The Twin Towers fell because...

airplanes were flown into them. There were no bombs at the bottom of the building. There was no controlled demolition. If anyone disagrees with the NIST report on the collapse, please comment.

please comment ?

richard said:

airplanes were flown into them. There were no bombs at the bottom of the building. There was no controlled demolition. If anyone disagrees with the NIST report on the collapse, please comment.

Click to expand...

well actually about 99.99% of the content of this bullettin board are the comments you're looking for. the archives are full of such.

just look around a bit and you will find more than enough to keep you busy for quite a while...

greetings

richard said:

airplanes were flown into them. There were no bombs at the bottom of the building. There was no controlled demolition. If anyone disagrees with the NIST report on the collapse, please comment.

Click to expand...

Ummmmm, we ALL disagree with the NIST report to varying degrees. Search here man. Are you asking to start trouble, or do you really want to know? It's all here. I wish I had seen this an hour ago, but I hafta run and go to work. The links are here.

Only a complete IDIOT still believes that jet fuel and impact brought down the towers.

Ask "Who controlled the demolition?" ..... then you will be starting down the right path.

Steven Jones pretty much sums up the Controlled Demolition of both towers and building 7.

NIST's own report and tests show the steel in the buildings should not have failed. NIST only offers explanation for what initiated collapse but didn't cover what caused the entire building to collapse. NIST has yet to release a report on building 7. Their current tests and investigations are including the use of explosives to initiate collapse in building 7.

William Rodriguez is a living eyewitness of the controlled demolition and has given several vivid accounts of the events of that day. NYPD and NYFD know there were bombs in the buildings.

You're either completely ignorant or completely corrupt if you still believe the "official myth" about 9/11.

As everyone else has mentioned, this board is full of archives, just pick a topic and read.

If you have come in here in hopes of creating confusion, division, or sway one of us here out of what we already know is true, you would just be wasting your time.

Only a complete IDIOT?

Chana3812 said:

Only a complete IDIOT still believes that jet fuel and impact brought down the towers.

Ask "Who controlled the demolition?" ..... then you will be starting down the right path.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, only a complete idiot would believe that. Well, no structural engineers accomplished in forensics have disagreed with the NIST report. In fact, those that have spoken on the subject have affirmed the NIST account. I do not believe that these gentlemen are idiots nor do I believe that they are all in on a conspiracy. I also wonder why you believe yourself to be such an expert on the matter.

I have continually heard from conspiracy theorists that the impact of the plane + ensuing fires could not have brought down the towers. I read the NIST report on the two towers, and have found nothing to disagree with. As a structural engineer myself, I've analyzed several buildings before and understand the information in the report.

Almost all the conspiracy sites I have been to have over-simplified and incorrect assessments for how the NIST report is wrong. They continually point out that other large burning buildings have burnt for much longer without failing, without even mentioning the detrimental effect of the World Trade Center's spray on insulation getting knocked off.

I should've been more specific in my question. I would like to know if any well-accomplished structural engineers involved in forensics have significant disagreements with the NIST report. I'm not referring to civil engineers who've touched on structures or physics professors. I'm not talking about demolition experts. I'm talking about structural engineers with a PhD, who specialize in analyzing failed buildings. There are plenty of them out there, but I haven't heard of a single one disagreeing with the NIST report. Trust me, they know way more about the subject than any physics professor. I don't have a closed mind on this subject. But before I give this conspiracy theory serious thought, I do insist that I hear from a valid expert on the subject and not just some random engineer whose points don't make sense anyway.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

Richard. Is there a coverup regarding the 9/11 attacks being perpetrated by the U.S. Government?

richard said:

Hmmm, only a complete idiot would believe that. Well, no structural engineers accomplished in forensics have disagreed with the NIST report. In fact, those that have spoken on the subject have affirmed the NIST account. I do not believe that these gentlemen are idiots nor do I believe that they are all in on a conspiracy. I also wonder why you believe yourself to be such an expert on the matter.

I have continually heard from conspiracy theorists that the impact of the plane + ensuing fires could not have brought down the towers. I read the NIST report on the two towers, and have found nothing to disagree with. As a structural engineer myself, I've analyzed several buildings before and understand the information in the report.

Almost all the conspiracy sites I have been to have over-simplified and incorrect assessments for how the NIST report is wrong. They continually point out that other large burning buildings have burnt for much longer without failing, without even mentioning the detrimental effect of the World Trade Center's spray on insulation getting knocked off.

I should've been more specific in my question. I would like to know if any well-accomplished structural engineers involved in forensics have significant disagreements with the NIST report. I'm not referring to civil engineers who've touched on structures or physics professors. I'm not talking about demolition experts. I'm talking about structural engineers with a PhD, who specialize in analyzing failed buildings. There are plenty of them out there, but I haven't heard of a single one disagreeing with the NIST report. Trust me, they know way more about the subject than any physics professor. I don't have a closed mind on this subject. But before I give this conspiracy theory serious thought, I do insist that I hear from a valid expert on the subject and not just some random engineer whose points don't make sense anyway.

Click to expand...

First off...This is the internet son, we're all Structural engineers.

That said, I tend to agree with NISTs findings, although I disagree with their conclusion. NIST found several of the steel columns from both towers. The columns in question were all located on floors that had been impacted by the Jets and where the hottest fires had occurred. NIST said that none of the columns tested were have found to have been exposed to anything over 600 or so celsius. NIST also tested many of the floor/truss assemblies. All passed the required fire testing. Which is (If I recall correctly) to be exposed to over 1000 celsius for atleast two hours. The documentary "9/11 Mysteries" has video from the NIST tests you can see for yourself. Secondly, NIST has never once explained what caused both WTC 1 and 2 to completely collapse to the ground. They only attempted to explain what initiated "glabal collapse". Furthermore, I reidderate that NIST has yet to provide a report on bldg. 7 and their current investigation is using controlled demolition through explosive charges as a possible "global collapse" initiater.

FEMA in following the same hypothesis as NIST, said this hypothesis had a "low probability of occurrance".


On a side note: I have spoken to several Cal-Trans engineer's who privately do not believe the official story. Unfortunately in three years of attempts they have refused to go on record and let me bring a tape-recorder. Yes, these are engineers who decide if California freeways are properly fitted for Earthquakes.

Richard, what are you thoughts on this:

8:30 a.m.: FBI/CIA Anti-Terrorist Task Force Away From Washington on Training Exercise in California
USA Today reports that at this time, “a joint FBI/CIA anti-terrorist task force that specifically prepared for this type of disaster” is on a “training exercise in Monterey, Calif.” Consequently, “as of late Tuesday, with airports closed around the country, the task force still [hasn]’t found a way to fly back to Washington.” [USA Today, 9/11/2001] The US politics website evote.com adds that the FBI has deployed “all of its anti-terrorist and top special operations agents at a training exercise (complete with all associated helicopters and light aircraft) in Monterey, California.” So at the time of the attacks, “the chief federal agency responsible for preventing such crimes [is] being AWOL.” [Evote [.com], 9/11/2001]

Click to expand...

(8:38 a.m.-8:43 a.m.): NORAD Personnel Mistake Hijacking for Part of an Exercise
When Boston flight control first contacts NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) to notify it of the hijacking of Flight 11 (see (8:37 a.m.)), personnel there initially mistake it for a simulation as part of an exercise. Lieutenant Colonel Dawne Deskins, mission crew chief for the Vigilant Guardian exercise currently taking place (see (6:30 a.m.)), later says that initially she and everybody else at NEADS thought the call was part of Vigilant Guardian. [Newhouse News Service, 1/25/2002] Although most of the personnel on the NEADS operations floor have no idea what the day’s exercise is supposed to entail, most previous major NORAD exercises included a hijack scenario. [Utica Observer-Dispatch, 8/5/2004; USA Today, 4/18/2004] The day’s exercise is in fact scheduled to include a simulated hijacking later on. Major Kevin Nasypany, the NEADS mission crew commander, had helped design it. Thinking the reported hijacking is part of this exercise he actually says out loud, “The hijack’s not supposed to be for another hour.” In the ID section, at the back right corner of the NEADS operations floor, technicians Stacia Rountree, Shelley Watson, and Maureen Dooley, react to the news. Rountree asks, “Is that real-world?” Dooley confirms, “Real-world hijack.” Watson says, “Cool!” [Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006] NORAD commander Major General Larry Arnold, who is at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, also says that when he first hears of the hijacking, in the minutes after NEADS is alerted to it, “The first thing that went through my mind was, is this part of the exercise? Is this some kind of a screw-up?” [ABC News, 9/11/2002; 9/11 Commission, 5/23/2003] At 8:43 a.m., Major James Fox, the leader of the NEADS Weapons Team, comments, “I’ve never seen so much real-world stuff happen during an exercise.” [Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006]

Click to expand...

(9:00 a.m.): Northern Vigilance Operation Canceled; False Blips Purged from Radar Screens
A soldier monitors a NORAD radar screen. [Source: National War College]
For the past two days, NORAD has had fighters deployed to Alaska and Northern Canada. They are there for a real-world maneuver called Operation Northern Vigilance, tasked with monitoring a Russian air force exercise being conducted in the Russian Arctic all this week (see September 9-11, 2001). [NORAD, 9/9/2001] At its operations center deep inside Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado, NORAD is also reportedly at “full ‘battle staff’ levels for a major annual exercise that tests every facet of the organization.” Canadian Captain Mike Jellinek is one hour into his shift, overseeing the operations center, when he is contacted by NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS), based in Rome, NY: The FAA believes there is a hijacking in progress and is asking NORAD for support. As the Toronto Star reports, “In a flash, Operation Northern Vigilance is called off. Any simulated information, what’s known as an ‘inject,’ is purged from the screens.” [Toronto Star, 12/9/2001] NORAD has the capacity to inject simulated material, including mass attacks, during exercises, “as though it was being sensed for the first time by a radar site.” [US Department of Defense, 1/14/1999] However, Northern Vigilance is a military operation, not a training exercise. [NORAD, 9/9/2001; US Congress, 3/11/2005] So presumably the “simulated information” is part of a NORAD exercise currently taking place, such as Vigilant Guardian (see (6:30 a.m.)). Therefore, many minutes into the real 9/11 attacks, there may have been false radar blips causing confusion among NORAD personnel. Additional details, such as whose radar screens have false blips and over what duration, are unknown. The Russians, after seeing the attacks on New York and Washington on television, will quickly communicate that they are canceling their Russian Arctic exercise. [Toronto Star, 12/9/2001; National Post, 10/19/2002]

Click to expand...

(9:04 a.m.): Flight 175 Crash Leads to Confusion at NEADS; Some Think it is a Simulation NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) in Rome, NY, has just received a phone call informing it of the hijacking of Flight 175 (see (9:03 a.m.)), and several personnel have witnessed the plane crashing into the second WTC tower live on CNN. There is considerable confusion on the operations floor over whether the plane seen on TV is the hijacking they have just been informed of. Tape recordings capture NEADS personnel in the background trying to make sense of things: “Is this explosion part of that that we’re lookin’ at now on TV?” ... “And there’s a possible second hijack also—a United Airlines” ... “Two planes?” Someone comments, “I think this is a damn input, to be honest.” “Input” refers to a simulations input, as part of a training exercise. [Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006] NORAD has the capacity to inject simulated material, including mass attacks, during exercises, “as though it was being sensed for the first time by a radar site.” [US Department of Defense, 1/14/1999] At least one military exercise this morning is reported to include simulated information injected onto radar screens (see (9:00 a.m.)). At the current time, despite the earlier crash of Flight 11, NORAD has yet to cancel a major exercise it is in the middle of (see After 9:03 a.m.). [Filson, 2004, pp. 59]

Click to expand...

(9:09 a.m. and After): Numerous False Reports of Hijacked Aircraft
According to the 9/11 Commission, “During the course of the morning, there were multiple erroneous reports of hijacked aircraft in the system.” [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004] Around 9:09 a.m., the FAA Command Center reports that 11 aircraft are either not communicating with FAA facilities or flying unexpected routes. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/2002] NORAD’s Major General Larry Arnold claims that during the “four-hour ordeal” of the attacks, a total of 21 planes are identified as possible hijackings. [Filson, 2004, pp. 71; Code One Magazine, 1/2002] Robert Marr, head of NEADS on 9/11, says, “At one time I was told that across the nation there were some 29 different reports of hijackings.” [Newhouse News Service, 3/31/2005] It is later claimed that these false reports cause considerable chaos. Larry Arnold says that particularly during the time between the Pentagon being hit at 9:37 and Flight 93 going down at around 10:06, “a number of aircraft are being called possibly hijacked � There was a lot of confusion, as you can imagine.” [Filson, 2004, pp. 55,122; Filson, 2004, pp. 55,122] He says, “We were receiving many reports of hijacked aircraft. When we received those calls, we might not know from where the aircraft had departed. We also didn’t know the location of the airplane.” [Code One Magazine, 1/2002] According to Robert Marr, “There were a number of false reports out there. What was valid? What was a guess? We just didn’t know.” [Filson, 2004, pp. 73]

Click to expand...

NORAD has the ability to intercept any plane in America that goes of course within 5 minutes. Yet on 9/11 NONE of the planes were even close to being intercepted. Do you think these wargames had anything to do with that?

One more thing

I've read many of the papers that say the given explanation of the Towers falling is wrong, because I am intrigued by the growing popularity of this conspiracy theory. I've researched both sides. Every argument I've heard from the conspiracy believers has been either technically incorrect (blatantly), or an oversimplified argument neglecting several important aspects of structural behavior.

I just believe that, because of my knowledge of the structural engineering community, if there was a serious controversy here, I would certainly hear about it from a credible source. I haven't. The few disagreements there have been within the structural engineering community are related to how the stresses were redistributed. Both sides agree that the Towers could not possibly have stood with the heat loads experienced and a large amount of thermal insulation for the steel knocked off. For those of you that don't know, steel loses a very significant amount of strength and stiffness when it reaches high temperatures. Steel also buckles very easily when it has large unrestrained lengths. Steel truss to column connections provide very little (almost negligable) resistance when struck with ridiculously high impact loads, such as the those in the Towers experienced. In fact, the tower falling at a speed close to that of a free-falling object is expected under such loads.

I encourage you all to search for competent sources and observing both sides of the argument, instead of just searching for what you want to hear. That's what I've done and that's how I've come to this conclusion. However, I reiterate that I'm eager to hear a dissenting opinion from an accomplished structural engineer specializing in forensics if there is one.

Richard- How would you explain the collapse of WTC 7 and the way it feel straigt down in a matter of seconds? How would you explain the fact that Guiliani was warned to move away from the WTC because it was going to collapse before it actually did? (he said that in his own words)

And I hope you stick around this site.

Trusses/ Global Collapse

Eckolaker said:

First off...This is the internet son, we're all Structural engineers.

That said, I tend to agree with NISTs findings, although I disagree with their conclusion. NIST found several of the steel columns from both towers. The columns in question were all located on floors that had been impacted by the Jets and where the hottest fires had occurred. NIST said that none of the columns tested were have found to have been exposed to anything over 600 or so celsius. NIST also tested many of the floor/truss assemblies. All passed the required fire testing. Which is (If I recall correctly) to be exposed to over 1000 celsius for atleast two hours. The documentary "9/11 Mysteries" has video from the NIST tests you can see for yourself. Secondly, NIST has never once explained what caused both WTC 1 and 2 to completely collapse to the ground. They only attempted to explain what initiated "glabal collapse". Furthermore, I reidderate that NIST has yet to provide a report on bldg. 7 and their current investigation is using controlled demolition through explosive charges as a possible "global collapse" initiater.

FEMA in following the same hypothesis as NIST, said this hypothesis had a "low probability of occurrance".


On a side note: I have spoken to several Cal-Trans engineer's who privately do not believe the official story. Unfortunately in three years of attempts they have refused to go on record and let me bring a tape-recorder. Yes, these are engineers who decide if California freeways are properly fitted for Earthquakes.

Click to expand...

I doubt that everyone on this site is a structural engineer, and I don't understand why I should assume everyone is a structural engineer here just because it's the internet. But at least you've read the report, son. The NIST report on WTC 7 has not been published yet, but I have read the preliminary report. I admit that the failure of WTC 7 will be far more difficult to classify.

You say that several Cal- Trans engineers privately do not believe the story. That's fine, if they were to go public with it I'd be happy to read what they have to say. Once again, I have an open mind on the subject. I'm not knowledgable about the subject of military simulations: I prefer to analyze structural aspects rather than chase conspiracy theories. That's what I'm familiar with and that's what I'm interested in. If I came to the conclusion that the Towers may have fallen due to some other circumstance, then I will review other information regarding the conspiracy.

Please point out to me where in the report it says that none of the columns were heated to 600 degrees C. I didn't notice that.

The term "global collapse" means that the whole building fails. The NIST report reviews what initiated the global collapse. "Disproportionate collapse" refers to the whole building's collapse being initiated by the failure of a few critical elements. Such is believed to be the failure of WTC 7. I have no doubt that if demolition is a possible failure for the building, NIST will not neglect to explore that failure mechanism.

The trusses subjected to 1000 degrees C for two hours had their spray on insulation intact, unlike many of the trusses in the Towers after the collapse. The purpose of that test was to determine whether or not the trusses with the insulation on were up to code or not, which they were. As you know, being a structural engineer, there is no possible way that trusses without thermal insulation would be keep their original form if they were subjected to 1000 degrees C for two hours.

Oh, I get it

I guess what you meant by that is that you don't believe I'm a structural engineer. Well, regardless of what you believe, I am a structural engineer, though I'm just starting out. I do have a Master's in Structural Engineering, but I still don't think I'm qualified to diagnose a disaster such as the World Trade Center. I took an earthquake design class in school, but I design in Texas, so we consider wind as a controlling factor instead. Neverless, earthquake engineering have little with the World Trade Center collapse. Earthquake loads are dynamic loads, and cause buildings to oscillate. Earthquake engineering is concerned with the natural period of the building and dampening the oscillations. The WTC Towers did oscillate a little bit, which knocked of some of the insulation, but that's about as much as it has to due with the towers. It might have something to due with the WTC 7 collapse, but I don't know about that yet. Anyway, have a nice day.

richard said:

I've read many of the papers that say the given explanation of the Towers falling is wrong, because I am intrigued by the growing popularity of this conspiracy theory. I've researched both sides. Every argument I've heard from the conspiracy believers has been either technically incorrect (blatantly), or an oversimplified argument neglecting several important aspects of structural behavior.

I just believe that, because of my knowledge of the structural engineering community, if there was a serious controversy here, I would certainly hear about it from a credible source. I haven't. The few disagreements there have been within the structural engineering community are related to how the stresses were redistributed. Both sides agree that the Towers could not possibly have stood with the heat loads experienced and a large amount of thermal insulation for the steel knocked off. For those of you that don't know, steel loses a very significant amount of strength and stiffness when it reaches high temperatures. Steel also buckles very easily when it has large unrestrained lengths. Steel truss to column connections provide very little (almost negligable) resistance when struck with ridiculously high impact loads, such as the those in the Towers experienced. In fact, the tower falling at a speed close to that of a free-falling object is expected under such loads.

I encourage you all to search for competent sources and observing both sides of the argument, instead of just searching for what you want to hear. That's what I've done and that's how I've come to this conclusion. However, I reiterate that I'm eager to hear a dissenting opinion from an accomplished structural engineer specializing in forensics if there is one.

Click to expand...

Uhhh, do you just choose to decide what peices of evidence NIST presented are needed to fit the official story and which ones can be thrown out? How is that NIST could say none of the steel columns reached temps of over 600 celsius, yet you say fires were hot enough to cause steel deformation?

As I can agree that the Floor Truss assemblies were not designed to support the weight of the floors above, but this is what NIST used as the "global collapse" initiater. Plane impacts, fire-proofing removed, hot fires, floor assemblies sagged, top floors crashed down on lower intact floors, and on down, yada yada.

Now, NIST used a Shotgun blast to test how the fireproofing material would react to impacts from high velocity peices of metal. Now, not only did their test not really prove their theory, but it also suggest that both planes would have had to disintegrate into little peices in order for the same effect to be achieved. That said, this test on a hypothesis does not fit the evidence. Evidence of both planes recovered from ground zero after the attacks. In other words, the planes did not turn into "bird shot" after impacting the towers.

Essentially the fireproofing being largely removed is a "Straw man" agrument.

As for the towers falling at an expected free-fall rate without the use of CD, is well, ridiculous. Those were 110-story buildings. If each floor only resisted for 1/20th of a second thats still a huge time gap from virtual free-fall. Secondly, both towers were reduced to dust. Law of conservation of momentum son. You can't have progressive collapse and pulverization. Physics don't allow for it. In order for the towers to collapse at near free-fall speed the impacting floors would literally have to speed up.

Many here will sleep at night with a LIHOP scenario...I know better.

So Richard, what about the wargames and prior knowledge? Does that mean anything to you?

Stick around on this site, it'll be fun.

richard said:

Please point out to me where in the report it says that none of the columns were heated to 600 degrees C. I didn't notice that.

Click to expand...

Well considering its a graphic in the main report, it should be easy to locate. Its actually a over-head floorplan view highlighting the structures. They made several graphics for each floor to not only show heat exposure but damage due to the plane impacts.

richard said:

The trusses subjected to 1000 degrees C for two hours had their spray on insulation intact, unlike many of the trusses in the Towers after the collapse. The purpose of that test was to determine whether or not the trusses with the insulation on were up to code or not, which they were. As you know, being a structural engineer, there is no possible way that trusses without thermal insulation would be keep their original form if they were subjected to 1000 degrees C for two hours.

Click to expand...

Negative, I suggest you view the videos of the tests and review the report. Pretty sure both scenarios were tested. Besides, Structural steel, as you know is given an ASTM rating before fireproofing would be added. Not to mention that a structural engineer would also not consider fireproofing when calculating load bearing under normal conditions, and what building code requires. Fireproofing is only added to decrease a specific columns exposier to fire should on occur in that area.


Furthermore, as you would agree the Floor Trusses only were responsible for bearing the load of that floor and the weight directly connected to its surface area. IE, people, office furniture, etc. Its also largely agreed that the building redistrbuted the load to the remaining intact intact steel box columns and curtain wall members where the planes initially entered the building. Like a pencil penetrating a misquito netting.

I feel that I'm one against many here, and though it's fun, I don't have time to respond to all the arguments. First of all, the NIST report in NO WAY says that no column reached a temperature of 600 C. Also, the trusses and columns would fail anyway under much lower temperatures than that considering many of the supports on each floor are removed. The supports of the structure (columns, etc.) were not pulverized. The steel massive steel structure fell and went through the connections below like butter, there's no way those connections could provide 1/20 of a second worth of resistance. Also, NIST concluded that the fire-proofing was knocked off by a debris directly striking it (yes, this does knock of fire-proofing), and slight oscillations due to the airplane impact. NIST left the second element out of its assessment conservatively, because it had little definitive evidence on it. However, NIST does have pictures of trusses not believed to have experienced direct debris impact, but still have the fire coating knocked off.

I'm done for the day, gentlemen, it's been fun. Please, no animosity, I'm as interested as you in the WTC collapse. We just have different opinions. I look forward to more arguments tomorrow, especially if someone can give me information on a credible structural forensics engineer dissenting with the NIST diagnosis.

richard said:

I guess what you meant by that is that you don't believe I'm a structural engineer. Well, regardless of what you believe, I am a structural engineer, though I'm just starting out. I do have a Master's in Structural Engineering, but I still don't think I'm qualified to diagnose a disaster such as the World Trade Center. I took an earthquake design class in school, but I design in Texas, so we consider wind as a controlling factor instead. Neverless, earthquake engineering have little with the World Trade Center collapse. Earthquake loads are dynamic loads, and cause buildings to oscillate. Earthquake engineering is concerned with the natural period of the building and dampening the oscillations. The WTC Towers did oscillate a little bit, which knocked of some of the insulation, but that's about as much as it has to due with the towers. It might have something to due with the WTC 7 collapse, but I don't know about that yet. Anyway, have a nice day.

Click to expand...

Pretty sure its largely accepted by Les Roberton and the likes, that the plane impacts transfer of momentum had little effect on the buidling itself, and the further away from the impact the less likely it would be noticed. Other then the sights and sounds created of course.

Richard. Is there a coverup regarding the 9/11 attacks being perpetrated by the U.S. Government?

Please, no animosity, I'm as interested as you in the WTC collapse. We just have different opinions. I look forward to more arguments tomorrow

Click to expand...

Cool! Holla back Richard.

It could still be proven without a shadow of a doubt that 9/11 was an inside job with or whithout mentioning the towers.