Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories
TRUTH
Explosive Testimony:
Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories
David Ray Griffin
“[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on
television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was
going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”--Firefighter
Richard Banaciski
“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know
like when they demolish a building?”--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen
Gregory
“[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on
certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."--Paramedic
Daniel Rivera
____________________________________________________________________
The above quotations come from a collection of 9/11 oral histories that,
although recorded by the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) at the end of
2001, were publicly released only on August 12, 2005. Prior to that date,
very few Americans knew the content of these accounts or even the fact
that they existed.
Why have we not known about them until recently? Part of the answer is
that the city of New York would not release them until it was forced to
do so. Early in 2002, the New York Times requested copies under the
freedom of information act, but Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration
refused. So the Times, joined by several families of 9/11 victims, filed
suit. After a long process, the city was finally ordered by the New York
Court of Appeals to release the records (with some exceptions and
redactions allowed). Included were oral histories, in interview form,
provided by 503 firefighters and medical workers.1 (Emergency Medical
Services had become a division within the Fire Department.2) The Times
then made these oral histories publicly available.3
Once the content of these testimonies is examined, it is easy to see why
persons concerned to protect the official story about 9/11 would try to
keep them hidden. By suggesting that explosions were occurring in the
World Trade Center’s Twin Towers, they pose a challenge to the official
account of 9/11, according to which the towers were caused to collapse
solely by the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires.
In any case, now that the oral histories have finally been released, it
is time for Americans and the world in general to see what these brave
men and women reported about that fateful day. If this information forces
a reevaluation of the official story about 9/11, better now than later.
That said, it must be added that although these oral histories are of
great significance, they do not contain the first reports of explosions
in the Twin Towers. Such reports---from firefighters, reporters, and
people who had worked in the towers---started becoming available right
after 9/11.
These reports, however, were not widely publicized by the mainstream
press and, as a result, have for the most part been known only within the
“9/11 truth movement,” which has focused on evidence that seems
inconsistent with the official story.
I will begin by summarizing some of those previously available reports.
Readers will then be able to see that although in some respects the newly
released oral histories simply add reinforcement, they also are
revelatory documents: Some of the testimonies are quite stunning, even to
people familiar with the earlier reports; and there are now so many
testimonies that even the most skeptical reader is likely to find the
cumulative effect impressive.
Previously Available Testimony Suggestive of Explosions in the Twin
Towers
The day after 9/11, a story in the Los Angeles Times, referring to the
south tower, said: “There were reports of an explosion right before the
tower fell, then a strange sucking sound, and finally the sound of floors
collapsing."4
A story in the Guardian said that “police and fire officials were
carrying out the first wave of evacuations when the first of the World
Trade Centre towers collapsed. Some eyewitnesses reported hearing another
explosion just before the structure crumbled. Police said that it looked
almost like a ‘planned implosion.’"5
“Planned implosion” is another term for controlled demolition, in which
explosives are placed at crucial places throughout a building so that,
when set off in the proper order, they will cause the building to come
down in the desired way. When it is close to other buildings, the desired
way will be straight down into, or at least close to, the building’s
footprint, so that it does not damage the surrounding buildings. This
type of controlled demolition is called an “implosion.” To induce an
implosion in steel-frame buildings, the explosives must be set so as to
break the steel columns. Each of the Twin Towers had 47 massive steel
columns in its core and 236 steel columns around the periphery.
To return now to testimonies about explosions: There were many reports
about an explosion in the basement of the north tower. For example,
janitor William Rodriguez reported that he and others felt an explosion
below the first sub-level office at 9 AM, after which co-worker Felipe
David, who had been in front of a nearby freight elevator, came into the
office with severe burns on his face and arms yelling "explosion!
explosion! explosion!"6
Rodriguez’s account has been corroborated by José Sanchez, who was in the
workshop on the fourth sub-level. Sanchez said that he and a co-worker
heard a big blast that “sounded like a bomb,” after which “a huge ball of
fire went through the freight elevator.”7
Engineer Mike Pecoraro, who was working in the sixth sub-basement of the
north tower, said that after an explosion he and a co-worker went up to
the C level, where there was a small machine shop. “There was nothing
there but rubble,” said Pecoraro. “We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic
press--gone!” They then went to the parking garage, but found that it was
also gone. Then on the B level, they found that a steel-and-concrete fire
door, which weighed about 300 pounds, was wrinkled up "like a piece of
aluminum foil." Having seen similar things after the terrorist attack in
1993, Pecoraro was convinced that a bomb had gone off.8
Given these testimonies to explosions in the basement levels of the
towers, it is interesting that Mark Loizeaux, head of Controlled
Demolition, Inc., has been quoted as saying: “If I were to bring the
towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of
the building to help collapse the structure.”9
Multiple Explosions
Some of the testimonies suggested that more than one explosion occurred
in one tower or the other. FDNY Captain Dennis Tardio, speaking of the
south tower, said: "I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the
building is being imploded, from the top floor down, one after another,
boom, boom, boom."10
In June of 2002, NBC television played segments from tapes recorded on
9/11. One segment contained the following exchange, which involved
firefighters in the south tower:
Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've just had another explosion.
Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've had additional explosion.
Dispatcher: Received battalion command. Additional explosion.11
Firefighter Louie Cacchioli, after entering the north tower lobby and
seeing elevator doors completely blown out and people being hit with
debris, asked himself, “how could this be happening so quickly if a plane
hit way above?” After he reached the 24th floor, he and another fireman
“heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb [and] knocked off the
lights and stalled the elevator.” After they pried themselves out of the
elevator, “another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits
about two minutes later . . . [and] I’m thinking, ‘Oh. My God, these
bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!’”12
Multiple explosions were also reported by Teresa Veliz, who worked for a
software development company in the north tower. She was on the 47th
floor, she reported, when suddenly “the whole building shook. . . .
[Shortly thereafter] the building shook again, this time even more
violently." Then, while Veliz was making her way downstairs and outside:
“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. . . . There was another
explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run."13
Steve Evans, a New York-based correspondent for the BBC, said: “I was at
the base of the second tower . . . that was hit. . . . There was an
explosion. . . . The base of the building shook. . . . [T]hen there was a
series of explosions.”14
Sue Keane, an officer in the New Jersey Fire Police Department who was
previously a sergeant in the U.S. Army, said in her account of the onset
of the collapse of the south tower: “[I]t sounded like bombs going off.
That's when the explosions happened. . . . I knew something was going to
happen. . . . It started to get dark, then all of a sudden there was this
massive explosion.” Then, discussing her experiences during the collapse
of the north tower, she said: “[There was] another explosion. That sent
me and the two firefighters down the stairs. . . . I can't tell you how
many times I got banged around. Each one of those explosions picked me up
and threw me. . . . There was another explosion, and I got thrown with
two firefighters out onto the street.”15
Wall Street Journal reporter John Bussey, describing his observation of
the collapse of the south tower from the ninth floor of the WSJ office
building, said: “I . . . looked up out of the office window to see what
seemed like perfectly synchronized explosions coming from each floor. . .
. One after the other, from top to bottom, with a fraction of a second
between, the floors blew to pieces.”16
Another Wall Street Journal reporter said that after seeing what appeared
to be “individual floors, one after the other exploding outward,” he
thought: “‘My God, they’re going to bring the building down.’ And they,
whoever they are, HAD SET CHARGES. . . . I saw the explosions.”17
A similar perception was reported by Beth Fertig of WNYC Radio, who said:
“It just descended like a timed explosion—like when they are deliberately
bringing a building down. . . . It was coming down so perfectly that in
one part of my brain I was thinking, 'They got everyone out, and they're
bringing the building down because they have to.'”18
A more graphic testimony to this perception was provided on the film made
by the Naudet brothers. In a clip from that film, one can watch two
firemen describing their experiences to other firemen.
Fireman 1: “We made it outside, we made it about a block . . . .”
Fireman 2: “We made it at least two blocks and we started running.”
He makes explosive sounds and then uses a chopping hand motion to
emphasize his next point: “Floor by floor it started popping out . . . .”
Fireman 1: “It was as if they had detonated--as if they were planning
to take down a building, boom boom boom boom boom . . . .”
Fireman 2: “All the way down. I was watching it and running. And then
you just saw this cloud of shit chasing you down.”19
As these illustrations show, quite impressive testimony to the occurrence
of explosions in the Twin Towers existed even prior to the release of the
oral histories. As we will see, however, these oral histories have made
the testimony much more impressive, qualitatively as well as
quantitatively. The cumulative testimony now points even more clearly
than before not simply to explosions but to controlled demolition.
Testimonies in the Oral Histories Suggestive of Controlled Demolition
Several FDNY members reported that they heard an explosion just before
the south tower collapsed. For example, Battalion Chief John Sudnik said
that while he and others were working at the command post, “we heard a
loud explosion or what sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I
saw tower two start coming down.”20
Firefighter Timothy Julian said: “First I thought it was an explosion. I
thought maybe there was a bomb on the plane, but delayed type of thing,
you know secondary device. . . . I just heard like an explosion and then
a cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train,
rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it
coming down.”21
Emergency medical technician Michael Ober said: “[W]e heard a rumble,
some twisting metal, we looked up in the air, and . . . it looked to me
just like an explosion. It didn’t look like the building was coming down,
it looked like just one floor had blown completely outside of it. . . . I
didn’t think they were coming down. I just froze and stood there looking
at it.”22 Ober’s testimony suggests that he heard and saw the explosion
before he saw any sign that the building was coming down.
This point is made even more clearly by Chief Frank Cruthers, who said:
“There was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the
very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out
horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you
could see the beginning of the collapse."23
These statements by Ober and Cruthers, indicating that there was a delay
between the explosion and the beginning of the collapse, suggest that the
sounds and the horizontal ejection of materials could not be attributed
simply to the onset of the collapse.
Shaking Ground before the Collapse
As we saw earlier, some people in the towers reported that there were
powerful explosions in the basements. Such explosions would likely have
caused the ground to shake.
Such shaking was reported by medical technician Lonnie Penn, who said
that just before the collapse of the south tower: “I felt the ground
shake, I turned around and ran for my life. I made it as far as the
Financial Center when the collapse happened.”24
According to the official account, the vibrations that people felt were
produced by material from the collapsing towers hitting the ground.
Penn’s account, however, indicates that the shaking must have occurred
several seconds before the collapse.
Shaking prior to the collapse of the north tower was described by fire
patrolman Paul Curran. He was standing near it, he said, when “all of a
sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running
under my feet. . . . The next thing we know, we look up and the tower is
collapsing.”25
Lieutenant Bradley Mann of the fire department, one of the people to
witness both collapses, described shaking prior to each of them. "Shortly
before the first tower came down,” he said, “I remember feeling the
ground shaking. I heard a terrible noise, and then debris just started
flying everywhere. People started running." Then, after they had returned
to the area, he said, “we basically had the same thing: The ground shook
again, and we heard another terrible noise and the next thing we knew the
second tower was coming down."26
Multiple Explosions
The oral histories contain numerous testimonies with reports of more than
one explosion. Paramedic Kevin Darnowski, for example, said: "I started
walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then
we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.”
27
Gregg Brady, an emergency medical technician, reported the same thing
about the north tower, saying: “I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and
the north tower is coming down now."28
Somewhat more explosions were reported by firefighter Thomas Turilli, who
said, referring to the south tower, that “it almost sounded like bombs
going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight."29
Even more explosions were reported by Craig Carlsen, who said that while
he and other firefighters were looking up at the towers, they “heard
explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it
took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized
the building started to come down.”30
“Pops”
As before, “pops” were reported by some witnesses. “As we are looking up
at the [south tower],” said firefighter Joseph Meola, “it looked like the
building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops.
Didn't realize it was the falling--you know, you heard the pops of the
building. You thought it was just blowing out.”31
“Pops” were also reported by paramedic Daniel Rivera in the following
exchange:
Q. How did you know that it [the south tower] was coming down?
A. That noise. It was noise.
Q. What did you hear? What did you see?
A. It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was---do you ever
see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors
and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'? That's exactly what--because
I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I
saw the building coming down.32
Collapse Beginning below the Strike Zone and Fire
According to the official account, the “pancaking” of the floors began
when the floors above the strike zone, where the supports were weakened
by the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires, fell on the
floors below. Some witnesses reported, however, that the collapse of the
south tower began lower than the floors that were struck by the airliner
and hence lower than the fires.
Timothy Burke reported that while he was watching flames coming out of
the south tower, “the building popped, lower than the fire.” He later
heard a rumor that “the aviation fuel fell into the pit, and whatever
floor it fell on heated up really bad, and that's why it popped at that
floor.” At the time, however, he said, “I was going oh, my god, there is
a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was
an explosion.”33
This same twofold observation was made by firefighter Edward Cachia, who
said: “As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, it just gave.
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.”34
Other Indications of Controlled Demolition
Some witnesses reported other phenomena, beyond explosions, suggestive of
controlled demolition.
The Appearance of Implosion: When a building close to other buildings is
brought down by controlled demolition, as mentioned earlier, it typically
implodes and hence comes straight down into, or at least close to, its
own footprint, so that it does not fall over on surrounding structures.
As we saw above in the accounts that were previously available, both
police and fire officials were quoted as saying that the towers seemed to
implode. This perception was also stated in the oral history of
Lieutenant James Walsh, who said: "The [north tower] didn't fall the way
you would think tall buildings would fall. Pretty much it looked like it
imploded on itself."35
Flashes: Another common feature of controlled demolitions is that people
who are properly situated may see flashes when the explosives go off.
Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory said: “I thought . . . before . .
. No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . Lieutenant
Evangelista . . . asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the
building, and I agreed with him because I . . . saw a flash flash flash .
. . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they
demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls
down? That's what I thought I saw.”36
Flashes were reported in the north tower by Captain Karin Deshore, who
said: “Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was
this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash.”37
Demolition Rings: At this point, Deshore’s account moved to another
standard phenomenon seen by those who watch controlled demolitions:
explosion rings, in which a series of explosions runs rapidly around a
building. Deshore’s next words were: “Then this flash just kept popping
all the way around the building and that building had started to explode.
The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange
and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go
all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These
popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and
down and then all around the building."38
An explosion ring (or belt) was also described by firefighter Richard
Banaciski. Speaking of the south tower, he said: “[T]here was just an
explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these
buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt,
all these explosions.”39
A description of what appeared to be a ring of explosions was also given
by Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick, who said: "We looked up at the
[south tower] . . . . All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2
thirds of the way up . . . . It looked like sparkling around one specific
layer of the building. . . . My initial reaction was that this was
exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV."40
Horizontal Ejections: Another feature of controlled demolition, at least
when quite powerful explosives are used, is that things are ejected
horizontally from the floors on which the explosions occur. Such
ejections were mentioned in the testimony of Chief Frank Cruthers above.
Similarly, Captain Jay Swithers said: “I took a quick glance at the
building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it
blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion.”41
Firefighter James Curran said: “When I got underneath the north bridge I
looked back and . . . I heard like every floor went chu-chu-chu. Looked
back and from the pressure everything was getting blown out of the floors
before it actually collapsed."42
Battalion Chief Brian Dixon said: “I was . . . hearing a noise and
looking up. . . . [T]he lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually
looked like someone had planted explosives around it because . . .
everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an
explosion up there, it blew out."43
These reports by Curran and Dixon conform to what can be seen by looking
at photographs and videos of the collapses, which show that various
materials, including sections of steel and aluminum, were blown out
hundreds of feet.44 Such powerful ejections of materials are exactly what
would be expected from explosions powerful enough to cause such huge
buildings to collapse.
Dust Clouds: The most visible material ejected horizontally from
buildings during controlled demolition, especially buildings with lots of
concrete, is dust, which forms more or less expansive dust clouds. Some
of the testimonies about the collapse of the south tower mention that it
produced an enormous amount of dust, which formed clouds so big and thick
that they blocked out all light.
Firefighter Stephen Viola said: “You heard like loud booms . . . and then
we got covered with rubble and dust, and I thought we'd actually fallen
through the floor . . . because it was so dark you couldn't see
anything."45
Firefighter Angel Rivera said: “That's when hell came down. It was like a
huge, enormous explosion. . . . The wind rushed. . . , all the dust. . .
and everything went dark."46
Lieutenant William Wall said: “[W]e heard an explosion. We looked up and
the building was coming down right on top of us. . . . We ran a little
bit and then we were overtaken by the cloud."47
Paramedic Louis Cook said that after the debris started falling,
“everything went black” and “you couldn't breathe because [of] all the
dust. There was just an incredible amount of dust and smoke.” He then
found that there was, “without exaggerating, a foot and a half of dust on
[his] car.”48
The kind of dust clouds typically produced during a controlled demolition
can be seen on videos of the demolition of Seattle’s Kingdome and the
Reading Grain Facility.49 If these videos are then compared with photos
and videos of the collapses of the Twin Towers,50 it can be seen that the
dust clouds in the latter are even bigger.51
Timed or Synchronized Explosions: Some people said that the collapses had
the appearance of timed, synchronized demolitions. Battalion Chief
Dominick DeRubbio, speaking of the collapse of the south tower, said: “It
was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed
explosion."52
Firefighter Kenneth Rogers said: "[T]here was an explosion in the south
tower. . . . I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One floor
under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I
figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate
kind of thing. I was there in '93."53
Debates about Controlled Demolition
Given so many signs that the buildings had been brought down by
controlled demolition, we might expect that debates about this issue
would have taken place. And they did.
Firefighter Christopher Fenyo, after describing events that occurred
after the first collapse, said: “At that point, a debate began to rage
because. . . many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out
2 World Trade, and officers were gathering companies together and the
officers were debating whether or not to go immediately back in or to see
what was going to happen with 1 World Trade at that point. The debate
ended pretty quickly because 1 World Trade came down."54
Firefighter William Reynolds reported on a conversation he had with a
battalion chief: “I said, ‘Chief, they're evacuating the other building;
right?’ He said, ‘No.’ . . . I said, ‘Why not? They blew up the other
one.’ I thought they blew it up with a bomb. I said, ‘If they blew up the
one, you know they're gonna blow up the other one.’ He said, ‘No, they're
not.’ I said, ‘Well, you gotta tell them to evacuate it, because it's
gonna fall down and you gotta get the guys out.’ . . . He said, ‘I'm just
the Battalion Chief. I can't order that.’ . . . I said, ‘You got a
fucking radio and you got a fucking mouth. Use the fucking things. Empty
this fucking building.’ Again he said, ‘I'm just a Battalion Chief. I
can't do that.’ . . . Eventually this other chief came back and said,
‘They are evacuating this tower.’ . . . And sometime after that . . . I
watched the north tower fall."55
As both accounts suggest, the perception that the south tower had been
brought down by explosives may have resulted in fewer lives being lost in
the north tower collapse than would otherwise have been the case.
Why Testimony about Explosions Has Not Become Public Knowledge
If so many witnesses reported effects that seemed to be produced by
explosives, with some of them explicitly saying that the collapses
appeared to be cases of controlled demolition, why is this testimony not
public knowledge? Part of the answer, as I mentioned at the outset, is
that the city of New York refused to release it until forced to do so by
the highest court of the state of New York
But why did we have to wait for this court-ordered release to learn about
these testimonies? Should not they have been discussed in The 9/11
Commission Report, which was issued over a year earlier? This Report, we
are told in the preface, sought “to provide the fullest possible account
of the events surrounding 9/11.” Why does it not include any of the
testimony in the 9/11 oral histories suggestive of controlled demolition?
The answer cannot be that the Commission did not know about these oral
histories. Although “[t]he city also initially refused access to the
records to investigators from . . . the 9/11 Commission,” Jim Dwyer of
the New York Times tells us, it “relented when legal action was
threatened.”56 So the Commission could have discussed the testimonies
about explosions in the oral histories. It also, in order to help educate
the public, could have called some of the firefighters and medical
workers to repeat their testimony during one of the Commission’s public
hearings. But it did not.
Why, we may wonder, have the firefighters and medical workers not been
speaking out? At least part of the reason may be suggested by a statement
made by Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac. Having said that “there
were definitely bombs in those buildings,” Isaac added that “many other
firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for
their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this
fact.”57
Would we not expect, however, that a few courageous members of the fire
department would have contacted the 9/11 Commission to tell their story?
Indeed. But telling their story to the Commission was no guarantee that
it would find its way into the final report---as indicated by the account
of one fireman who made the effort.
Firefighter Louie Cacchioli, who was quoted earlier, testified in 2004 to
members of the Commission’s staff. But, he reported, they were so
unreceptive that he ended up walking out in anger. “I felt like I was
being put on trial in a court room,” said Cacchioli. “They were trying to
twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All
I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn’t let me do that,
I walked out.”58
That Cacchioli’s experience was not atypical is suggested by janitor
William Rodriguez, whose testimony was also quoted earlier. Although
Rodriguez was invited to the White House as a National Hero for his
rescue efforts on 9/11, he was, he said, treated quite differently by the
Commission: "I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they
essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives
to bring down the north tower.”59
When reading The 9/11 Commission Report, one will not find the name of
Cacchioli, or Rodriguez, or anyone else reporting explosions in the
towers. It would appear that the Commission deliberately withheld this
information, as it apparently did with regard to Able Danger60 and many
other things that should have been included in “the fullest possible
account of the events surrounding 9/11.”61
The definitive report about the collapse of the towers was to have been
provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
According to Rodriguez, however, this investigative body was equally
uninterested in his testimony: “I contacted NIST . . . four times without
a response. Finally, [at a public hearing] I asked them before they came
up with their conclusion . . . if they ever considered my statements or
the statements of any of the other survivors who heard the explosions.
They just stared at me with blank faces.”62
In light of this report of NIST’s response, it is not surprising to find
that its final report, which in the course of supporting the official
story about the collapses ignores many vital issues,63 makes no mention
of reports of explosions and other phenomena suggestive of controlled
demolition.
Conclusion
It is sometimes said that the mandate of an official commission is, by
definition, to support the official story. Insofar as that is true, it is
not surprising that neither NIST nor the 9/11 Commission saw fit to
discuss testimony suggestive of explosions in the Twin Towers, since this
testimony is in strong tension with the official story.
At least most of those who offered this testimony did not, to be sure,
mean to challenge the most important element in the official story about
9/11, which is that the attacks were entirely the work of foreign
terrorists. For example, firefighter Timothy Julian, after saying that he
“thought it was an explosion,” added: “I thought maybe there was a bomb
on the plane, but delayed type of thing, you know secondary device.”64
Assistant Commissioner James Drury said: “I thought the terrorists
planted explosives somewhere in the building.”65
The problem, however, is that a bomb delivered by a plane, or even a few
explosives planted “somewhere in the building,” would not explain the
many phenomena suggestive of controlled demolition, such as explosion
rings and other features indicating that the explosions were
“synchronized” and otherwise “timed.” As Mark Loizeaux, the head of
Controlled Demolition, Inc., has explained, “to bring [a building] down
as we want, so no one or no other structure is harmed,” the demolition
must be “completely planned.” One needs “the right explosive [and] the
right pattern of laying the charges.”66
The 9/11 oral histories, therefore, create a difficult question for those
who defend the official story: How could al-Qaeda terrorists have gotten
access to the Twin Towers for all the hours required to place all the
explosives needed to bring down buildings of that size? It is primarily
because they force this question that the testimony about explosions in
the towers is itself explosive.
Notes
1. Jim Dwyer, “City to Release Thousands of Oral Histories of 9/11
Today,” New York Times, August 12, 2005. As Dwyer explained, the oral
histories “were originally gathered on the order of Thomas Von Essen, the
city fire commissioner on Sept. 11, who said he wanted to preserve those
accounts before they became reshaped by a collective memory.”
2. Jim Dwyer, “Vast Archive Yields New View of 9/11,” New York Times,
August 13, 2005.
3. These oral histories are available at a NYT website
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812
_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html).
4. Los Angeles Times, September 12, 2001.
5. “Special Report: Terrorism in the US,” Guardian, Sept. 12, 2001.
6. Greg Szymanski, “WTC Basement Blast and Injured Burn Victim Blows
'Official 9/11 Story' Sky High,” Arctic Beacon.com, June 24, 2005.
7. Greg Szymanski, “Second WTC Janitor Comes Forward With Eye-Witness
Testimony Of 'Bomb-Like' Explosion in North Tower Basement,” Arctic
Beacon.com, July 12, 2005.
8. “We Will Not Forget: A Day of Terror,” The Chief Engineer, July, 2002.
9. Christopher Bollyn, “New Seismic Data Refutes Official Explanation,”
American Free Press, Updated April 12, 2004
(http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_
02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html).
10. Quoted in Dennis Smith, Report from Ground Zero: The Story of the
Rescue Efforts at the World Trade Center (New York: Penguin, 2002), 18.
11. “911 Tapes Tell Horror Of 9/11,” Part 2, "Tapes Released For First
Time," NBC TV, June 17, 2002 (www.wnbc.com/news/1315651/detail.html]).
12. Greg Szymanski, “NY Fireman Lou Cacchioli Upset that 9/11 Commission
'Tried to Twist My Words,’” Arctic Beacon.com, July 19, 2005. Although
the oral histories that were released on August 12 did not include one
from Cacchioli, the fact that he was on duty is confirmed in the oral
history of Thomas Turilli, page 4.
13. Dean E. Murphy, September 11: An Oral History (New York: Doubleday,
2002), 9-15.
14. BBC, Sept. 11, 2001.
15. Quoted in Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero: Stories
of Courage and Compassion (Indianapolis: Alpha Books, 2002), 65-66, 68.
16. John Bussey, “Eye of the Storm: One Journey Through Desperation and
Chaos,” Wall Street Journal, September 12, 2001
(http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/040802pulitzer5.htm).
17. Alicia Shepard, Cathy Trost, and Newseum, Running Toward Danger:
Stories Behind the Breaking News of 9/11, Foreword by Tom Brokaw (Lanham,
Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002), 87.
18. Quoted in Judith Sylvester and Suzanne Huffman, Women Journalists at
Ground Zero (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002), 19.
19. The film clip has been made available by Jeff King at
http://xenonpuppy.net/collapse%20update/discussion%20in%20firehouse.mpg;
the transcript is at http://xenonpuppy.net/collapse%20update/Engine-
7.htm.
20. Oral History of John Sudnik, 4 (for where to find the 9/11 oral
histories of the FDNY, see note 3, above).
21. Oral History of Timothy Julian, 10.
22. Oral History of Michael Ober, 4.
23. Oral History of Frank Cruthers, 4.
24. Oral History of Lonnie Penn, 5.
25. Oral History of Paul Curran, 11.
26. Oral History of Bradley Mann, 5-7.
27. Oral History of Kevin Darnowski, 8.
28. Oral History of Gregg Brady, 7.
29. Oral History of Thomas Turilli, 4.
30. Oral History of Craig Carlsen, 5-6.
31. Oral History of Joseph Meola, 5.
32. Oral History of Daniel Rivera, 9.
33. Oral History of Timothy Burke, 8-9.
34. Oral History of Edward Cachia, 5.
35. Oral History of James Walsh, 15.
36. Oral History of Stephen Gregory, 14-16.
37. Oral History of Karin Deshore, 15.
38. Ibid.
39. Oral History of Richard Banaciski, 3-4.
40. Oral History of Thomas Fitzpatrick, 13-14.
41. Oral history of Jay Swithers, 5.
42. Oral History of James Curran, 10-11.
43. Oral History of Brian Dixon, 15. Like many others, Dixon indicated
that he later came to accept the official interpretation, adding: “Then I
guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it
just collapsed. That's what blew out the windows, not that there was an
explosion there but that windows blew out.”
44. See, for example, Eric Hufschmid’s Painful Questions: An Analysis of
the September 11th Attack (Goleta, Calif.: Endpoint Software, 2002); Jim
Hoffman’s website (http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html); and Jeff
King’s website (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-
home.html-.html), especially “The World Trade Center Collapse: How Strong
is the Evidence for a Controlled Demolition?”
45. Oral History of Stephen Viola, 3.
46. Oral History of Angel Rivera, 7.
47. Oral History of William Wall, 9.
48. Oral History of Louis Cook, 8, 35.
49. The demolition of the Kingdome can be viewed at the website of
Controlled Demolition, Inc. (http://www.controlled-
demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030317140323), that of
the Reading Grain Facility at ImplosionWorld.com
(http://implosionworld.com/reading.html). I am indebted to Jim Hoffman
for help on this and several other issues.
50. See the writings of Hufschmid, Hoffman, and King mentioned in note
44.
51. For a calculation of the energy required simply for the expansion of
one of the resulting dust clouds, see Jim Hoffman, “The North Tower's
Dust Cloud” (http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volume.html).
Hoffman concludes that gravitational energy would have been far from
sufficient.
52. Oral History of Dominick DeRubbio, 5. DeRubbio, at least professing
to accept the official interpretation, added, “but I guess it was just
the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.”
53. Oral History of Kenneth Rogers, 3-4.
54. Oral History of Christopher Fenyo, 6-7.
55. Oral History of William Reynolds, 8.
56. Dwyer, “City to Release Thousands of Oral Histories of 9/11 Today.”
57. Randy Lavello, "Bombs in the Building"; Prison Planet.com
(http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lavello_050503_bombs.html).
58. Greg Szymanski, "NY Fireman Lou Cacchioli Upset that 9/11 Commission
'Tried to Twist My Words'" Arctic Beacon.com, July 19, 2005.
59. Greg Szymanski, "WTC Basement Blast and Injured Burn Victim Blows
'Official 9/11 Story' Sky High," Arctic Beacon.com, June 24, 2005.
60. See MSNBC, "Officer: 9/11 Panel Didn't Pursue Atta Claim" August 17,
2005 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8985244&&CM=EmailThis&CE=1), and Philip
Shenon, "Navy Officer Affirms Assertions about Pre-9/11 Data on Atta,"
New York Times, August 22, 2005.
61. For other items, see David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report:
Omissions and Distortions (Northampton: Interlink, 2005).
62. Greg Szymanski, "WTC Basement Blast and Injured Burn Victim Blows
'Official 9/11 Story' Sky High," Arctic Beacon.com, June 24, 2005.
63. See Kevin Ryan, "Propping Up the War on Terror: Lies about the WTC by
NIST and Underwriters Laboratories," in David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale
Scott, eds., 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out
(Northampton, Mass.: Interlink Books, Fall 2006), and Jim Hoffman,
"Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the
Crime of the Century"
(http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html).
64. Oral History of Timothy Julian, 10.
65. Oral History of James Drury, 12.
66. Liz Else, "Baltimore Blasters," New Scientist 183/2457 (July 24,
2004), 48 (http://archive.newscientist.com/secure/article/article.jsp?rp=
1&id=mg18324575.700). Surprisingly, after explaining how precisely
explosives must be set to ensure that a building comes straight down,
Loizeaux said that upon seeing the fires in the Twin Towers, he knew that
they were "going to pancake down, almost vertically. It was the only way
they could fail. It was inevitable." Given the fact that fire had never
before caused tall steel-frame buildings to collapse, let alone in a way
that perfectly mimicked controlled demolition, Loizeaux's statement was
doubly puzzling. His company, incidentally, was hired to do the clean-up
of the WTC site after 9/11.
67. I could not have written this essay without the amazingly generous
help of Matthew Everett, who located and passed on to me most of the
statements in the 9/11 oral histories quoted herein.
______________________________
David Ray Griffin is professor emeritus of philosophy of religion and
theology at the Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate
University, where he taught 31 years. He has published some 30 books,
including The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush
Administration and 9/11 (Interlink Books, 2004) and The 9/11 Commission
Report: Omissions and Distortions (Interlink Books, 2005).
© David Ray Griffin.
911truth.org hereby grants to all readers of this website permission to
link to any and all articles found in the public areas of the website,
www.911truth.org, so long as the full source URL
(http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192, in this
case) is posted with the article.
Phil Cav
posting conspiracy theories on Usenet. Just trying to help.
"TRUTH" <TR...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns974FDB0...@130.81.64.196...
> "It just descended like a timed explosion-like when they are deliberately
Freedom Fighter
news:1137644771.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
One more crazy troll to killfile!
-------------------------------
HOW TO DEFEAT THE TROLLS
An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord
on the Internet. He or she slanders others and seeks to cause
conflicts and upset people. Trolls are malicious, antisocial,
and often mentally ill. They crave attention, and care not
whether it is positive or negative. The Internet is a
convenient venue for their bizarre, misanthropic games - a
means to abuse others without fear of retaliation. Trolls are
cowards - lacking the courage to be overtly hostile towards
people, they hide behind their computers and the anonymity of
the Internet. The troll is a less intelligent version of the
malicious hacker or virus writer.
Trolls are impervious to meaningful dialogue. You CANNOT reason
with them and you CANNOT cause them to feel shame or
compassion. Trolls do not feel bound by rules of courtesy or
social responsibility. They are simply not playing with a full
deck. It is futile to try to "cure" a troll of his obsession.
Trolls are irrational and not accessible through any sane approach.
Established posters may leave a newsgroup/message board because
of troll-created conflicts, and lurkers (readers that do not
post) may not want to expose themselves to abuse and therefore
never speak up. Thus they unwisely allow the troll to violate
their rights of free speech and expression. The Internet is a
vital resource - and probably the last stand for free speech.
Being antisocial, trolls hate this and try to subvert it.
When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you curse at
a troll, he wins. If he succeeds in angering you, he's succeeded.
THE ONLY THING THE TROLL CAN'T HANDLE IS BEING IGNORED -
having NO EFFECT on his intended targets!
So the best way to deal with trolls is to IGNORE THEM and
occasionally (and ONLY occasionally) remind others not to
respond to them either.
Hard to ignore? You can set up your computer to AUTOMATICALLY
ignore the troll by using your KILLFILE. Just go to the
offensive message, and bring your pointer to the "MESSAGE" tab
near the top of your screen. Click, and a menu opens. Go to and
click on "BLOCK SENDER." You will no longer see any of the
sender's posts from that account. This is called "plonking" the troll.
Ignored, these children will have to find another game to play.
bill allemann
fantasies.
at least you'd have a little fun along the way (and you'd clear up some
clutter on the net).
try it
Freedom Fighter
news:PHUzf.12087$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
If you think they are mere fantasies, why don't you open-mindedly check out
the EVIDENCE -
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB - and HERE IS THE PROOF:
The deliberate demolition by explosives of WTC building 7, just hours after
the collapse of the twin towers, is a matter of record, not one requiring
proof. The planes that struck the towers did not structurally damage
building 7, and no steel frame building has EVER collapsed from a fire.
WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein himself stated in a PBS documentary that
building 7 was "pulled," meaning deliberately collapsed by explosives. This
is an ADMISSION. It is fully documented, with sound clips and videos, here:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/012004watson.html
Silverstein made BILLIONS in insurance settlements from the 9/11 tragedy,
and strangely, the 9/11 Commission never required his testimony. Their final
report IGNORED building 7 entirely!
Explosive demolitions take considerable time to set up (see
http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm). The explosives
could not possibly have been properly placed around the structural supports
and wired for detonation in building 7, which was on fire, in the few hours
between the attacks and that building's collapse. Yet that collapse was
clearly a professionally executed demolition by explosives.
Therefore -
THE DEMOLITION EXPLOSIVES IN BUILDING 7 WERE PUT IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE
PLANES IMPACTING THE TWIN TOWERS!
Therefore -
The 9/11 attacks were KNOWN OF IN ADVANCE, and DELIBERATELY ALLOWED TO
OCCUR! It was intended beforehand that building 7 and the twin towers all be
completely destroyed, KILLING THE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE REMAINING IN THEM!
The above documented facts alone do not rigorously prove that previously
placed explosives likewise brought down the twin towers, but see the
following information:
A paper published by Steven E. Jones, Professor of Physics, Brigham Young
University, concludes that prepositioned demolition explosives brought down
all three collapsed WTC buildings, not the plane impacts or fires. Photos,
audio, and video clips accompany this report. You can see this at
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Further proof can be found at:
http://www.attackonamerica.net/proofofcontrolleddemolitionatwtc.htm
This author has a master's degree in Engineering from Stanford University,
and a Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Oregon.
Two unexplained "spikes" in seismic records indicate huge bursts of energy
shook the ground beneath the twin towers immediately prior to their
collapse.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html
Many deniers of these unprecedented crimes of mass murder are simply
psychologically incapable of considering them possible. Misled by the
corporate/government controlled media, deceived by an elaborate cover-up,
and indoctrinated with a perverted sense of "patriotism," they are under the
delusion that only barbaric foreign terrorists could commit such inhuman
atrocities. But foreign terrorists could not have planted demolition
explosives in advance. HOMELAND TERRORISTS had to do that! The implications
of this are literally unthinkable to many, which is just what the evil
perpetrators of this crime against humanity are counting on.
Given the shock and horror, the massive death and destruction of these
events, irrational denial is understandable. History reveals despicable acts
of terror by unscrupulous powers in the USSR, Germany, China, and elsewhere.
Why would this evil side of human nature not surface here in America?
Overcoming denial and exposing the truth is the only hope for saving us from
a fascist regime of vicious killers as bad as the Nazis ever were. Should we
wait to find out if they can be even worse?
CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS AND THE SENATE. DEMAND A NEW AND
INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF THIS CRIME OF THE CENTURY!
More 9/11 documentation:
http://www.911truth.org/index.php
http://www.911proof.com
http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/index.html
www.reopen911.org
www.infowars.com
http://911truthmovement.org
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/
http://911research.wtc7.net/
http://standdown.net/
http://www.911truestory.com/
http://www.911blogger.com/
http://911review.com/
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/911page.htm
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/230904_whistleblowers.html
http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/unanswered_questions_911.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm
http://www.911busters.com
http://www.911citizenswatch.org
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
sanjian
> "bill allemann" <custo...@sbcglobalDOTnet.invalid> wrote in message
> news:PHUzf.12087$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> even drinking to excess would be a better obsession than your
>> conspiracy fantasies.
>>
>> at least you'd have a little fun along the way (and you'd clear up
>> some clutter on the net).
>>
>> try it
> ----------------------
> If you think they are mere fantasies, why don't you open-mindedly
> check out the EVIDENCE -
>
> 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB - and HERE IS THE PROOF:
Proof by assertion does not qualify as proof.
> The deliberate demolition by explosives of WTC building 7, just hours
> after the collapse of the twin towers, is a matter of record, not one
> requiring proof. The planes that struck the towers did not
> structurally damage building 7, and no steel frame building has EVER
> collapsed from a fire.
Really? When does steel lose 50% of its rated strength? 90%? How hot does
a fire involveing jet fuel get? If you know even the most basic facts
regarding materials, you can't see how there was any other possible outcome.
> WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein himself stated in a PBS documentary
> that building 7 was "pulled," meaning deliberately collapsed by
> explosives. This is an ADMISSION. It is fully documented, with sound
> clips and videos, here: http://www.prisonplanet.com/012004watson.html
And he's an expert? Where are his certifications? Where does he get his
knowledge of how structures react when they're "pulled" vice collapse
because steel that's acting like a cooked noodle can't support hundreds of
stories of weight?
> Silverstein made BILLIONS in insurance settlements from the 9/11
> tragedy, and strangely, the 9/11 Commission never required his
> testimony. Their final report IGNORED building 7 entirely!
Why would they care about his testimony?
> Explosive demolitions take considerable time to set up (see
> http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm). The
> explosives could not possibly have been properly placed around the
> structural supports and wired for detonation in building 7, which was
> on fire, in the few hours between the attacks and that building's
Or, it could be (wait for it) that the only explosives used were two very
large piloted missles we call airliners.
> collapse. Yet that collapse was clearly a professionally executed
> demolition by explosives.
Your adding "clearly" does not make it so.
Ah well, you kooks are always good for diversion and amusement, but I've got
more important stuff to do. Carpet needs vacuuming.
Freedom Fighter
news:dqp7q4$hu5$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
> Freedom Fighter wrote:
>> "bill allemann" <custo...@sbcglobalDOTnet.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:PHUzf.12087$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>> even drinking to excess would be a better obsession than your
>>> conspiracy fantasies.
>>>
>>> at least you'd have a little fun along the way (and you'd clear up
>>> some clutter on the net).
>>>
>>> try it
>> ----------------------
>> If you think they are mere fantasies, why don't you open-mindedly
>> check out the EVIDENCE -
>>
>> 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB - and HERE IS THE PROOF:
>
> Proof by assertion does not qualify as proof.
Have you read all the links?
Where is the error in the logic that the explosives had to be in place, in
building 7 at least, prior to the attack?
>> The deliberate demolition by explosives of WTC building 7, just hours
>> after the collapse of the twin towers, is a matter of record, not one
>> requiring proof. The planes that struck the towers did not
>> structurally damage building 7, and no steel frame building has EVER
>> collapsed from a fire.
>
> Really? When does steel lose 50% of its rated strength? 90%? How hot
> does a fire involveing jet fuel get?
Not hot enough to melt or even significantly soften steel. The jet fuel
burned off within a few minutes, leaving only ordinary fires fueled by
furniture, etc.
> If you know even the most basic facts regarding materials, you can't see
> how there was any other possible outcome.
This is documented on some of the referenced websites.
>> WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein himself stated in a PBS documentary
>> that building 7 was "pulled," meaning deliberately collapsed by
>> explosives. This is an ADMISSION. It is fully documented, with sound
>> clips and videos, here: http://www.prisonplanet.com/012004watson.html
>
> And he's an expert? Where are his certifications? Where does he get his
> knowledge of how structures react when they're "pulled" vice collapse
> because steel that's acting like a cooked noodle can't support hundreds of
> stories of weight?
The fires could not have heated the steel sufficiently to cause collapse. In
fact, NO STEEL FRAME BUILDING has EVER collapsed from a fire. The steel
frame always remains standing.
>> Silverstein made BILLIONS in insurance settlements from the 9/11
>> tragedy, and strangely, the 9/11 Commission never required his
>> testimony. Their final report IGNORED building 7 entirely!
>
> Why would they care about his testimony?
Because of the suspicious collapse of building 7, and the fact that if the
explosives were placed prior to the attacks, they may have been placed in
the towers prior to the attacks too. They apparently wanted to draw
attention away from this, not towards it. Can you see a possible COVERUP
here?
>> Explosive demolitions take considerable time to set up (see
>> http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm). The
>> explosives could not possibly have been properly placed around the
>> structural supports and wired for detonation in building 7, which was
>> on fire, in the few hours between the attacks and that building's
>
> Or, it could be (wait for it) that the only explosives used were two very
> large piloted missles we call airliners.
Insufficient to bring down the towers, and they did no significant damage to
building 7.
>> collapse. Yet that collapse was clearly a professionally executed
>> demolition by explosives.
>
> Your adding "clearly" does not make it so.
OK. But I do point to the evidence and testimony. Have you read it with an
open mind?
> Ah well, you kooks are always good for diversion and amusement, but I've
> got more important stuff to do. Carpet needs vacuuming.
Ah well, ad-hominem attack is always the refuge of unintelligent and
immature people that can't refute an opinion with logic or facts, so they
resort to childishly attacking the person that holds the opinion.
Pathetic.
JTMcC
"Freedom Fighter" <lib...@once.net> wrote in message
news:4xWzf.505778$zb5.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> The fires could not have heated the steel sufficiently to cause collapse.
> In fact, NO STEEL FRAME BUILDING has EVER collapsed from a fire. The steel
> frame always remains standing.
5 minutes of searching and any 5th grader can disprove that completely false
statement. Steel buildings failing during fires is well documented and well
studied. But the facts would run contrary to your whacked out conspiracy
theory so continue on, at least you're sitting at a computer spewing crap
rather than out on the street.
JTMcC.
sanjian
> "sanjian" <mill...@vt.edu> wrote in message
> news:dqp7q4$hu5$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
>> Proof by assertion does not qualify as proof.
>
> Have you read all the links?
> Where is the error in the logic that the explosives had to be in
> place, in building 7 at least, prior to the attack?
The error is in assuming explosives, other than big-ass air-o-planes were
used at all.
>>> The deliberate demolition by explosives of WTC building 7, just
>>> hours after the collapse of the twin towers, is a matter of record,
>>> not one requiring proof. The planes that struck the towers did not
>>> structurally damage building 7, and no steel frame building has EVER
>>> collapsed from a fire.
>>
>> Really? When does steel lose 50% of its rated strength? 90%? How
>> hot does a fire involveing jet fuel get?
>
> Not hot enough to melt or even significantly soften steel. The jet
> fuel burned off within a few minutes, leaving only ordinary fires
> fueled by furniture, etc.
Bullshit. I've done shipboard firefighting. I know better. None the less,
you still haven't answered the question.
>> If you know even the most basic facts regarding materials, you can't
>> see how there was any other possible outcome.
>
> This is documented on some of the referenced websites.
Documented with half-truths, gigantic leaps to conclusions, and sheer
fantasy. I've got higher standards than that.
>>> WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein himself stated in a PBS
>>> documentary that building 7 was "pulled," meaning deliberately
>>> collapsed by explosives. This is an ADMISSION. It is fully
>>> documented, with sound clips and videos, here:
>>> http://www.prisonplanet.com/012004watson.html
>>
>> And he's an expert? Where are his certifications? Where does he
>> get his knowledge of how structures react when they're "pulled" vice
>> collapse because steel that's acting like a cooked noodle can't
>> support hundreds of stories of weight?
>
> The fires could not have heated the steel sufficiently to cause
You can't even tell me what those temperatures -are-. How the hell can you
say that they didn't reach them?
> collapse. In fact, NO STEEL FRAME BUILDING has EVER collapsed from a
> fire. The steel frame always remains standing.
The two steel-frame buildings that -did- collapse from a fire, you won't
accept.
And, generally speaking, we don't ram jet liners into most steel-frame
buildings, so most of them never have the chance to get that hot. Also,
modern steel frames require fire coating -specifically- to prevent the steel
from losing strength like they did in the WTC.
>>> Silverstein made BILLIONS in insurance settlements from the 9/11
>>> tragedy, and strangely, the 9/11 Commission never required his
>>> testimony. Their final report IGNORED building 7 entirely!
>>
>> Why would they care about his testimony?
>
> Because of the suspicious collapse of building 7, and the fact that
> if the explosives were placed prior to the attacks, they may have
> been placed in the towers prior to the attacks too. They apparently
> wanted to draw attention away from this, not towards it. Can you see
> a possible COVERUP here?
You have yet to explain why he would specifically have anything valid to
say. Or is this one of the "the magnitude of the charge outweighs the
nature of the evidence" type deals?
>>> Explosive demolitions take considerable time to set up (see
>>> http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm). The
>>> explosives could not possibly have been properly placed around the
>>> structural supports and wired for detonation in building 7, which
>>> was on fire, in the few hours between the attacks and that building's
>>
>> Or, it could be (wait for it) that the only explosives used were two
>> very large piloted missles we call airliners.
>
> Insufficient to bring down the towers, and they did no significant
> damage to building 7.
The crash didn't have to. The fire was much better suited.
>>> collapse. Yet that collapse was clearly a professionally executed
>>> demolition by explosives.
>>
>> Your adding "clearly" does not make it so.
>
> OK. But I do point to the evidence and testimony. Have you read it
> with an open mind?
Some of it. If you feed me bullshit in the first few pages, though, I'm not
going to bother reading the rest. I've got better things to do with my time
than read what's already proven to be lies.
>> Ah well, you kooks are always good for diversion and amusement, but
>> I've got more important stuff to do. Carpet needs vacuuming.
>
> Ah well, ad-hominem attack is always the refuge of unintelligent and
> immature people that can't refute an opinion with logic or facts, so
> they resort to childishly attacking the person that holds the opinion.
>
> Pathetic.
Oh, wah. Someone on the interwebs was a little bit harsh with you. Poor
widdle kook.
sanjian
Just add that to the long list of lies Freedom Fighter has spouted here.
Don't waste your time with this one, folks. I at least look into stuff like
this on principle, but there's no need for others to throw away their hours.
TRUTH
news:dqpk30$7nr$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu:
> Freedom Fighter wrote:
>> "sanjian" <mill...@vt.edu> wrote in message
>> news:dqp7q4$hu5$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
>
>>> Proof by assertion does not qualify as proof.
>>
>> Have you read all the links?
>> Where is the error in the logic that the explosives had to be in
>> place, in building 7 at least, prior to the attack?
>
> The error is in assuming explosives, other than big-ass air-o-planes
> were used at all.
WTC7 was NOT hit by an airplane. You should aquaint yourself with the
facts before embarrassing yourself like this.
>
>>>> The deliberate demolition by explosives of WTC building 7, just
>>>> hours after the collapse of the twin towers, is a matter of record,
>>>> not one requiring proof. The planes that struck the towers did not
>>>> structurally damage building 7, and no steel frame building has
>>>> EVER collapsed from a fire.
>>>
>>> Really? When does steel lose 50% of its rated strength? 90%? How
>>> hot does a fire involveing jet fuel get?
>>
>> Not hot enough to melt or even significantly soften steel. The jet
>> fuel burned off within a few minutes, leaving only ordinary fires
>> fueled by furniture, etc.
>
> Bullshit. I've done shipboard firefighting. I know better. None the
> less, you still haven't answered the question.
Are you an engineer? Sorry, but your "shipboard firefighting" doesn't cut
it
>
>>> If you know even the most basic facts regarding materials, you can't
>>> see how there was any other possible outcome.
>>
>> This is documented on some of the referenced websites.
>
> Documented with half-truths, gigantic leaps to conclusions, and sheer
> fantasy. I've got higher standards than that.
HA! Prove it!
>
>>>> WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein himself stated in a PBS
>>>> documentary that building 7 was "pulled," meaning deliberately
>>>> collapsed by explosives. This is an ADMISSION. It is fully
>>>> documented, with sound clips and videos, here:
>>>> http://www.prisonplanet.com/012004watson.html
>>>
>>> And he's an expert? Where are his certifications? Where does he
>>> get his knowledge of how structures react when they're "pulled" vice
>>> collapse because steel that's acting like a cooked noodle can't
>>> support hundreds of stories of weight?
>>
>> The fires could not have heated the steel sufficiently to cause
>
> You can't even tell me what those temperatures -are-. How the hell
> can you say that they didn't reach them?
>
>> collapse. In fact, NO STEEL FRAME BUILDING has EVER collapsed from a
>> fire. The steel frame always remains standing.
>
> The two steel-frame buildings that -did- collapse from a fire, you
> won't accept.
And where are these buildings? Fantasy land? Don't forget we are talking
about total collapse.
Have you even watched the video clips of WTC7 collapsing? If you think
that was anything other than controlled demoltions then you've got some
serious brain delusion problems my friend.
f...@chello.nl
"abRokeNegRo" <bigba...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:1137644771.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
One more crazy troll to killfile!
*******************************************************************************************
'Freedom Fighter' and the infamous US 'Lie Factory' - Url.:
http://tinyurl.com/8ncal
He who works for the Lie Factory is a person who is paid for sowing
discord
on the Internet among those who are presenting real facts concerning
the inhumane neocon swindle.
He or she slanders others and seeks to cause conflicts and upset
people. The people prostituting themselves for the Lie Factory are
malicious, antisocial, and often mentally ill.
The Internet is a convenient venue for their bizarre, misanthropic
games - a means to abuse others, who without fear of retaliation
honestly publish the fats about the criminality of the racket running
the US and using human beings for profit.
All of those neocon Quislings are cowards - lacking the courage to be
overtly hostile towards people, they hide behind their 'Lie Factory'
computers and the anonymity of
the Internet. These Lie Factory's trolls are a less intelligent version
of the malicious hacker or virus writer: they sell themselves, take
their 30 Judas silver coins and betray humanity.
CONNECT THE DOTS: THE 'GREAT DEPRESSION' WAS INCREDIBLY BAD, BUT WHERE
LAY THE ORIGIN? AND BELIEVE ME: NOTING HAS CHANGED SINCE THE DAYS OF
MARTIN LUTHER:
Quote Wikipedia over de 'Grapes of Wrath': "The novel details the
nearly hopeless situation of the downtrodden American farmer in the
years of the Great Depression, and emphasizes cooperative solutions to
the social problems brought about by industrialization.. Url.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grapes_of_Wrath
HOW THE CITY OF LONDON CREATED THE GREAT DEPRESSION - by Webster
G. Tarpley - December, 1996 - Url.: http://www.tarpley.net/29crash.htm
Very to the Lie Factory and it's malignant Masters related:
* "Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we
Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets
and lynched." - George Bush Senior speaking in an interview with
Sarah McClendon in December 1992. - 'The Demonic Cabal - (excellent
article!) Url.: http://tinyurl.com/bvtvd
* MSNBC - Live Vote: Do you believe President Bush's actions justify
impeachment? - Url.: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/
* "Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles
to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful." - Henry Kissinger
speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 Bilderburgers meeting.
Unbeknownst to Kissinger, his speech was taped by a Swiss delegate to
the meeting.
* And global warcriminal Henry Kissinger and his ilk succeeded, but
nobody apart from 'them' was 'grateful'. On the contrary: own US troops
- even with tanks - appeared in the streets of Los Angeles: against
anti-war protesters! - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/7qh65
* One of the best videos made: British MP George Galloway has told US
senators who accused him of profiting from Iraq oil dealings their
claims were the "mother of all smokescreens". - Full testimony in
transcript and a video which is a great pleasure to watch, seeing
Galloway sweep the floor with neocon rat Coleman - 47 Minutes - Url.:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8868.htm
* 'American Military Personnel - Know Why You're Being Sacrificed' - by
Robert L. Johnson: "When I joined the United States Marines in
September of 1973, I swore an oath..." - Url.:
http://tinyurl.com/75pl3
* 'The war in Iraq is illegal' - BBC: video & text-interview of the
United Nation's Secretary General Kofi Annan -
Url.: http://tinyurl.com/5pl2v
* "People do not forget. They do not forget the death of their fellows,
they do not forget torture and mutilation, they do not forget
injustice, they do not forget oppression, they do not forget the
terrorism of mighty powers. They not only don't forget: they also
strike back." - 2005 Nobel Literature Prize winner Harold Pinter -
Url.: http://tinyurl.com/9cyeq
* Reference guide to the Geneva Conventions - Url.:
http://www.genevaconventions.org
* Al Qaeda - The Database - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/cqx69
* The 9/11 WTC drama was PNAC terror - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/9np7d
- It was an inside job - Google - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/7tj9d
* 'Anti-Semitism' - The Provocative Accusation - Url.:
http://tinyurl.com/8z6gd
* Who's financing? - The 'Federal Reserve' and it's usurers is the
absolute biggest crime against all humanity ever. - Url.:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm
* Wayne Madsen - ''The neo-cons have done to the U.S. Intelligence
Community what Hurricane Katrina did to the Gulf Coast and New Orleans.
America has never been weaker. Rather than creating a "New American
Century," the neo-cons have created a new global "Dark Age" of fear and
constant war.'' - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/bj754
* NWO letter: ''we can cancel your credit or freeze your accounts'' -
Url.: http://tinyurl.com/cjo7l
* The infamous US 'Lie Factory' - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/8ncal
*Read the Fightin' Cock Flyer - Url.:
http://fightincockflyer.blogspot.com/
* Help all the troops - of whatever nationality - to come back from
abroad! - AND WITH ALL THEIR WEAPONS, WHICH WE WERE FORCED TO PAY FOR
BY TAXES - [http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm ] - We need them badly
at home in many countries to fight with us against our so called
'governments' and their malignant managers - Url.:
http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/
FOREIGN PRESS FOUNDATION
http://forpressfound.blogspot.com/
Editor: Henk Ruyssenaars
http://tinyurl.com/amn3q
The Netherlands
f...@chello.nl
-0-
Freedom Fighter
news:hfYzf.140$qg...@news01.roc.ny...
I did not make up thestatement re. steel frame buildings; I have read it n
several places. I am an electrical engineer familiar enough with physics to
believe it.
Where is your proof that steel frame buildings have collapsed from fire
alone?
All you can prove is that you are more prone to personal attack than to
reasonable discussion.
Ad-hominem attack is the refuge of unintelligent and immature people that
Freedom Fighter
Have you read the links I've cited?
Why do you not want other people to do so?
Funny how we "conspiracy theorists" are able to refer to many credible
information sources, such as respected academics, but all the naysayers can
do is issue generalized denials and ad-hominem attacks.
Freedom Fighter
Just the sort of answer I expected. Goodbye, troll! You'll waste no more of
my time.
PLONK
sanjian
> "sanjian" <mill...@vt.edu> wrote in message
> news:dqpk61$7pr$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
>> JTMcC wrote:
>>> "Freedom Fighter" <lib...@once.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4xWzf.505778$zb5.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The fires could not have heated the steel sufficiently to cause
>>>> collapse. In fact, NO STEEL FRAME BUILDING has EVER collapsed from
>>>> a fire. The steel frame always remains standing.
>>>
>>> 5 minutes of searching and any 5th grader can disprove that
>>> completely false statement. Steel buildings failing during fires is
>>> well documented and well studied. But the facts would run contrary
>>> to your whacked out conspiracy theory so continue on, at least
>>> you're sitting at a computer spewing crap rather than out on the
>>> street.
>>
>> Just add that to the long list of lies Freedom Fighter has spouted
>> here. Don't waste your time with this one, folks. I at least look
>> into stuff like this on principle, but there's no need for others to
>> throw away their hours.
>
> Have you read the links I've cited?
Yes, I have. Didn't buy 'em.
> Why do you not want other people to do so?
They can if they wish. I'd just feel bad if I didn't warn them and they
wasted their time. It's too limited to waste on Lunar Landing deniers,
Holocaust Deniers, Pentagon Missle Advocates, Demolished WTC towers
advocates, and Santa Clause.
> Funny how we "conspiracy theorists" are able to refer to many credible
> information sources, such as respected academics, but all the
> naysayers can do is issue generalized denials and ad-hominem attacks.
Yadda, yadda. Your idea of "credible" and the rest of the world's clearly
don't jive. Just for the record, the rest of us don't consider "credible"
to mean "says what I want it to."
sanjian
>> Oh, wah. Someone on the interwebs was a little bit harsh with you. Poor
>> widdle kook.
>
> Just the sort of answer I expected. Goodbye, troll! You'll waste no
> more of my time.
> PLONK
Aww, hurt I am. I guess Freedom Fighter can't take people who don't buy
into his bullshit without question.
JTMcC
> "JTMcC" <firstra...@citlink.net> wrote in message
> news:hfYzf.140$qg...@news01.roc.ny...
>>
>> "Freedom Fighter" <lib...@once.net> wrote in message
>> news:4xWzf.505778$zb5.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>>>
>>> The fires could not have heated the steel sufficiently to cause
>>> collapse. In fact, NO STEEL FRAME BUILDING has EVER collapsed from a
>>> fire. The steel frame always remains standing.
>>
>> 5 minutes of searching and any 5th grader can disprove that completely
>> false statement. Steel buildings failing during fires is well documented
>> and well studied. But the facts would run contrary to your whacked out
>> conspiracy theory so continue on, at least you're sitting at a computer
>> spewing crap rather than out on the street.
>>
>> JTMcC.
> -----------
> I did not make up thestatement re. steel frame buildings; I have read it n
> several places.
I have no doubt, I've read of alien autopsies and just today while standing
in line at the grocery store I read about a baby born with 5 heads. Imagine
that.
I am an electrical engineer familiar enough with physics to
> believe it.
>
> Where is your proof that steel frame buildings have collapsed from fire
> alone?
Oh, some of it's in my library, some of it's on the internet.
JTMcC.
bill allemann
ever consider suicide?
<f...@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1137757603.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
f...@chello.nl
> it must be a miserable existance to be you.
> ever consider suicide?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are one of them! They pay your ilk to write! You should be ashamed
of yourself and the breed that does this to you! -
[http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm]
You and all the other Judasses will know what revenge is.
What about Massada?
P. Fritz
<f...@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1138128542.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> bill allemann wrote:
>> it must be a miserable existance to be you.
>> ever consider suicide?
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> You are one of them! They pay your ilk to write! You should be ashamed
> of yourself and the breed that does this to you! -
> [http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm]
>
> You and all the other Judasses will know what revenge is.
>
> What about Massada?
>
Damn Bill, you get paid to write? Where do I sign up LMAO
<maniacal rantings snipped>
RicodJour
> bill allemann wrote:
> > it must be a miserable existance to be you.
> > ever consider suicide?
>
>
> of yourself and the breed that does this to you! -
> [http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm]
Isn't that cute! He's found a playmate. Okay, boys, have fun and make
sure you're back before dark or the hobgoblins will get you.
> You and all the other Judasses will know what revenge is.
>
> What about Massada?
I see you're up on your current events. What about it?
R
Don Ocean
> bill allemann wrote:
>
>>it must be a miserable existance to be you.
>>ever consider suicide?
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> You are one of them! They pay your ilk to write! You should be ashamed
> of yourself and the breed that does this to you! -
> [http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm]
One of the major piracies of the great American people and now it has
spread world wide!
Igor The Terrible
size and type of structure as the north ot south tower? The miles of
wire, the amount of charges needed, and the man-hours involved? Not to
mention the logistics and the very invasiness of it????
Drilling...pulling wire, placing charges??? Do you think that kind of
activity will go unoticed?
So before you unleash more of your stupidity on this group, do some
goddamned research...and take some structural engineering and physics
classes while you are at it.
Controlled explosions..........? Good God, what will you people deram
up next?
All the more reason why controlled substances need to remain
controlled!
TRUTH wrote:
> "sanjian" <mill...@vt.edu> wrote in
> news:dqpk30$7nr$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu:
TRUTH
TRUTH wrote:
> >>> Proof by assertion does not qualify as proof.
Hey Gang, I wanted to apologize to everyone about my assertions of the
events that happened on 9/11.
I realize now how insensitive it was of me to keep bringing it up. This
is my last post about it.
Im sorry that I acted like an idiot.
The real TRUTH is, I have been taking lithiuim for my chemical
imbalance and well, it has left me in a drooling stupor. Not to
mention, my girlfriend left me for a younger man.
My mom doesn't talk to me anymore, and well...I've just had it really
rough...
Im very sorry that I went on like I did, I see now that 9/11 was what
it was.
Feeling so rejected on so many levels, I had stumbled across this group
of people who DID accept me just like I was. Did I mention that I now
have a wooden leg? Yes...this is not a big deal I realize, but at first
it was very depressing. I see now that I have a good source of
toothpics I just reach down with my pocket knife and have a splinter.
Im just kidding, but I had to joke about it..in order to feel more
comfortable with my wooden leg.
It's really too short and it makes my back hurt. That's besides the
point.
Well this morning I realize that nobody owes me anything, and I have
really showed my tail up in here and please accept my apologies.
Im almost in tears for having acted like such an idiot.
Thank You
TRUTH
bill allemann
be too cool!
bill
"P. Fritz" <paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet> wrote in message
news:11tcudv...@corp.supernews.com...
TRUTH
from the headers. The fuckhead below is nothing more than a derranged
"mutha-fucka" who thinks everything is a joke, and that Bush loves him.
Too bad. His head is rammed up his ass so far there's no chance for
reality. Pity.
"TRUTH" <bigba...@adelphia.net> wrote in news:1138199407.117637.47590
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
TRUTH
how much explosives would be needed? You brainwashed people are really
really silly
"Igor The Terrible" <igor_the...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in
news:1138198270.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
TRUTH
news:Xns9756E73...@130.81.64.196:
> You brainwashed people are
> really really silly
Especially those who can't tell via "common sense" that WTC7 came down from
controlled demolitions!!!
P. Fritz
up.
"bill allemann" <custo...@sbcglobalDOTnet.invalid> wrote in message
news:LWSBf.28015$PL5....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...