Controlled demolition: disinfo?

by **Qutb** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 11:13 am

Soulman - <blockquote>Quote:<hr>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. ? <hr></blockquote> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"> Or perhaps it's "reptile DNA". Iroquois - <blockquote>Quote:<hr>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.<hr></blockquote> Sorry, I think the probability of that is close to zero. I see that whole line of inquiry as tedious post-modernist revisionism, if you'll excuse my frankness. The hypothesis that the two towers were demolished with explosives lacks any explanatory power. Both collapses initiate in the crash zones. If any explosives were planted there, they wouldn't have survived the impact of the planes. So explosives can't account for the onset of the collapses. And once the collapse has started, each floor collapses as it's crushed by the collapsing structure. What role does that leave for explosives? I don't get it. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>In the meantime, if you haven't already, I suggest reading 911research.com's response.<hr></blockquote> I've read the Hoffman piece, and I'm unimpressed, to say the least. Though I'll concede this much: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>NIST crafts an explanation for the "initiation of the collapse of each Tower" that avoids faulting the Towers' construction<hr></blockquote> If NIST is covering up anything, it's this: the way the towers were constructed, which has been copied in many skyscrapers since, leaves them vulnerable to collapse in case of large, intense and prolonged fires. Other than that, Hoffman's arguments are mostly, well, I'll be nice and call them unconvincing. For instance, he tries to explain away the bowed perimeter columns and sagging trusses by theorizing that light refraction makes them appear bowed and sagged.

by **Qutb** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:04 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>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<hr></blockquote> MM, if you don't trust Rabinowitz, why don't you do what he did and e-mail implosionworld.com or a controlled demolition company and ask them if "pull" really is a term used in the CD business, denoting controlled demolition of a building? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> Could it be that you've been lied to by Mike Rivero et al? Nah, that's inconceivable. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)">

by **isachar** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:14 pm

Leave aside the compelling visual evidence (horizontal plumes), the firefighter tapes that tell us those who reached the location of the impact found only small controllable fires and reports of explosions and bombs. The fact is that kerosene (jet fuel) and office furniture, equipment and supplies are not sufficient to sufficiently heat high quality construction grade steel in a large compartment fire to the point where it can fail. The NIST report concluded the temperatures were far lower than that necessary to cause a failure in the structural steel elements that would have pre-ceeded and triggered a pancake-type collapse. WTC 7 is highly suggestive, but often overlooked is WTC 6. Take a look at the aerial photos of this structure. You will see a huge outward and widening upward cavity in the midde of this structure. This is a classic signature of an explosion from below - not an impact from above.

by **Pants Elk** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:50 pm

I've been following this thread, argument and counterargument, and each side has something that seems, to me, useful in formulating the most complete WhatReallyHappened that I can at this time. Given that I'm not a structural engineer, the President of the United States, or an untrained Arab with a boxcutter and a deep resentment of "US freedoms" performing acrobatics with a commercial airliner. I'm just someone who went from initial reaction ("kill the bastards that did this!") through a looooong period of research, informed by my own Rigorous Intuition, leading to a conclusion of sorts ("kill the bastards that did this!"). Different bastards, same fury. The "official version" of 9/11 remains, for me, one of the least likely, most outlandish, conspiracy theories that attempt to explain this event. The Easter Bunny is a model of rational credibility in comparison. If you have trouble with controlled demolition and WTC7, just go back to the man with the book in the schoolroom, and the fighters that never went up.

by **firstimer** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:31 pm

I was aways bothered by the public wy that the story of John ONeill was exposed. If the FBI set him up, why would his story be allowed to become public. It appears to be a nasty political dismisal from the FBI for gettin too close to the truth. Those that get real close to the truth are never heard from, much less is the story leading up to their dismissal ever allowed into the dylght. His first day of work at WTC being officially 9/11 is quite a convenient end to a story that is provcative on the surface, but obviously, to me at least, not damaging enough to be covered up. I conclude then, that his story is somehow useful in the overall coverup. We may have an answer or two lurking in that story. It supports an overall lie, so there has to be a clue n there that doesn't ad up. That is all I will say now. firstimer

by **rocco322** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:47 pm

I was an iron worker and a welder for over ten years. There's no way in hell that heat caused those beams to snap. First off, if they could get hot enough, which they couldn't, the steel would bend not snap. Secondly that would only account for the 3 or 4 floors where there was fire. In any case, the fire melting steel girders doesn't hold water. Why do you think they use MIG and ARC welders when welding on engine blocks? Because the gas flame cannot get hot enough to run a bead. On another note, most people who are quick to debunk the CD theory say that there's no way they could plant explosives in WTC without people noticing. That is an extremely weak arguement that for some reason always shuts people up. The Warren Commission comes to mind. How many people do you think knew Kennedy was killed by black ops? I say hundreds, at least. William Rodriguez, janitor hero, said it would've been "very easy to plant explosives". He stated "if they dressed as Fed Ex or UPS" for example, "they could've had complete access to all the service elevators", which are seperate from the public elevators. My opinion is this is one of the clearest examples of NWO sponsorship.

by **michael miering** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 3:03 pm

rocco322 We are led to believe by the official conspiracy theory, that jet fuel melted the building via the a la carte pancake and syrup method, extreme tempretures, blah,blah,blah, and in the next breath we are being led to believe that the jet fuel could not even singe 'Attas' passport?!!!! people are also trying to lead me to believe that jet fuel went from the top of the building to the basement in 3 seconds and caused the explosions in the basement?!!!!!! Its no wonder the vast majority of people who look into this doubt the official conspiracy theory peddled by our governments and government payed 'investigators'.

by **Qutb** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:09 pm

So can anyone tell me how explosives could survive the impact of the planes? Because both collapses started approximately where the planes hit. If your hypothesis is that explosives caused the collapse, then you most assume that explosives planted in the crash zone didn't go off when the planes hit, and weren't damaged by it. You must also assume that the people who planted them knew exactly where each plane was going to hit, and planted the explosives accordingly, in order to fool the entire international engineering community into believing that damage and fire caused the collapse. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>people are also trying to lead me to believe that jet fuel went from the top of the building to the basement in 3 seconds and caused the explosions in the basement?!!!!!!<hr></blockquote> I think it took approximately 10 seconds, isn't that the free-fall speed we've been hearing so much about. As for those who doubt it got hot enough in there, I refer you to the NIST report.

by **Iroquois** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:57 pm

Qutb... <blockquote>Quote:<hr>So can anyone tell me how explosives could survive the impact of the planes? Because both collapses started approximately where the planes hit. If your hypothesis is that explosives caused the collapse, then you most assume that explosives planted in the crash zone didn't go off when the planes hit, and weren't damaged by it.<hr></blockquote> The explosives in WTC1 and WTC2 could have been housed in protective containers. Think of the black boxes on aircraft that are capable of protecting electronic recording devices sufficiently to survive a variety of extreme conditions. Also, any explosive devices within the core of the building would have had a lot of structure around offering further protection. If devices were needed around the peripheral walls, I suspect those at the actual point of impact would not have been needed as that area would have been sufficiently compromised. Qutb... <blockquote>Quote:<hr>You must also assume that the people who planted them knew exactly where each plane was going to hit, and planted the explosives accordingly, in order to fool the entire international engineering community into believing that damage and fire caused the collapse.<hr></blockquote> I am also curious as to how the explosives were triggered in the two main towers. Though, even something as off-the-shelf as radio controlled detonators could have been used to specify the timing of the explosions. The order they were blown could have then been determined after the impact to match whatever floor the planes hit by whomever had access to the triggering device. And, I don't believe anyone can speak for the entire international engineering community. I don't myself expect many who believe in controlled demolition to put their professional reputations and careers on the line until either consesus moves against the official version of what caused the collapse or all the relevant hard data is released to the public so they may support their claims with hard science. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>As for those who doubt it got hot enough in there, I refer you to the NIST report.<hr></blockquote> I have reservations about the temperatures cited in the NIST report for the north tower, and I seriously doubt that the south tower came anywear near those ranges. If they had, there would have been a lot of evidence verifying it. The windows around those floors would have melted for instance.* Also, those sorts of temperatures would have been reported by the fire-fighters who, again, not only said they were putting out the last of the fires near the impact site only minutes before the collapse, they reported that survivors were in the area. And, of course, lets also not forget about the woman believed to be Edna Cintron waving from the impact hole in the south tower nearly midway between the time of the impact and the time of the collapse. from: <a href="http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape-excerpts.htm">www.thememoryhole.org/911...cerpts.htm</a> 9:52 a.m. Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Battalion Seven Alpha." "Freddie, come on over. Freddie, come on over by us." Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones." Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?" Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post." Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven." Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15." Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?" Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower." Ladder 15: "Floor 78?" Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here." Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're on our way." -------------------------- * Actually, I'd like to back away from this statement. I don't believe the NIST made the claim that the temperatures actually reached those levels. I'll recheck once I get a chance to download the entire final draft. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=iroquois@rigorousintuition>Iroquois</A> at: 11/4/05 7:23 pm

by **Byrne** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:39 pm

Qutb, You’re right-I didn't bother to check out the Kos link )you knew it, eh?) because you published the contents (of which I'd assumed that you'd thought was germane) here. I did explore the link regarding the David Frank on mwoa site & came across some monkey business... so I carried out some associated searches of the link (see my post in the thread  interesting search from DoD Qutb, <blockquote>Quote:<hr>having collected some real information, as opposed to the misinformation and disinformation typically found in the internet conspiracy echo-chamber<hr></blockquote>Which real information is that Qutb? Of he  NIST "Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the WTC Disaster, Part IIC - WTC7 Collapse" document [dated 5/Apr/05]?? you say that: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> … the working hypothesis and preliminary findings are summerized in the link [NIST WTC Disaster, Part IIC - WTC7 Collapse document]<hr></blockquote> Well, Qutb, no they are not. Reading the NIST report, you’ll notice that the words  Preliminary Findings  are not contained in the document, apart from the one occurrence of the word 'findings', which occurs on Page 4:<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Schedule for Completion of Investigation • Major focus is on writing the Investigation reports; technical work is nearly complete. • The time required to write and review the comprehensive set of draft documents that constitute final WTC investigation findings and recommendations is driving the release date of the report. • The NIST reports include the overall investigation report for the WTC towers, 8 project separate project reports, and 34 supporting technical reports, totaling some 10,000 pages. This enormous task has taken NIST longer to accomplish than originally anticipated. • NIST is committed to putting accuracy, quality, and completeness ahead of schedule, taking whatever time is required to do the job right. • NIST plans to release a draft of the final report for public comment in June 2005; public comment period of about 6 weeks after release of the draft reports; NIST plans to release final Investigation report in September 2005. • WTC 7 report will be issued as a supplement to the main report: draft planned for October 2005; final for December 2005. • Decoupling of WTC 7 report necessary to accommodate overlapping staffing demands for work on WTC towers. • This change affects mainly the collapse analysis; other WTC 7 work will be reported with the other Investigation reports. • WTC Conference: Putting Recommendations into Practice, September 2005.<hr></blockquote> No conclusions or findings  are contained within the NIST document, (& remember this is not a report but a document setting out the hypothesis of & the time schedule for the collapse investigation). The one hypothesis contained in the document is exactly reproduced below:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> <div style="text-align:center">Working Collapse Hypothesis for WTC 7 If it remains viable upon further analysis, the working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 suggests that it was a classic progressive collapse, including: </div> An Initiating Event ..An initial local failure at the lower floors (below Floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event), which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 ft² A Vertical Progression at the East Side of the Building ..Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse, as large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse A Subsequent Horizontal Progression from the East to the West Side ..Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of Floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure Disproportionate Global Collapse ..Events resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition<hr></blockquote> OK, so the hypothesis doesn't, and hence the report (when it comes), will not contain any reference to controlled demolition.<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Try to look at NIST's work more objectively, and perhaps you'll se a bunch of people trying to figure out what happened, and more or less succeeding.<hr></blockquote>  If it remains viable upon further analysis… that's what it says......... Are they succeeding? I think that they are struggling Qutb. & you are too - the way that every They have told us that the technical work was ‘nearly complete in April 05’, the writing of the Investigation reports is driving the release date of the draft report; the timetable is taking ‘longer to accomplish than originally anticipated’ (this was from the original schedule, not the revised schedule of April 05), they are committed to putting accuracy, quality, and completeness (how does that stack up with NIST's recent refusal to undertake visualisations & corroborate these with available video footage, as requested by UK academics & reported by the UK Institution of Civil Engineers?) ahead of schedule (remember this is working only on their stated hypothesis– which already establishes that no CD etc. is considered). • NIST plans to release a draft of the final report for public comment in June 2005 (no show as of yet); public comment period of about 6 weeks after release of the draft reports (hasn’t happened yet), & NIST plans to release final Investigation report in September 2005. (a wee bit behind schedule now) • WTC 7 report will be issued as a supplement to the main report: draft planned for October 2005; final for December 2005. we shall see You will have noticed, by now, the muddling up of the WTC 1&2 reports & the WTC7 reports drafts supplements recommendations etc....….. The draft reports & or final reports are usually preceded by a conference like the one in September in Gaithersburg. For a list of upcoming NIST conferences, look to <a href="http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/confpage/conflist.htm" target="top">_here_</a> & you can see that they have conferences listed up to April 26th, 2006 but no listing of any intended WTC(7) conference. Qutb, When do you think it will be? Or is something else going to distract our attention? Syria or Iran before March 2006?.

by **st4** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 9:49 pm

RE: Popular Mechcanics Article concerning WTC 7 The article quotes NIST's lead investigator, Shyam Sunder about the collapse of WTC Building 7. In the article Sunder claims: "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." However, there has never been a photo produced by NIST or anyone else that can back up that claim. If there was this amount of damage to WTC 7's south face I would think that television news cameras and cameras mounted on Helicopters that were circling that area all day long would have been able to catch a glimpse of this supposed "25 percent" of the building being "scooped out", but for some reason NIST hasn't produced a single video or photo to prove that the south face of the building was damaged to the extent that Shyam Sunder claims it was (The Popular Mechanics article presents this "evidence" as being "FACT" without producing a single photo to corroborate Sunder's claim). If Sunder's claim was true, wouldn't the missing 25 percent of Building 7's south face affect the direction of the building's collapse? Causing it to collapse toward the missing south face instead of straight down? <img src="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc7_cbs2.jpg"/> MPEG video of the above pic of WTC 7's collapse w/ Dan Rather's audio(1.3MB) http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc-7_cbs_demolition.mpg Below are a few quotes from people that were at the WTC complex on 9-11 (undoubtedly all paid off by the conspiracy theorists to help support their controlled demolition theory *sarcasm*) From THE NEW YORK TIMES: Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?” Source: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Gregory_Stephen.txt NYC firefighter: “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . [W]e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.” Source: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Cachia_Edward.txt From The San Francisco Chronicle / SFGate.com: Captain of Emergency Medical Services: "somewhere around the middle of the world trade center there was this orange and red flash coming out ... initially it was just one flash then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode ... and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides ... as far as could see these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building" Source: http://sfgate.com/gate/pictures/2005/09/10/ga_karin_deshore.pdf Related articles: Another 9/11 Smoking Gun http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/10/another-911-smoking-gun.html Below the Belt http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/10/below-belt.html Compare these building demolition videos to the statements above: * J.L. Hudson Department Store - Detroit, Michigan http://www.controlled-demolition.com/images/client/jlhudson.mpg * Seattle Kingdome http://www.controlled-demolition.com/images/client/kingdome.mpg * Various building demolitions http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm More statements from 9-11 witnesses: Firemen recall "detonations" in South Tower: fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block. fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks. fireman2: 2 blocks. fireman1: and we started runnin' fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out .. fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det.. fireman1: yea detonated yea fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building, boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom ... fireman1: All the way down, I was watchin it, and runnin' (60 second video clip): http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg Member of the FDNY: "We were trying to get some of the people out, but then there was secondary explosions and then subsequent collapses." Video: http://www.911blimp.net/videos/FDNY-explosions.mov Firefighter: "As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway, there was a heavy duty explosion." Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/heavy ... losion.wmv September 12, 2001, New York City, People.com Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem. We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building... Source: http://prisonplanet.com/louie_cacchioli.htm NBC Reporter, Pat Dawson: [Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building.“ Video clip of Pat Dawson reporting on the comments made by Albert Turi, Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department, claiming there were bombs planted in the WTC: Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.w ... rter.1.wmv MSNBC Reporter, Rick Sanchez: "Police have found what they believe to be a suspicious device and they fear that it may lead to another explosion...I spoke with some police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me they have reason to believe that one of the explosion at the WTC besides the ones made with the planes, may have been caused by a van that was parked on the building that may have had an explosive device in it." Rick Sanchez video clip: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.wtc.police.found.explosives.wmv War Corespondent, Jack Kelley: "Apparently what appears to happen was that at the same time two planes hit the building that there... that the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings which also exploded at the same time..." Video clip: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.wtc.truck.bombs.fbi.jack.kelley.rm MSNBC Reporter, Ann Thompson: "At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as I got outside I heard a second explosion and another rumble and more smoke and more dust. I ran inside the building and the chandelier shook and again black smoke filled the air. Within another five minutes we were covered again with more soot and more dust. And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last.." Video: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/9 ... osions.wmv Street Reporter: "45 minutes into the taping we were doing, there was an explosion. It was way up where the fire was and the whole building at that point bellied out in flames and everybody ran." Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.w ... rter.2.wmv Witness / 9-11 survivor: "I was about five blocks away when I heard explosions... three thuds and turned around to see the building that we just got out of... tip over and fall in on itself." Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness.1.wmv Witness / 9-11 survivor: "...and then all of a sudden it started like... it sounded like gunfire... you know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang and then all of a sudden three big explosions." Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness.2.wmv "When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go. The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go. There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down. I stood there for a second in total awe, and then said, "What the F###?" I honestly thought it was Hollywood." - Eye-witness Jeff Birnbaum, president of Broadway Electrical Supply Co., New York http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric_broadway_electrical_supplys/ Terror in the City, September 12 , 2001, Notes from Robert Ivy, FAIA Editor-in-chief ...we felt a rumble like faraway thunder and turned. The impossible was happening. The south tower of the World Trade Center shook, and in what resembled an elemental act, fell to earth in a mighty shout. The entire dissolution, the changeover from solid elements to ash, took only seconds, and it was gone... http://www.archrecord.com/news/fromTheField/archives/0109terror.asp An Eye-Witness Account of the World Trade Center Attacks from Neil deGrasse Tyson The following is the text from an email Neil deGrasse Tyson sent to his family and friends on 12 September 2001. Neil witnessed the attacks on the twin towers from his apartment only six blocks from the World Trade Center. He is Director of the Hayden Planetarium of the American Museum of Natural History, which is located in New York City. Neil also serves as The Planetary Society's Vice President... From: Neil deGrasse Tyson Sent: 10AM, Wednesday, 12 September 2001 Subject: The Horror, The Horror ...4) As more and more and more and more and more emergency vehicles descended on the World Trade Center, I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable -- a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion. First the top surface, containing the helipad, tips sideways in full view. Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point of the explosion... ...6) I decide it's time to get my daughter, who was taken by the parents of a friend of hers to a small office building, six blocks farther from the WTC than my apartment. As I dress for survival: boots, flashlight, wet towels, swimming goggles, bicycle helmet, gloves, I hear another explosion followed by a now all-too familiar rumble that signaled the collapse of WTC 1, the first of the two towers to have been hit. I saw the iconic antenna on this building descend straight down in an implosion twinning the first... Tuesday, 11 September, 2001, Eyewitnesses tell of horror, BBC News "There was smoke everywhere. I heard the bomb and saw both buildings crumble like biscuits," Ms Keller said. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1537500.stm 9/11 Survivor Describes Multiple Explosions "There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. I was afraid to go down Church Street toward Broadway, but I had to do it. I ended up on Vesey Street. There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run." Source: "Teresa Veliz: A Prayer to Die Quickly and Painlessly," in September 11: An Oral History by Dean E. Murphy (Doubleday, 2002), pp 9-15. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/veliz-bombs.htm “Amazing, incredible pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.” - CBS News anchor Dan Rather commenting on the collapse of Building 7, September 11, 2001 at approx 5:20pm EST. Video: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGE ... lition.mpg Excerpt from a radio interview with Indira Singh, ground zero rescue worker and 9/11 whistleblower. She says that she and others were told to move away from Building 7, by persons that she thought were members of the FDNY, because they were "going to have to bring it down": Radio host Bonnie Falkner: How long did you work as an emergency medical technician and exactly what is it that you were doing (at ground zero)? Indira Singh: ...when I got there we were setting up triage sites (at ground zero), close, very close to the area. The triage site that I was setting up was behind, well, to the east of Building 7 where Building 7 came down... ...we were setting up triages as close to the pile as possible… so what we were doing was setting up different kinds of stations… IV stations, cardiac stations, wound stations, burn stations ...just trying to have an organized space. What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon afternoon, after mid-day on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down... ...I do believe that they brought Building 7 down... ...by noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or being brought down. Bonnie Falkner: Did they actually use the word "brought" down and who was it that was telling you this? Indira Singh: The fire department... the fire department and they did use the word "we're going to have to bring it down." The entire interview can be listened to at the link below. The excerpts from above can be found approximately 10 minutes into the interview. Guns & Butter Radio interview w/ Indira Singh hosted by Bonnie Falkner - April 27th 2005: http://tinyurl.com/7dww8 Fire officer Paul Isaac Jr. asserted that 9-11 was an inside job last September 11 at ground zero where mourners and protesters were gathered; “I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know it’s an inside job; and the firemen know it too”, said Isaac. http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bombs_inside_wtc.html Also, perhaps someone can give me a valid explanation of how smoke and debris ejects from the tower 50-floors beneath the point of "collapse". If you watch the video clip of this, you'll see that the ejection occurs almost simultaneously with the "collapse" approximately 50-floors above it: <img src="http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem12/demolition.wave.170.jpg"/> <img src="http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem12/burst.3.jpg"/> Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem12/911.w ... .below.mpg Several other ejections were photographed during the "collapse" of both Towers. Here are just a few more examples of this: <img src="http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem4/1696-01.jpg"/> Video: http://images.indymedia.org/imc/ontario ... _waves.mpg <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/bobby31415926/wtc-squib.jpg"/> Video: http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/ ... 1_jets.mpg <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/bobby31415926/squibswtc1660-0084-b.jpg"/> Video: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vide ... outh_2.mpg

by **rapt** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:43 pm

I have been following this thread for weeks or longer. It is surprising that Qutb continues to get responses from intelligent posters. Y'know the old saw, "don't feed the trolls" But feed we continue to do. If one were willing a few weeks ago to give Qutb the benefit of the doubt and waste time reading his posts, by now at least it must be obvious that: 1) as long as there are responses he will continue to spew talking points, and 2) that none of the talking points are supportable by evidence. So please don't continue to waste time arguing with a govt patsy. The subject is indeed worth some discussion because so far we the ones who see thru the bullshit have not been acknowleged by either the press or the govt. But you will get nowhere by arguing with Qutb. I hereby declare Qutb a total fraud unworthy of further recognition, and do swear and affirm that I will not mention that name again, nor respond in any way to posts attributable to that moniker. Oh, and I suggest that others do the same too.

by **firstimer** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:28 am

Wow, I guess that exonerates me. I'd just like everybody to know that his presence is warranted, in my opinion, as long as he backs up his statements (which must be crystal clear) with real research. I like to see his rest his case on other's work as much as anybody else, but if we draw the line and request new information supporting the official story or refuting CD only, I can enjoy his presence. I repeat: Nobody here wants to see the same old corrupt references. Show us new thinking that supports your perspective, and back it up with new references. I could tolerate that. If he's here just for insults, he should go back to the other place where he hangs out. firstimer

by **maggrwaggr** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:52 am

Regarding: Both collapses initiate in the crash zones. If any explosives were planted there, they wouldn't have survived the impact of the planes. I refer you to the photo of the woman, looking out of the hole caused by the plane. She was much less durable than any bomb, but there she is, walking around and peering out of the hole. As far as WTC 7 being "scooped out", remember the Murrah building in Oklahoma City? That was pretty scooped out, to say the least. No collapse there. And if it was 25% "scooped out" it sure wouldn't have collapsed the way it does (which you can plainly see in the video). It would have collapsed into the "scooped out" part, more of a collapse-into-a-weak-zone. It didn't. It did a really nice little curtsey, straight down, absolute perfect controlled demolition pancake. If you can watch that video of WTC7 collapsing and look me in the eye and tell me that's NOT a controlled demolition, I don't know how you can be anything but delusional.

by **banned** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:57 am

...and at least in this case, I'm going with my own eyes over all the expert arguments. I realize that can't convince anyone else, but it's enough for me. "Expert" opinions can be falsified if there's motive. I would have to go back to school and get a degree in civil engineering in order to produce my own expert opinion, and at 53 I don't have time for that. My guess is that most if not all of the people who deny the CD explanation never saw a CD happen live before 9/11/01. If they had, they'd have known what they were looking at. If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, I'm getting out the orange sauce.

Controlled demolition: disinfo?

Re: re: Qutb

Re: get ready for it

controlled demo

Re: controlled demo

ONeill facors in here in a way not earlier realized

Re: I used to scoff at the CD folks

jet fuel turns...

Re: jet fuel turns...

Re: explosive survival

NIST the deadlines.........

controlled demolition

Tower collapses & trolls

new party line OK with me

two things

I saw controlled demolitions too...

Who is online