Editorial
9/11, the Damage of the Aftermath and the Brightness Ahead
Many of today's articles in the mainstream press will focus on 9/11 and its aftermath in terms of a war on terror. But here at DB, we take it sorrowfully for granted that the 9/11 narrative is not accurate and that something else happened on that day that is not being reported.
This article is not aimed primarily at examining the mechanism of 9/11 so much as its aftermath – and where the next decade may bring us. Our conclusion may surprise you, dear reader, but that's only because we take a different view of history than most and as an alternative media source, we try to provide a viewpoint you will not find elsewhere.
Of course, we must admit the first decade of the 20th Century has been a horrid one by anyone's calculation. As horrible as the actual 9/11 attack was, the aftermath has been far worse, turning the US – once the freest country in the world – into a country where civil rights have been eroded and people are encouraged to spy on one another.
Many civil and judicial protections developed in the past 1,000 years have been shoved aside by the "war on terror." Increasingly, the war on terror, in the minds of many critics, is a war on civil society; the victims are those in America and the West who are being relentlessly stripped of their rights.
Of course, the trouble begins with the official story, which is patently unreasonable. The only definitive report on 9/11 has been renounced by several of the commissioners who participated in it.
The lead lawyer on the commission wrote a book claiming the commissioners had been lied to serially by US intelligence agencies and the George W. Bush administration. Much of the material that the commission wanted released to the public has not yet been released – an extraordinary amount of information, actually.
The FBI has given up trying to explain where phone calls from the planes came from as cell phones were not capable of making calls from fast-moving planes and the planes had no in-flight phones, either. The calls to loved ones from doomed passengers then remain a mystery. The plane that went down in Pennsylvania scattered supposed remains over many miles, even though in a normal crash scene, much of the plane's remains would be located in one place. The Pentagon attack remains questionable as well, with the FBI still withholding, some 10 years later, scores of videos that it confiscated from the area's security cameras and merchants.
There are literally hundreds of anomalous issues regarding the 9/11 narrative; they can be found on the Internet and many of them raise good questions. As we have pointed out many times in the past, it is not the task of citizens who have questions about 9/11 to come up with answers. It is likely impossible for an individual to reconstruct what went on without resources, both legal and monetary. Some sort of new commission, private or public, should be established to summarize the evidence and create conclusions commensurate with the facts.
Some would argue that with all the information on the Internet currently, the official story has been discredited, anyway. But the problem is that an unofficial narrative is not as compelling as an official one. And an official narrative is one that can be acted on – officially. What is being acted on in an official capacity is only what the war on terror calls for, which is increased war, increased repression at home and the constant erosion of civil liberties.
Today, Americans, especially, live in fear, and the fear is being generated out of Washington, DC. The serial wars begun after 9/11 – without reason or justification – and the domestic repression in which Americans are verging on an authoritarian-style police state where scanners and ID cards shall be ubiquitous not just at airports but everywhere else as well – malls, sports stadiums, etc. – are examples.
If someone wanted to create a scenario to strip people of their rights, the hazy, unbounded war on terror would be perfect. It justifies everything from rendition to torture to the suspension of the most basic liberties in order to "keep people safe."
The trouble with the war on terror is not only what it has justified but what it will demand in the future. Until the REAL narrative of 9/11 is presented, those in positions of power will continue to use the false narrative to justify any kind of internal and external oppression.
Here at DB, we believe in a global elite that is driving the world pell-mell toward world governance. Every part of the war on terror seems designed to support this goal; as ongoing and vague as it is, the war on terror gives governments – especially the American government – a virtual carte-blanche to expand government power monstrously.
Using the war on terror as a kind of bludgeon, the American administration – and Western regimes generally – are able to justify punitive taxes, an inflationary central bank regime and the aggressive militarization of society.
War is the health of the state, Randolph Bourne famously wrote, and this is absolutely true. Not only that, but anyone who investigates history with an open mind soon comes to the conclusion (in the Internet Reformation era) that most wars are phony, designed by people in power to reinforce their grip on social and military institutions.
Of course, that this article can be written at all is testimony to the Internet Reformation and the growing wave of freedom that is sweeping the world today as a result of the little-impeded flow of information between countries and growing billions of technology users.
There are plenty of people who do not believe that the Internet Reformation is real and that its truth-telling will make a difference. We would argue that it already has and that the powers-that-be are having an increasingly difficult time generating and maintaining their fear-based dominant social themes.
These fear-based memes are intended to impel Western middle classes to give up their wealth and power to globalist institutions that supposedly provide solutions to frightening (if phony) events like global warming and various scarcities (water, food, oil, etc.).
In the 21st Century, these memes are increasingly receiving push-back from those they are aimed at. It is very possible over the next 10 years that the war on terror itself will generate blowback to the degree that it loses its ability to justify the repressions that are now descending on the people of America and the West generally.
The first decade of the 21st Century has been a very dark one, rolling back Western freedoms to justify a very dubious war on terror. But we see signs that this war on terror is becoming less persuasive and credible every day. The war in Afghanistan has not gone as planned, the Middle East is not pacified and both in Europe and America, people are increasingly dissatisfied with their governments and their military operations.
The Internet Reformation is a process not an episode. We see trends toward greater freedom and openness that challenge the elite's rush to global power. The next decade of the 21st Century may be far less successful for the elites that have used 9/11 and the war on terror to strip the West of even its most basic freedoms. That's the good news, and people should not lose sight of it even during dark days that no doubt lie ahead.
l 
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by onebornfreeatyahoo on 09/14/11 08:49 PM
The following link to a YouTube video I have only just discovered may be of interest to some [or maybe just one!] person here.
The author claims that previously secret files have come to light that reveal construction of what was most likely [according to the video author] the core software animation sequence template used to fake the plane entry into WTC 2, and shows file composition dates for July 2001 .
If this video is for real , then obviously it is very significant, but even if fake it still shows what well might have have been necessary in order to produce a fake "plane into/through building" type video. See: Click to view link Regards, onebornfree.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Your solutions are entirely incredible. You natter on about directed energy beams and how cell phones were disabled throughout New York City and how the CIA created a smoke screen that hid the towers until they were somehow demolished in the AFTERNOON.
We read your assertions that grow more incredible by the hour and find it more and more likely that you are providing them as a form of disinformation as you may do in many other forums you frequent.
|
Posted by onebornfreeatyahoo on 09/14/11 02:35 PM
Typo corrections : "Herzekani" should be : Hezarkhani ; "CCN" should have been CNN. Regards, onebornfree.
|
Posted by onebornfreeatyahoo on 09/14/11 07:51 AM
You are welcome. If you have too much trouble finding the original network broadcast times for the supposed "amateur", "plane into/through building" footage by the 3 videographers/film-makers previously mentioned [ i.e. Naudet, Herzekani, Fairbanks], that were all aired either late 9/11, or on 9/12 let me know, and I will tell you where to look, timewise. [by email].
Hopefully you are aware that the only purported actual "live" major network footage on 9/11 that appeared to show an airliner disappearing inside a building, is the famous [or maybe not to yourself :-) ], "Fox 5" sequence, which was originally broadcast "live" on Fox, and then re-shown shortly afterwards on CNN.
This original footage is available for viewing in the Fox archives, although they keep altering/hiding it, so you might not find it straight away, and the same footage, blatantly modified,[they put a banner across the screen to hide most of the actual alleged event], is still to be seen in the CCN archives.
Simon Shack's "September Clues" Click to view link provides a telling close analysis of individual frames of that original Fox 5/CNN footage. Regards,onebornfree.
 |
Posted by David_Robertson on 09/13/11 05:36 PM
Thanks for the links.
|
Posted by onebornfreeatyahoo on 09/13/11 10:43 AM
Update/correction: Re: previously given link to on-line network 9/11 archives:
It appears that, since October 2008, TV Archive Org started denying access to some crucial morning broadcasts of 9/11. Should you run into this 'problem', please consult the mirrored archives. These also contain all of the original 9/11 US broadcast footage: Click to view link
.Regards, onebornfree.
|
Posted by onebornfreeatyahoo on 09/12/11 08:15 PM
"I wasn't aware that there were videos of the first aircraft"
Yes. The alleged [but non the less award winning!] Naudet Brothers video- again showing a plane effortlessly disappearing inside a building! [therefor a forgery from start to finish in my opinion].
After my last post it occurred to me that in order for us to have a productive conversation, what you really need to firmly establish for yourself, first of all, exactly what the official 9/11 narrative in fact _is_, and what video footage was/is used, to this day, to support ["prove"] that narrative.
For example:
1] was amateur footage, most prominently that of the Naudet Bros.{WTC1}, and Michael Herzekhani and Even Fairbanks {WTC2}] that showed planes magically ploughing into /through WTC building facades, broadcast by the various networks on 9/11/01 and 9/12/01[and thereafter] , and are those videos and others similar in nature still, to this day, still actively used to "prove" the official narrative ?
2] Were videos depicting the sub-20 second total collapses of 1300 ft. tall, 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings broadcast that day, and are such videos still used to "prove" the official narrative?
There would be no point in me telling you that those videos _were_ used over the first few days, and that they continue to be used to bolster the governments case to this day. You have to do the research yourself and establish what videos showed what, and when they were originally broadcast, rather than take my word for any of this.
To that end you can access the entire 9/11 network archive for the various US networks , here:
Click to view link I hope this helps. Happy hunting,regards, onebornfree.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Your solutions are entirely incredible. You natter on about directed energy beams and how cell phones were disabled throughout New York City and how the CIA created a smoke screen that hid the towers until they were somehow demolished in the AFTERNOON.
We read your assertions that grow more incredible by the hour and find it more and more likely that you are providing them as a form of disinformation as you may do in many other forums you frequent.
|
Posted by CJM on 09/12/11 07:40 PM
Anthony Wile seems to be one of the *conspirator* groups who refuse to believe what everyone else viewed that fateful day--planes deliberately flown into buildings, which caused many deaths, injuries, and human misery. It has been proven that the steel used in the towers (and the pentagon) were tempered differently than steel is today--which would account for the implosion caused by the weakening girders and steel columns.
I am sick and tired of the conspirator theories--the fact is the US was invaded by a known enemy; what Bush and Congress should have done was to declare war immediately and bombed the daylights out of Afghanistan, and any other ME country that dared to enter the fight. Unfortunately, political correctness had gained a foothold and now we must fight a war with out hands tied behind our backs.
As for the use of cell phones aboard a plane, a person COULD place a call, if that were not so, then why were there signs posted warning customers NOT to use their cell phones? I rarely fly, and because of this, I remember little things like that. Friends who do fly have always complained they could not use their cell phones in-flight. Mr Wile seems to think no plane crashed in PA (flight 93) because the scene did not meet his expecttions. Well, guess what, Mr Wile, it happened and nearly 3,000 people have died as a result of that horrid day--accept the fact that the US has enemies and is vulnerable to attack on our home soil--just like it happened in Pearl harbor in 1941. Unfortunately, the present administration would like us to believe that everything is okay--and it isn't. Get rid of the PC policies on war and let the military do what they are supposed to do--then we won't have to put up with the garbage we are having slung at us every day. Better yet, impeach the so-called president and get rid of the morass we now hove in the Oval Office.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Click to view link
"Even the FBI admitted that the alleged phone calls from Barbara Olson to her husband, Ted, had not occurred, even though Ted, our former Solicitor General, had claimed she called him twice and gave three different versions of how it happened, since cell phones don't work at that speed and altitude and Boeing 757s were not equipped with air phones. If the Solicitor General, who represents the administration before the Supreme Court, will lie about 9/11, we know that no one associated with the government can be trusted."
|
Posted by David_Robertson on 09/12/11 05:06 PM
OK. I wasn't aware that there were videos of the first aircraft, I thought there were only videos of the second one. The task you have set for me is way beyond my expertise. I doubt that I would be able to understand the technical language. I will just continue reading Christopher Bollyn's book and hope that will shed more light on the matter.
I can appreciate that you have better things to do with your time than try to explain highly technical matters to someone like myself who has very little technical background. Thanks for the info you have provided.
|
Posted by onebornfreeatyahoo on 09/12/11 04:46 PM
OK, I believe I understand where you are coming from, or at least have a somewhat clearer picture.
It seems to me that before I tell you anything about the various supposed "amateur" video authors of the "plane into/through building "videos, from what locations those videos were allegedly shot, under what conditions, and when they were first subsequently aired on any particular network, etc. etc., and rather than me "holding your hand", that you would at least need to do your own research into how the towers were actually constructed [materials for floors, walls, girder spacings etc.], and into the construction materials used for the 2 aircraft that allegedly flew into them that day,plus their dimensions, and the dimensions of the holes they supposedly left in the towers, plus maybe what happens to an airliner when it is truck by a bird in regular flight [or even what invariably happens to them when they hit a stationary , fixed metal object in the ground, on the ground, while taxiing.]
As we would be getting into areas beyond the scope of this board as far as i am concerned, when you believe that you know what the basic construction of both the towers and the planes actually was, email me at onebornfreeatyahoodotcom and we can continue our discussion without interfering with the flow of these boards, and without snarky comments/interruptions/distractions from others.
If you feel that that would be too much for you, I understand, but for myself I can see little use in me going any further down this particular road with you at the present time. Sorry. Regards, onebornfree
|
Posted by BarVel on 09/12/11 04:01 PM
"Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave." -- Roy Batty (Replicant) to Rick Deckard (Blade Runner), "Blade Runner," 1982
|
Posted by David_Robertson on 09/12/11 03:43 PM
Let me take just one example from the response you gave. The videos I have seen of the plane flying "through" 2WTC are by your definition fakes. Well yes of course but who is faking them? Are these the actual videos that appeared on network television? If they are then the TV networks are faking the plane flying into the building. If not then the 9/11 debunker is faking them.
But I have watched other videos of the same shots (I think) and I cannot see the plane going through the building just disappearing into it after hitting it. Then it leaves this really big gash, shaped somewhat like a plane flying at an angle. Of course being ignorant of the actual size of the building and any internal obstruction the plane might have to plough through I do not know if this disappearing act is possible. It would make more sense to me that the tailplane would be sticking out of the building but as I say there is a really big gap in my knowledge of the actual conditions at the crash site.
Your contention I believe is that the entire sequence was created by the authorities and inserted into the network feed overriding the network programme. What then happened to the actual planes that were supposed to have been hijacked and disappeared and what about the passengers? This last question I have never heard anyone yet answer or speculate about if they question the reality of the planes hitting the buildings.
|
Posted by onebornfreeatyahoo on 09/12/11 02:31 PM
I have no interest in "waking up" the "sleeping millions". Let them sleep.:-)
David_Robertson said: "As you have said the videos of planes crashing into buildings may well be fakes but then videos can be faked by anyone today so the videos "proving" that the planes crashing into buildings are fakes may themselves also be fakes... . "
To my mind, the first question to ask yourself is one of simple common sense : "does what is graphically represented in any video defy simple laws of physics"[assuming one is familiar with them] .
True, anyone can fake anything, but when is all said and done, does what is presented to you violate fundamental laws of physics- if not, it might be real, if it does, then that points to forgery, I submit.
I maintain that all of the , what I call "plane into/through building" videos violate basic laws of physics, specifically Newton's 3rd Law of Motion- therefor they are all 100% fakes.
I also maintain that because all of the collapse sequence network videos also defy fundamental physical laws,[i.e they all show collapses at impossible speeds] that they are also computer generated 100% forgeries.
Nothing more than what I believe to be plain common sense has led me to these 2 seemingly drastic conclusions.
As for Anthony Lawson , he is performing pure sleight of hand via a classic straw man argument.
His attempted debunk of "all things no-plane" conveniently starts with the assumption that a person such as myself is claiming that airplane images were inserted somehow into what were otherwise live network video feeds, where real-life explosions then occurred [ I agree with him-an almost impossible task for video timing/coordination].
That assumption [plane images inserted into otherwise live footage],is patently false,[either deliberately on Mr Lawson's part, or possibly out of sheer ignorance], a far as I can see.
On close examination I believe that it will be seen that every pixel of every one of those "plane into/through building" videos is a computer generated forgery: specifically: foreground, background, the WTC facade, sky, trees, birds, people, shadows, you name it.[!]
Exactly the same is true of the videos showing the supposed "hidden ball" you are partial to at this time. Every pixel in that imagery sequence has also been faked, top to bottom, back to front, inside out and upside down [you name it!] as far as I can see.
But nobody needs to examine every pixel of every 911 video for subtle signs of forgery.
Far more obvious signs of deliberate forgery are right there, blatantly staring us all in the face: specifically, the graphic depiction of impossible in the real world, cartoon/Hollywood style physical events.
All you need to see those signs, in my opinion, is a little bit of common sense and an open, inquiring mind . Regards, onebornfree.
 |
Posted by rossbcan on 09/12/11 02:03 PM
From Click to view link seems pertinent to your points...
Reality-based community...
The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove):
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality-judiciously, as you will-we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Lesson: Be reactive, you lose. Be proactive, have a chance. Why do you think the MIC predators like the fake "pre-emptive justice" rationalizations / meme theme so much?
|
Posted by David_Robertson on 09/12/11 01:46 PM
I was addressing this comment: "However it would appear to be helpful to some to realize the true depths of the subterfuge, at least to my mind."
The issue is not whether I believe it, since although I am fairly open to many possibilities I am not very important in the whole scheme of things, but whether the proverbial "reasonable man" will believe it. If the intent is to jolt the sleeping millions out of their slumber then one needs a proposal that matches all the available evidence and can point at the most likely perpetrators with some degree of certainty. This would have a good chance of being accepted by a majority of Americans once their belief in the government version is shaken enough.
If there is more than a reasonable doubt that the foundations of the "war on terror", and all its concomitant domestic security arrangements, are as well established as people presently appear to believe then the entire structure of the global empire will be in danger of collapse. In my opinion this is probably a long shot since facts and reason are not as persuasive as subliminal suggestion and emotional conditioning and the controlled media probably have a monopoly on these.
As you have said the videos of planes crashing into buildings may well be fakes but then videos can be faked by anyone today so the videos "proving" that the planes crashing into buildings are fakes may themselves also be fakes. Once we start down that slippery slope then we may as well throw out all photographic evidence since everything of that nature can be doctored.
Personally I love the "hidden ball" theory and the way in which it has been graphically presented. It is very convincing. This also requires that the airplanes were added after the fact. However the rebuttal to the fake airplanes theory by Anthony Lawson was quite persuasive also and one of the graphics he presented of the "last 12 seconds" ended with the statement that whatever flew the airplane into 2 WTC "was not human".
This supports Christopher Bollyn's hypothesis that they were remote controlled airplanes and not the actual passenger airliners at all. So here we have a subterfuge that can actually be proven in a number of different credible ways without going beyond the credulity of the "reasonable man".
As I say I haven't read all the book yet so I don't know if he explains what happened to the actual missing airliners and their passengers and for that matter that is another large gap in the hologram hypothesis. If the airplanes were not the missing passenger airliners where on Earth are they and what happened to the passengers? This is also the case for the airplane that hit the Pentagon and then disappeared and the other airplane that crashed in a field without making much of a hole. Where are these airplanes and where are their passengers?
|
Posted by John Danforth on 09/12/11 12:44 PM
Nice rant.
|
Posted by onebornfreeatyahoo on 09/12/11 12:27 PM
Are you saying that you find my assertions [that the media aired 100% pre-fabricated, computer generated imagery throughout the day] less credible than those of Prof. Woods and her beam weapons hypothesis? Or did you mean something else?
I have not read the Bollyn book, although I have heard of it. regards, onebornfree
Reply from The Daily Bell
Your solutions are entirely incredible. You natter on about directed energy beams and how cell phones were disabled throughout New York City and how the CIA created a smoke screen that hid the towers until they were somehow demolished in the AFTERNOON.
We read your assertions that grow more incredible by the hour and find it more and more likely that you are providing them as a form of disinformation as you may do in many other forums you frequent.
|
Posted by David_Robertson on 09/12/11 12:03 PM
Surely the deeper the subterfuge the more fantastic the explanation and therefore the less credible it will be. It is certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility that what you suggest is true because as you say deception is the name of the game but I am not sure that it will help anyone to see how devilish the rulers are. As you have seen from the comments here there is a very high threshold of scepticism even amongst those who know it was an inside job.
Have you read Christopher Bollyn's book Solving 9/11: The Deception That Changed The World? It is available online:
Click to view link
I haven't gone all the way through but it is a very thorough analysis in my opinion and reasonably believable. This is what is needed I believe. This book will at least break the hold on the American mind of the Zionist cabal.
|
Posted by mahatma on 09/12/11 10:41 AM
Dear onebornfreeatyahoo,
Thank you for your kind feedback. Yesterday, on the 10th anniversary, one of the most relevant articles I have ever had the pleasure to read was posted on Click to view link, a site I visit daily. It was written by Chris Duane of Don't Treat on Me and entitled A Decade of Denial and Deception. It is lengthy, but then, there is much to understand. Through knowledge and understanding, one can become that 'man' Mencken spoke about in his quote: 'The most dangerous man'. Now than is a worthy goal. Best wishes.
mahatma
Part 1: http://dont-tread-on.me/a-decade-of-denial-and-deception/
Part 2: http://dont-tread-on.me/a-decade-of-denial-and-deception-part-2/
Part 3: http://dont-tread-on.me/a-decade-of-denial-and-deception-part-3/
Part 4: http://dont-tread-on.me/a-decade-of-denial-and-deception-part-4/
|
Posted by onebornfreeatyahoo on 09/12/11 10:34 AM
Thank you for your question. A few years ago I believed that Dr Wood's conclusions [that the towers were demolished via secret energy beam technology] made a lot of sense, given the ridiculously short times [scientifically impossible, actually!] of both tower collapses in the archived video records of all networks.
Since then I have come to realize that Dr Wood's conclusions are in fact unfortunately based on a naive, faulty [i.e. unscientific] methodology, that, without any scientific tests applied, presuppose as a "given" that the collapse sequences aired that day that she has largely based her research on are genuine artifacts that can be trusted, reliable and therefor useful for drawing relevant scientific conclusions.
My own belief these days [as you are probably aware by now], for what it is worth, is that the collapse sequences, plus all of the previously mentioned "plane into/through building" "amateur videos, are 100% computer generated animations [i.e._not_ partial fabrications with plane images handily inserted into otherwise live footage], that were all pre-manufactured months, or possibly even years beforehand, then run as needed, that day.
So given what to my mind is a false methodology [ real scientists surely never presume that video footage is real before making serious conclusions], and given the fact that close examination of the network archival footage reveals them all to be computer generated frauds, if Ms Wood _is_ in fact correct, then her conclusions cannot be honestly reached via examination of any so-called "live video" "proof", no matter how extensive.
The other big problem with Dr Wood's research conclusion is that if such weapons did exist, there is no known record of them having being pre-tested anywhere else, on anything close to the size of those buildings. A big problem, to my mind.
"Shock and Awe"
It is worth bearing in mind that there could be no room for error that day. In order to generate maximum "shock and awe" in the general populace via the 911 psy-op, those towers _had_ to appear to come straight come down at what are in the real world, impossible speeds.
The only real way to guarantee to induce such a dramatic, over the top,"shock and awe" effect in the general populace, and to ensure picture perfect [literally!] collapses of those towers into their own footprints, was to run Hollywood style pre-fabricated movies: Click to view link in place of real time coverage, from a central [militarized] location that overrode/cut out all individual network feeds.
David_Robertson said: " I do believe it is necessary to go beyond the "how?" which is where most of the disagreement crops up. The "why?" and the "who?" plus the dissonance in the official version should be enough to convince most people that there is a very large fly in the ointment."
Yes I agree. However it would appear to be helpful to some to realize the true depths of the subterfuge, at least to my mind ;-) Regards, onebornfree
 |
Posted by Dave Jr on 09/12/11 09:52 AM
If the towers fell due to "pancaking" and the horizontal beams sheered from the verticle, I would have expected the exterior verticle beams to peel away from the falling floors and debris like a banana and be laid out 1000 feet, draped over the surrounding buildings. If the horizontals didn't shear, but caused the veticles to buckle, the result would have been a tall pile of spaghetti as you desribed. Too many straight truck lenght beams in the debris pile for me to believe no CD. And has anyone yet tried to explain away the thermite particles in the dust samples?
|
|
