Dynamite Duane

Those who shall not be named have decided that, as they can't kick off with the mac anymore, they're gonna go beat up the occupy london movement tomorrow instead. https://www.facebook.com/#!/EDL.English...285213894846469

Which is nice.

 

 

I like the socialtits best, shame when they're all hidden away.

 

 

I've never really understood why these extreme Muslims live in the UK if they hate it so much.

Perhaps they are pissed off at seeing what's happening back in their mother-lands? The post 9/11 wars help fan the fire of extremism.

Anyone on here got involved with the Occupy movement in their city/town? I popped down to Bournemouth Town Hall to show my support last Wednesday. Good atmosphere, chatting to them about why they are doing it. It pissed down with rain though, brave people.

 

I've obviously wasted my time here, completely misunderstood...

DELETED POST.

I've been watching Katie Price's new programme, where she's searching for new model for her agency. Jay from BB got kicked off. The best hopeful is the campy-Essex-boy-metrosexual, would be great addition to the Gay mafia/Team Price

 

An Idiot Abroad - comedy gold.

Ace of Cakes

Junior Apprentice

Two And A Half Men - just as good if not better without Charlie Sheen. Alan is the best character IMO.

Then there is the UKFF's favourite yorkshire porn. "Right up the Chocolate Bon-Bon Factory" indeed.

Traci's First Anal

The bloke's voice reminds of John Stape on Corrie

...well maybe initially.

Further evidence democracy in the UK is an illusion?

 

EU referendum: MPs told to vote against Monday's motion

 

The three big parties at Westminster have told their MPs to vote against a motion calling for a referendum to be held on UK membership of the EU.

 

The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour will all ask their MPs to oppose the move at a debate on Monday.

 

A Tory MP is calling on his colleagues to back an amendment which would delay a referendum until the UK had renegotiated its position in the EU.

 

The idea is being seen as an attempt to head off a rebellion by up to 60 MPs.

 

The government would not be bound by the result of the vote, based on a motion by Tory MP David Nuttall, but it could prove politically tricky for the Conservative leadership.

 

'Country first'

Conservative MPs are expected to face a three-line whip - not yet confirmed - which would require any in government jobs to follow the party line and vote against the motion or to resign their posts.

 

Continue reading the main story

“

Start Quote

 

What matters is that backbench MPs of all parties should be free to vote in accordance with our beliefs ”

 

Graham Brady

Conservative MP

MP 'will risk post over EU vote'

In full: MPs backing motion

One MP, Stewart Jackson, has already said he intends to vote for the motion even if it costs him his job as a parliamentary private secretary, saying: "Some things are more important than party preferment."

 

Mr Nuttall's motion calls for a referendum by May 2013 and says the public should have three options put to them in the nationwide vote - keeping the status quo, leaving the EU or reforming the terms of the UK's membership of the European Union.

 

David Cameron has argued he shares MPs' frustrations with the costs and bureaucracy involved in EU membership, but would oppose calls for a vote on whether to quit, saying it "is not our policy".

 

In response to a question from Tory backbencher Mark Pritchard on Wednesday, the PM said "the right answer is not to hold a referendum willy-nilly in this Parliament when we have so much to do to get Europe to sort its problems out."

 

Compromise suggested

Mr Pritchard told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he was willing to defy a three-line whip if necessary.

 

"This is about country first, party second and career last," he said.

 

 

He added: "This is not about necessarily the terms of a particular bill... or a future referendum, it's fundamentally about freedom, it's about democracy and it's about the legitimacy of the European project."

 

Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 committee of Conservative MPs, said, in an article in the Daily Telegraph, that "this is a backbench debate and there is no need for ministers to participate".

 

"What matters is that backbench MPs of all parties should be free to vote in accordance with our beliefs and in the interests of our constituents," he added.

 

In what is seen as an attempt to broker a compromise, Tory MP George Eustice has tabled an amendment urging the government to reconfigure its relationship with the EU - returning certain powers to Westminster - before putting the issue to the public.

 

Mr Eustice, David Cameron's former press secretary, said the initiative was "not yet" backed by the government but he urged MPs of all parties to support it and suggested it "more closely reflected the views" of most Conservative MPs compared to Mr Nuttall's motion.

 

"The advantage of having a referendum after the renegotiation rather than before is that the public would then be able to judge whether or not the government had succeeded and this would put pressure on the government to negotiate forcefully," he said.

 

'Collision course'

Labour leader Ed Miliband said the prospect of a referendum would create further "economic uncertainty" and urged David Cameron to "show leadership" rather than make concessions to his backbenchers.

 

"It (a referendum) is not the right thing for Britain," he said. "It is not the right thing for jobs. It is not the right thing for growth."

 

Mr Miliband's stance has been criticised by Labour MP Graham Stringer who said backbenchers should be free to vote in any way as the debate had been organised by the Commons backbench business committee rather than the government or the opposition leadership.

 

Mr Stringer, who says he will vote for the motion, accused all three party leaders of making a "mistake" at a time when the public were "clearly aching for a say on Europe".

 

"Now is the time to give people a choice about whether they want to stay in the European Union," he told the Today programme.

 

And the UK Independence Party, which campaigns for the UK to leave the EU, said the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem leaders were "out of step" with the British public.

 

"By forcing their MPs to vote against an EU referendum, they have set them on a collision course with the electorate. It has become the people versus the politicians," their leader Nigel Farage said.

 

The debate has been brought forward by three days to allow Mr Cameron and Foreign Secretary William Hague to attend. They were both due to miss the original date on 27 October because of a trip to Australia for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.

 

The BBC's political editor Nick Robinson says the prime minister wants to be in parliament for the debate so he can look his backbenchers in the eye and tell them: "Don't do this."

 

A petition signed by more than 100,000 people, including Conservative and Labour MPs, calling for a referendum was handed into Downing Street last month. Members of the Commons Backbench Business Committee agreed to hold the debate on Monday.

- Here's hoping a good portion of MPs will rebel, not tow the party line and do what's best for the people of the nation, letting us decide. We the people deserve the right to choose if we want to continue our membership of the EU, not an elite political class. Nothing to highlight regards Clegg in this article, however the progressive (change) LibDems are clear supporters of the EU project and are keen to continue down the same path of eroding our sovereignty. There really is little to differentiate between the LibLabCon.

Interesting one tonight on Edge Media (Controversial TV), recently the British Humanist Association held Conspiracy Theories conference in London, with input from think tank Demos amongst others. Interestingly one speaker had to drop out and surprisingly Ian R Crane got invited to speak.

 

ON THE EDGE - Thursday 20 October, Sky channel 200. NOTE - from 7.30pm - 10.00pm... Between 7.30pm and 9.00pm you'll be able to see Ian R Crane's presentation from the recent Conspiracy Theories conference in London, where Ian went into the lion's den of academia and responded to the handful of speakers who had come before him on the bill. Regrettably, we weren't allowed to film these, but are promised them on the host's website soon. Then from 9.00pm until 10.00pm, ON THE EDGE features Ian R Crane and alex:g putting the conference into context, and the combinations of frustrations and revelations that came from the experience.

 

See the preview at

Edge Media - On The Edge

 

Ian R Crane and Alex G have also invited the Humanists / Demos people for a live debate, I'll be very surprised if they turn up...

 

I think there might now be further footage other than Ian's presentation on the BHA youtube channel for those interested in what the academics had to say about conspiracy theories.

The way this is going, one of these protesters is going to die, and it'll be entirely their own fault.

Regardless of who's fault it is, once a protester dies (again) at the hands of the police, things will kick of big-time in this country, especially if it's filmed or even televised. The current climate in this country isn't geared towards forgiving the authorities for such things.

 

It's also worth considering that the protesters have actually won regardless of this outcome. Once another travelling community beds itself in, will the local authorities be willing to go through all of this again? The protesters more than likely will be.

Violence on the streets is playing into their hands, it's the old problem, reaction, solution - leading to more Acts of government imposed, more heavily armed police and calls for the army to get involved etc. All protests need to remain non-violent.

When you see a man whos been wanted for 10 years in your sights you shoot to kill

Oh no not the Bin Laden topic again...

Press TV Taken off air in UK

I watched the excellent expose of the BNP's fraudulent practises on the Panorama.

It was an interesting watch. What would make for even better viewing though, is an expose of the main parties. I bet those fuckers have some dirty laundry that would be worth seeing.

Too true David!

 

Something worthy of note regards all 3 parties is that think tank Demos helps create their policies and branding, hence so little difference between all 3 in the debates leading towards 2010 election, and the reason why we had a hung parliament. Something to look into.

 

Anyone else seen this clip from the Beeb floating around?

BBC Speechless As Trader Tells Truth: "The Collapse Is Coming...And Goldman Rules The World"

 

Tip of the day: If you've got liquidity buy yourself some gold, because soon paper money will be worthless.

-that's from Ian R Crane and Max Keiser

I watched the excellent expose of the BNP's fraudulent practises on the Panorama. If only the BBC journalists could use their investigative skills on political charity Common Purpose, exposing that taxpayer money is paying for all these courses on leadership.

 

If only they would.

Thanks for sharing, I wasn't aware of this radio show being the BBC. I do recall hearing a radio interview (on youtube) with Brian Gerrish who exposes Common Purpose, where CP representatives refused to take part in a live debate. Still not quite the same impact as prime-time Panorama.

 

Should publically-funded institutions like the police, local authorities and the BBC pay money to a charity to host training courses which are essentially networking opportunities for staff?

Some of the courses cost as much as

I watched the excellent expose of the BNP's fraudulent practises on the Panorama. If only the BBC journalists could use their investigative skills on political charity Common Purpose, exposing that taxpayer money is paying for all these courses on leadership.

Anyone else been following the occupation of Wall Street?

The latest I heard over on Facebook is of donations from JP Morgan to the police and soldiers moving in to protect the protesters! Exciting times indeed

Occupy Wall Street Update (youtube)

 

Here's a youtube video of a talk I attended a couple of weeks back from Roger Hayes, with an alternative to our present system:

So the possibility that Charlie Veitch has, as a result of being presented with new information, had a genuine change of mind over this... that's inconceivable to you?Also... I'll take Popular Mechanics' opinion over any theorist on the internet every time. Your criteria for who you do and don't believe is absolutely arse about face.But, come on, please let's move on from the obvious non-story of 9/11. All normal, sane people will need some proper evidence before they believe anything was dodgy about the event, and the Duanes and Keelans of this world wouldn't believe it was genuine if they were transported back in time and put on one of the fucking planes. So let's move on.

Ah well I'll give up on waiting on that CCTV evidence etc promised then, since the almighty Loki declares 9/11 discussion officially over When it comes down it, a lot of this is about affinity - some members have decided I'm an idiot and accept the official story because "they wouldn't do that!" then knock whatever comes from an unofficial source even if I'm quoting scientific minded people, who are scholars, engineers, architects etc. (Granted Ian R Crane isn't of that school, he's right-brain-thinker who sees the patterns and joins together all the dots.) Why should Popular Mechanics be any more an authority on this topic than the hundreds of architects, engineers, pilots, scholars etc who do not support what we are officially told? Oh it's because they're quoted in the MSM, so it must be accurate and correct. And what you're saying is all what we're told on Fox, CNN, BBC is true? Oh crikey I better switch over from Russia Today and Press TV and start watching those news channels, I've been missing out! This 9/11 discussion is just like the political tribalism on Question Time - they aren't going to agree on much because they're stuck in that mind set of left v right, that doesn't solve a problem to meet in the middle what so ever. It's a battle of egos basically with no conclusion except for one ego always trying to win. For that reason I'm out

Ian R Crane in one of his talks shown on Edge Media puts forward that a plane was seen flying near the Pentagon. So some people have witnessed one in the air, yet the menoeuvre needed for the plane to have crashed into the Pentagon at the angle and height by this plane is impossible, so he claims. Also people located in closer vicinity didn't witness a plane. This is a little tricky clearly explain in just text.Anyone else watch this on Edge Media care to comment? (I don't think the video is available on youtube)

Ian R Crane is neither a Pentagon eye witness nor a pilot or aerospace engineer. Eyewitnesses saw planes. Pilots and aerospace engineers say it was possible.

Back to Charlie Veitch:Paradigm Shift TV aired a docufilm - Into The Fire, about the Toronto G20 protest from 2010. It focusses on C.Veitch filming at the protest and being arrested and his terrible treatment. What he endured garnered him hero status to many. The video also shows what appears to be agent provocateurs and Black Bloc Anarchists causing mayhem and destruction in the city. I'm urged to question why Charlie being aware of this and being known as a peaceful and lawful rebel would later at the demo held March 26, 2011 in London choose to align himself with the Black Bloc Anarchists and in fact declare himself an Anarchist? Into The Fire A Toronto G20 Film (Pt.1of9) - it's an excellent film by the way

I can't believe the mainstream media has gotten to you, Duane. Charlie has been an anarchist (of the no boundries, everyone's equal, no laws, no heirachy type) ever since he left the bank. He also did not align himself with the Black Bloc on March 26th. He was interviewed by ITV, who then played his words over footage of Black Bloc smashing up stores. If you watch Charlie's own footage - or that of those who were with him - you'll see he does his usual "I'm just in here browsing, like all the other shoppers. You'd like me to leave? Is that a formal request? Okay then, I'll leave." routine.

No the MSM hasn't gotten to me, I just think he's a silly boy. There is one of Charlie's own videos recruiting people to join Black Bloc prior to March 26. Fair enough having Anarchism as a political philosophy but with Charlie it was like he was playing a role in film, living out a fantasy, donning the balaclava one moment then showing his face live on TV the next. If you have nothing to hide why hide your face? He was on Facebook, then off it, then back on it again. No I've not the taken the heel turn well Really though I'm just to make sense of the guy, I do still agree with him on some of what he stands for.

The problem here is the buildings were built in the 60s to the withstand the impact of a Boeing airliner colliding into them, 9/11 is the first case of a building being destroyed by a plane hitting it with the steel girders melting instead part of the structure still standing.

Strictly speaking, the towers weren't designed to withstand any aircraft impact; rather the lead designer took it upon himself to carry out a post-design assessment as a result of publicised safety related complaints raised by a rival property owner. It's believed it was a pretty simple analysis, based on initial impact, considering speeds of under 200mph, and taking no account of fuel and the effects from widespread fires.

 

Even if a detailed assessment was an integral feature of the design, carried out by specialists rather than a plain old Structural Engineer, it goes without saying that in the 60s, technology related to Fire Engineering was a whole lot more primitive than it is today. Added to the fact that these designs were so innovative at the time, it would have been practically impossible for anyone to say with any certainty how the buildings would behave in such a scenario.

 

9/11 is the first case of a building being destroyed by a plane hitting it

Having watched the Jessie Ventura Conspiracy Theory's on 9/11 Pentagon, that's one that currently I find interesting. It seems odd to me that the FBI (?) confiscated all the CCTV that would have caught it and only released footage that barely showed anything. I don't get why they would do that? However, if a plane didn't really hit that building I have real trouble understanding what happened to the plane and it's passengers.

Ian R Crane in one of his talks shown on Edge Media puts forward that a plane was seen flying near the Pentagon. So some people have witnessed one in the air, yet the menoeuvre needed for the plane to have crashed into the Pentagon at the angle and height by this plane is impossible, so he claims. Also people located in closer vicinity didn't witness a plane. This is a little tricky clearly explain in just text.

Anyone else watch this on Edge Media care to comment? (I don't think the video is available on youtube)

 

Back to Charlie Veitch:

Paradigm Shift TV aired a docufilm - Into The Fire, about the Toronto G20 protest from 2010. It focusses on C.Veitch filming at the protest and being arrested and his terrible treatment. What he endured garnered him hero status to many. The video also shows what appears to be agent provocateurs and Black Bloc Anarchists causing mayhem and destruction in the city. I'm urged to question why Charlie being aware of this and being known as a peaceful and lawful rebel would later at the demo held March 26, 2011 in London choose to align himself with the Black Bloc Anarchists and in fact declare himself an Anarchist?

 

Into The Fire A Toronto G20 Film (Pt.1of9)

- it's an excellent film by the way

Yes, I believe Duane inadvertently revealed that one of the people that runs it thought that Britain had a written constitution.

Regardless of what your impressions are of the BC Group the main thing is the group is taking positive action when we have been let down by the parliamentarians, who clearly do not have the best interests of the nation.

 

The BC Group is holding 2 conventions, one in Stoke On Trent and another 2 weeks later in London. It's a growing movement with people joining up from the police, ex-armed services and former politicians.

 

Convention details - www.ukcolumn.org/

Will there be a reply? Or will Gladdy "do a Duane"? Fair is fair eh?

 

Frustrating, isn't it?

Not really...

 

Anyway as I've said I'm happy for people to PM for a reply if it appears I'm ignoring anyone, you could've done that before if you've previously felt I've ignored you.

Anyone care to explain the Nano-thermite particles found in the dust or what was left of the Twin Towers?

 

A residue left behind after thermite welding. It's usually used in railway tracks but has been used in some building construction. Next?

Thanks, but that's hearsay

 

As opposed to...?

 

EVERY SINGLE THING YOU'VE EVER CITED ON HERE

 

I think the way you, and the conspiracy types, ditched Charlie Veitch after he changed his tune, rather than "Hey, this chap I've been saying is a stand-up guy, and linking to his videos because what he says is important and worth listening to now has a new take on things. I will listen to the new take..." sums it all up. There's literally nothing that will change your minds.

 

I've always said that if David Icke came out and said he was wrong, that he's now taking meds for his schizophrenia, or he just made it up for a laugh, the believers would all say that 'the man' got to him, and still believe in every word he'd said before he TURNED TO THE DARKSIDE. The way everyone immediately ditched former-champion Veitch, to the point of not even wanting to say his name or acknowledge that he existed, is absolutely hilarious, and a brilliant summing up of that whole mindset. He used critical thinking, informed investigation and facts to decide that he was wrong, but FUCK HIM, NOW HE'S ONE OF THE UNTHINKING SHEEP! Whut?

 

Duane, what's your take on the while Veitch thing? Is everything he ever said and did discredited now? Or just the stuff up to the point he changed his mind?

Fair enough for saying it's here-say as I'm generally referring to films I've seen, hence listing them all to bring those who wish up to speed! However I still would appreciate some evidence since I've done likewise in reply to Stevie.

Will there be a reply? Or will Gladdy "do a Duane"? Fair is fair eh?

 

Regards Veitch he was never a researcher on 9/11. As he's said himself he's someone who's watched some videos online. Well put it this way it certainly makes me question if he was genuine in his motives. 9/11 truth and justice wasn't his only thing, he's into challenging the way we perceive authority, the difference between Common Law and statutes. I'd still go along with some of his stuff still but wouldn't want to be associated with him in anyway now. I thought he was inspirational and had a lot of guts, while others said he was an egotist and arrogant, think I was fooled. Glad others like Ian R Crane already saw through him and distanced themselves earlier.

 

I never agreed totally with him. He's anti all religion, including Scientology and against border controls. He could be too antagonistic as well. Danny Shine's (Spiritual Entertainer on youtube) approach is better. They parted ways and he's also parted ways with Silko Carlo, his now ex-girlfriend who brought over Richard Gage to do a presentation. Anyway I gave Charlie the benefit of the doubt but he's never replied to me and others on Facebook. Also he doesn't have a new take, he just adopted the official story as do his followers in their V For Vendetta masks.

 

Check out his latest work, he's now at odds with so called conspiracy theorists, why has he made all these enemies? Controlled opposition, you decide?

 

Conspiracy Theorists are the Enemies of the Resistance

 

EDIT:

 

Oh yeah and he feels threatened by a 65 year old lady, crikey he's about 6'4!

Anyone care to explain the Nano-thermite particles found in the dust or what was left of the Twin Towers?

 

A residue left behind after thermite welding. It's usually used in railway tracks but has been used in some building construction. Next?

Thanks, but that's hearsay, please provide your source of it being used in the construction of the WTC steel structure. As you can see above I've quoted my source regards the construction of the towers to withstand impact of a Boeing airliner colliding into them.

 

 

Once you've provided it this one's next...

The passport of the alleged hijacker conveniently found despite nearly everything else literally turned to dust.

- to good to be true? Go on, tell me it was contained in lead

 

EDIT:

 

May I also suggest googling PNAC - Project for a New American Century. There are documents stating for the US to further assert itself as the only Super Power it needs a new Pearl Harbour.

 

To get up to speed on the videos I've seen check out all the following:

 

Blue Print for 9/11 Truth

- Richard Gage, architechs and engineers for 9/11 truth.

 

Elephant In The Room

Dean Puckett. Made by someone who doesn't believe 9/11 was an inside job but still presents compelling evidence.

 

9/11 - The Greatest Lie Ever Sold

Anthony J Hilder

 

History Cannot be permantly falsified

Ian R Crane (on Edge Media, might not be on youtube)

 

9/11 Ripple Effect.

 

Loose Change

 

Captain Sherlock Solves 9/11 - Field McConnell, former airline and fighter pilot investigates. See it on Egde Media - Sky 200.

- I've not got around to seeing the whole film yet but seen all his interview.

 

There's also Zeitgeist.

The problem here is the buildings were built in the 60s to the withstand the impact of a Boeing airliner colliding into them, 9/11 is the first case of a building being destroyed by a plane hitting it with the steel girders melting instead part of the structure still standing.

 

Wait....

 

So they planned for Airliners that hadn't been conceived when they started construction on the towers.

 

That's really clever. Also no one had flown a fully laden plane as large as a 767 into a building before. I'm sure if they had there would be more cases of building collapsing due to this...

They were built to withstand impact of the Boeing airliner of similar size that was in existence but not the exact model that collided into the towers. I suggest you research this rather than take my word for it.

 

EDIT:

 

Just done my own research, feel free to check other sources -

 

Aircraft impact

The structural engineers on the project also considered the possibility that an aircraft could crash into the building. In July 1945, a B-25 bomber that was lost in the fog had crashed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. A year later, another airplane nearly crashed into the 40 Wall Street building, and there was another near-miss at the Empire State Building.[60] In designing the World Trade Center, Leslie Robertson considered the scenario of the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707, which might be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark airports.[61] The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) found a three page white paper that mentioned another aircraft impact analysis, involving impact of a jet at 600 mph (970 km/h), was indeed considered, but the original documentation of the study was lost when Port Authority offices were destroyed in the collapse of the World Trade Center.[62]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_...ld_Trade_Center

Duane go read the popular mechanics stuff please. It will answer a lot of your technical suspicions.

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...ld-trade-center

 

 

 

 

Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

 

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

 

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

 

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

 

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

 

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors—along with the building's unusual construction—were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

 

As for explosions and pancaking

 

Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

 

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air—along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse—was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

 

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

 

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

I've seen this young lad from Popular Mechanics on the BBC programme, I'm not convinced by them when there are so many experts in demolition, architects and engineers who say it's bollocks. Sorry I'm not buying this "full of air theory" that Charlie Veitch spouted after his BBC paid for trip to the States. It's even on film being said "it's going to come down" and "pull it".

Damn right the demolition expert is going to say he was misquoted, good chance he was threatened or paid off. If you watch the video you can tell he was amazed when he was told afterwards it was of the 3rd building that was destroyed on 9/11. By the way have you seen this footage I'm referring to ROTM? You can really hear amazement in his voice.

 

If you've got a clear video of a jet liner hitting the Pentagon please share it. What's currently in the public domain doesn't clearly show this.

 

Anyone care to explain the Nano-thermite particles found in the dust of what was discovered at ground zero?

 

- 5minute video, enjoy