For Those Who Don't Believe Explosives Were Used in the WTC Collapses:

[spooked911]

What would it take to convince you otherwise?

In fact, I was unconvinced whether there were explosives used in the WTC collapses, until I read Webster Tarpley's new book, "9/11 Synthetic Terror, Made in USA", and then I have switched over to the controlled demolition camp.

Against demolition we have:
1) the pancake collapse model-- an unproven theory
2) the belief that there couldn't have been more layers to the 9/11 conspiracy

For demolition we have:
1) the fact that the WTC was bombed in '93
2) the extreme speed at which the towers fell-- not consistent with pancake model
3) both towers collapsed same exact way though damage to each was very different
4) eye-witness reports of explosives on 9/11, including from firemen
5) the Fire Dept suppressing discussion of bombs in the WTC on 9/11 by firemen
6) Giuliani and the government clearly hindered any investigation into the collapse-- quickly cleared away the material before it could be analyzed. Giuliani didn't even want tourists taking photos at the WTC site.
7) Silverstein-- the owner of the WTC complex wanting to unload the buildings
8) reports of molten steel at the base of the WTC collapse
9) empty office space in the WTC where bombs could have been planted
10) a worker at the WTC who says power was shut off in the WTC the weekend before the attacks for laying cables
11) finally, this Madrid skyscraper where it burned for 24 hours-- 12 times as long as the WTC, but only suffered a partial collapse of a few floors.

So, absent someone turning them self in saying they planted explosives in the WTC, which is unlikely of course-- what WOULD convince you there were explosives used to bring down the WTC towers?

[Sweet Pea]

1. It is simply....

such a out-of-this-world scenario that even IF someone came forth and said they wired the buildings for demolition I wouldn't believe them.

I think that this WTC demolition cabal are really uneducated in what exactly it takes to bring a building down, much less a building of this size.

All those videos and images of other buildings that have "collapsed in their footprint" due to demolition charges have a large number of things the WTC never had - a stripping of all support material, charges on likely every support and load bearing structure, a computerized placement plan of what would end up being hundreds (if not thousands) of squib charges. What do you see when a conventional demolition goes off? Hundreds of these "squibs" going off in a careful, computer-planned sequence of detonations that takes months to plan, prepare and set.....how many of these "squibs" can anyone point to in the WTC? 3? 4?? Nothing more than the ejection of material out the side of the building (PROVE it isn't compression ejection!) and all of a sudden that is prima facie evidence of a controlled demolition? You are going to bring down a 110 story building with 3 or 4 squib detonations? If that is all it takes to bring down a building of that size then why aren't ALL conventional demolitions, especially since they are smaller than the WTC, done with only 3 or 4 squibs?

Also, placing charges on the exact floors that the aircraft hit stretches coincidence (or conspiracy - take your pick) way too far for me.

It ranks right up there with the Faked-moon-landing people, the chemtrail people, the Elvis-is-alive people and the Area 51 is a UFO-landing-strip people.

[BeFree]

3. Consider this:

When planned demolitions take place, great care is given to keep the surrounding structures from damage.
This was not the case in the WTC collapses.

Demolition experts could take down any building within hours if they wanted too. It is the after effect which legal demolition experts are most concerned about. There would have been no reason to be bothered with such matters in the WTC case.

In legal demolitions great thought is given to the clean-up. Charges are placed all around an existing structure so that there remain no big pieces requiring further cutting.
This was not the case in the WTC affair.

Given the limited evidence we have, no one with good reasoning skills should come to a conclusion one way or the other. One simply must entertain the idea that it could have been the plane's fault. And, one must keep one's mind open to the idea that it was an illegal controlled demolition. To fix upon one idea, to the total exclusion of the other, with the limited knowledge available, is sheer lunacy.

[LARED]

4. What is is sheer lunacy

is clinging to a scenario that is quite impossible. The idea that the WTC was an "illegal demolition" (whatever that means) has not been excluded; it is so throughly debunked that keeping your mind open to the possibility brings into question the advocate's reasoning skills.

[BeFree]

7. Debunked?

I think not. There is a very good case that has been made for the illegal demolition theory.

There is a pretty good case made for the alternative fire theory.

Making a wise determination whilst doing much more than sitting at a computer is, imo, unscientific and illogical.

The two or more theories should be given equal weight before establishing any solid belief. There are some here who like to form beliefs solely upon what they want to hear. Kinda like taking the bible literally, eh?

I am undecided when it comes to forming a belief as concerning the collapse of the WTCs. But the more I read from people who support the b*** theory, the less inclined I am to accept that theory.

[spooked911]

12. thanks for keeping an open mind!

like I said, I was largely undecided, but upon hearing that the NYFD was suppressing talk of bombs in the WTC, I had a change of mind.

[LARED]

27. We agree

There are some here who like to form beliefs solely upon what they want to hear. Kinda like taking the bible literally, eh?

Except it's like taking Grims Fairy Tales literally.

[BeFree]

28. Or

Having belief in only the king b*** version of the 9/11 bible.

It is interesting, having been away from the 9/11 forum for a few months, to come back and see that several individuals are still in the "I am the proof, and all else is false" sinkhole they were in, way back when.

I am sure yall have been offered a helping hand up and out of that hole, I wonder how come few have taken advantage of that helping hand? Could it be that your fundamental beliefs in the king b*** version has held yall back? Sad, if true.

An open mind is a terrible thing to waste, eh?

[LARED]

34. This is not about the Bush version of 9/11

It's about logic, reason, and evidence.

[BeFree]

37. Yes, it is the same problem

Both the king b*** version people and the king james version people have a problem with logic, reason, and evidence.

[LARED]

58. King James Version

is by far the best bible to read. It takes a while and some effort to get a feel for the syntax flow, but once you are comfortable, the power and elegance cannot be matched.

You should give it a try.

[spooked911]

133. You actually have problems with the Bush version of 9/11?

That's the first hint of dissent I've seen from you here.

What don't you like about the Bush version?

[Bolo Boffin]

2. Complete hogwash

Silverstein had just purchased the WTC towers, and now he wanted to unload them? Why didn't he just not buy them?

The towers did NOT collapse "same exact way". The speed with which they collapsed is completely consistent with an uncontrolled collapse, as LARED has being pointing out for a while.

No one - NO ONE - saw bombs. There are no eyewitnesses to bombs or to explosions. NONE. There are people who heard sounds that sounded like explosions. That's all. NO ONE SAW BOMBS. NO ONE SAW EXPLOSIONS.

"Empty office space" doesn't cut it. Neither does "power shut off the weekend before". It would take months to plant explosives in the WTC for a controlled demolition. The charges would have to be placed precisely, not just where there was empty office space.

The Madrid skyscraper didn't suffer the same damage from a plane strike that the WTC towers did. The Madrid skyscraper didn't approach the same mass (energy) that the WTC towers possessed. The chunk of WTC South tower above the airplane damage probably had twice the mass of the entire Madrid skyscraper. You should try comparing apples to apples.

[BeFree]

5. Uncontrolled collapse

That's right, we agree, Bolo, it was an uncontroled collapse. The question you skip over is: Was the collapse started from fire, or from set explosives?

Looking at the video, one sees the after effects of possible explosions many floors below the planes entry points. A whole floor of windows can be seen being blown out in some frames. Therefore, your argument is wrong.

As stated in post #3, there simply is too little info to come down on one side or the other. And when one wonders why there is so little info because the clean-up was so controlled, and done so quickly evidence was carted away, one must reasonably suspect someone was in control of the whole mess.

It's odd that a single airliner crash gets a more deatiled study than the whole WTC job. Or the pentagon job, for that matter. To any reasonable person, the lack of info from either case should give one great pause before any exclamation of belief.
Of course, not all people are reasonable, are they?

[AZCat]

6. A "more detailed study"?

Have you looked at what the NIST is doing? I would be quite surprised to find any post-accident analysis of an aircraft crash that duplicated the depth of the NIST study.

[BeFree]

8. Normal crashes

The evidence is not carted away without a thorough, and I mean thorough, examination. The study which took place on the sreets of NYC in the midst of the evidence was severely hampered. I think we can agree on that, right?

[AZCat]

9. There seems to be a serious disconnect on this issue

What do you propose the NIST do with the thousands of tons of steel from the WTC? The investigators kept samples from the steel (see Appendix F of the June 2004 Interim Report), but it would have been logistically impossible to do anything with the bulk of the steel other than recycle it.

[BeFree]

10. No disconnect

It is a fact that other airline crash invstigations are more thorough than the two at the WTC. That's pretty simple.

The fact is that much evidence was removed before a thorough examination could be made, and that is not the usual method in other airplane crashes which are thoroughly completed before evidence removal.

[AZCat]

11. Actually they did look through the evidence

There would be no reason to conduct a "thorough examination" of most of the steel from the WTC. Examining pieces that were not from the impact area or that were absent any unusual deformations would not increase the understanding of how the WTC collapsed.

The group that selected the samples went through the steel collected at the various points looking for specific kinds of pieces:
-Exterior column panels and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were exposed to fire and/or impacted by the aircraft;
-Exterior column panels and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 directly above and below the impact zones;
-Badly burned pieces from WTC 7;
Connections from WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 (e.g., seat connections, -single-shear plates, and column splices);

This wasn't a haphazard operation. The scale of the debris compared to that from an aircraft crash is mind-boggling, and the comparison is like that of apples to oranges.

More importantly, the structural failure of the WTC continues to be examined, using the information collected from the material samples.

[spooked911]

14. are you saying NIST had access to every sample they could have wanted?

Granted it was a huge pile of debris to sort through, and perhaps it is too much to expect for investigators to get first crack at all the pieces. But several people have said that NIST wished they had more samples to analyze.

One of the points here is that this was a catastrophic collapse-- certainly the firemen at the scene weren't expecting the collapse, and thousands of people died. It was easily the most horrible part of 9/11. So, there was every reason to want to understand why the structures gave way, but initally Giuliani et al. seemed to stonewall any investigation and simply rushed to clean up the debris. Certainly the victims' families would like better answers as to why the towers collapsed.

But an important point is what about the reports of explosions from the towers on 9/11? How do you just write these off?

How can you rule out bombs so easily?

[AZCat]

15. No I am not saying that

The NIST may have, in hindsight, realized that more samples might have been helpful than what they thought at the time, or they might just have been limited by their available resources and could only take a limited amount - I don't know.

The question isn't how I write off the reports of explosions, but how the engineers working on the investigation write off those reports. There may be perfectly rational reasons why there were explosion-like events, but I have to admit I don't know.

The point about bombs isn't that they can be ruled out easily, but that some people see them as a way of explaining a collapse that they don't see happening by the means proposed by the NIST, and that's an a priori explanation of events. The buildings fell down - that's fairly obvious - but shouldn't we examine the simpler scenario first to see if it is valid?


Edited for clarity in last sentence

[spooked911]

20. Why is the fire-induced collapsed simpler?

Just because we don't have to postulate bombs being placed in the WTC?


But is that really so hard to imagine?


The fire-induced collapsed seems to go against some degree of common sense-- not that there couldn't be some collapse, but that the whole damn buildings would go down so quickly. Sure, it's slightly plausible. But is it really the simplest explanation overall?

Seems like bombs placed at a few key core columns would explain the rapid collapse more simply.

The major problem with the pancake model is that there seems to be no resistance -- everything just flies down. Shouldn't the non-fire-damaged floors have put up more of a fight?

[hack89]

23. It is more than "fire-induced collapsed"

There is a simple logical model for what happened:

It was fire PLUS loss of structural integrity due to the impact of the aircraft. It is reasonable to assume that having lost numerous support members, there was a redistribution of forces among the remaining support members - resulting in some support members supporting weights close to their design limits. The fire would only need to weaken (not melt) one of these over stressed support members enough for it to collapse. This would start a chain reaction as the weight of the building was redistributed, over loading more support members and making them collapse.

A very SIMPLE model.

All that weight plus momentum equals a lot of energy. Perhaps the lower floors did not put up much of a "fight" because that energy was orders of magnitude greater than they were designed to carry. Resistance implies that the gap between designed and actual forces was small - what if that gap was so large that any resistance was immediately overcome?

[spooked911]

33. Resistance

"Perhaps the lower floors did not put up much of a "fight" because that energy was orders of magnitude greater than they were designed to carry."

Orders of magnitude? That makes no sense, since the weight was exactly what they were designed to carry all along.

[hack89]

40. Static versus dynamic loads

Those lower floors were certainly NOT design to handle that weight moving at any speed. Remember in the kinetic energy equation, the velocity is squared - it is easy to believe that the dynamic load of all that weight would be a order of magnitude greater than the static load of all that weight.

If you carefully place a 25 pound weight on the top of my head, my skull will support it. If you drop that same weight from a 100 foot height, my skull would be crushed like an eggshell. Same weight, different energy.

[spooked911]

42. Yes, I understand. The question is-- if a floor drops ten feet, does it

really pick up so much more extra energy than the floor below is designed to handle?

[hack89]

43. It was a lot more than just one floor falling if I recall correctly

but to be perfectly honest, I am not an engineer so I can't do the math I think is required to convince you so I am willing to concede the point .

[demodewd]

44. Is your comparison valid?

What our skulls are composed of and what concrete slabs are composed of are two different matters.Is this really a legitimate comparison?

Also, the initial collapse distance was 10-15 feet as compared to your proposed 100 feet.

Would the speed and weight of the upper floors be enough to pulverize concrete and expell the pulvererize dust in such a high speed violent manner from 10-15 feet? I just don't think so.

[hack89]

50. The volume of the space went from ....

tens of thousands of cubic feet to zero in seconds ... that would certainly provide the force needed to expel the dust at high speed - it had to go somewhere and very quickly.

As to the skull example, my only point was that the forces involved encompassed more than just weight - if velocity is a squared component along with a huge amount of mass, then tremendous energy will be generated even within a relatively short distance. If the structure is weakened due to structural damage and fire, why is it unreasonable that the resultant forces wouldn't collapse the floor below?

[demodewd]

53. do you understand what I'm driving at?

tens of thousands of cubic feet to zero in seconds ... that would certainly provide the force needed to expel the dust at high speed - it had to go somewhere and very quickly.

Why would the concrete pulverize in an exact manner at the onset when the top section section has fallen 14 feet to reach the next floor to those floors further down the collapse when the top section would have gained considerable momentum?

We witness immediate pulverization and rapid dust expansion. The top section of the South Tower begins to disassemble(explode?) immediately. Where's this immediate hammer on the base? I don't see it and yet the top floor(s) of the base display the exploding pulverize dust.

If the structure is weakened due to structural damage and fire, why is it unreasonable that the resultant forces wouldn't collapse the floor below?

No it is not unreasonable that they might collapse.Though I don't believe the fire reached high enough temperatures to compromise the structures. But setting that aside I ask these questions.
Why would the building collapse in a symetrical manner?
Why didn't the top sections collapse tilting to the side of
initial floor failure?
Why would the floors immediately below the point of collapse pulverize to dust?

[musette_sf]

121. I don't think the fire got that hot, either

but I think your response sent an "official story" True Believer away from this thread to look for some fresh meat:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=35081&mesg_id=35081&page=

[Christophera]

122. Yes, Fires Are Not Hot Enough: Thermite Is

Yes, you are right on, the fires from jet fuel, carpet wood framed insulated wall, drapes and furniture is toxic, leaving lots of deadly smoke, but the fire is not that hot unless uniform furnace typre conditions are created, and maintained. Period, no way can enough steel get hot enough for a failure of the external steel framework of the towers.

Those kinds of temperatures are only possible in that location under those conditions with thermite. No furnace, no kiln, no forced air into a regulated fuel source........ sorry, you NEVER get the heat with jet fuel.

Thermite burns at 3,000 degrees and 30k foot per second. Classed as a high explosive, it does not explode, just burns furiously even underwater.

There was lots of molten steel from the melted inner and outer box columns that were the outer tube of the "tube in a tube" construction.

I remember TV newscasters talking about molten steel

president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center.

Tully was contracted after the Sept. 11 tragedy to re move the debris from the site. Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Md., for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself "the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures." Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived at the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation. AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels," Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

Here are some alternative statements I found in this thread regarding molten steel.

“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. "
http://www.gcn.com/21_27a/news/19930-1.html

"The people who called us had been killed,” Atlas considered as she surveyed the tons and acres of wreckage. “Nobody’s going to be alive.” Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/summer2002/k911.html

"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. What concrete that wasn’t pulverized into dust will continue to be removed for weeks to come. The structural steel is being removed and shipped by barge to be recycled. All photographs shown on television, shot-on-site were preapproved by the FBI. We were shown photographs that were not released for public view."
http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf


Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
A veteran of disasters from the Mississippi floods Mt. St. Helens, Burger said it reminded him most of the volcano, if he forgot he was in downtown Manhattan. "Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster,”
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/PDF/NEHA-092203-MessageInTheDust-cj.pdf

[musette_sf]

123. Great post

thanks for the links, and welcome to DU! :hi:

[vincent_vega_lives]

70. Not hard to imagine

But nearly impossible to execute.

Both the fire/collapse theory and the explosives/collapse theory include the building's potential energy as the collapse force with fire or explosives acting as the energy to set the collapse in motion.

The fire/collapse theory would require the hijacked aircraft, accelerant, fuel, time, and compromised structure and fireproofing.

I think we can agree on most if not all of these criteria were present in the WTC buildings before the collapse.

The explosives/collapse theory would require manhours, time, secrecy, demolition equipment, synchronization with location of aircraft strikes, uncompromised detonators and detonation circuit, and aircraft (either hijacked or remote...but that is a theory for another day.)

I think we can all agree that any explosive initiation point would have to occur at the location of The aircraft strikes. If you need to disagree with this, feel free to explain.

Time and secrecy are not good bedfellows, the longer it took to install and leave in place the explosives, detonators, wiring (radio detonation would be far too risky) in such a densely populated space, would mean a steadily rising change of compromise.

The ones placing the explosives would have to know in advance where the aircraft were going to strike. Otherwise you would have had unexplainable explosions and collapse initiation remote from the point of sustained damage. That leaves little room for error.

Both theories require aircraft crashing into the buildings and a subsequent fire, but only the explosive theory requires this event to NOT damage or compromise in any way the highly sensitive detonators, explosives, or wiring by shock, fire or physical impact. There could have been redundancy and hardening built into the system, but that would have added manhours and risk to the pre-execution phase.

The explosive/collapse theory requires a chain of uncompromised events to occur. The fire/collapse theory has all the necessary components in place once the aircraft hits the building an only requires time. which is simpler?

[Old and In the Way]

76. The siesmigraphs are important to this discussion.

First, look at the planes hit....hardly registers on the graph, but the 1st hit does have a larger spike than the second...because it hit the core directly.

The seismigraph shows a huge spike on the front end (not the beginning) of both events and 6 or 7 smaller, but still significant spikes during the event. Why is that? Why wouldn't the chart show an increase of attack as more and more of the building is dropping, then a sharp decay as the event ends? The entire event time on the graph is about 15-20 seconds which corresponds to the visual collapse time. Now, if your intent was to take down the towers without getting caught on tape, you'd plant the charges in the core, right? You'd also time the explosives, so that the top charge goes first to start the event, the big charge goes off in the basement to take out the foundation, then time more core charges to follow the collapse progression on the way down. Charges placed in the core every 15 floors would be enough to ensure a complete collapse and destruction of the entire core in the process. And that's what the seismic charts appear to descibe.

That would explain why no portion of the core is left standing or collapsing after all the floors have pancaked on the foundation.

Another thing about the collapse rate. The drop rate appears constant from beginning to end. If this is a natural event, why wouldn't there be resistance to the collapse at the front end, and picking up speed throught the middle/end of the event? If the entire event happens in 17 seconds, that's 8 seconds over the theoretical fastest rate and it means that each floor (105 total) survives for .0746 seconds before collapsing. Why wouldn't the top floors withstand the drop for 2-3 seconds and each floor thereafter collapse faster until they reach maximum collapse rate? That decreasing resistance time would still add maybe 15-20 seconds to the total recorded time in a natural collapse.

[vincent_vega_lives]

91. Those siesmographs

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.



Seismograph readings by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University/Won-Young Kim (senior research scientist)/Arthur Lerner-Lam (associate director)/Mary Tobin (senior science

[NecessaryOnslaught]

17. What about the molten steel?

What was the source of energy to create the 2800 deg+ temperatures to leave pools of molten steel in the sublevels?

[vincent_vega_lives]

19. So how does explosives result in

"molten steel"????

Molten metal (like aluminimum) might be less missleading btw, as I doubt it was steel.

[Christophera]

117. Thermite Applied To Box Columns In 1993

There is only one way that molten steel can be in the basement, and it was by many accounts.

THERMITE

Classed as a high explosive but it does not explode. It burns very fast (30,000 FPS) at 3,000 degrees F.

Your question is a very good question all around because the thermite was only used at the bases of the columns where the steel was very thick. Here are calculations showing 1" thick thermite was adeqaute to remove all bearing capacity from the heavy box columns.

What I mean is that your question also says, how did high explosives rip all the upper structure apart? High explosives work on steel but not very well. Shaped charges or tamped charges are need to avoid large amounts of escaping gas doing nothing, which is why thermite is the favorite material of demolitions of steel.

The upper steel structures were ripped apart by the exploding concrete core they sheathed as the outer tube of the "tube in a tube" construction.

[gbwarming]

22. Christopher Bollyn melted it with hot air.

That's the ONLY source for this story. And while we're pondering the source of alleged heat let's ponder asertion that the steel was still molten A MONTH after the collapse. What kind of explosive imparts such a magical heat?

---------
American Free Press has learned of pools of “molten steel” found at the base of the collapsed twin towers weeks after the collapse. Although the energy source for these incredibly hot areas has yet to be explained, New York seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy, which caused unexplained seismic “spikes” at the beginning of each collapse.
...
In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of “literally molten steel” were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, in an oxygen starved environment, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

30. The only source?

“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. "
http://www.gcn.com/21_27a/news/19930-1.html

"The people who called us had been killed,” Atlas considered as she surveyed the tons and acres of wreckage. “Nobody’s going to be alive.” Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/summer2002/k911.html

"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. What concrete that wasn’t pulverized into dust will continue to be removed for weeks to come. The structural steel is being removed and shipped by barge to be recycled. All photographs shown on television, shot-on-site were preapproved by the FBI. We were shown photographs that were not released for public view."
http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf

Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
A veteran of disasters from the Mississippi floods Mt. St. Helens, Burger said it reminded him most of the volcano, if he forgot he was in downtown Manhattan. "Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster,”
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/PDF/NEHA-092203-MessageInTheDust-cj.pdf

[spooked911]

41. Great finds! I was wondering about that myself-- if Bollyn was the only

source, I wasn't sure how much to trust the story.

So what is the official explanation for the molten steel?

[mikelewis]

51. Here's a few more

http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/911/day_ironworkers.htm

"The job of breaking through the red-hot pile of fiery and twisted steel fell on their shoulders. These men and women — known as "skywalkers" for their strength and fearlessness while scaling tall buildings — build skyscrapers such as the twin towers. This time they used their experience to get to the bottom of the blazing iron."


http://www.jracademy.com/~warcholj/reports/twr_gz/gz2.html

After the towers were hit, the towers' interiors were on fire. The extreme heat of those fires (as high as 2000 degrees farenheight due to fire suppression systems failures;initiated by breakage in the sprinker lines) caused the remaining steel support beams to begin to melt. The fires were so intense that some of the steel was still molten 3 weeks after.

http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf

As of 21 days after the attack, the
fires were still burning and molten
steel was still running. What
concrete that wasn’t pulverized into
dust will continue to be removed for
weeks to come. The structural steel
is being removed and shipped by
barge to be recycled.



http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html

Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001.
U.S. Geological Survey
AVIRIS records the near-infrared signature of heat remotely. The accompanying maps are false color images that show the core affected area around the World Trade Center. Initial analysis of these data revealed a number of thermal hot spots on September 16 in the region where the buildings collapsed 5 days earlier. Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800oF. Over 3 dozen hot spots appear in the core zone. By September 23, only 4, or possibly 5, hot spots are apparent, with temperatures cooler than those on September 16.

[gbwarming]

54. Feh. Not even close.

scholasticnews.com - it was hot. But 'red hot' is still a thousand degrees too cold to melt steel and this isn't a primary source.
Jr. Academy of St. Louis isn't a primary source.
seau.org - the author attended a conference in New Hampshire. Didn't go the the WTC.
usgs.gov - ok, it was hot - 800F. Says nothing about molten steel.

But let's step back and look at the original argument which goes something like this: There was molten steel in the basement a month after 9/11. Since jet fuel fires can't melt then explosives must have been used. There are at least two problems with this:
1. There are, I think, no credible eyewitness accounts of molten steel in the WTC at any time.
2. There has been no plausible explanation of how these supposed explosives could keep steel in a molten state for weeks afterward.

[mikelewis]

56. Then here's more sources who believe there was molten steel

Just because it doesn't fit with the OCT doesn't mean it wasn't there. It's been reported by several places, USNews, the Government but you still won't believe it. All of these people are liars or mistaken, like 2 demolition experts wouldn't know molten steel. Damn liars.


http://www.wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/

"But for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal — everything from molten steel beams to human remains"

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/9_11/articles/911memories.htm

"Turner himself crawled through an opening and down crumpled stairwells to the subway, five levels below ground. He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–molten metal dripping from a beam–but found no signs of life."

http://www.bcrevolution.ca/scientific_facts.htm

In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of "literally molten steel" were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, in an oxygen starved environment, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed.

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center.

Tully was contracted after the Sept. 11 tragedy to remove the debris from the site.

Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Md., for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself "the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures."

Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived at the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation.

AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site.

"Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements."

These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels," Loizeaux said.

The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit.

Asked what could have caused such extreme heat, Tully said, "Think of the jet fuel."

Loizeaux told AFP that the steel-melting fires were fueled by "paper, carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the tower floors as they 'pancaked' into the basement."

However, some independent investigators dispute this claim, saying kerosene-based jet fuel, paper, or the other combustibles normally found in the towers, cannot generate the heat required to melt steel, especially in an oxygen-poor environment like a deep basement.



http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/sanpablo/stories/000285.html

Unable to bring himself to enter Ground Zero, he examined the truckloads of molten, blackened steel as they emerged. Of the nearly 300,000 tons of steel in the two buildings, he sought the 10,000 tons of “critical” steel that had either sustained a direct hit by the planes or buckled in the intense heat.


Yes, you're right. These claims are simply ridiculous. There is no way the steel could have liquified in the temperatures found in the building that day, the fire wasn't hot enough. Because logic must rule out over reality, there must not have been molten pools of steel and all of these people are simply mistaken or lying.

[vincent_vega_lives]

71. Yes hard to imagine

But you still have not explained how explosives would provide your molten steel either. Explosives distribute their energy very rapidly, hence their violence. They are not efficient as a heat source (upon detonation) as the energy is rapidly spread over a large volume.

[Old and In the Way]

77. Explosives can contain a lot of energy.

This was posted in another thread I started ("What Goes Up Must Come Down")-

""The tools of the destructor's trade range from standard dynamite, used to shatter concrete, to linear shaped charges that concentrate the force of the blast. Shaped charges use a high explosive called RDX, slicing through steel with millions of pounds pf pressure per square inch. In 2001 project, for example, a New York gas storage tank built with 5 million pounds of steel took a mere 80 pounds of shaped charges to come down."

Millions of PSI released could provide the energy to heat those steel beams to the melting point.

[vincent_vega_lives]

83. Pressure is what cuts steel

not heat. All that energy does not sitck around, it is rapidly dissipated.

[Old and In the Way]

84. 7 stories underground?

If the foundational pilings were blown, the heat dissapation is severely reduced and the radiation is reflected back onto the source.

[vincent_vega_lives]

85. How can you suggest the foundation pilings were blown?

It was obvious they weren't, or else the towers would have collapsed like WTC7. Note the difference. The point of initiation was up where the aircraft hit the buildings.

[Old and In the Way]

88. Isn't this the point of entire thread?

why is it obvious they weren't? Seems to me they collapsed pretty much like a planned implosion. I've seen no better explanation that addresses the seismic evidence, the rate of collapse, the extreme heat in the basement, or the absence of a standing core than the explosives theory. As Paul suggests, could very well have been an AQ operation. Heck, they were smart enough to hijack those planes, why couldn't they have also planned to make sure the WTC went down this time? What I can't explain is why this administration didn't allow a detailed forensic investigation to confirm it.

You choose to believe the "official" administration-sanctioned explanation on the events of that day, even though they are proven liars about no pre-warnings of 9/11, Iraq's involvement in 9/11, Iraq's having WMD to justify an illegal/immoral invasion and occupation, and now thier lying assault on Social Security.

The whole basis for their agenda post-9/11 rests on trusting them that what happened on 9/11 is exactly how they say it happened....you can choose to believe these liars, I don't and won't.

[vincent_vega_lives]

89. So you are telling me you can't tell the difference

between a collapse initiated at the base of a building and on the upper floors???? Have you seen the tape sir? Are you trying to tell me that WTC 1&2 fell the same way as WTC 7? Are you serious? LOOK AT THE TAPE. They did not fall the same way.

Oh that's right, you're the one that thinks that "extreme heat in the basement" is evidence of controlled demolition. Tell me, so does that mean every building demolished with explosives results in molten steel in the basement?!?

[Old and In the Way]

92. I'm not arguing molten steel in the basement.

If there was any pools of metals in the basement, I'd assume they'd be aluminum.

I'm asking questions, not trying to tell you anything. Does WTC 1 and 2 look like 7? No, they don't. So what? They are completely different buildings. I'm just speculating that charges in the basement might be required to help the cores disappear along with the rest of the buildings. Maybe there were charges in the core every 15 floors or so and timed to go as the top started collapsing. The only reason I'd suggest the charges in the basement is to explain that one huge spike that's recorded on the seismic chart towards the front end of the collapse event.

[vincent_vega_lives]

93. I'm not saying the BUILDINGS looked different!

I'm saying the collapse started from different places on 1&2 as opposed to 7.

as far as the HUGE spike goes...here is a detailed siesmograph...I put it in another thread but will post it here for your benifit...



Seismograph readings by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University/Won-Young Kim (senior research scientist)/Arthur Lerner-Lam (associate director)/Mary Tobin (senior science writer)
www.ldeo.columbia.edu/lcsn

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

[Old and In the Way]

95. More charts......

<>

Unlike the one you posted, this one puts the plane crashes in proper perspective in order of relative magnitude. Someone not familiar with reading the charts might have an impression that they show the same magnitude of recording and think, "no wonder why the towers collapsed".

Then there are these charts, again from the same location:

WTC 2
<>

WTC 1
<>

These show a much higher amplitude in the recording then your charts....so which ones reflect the actual event more accurately?

Now, for the sake of discussion, I am assuming (looking at my chart on the WTC1 chart) that the first big spike starts at the 19 second marker. If that is recording the catastrophic failure of the first collapsed floor, then the rest of the large spikes occur in an interval of about 8 seconds, agreed (19-27 seconds on the chart)? But that means the actual collapse is only 1/2 way through the event, based on what I've seen for videos (I've clocked it at about 17-18 seconds). Why wouldn't the spikes be getting progressively larger from 27-36 when most of the mass is finally reaching ground?

Maybe it starts at 6 second marker on this graph? If so, then the collapse event the way you describe it makes more sense....but then there's stll a lot of recorded signal (@ 26-40 seconds) that is registering 2-3X greater amplitude than the collapsing event (seconds 6-18)itself. What would explain that?

[vincent_vega_lives]

96. Graphs

The thing is people have been reading this graph wrong...it is shown over a 30 minute time span.



"That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context." Arthur Lerner-Lam, Associate Director

This Graph is more detailed...and spans only 40 seconds.



Both come from the same source: Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y

Seismograph readings by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University/Won-Young Kim (senior research scientist)/Arthur Lerner-Lam (associate director)/Mary Tobin (senior science writer)/www.ldeo.columbia.edu/lcsn

[Old and In the Way]

97. I understand your point....that's why I included the other set

I posted it only to show the relative magnitude of the plane crashs vs. the collapse event, as compared to the data presentation in your graph.

I also posted charts with the same time intervals as yours...looking at the 2 sets side by side, there are still significant differences in the recordings, both from the same origin, too. I find that quite interesting....the charts I posted would appear to be more representitive of the actual recording. Hmmmmmmm.

[vincent_vega_lives]

98. It's not my graph!

I don't work for LCSN. An the guy who does is saying that you are taking "your graph" out of context.

There are NOT significant differences in the recordings...there ARE significant differences in the way the data is displayed on the graph. The relative magnitudes are the same on both graphs, the SCALE on the X and Y axises are just different.

[Old and In the Way]

99. I only use "my" and "yours" to differentiate between graph posts.

I assume that you don't "own" them, although I can't, of course, independently confirm it.

Those significant differences in the displays do matter. The X axis(time intervals) are the same, the "Y" axis (amplitude of the signal) is not the same. Look again and compare. Compare spike-to-spike in mine vs. yours. One is more representitive of the actual recording. I think it's mine.

The fact that your source has "softened" the signal and scaled the 2 events (airliner crash and building collapse) differently - so as to look, at least on a cursory level, to be the same magnitude...makes me wonder who the target audience is that this specific graph was developed for.

"Look Martha, no wonder the buildings fell, the plane crashes were as powerful as the building collapse!"

I'd also be interested in your comments on the points I raise post #95, instead of discussing semantics of the word "your" and "mine".

[vincent_vega_lives]

100. Hardly semantics

Those graphs are not "yours" or "mine" they both came from the same source. And that source says you are not reading "their" graphs right.

In the first graph (your graph) the collapse nm/s are greatly exaggerated to display their relative magnitude in relation to the aircraft impacts. 5000 nm/s vs 250 nm/s. the purpose of that was two fold. 1.) to get both the impacts and the collapses on one time-to-scale-graph. 2.) Show relative magnitude of collapse to impact.

In the second graph, time is not to scale, neither is impact vs collapse.

The purpose of this graph is to show relative S wave magnitude in real time. the impacts measured between 206-288 nm/s over 10 seconds.

The collapses measure 4200-5777 nm/s over 10 seconds. There is NO spike at the beginning of the graph. The S wave is relatively consistent. The point is: The graphs don't show any evidence of bombs.

The fact that your source has "softened" the signal and scaled the 2 events (airliner crash and building collapse) differently - so as to look, at least on a cursory level, to be the same magnitude...makes me wonder who the target audience is that this specific graph was developed for.

"Look Martha, no wonder the buildings fell, the plane crashes were as powerful as the building collapse!"

I gather from these two quotes that you really don't understand what these charts are showing.

[spooked911]

125. Blowing the foundation of the central core structure of the WTC towers

could explain the floor by floor collapse of the towers because of the different design of the WTC towers were compared to WTC7.

If you took out the core of the WTC by blowing the foundation, the core would start coming down first (which no one could see from the outside), straining the floors which are being held up only by the outer shell. Eventually the floors would start giving way and collapsing, probably starting where the outer structure was most weak-- where the planes hit.

Evidence for the core being taken out first is seen in the video of the North tower collapsing, where the roof antenna goes down first (since it was attached to the core) before the floors start collapsing.

[Christophera]

169. Core DET. At APROX. Impact Level = Top Tilting Wrong Way

spooked911 wrote:

If you took out the core of the WTC by blowing the foundation, the core would start coming down first (which no one could see from the outside), straining the floors which are being held up only by the outer shell. Eventually the floors would start giving way and collapsing, probably starting where the outer structure was most weak-- where the planes hit.
Evidence for the core being taken out first is seen in the video of the North tower collapsing, where the roof antenna goes down first (since it was attached to the core) before the floors start collapsing.
t

Yes, the antenna on the roof dropping inside the tops of the perimeter walls. You could see the inner rectangular shape of the core momentarily stand out as it sucked downward on the roofing materials.

The C4 coated rebar of one of the 40 foot sections of the concrete tubular core must have been detonated along with perhaps 3 floors on the south side of the North tower in the very beginning at an estimated/planned plane impact elevation.

The explosions appeared to work their way up from that point to the top as it all descended. Meanwhile from the intial break and tilt point, the explosions went down. 75 millisends between floors and 300 between 40 foot core sections. This delay sequence and path accomodates what we saw and freefall that desn't wipe out adjacent delayed detonators.

The explosions in the basement when the planes impacted show that the foundations were fractured and some walls blown at that time.

I remember the news reports of the clean up progress when it has reached the foundations stated that excavator operators were amazed that even the foundation of the core was fractured adequately for them to pick the pieces apart. No hydraulic breakers needed.

The news man shook his head and said something like, "We should never underestimate the force of a falling building."

[Christophera]

118. ViBraTion DeteCtoRs Set Off Charges In Basement At Impact

Vincent,

You bring up a really pertinent points I think I can explain.

It appears that there were vibration detectors in the towers that set of charges in the foundations and basements when the impact of the plane was registered. If minimal charges were used, fractures of major load bearing elements of the foundations would occur and the tower would not be immediately effected. By doing this the total seismic signature is divided into two parts at 2 different times and part of it has an explanation, plane impact.

Realize that seismic measurements are evidence showing complicity. By reducing the seismic signature, we have less to work with now, unless this message is understood with its evidence of the testimony of these building engineers that were below ground at impact times.

In the 4th sub basement Phillip Morelli is thrown to the ground TWICE.

Construction worker Phillip Morelli describes being thrown to the ground by two explosions while in the fourth subbasement of the North Tower.  The first, which threw him to the ground and seemed to coincide with the plane crash, was followed by a larger blast that again threw him to the ground and this time blew out walls.  He then made his way to the South Tower and was in the subbasement there when the second plane hit, again associated with a powerful underground blast.

NO WALLS!!!
Deep below the tower, Mike Pecoraro was suddenly interrupted in his grinding task by a shake on his shoulder from his co-worker. "Did you see that?" he was asked. Mike told him that he had seen nothing. "You didn't see the lights flicker?", his co-worker asked again. "No," Mike responded, but he knew immediately that if the lights had flickered, it could spell trouble. A power surge or interruption could play havoc with the building's equipment. If all the pumps trip out or pulse meters trip, it could make for a very long day bringing the entire center's equipment back on-line.
September 11, 2001, two hijacked commercial aircraft are flown into the World Trade Center towers.

Mike told his co-worker to call upstairs to their Assistant Chief Engineer and find out if everything was all right. His co-worker made the call and reported back to Mike that he was told that the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where they were and "sit tight" until the Assistant Chief got back to them. By this time, however, the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke. "We smelled kerosene," Mike recalled, "I was thinking maybe a car fire was upstairs", referring to the parking garage located below grade in the tower but above the deep space where they were working.

The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.

"There was nothing there but rubble, "Mike said. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press ? gone!" The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. "You could stand here," he said, "and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming." But there was still no answer.

The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. "There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything" he said.

[mikelewis]

57. And the original sources were primary sources...

The interview on scholasticnews.com was an eyewitness.

The author at seau.org believes there was molten steel and he also believes UBL did it so you're debunking an ally.

The 800F would be a reading of the heat that was escaping to the surface. Underneath, the temperature would me much hotter.


So 1) You're saying that since there are no "credible" witnesses; the ones reporting in these excerpts are by default, not credible.

and 2) There has been no plausible explanation on how jet fuel can liquify steel and then keep it in a molten state for weeks. Explosives can heated metal to over 3000F very rapidly and this takes time to cool. Maybe weeks, I don't know. But since there wasn't any molten steel, I guess the point is moot.

[gbwarming]

60. Not for molten steel.

The interview on scholasticnews.com was an eyewitness.

You're right - there are primary sources in the article - I only read the excerpt. But they don't claim that there was molten (ie liquid) steel. I agree that the pile was hot, and the fires were likely hot enough to melt aluminum.

The author at seau.org believes there was molten steel and he also believes UBL did it so you're debunking an ally.

The dude wasn't there. Debunking, or challenging the assertions of allies or coworkers is a normal part of any scientific or engineering career.

The 800F would be a reading of the heat that was escaping to the surface. Underneath, the temperature would me much hotter.

Ok. Plausible. How much hotter?

So 1) You're saying that since there are no "credible" witnesses; the ones reporting in these excerpts are by default, not credible.

No, not by default. Two don't even claim molten steel and the third wasn't anywhere near the scene.

and 2) There has been no plausible explanation on how jet fuel can liquify steel and then keep it in a molten state for weeks. Explosives can heated metal to over 3000F very rapidly and this takes time to cool. Maybe weeks, I don't know. But since there wasn't any molten steel, I guess the point is moot.

Yes.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

61. Please

Whatever you are smoking, pass it over here and let me take a big ol' mind warping hit. :freak:

[mikelewis]

67. It's sort of like fighting the Black Knight from the Holy Grail

"I cut your arm off"

"No you didn't"

"What's that then?"

"Come on ya panzy!"

[Old and In the Way]

78. I would tend to agree.

If there were molten pools of metals, they were probably aluminum....the exterior of the WTC's were all aluminum, so that would not surprise me that is what was being seen and misinterpreted as steel.

Now that doesn't preclude that steel beams pulled from the basement had evidence of deformation due to heat. If there were explosives, the steel could melt (deform) in the moments of the intense heat radiation...but they would quickly cool.

No way, unless you have a blast furnace in the basement, will steel be molten weeks after the event.

[mikelewis]

81. The melting point of aluminum is 1220.58 F

The pools of molten "steel" were in the center and below and not out to the sides of the trade center. If this was aluminum, it could have come from the elevators and cooling shafts duct work. At this temperature {below 1800F}, these metals would melt easily.

There were also reports of steel beams glowing red-hot.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/9_11/articles/911memories ....

"Turner himself crawled through an opening and down crumpled stairwells to the subway, five levels below ground. He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–molten metal dripping from a beam–but found no signs of life."

http://www.threeplanes.net/toolsteel.html
As the steel is heated above the critical temperature, (about 1335° F), it undergoes a phase change, recrystallizing as austenite. Continued heating to the hardening temperature (1450 - 1500° F) assures complete conversion to austenite. At this point the steel is no longer magnetic, and its color is cherry-red.

If this was molten pools of aluminum, the temperature would have been sufficient to heat the beams to a cherry-red and have liquid aluminum dripping from them as the beams would be immersed in the hot liquid metal. It would maitain its temperature because it was in an insulated enclosed space.

http://www.threeplanes.net/toolsteel.html
Annealing - Softening the tool steel for working, by heating to the hardening temperature and cooling slowly. Slow cooling can be accomplished by burying the steel in an insulating medium such as lime or vermiculite and allowing it to cool to room temperature.

The tonnes of dust and debris would have worked as an isulating medium slowing the cooling process. It's quite concievable that the jet fuel could have produced this result if, and only if, those were pools of aluminum. The fire fueled by hydrocarbons alone could never reach the 2500F needed to melt it.

I can find no pictures of molten metal in any of the pictures I have looked at and so without some sort of evidence were only left with a question. What was the molten material and what was the temperature of the fire? Thermal imagining exists that can probably tell us what the temperature was. They used this data to help them fight the fire. This information is available at the U.S. Geological survey.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html

They list no temperatures however but I am searching for them but to no avail as of yet.

[seatnineb]

13. Be On The Look Out Bolo.....................

Bolly informs us........

No one - NO ONE - saw bombs. There are no eyewitnesses to bombs or to explosions. NONE. There are people who heard sounds that sounded like explosions. That's all. NO ONE SAW BOMBS. NO ONE SAW EXPLOSIONS.

Oh Yeah.........

The plane hit on the 78th.......

Yet on the 25th floor of the south tower......


9:06AM - onwards
Am now holding onto our room's door... clinging to it as if my
life depended on it... as the building was still swaying
violently... I hear and see more "smaller" explosions...electricity was cut off...
http://www.kronykronicle.com/wtc/wtcacct.html

[Bolo Boffin]

36. 9b

Obviously I was wrong about something here: people saw things that they interpreted as both explosions and thus bombs. In a hectic environment, they can hardly be blamed for that.

But an explosion doesn't necessarily mean a bomb. Lots of things can explode under stress and heat. Bring me a report of someone seeing a bomb before it exploded. Did anyone see anything like that, an identifiable bomb before explosion?

BTW: Those explosions mentioned by your witness were right after the crash, 9B. The only "explosions" worth mentioning were any experienced just as the building collapsed, correct? Because those would be the ones that "brought the building down".

Unless you enjoy the image of Dick Cheney flipping first this switch, then that switch, here an explosion, there an explosion, oooh boy isn't this fun, let's wait a while, okay, one more explosion - kinda like a gruesome game of Jenga.

Let's clarify that: is it your and anyone else's position that every explosion after the plane crashes in the WTC buildings was an actual bomb?

[k-robjoe]

39. No

But I sure would like to know what all was behind this story :

On this site

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/may2004/050504bombsinwtc.htm

you find an mp3 that is

" a clip from NBC reporter Pat Dawson on the morning of 9/11. In it he discusses the comments of Albert Turi, the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department."

In it, the reporter says that Turi spoke about "continuing explosions which are blamed on faulty gas lines."

But he also reports that Turi spoke about two explosions that he thought were caused by "devices that were planted in the building."

And that Turi said "he lost a great many men in those secondary explosions".

Was it transformers or something that exploded? Maybe... There´s also another thing that Turi mentions. He says that before those explosions "he received word of the possibility of a secondary device, another bomb going off."

[seatnineb]

45. It is my contention.......

.....that I have not got a clue as to what was going on in the towers......

But....

Something was going on....


<09:22> <incognito> another explosion

<09:23> <Commonman> a second explosion inside the building now

<13:28> <bobby44> there were reports of a bomb blast in the WTC, near the lobby, around the time of the second plane crash WEB

http://www.financialchat.com/chat_logs/ActiveTrader.FinancialChat.20010911.txt

When I saw the second plane hit, I went into the stock exchange. They locked us in on the floor. You could feel the explosions.
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/sept11/features/5183.


...and there aint a darn thing you can do to refute it.....

[Bolo Boffin]

46. How do you know...

...that the explosions were actually bombs?

How do you know that?

There was a report of a bomb blast in the lobby right after the second plane struck. But could it have been this event?

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.

That's the first airplane strike, very true. But could the exact same thing happen in the South Tower? Yes, because it happened in the North Tower. The second plane struck the South Tower lower, right at an express elevator floor.

Express elevators, cut loose, slamming down to the lobby, followed by burning jet fuel...

What do you think it looked like in the lobby when those elevators hit the ground? A huge crash, fire blowing out, victims on fire...well, that looks like an explosion, doesn't it? It would look like a bomb, but it wasn't.

Are you quite sure that the North Tower's elevator crash wasn't conflated to the South Tower in the confusion?

Did anyone, anywhere, see any evidence of a bomb before an explosion? Every bit of eyewitness testimony I've seen so far says one thing: people are hearing and seeing explosions, and understandably jumping to the conclusion of bomb. But were there really bombs - devices deliberately planted by humans and designed to explode?

Everything I've seen so far could admit the possibility of people misinterpreting explosive events as actual bombs. Nobody's got evidence of actual bombs.

[seatnineb]

62. Those explosions were at 9:23am

....20 minutes after the second plane hit and 33 minutes before the collapse of the South tower....

And this same explosion........

was nearly 38 minutes after the 1st plane hit and nearly 65 minutes before the collapse of the North Tower...

It could not have been from the elavators...because the elavators came down when the plane(s) hit......in this case at 8:46 and 9:03 respectively for the 1st and 2nd plane........


Then people in the streets, turned and began to run for no apparent reason, as if something was chasing them. Everywhere you looked, ladies were getting pushed to the ground, pandemonium erupted, and we all started to run. I could not figure out why though. Everyone calmed down quickly and returned to where we were watching out in front of the hotel.
http://forums.ebay.com/db2/thread.jsp?forum=121&thread=58174&modifed=20020912013928.

Question:
If the towers were not collapsing........then why did people run........

Explosions....maybe?

Janouska Grandoit-Sarr, a Wall Street trading services manager, said she was running late Sept. 11 and saw paper flying in the air from the trade center as she rode on a bus.

After getting off the bus, she said, she hurried to work while people on the street rushed toward the trade center to watch the explosions.

http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/terror/sep19/emotion.asp?printerfriendly=yes.


As for the poor people actually physically seeing explosives..........

Well .......who says they didn't?

Remember.....

Many did not survive to tell the tale....

"The plane came in, and then looked like it was trying to veer off. It was too late. I saw people jumping out the window to get out of the way." He said after the first attack, security told everyone to stay in the building and move to the north end. After the second attack though, Broughton got out; "I was thinking, I have family, I need to talk to my family."
http://www.gothamgazette.com/specialreport.

People jumping out of the towers?........before the plane hit?

And to wrap things up........

There was this.....

12:09pm :09/11/01: VAN NEAR WTC MAY HAVE HAD BOMB -- MSNBC
http://www.financialchat.com/chat_logs/ActiveTrader.FinancialChat.20010911.txt

But I guess it was nothing more than an unconfirmed report,eh Bolo?

[Bolo Boffin]

66. Not all of them.

And I still haven't heard or seen any direct evidence of bombs. Lots of things can explode. Lots of things sound like bombs going off.

If there was, you would have presented it pretty quickly, so it's safe to say the only evidence of bombs is explosions. Which is to say, inconclusive and unconfirmed evidence.

So far...

[seatnineb]

74. O.K

You are right......but that ain't gonna stop me from qoutin' testimony from the day.....


00.15.51
Reporter
A huge plume of smoke that came out of the middle of
the building and then the building just disappeared into
smoke. It is an incredible site, people around here taking
a look. I cannot even describe it, it is one of those rare
moments where you just can’t describe it. It looked as
though it was a puff of cloud, almost like a firework
explosion of cloud, no noise with it and then all of a
sudden I just blinked my eyes.

00.25.32
Fireman 2
They’re saying there’s a bomb maybe in the high school,
on either side of the building. So they’re pulling back.

[Bolo Boffin]

86. Got to do better than that

A bomb maybe, in a building that turned out not to have a bomb? A puff of cloud, no noise with it?

You keep a'quotin'.

[spooked911]

87. Oh for Pete's sake, what evidence do you want?

What do you mean: "A bomb maybe, in a building that turned out not to have a bomb?"?

Aren't you pre-judging just a little bit there?

[seatnineb]

94. You gotta do better with your refutin'

She kept hearing more explosions as she ran in high-heels for many blocks.
http://www.jmbcommunications.com/sxm_wtc.html.

You can't use the elavator excuse.........so what caused all these explosive sounds then,Bolo?

[spooked911]

16. Not!

http://www.fourwinds10.com/news/05-government/C-fraud/01-911/2004/05C1-03-19-04-financial-bonanza-behind-911.html

On 24 July 2001, 6 weeks prior to 9/11 Silverstein took control of the lease of the WTC following the Port Authority decision on April 26.

Silverstein and Frank Lowy, CEO of Westefield Inc. took control of the 10.6 million-square-foot WTC complex. "Lowy leased the shopping concourse called the Mall at the WTC, which comprised about 427,000 square feet of retail space."3

Explicitly included in the agreement was that Silverstein and Westfield "were given the right to rebuild the structures if they were destroyed". 4

In this transaction, Silverstein signed a rental contract for the WTC over 99 years amounting to 3,2 billion dollars in installments to be made to the Port Authority: 800 million covered fees including a down payment of the order of 100 million dollars. Of this amount, Silverstein put in 14 million dollars of his own money. The annual payment on the lease was of the order of 115 million dollars.5

In the wake of the WTC attacks, Silverstein is suing for some $7.1 billion in insurance money, double the amount of the value of the 99 year lease.
_________

Both towers collapsed in essentially the same way. This is obvious. Bombs could have led to uncontrolled collapse.
_________

There were many many witness reports of bombs. The media and the FDNY has suppressed these reports. There is video of smoke puffs from the building consistent with bombs.
_______

Who said it would take months to plant explosives? Who said the charges were planted precisely?
________

There were about thirty stories above where the airplane hit the south tower. The madrid building was 32 stories. Granted they are not the same, but the madrid fire is instructive nonetheless.

The WTC was built to withstand the impact from a 707. Why do you conveniently ignore that fact?
_______

Why is it so unconceivable to imagine that bombs placed in the WTC towers promoted their collapse-- particularly when many people described expolsions in the towers?

[ryan_cats]

126. I agree partly

with what you said. What bothers me is WTC #7, why did it collapse and not the Madrid skyscraper?

[vincent_vega_lives]

18. What would it take to convince you otherwise?

you forgot 3) NO EVIDENCE

Explosive residue. Scarring on metal. Cut girders.

http://www.jeol.com/ms/docs/teemmate%20release.pdf#search='spectral%20analysis%20explosives'

http://www.cnn.com/US/9608/23/twa.crash/
Traces of explosive found on TWA crash debris

Det cord found in debris.

[spooked911]

21. I don't see that your links say anything about

Explosive residue, Scarring on metal or Cut girders.

How do we know there wasn't any of this?

[vincent_vega_lives]

72. NIST investigators

looked at almost every piece of structural steel and tapped some for further examination. Thoses kept showed impact damage and critical stresses upon them that were most likely caused before or at the point of collapse...thats why they were kept.

I think that an scarred or cut girders would have been BIG finds.

The links were meant to illustrate that it is not hard to detect explosive residue.

[Lavachequirit]

135. Woah, big whopper there!!!

Falling down laughing:
"NIST investigators" looked at almost every piece of structural steel and tapped some for further examination.

By the time NIST got involved, only about 200 pieces out of the immense amount of wreckage had been saved, and it simply flies in the face of well-documented facts to claim that the great majority of the debris was subjected to even the most superficial examination.

“Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away
from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the
city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in
New Jersey.

The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who
believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last
month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was
scrapped without being examined because investigators did not
have the authority to preserve the wreckage.”
N.Y. Daily News, 4/16/02

The Science Committee of the House of Representatives held a
meeting March 6, 2002 to discuss the investigation of the World Trade
Center collapse. Their report concluded that the investigation was
“hampered.” One problem was that clean-up crews arrived the same
day and immediately began disposing of the rubble. The result was:
Some of the critical pieces of steel ... were gone before
the first ever reached the site.
When investigators finally arrived at the site they discovered they
were subservient to the clean-up crews:
...the lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces
of steel for examination before they were recycled led to
the loss of important pieces of evidence...
Why was the investigation given such a low priority? Or should that
question be phrased: Why was the disposal of rubble given first priority?
Were New York residents simply too shocked by the attack and too
concerned about finding survivors to care about saving the rubble for
scientists?
According to an article on December 25, 2001, the New York
Times asked city officials about the destruction of the rubble:
Officials in the mayor’s office declined to reply to written
and oral requests for comment over a three-day period
about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern
that the decision might be handicapping the investigation.
http://members.aol.com/erichuf/PainfulQuestions_1.pdf

[OneMind]

140. That is a hell of a big fish!

vincent_vega_lives wrote:

NIST investigators looked at almost every piece of structural steel and tapped some for further examination. Thoses kept showed impact damage and critical stresses upon them that were most likely caused before or at the point of collapse...thats why they were kept.

The investigation of the WTC “is a half-baked farce.” - Fire Engineering Magazine. Jan 2002 http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

No steel building has ever been destroyed by fire – Fire Engineering Magazine

All of the important evidence from the disaster was destroyed, illegally, and before the investigation was even concluded, some before it began! – Fire Engineering. http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy77747.000/hsy77747_0f.htm

The Collapse of the WTC - Kevin Ryan, Underwriters Laboratories (Impossible for the "collapses" to have been caused by fire)
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php

“A steel building survived fires in experiments with extreme temperatures beyond the range possible with jet fuel.” - Cardington Fire Tests
http://www.corusconstruction.com/legacy/fire/images/fireres_section15.pdf

$600,000 was spent investigating the WTC collapses vs. $40 million on Clinton’s sex life.
http://www.firehouse.com/news/2002/1/14_APwtcstudy.html

Jet fuel burns at too low a temperature to significantly harm steel. The black smoke means that the fire did not reach the maximum temperature for jet fuel. Yet days later, there were “hot spots” in the building that still exceeded the maximum temperature possible from jet fuel – but not from explosives. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html


http://www.reopen911.org/

[Christophera]

146. Compilation Of Proof That Fires Didn't cause Collapse

Great list of prime authrority to address the "fire & collapse" fiction and disparity of priority (Clinton).

The only problem with such a list is that it leaves the reader with an impossibility, a certain feeling of futility because the next factor, the one that explains how freefall was achieved, is not at the end of the list and we all know it fell at the rate of freefall.

So, heres a link to a page with a fully competent explanation of HOW freefall was attained.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

The only problem now (after that page is understood) is that the truth seeker has to believe that a secrete element of government built the towers to demolish.

Let me help with that. Firstly I do not beleive that anything but a legal demolition of the towers was planned at construction, the means were basically kept secrete. However another dangerous faction learned the secrete and used it for their own ends. Basically if we are going to address the essential problem we must shift to understanding how secretes are kept within the groups that historically control the US government.

Yippee! (right)

[demodewd]

150. yours is not the last word

Let me help with that. Firstly I do not beleive that anything but a legal demolition of the towers was planned at construction, the means were basically kept secrete. However another dangerous faction learned the secrete and used it for their own ends. Basically if we are going to address the essential problem we must shift to understanding how secretes are kept within the groups that historically control the US government.


This all pure conjecture on your part. In that the constuction was a Rockefeller project from the onset leads one to intimate any number of possibilities. Its better to leave this question open.The Rockefellers could be a dangerous faction within themselves. My guess is as good as yours.

[Make7]

153. HOW freefall was attained

Christophera wrote:
So, heres a link to a page with a fully competent explanation of HOW freefall was attained.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

From http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html :

The floor delays would be on one circuit and the core on another. Floor circuit delays would be set to count at 15 milliseconds increasing downward for initiations of consecutive floors to the bottom. Core circuits set at 200 milliseconds for each 40 foot concrete pour which had at least one inspection port on each 3" vertical rebar to remove the coating and slow the removal of bearing and lateral support, keeping the floors in position while they detonate.

The Glaring 4 Inconsistencies are dealt with by this theory based on information the public already has and knows. Some forgotten, who out there remembers the documentary of the construction?

1) The collapse of WTC 7, not hit by a plane.

2) The rate of collapse equaling that of free fall

3) The molten steel seen in the basement 2 weeks after 9-11

4) The character and quantity of concrete particulate

ADDRESSING THE GLARING INCONSISTENCIES:

1) World Trade Center 7 completed in 1984 had quite a bit more concrete in the lower floors due to the electrical substation and fuel tanks. Steel structure was used in upper floors of #7.

The same C4 coated rebar could be used to take the bottom floors out leaving the mass of upper floors to break structure below, and be broken up as they fell. This matches the video taken of #7's collapse.

2) If electronic delays described above are used at 30 intervals, floors with less delay, approximate the 9 second rate of fall with removal of the core structure adequate to bring all the material to the ground.

...more...

I may be incorrect, but in order for the top of the towers to fall to the ground as fast as a free falling object would from that height, wouldn't all of the structural support of the building need to be removed simultaneously? If there were explosives at timed intervals, wouldn't there still be some resistance, from the sections not yet detonated, that would slow down the upper part of the building?

Christophera wrote:
...we all know it fell at the rate of freefall.

I don't believe we all know that. There still seems to be some debate on the actual collapse times around here.

-Make7

[Christophera]

154. Free Fall Variances & Cause

Make7,
It is true there are some differences in the accounts of how long the towers took to reach the ground. When you take that much structural steel, falling in a tangle, the last couple of hundred feet are going to take a little longer because there is a settling of materials into a pile. About 17 seconds appear to generally account for the total time from the beginning to the fully settled pile

Make7 wrote:
"I may be incorrect, but in order for the top of the towers to fall to the ground as fast as a free falling object would from that height, wouldn't all of the structural support of the building need to be removed simultaneously? If there were explosives at timed intervals, wouldn't there still be some resistance, from the sections not yet detonated, that would slow down the upper part of the building"

When developing the scenario seen at
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html I thought about your question quite a bit.
As far as I can discern, as long as what is above and falling, doesn't actually hit anything solid below, it never slows down, the entire mass continues to increase in speed to the rate of free fall. Perhaps this made a need for less delay in the lower floors, but still as long as the descending mass encounters no resistence, it does not slow.

[Make7]

156. some calculations

Christophera wrote:
About 17 seconds appear to generally account for the total time from the beginning to the fully settled pile

From http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html:
Below is image of a spire that stood for 14 seconds comprised of one corner of the interior box columns that were fastened to the concrete core. This connection between interior columns and the concrete made the core a load bearing and anti torsion element for the steel framework configured as a tube around the concrete tube comprised of four smaller vertically interrupted tubular elements.

The spire in the picture is between (and behind) 1WFC and 2WFC. It is obviously taller than both, but I'll use 2WFC for this.

Spire stands for 14 seconds. Add to that 6.33 seconds. (The time it would take for a free-falling object to drop from the height of 2WFC.) Result: 20.33 seconds. That's more than 17 seconds, is it not?

---

From http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html:
The floor delays would be on one circuit and the core on another. Floor circuit delays would be set to count at 15 milliseconds increasing downward for initiations of consecutive floors to the bottom. Core circuits set at 200 milliseconds for each 40 foot concrete pour which had at least one inspection port on each 3" vertical rebar to remove the coating and slow the removal of bearing and lateral support, keeping the floors in position while they detonate.

Perhaps my math is rusty, or I just don't quite understand the passage above, but when I do some calculations I come up with the following:

110 floors x 15 milliseconds = 1.65 seconds total for the floors
1368 ft / 40 ft x 200 milliseconds = 6.84 seconds total for the core

Shouldn't the demolition travel at the approximately the same rate for both? Maybe you could clarify how this would work.

- Make7

[Christophera]

158. Good Math, My Error. Page Corrected THX!

Make7,
Your math is fine, Thanks for catching that. In trying to understand the best sequence to keep the debris load centralized around the core and limit the disturbance to detonators on each floor, I was confused and lost track of the decimal point.

I have corrected my page to read 300 ms for 40 foot core sections and 75 ms for floors. Of course I cannot be certain on this, it's close tho.

Make7 wrote:

Perhaps my math is rusty, or I just don't quite understand the passage above, but when I do some calculations I come up with the following:
110 floors x 15 milliseconds = 1.65 seconds total for the floors
1368 ft / 40 ft x 200 milliseconds = 6.84 seconds total for the core
Shouldn't the demolition travel at the approximately the same rate for both? Maybe you could clarify how this would work.

- Make7

And you are correct with 20 + seconds IF the comparitively minor mass of the standing spires are considered.

Thanks for the attention to detail!

spooked9-11 mentioned reorganizing my site. I can see it needs it, I just cannot come up with a logical way to divide up the issues and still keep the needed educational aspects in position. Any ideas?

Chris

[LARED]

157. So, if the entire descending mass (building) encounter no

resistance, how exactly does the entire building get pulverized?

[Christophera]

159. No Encounter W/Solid Structure

My site;

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

outlines exactly how the concrete was pulverized.

The error Make7 found was in my estimated delay periods to cause the structure to pulverize just in front of the falling mass of what was pulverized above. I had the core interval calculated okay to accomdate a freefall, but the floors per section of core timing was wrong.

The explosives built into the cast concrete were a coating on the steel reinforcement bar. The grid of steel bar, center to center, the diameter of the bar, the thinckness of the concrete, can all be calculated and built so that the maximum breakage of concrete occurs.

I have some direct experience with high explosives and have studied them as well as their application in demolition. I've done a good bit of welding and work now as a surveyor where I aid in the alignement of concrete and steel structures occasionally. It is all very common sense once you know how they perform. I was astounded when I saw the first ground zero photos and NO big chunks of concrete were visable. As the cleanup progressed, still no big chunks of concrete, only sand and gravel.

I saw the documentary in 1990 detailing the construction of the towers and it focused on the concrete core as the big slowdown of the tower job. After trying to define how the concrete could be reduced to its granular components, I realized that the explosives would have to be in the center of the concrete, or MASSIVE quanities of explosives would be used making the explosions totally obvious. We did'nt see that, in fact the explosions are minimal considering what is happening. Realizing the explosives had to be centralized made me remember the documentary and the problems the "special plastic coating" on the rebar created.

[LARED]

160. Solid Structure?

What does that mean?

[Christophera]

161. Concrete Or Steel Standing

The growing debris load never contacted any standing structure, steel or concrete and so never slowed down. It gained speed until it hit the ground.

[vincent_vega_lives]

162. Detonators

so the explosives were encased on concrete with the detonators in them, or were they added later..and how exactly?

[Christophera]

163. Explosives Encapsulated In Concrete, Detonators Added Recently

The C4 was encased in concrete within the core as a coating on the rebar. To prevent oxidization and evaporation, the only things that will make the C4 non viable, a paraffin seal would need to be placed over an opening left i the case concrete. This would assure the viability for the plastic explosive.
The steel floor pans had C4 poured into the corrugations creating an explosive circuit plane between the steel pan and the 4-5 inches of light weight concrete floor. A small opening, filled with paraffin to cut the C4 off from air, in each floor panel could be dug out and the end of a prima cord could be wedged in contact with the explosive or an electric circuit with a cap used.

Simply by digging through the paraffin and placing a blasting cap in contact with the C4, the explosive is prepared for detonation. There were reports of extensive maintenance on the elevators of the towers in the months prior to 9-11. On the weekend before, there was a power down of WTC 2 for the entire weekend. That probably accommodated the running of detonation circuits in the upper 48 floors. This was a cable upgrade for the entire WTC, so if we had access to records, we'd probably learned that other buildings had periods where unidentified technicians were working in the mass upgrade of the WTC. Remodels were conducted on the lower floors since the new lease had been made.

This fact below shows how information regarding the security phone circuits of the WTC could be easily gained and transmitted to others who then designed the delay paths of the detonation circuits. Using 2 phone lines per building, the entire digital delay circuit could be set in motion with one signal from a timer triggering one delay path for the core and another for the floors. They could actually all be on one circuit.


http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/hj05.html


Washington, D.C. WASHINGTON, Jan 19, 2003 -- A company that provided security at New York City's World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport in Washington, D.C., and to United Airlines between 1995 and 2001, was backed by a private Kuwaiti-American investment firm with ties to a brother of President Bush and the Bush family, according to records obtained by the American Reporter.

Marvin P. Bush, a younger brother of George W. Bush, was a principal in the company from 1993 to 2000, when most of the work on the big projects was done. But White House responses to 9/11 have not publicly disclosed the company's part in providing security to any of the named facilities, and many of the public records revealing the relationships are not public.

Nonetheless, public records reveal that the firm, formerly named Securacom, listed Bush on its board of directors and as a significant shareholder. The firm, now named Stratesec, Inc., is located in Sterling, Va., a suburb of Washington, D.C., and emphasizes federal clients. Bush is no longer on the board.

Marvin Bush has not responded to repeated telephoned and emailed requests for comment on this story.

[vincent_vega_lives]

164. Dude you are nuts.

That would've taken quite an effort to do. There were thousands of construction workers on that project, you would have thought someone would have noticed all this explosives going into the construction of the WTC's. That is not exactly standard construction practice.

[Christophera]

165. I Saw Documentary, It Focused On Special Coating On Rebar

and it stated the coating was flammable. There was MAJOR security dedicated at the project specifically on the rebar.

Back to the issue of turning ALL the concrete into sand and gravel.

That must be dealt with before the C4 coated rebar possibility can be dismissed.

Do you have the experience with explosives to address this?

[vincent_vega_lives]

166. Enough to know your little construction project is pure

fantasy.

Btw they use epoxy or polymer to coat Rebar as rust protection.

all that explosive residue would be easily detectable at GZ, and the surrounding area.

[Christophera]

167. You Did Not Explain The Sand And Gravel

vincent_vega_lives wrote:

Enough to know your little construction project is pure"

fantasy.
Btw they use epoxy or polymer to coat Rebar as rust protection.

I am familiar with the plastic and polymer coatings on rebar. This was not an ordinary coating and the documentary went into it because it created a major slowdown in the construction. It was flammable!!!!

You really have to address the sand and gravel BEFORE using cognitive distortions "all or nothing thinking" just because the truth is so shocking.

Focus, ............ explain the sand and gravel now in order to reasonably assert the C4 coated rebar is "pure fantasy".

vincent_vega_lives wrote:

all that explosive residue would be easily detectable at GZ, and the surrounding area.

The key here is efficiency. I accept the basic value of 14 tons of high explosives needed as a minimum to cause what we saw to happen. That is a figure which is common knowledge in the 9-11 demolition discussion world.

Compare the mass of the concrete core to 14 tons of C4. Suddenly you see it is going to be hard to detect. Certainly it will be there but perhaps not very concentrated. Recall the comments about the nature and quality of the dust. It was very special dust, much of it subjected to massive pressures.

Imagine: (I'm asking you to do this because I've seen that you have a degree of engineering savvy. When you pointed at "pressure cuts steel" that was correct and properly expressed.)

Encasement in concrete engineered to provide equalized forces of a cylindrical surface suspended between to faces of concrete. When detonation occurs the natural event is that the path of least resistance will be followed. An outlet is always found to an area where lesser pressures are present, or the container provides an annular space that acts as a cushion protecting it.
The thickness of the concrete, bar diameter, C4 thickness and grid dimensions can set up with engineering calculations that will generate a shock wave that only contacts a very small area of concrete in order to totally render the rest to particulate.

Explosives when detected by laboratory tests always have pieces that have suffered gas jets from high density explosives detonating. the gasses etch minute amounts of the chemicals of the explosives composition into the surfaces of evidence found at the scene of a bombing. Considering the mass ratio of 14 tons of explosives is maybe 1:40,000 compared to the buildings core, well, ............... imagine this.

Your toyota pick up truck has a garbage can half full of the material LEFTOVERS of 2,000 LBS of high explosives (1:14th of the WTC charges). You bring maybe 200 LBS of material. You mix your load into the contents of 4,000 ten wheel trucks hauling 20,000 LBS apiece of sand gravel and cement.

Mix completely uniform.

Now call the lab and ask if the sand and gravel was subjected to an explosion. I don't think they will tell you it was because the proportions are not within the range they are used to detecting with the standard INEFFiCIENT bombings. Some of the compounds are found in other materials and it is the concentrations of certain that signal explosives have detonated there.

What happened at the WTC was the most efficient demolition EVER conducted. Maximum pressures were attained uniformly. There is nothing to compare it to unless military people who were involved in testing the self destruct missile silos and sub bases come forward. That dust is still there and it is detectable, but the testing methods have to be adjusted.

[paulthompson]

24. I think...

That extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I don't see the extraordinary evidence here to prove anything on this topic. But that goes for the official explanation, too. There's certainly a reasonable doubt, thanks in part to excessive secrecy and inadequate official investigations, and it's healthy to keep debating and researching this topic, and trying to learn more.

Here's a few bits from my book:

December 25, 2001: Experts: WTC Collapse Investigation “Inadequate”
The New York Times reports that “some of the nation’s leading structural engineers and fire-safety experts” believe the investigation into the collapse of the WTC is “inadequate” and “are calling for a new, independent and better-financed inquiry that could produce the kinds of conclusions vital for skyscrapers and future buildings nationwide.” Experts critical of the investigation include “some of those people who are actually conducting it.” They point out that the current team of 20 or so investigators has no subpoena power, inadequate financial support, and little staff support. Additionally, it has been prevented from interviewing witnesses and frequently prevented from examining the disaster site, and has even been unable to obtain basic information like detailed blueprints of the buildings that collapsed. The decision to recycle the steel columns, beams, and trusses from the WTC rapidly in the days immediately after 9/11 means definitive answers may never be known. (NEW YORK TIMES, 12/25/01)

January 4, 2002: Firefighter Magazine Scolds WTC Investigation
A firefighter trade magazine with ties to the New York Fire Department calls the investigation into the collapse of the WTC a “half-baked farce.” The article points out that the probe has not looked at all aspects of the disaster and has had limited access to documents and other evidence. “The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.” It concludes that a growing number of fire protection engineers have theorized that “the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.” (NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, 1/4/02; FIRE ENGINEERING, 1/02)

There's also this entry in progress, which I'll do something with if I see more witnesses discussing bombs:

September 12, 2001 (C): A New York firefighter tells of his rescue work inside the WTC: "On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there (were) bombs set in the building." (PEOPLE, 9/12/01) There are other witnesses who describe bombs. For instance, Teresa Veliz, who escaped from the 47th floor of the North Tower: "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." (September 11: An Oral History, Dean E. Murphy, 2002, pp. 9-15)

I should point out that it is not beyond reason to think that al-Qaeda might have planted explosives. We should consider all possibilities. There are several sightings of some of the 9/11 hijackers in the WTC in the days before it fell. Then you have things like the Rocky Hammad case, which certainly raises eyebrows:

February 10, 2002: Driver’s License Examiner Dies in Suspicious Circumstances
Katherine Smith is killed one day before her scheduled appearance in court on charges she helped five Muslim terrorists get illegal drivers licenses. According to witnesses, she veered into a utility pole when a fire erupted in her car. She was burned beyond recognition. The FBI later determines that gasoline was poured on her clothing before she died in the fire and find that arson was the cause of death. (OAK RIDGER, 2/14/02) A suicide note was found, but prosecutors say they are looking for murder suspects. One of the five Muslims, Sakhera Hammad, was found with a pass in his wallet giving access to the restricted areas of the WTC, dated September 5, 2001. Hammad claims he was a plumber and worked on the WTC’s sprinkler system that day, but the company with exclusive rights to all WTC plumbing work has never heard of him. Smith was being investigated by the FBI; the five later plead guilty to charges of fraud. (ASSOCIATED PRESS, 2/13/02; REUTERS, 2/15/02; GO MEMPHIS, 2/12/02; MEMPHIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL, 2/21/02) One month later, the coroner who examines her body is targeted by a bomb, which is defused. Then in June the coroner is attacked, bound with barbed wire, and left with a bomb tied to his body, but he survives. (MEMPHIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL, 3/14/02)

[paulthompson]

25. By the way

On a tangential matter, does anyone know what became of this below? I'd like to update it if there's some new news on it.

November 5, 2002: Study on 9/11 Pentagon Damage Kept Secret
The New York Times reports that the official Pentagon study assessing the structural effect of the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon was completed in July 2002 but has not been released, and may never be released. The report “was specifically intended to consider Pentagon security in the light of new terrorist threats . . . Some, confused over what could be considered sensitive in the report, have expressed outrage that the lessons it may hold for other buildings could be squandered.” Engineers outside the investigation say the implications are considerable, since the design of the Pentagon is much more similar to other major buildings elsewhere than the design of the WTC. If the report were released, it is likely building codes would be changed and many lives saved in the long term. (NEW YORK TIMES, 11/5/02)

And what IS the source for this "molten steel" talk? Is that merely from a Christopher Bollyn article, or is there mention of that somewhere else? Because I'd agree that alone as a source is inadequate, and if that's all there is to it, people should stopping seriously talking about molten steel.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

29. AFP says they got it from Peter Tully

But in this article:

http://enr.construction.com/features/bizlabor/archives/030217.asp

For months, Peter Tully, the scion of one of New York City's most durable but low-profile contracting families, was dogged by a writer stalking participants in the post-9/11 World Trade Center cleanup for an account of the project that later appeared in Atlantic Monthly magazine and as a book. Despite the firm's pivotal role in site cleanup and renovation, Peter Tully characteristically refused to talk to him.

So it's part of Tully character not to talk to reporters. He refused to talk to William Langewiesche, who was writing for the Atlantic Monthly. And yet we're supposed to believe that Tully coughed up for an extremist right-wing rag?

[paulthompson]

31. If that's it...

Then people should drop this whole molten steel thing. There's some evidence out there that's hardly any better than rumors and should be treated as such - unsubstatiated rumors. Another example of this is the recent claim to have actually named the pilot who shot down Flight 93, when he was supposedly given a medal for this act in some public ceremony. That doesn't pass the most basic logic test. We really need to separate the wheat from the chaff to figure out what happened on 9/11.

By the way, I'm not familiar with that Atlantic Monthy article or book mentioned. Does anyone know anything more about that?

[Bolo Boffin]

35. On the Atlantic Monthly article

The book is called American Ground. It alleged that there was looting going on by the firefighters and other 9/11 workers.

Here's a debunking of both book and article from the firefighters:

http://www.wtclivinghistory.org/introduction.htm

[Dancing_Dave]

149. Paul, there are MANY witness sources about that molten metal!

Having absolutely nothing to do with Chris Bollyn.

This issue has already been answered well in this thread, look at posts 122, 30 and 51 above. There's no doubt about the molten metal deep in the former sub-basements of the WTC. And no chance at all the jet fuel could have melted all that metal.

[paulthompson]

32. One more thing

Can anyone point me to the photo of the hole created by one of the crashed planes into the WTC, where there's a person hanging onto the debris and looking out? I should probably put that into my timeline, because it's important to debunk the popular conception that the fires raged hotly until the buildings tumbled. In fact, the jet fuel burned off in a matter of minutes, and the fires died way down once the jet fuel was gone. For instance, this entry:

August 4, 2002: Firefighters Saw Only Limited Fire in South Tower
A “lost tape” of radio messages from firefighters inside the WTC on 9/11 is made public. Supposedly, “city fire officials simply delayed listening” to this tape until after the official report on the fire department’s response to the attacks was published, and they still refuse to allow any officials to discuss the contents. The tape reveals that two firefighters were able to reach the crash site on the 78th floor of the South Tower. While there, “Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire, and called for a pair of engine companies to fight them.” (NEW YORK TIMES, 8/4/02; GUARDIAN, 8/5/02)

[k-robjoe]

38. Glad to help

( Especially after having bothered you with that other thing. )

http://members.surfeu.fi/11syyskuu/holewtc.htm

( See also : )

[Bolo Boffin]

47. Not the picture he was looking for

It's the correct face of the building, but he wants one taken from another angle, which does indeed show a woman standing in the bottom of the impact hole.

However, be sure to get the whole picture, Paul. The one I've got in a book shows several large office fires to the left and right of the impact hole, even though the lady is standing there.

You may also want to check out Appendix H of the NIST Interim Report. It's a 50 page .pdf file that charts out how the fires spread through the two buildings. You can find it here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/progress_report_june04.htm

[k-robjoe]

48. OK

It`s this one, right?

[paulthompson]

49. Yes. Thanks.

And it is only fair to include the larger view to put that person in perspective. But I'd also like a close up just of the person, which I've seen here and there on the web before. Anyone have just that? (I'll probably do like the other picture you posted and have a zoom in box.) And does anyone know the photo source - AP, Reuters, or whatever?

[k-robjoe]

59. seatnineb

scanned it from a book, sent it to me, I sent it to Hannu, and Hannu put it online. Which book was it again seatnineb?

[seatnineb]

63. New York Times

A Nation Challenged.
A Visual History Of 9/11 And It's Aftermath.
Published By Jonathan Cape.

The photo in question is on pages 18 and 19.
It is taken by Brian Manning.

Thanks again for your help on that one , K-Robjoe!

[seatnineb]

64. Paul...........

To get a better idea of the miracle of how this poor woman could have survived...........

This was the same area at 8:46am........



But at some point between 8:46am and 10:29am that area had cooled down sufficiently to allow this to happen.....

[demodewd]

68. quite a difference

Quite a difference in fire coloration. Why?

[vincent_vega_lives]

75. Looking at that picture

I should probably put that into my timeline, because it's important to debunk the popular conception that the fires raged hotly until the buildings tumbled. In fact, the jet fuel burned off in a matter of minutes, and the fires died way down once the jet fuel was gone. For instance, this entry:

I would hardly call that a smoldering fire. Tell me why we put sprinklers in office buildings and fireproofing on strutrual steel? Office buildings burn nicely without jet fuel. Sure the fuel burned off in minutes, as does gasoline that you throw all over a room and then ignite. Fire investigators call that an accelerant, and it caused a wide swath of building to catch fire at once.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery2.htm

[Bolo Boffin]

52. That's about half of the original picture.

I don't have a link to the full version, but it includes the entire hole, and there's a raging fire on the other side, just under the right wing's impact.

This one does show several of the fires, though. It's better than nothing.

[seatnineb]

65. To quote the New York Times.....

The peak energy of the fire was perhaps 3 to 5 times that of a nuclear power plant

New York Times.
A Nation Challenged.
Page 116.

But not energetic enough to kill these people......

[Old and In the Way]

80. Reminds me of the 9/11 commission investigation obstruction.

Quite odd that this administration would not demand every avenue and scrap of evidence investigated. You are correct that this could well be an Al Qaeda event, so why not pursue this as another facet of the terrorist attack?

[vincent_vega_lives]

73. Note the dates of these reports

Early reports from the battlefield are seldom accurate.

December 25, 2001: Experts: WTC Collapse Investigation “Inadequate”

Of course it was inadequate then. The thing is still going on.

January 4, 2002: Firefighter Magazine Scolds WTC Investigation

The evidence was removed from the site, but not without analysis. That was clarified long after this article.

It concludes that a growing number of fire protection engineers have theorized that “the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.”

Again, love to hear what these same folks think now.

September 12, 2001 (C): A New York firefighter tells of his rescue work inside the WTC: "On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there (were) bombs set in the building."

It's not hard to imagine that in the context of the attacks you would expect people to identify any loud bang as "bombs going off". Think about it, you hear a truck backfire on your street, do you think it is a bomb? No but, put it in the context that a building near your home was bombed on the day previous.

[Christophera]

155. A Few Small Explosions Distract & Improve The Ruse

paulthompson wrote:
"September 12, 2001 (C): A New York firefighter tells of his rescue work inside the WTC: "On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there (were) bombs set in the building." (PEOPLE, 9/12/01) There are other witnesses who describe bombs. For instance, Teresa Veliz, who escaped from the 47th floor of the North Tower: "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." (September 11: An Oral History, Dean E. Murphy, 2002, pp. 9-15)

I should point out that it is not beyond reason to think that al-Qaeda might have planted explosives. We should consider all possibilities. There are several sightings of some of the 9/11 hijackers in the WTC in the days before it fell. Then you have things like the Rocky Hammad case, which certainly raises eyebrows:"

If I were conducting a ruse that employed explosives built into a building that I was going to detonate, I would want other explosions going of to distract, confuse and diffuse attention from the main event. I would encourage terrorists to plant bombs wherever they wanted to do this.

The accounts of Teresa Veliz and firefighters certainly says that was happening.

[Last Lemming]

55. Also--

how long--precisely--did it take each tower to collapse? As I understand the second tower collapsed in about eight seconds--which would be faster than an ordinary object thrown from that height would fall. If it really came down that quickly then that's the "smoking gun." Falling objects don't move faster than gravity unless they have assistance.

[ExCiber]

69. I'm curious

Just how do you use explosives to apply that downward force nesessary to make something like the WTC to fall so much faster?

[Old and In the Way]

79. What would be the point?

To make the WTC faster than an object would normally fall unobstructed? The answer that's been posted in this forum is under 10 seconds - the time it would take an object to drop from the roof of the WTC to the ground. Videos I've seen show the collapse events taking 15-17 seconds. So the total internal resistance slowed the fastest theoretical drop by 8-9 seconds.

[Christophera]

168. It Was All Over In 20 Seconds, Most On the Ground On 10

I remember reading some analysis of the times involved.

I think that the seismic event will track the mass best and 9 seconds is about an average. There were pieces from the top on the gound in that time. There were other elements that stood for around 20 seconds.

I don't think anything really moved faster than gavity would take it, but that it fell that fast is strictly impossible with a collapse.

Uh huh, ........... smokin' guns. Lot's of them.

[yodermon]

82. You forgot one.

The cap of the North Tower accordioned onto itself before causing the floors at impact level to collapse.



Why were the floors above the impact level the weakest? Was the fire hotter up there? Or, once again, did Arabs suspend the laws of physics?

[vincent_vega_lives]

90. The collapse started at the point of impact.

No one suspended anything.

[Lavachequirit]

137. Sorry, but it didn't...

Look at any good film of the WTC-1 collapse and it is quite clear that the collapse began at the very top, with the roof-antenna complex.

http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/Shaking%20before%20WTC-1%20collapse.mpg

This has also been acknowledged in the NIST analysis, and was first commented on in the Weidlinger Associates study. Needless to say, the roof is the most lightly loaded part of the structure, the furthest away from the impact damage, yet it was the first to fail - very hard to explain with any kind of fire model.

[Make7]

152. yet it was the first to fail

Lavachequirit wrote:
Look at any good film of the WTC-1 collapse and it is quite clear that the collapse began at the very top, with the roof-antenna complex.

How much did the roof-antenna complex weigh? Seems odd that it would bring the whole building down if it collapsed onto the roof.

I wonder if any internal structure in the building could have possibly failed, causing the building to begin to collapse with the first externally visible sign being the antenna starting to fall. Is that even remotely possible? Perhaps even starting at the impact floors?

Lavachequirit wrote:
Needless to say, the roof is the most lightly loaded part of the structure, the furthest away from the impact damage, yet it was the first to fail - very hard to explain with any kind of fire model.

The basement and ground floors were actually farther away than the roof.

How would the antenna collapsing first be explained by the controlled demolition theory. Do they normally blow up buildings starting at the top?

---

Why did the South Tower collapse in a different manner? To confuse us here at DU?

:) Make7

[spooked911]

101. There is one more important pro-exposives argument--

The WTC buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a 707-- one of the largest jets of the period when the WTC was built. The Boeing 707 is comparable to the size of a 767, if not bigger, depending on the exact model.





http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=103

767-200ER - Empty with PW4056s 76,566kg (168,800lb), with CF680C2B4s 76,476kg (168,600lb), operating empty with PW4056s 84,415kg (186,100lb), with CF680C2B4Fs 84,370kg (186,000lb).

Wing span 47.57m (156ft 1in), length 48.51m (159ft 2in), height 15.85m (52ft 0in).

http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=87

707-320B - Empty 66,406kg (146,400lb), max takeoff 151,315kg (333,600lb).

707-320B - Wing span 44.42m (145ft 9in), length 46.61m (152ft 11in), height 12.93m (42ft 5in).

Funny how the anti-explosives crew always likes to ignore this fact.

[vincent_vega_lives]

102. Oh God, are you kidding?

Ignored? It was the first thing that was discussed back in 2001?

Yes it was designed to withstand the impact of a 707, and if you notice, they both withstood the IMPACT of a 767!

The impact + the fire was a different matter.

[spooked911]

104. I knew you would say that!

So are you telling me they didn't plan for the damage or the fire that would result?

Yes, the buildings survived the initial impact just fine. So the designers were right!

So were the designers then NOT smart enough to calculate the effects of a 707 knocking out a few supporting columns plus the effects of fire?

[vincent_vega_lives]

107. Short answer

YES.

Not that they "weren't smart enough" smart guy. The force of a 707 impact is calculable. Fires are far too unpredictable to calculate with any accuracy.

The steel has fireproofing, the buildings have sprinkler systems, both designed to neutralize the fire until firefighters can get to the scene. Those measures were compromised by the aircraft impact. Even with those measures it was determined that firefighters had 2 hours to get to a major fire in the building before there was a danger of collapse.

Of course that was considering a typical office fire, not a jet fuel fire after an airliner impact.

I have to hand it to you, you are nothing if not tenacious.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

103. The NIST will just hypothesize- par for the course

The few NIST requests for materials that are lost, currently pending, or not yet located include:

*
Original contract specifications for WTC towers (lost in the collapse of the buildings)
*
Construction and maintenance logs for WTC 1, 2, and 7 (lost in the collapse of the buildings)
*
Calculations and analyses that supported the original aircraft impact studies (lost in the collapse of the buildings)
*
Descriptions of partitions and furnishings in most of the tenant spaces of WTC 2 and WTC 7 in the fire and impact zones
*
Shop drawings showing connection details of WTC 7

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/pending_requests.htm

[NecessaryOnslaught]

105. WTC construction manager: building could sustain multiple hits

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/141104designedtotake.htm

[gbwarming]

106. That analysis could not be made with certainty in 1966 without tests

As vv noted, the towers did withstand the impacts, but I wanted to expand a little on why the 707 analysis had to be approximate. Of course we don't know what type of analysis was done, but I suspect they may have looked at a balance of the airplane kinetic energy compared to the strain energy required to bend or break the columns and joints, none of which are known with any precision. Robertson has stated that they didn't address the fuel load (because there was no way to do it), and they he thought these were the first skyscrapers where analysis of this type had been done.

The things that are needed most to make this kind of analysis more precise is testing to verify all of the estimates that are inherent in any type of engineering. Finite element models, computational fluid dynamics and ALL other simulations of reality that I am aware of are NEVER trustworthy without a base of testing that validates to model. Take the example of automobile crash performance - the designers have non-linear finite element analysis capabilities which didn't even exist in 1966 and the have a long, continuous history of designing similar structures, but they still crash cars to verify the designs. A big3 manufacturer near me crash tests about 400 instrumented cars/year. Climate models are tested with historical data and against data from satellites and ground stations in an attempt to verify their reliability. Boeing can afford any analysis software they want and has expert analysts - they STILL proof load new designs to verify the analysis. That famous F-4 concrete wall impact was commissioned to study the actual time versus load curve in order to have realistic input for nuclear plant structural analysis.

You simply can not do a novel type of analysis, which the wtc impact study was in 1966 and is today, without tests to validate the model.

[Christophera]

108. Explain The Sand And Gravel

There is twice as much mineral based building material as there should be and the official design had NO gravel.

What, NO GRAVEL??? Look at all the gravel at the bottom of this huge image!!!

Okay, there must have been twice as much concrete than the official structure shows and it was high strength concrete.

How much energy is required for complete pulverization of high strength concrete per cubic yard?

[spooked911]

109. First, welcome to DU! Second, I don't quite understand your point.

Third, great picture.

Fourth-- I'm not sure I see gravel down there-- how do we know that isn't just rocks in the soil?

Are you trying to make a point pro- or anti-explosives?

[Christophera]

110. Volumes of Material

I am in the construction business and calculate the volumes of; earth, sand, grave, concrete, steel, their weight etc. on a daily basis.

There is NO soil shown in the photo. What is seen are the remnants of aggregate concrete. High strength concrete. Sand and gravel.

In the lower right of the photo the rock can be clearly seen. I have worked around high explosives and the materials produced by its use, the ground zero photos have a character that is consistent with blasted minerals. The chunks of rock cemented still stuck together have an open edged appearance. This comes from the high pressure gasses ripping the fine particulate of cement and sand from between the adjoining aggregate.
Crushed or broken concrete has a smoother outer surface where particulates fill the spaces between agggregates.

If calculations are done to determine how much volume of sand should be in the basement from the official structure, one will see that half full is about right. If one studies the official structure one wil find no gravel was in the building. If one assumes that the sand and rock were a part of a concrete core structure then calculates how much energy is required to pulverize it to the degree we see, it will be seen that over a MILLION times more energy is required to do this than was released by the falling structure.

Definitely high explosives. And only explosives that were perfectly place and distributed as in DEMOLITION. Since there was no way that terrorists placed the explosives with perfection, nor distributed them with that kind of perfection, and no other activity was seen that could cover such placement and distribution, the only possible conclusion is that the buildings were built to demolish.

[vincent_vega_lives]

111. Brilliant deduction

Since there was no way that terrorists placed the explosives with perfection, nor distributed them with that kind of perfection, and no other activity was seen that could cover such placement and distribution, the only possible conclusion is that the buildings were built to demolish.

You are obviously very knowledgeable in your field. I would love to see your calculations.

Never heard of buildings "built to demolish", before can you explain that construction technique?

[Christophera]

112. Buildings Built To Demolish

I have done no calculations personally, except for the concrete and basement volumes. I would have to re do them and have lost the dimensions of the basement, otherwise I can repeat them no problem. A friend who is a physicist looked up the factors for the FEMA structure and calculated by mass the quantity of energy required to pulverize concrete present.

The issue of steel buildings falling as we saw is out of the question. Steel simply does not fall like that and blow concrete at 45 degrees upward for 300-400 feet. The fluffy white billowy clouds are the floors, lightwieght concrete. The grey brown particulate arcing upward is aggregate concrete being blown up.

My friend told me of his energy calc results, (one million times more than relased by the falling structure required to pulverize the floors and remove the bearing ability of steel columns) and I told him about a documentary I'd seen in 1990 that detailed the North Towers construction and that the 2 hour PBS show focused on the CAST CONCRETE CORE. He immediately said that would mean MORE energy was required.

The documentary focused on it because it created slowdowns in the construction that stood out in the original 16mm the videographers worked with. The film was poorly labeled and not logged. They copied to video with the best chronology they could assemble and went out to contractors and employees to refine it.

It took me almost a year after 9-11 to remember details but I do.

[k-robjoe]

119. "one million times more"

> "My friend told me of his energy calc results, (one million times more than relased by the falling structure required to pulverize the floors and remove the bearing ability of steel columns)"

Well, unless your friend has miscalculated with almost a million, then he should really present his maths. Why should anyone prefer to have this calculation circulating only as a rumour, if they have really done the maths? Doesn´t make sense at all.

[Christophera]

120. Link To Gravity Release Calculations

My friend simply applied the alternative calculation to this link regarding the expansion rates of the pyroclastic cloud as compared to the gravitational energy release of collapse with regard to pulverization/breakage of materials rather than a dust cloud resulting from it.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/dustvolume.html

There are other relative energy based deficiencies pointed out on these pages.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/pulverization.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/dustcloud.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/expulsion.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/disintegration.html

[ryan_cats]

127. The core was not concrete.

The core was not concrete. It was done on the cheap with gypsome board or whatever you call it, you know thicker sheetrock. The people that were caught in the elevator managed to get out by forcing the doors open and using a window squeege to cut a hole in the wall and escape. There's also numerous reports of the stairwells blocked by sheets of drywall.

If you have proof, I'd like to see it. What really bothers me is WTC #7, there is clearly something wrong in its collapse.

[vincent_vega_lives]

128. WTC 7

Not if you know the details.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

[ryan_cats]

129. Wow, great link. Thank you

[vincent_vega_lives]

131. No prob

A lot of people here discount the FEMA study as "Government misinformation" but there is a lot of good information and pics in there if you just look.

[spooked911]

130. This hardly proves there was no concrete in the core

Just that there wasn't concrete directly adjacent to the elevators.

I'm not sure what the sheets of drywall in the stairwells have to do with concrete in the core.

[ryan_cats]

132. Check this out

Sorry for the size but I just found this picture of the core that was posted in another 9/11 thread.

The stairs were in the core. If a building has a concrete core, usually the stairs are surrounded by cement, check it out next time your in a stairwell in a large building. This isn't proof but it's what I think.

This forum should be on the main page, it's an incredible wealth of information.

[vincent_vega_lives]

136. I'm guessing that was where those 5 firemen

who suvived the collapse where.

[Christophera]

141. One Corner Of Concrete Core

Great photo. We can see elevator guide rails sticking out tof the debri in the foreground. If they were steel core columns as some might say, they would not have squared off ends, they would have mangled ends brom being at least broken if not blasted.

The dimensions of that concrete and steel structure are too small to be the core but it is certainly a part of the core. On the left are 3 interior box columns that are bolted to the concrete core exterior. We are looking at the north east corner of a core, haven't figured which one yet. That excavator in the background in front of the core remnant is probably a Hitachi 800 which has an approximate length of 65 feet with the boom layed on the ground which means that the elevator guide rail sticking up to the left of the machines grapple claw is around where the south wall of the core would be.

Maybe the structure is the ground level of the large load elevator?

[ryan_cats]

142. Is there any way

Is there any way you could photoshop this image with labels for what you're talkig about?

After pouring over the 9/11 forum, I don't think I even have a clue what happened that day. It's really frustrating to think that our government could be involved, that's pretty frickin evil. I'm afraid it'll be like the JFK assasination, I don't think we'll ever get the truth.

[spooked911]

143. We will get the truth if enough people demand the truth

Seriously. There are so many major questions the 9/11 commission didn't touch.

If you're interested, there are many good books on 9/11. I think "Synthetic terror 9/11: Made in USA" by Webster Tarpley is the most interesting and relevant to understanding what really happened on 9/11. But Paul Thompson's "Terror Timeline" is a good accessible place to start that gives you a feel for what the issues are.

[ryan_cats]

145. Well

I'm embarrassed to say that I bought the original story hook, line and sinker. Now, I'm positive this mis-administration is involved. I don't think scrub-ya knows, he's too damn stupid to trust so he's a blind front man. I'd sure like to know who exactly is pulling his strings.

[Christophera]

147. Now Truth=Moving Target: Focus WHY Demand Justified

Presently we (9-11 movement) don't know which one of these;

wargames
hijackers
intelligence
wtc collapse
pentagon plane/missile
saudi connection
stock puts
administration lies
silverstien
NIST
cell phone calls
pod/missile
+ 15 not thought of

is the reason we are demanding the truth? Enough people want it, but what are we, the cutting edge using as a lever to get it by showing exactly what the problem is with the current investigation or info it's based on.

Which one is the best to focus on to use to break the defenses down and force the senate to require an immediate investigation?

We saw in the farenheit 9-11 that NO senator would sign the congress peoples objections to certification of the election.

The senate is what we have compel towards lawful action and we'll need many people to do this. As long as we cannot speak with one voice on exactly WHY, the other Americans needed to compel the senate, will not join in.

This is why we need a formal competition of different scenarios that explain parts of 9-11 consistent with evidence. We let the people choose which one, then run with that.

[demodewd]

151. verifying Hoffman's thesis

What's the feasibility in your opinion of getting verifiable calculations as to the amount of energy needed to pulverize the non-metallic materials and having the dust clouds move at such an alarming rate through Lower Manhattan? According to Jim Hoffman the pulverization of materials and "pyroclastic" speed of the dust clouds far exceeded the boundaries of the gravitational potential energy of the event.

If we could only get a number of qualified physicists and mathematicians to basically support Hoffman's numbers..this could be a breakthrough...particularly if it gained momentum and gained widespread infiltration into the academic scientific circles.

[ryan_cats]

144. Here's one of the construction

From this site:
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html

[Christophera]

139. Proof Of Steel Reinforced Cast Concrete Core

I read the elevator and stairwell escape stories and they do not actually say they cut through the core wall. They describe the drywall separators between elevators and stairwells in the core.

Here is the tubular, steel reinforced, cast concrete core of WTC 2 standing without any exterior structural steel.



If the heavy steel core columns existed, they would be seen in that photo. There are other photos where the core columns would be seen if they existed, they are not seen in ANY photos where they should be. See the photos here.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

[OneMind]

113. Oh, there were explosions alright.....

A 270 ton beam from WTC1 rocketed over 300 feet into the Amex building. Laterally-flying pellets damaged buildings over 1.5 miles away, and
most of the cement was pulverized to nano-dust.

That doesn't happen in the fairy tale "pancake theory." lol!

[Christophera]

114. Upwardly Travelling Pieces NOT of Collapse

Not that chunks of steel are seen flying upward, but sand and gravel is seen, ................ more to the point of the heavy segments of the exterior box columns travelling in near horizontal directions. It is very difficult to get steel to do that with explosives.

First you have to severe it from the other steel then somehow push against something that has very little area but great wieght and mass.

Walls of pulverized concrete are pushing the steel outward.

[OneMind]

115. A better photo

14" square steel box perimeter columns severed from 52" deep base plates and ejected horizontally 300 feet at high speed.

Only high-tech explosives can do this.

[Christophera]

116. Better for Fast Steel But Not Upward

Yes, that photo shows steel travelling horizontally at speeds way out of the realm of "collapse", what an absurd theory.

Oh, ........ its a lie. Okay that makes sense. My photo shows more upward though. Upward is NOT logically allowed in a collapse until things hit the ground. PERIOD!!! Therefore, not a collapse.

Bless Bill Biggart, a true information hero.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lavachequirit]

134. The flying pieces

I think a lot of the one-storey pieces you see being thrown out are the aluminum facing pieces that were fitted to the outsides of the perimeter columns - not that it doesn't still take a lot of energy to fling them out like this.
(http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x35330#35347) The perimeter columns themselves were assembled in units of 3 columns, 3 storeys high, held together by 52" spandrel plates on each floor, and the picture does show several of these as well as some larger assemblages.

The curving front of shattered pieces being thrown out to the right looks like a shock wave carrying along a slurry of fragments, mixed with a faintly reddish haze of compressed gasses from the explosion.

[Christophera]

138. Aluminum Pieces Everywhere

Yes, I agree. The aluminum face sheets are the short rectangular pieces flying and falling outward from the building as detonations blew them out. Notice they don't go far, not enough mass. In order to take the perimeter box column assemblys you describe and fling them the distances they were thrown, some semi solid material would have to push them.

High pressure, speed explosive gasses won't do that unless a component has area to push on. Structural steel doesn't. have area, which is another reason bringing me to realize the cast concrete core blew and the expanding pulverized concrete pushed the steel, ripping it apart in chunks and throwing it into space.

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dancing_Dave]

170. Here's Webster Tarpley's chapter on explosive demolition of the WTC

It's a real eye-opener allright...and should especially interest all those New Yorkers who actually experienced explosions:
http://www.reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6.pdf

[Christophera]

172. Too Bad He Published In A pdf.

Perhaps no one has noticed but pdf's are notoriously glitchy. That one was about 3 feet wide at the smallest I could make it. With 25 pages and the third sentence applying the word "insane" I doubt we can expect much.

Basically, pdfs could be a good way to keep information away from people. In the legal world it is a real drag because you cannot search them or copy and paste with them.

I wish web surfers would boycot them for everything except forms.

[ancient_nomad]

173. Tool to convert pdf to html....

from adobe. I use it alot! Maybe you guys will too!

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/access_onlinetools.html

[Christophera]

174. OMG, They Had To Make A Converter:THX, Tarpleys Stuff Good

Right On, leave to an ancient_nomad to have the right technology.

Even the manufacturer knows that pdf's are odious and so makes a converter.

I'm rather surprised at how much new eyewitness Tarpley has found. Actually very good.
Good breakdown on the seismic except he doesn't mention the small spike at plane impact

SEISMIC EVIDENCE
The seismic effects of the collapse of the towers were observed and measured by
Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory just up the Hudson River in
Palisades, New York. Here seismographs recorded two spikes reflecting two shock waves
in the earth on the morning of 9/11. The crucial fact is that these two spikes came just
before the collapse of the towers began. Specifically, Columbia scientists at the facility
registered a tremor of 2.1 on the Richter scale at 9:59:04 EDT, just before the beginning
of the collapse of the South Tower, and a 2.3 shock just as the North Tower began to
come down at 10:28:31 EDT. Both tremors were recorded before the vast majority of the
mass of the buildings hit the ground. Although they were not of earthquake proportions,
these were considerable shocks, about twenty times more potent than any previously
measured shock wave generated by a falling building. The 1993 WTC truck bomb had
produced no seismic effects at all – it had failed to register.

[Dancing_Dave]

175. Many witnesses in NYC

Felt the ground shake right BEFORE the Towers exploded and collapsed.

[Christophera]

176. “It’s coming down.” Expert Paints Dark Picture & Gee, No Concrete Core

Okay, now I know where the "No concrete core" "Only sheetrock", lines came from. Check the "mental filter" this account creates by making a composite "all or nothing statement". Conpare this to the reports of firefighters in the buildings where the fires actaully were.

This was Mark
Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition Incorporated, a Maryland-based family
business that specializes in reducing tall buildings to manageable pieces of rubble.
‘Within a nanosecond,’ he told me. ‘I said, “It’s coming down.” And the second tower
will fall first, because it was hit lower down.’” Loizeaux was billed as a “structural undertaker” whose job was to destroy old buildings.

Here is Loizeaux’ version of how he
foresaw the disaster:
I thought, “Somebody’s got to tell the Fire Department to get out of
there….I picked up the phone, dialed 411, got the number, and tried it –
busy. So I called the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management” – which
was in 7 World Trade. “All circuits were busy. I couldn’t get through.”
But how could Loizeaux know what no other expert claimed to know, and which went
against a hundred years accumulated by civil engineers in building skyscrapers? If
suspects are those who had the means, the motive and the opportunity, then Loizeaux
may well have had the means. According to the demolitions man:
First of all, you’ve got the obvious damage to the exterior frame from the
airplane – if you count the number of external columns missing from the
sides the planes hit, there are about two-thirds of the total. And the
buildings are still standing, which is amazing – even with all those
columns missing, the gravity loads have found alternate pathways. O.K.,
but you’ve got fires – jet-fueled fires, which the building is not designed
for, and you’ve also got lots of paper in there. Now, paper cooks. A paper
fire is like a coal-mine fire, it keeps burning as long as oxygen gets to it.
And you’re high in the building, up in the wind, plenty of oxygen. So
you’ve got a hot fire. And you’ve got these floor trusses, made of fairly
thin metal, and fire protection has been knocked off most of them by the
impact. And you have all this open space – clear span from perimeter to
core – with no columns or partition walls, so the airplane is going to skid
right through that space to the core, which doesn’t have any reinforced
concrete in it, just sheetrock covering steel, and the fire is going to spread
everywhere immediately, and no fire-protection systems are working – the
sprinkler heads shorn off by the airplanes, the water pipes in the core are
likely cut. So what’s going to happen? Floor A is going to fall onto floor
B, which falls onto floor C; the unsupported columns will buckle; and the
weight of everything above the crash site falls onto what remains below –
bringing loads of two thousand pounds per square foot, plus the force of
impact, onto floors designed to bear one hundred pounds per square foot.
It has to fall.” (The New Yorker, November 19, 2001)

[Dancing_Dave]

177. And he maintains the jet fuel and paper fires melt steel.

Which has already been scientifically discredited long ago.

Lot's of molten steel, supposedly melted by that jet fuel and paper, was found deep in the WTC rubble by his own admission.

Not that he's at all the only source on the extreme temperatures deep in the WTC rubble. ;-)

[Christophera]

178. Tarpley Notes That FEMA Core Columns Are Never Seen

Tarpley seems to not suspect that the FEMA core structure is a lie. However he does make an obsevation that I must repeat over and over that is truly an absolute.

The many steeel core columns FEMA states existed centrally in the tower are NEVER seen where they must be, which is absolutely illogical.



This is the main reason that the concrete core needs publicity so that the many people who saw the same documentary as I did can speak up and confirm the concrete core and the FEMA lie.


The heart of the FEMA argument is that the astronomical temperatures allegedly reached
by the fires weakened the floor trusses, leading to each floor pancaking onto the one
below. As the floors fell away, the columns in the façade as well as the core columns

remained standing, but they then quickly buckled at the points where they were bolted
together, and came crashing down. This theory is not based on observation, but on pure
speculation. It is a purely cinematic explanation of what happened – it tries to account for
the phenomenon of collapse, but takes no notice of whether such a process could occur in
the real world. In fact, the floor truss/pancake theory cannot function in the real world.
Even if the floors failed, the strong structure of the 47 central columns, minus a very few
which might have been severed by the impact of the airlines (even fewer in the South
Tower) would have remained standing. That would have left a 110-floor steel spine
intact, and this is not what was observed. Many of the deceptive drawings contained in
the FEMA report then became the inspiration for the graphics used in the NOVA
documentary program on this subject which was aired on PBS.

[spooked911]

183. Have yout ried posting in the General Discussion section here to ask if

anyone else has seen this show you saw about the construction of the towers?

If you leave out 9/11 from the title, it might last in GD for a while and you might get more response.

[Christophera]

185. Good Idea, Just Did.

Imagine if we could get Moveon or Answer to use their mail list to ask the public?

This is the main reason I try to get 9-11 activists to unify around a single MIHOP and then go to the big .orgs and get them to inquire.

Ten or fifteen declarations and we've impeached FEMA and uncovered a very telling lie in the freefall/pulverization department.

[Christophera]

186. My Post Asking For Any Who Had Seen The Documentary Lasted About

3 hours before it disappeared from general discussion.

[spooked911]

192. Sorry! Did anyone reply? You could keep kicking it up until you get an

answer.

By the way, I saw you updated your site. I have to look it over more, but it looks good.

[Christophera]

195. 3 Hours Later It Was Gone.

I was unable to find the post asking if any had seen the documentary on the constrcution of the WTC, posted in general discussion when I returned.

Yes, I followed your advice, thank you, navigation made all the difference. There are site maps distributed in significant spots to locate places with all the issues addressed. I reordered the information some too, added the toppling/sequence/remote analysis. I will link to Tarpleys info in a few days.

The issue of the concrete core seems a very difficult one and I was looking for a method to accent the obvious at the end of a long chain of details.

[Dancing_Dave]

187. If you want one coherent summery of the whole 9/11 MIHOP inside job

Webster Tarpley's "9/11 Synthetic Terrorism: Made in the USA" is definately the best there is:
http://www.waronfreedom.org

Buy a few and give 'em to your friends! :think:

[spooked911]

191. I agree. It is the best so far.

[Dancing_Dave]

188. Yeah, Mark Loizeaux is a Mole in the 9/11 Plot

Here you see him seeding key parts of the 9/11 myth in the press, making blatantly untrue statements, and then he went on to oversee the cover-up at Ground Zero after 9/11.

And yeah, he knew how to place and time explosives to bring WTC buildings 1,2, and 7 down.

[Christophera]

189. Is A Mole Unconscious, Is Unconscious Better Than Secret?

Doesn't history contain "mole" accounts of people who didn't know they were "moles"? Manchurian candidate style.

[LARED]

190. Unconscious moles????

History or fiction? Reality of fantasy? Satire? or just silliness.

It's hard to tell.

[LARED]

171. kick it nt

[spooked911]

179. I think this Indira Singh story regarding WTC7 changes the dynamic

here:
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/archives.php?id=13&limit=N

She talks about WTC7 being brought down on purpose by the firemen.

They wired up WTC7 to bring it down with demolitions AND they covered the story up so well all this time.

Thus, there is clear precedent for WTC buildings to be leveled by demolitions AND there clearly has been a massive cover up. This strongly suggests to me similar things happened with WTC1 and WTC2.

[ROH]

180. Speed of Collapse

You wrote:
"For demolition we have:
... 2) the extreme speed at which the towers fell-- not consistent with pancake model"

-------------------------------------

David Ray Griffin has commented:
"For a 1,300-foot building, however, ten seconds is almost free-fall speed. But if each floor produced just a little resistance, so that breaking through each one took a half second, the collapse of all those floors — 80 or 95 of them — would have taken 40 to 47 seconds. Can we really believe that the upper part of the buildings encountered virtually no resistance from the lower parts? The problem would be even worse in relation to the North Tower, at least if Hufschmid is right to say that it fell in eight seconds, which would be exactly free-fall speed "How," he asks, "could the debris crush 100 steel and concrete floors while falling as fast as objects fall through air?""

-------------------------------------

Gerard Holmgren has written:
"The towers supposedly collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors, meaning that at each stage of the 110 storey collapse, the falling rubble would have its acceleration significantly slowed by this resistance. But the towers collapsed in 11 secs, virtually a free fall. Although there are too many variables to calculate the exact minimum time possible for a pancake collapse, it would have to be more than 20 seconds. A pancake collapse in 11 seconds is impossible under the law of gravity."

-------------------------------------

Has anyone constructed a detailed simulation (possibly a computer simulation) to assess whether 20 seconds, 40 seconds, or longer is an appropriate minimum time?

[spooked911]

182. This site has a fairly extensive analysis of the WTC collapse

though I didn't see a computer model like you mention:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html

[Dancing_Dave]

193. Here's an important scientific critique of a 911 research paper

I think the author is a bit to harsh on Jim Hoffman, who's North Tower Dust Cloud energy analysis was certainly not INTENDED to mislead. However Hoffman, creator of the 911 research site does overlook or misconstrue a lot of specific evidence related to the EXPLOSIVES involved in the WTC demolition. This helps sort things out better (if you can follow the physics and chemistry):
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/12/91767.php

In short, explosives blew the Twin Towers to smithereens and scattered the dust all over New York.

[Old and In the Way]

184. Something that could be modelled relatively easy, I'd think.

Would be fascinating to see what the average theoretical time would be, allowing for critical variables that could be substituted to see what the standard deviation would be from a nominal...and compare to the actual. I'd expect some mementary resistance that each floor would add to the total collapse time, albeit at a diminishing sustain rate as more floors collapse. 10 seconds/approx 110 floors is not much internal time resistance per floor (avg .1 second).

[Griffy]

181. All Wrong.. Gravity is just a theory ... so what does anyone know!

This event and the lies surrounding it (if you think there NO lies your drinking the koolaid) are so massive and twisted that it is hard to unravel... for instance, the WTC tower may have collapsed without explosives... but that doesnt mean WTC 7 wasnt rigged! If those planes were hijacked and piloted by Saudis doesnt mean that the Pentagon was hit by a plane. Everyone trying to debunk the 911 coverup (not consperacy, we know people DO conspire.. dont get lost in the language) need to hold on to reality as they know it. I would be curious about how many of these "no coverup" also think the election was fair. To see the crimiality of bushco is to open the mind to the possiblity that they can sink lower than almost ANY of us can imagine... and those that can grasp this are ridiculed and shunned. NONE of us know exactly what happened.. but I promise you, at the bare minimum, bushco let this happen!

maybe this is will help you see... the facts never seem to quite jive with bushco(MSM) stories! ... so, did they find those WMD's yet!

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon121.swf

[OKthatsIT]

194. The firemen were reporting that they had the fire under control

on the 80-85 floors. So the temp was a lot lower than we have been told.