For the record. 911 wasn't a conspiracy. It was a case of the bungling of an unaware nation by the hamstrings of beaurocracy and everything going rignt for those bent on doing evil. period.
911 on Trial - WTC Revisited A criminal trial is like a Russian novel: it starts with exasperating slowness as the characters are introduced to a jury, then there are complications in the form of minor witnesses, the protagonist finally appears and contradictions arise to produce drama, and finally as both jury and spectators grow weary and confused the pace quickens, reaching its climax in passionate final argument. As with any controversy, bring the dispute to court. File an action – present the case – let the jury decide! No need to hold your breath for a federal judge to adjudicative a trial, the real verdict lies within your own judgment. This is the premise for a quick read with a compelling argument in the book 9-11 on Trial by Victor Thorn. But before examining any specifics, ask yourself the essential question: If facts matter and proof can be demonstrated that contradict the official version on the collapse on the World Trade Center, would you accept that reality as truth? Today’s vogue is that if you don’t see it live on TV, it didn’t happen. And we all know that what we saw took place, a fire from an explosion from a 767 airplane and a collapse of two towers. How many will stop at this point and vote – case closed? Even a cursory review of the table of contents the first impression is that the laws of physics must have played some tricks on that fateful day. That presumption of innocence may hold true on Court TV, but the panel that sits in the public jury box, often brings their own docket agenda to the hearing. Objective open minds are hardly represented in the mainstream press. So why do so many normal citizens refuse to examine the obvious implausibilities? Maybe living a life less ordinary is just too risky . . . especially if it means forgoing the comfort in accepting the government version of this horror! Terrorism is always defined as opposition to the established order. Asking pointed questions as a citizen ‘Robert H. Jackson’ prosecutor - Victor Thorn - is no Marsha Clark. “Prosecuting Crimes Against the Peace of the World” rings true for New York City. Nuremburg may have been a show trial, but the crime of murder hit the Big Apple as a press juicer squeezing out the last drop of blood from our own fellow Americans. No doubt September 11, 2001 was a day of infamy, just be sure about who originated that attack and how those towers fell. Jet fuel burning its way to the melting point of steel, causing trusses and bolt failures and pulverizing concrete begs the rewriting of all those structural engineering dissertations. But why clutter your mind with relevant questions, you saw the pancake that gravity caused . . . or did it? You say who in their right mind would believe that a controlled demolition must have occurred to bring down those structures in such rapid succession. Why the mere thought would implicate that those rag tag terrorist cells must have extended well beyond that passenger list. Surely evidence tampering and a cover-up on an unimaginable scale defies common sense! Or does it? Are you brave enough to test the rules of evidence, since the certified court has ruled against their admissibility? Yes I know, who wants to be sequestered while you deliberate such an undertaking . . . those jury impound suites are made of steel beams and who would want to take the risk of having one of them fall down upon your own head! But the coup de grace has to be that troublesome Building 7, you know the one seldom mentioned and the edifice you are suppose to forget about. “What's the odds that an internal fire weakened all the major support structures in the WTC 7 to make it fall straight down like a controlled demolition?” Since Building 7 is 355 feet away from the North Tower the official FEMA report concludes that this steel-framed structure experienced a fire-induced collapse, after burning unchecked for approximately seven hours. (page 151) In spite of this, CNN and other news agencies have the timeline of events on September 11, having a few small fires on two floors at 3:00 PM, then on fire at 4:10 PM, and at 5:20 PM collapsing. Since a picture is worth much more than a thousand words, explain away how Building 7 came down so fast. “Building 7 was not hit by any aircraft, and was not significantly damaged by the violent destruction of either of the Twin Towers. Small fires were observed in a few different parts of the building prior to its "collapse." Most of the fires were barely visible, and were not hot enough to cause window breakage, at least on the north side of the tower, of which there are photos shortly before the collapse. The largest observed fires were the ones visible on the southeast wall shown in the photograph.” Contrast this disaster with the recent Madrid skyscraper fire, and draw your own conclusion. “Both Madrid and the WTC fires are reported to have burned at around 800degC - steel melts at around 1500degC. The WTC towers (110 stories) were needing to be immensely stronger than the Madrid tower (approx 35 stories), yet both WTC towers collapsed in about one hour, completely, in a uniform and controlled way, straight down, in free-fall time (approx 10 secs) - ie: no resistance, regardless of no fires on any lower floors, and of the immense central column of re-inforced concrete and steel, and of the outer structural skeletal wall of hundreds of steel support beams. IF --- IF any steel did melt, then it would have caused an asymmetrical localized failure within one or two floors - which could not have resulted in the whole structure coming down. These, and the WTC building 7 were controlled demolitions folks. The Madrid tower did not collapse even after 17 hours.” Still standing after 17 hrs Could this be a Perry Mason moment? In his closing arguments, Mr. Thorn asserts: “ . . . with a substantial amount of evidence – as opposed to theory – it was physically impossible for the World Trade Center towers to collapse the way the government said it did. Why? Because their version of events blatantly violates the laws of science, the laws of physics, the laws of gravity, and the laws of nature.” Hamilton Burger that perennial inept prosecutor never could get to the truth. Well, this hearing is won by the peoples’ victor. Read 9-11 on Trial with an inquisitive seriousness and be honest with your own inner voice of scruples. The central justification for the War of Terror against our own way of life is based upon the ultimate excuse of a planned catastrophe that defies logic and rational scrutiny. If it is wholly outside your capacity to conceive that the black and white version of this program is but a Nielsen ratings sweep week production, then you can turn off that tube. You have already been sufficiently programmed. 911 has taken on the persona of the OJ trial. Think for yourself, you are the jury, so judge the evidence. Dismiss all the Geraldo Rivera’s mouthpiece filters and face the proof that the events were not what they seemed to be. The final argument is not an emotional appeal, it is about the validity of the evidence.
And I quote....... "The first Official Explanation to be broadcast was that fires ignited by the jetliners' fuel had melted steel beams and columns within the Towers and thus caused the skyscrapers to ‘collapse’. The British Broadcasting Company quoted ‘structural engineer’ Chris Wise in its September 13, 2001 piece How the World Trade Center Fell. Wise spoke with cinematic emphasis: It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning ... The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other. The BBC online news story of 9/13/01 also quoted another expert. The buildings' construction manager, Hyman Brown, agreed that nothing could have saved them from the inferno. The buildings would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it, But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire. This graphic from the BBC is thoroughly inaccurate. It describes the columns as steel-reinforced concrete when in fact they were 100% steel. It depicts the core as a being a fraction of its actual dimensions. It states that 800ºC temperatures can melt steel, when steel's melting point is 1535º C. The fundamental problem with the jet-fuel-melting-steel explanation is that its premise contradicts the laws of physics. No amount of ‘ “aviation fluid” ’ burning in the open flames of a building fire could even begin to melt steel. 1535ºCelsius is the melting point of structural steel, whereas 825ºCelsius is around the maximum temperature attainable with hydrocarbon-fueled fires without systematic pre-heating or pressurization of the air. " Just some food for thought
Gasp! :shock: Oh my god...what a total imbecile i feel! Thanks for pointing that out. MEDICVAC, if you don't mind, i'm just going to paste that into an e-mail to the guy who wrote the book my last post was about before he makes a complete public laughing stock of himself and everyone who quotes him. He needs to update his goddamn information!
hmmm that would lead me to believe that it was just the planes that landed in the towers, but planes with explosives in the baggage area.. but naw..that would just drive all you conspiracy freaks just nuts now wouldn't it? Look, I know that some conspiracy stories are at least loosely based on fact, such as the whole CIA/CENTRAL AMERICA/CRACK connection. but this one just doesn't wash with me.
not knowing things suck. That's why I have a personal promise from god that when i die i will have the answers to every unanswered question i have ever or will ever have. don't know if it will be heaven or hell, but either way, at least i will KNOW what the answer is.
yup. not only am I patriotic, sexy, and smart... I am also thoroughly delusional. concerning that at least. 8)
A criminal trial is like a Russian novel: it starts with exasperating slowness as the characters are introduced to a jury, then there are complications in the form of minor witnesses, the protagonist finally appears and contradictions arise to produce drama, and finally as both jury and spectators grow weary and confused the pace quickens, reaching its climax in passionate final argument. I don't know who wrote this but " climax in passionate final argument?" Bwhahaha! This quote should have said : just as melodramatic and anti-climatic. In the case of Tolstoy's 'War and Peace' and Dostoevsky's 'Crime and Punishment', both of which I suffered through (only because I LOVE inflicting boredom and disappointment on myself- fucking Russians -I spit on them all!), The literary 'geniuses' of the eastern bloc should stay behind the red curtain. At 30, I don't have all the answers-don't want them, either.
you have been reading the wrong russian literature. instead of war and peace, try the gulag archipelago.
