9/11 - Italian TV Network Covers WTC 7 Evidence

[Rokerijdude11]

Define "real investigation."


I suppose that depends on how you define "proof." As in, whether or not you're capable of accepting that proof can come from the government.

too many unanswered questions,,,,Government Knowledge of the plan, Norads stand down, Evidence shipped off to be smelted before being examined. the list goes on and on the Official theory is just as riddled with holes as the craziest
CT's that are out there


No fire? My dear, according to all sources (even your own) Building 7 was hit by "large masses of flaming debris." As for the free fall comment, it makes no sense at all. The buildings didn't fall, they collapsed.
what a fabulous Play on words!!!the Building was "HIT" By a large mass of burning debris------

Just Exactly i am wondering,as are the readers im sure. Exactly how is it that being HIT with debris is indicative of any sort of proof that the BUILDING WAS INVOLVED IN A LARGE FIRE?

And another FABULOUS play on words in your next statement as well the didnt "Fall" they Collapsed.Ok.. Mr Technicality they "collapsed"
right they didnt "fall" as that would indicate falling over which they didnt ....this is really a sophmoric point if i may say so.....

Building 7 was most certainly a controlled demolition there is far too much evidence to suggest such. it did collapse within its footprint the farthest debris fell out of that footprint at building seven was 70 feet and that was a SMALL percentage of the structure the rest fell in a neat pile in the footprint.


there WERE NO LARGE Fires present in building 7. Neither FEMA or NIST has addressed Building seven and neither of them have a REASON for its collapse Fema flat out saying at this time they do not KNOW what caused it to collapse


Number one: Don't underestimate a guy with a boxcutter, especially if he's a crazy religious nut and he has a bunch of his crazy religious nut friends around who also have boxcutters and you're completely unarmed.
yeah all americans are pansies .they all would have sat there like Bunny rabbits at a coat factory!! how simply ludicrous!!! you are easily swayed i see. and also not a fighter, to even think that way. i would have died taking them out, before i would have let them hijack anything!!
as would have MOST Americans


Number two: It all happened far too fast for NORAD to get involved.
Dude are you serious? 2 hrs isnt enough time? what a CROCK do you really believe that? if you do you need to learn some more about what we are capable of when it comes to NORAD intercepts

there is CLEAR evidence that there was confucion deriving from drills being conducted that morning at the exact time the attack was being pulled off.......Norad was MORE than capable of launching birds for intercept they just DIDNT

they could have scrambled NAVY fighters from norfolk as well. yes it is the Air Force and National guards job but 4 errant aircraft? Navy jets could have done this in an emergency

doi you know how many ALERT bases there are on the east coast? and in the united states? they could have scrambled fighters from scott AFB in ILLINOIS and still intercepted

I think your a bit naive on what intercept is and how it is SUPPOSED to work and what NORADS mission statement is and has been.....too too many unanswered questons

the fficial story is as Full of holes as any CT




Number three: They aren't. There were unsubstantiated rumors that several o the hijackers were still alive after 9/11 but that's all those were - rumors. There was never any proof and several of the sources later admitted they made it up.

Actually there is PROOF substantiated PROOF your just mistaken .what DID happen was several of the men whose passports were used ...............never left theyre homes ......the documents were DUPLICATES or FAKES the men portrayed themselves as Living individuals

 

[Rokerijdude11]

What I had heard was that is was brought down, but not in any secret way. It was condemned after 9/11 and not even the fire fighters wanted to go in there because of all the damage. So the city takes a building down, what's the big deal?

Thats Not what your Federal Government says???

 

[Rokerijdude11]

KeepOurFreedoms, let me ask you something. What would be the purpose of having controlled demolition of the towers? You already have an attack from a bunch of radical Muslims. If all you want is a pretext for war then you already have it the second that first plane hit, and if not then, surely after the second one hit. All George Bush would have to do is step in front of a camera and say "We've been attacked. We are going to respond." and it wouldn't have been any different reaction from the public that what actually happened. After the attacks were carried out, I just can't seem to find any reason to bring the towers down through demolition.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Dave]

Wouldn't you like a real investigation regarding 9/11? What the government has told us is just their theory. They have no proof. You do realize there was no major fire in Building 7 don't you? And all 3 buildings were basically in free fall instead of being impeded by the building themselves. And there is absolutely NO WAY that I would believe that 4 planes were hijacked by guys with box cutters. And where was NORAD in all this? And why are some of the so called hijackers still alive?

How do you explain the many, many phone calls from passengers claiming they were being hijacked by guys with box cutters?

As for the buildings collapsing in "free fall," its only half true. They collapsed at "near free fall" speeds. Once you have such enormous weight slamming down on the floor below the collapse point, its not suprising that there was no real resistance from the rest of the structure. As more debris builds up as the building is coming down, it only adds to the weight that is coming down on the next floor. Physics worked exactly how it should.

With regards to NORAD, this is another one of the truisms about 9/11. The "stand down" myth came from a Jim Marrs book claiming that the training exercises being conducted the morning of 9/11 prevented NORAD from executing a response, and that this indicated it was an inside job. In reality, all this indicates is that this was a very sophisticated attack. No one has ever offered any proof of a NORAD stand down.

 

[vyo476]

Hey Roker. Let's conduct an experiment. I'll stand with a flaming baseball bat and whack you with it repeatedly and we'll see if you light on fire as a result. Then I'll toss it up in the air so that it lands on your head and we'll see if it makes the fire worse. 7 WTC experienced fires that day as a result of being in a very similar situation the one I just described.

Has anyone ever stopped to consider the idea that the building was hit and weakened in a way that caused it to collapse in a manner resembling a controlled demolition? I'm no demolition expert but I'd figure that's just as likely as a massive government conspiracy behind 9/11.

There's a pretty big difference between "collapse" and "fall" and her statement was an attempt to characterize the collapse of the Towers as a "fall." Setting the record straight on that is hardly sophomoric. Or do facts not matter?

Okay, scenario. It's 9/11 and you're on one of the planes and you haven't heard about what else has been happening that day. A bunch of crazy-ass hijackers take over the plane using boxcutters. They've more than likely already killed someone (pilot, etc.) but maybe not. Either way, they've told you that they've hijacked the plane and are taking it back to Boston (or wherever you launched from) so that their demands may be met (this is what they did on Flight 93). If you sit down and shut up, as far as you know you live. Cause a ruckus and they'll cut you open. Stage an uprising on the plane and they'll just crash it. Ask yourself: what's the smart course of action? In hindsight, the uprising. At the moment? Sitting your ass down. As far as you know they really are just taking the plane back to Boston and any attempt to regain control of the plane could result in them intentionally crashing it, getting you and everyone else and anyone unlucky enough to be at ground zero killed.

Nowadays a plane full of Americans would fight like Hades to regain control of plane. We've learned something new. But on 9/11, without knowledge of the terrorists' plans, the passengers on the three planes that hit their targets didn't rise up against the hijackers, not out of cowardice but out of a desire to keep from escalating the situation.

Now I'm a zombie, huh? Okay, you obviously know more about NORAD than I do. There are tons and tons and tons of bases that could have scrambled intercept fighters to deal with the planes on 9/11. Okay. Why didn't they? According to the CTs, they were all ordered to stand down. Okay. Why aren't we hearing from more of them, then? How come, in the wake of 9/11, there wasn't a giant outcry of base commanders across America? Sure, a few have chimed in, but according to your information (which I'm not disputing - this paragraph if no other is meant entirely sincerely) there should have been dozens. Either they were all involved in the conspiracy too or something even weirder than the CTs have put forward occurred that day.

Where is the substantiated proof that the 9/11 hijackers were still alive after 9/11? I'd like to see it. If you could post a link that'd be much appreciated.

I'll admit that I used to believe in a lot of conspiracy theories. I always thought that something was being withheld because not everything added up. As the authoritative body in charge of everything I blamed the government. Then, after studying a lot of history, I realized something - not everything adds up. We're just not capable of knowing everything about a particular situation. Conspiracy theorists latch onto circumstantial evidence (an unexplained part of the big picture) and then build a case around it.

You know what? I'm with KeepOurFreedoms. I'd like to see a "real" investigation into 9/11. Let's do it. How? Who knows. But still. Let's do it. I'm just far enough onto the fence about this issue that I'm willing to listen if someone who hasn't already picked a side and is qualified to look into these things does so. Anyone else agree?

 

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Payne Stewart Response: 19 Minutes, Hey Presto …
On October 25, 1999, at 9:33 a.m. air traffic controllers in Florida lost touch with a Learjet carrying golfer Payne Stewart and several companions after it left Orlando headed for Dallas, Texas. Nineteen minutes after Air Traffic Control realized something was wrong, one or more US Air Force fighter jets were already on top of the situation, in the air, close to the Learjet. Moreover, throughout the course of its flight, Payne Stewart's jet was given escort from National Guard aircraft coordinated across state lines. See "Golfer Payne Stewart Dies," October 25, 1999, at:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/plane102599.html
or read the National Transportation Safety Board report on Payne Stewart's flight:

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/stewart
(There are minor discrepancies between the ABC and NTSB reports.)

That was the response when a small private jet lost radio contact with air traffic control over a relatively sparsely populated area in Florida. Compare that to what was done when they lost communication with four commercial passenger jets flying over the populous northeast on September 11, 2001.

 

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Hey Roker. Let's conduct an experiment. I'll stand with a flaming baseball bat and whack you with it repeatedly and we'll see if you light on fire as a result. Then I'll toss it up in the air so that it lands on your head and we'll see if it makes the fire worse. 7 WTC experienced fires that day as a result of being in a very similar situation the one I just described. Stop it, be nice.

Has anyone ever stopped to consider the idea that the building was hit and weakened in a way that caused it to collapse in a manner resembling a controlled demolition? I'm no demolition expert but I'd figure that's just as likely as a massive government conspiracy behind 9/11. Building 7 was barely hit by falling debree, and had very little fire.
There's a pretty big difference between "collapse" and "fall" and her statement was an attempt to characterize the collapse of the Towers as a "fall." Setting the record straight on that is hardly sophomoric. Or do facts not matter? I said Like Free Fall. Like there was no resistance from a building. Like it was being blown up before each floor went down........making it look like free fall.
Okay, scenario. It's 9/11 and you're on one of the planes and you haven't heard about what else has been happening that day. A bunch of crazy-ass hijackers take over the plane using boxcutters. They've more than likely already killed someone (pilot, etc.) but maybe not. Either way, they've told you that they've hijacked the plane and are taking it back to Boston (or wherever you launched from) so that their demands may be met (this is what they did on Flight 93). If you sit down and shut up, as far as you know you live. Cause a ruckus and they'll cut you open. Stage an uprising on the plane and they'll just crash it. Ask yourself: what's the smart course of action? In hindsight, the uprising. At the moment? Sitting your ass down. As far as you know they really are just taking the plane back to Boston and any attempt to regain control of the plane could result in them intentionally crashing it, getting you and everyone else and anyone unlucky enough to be at ground zero killed.

Nowadays a plane full of Americans would fight like Hades to regain control of plane. We've learned something new. But on 9/11, without knowledge of the terrorists' plans, the passengers on the three planes that hit their targets didn't rise up against the hijackers, not out of cowardice but out of a desire to keep from escalating the situation.

Now I'm a zombie, huh? Okay, you obviously know more about NORAD than I do. There are tons and tons and tons of bases that could have scrambled intercept fighters to deal with the planes on 9/11. Okay. Why didn't they? According to the CTs, they were all ordered to stand down. Okay. Why aren't we hearing from more of them, then? How come, in the wake of 9/11, there wasn't a giant outcry of base commanders across America? Sure, a few have chimed in, but according to your information (which I'm not disputing - this paragraph if no other is meant entirely sincerely) there should have been dozens. Either they were all involved in the conspiracy too or something even weirder than the CTs have put forward occurred that day.

Where is the substantiated proof that the 9/11 hijackers were still alive after 9/11? I'd like to see it. If you could post a link that'd be much appreciated. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html


I'll admit that I used to believe in a lot of conspiracy theories. I always thought that something was being withheld because not everything added up. As the authoritative body in charge of everything I blamed the government. Then, after studying a lot of history, I realized something - not everything adds up. We're just not capable of knowing everything about a particular situation. Conspiracy theorists latch onto circumstantial evidence (an unexplained part of the big picture) and then build a case around it. That is your theory.

You know what? I'm with KeepOurFreedoms. I'd like to see a "real" investigation into 9/11. Let's do it. How? Who knows. But still. Let's do it. I'm just far enough onto the fence about this issue that I'm willing to listen if someone who hasn't already picked a side and is qualified to look into these things does so. Anyone else agree?

!!!!!

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Then, after studying a lot of history, I realized something - not everything adds up. We're just not capable of knowing everything about a particular situation. Conspiracy theorists latch onto circumstantial evidence (an unexplained part of the big picture) and then build a case around it.

Exactly right.

My question is why would they need to take down WTC 7? Wasn't the pretext for war already established with WTC1 and WTC2?

 

[Dave]

Payne Stewart Response: 19 Minutes, Hey Presto …
On October 25, 1999, at 9:33 a.m. air traffic controllers in Florida lost touch with a Learjet carrying golfer Payne Stewart and several companions after it left Orlando headed for Dallas, Texas. Nineteen minutes after Air Traffic Control realized something was wrong, one or more US Air Force fighter jets were already on top of the situation, in the air, close to the Learjet. Moreover, throughout the course of its flight, Payne Stewart's jet was given escort from National Guard aircraft coordinated across state lines. See "Golfer Payne Stewart Dies," October 25, 1999, at:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/plane102599.html
or read the National Transportation Safety Board report on Payne Stewart's flight:

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/stewart
(There are minor discrepancies between the ABC and NTSB reports.)

That was the response when a small private jet lost radio contact with air traffic control over a relatively sparsely populated area in Florida. Compare that to what was done when they lost communication with four commercial passenger jets flying over the populous northeast on September 11, 2001.

The Payne Stewart story has been told so many times its starting to get too easy to debunk it.

First, if you look at the time it took for a response to the Payne Stewart incident, it takes 39 minutes from the time a plane goes off course, until an intercept can even be launched. It took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach Payne Stewart's plane. His plane remained in transponder contact the whole time. The flights on 9/11 had their transponders turned off, which would have made them extremely harder to make contact with. It is clear that no fighter could have reached Flight 11 and 157 before the impacted the towers. Even making it to Flight 93 would have been a pretty big stretch. FAA regulations in effect during the Payne Stewart incident, as well as on 9/11, prevented supersonic intercepts in American airspace. There simply wasn't time to make an intercept on 9/11.

The Payne Stewart story is often used, as it is here, to make it appear that these types of intercepts are common or are standard operating procedure. Anybody want to take a guess at how many times a fighter intercept has been launched in the decade before 9/11? You guessed it, only one. The Payne Stewart flight was the ONLY incident of any fighter intercept launched over American airspace in the entire decade prior to 9/11.

 

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Exactly right.

My question is why would they need to take down WTC 7? Wasn't the pretext for war already established with WTC1 and WTC2?

See if you can find out what/who was officed in Building 7.

 

[KeepOurFreedoms]

The Payne Stewart story has been told so many times its starting to get too easy to debunk it.

First, if you look at the time it took for a response to the Payne Stewart incident, it takes 39 minutes from the time a plane goes off course, until an intercept can even be launched. It took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach Payne Stewart's plane. Do you have a link??
His plane remained in transponder contact the whole time. The flights on 9/11 had their transponders turned off, which would have made them extremely harder to make contact with. Got proof of this? It is clear that no fighter could have reached Flight 11 and 157 before the impacted the towers. Even making it to Flight 93 would have been a pretty big stretch. FAA regulations in effect during the Payne Stewart incident, as well as on 9/11, prevented supersonic intercepts in American airspace. There simply wasn't time to make an intercept on 9/11.

The Payne Stewart story is often used, as it is here, to make it appear that these types of intercepts are common or are standard operating procedure. Anybody want to take a guess at how many times a fighter intercept has been launched in the decade before 9/11? You guessed it, only one. The Payne Stewart flight was the ONLY incident of any fighter intercept launched over American airspace in the entire decade prior to 9/11.

Please check the time span of all 4 box cutter hijackings, and the small airspace the were in.

 

[Dave]

Please check the time span of all 4 box cutter hijackings, and the small airspace the were in.

Need links? Here ya go.

http://www.911myths.com/html/payne_stewart.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=3

 

[Rokerijdude11]

Hey Roker. Let's conduct an experiment. I'll stand with a flaming baseball bat and whack you with it repeatedly and we'll see if you light on fire as a result. Then I'll toss it up in the air so that it lands on your head and we'll see if it makes the fire worse. 7 WTC experienced fires that day as a result of being in a very similar situation the one I just described.

bawwwwahahahahahahahahahaha SUPERB thanks

Has anyone ever stopped to consider the idea that the building was hit and weakened in a way that caused it to collapse in a manner resembling a controlled demolition?
yes actually i had considered that .......Until I learned more about the building in question, and how it was constructed,etc. It had many Unique features,in its construction .............and equally uniique tennants.

Then I go on to several videos that are out you tube that you can hear them talking about taking the building down, and other videos where you hear the explosions, just as Building seven comes down. then you go to several engineers or demolition experts, one is a dutch expert who is very well known, and they clearly point out, the fact that its simply CD....


Also i stated the debris feild at its furthest point was 70 feet outside the footprint of the building. which is almost textbook perfect as it was only a very small portion. the experts at F.E.M.A. did "Not at this time "Know" why Building seven collapsed"
As well NIST did not conclude as to why the building fell either.We have fireman and police telling people to move away, because they are going to take that building down,its on tape.








I'm no demolition expert but I'd figure that's just as likely as a massive government conspiracy behind 9/11.
not so massive actually ,a blurring of truth and lies .and spinning the facts. not out and out conspiratorial,more shapers of the official theory

There's a pretty big difference between "collapse" and "fall" and her statement was an attempt to characterize the collapse of the Towers as a "fall." Setting the record straight on that is hardly sophomoric. Or do facts not matter?


Give me a break its a childish technicality ....

Okay, scenario. It's 9/11 and you're on one of the planes and you haven't heard about what else has been happening that day. A bunch of crazy-ass hijackers take over the plane using boxcutters. They've more than likely already killed someone (pilot, etc.) but maybe not. Either way, they've told you that they've hijacked the plane and are taking it back to Boston (or wherever you launched from) so that their demands may be met (this is what they did on Flight 93). If you sit down and shut up, as far as you know you live. Cause a ruckus and they'll cut you open. Stage an uprising on the plane and they'll just crash it. Ask yourself: what's the smart course of action? In hindsight, the uprising. At the moment? Sitting your ass down. As far as you know they really are just taking the plane back to Boston and any attempt to regain control of the plane could result in them intentionally crashing it, getting you and everyone else and anyone unlucky enough to be at ground zero killed.


all wild speculation .....

due to my training I would have acted upon instinct, and taken action against the "terrorists".......



Nowadays a plane full of Americans would fight like Hades to regain control of plane. We've learned something new. But on 9/11, without knowledge of the terrorists' plans, the passengers on the three planes that hit their targets didn't rise up against the hijackers, not out of cowardice but out of a desire to keep from escalating the situation.
i wasnt suggesting they were cowards

again speculation
Now I'm a zombie, huh? Okay, you obviously know more about NORAD than I do.

I edited the zombie part....it was there 5 seconds...or so.............again I know you though, technically it WAS there...so you had to comment ........fact remains i removed it

There are tons and tons and tons of bases that could have scrambled intercept fighters to deal with the planes on 9/11.

thats not true. the Air Force only had 4 bases with Intercept jets ready for takeoff on the east coast..... there are alot of bases, but they do not ALL contain "Intercept" jets......

Okay. Why didn't they? According to the CTs, they were all ordered to stand down.


when they say "stand down" im not sure they are amply describing the situation. there were Drills being done that morning. Dick Chaney was in command there were several mock drill occurring. one was even a plane crashing into the pentagon.

The nature of the drills and the resources being used for the drills and there was confusion as to whether or not events were real.or a drill..

we have a high ranking, white house official ,recanting an air force aide, who continued to come in and tell chaney how far out th plane was. and asked if the orders still stood and chaney snapped back at the aide.....
have you heard anything different?

the stand down was in fact an order issued by dick chaney for the flight that Allegedly hit the pentagon.


Okay. Why aren't we hearing from more of them, then? How come, in the wake of 9/11, there wasn't a giant outcry of base commanders across America? Sure, a few have chimed in, but according to your information (which I'm not disputing - this paragraph if no other is meant entirely sincerely) there should have been dozens. Either they were all involved in the conspiracy too or something even weirder than the CTs have put forward occurred that day.

they were all involved in the Drills which totally compartmentalized the issue. keeping the veil easier to enact...

Where is the substantiated proof that the 9/11 hijackers were still alive after 9/11? I'd like to see it. If you could post a link that'd be much appreciated.
ill dig it up or KOF will shes a great gal she knows alot about this subject


I'll admit that I used to believe in a lot of conspiracy theories. I always thought that something was being withheld because not everything added up. As the authoritative body in charge of everything I blamed the government. Then, after studying a lot of history, I realized something - not everything adds up. We're just not capable of knowing everything about a particular situation. Conspiracy theorists latch onto circumstantial evidence (an unexplained part of the big picture) and then build a case around it.

You know what? I'm with KeepOurFreedoms. I'd like to see a "real" investigation into 9/11. Let's do it. How? Who knows. But still. Let's do it. I'm just far enough onto the fence about this issue that I'm willing to listen if someone who hasn't already picked a side and is qualified to look into these things does so. Anyone else agree?

Id love to see an investigation for REAL...but it will never happen .KOF is a great gal as i said earlier she knows alot about this issue too

 

[ArmChair General]

Another fun fact about that day, 9/11. Turns out there was a total of 12 -- TWELVE -- fighters assigned to defend the whole of the US. And those were -- you guessed it -- National Guard. So America was guarded by 12 planes piloted by dentists, claims adjusters or copier repairmen.

Then the USAF admitted something even more sickening: if they had managed to get any fighters into the air in time (which they didn't), they were planning to order the pilots to crash their planes into the hijacked airliners, because there were no air-to-air weapons to arm them with.

American kamikazes! Sure, it's a good movie title -- but Christ, didn't all of us wage-slave suckers pay billions of tax dollars for whole arsenals full of every air-to-air weapon Raytheon or Lockheed or Hughes ever came up with? Didn't the USAF brag up the AMRAAM (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile), the "Slammer," as the biggest thing since look-down shoot-down?

It's like a sick joke: the same USAF penpushers who lobbied the AMRAAM through Congress were sitting in the Pentagon when a hijacked jet smashed into it. And even after that -- after a whole wing of their own HQ was hit and burning -- the Pentagon still couldn't find a single AMRAAM-armed fighter jet to send up.

Hell, the USAF didn't really even need AMRAAMs. Sidewinders would've done fine -- even the Sparrow, the dog of American AA missiles, would've worked against a slow blimp target like a passenger jet. A burst from a 20mm nose cannon would've done the job. But they couldn't even manage that.

You can look through a thousand years of military history and you'll never find a strategic failure as complete as that.

But whats really wierd, is that nobody was upset about it. I started wondering, am I the only American who thinks some overpaid USAF heads should roll for this?

I mean the biggest, most expensive air force in history -- couldn't find one armed fighter jet for "several hours" after the WTC towers got blasted????????

 

[Dave]

Like I said before, it doesnt matter how many planes there were out there, or what resources were where. If it took them an hour and twenty-two minutes to intercept Payne Stewart's plane when it had its transponder turned on, there isn't a chance in hell of catching these things when their transponders were off.