Tags for This Article:

USA United States Of America (7154)  9 11 WTC Attack (500)  Conspiracy (385)  Terrorist Bombing (188) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
Events All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ; ;
Add to My Group
April 30, 2007 at 23:56:24

9/11: Debunking conspiracy theories

by Mary MacElveen     Page 1 of 3 page(s)

www.opednews.com

 

Tell A Friend

(0.0 from 0 ratings) View Ratings | Rate It

In relation to 9/11 many clamor for the truth of what happened on that fateful day.  At times even truth can be co-opted to support one’s position over another.  Discussing this issue has made me into a pariah so to speak since I do not agree with people like Rosie O’Donnell. 

In America we do have the right to our own beliefs based upon what we have read, viewed and what has been relayed to us.  I do believe that this will be my last column in addressing this issue since I do feel there are more pressing needs to help our fellow Americans such as jobs, health care and many more vital issues.  I will be breaking this column up into various talking points.

I have heard people refer to Rosie O’Donnell as their hero or St. Rosie.  Excuse me the term hero should rightfully go to the firefighters and police officers that lost their lives on that horrific day.  I do believe as many were rushing up the stairs into the Twin Towers, they were in essence climbing their own stairway to heaven.  The heroes of that tragic event also were the numerous volunteers who gave of their time to help their fellow Americans.  They dropped everything and asked; how can I help?  Our heroes are also our soldiers that have died in these recent years and even the ones still living or have come home maimed.  Whether or not you agree with the administration’s use of them, they are heroes’ none-the-less.

Speaking of firefighters that responded is a dear friend of mine with incredible credentials and a heart as big as they come.  He even protested along with me and millions more to send a message to our government not to invade Iraq.  He has volunteered over the years as a firefighter and a voice for those who continue to suffer in our country.  So, when his eyewitness accounts are impeached as he fought those raging fires at the pile which is now called Ground Zero, they do not know my friend.

Here is verbatim what he has written to me concerning his eyewitness accounts of the pile, “The fact is that 30 fire companies fought the fires at WTC 7 (that contained half million pounds of diesel fuel) for several days with virtually no progress toward containment.  No structure can maintain structural integrity under that amount of fire load indefinitely.  There are many false factoids out there about the collapse of this structure.   There was no pool of molten steel in the basement, no explosives went off, just more fire load for longer than any structure could sustain, plain and simple.  Also WTC 7 was not on fire until the burning twin towers collapsed upon it. As you know I was there.” I will believe his accounts over those who were not even there.

Someone asked me in an email today; what about Larry Silverstein’s remark calling for WT 7 to be pulled as being the smoking gun.  For those of you who do not know who Larry Silverstein, he is the lease owner of the property now known as Ground Zero.  In searching around the Internet and in response to another person’s email here is what I wrote, “When you mentioned Larry Silverstein and his quote using the term “pulled” in relation to WT 7, I went searching for what he actually said.  I came across this audio wave in which he stated, "I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.' Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." I further opined, “So in essence he stated that after the building caught fire and to prevent the further loss of life.  He did not say it prior to the building catching fire or for it to be brought down intentionally through a controlled demolition.”

One of the latest in which every believer that the government had a hand in it is certain comments coming from Senator John F. Kerry via a YouTube.com feed.  First of all the title of the feed says he stated that WT 7 was taken down in a controlled demolition when in fact he never said it within that feed.  I find that irresponsible. When Senator Kerry stated that a wall had to be taken down in a “controlled fashion” through this sentence, “it had to be taken down in a controlled fashion” The “it” meant the wall.  He did not say controlled demolition.  Controlled demolition means using wirings and shape charges to take down a building. I will be getting to controlled demolitions in a bit.  By the way, I did call Sen. Kerry’s office to verify not only what was said, but of an article carrying these comments and they denied the accusation and were angered that people were misinterpreting the senator’s comments.  One person even emailed me, “I do not believe you called”.  Let her believe what she will, but I did.

Over the years and yes at the beginning I was too a believer that the government had a hand in 9/11, it was not until I started looking into the blow-back affect in which certain actions by our government will in essence blow-back in our faces.  In fact a news report that I listened to tonight stated because of our invasion in Iraq that terrorist’s attacks have increased over the year by 25 percent.  That is a prime example of blow-back.  With the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in which The Lancet puts it at roughly 655,000 Iraqis killed and millions displaced; guess where the next wave of people who will hate us come from?  Many of these displaced Iraqis are children.  We just delivered children into the hands of such terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda.  Not to solely blame our government, I do believe that there are people out there that do hate Americans.  When Rosie O’Donnell irresponsibly stated “Do not fear the terrorists…they are mothers and fathers” I would love for her to say that to a victim of any terrorist attack.  Saying do not fear them is like saying do not fear rapists and murderers.  Would a hero say; do not fear the terrorists?  A hero would try and save your life from a terrorist.

Again, speaking of blow-back, I believe counter-terrorism experts like Richard Clarke who repeatedly warned Pres. Bush of the impending threat of al Qaeda and was demoted and ultimately fired.  He served under several administrations and his opinion I value more than Rosie O’Donnell’s. 

In reading so many articles over the years, I have caught a number of catch words contained within them.  They are, questionable, suggested, and mysterious or where the question asked becomes fact and they leave it up to the reader to interpret this information.  Instead of asking a question, “Now, what is that?” they should say what that is.

One person asked me about the movie ‘Loose Change’ as being proof of this larger conspiracy and this is what I have sent out previously, “I want you to read this Alternet.org in which they interviewed a man that took part in the making of ‘Loose Change’ as he stated, “Loose Change" happened by accident. The whole thing started out as a fictional screenplay about me and Dylan and another friend of ours finding out 9/11 was an inside job. It started out as a comedic action film with us being chased by the FBI and all that.”

But, it was this point which backs up my original column stating that many of us are not experts in the field of demolition and fire dispersal, “What I encourage people to do is go out and research it themselves. We don't ever come out and say that everything we say is 100 percent. We know there are errors in the documentary, and we've actually left them in there so that people discredit us and do the research for themselves -- the B52 (remarked to have flown into the Empire State Building), the use of Wikipedia, things like that. We left them in there so people will want to discredit us and go out and research the events yourself and come up with your own conclusions.”

In this Popular Mechanics pod cast debunking 9/11 theories, you will hear in that pod-cast, often those who write of these theories will quote someone who has written of it without going back to the original source.  In a court of law it is called hear say which is often not entered as evidence.

Now I will address controlled demolitions.  I do have a source within the company Controlled Demolitions Incorporated who I have been emailing with for quite sometime.  I have always had the utmost respect for this company and the family that started this business years ago.  In fact, I would call them experts in this field since they know how to take a building down safely and in a controlled environment.  One person posted years ago that Controlled Demolitions Incorporated was in on it. My reaction to that post was; where is your proof?  None was forth coming.  You just do not make a statement like that without backing it up with proof.  My source once said to me that any comment they make, is “often twisted” and they have had to resort to putting out a comment of “no comment” I do not blame them since I can feel their exasperation as my source told me of when confronting those who wish to believe the opposite.

Before I relay a statement sent to me today by my source at Controlled Demolitions Incorporated, I will opine this.  Who exactly am I supposed to believe?  I will believe my friend the firefighter who was there.  I will believe CDI above Rosie O’Donnell since they are the experts and she is not.  I do not even pretend any expertise in demolitions, but I go with my gut and my gut tells me to believe in the people of this company. No, it is not blind faith, but witnessing their work via many of their documentaries over the years.  The Loizeaux family that owns CDI is a spiritual family.  I have seen before each demolition they pray for the building to come down as planned and for no one to be hurt in the process.

Below is the complete statement released to me by my source at Controlled Demolitions Incorporated.  By the way, as a writer, I will never divulge who this person is.

 1  |  2  |  3

 

http://www.marymacelveen.com

I am a writer who currently writes pieces for my own blog http://www.marymacelveen.com I have been published by Buzzflash.com, Legitgov.org, TheLiberalPatriot.org and MikeHersh.com. I was a guest on the Jay Diamond Radio Show on WRKO in Boston and have appeared on CNN.  I have done numerous web broadcasts for sites such as RadioLeft.com, TVNewsLies.org and FranklySpeakingRadio.com.

Contact Author
Contact Editor
View Other Articles by Author

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
23 comments

Been around the block a few times.
Blue PilgrimBeen around the block a few times.

glaring error

Very strange that an eyewitness should see a fire at building 7 for several days after it had collapsed...  

I haven't paid much attention to the events of 9/11, but this discredits your entire article for me.

"Here is verbatim what he has written to me concerning his eyewitness accounts of the pile, “The fact is that 30 fire companies fought the fires at WTC 7 (that contained half million pounds of diesel fuel) for several days with virtually no progress toward containment. "

cooperative research link

Buillding 7 collapses 9/11 5:20 pm

http://www.oilempire.us/wtc7.html

collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 - September 11, 5:25 pm

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments) on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 1:02:08 AM
 


x
Tony Forestx

You choose to believe

Mary,

they say it's a free country where anyone can believe whatever they choose to believe. I say it's a country where anybody and everybody has the freedom to choose to gulp down gobs of propaganda for breakfast ...or not.

9/11 being a HUGE lie, it's not an easy to avoid devouring at least a tiny bit of the propaganda surrounding the event, and we've been served mighty heeps of it, no doubt. 

Your article is very revealing and I can sense your frustration. I also detect certain knowledge gaps on your part. You obviously haven't spent as much time researching the subject as you've spent writing about it. 

While , in my opinion, you're right when you say Kerry's statement was taken out of context and Silversteen's statement was blown out of proportion, I totally disagree with your stance on 'who dunnit', terrorists, al Qaeda and in general, your attempts to debunk what has already been proven to be true ....well, it's just outright onerous. I don't see the typical "I just don't get it" message coming out of this article and the even more typical "but how do you explain ......". Instead, I see a futile attempt of a person yet in denial of the truth to lash out at those who are further in their findings.  

Some of us are pretty thick-headed and pride may have a hand in that. Speaking to one very thick-headed AND very proud citizen just the other day....and by the way, a long time supporter of George W. Bush and his Cabinet AND Party, referring to 9/11, the (civil) war in Iraq and Democrats talking about getting our troups out NOW he said ;

"well, ya gotta remember them terraists that stole those planes and crashed them into the buildings there in New York City and at the Pentagon....if we pull out now, a lot more just like them are gonna follow us home and before ya know it, we'll have little 9/11s all over the country and that just ain't what we need!"  

Can you see how the daily news, the propaganda has forged this man's opinion ? No one part of what he said came from his very own opinion. Each bit of it has been part of the big lie the MSM has been feeding us.

As a liberal, self-made journalist and writer, a political journalist, one of the finest (in my opinion) on the net, your daily routine most probably includes the reading of various MSM new items and articles. I'm wondering if your position on 9/11 would be any different if you weren't exposing yourself to all that...on a daily basis. At the same time, I'm wondering if I'm not totally mistaken and if you're not actively working at weakening the truth movement. I don't believe that's the case, but I can't rule it out...for some reason.

Don't let this be your last installment on 9/11....unless you plan on continuing to peck at those who are looking under each and every rock to get at the truth behind 9/11 because Mary, the official conspiracy theory has been ripped apart over and over again since that very day. It couldn't have happened the way they say it did. Basta ! And the way they immediately jumped from that event to the next and the next and the next only goes to show it was part of a larger plan.

"We don't want all them terraists followin' us home now, do we?" = doublespeak for ; permanent bases in the middle east.

Mary, I kinda think you need to back off and get a better look at the BIG picture. Stop sifting through the details.....they're there to confuse you. And ya might wanna change your literary diet for a while. Try reading up on how al Qaeda came to be and how false flag ops have been around for ages....long enough for a sort of perfection to develop. 

In closure, I'll quote part of your article and let you and other readers decide what's wrong with it ;

"“The fact is that 30 fire companies fought the fires at WTC 7 (that contained half million pounds of diesel fuel) for several days with virtually no progress toward containment.  No structure can maintain structural integrity under that amount of fire load indefinitely.  There are many false factoids out there about the collapse of this structure.   There was no pool of molten steel in the basement, no explosives went off, just more fire load for longer than any structure could sustain, plain and simple.  Also WTC 7 was not on fire until the burning twin towers collapsed upon it. As you know I was there.” I will believe his accounts over those who were not even there."

It's as obvious as all get out.  You don't know, so you choose to believe.

by Tony Forest (4 articles, 14 quicklinks, 129 diaries, 1209 comments) on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 3:00:39 AM
 


Bill Cain is a professional travel photo-journalist who writes primarily for the Concord Monitor in Concord, New Hampshire. He's visited all seven continents, countless countries and his travel experiences have contributed to and are reflected in his world views.
Bill CainBill Cain is a professional travel photo-journalist who writes primarily for the Concord Monitor in Concord, New Hampshire. He's visited all seven continents, countless countries and his travel experiences have contributed to and are reflected in his world views.

9-11 Debunking

Isn't it amazing the lengths to which some will go to deny the obvious?

Never mind that polls continue to show that more and more people numbering in the millions think there was more to 9-11 than what they've been told by those in authority.

Never mind that any moron with an IQ slightly above that of mud could mistake the collapse of Building # 7 with anything but a controlled demolition.

Never mind what has become a mountain of overwhelming, corroborating evidence of government complicity about virtually every other aspect of what happened that day.

No - trumpet the tired old adage that anyone can "believe" what they want to believe, and back those "beliefs" with cherry picked arguments and examples.

This is an example of why this great crime is going to stand and why this country is nowhere near what most people imagine it to be. 

by Bill Cain (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Saturday, May 19, 2007 at 12:53:40 PM
 


"I am a patriot in the tradition or Mark Twain who stated that 'a patriot is one who supports his country 100% of the time...and the government when it deserves it." As such I am passionate about protecting the rights of US citizens under the Constitution and a believer in the principle of Eternal Vigilance."
Abraham007"I am a patriot in the tradition or Mark Twain who stated that 'a patriot is one who supports his country 100% of the time...and the government when it deserves it." As such I am passionate about protecting the rights of US citizens under the Constitution and a believer in the principle of Eternal Vigilance."

Gov't Has Not Addressed the Real Questions

The families of 911 victimes submitted over 800 unanswered questions to the 911 commission. In their report, most of these questions went unanswered. Marvin Bush, the president's brother was in charge of security for the Twin Towers and Dulles Int'l Airport as well. Golly. 


Beyond the strange fact that no steel structure has ever been brought down by a carbon fire---even fires that burned for several days---(and on 911 3 steel structures collapsed neatly into their own footprints amid huge pyroclastic clouds) there are the many questions about the failure of our air defense system to take these planes out before they could reach their targets. 

Are we really supposed to believe that with the most sophisticated air defense system on the planet---a bunch of clueless guys (who could not even fly single engine planes properly) managed to evade all our security systems and execute precision collisions about which experienced jet pilots have marvelled?

The big picture is accountability. Our government was warned repeatedly by several other governments, our intelligence reports warned of imminent danger...all were ignorned. Our air defense mysteriously "failed" at the time it was needed most. Who is accountable for these lapses? This is THE question. It doesn't matter if you believe "there were really hijackers" who did all this---what matters is that the people who were responsible for protecting American air space and American citizens FAILED---and they have not been held accountable.

Anyone who has seriously studied the evidence of 911 can clearly see the signs of an inside job and the easily discernable outlines of the cover-up. Why do you suppose that President Bush ensured that there was no investigation of 911 for over 413 days after the event? He only finally agreed to do so under extreme pressure. Is that what we'd expect from someone who had nothing to hide, who really wanted to get to the bottom of things? The 911 report was merely a "check the box" exercise and settled nothing.

And, the 911 commission was handicapped from day one by limited time and a ridiculously small budget. Hobbled would be a better term.

If as Americans we don't demand answers to the many remaining questions about 911, then we simply deserve whatever comes next. Oh, and, by the way, Condi...where is the "white paper" that you promised the American people that would provide definitive proof that 911 was masterminded by Bin Laden? It has never appeared. So, we are left to acccept, on faith, that Osama Bin Laden, from a cave in Afghanistant, was able to do all this? Are we sure it wasn't the tooth fairy?

Far from putting anything to rest, this article is a warning sign of how easily we are duped. Everyone one wants it to be "over" but the truth is that 'til its over, it ain't over." We must persist until the truth is outed and the real perpetrators are brought to justice.

by Abraham007 (5 articles, 36 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 38 comments) on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 5:11:35 AM
 


Dick Karpinski is an aging computer guy in northern California with wide interests including making computers behave better in their relations with people.
KarpinskiDick Karpinski is an aging computer guy in northern California with wide interests including making computers behave better in their relations with people.

Steel structure brought down by carbon fire

See the 580 80 interchange at the east end of the SF Bay Bridge. Brought down by one gasoline tanker.

 That disproves the major claim of the 911 conspiracy advocates.

by Karpinski (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 12:49:01 PM
 


Kent State, Graduate work in philosophy of logic, of science, Ph.D. SIU neuroscientist, forensic neuropsychologist, PostDoc Medical College of Ohio, Preferred activities: Restoring British motorcycles, cars, Matchless, Austin Healey, Triumph, Jaguar, building an engine, programming a computer. Other stuff: SDS 1968, antiwar,911 truth advocate, anticorporatist, anti-classist, anti-neocon, pissed off. Best thing: Father. Blessed.
richardKent State, Graduate work in philosophy of logic, of science, Ph.D. SIU neuroscientist, forensic neuropsychologist, PostDoc Medical College of Ohio, Preferred activities: Restoring British motorcycles, cars, Matchless, Austin Healey, Triumph, Jaguar, building an engine, programming a computer. Other stuff: SDS 1968, antiwar,911 truth advocate, anticorporatist, anti-classist, anti-neocon, pissed off. Best thing: Father. Blessed.

Mary, Mary Quite Contrary

Unfortunately, Mary chooses to ignore the vast amount of empirical evidence which supports the inevitable conclusion that elements of our government were indeed complicit in the events of 09-11-01. NIST and FEMA both played a 'pass' on explaining how WTC 7 came down so nicely, at about free-fall speed into its own footprint. Yet Mary is sure. Many investigators and authors have shown the fallacies and the out right lies of the government's conspiracy theory. Dr. David Griffin's 'Debunking 911 Debunking' does the most thorough job and I would love to see Mary contest Griffin's very clear and coherent discussion - not only about WTC 7 but his comprehensive rebuttal of NIST, the NORAD tapes and Pop Mech. But, of course, she won't.... because she cannot.  


Mary reminds me of a person, who approaching the abyss of the awareness that all of her unquestioned presuppositions (about the government, about our so-called democracy, about the true power structure of the global corporatist and financial elites) are simply false - then backs away in horror, hands over her eyes, and retreats into fantasy and denial. In an effort then, to support and justify her denial she attempts to persuade others to support her self-deception. And slides further into delusion by emphasizing that she must turn her attention to issues that 'really matter'. And thus, like the leftwing gate-keepers she mimics, attempts to divert attention from the greatest and most audacious of false flag events (of which, historically there have many used to manipulate public support for war) ... which, as folks begin to recognize the truth of it as such, seriously jeopardizes the elitist efforts to remain hidden from the people.  

Yes Mary, Don't you dare look behind that curtain. 

by richard (0 articles, 4 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 735 comments) on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 6:30:03 AM
 


Jay Esbe is a writer with a background in cultural anthropology and comparative religion and lives in Seattle Washington.
EsbeJay Esbe is a writer with a background in cultural anthropology and comparative religion and lives in Seattle Washington.

You're demonstrably wrong.

“There was no pool of molten steel in the basement, no explosives went off,….”

ESBE:  Says YOU.  But we have pictures of it from ground zero.  


“…Also WTC 7 was not on fire until the burning twin towers collapsed upon it…”

ESBE:  Is this supposed to be an effective strawman?  Because it’s not.  You say “burning twon towers collapsed upon it”.   This is not only untrue, but not even possible.  There was no structural damage to WTC post twin tower collapse; only some exterior cosmetic damage to one corner.

“…..Below is the complete statement released to me by my source at Controlled Demolitions Incorporated.  By the way, as a writer, I will never divulge who this person is…….”

ESBE: But didn’t you just mention “heresay” as “inadmissable”?  I read it anyway.  Nothing this person said discredits controlled demolition.  First, half of what was said, doesn’t even apply to the WTC because it relates to reinforced concrete columns, and the only structural reinforced concrete in the wtc, were the exterior load bearing walls.  So any implication that people had to spend weeks “drilling holes in concrete columns” to bring down these buildings with controlled demolition, is a gigantic misdirection and utterly irelevant.

Secondly, we DO have witnesses, along with a “power-down” of the WTC   approximately two weeks prior to the attacks, in which security cameras were turned off for the ONLY time in the building’s history.  

Third, we have multiple witnesses, including multiple live television reports of those witnesses, describing “secondary explosions”.  You are either willfully ignorant when you say these don’t exist, or dishonest.
 

“…..Just ask yourself; with the amount of prep-work that needs to be done in order to bring a building down safely as cited by my source; don’t you think many working within the Twin Towers and Building 7 would have noticed?…….”

ESBE: As I already stated, IT WAS, AND IT’S BEEN REPORTED.

But I have a question for you, and were you not secreting your “source” for information on controlled demolition, I’d LOVE to ask this question to him publicly and see how he could possibly extricate himself from the obvious answers:

Given that you allege that there was no “controlled demolition” of any of these three structures, the ONLY steel skyscrapers in history EVER to collapse from fire, and GIVEN that every one of them fell straight down into it’s own foot print as cleanly and neatly as ANY controlled demolition, JUST EXACTLY WHY SHOULD ANYONE EVER HIRE YOU TO BRING DOWN A BUILDING IN A “CONTROLLED” MANNER, WHEN ALL THEY NEED TO DO, IS START A FIRE AND WAIT?

COME ON.

Now, here is my most potent refutation to your denial, and it’s not a response to you, for I wrote this in February:

February 9, 2007 at 09:05:29

9/11: If I knew nothing else about it, I'd know this.

by Jay Esbe     Page 1 of 2 page(s)

by Esbe (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 85 comments) on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 8:36:15 AM
 


Been around the block a few times.
Blue PilgrimBeen around the block a few times.

fuel

BTW, building 7 wasn't hit with a plane, but a 767 only has about 165,000 pound of fuel at full, so the figure of 1/2 million pounds of fuel in building 7 is just fantasy.

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments) on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 1:10:34 PM
 


Brian Mathes is an Art Teacher at a public middle school in ohio and a former military officer. He holds a Master's degree and is a graduate of the US Army Command & General Staff Officer's College.
Brian MathesBrian Mathes is an Art Teacher at a public middle school in ohio and a former military officer. He holds a Master's degree and is a graduate of the US Army Command & General Staff Officer's College.

Too Perfect to be an Accident

While Rosie is probably right about the things she quips about the "Donald" she is way off on the conspiracy to wreck the world trade centers and pentagon.

I say this because if you observe the way the elected clowns in our government run every other operation they touch; it's not likely that they could properly plan and execute 9/11 themselves.......When have they ever had a workable plan for anything  ?

Now.....the idea that the WTC was imploded, at the direction of government "Authorities".....after the attacks .......is plausible.

It is my educated guess that many super-tall structures are "pre-rigged" with stable demolition charges.  I theorize that this is done to minimize the potential "footprint" of a disasterous sky-scraper collapse.

Imagine you are a "government authority" in the grim position to have to make the decision.

.....in only a matter of hours, buildings which are a quarter of a mile tall will    almost certainly topple........sideways (thus making a terrible situation even worse......much worse)

.....other "government authorities" advise you to minimize the potential mess..........inform you that the buildings are pre-rigged and can be taken down in a more controlled manner......What decision would you make?

If you have carefully watched controlled demolitions of large structures, you would probably agree that, they are dropped with an degree artistic perfection.  (Old, crappy, poorly built structures which collapse by themselves never cooperate and fall straight into their basements.)

As a former military engineer, who has worked with demolitions, I gotta say that the WTC buildings came down in an "almost perfect" manner.

...........makes you wonder............... 

thanks for your attention.................Mr. Brian Mathes

 

by Brian Mathes (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 41 comments) on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 2:24:25 PM
 


x
Tony Forestx

"pre-rigged"

be-Jesus !

This is a new one and a good one. Where have I been all this time ? On the wood way ? 

Danke et ciao ! 

 

by Tony Forest (4 articles, 14 quicklinks, 129 diaries, 1209 comments) on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 3:15:22 PM
 


Been around the block a few times.
Blue PilgrimBeen around the block a few times.

thermite

Themite is quite stable for shelf life if kept dry, will not ignite accidentally,  and it's cheaper to install charges when a building thermite is going up than afterwards (and one can figure that eventually a building will probably have to be taken down -- they aren't building cathedrals to last 1500 years). Thermite will melt steel (one standard use is welding railroad track).

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments) on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 4:57:19 PM
 


I am a home maker from La.
naturegirlI am a home maker from La.

9/11

In a city as crowded as Ney York, those buildings were designed to fall in on themselves. This avoids over whelming distruction, and lost of lives. Look a horribal thing happened and inocent lives our lost. But it could have been worse. The buildings did what they were designed to do. Lives were saved.  But lets remember that those plans didn't fly themselves into the towers, and innocent people were killed for nothing. Conspricy, Maybe. But does it really matter, the Goverment is only going to tell you what they want you to know anyways.    Thanks for your attention; Naturegirl

by naturegirl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at 4:52:33 PM
 


x
Tony Forestx

the link

click HERE

by Tony Forest (4 articles, 14 quicklinks, 129 diaries, 1209 comments) on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 3:10:12 PM
 


John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog:
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemiJohn Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog:
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

Are they paying you?

Because you seem to have this fixation on putting out half-truths and spin from Popular Mechanics (Hearst Publications), and other less than forthright opinion pieces about the events.

You have never been honest about 9/11 yet.  And I doubt you ever will be. 

Structural Engineering Professor William Rice: 

Why the towers fell: Two theories
By William Rice
Posted March 1, 2007

Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11.

I was particularly interested in the two PBS documentaries that explained the prevailing theories as determined by two government agencies, FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology). The first (2002) PBS documentary, Why the Towers Fell, discussed how the floor truss connectors failed and caused a “progressive pancake collapse.”

The subsequent 2006 repackaged documentary Building on Ground Zero explained that the connectors held, but that the columns failed, which is also unlikely. Without mentioning the word “concrete,” the latter documentary compared the three-second collapse of the concrete Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building with that of the Twin Towers that were of structural steel. The collapse of a concrete-framed building cannot be compared with that of a structural steel-framed building.
Since neither documentary addressed many of the pertinent facts, I took the time to review available material, combine it with scientific and historic facts, and submit the following two theories for consideration.

The prevailing theory

The prevailing theory for the collapse of the 110-story, award-winning Twin Towers is that when jetliners flew into the 95th and 80th floors of the North and South Towers respectively, they severed several of each building’s columns and weakened other columns with the burning of jet fuel/kerosene (and office combustibles).

However, unlike concrete buildings, structural steel buildings redistribute the stress when several columns are removed and the undamaged structural framework acts as a truss network to bridge over the missing columns.

After the 1993 car bomb explosion destroyed columns in the North Tower, John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the Twin Towers, was asked about an airplane strike. He explained that the Twin Towers were originally designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (similar in size to the Boeing 767). He went on to say that there would be a horrendous fire from the jet fuel, but “the building structure would still be there.”

The 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (half capacity) in each jetliner did cause horrendous fires over several floors, but it would not cause the steel members to melt or even lose sufficient strength to cause a collapse. This is because the short-duration jet fuel fires and office combustible fires cannot create (or transmit to the steel) temperatures hot enough. If a structural steel building could collapse because of fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually relinquished their structural strength. However, in the 100-year history of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire.

Let’s assume the unlikelihood that these fires could weaken all of the columns to the same degree of heat intensity and thus remove their structural strength equally over the entire floor, or floors, in order to cause the top 30-floor building segment (South Tower WTC #2) to drop vertically and evenly onto the supporting 79th floor. The 30 floors from above would then combine with the 79th floor and fall onto the next level down (78th floor) crushing its columns evenly and so on down into the seven levels below the street level.

The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.

Even if Newton’s Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didn’t exist.

The politically unthinkable theory

Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and “debunks” the message rather than provide investigative reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days for the president’s 9/11 Commission to start an “investigation” into a tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commission’s investigation also didn’t include the possibility of controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the “unusual and unprecedented” manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed.

The media has basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7 hidden from public view. However, instead of the Twin Towers, let’s consider this building now. Building #7 was a 47-story structural steel World Trade Center Building that also collapsed onto itself at free-fall speed on 9/11. This structural steel building was not hit by a jetliner, and collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed and five hours after the firemen had been ordered to vacate the building and a collapse safety zone had been cordoned off. Both of the landmark buildings on either side received relatively little structural damage and both continue in use today.

Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6, which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still remained standing. There were no reports of multiple explosions. The buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at the base of their elevator shafts. They created no huge caustic concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize concrete into a fine dust cloud), and they propelled no heavy steel beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more.

The collapse of WTC building #7, which housed the offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, among others, was omitted from the government’s 9/11 Commission Report, and its collapse has yet to be investigated.

Perhaps it is time for these and other unanswered questions surrounding 9/11 to be thoroughly investigated. Let’s start by contacting our congressional delegation.


William Rice, P.E., is a registered professional civil engineer who worked on structural steel (and concrete) buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. He was also a professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses.

 

http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com 

 

 

by johndoraemi (17 articles, 12 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 170 comments) on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 5:29:25 PM
 


John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog:
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemiJohn Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog:
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

I will believe my friend the firefighter who was there.

NYFD Captain Karin Deshore was there:

"Somewhere around the middle . . . there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode ... With each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building"- NYFD Captain Karin Deshore 

 Why don't you do some actual research, you little snot nose?

Improbable Collapse
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782

Eyewitness & Media Accounts Of Bombs At The WTC on 9/11.

by johndoraemi (17 articles, 12 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 170 comments) on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 5:45:14 PM