9/11: Looking for Truth in Credentials: The Peculiar WTC “Ex

Sorry Dr C, I intended no insult.

Knowing that the same gang who assassinated Kennedy and got away with it also did the 911 job sometimes makes me a tad more passionate than I would like.

---
'When you have eliminated the impossible, what ever remains, however improbable, must be the truth'.
- Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes.

Like I wrote before, I've seen whole cities destroyed with the WW2 terror bombings, but in many cases the chimneys still stood among the rubble.

The central columns of those buildings were supposed to act like the chimneys of Europe. But they folded like paper.

Ed Deak.

Thanks for the link. I look foreward to a really long read

"With all due respect Dr. C that is a two way street."

As I said somewhere on this thread, show me someone who knows something about explosives being planted. I have no problem with changing my opinion to align with new data.

A complex explanation without sufficient data just doesn't convince me. I'll pick the explanation that fits available data every time. WTC 1 & 2 do not look like a demolition to me, WTC 7 does.

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

No problem. Did you give up coffee for Lent? If so, I'll walk you down to Timmies and buy you an XL.

I did get a little pissed off, because everything we are discussing here is theoretical, if not outright fiction. But I forgive the pixels on my screen. 
 
I agree that all those columns failing at the same time is statistically impossible. But having one floor buckle and fall is not. That is exactally what I see happening from known video, and reports of 'explosions'. It is just what makes sense to me, and was confirmed by qualified Civil Engineers. 
 
Have a look at this really excellent link I found: 
 
<a href="http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_ch2.htm">http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_ch2.htm</a> 
 
Of course, in this link like many, are trying to disprove the official story, but the official story is .pdf only, so I try to have a little heart to those on dialup. It's basically the FEMA report, plus all the snotty comments in red. 
 
About halfway down the page is the 'string' thing I was trying to explain to the crowd. Figures 2-20 to 2-22. Before that is Figure 2-19 with the 'coat hanger' outrigger system that I was trying to explain (pathetically I might add

) to 4C. 
 
If a floor collapses, I have a much easier time believing the 4 outriggers fail, and that starts an uncontrollable chain reaction. It also explains the 'puffs of smoke' which many attribute to explosives. 
 
That the building with 'two legs cut off' falls first doesn't surprise me, nor that both chairs eventually fall, given similar damage doesn't surprise me ethier. It just means they were constructed in the same manner. 
 
What can I say? I'm a stubborn SOB, and I haven't seen or heard anything to convince me what I think to be true is incorrect. 
 
I have trouble believing that with all these people working in the building, that someone could plant explosives so expertly without anyone noticing, and that the untrained terrorists could then suspend the laws of physics and hit the correct place in the buildings needed to keep up the illusion, without damaging the wiring needed to detonate the explosives and without the fire prematurely detonating those explosives. That just seems too far fetched to be believable to me.--- The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

Thanks.

The best way I can think of to have people not notice what you're doing is to dress your people like construction or maintenance workers.

The same people you frequently see modifying office spaces in buildings from London, to Beijing, New York, and every other city that has a skyline.

You look like them, who's going to notice you?

I think it's called "role camouflage".

To most people det cord and primacord probably looks like just anther wire. It comes on spools, in nice colours, and is about a innocuous looking as things come.

Most people would probably think it's another kind of Cat 5 cable.

If you don't know what it looks like, how would you know?

"Yeah, we're just hooking up the new intra net network to this part of the building for the new tenants, so we'll be all over the place. Sorry for any interruption."

It's probably just that simple.

If people can mistake a person in a bad costume for a cop, then mistaking a person who's not a construction worker for such a worker would be even easier if for no other reason than the fact that most construction workers either wear a common coverall supplied by the company or whatever they want.

Give them some authentic looking security cards, and bingo: instant invisibility.

---
'When you have eliminated the impossible, what ever remains, however improbable, must be the truth'.
- Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes.

Dr C

Read your referral 'serendipity' and agree it appears to be good work with very few points I would question. The remarks in red I would judge half and half.

In a nutshell here is what I got from the report:

1) the wall thickness of the perimeter box columns may have been as low as 1/4". This was stated as the minimum thickness used on the "upper stories" without specifying at what floor level this wall thickness began. (I am surprised by this thin section) Simply pro-rating the column thickness over the 110 stories would give a thickness of:
[(4" - 1/4") / 110 x 35] + 1/4" = 1.44". 4" is the wall thickness of the columns at the base of the building, 110 is the total number of stories, 35 is the number of stories above the damage site. (I'm relying on memory here). Speculation: with a wall thickness of 1.44" on a roughly 12" x 12" box column it is surprising that the aircraft sheared these columns. With such massive steel sections of about 60 square inches of solid steel per column, one might expect the aluminum / composite fuselage and wings to be simply shredded. I can see the engines and landing gear doing damage, though. Perhaps I am missing something.
2) the vertical loading normally carried by the damaged columns was transferred to adjacent undamaged columns, increasing their load very significantly (to the point of yielding/buckling if I understood the report)
3) Column lateral restraints were compromised by floor failure, increasing column effective length Kl by several multiples (floor to floor distances)
4) Columns were bent out-of-plumb by floor sagging caused by floor truss heating
5) additional column bending may have been caused by sideways pull of the perimeter beams loaded vertically by the column sections above the damaged area
6) the perimeter columns and floor trusses were heated by scattered office files and furnishings. The aircraft fuel was consumed within 5 minutes or so, according to the report; insufficient time in my opinion to cause significant temperature rise in the steel
7) fireproofing was compromised by the debris and shock from the aircraft impact (landing gear and engine located several hundred feet past the point of impact)

Observation: The approx. time-to-failure of 1 hour and 1.5 hours, and the roughly 1.5" thickness of the steel column wall is interesting. When steel components are heat treated for stress relieving or hardening, the component is kept in the furnace at the desired temperature for one hour per inch of section thickness to ensure uniform temperature throughout the section. This very rough correlation is verry Interrrrestinkk.

In sum these structural detriments may have been sufficient to cause catastrophic (buckling) failure of the severely loaded perimeter columns located adjacent to the damaged area. Everything else then failed in cascade.

There remain, however, very many unanswered questions. And the lack of forthrightness, combined with absence of any hard information to address remaining questions, may lead one to believe in foreknowledge or passive complicity by the powers-that-be. Combined with the haste of debris removal prior to any detailed forensic investigation would have the conspiracy rumour mill grind very fine and overtime.

H.F. Wolff

Wolff and Dr C, have either of you looked very closely at the videos or photos of the start of the collapse of the south tower? The top 34 floors of WT2 tip 23 degrees, throwing all of the weight onto one of the four outside walls of the building, at that moment a symetric global collapse begins. Every good schoolboy will know that throwing all your weight onto one stilt could cause that stilt to snap but would not cause the stilt with no weight on it to snap. What should have happened is that the 34 stories should have fallen to the ground, just like what happens when a Douglas fir tree is topped. This didn't happen, instead the 34 stories disappeared into a rapidly rising dust cloud and were not seen as a whole section again, they turned into dust and steel projectiles hurtling away from the tower.

Dr C speaks of shattered aluminum, never heard of such a thing with temperatures above zero. What with all the supposed big fires going on a reasonable person would expect that the aluminum would be prone to bending, n'est ce pas?

Then there is the collapse of the north tower. One, of the many, very suspicious events which scream out at us from the videos and photos taken of this part of the disaster is the 60 to 70 stories high remainder of the central columns, dubbed the spire, standing erect in the air after the collapse. These columns appear to wilt and then suddenly turn into dust. Structural steel turned into dust and it was recorded for all to see on numerous videos and photos. How could that happen?

"The remarks in red I would judge half and half."

I though some had a point, but I chose to ignore them all because of the 'cheap' shots the author chose to take. Some of his comments had nothing to do with the investegation, or his rebuttal, but were there just to taunt.

"With such massive steel sections of about 60 square inches of solid steel per column, one might expect the aluminum / composite fuselage and wings to be simply shredded. I can see the engines and landing gear doing damage, though. Perhaps I am missing something."

I posted some time ago a link to a video of a jet fighter hitting a large cement wall. The jetfighter is basically turned to powder, but some of it does penetrate the wall. Especially the wings and wingtips. I take notice that there is a very plane shaped hole in the buildings.

It would be obvious that the composites and thin aluminum would not make it very far into the building intact, but the airframe of the plane is much stronger. Perhaps even comparable to the frame of the building. Regardless, it's verified by observation that at least some of the planes made it past the frame of the building, as the second plane made a very large gash in the outside frame of the ajacent wall with it's wingtip. IIRC, one engine went right through the building and ended up some distance away.

"This very rough correlation is verry Interrrrestinkk."

I think I see what you are saying. Perhaps the floor supports were not heat treated, and would have lasted longer if they had been?

"The aircraft fuel was consumed within 5 minutes or so, according to the report; insufficient time in my opinion to cause significant temperature rise in the steel."

It's too bad that a more accurate judgement of the temperatures inside were not performed. I agree that the fuel would have been used up quickly, but anything remotely flammable would have ignited in that time, perhaps even the fireproofing on the beams. Many analisys' state the burning temp of the materials on hand, but none take into account the height of the building. We all know fires are hotter when the flames are fanned, and at 100 stories, what were the winds like? I remember a photograph taken of Manhatten from the Space Shuttle that day, showing the thick dark smoke for many miles eastward. What effect did that have on temperature?

"There remain, however, very many unanswered questions. . . ."

I totally agree. I can see WTC 1 & 2 failing as this analysis describes, but it would have been nice rather to have a full post-mortem rather then the 'clear it out and let's rebuild' attitude that prevailed.

No matter what though, no one has even attempted to explain WTC 7, and Flight 93 is a complete BS story to me. It does not reconcile with what I remeber of that day.

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

Deacon wrote:

"What got me thinking was I remembered ... "

I too bought into the story at first, but it did not last for very long. The reports that came in from MSM sources were incomplete or made no sense at all. Some of the reports were obvious lies. The report that first got me looking at alternate sources of information (i.e., sources that are not run by the ruling establishment) was the obviously bogus lie that one of the hijackers passports was found after the collapse of the towers. I thought "What a load of crap!". I've not looked back since. 9/11 was an inside job, clear as day.

For example, those who try and argue in favor of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory ignore the near free fall collapse speeds, which due to the basic laws of physics cannot be explained without the use of explosives (at least no one has managed successfully explain the free fall speeds through other means). The free fall problem is just ignored entirely or glossed over because it does not fit in with the official story, and in fact points out that the official story is clearly a lie. For example, The NIST "study" and the FEMA report all ignored the free fall problem.

In order for a structure to collapse at free fall speeds, all resistance has to be instantly taken away below the collapsing mass, otherwise the mass will impact resistance, and resistance slows down the falling mass. The more resistance, the slower the collapse, or there's no collapse at all.

NO matter how much money is thrown at the 9/11 shills, the basic laws of physics cannot be overridden with lies.

The WTC 1 & 2 towers were very massive highly redundant structures (like all such structures are), the buildings were completely undamaged below the impact sites and had no damage due to fire (according to the official story). The resistance to a collapse would have at the very least slowed down the collapse well below free fall speeds. In reality, it would have stopped a collapse well before the base.

I saw one argument in favor of the official collapse theory which went like this: The buildings are mostly air, which is why they could compress into such a small space, and why each floor could collapse so quickly. Funny, but due to laws of physics, the reverse is true, where a falling mass of "mostly air" would have done very little damage, and would have been easily stopped by a well designed structure.

The evidence of demolitions is overwhelming and undeniable. The video footage even clearly shows explosive charges going off well below the collapse line, and the massive explosions at the collapse line are clearly visible.

The collapse of WTC 7 is an even more obvious demolition. Many people were forewarned in advance that the buildings were going to be "pulled". We saw the BBC and other MSM sources even claim on live TV that WTC *had* collapsed while the building was still standing as if the reporters had no eyes of their own to see with.

The symmetrical collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is a clear sign of a controlled demolition, complete with tell tale "squibs" and a complete collapse into its own foot print.

Larry even admitted to the fact that the WTC 7 building was taken down or "pulled" intentionally on a PBS documentary. Larry in fact has profited immensely from the 9/11 insurance scam, made possible only because he was given protection that prevented a criminal investigation into what would otherwise be a clear case of mass murder and fraud. Indeed many insurance companies profited (including those that supposedly lost out) by using 9/11 as a bogus excuse to increase their rates by very large amounts.

The swift preplanned and coordinated cover up following the attacks are clear and unmistakable proof that high up elements within the US government were deeply involved in the crime.

The use of 9/11 to pass illegal laws, not just in the US but here in Canada and other so-called "free and open societies" and the needed excuse to launch wars of conquest gives us a motive for the crime (remember the need for a new Pearl Harbor). Indeed billions, if not trillions of tax money has been stolen to "pay" for the wars and clean up and other related scams. No wonder so many have jumped on the 9/11 bandwagon and endorsed the official lies.

When someone tries to defend the 9/11 lie using the same old worn out and discredited arguments along with the usual omissions, we must ask if that person earns all or part of his or her keep off of the 9/11 lie?

(I know, it's quite a long post, but please, read it. I would really like to know what you think about it.) 
 
Well, argue for both sides of the coin as much as you want, we all must face one truth: we will *never* know for sure. We cannot say with 100% certitude that we are right. But we can guess... 
 
Personnally, I do believe that the US government was involved with it. There are too many things, like this, for instance: 
 
Judicial Watch September 11 Pentagon Video -- 1 of 2 
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8</a> 
Judicial Watch September 11 Pentagon Video -- 2 of 2 
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAaP4Z3zls8">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAaP4Z3zls8</a> 
 
The Pentagon crash. Government agencies confiscated all videos that could have proven that it was indeed a Boeing that crashed into the Pentagon. After years, they released these. Look at them closely at the moment of the crash. There is one frame in each video in which you see the "plane" or whatever it was. For something this small to be a Boeing is absolutely impossible. Besides, where are the corpses, the luggage? The remnants of the plane? They disappeared into the crash? If so, how come something punched a hole into (IIRC) three walls, while the rest disappeared? An engine? If so, shouldn't there be *two* holes? Shouldn't have there been *two* engines found on the site if they were so damn indestructible as to go through these walls, leaving neat round holes? And don't get me started on the crappy "simulation" of the crash. You need no experts to create something like that. I'm studying in computer science and, seriously, some students in college can do at least as much, so a "simulation" proves absolutely nothing. So many questions, so few answers... And that's only the beginning. 
 
But, let's clear up a few things before we continue. 
 
First, I'm not arguing on science. I'm arguing on sheer logic. I'm trying to show the inconsistencies in what the government says and what we see, and the contradictions in what the government say. I'm not trying to prove that they did it, and I don't think any 9/11 truth movement should either. I can't prove it. Nobody can. What I'm trying to prove is that they have a damn lot of questions to answer, and that we should not accept their version of the events without question. We should be wary of them, and treat them accordingly. 
 
Also, there are some things which can hardly be used as evidence. Witnesses, for example. Some witnesses saw some things, others saw the exact opposite. As evidence, even circumstancial, they pretty much cancel each other in my opinion. They are human beings. Maybe they didn't hear or see quite right and only made a guess. Maybe they were paid or coerced in exchange for their silence. Who knows. Things like the WTC architecture is also weak evidence for either sides. For one, we don't know for sure how the buildings were built -- we should dig up old, pre-9/11 material on the subject (like old web sites or, preferrably books or archives, something like that). I don't give much weight to things like the speed at which the buildings fell, or the shape and color of explosions, or if cell phones could or could not make the calls, or whatever else along these lines. I'm no physician, nor chemist, and we can hardly trust the experts for the same reasons than the witnesses. 
 
So what's left? 
 
Statistics. They cannot be used to prove anything, but they do provide hints towards abnormalities, things which should be reviewed very carefully. For example, the fact that not one, but two buildings have crashed due to fire which weakened their structural integrity. Somehow, I don't think buildings like that are, as someone here put it, steel boxes with nothing inside. As I said, though, some research will have to be done to be sure (I'll eventually get to it, I just don't have the time right now -- Wikipedia do cites "47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower." from the National Institute of Standards and Technology), but, really, how could a building withstand anything, especially its own weight, if it was the case? As far as I know, weight has to be distributed on the whole surface. Can burning kerosene soften steel? Would be good to know what temperatures can be produced by burning plane fuel at optimum conditions, and the temperatures at which the kind of steel from which the towers were made start softening. 
 
Also, statistics tells us that after a plane crash, the plane, or whatever it contained, do not disappear, it is simply in very bad shape. Burnt. Shattered. But it does not just go away. 
 
And there is the fact that the air security was so low this exact day. This assault had to be prepared well in advance, you don't coordinate *four* planes hi-jacking in a few days, weeks, maybe even months. How did they manage to do it this exact day? Luck? Yeah, right. I mean, you spend an unimaginable amount of time and work to plan the perfect crime, and you leave such an important "detail" to sheer luck? This do not prove that the government was involved, but would tend to indicate that they had access to this kind of information. 
 
Coincidences? I don't know. But I do know something: if a plane crashing into a building is enough to disintegrate the plane utterly, with all its equipment, passengers and luggage, if a fire can be strong enough to soften steel and bring 110 stories of steel and concrete down twice, how did they manage to recover the passports of those who did it, and identify them as the criminals without a shadow of a doubt? Passports are made of paper, you know. They are certainly much more fragile than metals, and they burn or rip up much more easily. And, somehow, the exact passports of the criminals are recovered while the rest disappear? 
 
Coincidences? 
 
In politics, there is no such thing as a coincidence. 
 
And then, there is the WTC-7. Which has collapsed... why, exactly? Because of debris from the two towers, which somehow managed to start small, localised fires, which somehow managed to soften steel enough to bring down a skycraper for the third time in the same day? Nevermind Larry Silverstein who said on TV that they had decided to "pull down" the whole building. Maybe he was just talking about letting it burn, but how probable is that? I mean, these were localised fires. They were not constantly fuelled like the two others, and the structural integrity of the building was not weakened by a whole plane crashing into it. Just localised fires, started by debris from the two towers. So, Larry Silverstein use the very specific term "pull down" while he really means they simply decided to let it burn down, then suddenly the whole building collapses for far less reason than the two towers and, really, most buildings in history? 
 
That makes a lot of coincidences. 
 
And then, there are the reports that there were abnormal stock transactions days before the incident. So, there were people who had massive quantities of stocks in the WTC and American Air Lines and Boeing and knew what was going to happen. And guess where these were being investigated? WTC-7. Critical evidence was eliminated with this building. 
 
Let's examine this for a moment. By investigating these stock trades, it would have been possible to find out who were the masterminds, or at least people who knew in advance of the crime. We have two possibilities: the collapse of the WTC-7 building was caused either by the fires, or by explosives. If they were caused by the fires, it means that the terrorists relied on sheer luck or just didn't think about it, since they didn't cause the fires intentionally. Terrorists which were geniuses enough to plan four plane hijackings the day where the US air security was at its lowest. And then, the building magically went down, just to help them. Or, the building was brought down with explosives. But to bring down such a building in a controlled demolition takes time. You have to obtain the blueprints, to plan where to put the charges, to put them in place and arm them, and so on. But how could they have done it? Were they lucky or genius enough to once again bypass security and steal the blueprints and place the explosives? 
 
And really, if WTC-7 could have been brought down by explosives, if people can accept this possibility, why can't they accept controlled demolition as a possibility for the collapse of the twin towers? I've just scratched the surface here, I've not even really started on the official report of the incident, nor the PNAC (which clearly states that a new Pearl Harbor might be needed as a catalyst for the plan to go on), nor the profiteering made from the Bush government and various corporations (the Patriot Acts, two wars...), nor the fact that the 9/11 events were used to scare the population of the US into what's beginning to look like slavery (they pay taxes for which they get no accountability nor services, they can be put to torture or to death, or in prison for the rest of their life without just cause nor a fair trial, they can be spied upon and abused again and again without any obstacle -- really, how different are they from slaves?). 
 
So, which one is the conspiracy theory now? 
 
1. Some genius (or lucky beyond imagination) terrorists manage to hijack four planes the exact day there was no air security in the US, then use them to destroy the WTC twin towers and part of the Pentagon. The WTC-7 collapses for some obscure reason, eliminating crucial evidence. The twin towers collapse almost exactly on themselves because fire softened the steel of the columns which supported them. Almost no traces of the planes or what they contained are found, but passports indicating who are the criminals are recovered. According to the government, the terrorists did it because they were religious extremists who hated the freedoms of the US population. 
 
OR 
 
2. It was an inside job planned by some people who had very high positions in the government and who thus had access to all the necessary ressources and sensitive information needed. They rigged the buildings with explosives and sent a missile against the Pentagon. The WTC-7 is brought down to eliminate any possible evidence. They then accused some obscure organisation, then used their connections in the medias to ridiculise those who questionned them, then work the population into a frenzy, thus allowing them to start two highly profitable wars (from the corporate point of view) and to pass various authoritative laws which would be beneficial for them in the future without much trouble. They did it to further their political agendas, tighten their control on the population, and to enrich themselves greatly. 
 
Yes, really, which one is the conspiracy theory now? 
 
You decide. 
 
We will probably never know for sure which one is the truth. But, as I said, that's not really the point, in the end. 
 
Sometimes, I wonder if 9/11 truly matters now. Whether the government did it or not, I'm not sure if it's relevant anymore. What matters is that the government used these events to establish what's now close to a totalitarian regime, start two wars which have caused incredible damage and enrich themselves at the expense of so many other people. All thanks to excuses like "security", something which would never have been possible before 9/11. Somehow, I feel that we should not focus our efforts on analysing 9/11 over and over for that last bit of circumstancial evidence, but to try to detect what's to come. Because I think the World Trace Center incident was only a spark, the start of it all, I think that something bigger is coming. And we should be preparing for that. You can argue all you want on who caused 9/11, and how, and for what, but you cannot argue on what the US government has done. You cannot argue on the fact that, all over the world, governments, ours included, are now using the so-called "War on Terror" as an excuse for screwing everyone else while the elite enrich themselves obscenely. 
 
And that, I think, is what we should be worried about, not who caused 9/11. Why did I write this post, then, you might ask? To show that we must not ever readily accept without question anything our "leaders" throw at us. We must doubt them. They constantly tell us that we shouldn't be scared of being spied upon if we have nothing to hide. Why is it that they can't play by the same rules? Secret trials. Secret "evidence". Secret matters of "national security". They say: "We can spy upon you every second of your life, but do not dare question us. It's a secret." There are many questions which have never been answered. If truly things happened as the US government say, why won't they answer? Why do they ridicule those who question them? If it's so easy to prove that Osama bin Laden or Al-Qaeda did it, if they've got so much evidence, why won't they show it with all due transparency? Why all the secrets? What are they so scared of? National security matters? Yeah, right. I seriously don't see how actually *proving* that who you are accusing commited the crime can threaten national security. I do not know the truth about 9/11, but somehow, I doubt the official reports tell it. 
 
The Sharp Wolf 
 
"When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon." -Thomas Paine

"We must doubt them." 
 
We must also get rid of them (literally speaking) when they go nuts against us like they did after 9/11. 
 
I think the really important thing to realize is that we're being intentionally lied to and manipulated, and in some cases murdered by our so-called leaders and their parrots in the media. 
 
They don't teach our kids this stuff in school for a reason: 
 
Strategy of tension 
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension</a> 
 
"The term was coined in Italy during the trials that followed the 1970s and 1980s years of lead, during which terror attacks and assassinations committed by neofascist terrorists (such as Ordine Nuovo, Avanguardia Nazionale or Fronte Nazionale) were committed. The terrorists were backed by intelligence agencies, the P2 masonic lodge and Gladio, a NATO secret "stay-behind" army officially set up to perform guerilla and resistance activities should Italy be successfully invaded by the Soviet bloc (there were equivalent armies in most Western states). Unmonitored by civilian agencies, Gladio members began to pursue their own right wing, anti-communist agenda using violent means, which included false flag bombings, blamed on extra-parliamentary left-wing militant organizations. Examples include the 1972 Peteano bombing, long thought to have been carried out by the Red Brigades, but for which the neofascist terrorist Vincenzo Vinciguerra has been imprisoned, the attempted assassination of former Interior Minister Mariano Rumor on 17 May 1973 or the 1980 Bologna massacre. 
 
The aim of these actions was to make the public believe that the bombings were committed by a communist insurgency, to promote the formation of an authoritarian government, and to prevent the strong Italian Communist Party (PCI) from joining the ruling Democrazia Cristiana (DC) in a national unity government (the "historical compromise" between Aldo Moro and Enrico Berlinguer, respective leaders of the PCI and of the DC). An astonishing observation of the terrorism in Italy that was blamed on communists is that it coincided with election victories for the communists at the polls. So as the PCI was gaining popular support, the number of civilian-targeted bombings, random knee-cappings, and high-profile kidnappings blamed on communist terrorists increased markedly. Furthermore, starting with the 1969 Piazza Fontana bombing and the 1972 Peteano attack, several bombings carried out by the far-right were at first blamed on anarchists (for the first one) and, for the second one, on the Red Brigades (BR) — although it was later found that neofascists, such as Vincenzo Vinciguerra, had organized them. 
 
Piazza Fontana's bombing, in December 1969, marked the beginning of the "strategia della tensione", which ended around the time of the Bologna railway station bombing in 1980. In 2000, a Parliamentary report from the Olive Tree coalition concluded that the strategy of tension followed by Gladio had been supported by the United States to "stop the PCI, and to a certain degree also the PSI, from reaching executive power in the country". Members of the Democratic Party of the Left (PDS), part of the Commission on Terrorism headed by senator Giovanni Pellegrino and created in 1988, have described the Italian peninsula since the end of World War II as a "country with 'limited sovereignty'" and as an "American colony" [2]" 
 
BTW, the destruction of evidence at a crime scene is a serious crime by itself. If the FBI were allowed to launch an investigation into who ordered and carried out the destruction of evidence at the WTC crime scenes, we'd have proof of who carried out the attacks in no time at all. The only thing that's been preventing a real investigation from happening is the US government's refusal to allow it, which of course implicates high ranking members of the government as being involved in the 9/11 series of crimes.

"We must also get rid of them (literally speaking) when they go nuts against us like they did after 9/11."

I absolutely agree with that. There is one problem, though. How do you do that when it's them who are in control of the mechanisms which are supposed to help us get rid of them?

Any suggestions?

All I can suggest, short of armed rebellion, is to stop being obedient and to make it as difficult as possible for them to keep on controlling you.

If only a small fraction of the population stopped listening to the garbage and stopped being so "compliant", the entire establishment will grind to a halt and they will be forced to negotiate or use force. If they use force, all the cards will finally be on the table for all to see, but they are no match against the masses - history shows this to be true, which is the only reason why we have any degree of freedom at all.

Hey, only a few of us killed the census, imagine what we could do with only a little more determination!

If you want freedom, you have to start behaving as you are free.

Indeed. I feel that this is the true 'Achilles Heel' of 9-11, that only a handful of people in the world have the knowledge required to pull those 3 buildings, and that if you track them, you will find your smoking gun.

To my knowledge, there are only a handful of controlled demo companies in the world, with very few employees. They MUST know something! Has any in depth interviews been done on those guys? I have to think that they sat there watching those buildings going down saying, 'man, nice job! This is scary! Those buildings were pulled!' Yet we see not one of them coming forward to ask questions. Have any of them quietly 'suicided' or had 'strange car accidents'? Were any of them working for intelligence agencies prior to the attack??? None of these questions have been answered to date.

---
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous, the essential act of warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour”

<a href="http://infowars.net/articles/march2007/200307building7.htm">http://infowars.net/articles/march2007/200307building7.htm</a> 
 
The contraversy ain't gonna go away--- "And God said: 'Let there be Satan, so people don't blame everything on me. And let there be lawyers, so people don't blame everything on Satan." 
 
* George Bu