WAR: Former Bush Administration Economist Believes WTC Felled by Controlled Demolition

Here's a video from extremely close to WTC2 showing the collapse itself.
unoriginal.co.uk...

While the free fall speed of the pulverization of the tower in the video is...let's be generous here...disturbing, it's not the most disturbing thing. Have a look again but fix your eyes just below the explosive clouds coming out and you will see a whitish squib pop out about 15 floors below the level of the collapse.

Here's some grabs:











Seems that the timing screwed up on that one, as it did on other demo charge squibs seen elsewhere. Or...maybe it's this magical compressed air we hear so much about taking a trip down 15 floors worth of elevator shafts and then, bored with that, deciding to cross to the outer edge of the building and jump out a window all of a sudden. Or maybe it was a huge, obese fire extinguisher that got scared at all the noise and commotion and accidentally exploded. Hmmm...interesting theories, Watson. Ok, let's go back to a couple of seconds before that squib, pull back and take another look...









Whoa! What's this?! Another, even earlier demo-charge squib?? Or could it be our magical, all-purpose friend, Mr. Compressed Air, has taken another wander away from the rest of the class and decided to launch himself out of a single window and into the big blue a good FIFTY FLOORS below the explosions above??

Who's a naughty little squibby, letting our controlled demolition secret out like that?
Bad squib! Bad! Bad! Bad!

[edit on 2005/6/28 by wecomeinpeace]

look at the size of that dust cloud.
how much energy does it take to push dust into a cloud like that?
more than the potential energy of the towers through gravity by a factor of about ten, according to at least one researcher.

maybe this is a good time to review the law of the conservation of energy. "energy can neither be created nor destroyed". this means that every single source of energy in the collapse must be accounted for in terms of the gravitational potential energy of the towers.
if you fill your car with gas and drive at five miles an hour, you will drive 20 times farther than if you drive at one hundred miles an hour. the difference is, that at one hundred miles an hour you get there twenty times as fast, but can only go a fifth of the distance.(this is an illustration. don't start bean counting on me!)
now, if the towers went into PERFECT freefall all by themselves, THEY WOULDN"T MAKE A SOUND, AND THERE WOULD BE NO DUST CLOUD. this is because time is also a factor in energy conversion computations.
this is a simple concept. every single erg of energy must be accounted for. for each sound made, the speed of the collapse will be slowed. for every puff of dust, the speed of the collapse will be slowed. for every increase in temperature due to friction, the speed of the collapse will be slowed. for every displacement of air, the speed of the collapse will be slowed.
the size of that dust cloud is ENORMOUS. i admittedly have no reference for the volume and distribution of a dust cloud due to a "typical(HAHAHA!) runaway collapse". however, and after reading analysis which suggested the energy sink was about ten times too large, i do think that dust cloud is WAY TOO BIG.


and so it is with the collapses. there is a limited amount of energy available. it seems the collpse may have been the solution to cold fusion, (ie. more energy output than input).

Good post guys.I tried to get screncaps of that collapse, but forgot to set my setting performance low to grab them.I always forget that and get blank grabs

10:05 A.M. - The south World Trade Center tower (2 Tower) collapses.
10:29 A.M. - The north World Trade Center tower (1 Tower) collapses.
11:00 A.M. - New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani orders the evacuation of lower Manhattan south of Canal Street.
5:25 P.M. - World Trade Center 7 collapses

10:21 P.M. - The national security meetings ends and President Bush heads to bed. ( we just got attacked and he can sleep?

Anyway, that the timeline that we need to look at.
Now the fire commander ordered firefighters away from the WTC 7 at 11:30 am, 30 min after Guiliani says to do so.
FEMA: WTC Building Performance Study, Chp 5 (05/02) states:
"...the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities.
It appears that the sprinklers may not have been effective due to the limited water on site and that the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day.
WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY.

Bottom line is, NOBODY was around fighting any fires or otherwise.To order a PULL of people or whatever you so wish to think, is rediculous when there is NOBODY to PULL
All concentrations were on towers 1 & 2 as WTC 7 was left to be.

Now your post...
The report of the fires in WTC7 was at 4:10 pm. When those fires were seen by the firefighters, they were still in the area at that time as we can see in the pictures from the links i provided before.

Perhaps this is when Silverstein gets the call on what to do with his building, he then says, screw it, if it goes down, I get lots of money, PULL IT !
They sure as hell couldnt pull anyone out because they was NOBODY THERE !
Your not going to say 'PULL IT' meaning to clear people away from an area are you?

WTC 7 was fine and we see that in images.So there wqere a few small fires.Even reports from firefighters said they could handle it had they been able to.That building was in no condition to just fall like that.You know, I know it, we all know it.
It' all a big lie for the love of MONEY !!!!!

Ohh, so now you are changing you story again?....

Go figure...

That theory is crap. We can see that the fires were seen at WTC at 410pm, and in the pictures in that link I provided we still see firefighters close to the building as the fires rage in WTC7. We only see the firefighters in the picture looking at WTC7 and at the raging fire in the 11th and 12th floor, we don't see them trying to put out any fires, so what Silverstein said was true, but there were still firefighters in the area.

We can see with proof that at least until 410pm there were firefighters there close to WTC7, your theory and that of that site you trusted so much is gone with the wind. That theory was probably made by another "5 minute Hollywood star wannabe."

And now somebody posts some pictures of some object, or maybe some faked pictures, we do not know for certain since we see the picture distorted, of some object that might be seen falling off the building, and all of a sudden it must be another conspiracy theory....

The conspiracy is actually all these claims which day by day are proven to be bull#.

WTF are you talking about?I havent changed my story at all.It is you who keep going off the beaten path my friend.

I dont 'trust' into one site.I look for information.Many sites claim things that even I have written to them telling them it is wrong.

All the info you need is right in front of you.You choose to deny it, that fine.
The fact is, the building was CLEARED and only a few were around it ATTEMPTING to do something, but didnt have means to do so.A call went in that there is nothing they can do and to PULL IT! and it soon fell.

I cant believe you can stare at that picture taken at 4:10pm and say it looks so damaged that it is going to collapse.That is so retarded it baffles me.
The One Maridian Plaza was 100 time worse than that and it stood on fire for almost 20hrs !!!

You my friend are just another sheep that the Bush commity wants.Hope you enjoy the New World Order he sets up for you.

Sorry my information isnt coming from a .GOV domain so you believe.I just dont trust those sites if ya know what I mean

Originally posted by billybob
.............
now, if the towers went into PERFECT freefall all by themselves, THEY WOULDN"T MAKE A SOUND, AND THERE WOULD BE NO DUST CLOUD. this is because time is also a factor in energy conversion computations.
...............

What in the world?....

So you have to come up with some other BS story trying to claim that something else must have happened that day....

This thread is already gone with the wind...

Another of the theories in which some people keep claiming something else happened at the WTC is proved to be false, and now we get two people trying to come up with some lame excuses, which do not make any sense, trying to prove to themselves and anyone dumb enough to believe that "if the towers went into PERFECT freefall all by themselves, THEY WOULDN"T MAKE A SOUND, AND THERE WOULD BE NO DUST CLOUD."....

This topic is now officially going into the world of la la land.

Originally posted by SMR
..............
I cant believe you can stare at that picture taken at 4:10pm and say it looks so damaged that it is going to collapse.That is so retarded it baffles me.
..............

Please..... do not use the word retarded when you and your friends keep coming up with dumbarse excuses and theories which are not based on fact and belong to the "la la land" category.... (yep I am using the phrase of another member...go figure...)

If you would have bothered to look at the other pictures from that site I gave you, you can see that part of the SW corner of WTC7 was gone... We know for certain that when WTC 1 fell, it seriously damaged WTC7, there were raging fires inside WTC7 which started from some of the debris the flew off from the twin towers and these fires raged inside WTC7 for hours.

There was visual confirmation of the fires in WTC7 at 4:10 pm and there were still firefighters there.....which would be the reason why there was a need to pull the firefighters and other first aid responders out of there before WTC7 collapsed.

You had the time when firefighters were gone from the scene wrong, and now you claim that "right after they were told to pull out WTC7 fell"?.....




[edit on 28-6-2005 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by SMR

Anyway, that the timeline that we need to look at.
Now the fire commander ordered firefighters away from the WTC 7 at 11:30 am, 30 min after Guiliani says to do so.
. . . . .

Bottom line is, NOBODY was around fighting any fires or otherwise.To order a PULL of people or whatever you so wish to think, is rediculous when there is NOBODY to PULL
All concentrations were on towers 1 & 2 as WTC 7 was left to be.

I’m not sure I follow your logic. It looks like you have contradicted yourself in the same post.

What’s the difference between the fire department ”order(ing) firefighters away from the WTC 7” and fire department ”order(ing) a PULL of people or whatever?”

Originally posted by Muaddib
And now somebody posts some pictures of some object, or maybe some faked pictures, we do not know for certain since we see the picture distorted, of some object that might be seen falling off the building, and all of a sudden it must be another conspiracy theory....

Rules Of Disinformation - Number 9: Play Dumb
No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

For those here who are seeking the truth, not attempting to quash it, and actually watched the video, it can be clearly seen that these "objects"[sic] are puffs of dust and/or smoke exploding outward from the building. The assertion that the still images are "faked" or "distorted" is a transparent, desperate attempt to discredit the visual evidence presented, and such feeble assertion can easily be discounted by viewing the video. Here it is again for those who may have missed it.
WTC2 Collapse showing squibs well below destruction level

Originally posted by Muaddib
The conspiracy is actually all these claims which day by day are proven to be bull$hit.

Resorting to gross generalization and the use of profanity (readily visible upon hitting the quote button) is a sign of a weak argument and lowers the standard of public fora.

[edit on 2005/6/28 by wecomeinpeace]

BTW, from reading the first person accounts of the firefighters at the scene that are available on firehouse.com, it is clear that after the towers fell, the site was in chaos for a long time.

The senior commanders had a hard time communicating with and controlling the men.

While many of the fire fighters recognized the danger of collapse of WTC 7, others were in the area were unaware of it because they were focused on other tasks (like Search and Rescue).

Also, I would tend to be leery of assigning too much accuracy to the time line, post collapse, for anything but clearly documented events.

This topic is now officially going into the world of la la land

Funny you keep coming back

there were raging fires inside WTC7

Are you seriously saying that.
Look at those RAGING FIRES!!


Another RAGING scene!


Most of the smoke is from the towers 1 and 2 btw.


Now THESE are RAGING fires:

The One Meridian Plaza Fire:

One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire starting on the 22nd floor, and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss 1 2 3 It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".

The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. 4 Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.



The First Interstate Bank Fire:

The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss. 5

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:
In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

I can list 4 more if you like.......

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by SMR

Anyway, that the timeline that we need to look at.
Now the fire commander ordered firefighters away from the WTC 7 at 11:30 am, 30 min after Guiliani says to do so.
. . . . .

Bottom line is, NOBODY was around fighting any fires or otherwise.To order a PULL of people or whatever you so wish to think, is rediculous when there is NOBODY to PULL
All concentrations were on towers 1 & 2 as WTC 7 was left to be.

I’m not sure I follow your logic. It looks like you have contradicted yourself in the same post.

What’s the difference between the fire department ”order(ing) firefighters away from the WTC 7” and fire department ”order(ing) a PULL of people or whatever?”

Howard,
The call that included the term was much later than 11:30am
It was shortly before it collapsed.Silverstein was not talking about the 11:30am evacuation.Mayor Guiliani ordered that one.These are two seperate occations.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

For those here who are seeking the truth, not attempting to quash it, and actually watched the video, it can be clearly seen that these "objects"[sic] are puffs of dust and/or smoke exploding outward from the buildings. The assertion that the still images are "faked" or "distorted" is a transparent, desperate attempt to discredit the visual evidence presented, and such feeble assertion can easily be discounted by viewing the video. Here it is again for those who may have missed it.
WTC2 Collapse showing squibs well below destruction level

And this comes from someone who is giving pictures of some supposed object which is seen in some images, changes shape in one of the images, and dissapears in other images. So tell me, isn't the most probable cause for that image, if it is not faked, to be glass from the windows and we can see it getting bigger as the angle of the piece of glass reflecting off the sun changes?..... noooo, that's too much to fathom, there must be some other explanation for it.....

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Resorting to gross generalization and the use of profanity (readily visible upon hitting the quote button) is a sign of a weak argument and lowers the standard of any public forum.

Well, when someone comes up with a theory and claims that if the tower would have fallen in "true freefall".....go figure what that means... there wouldn't have been clouds of dust from the pulverized concrete and there would have been no sound.... you really have to question their sanity.

Your own theory is not sound enough. looking at the mpeg you provided, we do see dust blowing out from one of the lower windows "as the tower was falling"...of course, you don't mention that the object which is seen in the still pictures is nowhere to be seen in the mpeg... and use this to claim something else must have happened when another theory has been proven to be false.

You are grabbing at straw here wecomeinpeace....to say the least.

BTW, I am not desperate to prove anything...the ones that seem desperate to prove something else must have happened is yourself, SMR, and a couple others who seem to think that they know for certain that there should not have been any sound, or dust clouds from the WTC towers falling.....


[edit on 28-6-2005 by Muaddib]

My logic tells me that if I were going to set charges to bring down buildings as tall as those as an attack against the United States, it would make more sense to have the buildings fall OVER rather than straight down. More damage, more panic, etc.

Less explosives would be required, and concentrated in a smaller area, would be less likely to cause suspicion while setting them.

Sorry, I cannot see any advantage in having planes crash into the buildings if charges were set unless those charges were detonated first with the planes crashing into the buildings to guarantee that they would topple over. Just my 2¢.

jafo72

How do you know for a fact that planes are going to weaken it enough to fall?
It's called having PLAN B Making SURE they fall.

Money people, MONEY!! The All Mighty Dollar

BTW, I am not desperate to prove anything...the ones that seem desperate to prove something else must have happened is yourself, SMR, and a couple others who seem to think that they know for certain that there should not have been any sound, or dust clouds from the WTC towers falling.....

Excuse me
Once again, putting words in my mouth.I have NEVER said no sound, no dust clouds in ANY of my posts.
Pathetic debunking skills Putting words in peoples mouths to distract and spread dis-info.

Why are you even in this thread if we are so nuts and we have such lame stories?
You said it yourself that this thread is, and I quote:
This topic is now officially going into the world of la la land.

So why are you still here? ahhhh thats right, to spread your misleading information, I almost forgot.

[edit on 28-6-2005 by SMR]

Originally posted by SMR
How do you know for a fact that planes are going to weaken it enough to fall?
It's called having PLAN B

Making SURE they fall.

Money people, MONEY!! The All Mighty Dollar

So you keep claiming, despite the fact that your theory and claims have been debunked.

i got one good question for you. We know that the more liberal news media would print and make public almost anything trying to discredit president Bush and the current administration, even when it is false. Yet, not one of the mainstream news media, not even the one that printed the story from this thread, has come up with all these witnesses of firefighters who "supposedly" say something else happened that day.

I mean, they made an interview of this congressman, or former congressman, who claims something else happened yet he doesn't offer any concrete evidence for saying this. Why didn't the interviewer find corroborating stories from witnesses that supposedly were saying something else happened?

Why haven't anyone of those firefighters come up to "a real news channel" and told their stories and provide the evidence?

Because the news channel wouldn't touch the stories?.... they are too afraid of president Bush and the administration?.... They don't show any fear at trying to discredit president Bush and even printing wrong and false information...why would they be afraid of posting "real evidence" that corroborate all these claims?

Originally posted by SMR

Excuse me

Once again, putting words in my mouth.I have NEVER said no sound, no dust clouds in ANY of my posts.
Pathetic debunking skills

Putting words in peoples mouths to distract and spread dis-info.

I never said you specifically made that claim... the one puting words in people's mouth is you. Can you point where specifically i said you made that claim?....

Originally posted by SMR
Why are you even in this thread if we are so nuts and we have such lame stories?
You said it yourself that this thread is, and I quote:
This topic is now officially going into the world of la la land.

So why are you still here? ahhhh thats right, to spread your misleading information, I almost forgot.

Because i am having the time of my life reading all the stupid excuses and fantasies you people keep coming up with.

I can say I have been around these forums longer than you have, and i have seen the transition the forums have taken from bad to worse day by day. ATSNN once used to be a good news portal, there were reasonable theories and stories being given. Stories with "almost" no bias, and we barely had any threads in which members would throw insults at one another like this was a "mud pit forum."

I guess i thought there was hope to get back ATSNN to what it used to be and make it a respectable forum for news. But that is gone now alongside the rules we used to have.

Anyways, you are right, there is no point trying to hold a reasonable conversation with people that have obviously lost it, and don't know the difference between fact and fiction.

[edit on 28-6-2005 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
And this comes from someone who is giving pictures of some supposed object which is seen in some images, changes shape in one of the images, and disappears in other images.

Intelligent observers will easily see that the first four images are chronologically ordered captures of the second observable squib as it explodes out from the building. The second set of three images are chronologically order captures of an earlier squib as it too explodes out of the building. The change in shape is the natural effect of diffusion of suspended particles in air as observable in everyday situations. The inference that smoke and dust clouds will not change shape when suspended thus is patently wrong. In case of confusion as to the ordering of the captured images, the erroneous claims that the squibs "disappear" can again be easily dispelled by watching the video. I am confident that observers of this thread have already done so.

Originally posted by Muaddib
So tell me, isn't the most probably cause for that image, if it is not faked, to be glass from the windows and we can see it getting bigger as the angle of piece of glass reflecting off the sun changes?.....

Rules Of Disinformation - Number 15: Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.
This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

The imaginative twisting of facts with the "magic glass" theory presented here rivals that of the magic compressed air theory, and both of these put the JFK magic bullet theory to shame for sheer brilliance of fiction. This theory of magical, dancing panes of glass somehow looking like smoke/dust explosive puffs is so ludicrous as to not deserve further attention, so I shall leave it at that.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Well, when someone comes up with a theory and claims that if the tower would have fallen in "true freefall".....go figure what that means... there wouldn't have been clouds of dust from the pulverized concrete and there would have been no sound.... you really have to question their sanity.

Either as a deliberate diversionary tactic, or as a result of befuddled desperation, the member has confused me with billybob, who posted details of a study regarding the potential energy contained in the WTC towers, the insufficient nature of that energy as required to pulverize the concrete unless the laws of physics were circumvented and no energy transference into sound and heat occurred. The member also completely failed to understand the content of billybob's post.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Your own theory is not sound enough. looking at the mpeg you provided, we do see dust blowing out from one of the lower windows "as the tower was falling"...of course, you don't mention that the object which is seen in the still pictures is nowhere to be seen in the mpeg... and use this to claim something else must have happened when another theory has been proven to be false.

Again, neutral observers of this thread can easily dispel such desperate claims that the stills have been manipulated by carefully viewing the video, in which they will clearly see two squibs exploding out from the building well below the destruction level of the tower.

WTC2 Collapse showing squibs well below destruction level

Here are two of the stills again as a visual guide of where to look:

FIRST SQUIB




SECOND SQUIB




Viewing the video will clearly show these squibs to the astute observer. Here it is again:
WTC2 Collapse showing squibs well below destruction level

[edit on 2005/6/28 by wecomeinpeace]

I never said you specifically made that claim... the one puting words in people's mouth is you. Can you point where specifically i said you made that claim?....

Are you fricken blind!!!!
I quoted you and made the reply,,,,,, JHC man!! Is this your way of making people give up or something? I will let you know I will not.

Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW, I am not desperate to prove anything...the ones that seem desperate to prove something else must have happened is yourself, SMR, and a couple others who seem to think that they know for certain that there should not have been any sound, or dust clouds from the WTC towers falling.....

APPLES........EAT EM' !!!!!!! and hope you choke on them.
I see how you are playing this game and I am finished playing it with you.I am now moving my curser over to the red text under your name that says IGNORE I will however continue to show that WTC 7 was demolished and not to have fallen by fire or weakness in the structure.
Goodbye Agent Muaddib