MP George Galloway on 9/11 - Calls for a new inquiry

[Jeffrey Orling]

[quote=Jeffrey Orling]
Jeffrey,
I am trying to understand your 9-11 view. I don't read these long threads all the time. It appears you buy the official version BUT I saw a post by you online where you said you saw "Deceptions" three times. That is a conspiracy film. So can you tell me in brief and in common English if you believe the MSM version? Did you believe differently earlier?
Thanks
Dawn

I categorically do no accept the official version of 911 called the OCT which is presented by the MSM.

Both the NIST explanations for the destruction of the WTC and the various ones coming under the general description of the 911 Truth movement are incorrect and not based in the actual observables and the data that is derived from them. Essentially garbage in garbage out.

The twin towers were struck by planes... the towers did collapse and there is no indisputable evidence that there were placed devices required or involved in their collapses by conspirators.

WTC 7 collapsed, not from falling debris from WTC 1, nor *office contents fueled* fires near column 79 somewhere above flr 13 but from transfer truss and cantilever girder failures on floors 6&7... likely a consequence of electrical *explosions/fires* caused by the plane hitting WTC 1 which led to a cascading series of events involving localized gas, diesel and oil files within the aforementioned WTC 7 structures which were not fought for as much as 7 hrs.

The 3 transfer trusses and 8 cantilever girders which supported the core above failed leaving nothing to resist parts the core dropping 100' to the ground...pulling the east and west structure from floors 1-7 (8 floors) inward and leaving the floors from 8 to 47 with nothing to support them.

No high rise towers ever collapsed from fire alone
No high rise towers which were on fire had the hull and core design of the twin towers and building 7
No high rise towers which were on fire had the core and many columns supported on transfer trusses and cantilever girders (wtc 7)
No high rise towers which were on fire were built over a massive electric grid sub station (wtc 7)
No high rise towers which were on fire had extensive mechanical damage as did the twin towers from planes
No high rise towers which were on fire had additional thousands of gallons of accelerants such as diesel, jet A, natural gas (wtc7) burning.
No high rise towers which were on fire had gypsum board fire protection on their columns
No high rise towers which were on fire had light weight trusses supporting the floor system with 2 - 5/8' Ø bolts at 80" OC connecting the floor to the columns / axial load paths.
No high rise towers which were on fire had an exterior frame which caged the collapsing floors (twins)
All high rise towers which were on fire had a standard steel frame with steel bracing and or concrete cores.

[Malcolm Pryce]

Hi Jeffrey

NIST dismissed the suggestion that the the diesel fuel was on fire, did they not?

You talk about 'actual observables and the data that is derived from them'

What are the actual observables (or indeed other evidence) that lead you to claim that:

The diesel fuel was on fire
The 3 transfer trusses and 8 cantilever girders failed
Electrical explosions/fires ignited the diesel

[Jeffrey Orling]

The diesel fuel was on fire

There is no visual evidence that conclusively shows these fires. There was almost no video or images taken inside the building or from the south, on the adjacent streets to the east and west probably because the twin towers had collapsed and the area was evacuated except for emergency personnel... who were not taking pics. However this is not proof that there were fires. There was one bit of new footage of a reporter and cameramen who wandered in and one can see some intense flames licking out of the lower windows on the east side of WTC 7 below floor 8. But what was burning is hard to tell. The flames were intense and the smoke black and this could be from a number of sources.

The prevailing winds blew from the NW where the pics and well known vids were taken and this had the effect of causing a low presure on the south face which can be seen in some images to be obscured by smoke for the full height. Was this smoke from WTC 5&6? Hard to tell, but the prevailing winds would have THAT smoke pushed south and east over the WTC campus. Very little to work with here.

There were reports that all the diesel was recovered. No explanation of how or where it was recovered from. It is highly unlikely that the tank was intact after a 200,000 ton building had come down over it and it was buried just below grade as several engineering drawings show. Since the diesel was pumped up through the sub station to floors 6&7 AND had it's own power source it is reasonable to believe that when the power was interrupted the pumps ran continuously supplying diesel to those floors whether it was burned in the generators or poured onto the floor and combusted in the air. Maybe.

NIST refused to examine anything below floor 8. I would therefore immediately consider that there was something going on down there they didn't want people to know about.

The 3 transfer trusses and 8 cantilever girders failed

These trusses and girders topped off at 104' above grade... the very same distance that the upper section collapsed down at FF. Coincidence? Those structure were there in place of columns resting on bedrock... this is analogous to a bridge span which has two towers (columns) supporting the span. The area below these structures had very few columns and was structurally transparent as it were. These structures supported 42 stories of core above and the core was supporting the inside end of the floor plates. If these structures DID fail we'd see exactly what we saw. Not proof, but a logical place to look for failure.

AE911T states that 8 floors of columns had to be destroyed at once for a 100' FF. But destruction of THESE structures in the location they were would produce a 100' ff.

The engineer of the building, Irwin Cantor stated that the tower came down as a result of his trusses failing. He speculated that diesel fires had done it. That's a pretty good expert to refer to.

Electrical explosions/fires ignited the diesel

Con Ed issued a report that 8 large 13.8 kv feeds (from wtc 7's sub station presumably) were lost beginning at the moment AA11 hit tower 1. Coincidence? Rodriquez reported explosions in the sub basement at the moment AA 11 hit the 94th floor... Coincidence or was it from shorts in electrical switch gear connecting/controlling WTC 1's power and its source bldg 7 con ed sub station.

Explosions were heard well before tower 1 came down and this led to bldg 7 being evacuated... Jennings and Hess confirmed that there were no occupants in the building when they arrived before 10. They were told on a cell phone to get out as there had been explosions in the building.

They experienced explosions below them IN the core area where the electrical equipment and day tanks were located when they descended the stairs before 10 am. Coincidence?

Transformers rather frequently explode and sound like bombs. One did last week in our own neighborhood and had everyone rushing out to the street. Con Ed came and replaced it.

Old and massive transformers are cooled by flammable oil and do explode. Circuit protection is notoriously slow and so shorts down stream can kick off an explosion. We've all see blackouts take one power station down after another in cascading failures.

Deputy fire commission reported that he observed explosions of what he thought was electrical equipment. Not a bad guess.

There was no power in the building shortly after 9am. Why? This disabled the sprinkler and elevators and hampered efforts to deal with the emergency.

The observed collapse sequence showed first a 1 minute period of the entire viable (25 stories or so) building swaying east to west... operative word being ENTIRE. This means it was *swaying about some location below flr 20 something. Was there anything special at that elevation? No there was down at flrs 6&7

Then the east penthouse collapsed right down through the entire core region. It was supported by column 79 and 80 and they were above transfer truss 3. Coincidence?

Then the west penthouse fell down.. it was above transfer trusses 1 and 2... Coincidence?

These observations support a structural failure low down in the building... and the MOST likely region was floors 1-7 where there were lots of massive electrical and flammable oils located. The sub station did not have the newer dielectric coolant.

"The oil-filled tank often has radiators through which the oil circulates by natural convection. Some large transformers employ electric-operated fans or pumps for forced-air or forced-oil cooling or heat exchanger-based water-cooling.[SUP][73][/SUP] Oil-filled transformers undergo prolonged drying processes to ensure that the transformer is completely free of water vapor before the cooling oil is introduced. This helps prevent electrical breakdown under load. Oil-filled transformers may be equipped with Buchholz relays, which detect gas evolved during internal arcing and rapidly de-energize the transformer to avert catastrophic failure.[SUP][61][/SUP] Oil-filled transformers may fail, rupture, and burn, causing power outages and losses. Installations of oil-filled transformers usually includes fire protection measures such as walls, oil containment, and fire-suppression sprinkler systems.

Here's an example of a sub station exploding:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzbQjd_Oo4Q

I speculate that the reason for the NIST explanation was to provide cover the the potentional wrongful death lawsuits that could (and should) be brought against PANY, LERA, Irwin Cantor, Giuliani Advisers who pushed for the OEM, assorted engineering firms and contractors who were associated with these unusual designs which were not built to NYC DOB codes...and other parties associated with this project including con ed which sold (I presume) the air rights over its facility (when vacant land was available across the street. Anything and everything associated with this had to be kept out of a court room.

[Phil Dragoo]

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/inde...on=622:622

Jeffrey

The reader who has heard the predictions of collapse and seen the dramatic catastrophic collapse has not been shown any unique structure to WTC7.

What you describe is a bridge, a power plant, a diesel reservoir, all encased in the typical glass and steel facade, all extraneous to the planes' impacts yet itself imploding.

Is there any exhibit on the page titled Accurate Collapse History of WTC7 which can serve to illustrate what is certainly unique in architecture and engineering failure.

I find the opacity of the official explanation for this building to replicate that for the other towers, the Pentagon, the fate of Flight 93.

I regard the whole as a false-flag casus belli which may have used unwitting extremists as players in a larger construct.

Setting out my own prejudice, it is still a mystery that WTC7 can have been the oddest of structures, the bridge-powerplant-fuel dump hybrid burning due to some electric-related surge, fatally damaging critical structures as all emergency measures were directed at towers one and two.

I'll say the one thing lacking in the dramatic data is a drawing, photo, or wire diagram of the structure of the building, a visual representation of this collapsing span.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Phil,

The release of drawings from WTC 7 was very long in coming and very confusing to say the least. Take a look at what FEMA published... note the structure from 1-7 and how few columns there were compared to above (40 something compared with 81). Note how they do not show the structure clearly on floors 1-7 and only snippets. There appears to be only 40+ columns below floor 8 and 81 above. Note some of the exceedingly long spans in the flrs 1-8 to accommodate the ramp and Con Ed. FEMA only refer to trusses 1, 2 and 3 but most of the structure below 8 were trusses and cantilevers. Note how the north columns opposite the core had no support going through the con ed sub station... they rested on the ends of the cantilevers.

You will not find a hi rise in the world of that size or close with such a bizarre structure.

It appears that many of the columns above flr 8 had no DIRECT load path to bedrock. This meant that those columns are supported somewhere on a beam span or truss span. This is a very bizarrre and essentially precarious means of moving the massive loads from above to bedrock. So when someone claims 8 stories of (81) columns had to be destroyed for FF... it should be noted that there were only 40 something below 8 and many above were not in direct line with the columns from flr 1 - 8.

My explanation is a theory... a hypothesis driven by understanding the structure and noting the actual movement of the building and correlating the two. I can't prove that fuel fires caused the structural failures below 8 and or that they were started by electrical equipment explosions, but it is worthing of serious consideration. The fact that the collapse took 8 hrs could be because there was a long steady process of weakening from heating... the steel was quite thick and took a long time to heat up and weaken.

But once a structure loses some of its members there IS a load redistribution to remaining members which consumes some (or all) of their reserve strength. If the redistribution consumes ALL of the reserve strength of a member it will fail and its load and the load which was redistributed to it is then redistributed to other members and so on. This is how a progressive structural failure moves/cascades through the frame until there is not enough strength to support the loads above and there is a rapid onset almost instantenous collpase... when the FOS drops below 1.

The early movements observed are telltale signs that the structure is under stress and loads are being redistributed as columns fail (dropping of the East and West penthouses). The swaying of the entire tower is clearly a sign that the loads are being moved to new members.

Again these failures COULD HAVE BEEN from placed devices in the locations noted above. Can't rule this out. But perhaps it was from a heat from diesel, oil and gas flames. Yes we can't see those flames. But we don't have pictures that show there was no fire or there was fire.

[Phil Dragoo]

Jeffrey

Thank you for the diagrams. In effect the very large structure's load was transferred from eighty columns to forty columns hence the lower half dozen floors were twice as critical member for member.

The triangulation of the typical truss, compression in the vertical slant, tension in the horizontal, puts vastly different forces into play than in the one and two structures. The placement over potentially unstable electrical and fuel components makes it (to this layman) a large, crude bomb.

The tone of Dan Rather in his observation of the collapse might be an early expression of skepticism. He infamously marked Zapruder as showing a shot from behind, then fell for a memo I could duplicate with Word defaults, so his behavior isn't expertly qualified, only a telltale to a later more generalized view of controlled demolition.

You postulate that either structural failures caused by an eight-hour fire or a controlled demolition would have or could have produced the theatrical collapse.

My bias disclosure: the entire day was foreordained, and enabled by a sponsor motivated by other than islamocentric extremism, and the physical interaction stacks under the cryptostrategic.

Nevertheless, as you point out, the official explanation of the collapse of WTC7 is a study of data lacunae, something we come to expect after TWA 800 was sold as a center fuel tank explosion, and all of the historic magic beans/family cow dealings with truth.

What is glaring is that there is not a clear official statement of causality, namely, that an electrical surge ignited fuel storage and the unmanaged forge smelted the critical trusses, not immediately, but over a full workday.

The level which could remove John O'Neill from his FBI responsibility and allow no-flies to fly with the benefit of lessons warned of by Special Agent Colleen Rowley is reminiscent of accumulated evidence of systematic silencing prior to Dallas on the part of the various offices of the Bureau, a collateral of the otherwise flawed Act of Treason by Mark North.

Then of course the Bin Laden family was allowed to fly while fighters were stalled and civilians grounded.

I will go back and look for an explanation of WTC7 in any public report--we will recall CIA provided a helpful cartoon to explain how TWA 800 broke itself into two elements to cause the appearance of a missile streaking upwards by one-to-two hundred witnesses.

And the so-helpful Kalstrom assured us there was no missile even as he ordered the arrest of evidence gatherers with telltale HE trace in their hands.

Our lying eyes or a government cartoon--

[Jeffrey Orling]

Phil,

I understand and accept the prism through which most members here view the events of 9-11... that being that it was a deep state conspiracy of intricate and thorough detail. I happen not to agree with it, though I can't prove this is not correct.

We can agree that the government with the media spun the entire series of events and wrapped it up in a self serving narrative. We can agree that the outcomes they achieved.. such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9-11.

There are those who believe that Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen and became the excuse to enter the war. This may be true (LIHOP). But it seems unlikely that the US actually conspired to attack Pearl Harbor (MIHOP). We don't know what was meant by the *need for a new Pearl Harbor*. Was it that an attack is what it takes for the US to get quickly onto a war footing...and grab the prize they sought... which they could not with provocation... or.... was it more pro active.. in that they would stage a false flag attack which could easily pave the road to the war they wanted and the prizes they sought?

One could argue that that intel in more pro active than a bunch of day dreamers and this statement had an ambiguous meaning.

The thrust of my study of WTC 7 is that IF the collapse was not a CD, and unequivocal unambiguous evidence for it is not there... then the official account may have provided cover for the engineering decisions and associated corruption and not undermine the narrative in play which led the nation to war. Can you envision the nation with 3,000 massive wrongful death negligence suits naming PANY, Giuliani et al, LERA and so forth as defendants as the nation was going to war in the ME because they had told us that the terrorists did it.

The official story is laced with lies and it's impossible to actually know what happened. And that served their goals. The deception does not necessarily mean that those who wanted war had actually been the MIHOP conspirators and not the LIHOP traitors.

You can see the same sort of myth building about Iran over the last few years and the spinning of the events in the ME over the last year. These guys are into message control and consensus manipulation big time.

Demolition of such a huge structure is not a simple operation and would take time and calculations anf lots of human resources and so on. But crashing a jet into the towers is a rather simple operation and it would have a very powerful effect on the population. Destroying the entire complex seemed over kill and not necessary for the war outcome.

It's all speculation because we are short on facts.

[Charles Drago]

My bias disclosure: the entire day was foreordained, and enabled by a sponsor motivated by other than islamocentric extremism, and the physical interaction stacks under the cryptostrategic.

Mine too.

[Albert Doyle]

My bias disclosure: the entire day was foreordained, and enabled by a sponsor motivated by other than islamocentric extremism, and the physical interaction stacks under the cryptostrategic.

No doubt about it.

[Phil Dragoo]

Yes, I think that is the place to start, the place to plant one's feet (rather than in the mouth), on that which appears solid.

Casus belli. Wag the Towers. Phraseology leading to a conclusion they would not stand.

The arrangement of the Seven is a straddle over Tesla's still.

The numerology of the nineteen is only now of interest.

OKCBomb was supposed to be all upon Timothy McVeigh. Anomalies aplenty there. FBI helpfully refusing Angela Finney's request to raid Elohim City after Carol Howe announced Andreas Carl Strassmeier's presence. A German, with intelligence training, and a German connection to several of the nineteen.

We might be safe venturing the conjuring of Hitler was not the only such grand (economic) plan, executed in a manner to involve so many with their so-many busy motives, each convinced he was playing the most important part scored.

I'll tell you what--let's just say that the just-in-case squad was primed for OKC and had the place wired. Just in case some of the calculations proving such preparedness are correct.

And that the towers three were likewise in the capable hands of the just-in-case squad.

Much as there was one more gun than was used in Dealey, the one no one ever thought of, was not needed, left the area in the trunk of a '57 Ford with an Impeach Earl Warren-It's a Republic Not a Democracy sticker.

Acme mechanical contractors would have been on the scene, inspecting, signing off, walking away with clipboards, leaving a winking red LED.

A device attached to an electrical component triggered on command, for example, "pull it". . . .