I posted this at the same link as above:

If wiki is accurate, this list is accurate:

I thought this should be part of the record of our discussion. From the Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC


New Pearl Harbor"
The PNAC report Rebuilding America's Defenses (September 2000) includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor."[citations needed]

In his appearance on Democracy Now!, theologian David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11, explains the allusion to "the New Pearl Harbor" from the PNAC report in the title of his book, which argues that PNAC members within the Bush Administration were complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.[37]

Further information: 9/11 truth movement and Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center
Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other social critics such as commentator Manuel Valenzuela and journalist Mark Danner,[38][39][40] investigative journalist John Pilger, in The New Statesman,[41] and former editor of The San Francisco Chronicle Bernard Weiner, in CounterPunch,[42] all argue that PNAC members used the events as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words) in order to enact long-desired plans.[43]

"When the Towers came down," William Rivers Pitt writes in his editorial in Truthout.org, "these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy."[32]


[edit] Inexperienced in realities of war
Former US Congressman Lionel Van Deerlin and UK Labour MP and Father of the House of Commons, Tam Dalyell have criticized PNAC members for promoting policies which vociferously support an idealized version of war, even though only a handful of PNAC members have served in the military or, if they served, seen combat.[44]

In discussing the PNAC report Rebuilding America's Defenses (2000), Neil MacKay, investigations editor for the Scottish Sunday Herald, quotes Tam Dalyell: "'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world.'"[45]

Eliot A. Cohen, a signatory to the PNAC "Statement of Principles", responded in The Washington Post: "There is no evidence that generals as a class make wiser national security policymakers than civilians. George C. Marshall, our greatest soldier statesman after George Washington, opposed shipping arms to Britain in 1940. His boss, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with nary a day in uniform, thought otherwise. Whose judgment looks better?"[46]


[edit] PNAC role in promoting invasion of Iraq
Commentators from divergent parts of the political spectrum––such as Democracy Now! and American Free Press, including Nobel Peace Prize Laurate Jody Williams and former Republican Congressmen Pete McCloskey and Paul Findley––have voiced their concerns about the influence of the PNAC on the decision by President George W. Bush to invade Iraq.[37][47] Some have regarded the PNAC's January 16, 1998 letter to President Clinton, which urged him to embrace a plan for "the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power," and the large number of members of PNAC appointed to the Bush adminstration as evidence that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a foregone conclusion. [39][43][48]

The television program Frontline, broadcast on PBS, presents the PNAC's letter to President Clinton as a notable event in the leadup to the Iraq war.[49]

Media commentators have found it significant that signatories to the PNAC's January 16, 1998 letter to President Clinton (and some of its other position papers, letters, and reports) include such Bush administration officials as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Richard Armitage, and Elliott Abrams.[32][38][49][26]


[edit] Persons associated with the PNAC

[edit] Project directors
[as currently listed on the PNAC website:]

William Kristol, Co-founder and Chairman
Robert Kagan, Co-founder
Bruce P. Jackson
Mark Gerson
Randy Scheunemann



[edit] Project staff
Ellen Bork, Deputy Director
Gary Schmitt, Senior Fellow [50]
Thomas Donnelly, Senior Fellow
Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow
Timothy Lehmann, Assistant Director
Michael Goldfarb, Research Associate



[edit] Former directors and staff
Daniel McKivergan, Deputy Director[51]

[edit] Signatories to Statement of Principles
Elliott Abrams[21]
Gary Bauer[21]
William J. Bennett[21]
John Ellis "Jeb" Bush[21]
Richard B. Cheney[21]
Eliot A. Cohen[21]
Midge Decter[21]
Paula Dobriansky[21]
Steve Forbes[21]
Aaron Friedberg[21]
Francis ************
Frank Gaffney[21]
Fred C. Ikle[21]
Donald Kagan[21]
Zalmay Khalilzad[21]
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby[21]
Norman Podhoretz[21]
J. Danforth Quayle[21]
Peter W. Rodman[21]
Stephen P. Rosen[21]
Henry S. Rowen[21]'
Donald Rumsfeld[21]
Vin Weber[21]
George Weigel[21]
Paul Wolfowitz[21]



[edit] Signatories or contributors to other significant letters or reports[23]
Elliott Abrams
Kenneth Adelman[52]
Richard V. Allen[18]
Richard L. Armitage
Gary Bauer[18][52]
Jeffrey Bell[18][52]
William J. Bennett [18][52]
Jeffrey Bergner [18]
John R. Bolton
Ellen Bork[52]
Rudy Boschwitz[18]
Linda Chavez[52]
Eliot Cohen[22][18][52]
Seth Cropsey[18]
Midge Decter[18][52]
Paula Dobriansky
Thomas Donnelly[22][18][52]
Nicholas Eberstadt,[18][52][53]
Hillel Fradkin[18][52][54]
Aaron Friedberg[18]
Francis ******************
Frank Gaffney[18][52]
Jeffrey Gedmin[18][52]
Reuel Marc Gerecht[18][52]
Charles Hill[18][52]
Bruce P. Jackson[18][52]
Eli S. Jacobs[18]
Michael Joyce[18]
Donald Kagan[22][18][52]
Robert Kagan [22][18][52]
Zalmay Khalilzad
Jeane Kirkpatrick[18]
Charles *****hammer[18]
William Kristol [22][18]
John Lehman[18][52]
I. Lewis Libby[22]
Tod Lindberg[52][55]
Rich Lowry[52]
Clifford May[18][52]
Joshua Muravchik[52]
Martin Perez[18][52]
Richard Perle [18][52]
Daniel Pipes[52]
Norman Podhoretz[18][52]
Peter W. Rodman [18]
Stephen P. Rosen[22][18][52]
Donald Rumsfeld
Randy Scheunemann[18][52]
Gary Schmitt[22][18][52][50]
William Schneider, Jr. [18][52]
Richard H. Shultz[18][56]
Henry Sokolski[18]
Stephen J. Solarz[18]
Vin Weber [18]
Leon Wieseltier[18]
Marshall Wittmann[18][52]
Paul Wolfowitz [22]
R. James Woolsey [52]
Dov Zakheim[22]
Robert B. Zoellick
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

Again posted at Bernie's at this link: http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2467&start=30 and see also http://bgamall.stumbleupon.com

IJHAQ, in case you didn't see this at Mordheim13's thread, I posted this there. Pay particular to Silverstein's assertion that the NYFD "pulled" building 7 and tell me if this Zionist owner of the WTC is not coverning up something:

Lots of people believe that Bush and Cheney AT MINIMUM permitted 9/11. I believe they knew the day it was going to happen because the people who flew the planes were closely monitored by the US, France, Russia and Israel. I believe it is possible that private people planted bombs in the WTC. I do believe that building 7 was detonated, just like the old casinos in Nevada where I live. Fema has no answer to why building 7 fell. I believe that private Jewish people associated with the owner who did not show up for work on 9/11 had something to do with these detonations. Marvin Bush, George Bush's brother still had access to WTC right up to 9/11, even though he had resigned his security post before this.

I suggest that what I have said has not been disproved, and that the Bush admin could have thrown open the intelligence that they had, but chose to cover it up, as if they had something to hide. Same with Cheney's energy policy which has been covered up. I have been following these things at http://bgamall.stumbleupon.com where I have some articles posted about PNAC and neocon activities. I do not claim to have all the answers, but the Bush admin won't answer anything. The PNAC members won't say anything. Of course mystery surrounds Silverstein's comments about the WTC that he owned and did not show up for work at on 9/11. He said that the NYFD "pulled" building 7. The interesting points are, 1. it takes much longer than a few hours to set detonations in a 48 story building and 2. that building housed the Enron/California evidence of Enron wrongdoing. Ken Lay was Bush's biggest campaign contributor. Sweet guy. Below is the story that you find in alternative news but not in corporate media. It is a worthy newsstory which makes corporate reporters all despicable.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/silverstein_responds_wtc7_pull_it_comments.htm

I have said that I am adopted, and my father was a Jewish ceo in NYC. Maybe I have long lost relatives who died in 9/11. I won't know in this life anyway. I am sorry for all those who are suffering to this day about their loss in such an evil plot.
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.

Posted at Bernies: http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=36016#36016

You didn't see John Kerry agreeing that WTC 7 was pulled down reported in the mainstream press did you? That was a newsworthy story for a reporter with any integrity, with an ounce of integrity. They have none because they are censored. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/230407building7.htm

If you haven't seen the video then don't waste my time. The fact that it was detonated proves that 9/11 is preknown because you cannot prepare a building like that to be demolished in a few hours the NYCFD would have had. This is a crime, and it explain's Bush's casual behavior on 9/11 as well.
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

And here is the video link that was posted at the same thread: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html

Here is another thread at Bernies:

http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5675

I can explain it Olberman's position. Not all Jews support American foreign policy. Many people believe that George Bush went into Iraq for oil, and that protection of Israel was just an afterthought, or maybe something the neocons wanted as a secondary goal. But Bush was after oil. There are irrefutable proofs. First, PNAC, the organization that yearned for a "new Pearl Harbor", also wanted American domination of oil and petrodollars. Some have said that Bush went into Iraq out of economic weakness and vulnerability of America since peak oil had been reached. The Neocons like PNAC were aware of this. Many were chosen by Bush to be in his administration, and his brother Jeb was a member.

The reason that I ended up studying about this was because a government official told me that Bush went into Iraq for oil. Most Americans are beginning to learn this fact. That it helped Israel in defense of itself was a secondary goal of the neocons no doubt. But the real reason Bush went into Iraq was to prop up the dollar.

Certainly Israel HAS NOT profited from the Iraq mess, and indeed many Americans have a concern that Israel, and American Jewish neocons may not always act in the interests of the United States. I don't expect Israel to act in the interest of anyone but herself, as she is struggling to survive and has a right to exist according to the charter of the United Nations. But America has a right to act according to her interests.

Now one could say that trying to control the world's supply of oil is in America's interest. But can you imagine devoting the billions spent in Iraq to the development of alternative fuels? But Bush/Cheney/Rice are oil people. They have an interest with the Saudi's to keep their businesses going. George Bush acted in the interest of his family and not America, and the gamble is not paying off. The dollar is falling and likely will fall farther. Either that or interest rates will climb, and the housing industry will be doomed while the rest of the world prospers.

Because Bush's family interests are tied to the Bin Laden's, Bush has not tried to bring him in. Some say that Bush doesn't try to bring him in because he wasn't part of the responsiblity of 9/11. I don't believe there is enough proof of that though I believe that 9/11 was known beforehand and permitted by some people "in the know". There are also concerns about who boarded the planes that crashed into the WTC and the Pentagon. That is for another time.

Please read the links about PNAC, Bush Liar, etc at my blog: http://bgamall.stumbleupon.com
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

Regarding 9/11 here is a post at http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=38665#38665

Atilla, you remain stupid. I have read Blanchards post. Here is one lie, that pulled is not a blaster term. I have supplied the link above that shows that is false.

Second, he says these did not fall into their footprints. First, they did fall into their footprints, and second, here is a link showing that WTC7 did fall into its own footprint. Pictures included for guys like you thunderhead. http://www.physics911.net/stevenjones

Here is a link showing that fire could not have done it for WTC7 and that the foundation was sound. http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/blamefire.html

Here is what Jones says and the link about gravity. WTC 7 fell almost at the speed of a ball bearing being dropped. This would be impossible with a pancake theory because of resistence from the floors below:

"Jones - who has agreed to retire from BYU at the end of 2006 - said in an interview that his first doubts emerged when he saw a video of the collapse of World Trade Center 7, the 47- story office building that collapsed seven hours after the twin towers.

The collapse took just 6.5 seconds, only a half-second more than the free-fall time a ball bearing would take when dropped from that height. That simply couldn't take account of the normal resistance of steel columns and concrete that should have slowed the collapse by at least a few seconds, he said, but it did fit the model of a controlled demolition."

http://www.911readingroom.org/whole_document.php?article_id=485
_________________

At the link above another post on 9/11:

Here is a link that shows that blasters use the term "drop" or "pull" as both are used here: http://www.pacificblasting.com/implosionstory.html

"Rather than firing all the charges at once, they design the shot to evolve over a period of ten or fifteen seconds. That's possible because blasting caps are now available with built-in and extremely accurate tiny fuses that permit delays of ten or more seconds. For a tall building like Pacific Palisades, the charges on the lowest floors and in the basement fire first, chopping the base from under part of the building and leaving part intact to act as a kind of hinge. The weight of the structure will begin to PULL the building down in a controlled direction. The remaining charges fire at preset intervals of about one second, fracturing the structure's internal supports, weakening it from the inside out. Then, as it falls, the once strong structure's own weight tears it apart leaving nothing but a pile of pulverized concrete and reinforcing rod."



"So, how much dynamite does it take to DROP a twenty-two-story building? Not much, if it is placed correctly. The design for the Pacific Palisades building uses a bit less than 200 lbs. Plus a small amount of 'det' cord. Actually, gauging the amount of explosive to be used is key to a successful drop. Dynamite is cheap, about $1 per stick, so the cost of the material isn't a factor. The trick is using enough to be sure that the building comes down exactly where it is supposed to without excess flying debris or breaking windows with the noise of the shot."
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

http://www.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm

This link is very important in proving 9/11 was just as these implosions are.

More at Bernies at http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=38682#38682:

More smoke and mirros Atilla. Why didn't the building, WTC7, topple over on its SW corner side?

Again, you have not address the physics in any of your "research". You still have not explained how the building WTC7 could have accelerated upon demolition without explosives. Of course the laws of physics prevent you from doing so.

As far as the 6.5 seconds, all you have to do is look at the video supplied above and use a stopwatch stupid. Where do you come up with these "experts"? You have video, so your experts are ridiculous.

Explosions threw material outside the towers footprints. But the towers basically fell vertically into their footprints. Remember these were huge buildings. Look at all these major fires in highrise buildings. These were hotter than WTC and the buildings did not collapse. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

Another point about 9/11:

Here is a link that shows Condi Rice lying about not knowing about the planes. We already know that John Ashcroft was told to stop flying commercially. We already know that Condi Rice's friend Willie Brown was anonymously warned not to fly just before 9/11.

"Rice "stated, however, that the report did not contain specific warning information, but only a generalized warning, and did not contain information that al-Qaida was discussing a particular planned attack against a specific target at any specific time, place, or by any specific method," the footnote said.

At the same May 2002 press briefing, Rice also said that "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."

But the congressional report states that "from at least 1994, and continuing into the summer of 2001, the Intelligence Community received information indicating that terrorists were contemplating, among other means of attack, the use of aircraft as weapons."

The report says that Rice and other top officials seemed unaware of the intelligence and concludes the information must not have been widely circulated."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/nationworld/bal-te.rice29jul29,0,2620591.story?coll=bal-business-headlines

But the following link shows that Condi's testimony is contradicted by her press briefing. This also shows Bush new about planes that Osama might use:

Even though Bush has refused to make parts of the 9-11 report public, one thing is startlingly clear: The U.S. government had received repeated warnings of impending attacks—and attacks using planes directed at New York and Washington—for several years. The government never told us about what it knew was coming.
See for yourself. The report lists 36 different summaries of warnings dating back to 1997. Among them:

"In September 1998, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information that Bin Laden's next operation might involve flying an explosive-laden aircraft into a U.S. airport and detonating it."

"In the fall of 1998, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information concerning a Bin Laden plot involving aircraft in the New York and Washington, D.C. areas."

"In March 2000, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information regarding the types of targets that operatives of Bin Laden's network might strike. The Statue of Liberty was specifically mentioned, as were skyscrapers, ports, airports, and nuclear power plans."

Maybe the Bush team dismissed warning signals as the discoveries of an overly hyped up Clinton team. But John Dean, a White House counsel under Nixon who has become a guide to deciphering reports on 9/11, says this is unlikely. Condi Rice, Bush’s national security adviser, "stated in a May 16, 2002, press briefing that, on August 6, 2001, the President Daily Brief (PDB) included information about Bin Laden's methods of operation from a historical perspective dating back to 1997."

Rice also said at this briefing that the PDB pointed out that Bin Laden might hijack an airline and take hostages to gain release of one of their operatives. She said the warning was "generalized"—no date, place, or method.

As Dean notes, how could Rice, having known all this, say that the administration had no idea "these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon"?"

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0332,mondo4,45990,6.html
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

A post at Bernies:


Listen up guys. Here is a soldier who agrees with me, a demolition expert. He states:

“But the craziest, most truly unhinged conspiracy theory for the towers falling on 9/11?” Torin asks rhetorically. “Fire.” The official story cannot be recreated by any experiment. NIST is the government agency involved in attempting to model what happened to the world trade center on 9/11, and they fail horribly. NIST never models what happens after the collapse initiation, and even what they do model before that is easily debunked. NIST created 16 separate physics programs to simulate the WTC 1 & 2 collapses and only got 1 to collapse partially. Torin adds, “When they did, [in the computer model] they removed 40% of the structural support.” The cross trusses that the towers received a significant amount of their strength from had to be removed to have a collapse in the computer simulation. Torin then mocks the official story, “There's no such thing as a 'pancake' collapse, but there is a progressive collapse”


A few slides are shown of progressive collapses throughout the world. None of them are anything like what happened to the world trade center with its pulverized concrete 100 microns or smaller just seconds after the start of collapse, and then its complete destruction. Torin uses his expertise to explain to the audience how and why a real progressive collapse occurs and subsequently why the WTC was not a progressive collapse. “The biggest problem with the argument,” Torin explains. “Time.”


Several slides are then presented that show the hard physics and observed time of WTC 2 falling. Worst-case scenario would require 0.5 seconds per floor for collapse. “The absolute minimum amount of time for a progressive collapse would be 43 seconds.” How long did it take for the building to fall in reality? About 8.6 Seconds.


“For the towers to fall at so close to free fall speed, over 110,000 separate and independent structural support points had to fail simultaneously. 'Pancake theory' does NOT explain the failure of the cores.” Torin explains passionately, obviously upset with the lies being told to the American people. "Nothing is holding the building up - No resistance. 110,000 structural failures at the same time."

http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=128&Itemid=2
_________________

From a post I made at Bernies:

Graf, here is the link to the guy who had tabs on the hijackers but who was not allowed to stop them by those high up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lt._Col._Anthony_Shaffer

As far as thousands of people knowing, here is my theory. Lots of people knew that planes would be hijacked. John Ashcroft knew, William Clarke knew, and he was told there would be a spectacular event. Willie Brown, former mayor of SF knew the day before and probably was alerted by Condi Rice although it came through anonymous sources.

I believe that the cover Bush could have used was that we knew the planes were going to be hijacked but we didn't know what they were going to do with them. But in reality, a few people did know what the planes were going to do. IMO they were the owner of the WTC who said WTC7 had to be pulled, Marvin Bush, brother of George, who had charge of security, and the CIA, which has a vested interest (their survival), in keeping quiet. Maybe only 40 people actually knew what the planes were actually going to do. Since they are accessories before the fact, they face murder charges if they talk.

As far as accusing him of being guilty, the look on his face during the time he was in the classroom was very suspect, just as OJ looked like he may have known more than he was letting on. OJ had to pay wrongful death. If there is not enough evidence to prosecute George Bush beyond a reasonable doubt, which I don't necessarily agree with, then the preponderance of the evidence points to him!

I realize Graf, that it is hard to imagine that a president would allow the murder of his own people. but you must understand that since the time of George Bush, the CIA has been fighting for its life, and the agency felt it was betrayed by Kennedy. I believe the CIA killed Kennedy, and at the least they wanted him dead.The CIA believed in the superiority of Americana, and they have worked with impunity, replacing governments here and there. An agency that replaces governments elsewhere could attack its own people when you consider that the agency had a plan to attack American cities with planes in the 60's and blame it on Cuba!

Graf, I suggest that the Bush family had an evil patriarch, Prescott Bush, that they have made fortunes with war profiteering, and that they are not the personas that they have made themselves for the camera. These are very sophisticated individuals who will commit crimes for fortunes. They want America to control the world, and they will stop at nothing to insure that this happens.

Graf, have you read this link? You must read this entire article to really understand what is going on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pnac If you don't read this link you cannot understand the game because this is the game plan.
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

Here is a post regarding 9/11 at Bernies Blog at http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=40640#40640:

Liberty it was quite an honor to have you follow me to the Pundit Hill Blog and call me names. This is the link again for anyone who wants to check out AB Stoddard's video: http://pundits.thehill.com/2007/08/17/ask-ab-7/

But Liberty, I am sure you saw, though I doubt that you clicked on, the link that was provided by the 9/11 patriot.

Here is that link:

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

And here are the engineers in the group, Liberty:

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

And here are the pilots, Liberty:

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

And here are the survivors and family members:

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

You want to call them names too, Liberty? Yeah probably.
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com
http://bgamall.stumbleupon.com

I posted the following on Bernies blog: http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=41078#41078


On Sept 11 Boren was already parroting the party line. Iraq was involved in 9/11. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/intelligence2.html




"MARGARET WARNER: I understand you were actually having breakfast with the CIA Director, George Tenet, this morning when this attack occurred and stayed at the agency for some time. Is there anything new you can tell us on what the thinking is on who was responsible for this?

FORMER SEN. DAVID BOREN: Well, not really. We were actually having breakfast downtown at a hotel. We thought we were having a very peaceful breakfast on a beautiful morning. And, of course, we were interrupted right in the middle of breakfast with this news. I think -- I don't have access and if I did I wouldn't divulge it as to what our latest thinking is -- but clearly I think you have to put on the list those that have the resources to do something as sophisticated as this.

I think you have to have bin Laden on the suspect list. You probably have some nation states that ought to be on the suspect list as well. You know, looking at this, it's very clear-- and I think this hopefully will give us leads to trace back and find and affix responsibility-- the training that had to have been there by those who took over the aircraft, the ability to pilot the aircraft. It appears that perhaps they were piloting the aircraft, the knowledge to turn off the transponders that would make it very difficult to trace these aircraft from the ground and through our air control system.

These were people that were highly trained; they knew what they were doing. It was all very carefully coordinated. So we're dealing with people with a lot of sophistication here. Some of that training and some of that preparation is bound to have left clues that hopefully we'll be able to thread through pretty quickly.

MARGARET WARNER: You said you put some states on the list. Which states?

FORMER SEN. DAVID BOREN: I'd rather not start naming but I think obviously there are states that have reason to have strong feelings -- Iraq, for example. We knew back during the Persian Gulf conflict -- and that's when we had a lot of intelligence successes because a lot of efforts were broken up to mount terrorist attacks that Saddam Hussein among others was trying to recruit every terrorist organization in the world to serve his purpose."




Here is another link showing that one ticket for a hijacker was purchased on a University of Oklahoma computer. http://www.jerrypippin.com/Wright_OP.htm

I don't pretend to be an expert on this issue, but it is interesting that this ticket was purchased at David Boren's university, and that after breakfast on 9/11, Boren spent a lot of time at the CIA with Tenet, and, he was already implicating Iraq. I believe Woolsey, Tenet and Boren may have known about 9/11.



Here is more interesting stuff about Boren and Tenet. Apparently a WHITE AMERICAN MALE purchased the hijacker ticket: http://members.aol.com/mpwright9/sting.html

Big Questions: Given the CIA's knowledge of Al Qaeda's interest in hijacking aircraft, why were these two known Al Qaeda members allowed to purchase airline tickets, after they had been put on a watchlist? Why was the TIPOFF list not shared with FAA?

In view of the compelling evidence available in late August 2001 indicating that at least one airline hijacking was under way for September 11, an intelligence leadership with honest motives could have obstructed the success of that team of hijackers. At the very least, the "defense of incompetence" seems highly suspect with regard to the question of preventing the crash of Flight 77. Could other 9/11 crashes have been prevented by conscientious action from the American intelligence community?

An Airline Ticket for a 9/11 Hijacker Was Purchased from the OU Library Computer

Former Senator David Boren is currently president of the University of Oklahoma in Norman, where I reside. In the fall of 2001, I was talking to an OU library employee who told me that she was present when an FBI agent was interviewing her colleague. From this encounter she learned that an OU library computer terminal had been used for an online purchase of an airline ticket for a 9/11 hijacker who was on the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania. She also told me that the person who made the purchase had not been a hijacker. Contrary to expectation, he was a white American male, but he knew he was assisting the hijacking operation.

The librarian's report is consistent with information provided by Yosri Fouda and Nick Fielding in their book Masterminds of Terror. 3 They wrote that the 9/11 hijackers mostly used the Internet for selecting their airplane seats. Fouda is a reporter for Al-Jazeera and Fielding works for the London Sunday Times.

In October 2002 I assisted Bill Crozier, a fellow OU graduate, in making a Freedom of Information Act request to the FBI, in order to obtain more details about this incident. The letter requesting details from the FBI began with this sentence:


Under the Freedom of Information Act I request information about a report I heard involving purchase of airline tickets for the 9/11 terrorist hijacking from the public computer terminals in the University of Oklahoma library.

The request also asked FBI to identify the purchaser and to report whether he was taken into custody. The scan of their reply is at the bottom of this article. The FBI letter confirms that the incident happened. Their subject line at the top reads:

PURCHASE OF AIRLINE TICKETS/911 TERRORIST HIJACKING/ PUBLIC COMPUTER TERMINALS

The letter informs us that "the material you requested is located in an investigative file which pertains to a pending investigation." While confirming the event, the FBI did not identify the person who bought the ticket. Their secrecy over this matter inspires a strong suspicion that the purchaser was an infiltrator operating under the CIA's instructions. The most likely explanation indicated by all the evidence compiled for this report is that he was a participant in a failed attempt by the CIA to organize a sting operation against terrorists who later succeeded in the 9/11 attack. Had he not been an infiltrator, he would have been accused of a crime and brought to court in a public proceeding. The concealing of his identity cannot be explained by offering the possibility that he is a fugitive. The names and photos of fugitives are commonly put on wanted posters. If he were a fugitive, why haven't they put out a wanted poster?
An Oklahoma City TV news
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com
http://bgamall.stumbleupon.com
http://pundits.thehill.com/2007/08/17/ask-ab-7/

Here is an edited addition to the post above:

The excuse forming about not knowing about the WTC attacks was going to be the excuse that the government thought there would be a traditional hijacking with hostages. But it is my personal contention that a few knew exactly what was going to happen with the planes. Here is an excerp from the above site regarding the alibi which was never needed since there was no investigation:



"On August 6, 2001, President Bush received a CIA briefing, approved by Tenet, and indicating that bin Laden was interested in hijacking aircraft. The report did not prepare the President for the possibility of using American passenger aircraft to destroy buildings and kill thousands of people in the U.S. Eight months later, National Security advisor Condoleeza Rice stated, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center...All of this reporting about hijacking was about traditional hijacking." By that she meant using airline passengers as hostages. 1

The briefing was also reported by CNN:


At the briefing...Bush received a 1 1/2-page document, which, according to Rice, was an "analytic report" on al-Qaeda. Included was a mention that al-Qaeda might be tempted to hijack airliners, perhaps so that they might use hostages to secure the release of an al-Qaeda leader or sympathizer. Rice was not present but discussed the briefing with Bush immediately after it had ended, as she always does.

The Washington Post reported that Rice and other Bush administration officials said the memo contained no reference to suicide attacks and instead focused on "hijackings in the traditional sense."
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com
http://bgamall.stumbleupon.com
http://pundits.thehill.com/2007/08/17/ask-ab-7/

This edits the two posts above into a final edit:

On Sept 11 Boren was already parroting the party line. Iraq was involved in 9/11. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/intelligence2.html




"MARGARET WARNER: I understand you were actually having breakfast with the CIA Director, George Tenet, this morning when this attack occurred and stayed at the agency for some time. Is there anything new you can tell us on what the thinking is on who was responsible for this?

FORMER SEN. DAVID BOREN: Well, not really. We were actually having breakfast downtown at a hotel. We thought we were having a very peaceful breakfast on a beautiful morning. And, of course, we were interrupted right in the middle of breakfast with this news. I think -- I don't have access and if I did I wouldn't divulge it as to what our latest thinking is -- but clearly I think you have to put on the list those that have the resources to do something as sophisticated as this.

I think you have to have bin Laden on the suspect list. You probably have some nation states that ought to be on the suspect list as well. You know, looking at this, it's very clear-- and I think this hopefully will give us leads to trace back and find and affix responsibility-- the training that had to have been there by those who took over the aircraft, the ability to pilot the aircraft. It appears that perhaps they were piloting the aircraft, the knowledge to turn off the transponders that would make it very difficult to trace these aircraft from the ground and through our air control system.

These were people that were highly trained; they knew what they were doing. It was all very carefully coordinated. So we're dealing with people with a lot of sophistication here. Some of that training and some of that preparation is bound to have left clues that hopefully we'll be able to thread through pretty quickly.

MARGARET WARNER: You said you put some states on the list. Which states?

FORMER SEN. DAVID BOREN: I'd rather not start naming but I think obviously there are states that have reason to have strong feelings -- Iraq, for example. We knew back during the Persian Gulf conflict -- and that's when we had a lot of intelligence successes because a lot of efforts were broken up to mount terrorist attacks that Saddam Hussein among others was trying to recruit every terrorist organization in the world to serve his purpose."




Here is another link showing that one ticket for a hijacker was purchased on a University of Oklahoma computer. http://www.jerrypippin.com/Wright_OP.htm

I don't pretend to be an expert on this issue at the U of Ok, but it is interesting that this ticket was purchased at David Boren's university, and that after breakfast on 9/11, Boren spent a lot of time at the CIA with Tenet, and, he was already implicating Iraq. I believe Woolsey, Tenet and Boren may have known about 9/11: They certainly knew about the sting aspect that was to become an alibi if needed. Read the bottom posts below for more on that. They may have been in on what the planes really were going to be used for as well.



Here is more interesting stuff about Boren and Tenet. Apparently a WHITE AMERICAN MALE purchased the hijacker ticket: http://members.aol.com/mpwright9/sting.html

"Big Questions: Given the CIA's knowledge of Al Qaeda's interest in hijacking aircraft, why were these two known Al Qaeda members allowed to purchase airline tickets, after they had been put on a watchlist? Why was the TIPOFF list not shared with FAA?

In view of the compelling evidence available in late August 2001 indicating that at least one airline hijacking was under way for September 11, an intelligence leadership with honest motives could have obstructed the success of that team of hijackers. At the very least, the "defense of incompetence" seems highly suspect with regard to the question of preventing the crash of Flight 77. Could other 9/11 crashes have been prevented by conscientious action from the American intelligence community?

An Airline Ticket for a 9/11 Hijacker Was Purchased from the OU Library Computer

Former Senator David Boren is currently president of the University of Oklahoma in Norman, where I reside. In the fall of 2001, I was talking to an OU library employee who told me that she was present when an FBI agent was interviewing her colleague. From this encounter she learned that an OU library computer terminal had been used for an online purchase of an airline ticket for a 9/11 hijacker who was on the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania. She also told me that the person who made the purchase had not been a hijacker. Contrary to expectation, he was a white American male, but he knew he was assisting the hijacking operation.

The librarian's report is consistent with information provided by Yosri Fouda and Nick Fielding in their book Masterminds of Terror. 3 They wrote that the 9/11 hijackers mostly used the Internet for selecting their airplane seats. Fouda is a reporter for Al-Jazeera and Fielding works for the London Sunday Times.

In October 2002 I assisted Bill Crozier, a fellow OU graduate, in making a Freedom of Information Act request to the FBI, in order to obtain more details about this incident. The letter requesting details from the FBI began with this sentence:


Under the Freedom of Information Act I request information about a report I heard involving purchase of airline tickets for the 9/11 terrorist hijacking from the public computer terminals in the University of Oklahoma library.

The request also asked FBI to identify the purchaser and to report whether he was taken into custody. The scan of their reply is at the bottom of this article. The FBI letter confirms that the incident happened. Their subject line at the top reads:

PURCHASE OF AIRLINE TICKETS/911 TERRORIST HIJACKING/ PUBLIC COMPUTER TERMINALS

The letter informs us that "the material you requested is located in an investigative file which pertains to a pending investigation." While confirming the event, the FBI did not identify the person who bought the ticket. Their secrecy over this matter inspires a strong suspicion that the purchaser was an infiltrator operating under the CIA's instructions. The most likely explanation indicated by all the evidence compiled for this report is that he was a participant in a failed attempt by the CIA to organize a sting operation against terrorists who later succeeded in the 9/11 attack. Had he not been an infiltrator, he would have been accused of a crime and brought to court in a public proceeding. The concealing of his identity cannot be explained by offering the possibility that he is a fugitive. The names and photos of fugitives are commonly put on wanted posters. If he were a fugitive, why haven't they put out a wanted poster?
An Oklahoma City TV news"






The excuse forming about not knowing about the WTC attacks was going to be the excuse that the government thought there would be a traditional hijacking with hostages. But it is my personal contention that a few knew EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE PLANES. Here is an excerp from the above site regarding the alibi the government had available, but which was never needed since there was no investigation:



"On August 6, 2001, President Bush received a CIA briefing, approved by Tenet, and indicating that bin Laden was interested in hijacking aircraft. The report did not prepare the President for the possibility of using American passenger aircraft to destroy buildings and kill thousands of people in the U.S. Eight months later, National Security advisor Condoleeza Rice stated, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center...All of this reporting about hijacking was about traditional hijacking." By that she meant using airline passengers as hostages. 1

The briefing was also reported by CNN:


At the briefing...Bush received a 1 1/2-page document, which, according to Rice, was an "analytic report" on al-Qaeda. Included was a mention that al-Qaeda might be tempted to hijack airliners, perhaps so that they might use hostages to secure the release of an al-Qaeda leader or sympathizer. Rice was not present but discussed the briefing with Bush immediately after it had ended, as she always does.

The Washington Post reported that Rice and other Bush administration officials said the memo contained no reference to suicide attacks and instead focused on "hijackings in the traditional sense."

In closing this post, to clarify, I believe there were three levels of people who knew something about 9/11 before it happened. 1. People like William Clarke, John Ashcroft, Willie Brown, who knew an event was going to happen. I believe many knew this much. 2. Those who believed they were pursuing a sting operation and did not hone in to arrest the hijackers because they believed they were participating in a law inforcement act. I believe this group was much smaller than group one. 3. This group knew what was going to happen to the planes. This group was responsible for facilitating the event and are accessories before the fact. This group no doubt included Bush/Rice/Cheney and secret types and WTC personnel. Also this group may have included PNAC members besides Cheney and maybe foreign operatives.

http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=41078#41078
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com
http://bgamall.stumbleupon.com
http://pundits.thehill.com/2007/08/17/ask-ab-7/

This video is so crucial because NIST cannot recreate the fall of WTC7, but the 9/11 conspiracy people can recreate this experiment in nature as we see a building that was imploded with explosives and compare it to the WTC7 which was not hit with planes but was "pulled" as WTC owner Larry Silverstein put it. Here is that important video: http://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7/WTC7sidebysidePFC.wmv

From Bernies at http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6913&start=150 I posted:

"I've seen the BBC broadcast where the woman is explaining that building 7 has collapsed with the building still in the background and if you watch video of building 7 collapsing it goes straight down yet it was supposed to have collapsed due to fire in one corner, surely if that was the case then it would have been weakened in that corner and toppled in that direction, not seemingly crack about a third of the way down the building and fall in on it's self."

The above was posted by Mumma B and this is essentially true. The bbc reported the building collapsing while it was still in the background. And certainly one part of the building being damaged was not enough to cause a symmetrical freefall. Just as I have been saying, losers. Below is the link:

http://news.netscape.com/story/2007/04/02/the-curious-tale-of-the-other-wtc-tower/

And here is the link that shows the reporting of WTC7 falling over 20 minutes before it fell:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqqhX8gkhE0

And here we see that the BBC lied, stating it is their policy to make two videos of important events, but saying they lost their only copy of this video: http://www.freenewmexican.com/readerblogs/57738.html

And here is CNN reporting that WTC7 was going to collapse 20 minutes prior to the actual collapse even though no modern building had ever collapsed by fire alone previously in history: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o&eurl=

Here is how a guy started questioning WTC7. The link follows:

" How I First Began to Question: WTC7
The World Trade Center (WTC) contained seven buildings. The Twin Towers were called buildings One (WTC1) and Two (WTC2). They collapsed in truly astounding fashion, but the event that caused me first to question the official story about the events of 9-11 was viewing videos of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7).

If you’ve forgotten, WTC7 was a 47-story building that was not hit by an airplane or by any significant debris from either WTC1 or WTC2. Buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 were struck by massive amounts of debris from the collapsing Twin Towers, yet none collapsed, despite their thin-gauge steel supports.

WTC7, which was situated on the next block over, was the farthest of the buildings from WTC1 and WTC2. WTC7 happened to contain the New York City Office of Emergency Management (OEM), a facility that was, according to testimony to the 9-11 Commission, one of the most sophisticated Emergency Command Centers on the planet. But shortly after 5:20 pm on Sept. 11, as the horrific day was coming to a close, WTC7 mysteriously imploded and fell to the ground in an astounding 6.5 seconds.

6.5 seconds. This is a mere 0.5 seconds more than freefall in a vacuum. To restate this, a rock dropped from the 47th floor would have taken at least 6 seconds to hit the ground. WTC7, in its entirety, fell to the earth in 6.5 seconds. Now, recall, we’re supposed to believe that each floor of the building “pancaked” on the one below. Each of the 47 floors supposedly pancaked and collapsed, individually. Yet WTC7 reached the ground in 0.5 seconds longer than freefall. Is this really possible?

Judge for yourself. Watch WTC7 go down. It takes 6.5 seconds. Take out your stopwatch."

http://www.physics911.net/closerlook

And here are his comments about the towers with the same link above:

"What About Towers One and Two?
The odd, swift collapse of WTC7 made me reconsider the Twin Towers and how they fell. As I had with WTC7, I first studied video footage available on the web. Then I acquired and watched a DVD of the collapses, frame by frame.

What struck me first was the way the second plane hit WTC2, the South Tower. I noticed that this plane, United Airlines Flight 175, which weighed over 160,000 pounds and was traveling at 350 mph, did not even visibly move the building when it slammed into it. How, I wondered, could a building that did not visibly move from a heavy high speed projectile collapse at near freefall speed less than an hour later?"

And more from the same link:

"The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. I calculated that from that height, freefall in a vacuum (read, absolutely no resistance on earth) is 9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. Just like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to fail individually.

As I was considering this, another problem arose. There is a principle in physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy. There is also the Law of Conservation of Momentum. I’ll briefly explain how these principles work. Let’s assume there are two identical Honda Civics on the freeway. One is sitting in neutral at a standstill (0 mph). The other is coasting at 60 mph. The second Honda slams into the back of the first one. The first Honda will then instantaneously be going much faster than it was, and the second will instantaneously be going much slower than it was.

This is how the principle works in the horizontal direction, and it works the same in the vertical direction, with the added constant force of gravity added to it. Jim Hoffman, a professional scientist published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, took a long look at all of this. He calculated that even if the structure itself offered no resistance, that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air, the “pancake” theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. So, even if the building essentially didn’t exist, if it provided no resistance at all to the collapse, just the floors hitting each other and causing each other to decelerate would’ve taken 15.5 seconds to reach the ground.

But of course the buildings did exist. They had stood for over 30 years. The floors weren’t hovering in mid-air. So how did the building provide no resistance?

Yet another observation one makes in watching the collapsing towers is the huge dust clouds and debris, including steel beams, that were thrown hundreds of feet out horizontally from the towers as they fell. If we are to believe the pancake theory, this amount of scattering debris, fine pulverized concrete dust, and sheetrock powder would clearly indicate massive resistance to the vertical collapse. So there is an impossible conflict. You either have a miraculous, historical, instantaneous, catastrophic failure that occurs within a fraction of a second of freefall and that kicks out little dust, or you have a solid, hefty building that remains virtually unaffected after a massive, speeding projectile hits it. You either have a house of cards or a house of bricks. The building either resists its collapse or it doesn’t.

And we know the WTC Towers were made of reinforced steel and concrete that would act much more like bricks than cards.

Thus, put simply, the floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how...."

"....There is a method that has been able to consistently get skyscrapers to fall as fast as the three buildings of the World Trade Center fell on 9-11. In this method, each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously ? and in virtual freefall. This method, when precisely used, has indeed given near-freefall speed to demolitions of buildings all over the world in the past few decades. This method could have brought down WTC7 in 6.5 seconds. This method is called CONTROLLED DEMOLITION."
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com
http://bgamall.stumbleupon.com
http://pundits.thehill.com/2007/08/17/ask-ab-7/

And, this posted at the same link as above. While I normally do not hurl insults, Libertyship has insulted me from the beginning, he reads non of my links, he does not study and he doesn't even read the NIST report that I posted before and post now again at Bernies. I probably will fail to wake this guy up as he simply refuses to study:

OK Moron, I will quote this again to you from the NIST since it is obvious you didn't read it the first time:

"This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."" http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm


In otherwords, Moronship, the NIST has no answers, and they want to know if explosives could have done this since their theories do not explain what happened. Moron.

As far as doctoring, many videos are available from many different angles. This is what the NIST said about WTC1and 2:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A)."

And Liberty, the 47 story WTC7 building which was half as tall took 6.5 seconds to fall. All these fell at near free fall rates. Now since they fell at freefall rates, I maintain that there was not enough time for a pancaking. There would have been too much resistence. It would have taken longer than near rate of gravity accelleration, if there had been nonexplosive pancaking.

It just didn't happen the way the NIST said, even though they accepted the freefall rates of accelleration that the 9/11 conspiracy people stand by. In other words, Liberty, the facts are not open to debate. Doctoring is not an issue. Even the NIST says the video was what they used to determine the rate of falling!!!!

You remain really ignorant Liberty. You have lost the argument.
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com
http://bgamall.stumbleupon.com
http://pundits.thehill.com/2007/08/17/ask-ab-7/

From http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6913&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=225

Mr Sinatra, you say there was a domino effect.

There was no time for a domino effect. 6.5 seconds, Mr Sinatra. And couple this with Bush's odd behavior, and the fact that many knew that planes would attack buildings, and that even Norad was having an excercise to that effect, and you just cannot continue to believe the way you do with any confidence.

Then Condi Rice says that there was no way the government could have known that the planes would do that. Liar.

We had William Clarke and the guys on the outside knowing and being told something spectacular was going to happen.

If the link doesn't work you are in the dark. You need to find a computer that makes the link work for you or you are flying by the seat of your pants Mr Sinatra. If it looks and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.If it looks exactly like a demolition, it is a demolition.

http://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7/WTC7sidebysidePFC.wmv

You will see from the video that the building took 6.5 seconds to fall, not 18 seconds.

And if the towers fell in 9 seconds, the supports had to be removed there too, all the way down. No time for pancaking in the towers, Mr Sinatra.

If you don't look at the video you are whistling past the graveyard. You are really no better than Liberty, who apparently doesn't look at anything. Go to the library and use one of their computers, but until you look at the side by side, you just can't understand. Put your "courage" to use to find the truth, not to defend the indefensible.

By not looking at the video, you are subject to ridicule if you try to argue against it.

From http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6913&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=240


Mr Sinatra, I actually purchased a book! It is entitled, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, written by David Ray Griffen. Regarding WTC7 theory, the author says on page 198 of the paperback copy that all 81 columns supporting the building would have had to have collapsed at exactly the same time.

I have been inside some of the large casinos in Nevada, and the idea that fire could collapse all colums spaced hundreds of feet apart at exactly the same time remains ludicrous.

A fire would theoretically collapse one column before another, and there would have been no symmetrical implosion possible. That is assuming that fire could even collapse one column, a contention not proved! Your view that trusses collapsed starting a domino effect could not have been completed in 6.5 seconds.

On page 199 Dr Griffen quotes a medical worker who said that there was a shockwave through WTC7 and ALL THE WINDOWS BLEW OUT. That is not consistent with any cause other than implosion.

A reporter from the New York Daily News said that there was an explosion, then the windows in the tallest floors popped out, and then subsequent floor windows popped out all the way down!

On page 200 we are told of a demolition expert who saw the video of the building explode without being told of what it was. He confirmed that it was a demolition and was incredulous that it was WTC. He confirmed Dan Rather's statement that WTC7 was just like the demolitions you see often on television.

Finally, since no one was in the WTC7, and the firemen were waiting 7 hours for the building to come down, there was no reason to make off with the evidence, the steel at the bottom of the pile. Yet that steel was quickly carted off. The excuse for doing this in the towers was that there were people in the wreckage!

Sorry Sinatra, you are the alien, and we are in the real world.
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com
http://bgamall.stumbleupon.com
http://pundits.thehill.com/2007/08/17/ask-ab-7/