Tuesday, February 25, 2020

9/11 Total Coincidences or More Plain Sight Criminal Activity

9/11 Total Coincidences or More Plain Sight Criminal Activity
On 9/11, was the sudden rush to upgrade plane impacting floors just a coincidence or was it more plain sight criminal activity? 





Suddenly after Larry leases the towers, all the plane impacted floors needed to be upgraded and the job was [most likely completed on 9/11 because no record exist of fireproofing contractors deaths on 9/11] [partially completed on September 11]  do to plane impacts.  Did the fire proofing guys bail out in time for plane impacts or did they get it right in the face like everyone else? Do you we know? What were their names? 
Who ?


Work Permits should be with the Port AUTHORITY
Lucky Larry had a dermatologist and a dentist appointment ..
forgot about that.
dentist too?
Yeah he said that on many occasions when you get old its hard to keep that lie going
I heard about the dermatologist appointment. but not the dentist appointment.

How many contractors died on 9/11? Did the fireproofing contractors just like the 9/11 art students just so happen to be absent by coincidence? 

9/11 SECRET EXPLOSIONS IN THE TOWERS smithsonianchannel."Aluminum, a principal material used in planes, is softer, lighter and more flexible than iron or steel. It could also be the reason the twin towers fell so quickly" Frank Greening.  Aluminum mimicked the Military Controlled demolition. Is that a another coincidence theory? 

Suddenly that Seinfeld episode about "There are no big coincidences or small coincidences, just coincidences" comes to mind. 

 " Port authority engineer with a deeper concern for the towers' occupants discovered the problem and ordered that the originally specified thickness be tripled. That upgrade had been partially completed on September 11 (coincidence #1). In the north tower, the upgrade had been carried out on all the floors struck by the jetliner; by contrast, in the south tower all but one of the impact floors had not been upgraded. (coincidence #2)" 

The 9/11 Air and Ground Drills on 9/11 more coincidences cover stories for more criminal activity? 

More 9/11 "Total Coincidences" Or Criminal Activity 

More Total Coincidences on 9/11 Fireballs hitting the command center on the 22nd floor via 9/11 Commission report. A jet impacted X floor and the "jet fuel" just so happens to know were the control center is and blew it up. The 9/11 Commission then hides the fact [that the jet fuel attacked the command center] they only say the floors and not was exactly attacked. For example if "jet fuel" opened a locked safe on floor 22 the commission would then  minimize the issue by saying the damage was on floor 22. Why would they do that unless they are members of the original crime? 

We can see that all the details were left out  however we got the photos and oral histories. Oral Histories we have people trapped on 22nd floor who were from the command center and photos of a burned out command center mislabel as the basement command center by 9/11 Truthers. Maybe BOTH command centers were blown up [by jet fuel??].  How many blown up command centers would take until people start to understand that they lying to you? One command center, maybe two?  So average people believe that jet fuel just so happened to blown up WTC command center knowing the 9/11 commission withheld those details?   
It looks like a bombing attack on the command center
Did a bomb go off here? YES


9/11 Commission Report Total Coincidences number 3



9/11 Elevators blowing up Late i.e Not Jet Fuel! 


Also during the attack other criminal activity was acknowledged but dismissed as jet fuel :
 fireballs hit the command center and whatever else controlled the Twin towers. Intelligent fireballs which seemed to have gone without being noticed by anyone until they can be explained away via "Jet Fuel"

Why did the North Tower have so many "jet fuel fireball eruptions"  at floors ""77th, 50th, 22nd, West Street lobby level, and the B4 level"jjj
9/11 Commission Report Exposed using 9/11 Oral History



Dan Plesse, B.A. from State University of New York (1996)
Answered just now

The answer is the "fireproofing, the war games, the ground drills, the Insider Trading and the “jet fuel” fireballs were all cover stories for criminal insider activity

The minutes of the US Congressional Committee on Science Hearing, March 6, 2002, Learning from 9/11, Understanding the WTC Collapses (part one is public on c-span, part 2 was not recorded and we know why!)
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you, Mr. Shays. You know, as I mentioned in my opening statement, this investigation seems to be unusually concerned with secrecy. Can you explain that to me, Mr. Shea, why that is so, and why—we know, for example, that the Port Authority did not take this approach after the '93 bombing. And what is the nature of the confidentiality agreements that BPAT participants were asked to sign?
Mr. SHEA. The nature is that the team members won't disclose publicly the conversations and opinions that are going on during the course of their deliberations. This is primarily intended to protect the scientific integrity of the process. That is—— (what does this have to do with Port Authority)
Mr. CROWLEY. In terms of Dr. Corley having to sign a document stating that he would not testify in court against the Port Authority or the city, I am assuming.
Dr. BEMENT. It certainly was an impediment to his study. I consider it to be a problem.
Chairman BOEHLERT.
But it seems to me that fairly soon thereafter—and I am talking about hours, not days—some action should have been launched to do things like protect the steel and the evidence, to gather the blueprints, to recognize that this was a disaster of monumental proportions, and it is going to require a most comprehensive investigation. And it doesn't appear that there was that instant response in the manner that I would like to have seen from FEMA. Can you address that?
''When studying damaged structures, it is important to understand the physical nature of the original structure as soon as possible''—as soon as possible. And then later on he said, ''The delay in the receipt of the plans hindered the team's ability to confirm their understanding of the buildings.'' Delay—delay—and so they couldn't do the job that we expected them to do as rapidly as we wanted them to do. So, please talk to me a little bit about that, if you will.
Chairman BOEHLERT.
if you will, the steel, is being dumped someplace, nevermore to be found for one—and I am not suggesting any sinister plots.
And, as Mr. Crowley has indicated, the tabloid press could have a field day with this. We are not interested in providing fodder for them. What we are interested in are facts. Learning from this experience, recommending corrective actions, working in partnership to see that that corrective action is initiated ASAP. All right. What else do we have here?
Oh, yeah. Dr. Corley, you also mentioned in your testimony—I was amazed by this—that you had some problems getting videotapes from news organizations. Why would they have any problem with giving you videotapes?
Mr. CROWLEY But I do believe that conspiracy theorists are going to have a field day with this. They are going to make the Warren Commission look like a walk in the park.
And I just think there is so much that has been lost in these last six months that we can never go back and retrieve. And that is not only unfortunate, it is borderline criminal.
And, Dr. Corley, I must say this—I have never found any instance in this whole aftermath where anyone has indicated that the City of New York, which has been absolutely magnificent, was anything but cooperative. So you may not have had the authority legally to say, hey, listen, don't destroy this stuff. This is very important for evidence in our investigation. I am sure that if someone had said, in a timely manner, we would need this, we request that you save it, and you would have got the same response whether you had the authority or not. They were trying to be as cooperative as possible.
Mr. CROWLEY I have a number of questions that I think I would address to Mr. Shea, Dr. Corley, and Dr. Bement firstly. And one, can any one of you gentlemen tell me who was in charge of amassing the steel and other debris as a result from the attack of September 11 on the WTC?
Mr. CROWLEY. Did they determine which debris would be sold off as scrap? And if not, who did?
Dr. CORLEY. No. We did not determine that. That was determined, I understand, by the City of New York. We——
Mr. CROWLEY. When did you—when did you become aware that the steel from the World Trade Center was being sold off?
Dr. CORLEY. I think it was on the order of a week or so before we arrived on site, on October the 5th, I believe it was.
Mr. CROWLEY. So they were—they—in other words, the city was selling or was disposing of material within two weeks of the actual event, or was it prior to that?
Dr. CORLEY. It may have been prior to that. I am not sure when the first decision was made on that. But I didn't find out—we didn't find out about it until then.
Mr. CROWLEY. Were you disturbed by that—by finding that out? Were you disturbed to find out that the city was actually disposing of or selling off that material?
Mr. CROWLEY. Did you or did FEMA or any other entity actually ask or tell the City of New York to cease and desist from disposing of that material?
Mr. CROWLEY. So no one even asked them politely to stop selling what, in all likelihood, could be evidence? Dr. Astaneh.
Dr. ASTANEH-ASL. But I believe I was the first one to find out that the steel was being recycled. New York Times Reporter Jim Glanz told me two weeks after the quake—after the collapse. And I tried to contact the city and also the New York Times reporters tried to make sure we could have access to the steel to do the research. It was not happening. And I went myself—directly contacted the recycling plant and made the arrangement. Through their cooperation, I started work there and collected the steel. And later, two weeks later, I believe, the ASCE team came also and they started their work.

Troll Section: 

Rob Hilleary, works at Munger Tolles & Olson
Answered 3h ago

“Ah! A new window into the conspiracy that we all know 9/11 was: Bush wanted to steal Iraq’s oil. “ Nope Wrong ! C-span tells us it was Israel who con-trolls America
Tarik Alsafi

Tarik Alsafi


To answer your question. It was just a coincidence. If the goal of the government was to collapse the buildings, then reinforcing the building with fireproofing would contradict their agenda .

One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"



Burning plastic.



@Mick West " "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," would rule out burning plastic would it not? Why would plastic not be found being the most common material on earth on other sampling or did you mpt read that far?




@911RedPill Perhaps this was the first case he'd been involved in that included, as he said, "tens of thousands of burning computers" And how are you getting plastic as "the most common material on earth"



And I presume that you've not read this? It should clear things up for you. Swartz, E., Stockburger, L., & Vallero, D. A. (2003). Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Other Semivolatile Organic Compounds Collected in New York City in Response to the Events of 9/11. Environmental Science & Technology, 37(16), 3537–3546. doi:10.1021/es030356l



@Mick West Can you please stop referring to whole books, its not normal. I have new blog out about 9-11 Coincidenced..https://911truthout.blogspot.com/2020/02/was-sudden-rush-to-upgrade-plane.html




@Mick West Do you know that for sure? Can you ask him or is the answer you make up on your head all that you need?




@Mick West Did anyone find any computers? How could objects burn if none were found? Do you know about that issue?




@911RedPill It's not a book, it's a paper which shows the various things in the air, in context. "Other SVOCs. Table 4 gives the total concentrations of the other various SVOCs found in the five periods. The compound 1,3-diphenylpropane [1¢,1¢-(1,3-propanediyl)bisbenzene] was observed and identified by a library search of the NIST98 mass spectral database, and to our knowledge, this species has not previously been reported from ambient sampling. In Table 4, scheme 1 sampling shows that the species is primarily found in the gas phase (with 90% of the mass found on the front denuder). Although the source of the compound in this study is not known, it may have formed during the combustion of polystyrene or other polymers. 1,3-Diphenylpropane has been found to co-occur with polystyrene plastics (37, 38), so another possibility is that the compound was already present and encapsulated in large volumes of plastics in the buildings and was off-gassed during the pulverization process."



@911RedPill They were crushed. Crushed things actually burn easier than whole things, due to larger surface area.



@Mick West crushed? Do you mean crushed into 9/11 dust? Are you assuming the 9/11 dust has crush computers? Has any dust samples shown crushed anything? 9/11 Dust does NOT burn easy. Have you burned any 9/11 dust? I don't believe that you believe that the vanished office materials turned into easy to burn dust. At least you not referring to books anymore. No evidence existences for any of these crazy ideas made up by you on any topic.. and that is sad.



@911RedPill No, crushed like when something really heavy hit them at speed. Cracked, shattered, compressed, and fragmented, not turned to dust. For a practical visual here, take a 10 pound (4 kg) hammer, and hit, say, an old TV remote about 10 times, as hard as you can.


​@Mick West Do you have collaborative evidence like a photo of a crushed pile 9/11 computers, half burned pile someplace? The evidence does not point this out. No one said said they smelled burning plastic. If the dust shows zero evidence of this, what are the chances something else does? So where are you getting this information from? Chances are you don't have any physical evidence at all about anything. If you do have physical evidence please refer me to that evidence. Do you understand what physical evidence is? Would you like some examples or maybe you refer to some books on topic to yourself. So far you can't backup what you are assuming. Please stop doing this. Don't refer to whole books. Stop everything basically and start over with only hard evidence. I have never witnessed a debunker who talks about evidence, it all rumor and wife-tails so far. Remember freefall was proven and NIST had to change their model to address the issue. debunkers did nothing.

Another perspective: "I could see molten metal coming out of the towers. This looked very peculiar and these fires burned for weeks after. The smell was like burnt plastic and dead bodies. I didn’t understand what that was until AE911Truth explained it. These were not natural burning fires, but highly engineered incendiaries containing their own source of oxygen." http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/825-video-911-truth-movement-fights-for-freedom-of-speech-in-canada-rethink911-ads-controversy-in-ottawa.html

@Mick West "Although the source of the compound in this study is not known, it may have formed during the combustion of polystyrene or other polymers" Consumer plastics do not typically have large amounts of unusual organic compounds just simply “encapsulated” within them. EPA officials and fire-fighting experts were well aware, from previous studies of a handful of spectacular and tragic fires in hotels, commercial buildings and downtown areas, that such blazes are capable of releasing a witch’s brew of some of the most toxic substances known—including mercury, benzene, lead, chlorinated hydrocarbons and dioxins. (Gonzalez 2002) EPA’s history with structure fire monitoring indicates that, to have never seen an organic compound like 1,3-DPP is very unusual, especially when it was found at such high levels. But 1,3-DPP was not only at high levels, it was also reported to have been “pervasive” (American Scientist 2003).
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4

Posted by at

1 comment:

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
March 8, 2020 at 4:09 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Search