911-than-believe-the-governments-explanation.html

"Poll: More Americans Believe World Trade Center 7 Was Demolished On 9/11 than Believe the Government’s Explanation"
"Posted on September 11, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog"

I wonder if either Trump or Hillary will touch this one tomorrow (9/11/2016)?

The truth is, the commercial jets (or military missiles) did very little structural damage to the towers. But that was played up in the public image. They got so worked up over those commercial jets, of course no fires had collapsed a skyscraper, but this wasn't just a fire, it was those big commercial jets! Had they actually been commercial jets, they would have been smashed against that steel curtain wall like the aluminum tubes that they are. But it was played up big and they showed those big explosions over and over and over... as if. Then it back fired on them, because no commercial jet struck WTC7. So the war for public opinion was lost on WTC7, even though the Towers were vertical trusses and WTC7 was normal construction. In reality, the demolition of the towers was more obvious to anyone who knows architecture. They had to wire the living shit out of those towers to bring them down, WTC7 was just normal demolition.

I doubt Trump or Hillary will ever mention anything close to an actual issue in this campaign. Hillary has the world's worst record known to modern politicians and Trump hasn't a clue what is going on, period.

 

[Boca]

....why do you believe TWO commercial airliners were capable of collapsing THREE steel-framed skyscrapers into their footprints at nearly free-fall acceleration?

You can't read? Or is it that straightforward technical stuff reduced to simple language is still beyond you?

As for Building 7 I have no idea.

I was just tying to edumacate those who think gravity is something you put on pork chops, mashed taters, or country fried steak.

 

[georgephillip]

not really, but someone who researched it, should be able to tell you that. I'm just aware of the time line of events over the summer leading up to 09/11.

09/11 was a psyop. It was a joint government/media hoax that involved real demolition. Without the networks cooperation, the government could never have pulled off 09/11. It required jamming a huge volume of complex lies down our throats and forcing them onto us continuously for years afterward. And contrary to what Middleview pretends didn't happen, there was hundreds of whistle blowers, but they kept mysteriously dying.

I'm inclined to agree with your assessment; many citizens of this country can not imagine their government would be capable of such Evil, but WTC7 should open all but the most partisan eyes. It would be nice if a truly independent investigation took place before all the principles die of old age.

 

[Days]

I'm inclined to agree with your assessment; many citizens of this country can not imagine their government would be capable of such Evil, but WTC7 should open all but the most partisan eyes. It would be nice if a truly independent investigation took place before all the principles die of old age.

While Bush was still in office, it was suicide to speak up. Once he left office, then demolition experts began coming forward and said exactly what I had been saying; this was text book demolition.

 

[georgephillip]

You can't read? Or is it that straightforward technical stuff reduced to simple language is still beyond you?

As for Building 7 I have no idea.

I was just tying to edumacate those who think gravity is something you put on pork chops, mashed taters, or country fried steak.

What do you know about "free fall?"

 

[Days]

What do you know about "free fall?"

I know this much, the term "free-fall" means the object is falling freely, with nothing obstructing its fall.