Technically the answer to your question is no, since I don't think it ever was a core claim. But the subject of Saudi support for the hijackers, including financial support, has been an area of truther attention from quite early on. For instance, David Ray Griffin devotes 6 pages to the subject of Saudi financial support in his 2004 book on the 9/11-commission. More generally, my impression is that the question of who financed the hijackers has been a core concern for various parts of the 911-truth movement right from the beginning. ETA: It should be noted that the 9/11-commission in comparison only devoted less than 4 pages to the subject of financing, including the following to sentences, which aptly sums up the gist of the four pages: Especially the last sentence is often cited by truthers as a major point of disagreement.
This Saudi involvment should settle the question of whether or not the US government orchestrated the attacks. I harbor no delusions that this will. Have you ever stopped by Clues forum?
What IHL said. Additionally it seems that some of the Saudi Hijackers were financed/supplied by the Saudi Ambassador, Bandar "Bush" (nicknamed for his close relationship with W.) through the Saudi embassy in Washington. This is probably why the 9/11 commission was not allowed to look into financing... It could threaten the petro-dollar system, Saudi officials, and possibly Bush personally. The 28 pages were kept as a way to exert control over Saudi Arabia and are perhaps only now to be released as the era of the Petro-dollar draws to a close. Saudi Arabia which played a significant role in the attacks was given legal immunity while other nations that had nothing to do with the attacks were invaded and fined.
Hillary's top Aide, Huma Mahmood Abedin, a Muslim activist with ties to Saudi Arabia http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...e-america-got-some-answers-about-huma-abedin/
The infamous 28 pages have been declassified: http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/declasspart4.pdf The first thing I notice is that the pages are numbered 415 to 443 both included. Indeed 443-415=28, but of course this means there are 29 pages. So the much debated "28 pages" in fact consist of 29 pages. Funny!
Just skimmed it.. Hmm 29 is just an odd number... 28 has 4 sevens in it. Bandar "Bush" the Saudi ambassador and honorary brother of W. is mentioned quite a bit. And WAMY is stated to be an organization under bin Laden's half-bro that funded terrorism. Apparently WAMY is a parent organization of Huma Abedin's "family business".
"September 11 The New Pearl Harbor" - A summary (by Massimo Mazzucco) ""September 11 The New Pearl Harbor - A summary" is a 40-min. presentation of the documentary by the same title, which is 5 hours long. The original film contains the entire history of the debate on 9/11, seen from both sides of the aisle -- the 9/11 Truth Movement and the "Debunkers" worldwide. This summary is intended only as an introduction to the complete film, and not as a stand-alone piece on 9/11. You can see the entire film here: http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=167 - or you can order the 3-DVD set here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00F12IRSO. One way or another, please circulate this material. Thanks. Massimo Mazzucco." September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor - DVD 1 of 3
The WTC7 Evaluation Study has finished its first stage of its work which consisted of trying to replicate NIST's simulation of WTC7. The replication failed. This is pretty big news. The lead scientist on the project Dr Leroy Hulsey presents the results here: There is a second video that appears to be from the same event (which appears to be a 911-truth event), where he presents the results to a board of lawyers (not sure what purpose of that was): At one point he is asked directly if he thinks if it was a controlled demolition. He is not willing to go that far yet (the second stage of the study will be attempting to find an alternative mechanism that can account for the destruction).
A recent documentary on 9/11 after the tragedy "9/11: The Days After" I watched this documentary recently for the first time. It clearly shows WTC 7 with huge flames coming out windows.
The CTer retreat to building 7 should be seen as what it is: an acknowledgement of the weakness in their approach to the twin towers collapse. Not to mention the absence of any kind of narrative that hangs together in a cogent whole. The anomaly hunting collective can't even agree whether planes were involved or not. Anyhow
Obama vetoes "Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act" unanimously passed by congress that takes away legal immunity from Saudi Emirates - top donors to the Clinton Foundation. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...toes-sept-11-bill-passed-unanimously-congress
There's a number of problems with this red-neck debunking. (I can call him a red-neck and not be racist since I am one too). All this I explained earlier: http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/9-11-discussion-thread.1443/page-84#post-74649 1) He claims the rod coming right out of the furnace is 1800 F, but it is bright white hot so it is probably over 2200 F. And don't say the color means nothing because real blacksmiths use color to determine temperature for specific heat treatments which affects grain size and hardness. 2) hear the roar in the background? That's a fan blowing lots of oxygen on the fire. The only way to get office fires and kerosene to burn at high temps is to have excess oxygen. When there is excess oxygen there is no black smoke because all the carbon combusts. The office fires in the towers were not well oxygenated as evidenced by the thick black smoke and the relatively still air that day. 3) Nist says the air temps in the hottest part of the fires were at most 1800 F (perfectly oxygenated temp), but average air temps were likely much lower (because the fires were not perfectly oxygenated). 4) air temps would necessarily be much higher than steel temps as thick steel beams have high heat capacity, they were insulated, convective heat transfer takes time, and the fires move quickly as they consume fuel and move on. 5) NIST analyzed 236 pieces of recovered structural steel which represented between 0.25% and 0.5% of all the structural steel in the building. Based on those 236 pieces they concluded steel temps did not exceed 600 C (1112 F dark cherry red). Most samples showed max temps much lower than this, except in two samples where the beam ends had been melted and rapidly eroded/corroded with intergranular sulfidation - exactly what would be expected from a thermate charge where a high pressure jet of molten steel and sulfur erodes and corrodes through very rapidly. 6) even if the few floors on fire completely melted out so that the top block of floors were effectively dropped squarely on the tower below, collapse would have been arrested by the structure (or at the very least have been slowed down by it). But the only way to get an 11-second collapse simulation is to model the floors as completely unsupported so that no energy is absorbed by the destruction of the structure.
That is not quite true. You must take into account conservation of momentum in inelastic collisions. The falling mass must take the mass of the new floor with it and that brakes the falling. For twin towers the collapse time would have been in the order of 30 seconds if I remember right. I tried to calculate it myself but did not succeed.
Conservation of momentum is included in the 11 second figure. Pure free-fall would be less (9 seconds if I recall correctly). I did my own spread sheet calculation modeling each floor collision as perfectly inelastic (which is generous since steel members act like springs) with pure free fall acceleration between floors (which is completely unrealistic since the structure resists collapse), and came up with just over 11 seconds. In this model the only energy absorbed is in the collisions. In a real life pancake collapse where the floors are not merely floating in space until knocked down by the floors above, but are instead supported by structure design with a safety factor of multiple times the load, you would also have to take out energy for the deformation of the steel structure leading to collapse time much great than 11 seconds - or as has been published in a paper, collapse would be arrested due to the excess energy absorbing capacity of the structure.
Ok, you may be right. I remember somebody else has got the longer time. The real situation is naturally quite different. Much, perhaps most of the mass landed outside of the footprints. Much energy was wasted in pulverization of concrete and drywall plus forming the pyroclastic-like dust clouds.
