Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

alstry (< 20)

Alstry is really confused....all sides presented for your review.



June 22, 2009 – Comments (38)

World Trade Center Building 7 was never struck by an airplane.  Never in history had a steel framed building fallen due to fire, save WTC 1 and 2 of course.  Building 7 contained documents pertaining to SEC investigations in a number of important cases......among other important financial information.

These videos came to my attention today and I can't seem to reconcile John Kerry's statement with the official goverment report......can you?????





Can anyone explain the above differences?????????????????????

Was the building brought down by explosives or not........and if so, how could a three year investigation miss something so obvious?????




Clearly there was a lot of confusion that day....for all of us.  I remember buying a T.V. that morning and taking it back to the office as the entire staff was shocked by the events throughout the day.

Now apprears two CLEARLY conflicting versions how Building 7 fell.....the government version in the NIST report indicating FIRE and Sen. Kerry's statement indicating explosives......

At a time when few really know what the truth is anymore.... whether in business, government or the news......can anyone reconcile the above??????

Are CAPs players about to analyze and resolve an issue that silences the doubters once and for can no one in the mainstream media follow up on this??????  Was Sen. Kerry wrong....or was the government report a sham as the scientist, engineers and architects claim????

38 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 22, 2009 at 9:11 AM, ralphmachio (< 20) wrote:

The best example of emotions getting in the way of truth I've ever witnessed.  I have made a dramatic reassessment of the average intellect in this country due to the reaction of these events.  

If your gonna tell a lie, make it a big one- loosely recalled quote from Hitler.

When i head the events on the radio, I was terrified!  Someone hacked into our computers in NORAD!, I thought.  How else would this be let to happen?  then they blamed it on a dude hiding in a cave, and shortly thereafter, less then 3 hours after the planes hit, CNN received the results back from a poll, where "They were happy that most Americans would be willing to give up some of their rights for added security".  At that point I almost got ill.  It was them.  It was VERY obvious.  The only reason they were successful was because of those who are unable to call a spade a spade, for whatever reason.  That's right, i'm blaming you, if you are too stupid to see the truth, or too emotional to see through the BS, the blame can be put nowhere but on American citizens.  But you can blame some dude in a cave, if it makes you feel better.  you do know that guys family is real tight with the bushes, and were part owners of the Carlisle group, right?  they left the carlisle group shortly after 911 in order to distance them from the profit made during and because of 911.  

That is your responsibility to know.  If you don't know the facts, you're opinion is invalid.   

Report this comment
#2) On June 22, 2009 at 9:24 AM, alstry (< 20) wrote:


Iran Revolutionary Guard threatens protesters...
NKorea threatens to harm USA if attacked...
Al Qaeda says would use Pakistani nukes on USA...



In Hawaii, state employees are bracing for furloughs of three days a month over the next two years, the equivalent of a 14 percent pay cut. In Idaho, lawmakers reduced aid to public schools for the first time in recent memory, forcing pay cuts for teachers.

Hawaii, a 14% pay cut.....imgine what is in store for other states!!!!

Report this comment
#3) On June 22, 2009 at 9:29 AM, ralphmachio (< 20) wrote:

"Minus some unifying pearl harbor type event, it will be difficult to to get popular support for invading Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan" - loosely remembered quote from PNAC , those behind 911. - from the movie 'The Corporation'

I have no idea what ever happened to syria, guess we got our hands full... 

The most evil sobs are members of this organization, and one of my least favorite human beings alive today, William Crystal, who could convince an Eskimo to buy an ice burg.  If you want to understand the type of genius behind this crap, look no further.  These are not dumb guys, and have no respect for human life at all.  Cheyne, wolfowitz, rumsfeld, papa bush- Guilty.  W was reading about some lamb, so he obviously has an alibi... 

Report this comment
#4) On June 22, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Varchild2008 (84.02) wrote:

I thought the 9/11 Turtherism would die out a sad death after Obama's election to President.

I guess there are still those who live in denial over the existence of Global widespread Terrorism.

As for Building 7.... I was told a combination of Fire + the tremendous vibrations from the fall of the Towers 1 & 2 were the cause of the Building 7's demise.  Another separate building got every window smashed apart from the vibrations alone.

The gentleman was one of the people who are at the TOUR of the SITE... I toured the site.  It is very, very, plausible that FIRE + Vibrations brought down the building.  I see no reason to jump straight into "Conspiracy Theory" heaven....

Especially when your only politician you have that backs the conspiracy theory of explosives happens to be someone who has been discredited over the Winter Soldier  and Cambodia claims. 

Al Queda + Osama Bin Laden is guilty as charged over many more acts of Terrorism outside of just the World Trade Center attacks.

Report this comment
#5) On June 22, 2009 at 9:41 AM, alstry (< 20) wrote:


So you are saying John Kerry doesn't know what he is talking about or he is lying????

He confidently says an explosion brought the building down.

Report this comment
#6) On June 22, 2009 at 9:54 AM, jddubya (< 20) wrote:

I totally agree!!!!!

 Alstry is really confused!

Report this comment
#7) On June 22, 2009 at 10:08 AM, DownEscalator (< 20) wrote:


If you watch the clip, it's pretty clear Kerry is talking out his a** based on a cold reading of what the listener wants to hear.  Kerry is far from an authority on that, anyway, and is probably confusing the controlled destructions of other buildings with the massive fire-based destruction of 7 WTC.

Please read this:  It pretty much debunks this garbage about 7 WTC being any kind of controlled demolition.


Report this comment
#8) On June 22, 2009 at 11:06 AM, alstry (< 20) wrote:


Thanks....I'll take a look at it.

Report this comment
#9) On June 22, 2009 at 11:22 AM, caltex1nomad (< 20) wrote:

Oh ! Let's not forget that the World is going to end Dec.31,2012 because that's when the Mayan calender ends............NOT

Report this comment
#10) On June 22, 2009 at 11:25 AM, SolarisKing (< 20) wrote:

Why did the expensive well built building (number 7) fall (in freefall), when those surrounding it were put back to use? And it's great coincidence if BBC reported it falling before it fell. There is even a clip somewhere of the top dog saying "we decided to take it down" or something like that.

Though fires and explosions have hit other steel frame buildings in the past, none have ever fallen. Yet the twin tower fell in freefall speed, into their footprint. 

Watch the clip of them telling Bush the buildings fell. He doesn't ever look surprised. He looks calculating. 

There is also a small clip that shows a turbine sitting in the wreckage of the pentagon strike. According to some bigwig engineer at Boeing, that tubine is not on the plane that they say hit the pentagon.

Not to mention that they started smelting the metal from the site before the investigation was even started. A blatant ignoring of federal law, and common sense.

Even the basements of those buildings were demolished by the "fall". right down to the very last corner of the very bottom basement floor. Does that sound right to any of you?

Go ahead and listen to the math in 'freefall part 3'. The building fell levelly across the top. IMPOSSIBLE in a natural fall.


Report this comment
#11) On June 22, 2009 at 11:25 AM, ralphmachio (< 20) wrote:

building 7 was conveniently not mentioned in the official report.  The idea that the building fell perfectly within it's footprint from vibrations has me rolling on the floor.  The worst part is, the human defense for unacceptable information is complete denial!  Even from a member that I consider very intelligent, and whose advice i seriously consider!  Apparently, intelligence has no effect on people's opinion of the events that unfolded on 911.  It seems to go deeper, almost as if some of us have been in this position before, and have it stored in our sub-conscious as some vague memory.   

Report this comment
#12) On June 22, 2009 at 11:29 AM, mliu01 (< 20) wrote:

Alstry, this is where it separet you from Karl Deninger.

You are better!

 Better late than late.

Report this comment
#13) On June 22, 2009 at 11:29 AM, mliu01 (< 20) wrote:

better late than never. My bad.

Report this comment
#14) On June 22, 2009 at 11:39 AM, cthomas1017 (98.75) wrote:


You must be part of the government organized conspiracy debunkers. Everyone knows that the Mayan calendar ends on December 21st, 2012, NOT December 31st, 2009, as you stated!!!

Report this comment
#15) On June 22, 2009 at 11:45 AM, caltex1nomad (< 20) wrote:

So Sorry....Pun still intended !!!

Report this comment
#16) On June 22, 2009 at 11:53 AM, ralphmachio (< 20) wrote:

God, i must have heard larry silverstein say "we pulled it"  a thousand times. 

That debunks any debunking efforts entirely.  If anyone knows, it's larry.  Sorry legopeople, your world is completely different from that which you envision.  Just get over it, and face reality.  They didn't even do such a great job covering up the facts!  They didn't need to! They have an unlimited supply of people who just close their eyes, clench their fists, and vigorously shake their heads until the world turns back to what they want it to be!  

I'm sure many germans were sure the reichstag fire was started by austrian terrorists, but they too were mistaken, and history shows the price that this type of ignorance demands!  

Borderline hysterical that a Bush was directly implicated in the rise of NAZI power, and had his money taken from him for trading with the enemy.  Fact is so out there, it is really hard to believe,  hence, if your gonna lie, lie big.  Make the lie so big, the people who are being fooled are already invested in it.  make it so that it would hurt them if they were to uncover it.

that's 911.

And caltex, many more cultures than the mayans predict that date.  The Hopi Indians, The I Ching, the Aztecs, and the Egyptians.  They never said it was the end of the world, but the end of an AGE.  For many, that will signify the end of the world.  Perhaps someone with a better vocabulary than myself could tell me the word for this type of weak stab which only drones could find amusing.  I envision groups of people who never had a thought of their own finding amusement in the notion that other indoctrinated non-thinkers will find their juvenile comment witty.  There sure are no shortage of you, you're a dime a dozen.  Does it matter who willful slaves laugh at?  Would a fragal care if a doozer was cracking a joke about him?  

Report this comment
#17) On June 22, 2009 at 12:15 PM, AllStarPortfolio (27.56) wrote:

Was it Thoreau, no, Nietzsche, who said 'i care little about how many slave it took to build the pyramids. but long for a story of ONE MAN who instead of working another day for pharaoh  threw himself to the crocodiles'. Loosely quoted


Report this comment
#18) On June 22, 2009 at 12:18 PM, usmilitiadude (< 20) wrote:

Fire burns for hours without much firefighter intervetion. Metal support girders heat up and become extreamely weak. Bending metal is easy when it is barely glowing.

Exposions: 1. Residual natural gas in pipes. 2. Fuel for generators. 3.Gas cans. 4. Backdraft 5. Noises that sound like explosions to someone freaked out for being so close to the chaos.

Report this comment
#19) On June 22, 2009 at 12:35 PM, usmilitiadude (< 20) wrote:

Is Al testing foolish minds?

Report this comment
#20) On June 22, 2009 at 12:42 PM, ChannelDunlap (< 20) wrote:

Anybody who actually believes the "Official" story behind 9-11 is retarded.  It is so flawed and full of holes that anybody who puts an ounce of thought into it can at the very least see that it is incomplete. 

3 buildings fall from fire damage... the first 3 streel framed buildings ever to fall from fire... fall @ freefall straight down.  

A plane hits the pentegon, supposedly ripping both wings off before plowing through the wall and deep into the structure... there are no wings on the lawn.

Bush doesn't care.  Cheney is off keeping the military distracted with training excersizes anywhere that's not there.  The BBC has advance warnings that Building 7 is going down.  And 19 guys who couldn't fly worth a damn take the fall for the whole thing.

Thanks for posting something we can both finally agree on, Alstry. 

Report this comment
#21) On June 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM, ralphmachio (< 20) wrote:

Yeah, I was a welder for a few years, and when metal is welded properly in a steel building, it doesn't just come apart because of a little heat.  It takes much more heat than that fire could've ever produced, but that is obvious! never mind that the steel was insulated and burned for less than an hour!  

the real question is, what if you are wrong?  See, you will immediately come up with all sorts of outlandish possibilities (like this being orchestrated by some cave man) because that is the gag reflex of your mind!  You just can't help it!  It is unfathomable for you to be a part of, and to help support something so terrible!- That'd be your emotions getting in the way.  It doesn't change the flimsy story you are trying to believe.  It doesn't add up.  you are really telling me we couldn't stop that from happening?  We can't even protect the pentagon?  Seriously?  that's what you are trying to believe?  We can stop missiles that travel 20 times the speed of an airliner, and smaller, but not a big fat slow airliner?  OK.  If you want to believe that, fine.  Some people will believe about anything, I guess.  How much time elapsed between plane 1+2?  And then the one that hit the pentagon?  And you really don't think we could have stopped that?  What's the point of arguing?  That is delusional!  And I feel really secure, if those are our capabilities...  But i know better.  And, we still can't find Osama... sure.  

If this was true, the US would have been taken over by Canadian teenagers with water balloon launchers by now.  Osama bin laden, barrack obama, the frickin tooth fairy.  They're all fairy tails.  O'bama slowin down the war any?  How about goin on a new campaign?  Afghanistan?  Isn't that what bankrupted the russians?  Yeah that's a good allocation of federal funds... 

Report this comment
#22) On June 22, 2009 at 1:08 PM, AllStarPortfolio (27.56) wrote:

usmilitiadude But bending metal and freefall are two ENTIRELY different things.

Only one thing creates freefall, and that's the lack of ANY support. Not beams, not concrete, not ANY support. 

The buildings fell levelly. Absolutely equal lack of any support. The buildings would have to have been hit by multiple planes at the same instant, with multiple "gas lines" exploding simultaniously throughout the entire three buildings. Absolutely impossible.

  There was NO FIRE in most of the 100 stories below the plane crash.

And those buildings are designed to minimise backdraft, resist fire, and explosions. EVEN THE LAST ROOM IN THE LAST BASEMENT WAS DEMOLISHED IN ALL THREE BUILDINGS!

Free fire will not melt steel. Airplane fuel does not even burn hot enough. Keep looking. Go to youtube and search thermite.

 Did you know that nearly half of the "19 hijackers" have been found alive and well in their hometowns? But the FBI doesn't update the list.
   And in the controversial video of Osama praising the hijackers he praises them by name. Now if it was not them, why is he praising them by name? 



Report this comment
#23) On June 22, 2009 at 1:22 PM, FreundInvesting (28.60) wrote:

"The worst part is, the human defense for unacceptable information is complete denial!"


Glad to see someone is using psychology to it's fullest. This one sentence describes everything about the reaction to 9/11 - on both sides of the fence - perfectly. 

Report this comment
#24) On June 22, 2009 at 1:48 PM, farmnut1985 (< 20) wrote:

Called annealing, is what happens when steal is heated, molecular structures change and metal becomes "dead" even after cooling, unless of course it is quenched, making it very weak. 

Boeing 767     300,000+ lbs, 60,000 lb thrust engines, first plane impacted at 429 mph with a kinetic energy exceeding 1.84 billion ft-lb of energy and that is the impact force of the plane alone not including exploding fuel.  Suppose most of the energy dissipated 100 feet into the building, that results in a force of 18.4 million lbs of force applied to the building, still not including the explosion provided by fuel.

I don't think they were designed to withstand that sort of force, I don't think a lot of things were designed to withstand that sort of force in general except maybe bomb shelters.  Logically I think the collapses are possible, when buildings undergo forces they are not designed for, they tend to fail.

As for the basement being destroyed, think about the amount of mass falling down and the force that it would apply to the lower levels as the building collapsed, the higher levels fall onto lower levels accelerating and gaining mass.  All spells a big pile of rubble to me.  Good thing everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

Report this comment
#25) On June 22, 2009 at 2:07 PM, SolarisKing (< 20) wrote:

Even if you get a big pile of rubble, it doesn't fall into it's footprint.


Stop for a moment. Forget 911, and that you are an american. Forget that you are a human. Now just listen, and then go for a long walk, and ask your self this question, with your uneducatid martian minde. heh

"In nature, do things fall into their own footprint without intent?"

-2% solaris. farmer.

Report this comment
#26) On June 22, 2009 at 2:13 PM, jesusfreakinco (28.11) wrote:

I am wondering where this conversation is headed.  I have seen and read all the conspiracy theories, but am waiting for the punch line.   Presumably, those that believe the govt orchestrated this mess has to have a reason for doing so.  Are the conspiracy theorists believing that it was Bush intention back in the 1990s to sell our country to the Chinese and lead to a massive devaluation of the dollar because of our debtload as is also currently happening?  How does this relate to our govt's supposed blowing up of the twin towers?

I am waiting.  Alstry - where are you headed with this?


Report this comment
#27) On June 22, 2009 at 2:23 PM, farmnut1985 (< 20) wrote:

Why couldn't it collapse into its own footprint?

Report this comment
#28) On June 22, 2009 at 3:14 PM, usmilitiadude (< 20) wrote:

Metal strength weakens when heated. Look at 278.

Building implosion is a term in use in the controlled demolition industry. It refers to strategically placing explosive material and timing its detonation so that a structure collapses on itself in a matter of seconds minimizing the physical damage to its immediate surroundings.

Watch this video and notice the mutiple timed explosions. Did the eyewitnesses hear multiple timed explosions like this video? 

What was going on inside the WTC 7 building? It burned from mid morning until its collapse. Certain parts were heated up while other parts had water sealed in pipes. Heat up sealed water and it turns into a bomb. Water may come into contact with very hot metal, not a good combo for strength.

All the heat from the fire expands the metal all over the building. Weakest point bends or breaks. Look at my comment #18.

Report this comment
#29) On June 22, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Varchild2008 (84.02) wrote:

Good Lord... Am I seriously the only one that believes Terrorists are for real?  Geeze.

What's next?  A bunch of comments about how the EARTH is Flat and there actually ISN'T  a Moon...or a Sun or Stars for that matter?

Is Elvis Presley still alive and living under my bed?

Report this comment
#30) On June 22, 2009 at 4:52 PM, SolarisKing (< 20) wrote:

I believe that terrorist are real. I just believe it's more complex than that.

I also don't believe that buildings fall into their footprint by accident. I haven't conjectured who did it. but it goes without saying that it supposed to terrorize.


Report this comment
#31) On June 22, 2009 at 5:39 PM, UKIAHED (32.42) wrote:

Anyone wanting to read good summary of the non-conspiracy side of WTC7 – here you go.  For a general discussion of the rest of the WTC and pentagon (make sure to checkout the links and references for more detailed discussions) – here you go.


You know – Bush/Cheney where not smart enough to plant evidence of WMDs in Iraq (how hard would that have been?  1 guy – a suitcase with anthrax to spread around a few milk processing plants – not hard…) – but were able to pull off the entire 9/11 incident without 1 leak.  Hmmm…

Report this comment
#32) On June 23, 2009 at 12:13 AM, DownEscalator (< 20) wrote:

Solaris - in what way did they fall into their own footprint?!?!?  Controlled demolitions don't damage the structures around them.

When the South Tower collapsed, it completely buried a church that was across the street and on the far side of a lot.  90 West had to be completely gutted because flaming debris from the South Tower tore a giant hole in the facade.  The DeutschBank Building was destroyed beyond repair by a 20-story gash from debris from 2 WTC.  Look at the damage that was caused to Fitterman Hall ( and tell me what caused that.  It wasn't any "falling into its own footprint."

This is basic physics.  The two main buildings were 110 stories tall andwere destroyed by structural damages in the middle that caused the building to collapse with downward force.  The result should resemble something like squashing a bug (as opposed to knocking it with sideways force like a crane or baseball bat), and - gasp - that's exactly what it looks like.

If Silverstein was involved in any kind of plot, don't you think the building owners and insurance companies around there would have investigated it thoroughly?  Unless you want to believe the USG paid off every property owner within a mile radius.

Why couldn't the terrorists have done something that didn't involve physics and engineering?  

Report this comment
#33) On June 23, 2009 at 5:59 AM, mliu01 (< 20) wrote:

I don't want to talk to people who believe what we were told. They are simply too stupid. And they can't carry on a logical and reasonalbe debate. They are simply idiots.

Report this comment
#34) On June 23, 2009 at 9:57 AM, farmnut1985 (< 20) wrote:

I''m sorry, who has been making the logical arguments here?  Playground namecalling will really get you far.

Report this comment
#35) On June 23, 2009 at 12:55 PM, mliu01 (< 20) wrote:

farmnut: if you want to try to make logical arguments, I will give you a try.

Just hope you won't waste my time like some other idiots. Let's not to make it too complicated. Just explain the pool of MOLTEN STEEL. If you can make a good argument of that. It would be a great start. If you can't just shut up and do some research.

Report this comment
#36) On June 23, 2009 at 12:57 PM, mliu01 (< 20) wrote:

John Kerry: I don't know that.

 It is on the freaking TeeVee!!! Who is he trying to kidding? Farmnut1985?

Report this comment
#37) On June 23, 2009 at 3:47 PM, farmnut1985 (< 20) wrote:


I don't know about the John Kerry quote as it seems to be taken out of context and he seems confused as well as it is John Kerry.  That is a congressman talking.

 I can't explain the pools of molten steel comment.  I didn't make it, nor should I have to defend it as I am looking at the facts of what the structure endured in the impact and the compromising of the structural integrity of the buildings by fire. 

Steel does not have to become molten for the structures to collapse.  As the steel heats it becomes weaker, it expands and sags.  In the world trade centers it sagged until it collapsed, and once it started it became a domino effect.

Logical arguments are also in 7, 18, 24, and 32. You yourself have still not provided logical arguments.

Report this comment
#38) On June 23, 2009 at 10:07 PM, DownEscalator (< 20) wrote:

mliou01: please read this:

It explains your MOLTEN STEEL and was a mere google search away.

I doubt anyone will continue this, but what baffles me about 9/11 conspicacy theorists is that they call the rest of us "sheep" while completely disregarding Okham's Razor, common rules of logic, and, worse, decency.

I have yet to see one conspiracy theorist put together a cohesive, sound theory as to why those buildings collapsed that comes within even a logical mile of that "ridiculous" "sheeple" official story.  Until I see one that isn't remotely laughable, I will continue to believe that the towers fell as a direct result of being hit by airplanes and setting off a tragic domino effect.  Thank you and good night.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners