Fox News Reports on Collapse of Building 7 Before It Happens

[eots]

ikits a joke a load of broken links..rdf files..and the ones that work are so weak its a complete joke...

one of your ...experts

section added 14 January 2006

This website generates many queries from people in response to some of the other theories that are put forward relating to the collapse - namely that it was a controlled explosion.

The initial impact/further weakening by fire reasoning is based on uncontestable knowledge about the behaviour of structures in general, and the weakening of steel under fire conditions, plus video footage of the events and examination of the steel afterwards. The official FEMA report written by engineering experts came to this conclusion based on the evidence.

However, should additional evidence come to light that supports a different theory, the author is willing to reassess his views.

The fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel
There has never been a claim that the steel melted

totally false statement

the fire before the buildings collapsed, however the fire would have been very hot. Even though the steel didnt melt, the type of temperatures in the fire would have roughly halved its strength.

again underwriters test show this to be completely false

There would have been variations in the distribution of the temperature both in place in time. There are photos that show people in the areas opened up by the impact, so it obviously wasnt too hot when those photos were taken, but this is not to say that other parts of the building, further inside were not hotter.

then how could they all fail at the same time as is required for the building to collapse into its own footprint as opposed to falling over

In addition, to make a reasonable conclusion from these photos, it would be important to know when they were taken. It might be possible that just after the impact the area wasnt very hot, but as the fire took hold the area got hotter

.

is this supposed to be science its just conjecture and opinion backed... with no science or physics of any kind..

 

[Big_D]

ikits a joke a load of broken links..rdf files..and the ones that work are so weak its a complete joke...

Only two of the links didn't open. One was the Washington times article (which I fixed) and the Edinburgh article (their server is down). Go into more specifics of why these articles are a joke. How many engineering professors do I have listed there? None of these people know what they are talking about? How about the one man who I have listed that is the 2002 Forensic engineer of the year winner or the person who is the winner of the same award but for the following year? I can go on and on, but you all can look for yourselves.

one of your ...experts

Which one? Care to be more specific?

section added 14 January 2006
totally false statement

Perhaps, but that had nothing to do with the fall of the towers.

again underwriters test show this to be completely false
then how could they all fail at the same time as is required for the building to collapse into its own footprint as opposed to falling over
is this supposed to be science its just conjecture and opinion backed... with no science or physics of any kind..

Do you care to tell me which article you are talking about and to back up your statement at all? Even if you are true and this article is not credible then you still have numerous ones that you didn't even touch! Why don't you inform me how all these articles are silly?

Actually, why don't you only discredit the first one? The one titled, "Why did the world trade center collapse?-Simple analysis." Please discredit this article and back up your statement that this is a joke. This time actually do it. You haven't in the past so try to do it now. Don't pick and choose which part of this post to refute. Instead just do this part. Do you know that this article passed the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics in their engineering division. That means 20+ engineering experts from around the globe read this and approved it. David Ray Griffin's book didn't do this. None of the experts you have listed has had articles approved by this group. Only this one has passed. If you like you can also go on their website and email them stating that the article they approved is such a joke. So again please inform me how this paper is a joke?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

why no building ever collapsed due to fire..and how could this possibly result in a free fall collapses into its own footprint in a controlled manner..ludicrous

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)

YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)

exactly.also many new yorkers were scratching their heads over its collapse cause there were other buildings there damaged far worse with much worse fires that did not collapse.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Only two of the links didn't open. One was the Washington times article (which I fixed) and the Edinburgh article (their server is down). Go into more specifics of why these articles are a joke. How many engineering professors do I have listed there? None of these people know what they are talking about? How about the one man who I have listed that is the 2002 Forensic engineer of the year winner or the person who is the winner of the same award but for the following year? I can go on and on, but you all can look for yourselves.


Which one? Care to be more specific?


Perhaps, but that had nothing to do with the fall of the towers.



Do you care to tell me which article you are talking about and to back up your statement at all? Even if you are true and this article is not credible then you still have numerous ones that you didn't even touch! Why don't you inform me how all these articles are silly?

Actually, why don't you only discredit the first one? The one titled, "Why did the world trade center collapse?-Simple analysis." Please discredit this article and back up your statement that this is a joke. This time actually do it. You haven't in the past so try to do it now. Don't pick and choose which part of this post to refute. Instead just do this part. Do you know that this article passed the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics in their engineering division. That means 20+ engineering experts from around the globe read this and approved it. David Ray Griffin's book didn't do this. None of the experts you have listed has had articles approved by this group. Only this one has passed. If you like you can also go on their website and email them stating that the article they approved is such a joke. So again please inform me how this paper is a joke?

coming from a guy who hasnt even bothered to read Griffiths book obviously.LOL you keep touting people like NIST, gene corley, thomas egar,and popular mechanics as the ultimate gods on it when their work has been discredited and debunked by kevin ryan of underwriters labs.LOl.the guy who whose company supplied the steel for the trade towers and was fired after he gave critism of the towers collapse.LOL

 

[LA RAM FAN]

How do you know that they were not behind? How do you know that the connection was to the video wasnt simply behind from what the newscasters are getting word?
If you believe that the newscasters were aware of the attacks beforehand then why dont you just simply supply me information proving it.

There are also other reports that came out early. This is not the first time in history this has happened. For example, Dewey defeating Truman. People have been report to be dead beforehand. This would include Gerald Ford, Dick Cheney, Bill Henry (baseball player), Pope John Paul II, and MANY others. I've made this point beforehand to no response.

I have asked this question now numerous times and NEVER got a response but will ask it again: If the American Govt was behind the attacks why would they inform two large news media?

the other comment I wanted to make about this post was thats stretching it comparing the BBC collapse to Dewey defeating Truman or people being reported dead beforehand like the people you mentioned.thats comparing apples to oranges,dewey was a prediction,those people being reported beforehand were going on bad information.also you mentioned they were behind in the tape,now where do you come up with THAT idea? if anything,the tape was AHEAD in the reporting of the collapse.maybe you asked it but you only asked it to Eots during your discussions,you never asked it to me.so since you are,here is your answer.the mainstream media is controlled by the government.They got CIA plants in all corners of the world.they got them everywhere in places.the got them in post offices,federal buildings,major news papers,the major tv news outlets,EVERYWHERE.the proof of that is that congress did an investigation into the activities of the CIA back in the 70's and they discovered through the freedom of information act documents of the CIA that they operate that way.so they only report what they want you to hear.that BBC lady was so stupid though in her reporting of what she was told to report that she and the others didnt realise it hadnt collapsed yet.again I say how the hell could they be behind when their reporting it BEFORE it collapsed? thats not being behind.I just proved that there are CIA plants in major media outlets so that proves it right there.its all on record about congress discovering that in the 70's,everybody knows about it.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

First, YOU have made the claim that 9/11 is done by the CFR through the govt and NEVER backed anything up with that. Never proved that clinton nor bush was responsible NOTHING. I am not making those accusations and therefore do not have to back anything up. However, I have anyways showed that bin laden admitted to the attacks and had NUMEROUS experts prove they have the same opinion I do.


Do you really think that? Go over this thread and see all the questions I asked about this silly theory and never got a response from him or you.


The point was that you and eots thought little of the experts I provided. Meanwhile these people were professors at high universities, had very advanced degrees, won awards and then you downgrade them by saying that Griffin countered all their points when he is no expert at all.

If you want a good reading then check this out from this article: Jets hit towers in most vulnerable spots / Killers appear to have known where to strike
"That impact was too much, and no building could possibly withstand such weight, so floor after floor came down in what we call progressive collapse"
-Hassan Astaneh
His Creditentials:
"CEE professor Hassan Astaneh has been teaching at Berkeley since 1986. He has taught classes on the design of steel structures and advanced steel design engineering mechanics-static. He is an expert in the effects of disasters on steel structures and has testified before Congress on how the structural integrity of the World Trade Center reacted to the terrorist attack."

Engineering News, Date

I'll take this gentleman's opinion! Or the following...
"Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.
His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down. "
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 9/11 demolition theory challenged
- Dr. Steffen
His Creditentials:
Keith Seffen
CUED home page - Dr K A Seffen

There you go two opinions from a professor at the University of Cambridge (UK) and one from Berkley. Two amazingly high universities. I can post more but I think we all got the point.



So did the people at popular mechanics. They also interviewed people were are experts in those fields who DO accept the official version.



What about them are laughable? Answer this question: What was it about the winner of the 2003 Forensic Engineer of the year Award that was laughable? Or how about the individual who, "was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 1996 and to the National Academy of Sciences in 2002, 1 of only 153 members with such a dual appointment." (Inaugural Article: Biography of Zdeněk P. Bažant) Why dont you inform us how the professors at MIT, Edinburgh, University of Sydney, Purdue, or other high universities. As I said to Eots; You made this state now back it up. Sadly enough it appears that the more you all make statements it appears that you can say that my experts are invalid, but can NEVER back it up.




What point was that you said three times now that I havent responded too? I have asked you all NUMEROUS questions to support your theory that went unanswered. For example, I have probably asked about five time now why our govt would inform the media about their plans of attacks and your response is crickets chirping. I have also asked countless times why my experts are so far-fetched to the same response. I have also shown that Bin Laden has admitted to these attacks and was never given an adequate reply. Eots did supply some links in regards to it but they were EASILY dismissible.


Do you have a camera in my home and are spying at me? How do you know how much I have read or not read? You ASSUME I didnt do anything because it weakens your argument when I claim (and have) read your posts and done what else you asked of me. The fact of the matter is you and eots are just not that convincing. For example, I asked why you believe the Clinton, Bush's administrations were behind the attacks. You replied b/c they are the CFR puppets and are willing to do whatever they ask. Sorry, but I have a hard time believing this. You then say that Obama knows of the attacks and is unable to inform us because he is also a puppet for the CFR. Of course you never back up this statement as well. Bush is the president and Obama will be one on 1/20. NOBODY, can tell them what they can or cannot do. It is interesting that these are and were the most powerful people on the planet yet are being told what to do by the CFR. Meanwhile, they CFR and our govt cant keep alex jones quiet!



This is what doesnt make sense. He said the temp on the planes were just slightly below the temp for the steel structure to soften. Then the friction from the crash would obviously cause it to increase above that amount. What I would like to know is how he knows how much the exact temp would increase from the crash. As I have said there are also MANY experts who agree with me. Like the award winners and the professors of MIT, Purdue, and from the other Universities I gave. Sorry, but I will take their word over someone who is a retired philosophy professor!



So do the some of the people listed from Eots list are also govt employees! As I have shown now I also have a few professors that are not even Americans. Therefore our govt has no control over what they say and they still agree with me. For example the professors at the Univeristy of Sydney and Edinburgh. Are you saying the American govt is making them say this? If you are then why cant they stop Alex Jones and company from apparently revealing the conspiracy? I know you said why you think the govt wont kill Jones, but when I asked why dont they just simply threaten his life and his family you gave no response. Just another issue I made that never received a reply from the two of you. Sorry, but I will take the word of the individuals with a number of degrees, professors, and engineer award winner and MANY other awards over your people.

okay I am going to get to this post now in my next several posts now.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

First off Clinton was involved in it but not to the extremes that Bush and cheney and his dad were.Clinton was working alongside Bush Sr in the Mena arkansas scandal during the 80's when he was governor of arkansas and Bush was vice president under Regan.Bush and clinton were involved in smuggling drugs into the arkansas airbase strips from nicuragua into arkansas in exchange for weapons to be flown out of arkansas to nicuragua in an illegal contra war in support of the nicuaguas.This has all been documented.clinton and bush have been long time buddies since the 80's so clinton had to have at least known about it.Terry Reed proved that in his video he has out called The Mena connection and his book called CLINTON,BUSH AND THE CIA,how the presidency was so opted by the CIA.as far as we know,clinton did not profit from the attacks like bush and cheney did-that has been documented that they profited so he wasnt involved near as much as they were,he just knew in advance about the plans.Three different countries offered Bin laden on a platter to clinton while he was president,and clinton refused to go after him.It was all over the news back in the 90's that a high ranking General came on the broadcast and said they had pinpointed Bin ladens whereabouts but Clinton told them to lay off him.Its been talked about in books as well.Clinton didnt go after him cause they needed him as their scapegoat obviously.

 

[DiveCon]

hmmm, let me guess, you also believe the Clinton Death List is legit, right?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Also the evidence is overwhelming that Bush and Cheney orchestrated the attacks and profited from them.Like I said,thats been documented how they profited from the attacks.theres MANY books out there that document it all that I could list for you if you wanted.Also David Schippers a new york lawyer who ironically was the president who tried to impeach clinton in the lewisnsky scandal-that was set to be a failure from the start cause presidents can get away with anything.Schippers found out that the republicans in congress were sellouts as well.He wrote a book about it and matter of fact the book ironically is called SELLOUT.the inside story of president clintons impeachment,cheif counsel investigater for the clinton impeachment.Here is his credintials.

 

[Big_D]

coming from a guy who hasnt even bothered to read Griffiths book obviously.LOL you keep touting people like NIST, gene corley, thomas egar,and popular mecahnics as the ultimate gods on it when their work has been discredited and debunked by kevin ryan of underwriters labs.LOl.the guy who whose company supplied the steel for the trade towers and was fired after he gave critism of the towers collapse.LOL

Corley, Edgar, and the other are just a handful of the people I have used. As I have shown in post number 260, there are MANY engineering professors from the best engineering schools in the world that agree with me. There are also countless others that I did not even add! Do you really believe that none of these people know what they are talking about? Also, those individuals were not "debunked" by Kevin Ryan and David Ray Griffin. Those two just have a different opinion of what happened than my experts. In fact, my experts disagree with one another on how the WTC buildings fell, but they all agree it was done by terrorists.
Why don't you try to debunk that article I asked Eots to do? This is the first article listed on that page. This piece was passed by the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics in their engineering division. As I said before, this means that 20+ engineering experts from around the globe read this and approved it. David Ray Griffin's book didn't do this. So which one do you think is more credible? The one written by a philosophy professor or the article I posted that passed from he Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics?

Also, in post number 144 of this thread (that was over 2 weeks ago) you said that you were going to read this article. Your exact quote:

Oh by the way Bid D,dont worry I'll read your link on professor Bazent and what he says but im sure its as laughable as your OTHER sources ...

So please do inform me how this paper is laughable?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

hmmm, let me guess, you also believe the Clinton Death List is legit, right?

only an idiot wouldnt.A bunch of arkansas state troopers put their careers on the line and sometimes their lives trying to expose him for it.Many of them were flown into washington and were waiting to give testimony before congress that they had information of all these deaths they knew he was behind-not behind as in comitting them but as in ordering them,but congress never called them in to even testify.thats the ONLY reason Terry Reed who wrote that book is still alive because he went public with it.He tried to bring the lawsuit before the courts but the judge would not allow him to talk about the CIA'S activities or call witneeses he had or anything.Chuck Harders for the people radio show in the days and months leading up to the trial was the ONLY media attention he got out of it.Not surprising,you'll never hear the corporate controlled media report REAL news.the news they consider real is OJ simpson-so much that they put it on the front covers of the newspapers for years,yet terry reeds lawsuit of clinton NEVER makes the news.the media is a joke.also L.D Brown who was clintons closet friend of all the arkansas state troopers,wrote a book called CROSSFIRE.His book is overwhelming proof that Bush sr and bush jr are long time buddies.on the front cover of the book it shows a picture with him next to clinton while clinton is serving as governor in the governors mansion.He also was a CIA asset for them back then like terry reed and can back up terry reeds story.Brown when he found out that he was smuggling drugs for the CIA and clinton lied to him about that,he approached clinton yelling at him about it and clinton said back to him-My buddy Bush knows all about it.L.D Brown testified to clinton and bushs involvement to a judge in arkansas.read the book,he proves it all in the book.

 

[DiveCon]

only an idiot wouldnt.A bunch of arkansas state troopers put their careers on the line and sometimes their lives trying to expose him for it.Many of them were flown into washington and were waiting to give testimony before congress that they had information of all these deaths they knew he was behind-not behind as in comitting them but as in ordering them,but congress never called them in to even testify.thats the ONLY reason Terry Reed who wrote that book is still alive because he went public with it.He tried to bring the lawsuit before the courts but the judge would not allow him to talk about the CIA'S activities or call witneeses he had or anything.Chuck Harders for the people radio show in the days and months leading up to the trial was the ONLY media attention he got out of it.Not surprising,you'll never hear the corporate controlled media report REAL news.the news they consider real is OJ simpson-so much that they put it on the front covers of the newspapers for years,yet terry reeds lawsuit of clinton NEVER makes the news.the media is a joke.

wow, just WOW

 

[LA RAM FAN]

As I was saying before,Clinton has been long time buddies with the Bushs.While governor or arakansas he was working together in the Mena arkansas scandal with Bush Sr in letting the CIA smuggle drugs out of nicuaragua into arkansas.Matter of fact while clinton was president 3 different countries offered Bin Laden up to Clinton on a platter and he had no interest in going after him.It was all over the newscasts back then in the 90's that a high ranking general in the army said on the news that they had information on Bin Ladens whereabouts but Clinton told them to lay off.It was never broadcast again after that though.There have been books written about it documenting that as well.He had no interest in Bin Laden cause they needed him as a patsy obviously.it was long planned.Also its been documented that Bush and cheney made HUGE immense profits from the attacks.thats all been documented in books as well.if you like,I can refer you to some.the evidence is overwhelming on that.

 

[Big_D]

the other comment I wanted to make about this post was thats stretching it comparing the BBC collapse to Dewey defeating Truman or people being reported dead beforehand like the people you mentioned.thats comparing apples to oranges,dewey was a prediction,those people being reported beforehand were going on bad information.

Then how do you explain the list of people that were reported dead prematurely? This included: Gerald Ford, Dick Cheney, Bill Henry (baseball player), Pope John Paul II. This isn't a prediction. There are many others, such as:
Will Ferrell
Bob Hope (a couple of times)
James Earl Jones
Artie Lange
Sharon Osbourne and many more.

You make it seem that when the local newscasters out of Washington DC and the BBC reporting something happened before it did was the first time it has happened in news history.

also you mentioned they were behind in the tape,now where do you come up with THAT idea? if anything,the tape was AHEAD in the reporting of the collapse.maybe you asked it but you only asked it to Eots during your discussions,you never asked it to me.so since you are,here is your answer.the mainstream media is controlled by the government.

I do not know that they were behind in the tape, but it seems like a more logical idea than what you are implying. Have you seen a local news broadcast? This happens all the time. The reports could have said that the building fell after it did and then the video could have simply been shown. All what I am saying is that the video could have been delayed than from whom the newscasters were getting their information from. Or someone could have misheard another along the message line. Perhaps, the newscasters thought that the word they were getting was that the building had fallen instead of that it was going to fall Seriously, do you not think these two could at least be a possibility.

They got CIA plants in all corners of the world.they got them everywhere in places.the got them in post offices,federal buildings,major news papers,the major tv news outlets,EVERYWHERE.the proof of that is that congress did an investigation into the activities of the CIA back in the 70's and they discovered through the freedom of information act documents of the CIA they they operate that way.so they only report what they want you to hear.that BBC lady was so stupid though in her reporting of what she was told to report that she and the others didnt realise it hadnt collapsed yet.again I say how the hell could they be behind when their reporting it BEFORE it collapsed? thats not being behind.I just proved that there are CIA plants in major media outlets so that proves it right there.its all on record about congress discovering that in the 70's,everybody knows about it.

My point is that it could have been a mistake. Someone could have misheard another of what happened on what was obviously the most hectic news day in the past 1/2 century. As said from Bern80:

Because of your bias you always jump from A to Z without ever looking into the other 24 or so steps you need to go through to plausibly prove Z.

Since, you seem pretty sure that this wasnt a mistake then please inform me who informed these reports that we were going to be attacked beforehand. Also, please back up your statement.

So in your opinion it makes more sense for our govt to inform the local newscast and the BBC that they are going to attack us as oppose to someone misheard another or playing a piece of video late? I asked this question twice beforehand with no response, but I will do it again: Why would our govt inform the media that they are going to attack us before it is done? I have never heard a time in the history of the world that one nation is going to inform the enemy that they are going to attack them beforehand!

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Matter of fact you want proof that Bush knew the attacks were going to happen on the towers? Here it is for you.David Schippers a new york lawyer was the cheif invesitgater council for the Clinton lewinsky scandal,was banging on the doors of attorney general john ashcroft demanding him to listen to these FBI agents who had information that there were going to be terrorist attacks against the towers.He called him and wrote and emailed him several times begging him to listen to these agesnt who had the dates,locations and times when the attacks were going to be carried out and he never returned their calls.He was representing them cause when they approached their FBI superiours,their superiours told them to ignore it and these same FBI agents also told schippers who they went to george bush about it telling them they had information and he threatened them with arrest if they tried to stop it.if you would have bothered to llok at those videos I posted on the canadawants the truth llink I gave you would know that.

 

[Big_D]

First off Clinton was involved in it but not to the extremes that Bush and cheney and his dad were.Clinton was working alongside Bush Sr in the Mena arkansas scandal during the 80's when he was governor of arkansas and Bush was vice president under Regan.Bush and clinton were involved in smuggling drugs into the arkansas airbase strips from nicuragua into arkansas in exchange for weapons to be flown out of arkansas to nicuragua in an illegal contra war in support of the nicuaguas.This has all been documented.clinton and bush have been long time buddies since the 80's so clinton had to have at least known about it.Terry Reed proved that in his video he has out called The Mena connection and his book called CLINTON,BUSH AND THE CIA,how the presidency was so opted by the CIA.as far as we know,clinton did not profit from the attacks like bush and cheney did-that has been documented that they profited so he wasnt involved near as much as they were,he just knew in advance about the plans.Three different countries offered Bin laden on a platter to clinton while he was president,and clinton refused to go after him.It was all over the news back in the 90's that a high ranking General came on the broadcast and said they had pinpointed Bin ladens whereabouts but Clinton told them to lay off him.Its been talked about in books as well.Clinton didnt go after him cause they needed him as their scapegoat obviously.

Also the evidence is overwhelming that Bush and Cheney orchestrated the attacks and profited from them.Like I said,thats been documented how they profited from the attacks.theres MANY books out there that document it all that I could list for you if you wanted.Also David Schippers a new york lawyer who ironically was the president who tried to impeach clinton in the lewisnsky scandal-that was set to be a failure from the start cause presidents can get away with anything.Schippers found out that the republicans in congress were sellouts as well.He wrote a book about it and matter of fact the book ironically is called SELLOUT.the inside story of president clintons impeachment,cheif counsel investigater for the clinton impeachment.Here is his credintials.

As I was saying before,Clinton has been long time buddies with the Bushs.While governor or arakansas he was working together in the Mena arkansas scandal with Bush Sr in letting the CIA smuggle drugs out of nicuaragua into arkansas.Matter of fact while clinton was president 3 different countries offered Bin Laden up to Clinton on a platter and he had no interest in going after him.It was all over the newscasts back then in the 90's that a high ranking general in the army said on the news that they had information on Bin Ladens whereabouts but Clinton told them to lay off.It was never broadcast again after that though.There have been books written about it documenting that as well.He had no interest in Bin Laden cause they needed him as a patsy obviously.it was long planned.Also its been documented that Bush and cheney made HUGE immense profits from the attacks.thats all been documented in books as well.if you like,I can refer you to some.the evidence is overwhelming on that.

Your last point first, you said that this info is documented in a book. I assume of course that the book is published, right? Why would the highest officials in our govt let a book be published and sold all over the world if it is exposing as the culprits of the biggest crime in history? Can you back up anything you are saying, besides reading it in some book? That is what I asked you to do in the post you quoted from me. I also asked how those professor in engineering you quoted as laughable were not credible and still have not got an answer.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

continued-who is david schippers? Ironically like i said,he is a new york lawyer who tried to impeach clinton in the lewinsky scandal.He has a book called SELLOUTsellout.Its a perfect example of how there is one different law for presidents and one different one for us and how they get away with crimes all the time.again its ironically called SELLOUT,the inside story of president clintons impeachment.chief council for the clinton impeachment is what it says on the front cover.the back cover says this.If you ever plan to vote again,you might not want to know what went on behind the scenes on capitol hill leading up to and during the impeachment proceedings against president william jefferson clinton.What I saw,as a chief investigative counsel for the house judiciary committee and therefore the man in charge of compiling the case against the president,was not a pretty sight.Lies,cowardice,hypocricy,cynicism,butt covering,amorality-these all combined to make a mockery of the impeachment process...
when the time came to name this book,one word came immediately to mind SEllOUT.

 

[Big_D]

Matter of fact you want proof that Bush knew the attacks were going to happen on the towers? Here it is for you.David Schippers a new york lawyer was the cheif invesitgater council for the Clinton lewinsky scandal,was banging on the doors of attorney general john ashcroft demanding him to listen to these FBI agents who had information that there were going to be terrorist attacks against the towers.He called him and wrote and emailed him several times begging him to listen to these agesnt who had the dates,locations and times when the attacks were going to be carried out and he never returned their calls.He was representing them cause when they approached their FBI superiours,their superiours told them to ignore it and these same FBI agents also told schippers who they went to george bush about it telling them they had information and he threatened them with arrest if they tried to stop it.if you would have bothered to llok at those videos I posted on the canadawants the truth llink I gave you would know that.

You are now making the claim here that Bush knew of the attack beforehand, instead of carrying out the attacks. Which is it. If what you are saying in this post is true(which I am not saying it is), then this only proves that Bush LET the attacks happen. He didn't MAKE it happen.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

the republican leadership in the senate and house sold out the house managers and our investigation.Democrats in both houses sold out basic principles of law and decency for the sake of protecting one of their own.But most distressingly,the president of the united states of america and his white house water boys sold out the american people-not just in a one time spasm of political expedience,but in a deliberate snarl of sophistry and cynical manipulation of public opinion,the singular aim of which was political self-preservation.in the process,he soiled not just himself,but the constitution,the public trust,and the presidency itself.thats what it says there on the back cover about schippers book SEELOUT.

 

[Toro]

Your last point first, you said that this info is documented in a book. I assume of course that the book is published, right? Why would the highest officials in our govt let a book be published and sold all over the world if it is exposing as the culprits of the biggest crime in history? Can you back up anything you are saying, besides reading it in some book? That is what I asked you to do in the post you quoted from me. I also asked how those professor in engineering you quoted as laughable were not credible and still have not got an answer.

Or at least provide a link to the book on Amazon or somewhere.