Scientist and Son-in-law identify "cutting charges" in WTC demolition

[Dancing_Dave]

Scientist Jeff King, known on the internet as PlaguePuppy, has made a major breakthrough in solving the mystery of three buildings of the World Trade Center collapsing on 9/11/2001, and all the explosions which New York fireman and others on the spot heard leading to the collapse. As many experts noted at the time, the way these three buildings came down looked just like the way skyscrapers come down in a controlled demolition involving many explosives placed at crucial structural positions in the building. The explosives are then detonated in a carefully timed sequence. This is the only way which any steel framed building in history has ever disintigraged and came straight down the way the Twin Towers and later WTC 7 did on 9/11/2001.

In such a CONTROLLED DEMOLTION, the sequence of explosions which cause the perfect collapse is started with some CUTTING CHARGES high up on the building. Then the other explosions go off in a rapidly timed sequence right down the building. PlaguePuppy was studying some photos and videos of the World Trade Center collapse with his son-in-law, an Engineering student, when they noticed clear evidence of such cutting charges going off at the begining of the South Tower's collapse. The result is first reported at http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Flashes/flashes.htm This is part of a site dedicated to studying the WTC collapse, http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html Another good general discussion of the issue, from a slightly different point of view, can be found at http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_demolition.htm

[Stephanie]

1. Ridiculous

There is no evidence of explosives in the Towers.

[Maple]

3. Apparently you missed the

news about it.

You might check first, before you dismiss things.

[Stephanie]

4. What news?

I've heard speculation but I've never seen evidence. The WTC site was swarming with investigators and rescuers for months - no evidence of explosives was found. It's not possible to hide such evidence with that many people crawling all over the site.

I have followed the WTC story closely for nearly two years. I live in Manhattan and I was here that day and for the days and weeks after. I believe they LIHOP, but I think this particular claim is a red herring and unfounded. That's my opinion. And specks on images don't change my mind.

[Maple]

5. Perhaps

you could google it, and go by eye-witness testimony?

[Stephanie]

11. If you are aware of eye-witness testimony, I would like to see it

I'm not going to search for proof to support your assertion.

[Trek234]

8. "It's not possible to hide"

Really? You would think it wouldn't be possible for someone to sneak on the site and steal a US flag that was put up with out anyone noticing, but it happened.

Who's to say someone didn't steal evidence? Or maybe one of the many volunteers had NO idea what would be such evidence. (most people do NOT) and passed it over before throwing it in a garbage truck.

Btw - not saying explosives were in the building. Just refuting your "it's impossible" claim. What you say is impossible certainly is NOT impossible.

[Dancing_Dave]

17. A lot of evidence from the site was destroyed

A lot of evidence of the explosions was destroyed by hasty recycling of the steel from the buildings, which many scientists objected to at the time.

To say the least, when a bomb blows up there isn't much of it left. To expect there to be easily visible evidence of the explosives left on the site, just shows that one doesn't understand the physics of explosions. But pictures of the event provide clear evidence to those who have the expertise to analyze them. PlaguePuppy is one such person doing his best to explain this kind of thing to non-experts as well.

[Stephanie]

23. The debris, the dust, was examined for DNA

Also for PCBs and other toxins. Don't you think explosives would have been identified if they were present?

[absolutezero]

38. as a chemist

im familiar with explosives.

all explosions are caused by rapidly expanding gas and heat

if they used C4 (carbon based explosive) or even TNT (nitrogen based) the only products would have been gaseous ie: nitrogen (70% of the atmosphere), carbon dioxide(the gas humans exhale),and water vapor; all of which can also be found if jet fuel burns. there would have been no residue if they used the right explosives.

[phgnome]

52. Do you know how much one DNA test costs?

No way they could inspect it for DNA -- it would take them decades. Plus, each DNA test costs thousands (which is why police departments don't do DNA tests for all investigations -- cost constraints).

There's no way they could afford to do DNA tests on all of the building. Whose DNA would you be looking for? The 3000+ people that died inside the building, the passengers, the crew. What would you even match the DNA with? For bodies, yes, they would do DNA testing to identify missing people. But what would that have to do with possibly planted charges? Are we hoping that the guy left some semen on a rail somewhere when they planted the charges maybe weeks or months back (if there were charges planted)? DNA tests in the case of the WTC only proves who died in there. It doesn't prove who's responsible.

[Dancing_Dave]

13. You just don't KNOW all the evidence for explosives in the WTC

Their exists overwhelming evidence of explosives in the WTC, in physical analysis of photos and videos of the event, in eye-witness testimony of fireman and others on the scene, and even seismographic earthquake records from the University of Columbia. Some good anaysis of the pictures is at http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/ Some good eyewitness reports are at www.rense.com/general17/eyewitnessreportspersist.htm Seismic evidence is at www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn2.htm

[Stephanie]

21. I'm sorry, that Rense article does not convince me

The expert drew his conclusions based on watching the collapse on television, in New Mexico, and then revised his opinion.

ONE fireman, who was trapped in an ELEVATOR, thinks he heard bombs - I have not heard of any other fireman who say this.

One woman, on the 80th floor, thinks she heard an explosion. What about the thousands of other people who were there?

Then there's this:

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/wall.html

Debris was still falling. You couldn’t see the sky. Maybe you could see like 30 or 40 feet up. And the weirdest thing, you could hear these booms above you. It sounded like bombs going off above you, but it was actually the military jets flying overhead. It was like an eerie feeling. You couldn’t see anything, but you could hear these things going back and forth. It was like a real heavy fog.

[Dancing_Dave]

37. Hundreds of witnesses reported exlosions, military planes don't explain

Hundreds of witnesses have already testified about hearing explosions in the buildings. Just try doing Google and Yahoo searches for "WTC Explosions" and the like. However many it takes to convince you, they really aren't that hard to find!

It's psychologically understandable that a person would try to reconcile their disturbing experience with the official version of what happened by coming up with ideas like "maybe the military planes caused that sound". But military planes don't really make a sound like that, and they sure don't make the kind of seismographic imprint that was recorded on the Columbia University geological equipment! All the real evidence hear points toward many explosions in the buildings, with especially large explosives deep in the basement, causing the little Earthquakes measured (and also FELT by many witnesses on the spot!)

[Stephanie]

43. Please point me to that testimony of the hundreds of witnesses

If it exists I would like to see it. BTW, calling people "idiots" does not strengthen your argument.

[Dancing_Dave]

75. It's not to hard to find them

I seem to have to repeat myself more than I would like. Anyway, it's really easy to find however many you want doing searches like "WTC Explosions" or "WTC Bombs" using the Google or Yahoo search engines. I also posted a question about this at the New York City Indymedia site, and sure enough, some more people turned up who said they were there and heard, and felt the Earth tremors from, the multiple explosions. Persist long enough and you can find thousands of people with such experiences. You can find however much of it you have time to read.

Here's one interesting example http://www.geocities.com/theawakeningnews/911-Bomb_In_WTCs.html

[Nlighten1]

22. There is some on audio

there is a tape of the firefighters who were near the top were it imploded and the firefighters are heard saying they heard loud explosions. Not exactly evidence but I think the firefighters would know what they were talking about.

[nostamj]

i have no doubt that things exploded

during those INTENSE fires.

oxygen tanks, cleaning products, whatever.

But NOT professional demolition explosives expertly set in THREE buildings.

(and see my previous post on the utter lapse in simple logic in this distraction theory)

[Stephanie]

27. Don't forget Giuliani's huge diesel fuel tanks

to power the generators for his emergency bunker in Building 7

[nostamj]

33. see post #28 for the bldg7 distraction

sheesh!

read paul thompson's timeline twice and call us in the morning!

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/

[Dancing_Dave]

42. Obviously you're no explosives expert

if you think that oxygen tanks or cleaning supplies ever make the kind of explosions it takes to bring down a steel frame building...or the kind of explosions clearly visible in many videos.

[nostamj]

45. uh... please don't distort my posts

I did not say or suggest that ANY internal explosion of ANY kind were involved in the collapse of either tower (or bldg7)

MASSIVE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE due to the impact and explosion of TWO, heavily fueled commercial aircraft were MORE than adequate.

as any credible investigation would agree.

this kind of argument comes out of the Rove workshop.

this 'theory' is utterly ignored by serious 9/11 investigators for a good reason. it's pure BS designed to discredit and distract legitimate investigation.

and that's all I'm going to say. it's clear you have no interest in evidence beyond your 'no pentagon plane' level nonsense

[Dancing_Dave]

47. Time will tell

that your prejudices are wrong.

[RH]

106. Time has already told.

:eyes:

We searched diligently for months. We waited very patiently.

Not one person with any direct personal experience of the Pentagon event to qualify their opinion of it has yet been known to express the slightest doubt about the plain fact that a B757, Flight 77, hit the building.

So according to what expectation would it now be presumed that anything else would ever be the case?

[Dancing_Dave]

40. The firefighters inside sure would know!

Indeed, those firefighters inside the building knew all to well what they were hearing. Pity that so many of those guys didn't live to tell off the absurd idiots who try to discredit embarassingly truthful postings without really bringing forth any evidence or logic for their pathetic corporate media conformism. Doesn't it occur to them that the extremely wealthy "news" companies have some powerful biasing INTERESTS in putting together the stories that they so thoughtlessly and uncritically accept?

[nostamj]

41. take your fingers out of your ears

and READ the replies.

once again... S L O W L Y this time...

of
course
there
were
explosions
in
a
fire
of
that
magnitude

but NOT the controlled demolition of three buildings as INSURANCE (?) in case the MULTIPLE HIJACKINGS weren't enough.

enough distraction. demand answers about the REAL questions

[donco6]

65. Uh - near the top when it imploded?

How is that possible, exactly?

Besides, buildings collapsing make a lot of noise. Think about the release of potential energy - those buildings took YEARS to build, with each piece being lifted up by cranes or elevators (increasing potential energy). Then the buildings collapsed in a matter of seconds - the release of energy would be ENORMOUS.

This whole idea is nonsensical.

[Dancing_Dave]

76. I'm not quite sure what your question is...what doesn't make sense?

Why would it be impossible for them to be near the top when it imploded? They climbed up there by the staircase, which hadn't been damaged much (firefighters all have to be in good enough cardiovascular shape to do that! I would've had trouble climbing that many stairs that fast, but thats beside the point). Their progress was reported by radio and recorded on tape. We know from that that a number of firefighters had gotten to the level where the plane had hit (even in the South Tower, where they had the least time), and felt they nearly had the fires under control. They were arranging to evacuate the injured people. Some were checking out the situation above where the planes had hit. They felt they had the situation nearly under control, but then the bombs went off which actually brought the buildings down, and all those guys up there heard the bombs but then they were dead. Some of the guys who heard the bombs further down survived. Their testimony matches the video evidence we have that shows many explosives going off. You can find these videos on the web along with some helpful analysis, I've already mentioned some links. What doesn't make sense to you here?

[Karenina]

26. There were credible reports

from F.D.N.Y. personnel of hearing detonations.

[nostamj]

29. see my (un-numbered) post above

of course shit explodes in a fire of that magnitude.

but NOT the kind of simultaneous controlled detonations this 'distraction theory' calls for...

the buildings fell the way they did because that is how they were DESIGNED. it's physics.

and as I said elsewhere on this thread, this theory exists to discredit the legitimate areas of inquiry.

[On the Road]

2. I've Seen This Claim

and have never known what to make of it. Frankly, I can't see the evidence the way they describe it. I've always attributed the activity on the floors immediately below the collapse to the assumption that the leading edge of the collapse was internal and not directly visible.

But people did report explosions before the tower fell, and CNN briefly had a banner reading something like "third explosion brings down WTC tower."

I'd be interested if any demoition experts or civil engineers saw the footage the same way.

[Trek234]

9. It is fact

That at least one fire fighter reported an internal explosion over the radio while he was in the building.

But of course that doesn't mean there was an explosion as in bomb explosion. Maybe he heard something like an explosion, or maybe there was gas somewhere in the building for legit purposes?

[donco6]

68. I seem to remember a big FIRE.

Maybe that had something to do with it?

[charlie]

10. There is a demolition and terrorism expert

who made some oft-cited statements to a newspaper saying he believed the towers were felled by explosives, but later "amended" his opinion to conform with the conventional explanation:

The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

...

Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures.

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.

...

If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said.

http://emperors-clothes.com/news/albu.htm

There's more at the link.

[Dancing_Dave]

25. Just think about it...

The strongest part of the buildings was central core. The part most damaged by the plane impacts was the outer shell where the planes first hit, that absorbed the most force. It doesn't make sense that the collapse would begin internally unless there were explosives in there. It would start from the damages in the outer frame.

Here's one expert who immediately recongized the collapse as a controlled demolition and posted his observation promptly on 9/11/2001 http://www.serendipity.li/wot/davidr.html

[sabbat hunter]

111. strongest part

actually the strongest part of the building was NOT the central core, but the outer walls.

in what was considered a revolutionary enginering feat, the WTC was designed and had the majority of the weight on the outside walls of the structure. it was done this way to eliminate columns that would run thru office.

the central core did carry some of the weight of the building, but they were not designed for nor did they carry the weight of the building.
once the outer structure started to give, the weight would shift to the inner core, where it was not meant to be. the overwhelming weight on the central core is the reason for the collapse, not 'explosives' set to detonate.


peace
david
:hippie:

[theHandpuppet]

6. I can't speculate on such theories, but...

... is there an engineer here who could determine the odds of BOTH towers completely collapsing straight down within an hour of one another, even though they were hit at completely different places, heights, and angles? This unlikely "coincidence" is what's really bugging me.

[TrogL]

7. Somebody's imagination is working overtime

There's perfectly good physics to describe why the building fell straight down without resorting to tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. If you look around the site he also supports the theory that no airliner hit the Pentagon.

The building fell straight down because it was the path of least resistance. It's certainly not the first building to do so. I've seen pictures of a hospital in Mexico that did exactly the same thing.

[Lurking Dem]

12. You mean you're not going to

take the word of....PlaguePuppy?!?!?

:eyeroll:

[ParanoidPat]

15. I have a 50 cents off coupon for Reynolds Wrap I don't need....

.....that he's welcome to if he wants it! :evilgrin:
Methinks he needs it! :)

Interesting timing for this post! I wonder if it could be an attempt to discredit the site because of the Black Box Voting threads? :tinfoilhat:
Lots of interesting connections being exposed every day.
Do you suppose................NAH! ;)

[Lurking Dem]

31. ROFLOL

A conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories? Awesome!

:toast:

[Dancing_Dave]

32. There's much more to it than "falling straight down"

It's physically surprising that the buildings fell as straight down as they did when you consider HOW EXTREMELY CONCENTRATED THE DAMAGE WOULD BE ON THE SIDE WHERE A PLANE HIT. It's like a tree falls over when an axe damages it from one side.

But the evidence for demolition by multiple explosions goes far beyond the buildings "falling straight down" Study ALL the evidence and logic at the sites I have mentioned.

[karlschneider]

34. A building is not a tree. Its structure is TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

This crap has been dissected for way over a year. Jeezusfuckingchrist.
:eyes:

[Dancing_Dave]

46. This stands up to dissection very well

In trying to explain something to a general audience who are not all way into Mathematical Physics, it is inevitable that a teacher uses some imperfect analogies to clarify a point. Indeed, a steel structured building is different from a tree, but that doesn't effect the underlying reasoning here about the effects of positioned explosives, as opposed to side impacts or fires.

Indeed, this important issue has been dissected for over a year now, and it's held up very well to dissection. There are more and more scientifically informed websites supporting this point of view all the time. The truth is becoming clear to more and more scientifically aware people around the world. It's certainly not going to go away.

[karlschneider]

56. Well, I am an aeronautical engineer by education, which includes a fair

amount of structural theory and practice. I am also a professional pilot of some 35 years. And I'm as against the Bush Cartel as anyone in the country...as much as I would like to pin some sort of weird 'detonation' on these guys, there simply is no evidence of anything like that.

Airliners contain several large pressurized containers of Oxygen and Nitrogen. I have no problem believing that many of them could easily have burst under the heat generated by 25 tons of jet fuel burning. I have seen an O2 tank explode. Have you?

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nostamj]

36. "evidence and logic"

i've read acres of "evidence and logic" on EVERY aspect of 9/11 from that night--when I finally got off the island and home to brooklyn--to today.

on this 'distraction' the *controlled demolition* experts always fail to mention that the buildings were DESIGNED TO COLLAPSE EXACTLY THE WAY THEY DID

i.e. pancaking straight down. the South Tower, due to the location of the airplane strike, actually DID *begin* to list but gravity and CONSTRUCTION took over and the building fell AS DESIGNED.

save your energy for the REAL issues. bushies LOVE it when these distractions distract from their very real failures that morning.

[Dancing_Dave]

48. Could you please give the source on that? Could be good point.

Where did you find that about the buildings being designed to collapse that way? This could be some relevent information to understanding what happened. But the design would have to include explosives to create what can be seen on the videos, measured by the time the buildings took to collapse and so on. This might be an important clue, but it doesn't address most of the issues about the explosions. What I would really like to know is WHO PUT THE EXPLOSIVES IN THERE.

[donco6]

66. The buildings didn't fall straight down.

Watch the video. The external structural skeleton of the building caves on the impact side, but due to the extreme heat of the fire engulfing the entire floor, the remaining structural beams couldn't bear the stress, and they came down as well. But the building clearly tips toward the side of the impact.

[julka]

14. redid a long post on this

making it simple

plane hits building....remember that?

loaded with fuel

explodes, causing very high-temp fire

floors attached to support structures in a manner not designed to withstand the extreme temperatures generated

one floor gave way, then the next, then the next, then the next: pancake effect

check the myriad stories available on this

[Dancing_Dave]

49. This argument has already been destroyed

Yep, you summerized the official version that it served some powerful peoples interests to disseminate. Though some of it may seem intuitive at first, exact reasoning and evidence has already shown that it does not really hold true. One of the best scientific demonstrations is at http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_demolition.htm

[Nederland]

61. One Person's Opinion

The web page you provided is merely one person's opinion of what happened. As for me, I'm inclined to believe the explanation provided by the engineer who actually designed the building. He did numerous interviews, including a rather lengthly 3 hour Discovery Channel special on the topic, and his explanation is the conventional wisdom. The building was hit by a plane, the resulting fires weakened the steel, one floor collapsed causing a pancake effect. You'll need to explain to me why the engineer who designed the building is either wrong or (put on the tin foil hat) part of the conspiracy.

[Dancing_Dave]

78. Some clarification of the controversy

Could you give me a link on that engineers opinion. Actually, quite a number of people were involved in designing the World Trade Center, and the ones whose responses I have heard didn't agree with the one you seem to remember. Of course, there is probably some disagreement among them now! Anyway the ones I've read were very shocked by what happened and felt they had designed the buildings to take plane impacts and fires without any such general collapse. And no such collapse as we saw on the videos has ever been observed do to any cause other than multiple well-placed explosives.

I should make very clear, that a lot of competent experts at first thought the official "pancacking trusses theory" seemed plausible, but some more recent evidence and arguments have tended to make them back off from that. Any scientist who wants to get any research money from the U.S. Government now knows not to mention the matter of explosions and demolition. But the researchers at the National Institue of Standards and Technology have already abandoned most of the official theory you all heard in the media. Check out http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc05-07-03.htm There's a great line hidden away in there -- "Nothing in the interim report -- based on factual review of documents the NIST has received -- should be taken to imply that the floor trusses played a critical role in the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers." There goes the whole official theory you heard in the media!

[Suspicious]

16. My knowledge

is limited enough in this area that I will not say, with 100% surety, that I believe or disbelieve the theory that the towers came down as a result of controlled demolition .

I do, however, retain a copy of a magazine (Time or Newsweek? I would have to dig it out - I can't recall for certain) that was on the stands within a couple of days after September 11. There were interviews with several WTC survivors - including firefighters - and I distinctly remember one of the firefighters relating the fact that there were several explosions in the building as they made their way through the stairwells.

That statement caught my attention immediately, and I have never forgotten it. I believe there were similar statements made by other survivors, but it never seemed to catch any attention. I still think about that statement being made by a firefighter (and backed up by a fellow firefighter who was with him) - how much more credible do you get? He distinctly said that he and his partner were certain that explosives had been placed in that building - as in, the explosions were not somehow caused by the inferno.

[Dancing_Dave]

60. You're right, firemans reports of explosions were reported right after 9/1

but then heavy cover-up came down and no more was said about it in the mainstream press. Some of them (I think People was one) even removed the files about this from there websites AFTER they'd already published the fireman's words...it's just like the Bush Administration now wanting to retro-actively classify and hide from the people things that already came out in completely public testimony to Congress! This cover-up is really getting DESPERATE.

[BushHasGotToGo]

18. Dude, take your meds

Putting that many explosives in the world trade center PLUS having the planes crash into the towers.

This is bogus.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ex_jew]

57. You've put your finger on it !

The people in the planes knew nothing about the explosives. Nor did they have any reason to think the buildings would collapse. Their plot was used by some other party as a plausible explanation for the collapse caused by explosions.

I'm always struck by two facts regarding the conventional explanation. First, what caused the subterranean fires that burned for several weeks if there was no bomb ? Second, why did WTC7 collapse with NO plane flying into it ? These two facts blow giant holes in the conventional wisdom.

[Dancing_Dave]

64. I'm glad to find at least one person who realizes the history is complex!

Conspiracies have happened many times throughout human history, and that is no delusion at all. But both "conspiracy theorists" and their critics seem to want a too simplistic explanation of whose responsible for highly complex historical events, and 9/11 is about as complicated as they come. So many people knew that something was going to happen, and some of 'em just made millions dollars off their foreknowledge. Even that's way to COMPLICIT for me. Doesn't every human being have some kind of responsibility to do what they can to prevent such disasters, instead of just making millions of dollars off their inside info?

I think their had to be more than one group involved in malicious actions on 9/11, and the Bush Administration knew a lot of what was going to happen but not all of it. Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld is the guy in the Bush Administration who most clearly "knew the plan" for 9/11, and he is truely an extreme menace to all humanity. About as evil, power-hungry and ruthless as people come. Already on 9/11 he was talking about attacking Iraq. And the need for nuclear weapons in space too. His whole damn shopping list. Yet I bet even Donald Rummsfeld was surprised by some of what happened, or didn't happen on 9/11. So many devious people knew it was going to be "the big day".

[Stephanie]

70. Darling, you are new to DU, and you may not be aware

that Global Free Press is a project created by DUers. A lot of the information there was developed and researched here over the last two years. You might check out the DU 9/11 Forum, in the Foreign Affairs/National Security folder. We have heard all this before, it is not news to us.

[Dancing_Dave]

79. Then why did Ewing2001 get kicked out of DU?

It's cool that a number of the same people have been involved in DU and the Global Free Press, but it seems like some of the best ideas and writers one could find at the Global Free Press are not especially well understood or appreciated here, and the ones who don't get kicked out can end up fleeing in frustration. Like a number of other very intelligent people who shared great 9/11 research in the DU archives, but don't seem to have posted much here lately. Even though their arguments are now winning over more and more people around the world, there is much more hostile prejudice against independent reason expressed in threads like this one, than you would find at a Libertarian American site, or a Left-Wing site from Canada, France, Germany, etc.! What is going on? Are there really so many Democrats who are pathetically unable or unwilling to really THINK FOR THEMSELVES? Remarks with no evidence or reasoning at all but just some silly remark about "Tin Foil Hats" express nothing but PREJUDICE. They have absolutely nothing to do with the truth.

[Bolo Boffin]

86. Ewing2001 and other Greens were locked out of DU...

...right before the 2002 elections. It had nothing to do with his avowal of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Darkweavers just don't know when to quit.

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html

http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html?ex=1060574400&en=cbb9bf63b62230aa&ei=5070

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

[Sterling]

98. Ewing was NOT and is NOT a Green

If you don't know that I can't see any reason to take anything you say seriously.

[Bolo Boffin]

101. Really? News to me...

He was gone about the same time as the great Green purge of 2002 - I just figured it was because of that.

I don't care if you take anything I say seriously or not. I speak truth the way I see it, and if I'm wrong, I'll admit it. If you don't understand that about me, then just hit Ignore and go your own way, k?

[westerby]

105. Ewing2001 and other Greens were locked out?

Why do you now that?
And why exactly were they locked out?

[Bolo Boffin]

108. Here's how I know, and more info besides...

I know it, because I was here about the time it happened.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID60/11686.html

That is Skinner's official explanation of the banning of IndianaGreen, Ewing2001, and Sterling (surprise, surprise). This thread was the "final straw" for all of them:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4948&forum=DCForumID61

EarlG ADMIN (2747 posts) Oct-16-02, 01:14 PM (ET)
138. Sorry
We do not want Democratic Underground to become a staging area for protests against Democrats.

I'm locking this thread. More details to follow later today.

EG

As Skinner mentions in his explanation:

Clearly, we made a huge blunder in how we went about this, and we were stupid not to anticipate that all of you would assume that the three individuals were banned as a result of the new rules.

That was the assumption I made, and was checked in by Sterling, who along with IndianaGreen, have now returned to DU. Ewing2001 has not, I gather.

[westerby]

112. Thanks for the info!

n/t

[Abe Linkman]

110. Conspiarcy theory, or conspiracy, in fact.

"It had nothing to do with his avowal of 9/11 conspiracy theories."

In your opinion, which 9/11 version is a conspiracy theory?

1. Osama and "The Boys" plotted, planned, and carried it out.

2. #1 seems less and less likely to be true, but it isn't possible to say for sure how the events happened.

[karlschneider]

19. Bovine feces.

:eyes:

[nostamj]

20. ahem.... if the buildings were wired with exposives...

why bother with hijackings?

why not hold off the detonation to inflict maximum deaths?

these fringe theories exist to discredit the legitmate questions about the events of 9/11.

IMH (but informed--I am a NYer too) O this goes in the same distraction file as the 'no pentagon plane' nonsense

[Stephanie]

24. what nostamj said

Exactly.

[Karenina]

28. Building #7

was NOT hit by a plane. Somebody talk to me.

[nostamj]

30. bldg#7

was where Guiliani stored an emergency fuel supply. ok?

[Stephanie]

35. Diesel fuel for Giuliani's bunker

NY Times 3/2/2002
By JAMES GLANZ and ERIC LIPTON
Burning Diesel Is Cited in Fall of 3rd Tower
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00613FC35550C718CDDAA0894DA404482

<snip>"Massive structural beams that functioned as a sort of bridge to hold up the 47-story skyscraper known as 7 World Trade Center were compromised in a disastrous blaze fed by diesel fuel, leading to the building's collapse on Sept. 11, investigators have concluded in a preliminary report...As much as 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel was stored near ground level in the tower and ran in pipes up to smaller tanks and emergency generators for Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's command center, the Secret Service's office and other tenants...Investigators have determined that the burning fuel apparently undermined what is known as a transfer truss. The trusses, a series of steel beams that allowed the skyscraper to be built atop multistory electricity transformers, were critical to the structural integrity of the building and ran near the smaller diesel tanks. A failure of the same type of structural bridge contributed to the collapse of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City when it was bombed in 1995. Federal guidelines for public buildings, created in 1996, warned of the dangers of such trusses in terrorist attacks...Fire officials did at one point question the storage of large amounts of fuel well above the ground level, saying that one large tank for the mayor's command center, if ever compromised, might fuel a fire that would threaten the building...Dr. John D. Osteraas, director of civil engineering practice, Exponent Failure Analysis Associates, in Menlo Park, Calif., reviewed videos of the collapse, discussed it with other engineers and came to a similar conclusion; the fuel, the trusses and the fire brought 7 World Trade down. "The pieces have come together,"he said. "Without the fuel, I think the building would have done fine."

NY TIMES
December 20, 2001
City Had Been Warned of
Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F3081FFC3B5A0C738EDDAB0994D9404482

<snip>"Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes. The 6,000-gallon tank was positioned about 15 feet above the ground floor and near several lobby elevators and was meant to fuel generators that would supply electricity to the 23rd-floor bunker in the event of a power failure. Although the city made some design changes to address the concerns - moving a fuel pipe that would have run from the tank up an elevator shaft, for example - it left the tank in place. But the Fire Department repeatedly warned that a tank in that position could spread fumes throughout the building if it leaked, or, if it caught fire, could produce what one Fire Department memorandum called "disaster."

[Dancing_Dave]

67. Thats PART of the truth

but not the whole truth. Why the fuel tank doesn't by itself explain the way WTC 7 was systematically demolished has been discussed at the Global Free Press site from New York City. Sorry, I don't seem to remember the exact page. The whole site is very worth checking out.

I've noticed an odd tendency in a lot of New York Times stories and in the testimony of the people who they happen to favor for quotation. They get most of the facts that they happen to mention right, but it's still very misleading because other even more important facts are systematically excluded. In fact, WTC 7 did not suffer a collapse centered on that tank that exploded. The whole thing came down very evenly, with explosives widely spread through the building going off in very quick succession. The tank exploding by itself would not produce the pattern that can be seen in the videos of the event. The tank would just create a big gash like you can see in pictures of the Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City, which was probably just attacked with one truck bomb. Or many other less controversial bombing cases where a singular explosion just took a big chunk out of a building and you can see just where that one explosion was.

[Dancing_Dave]

58. WTC 7 was demolished without being hit by a plane.

Indeed, WTC 7 explosively collapsed just like the Twin Towers, and it was not even hit by a plane. That is one of the biggest problems with the whole official story. A fire did start there, but never in history has a fire caused such a collapse of a steel framed building...then it happens 3 times in one day? Is that suspicious or what?

Even one of the World Trade Center towers survived a far worse fire in the 1970s, without any such collapse even begining to happen. Fire Engineering magazine is right. The official story is a "half-baked farce" (their words) All firemen deserve a real investigation of the explosions and collapses. But the government won't fund any scientists to do such an investigation! It seems like some researchers at the National Instute of Standards and Technology would like to get to this after they finish studying the initial fires. You can tell they want to get to the real issue if they can get away with it -- BECAUSE THERE TALKING ABOUT THE SIMILAR COLLAPSE OF WTC 7 AND THE TWIN TOWERS, and they're trying to get more evidence about all the firemans radio transmissions during these events...but of course they're getting frustrated because officials are refusing to give them evidence that they need and there's obviously a huge cover-up.

[Endimion]

102. Nicely said

You see how "they" retrieve from the scene when someone says something that is really truth?
Still on Delphi forum (where I first got into 9/11) I pointed out the neccessity of B7. It is an important building, much more important it its "collapse".

Keep up the good work.

[Dancing_Dave]

53. What if more than one group was involved in 9/11? So many KNEW!

These are indeed very good questions, but I think you're overlooking that everthing that happened 9/11/2001 may not have been all planned and executed by the same group of people. As we all should know by now lots and lots of intelligance agencies, governments, and groups pretty much knew something like this was coming along. Quite a few different sources tried to warn the Bush Administration that something like was coming down the pike, and the Bush Administration did not respond like they expected. But many of these people who knew had various military or militant connections, some others could have used the foreknowledge to jump into the event.

I think that the Bush Administration was COMPLICIT in the 9/11 disaster, at least to the point of "letting it happen on purpose". But it also seems clear that the whole thing did not end up going quite as they expected. If you just consider the Presidents behavior, at first when he here's about the planes hitting the buildings, everything is clearly going as he expected and he just goes on talking with the elementary school kids about pet goats....but a little later came the time when he seemed to behaving erratically and know one even knew where he was. Clearly, the whole thing did not go off as planned or expected. The complete demolition of the World Trade Center could have been one of those things.

Read what Jared Israel of The Emporers New Clothes has had to say about things not going quite as planned on 9/11.

[DS1]

39. My humble theory

The bangs heard were the main support beams being suddenly relieved of a shitload of pressure. Even a house cracks when the sun comes up, these things just had half their load released after 30 years of existence. I believe that also explains the seisomological(sp?) "evidence" also.

/end

[Dancing_Dave]

54. That's pretty good

Well, that is lot more reasonable than a lot of what prejudiced people have said here. Indeed, that kind of phenomana can explain some of what happened, but not all of it. There was more going on, or there wouldn't even have been that much pressure released that fast. The sudden release involved some explosives that were carefully placed at structurally important places on those beams.

[m_h_lovecraft]

44. There are only two things that REALLY bother me

This is as far into tinfoil hat country as I choose to go...

-The nearly intact passport of Mohammad Atta
-The precision, nearly-tandem guidance of two passenger jets into the upper stories of two different but closely-placed buildings in NYC airspace

I have a friend who is compelled to drop other stuff, like the explosives hunch, and I tell him frankly: It's not necessarily that I don't believe you, it is that I won't believe you. It hurts my heart and brain too much.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

50. This thread is priceless. Ever notice how certain posters are more

receptive to believing these sorts of conspiracies?

[ex_jew]

59. And some people are content with the first thing that pops

into their mind. Plane hit building - building go boom. Why the subterranean fires ? Why did WTC7 choose that day of all days to catch on fire and collapse in a way no metal-frame building has ever done before ?

[plaguepuppy]

96. Cause and effect

It's so simple - one thing happens, something else happens later, so the first thing caused the second. Any fool can tell you, just ask!

B7 remains totally unexplained to any rational critic - minor localized fires, trivial structural damage, and in the middle of the afternoon it drops like an elevator. And this was a relatively conventional steel frame building, no lightweight trusses, no tube in a tube design. Will wonders never cease?

Pup

[westerby]

107. What exactly do you mean?

Do you mean some people believe the official story, and some do not?
That would be not very surprising.

[phgnome]

55. What about the gold

Anyone hear anything about that gold (I think $12 million)? I briefly heard it mentioned that it was in the basement but then they said they got it out on the 2nd or 3rd day after the attacks -- how did they get down there? And if they could get down there -- how is it that the gold got out before the people?

[Character Assassin]

62. Why do presumably otherwise intelligent people buy into such BULLSHIT?

I'm about to go off on an "astrology is for dumbasses" level rant.

Counting to 10......

Deep breathing.

Godallmightyfuckinghelpme.....

"The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round....."

[spanone]

63. I seem to remember a plane??

Bullshit like this only serves to make us look like a buncha bozos. These cats were good but they got lucky.

[DisgustedTX]

69. BUSH PLANNED. THOUSANDS DIED.

Ahh. Much better.

[Dancing_Dave]

80. I Agree

I entirely agree with you about Bush Administration forknowledge and complicity in 9/11/2001. No doubt, Cheney and Rumsfeld were involved in some of the planning, and they pretty much knew what would go down and how they would spin it. The ruthless Bush political and buisness dynasty obviously had to be complicit as well

I'm sorry that some of the WTC collapse issue doesn't necesarily connect with that point in a simple way. Of course the PNAC guys were very willing to let thousands die in order for their plan to come into effect. And now that it's in effect, people keep on dying and it will only get worse until we change direction. The WTC collapse CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THERE IS HAS BEEN A HIGH LEVEL COVER-UP. But just because they covered it up, doesn't mean that they planned everything that happened to the WTC, and it all went off as expected. For example, they could be covering some things up because they are being blackmailed. So many devious people knew in advance about the big disaster coming down...some used the knowledge to make millions of dollars, and many other evil uses were available as well.

[acerbic]

71. Just curious: what kind of "scientist"?

Scientist Jeff King, known on the internet as PlaguePuppy

Which science and what credentials...?

[Dancing_Dave]

81. Just Write and Ask Him

Just write and ask the guy at mailto:[e-mail]

[acerbic]

83. ...and get more spam? Not any time soon.

Whoever claims that somebody is a "scientist" should be able to just tell. If not, that also tells things...

[Must_B_Free]

72. I believe it was planned down to the number of deaths

My believ is that christian and jewish fundamentalists worked together to make this happen. They are the beneficiaries. They believe that they need to fulfill prophecy to make it happen.

The number of dead, 3000, (the rough figure used for the event) is biblically associated with transformation. Many time in the bible, 3000 are killed and a new age emerges.

3000 is the number used for our conscription into the new world order.

[Pastiche423]

73. How much time elapsed

from when each plane struck, until each building collapsed?

[LARED]

74. Hey PP

Do you pay these folks to create a mythology about you?

For those that care, PlaguePuppy is a biologist that has some engineering training and has done some engineering work. He's not a scientist and as far as I know has never claimed to be one.

[Dancing_Dave]

82. Bioligists aren't Scientists?

Biology was still classified as a science last time I heard. One which also depends on the basic physics in question here.

I have my own opinion of the significance of the discovery of these cutting charges. I think that my reasoning and the variety of evidence available, makes the significance clear NO MATTER WHO HAPPENED TO FIND THEM. If some random lunatic happened to see them first, it would still be significant. Keep your mind open and free. Keep seeing whatever you can which may not have been noticed before.

[LARED]

84. Last time I checked

calling oneself a scientist implies that one has an advanced body of knowledge about a particular discipline or set of disciplines.

Now, PP may consider himself a scientist in biology or a similar field, although in my many, many discussions with him in these forums he has never indicated he considers himself to be a scientist, but he without question does not poses advanced knowledge of the civil, structural, or mechanical systems at play in the WTC collapse. To call him a scientist in the context of some "discovery" regarding the use of explosives in the WTC collapse is well... laughable.

Now regarding this "discovery." A discovery tells one that something has been uncovered, has been brought to light. You will need to explain exactly how the images on his web site indicate there were explosives used. Exactly what evidence is there that tells us there has been a discovery? Is the use of explosive the only reasonable cause of what is seen or are there perhaps a half dozen reasons why we see what we see using more mundane explanations?

One like, dust, plaster, and other debris being pushed out by the force of the floors collapsing in the building.

:think:

[OudeVanDagen]

85. LARED:

"laughable" too kind.

Inudating these forums with boring and inaccurate posts PP & DD could best use their time checking protocols utilized for investigation of the collapsed buildings and read the results presently available. All I see is their use of bizarre reports made by inexperienced unknowledgable selfserving photo-op seeking big mouthed publicity hungry pencil neck geeks that popped into and out of the collapse site for a few hours and then split to run their mouths. Nothing from those that spent never ending days countless weeks and months on the ground in trucks in barges and in the kills. Hell, remember the post where PP couldn't tell a column from a column cover? Stupid is as stupid does.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[acerbic]

88. AWOOGA! "Melting" Canard Alert! AWOOGA!

Man the debunking stations and earn your pay, you fellow CIA republican agents! :-)

Underground melted STEEL?

What "underground melted STEEL" indeed: what on earth or whichever planet are you ranting about just there? Are you saying that there was underground melted steel or that there wasn't and what do you claim that it means?

[Endimion]

91. Extraordinary......

Astonishing...
26min...
I must say it could be your record. No wait. I remember you once has ~10min. Sorry for that. I'll call GWR.


:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:


PP, sorry if this causes headache, it was not meant for you.

[acerbic]

92. Sorry, I can't interpret that answer of yours

The question was: are you saying that there was underground melted steel or that there wasn't and what do you claim that it means?

[Endimion]

93. Ummmm...

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/gijoecarnival.mov

:eyes:
:party:
:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:

[LARED]

90. It is remarkable

And it is remarkable how you disinfo idiots sound all the same

Must have something to be with having a firm grip on reality.

And

You come as those toon shoulder-devils to set the fire of ignorance in minds of innocent posters. You're all full of seed of ignorance. Shame on you...

I believe qualifies as the ironic statement of the day.

[LARED]

89. The keys to internet "investigative" inquiry

that sucks in great numbers of otherwise intelligent people seems to be....

1.Use google extensively. If it's in google and it reinforces your position, then it is the gospel truth. If it does not reinforce your position, it is part of the conspiracy and should properly be ignored.

2. If it's not on the internet it does not exist.

3. The use of logic in making your argument is strictly optional. If you need to contort logic to connect the dots it not a problem as every one that is seeking your version of reality will overlook the twisted logic that got you to the "truth."

4. Being articulate is very important. Sounding like you know what you are talking about is almost as good as actually knowing what you are talking about. Being articulate comes in very handy when you need to fill in some inconsistencies in your argument with utter BS.

5. And the most important quality is to never, never, never give up your quest for the reality you seek. No matter how much evidence is piled up that refutes your whacked out version of truth, reality, whatever, never give an inch to the rational thought process that reflects objective reality.

:hi:

[plaguepuppy]

95. 4. Being articulate is very important.

Ooh, a sure sign of dishonesty!!!

[LARED]

97. Now that you're here

are you a scientist or not?

[Sterling]

99. Yes he is a Biologist

That is science. Thus he is a "scientist". I don't have a conclusion about the WTC collapse and I was there that day. I do know that there is good reason to put scrutiny to every eliment of the "official" story.

Anyone who has been paying attention should understand that.The insults between people who supposedly are open minded and looking for the truth is sad and counter productive.

Can't we all just get along?

Maybe PP is right maybe not but I want to slap the shit out of about 50% of the people on this thread for just being assholes to each other when you should be working together even if you don't agree %100.

[Endimion]

103. I don't think it is possible

to cooperate. You see, some individuals here are constantly trying to undertake every damn possibility to ruin serious attempts. There is no "cooperation" between us that understand what happened, and the ones that know it too, but lie on purpose.
I'd like it to be different, but in this almost 2 years I learned that recovery efforts are useless, cause our opinions are "not valid" and are "irrelevant".

Here appear to be 4 basic groups:
-people that have the info and spread the truth
-the ones that shut up the truth
-people that have no idea about 9/11 but are interested in finding out
-and the ones that have no idea, but are stubborn in their conservative thoughts

peace

[plaguepuppy]

100. To scientist or not to scientist?

Well, the message that I wrote to answer that was deleted, apparently for not meeting the new standards for politeness here in the Dunderground. (oops, am I still here?)

In a word, my answer is yes - in my reply I gave a rather long CV with my experience at MIT (class of '74, with a joint Biology/Electrical Engineering major, in what later became the Biomedical Engineering dept.), my decade or so as a practicing electronics engineer, etc. ad nauseum. Even ran a small electronics manufacturing company for a while.

But apart from that I see science as a worldview that goes beyond the details of one's education and particular career path. In a sense it is an attitude more than a particular methodology, a certain disrespect for recieved ideas and a willingness to let the physical world speak for itself.

The scientific spirit does not presume to enforce any particular conclusion or require adherance to any existing body of theory. Established ideas are worth something only to the extent that they explain a body of observational evidence. But it is always possible that your explanatory model is just wrong, like the earth-centered solar system, or a special case of a more complicated system as Newtonian physics was found to be a subset of relativistic physics.

It demands a radical willingness to engage with the messiness and complexity of the natural world, and to not declare victory until one has come to terms with all the evidence, especially the troublesome stuff. As Einstein said, "everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." *

P.Pup


* He also said: "You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat." I don't know what it means exactly but it captures something essential about modern physics, and Einstein himself.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[plaguepuppy]

104. New World Ordure or just more of the same old s**t?

So now that the Y chromasome turns out to be a giant palindrome, does the phrase "Madam, I'm Adam" take on a whole new meaning?

Since nobody else seems interested in actually talking about science, I thought I'd toss out a few of my favorite Uncle Albert quotes:

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

"Gravitation is not responsible for people falling in love."

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

"A person starts to live when he can live outside himself."

"God is subtle but he is not malicious."

"Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character."

"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."

Pup
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Wtc-2/

[plaguepuppy]

109. "First we bomb Bagdhad" - some precient words from Bill Hicks

From the late great Bill Hicks (1961-1994):

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/BillHicksElite.mp3

[nomatrix]

113. Looking for Larry

I see the reference in the post above to google, is it true Larry Silverstein (WTC) and Craig Silverstein (google) are related?

6 degrees of seperation.

Using a google search I came across this tidbit:

Robert Novak's column
Aprill 26, 2003
SILVERSTEIN'S LOBBYIST

"New York developer Larry Silverstein, who won long-term leases to commercial office space at the World Trade Center, has hired one of Washington's powerful political lobbying firms: Quinn Gillespie & Associates.

Jack Quinn was White House counsel under President Bill Clinton. Ed Gillespie, just elected Republican national chairman, has left the firm temporarily. Gillespie has been replaced by veteran GOP policy expert David Hoppe, who was Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott's chief of staff. Just why Silverstein needs such high-powered representation in Washington mystifies political insiders.

Jeffrey Connaughton, a former Clinton White House aide who is a principal at Quinn Gillespie, performed his first service for Silverstein Properties last Monday. He circulated on Capitol Hill a statement asserting that Silverstein, contrary to rumors, plans to use insurance proceeds to rebuild the World Trade Center."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030726.shtml

"Just why Silverstein needs such high-powered representation in Washington mystifies political insiders."

[Dancing_Dave]

114. Now that is really good!

Why should a few prejudicial disinfo agents destroy all constructive research at a site like DU...when the leading sophisticated edge of our culture is all about going beyond such bogus scams...we don't have as many billions of dollars to play with as the Bush Clan, but we can wake up, start thinking for ourselves, and save our Democracy and future whenever we like.

[nomatrix]

115. ???? disinfo agents?

DIA? Derailers? Me?

Please clear this up for me.

[Dancing_Dave]

116. Flashback: the origin of research on 9/11 WTC explosives

Form way back in Winter 2002: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-hamilton/2002-February/000265.html