Evidence Of Securities Fraud;
This documentary is long and may be hard to get through for many people but it offers a perspective that can be helpful. Also, it may help to ignore the music and voice tone and focus only on the information. If you get to a point where you've had enough then take a break and watch and think about something completely different.
Around the 49th minute of the following documentary you will hear the statement, "Fear does work"
After the first hour the images start getting very graphic but what I'd like you to notice is what is said about 30 minutes into the documentary, 'Bush was being investigated by the securities and exchange commission'. If the office of the commission doing any investigating was in WTC 7 then that would be a possible reason for a demolition....assuming thats what this evidence can back up.
Farenheit 911 by Raoul3B
Michael Moore came out with a controversial documentary a few years ago which provides a great introduction to the mysteries surrounding 9/11 and its after math. To get an idea of the documentary take a look at this trailer..
This documentary was so controversial that a group of people seemingly got together to put together a video and book claiming to refute Michael Moore's research, called Farenhype 911.
Here is what is written on Farenheit911.com:
One of the most controversial and provocative films of the year, Fahrenheit 9/11 is Academy Award-winning filmmaker Michael Moore's searing examination of the Bush administration's actions in the wake of the tragic events of 9/11. With his characteristic humor and dogged commitment to uncovering the facts, Moore considers the presidency of George W. Bush and where it has led us. He looks at how - and why - Bush and his inner circle avoided pursuing the Saudi connection to 9/11, despite the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis and Saudi money had funded Al Qaeda. Fahrenheit 9/11 shows us a nation kept in constant fear by FBI alerts and lulled into accepting a piece of legislation, the USA Patriot Act, that infringes on basic civil rights. It is in this atmosphere of confusion, suspicion and dread that the Bush Administration makes its headlong rush towards war in Iraq - and Fahrenheit 9/11 takes us inside that war to tell the stories we haven't heard, illustrating the awful human cost to U.S. soldiers and their families.
So if you find any of this important, or at the very least, interesting, then watch the documentary Farenheit 9/11. In the meantime here is a video clip about Haliburton - Dick Cheney's company...
An Analysis Of Building #7
If a building breaks it happens something like this;
Building Demolition Goes Wrong by DiagonalView
If a building is demolished it looks like this;
demolicion estadio-Atlanta Fulton County Stadium... by Kimaras
Look at these two examples:
Example 1 - Building #7 Falls
Example 2 - Building #7 Falls (different angle)
By comparison, this is an image of a building that caught fire in Madrid, Spain;
Here is a close up of the building, the fire is so hot the metal is bending;
This last picture is the same building after the fire has been put out...it's still standing;
Th way Building 7 fell (see above) looks like a demolition. You can learn more about demolitions here.
World Trade Center Building # 7 EXPOSED
[Important Note: If I seem to be somewhat dispassionate to some people who are encountering this evidence for the first forgive me, I've been studying stuff like this for years.]
BBC summarizes the problem of WTC 7 falling because of fire in this video...
The following article highlights the primary points this post goes over;
World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest
Conspiracy theorists have long claimed that explosives downed World Trade Center 7, north of the Twin Towers. The long-awaited report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conclusively rebuts those claims. Fire alone brought down the building, the report concludes, pointing to thermal expansion of key structural members as the culprit. The report also raises concerns that other large buildings might be more vulnerable to fire-induced structural failure than previously thought.
Today's report confirms that a fire was, indeed, the cause. "This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires," Sunder told reporters at the press conference. "What we found was that uncontrolled building fires--similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings--caused an extraordinary event, the collapse of WTC7." The unprecedented nature of the event means that understanding the precise mechanism of the collapse is important not just to answer conspiracy theorists' questions, but to improve safety standards in the engineering of large buildings.
The final report describes how debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7 at the western half of the south face. Fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 burned out of control, because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system had failed. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply. Those water lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. These uncontrolled fires in WTC 7 eventually spread to the northeast part of the building, where the collapse began.
Read more: World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics
This is the other side of the debate...
Some Architects and Engineers Analyze Building 7 (WTC 7)
Why would WTC 7 be demolished?
There could be several reasons (such as witnesses or wiping out evidence) but I think the most potent reason for an investigation is the one involving fraud as being convicted of fraud would not only end a presidency but would also put the guilty in prison... 'Bush was being investigated by the securities and exchange commission'. If the office of the commission doing any investigating was in WTC 7 then that would be a possible reason for a demolition
1. All news stations and relevant reporters and cops/firemen know the building is going to fall before it happens... yet the NIST report insists that they have proven something that has never happened before (i.e. a modern steel building falling by fire alone). How could people know something is going to happen before hand if it has never happened before as its an architectural and engineering impossibility?
Here is video evidence of news anchors/reporters knowing the impossible before it happened...
2. A Modern Skyscraper Has Never Before (or Since) Fallen By Fire
Including the following building which had an intense fire for 3 times longer than WTC 7...
By comparison, the following video shows the kind of fires that existed in WTC 7 that "did" fall by fire...
The problems with the fall of WTC 7...
(Click here for a clip of the fall of WTC 7 from BBC)
The following notes are from this video at BBC
Q. Why are many conspiracy theorists on 9/11?
A. Part of the reason is that answers are so long coming
Q.There are claims that BBS is part of this conspiracy
A. Because tower 7 was still standing when it was reported to have fallen
- the tapes were found (fortunately them finding the tapes was not necessary in today's easy recording environment)
- "There are often simpler explanations to some of these things"
That is true, problem is sometimes those easy explanations are denied or ignored. Of course, he was referring to the fact that some conspiracy theories are wrong which they are bound to be as explained above.
- He say's that mainstream media or any official source will not be trusted by some, concerning 9/11 this is partly explained above.at approx 3 mins: - Reuters are the ones that sent out the press release that building 7 had fallen and then this report was withdrawn when they found out the building hadn't fallen.
Also, note in video #1 of this analysis above that every news organization and reporter were taken by surprise.
Conspiracy theories can get out of hand so context is important
When there is no investigation (or even a fake investigation) then obvious problems with an official theory will be noticed and amplified. A person (or group of people) can get paranoid and imagine problems where there are not any. If mistakes in theories are focused on while accuracies are ignored then you are making a big mistake in assuming human infallibility (even eye witnesses can be wrong sometimes).
However, when something is proven beyond doubt then only a cover-up that involves threats and killing (i.e. acting on those threats) will work. The election in 2000 was not just contested, it was unprecedented... Then the election of 2004 had its own problems. The question you have to ask yourself is this: If you killed people (which can be proven easily) then you know that if you are found out you will be tried and according to the law of your land, probably executed. If you have already stolen one election, blown up a building, all evidence pointing to yet another election steal... would you allow someone to come to power who could expose you? The simple answer is no.
George W. Bush In Context
Context: Video shows Bush admitting to lying in a non-emotionally charged context - then there is a clip about a 911 comment Bush made, followed by the actual incident in question.
Given that no transparent investigation has never occurred for 9/11 the laws of lie detection cannot be used on a sample set this small. This is just another reason for having a full transparent investigation for 9/11.
The last 9/11 investigation...
Extract from Popular Mechanic:
Spurred by conspiracy theorists' questions, investigators did look specifically at the possibility that explosives were involved. "Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7," the report states, adding that investigators "found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse.
The official NIST report says that there were no evidence of explosions and cites no witnesses to the noise as evidence. Look up 'explosions 9/11' on www.YouTube.com and you will find tons of evidence, however most of the people may not be qualified to evaluate if they heard an explosion. This doesn't apply to Barry Jennings though, the following video are clips from his testimony...
Barry Jennings died under mysterious circumstances before his interviwers were done interviewing him. You can learn more about him from a blog devoted to him;
Extract: "The significance of the Barry Jennings mystery is that his personal story as recounted on video leads to the conclusion that the destruction of the towers on 9/11 was planned. No cause of death has been made public, and the mainstream press has not even covered the death of this American hero."
A tribute to all who lost their lives seeking to expose 9/11
Any investigation into 911 can't be carried out by the American authorities. A great deal of the government and witnesses have been compromised. So if an investigation that is truly transparent, is to occur it will have to come from Europe. It is wrong to ask firemen and the cops in NY to put their lives and their families lives at risk again for this investigation.
In other words,the focus should be on science till the people in charge start setting up scapegoats to take the fall. Then strike.
When or if such an investigation happens (which is essential for peace, global security and the global economy) it will be best to go for the people in charge of governmental and economic systems - such as large corporations. I have explained this in this blog post.
Witnesses are compromised and the people not at the top have no power anyways and their lives would be in danger trying to question them. Don't blame the victims of threats that they are 'conspiring' they have no choice. Go for an investigation of the leaders, for 911 Bush and Cheney are primary suspects.
Given the problems with testimony and evidence provided by low level eyewitnesses and government employees notice how well balanced the following investigation by BBC is...
[Approx 8 mins - It takes days/weeks to plan a building demolition for a biulding much smaller than WTC 7. ]
[ Approx 7 min 20 sec - Notice that the expert is a contractor with the US government. Given the torture being practiced by the Bush administration (Khalid Shaikh Mohamed admitted to doing everything bad beneath the sun, i.e. torture someone and they will tell you what you want to hear to stop it). What if you threaten witnesses? This is a comedy video that explains what is going on and many people may find it distasteful, however, watching it is necessary to understanding basic human psychology. ]
[Approx 7 min 10 seconds - Barry Jennings (see above) retracts the implication of what he says and admits to wanting to pull his whole interview from some documentary investigation. He died shortly after. Barry - was the most credible eyewitness and also the only one with testimony that contradicts official government reports that had ties to the government]
In other words, BBC is the only news media with global reach that can be trusted for some balanced news reporting, even if its rather late. All you need is the ability/knowledge/patience to analyze information. US mainstream media has obviously been heavily compromised and can never recover their reputations if this were ever to come out and neither can the corporations that run them unless they blame everything on George Bush and Cheney. So there may be cover-ups in other areas such as oil or aspects of the financial disaster that are linked to 9/11 in some way or another. Many people will notice these cover-ups (and many will exaggerate the extant of it) and US mainstream medias reputation as mouthpieces will remain for many people. A transparent 9/11 investigation will hurt some powerful people very hard and they will resist to various degrees. This has to be kept in mind when investigating 9/11.
Why can't some people even consider the evidence as a possibility of conspiracy?
Even with all the distrust of the government that is common in the United States to think that all those people were killed to make money- and to cover up fraud- is too much to handle. To think that the largest attacks on the United States mainland, for a country that has historically been isolated by the oceans around it from any large economic and military power (an advantage that has decreased over time and will continue to), is difficult. But to have all those raw emotions directed towards a target enemy without an investigation followed by years of war with serious emotional, economic and social consequences to believe that all this extra death could be unnecessary is really too much for any people to take.
Study: Anxiety, depression, acute stress in combat troops
Self-Blame for a Death Resulting in Depression
Especially if the individuals involved look up to certain political and ideological beliefs. In fact, just having to fight a war causes a great deal of problems, (especially in today's internet world where nationalistic or religious fervor can only be maintained by extreme close mindedness), can you imagine the social depression that could result? I can. Given the nature of the news media - especially the "conservative" media, after all, on September 13 2001 the following was Fox News broadcast...
No matter how bad you think things could be, imagine what would happen if 9/11 came out but the corporations and politicians that will be trying to protect their reputation and who have demonstrated control over mass news media, are able to avoid a transparent investigation. They (mainstream US news media) will cause the greatest emotional chaos that a nation of traumatized people could go through, after 9/11.
If there is a proper transparent investigation with balanced news media reporting then there will be hue and cry but people will balance themselves in the new environment and get on with their lives.
If there is a lingering legacy of Sept. 11, 2001, this is it: Americans fear terrorist attacks, but they've come to live with the threat. They let workers dig through bags at Disney World. They take off shoes, submit to scans and frisks, and walk through metal detectors. They then set fear aside. And move on.
Notes and links:
A list of crimes that haven't been investigated
A 9/11 report on a non-American channel
Just another example of evidence excluded from the 9/11 commission report
Smokescreen technique being used by US rulers - i.e. Bush Crime Family (whoever the absolute controllers may be. George Bush is most certainly one of them. Sorry. ; Numerous official reports have been published since the Twin Towers fell, but just when a piece of evidence casts doubt on one theory, the focus then shifts to the next "unanswered question".
Separating political myth from living in the real world with problems of living such as money or relationships;
Thus the idea that most American's lives profoundly changed after 9/11 is simply a patriotic myth. That’s not to say that some people (especially those in Manhattan at the time) were not, and are not, sincerely devastated by the attacks—just that they are not representative of most Americans. For most who were traumatized in the months after the attacks, any lingering pain has faded in the decade since.
So why do so many people believe that Americans were -- and are -- so devastated? Sensational and biased news coverage is part of the reason many people overestimate the emotional impact of the attacks. In reporting tragedy, when there is any question of the extent of the damage (both physical and emotional) the news media consistently emphasize gloom and devastation.
Journalists always focus on the most panicked and alarmed victims after any disaster. The majority of Americans who were temporarily saddened but recovered quickly and moved on with their lives are not newsworthy, and thus not represented in the news. Most Americans are far more resilient than the experts and public gave them credit for. Perhaps that is the real legacy of the September 11 attacks.
Thus the Pentagon's need (after killing thier opposition in the Pentagon?) is to create perpetual war (in some form or another, to keep people distracted)...