Another account of "secondary explosions" at WTC down the memory hole

[HamdenRice]

Here is the first hand reporting that appeared in the SF Chronicle on 9/11:

http://sfgate.com/today/terror.shtml

...
The Pentagon took a direct, devastating hit, knocking down part of one side of the five-sided building at 9:30 a.m. Secondary explosions followed, sending billows of smoke over the nation's capital.

...
Buildings throughout lower Manhattan near the World Trade Center, which has two of the tallest buildings in the world, were evacuated. At least two big explosions occurred in the two hours following the plane crashes.

Debris from the explosions was filling the air as far away as Brooklyn.

"The two explosions were in credible and at the point of explosions, all you could see outside were personal belongings and office supplies raining outside," said Bob Rendine, an American Stock Exchange spokesman, whose office is nearby. "We're staying here. We think it's safer to stay inside than go outside at this point."

<end quote>

How do we ignore this stuff?????????????

[spooked911]

1. Interesting find. But that article is weird because it didn't mention the

collapse of the towers. Were the collapses the explosions they were talking about? But why didn't they say the explosions were part of the collapses?

Very odd.

[HamdenRice]

5. If you look toward the end of the article ...

it mentions that the towers collapsed. I think this shows how the disaster was perceived and reported as it was happening -- the "amazing" part was the plane crashes. Or this may be one of several articles in the SF Chronicle that day, and this one focused on the overall theme of terrorism striking the US, rather than the details of what happened in lower Manhattan.

[philb]

2. Has someone followed up with Rendine? they should have.

"The two explosions were in credible and at the point of explosions, all you could see outside were personal belongings and office supplies raining outside," said Bob Rendine, an American Stock Exchange spokesman, whose office is nearby. "We're staying here. We think it's safer to stay inside than go outside at this point."

He could obviously explain more about what he saw and what he meant.
This should have been followed up on.
It appears he meant explosions, not collapses. But what I saw in the pictures also was explosions, not collapses. The buildings were leveled and the materials powdered and exploded outward with much force.

[janedoe]

3. Is this artile the real thing?

Orrin Hatch is quoted as saying US intelligence reported, "this has the signature of Osama bin Laden."

Then the article quotes a spokesman for the ruling Taliban as saying, "Osama bin Laden could not do this work, neither us."

I remember hearing "Bin Laden" as responsible on TV that day.

1. What is Bin Laden's "signature?"
2. Why was/is Bin Laden assumed to be responsible?
3. What proof of guilt has been given or demonstrated?

[WoodrowFan]

4. he actually admitted it

try reading sites NOT run by tinfoilers who are in serious need of medication like Rense. bye bye

[John Doe II]

7. Really?

Maybe you don't read enough sites run by tinfoilers? Or maybe you don't watch enough CNN?

In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/index.html

I don't know. English is not my mother tongue but this doesn't exactly sound like "admtting it".

[JackRiddler]

8. WHO admitted it.

If you want to believe in the series of Bin Ladin videos in which he is played by different people, makes conflicting claims, and is translated wrongly (in the case of the "confession" video), be my guest. Idiocy in the face of obvious scams is your sacred right in a free country.

Even assuming the "real" Bin Ladin is no longer a paid-for asset of the CIA, and assuming he is alive and running a retail terrorist network, tell me: what reason on 9/11/01 would he have not to accept blame for the attacks, understanding that this is the best possible PR for what he does?

He has been a false confessor in the past, claiming responsibility for the downing of U.S. helicopters in Mogadishu 1993. This was actually the battle of Mogadishu. The U.S. forces struck first in a surprise attempt to kidnap a local warlord. They were surprised in their turn to discover that the whole city rose up and tried to kill the foreign invaders (as usual). At most, Bin Ladin might have supplied weapons, but his group could not be responsible for the local militia reaction to an American surprise attack. Yet until 2001, this was the only attack for which "al-Qaeda" took credit.

What does that tell you? Bin Ladin is (was?) a narcissistic hot-dog.

[HamdenRice]

6. This is from the SF Chronicle site ...

which is a major newspaper of the west coast, so it's legit. I think that Hatch as well as many others assumed it was bin Laden because he had been accused of carrying out the African embassy attacks and the attack on the USS Cole. There really weren't any other likely suspects at that point.

[spooked911]

9. bin Laden was being pushed as the culprit early on 9/11

mostly because he was known to have attacked the US embassies in Africa and those were "simultaneous" attacks, like 9/11 was.

I actually thought myself that it may have been bin Laden on 9/11-- it was just an obvious guess, and many people in government were also thinking the same thing.

I think the "signature" was the multi-stage "simultaneous" attacks.