Were The WTC Towers Each Bombed at Floor 24 ??
RDElephant
passage on the 23rd and 24th floor of the North Tower, the location of the FBI
offices.
The full printed story is available on the CBS website:
http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,315156-412,00.shtml
The critical paragraphs are as follows:
In another part of the tower, Tabeek ran into the lobby to help. "As I ran
through the lobby of building one, I was hearing things popping, like rubber
bands. So I assumed the elevator cables were snapping."
He got a call that three Port Authority workers were trapped in a command
center on the 22nd floor. He informed a fire battalion chief that he was going
up to rescue them. The chief assigned a group of firefighters, led by Lt. Andy
Desperito.
The men walked up to the 22nd floor. Tabeek didn’t know that a second jet had
just struck Tower 2. When they reached the 22d floor of Tower 1, Desperito and
his men tunneled through the debris and opened up a path for those trapped
inside.
-------------------------
Was the 24th floor the level of the elevator swapovers (?) for transit to
higher floors ? Could those snapping sounds have been bombs/cutter charges ??
Would bombs at the 24th floor level have aided the implosion ?? What created
the rubble that blocked passage ??
Keep in mind that a firefighter (quoted below) escaped Tower 2 and reported
both rubble blockage and bombs at this same 24th floor level. Could one or the
other of these witnesses have been confused as to which tower he was in, or did
this occur in both towers ??
http://people.aol.com/people/special/0,11859,174592-3,00.html
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. I had just asked another firefighter to stay with me,
which was a good thing because we were trapped inside the elevator and he had
the tools to get out.
There were probably 500 people trapped in the stairwell. It was mass chaos. The
power went out. It was dark. Everybody was screaming. We had oxygen masks and
we were giving people oxygen. Some of us made it out and some of us didn't. I
know of at least 30 firefighters who are still missing. This is my 20th year. I
am seriously considering retiring. This might have done it.
------------------
And while the experts have scrambled to provide post hoc explanations for the
physics of what happened in those buildings without need of bombs, this is alot
of assumption premised on an unprecedented and unexpected occurence, with
little, if any, thought ever given to the possibility of additional explosives
in the building. I found instructive and telling the following article by R.
Shankar Nair, a Chicago structural engineer, who recently served as chairman of
the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, a Bethlehem, Pa.-based
international organization involved with the planning, design, construction and
management of tall buildings:
http://chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/oped/chi-0109190290sep19.story
The engineering investigations have only just begun, but already there is
near-consensus as to the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the
World Trade Center: The airplane impact and resulting fire some distance below
the top of each tower caused structural failure near the site of the impact and
collapse of the part of the building above that location. This collapsing mass
set off progressive collapse of the rest of the building (what the press has
been describing as a "pancaking" effect).
All of this may seem obvious in retrospect, but only in retrospect. Even among
designers of skyscrapers, not many of us can honestly say that we would have
anticipated this particular chain of events leading to complete structural
collapse from an airplane strike near the top of a tall building.
And it happened twice, so we cannot say that it was an aberrant structural
response.
I did not see the television pictures of the disaster until late Tuesday
evening, but I cannot say with confidence that had I immediately seen the TV
shots of the towers burning near the top, I would have predicted the subsequent
total collapse. (The comment heard on the street that the terrorists knew
exactly where to hit the buildings to bring them down gives the criminals too
much credit.)
-------------------------
Does this PROVE that the buildings were bombed ? No. Does it make it less than
an open and shut case that there were no bombs ?? Absolutely. So why is it
apparently being treated as such ??
And whether there were bombs or not, could the "unthinkability" of this as a
"Reichstag fire" be lessened in part by realizing that at least some (if not
all) of those planning and approving this criminal plan probably did not
realize that the towers coming down was probable or part of the plan ??
If I had to bet, I would say that the top American officials knew that multiple
hijackings were going to occur, but elected uin advance not to stop them as
pretext for the Afghan war. What they may not have known was that Mohammad
Atta was "our man" (i.e., Mossad/CIA/ISI) and that the bringing down of the
towers and attacking the Capitol was part of the plan.
Once they green-lighted the 'sit on our hands so we can have our Afghan war"
aerial defense strategy, the CIA/Mossad/ISI owned them. Shooting down Flight
93 to save the Capitol was all they could muster after they realized how far
their partners had gone.
I'd bet dollars to donuts that Dubyah's little trip to Nebraka was about
letting him absorb the enormity of what had hapened and exactly where he stood
in the center of this giant crime in the service of the "greater good." I also
get the feeling that in a perverse way he is almost trying to confess, what
with his discussion of taking over planes by remote control and going forward
with calling for a Palestinian state (and telling Sharon to shut his trap when
he complained).
Randy
agent86
>Dick Eastman has posted a summary of a 48 Hours story regarding rubble blocking
>passage on the 23rd and 24th floor of the North Tower, the location of the FBI
>offices.
>
>The full printed story is available on the CBS website:
>
>http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,315156-412,00.shtml
>
>The critical paragraphs are as follows:
>
>In another part of the tower, Tabeek ran into the lobby to help. "As I ran
>through the lobby of building one, I was hearing things popping, like rubber
>bands. So I assumed the elevator cables were snapping."
The critical word is "assumed".
>He got a call that three Port Authority workers were trapped in a command
>center on the 22nd floor. He informed a fire battalion chief that he was going
>up to rescue them. The chief assigned a group of firefighters, led by Lt. Andy
>Desperito.
>
>The men walked up to the 22nd floor. Tabeek didn’t know that a second jet had
>just struck Tower 2. When they reached the 22d floor of Tower 1, Desperito and
>his men tunneled through the debris and opened up a path for those trapped
>inside.
The dropped ceilings on many of the floors fell for one thing.
Without further description, you don't know if it was ceiling tiles,
turned over furniture or what.
>Was the 24th floor the level of the elevator swapovers (?) for transit to
>higher floors ?
No.
> Could those snapping sounds have been bombs/cutter charges ??
No.
>Would bombs at the 24th floor level have aided the implosion ??
No.
>What created
>the rubble that blocked passage ??
The crash of the aircraft into the towers. And you've moved from
"debris" to "rubble", Randy. Could be a BIG difference.
>Keep in mind that a firefighter (quoted below) escaped Tower 2 and reported
>both rubble blockage and bombs at this same 24th floor level. Could one or the
>other of these witnesses have been confused as to which tower he was in, or did
>this occur in both towers ??
Yes, he very well could have been confused.
>http://people.aol.com/people/special/0,11859,174592-3,00.html
>
>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. I had just asked another firefighter to stay with me,
>which was a good thing because we were trapped inside the elevator and he had
>the tools to get out.
>
>There were probably 500 people trapped in the stairwell. It was mass chaos. The
>power went out. It was dark. Everybody was screaming. We had oxygen masks and
>we were giving people oxygen. Some of us made it out and some of us didn't. I
>know of at least 30 firefighters who are still missing. This is my 20th year. I
>am seriously considering retiring. This might have done it.
His description doesn't match with others that have been offered. It
sounds like he was in building 1 when building 2 collapsed.
Why?
>So why is it apparently being treated as such ??
Treated as what? Both towers were of identical construction. Both
towers were hit by 767 aircraft. Both towers fell, the only
difference being the time required to fall. Why does that lead
anywhere near a conclusion that there were bombs? If there were
bombs, why didn't the towers (a) fall sooner, (b) at the same time, or
(c) in the same way?
>And whether there were bombs or not, could the "unthinkability" of this as a
>"Reichstag fire" be lessened in part by realizing that at least some (if not
>all) of those planning and approving this criminal plan probably did not
>realize that the towers coming down was probable or part of the plan ??
No. Since it wasn't a "Reichstag fire".
>If I had to bet, I would say that the top American officials knew that multiple
>hijackings were going to occur, but elected uin advance not to stop them as
>pretext for the Afghan war. What they may not have known was that Mohammad
>Atta was "our man" (i.e., Mossad/CIA/ISI) and that the bringing down of the
>towers and attacking the Capitol was part of the plan.
You'd probably lose that bet.
>Once they green-lighted the 'sit on our hands so we can have our Afghan war"
>aerial defense strategy, the CIA/Mossad/ISI owned them. Shooting down Flight
>93 to save the Capitol was all they could muster after they realized how far
>their partners had gone.
But they didn't shoot down Flight 93.
>I'd bet dollars to donuts that Dubyah's little trip to Nebraka was about
>letting him absorb the enormity of what had hapened and exactly where he stood
>in the center of this giant crime in the service of the "greater good." I also
>get the feeling that in a perverse way he is almost trying to confess, what
>with his discussion of taking over planes by remote control and going forward
>with calling for a Palestinian state (and telling Sharon to shut his trap when
>he complained).
You're really into betting, aren't you, Randy?
RDElephant
>Date: 11/27/2001 7:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3c042f07...@news.icx.net>
>
>On 27 Nov 2001 06:20:13 GMT, rdele...@aol.com (RDElephant) wrote:
>
>>Dick Eastman has posted a summary of a 48 Hours story regarding rubble
>blocking
>>passage on the 23rd and 24th floor of the North Tower, the location of the
>FBI
>>offices.
>>
>>The full printed story is available on the CBS website:
>>
>>http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,315156-412,00.shtml
>>
>>The critical paragraphs are as follows:
>>
>>In another part of the tower, Tabeek ran into the lobby to help. "As I ran
>>through the lobby of building one, I was hearing things popping, like rubber
>>bands. So I assumed the elevator cables were snapping."
>
>The critical word is "assumed".
Actually, the critical words are the description of popping sounds. I agree
that attributing that to the cables is speculative, but still somewhat
informative as to the nature of the popping.
>>He got a call that three Port Authority workers were trapped in a command
>>center on the 22nd floor. He informed a fire battalion chief that he was
>going
>>up to rescue them. The chief assigned a group of firefighters, led by Lt.
>Andy
>>Desperito.
>>
>>The men walked up to the 22nd floor. Tabeek didn’t know that a second
jet
>had
>>just struck Tower 2. When they reached the 22d floor of Tower 1, Desperito
>and
>>his men tunneled through the debris and opened up a path for those trapped
>>inside.
>
>The dropped ceilings on many of the floors fell for one thing.
>Without further description, you don't know if it was ceiling tiles,
>turned over furniture or what.
>
>>Was the 24th floor the level of the elevator swapovers (?) for transit to
>>higher floors ?
>
>No.
>
>> Could those snapping sounds have been bombs/cutter charges ??
>
>No.
Why ?
>>Would bombs at the 24th floor level have aided the implosion ??
>
>No.
Why ?
>>What created
>>the rubble that blocked passage ??
>
>The crash of the aircraft into the towers. And you've moved from
>"debris" to "rubble", Randy. Could be a BIG difference.
How would the aircraft striking the Tower several dozen floors above create
insurmountable rubble on the 24th floor ??
(snip)
>>Does this PROVE that the buildings were bombed ? No. Does it make it less
>than
>>an open and shut case that there were no bombs ?? Absolutely.
>
>Why?
>
>>So why is it apparently being treated as such ??
>
>Treated as what? Both towers were of identical construction. Both
>towers were hit by 767 aircraft. Both towers fell, the only
>difference being the time required to fall. Why does that lead
>anywhere near a conclusion that there were bombs?
Both planes hit WELL above the 24th floor. Why insurmountable rubble there
prior to either buildings' collapse ????
Also, the firefighter claimed that there were bombs and the other security guy
described snapping which could have been bombs.
If there were
>bombs, why didn't the towers (a) fall sooner, (b) at the same time, or
>(c) in the same way?
A) I don't know, maybe their function was not to bring the building down
immediately but to destroy evidence in the FBI office on the 23rd and 24th
floors of the North Tower and/or to speed or assure collapse but not cause it
immediately.
B) The "bombs" did not occur at the same time
C) Any diference could be attributed to the different placement of the aircraft
strikes.
>>And whether there were bombs or not, could the "unthinkability" of this as a
>>"Reichstag fire" be lessened in part by realizing that at least some (if not
>>all) of those planning and approving this criminal plan probably did not
>>realize that the towers coming down was probable or part of the plan ??
>
>No. Since it wasn't a "Reichstag fire".
Cite ? Argument ?
>>If I had to bet, I would say that the top American officials knew that
>multiple
>>hijackings were going to occur, but elected uin advance not to stop them as
>>pretext for the Afghan war. What they may not have known was that Mohammad
>>Atta was "our man" (i.e., Mossad/CIA/ISI) and that the bringing down of the
>>towers and attacking the Capitol was part of the plan.
>
>You'd probably lose that bet.
I'd want odds.
>>Once they green-lighted the 'sit on our hands so we can have our Afghan war"
>>aerial defense strategy, the CIA/Mossad/ISI owned them. Shooting down
>Flight
>>93 to save the Capitol was all they could muster after they realized how far
>>their partners had gone.
>
>But they didn't shoot down Flight 93.
Sure they did, debris doesn't make it 8 miles in a few minutes froma nosedive
into the ground ... only from an explosive. The people of Pennsylvania know it
was shot down by that F-16 on its tail, so will everyone else soon.
>>I'd bet dollars to donuts that Dubyah's little trip to Nebraka was about
>>letting him absorb the enormity of what had hapened and exactly where he
>stood
>>in the center of this giant crime in the service of the "greater good." I
>also
>>get the feeling that in a perverse way he is almost trying to confess, what
>>with his discussion of taking over planes by remote control and going
>forward
>>with calling for a Palestinian state (and telling Sharon to shut his trap
>when
>>he complained).
>
>You're really into betting, aren't you, Randy?
Just a figure of speech, but yeah, I am a gambler at heart.
Randy
RDElephant
>would have seen the entire building above that point drop. Therefore,
>there were no bombs on 24. QED
I am not so sure. Clearly, a bomb aimed just at destroying the FBI offices
would not need to affect structural integrity, at all.
That does not explain BOTH towers though .....maybe there is a weakening effect
or some other target in the other 24th Floor ??
I know its a reach, but again we run into an odd coincidence and eyewitness
testimony that begs us to stop and ask such questions. Why the rubble on both
24th floors and why the bomb/snapping noises ??
Randy
Andrew Carol
<craigs...@SPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
> Because both collapses are caught on TV. They both start at the impact
> floor and cascade downward. If bombs on 24 had caused the collapse, you
> would have seen the entire building above that point drop. Therefore,
> there were no bombs on 24. QED
I've never understood the bomb theories.
They showed that video about 10,000 times on TV. Each and every time
it's clear as day that the building above the fire falls as a unit and
then it pancakes below that.
If there was a bomb, they either had one on EVERY floor and choose
which one to blow up, or the pilots were VERY good and aimed exactly at
the right floor. Both rather implausible.
-- Andy
RDElephant
Some bomb theories focus not on assisting the building's collapse, but rather
on destroying the contents of the 24th floor of the North Tower where critical
FBI evidence was stored in two major investigations of major multibillionaire
insiders.
Why is that rubble there before the building collapsed ?? Why is there rubble
at the same spot in the other tower blocking passage in the same way and
firefighters reporting bombs detonating ??
Randy
Andrew Carol
<rdele...@aol.com> wrote:
Article says 22nd floor doesn't it? (I may have missed something).
And it says "debris", not "rubble" (huge difference in implication.
Ceiling tiles and plaster walls can be debris. Bricks and concrete are
rubble). One is light and could fall from a good shaking, the other
implies a larger force to tear lose.
http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,315156-412,00.shtml
"The men walked up to the 22nd floor. Tabeek didnšt know that a second
jet had just struck Tower 2. When they reached the 22d floor of Tower
1, Desperito and his men tunneled through the debris and opened up a
path for those trapped inside. "
Note he "tunneled" through the debris. You can't tunnel through
anything serious quickly and without equipment. But you could tunnel
through ceiling tiles and other light debris.
later it says...
"Suddenly, he was trapped himself. Part of the raining debris fell on
top of the building where Reiss was. "The ceiling came down and some of
the walls and we realized we were trapped," says Reiss, who thought he
might die. "But I wasn't gonna give up that easy. There was two or
three feet of debris in front of this heavy, bulletproof door." "
Note he says the "ceiling and walls" came down. Understand that both
are made of light materials that can fall.
The false ceiling is just fiber-tile and the walls were the kind that
they throw up in large buildings. They do not carry load. If you look
at the structure of the WTC, each floor was one giant open space
(excepting elevators and stairs). Each tenent had quick partitions
walls put in where ever they wanted. They are easy to put up and tear
down.
There is absoltuely no evidence of a bomb bringing either building down
or going off in any building.
--- Andy
RDElephant
>
Yes. The implication being that a bomb on 23 could be responsible
.>And it says "debris", not "rubble" (huge difference in implication.
>Ceiling tiles and plaster walls can be debris. Bricks and concrete are
>rubble).
Okay, debris heavy enough to block the path of adrenalized evacuees and require
tunneling by rescue workers. What caused it at this level, if not a bomb ??
>There is absoltuely no evidence of a bomb bringing either building down
>or going off in any building.
That is simply not true. You have the eyewitness testimony of the
firefighter("On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set
in the building."
http://people.aol.com/people/special/0,11859,174592-3,00.html), you have the
unexpected and unexplained debris blockage at the 22-24th floors prior to
building collpase, and you have the fact that structural engineers would not
have expected this result. That is not conclusive proof, but to say there is
absolutely no evidence is disingenuous.
Randy
Andrew Carol
<rdele...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Article says 22nd floor doesn't it? (I may have missed something).
> >
>
> Yes. The implication being that a bomb on 23 could be responsible
>
> .>And it says "debris", not "rubble" (huge difference in implication.
>
> >Ceiling tiles and plaster walls can be debris. Bricks and concrete are
> >rubble).
>
> Okay, debris heavy enough to block the path of adrenalized evacuees and
> require
> tunneling by rescue workers. What caused it at this level, if not a bomb ??
How would a bomb do it with a heavy concrete floor above it to shield
the floor below?
We can have confidence the floor above did not collapse because a few
people can't "tunnel" through concrete in seconds.
The airplanes certainly did shake the hell out of the buildings however
as did the collapse of the other tower. Lots of stuff can fall.
>
> >There is absoltuely no evidence of a bomb bringing either building down
> >or going off in any building.
>
> That is simply not true. You have the eyewitness testimony of the
> firefighter("On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set
> in the building."
> http://people.aol.com/people/special/0,11859,174592-3,00.html)
Key word "we think". How would he have known? Perhaps he heard the
other building get hit or collapse.
> unexpected and unexplained debris blockage at the 22-24th floors prior to
> building collpase,
There are stories of debris on LOTS of floors. How many do you want?
http://www.landscapegroup.com/dynamic.asp?BAID=1&ArticleID=136
1st floor Coffee shop - ""I was just asking Ed, 'Did you feel that?' I
thought there was an earthquake. Then there was a total explosion.
Everything was just all over the place -- ceiling tiles, glass, bricks
and people," says Zienkiewicz."
http://www.ocregister.com/breakingnews/attack/09302001/survivor00930cci2.
shtml
2nd floor (before either collapse)- ""We got to the second floor, and
water was on the landing. It was a war zone; there were pieces of
debris, wall material, ceiling tiles, paper and garbage in an
ankle-deep lake. "
http://espn.go.com/gen/news/2001/0911/1250522.html
19th floor - "It was a solid explosive shock," said Richard Pico, a
doctor who was on the 19th floor of One WTC, the northern building.
"People walked out of their offices. People were screaming loudly, not
knowing what to do."
"I thought it was a bomb," said one witness. "The ceiling started to
collapse and then we evacuated."
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010916colferap9.asp
Floor 55 - "We weren't 15 minutes into class when the building rocked,"
said Colfer, acting logistics director for Mine Safety Appliance Co.,
based in O'Hara Township. "It was like you were in an earthquake, but
you're in New York City so you know there aren't earthquakes."
Desks and tables jumped up off the floor. Chairs shook. Books flew
across the room."
First Floor (before other tower collapsed) "Once her eyes were
acclimated to the darkness, she saw concrete slabs where the walls were
on the floor and that the concrete ceiling above had collapsed."
http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,314456-412,00.shtml
Floor 86 - "Outside the door, the entire ceiling just collapsed and
things started hitting the window and the place started filling with
smoke.²"
Floor 81 - "After the impact of Flight 11, he calmed his staff then led
them through the smoke and debris to the stairwell. "
http://www.geocities.com/tagger_tagger/personal.html
Floor 89 - "A few minutes later the entire front of my office, where I
was sitting, blew up and the entire building swayed back and forth.
Flames, smoke, and debris from the ceiling, covered the entrance of the
office"
http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,315156-412,00.shtml
"I'm in our offices on the 65th floor of the morth tower, and there's
this incredible thunder hitting the building," says Ken Greene, the
Port Authority's assistant director of aviation. ³And the building
didn¹t move a little bit. It moved. You got the sensation that it was
going to go.
> and you have the fact that structural engineers would not
> have expected this result. That is not conclusive proof, but to say there is
> absolutely no evidence is disingenuous.
BTW, why in the world would they bomb those specific offices? Couldn't
those "in on it" make any problem go away? Did they run two planes
into those buildings to "cover" the bombings?
Or is the plan getting larger and larger and bringing in even more
people with more motives? We now have India, Pakistan, Russia, Israel,
The US government, FAA, NTSB, Air Force, CIA, FBI, all "in on it".
-- Andy
agent86
<snip>
>>>In another part of the tower, Tabeek ran into the lobby to help. "As I ran
>>>through the lobby of building one, I was hearing things popping, like rubber
>>>bands. So I assumed the elevator cables were snapping."
>>
>>The critical word is "assumed".
>
>Actually, the critical words are the description of popping sounds.
Right, anything after that is speculation on the part of the witness.
>I agree
>that attributing that to the cables is speculative, but still somewhat
>informative as to the nature of the popping.
If what he thought the sounds were, was speculation on his part, then
what do you call the description from the fireman about "bombs"?
<snip>
>>>The men walked up to the 22nd floor. Tabeek didn’t know that a second
>jet
>>had
>>>just struck Tower 2. When they reached the 22d floor of Tower 1, Desperito
>>and
>>>his men tunneled through the debris and opened up a path for those trapped
>>>inside.
>>
>>The dropped ceilings on many of the floors fell for one thing.
>>Without further description, you don't know if it was ceiling tiles,
>>turned over furniture or what.
>>
>>>Was the 24th floor the level of the elevator swapovers (?) for transit to
>>>higher floors ?
>>
>>No.
>>
>>> Could those snapping sounds have been bombs/cutter charges ??
>>
>>No.
>
>Why ?
How could they be? What evidence, other than speculation, as to what
they were? Remember there have been no other verifiable reports of
bombs.
>>>Would bombs at the 24th floor level have aided the implosion ??
>>
>>No.
>
>Why ?
Go watch how the towers fell again. The fall started where the planes
hit.
And from your CBS reference:
"Standing near a window, Tabeek witnessed the same thing: "We
literally saw the top 20 stories of the building virtually blow off.
It was horrible. You saw the underbelly of the floor and then it
appeared as if the whole building came over on its side." Tower 2 was
beginning its collapse. Each floor weighed 4.8 million tons. "
It didn't start at the 24th floor.
>>>What created
>>>the rubble that blocked passage ??
>>
>>The crash of the aircraft into the towers. And you've moved from
>>"debris" to "rubble", Randy. Could be a BIG difference.
>
>How would the aircraft striking the Tower several dozen floors above create
>insurmountable rubble on the 24th floor ??
Again, you are using a descriptive word not in evidence. There has
been no mention of "insurmountable rubble". In fact just the
opposite.
>(snip)
>
>>>Does this PROVE that the buildings were bombed ? No. Does it make it less
>>than
>>>an open and shut case that there were no bombs ?? Absolutely.
>>
>>Why?
>>
>>>So why is it apparently being treated as such ??
>>
>>Treated as what? Both towers were of identical construction. Both
>>towers were hit by 767 aircraft. Both towers fell, the only
>>difference being the time required to fall. Why does that lead
>>anywhere near a conclusion that there were bombs?
>
>Both planes hit WELL above the 24th floor. Why insurmountable rubble there
>prior to either buildings' collapse ????
The words "insurmountable rubble" are yours, Randy. Your reference
states that the debris was removed providing a path for escape. It
could have been something as simple as part of the ceiling falling
across the door, preventing it from opening.
>Also, the firefighter claimed that there were bombs and the other security guy
>described snapping which could have been bombs.
No the fireman heard sounds that he INTERPRETED to be the sounds of
bombs going off. He never reported seeing an explosion. In fact, he
said "We think there was bombs set in the building." It could, for
example, have been chunks of the upper floors falling.
>If there were
>>bombs, why didn't the towers (a) fall sooner, (b) at the same time, or
>>(c) in the same way?
>
>A) I don't know, maybe their function was not to bring the building down
>immediately but to destroy evidence in the FBI office on the 23rd and 24th
>floors of the North Tower and/or to speed or assure collapse but not cause it
>immediately.
If the towers weren't expected to fall, why would the FBI need to
destroy any evidence? Besides, how did "we" get from the Port
Authority offices to FBI offices?
The CBS story says:
"In another part of the tower, Tabeek ran into the lobby to help. "As
I ran through the lobby of building one, I was hearing things popping,
like rubber bands. So I assumed the elevator cables were snapping."
He got a call that three Port Authority workers were trapped in a
command center on the 22nd floor. He informed a fire battalion chief
that he was going up to rescue them. The chief assigned a group of
firefighters, led by Lt. Andy Desperito.
The men walked up to the 22nd floor. Tabeek didn’t know that a second
jet had just struck Tower 2. When they reached the 22d floor of Tower
1, Desperito and his men tunneled through the debris and opened up a
path for those trapped inside."
The folks who worked on the 22nd floor of Tower 1 worked for the Port
Authority, not the FBI. And it was described as "debris" not
"insurmountable rubble".
According to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/articles/wtc_ak.html
the FBI did not have any offices in the building.
No where in the Cacchioli is there any mention of the FBI. Are you
confused, Randy?
>B) The "bombs" did not occur at the same time
Why wouldn't they? What madness would have a terrorist delay setting
off bombs if his goal was to cause the most mayhem and destruction?
>C) Any diference could be attributed to the different placement of the aircraft
>strikes.
Which has what to do with whether or not there were bombs?
>>>And whether there were bombs or not, could the "unthinkability" of this as a
>>>"Reichstag fire" be lessened in part by realizing that at least some (if not
>>>all) of those planning and approving this criminal plan probably did not
>>>realize that the towers coming down was probable or part of the plan ??
>>
>>No. Since it wasn't a "Reichstag fire".
>
>Cite ? Argument ?
How about a cite or argument that it was?
>>>If I had to bet, I would say that the top American officials knew that
>>multiple
>>>hijackings were going to occur, but elected uin advance not to stop them as
>>>pretext for the Afghan war. What they may not have known was that Mohammad
>>>Atta was "our man" (i.e., Mossad/CIA/ISI) and that the bringing down of the
>>>towers and attacking the Capitol was part of the plan.
>>
>>You'd probably lose that bet.
>
>I'd want odds.
I'd give them to you, but it would be impossible to collect. You'd
continue to claim that the "top American officials knew" and that the
"truth" just hadn't come out yet.
>>>Once they green-lighted the 'sit on our hands so we can have our Afghan war"
>>>aerial defense strategy, the CIA/Mossad/ISI owned them. Shooting down
>>Flight
>>>93 to save the Capitol was all they could muster after they realized how far
>>>their partners had gone.
>>
>>But they didn't shoot down Flight 93.
>
>Sure they did, debris doesn't make it 8 miles in a few minutes froma nosedive
>into the ground ... only from an explosive.
What do you think happened when the plane hit the ground, Randy?
>The people of Pennsylvania know it
>was shot down by that F-16 on its tail, so will everyone else soon.
I won't be holding my breath. BTW, what's going to prove it for
everyone else?
agent86
>>I've never understood the bomb theories.
>
>Some bomb theories focus not on assisting the building's collapse, but rather
>on destroying the contents of the 24th floor of the North Tower where critical
>FBI evidence was stored in two major investigations of major multibillionaire
>insiders.
Cite?
>Why is that rubble there before the building collapsed ?? Why is there rubble
>at the same spot in the other tower blocking passage in the same way and
>firefighters reporting bombs detonating ??
The firefighter (singular) heard a sound that he interpreted to be a
bomb. Try to be precise, Randy.
agent86
>>Article says 22nd floor doesn't it? (I may have missed something).
>>
>
>Yes. The implication being that a bomb on 23 could be responsible
>
>.>And it says "debris", not "rubble" (huge difference in implication.
>
>>Ceiling tiles and plaster walls can be debris. Bricks and concrete are
>>rubble).
>
>Okay, debris heavy enough to block the path of adrenalized evacuees and require
>tunneling by rescue workers. What caused it at this level, if not a bomb ??
>
>>There is absoltuely no evidence of a bomb bringing either building down
>>or going off in any building.
>
>That is simply not true. You have the eyewitness testimony of the
>firefighter("On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set
>in the building."
Which is simply not true, Randy. You have a person who heard a loud
noise and INTERPRETED it to be a bomb. He never saw a bomb explode.
He "thinks" there were bombs in the building. Not unlike the TWA 800
folks who saw a streak of light and said they saw a missile. But then
you do tend to cling to anything that supports your theories, don't
you.
>http://people.aol.com/people/special/0,11859,174592-3,00.html), you have the
>unexpected and unexplained debris blockage at the 22-24th floors prior to
>building collpase,
But he said no such thing, Randy.
From your own reference:
http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,315156-412,00.shtml
"I'm in our offices on the 65th floor of the morth tower, and there's
this incredible thunder hitting the building," says Ken Greene, the
Port Authority's assistant director of aviation. “And the building
didn’t move a little bit. It moved. You got the sensation that it was
going to go. "
And another:
"Before the impact of Flight 11 was felt around the world, it was felt
first in Tower One.
"It was more of a baloooooom" sounded like an explosion, then a series
of other explosions like gas was being ignited, Louis Lesce, an
employment counselor, tells 48 Hours Correspondent Richard
Schlesinger.
"Outside the door, the entire ceiling just collapsed and things
started hitting the window and the place started filling with smoke."
>and you have the fact that structural engineers would not
>have expected this result.
Er, Randy, structural engineers never expect their buildings to fall.
Try this cite:
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm#general
"This photograph shows the south tower just as it is collapsing. It
is evident that the building is falling over to the left. The North
Tower collapsed directly downwards, on top of itself. The same
mechanism of failure, the combination of impact and subsequent fire
damage, is the likely cause of failure of both towers. However, it is
possible that a storey on only one side of the South Tower initially
collapsed, resulting in the "skewed" failure of the entire tower.
The gigantic impact forces caused by the huge mass of the falling
structure landing on the floors below travelled down the columns like
a shockwave faster than the entire structure fell. The clouds of
debris coming from the tower, several storeys below the huge falling
mass, probably result from the sudden and almost explosive failure of
each floor, caused by the "shockwave"."
And BTW, the "sky lobbies" were at the 44th and 78th floors.
>That is not conclusive proof, but to say there is
>absolutely no evidence is disingenuous.
And to make the claims that you make is bordering on ludicrous.
Andrew Carol
<agen...@justicemail.com> wrote:
> >How would the aircraft striking the Tower several dozen floors above create
> >insurmountable rubble on the 24th floor ??
>
> Again, you are using a descriptive word not in evidence. There has
> been no mention of "insurmountable rubble". In fact just the
> opposite.
I've read the article and was amazed at the transformation of "debris"
cleared with their hands becomes "insurmountable rubble".
It comments how quickly they were able to tunnel through it. Firemen
with their bare hands don't tunnel through "rubble" but they can
through ceiling tiles, file drawers, etc.
I have found mentions of ceilings falling (false ceilings of course)
from the lowest to the highest floors. Some people in the building
thought it was going to fall during the intial impact.
Those planes MOVED the buildings.
--- Andy
Andrew Carol
<agen...@justicemail.com> wrote:
> >Some bomb theories focus not on assisting the building's collapse, but rather
> >on destroying the contents of the 24th floor of the North Tower where
> >critical
> >FBI evidence was stored in two major investigations of major multibillionaire
> >insiders.
>
> Cite?
The story grows ever more complex.
We now have Pakistan, India, Russia, and of course the Mossad joining
our government who has supplied the CIA, FBI, NTSB, FAA, Air Force in
unlimited numbers.
It seems one of the goals of the WTC attack was now to cover some kind
of "multibillionare" investigation.
All those resources and they couldn't just make the investigation "go
away"?
It can't be that high profile because we've obviously not heard about
it. I suppose to stop this case we've never heard of they had to fly
two planes into the WTC.
--- Andy
RDElephant
>Why is there rubble
>>at the same spot in the other tower blocking passage in the same way and
>>firefighters reporting bombs detonating ??
>
>The firefighter (singular) heard a sound that he interpreted to be a
>bomb. Try to be precise, Randy.
Well maybe he is using the royal "we" and obviously that was his/their
perception (thats why I said "reporting"), not an established fact.
RDElephant
>>that attributing that to the cables is speculative, but still somewhat
>>informative as to the nature of the popping.
>
>If what he thought the sounds were, was speculation on his part, then
>what do you call the description from the fireman about "bombs"?
>
I am not the one who needs it both ways, you are.
>>How would the aircraft striking the Tower several dozen floors above create
>>insurmountable rubble on the 24th floor ??
>
>Again, you are using a descriptive word not in evidence. There has
>been no mention of "insurmountable rubble". In fact just the
>opposite.
Debris, insurmountable by the evacuees until the tunneling of their rescuers.
So what caused it ???
>>(snip)
>>
>>>>Does this PROVE that the buildings were bombed ? No. Does it make it less
>>>than
>>>>an open and shut case that there were no bombs ?? Absolutely.
>>>
>>>Why?
>>>
>>>>So why is it apparently being treated as such ??
>>>
>>>Treated as what? Both towers were of identical construction. Both
>>>towers were hit by 767 aircraft. Both towers fell, the only
>>>difference being the time required to fall. Why does that lead
>>>anywhere near a conclusion that there were bombs?
>>
>>Both planes hit WELL above the 24th floor. Why insurmountable rubble there
>>prior to either buildings' collapse ????
>
>The words "insurmountable rubble" are yours, Randy. Your reference
>states that the debris was removed providing a path for escape. It
>could have been something as simple as part of the ceiling falling
>across the door, preventing it from opening.
No, read it again.
>>Also, the firefighter claimed that there were bombs and the other security
>guy
>>described snapping which could have been bombs.
>
>No the fireman heard sounds that he INTERPRETED to be the sounds of
>bombs going off. He never reported seeing an explosion. In fact, he
>said "We think there was bombs set in the building." It could, for
>example, have been chunks of the upper floors falling.
Thats a reach.
>>If there were
>>>bombs, why didn't the towers (a) fall sooner, (b) at the same time, or
>>>(c) in the same way?
>>
>>A) I don't know, maybe their function was not to bring the building down
>>immediately but to destroy evidence in the FBI office on the 23rd and 24th
>>floors of the North Tower and/or to speed or assure collapse but not cause
>it
>>immediately.
>
>If the towers weren't expected to fall, why would the FBI need to
>destroy any evidence? Besides, how did "we" get from the Port
>Authority offices to FBI offices?
The point is to destroy the FBI evidence before it could be retrieved.
Assuming there were bombs, then the people doin the bombing KNEW the towers
were gonna come down, one way or the other.
>The CBS story says:
>
>"In another part of the tower, Tabeek ran into the lobby to help. "As
>I ran through the lobby of building one, I was hearing things popping,
>like rubber bands. So I assumed the elevator cables were snapping."
>He got a call that three Port Authority workers were trapped in a
>command center on the 22nd floor. He informed a fire battalion chief
>that he was going up to rescue them. The chief assigned a group of
>firefighters, led by Lt. Andy Desperito.
>
>The men walked up to the 22nd floor. Tabeek didn’t know that a second
>jet had just struck Tower 2. When they reached the 22d floor of Tower
>1, Desperito and his men tunneled through the debris and opened up a
>path for those trapped inside."
>
>The folks who worked on the 22nd floor of Tower 1 worked for the Port
>Authority, not the FBI. And it was described as "debris" not
>"insurmountable rubble".
The FBI was 23 and 24, according to D. Eastman, which I have not been able to
verify.
>According to
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/articles/wtc_ak.html
>the FBI did not have any offices in the building.
>No where in the Cacchioli is there any mention of the FBI. Are you
>confused, Randy?
Cacchioli is in the South Tower, he claimed. The FBI was supposedly in the
23rd and 24th floor of the North. The thrust of your question is precisley why
I framed this post as a question and asked essentially that.
Maybe D. Eastman is wrong about the FBI's location, but its a mighty
coincidence that the fireman was on the same level of the opposite Tower when
he too encountered debris and "bombs."
I don't pretend to have the answer, just drawing two funny looking pieces of
the puzzle together to see if anybody can make them fit.
>>B) The "bombs" did not occur at the same time
>
>Why wouldn't they? What madness would have a terrorist delay setting
>off bombs if his goal was to cause the most mayhem and destruction?
I don't know that this was his goal in setting the bombs. His goal for the
bombs may have been the destruction of evidence.
>>C) Any diference could be attributed to the different placement of the
>aircraft
>>strikes.
>
>Which has what to do with whether or not there were bombs?
Nothing, that's my point.
Randy
RDElephant
>rather
>> >on destroying the contents of the 24th floor of the North Tower where
>> >critical
>> >FBI evidence was stored in two major investigations of major
>multibillionaire
>> >insiders.
>>
>> Cite?
>
>The story grows ever more complex.
>
>We now have Pakistan, India, Russia, and of course the Mossad joining
>our government who has supplied the CIA, FBI, NTSB, FAA, Air Force in
>unlimited numbers.
Not really. There is no real question but that Pakistan, India and Russia were
in on the war planning. I doubt they knew about the 9/11 plan, at least
overtly. CIA/ISI and Mossad I can see as core players. The top Air Force
brass would be a second tier player like the President, who knew something was
to be allowed to happen, though not necessarily what. No need for either the
FAA or FBI to be involved, anybody who becomes a problem can be told some
national security cover story (the Israelis or the Russkies did it and we will
get them later, need to cover it up to avoid x) and sworn to secrecy anybody
who won't play ball can be threatened, discredited, killed.
The NTSB got its jurisdiction yanked, so its not necessary at all.
>It seems one of the goals of the WTC attack was now to cover some kind
>of "multibillionare" investigation.
>
>All those resources and they couldn't just make the investigation "go
>away"?
Apparently not.
>It can't be that high profile because we've obviously not heard about
>it. I suppose to stop this case we've never heard of they had to fly
>two planes into the WTC.
I never said that. Ever hear of killing two birds with one stone ?? And
please stop acting like this is a fully-formed final product, alot of this is
brainstorming. I am genuinely trying to get at the truth here, not grinding
any ax. If IndiaReacts did not exist I would probably never have gotten here,
but it does, so you can belittle all you want, but in the end we have a
government which is AT LEAST lying by ommission ... give me a btter theory
which makes it all fit better and I will happily go bck to my life.
Randy
RDElephant
>>firefighter("On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs
>set
>>in the building."
>
>Which is simply not true, Randy.
I QUOTED the guy (correctly), what's not true ??
You have a person who heard a loud
>noise and INTERPRETED it to be a bomb.
Probably a good presumption, though there may have been other clues to it being
a bomb, we don't know.
> He never saw a bomb explode.
I claimed no such thing.
>He "thinks" there were bombs in the building.
You can rephrase what he said all you want, it is evidence of a bomb, albeit
hardly conclusive.
It wasn't HIS building.
>http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm#general
>
>"This photograph shows the south tower just as it is collapsing. It
>is evident that the building is falling over to the left. The North
>Tower collapsed directly downwards, on top of itself. The same
>mechanism of failure, the combination of impact and subsequent fire
>damage, is the likely cause of failure of both towers. However, it is
>possible that a storey on only one side of the South Tower initially
>collapsed, resulting in the "skewed" failure of the entire tower.
>
>The gigantic impact forces caused by the huge mass of the falling
>structure landing on the floors below travelled down the columns like
>a shockwave faster than the entire structure fell. The clouds of
>debris coming from the tower, several storeys below the huge falling
>mass, probably result from the sudden and almost explosive failure of
>each floor, caused by the "shockwave"."
>
>And BTW, the "sky lobbies" were at the 44th and 78th floors.
Thank you.
>>That is not conclusive proof, but to say there is
>>absolutely no evidence is disingenuous.
>
>And to make the claims that you make is bordering on ludicrous.
I am not making any claim, other than that there is SOME evidence of one or
more bombs.
Randy
RDElephant
>cleared with their hands becomes "insurmountable rubble".
It was debris that the adrenalized evacuees needed to call for help to tunnel
around/through. Whether it was technically rubble or not does not seem such a
stretch as to amount to an "amazing" misdescription... calm down.
Randy
Andrew Carol
<rdele...@aol.com> wrote:
> >The words "insurmountable rubble" are yours, Randy. Your reference
> >states that the debris was removed providing a path for escape. It
> >could have been something as simple as part of the ceiling falling
> >across the door, preventing it from opening.
>
> No, read it again.
"When they reached the 22d floor of Tower 1, Desperito and his men
tunneled through the debris and opened up a path for those trapped
inside. "
Debris, not "insurmountable rubble". Debris is wires, tiles, sheet
rock from office walls, etc (light, but bulky stuff). Rubble is brick
and concrete (heavy structural stuff)
Firemen were able in minutes with their hands to clear a way out for
these people.
For all you know a filing drawer fell in front of a door and they could
not open it to get out.
I posted a dozen accounts of people from various floors about how there
was debris and ceiling tiles and how when the plane hit it shook down
filing cabinats, book selves, or they even thought the building would
fall.
--- Andy
Andrew Carol
<rdele...@aol.com> wrote:
> No need for either the
> FAA or FBI to be involved, anybody who becomes a problem can be told some
> national security cover story (the Israelis or the Russkies did it and we will
> get them later, need to cover it up to avoid x) and sworn to secrecy anybody
> who won't play ball can be threatened, discredited, killed.
That's the answer in every conspriacy of how to keep 1,000's of people
quiet. They will be threatened, discredited, and/or killed. Amazing
how it works perfectly each and every time.
Yet Nixon was driven from office by people he couldn't keep quite. The
Mob has no qualms about torturing and killing family and friends and
yet people still go to the authorities and media about them.
The Pentagon papers exposed and ruined lots of war aims in Vietnam, yet
he walked the earth breathing free air.
>
> The NTSB got its jurisdiction yanked, so its not necessary at all.
The NTSB was on the scene of every single crash. They examine the
wreckage and they examine the black boxes.
The FAA are the ones with the tower tapes and flight paths. They have
lots of low level people who heard and saw everything. They all have
to be "convinced" to joint the 1,000's of others in lying.
>
> >It seems one of the goals of the WTC attack was now to cover some kind
> >of "multibillionare" investigation.
> >
> >All those resources and they couldn't just make the investigation "go
> >away"?
>
> Apparently not.
We've never heard of it, it couldn't be that big. To make it "go away"
you simply reassign people. You don't have to smash two planes into
two buildings.
>
> >It can't be that high profile because we've obviously not heard about
> >it. I suppose to stop this case we've never heard of they had to fly
> >two planes into the WTC.
>
> I never said that. Ever hear of killing two birds with one stone ?? And
> please stop acting like this is a fully-formed final product, alot of this is
> brainstorming. I am genuinely trying to get at the truth here, not grinding
> any ax. If IndiaReacts did not exist I would probably never have gotten here,
> but it does, so you can belittle all you want, but in the end we have a
> government which is AT LEAST lying by ommission ... give me a btter theory
> which makes it all fit better and I will happily go bck to my life.
The problem with "brainstorming" is you are trying to make more and
more things fit into an ever more complex plan. At this point we've
got to bring in a lot of duct tape to keep so many countries, agencies,
and people working on the same sheet of music.
I happen to think it simpler that Atta had an idea, sold it to Osama,
brought some people in, got a bit of flight training, hijacked four
planes and managed to get three of them into buildings.
We know the planes were really hijacked, so that part is reasonable.
We know that some of the hijackers got flight training, so that part is
plausible.
We know that Osama runs his outfit like a venture capitalist. You
propose, he invests in what he likes.
As for the war, it's shapping up not at all like "India Reacts" claims.
In fact the only thing that matches is US involvement in Afganistan.
It talked ground war with direct deployement of huge numbers of US and
Russian troops. None of that has come to pass. It's all been from the
air.
How reliable a paper is "India Reacts"? Even the National Enquirer has
a prediction that comes true every once in a while.
--- Andy
Andrew Carol
<rdele...@aol.com> wrote:
A book case falling in front of a door blocks people in.
Even a peice of metal from the ceiling landing outside a door and jamed
against a desk could do so.
We simply don't know what it was.
We do know the word used was debris.
We do know is that people reported LOTS of debris falling from ceilings
and shelves on many floors. Filing cabinates falling, books flying off
shelves.
We do know the firemen dug it out quickly with their bare hands.
--- Andy
Ragnar
You ran away from the "The Police State Agenda" thread when you started
losing. When are you going to run away from this one?
RDElephant
>was debris and ceiling tiles and how when the plane hit it shook down
>filing cabinats, book selves, or they even thought the building would
>fall.
None that blocked evacuation.
Randy
RDElephant
>quiet. They will be threatened, discredited, and/or killed. Amazing
>how it works perfectly each and every time.
>Yet Nixon was driven from office by people he couldn't keep quite.
First, I never said it was perfect, its just the best they can do to deal with
keeping folks in line. Already you have Indian diplomats, Pakistanian
diplomats, the Mayor of Shanksville, and an anonymous ATC, who have leaked
troublesome information.
Just becasue there is a conspiracy doesn't mean it will succeed. The Kennedy
assassination was found to be a conspiracy by the U.S.House of Representatives
in 1977, contrary to the Warren Commission findings. Oswald was killed, Ruby
believed he was killed (by injection of cancer-causing agents), the list of
mysterious deaths was quite long, the list of witnesses who had their testimony
ignored or discredited by fraudulent means was also long.
As for Watergate, read "Silent Coup"... the real conspiracy was not the
break-in or the cover-up.
Also, may I point out here that there is NO QUESTION that there is conspracy in
this case, the ONLY question is who were its participants.
>The
>Mob has no qualms about torturing and killing family and friends and
>yet people still go to the authorities and media about them.
Not really. Mob informants are invariably guys who are about to get killed
themselves OR guys who the Feds get red-handed and are facing long prison
sentences. There is such a thing as a witness protection program PRECISELY
because murderous thugs will kill to keep people quiet. BUT where is the
Witness Protection Progarm for people who would turn in top federal officials
for treason and murder ???
>The Pentagon papers exposed and ruined lots of war aims in Vietnam, yet
>he walked the earth breathing free air.
They don't kill after-the-fact for kicks. In his case they did try to
discredit him by breaking into his psychiatrists office, if you will recall.
Vietnam was a RARE case where the media was willing to take the government on
... it was a unique time, today I'm sure they would turn him in and return the
documents in exchange for an exclusive interview with Laura Bush. Also, the
Pentagon Papers just showed that the war was going worse than was being spun,
they did not show that the CIA murdered the President, for example.
>> The NTSB got its jurisdiction yanked, so its not necessary at all.
>
>The NTSB was on the scene of every single crash. They examine the
>wreckage and they examine the black boxes.
At which point its jurisdiction was yanked. Besides, we know that coverup is
the NTSB's middle-name.
>The FAA are the ones with the tower tapes and flight paths. They have
>lots of low level people who heard and saw everything. They all have
>to be "convinced" to joint the 1,000's of others in lying.
>
There was a series of bomb threats called-in that morning, so the number are
not as great as you might think. The only FAA people who would know anything
would be the one's who know about Flight 93 being shot down. They no doubt are
being told to keep their mouths shut but also see it as a nice patriotic fairy
tale that was "harmless" and thus no reason to make Lisa Beamer cry or ruin a
career over. The media is in the same boat, so that after the early Nashua
report and non-mainstream papers like the Philadelphia Daily News aside, nobody
even wants to know.
>The problem with "brainstorming" is you are trying to make more and
>more things fit into an ever more complex plan. At this point we've
>got to bring in a lot of duct tape to keep so many countries, agencies,
>and people working on the same sheet of music.
>
>I happen to think it simpler that Atta had an idea, sold it to Osama,
>brought some people in, got a bit of flight training, hijacked four
>planes and managed to get three of them into buildings.
>
>We know the planes were really hijacked, so that part is reasonable.
>
>We know that some of the hijackers got flight training, so that part is
>plausible.
>
>We know that Osama runs his outfit like a venture capitalist. You
>propose, he invests in what he likes.
>
>As for the war, it's shapping up not at all like "India Reacts" claims.
>In fact the only thing that matches is US involvement in Afganistan.
>It talked ground war with direct deployement of huge numbers of US and
>Russian troops. None of that has come to pass. It's all been from the
>air.
The Northern alliance proved better able with air power than we thought ... but
the Russians publicly "committed" to send what was it 100,000 troops that
weekend right before things turned ??
>How reliable a paper is "India Reacts"? Even the National Enquirer has
>a prediction that comes true every once in a while.
I have reviewed the site thoroughly, it is not the National Enquirer. The BBC
is not either, nor are the French journalists who published the new book with
the aid of the deceased Mr. O'Neill.
Randy
Andrew Carol
<rdele...@aol.com> wrote:
Be definition if it "blocked evacuation" of other people on other
floors and nobody knows they are trapped they would die in the
collapse. We would never know.
These guys are in a "command center" with radios to DIRECTLY call Fire
Rescue people on scene.
It only takes a filing drawer to fall in front of a door or even a
piece of metal from the false ceiling to block the door from opening.
That's why Firemen using their bare hands were able to get through the
"debris" very quickly to rescue those people.
BTW, others WERE blocked on the lower half of the building:
Here's a woman who got to the 4th floor and felt what she thought was a
"bomb" (she later learned parts of the 1st building had hit her
building) and her way was blocked by debris:
http://americastandstall.org/stories/susanfrederick.html
"By the 7th floor, the stairwells were flooding with water from what we
assumed were the firefighting efforts. We were feeling buoyant when we
hit 3 and thought we're almost out of here. It had taken us a little
over an hour to get this far. But the adventure it seemed, was far from
over. At that point, as we learned later, building 2 collapsed and hit
our building.
Once again it felt like a bomb had gone off as the building shook again
and there was this tremendous whoosh of air that almost knocked us off
our feet. At that point the lights went out. There was so much debris
that our way out was blocked. I remember thinking there is no way I
walked down 77 flights to die 3 floors from safety. We climbed back up
to floor 4 where a firefighter punched a hole in the wall to get us
out. "
------
Here's a guy blocked by debris at two points of his escape both
requiring assistance from a firefighter to save their lives:
http://www.newsday.com/features/printedition/longislandlife/ny-lflowe243
2467oct28.column?coll=ny-lilife-headlines
Obradovich and others made for the stairway. At Floor 34, it was
blocked. Obradovich yanked a nearby, locked door, then banged on it. A
New York firefighter answered, pried open the door, instructed everyone
to calm themselves and continue down. He then proceeded up, in full
gear.
...
At Floor 10, more debris blocked the stairway. Again, firefighters
pried open a door, and Obradovich walked across the floor to another
stairwell.
-------
Someone else on the 22nd floor...
First plane hit our building at 8:45. We decided to evacuate from the
22nd floor after 15 minutes. The delay was because we did not know the
extent of the damage; part of the 22nd floor was sheared away and the
corridor was blocked by fallen debris. Four of us decided it was
better to try to get out than stay and wait to be rescued (in hindsight
a good decision). We had to crawl for ten to fifteen feet under debris
to get to the fire stairs.
---------
A guy 20 floors below the impact...
http://www.rommes.org/dog/wtc.html
When American Airlines Flight 11 struck about 20 floors above them,
David Frank and Michael Hingson, salesmen for Quantum ATL, felt the
building lurch violently.
There was smoke in the hallways and unthinkable confusion. Mr. Frank, a
salesman visiting from Los Angeles, joined Mr. Hingson and the
customers and headed for the stairs. The door was blocked, but a
building official with a towel covering his mouth and nose quickly
pried it open.
-- Andy
Andrew Carol
<rdele...@aol.com> wrote:
> There was a series of bomb threats called-in that morning, so the number are
> not as great as you might think. The only FAA people who would know anything
> would be the one's who know about Flight 93 being shot down. They no doubt
> are
> being told to keep their mouths shut but also see it as a nice patriotic
> fairy
> tale that was "harmless" and thus no reason to make Lisa Beamer cry or ruin a
> career over. The media is in the same boat, so that after the early Nashua
> report and non-mainstream papers like the Philadelphia Daily News aside,
> nobody
> even wants to know.
The FAA people would know if an F-16 was even present at the moment of
crash.
--- Andy
agent86
wrote:
>Hey Randy,
>
>You ran away from the "The Police State Agenda" thread when you started
>losing. When are you going to run away from this one?
He just starts another one with an even more outlandish "theory".
Phil Miller
<craigs...@SPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
>X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>RDElephant wrote:
>>
>>
>> I never said that. Ever hear of killing two birds with one stone ?? And
>> please stop acting like this is a fully-formed final product, alot of this is
>> brainstorming. I am genuinely trying to get at the truth here, not grinding
>> any ax. If IndiaReacts did not exist I would probably never have gotten here,
>> but it does, so you can belittle all you want, but in the end we have a
>> government which is AT LEAST lying by ommission ... give me a btter theory
>> which makes it all fit better and I will happily go bck to my life.
>
>"And the silicon chip inside his head gets set to overload..."
I don't like...Thursdays?
Step 7) Find bell tower.
Phil
-----------
"'Tis said, Percy, that civilised man seeks out good and intelligent
company, so through learned discussion, he may rise above the savage
and closer to God."
"Yes, I'd heard that."
"...Personally, I like to start the day with a total dickhead to remind
me I'm best."
-- Edmund Blackadder and Percy
Ragnar
"agent86" <agen...@justicemail.com> wrote in message
news:3c06dd1...@news.icx.net...
I'm working on "timing" his appearances. I figure we can step in and shut
him down with logic before he rants too much. The end result will be that
he will be forced to think up new conspiracies more often; should be fun to
watch.
Douglas Berry
CJS <craigs...@SPAMmindspring.com> warmed at our fire and told
this tale:
>"And the silicon chip inside his head gets set to overload..."
Hey! Another Boomtown Rats fan!
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Ragnar
"CJS" <craigs...@SPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3C080FA4...@SPAMmindspring.com...
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> We seem to have him stuck on a 1-6 loop.
>
Yes, he's already turned to other conspiracies today. I figure tomorrow
night he should have a new one for us.
Hit1Hard
<craigs...@spammindspring.com> wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
> If I may...
>
> The Stages of Loonity (Copyright 2000 Craig Shields)
>
> 1) Find old, unsubstantiated web page. Repost
> contents. Be pleasant, if possible.
> 2) When people complain that you are posting nonsense,
> reply that they have been deceived by (fill in the blank) [ ]
> ZOG
> [ ] The NWO
> [ ] Politicians
> [ ] The secret government
> [ ] The aviation cabal
> [ ] The guvmintcuntrolled press
> [ ] Librul gun grabbers
> [ ] Russian Sputniks (thanks Nancy!)
> [ ] Other: ______________________
> 3) When the others scoff, scream "coverup" and accuse
> them of being paid shills.
> 4) When the others attempt to disprove your arguments,
> disappear.
> 5) Reappear, and post condescending messages about
> what fools these mortals be.
> 6) Use the word "sheeple" (or at least imply it) to
> show how all-knowing you are, even though you have never been
> outside the county of your birth.
> 7) Find bell tower.
>
> We seem to have him stuck on a 1-6 loop.
"we"... what a gross assumtion "troll".. Speak for yourself...
What exactly are you doing here? And why exactly do you suppose your
pollution of this forum is justifyable? Are you the one stating to be here for
the entertainment only?
<stick out like a sore thumb>
Why don't you find someone to masturbate with!!
<end stick out>
and let men talk mentalk. If the readers want to hear the mainstream news, we
all know to read and where to find it. If the readers want to descide who
is a loon and who not, they really know how to distinc them. Also with
adults and children.. ( And I am not talking physical... )
And if the message is for our american readers.. well well, did you just
if only by this action admit that you consider them REALLY sheeple..
(oops.. lets check if I can use that word.. YEP.. I can.) That they
should copy your ?opinion? blindly instead of letting the facts that he
posts and the way he combines them speak for themselves.
I guess in my opinion you are just a bandwith consuming troll..
I talk for myself.. The reader can agree or not.. considering that most
people here really want to discuss conspiracies or their posibility's..
The fact that he keeps 3 people almost fulltime busy with debunking
should say enough to the average reader.
--
Hit1Hard.
Mankind? It is an abstraction. There are, have been, and always will
be, men and only men. --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
<Spam Shredder Block>
cal factor in Kathmandu Temple Kiff is illegal or considered to be harm
ful by regulatory agencies and no tobacco is included therein, it is th
e policy of our company that Kathmandu Temple Kiff may not be offered o
r sold to any person that has not attained at least 21 years of age. In
gredients: Kathmandu Temple Kiff is both a euphoriant and an uplifting,
<Spam Shredder Block>
Hit1Hard
<craigs...@spammindspring.com> wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> Hit1Hard wrote:
>>
>>
>> "we"... what a gross assumtion "troll".. Speak for yourself...
>
> I'm speaking for the CIA, actually. We're doing mind control
> experiments here.
As long as you are willing to believe that.. it works.
>> What exactly are you doing here?
>
> See above.
>
>> And why exactly do you suppose your pollution of this forum is
>> justifyable?
>
> Makes sane people laugh. Oh, I see why you have an issue.
If you say so..
>> Are you the one stating to be here for the entertainment only?
>
> Ajax isn't on tonight.
Soccer fan eh?
>> <stick out like a sore thumb>
>>
>> Why don't you find someone to masturbate with!!
>>
>> <end stick out>
>
> Uh, what?
Masturbation.. look it up.. Some peole find it rather refreshing after
finding out that you don't go blind or deaf because of it..
>> and let men talk mentalk. If the readers want to hear the mainstream
>> news, we all know to read and where to find it. If the readers want to
>> descide who is a loon and who not, they really know how to distinc
>> them. Also with adults and children.. ( And I am not talking
>> physical... )
>
> You're not talking sense. I guess people can draw their own
> conclusions.
No sense eh? Well the reader descides..
>> And if the message is for our american readers.. well well, did you
>> just if only by this action admit that you consider them REALLY
>> sheeple..
>
> Uh, I'm making fun of conspiracy loons like you.
Like me eh? Guess I am on the right forum.. You on the other hand..
> I'm quite sorry if you
> took it literally; just remind me to stay away from bell towers from now
> on.
Its windmills...
>
>> (oops.. lets check if I can use that word.. YEP.. I can.) That they
>> should copy your ?opinion? blindly instead of letting the facts that he
>> posts and the way he combines them speak for themselves.
>
> Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!
>
> My God, man. You took it seriously? Brilliant!
<sigh> What a cheap way out....
>> I guess in my opinion you are just a bandwith consuming troll..
>
> And you are a loon. Thus was spoked.
Sue me. And while your at it.. prove your own sanity..
>> I talk for myself.. The reader can agree or not.. considering that most
>> people here really want to discuss conspiracies or their posibility's..
>
> Yeah. A few people entertain us by having their heads so far up their
> asses that they couldn't see the first fact. In medieval days, one had
> to pay to mock the village idiot. These days, all we need is an
> internet connection.
Sane (including yourself of coarse.) people mock the idiot eh.. for cheap
amusement... So childish.. Grow up..
>> The fact that he keeps 3 people almost fulltime busy with debunking
>> should say enough to the average reader.
>
> Maybe the way you type it's a full time job, but that's European
> socialism for you.
?context?
Try it in your second language troll.. If you managed to learn one..
kloode-zak. (Vrij naar Kooten en de Bie.)
--
Hit1Hard.
Well done is better than well said. - Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
Hit1Hard
<craigs...@spammindspring.com> wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> Hit1Hard wrote:
>>
>> In article <3C082EA3...@SPAMmindspring.com>, "CJS"
>> <craigs...@spammindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> > X-No-Archive: Yes
>> >
>> > Hit1Hard wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "we"... what a gross assumtion "troll".. Speak for yourself...
>> >
>> > I'm speaking for the CIA, actually. We're doing mind control
>> > experiments here.
>>
>> As long as you are willing to believe that.. it works.
>
> I believe what the TV tells me to believe.
That explains a lot. You also open your lips a little bit when the hero
kisses the girl... ;)
>> >> What exactly are you doing here?
>> >
>> > See above.
>> >
>> >> And why exactly do you suppose your pollution of this forum is
>> >> justifyable?
>> >
>> > Makes sane people laugh. Oh, I see why you have an issue.
>>
>> If you say so..
>
> And I do.
>
>> >> Are you the one stating to be here for the entertainment only?
>> >
>> > Ajax isn't on tonight.
>>
>> Soccer fan eh?
>
> Actually, I'm a big fan of the cleanser.
There were 2 choices for me about Ajax.. I didn't think you went for the
cleanser..
>> >> <stick out like a sore thumb>
>> >>
>> >> Why don't you find someone to masturbate with!!
>> >>
>> >> <end stick out>
>> >
>> > Uh, what?
>>
>> Masturbation.. look it up.. Some peole find it rather refreshing after
>> finding out that you don't go blind or deaf because of it..
>
> Yes, I understand what masturbation is. Your comment still makes no
> sense.
For a lot of people its more satisfying to spend their time that way then
attacking posters on the internet. They think its a better use of their
time.
>> >> and let men talk mentalk. If the readers want to hear the mainstream
>> >> news, we all know to read and where to find it. If the readers want
>> >> to descide who is a loon and who not, they really know how to
>> >> distinc them. Also with adults and children.. ( And I am not talking
>> >> physical... )
>> >
>> > You're not talking sense. I guess people can draw their own
>> > conclusions.
>>
>> No sense eh? Well the reader descides..
>
> Sounds good to me.
.
>> >> And if the message is for our american readers.. well well, did you
>> >> just if only by this action admit that you consider them REALLY
>> >> sheeple..
>> >
>> > Uh, I'm making fun of conspiracy loons like you.
>>
>> Like me eh? Guess I am on the right forum.. You on the other hand..
>
> Oh, I'm in the right forum.
Reading 200-400 emails a day, just to pick the loons and make fun of them
eh? Or spreading knowledge anyone can find or just remembers when
remembering about the things learned at school or shuffled directly into
the mind by the gluetube..
>> > I'm quite sorry if you
>> > took it literally; just remind me to stay away from bell towers from
>> > now on.
>>
>> Its windmills...
>
> :)
Yep.. You have been in holland. (And you do know the cleanser.) There it
comes... duck... <woosh> :)
>> >> (oops.. lets check if I can use that word.. YEP.. I can.) That they
>> >> should copy your ?opinion? blindly instead of letting the facts that
>> >> he posts and the way he combines them speak for themselves.
>> >
>> > Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!
>> >
>> > My God, man. You took it seriously? Brilliant!
>>
>> <sigh> What a cheap way out....
>
> Not at all. It was meant to be amusing; no one was supposed to "copy my
> opinion".
It is a way to release the tension in these tense times. I agree.
>> >> I guess in my opinion you are just a bandwith consuming troll..
>> >
>> > And you are a loon. Thus was spoked.
>>
>> Sue me. And while your at it.. prove your own sanity..
>
> Every day in every way I'm getting better and better. Every day in every
> way I'm getting better and better. Every day in every way I'm getting
> better and better. Every day in every way I'm getting better and better.
> Every day in every way I'm getting better and better. All work and no
> play makes Jack a dull boy.
>
>> >> I talk for myself.. The reader can agree or not.. considering that
>> >> most people here really want to discuss conspiracies or their
>> >> posibility's..
>> >
>> > Yeah. A few people entertain us by having their heads so far up
>> > their asses that they couldn't see the first fact. In medieval days,
>> > one had to pay to mock the village idiot. These days, all we need is
>> > an internet connection.
>>
>> Sane (including yourself of coarse.) people mock the idiot eh.. for
>> cheap amusement... So childish.. Grow up..
>
> Ah, I'm growing older but not up.
As the soda can isolator on my monitor states : Growing old is inevitable,
Growing up is optional.
>> >> The fact that he keeps 3 people almost fulltime busy with debunking
>> >> should say enough to the average reader.
>> >
>> > Maybe the way you type it's a full time job, but that's European
>> > socialism for you.
>>
>> ?context?
>
> It was a joke. Sheesh.
Accepted as such.
>> Try it in your second language troll.. If you managed to learn one..
>
> Speak several, actually. Thought about learning Dutch, since I was
> traveling there a lot, but I changed jobs.
>
>> kloode-zak. (Vrij naar Kooten en de Bie.)
>
> Ti amo anche.
:)(:
> Cheers....Craig
> http://members.rennlist.com/skiffboy/ --- I'm not dumb. I just have a
> command of thoroughly useless information. - Calvin (and Hobbes)
>
> All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power. - Ashleigh
> Brilliant
>
> I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy
> me.
> - Fred Allen
--
Hit1Hard.
The strongest of all warriors are these two--Time and Patience. --Leo
Nikolaevich Tolstoy War and Peace
<Spam Shredder Block>
n Asian Herbs for Calm, Balance, Serenity and Joyful Living. "Seventh H
eaven" Prosaka is indeed a most extraordinary, viripotent, calming, cen
tering, mood-enhancing, holistically-formulated, exotic herbaceous alte
rnative to pharmaceutical medications for depression, anxiety, stress,
insomnia, etc. NO side effects! NO dependency! Vivaciously Mellow! Ther
<Spam Shredder Block>
Scott_to_the_Max
dust fall from the outside of the building? Please.
On 28 Nov 2001 02:35:26 GMT, rdele...@aol.com (RDElephant) wrote:
>>From: agen...@justicemail.com (agent86)
>>Date: 11/27/2001 7:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <3c042f07...@news.icx.net>
>>
>>On 27 Nov 2001 06:20:13 GMT, rdele...@aol.com (RDElephant) wrote:
>>
>>>Dick Eastman has posted a summary of a 48 Hours story regarding rubble
>>blocking
>>>passage on the 23rd and 24th floor of the North Tower, the location of the
>>FBI
>>>offices.
>>>
>>>The full printed story is available on the CBS website:
>>>
>>>http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,315156-412,00.shtml
>>>
>>>The critical paragraphs are as follows:
>>>
>>>In another part of the tower, Tabeek ran into the lobby to help. "As I ran
>>>through the lobby of building one, I was hearing things popping, like rubber
>>>bands. So I assumed the elevator cables were snapping."
>>
>>The critical word is "assumed".
>
>Actually, the critical words are the description of popping sounds. I agree
>that attributing that to the cables is speculative, but still somewhat
>informative as to the nature of the popping.
>
>>>He got a call that three Port Authority workers were trapped in a command
>>>center on the 22nd floor. He informed a fire battalion chief that he was
>>going
>>>up to rescue them. The chief assigned a group of firefighters, led by Lt.
>>Andy
>>>Desperito.
>>>
>>>The men walked up to the 22nd floor. Tabeek didn’t know that a second
>jet
>>had
>>>just struck Tower 2. When they reached the 22d floor of Tower 1, Desperito
>>and
>>>his men tunneled through the debris and opened up a path for those trapped
>>>inside.
>>
>>The dropped ceilings on many of the floors fell for one thing.
>>Without further description, you don't know if it was ceiling tiles,
>>turned over furniture or what.
>>
>>>Was the 24th floor the level of the elevator swapovers (?) for transit to
>>>higher floors ?
>>
>>No.
>>
>>> Could those snapping sounds have been bombs/cutter charges ??
>>
>>No.
>
>Why ?
>
>>>Would bombs at the 24th floor level have aided the implosion ??
>>
>>No.
>
>Why ?
>
>>>What created
>>>the rubble that blocked passage ??
>>
>>The crash of the aircraft into the towers. And you've moved from
>>"debris" to "rubble", Randy. Could be a BIG difference.
>
>How would the aircraft striking the Tower several dozen floors above create
>insurmountable rubble on the 24th floor ??
>
>(snip)
>
>>>Does this PROVE that the buildings were bombed ? No. Does it make it less
>>than
>>>an open and shut case that there were no bombs ?? Absolutely.
>>
>>Why?
>>
>>>So why is it apparently being treated as such ??
>>
>>Treated as what? Both towers were of identical construction. Both
>>towers were hit by 767 aircraft. Both towers fell, the only
>>difference being the time required to fall. Why does that lead
>>anywhere near a conclusion that there were bombs?
>
>Both planes hit WELL above the 24th floor. Why insurmountable rubble there
>prior to either buildings' collapse ????
>
>Also, the firefighter claimed that there were bombs and the other security guy
>described snapping which could have been bombs.
>
>If there were
>>bombs, why didn't the towers (a) fall sooner, (b) at the same time, or
>>(c) in the same way?
>
>A) I don't know, maybe their function was not to bring the building down
>immediately but to destroy evidence in the FBI office on the 23rd and 24th
>floors of the North Tower and/or to speed or assure collapse but not cause it
>immediately.
>
>B) The "bombs" did not occur at the same time
>
>C) Any diference could be attributed to the different placement of the aircraft
>strikes.
>
>>>And whether there were bombs or not, could the "unthinkability" of this as a
>>>"Reichstag fire" be lessened in part by realizing that at least some (if not
>>>all) of those planning and approving this criminal plan probably did not
>>>realize that the towers coming down was probable or part of the plan ??
>>
>>No. Since it wasn't a "Reichstag fire".
>
>Cite ? Argument ?
>
>>>If I had to bet, I would say that the top American officials knew that
>>multiple
>>>hijackings were going to occur, but elected uin advance not to stop them as
>>>pretext for the Afghan war. What they may not have known was that Mohammad
>>>Atta was "our man" (i.e., Mossad/CIA/ISI) and that the bringing down of the
>>>towers and attacking the Capitol was part of the plan.
>>
>>You'd probably lose that bet.
>
>I'd want odds.
>
>>>Once they green-lighted the 'sit on our hands so we can have our Afghan war"
>>>aerial defense strategy, the CIA/Mossad/ISI owned them. Shooting down
>>Flight
>>>93 to save the Capitol was all they could muster after they realized how far
>>>their partners had gone.
>>
>>But they didn't shoot down Flight 93.
>
>Sure they did, debris doesn't make it 8 miles in a few minutes froma nosedive
>into the ground ... only from an explosive. The people of Pennsylvania know it
>was shot down by that F-16 on its tail, so will everyone else soon.
>
>>>I'd bet dollars to donuts that Dubyah's little trip to Nebraka was about
>>>letting him absorb the enormity of what had hapened and exactly where he
>>stood
>>>in the center of this giant crime in the service of the "greater good." I
>>also
>>>get the feeling that in a perverse way he is almost trying to confess, what
>>>with his discussion of taking over planes by remote control and going
>>forward
>>>with calling for a Palestinian state (and telling Sharon to shut his trap
>>when
>>>he complained).
>>
>>You're really into betting, aren't you, Randy?
>
>Just a figure of speech, but yeah, I am a gambler at heart.
>
>Randy
>
>