Declassified Military Documents Show How US Government Planned Terrorist Attacks Against its Own Citizens

[laFiera]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

So what your saying is you refuse to cave into overwhelming evidence that Pearl Harbor was a legitimate attack that the US had no exact knowledge of? The key word being"exact " as in exact location...exact date...etc...
Thank You thats what I thought!

On November 25, 1941 Japan?s Admiral Yamamoto sent a radio message to the group of Japanese warships that would attack Pearl Harbor on December 7. Newly released naval records prove that from November 17 to 25 the United States Navy intercepted eighty-three messages that Yamamoto sent to his carriers. Part of the November 25 message read: ??the task force, keeping its movements strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet in Hawaii and deal it a mortal blow??

I think the problem is that we didn't have bush in power back then...otherwise the military would have been in 'high alert'....

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: laFiera
About Pearl Harbor--given all the posts about this incident, and given that I don't know much about this historical event, I did a quick google and started reading some material....So I want to know the following from those who seem to know much about pearl harbor:
was the usa intercepting japanese naval codes prior to dec 7th, and had the usa already cracked japanese military codes prior to that?

I believe we had made quite a bit of progress on Japanese military codes. That doesn't mean that we knew where they would attack, just when. So we may have known about an attack on December 7th, 1941 but not know that it would be on Pearl Harbor. I don't think Pearl Harbor would have been viewed as too high of a risk for Japan. It would have made more sense for them to attack the Phillipines which had oil and was closer.

Also, for your quote from Yamamoto: if you could provide a decent link to where we had that completely decoded, that would be nice.

 

[Thump553]

I'm certainly no big fan of conspiracy theories, but it is an undisputed historical fact that the Japanese began the Russo-Japanese War in 1904 by an unprovoked sneak attack upon Port Arthur, Russia's main naval port on the Pacific Ocean. This historical lesson was forgotten by the US when our hostilities with Japan grew very strained less than forty years later.

The US did a less than admirable job in anticipating or preventing the Pearl Harbor attack, without a doubt, but this alone does not create a conspiracy by the "communist" FDR.

 

[laFiera]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: laFiera
About Pearl Harbor--given all the posts about this incident, and given that I don't know much about this historical event, I did a quick google and started reading some material....So I want to know the following from those who seem to know much about pearl harbor:
was the usa intercepting japanese naval codes prior to dec 7th, and had the usa already cracked japanese military codes prior to that?

I believe we had made quite a bit of progress on Japanese military codes. That doesn't mean that we knew where they would attack, just when. So we may have known about an attack on December 7th, 1941 but not know that it would be on Pearl Harbor. I don't think Pearl Harbor would have been viewed as too high of a risk for Japan. It would have made more sense for them to attack the Phillipines which had oil and was closer.

Also, for your quote from Yamamoto: if you could provide a decent link to where we had that completely decoded, that would be nice.

I believe if you type into google you can find that...
there were couple of lilnks i was reading...

link one

link2

 

[piasabird]

How is something from 1962 relevant to today?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: piasabird
How is something from 1962 relevant to today?

*weeps uncontrollably for the future of mankind*

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: straightalker
In 1967 LBJ set up the USS Liberty to be bombed and completely destroyed with no survivors by unmarked Israeli war planes and gunboats. Fortunately the Israeli's were terrible shots and our sailors incredibly savvy shipmen. It took hours for the Israeli's to "almost" finish off the USS Liberty. ...

Unlike you, I'm not expert on the matter, but just from looking at the Wikipedia page, it is obvious that there are many resources to inspect before being able to reach some conclusion.

Also, you failed to tell us what was the purpose of this "set up".

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: laFiera

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: laFiera
About Pearl Harbor--given all the posts about this incident, and given that I don't know much about this historical event, I did a quick google and started reading some material....So I want to know the following from those who seem to know much about pearl harbor:
was the usa intercepting japanese naval codes prior to dec 7th, and had the usa already cracked japanese military codes prior to that?

I believe we had made quite a bit of progress on Japanese military codes. That doesn't mean that we knew where they would attack, just when. So we may have known about an attack on December 7th, 1941 but not know that it would be on Pearl Harbor. I don't think Pearl Harbor would have been viewed as too high of a risk for Japan. It would have made more sense for them to attack the Phillipines which had oil and was closer.

Also, for your quote from Yamamoto: if you could provide a decent link to where we had that completely decoded, that would be nice.

I believe if you type into google you can find that...
there were couple of lilnks i was reading...

link one

link2

I believe it would take several hours of work reading books to find out the truth behind these codes and such.

But apparently it took days or even weeks for the coded messages to be de-coded and that the message you posted might not have been decoded untill 1945 or 1946.

Also it should be noted that the Japanese fleet did not actually leave harbor to head towards Pearl until November 26. The messages you quote took place before they even left harbor, after the fleet got on the way there was total radio silence except for a message sent to the fleet that said ""Climb Mount Niitaka"

Go here and read the section on Japanese military codes to see how difficult it was to read and use the Japanese code. On top of that it seems we were intercepting hundreds of messages and were not able to keep up with them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_debate

Think of how many messages Japan, who was already at war, was sending out a day to its commanders. Now imagine you ara in charge of decoding these messages, you have no way to know what is important and what is not until you decode them. It would be very easy for you to miss a message that says "attack Pearl Harbor at 7am December 7th" while finding a message that says "Happy birthday commander"

There is some evidence that shows that Roosevelt, or someone in his admin, thought that the US would need to be attacked inorder for it to enter the war. However, Germany was the big problem, Japan was just a minor one, after the war started we spent FAR more money and men on defeating Germany than we did on beating Japan. Second, there was no promise that an attack by Japan would give us a reason to go to war with Germany, luckily Hitler solved that problem by declaring war against us.

 

[KlokWyze]

Here is an idea: I want to defend a government that ****** me and my fellow civilians over on a regular basis.

The US government is making an ass out of its people and the world is just laughing at is. The sheople still don't understand. They even defend the government that uses them!!!

The amount of clear evidence that the US government (and other governments) has carried out false flag operations on its own people is well known to anyone who has even put in 2 hours worth of research.

Just simply look @:

current state of US foreign policy
our OBIVOUS PRO-ISRAEL policies
insane military budget
geographic position of the world's oil reserves/geogrphic position of the countries we invaded/plan to invade
national deficit
one-sided mainstream media
highest levels of government LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH CONSTANTLY
evidence of past false flag operations
# of innocent Iraqi civilians dead
afghan opium boom
trillions of $$$ unnaccounted for
slow erosion of our civil liberties
obvious demolition of all 3 WTC buildings
the laughable 9/11 commissions "independence"

Should I go on? Anyone who trusts, let alone defends the US government is simply an idiot. And as America descends farther and farther away from the rest of the world, the masses of America will slowly begin to realize they have been robbed blindly and lead to their own destruction for the past century by a handfull of bankers @ the top pullin the strings.

I wish more people would wake up and we could do something. The main thing right now is to try and educate the masses that don't even care what is done in other countries in their name. You can either understand sooner or later, its your choice.

BTW, its good to see there are a good amount of people on here that do understand this ******.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: KlokWyze
Here is an idea: I want to defend a government that ****** me and my fellow civilians over on a regular basis.

The US government is making an ass out of its people and the world is just laughing at is. The sheople still don't understand. They even defend the government that uses them!!!

The amount of clear evidence that the US government (and other governments) has carried out false flag operations on its own people is well known to anyone who has even put in 2 hours worth of research.

Just simply look @:

current state of US foreign policy
our OBIVOUS PRO-ISRAEL policies
insane military budget
geographic position of the world's oil reserves/geogrphic position of the countries we invaded/plan to invade
national deficit
one-sided mainstream media
highest levels of government LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH CONSTANTLY
evidence of past false flag operations
# of innocent Iraqi civilians dead
afghan opium boom
trillions of $$$ unnaccounted for
slow erosion of our civil liberties
obvious demolition of all 3 WTC buildings
the laughable 9/11 commissions "independence"

Should I go on? Anyone who trusts, let alone defends the US government is simply an idiot. And as America descends farther and farther away from the rest of the world, the masses of America will slowly begin to realize they have been robbed blindly and lead to their own destruction for the past century by a handfull of bankers @ the top pullin the strings.

I wish more people would wake up and we could do something. The main thing right now is to try and educate the masses that don't even care what is done in other countries in their name. You can either understand sooner or later, its your choice.

BTW, its good to see there are a good amount of people on here that do understand this ******.

"obvious demolition of all 3 WTC buildings"
So obvious that only a tiny portion of the 300 million people living in this country actually believe it.

Fact: A typical demolition of a building takes weeks and TONS of explosives to pull off.
Here is a quote from a story about the demolition of a 23 story building, one 5th the size of the World Trade Center.
CDI?s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI?s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

Now somehow we are to believe that tons of explosives were brought into 3 buildings and rigged to explode.
Read those numbers and explain to me how that was done in 3 seperate buildings and NOT one person noticed???? :roll:

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/de...sp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807

 

[KlokWyze]

thats one point out of the 15 I made.

Here is a mindboggling statement:
JET FUEL DOES NOT MELT STEEL. :Q

Google who was head of security of the World Trade Center during this time. Your going to love it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: KlokWyze
thats one point out of the 15 I made.

Here is a mindboggling statement:
JET FUEL DOES NOT MELT STEEL. :Q

Google who was head of security of the World Trade Center during this time. Your going to love it.

I can't break a crow bar, but if I apply enough heat to it I will eventually be able to bend it. The Steel did not need to melt, all it needed to do is bend enough for the building to lose its strength.

You still have explained to me how the "obvious demolition" was done. Not one person can post a reasonable explanation for how it was done.

If it is "obvious" how come so few people believe it? Shouldn't one or two dependable and believable people have come forward by now and stood behind this theory? And those college professors that everyone points to, they are almost all liberal arts teachers.

It may only be 1 point out of 15, but if I go around telling people that George Washington was black is anyone going to listen to anything else I say?

 

[laFiera]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: KlokWyze
Here is an idea: I want to defend a government that ****** me and my fellow civilians over on a regular basis.

The US government is making an ass out of its people and the world is just laughing at is. The sheople still don't understand. They even defend the government that uses them!!!

The amount of clear evidence that the US government (and other governments) has carried out false flag operations on its own people is well known to anyone who has even put in 2 hours worth of research.

Just simply look @:

current state of US foreign policy
our OBIVOUS PRO-ISRAEL policies
insane military budget
geographic position of the world's oil reserves/geogrphic position of the countries we invaded/plan to invade
national deficit
one-sided mainstream media
highest levels of government LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH CONSTANTLY
evidence of past false flag operations
# of innocent Iraqi civilians dead
afghan opium boom
trillions of $$$ unnaccounted for
slow erosion of our civil liberties
obvious demolition of all 3 WTC buildings
the laughable 9/11 commissions "independence"

Should I go on? Anyone who trusts, let alone defends the US government is simply an idiot. And as America descends farther and farther away from the rest of the world, the masses of America will slowly begin to realize they have been robbed blindly and lead to their own destruction for the past century by a handfull of bankers @ the top pullin the strings.

I wish more people would wake up and we could do something. The main thing right now is to try and educate the masses that don't even care what is done in other countries in their name. You can either understand sooner or later, its your choice.

BTW, its good to see there are a good amount of people on here that do understand this ******.

"obvious demolition of all 3 WTC buildings"
So obvious that only a tiny portion of the 300 million people living in this country actually believe it.

Fact: A typical demolition of a building takes weeks and TONS of explosives to pull off.
Here is a quote from a story about the demolition of a 23 story building, one 5th the size of the World Trade Center.
CDI?s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI?s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

Now somehow we are to believe that tons of explosives were brought into 3 buildings and rigged to explode.
Read those numbers and explain to me how that was done in 3 seperate buildings and NOT one person noticed???? :roll:

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/de...sp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807

thanks for the other link..i will do more reading since I havent informed myself much into this other event....might even get the book from that dude....You do mention somethin gabout the ships being silent; on that link i provided the author of the book who is being interviewed claims the following:

Historians and government officials who claim that Washington didn?t have a foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack have always contended that America wasn?t intercepting and hadn?t cracked Japan?s important military codes in the months and days preceding the attack. The crux of your book is that your research proves that is absolutely untrue. We were reading most all of Japan?s radio messages. Correct?

Stinnett: That is correct. And I believed that, too. You know, because, Life magazine in September 1945, right after Japan surrendered, suggested that this was the case, that Roosevelt engineered Pearl Harbor. But that was discarded as an anti-Roosevelt tract, and I believed it, also.

Another claim at the heart of the Pearl Harbor surprise-attack lore is that Japan?s ships kept radio silence as they approached Hawaii. That?s absolutely untrue, also?

Stinnett: That is correct. And this was all withheld from Congress, so nobody knew about all this.

Until the Freedom of Information Act.

I think his claim is worth researching, since he says he has evidence.


About the buildings collapsing---not sure what 3 specific buildings the post is about, however is interesting to note Silverstein(leaseholder of WTC) made the following comment about building 7:

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

2 years later the company came out and said that silverstein meant to pull the firefighters, not the building! .So do you think he pull the building or it, firefighters!
Do a search in youtube for his actual words if you dont believe what i have pasted above. Silverstein and building 7.


The original intent of mypost is to note that government does carry what is knowns as false flag operations; I bet you money that whenever the event happened and somebody came out and said that the govt was involved, those people were most likely labeled lunatics. Once the govt declasifies documents, its quite evident what the real truth was. Many simply argue 'why would the government do such a thing.." ...well, they have done it in the past, they do it now, and they will do it in the future for their own selfish gains, and we never find out after years, decades, centuries later. And I wouldn't be surprised if 100 years later maybe the evidence comes out that the govt was involved in 9/11.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: laFiera

thanks for the other link..i will do more reading since I havent informed myself much into this other event....might even get the book from that dude....You do mention somethin gabout the ships being silent; on that link i provided the author of the book who is being interviewed claims the following:

Thanks, do I get a

About the buildings collapsing---not sure what 3 specific buildings the post is about, however is interesting to note Silverstein(leaseholder of WTC) made the following comment about building 7:

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

2 years later the company came out and said that silverstein meant to pull the firefighters, not the building! .So do you think he pull the building or it, firefighters!
Do a search in youtube for his actual words if you dont believe what i have pasted above. Silverstein and building 7.

I have read and studies the Silversteen quote and he does say something along the lines of "pull it" Do some more digging and you will see that "pull it" a common fire fighting term used in reference to pulling out of a building.
Fire fighter: "Sir the house is about to fall down cause of the fire"
Fire Cheif: "Ok, pull it"

I think this is a case of two terms being mixed up, as "pull it" is also used in descriping the demolition of a building as well. I think Silversteen, or the fire cheif, made a bad choice of words, or more likely used the correct term without even knowing that it was related to demolition.
I can't imagine that there was this ragging fire and that they were some how able to get explosives into the building in order to "pull it" Also, if it was as planned demo, how come none of the explosives didn't go off cause of the fire. We see no evidence of bombs blowing up, but a fire that large would have caused some of them to blow up. Watch videos of chain reaction explossions and you can clearly see one going off after another.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

While it may be in doubt that we knew the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor specifically, it's indisputable that we knew Japan would attack us somewhere in response to our oil blockade (itself an act of war).
When asked why he didn't impose the blockade on Japan earlier Roosevelt responded by saying we were trying to avoid the war he knew would result.
Knowing a response to our act of war would be coming, you'd think we'd have realized PH was the perfect target from the Japanese point of view.

 

[laFiera]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: laFiera

thanks for the other link..i will do more reading since I havent informed myself much into this other event....might even get the book from that dude....You do mention somethin gabout the ships being silent; on that link i provided the author of the book who is being interviewed claims the following:

Thanks, do I get a

About the buildings collapsing---not sure what 3 specific buildings the post is about, however is interesting to note Silverstein(leaseholder of WTC) made the following comment about building 7:

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

2 years later the company came out and said that silverstein meant to pull the firefighters, not the building! .So do you think he pull the building or it, firefighters!
Do a search in youtube for his actual words if you dont believe what i have pasted above. Silverstein and building 7.

I have read and studies the Silversteen quote and he does say something along the lines of "pull it" Do some more digging and you will see that "pull it" a common fire fighting term used in reference to pulling out of a building.
Fire fighter: "Sir the house is about to fall down cause of the fire"
Fire Cheif: "Ok, pull it"

I think this is a case of two terms being mixed up, as "pull it" is also used in descriping the demolition of a building as well. I think Silversteen, or the fire cheif, made a bad choice of words, or more likely used the correct term without even knowing that it was related to demolition.
I can't imagine that there was this ragging fire and that they were some how able to get explosives into the building in order to "pull it" Also, if it was as planned demo, how come none of the explosives didn't go off cause of the fire. We see no evidence of bombs blowing up, but a fire that large would have caused some of them to blow up. Watch videos of chain reaction explossions and you can clearly see one going off after another.

hehe! no cookie man! i ate them all! i loveee cookies!!
Alright...
I do remember reading there were no firefighters in building 7, as they had been evacuated earlier in the day; do you know otherwise? also, from what I have also read, these 3 buildings were the only steel frame high rise buildings in the history of the world which have collapsed under severe fire. Also, i dont know about the raging fire...is been a while since ive seen the pics, but the only fires in building 7 were on the southeast wall; and that fire from the pics, were on two floors(5 and 7); so most likely the explosives didnt go off cause the fires were not close enough to them? heheheh I'm not an explosive expert, but hell, im just going by common sense. One thing is clear dude, no raging fire, unless there was one,and I totally missed it. Now fema did say the following:
Specifically, FEMA made these findings:

?Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.?

However dont u find it interesting that the windsor building in madrid burned for 24 hours and it didnt collapse like building 7? How is that explained??? maybe the steel frame in building 7 wasn't of good quality? Next time i hope they import them from Madrid! alright, outta here for the weekend....let me know other interesting points you got and ill take a look at them!

 

[trenchfoot]

While it may be in doubt that we knew the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor specifically, it's indisputable that we knew Japan would attack us somewhere in response to our oil blockade (itself an act of war).

supporting link and....


don't know too much about this site but...


false flag fun reading


edit - spl

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: tweaker2

While it may be in doubt that we knew the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor specifically, it's indisputable that we knew Japan would attack us somewhere in response to our oil blockade (itself an act of war).

supporting link and....


don't know too much about this site but...


false flag fun reading


edit - spl

Thanks for the links. Interesting reading.

I wonder what percentage of Americans still believe Pearl Harbor was an unprovoked attack? We're very successful as a nation in rewriting history to favor our image.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: KlokWyze
thats one point out of the 15 I made.

Here is a mindboggling statement:
JET FUEL DOES NOT MELT STEEL. :Q

Google who was head of security of the World Trade Center during this time. Your going to love it.

I can't break a crow bar, but if I apply enough heat to it I will eventually be able to bend it. The Steel did not need to melt, all it needed to do is bend enough for the building to lose its strength.

You still have explained to me how the "obvious demolition" was done. Not one person can post a reasonable explanation for how it was done.

If it is "obvious" how come so few people believe it? Shouldn't one or two dependable and believable people have come forward by now and stood behind this theory? And those college professors that everyone points to, they are almost all liberal arts teachers.

It may only be 1 point out of 15, but if I go around telling people that George Washington was black is anyone going to listen to anything else I say?

Regarding WTC... I only have interest in one bldg.. the one my sister worked in .. Bldg 7.. that bldg did not get hit by an aircraft, was designed with redundant feature upon feature, was the emergency bunker for the mayor, and had only a few small fires and no jet fuel burning in it.. The folks walked out and over to Canal St with no problem. Now will someone explain how it and all the data of the SEC, FBI, SS etc housed in there managed to be pulverized in a perfect 'implosion' and the resulting 'slicing' of the main structural support beams. It fell in on itself in a manner so remote that it takes experts to achieve that fall... and the comment by the owner on tape... 'I guess we should 'Pull' it'...

I can accept all the other events of that day... even the dead terrorists appearing elsewhere.. (simple mistaken identity)... but not Bldg 7.... Even ignited jet fuel under pressure don't melt steel from afar it sorta needs to at least be proximate to the steel

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: straightalker
nutcase out there who refutes the fact that Pearl was a set up.

I guess we have a lot of nutcases in this world

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: laFiera

?Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.?

However dont u find it interesting that the windsor building in madrid burned for 24 hours and it didnt collapse like building 7? How is that explained??? maybe the steel frame in building 7 wasn't of good quality? Next time i hope they import them from Madrid! alright, outta here for the weekend....let me know other interesting points you got and ill take a look at them!

Here is a link to a great article going into the 9-11 myths in depth by Popular Mchanics.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.... NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.


Ray I hope that answers some of your questions.

Larry Silversteen "pull it" video
http://youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk

WTC 7 falling down. You can see the penthouse falling into the buidling.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tr6_WRPZjIM

I have watched a dozen videos of WTC 7 and in all of them you can clearly see that it falls from the bottom up, while the other two start falling at the top and "pancake"

That being said, would some conspiracy believer explain to me the need to bring down WTC 7, wasn't the destruction of the two towers enough?? I can't see someone sitting there and thinking "we are going to destroy the 2 World Trade Center towers so we can launch a war to get oil, and just incase that isn't enough lets destroy WTC 7 as well, that will really piss them off."

Edit: Check out this picture of the coner of WTC 7, look at the hunk of it that is missing. It seems that there is no really good pictures of the entire building taken after the fall of the two towers.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/av.caesar/wtc/wtc7_2.jpg

 

[straightalker]

Larry ?Lucky Larry? Silverstein

This article is for truthseekers and not liars.

The dishonest statement that Larry meant to say "get the firemen out of there" when he said "pull it" disregards the rest of the entire statement and the reality of the completely impossioble odds that 3 skyscrapers fell into their own footprints at freefall speed within what?... 8 hours of each other?

3 fell in 8 to 10 hours or whatever. When in the past 100 years not one skyscraper has ever collapsed like that due to fire. Let's do the math. 100 years none. 1 day 3.

Lucky Larry said this...

"I remember getting a call from the...er...fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

"Pull it" is a commonly used demolition term. It means conducting the actual sequence of explosions that comprise what a controlled demolition is. WTC 7 was a controlled demolition no question about it. The entire building symetrically falls like it was sucked straight into the ground. The entire roof dips inwards. We see the shock waves of the explosions rippling through the entire structure. Witnesses at the scene, just as at the two WTC 1 and WTC 2 towers, reported "boom" "boom""boom" "boom""boom" "boom".

These facts are a demolition of the official 9-11 "truth commisions" tinfoil hat conspiracy theory that 19 radical muslims destroyed all three WTC buildings. Remember that commision? The one they tried to hire Henry Kissinger to lead?

So ask the question. Why is there such a massive coverup about 9-11. Ignore the liars. Think on your own.

 

[ProfJohn]

Origin of term "Pull it" as relating to the Silversteen video.

The term "pull it" is an "old timers" term that comes from the time before small radios, not that long ago. In those days in order to remove firefighters from a building they would "pull" on their hose. Hence the term "pull it" as in pull on their hose so they know to get out.

Now I worked for a while on a Cruise ship and was a member of the fire fighting team and we had "signals" that we would have used in case of a fire. Such as "pull one time everything is ok" etc etc. Never had a fire break out though, dang.

"Pull It" to many firefighters, especially to those oldtimers like me that served long before portable radios became popular and affordable, can also mean to cease all interior operations. Years ago, before SCBAs, mask cans made interior operations possible, but when those inside operations had to be abandoned in favor of an exterior attack the commaders would order the men on the outside to pull - and pull hard - on the interior hose line. This was a signal (as were long air horn blasts and whistles) to get out asap. Pulling on that interior line to signal the interior crews to stop and get out asap led to the term "Pull It" and it is still used by many today; that tactic is still in use also, especially when very heavy radio traffic prevents communication with interior crews.

http://www.firefightersforums.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001134

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Aelius

They sunk a few old tired BBs and CAs. The only thing important was the carrier groups that make invasion impossible. Carriers left Pearl before the attack. You're point of argument has no merit.

The carriers left Pearl and were either on the way to or from Midway. Now incase you haven't looked at a map, the Japanese fleet attacked from that direction. If the plan was to get the carriers out of Pearl and out of harms way, why would you send them TOWARDS the Japanese fleet? Imagine if the Japanese would have gotten lucky and found our 2 carriers floating around out there, they could have easily sunk them and then the whole war would have changed.

Second, the Enterprise was suppose to be back in Pearl on the 7th, it was delayed by bad weather. There are actual military records showing this fact, there were NO orders to change this fact. Had it not been for the bad weather the Enterprise would have been sitting in Pearl with the rest of the fleet.

Finally, in December 1941 carriers were clasified as "scouting" elements of the fleet, not capital ships, the most important vessels in naval planning even as late as Pearl Harbor were battleships.

Again, don't go spouting off on stuff you have no idea about, read some history and get the facts for yourself.

MYTH : The US carriers were hustled out of port just before the attack, to "save" them for a war that FDR already knew would be dominated by the flattop.

FACT: The two carriers then operating from Pearl Harbor, Enterprise and Lexington, were on missions to deliver additional fighters to Wake and Midway. See the document. These assignments sent the carriers west, toward Japan and the IJN, widely separated and lightly escorted.

On Dec. 7th, Enterprise was about 200 miles west of Pearl and inbound to Pearl. Lexington was 400 miles to the west and heading for Midway. See Admiral Kimmel's report on these missions.
"OK, but they were still out of port!" Yes, but Enterprise was doing her best to get back into Pearl. Her first ETA was Saturday evening, but a storm delayed her. The next time set was 7 AM, 55 minutes before the attack started, but that proved too optimistic as well. She was, however, close enough to Pearl to send her aircraft ahead to land at Ford Island, and some of them were shot down by "friendly fire." See the first document in this section.

What really crushes the "carriers hustled out of port" myth is the fact that Enterprise was scheduled to be in port on Dec. 6th and 7th, as shown in the Employment Schedule promulgated in August, '41. No orders were ever recieved to change this. The mission to Wake was planned to coincide with the original schedule so that it would not be known that the island had recieved additional air support. The trip was kept secret, even the loading of the planes had a "cover story".

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/myths/

I'm not entering a debate about this. My response was to a meritless argument and I shot it down. Either reply to it on that basis or not at all.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: laFiera

?Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.?

However dont u find it interesting that the windsor building in madrid burned for 24 hours and it didnt collapse like building 7? How is that explained??? maybe the steel frame in building 7 wasn't of good quality? Next time i hope they import them from Madrid! alright, outta here for the weekend....let me know other interesting points you got and ill take a look at them!

Here is a link to a great article going into the 9-11 myths in depth by Popular Mchanics.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.... NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.


Ray I hope that answers some of your questions.

Larry Silversteen "pull it" video
http://youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk

WTC 7 falling down. You can see the penthouse falling into the buidling.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tr6_WRPZjIM

I have watched a dozen videos of WTC 7 and in all of them you can clearly see that it falls from the bottom up, while the other two start falling at the top and "pancake"

That being said, would some conspiracy believer explain to me the need to bring down WTC 7, wasn't the destruction of the two towers enough?? I can't see someone sitting there and thinking "we are going to destroy the 2 World Trade Center towers so we can launch a war to get oil, and just incase that isn't enough lets destroy WTC 7 as well, that will really piss them off."

Edit: Check out this picture of the coner of WTC 7, look at the hunk of it that is missing. It seems that there is no really good pictures of the entire building taken after the fall of the two towers.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/av.caesar/wtc/wtc7_2.jpg

Even on the most basic level nothing could have melted steel and created a river of steel at ground zero.

The report flew in the face of that fact and it blows a hole wide enough to make the report suspect at best, a conspiracy at worst. You can't even assume incompetence since nobody is that stupid. Period, end of argument.