Thread: Conspiracy: Bombs in the WTC buildings

FDNY firemen eyewitnesses recall detonations in the South Tower:

Fireman 1: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
Fireman 2: We made it at least two blocks.
Fireman 1: Two blocks.
Fireman 2: And we started runnin'.
Fireman 1: Pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow.
Fireman 2: Floor by floor it started poppin' out.
Fireman 1: It was as if as if they had detonated, det ...
Fireman 2: Yeah, detonated, yeah.
Fireman 1: As if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom.
Fireman 2: All the way down. I was watchin it, and runnin'.

Video:
http://911research.com/wtc/evidence...n_firehouse.mpg

----------

Eyewitness and member of the FDNY:

"We were trying to get some of the people out, but then there was
secondary explosions and then subsequent collapses."

Video: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/I...-explosions.mov ,
http://www.911blimp.net/videos/FDNY-explosions.mov

----------

FDNY firefighter eyewitness:

"As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway,
there was a heavy duty explosion."

Video:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/I...y.explosion.wmv ,
http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/h...y.explosion.wmv

----------

The below mp3 is edited from the radio transmissions of North
Brunswick Volunteer Fire/Ladder Company #3 on 9/11 (
http://www.nbvfd3.org/nbvfd3_wtcaudio.html ). The mp3 begins with the
collapse of the south tower, at 3:23 min:sec there are three
beeps--this signifies that time has moved on roughly 20 minutes to the
collapse of the north tower.

Numerous reports of explosions are made in the transmissions. Below
are just a small sampling of quotes from this mp3:

"Tower two has had major explosion and what appears to be a complete
collapse"
"...those involved in the secondary explosion at tower 1, 'kay, I've
got five patients ..."
"We have got numerous people covered in dust from the secondary
explosion ..."
"We've got another explosion at the tower ..."

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_firefighters.mp3

----------

MSNBC reporter and eyewitness:

"At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as I got outside I heard
a second explosion and another rumble and more smoke and more dust. I
ran inside the building and the chandelier shook and again black smoke
filled the air. Within another five minutes we were covered again with
more soot and more dust. And then a fire marshal came in and said we
had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building
might not last."

Video: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/I...wtc.msnbc.2.wmv

----------

Video and audio clips of NBC reporter Pat Dawson reporting on the
comments made by Albert Turi, Chief of Safety for the New York City
Fire Department, claiming there were bombs planted in the WTC:

"The Chief of Safety of the fire department of New York City told me
he recieved word of the possibility of a secondary device--that is,
another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he
could, but he said that there was another explosion which took place
and according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices
that were planted in the building."

Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/9....reporter.1.wmv

Audio: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/I...daryDevices.mp3

----------

Eyewitness:

"I was about five blocks away when I heard explosions ... three thuds
and turned around to see the building that we just got out of ... tip
over and fall in on itself."

Video: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/I...c.witness.1.wmv
, http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness.1.wmv

----------

Eyewitness:

"... and then all of a sudden it started like ... it sounded like
gunfire ... you know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang and then all
of a sudden three big explosions."

Video: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/I...c.witness.2.wmv
, http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness.2.wmv

----------

Eyewitness:

"45 minutes into the taping that we were doing, there was an
explosion. It was way up where the fire was and the whole building at
that point bellied out in flames and everybody ran."

Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/9....reporter.2.wmv

----------

The following audio clips originate from CBS Channel 2 in New York.
The eyewitness reporter is in a helicopter as the WTC Towers collapse:

"CBS News Channel Eyewitness Describes 'Secondary Explosions' in the
WTC," Dan Perez, Prison Planet, April 27, 2004:

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles...yexplosions.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/Tower2Pulled.mp3 ,
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/I...ower2Pulled.mp3

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/Tower1Pulled.mp3 ,
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/I...ower1Pulled.mp3

----------

Eyewitness Louie Cacchioli, FDNY firefighter:

""
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
""

"New York City--Those who escaped the carnage ran a horrifying
gauntlet," People, September 12, 2001:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010914...74592-3,00.html

----------

Eyewitness Kim White:

""
Kim White, 32, an administrative assistant at Thebeast, a financial
tech company on the 80th floor of 1 World Trade Center, was talking
with an office temp when the first plane struck.

All of a sudden the building shook, then it started to sway. We didn't
know what was going on. I ran towards the reception area. It was
completely collapsed, but the receptionist was able to crawl out from
under it. People started to panic. We got all our people on the floor
into the stairwell, and then people began to calm down. At that time
we all thought it was a fire. Someone was joking, "I hope it wasn't
another bomb." Everyone was trying to keep things up-tempo. We got
down as far as the 74th floor, and someone there pulled us into their
office. They had a TV on, and we saw that a plane had crashed into the
building. Then there was another explosion, so we left again by the
stairwell.
""

"New York City--Those who escaped the carnage ran a horrifying
gauntlet," People, September 12, 2001:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010914...74592-1,00.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20010914...74592-2,00.html

----------

Eyewitness Neil deGrasse Tyson, Director of the Hayden Planetarium of
the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, and Vice
President of The Planetary Society:

""
4) As more and more and more and more and more emergency vehicles
descended on the World Trade Center, I hear a second explosion in WTC
2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable
-- a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion. First
the top surface, containing the helipad, tips sideways in full view.
Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style
implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point
of the explosion. A dense, thick dust cloud rises up in its place,
which rapidly pours through the warren of streets that cross lower
Manhattan.

...

6) I decide it's time to get my daughter, who was taken by the parents
of a friend of hers to a small office building, six blocks farther
from the WTC than my apartment. As I dress for survival: boots,
flashlight, wet towels, swimming goggles, bicycle helmet, gloves, I
hear another explosion followed by a now all-too familiar rumble that
signaled the collapse of WTC 1, the first of the two towers to have
been hit. I saw the iconic antenna on this building descend straight
down in an implosion twinning the first.
""

"An Eye-Witness Account of the World Trade Center Attacks from Neil
deGrasse Tyson," The Planetary Society, September 12, 2001:

http://www.planetary.org/html/socie...t11account.html

----------

Eyewitness Teresa Veliz:

""
"The flashlight led us into Borders bookstore, up an escalator and out
to Church Street. There were explosions going off everywhere. I was
convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone
was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. I was afraid
to go down Church Street toward Broadway, but I had to do it. I ended
up on Vesey Street. There was another explosion. And another. I didn't
know where to run."
""

"Teresa Veliz: A Prayer to Die Quickly and Painlessly" in September
11: An Oral History by Dean E. Murphy (Doubleday; 2002), pp. 9-15:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/veliz-bombs.htm

----------

Eyewitness Nadine Keller:

""
"I saw everything from my balcony in Soho. The first plane tried to
veer off the tower but slammed straight into it, followed by the
second plane," Nadine Keller of New York City wrote in an e-mail to
BBC News Online.

"There was smoke everywhere. I heard the bomb and saw both buildings
crumble like biscuits," Ms Keller said.
""

"Eyewitnesses tell of horror," BBC News, September 11, 2001:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1537500.stm

----------

Eyewitness Jeff Birnbaum, President of Broadway Electrical Supply Co.,
New York:

""
"When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most
eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a
popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it
all let go. The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building
let go. There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and
started coming down."
""

"On the Scene at the WTC," Jim Lucy, Editor, Electrical Wholesaling,
February 1, 2002:

http://ewweb.com/ar/electric_scene_wtc/

"Broadway Electrical Supply's Jeff Birnbaum recounts his experience as
an EMT at the World Trade Center on 9-11," Jim Lucy, Editor, CEE News,
February 13, 2002:

http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/e...pplys/index.htm

----------

Eyewitness Robert Ivy:

""
... we felt a rumble like faraway thunder and turned. The impossible
was happening. The south tower of the World Trade Center shook, and in
what resembled an elemental act, fell to earth in a mighty shout. The
entire dissolution, the changeover from solid elements to ash, took
only seconds, and it was gone.
""

"Terror in the City," Robert Ivy, FAIA Editor-in-chief, Architectural
Record, September 12, 2001:

http://www.archrecord.com/news/from.../0109terror.asp

----------

The below is an interview of journalist Greg Szymanski, 9/11 hero and
eyewitness William Rodriguez, and Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan. William
Rodriguez recounts the bombs going off at various levels inside the
North Tower.

"9/11 Truth Expose," Prison Planet, June 27, 2005:

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/270605truthexpose.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/270605sept11show.mp3

----------

For more 9/11 eyewitness accounts of bombs in the towers, see the
below documentation resources:

"9/11 Firefighters: Bombs and Explosions in the WTC," What Really
Happened:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html

"Eyewitness Reports Of Explosions Before WTC Collapses," What Really
Happened:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/eyewitness.html

----------

""
... I met Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police
Officer, Paul Isaac Jr. at the World Trade Center Memorial. Paul,
along with many other firemen, is very upset about the obvious
cover-up and he is on a crusade for answers and justice. He was
stationed at Engine 10, across the street from the World Trade Center
in 1998 and 99; Engine 10 was entirely wiped out in the destruction of
the towers. He explained to me 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."
Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as
the Fire Department's Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag
order down the ranks. "There were definitely bombs in those
buildings," he told me.
""

"Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a
Conspiracy Fact," Randy Lavello, Prison Planet, May 5, 2003:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysi...0503_bombs.html

----------

In the below articles can be found the eyewitness accounts of William
Rodriguez, Felipe David, Salvatore Giambanco, and Jose Sanchez
concerning bombs going off the the World Trade Center:

"WTC Basement Blast And Injured Burn Victim Blows 'Official 9/11
Story' Sky High; Eye Witness Testimony Is Conclusive That North Tower
Collapsed From Controlled Demolition," Greg Szymanski, The Arctic
Beacon, June 24, 2005:

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/article...18131/28031.htm

"Media Big Shots at NBC and New York Times 'Hush Hush And Evasive'
About Why WTC Janitor Story Never Appeared, A Story That Blows The
Official 9/11 Account Sky High," Greg Szymanski, The Arctic Beacon,
July 8, 2005:

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/article...18131/28901.htm

"Second WTC Janitor Comes Forward With Eye-Witness Testimony Of
'Bomb-Like' Explosion in North Tower Basement," Greg Szymanski, The
Arctic Beacon, July 12, 2005:

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/article...18131/29079.htm

"Two More WTC Workers Come Forward, One Seriously Burned And The Other
Hurt While Trapped In Basement Elevator, Both Claiming Massive
Explosion Took Place In Lower Levels Of North Tower On 9/11," Greg
Szymanski, The Arctic Beacon, July 13, 2005:

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/article...18131/29110.htm

I am just passing this information on to this forum.

um... what?

Why would they bother with both, why not just one or the other. Were the planes just shock and awe? Wouldn't they have found traces of the explosives in the debris.

Well, 'they' might have, but the 'they' that found them may be working for the 'they' that put them there in the first place. The planes would have been so they could blame terrorism. I've heard these arguments before, but I'm never really sure what to believe. The gov lies so much how do you know how much of what they tell us actually is true. It is kinda sketchy how quickly they came up with name of people they wanted to blame as being in the planes...

As much as I think sometimes Bush would do such a thing I would have to think the people around him would not. This would be a massive cover up, not something many people are good at. Somehow I doubt this was a massive conspiracy. Also you take a building down at the base, not at the top. The blasts that would be needed would have been seen on video. I watched this all live that morning and don't recall any such blasts.

Poppycock. The Bush admin wasn't even competent enough to keep the Abu Ghareb scandal secret or from coming to the media forfront.

There were no need for bombs. We have multiple video and thousands of eyewitness accounts of planes flying into the buildings, moreover, there were loads of forensic evidence from the planes to corroberate the videos & witnesses, not the least of which is the passenger manifests of the planes, their flight plans, and the missing people.

The physics associated with the impacts also stands up to scrutiny, therefore "bombs" were not needed.

SkinWalker, ghost isn't saying that planes did not go into the buildings, he is just saying that their has also been evidence of bombs placed at the base to ensure the buildings coming down. Need I remind everyone that both building were built to withstand this sort of thing. Especially after the previous attacked on the WTC. A 1998 Pentagon exercise prefigured 9/11's events, so it's not like this was attack was a complete surprise.

The reason I am so skeptical is because of how many lies have already been pointed out to have come from the FBI. For instance, the supposedly indestructable black boxes in the planes could not be recovered, and yet the FBI claims that they found one of the hijackers paper passports a couple blocks from the towers...hmmmm. Also they couldn't get any DNA because all the bodies had been so demolished and yet a passport somehow survived the blast? That's just laughable.


Locke

Why bother putting explosives in the building when you're going to fly planes into it then? The fuel of the planes (the tanks were full) provided the source of the heat. The metal superstructure of the building gave way. Gravity did the rest. There's no mystery.

Why do some artifacts survive catastrophe and not others? I'm sure someone could come up with a reasonable explanation, but I can tell you from experience that I've been in a burned out, Soviet-made T-72 that suffered secondary explosions in which the crew died (evidenced by the odor and the testimony of an Iraqi not in the tank). From that same tank, I removed a fully intact operator's manual that wasn't even singed -it only had a single hole in the center from shrapnel that went completely through it's 6 inches.

There's no evidence to support the speculations of conspiracy theorists... they draw conclusions from correlations in the same manner as numerologists do. Significance junkies and mystery mongers. If they should show some real, tangible evidence, then it would be different. As it is, the methodology is flawed and is comparable to pseudoscience.

Anyone who mentions bombs in conjunction with 9/11 must be too young to remember the first attack on the WTC, on Feb 26th, 1993. The alleged goal of this attack was to compromise the foundations of the North tower, so it collapsed into it's twin, taking that down too.

Of course, this attempt failed.

So, having said that, why would anyone plant explosives again, AND use planes? Unless the WTC was properly rigged, explosives wouldn't do much. If it was properly rigged (and I think the drilling, setting and wiring of explosives might have been noticed, and this needs to be done for proper collapse, just putting explosives next to a structure isn't enough) the planes would be an unnecessary complication. And as the building obviously hadn't been rigged, what would any explosives lend to the devastation that fast, fuel laden airliners could cause?

Of course, the popping and banging noises reported could have been anything. Fire extinguishers exploding in the heat, for instance, concrete structures cracking, tyres of the aircraft popping in the heat (if anyone hasn't seen a vehicle on fire, take it from me, the tyres go off with quite a bang). The problem here is that most ordinary citizens haven't seen stuff blown up or catch fore that often, so their reports of 'bombs going off' aren't reliable.

the floor by floor collapse which seems to be the major pice of evidenc behind a bomb theory can be explained by a simple structural flaw. there were no diagonal girders in the buildings, so as soon as the explosions knocked out a few floors in there, their collective weight coming down so fast on the frame without any reinforcement caused it to collapse like a big stack of toothpicks as each floor gave out one after the other

Originally Posted by Locke

I've heard these arguments before, but I'm never really sure what to believe. The gov lies so much how do you know how much of what they tell us actually is true.

The government lies about, I dunno, unemployment statistics. They lie about those things that are going to lose them votes. It's hard enough to accept that even the most evil government would purposely wipe out 3,000 of its own citizens (unless they were a specifically targeted minority, like Jews in pre-War Germany or Kurds in Iraq), but there is no way that the American government would even dream of doing such a thing.

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

As much as I think sometimes Bush would do such a thing I would have to think the people around him would not.

Are you insane?? (Ok, I noticed your name, but still!) He's a bit right wing. He's probably not up to the job of being President of the United States. But please don't tell me that you can put your hand on your heart, look at that dear old duffer George Dubya, and remotely believe him capable of wiping out three thousand innocent New Yorkers.

Originally Posted by Locke

Need I remind everyone that both building were built to withstand this sort of thing. Especially after the previous attacked on the WTC.

Well, built to withstand is one thing, actually capable of withstanding is another. It has become clear that the building design was seriously not up to the task of withstanding a Jumbo hitting it. Fire-proof drywall designed to stop fires taking over the fire exit stairwells just blew off. The whole design of the structure of the building was, in fact, not up to a major collision, since it was inevitable that you would get a deck-of-cards situation with the floor mounting. There was nothing about the fundamental structure that could have remotely been altered after 1993 to prevent 9/11. And as it turns out from the stairwell drywall, stuff that could have been done was not.

All of that eyewitness testimony is worthless. There were explosions - well, two Jumbo Jets full of fuel had hit the building at a speed capable of generating more than enough heat from the ginormous dissipation of kinetic energy to ignite all the said fuel.

Originally Posted by Silas

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

As much as I think sometimes Bush would do such a thing I would have to think the people around him would not.

Are you insane?? (Ok, I noticed your name, but still!) He's a bit right wing. He's probably not up to the job of being President of the United States. But please don't tell me that you can put your hand on your heart, look at that dear old duffer George Dubya, and remotely believe him capable of wiping out three thousand innocent New Yorkers.

Ok, granted he might be a bit too soft and simple for all of that. If I thought it would somehow save millions I'm sure I could do it, not that I ever want to be put in such a situation.

The 'kill 1 to save 1000', with the variety of numbers, does not work, in a moral perspective because one can never be truly certain. It is the same with despair. There is never certainty that things will turn bad. There is always hope.

It's a scary thing when we begin to talk about how much we need that one person, to calculate when the chance is too small that things will turn out good.

Personally, I have no interest to pour myself in conspiracy theories. They bring nothing but sadness and paranoia. If a couple of men are able to rule the world, and steer the events, I say congratulations. We, the mass, tolerate such dictatorship. We allow our elected governments to infringe upon our liberties.
We are indirectly responsible for all the pain and suffering in this world, including those 3000 deaths. Shoving that responsiblity into the shoes of GW Bush, the jews, or whomever else is cowardice.

Mr U

Um... of course those people heard load bangs, like explosions.... the sound of thousands of tons of building buckling under the extreme weight of itself! Back in 1997 (?) in Milwaukee, "Big Blue", a tower crane, collasped with a concrete roof section for the Miller Park Stadium. Moments before it collasped, a loud "bang" was heard. This was the sound of one of the connecting pins breaking. I have seen video from the ground just as it broke, and you can hear (as did the videotaper) it bang, and it sounds very much like a 1/4 stick going off. The WTC buildings were made of steel, which softens very easily in intense heat, like that of buring jet fuel. The steel did not need to melt, just become soft enough that it would no long hold it's own weight. As for the passports and such, as the jet liners crashed, alot of debrie was blown out by the force of the impact, probably before it could have burned.

Brownstone ><

I don't think that this is a conspiracy. If it would be unearthed, it would turn the world upside down and not only Bush could kiss his ass good bye but everyone that was involved in it. No, they would never take such a risk. There have to be many people involved in this, and risk would be too great that one of them might leak something.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

FDNY firemen eyewitnesses recall detonations in the South Tower:

Fireman 1: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
Fireman 2: We made it at least two blocks.
Fireman 1: Two blocks.
Fireman 2: And we started runnin'.
Fireman 1: Pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow.
Fireman 2: Floor by floor it started poppin' out.
Fireman 1: It was as if as if they had detonated, det ...
Fireman 2: Yeah, detonated, yeah.
Fireman 1: As if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom.
Fireman 2: All the way down. I was watchin it, and runnin'.

I saw a documentary on the collapse of the world trade center towers a few years ago. The building did actually collapsed one story at a time. The fire burned until the heat weakened the steal supports so much that it wasn’t able to support the weight of the top part of the building, at which time the top part of the building fell down into the floor below it. By the time the top of the building had fallen one story, it had accumulated enough kinetic energy to knock its way through every floor beneath it. The building didn’t really “fall down,” but rather was knocked flat one story at a time as the top of the building fell downward through the rest of the building.

Need I remind everyone that both building were built to withstand this sort of thing.

No it wasn't. It was designed with the impact of a slightly smaller plane, a 707, in mind. It was not designed to resist the resulting fire, and fire is what weakened the steel beams and columns. It's not often that things like this happen - we don't know everything about how buildings perform in large fires. No buildings, other than possibly parts of a nuclear power plant, are designed with extreme events like these in mind.

People, this conspiracy theory is one of the silliest out there. Don't be duped. If there was anything at all to this nonsense the professionals in the construction industry would have been all over it long ago. All engineers generally agree that some combination of impact and fire brought down the towers. Don't believe me? Go to an engineering library and read reports from engineers all over the world.

Originally Posted by Kemal

Need I remind everyone that both building were built to withstand this sort of thing.

No it wasn't. It was designed with the impact of a slightly smaller plane, a 707, in mind. It was not designed to resist the resulting fire, and fire is what weakened the steel beams and columns. It's not often that things like this happen - we don't know everything about how buildings perform in large fires. No buildings, other than possibly parts of a nuclear power plant, are designed with extreme events like these in mind.

People, this conspiracy theory is one of the silliest out there. Don't be duped. If there was anything at all to this nonsense the professionals in the construction industry would have been all over it long ago. All engineers generally agree that some combination of impact and fire brought down the towers. Don't believe me? Go to an engineering library and read reports from engineers all over the world.

I agree.

Just got this link from a friend. I've not looked at it yet..but I will.

http://question911.com/links.php

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

Just got this link from a friend. I've not looked at it yet..but I will.

http://question911.com/links.php

It would be interesting to get the reaction, of the skeptics in this thread, regarding that film.

Any chance?

Jan.

Originally Posted by jan ardena

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

Just got this link from a friend. I've not looked at it yet..but I will.

http://question911.com/links.php

It would be interesting to get the reaction, of the skeptics in this thread, regarding that film.

Any chance?

Jan.

I have yet to watch the film, was it good?

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

Originally Posted by jan ardena

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

Just got this link from a friend. I've not looked at it yet..but I will.

http://question911.com/links.php

It would be interesting to get the reaction, of the skeptics in this thread, regarding that film.

Any chance?

Jan.

I have yet to watch the film, was it good?

I don't know about good or bad, but it does appear to contradict the views of the skeptics, paving the way for a good debate.
I just wonder what the skeptics actually think of it.

Jan.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

I saw a documentary on the collapse of the world trade center towers a few years ago. The building did actually collapsed one story at a time. The fire burned until the heat weakened the steal supports so much that it wasn’t able to support the weight of the top part of the building, at which time the top part of the building fell down into the floor below it. By the time the top of the building had fallen one story, it had accumulated enough kinetic energy to knock its way through every floor beneath it. The building didn’t really “fall down,” but rather was knocked flat one story at a time as the top of the building fell downward through the rest of the building.

Originally Posted by kemal

It was not designed to resist the resulting fire, and fire is what weakened the steel beams and columns. It's not often that things like this happen - we don't know everything about how buildings perform in large fires. No buildings, other than possibly parts of a nuclear power plant, are designed with extreme events like these in mind.

People, this conspiracy theory is one of the silliest out there. Don't be duped. If there was anything at all to this nonsense the professionals in the construction industry would have been all over it long ago. All engineers generally agree that some combination of impact and fire brought down the towers. Don't believe me? Go to an engineering library and read reports from engineers all over the world.

What fueled the fire? Most of the jet fuel (kerosene) was vapourised on imapct. A lot of fires have burned considerably longer without the the buildings collapsing. Also how does this lets say, intense fire conspiracy theory explain why the second tower to be hit collapsed first? Why did the outer shells not peel banana like from the collapsing floors? And all engineers kemal? It doesn't take much to find some that question the collapse especially building 7.
As for conspiracy theories it stands as a fact that PNAC members have conspired to influence US foreign policy for at least the last six years. If you've never heard of PNAC look it up. That is not to say I believe they or the US administration had any part WTC event.

As to whether the American govt. is capable of toying with the citizens, see "Atomic Cafe." Nuclear weapons have been tested on people and they have been lied to about the radiation effects. The army being capable of devising and application of provocation and blaming that on foreign countries is well documented in the Operation Northwoods that JFK rejected. That he was assassinated afterwards everyone knows. The scapegoat Oswald, said to be a communist, was blamed and convicted. The govt. didn't care much about the people in the NYC and around. They said "the air is safe to breathe." Didn't matter it was full of asbestos, mercury and radioactive materials from the smoke detectors. The official reports lack credibility, because they contradict each other over the matters that don't require advanced science to be considered. The good example is the cause of WTC7 collapse.

Margaret Thatcher said: "Democratic nations must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend." Have you seen this done? No, the world was literally deluged with the images of the planes hitting, Twin Towers collapsing, on and on. But somehow no-one remembers the WTC7 collapse. What does it tell you? Do you really require fantasies to question the theory that 19 "Arabs" with box-cutters hijacked the planes and hit the very symbols of American pride? What are the odds for that? Do you really think the powers that be don't have the knowledge necessary to control human behaviour and responses?

The terrorist, as ruthless as he is, has a purpose. It is to enforce submission through intimidation by application of destruction and murder. Silencing of the opposition can be achieved with the same means. This is a matter of behavioral sciences. What purpose might have Afghans had for the attack? Who benefitted most from the so-called "war on terrorism" proclaimed? Have anyone of you read at least the ToC of the Patriot Act? There's a passage that indirectly promotes racism and antagonism against Arabs and Muslims. Note that Afghans or Iraquis are no Arabs. The NATO reports show that there is already destination specified for the oil from the Middle East. Look at the map of the Middle East. Can you see it? Look up "Caspian negotiations" in the internet. What does it tell you? Now both Afghans and Iraqis have really very good reasons to hate America and seek vengeance. They have been slandered and slaughtered, civilians too, but you won't know that from TV.

All this 9/11 stuff is multi-faceted and would require diverse sciences to grasp its meaning. There is no other way to solve the puzzle than actually connecting the dots. The 9/11 were not separate events but a clever strategy. The authors have all sciences at hands and apply them effectively and disregard you. Divide and conquer. That's as old as Sun-Tzu. There are so many things against common knowledge or even common sense. Have anyone of you read "1984?" If not, take a quick glance in the Wikipedia. Somehow it fits the pattern. Think. But that's not all. If you close up with what you've come to, you're still alone and frightened. Whatever terrorist wants to rule you, wins.

Let all right thinking people declare "There is NOTHING to debate here"

Originally Posted by billco

Let all right thinking people declare

What do you mean by "right?"

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

Originally Posted by billco

Let all right thinking people declare

What do you mean by "right?"

Pop down to your local library - non fiction section - Dictionary is the type of book you are looking for, ask somebody to explain to you how to use it and if neccessary get them to read it to you.

billco, you are being rather short with Winston. Uneccessarily so. I wondered what you meant by it. These were the possibilites I considered for Let all right thinking people declare "There is NOTHING to debate here"
a) The direct meaning, treating 'right thinking' as a colloquial phrase, 'sober, sensible, thoughtful'.
b) The meaning employing paronomasia - 'right thinking' = Republicans. Let all Republicans declare there is nothing to discuss, because they are sweeping it under the carpet.
c) The sarcastic meaning - let all people who claim to be pillars of society and to meetr the definition of a) state there is nothing to debate.
d) I'm sure there was another one in my mind when I started this list. Ah, well.

A dictionary will not inform Winston which of these meanings you intended.

I started to write a 4 page reply, but just got deeper & deeper so


... (a) The direct meaning - although it is subjective, so wide open - so whatever you want.

In this case would there be any difference between (a),(b)&(c)?



As for being hard - not intended but being from the old school 'if the cap fit's'

I have always found it amazing that those who trust technology to transport them via jet planes, do not trust the same principles and technology to explain the collapse of a building. Either trust those engineers who do know or take a while to study it yourself.

Disrespect for Winston's conspiracy theory is one thing and is acceptable.

Trasnfering that disrespect for his theory, to disrespect for him because he fails to clearly comprehend an ambiguous post you have made, is not acceptable.

The fourth one you may have been thinking of is those who 'think' with the right hemisphere of the brain.

Originally Posted by billco

Let all right thinking people declare "There is NOTHING to debate here"

As to thinking... I'd rather do it for myself than rely on the opinion of the so-called experts. The more so, because they did not present any model or fact sheet to support their claims. They even contradict each other.

Code:

debate, n
2. Contention in words or arguments; discussion for the purpose of
      elucidating truth or influencing action; strife in argument;
      controversy; as, the debates in Parliament or in Congress.
Webster's Unabridged, 1913.

Therefore, as long as there's difference of opinion, there is every reason for debate. Unless, of course, my choice of dictionary was improper.
Ophiolite, I am not angry: "I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left." -- Margaret Thatcher

There comes a point when(and where) you have to put your stick in the ground and stand by it. I have not myself, ever seen the WTC directly, but have seen much imagery of it. I believe it[the WTC] existed because of the sheer weight of information received supporting it's existence, AND the lack of any(evidence) to the contrary[non-existence].

I see nothing wrong in ignorant people believing in anything. If science shows them it's version of reality, then they decide whether to become scientifically enlightened or scientifically stupid, by accepting or rejecting what they have been shown.

As for Winston, my post just happened to follow his, I took a look at the thread thought Why(TF) are they debating this, and added my comment.
In my opinion anyone who continues to support the allegegation of planted bombs on 9/11 after being explained the science is merely Ignorant, stupid, thick, moronic and dense.