Controlled demolition: disinfo?

by **firstimer** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 10:09 pm

Awesome Iroquois, Ryan, I'm pleased that everybody has contributed and another baby step is soon to come. If you imagine CD to be true without a doubt, a new perspective can be established which, when applied to the multinodal internet secret bunnies tabulators, will turn up new avenues to research and probably show us some of the facts in a finer light that reveals more interconnected details that were overlooked because of the distraction of the official story. (Inspired by Patrick Fitzgerald) BTW I claim the first post/accusation at Xymphora in regards to its initial foray into disinfo. I got lucky (unless I'm wrong)-- that's for you Qutb. Look for my secret message later on in the comments and tell me what you think. gnight

by **class a sphincter** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 10:59 pm

13 furreaking pages. and for what? does it really make any difference if the towers came down because of squibs or jet fuel? does it matter if the passengers of flight 77 perished at the pentagon or were 'disappeared' later that day at some remote base? meanwhile back at the ranch cleverly disguised as distraction.... jeff's lovely list aside, only one thing matters here: -place your selves in the position of the secret service -it is your job to protect the POTUS, you know, the guy with the football -on the morning of the alleged CD you accompany him to a previously publicly disclosed location and time -on site you are aware that not one, but two planes have crashed, one each, into the world trade towers -you always are informed that more than one more plane is unaccounted for / not responding to requests for communication / flying a course other than filed in their respective flight plan what do you do? i'm guessing if you know that all is according to plan, you let georgie continue to read the goat book... intent. that is all that matters. who gives a flying rats whachamawhoozit about whether the fine details included making sure the buildings came down. the intent was to put on a show that would galvanize the masses behind the next step in raping them blind. oh, and in case you still haven't figured it out, part of the intent is to keep as many distracted as possible. that includes the illustrious company here who have it going on over the rest of the sheeple. judging by the sheer emotional investment on both sides of this discussion, and sheer volume of it, the distraction of those who could be out raising a stink, instead of sitting in front of the devil's machine and duking it out over plastique vs. JP-8, is going just fine. remember in the end when they round us all up, we had our chance, and fell for it just as hard as the dumb-asses we berate for still believing the party line...

by **Watchful Citizen** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:01 am

I understand your point about being tied up in details while the consequences march on. An investigator of the JFK murder once said that the crime was meant to be obvious and easy to take apart because the message was WE are in control and you can do nothing. It looks to me like that in-your-face guilty-but-what-can-you-do message is being sent with the controlled demolition of the WTC. It seems obvious to me like using a hypnotically programmed Sirhan Sirhan to be near RFK when someone else shot him to have the solid patsy and guarantee the hit.. I also give weight to the transcripts of firemen hearing multiple explosions and Kevin Ryan's protest. It would make sense to have CIA/FBI informants allowed/helped to go forward with plane hijackings and then do the demolition on the towers as an inside job for 'historical' effect for oil wars and a police-state. I was satisfied there was opportunity to wire up the towers with charges when Jeff posted this article about the lengthy elevator upgrade project going on the year before 9/11. <a href="http://www.elevator-world.com/magazine/pdf/0103-002.pdf">www.elevator-world.com/ma...03-002.pdf</a>

by **cortez** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 6:43 am

Qutb That Walls & Ceilings article was interesting. --- Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html">www.nytimes.com/2001/11/2...9TOWE.html</a> ...Within the building, the diesel tanks were surrounded by fireproofed enclosures. But some experts said that like the jet fuel in the twin towers, the diesel fuel could have played a role in the collapse of 7 World Tradeâ€¦. ...A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said. Link -New York Times (11/29/01)

by **cortez** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 7:24 am

In case you missed it the first time <img src="http://www.911blogger.com/files/images/beenliedto_thumb.jpg" style="border:0;"/> You are being lied toï¿½ featuring a bunch of eye witness comments referring to explosions inside of the WTC. I personally hadnï¿½t seen quite a few of these clips, so it may be worth checking out. Link to <a href="http://www.mypetgoat.tv/video/Bomb_Montage.WMV">Video</a> <a href="http://www.911blogger.com/2005/08/eyewitness-reports-to-explosions-in.html">www.911blogger.com/2005/08/eyewitness-reports-to-e[/u]xplosions-in.html</a>

by **Byrne** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:21 am

Qutb, in response, <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Is there one single individual with any kind of relevant experience and expertise who supports the controlled demolition theory? Or who doesn't support the theory that the towers fell due to fire and damage?<hr></blockquote> After a quick search offline I found these 2: Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D. Professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. (served as chief economist for the US Department of Labor during 2001–2, George W. Bush's first term) Jerry Russell, Ph.D. (Master's degree in Engineering from Stanford University, and a Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Oregon) I admit they are not of civil engineering/construction pedigree, however as has been previously indicated, a lot of engineers work for or depend on the government for paychecks <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tired.gif ALT="|I"> and are unlikely to stir things up. The Poster ‘a_ht’ on the Physicsorg forum was an example (remember, "Politicians don't want another scandal"). Dr. Barbara Lane, of the Structural Fire Group of Arup, (<a href="http://www.arup.com" target="top">www.arup.com</a> ) has stated:  “NIST has carried out a huge undertaking in modelling the collapse which should not be underestimated, and the key responses described by NIST of events that led to the collapse are all plausible when considered qualitatively. However, having read in detail Report 6, which deals with collapse, Arup believes that NIST have not demonstrated satisfactorily their main conclusion… “ <blockquote>Quote:<hr>... we have to take Ryan's word for this, because according to UL, there is "no evidence that any firm tested the materials used to build the towers". They deny having tested the steel. "UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.<hr></blockquote> Agreed, but a coupla points: 1. Why would Ryan lie? 2. Baker would say that. In the American Free Press article of 12/12/04 (Key Researcher Casts More Doubt On WTC Collapse), Paul M. Baker would not return calls to the journalist. You can understand why - his company were involved with the NIST research & he would not have wanted to jeopardise any such work/income (i.e. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tired.gif ALT="|I"> ) 3. Baker/UL are lying when they say there is "no evidence that any firm tested the materials used to build the towers". as the NIST report states (in section 5.5.1) The NIST team obtained the information needed to characterize the steels from structural drawings provided by The Port Authority, copies of correspondence during the fabrication stages, [original] steel mill test reports, interviews with fabrication company staff, search of the contemporaneous literature, and measurements of properties at NIST. 4. From your UL article link, “The agency [NIST] expects to issue a draft report in January, and UL has played a limited role in the investigation.” What is that role played by UL & if it is not ‘measurements of properties’ of steel, what was it? Whatever it was, it was anomalous enough to impel Kevin Ryan to write his letter that led to his dismissal, 5. If NIST were able to test measurements of properties, some steel was therefore retained for testing. Why weren’t independent engineers & fire anlysists allowed to examine the steel remnants (if indeed there were any?) We are led to believe that it was all shipped off on a fast boat to China . ..& 6. Why the fricken secrecy surrounding everything?? Ryan appears to scared to talk, and so, no doubt, are others. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tired.gif ALT="|I"> All the secrecy and anomalies add up to a feeling of distrust & doubt as to the official story. I remember reading that the WTC Designer was surprised that the towers collapsed but I haven’t got any more info on this at the moment. I am getting tired of wading through this detail. As Warchful Citizen & others have commented, these issues are tying us up in details while the consequences march on. Also, as firstimer says, each response that we come up with allows further details to be trawled out by those trying to protect the official line. Arguing with Qutb reminds me of these ‘Surveys’ on ‘certain (i.e. spurious)’ 911 tuth sites, you know the ones that ask: What led you to be most suspicious of the official story? Lack of air defense response? Building 7 collapse Pentagon hole Bush's response Insider Trading FBI and CIA coverups Demolition-like collapse of WTC 1 & 2 Gut intuition Other The answers concentrate the minds of those who have to apply the syrup & the spin to countenance the ‘Official Story’. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>By the way, is there anything that would convince the proponents of the CD theory here that their theory is wrong? <hr></blockquote> Hey, is that a poll question?? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":b"> I will, if I can muster the time, respond to this question.

by **Qutb** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:53 pm

Cortez, here's what's in that compilation of TV news reports from 9/11, and my comments: Police found a "suspicious device". They say that a van may have caused an explosion. If true, this would have been a repetition of the 1993 attempt, unsuccessful once again. My guess is, the police were wrong. Either way, it's no indication of a controlled demolition. People report "loud bangs, big explosions". It's not clear when or where, so it's hard to say much about that, other than the general observation that loud bangs and explosions are not uncommon in burning buildings. A firefighter says there was a huge explosion on ground level. Again, he doesn't say when this occurred. If it happened relatively shortly after impact, it was probably due to jet fuel traveling down the elevator shafts. Jet fuel caused big explosions in the lobbies. Rumbling sounds are reported. A reporter says there are smaller "secondary" explosions every 10-15 minutes. Again, not uncommon in a huge fire. And more to the point, setting off an explosion every 10-15 minutes is not how you demolish a building. Firefighters talk about how the towers came down. One says it was "as if there were detonators, boom boom boom boom", and illustrates with his hand how the towers collapsed. As if there were. What they are describing, by the way, is the same collapse there are countless videos of, no more, no less. We don't need the firefighters to tell us what it looked like. Are they also talking about the sounds made by the building as it collapsed? That's unclear from the short clip, but I imagine a collapsing 110-storey skyscraper makes a lot of noise. A reporter reporting live from the scene as the tower starts to collapse behind him, shouts "it's a huge explosion". But it isn't, it's the tower collapsing. Finally, some guy says that the collapse looked like a controlled demolition to him. Yawn. -------------- After having collected some real information, as opposed to the misinformation and disinformation typically found in the internet conspiracy echo-chamber, I have become convinced that not only WTC1&2, but also WTC7 collapsed due to fire and damage, and not due to explosives (or even more exotic causes). <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/12/105852/080" target="top">Here's</a> a good Kos diary on WTC7: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>WTC7 Collapse: The Real Story (not tinfoil) by curtadams Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 08:58:52 AM PDT I see a semi-regular appearance of the idea that the WTC7 building (part of the WTC complex but not one of the Twin Towers) collapsed due to deliberate demolition rather than due to damage from the Twin Tower collapses. This is pretty implausible so I did some internet research to find out why so many people believe it and what actually happened. I can say confidently that the reason belief is widespread is that real investigative sites are difficult to spot amidst the noise of offhand mentions of WTC7 and the conspiracies. The reason for the collapse can't be proven absolutely but strongly indicates failure of particular vulnerable cantilever trusses deep inside the building. curtadams's diary :: :: Why do so many believe the conspiracy theories? To find out, google up "WTC 7 collapse". You get pages and pages of conspiracy theories, interspersed with discussions of the entire WTC attack in which WTC 7 appears. Buried on pages 2 and 3 (they were much further back when I first checked this out) you find two gems with real engineering analysis: The National Institute of Standard and Technology report (with an uninviting link, even) and Popular Mechanics' debunking of WTC myths To give in idea of how the conspiracy broohaha has clogged up the memespace Wikipedia didn't mention either of these reports or their strong ability to explain details of the WTC 7 collapse. Here is a hard-to-find complete video of the entire collapse from CBS. Notice the very left part of the penthouse complex falls into the building several seconds before the building collapses. The actual collapse start from the center, with the remainder of the penthouse complex coming down fractionally before the rest of the building. Here is an easy-to find typical conspiracy video of the WTC 7 collapse. Notice it only covers the building as a whole coming down. You don't see the penthouse disappear earlier. This is, of course, very much not what you expect of a controlled demolition! So why did WTC 7 collapse as it did? For this we turn to the NIST report. This is my own summary of their work. WTC 7 had a peculiar design. The columns above the Con Ed substation were not directly above the columns around and below it. Reinforced cantilevers between the 5th and 7th floor transfered the load. Trusses scattered around on the 5th and 7th floor stabilized the cantilevers. This seems like a crazy design decision to me but I'm not an engineer. [Update from discussion - the design allowed the building to span a subway station.] When the South Tower fell WTC 7 took only minor damage. However, when the North Tower fell WTC 7 got clobbered. Debris covered the walkways in front of the building and part of the roof. The SW corner was knocked out from the 8th to the 18th floor. The middle 1/4 of the south face was destroyed beneath the 10th floor with damage going well into the building. There was a hole on the 14th floor where something big went in. 2 elevator cars were knocked into the lobby. Fires were reported on the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 21st, 23rd, and 30th floors plus additional fires in the 20s and 30s not assigned to specific floors. The south face damage extended right up to the cantilever trusses and there were several diesel generators right there as well. Fires were never demonstrated at the generators proper but the tanks, which were kept full, that supplied them were later found empty with little diesel drained out beneath them. The collapse initiated above the termination of two of the cantilever trusses. Presumably one of the trusses pushed or pulled a support column out of line; that collapsed, taking down the east penthouse, causing the entire building to collapse. The situation is somewhat similar to the Twin Tower collapses: after extensive structural damage and a prolonged fire support structures simply gave way. They differ in that the Twin Towers also had fireproofing damage while WTC also had an unusual structural design placing heavy shearing loads on critical elements. In summary, WTC 7 did not undergo any kind of controlled demolition. It fell due to failure of a vulnerable and complex trussing system exposed to both major damage and high heat. <hr></blockquote> To that, I'll add: - There were 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel in the building! That's more than the jet fuel in both planes combined. - There were diesel tanks on floors 5, 7, 8, fed through pipes from larger tanks near ground level. - Steel transfer trusses ran through floors 5, 6, 7, to allow WTC7 to be built over two Consolidated Edison substations (not subway station, as errouneously stated in the Kos diary). They held up substantial parts of the interior core (to avoid having vertical structural columns pierce the transformers, the building was constructed around them). The trusses are acknowledged to have been the "weakest link" in the WTC towers as well (known to fail during fire). - Similarities between WTC7 and WTC1&2: weight supported by relatively light cluster of steel columns around the center of each floor, and a palisade of columns around the outside (steel perimeter frame). Columnless floors. And, there were documented problems with the fireproofing in all three buildings as early as the mid-90s. In the case of WTC7, a 1997 facility condition survey, fireproofing was observed to be prominently missing on fifth floor framing above the main lobby, and it's "not confirmed whether it was refurbished" (which I take to mean that it wasn't). - There's a dearth of photos of the south side of WTC7 (the one facing the tower), which according to eyewitnesses was severly damaged by debris. - There was a multistory collapse within WTC5, a nine-story office building, caused by fire. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00613FC35550C718CDDAA0894DA404482 "The investigators are studying the precise causes of the World Trade Center collapse. Their work includes calculations of how heat moves through steel building components with small gaps or imperfections in fireproofing insulation. Their inquiry, which is still in its early stages, shows that during a fire such flaws can act as sluice gates for heat, allowing it to enter the steel, where it becomes trapped, weakening the structure. Countless buildings put up since the 1960's have used the same type of lightweight, fluffy, spray-on fireproofing to protect their steel. Photographic evidence of the trade center suggests that this material, which is easily damaged, had gaps and possibly larger missing sections. Experts say similar problems are also found in ordinary high-rises. . ." (NYT) http://www.prorev.com/wtc.htm From Thompson's timeline: 4:30 pm: WTC Building 7 Area is Evacuated The area around WTC Building 7 is evacuated at this time. New York fire department chief officers, who have surveyed the building, have determined it is in danger of collapsing. Several senior firefighters have described this decision-making process. According to fire chief Daniel Nigro, "The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged building [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire offices and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt." From oilempire: "Now, lets see what implosionworld told me: "There is no such phrase in explo-demo. Most likely he meant "pull out" as in have people evacuate. Conventionally, "pull a building" can mean to pre-burn holes in steel beams near the top floor and affix long cables to heavy machinery, which then backs up and causes the structure to lean off its center of gravity and eventually collapse. But this is only possible with buildings about 6-7 stories or smaller. This activity was performed to bring down WTC 6 (Customs) after 9/11 because of the danger in demolishing conventionally." " Those who still believe Silverstein talked about demolishing WTC7 in the PBS documentary, could perhaps do what Rabinowitz did and e-mail implosionworld and ask them? Note that WTC6 was not demolished with explosives. "Getting ready to pull building 6", which you can hear in Loose Change, does not refer to controlled demolition, but to literally pulling it down. And as is pointed out <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/collapse-of-the-world-trade-center" target="top">here</a>, New York City fire department personnel (who "pulled" WTC7, according to Silverstein) did not have the proper qualifications for such demolition. I think it's obvious that Silverstein was talking about evacuating. Finally, I'll include a post from a <a href="http://euken.com/group/seaoc/mailarchive/2002b/msg00890.html" target="top">message board</a>, which I usually wouldn't do, but I found it interesting because it's signed with a full name: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I too would like to pipe in supporting the comments of Charlie Carter. I was the 'fastener guy' on the SEAoNY [Structural Engineers Association of New York] WTC team, and it seems clear to me that some unfortunate comments were made in the NOVA special. Now more than ever, I understand why the NTSB keeps their mouths shut after aircraft accidents until all the evidence is thoroughly examined. It seems that a few people forgot that we are still at the PRELIMINARY stages of what will be learned. NIST is still in the process of receiving and cataloging our (SEAoNY's) steel pieces. We continue to find useful pieces for study to this day, and there still are barges waiting to be unloaded at the scrapyard. [So much for "all the steel was shipped off"] I found the strongest parts of the NOVA special to be the explanations of the theories behind the mechanisms of failure. It remains to be seen which theories are born out and validated by the analysis just getting under way at NIST. I am very encouraged by the thoughtful, deliberative approach being taken by Dr. Gross and his colleagues at NIST's Building & Fire Research Laboratory. Personally, I found there to be too much simplification in the NOVA program. For example, it was stated that ALL of the floor trusses were attached at the core and ran to the perimeter columns. Obviously, this couldn't be true for the corners --- which relied on more traditional beams. Another example was when it was stated that the aircraft was 'made of aluminum' ---- perhaps to suggest it was light and fragile. Who knows. But, would an aeronautical engineer suggest that a wing spar is anything other than a robust structure? NOVA treated the landing gear and engines as if they are the only parts that need to be treated as 'solid' projectiles. Whereas, something as seemingly mundane as a set of golfclubs in the baggage hold could likely do some nasty things to whatever they struck at the velocities being quoted. Yet another glaring example was when Dr. Barnett was quoted about the 'first steel building (he ever heard of) to collapse from fire'. He was talking about WTC 7, not the twin towers. The engineering for that building wasn't even done by Les Robertson or his colleagues at Skillings, but by Cantor's office. Anyone who reads the FEMA report ought not skip the chapter on WTC 7. Credit is due Ramon Gilsanz for not letting us all focus too exclusively on WTC 1 and 2, when there was much to be learned from WTC 4, 5, and 7. The simplification of the graphics depicting the floor trusses was disappointing as well. Modeling the system without the floor slab and showing the trusses dropping as independent units is misleading. I've rattled on long enough, so I'll conclude with this: Who among us would confidently today state that we could design a tall office building capable of withstanding whatever type of terrorist attack may be possible 30 some years from today? Yet, THAT is what some people seem to have expected from Les Robertson in 1968, though they can't count me among them, David Sharp TurnaSure LLC 57 E. 11th St. 8th Fl. New York, NY 10003<hr></blockquote>

by **Byrne** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:02 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>After having collected some real information, as opposed to the misinformation and disinformation typically found in the internet conspiracy echo-chamber, I have become convinced that not only WTC1&2, but also WTC7 collapsed due to fire and damage, and not due to explosives (or even more exotic causes). <hr></blockquote> & <blockquote>Quote:<hr>To find out, google up "WTC 7 collapse". You get pages and pages of conspiracy theories, interspersed with discussions of the entire WTC attack in which WTC 7 appears. Buried on pages 2 and 3 (they were much further back when I first checked this out) you find two gems with real engineering analysis: The National Institute of Standard and Technology report (with an uninviting link, even) <hr></blockquote> That's funny, because NIST have not yet (i.e NEVER)released any report on WTC-7, EVEN in draft format!! Check for yourself on their publications web page at: <a href="http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/" target="top">wtc.nist.gov/pubs/</a>, where it states: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>NOTE: The NIST investigation of the WTC 7 building collapse is not yet complete. The report on the WTC 7 collapse investigation will be released in draft form for public comment and posted on this web site as soon as it is available<hr></blockquote> So where do you & your buddy get the rigorous analysis that leads you to believe that WTC collapsed through fire alone? NIST haven't even confirmed that yet! NIST have released a document (pdf of a slideshow) Part IIC – WTC 7 Collapse, April 5, 2005, which details working hypothesis & Investigation Objectives etc., such as: : • Determine why and how the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed but no report or results have been forthcoming yet (even in draft form), over 4 years later.

by **michael meiring** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:17 pm

bryne, I would have thought it was obvious to all but the government peddled liners where he gets most of his claims from. Does qutb believe every explanation put out by pro official conspiracy theorists? does he believe these people are incapable of lying? what part of the pro official conspiracy theory does he disagree with regarding 9/11. he seems to agree to it all. no matter how ludicrous the official conspiracy explanations get, from pancake and syrup, to sausage skin, to black pudding, to debris causing WTC7 to fall in perfect symmetry as WTC1 and WTC2, he clings to the pro official conspiracy theory. despite mountains of past evidence of governments faking and hoaxing terrorist activities, and employing government paychecked investigators to back their fairystories of events, he chooses to believe the pro official conspiracy theorists. That is qutb's right, i think its best if we all agree to disagree. I will be putting together my 'closing statement' on this in the next day or two. lol. what would be intresting is for genuine 1'st timers to read the evidence from both sides and decide, as in a jury. lol. And i mean genuine 1'st timers.

by **Qutb** » Thu Nov 03, 2005 4:27 pm

Byrne - <blockquote>Quote:<hr>That's funny, because NIST have not yet (i.e NEVER)released any report on WTC-7, EVEN in draft format!!<hr></blockquote> So you didn't even bother to check out the link provided in the Kos diary. <a href="http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf" target="top">Here</a> you go, "Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the WTC Disaster, Part IIC - WTC7 Collapse". You're right, the report hasn't been released yet, but the working hypothesis and preliminary findings are summerized in the link above and that's the source used by the guy who wrote the Kos diary. It appears that some people want to believe those buildings were demolished with explosives, probably because the belief that they were serves to reinforce their worldview, centred around the belief in a monolithic, malicious, omnipotent, conspiratorial Government as the source of all Evil in the world. If you've accepted this view of the world, there's probably nothing out of the ordinary about a conspiracy which involves not only the military and the intelligence agencies, but also the New York Fire Department, NIST, the Port Authority, real-estate magnates, Scientific American, Popular Mechanics, PBS, National Geographic, engineering firms, the New York Association of Structural Engineers, etc etc. It's easy to debunk all the so-called evidence that is supposed to support this erroneous theory, but it doesn't seem to matter, in fact the application of logic and reason is seen as a threat by those who hold this belief, evidenced by the strong emotional reaction it provokes. That's unfortunate, because I don't think the same people realize what damage the endorsement of such theories is doing to the credibility of the 9/11 "Truth Movement". Lurkers and doubters, I would recommend that you try to find information outside of the conspiracy echo chamber and make up your own mind about it. Regarding explosions: <blockquote>Quote:<hr><a href="http://www.workingfire.net/misc12.htm" target="top">FIRE AND EXPLOSIONS</a> By Vincent Dunn Explosions kill and injure firefighters. Firefighters work in a deadly-uncontrolled-work-environment called the fire ground. Explosions collapse walls, blow firefighters across streets, and cause hurricanes of flying glass and shrapnel. Flame and heat accompany explosions burn firefighters. Fire protection engineers define the term explosion as an "effect" produced by a sudden violent expansion of gases. Some "effects" of an explosion are loud noise and shock waves, which can collapse walls and shatter windows. Searing heat, black clouds of smoke and balls of flame are other deadly effects produced by the sudden violent expansion blast called an explosion. Fire protection engineers classify explosions into three broad categories: physical explosion; physical/chemical explosion; and chemical explosion. (...) Smoke explosions. Firefighters know that explosions happen suddenly and are unpredictable. They cannot be prevented during a fire. Explosions are a constant part of the firefighter's deadly uncontrolled work environment. However, warning signs of smoke explosions are taught to firefighters. They are: reversal of air pulling smoke back into a smoke-filled doorway; black smoke pushing out around a closed door; or window frames and glass windows stained with smoke condensation and pulsating from the pressure of the fire. <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.mwoa.org/David_Frank.html" target="top">This</a> guy describes an "intense" smell of jet fuel all the way down while evacuating WTC1: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>As we got into the low 40's the jet fuel got much more intense to the point where I thought we might pass out. People were clearly suffering the intense fumes and others were clearly beginning to panic. Roselle was not doing well panting heavily and we all needed water. Some people began passing small Poland Spring water bottles up to us from the floor below. This was a real relief. Roselle loved it. It cut some of the fuel taste burning our throats. It eased our sense of dehydration and smoke inhalation. Besides, it was wet. I opened the door to the 40's floor and we momentarily stood in the doorway. I looked and saw no one on the floor. Smoke, and the smell of more jet fuel. We kept to the stairway. Today, I believe that when the aircraft hit the north face of the tower, it's momentum, driven by the aircraft structure and fuel, vivisected the floor, slicing through the elevator shaft and effectively dumping fuel from the low 90's all the way down to the bottom. That's why we kept smelling fuel almost all the way down. <hr></blockquote> Greg Szymanski <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SZY20050730&articleId=761" target="top">asks</a>, "How could a jetliner hit 90 floors above and burn a man’s arms and face to a crisp in the basement below within seconds of impact?" I believe that's the answer. <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/attack/firehouse_harvey.html" target="top">Firehouse.com's</a> account of the day: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Pfiefer arrived at the west-side entrance to 1 World Trade Center. Entering the tower he walked to the fire command station located in the northwest corner of the lobby. Many of the large windows in the lobby were broken, and pieces of marble in the elevator lobbies were cracked or had fallen from the impact of the jet between the 96th and the 103rd floors. Pfiefer was advised that numerous people were trapped in nearly 25 elevators, the highest was at the 71st floor. The elevators were not working. Apparently, jet fuel had poured down the elevator shafts. Some of the elevators were on fire. Signs of smoke and fire damage were visible at some elevators. Many of the elevator doors were missing.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/terror/aftermath/1051698" target="top">Eyewitnesses</a> reported people turned into "human torches": <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Many turned into human torches, patients say By T.J. MILLING Copyright 2001 Houston Chronicle NEW YORK -- While the city continued the grisly process of identifying the dead Monday, burn patients in a New York hospital recalled fireballs bursting from elevator shafts at the World Trade Center, setting human torches. "I saw a lot of people with fire on their back and in their hair," said Yasana Mutuanot from her bed in the burn ward at New York Weill Cornell Medical Center, where she is being treated for burns over half of her body. "It was like a movie of Vietnam, like napalm or something. ... There was a man who lost his shirt and pants. The skin on his face was all bubbled and on his body, too. You could see the skin peeling off." (...) Yurt said those within 10 floors of the jets' impact were probably incinerated. The burn victims were either at the margins of the exploding jet fuel or hit by the blast of flame that careened down elevator shafts. Yurt recalled one man's story of being trapped in an elevator as flames swept in, burning half his body before he escaped to walk down 70 floors. Mutuanot was in the lobby of Tower One when she heard the first explosion. Thinking it was a bomb like the terrorist attack in 1993, she turned to run, looking over her shoulder as flames leaped from a freight elevator shaft cooking her back and legs and right cheek. "It was a fireball with sand and heat, like a hurricane of fire," she said. The lobby windows shattered as she stumbled out of the building and fell. She could not regain her footing. Her husband, who had not yet entered the building, arrived at her side. <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/terrorists/papd/1.html" target="top">Another</a> account: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>When the bus arrived at the site, it was directed to the underground parking garage, passing under the burning North Tower to the South Tower where the men got off. They were one floor below the underground shopping concourse. (...) As they raced toward the North Tower elevators, they heard a loud droning sound that none of them could identify. Jimeno asked Sergeant McLoughlin if this was a “second plane” coming in, and before McLoughlin could answer, the floor shook with the impact of United Flight 175 as it ploughed into the South Tower. The men kept pushing their cart, but the shock waves from the collision rattled everything around them. The floor buckled, and the walls started to crack. The five officers ran for their lives. Burning jet fuel rushing down elevator shafts from the point of impact on the 81st floor sent a monstrous fireball in their direction. McLoughlin shouted for his men to run to the freight elevators. As they fled, the ceiling gave way and the concourse above crashed down on them, dispersing the fireball. The damage was beyond belief, yet some of the lights were still working, and Jimeno could clearly see the destruction all around him. He was on his back, surrounded by debris, his left leg trapped under a slab of concrete. His friend Dominick Pezzulo was face down next to him, covered with plaster dust and chunks of ceiling, but he was alive. Jimeno looked around for the others, calling out to them. Sergeant McLoughlin responded, saying that he was pinned down as well. Jimeno couldn’t see him, but he estimated from the sound of McLoughlin’s voice that he was about 20 feet away. Jimeno called out to Officers Amoroso and Rodrigues, but neither responded. He shouted their names for a full two minutes. Amoroso and Rodrigues had been at the back of the pack as they ran from the fireball.<hr></blockquote> ---------------- A <a href="http://www.mishalov.com/wtc_fire-teacher.html" target="top">New York Times</a> article on NIST's investigation: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The World Trade Center was burning again — at least one small part of it — in this fuel-soaked, full-size recreation of a Marsh & McLennan office on the 96th floor of the north tower, where the first plane struck on Sept. 11. This office is inside a towering laboratory at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. And it is only one fragment of the disaster being replayed for a federal investigation centered here. In other studies, steel recovered from the twin towers is being ripped apart at high speeds, rebuilt structural supports are baking in artificial infernos, and fireproofing insulation is being pounded with simulated plane impacts to see how well it sticks to the steel it was meant to protect. Initial research has already turned up major findings involving the surprising ease with which heat leaks through damaged insulation into the steel, and the ways in which isolated parts of the trade center's structure may have been prone to fail in a major fire — even without structural damage from the planes. (...) "It's never been done before in the building industry," said Mr. Thornton, who collaborated in the design of the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, currently the world's tallest structures. Especially puzzling is that the analysis of hazards posed by earthquakes and high winds has far outstripped similar work on fires. But just as earthquake engineering lurched forward after the major California quakes of 1971, 1989 and 1994, fire science is advancing after the events of Sept. 11, 2001. "We are bringing the structural fire-response analysis into the same league as structural analysis for wind and earthquake loads," said Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, the leader of the investigation at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. "It's that integration of the two disciplines that is going to be the real leading-edge development as a result of the investigation." The Strength of Steel A Profusion of Metal, and of Complexity Standing in an asphalt parking lot here, Dr. Frank W. Gayle, a metallurgist, marveled at a battered triplet of steel columns from the north tower of the World Trade Center, 36 feet long, that were bent into the gently curving shape of a rocking horse's legs. Without the benefit of any obvious markings on the steel, Dr. Gayle and his colleagues in the institute's materials science and engineering lab had determined that the piece dangled directly above the hole that the first plane punched into the north face of the north tower. The fuselage had probably grazed the piece and bent it into the curved shape. "It's almost unbelievable that the material could be in essentially the same shape after falling so far," Dr. Gayle said. In contrast to the rather anodyne concepts for a World Trade Center memorial at ground zero, most of which include few if any artifacts from the buildings themselves, this suburban parking lot was littered with twisted — and chilling — pieces of the steel structure. Dr. Gayle said the investigation had obtained samples of all 14 grades, or strengths, of steel used in the twin towers for analysis. All together, investigators have collected 236 major pieces of trade center steel, Dr. Sunder said.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.princeton.edu/~seasweb/eqnews/fall01/feature2.html" target="top">More</a>: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Also speaking at the lecture was Brian Tokarczik, a young engineer at Thornton-Tomasetti. Mr. Tokarczik had been working on cleanup at ground zero for 11 days when he spoke about the progress. Mr. Tokarczik, a Navy veteran of the Gulf War, said he was reminded of Kuwait, stating that there was "an ominous smell of burning iron," and that the jet fuel sticking to everything reminded him of napalm.<hr></blockquote>

by **Soulman** » Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:19 pm

Ever wondered why no left wing/communist/workers/peace/stop the war etc, never accept the realities and crimes of 9/11. The same applies to you Qutb, doesn't it. Life is a lot easier when one accepts and defends the set political boundaries. Keep it simple right wing/leftwing...rich/poor.....multinationals/trade unions Accept your place and vote every few years. Stay in the "democratic" box. You, Qutb are in interesting company in supporting the official conspiracy theory, the likes of Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, George Galloway, George Bush, Tony Blair, Sharon. Whats your angle and reason. Could it be your culture. ?

by **Iroquois** » Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:34 pm

Qutb... <blockquote>Quote:<hr>It appears that some people want to believe those buildings were demolished with explosives, probably because the belief that they were serves to reinforce their worldview, centred around the belief in a monolithic, malicious, omnipotent, conspiratorial Government as the source of all Evil in the world.<hr></blockquote> Well, I certainly can't say that I wanted to believe the buildings were deliberately demolished. Actually, it was a particularily painful idea for me to accept. Though I do agree controlled demolition would require the involvment of members of several US government agencies, I do not believe it would require a large percentage of people from any one agency. My metaphor for the PTB is a pit of snakes, not a leviathan. And, I certainly don't view the US government as the source of all Evil in the world. I do, however, think that it size, wealth, power, complexity, and some of its internal cultural characteristics make it a more suitable than other national governments to act as a host for particularily grandiose black operations like the 9/11 attacks. Furthermore, I do not believe that any piece of information that I have used to support the controlled demolition theory would require the deliberate complicity of any members of the New York Fire Department, NIST, the Port Authority, real-estate magnates, Scientific American, Popular Mechanics, PBS, National Geographic, engineering firms, or the New York Association of Structural Engineers in the attacks. I have addressed this in a limited way already when I described how a group of engineers can work on a project where at least some of the participants may not agree with the product of their research. Also remember that the majority of the people in the agencies you cited, including the military and intelligence agencies, may have merely accepted the official explanation for how the towers (much like I did for over two years). That they subsequently behaved and made statements that seemed to further reinforce that version of what happened is only because they believed it, and everything else that was a part of it including that the attacks were planned and executed solely by a foreign terrorist group called Al-Qaeda, and not because they were either complicit in the attacks or actively taking part in a cover-up. What controlled demolition does say about the conspirators, and this is one of the reasons why I do believe that it is worth our time to debate, is that it would have required people who could gain access to not only the two main towers but to the mechanical areas of WTC7. That would have greatly reduced the likelihood that any foreign group, either terrorists or government supported intelligence agents (like Mossad for instance), could have planted the explosives without substantial inside help. Remember, both the CIA and FBI had offices there. The security there would not have been trivial. Without the help of either the few people, even within those agencies, who would have had unrestricted access to those areas or those few outside US agents (like security inspectors) who would have specific knowledge of the security, I doubt any outside group would have dared to attempt to demolish WTC7. For the risk, it would have made more sense to leave it. It played such a small role in the impact of the operation anyway. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> It's easy to debunk all the so-called evidence that is supposed to support this erroneous theory, but it doesn't seem to matter, in fact the application of logic and reason is seen as a threat by those who hold this belief, evidenced by the strong emotional reaction it provokes.<hr></blockquote> If you have failed to win over the proponents of the controlled demolition theory, it may be due to a lot of factors, including the possibility that we are correct. You have, in my opinion, successfully demonstrated that some of the evidence for controlled demolition does not stand well on its own. You have not, however, offered a theory for how the towers collapsed that incorporates the bulk of the credible information we have available that also fits the the theory that no factors other than the impact of the two planes and the resulting fires from the jet fuel and available combustible materials caused those three buildings to fall the way that they did to my satisfaction. Don't take this personally, the product of a 16 million dollar research project by the NIST failed to do the same thing; I hinted at a couple of reasons in my last email. If you would like, we could make a thread just to debate the contents of that report in more detail. In the meantime, if you haven't already, I suggest reading 911research.com's response: <a href="http://www.911research.com/essays/nist/index.html">www.911research.com/essay...index.html</a> Though, some at least has already been quoted in this thread. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>That's unfortunate, because I don't think the same people realize what damage the endorsement of such theories is doing to the credibility of the 9/11 "Truth Movement".<hr></blockquote> My goal on this site is not to achieve credibility for the 9/11 Truth Movement, and I realise this puts me at odds with the agendas of some of the other posters, but to find the truth whatever it may be. If that leads me back to something closer to the official story, that fine. But, just to warn you, I'm a long way from there now, so it won't be easy. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Lurkers and doubters, I would recommend that you try to find information outside of the conspiracy echo chamber and make up your own mind about it.<hr></blockquote> I would think that's a given for the vast majority of the readers as well as posters on this forum. But, just for the record, I second that emotion.

by **Iroquois** » Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:39 pm

Soulman... <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Ever wondered why no left wing/communist/workers/peace/stop the war etc, never accept the realities and crimes of 9/11. <hr></blockquote> I'm a left wing/commie/worker/peace/stop the war type that accepts the realities and crimes of 9/11 and proud of it.

by **anon** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:27 am

maybe this threrad is dead: it hasnt moved off "14" for a while. But I have ti say, qutb, the very same pattern you rip others for is the selfsame pattern you live by - there;s really no better evidence for your "official " version - for such it is - than for the labeled-by- you 'wanna - believes" evidenciary insistences; you take on faith myriad cause and effect explanations, with no 'scientific' proof. Maybe the towers collapsed on their own, maybe not , but you are so intensely adamant about your view which is based on the explanations by the very people who would participate in a coverup. You believe that Nero might well have burned Rome, or 'LIHOP' , you believe there were machinations by a fellow named Machiavelli, you accept there was a Beer Hall Putscht and later a better-executed Reichstag Fire, and so forth yet there cannot be a 'conspiracy of dunces' ? Anyway, others have said the same perhaps better than I , and at the same time I cannot deny that you may well be right, YET you are just that much disparaging of others' theorys... well gee I guess I am giving you (or others) pointers on refining their disinfo WHY DONT YOU ENGAGE IN THIS DEBATE AS A COLLEGIAL PEER RATHER THAN A DISSER

by **michael miering** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 11:01 am

time for another one of qutbs fill the page pancaker from oilempire r us, and what do robinowitz and his ilk say, why forget 9/11 now, dont look outside of official explanations, get with the program regarding oil is running low. Robinowitz and his agenda need to be looked at first by anyone before they read a word of his woven fantasy about 9/11 and his little oil peaking conspiracy theories IMHO.

Controlled demolition: disinfo?

multinodal internet bunny tabulators

men bhind the curtain

re: men behind the curtain "keeping us busy"

Re: re: men behind the curtain "keeping us busy"

repeated for your viewing pleasure

Steel the Show..........

Re: repeated for your viewing pleasure

WTC-7 Years of Bad luck

he just invents it

Re: WTC-7 Years of Bad luck

Denial........Oh Why........!!

re: Qutb

re: Soulman

qutb

get ready for it

Who is online