WTC Hero janitor blows 'Official 9/11 Story' Sky High!

Howard From your Post on page 28 of Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact

from Howard
Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact

Snip~

The Port Authority was already trying to line up the thousands of tenants it would need to fill the acres of office space in the towers. Such a frightful vision could not be left unchallenged. Robertson says that he never saw the ad and was ignorant of the political battle behind it. Still, he recalls that he addressed the question of an airplane collision, if only to satisfy his engineer's curiosity. For whatever reason, Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow. Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study. But the Port Authority, eager to mount a counterattack against Wien, seized on the results -- and may in fact have exaggerated them. One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour. That was perhaps three times the speed that Robertson had considered. If Robertson saw the article in the paper, he never spoke up about the discrepancy. No one else issued a correction, and the question was answered in many people's minds: the towers were as safe as could be expected, even in the most cataclysmic of circumstances. There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later. The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly as the B-25's had.

The ad with its eerily prophetic message:



[edit on 9-6-2005 by HowardRoark]

I marked the good bits in bold are you saying that the Port Authority lied to the public.?


[edit on 25/6/2005 by Sauron]

Or the Port Authority has at lest twist information to there own benefit or needs? it looks that way to me, if they lied about this what else have they lied about?





[edit on 25/6/2005 by Sauron]

Originally posted by Sauron
I marked the good bits in bold are you saying that the Port Authority lied to the public to.?

Or at lest twist information to there own benefit?

I'm sure Mr. Giuliani might have had a little influence on said Port Authority. Did anyone notice how the "hero" Rudy Giuliani became a Bush administration lackey after all this went down. I've never seen and hope to never see again a human being suck-up with such nauseating fervor. Gee.................do ya think he might have been in on it?!?!

Peace

Howard, do you not go back and read your own posts? And you still have not answered my question about the seismic data concerning the fall of 1 and 2. At least post a link to the thread where your alleged "debunking" took place. (You know where I'm talking about) I don't think you really debunked anything but I want everyone else here to make up their own minds.

HR, when you said,

"Sorry, turbonium, but I've already addressed that falacy once before"

Turbonium doesn't have to be sorry about a thing.

When Burns and Robertson told the conference. "I designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." They were absolutely correct. The buildings DID withstand the impact of a *bigger* aircraft. So what's your point HR? The simple fact is the buildings DID withstand the impact of a Boing 767.(Know in some people on here I'll have to repeat that 10 more times) The *debate* of fire bringing down the building is a -totally- different issue. Did the planes compromise the buildings "enough" to allow fires to "cause" the collapse? You have no proof. How many times do I have to tell you this? When you sit there and say you have debunked and shot down "fallacies" without any real proof you just crack me up. You live in your little box and refuse to see what's on the outside of it: for example, all the eyewitness accounts of bombs going off in the buildings *unrelated* to the plane strikes. Like the NIST reports you like to thump.. they offer no real proof and are just "little" boxes that don't take all the information and accounts (probably very much on purpose) into consideration. I just love that NIST report showing the "huge" fires and blah blah blah. *The simple fact is, right before the buildings collapsed the fire had died down and there were people standing RIGHT at the point the planes hit the building. (Noticed how the buildings had not collapsed yet during that point in the "inferno", curious eh?) Not to mention numerous fire fighter reports that the *flash* fire had died down. (Alot of those firefighters are DEAD by the way thanks to the building falling on them) As far as I'm concerned you are just talking out of your rear end. If you stop telling people you have "thoroughly" debunked something and calling things fallacies I would have more respect for you. Until you can come up with some *proof* to support your theories your just another, rather wink link, in a very heated and important debate. And I'm sticking to my guns.. Everything that's been presented to me thus far points to government duplicity and my conviction grows stonger day by day. When all I have is weak theories, heresay, conjecture,and probabilities in narrow view? I'll go with the self evident ANY day of the week and it points in the exact OPPOSITE of where you are going.

Again I ask.. explain the available data concerning the seismic activity concerning 911...

Oh,and about the 50 ton press.. I don't give a flying rats behind if you post pictures of one all day long.. It still doesn't explain how an explosion of a magnitude required removed it and obliterated an entire maching shop on *c* level in sub-basement. I'll agree that when the planes struck some effect did make it to the lower levels but not to that degree.. Sorry dude.





[edit on 25-6-2005 by TxSecret]

Originally posted by Sauron

I marked the good bits in bold are you saying that the Port Authority lied to the public.?



Or the Port Authority has at lest twist information to there own benefit or needs? it looks that way to me, if they lied about this what else have they lied about?

That was over 30 years ago. They were trying to sell space in a massive project.

If they exagerated, then they exagerated. So what. That doesn't prove anything.

Have YOU ever lied about anything?

Originally posted by TxSecret
Howard, do you not go back and read your own posts? And you still have not answered my question about the seismic data concerning the fall of 1 and 2. At least post a link to the thread where your alleged "debunking" took place. (You know where I'm talking about) I don't think you really debunked anything but I want everyone else here to make up their own minds.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

(unfortunately some of the image links in the following are broken)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let me turn it around on you, TX,

Do you have anything to back up your claims about the seismic data?

Do you have training, or education in seismology or even geology?

Can you provide the name of at least one person who does have that king of background and who does agree with your layman's interpretation?

i could see some jet fuel falling down the freight elevators.
i couldn't see it EXPLODING down the elevator shafts, and blowing out elevator doors and lobby windows, decimating the machine shop on sublevel c, while also pooling up above, compromising steel strength, and also creating the HUUUUGE fireball, OUTSIDE the building(which according to fluid dynamics, spontaneous combustion, and momentum laws should be the VAST majority of the fuel), that is visible on a gazillion videos and pics.

was this jet fuel from lee harvey oswald's gun or something? majic jet fuel?

Here is a quinky dink, and slightly a tad of topic. Is it true has anyone come across this?

DOJ Emergency Response to Terrorism Manual Depicts WTC
Towers as Targets on Cover Before Attacks
Source: Internet September 2001

The Department of Justice has been training civic officials
and law enforcement officers terrorism response techniques
with a manual depicting twin towers as targets. These manuals
were in use prior to the September 11 attacks on the WTC.



Source: www.september11news.com...

[edit on 25/6/2005 by Sauron]

as posted by billybob
i couldn't see it EXPLODING down the elevator shafts, and blowing out elevator doors and lobby windows, decimating the machine shop on sublevel c, while also pooling up above, compromising steel strength, and also creating the HUUUUGE fireball, OUTSIDE the building........

Apparently your not familiar with jet fuel, billybob?
Worked with it? Been around it?
The stuff is potent and potent enough that just one small, slight spark can ignite it to the point of doing just what you claim it cannot do, billybob.

Here is just one documented example and MORE can be found and provided, be assured of that.

The report estimated that even if just 1% of a jetliner's fuel ignited after impact, it would create an explosion equivalent to 1,000 pounds of dynamite....

Vulnerability of US Power Plants to Terrorist Attack and Internal Sabotage

Ask some Navy people, who work on carriers, etc., in reallife about the qualities and properties of JP5, etc.
You must think that they put typical gas fuel into commercial jetliners, with no regards for the octane requirements or levels, huh?




seekerof

[edit on 25-6-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Apparently your not familiar with jet fuel, billybob?

Ask some Navy people, who work on carriers, etc., in reallife about the qualities and properties of JP5, etc.
You must think that they put typical gas fuel into commercial jetliners, with no regards for the octane requirements or levels, huh?

seekerof

indeed, what you say only strengthens my argument. being highly volatile and ATOMISED by the impact, it would have burned up very quickly indeed,. instantly, even. this is an explosive event. the official story has jet fuel 'pooling' everywhere. the official lie can't have it both ways. either it explodes(which it did) or it pools and burns at a fixed rate(which is HIGHLY unlikely.)

the great thing about science is you don't have to have worked with something to predict it's behaviour.

[edit on 25-6-2005 by billybob]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by slank
.
WTC had sky lobbies.
The local elevators only went like a third of the way up and down up and down,
Express elevators went like to the 44th and 77th sky lobby floors.

That would have made it neccessary for any fuel to have transfered elevators between sky lobby floors to get to the basement.
These have to be independent explosions.

I guess it really is true,
911 was a government involved event.
.

You are forgetting about the freight elevator. Read the whole article that I linked to above. The elevator operator was burned in the fuel explosion.

Besides that, elevators aren't the only shafts in the core area, there were pipe shafts the run the height of the building as well.

Keep up the good work Howard, some of us are still behind you.

Syntaxer and others must think they are the smartest people around. Yup, out smarted the best in the government and exposed their lies. Even smarter than all the structural engineers from around the world.
Syntaxer is so smart he even knows what was on each floor and NOTHING would help that jet fuel from burning hotter.

How come 100,000's of structural engineers aren't backing up Syntaxer? I guess Syntaxer also knew the hardening level of the steel used in the building. I guess Syntaxer also assumed this steel wouldn't be softened after being exposed to small amounts of heat for a couple of hours.

I guess Syntaxer and others never thought about electrical mains being severed and acting as arc welders. There were 100's of radio and TV transmitters on top of the tower requiring a few megawatts. Quite an arc welder. And what else was in the building that act as fuel to make the fire hotter and weaken the steel more???

Keep up the good work Howard, some of us are still behind you.

Syntaxer and others must think they are the smartest people around. Yup, out smarted the best in the government and exposed their lies. Even smarter than all the structural engineers from around the world.
Syntaxer is so smart he even knows what was on each floor and NOTHING would help that jet fuel from burning hotter.

How come 100,000's of structural engineers aren't backing up Syntaxer? I guess Syntaxer also knew the hardening level of the steel used in the building. I guess Syntaxer also assumed this steel wouldn't be softened after being exposed to small amounts of heat for a couple of hours.

I guess Syntaxer and others never thought about electrical mains being severed and acting as arc welders. There were 100's of radio and TV transmitters on top of the tower requiring a few megawatts. Quite an arc welder. And what else was in the building that act as fuel to make the fire hotter and weaken the steel more???

I doubt electrical mains had anything to do with it. Wouldn't circuit breakers trigger? Do we know anything about the status of the electrical grid after the impacts? I'm sure the breakers would've triggered because the current entering the steel/metal would've been much higher then the max current flowing to the original destination of the electrical main. i dunno, maybe i should shut up and look into it instead of using common sense.






[edit on 25-6-2005 by AmericanEmpire]

Qwas, I'm not even going to bother.

HR....

I think Twitchy did an amazing job of keeping you in check. Like I said, everyone read those posts for yourselves paying close attention to what Twitchy has to say as well. I'm not trying to cut anyone down or demean folks but you guys are missing/not paying attention to alot of important information..

For example:

"A truck bomb at the WTC in 1993, in which approximately 0.5 tons of explosive were detonated, was not detected seismically, even at a station only 16 km away."

And HR said: "WOW a half ton explosion in 1993 and it wasn�t picked up by the seismograph that was even closer then the ones that were in operation on 9/11. Logically, then that must mean that your �seismic spikes picked up BEFORE each collapse� were the result of even larger blasts. Please explain how this can be. "


I CAN explain.. and easily I might add.. I'm not going to post links to substantiate this, you will just have to go read prior posts but it is a WELL KNOWN FACT that the explosives in the truck bomb WERE NOT connected to any part of the structure connected -directly- to the ground. *Bottom Line*..I don't even think the truck was really that close to any box collumns. You don't have to be an "expert" to understand the implications of this fact. AND I'll bet my bottom dollar that the -alleged- bombs in 911 were directly connected somehow to the box collumns (which were in turn connected DIRECTLY with the ground. )


HR, you cannot refute this so please don't try. Also, guess WHAT? I'm not a seismologists and I understand this simple, self evident fact.. It says in the Bible that God uses fools to confound the wise.

Come on HR.. I desperately want to erase this doubt I have in mind concerning government complicity but folks like you on your -side- of the fence are not doing a very good job. I HATE terrorist and evil in the world but you can't assume this evil has not found it's way into high places in our government as well. I mean, I know corruption has always existed but I have reason to believe that the current scale and level of it are unprecedented. Right now I'm putting alot of effort into researching bohemian grove. Its quite interesting what Alex Jones has to say and show about it. I mean, if the information and videos -out there- are even remotely accurate and considering the -high level- folks from government and business who attend it does not bode well for our future. I mean come on, you don't have to be a Bible believing fanatic to understand that bohemian grove and what it stands for it just pure evil but I'll save that for another post. The point I'm trying to make is you need to get the big picture and get out of that famous box you like to stay in. (That goes for anyone else who can't see past certain NIST 'reports')



[edit on 25-6-2005 by TxSecret]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Here is just one documented example and MORE can be found and provided, be assured of that.

The report estimated that even if just 1% of a jetliner's fuel ignited after impact, it would create an explosion equivalent to 1,000 pounds of dynamite....

Vulnerability of US Power Plants to Terrorist Attack and Internal Sabotage

That´s it! I will never fly again. In fact, I will never go anywhere near a plane ever again...

Now, this native of Puerto Rico and remarkable American hero is taking his 9-11 activism to an even higher level. He has commenced, as Plaintiff, a federal court lawsuit against George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney, Donald H. Rumsfeld and others alleging that they and others were complicit in the 9-11 attacks, and either planned the attacks, or had foreknowledge of the attacks and permitted them to succeed, in order to exploit a "New Pearl Harbor" to launch wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. (The phrase "New Pearl Harbor" comes from a declaration of principles by the neo-conservative "Project for the New American Century," in which it is proposed as an event needed to steel American public opinion to support the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and U.S. military domination of the Middle East.)

Attorney Berg acknowledges that Rodriguez's action will shock and offend many Americans. But he urges critics to read the detailed complaint, posted on the internet at www.911forthetruth.com, before forming conclusions. "The 'Official Story' of what actually took place on 9-11 is a lie," Berg flatly maintains. "We do not pretend to have put together a full and definitive account of how, and by whom, the attacks were carried out. But information reported in mainstream media, and viewed in the light of common sense and the laws of physics, demonstrate that the 'Official Story,' examined closely, is not credible. The 'Official Story' contains an alarming number of inconsistencies and implausibilities. The major media have reported many of the raw facts, but have studiously avoided analysis, because doing so would reveal that the government is lying to us. The 9-11 Commission, a suspect collection of government and intelligence insiders, restated without question or examination all essential elements of the 'Official Story' of the actual events of 9-11. It failed almost completely to refute, or even to mention, the great body of evidence that suggests the 'Official Story' cannot be true, and it failed completely to hold anyone accountable. From the foregoing facts, it ought to be obvious that a cover-up, or a "limited hang-out" admitting only bureaucratic mistakes for which no one is to be held accountable, has taken place and is continuing."

www.truthout.org...

Before taking this guy down and dragging this topic through the mud, take a look at the Civil Suit order, read it over, and THEN come to a conclusion. This guy isnt fake, and nor is he civil suit.

Civil Suit .pdf

I strongly recommend reading this civil suit before making any assumptions.. after you've read it, then make all the assumptions you want.

edit ***

COUNTS…………………………………………………………………………….P. 149
1. MISPRISION OF A FELONY (18 U.S.C. Section 4)…………………………...P. 149
2. MISPRISION OF TREASON (18 U.S.C. Section 2382)………………………...P. 151
3. PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY (18 U.S.C. Section 1962c)…….P. 152
4. RACKETEERING ACTIVITY (18 U.S.C. Section 1961(1))……………………P. 154
5. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT RICO VIOLATIONS\
(18 U.S.C. Section 1962 (b, c))……………………………………………….….P. 155
6. INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF (18 U.S.C. Section 1964c)…...P. 156
7. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (18 U.S.C. Section 1964c)……………………………...P. 157
8. COMMON LAW INJUNCTIVE RELIEF……………………………………. ...P. 159
9. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (28 U.S.C. Section 2201 et seq.)……………...P. 159
10. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF……………………………………………………….…P. 161
11. RELIEF UNDER ANTI-TERRORISM ACT (18 U.S.C. Section 2333)…….….P. 162
12. RELIEF FOR AND FROM CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY………………..P.163
13. RELIEF UNDER WAR CRIMES ACT (18 U.S.C. Section 2441)……………..P. 172

Pretty strong accusinations...

[edit on 6/25/2005 by QuietSoul]

www.serendipity.li...

Here's another well organized link that shows how the towers were blown up.

It won't be long before someone discovers they have a copy of the video which shows the ground level explosions before the collapse.

70.84.33.210...

I remember reading a story awhile back about a team that were summoned to the WTC prior to 9/11 and were relieved of there service and how cameras were disabled prior to the attack. Could anyone direct me this link.

Thanks.

Billybob, you're talking about 10,000 gallons of jetfuel. Not ALL of it is going to either vaporize, or explode on impact. The wings of the plane, where a large portion of the fuel was carried, were going to shatter on impact and spread fuel in many different directions, causing it to do different things depending on where it landed. Some of it would explode in the massive explosion we saw, some of it would vaproise into a fine mist, which would burn and/or explode and some of it would simply pool on the floor catch fire and burn extremely hot. Especially when you add in all the office supplies and flammabe materials in the building around it.

With the seismic readings, I know at least two people that said it happened before the towers came down, then took a closer look at a picture of the readings, and where the line was showing the anomoly and said "Oh, I guess that it's really the towers collapse, it just LOOKS like it happened before because of the way it's marked on the paper."

Here's a good video with alot of the original broadcasters and eyewitnesses stating explosion over and over.

www.reopen911.org...

Sorry, turbonium, but I've already addressed that falacy once before
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The affect of an aircraft impact was considered long after the design of the towers was finalized.

The fact is, structurally, the towers did withstand the impacts. They were not able to withstand the damage to the fireproofing.

quote: Burns said Robertson told the conference, "I designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it."

What a totally secondhand, hearsay, logically and gramatically incorrect statement.

You also bypassed the DeMartini statement that backs up the Robertson quote. The link you provided is full of misleading statements built up into a hit piece. And it does not mention DeMartini either.

The thing is, regardless of this, WTC 7 WAS NOT hit by anything, and lost NO fireproofing, and had MINIMAL fires. Yet it too collapsed in free fall time. Totally different strucure, totally identical collapse time!! Geez, what are the odds? Must be VERY high!! I guess we can thus conclude that they had best stop contructing steel framed buildings, as they completely collapse with the smallest of fires!! Oh well, back to the good old reliable mud and grass huts!!

.
Jet fuel oxidizes,
it needs an air source to burn.
An elevator shaft is going to have pretty restricted air leakage.

It is hard for something that oxidizes to explode without having access to oxygen. And air is only aproximately 23% oxygen.
In restricted air space it has a tendancy to suffocate itself.

[this is just a ancillary question, plastic explosives don't need air/oxygen do they? Don't they create all their gaseous by products from the unstable configuration of their molecules? That is why they explode so rapidly because they don't have to be exposed to air/oxygen?]

Being burned at the freight elevator seems possible from jet fuel spillage,
kicking tons of equipment and concrete around with jet fuel i don't believe is possible.
.

[edit on 25-6-2005 by slank]

Originally posted by turbonium
WTC 7 WAS NOT hit by anything, and lost NO fireproofing, and had MINIMAL fires. Yet it too collapsed in free fall time. Totally different strucure, totally identical collapse time!! Geez, what are the odds? Must be VERY high!! I guess we can thus conclude that they had best stop contructing steel framed buildings, as they completely collapse with the smallest of fires!!

They only collapse if they are owned by Larry Silverstein.

Btw, Lanotom linked to a very interesting video in a post above here.
70.84.33.210...
Well worth a download and to take a look at. Don´t close your eyes when you´re watching it...