Sudden-Strike-Maps

I would rather consider the European Union or China as the new 3rd reich than the usa,

The EU is one of the largest economic and political entities in the world, with 494 million people and a combined nominal GDP of €11.6 (US$14.5) trillion in 2006.[1] (that's more than the US) The Union is a single market with a common trade policy,[2] a Common Agricultural/Fisheries Policy, and a Regional policy to assist underdeveloped regions.[3] It introduced a single currency, the euro, adopted by 13 member states. The EU initiated a limited Common Foreign and Security Policy, and a limited Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters.( wikipedia but still true :p)


The us has over $0.8trillion dollars more import than export, no health care, huge criminal rates, alot poor people.


Militairy they can't even control iraq, and if uk and ESPECIALLY france wouldn't be so nationalist we could make a Eurocorps stronger than the us army, not considering weapons of mass distruction of course.

to illustrate how much they need the EU:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 4Dec3.html

Aww, come on! You can't blame us for not squandering those lovely spitfires over france... we needed them, fighters wouldn't have turned the tide anyway, what was really needed to be done was to organise available armour into larger formations, not "penny packets" to counter the panzers, I admit that after the USA entered the war we did take on a more minor role, we fought and won (eventually) most of the desert war though, minus the final destruction of the germans in africa which was a joint effort. WE don't follow the US blindly, that's our government's fault... (that stupid ass we currently call a prime minister is Mr Bush's lapdog) Then again how could we really make a major effect in WWII when the US army dwarfed ours by a LARGE margin... We did have some effect though, we created the "funnies" which played a large role in the success of D-Day, (look at the results on omaha beach and general bradley's rejection of the funnies if you don't believe me). The royal navy held of the U-boats for quite a long time and some of our better units contributed to the war effort out of all proportion to their size. The Paras for instance at arhnem, a brigade group holding out against an SS panzer division.

Don't try to put us down, we did our best to fight well and we were fighting with out-of date equipment against the modern panzer formations.

Militairy they can't even control iraq, and if uk and ESPECIALLY france wouldn't be so nationalist we could make a Eurocorps stronger than the us army, not considering weapons of mass distruction of course.

Who, except CNN, ABC and the other crap states, the US want a peaceful Iraq? The best reason to legimitate troops there is an unstable chaotic Iraq. In my opinion, and hints to that can be found all over the media, the US goal is the absolute control over the eurasian territory. The goal was and is to have lots of troops there, so none of the possible opponents can dare to start a serious offence. This refers to China as well as to Russia. The Soviet Union was weakened decades ago and lost a lot of its territory in that region. The US plan is, to built a pipeline in that region to gain superiour control of the largest Oil reserves on earth. What the US then have is total control over the price of oil.

They can kick germany´s, France´s and any other european arse by risening the oil price, they can kick the russians arse by lowering it. And China, which is close to an oil crisis is dependant from the US. Thats the way they gain control over the world.

That´s the roeadmap to a Third Reich and that is what "Rebuilding Americas Defenses" stands for: The ambition for world rulership.

1.Is raising the oil prices good for the American economy???
2.What will they do if the democrats are elected next time?
3.I say it again, it's foreign investments that are a very large and important part of the American economy, EU and other countries can put pressure on them.
4. The WTO will never let that happen.
5. It's the OPEC that owns the largest oil supply, it's the OPEC who caused the oil crisis.

shiiit !!! "Gojira" is "Jlved" or a accomplice ?? LOL

same subject about this big plot and all above EXACTLY same discours on "if you are intelligent person... bla, bla, bla..." :

"Maybe the video will reach some intelligent people, that are interested in what the world is at the moment,and what it might become. Hope so... "

and same reference on "Goebbels"

The postet video link of you, to show that all the conspiracy theories were nutty, well, it´s like referring a propaganda film of Goebbels to prove something about the non guilty of the Nazi regime

etc, etc...) about 9/11

read that (in french... translat)
http://lsi.team.free.fr/p.php?page=1&d=1424
and that
http://lsi.team.free.fr/p.php?page=9&d=1503&fot=1
and again that
http://lsi.team.free.fr/p.php?page=9&d=1613&fot=1

and off course, all kaida dont exist and all terrorist attack (spain, GB and others in world) its too of USA plots...

the nightmare of the "extreme left" propaganda... very, very, strange

Unfortunately my french is not good enpugh to read the postet links...
Anyway. I have a nice vid for you too. It´s from the BBC, which I would not declare to be left propaganda http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... Nightmares

This is a video reportage divided into 3 parts. It shows the development of two antagonist groups: the american neoconservative and the radical islamists. This film shows, why and how the US administration needs an external threat and it doubts the existance of al quaida in the described mannor which is presented by our mass media- which have an interest in this external threat too. Al Quaida is in many respects a fantasy product, which is by far not this powerful as it´s stated by our administrations or mass media.

The BBC reportage gives an awsome view into the way of thinking of islamic and neoconservative terrorism. It does not negate the existance of terror groups of course, but it covers up the fantasy product and myth of Al Quaida, which was generated by the US Administration and secret services. It shows how the myth the USA was founded, to fight evil all over the world as a destiny of the nation to hold society together and why an external threat like AL Quaida was wanted and necessary in the eyes of the neoconservatives.

Watch the reportage, then reply to this post please. But really watch it please before doubting everything without any evidence. Just talking u are posting rubbish is no serious dialogue I think.

BTW: The official version of an Iraqui Al Quaida complott versus the free world is nothing more than a theory itself. There are NO evidences that show a link between 9.11 and Iraq or Al Quaida (which in the presented form with sleeping cells, a terror network worldwide, thousands of fighters awaiting Osama´s orders .... a.s.o DOES NOT EXIST-> watch the BBC reportage and you will understand).


P.S.: What I meant by an intelligent discussion: I want an objective view at the facts. Just stating you are nutty, you are wrong, you believe in nonsense ... well, that´s not the niveau I´d like in this thread. Any of my statings here in the thraed is based and can be prooved by the links I gave. Where are your counter evidences? Where is a reliable source to show, that 9.11 was not an inside job? Where are Al Quaida´s sleepers? Where are the planes that crashed into the pentagon and crashed down in pennsylvania? Why were the trade centers the first scyscrapers in world history that crashed due to an fire? Scyscrapers burned for up to 24 hours but never collapsed. You may state it was because of the plane... well: On July 28th, 1945, a B-25 bomber lost in the fog crashed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building." why didnt it crash then? Kerosine burns with a temperature of about 800 degrees celcius, but the steel of the building starts to melt when it´s reached a temperature of 1400° celsius. Why did it collaps then? What explosions in the cellar and nearly every floor of the the towers do the firefighters, the tv reporters and the office people in the world trade center do talk about? Why did world trade center 7 fall down? it was 3 or 4 blocks away but wasnt hit by an airplane but had detailled data of a commission, that dealed about the wherabouts of 2,5 billion dollars, which were "lost" by the bush administration. Where is the rest of the 100 billion dollar in gold that were beneath the towers? just 200 millions wre found- wheres the rest? Why aren´t any parts of a plane to be found in the pentagon? why weren´t any parts of a plane to be found in pennsylvania? AND AND AND AND AND AND AND AND AND......

AS LONG AS YOU CAN`T GIVE ME ANY SERIOUS EXPLANATIONS FOR THESE QUESTIONS, I CAN SAY:

YOU BELIEVE IN A CONSPIRACY THEORY.

Godd evening, gentlemen!

I "enjoyed" watching this video, if you can call it so. No question- there are many things to think about, and some things that seem indeed suspicious. And I agree- governments of all power levels- troughout history- have lied, denied and veiled their operations to stay in power, and probably will always do so.
I do agree that parts the current US administration profit from the situation after what happend in 2001, that there are mighty corporations which have vital interests in keeping the game going, that individual persons will use their position of power for their own benefits. I do not deny that the US seek a position of global leadership.

But I seriously doubt that 9/11 was staged by the US government, or any secret agency or a combination of such.

Here´s some smartass-talk from the structural engineer´s point of view, concerning the collapse of the towers.
Steel looses much of its characteristic strength when subjected to eccessive heat. It is not necessary to reach the melting point (about 1500° C), temperatures of 500-600° are sufficiant, as internal crystaline rearrangements occur, yield strength drops rapidly- the steel gets indeed "softer". In addition, steel has a relatively high rate of changing dimensions under changing temperatures, which in turn leads to very high tensions in the rigid steel structures for such a giant building. (400m high- horizontal forces, such as wind are a major concern- you want a very stiff construction to handle that!) High tensions lead to great deformations when the material ist softend up as it was the case.

You simply cannot compare the impact of a B-25, maybe 15 tons (fully laden, most probably low on fuel, though), lost in fog, traveling at 250 km/h to the impact of a 120 ton B 767 with 40.000 Litres of kerosene., traveling at estimated 850-950 Km/h!

If you take a deeper look at the sources below, you´ll find detailed theories about the crashes. There is a very comprehensive article to be found about the favoured comparison between the B-25 crash and the actual events.
For instance- the WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a B 707, flying at low speed- neglecting any possible fires spreading from jet fuel!

It is a common consesus among the international engineering community, that the high Momentum of the impact destroyed large parts of the lightly constructed outer surface of WTC without doing much damage to the aircraft itself, allowing the wrecked planes to spill most of their fuel inside the building- across several floors!
In addition, internal structural elements were damaged, fire protection coating of the steel elemets removed by the impact , thus subjecting the vital supporting Elements to the fire. Eventually, floor supports failed, resulting in the floors to fall on each other, leading to a dynamic process that could not be stopped. No need for the debated "thermite expolsives".
There are theories that state "the rigid core construction must have survided the collapse of the floors"-but unlike contemporary high rise constructions with concrete core elements, WTC was an all-steel construction. Destined to fail in case of an event as we witnessed, which it was never designed to withstand.

But this is only one smal part of the whole story. And to every argument, there is one to counter it. It is equally stupid to believe everything the conspiracy theorists want you to believe.

The claim that no aircraft or body parts were found at either the Pennsylvania and Pentagon crash sites is simply not true. There is evidence that the pentagon was indeed hit by ar larger passenger aircraft. 189 dead persons were identified, with almost all passengers of the flight identified as victims, at the crash site. See the link below.

Explosions in the WTC?
How could they possibly have brought the enormous amount of explosives, needed for the demolition of a building this size, inside the towers in the first place? With alert status for exactly that threat at "high", especially at the lower levels? If anything, they expected something like 93, if a new attack would come.
Anyone who has seen TV coverage of a controlled demolition knows that you need LOTS of cable connecting the charges. Where were these? No one of 50.000 people working there every day saw them? HAve you any idea how long that would take to prepare? With so many small elements upporting the structure? Especially regarding the very "upright" collapse as we saw it. NO WAY anyone (God, maybe... ) could have done that in secrecy.

Where is RELIABLE proof that is was an inside job? I´dont see it. All I see are little bits of evidence, half-told thruths, told in favor of the conspiracy theory spreaders, which do exactly what they criticise at the "official" version of the story- they show only one side of the story and exploit that for their own purposes.

America´s global aims are another story- anyone with open eyes can sse what´s going on, but here again- another story...

Here is a good website that takes apart many of the conspiracy Theorists´ arguments about the WTC crashes. It is mostly german but lists the original sources and documents als external links. It seems very well researched to me, but have a look for yourselves:

http://www.werboom.de/vt/index.html

God night then... I hope this debate keeps on rolling

Coug

Good Morning Gentlemen ^^
Thanks for your great post Cougar. I must admit that I have not yet watched your mentioned website yet, but I will

Your points referring to the non fireproof not plane proof construction of the trade center:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnnjIzamnJo


Referring to the explosions (yes there were, and yes there were a lot):

Here are many eyewitnesses (policemen, firefighters, reporters, employees who managed to flee a.s.o.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-SeiBdimJY

This is the best visual evidence I found:
(There are some links postet on the site, just scroll to the link where it reads:
"When watching this movie, make sure you have a decent videocard, otherwise details can be bad. And if your videocard or computer is really getting older, it probably won't play the *.wmv file at all. ........."
which can be found at the middle of the page. Tried to link the vid,but i couldn´t, sorry.
http://prisonplanet.tv/articles/march20 ... osives.htm

Explosions in the WTC?
How could they possibly have brought the enormous amount of explosives, needed for the demolition of a building this size, inside the towers in the first place? With alert status for exactly that threat at "high", especially at the lower levels? If anything, they expected something like 93, if a new attack would come.
Anyone who has seen TV coverage of a controlled demolition knows that you need LOTS of cable connecting the charges. Where were these? No one of 50.000 people working there every day saw them? HAve you any idea how long that would take to prepare? With so many small elements upporting the structure? Especially regarding the very "upright" collapse as we saw it. NO WAY anyone (God, maybe... Cool ) could have done that in secrecy.

That´s a point, that worried me too. Guess after seeing the previous videos, you may admit, there could have been explosions. I do so as on nearly every video these can be seen ( try to watch other videos and u will see them on nearly everyone Nice effect to see something so obvious coming to recognition, you never regognized before- guess that´s a kind of selective perception... Nice effect though ^^

It might not need God to set the explosives there, maybe dubbel u´s smaller brother is the right man for this job:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm

I think when u are responsible for such a facilities scurity, you should know it´s inner life and weak points very well:"when you [a company] have a security contract, you know the inner workings of everything." And if another company is linked with the security company, then "What's on your computer is on their computer." [American Reporter]

This seems to be suspiscious huh? Look at this:

Heightened WTC Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted

The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday [September 11]. Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday [September 6], bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed. [NY NewsDay]

On the weekend of 9/8, 9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up... "Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower." [WingTV]

And if this weren´t yet enough, one of the hijacked planes took off from dulles airport, which stood under whiches supervision? Right, the Bush family´s: http://www.populist.com/03.02.burns.html

It is a common consesus among the international engineering community, that the high Momentum of the impact destroyed large parts of the lightly constructed outer surface of WTC without doing much damage to the aircraft itself, allowing the wrecked planes to spill most of their fuel inside the building- across several floors!

I found lots of sources, that state that a lot of the fuel was burned in that huge fire cloud when the plane hits the building. The dark smoke clouds undermine the theory, that the fire inside the building couldn´t reach it´s maximum heat due to the fact that black smoke is a sign for a lack of oxygen. Furthermore Fireman reached more than the 70th floor and gave report via their radio to be able to put off the fire, which does not sound like an steel melting inferno to me.


The mentioned "consensus among the international engineering community.... Well, sounds impressive, maybe his could spot some light to that:

The Bush Administration employed a number of such credentialed experts to give us multiple explanations for the unprecedented destruction of three tall steel-framed buildings at the World Trade Center (WTC). Unfortunately, all of those explanations have proven to be false, and this fact reminds us that academic credentials don’t necessarily make a person more capable, or more likely, to tell the truth.

Exactly how they could find so many experts on the fire-induced collapse of tall buildings is not immediately clear, considering such an event had never happened before. But it did help that the questions were quickly framed as being solely matters of structural engineering, a sub-field of civil engineering, because structural engineers cannot find work without continual government approvals. A Chemistry laboratory manager like myself can work without permits or licenses, but people can’t just go out and build a bridge or a tall building on their own. The extensive paperwork necessary to complete civil engineering projects is obtained by working closely with, and staying on good terms with, local and national authorities. That fact may not be enough to ensure vocal support for the official story of “global collapseâ€

Ok, henceforth I would not read any more the posts of “Gojiraâ€

Oh, come on Shaddock- this is an interesting thread and it is clearly marked as "off-topic", nobody forces you to read it. Besides, as this is a german speaking board the english section is probably the right place... my 2 Euro cents...

Funny, what you are doing is selecting all parts of 9/11 that would make it look like a set-up, and leave all other information out. The dogs were removed because there was toxic air on ground zero
http://infowars.net/articles/September2 ... 6toxic.htm
Why would anyone make a video anyway that would proove 9/11 was real? Who would watch that?

Get Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson's books, ALL Alex's documentary films, films by other authors, audio interviews and special reports. Sign up at Prison Planet.tv - CLICK HERE.

This was the whole reason for making that website you refer to Gojira. Newspapers without lies don't sell in this world, people need shocking stories. For these people 9/11 was like winning the lotery, they make millions by selling lies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwOCu1phcNQ
the thruth about the 9/11 cospiracy theories, I wonder how many people
would intentionally even place fake evidence about 9/11. It's all just one big campaign against the Bush administration and the war in Iraq.

Why didn't they do the same with the london bomings? Why bother, there isn't anyone to blame, although I bet you could make conpiracy theories about it aswell. In fact there are some.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1HPNpxbfX8
Hmmm, all conisidence, is that possible???
In the 9/11 theories that word doesn't exist.[/quote]

@ For Real Warfare Feel: No need for a commentation of your post. Niveau is insufficient.

@Lange:

Funny, what you are doing is selecting all parts of 9/11 that would make it look like a set-up, and leave all other information out. The dogs were removed because there was toxic air on ground zero http://infowars.net/articles/September2 ... 6toxic.htm

This link refers to the removal of rescue dogs, when the buildings already had been collapsed and the clean up and rescue of survivors was in progress, while my argumentation deals with the removal of anti bomb dogs based for security issues in the World Trade Center in the weeks before the attacks happened.
You got something wrong here and mix up 2 different issues

By the way, meanwhile the rescue dogs died due to toxication as many workers, policemen, firemen a.s.o have health problems too. http://www.newshounds.us/2004/08/22/911_rescue_dogs.php
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193082,00.html
There a dozens of links to this sad part of the story...

This was the whole reason for making that website you refer to Gojira. Newspapers without lies don't sell in this world, people need shocking stories. For these people 9/11 was like winning the lotery, they make millions by selling lies.

Well, all of the sources I refer to are completely free and nearly every video has the written permission, to spread it and to show it to other people. I can´t see any problem here, I haven´t paid a penny for the information I post here. I agree that some so called experts try to sell some books about conspiracies. But I have none of them and won´t buy any of them.

Gojira- I regard you as an intelligent person- please, please, please- don´t take a "9-11-truth video" as reliable evidence in this discussion. It isn´t the proof, it is the presentation of a point of view. Instead, look for scientific documentations, like those done at polytechnic institutes and universities. I really laughed at "no steel building ever collapsed due to fire" and "facts about steel". nonsense. It is simply not true. Besides, “added carbonâ€

First of all, I do not fully support all of the mentioned statements of my linked websites. There a re some really nonsense aspects mentioned on many of them... no doubt about that fact. Some even may try to gain financial effects out of there "investigations"- no doubt about that. But the things to be seen are very interesting, and some mentioned aspects are in some respects convincing to me. None of all the mentioned aspects in this thread convinced me alone, but summed up it is more convincing to me to believe in an inside job than in the official version- As John Carrey and Jimmy Carter do also.


Your postet link :http://www.bauen-mit-stahl.de/presse/WTC/20010926.html
Is doubtful to me . It´s been released on 26. September 2001! (very fast scientific report don´t you think so?), nothing new is shown here but the official version of pancaking, which does not explain the fall speed of the towers of 10m/s and is doubted by a lot of other engineers worldwide.

So here is another expert from a University who states exactly the opposite (referring to World Trade Center 7, which has not an official explanation yet and wasn´t even mentioned in the 9/11 comission report):

«Nach meiner Meinung ist das Gebäude WTC 7 mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit fachgerecht gesprengt worden», sagt Hugo Bachmann, emeritierter ETH-Professor für Baustatik und Konstruktion. Und auch Jörg Schneider, ebenfalls emeritierter ETH-Professor für Baustatik und Konstruktion, deutet die wenigen vorhandenen Videoaufnahmen als Hinweise, dass «das Gebäude WTC 7 mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit gesprengt wurde».http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/dyn/news/au ... 63864.html

So two non american experts state it has been blown up.


Before there is no objective commision to proof the surroundings of 9/11, I think there will occur always discussions like in this thread and it is important in my eyes that discussions like this one take place.
For example:
Before this thread started, who of you knew, there were actually 3 scyscrapers that crashed down on 9/11 in New York City?
Guess just a few

Kind regards and thanks for an extremely interesting discuss to cougar

I don´t suppose you do take all info for real- as I said, you´re a clever guy. I tried to comment on the actual evidence and reference you posted. I did not intend to offend you by that or question your credibilty.

Your postet link :http://www.bauen-mit-stahl.de/presse/WTC/20010926.html
Is doubtful to me . It´s been released on 26. September 2001! (very fast scientific report don´t you think so?), nothing new is shown here but the official version of pancaking, which does not explain the fall speed of the towers of 10m/s and is doubted by a lot of other engineers worldwide.

Sources, please! What would be a reasonable fallspeed? How could that be calculated?

The german link I provided is made by a renown scientist published by a renown (what the fu.. ist the english word for Verlag ? ) They publish many technical books, reference for engineers and studies as well. You question their credibilty but present that video full of mistakes to underline your opinion?
The material specifications of steel have been known long before 9-11, as well as the towers´design features. They simply drew conclusions based on proven facts. Something a university professor should be able to do. I´d take that anyday befor believing in a one-sided presentation.
Take the research project on the firehouse webside I posted. It is proven, that a very large amount of heat was generated by all the material burning inside the towers.

I´m not talking about WTC7, actually. I don´t have enough information about that collapse, the reports of some firemen of different ranks, including commanding officers, I found on the firehouse website state that there were fires, that they withdrew their men, because they knew it would come down.
The collapse of the two towers produced earthquakes of 2.1 / 2.3 Richter scale magnitude.
I could speculate that these helped the weakened structure to collapse. But, as I said, I don´t have much info on that.

So here is another expert from a University who states exactly the opposite (referring to World Trade Center 7, which has not an official explanation yet and wasn´t even mentioned in the 9/11 comission report):

«Nach meiner Meinung ist das Gebäude WTC 7 mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit fachgerecht gesprengt worden», sagt Hugo Bachmann, emeritierter ETH-Professor für Baustatik und Konstruktion. Und auch Jörg Schneider, ebenfalls emeritierter ETH-Professor für Baustatik und Konstruktion, deutet die wenigen vorhandenen Videoaufnahmen als Hinweise, dass «das Gebäude WTC 7 mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit gesprengt wurde

your sources state it could have been blown up. "mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit...", "... deutet die wenigen Videoaufnahmen als Hinweise daß..." No evidence to underline that.

«Wir wissen einfach nicht, was im WTC 7 genau passiert ist», so Mario Fontana, amtierender Professor am ETH-Institut für Baustatik und Konstruktion (IBK). An Konferenzen von Baustatik-Experten habe man in den vergangenen fünf Jahren nur sehr wenig zum Einsturz von WTC 7 erfahren. Es sei zumindest denkbar, dass ein lange anhaltender Brand das Gebäude zum Einsturz gebracht habe.

Quoted from the same article.

I think both testimonials are evenly weighted.

«Es gibt ein Problem mit WTC 7», erklärte der Schauspieler Charly Sheen, bekannt aus seinen Rollen in «Platoon» und «Wall Street». «Und wenn es ein Problem mit WTC 7 gibt, dann gibts ein Problem mit der ganzen 9/11-Geschichte», so Sheen im März 2006 am Radio. WTC 7 könne nicht durch ein Flugzeug zum Einsturz gebracht worden sein, da es gar nie von einem Flugzeug getroffen wurde. Es könne auch nicht durch ein Erdbeben oder den Einsturz der Twin Towers eingerissen worden sein, da zwischen dem Einsturz der Twin Towers und WTC 7 fast sieben Stunden liegen. Mögliche Ursachen seien nur Feuer oder Sprengung.

(Charlie Sheen, der große Baustatiker, Dynamiker und Erdbebenspezialist, jaja... )

Besides, a newspaper article by Daniele Ganser is not a scientific researched publication. No evidence that the quotes are complete. He (she, it?) probably tries to sell his book as well...

I don´t think there will ever be such commission. Maybe we´ll find out in the years to come, but with such a complex matter, I doubt that, And there will always be people who doubt the other side of the story.

And no, I did not know there where actually 3 builings of WTC downed...

best regards,

coug