Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

ATS.C: 2 out of 3 Amigos: 03: WTC Building 7

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 05:09 AM
link   
I also just add that the reports of the molten metal under the wreckage have been known of in the 9-11 truth movement for years, and have been reported on ATS and elsewhere on the Internet throughout. This is not a new thing.




posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I also just add that the reports of the molten metal under the wreckage have been known of in the 9-11 truth movement for years, and have been reported on ATS and elsewhere on the Internet throughout. This is not a new thing.


Just goes to show what I don't know! I thought Jones' report was the first to bring it out.


GREAT counter points W.C.I.P. the fact the support columns were not encased in concrete is potentially a huge thing. Theoretically, and going way out on limb it is possible someone could appear to be a maintenance crew with the crooked building security force's (NO way the tenant's security teams would go for this) authorization and HIDE the necessary explosives between the sheet rock and the support columns.

This is so far fetched I have trouble typing it but there it is. Now we would have to look at each security employee brought in by Silverstein's people (I guarantee you he did not personally hire that level of employee) and see if which, if any of them were absent on the day of the attack. There's no way ANY of those involved would go to work that day knowing the building was coming down. This would give you a list of suspects to interview with much PRESSURE.

This and the molten metal certainly does open the door for at least another look at this. HOWEVER... IF (and that's a BIG "if") there is some grand conspiracy here (I still don't believe it) it goes all the way to the top and we'll never get the answers unless a very LARGE group of very powerful people force the issue.

On another note, Val did, I believe do the calculations of the weight, speed and air drag of the floors (including all the contents that would have gone with the floors minus what was burned away) falling the distance between floors, adding the additional weight of each floor as they piled on top of each other on the way down and did find that combined with the weakening of the structure, this would drop the building. We need to find that thread and review it.

Fascinating stuff either way... More to come.


Springer...





[edit on 11-23-2005 by Springer]



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer Now we would have to look at each security employee brought in by Silverstein's people (I guarantee you he did not personally hire that level of employee) and see if which, if any of them were absent on the day of the attack. There's no way ANY of those involved would go to work that day knowing the building was coming down. This would give you a list of suspects to interview with much PRESSURE.


Interesting angle... I remember some articles about there being extra security the weeks before the attacks due to the “chatter” however the extra security was scaled back on the day of the attack. Here’s some snips from a Newsday article that I think are interesting.


Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

"Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."


The Dogs removed on Thursday, which would have been the 6th, now assuming that was the last day the dogs were there, and that they couldn’t do much during regular business hours they had from 5:00pm on Friday to lets say 5:00am Monday to set the explosives, that’s 60 hours (conservatively).
So the question is, could it have been done in 60 hours.
I went to the CDI (controlled demolition Inc.) website to see what I could find.
This caught my attention…

Half of the 17-story Sheikh A. Alakl Apartment Building in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia collapsed when portions of the new reinforced concrete facility were overloaded during final stages of construction. At the request of Bechtel, Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s team mobilized to the site in less than 24 hours, prepared the central-core, flat slab, reinforced concrete structure in another 27 hours and put the balance of the building on the ground with absolute safety just 96 hours after the start of demolition preparations


Now the first 24 hours doesn’t count because that’s travel time. The 96 I’m assuming is time from when they got there, so we can minus the 27 cause we don’t need to prepare the core (remove concrete or empty the non-load bearing material), or reinforce anything in WTC, because the building above had some damage already. So we end up with 69 hours. Also in the above example there would have been time to ensure safety clear the area ect. Since they are only concerned in WTC’s case with bringing the buildings down I’m thinking they would only need to blow the base (and there were reports of explosions in the basement, by Janitor William Rodriguez). And a few levels near where the planes landed. We’ve also seen the ‘squibs’. Plus it was pointed out in the pod cast that they could certainly have counted on the planes as pre-weakening the buildings. I think that it is possible but certainly it would have to have been a very highly organized and quick placement.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Also in regards to Silverstien, my thread from a while back

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

shows Mr. Silverstiens un-willingness to answer questions about the 'pull it' comment. If he really meant to pull the fire fighters out then why not tell the whitewash reporter that? "That not what he meant" his spokesperson says without elaboration.
Also if it was an issue of firemen safety what does Larry have to do with it? I would think the Fire Chief doesn’t have to ask Mr. Silverstien permission to pull his men out.

A little fishy no?



[edit on 23-11-2005 by Halfofone]

[edit on 23-11-2005 by Halfofone]



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
You just can't help yourself, can you Muadibb? Why do you have to jump in and start with your sniping and derogatory comments, attempting to turn every single debate you participate in into a petty, childish exchange? .............


I apologize if any of the comments I made were derogatory towards you, but what I don't like and what I don't accept is that you are trying now to play the victim in front of two moderators, you have done the same many times over, and playing the victim now is not making up for all those times when you have made derogatory and sniping comments towards me and others who think like me.

I'll tell you what wecomeinpeace. Let's make a truce, as long as you don't make any derogatory or "sniping" comments at me, or anyone that thinks differently from you, I will do the same.

We are all looking for what we think is the truth in these forums. I believe there is a difference, or it is my belief that there should be a difference, from ATS/ATSNN and the rest of the "regular conspiracy sites." There are many sites out there that present any and every wild conspiracy there is out there as if they were all true, but anyone with some sense can see the lies behind many of the claims from those sites.

If you want ATS and ATSNN to become just another of those sites, then you are lowering the standards that ATS and ATSNN has been striving for. "Deny Ignorance," I have seen people change the meaning of those words trying to make ATS/ATSNN just "another conspiracy theory site," trying to lower the standards of ATS/ATSNN.

I am not the owner of ATS/ATSNN, nor am I anyone important in the site and I don't pretend to be, but I have have been trying to maintain the high standards of the site because I have been a member for too long, and I do not want to see those standards that ATS and ATSNN is known for, or should be known for, to slowly degrade to the point of ATS/ATSNN just being "a regular conspiracy site."

Perhaps for you it doesn't mean much, but for me "Denying Ignorance" is not only the motto of the site, but a motto that every member should have in mind when trying to present any conspiracy/theory.

If i am tough on people like yourself wecomeinpeace, is because of this standard, which i think has been dying in the forums, and not because I am a mean person like you and some others are trying to portray.

[edit on 23-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone

shows Mr. Silverstiens un-willingness to answer questions about the 'pull it' comment.


Is it unwillingness, or is it that he is tired of people going after him asking the same questions over and over and over?....

I could be wrong, but I believe this is the same as with the case of the man who owns the construction company which removed the rubble from ground zero.

There have been members who have claimed, because some "regular conspiracy sites claim the same thing," that this man said there were pools of molten steel found for weeks. Yet the site of this same man, who wrote in his site what they found at ground zero and how they removed the rubble, has "no mention at all about any pools of molten steel."

This topic was on ATSNN for a while and i decided to contact this man by email and see if there was any truth to what was claimed he said.

The response i recieved was from a representative of his who told me in a letter that the owner of that site (I can't recall his name right now) had already made comments on this and he was not going to make any more comments.

What i believe happened is that this man got tired of people going after him with "conspiracy questions" and he told his secretary to stop sending him any emails concerning such matters.

i could be wrong, but that's what I think happened. If this man would have found any "molten pools of steel" he would have said so in his site where he writes what they found and what they did to remove the rubble from ground zero.


Originally posted by Halfofone
I would think the Fire Chief doesn’t have to ask Mr. Silverstien permission to pull his men out.


I don't recall the chief firefighter asking for permission to pull his men out, but then again how many of us were there to know exactly who said what and in what context they said it?


Originally posted by Halfofone
A little fishy no?


What is a little fishy are the reasons behind this millionare for doing what he did. He seems to want attention, and he himself says.


"It felt good," he said of running the ad. "I felt like, hey, I've done something here. No matter what happens I've made history, because future historians are going to see this in the paper."


In his ads he is also publisizing his self published book, so this man has an agenda and he is fixed, like many others, on blaming 9/11 on the goverment nomatter what.


[edit on 23-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
...what I don't like and what I don't accept is that you are trying now to play the victim in front of two moderators...

...you are lowering the standards that ATS and ATSNN has been striving for...

...I have have been trying to maintain the high standards of the site...

Perhaps for you it doesn't mean much, but for me "Denying Ignorance" is not only the motto of the site...

If i am tough on people like yourself wecomeinpeace, is because of this standard which i think has been dying in the forums...


Man...if you could only hear yourself talk. I'm just dumbfounded. Can we get off the topic of me, and how I and people like me are destroying ATS while you're raising the standard, and just get back on to the topic of the thread? Please? Pretty please with syrup on top? Can you let it go?

[edit on 2005-11-23 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone
This caught my attention…
Half of the 17-story Sheikh A. Alakl Apartment Building in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia collapsed when portions of the new reinforced concrete facility were overloaded during final stages of construction.


Now the first 24 hours doesn’t count because that’s travel time. The 96 I’m assuming is time from when they got there, so we can minus the 27 cause we don’t need to prepare the core (remove concrete or empty the non-load bearing material), or reinforce anything in WTC, because the building above had some damage already. So we end up with 69 hours. I think that it is possible but certainly it would have to have been a very highly organized and quick placement.


The building in that article was half of a 17 story buiding... I would doubt you could get anywhere near doing the job on the WTCs, as huge as they were, in anywhere near 69 hours.

That's just my opinion naturally based on very limited knowledge gained from watching Discovery Channel specials and the like.


I wonder if we could get a demolition expert to do calculations on those buildings... THAT would be fascinating...

Springer...



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Man...if you could only hear yourself talk. I'm just dumbfounded. Can we get off the topic of me, and how I and people like me are destroying ATS while you're raising the standard, and just get back on to the topic of the thread? Please? Pretty please with syrup on top? Can you let it go?

[edit on 2005-11-23 by wecomeinpeace]


The man offered an olive branch in the MOST of his post...

BOTH OF YOU DROP IT NOW.

Springer...



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Anyway, to get back on topic.
|
|
\/



I wonder if we could get a demolition expert to do calculations on those buildings... THAT would be fascinating


It would indeed be fasinating, and I would love to be able to tell you that I could help, or at least point you to a link where someone has already done it, but I think it won't be that easy unfortunatly.

To do calculations, you will first need the building CAD files. Good luck getting your hands on them.

Next you would need to know precisely what structural damage the fires did. Again, good luck.

Then, you will be hard pressed, (if you could find a explosive demolitions team with the nerve to do it), to find anyone who would trust a computer application that exists to do the calculations. Since the building doesn't exist anymore, there is no other way to do it that I am aware of. It sure would be a lot of work.




fhwang.net...

Saturday, July 24, 2004

New Scientist has an interview with Mark Loizeaux, the head of Controlled Demolition Incorporated, one of the biggest demolitions firms in the world.
The interview also includes Loizeaux telling us why he thinks computers will never have a major place in the field:

… CAD is used for putting things together where you specify the steel, the concrete, you assume construction methods within parameters of building codes. You assume it was put in using health and safety-approved methods and inspections. It does not allow for weathering, structural fatigue, modification, all the things that don't show up on blueprints. … [With demolition] You move into a different category of structure that is distressed—failed yet standing structures that have failed as functioning structures because they break building codes or have been burnt, struck by lightning or tragically these days bombed or hit by planes. And it frightens me that would-be advancers of the demolition arts think that they can take a program—which is entirely contingent on the data put into it—to analyse what is going to happen in a structural system which is beyond definition. It can be bracketed, it cannot be defined.



[edit on 11/24/05 by makeitso]



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
GREAT counter points W.C.I.P. the fact the support columns were not encased in concrete is potentially a huge thing. Theoretically, and going way out on limb it is possible someone could appear to be a maintenance crew with the crooked building security force's (NO way the tenant's security teams would go for this) authorization and HIDE the necessary explosives between the sheet rock and the support columns.


IMHO, explosives weren't used on the base columns. Despite the reams of disinfo out there, the seismic signatures from the collapses appear to be consistent with the debris striking the ground. I'm not 100% sure about this, because I don't know diddly-squat about seismology, but from the analyses I've read, I'm pretty convinced. Powerful explosives placed on the columns near the bedrock would create obvious seismic signals, which hypothetically speaking, is something you'd imagine perpetrators of an act such as the one we are discussing would want to avoid at all costs.

The presence of the molten metal and the thermal hot spots seems to point to the strong possibility of a thermite reaction being used. Using thermite has the double 'bonus' of:

a) not creating a seismic signal. It has no explosive effect, i.e. high-energy, instantaneous release of gases which create a shock wave. The term "thermite explosion" is a misnomer left over from military weapons in which thermite is used.
and,
b) it would be quite easy to place.

Thermite is simply iron oxide powder and aluminum metal powder mixed together, you can make the stuff at home (although I don't recommend it) and cast your own iron, or melt a hole through your car's engine block if you want. It is very stable because it requires a high temperature ignition (a common sparkler or magnesium strip will do the trick), thus you can leave it stored (or placed) for years and years. But once ignited it burns at temperatures upwards of 2500C as the aluminum rips the oxygen away from the iron, melting anything it comes into contact with and not designed to withstand those temperatures. Steel melts at around 1370 C, varying depending on the grade of steel.

From the paper I linked to earlier:


www.physics911.net...
Thus to melt a 12 ft high Fe column, we need for an "average" column, (3.03 x 10+6 kJ)/(3.974 x 10+3 kJ/kg) = 0.7625 x 10+3 kg = 762.5 kg of thermite. This would occupy a volume of 762.5 kg/(3.474 x 10+3 kg/m3) = 0.219 m^3.


Just 0.219 cubic meters of thermite will completely destroy one of the base columns. The columns were "box" columns, meaning you could simply drill a hole and pour this stuff in!


Other Locations Where Thermite Could Be Placed to Cause Core Box Column Melting

In the preceding section, the amount of thermite needed to cause melting was calculated, and compared to the internal volume available. Just as insulation in building walls is introduced by means of relatively small holes drilled through walls, so could thermite have been placed into the interiors of the core box columns. For the "average" columns this would certainly work, since there is ample volume to overcharge with a low packing density (>0.5). The "largest" columns could be filled in the same way, although some way to "settle" the compound powders might be necessary to achieve a packing density from a pour to be > 0.68.


Another method...

Rather than fill the interior of a column with chemical compound, what if the thermite compound was applied to the outside of the column, under a layer of "fire-proofing" protective cladding/thermal insulation? How thick would an exterior layer need to be applied?
[...]
T = 0.0236 m = 0.93", which is less than 1" of coating for the "average" column.


Another interesting point is the 1993 WTC bombing and the opportunities for access to the building created by that. But this would imply at least an 8-year "master plan", which seems outrageous, but not in the context of what is being implied here:

However, there have been undoubtedly a number of opportunities under the guise of maintenance: many stories exist about problems with the "insulation" adhering to the steel support structures of the WTC towers. Also, the first attack on the WTC towers in 1993, in the basement of the complex, offered an opportunity for access and "repair" to demolition experts and construction personnel. Thermite is a relatively safe compound, requiring high temperature to initiate reaction - a magnesium fuse is commonly used.


Interesting stuff...

[edit on 2005-11-24 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
Now we would have to look at each security employee brought in by Silverstein's people (I guarantee you he did not personally hire that level of employee) and see if which, if any of them were absent on the day of the attack. There's no way ANY of those involved would go to work that day knowing the building was coming down. This would give you a list of suspects to interview with much PRESSURE.


Well, acording to Jones, citing Barbra Bush's book, Marvin Bush was a principal in a company which provided security for the World Trade Center.

Also coincidentally, their contract was allegedly "up" on 9/11.

Here's an interesting link, it deals more with the babysitter incident but touches on the security connection:

www.apfn.net...

Anyways, Great podcast, loved every minute of it



[edit on 11/24/05 by redmage]



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by redmage
Also coincidentally, his contract was allegedly "up" on 9/11.


Another interesting fact: John O'Neil, former Deputy Director of the FBI who resigned because of the alleged hindrances to his al-Qaeda investigations from within the bureau, was then "given" the job of head of security of the towers. He started work on Sept 11 and died in the collapse of the North Tower.

More here:
www.pbs.org...



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Thank you, Skeptic and Springer, I really enjoyed listenin' to that, among many, many other podcasts, its conspiritorial yet somehow skeptical


Very interesting and can't wait to hear more


ah, yes, I have a question, well its kinda 2 questions,

To both of you (SO and Springer), Do you think there could be an emerging NWO? If so, who do you think it or rather "they" are, in my opinion I assume it's The Banking elite but you know what they say about assumption being the mother of all ...., I would really like to hear what the 2 of 3 amigos think about this subject?

I found this quite old BBC article about a NWO but something struck me as odd when I was watching BBC news 24 the other night when they were talking about Secret CIA prisons but how does anyone know what they are doing? And well if they can hide things like this and even underground installations like Mount Weather then I wonder? What else could "they" be hiding? Things that make you go mmmmm..........

Thanks again for a great show.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   

or is it that he is tired of people going after him asking the same questions over and over and over?..


over and over? this is the first time I know of that he has been approached on the subject. Also (did you read the link) the person asking wasn't a conspiracy theorist, he was a reporter writing an article De-bunking the conspiracy. If there is ANYONE he would have wanted to answer to, it would be that person, no?




The building in that article was half of a 17 story buiding... I would doubt you could get anywhere near doing the job on the WTCs, as huge as they were, in anywhere near 69 hours.


Well sure, I’m not saying it is proof, but you could also say they only needed a minimal amount of explosive, 15-17 stories would suffice, I think, a few foundation levels, and approx. were they would have flown the plains into. Remember they are NOT going for safety as in a 'regular' demolition, so there is IMO a lot less time needed, to set it up. All we need to know is what is needed to cause what we saw. IMO planes, jet fuel (lot of which would have burned in the initial impact as we see from the video)



I wonder if we could get a demolition expert to do calculations on those buildings.


That would be very interesting...
I think the big deal is WTC 7, Did Val calculate that one? I'm sure that a fire without the jet fuel would not cause the steel to "soften" since it would have been over designed for such an event. I know that the buildings the company I work for are very much over designed, and the OBC (ontario building code) is very strict when it comes to fire protection, and steel design.

I'm sure also that there is CAD or CAM software out there that can model a collapse and predict the structural failure caused by the planes. It would be interesting if that dem expert could use this CAM software to model what, minimaly, would be needed.



[edit on 24-11-2005 by Halfofone]



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 10:13 AM
link   

PODcast: 2 out of 3 Amigos: 03: WTC Building 7 (reply 1)
9-11. Major Distraction or what?

length: 06:19
file: atscpod_997.mp3
size: 2955k
feed:
status: live (at time of posting)




posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   
OUTSTANDING podcast! You truly moved me with your passion and logic.

You state that regardless of the technical evidence, the experts testimony, which you are qualified to understand as an Engineer, the whole thing just doesn't look right based on the visual evidence of the catastrophe.

You know what? I agree 100% with you. Obviously "gut feelings" will get you no where with the legal and scientific community BUT they have saved my life a few times ad made me lots of money other times, FWIW... I always try to follow my "gut" and when I don't I get burned.

You also stated, again as an Engineer who is qualified in structural failure, construction principles and metallurgy "Buildings just don't fall like that unless you intend for them to...

You are certainly supported by the historical record on that point, there has NEVER been a building that wasn't preloaded with demolition materials anywhere, anytime that fell in on itself so perfectly as the three buildings in question here, WTC-1,2,and 7.

Where does that leave us? Right where we have been since 9/12/2001. the hope of this writer is that by enjoining the collaborative and collective mental power of this community we can discover the truth.

If not the truth, at least whether or not we've been lied to or misled.

People need to put their emotional baggage AWAY and stay on the beam here. The truth IS Out There to borrow a tired cliché, but we'll never see it through angry eyes.


Distractions are a primary tool of the cover up crowd. Find the distraction and you find the possibility of a cover up.

Springer...



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
You also stated, again as an Engineer who is qualified in structural failure, construction principles and metallurgy "Buildings just don't fall like that unless you intend for them to...

You are certainly supported by the historical record on that point, there has NEVER been a building that wasn't preloaded with demolition materials anywhere, anytime that fell in on itself so perfectly as the three buildings in question here, WTC-1,2,and 7.



I just want to point out here that while I am a Mechanical Engineer and have good experience working in Finite Element Analysis, and how that relates to metals failing under both Thermal and Weight loads, I am not qualified in anything to do with structural engineering. I apoligise if in the Podcast I gave that impression.

I do have both practical and academic experience of construction technology. However, since I have never designed or built anything higher than 2 or 3 stories I can only really offer my opinion from a mechanical engineer's perspective.

A steel beam, under load, will buckle significantly, even under a small thermal load, such as that provided by an aviation fuel fire. (N.B. If you disregard it being insulated, covered in concrete and being fireproofed) It will buckle enough to tear the struts supporting the floor, causing the floor to collapse. The resultant stress put on the other beams and floor struts, due to the hanging weight of the floor, added to the possibility of the floors both above and below the impact site being dislodged and having their supporting struts pulled, would lead to a catastrophic failure of the floors, and they would fall and the force of them falling would cause a pancaking effect.

It is all very possible, if not probable from an engineering point of view.

However, as I said, certain aspects of it don't seem right. I saw the towers collapse live on TV and my first reaction was "What the Hell?!?....Buildings don't fall like tha..." before it was overtaken by the reaction of "Oh Jesus....all those people..." It is corny to reference Star Wars in this, but the scene where Obi Wan Kenobi senses the destuction of Alderan and describes it as "Millions of voices calling out and suddenly going silent" is what popped into my head at that moment.

So the problem we have is associating this engineering problem with such a hefty emotional baggage. It is no wonder with all the flag waving and silliness since that any engineer worth their salt has had the courage to question the official line. However, we owe it to those people to at least find out if it was a structural or engineering failure, so it doesn't happen again.

If the top of the building had fallen off, it there had been a huge gash torn in the face of the building first, if the building hadn't fallen faster than gravity permitted, if the tower that had been hit first fell first, remember the movie made by the French guys? Which fireball was bigger? First or second? Which building had more fuel burning in it because of that?

If it is a structural or engineering failure, I will never set foot in a skyscraper. If a good sized fire can cause the building to implode and dissolve into dust like that? Despite it never happening before or since? Scary stuff.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
This site has some very interesting coments and audio files of what happened that day on 911.
Worth a look I think. Below is just a couple of links from 911 PROOF
911 PROOF



Mike Taylor of the National Association of Demolition Contractors in Doylestown, Pennsylvania. The collapse of the WTC towers looked like a classic controlled demolition.

www.newscientist.com...

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

NY Fire Department Chief of Safety stated there were "bombs" and "secondary devices", which caused the explosions in the buildings (video); or high-quality audio here

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

MSNBC reporter stated that police had found a suspicious device "and they fear it could be something that might lead to another explosion" and the police officials believe "that one of the explosions at the world trade center . . . may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some kind of explosive device in it, so their fear is that there may have been explosive devices planted either in the building or in the adjacent area"

Video


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


9/11 Survivor Describes Multiple Explosions

Veliz went down a staircase with a coworker to the concourse level. In the mall, they got onto an up-escalator as the South Tower collapsed, causing a rush of wind which knocked them down. In the pitch black, Veliz and her coworker followed someone carrying a flashlight:


"The flashlight led us into Borders bookstore, up an escalator and out to Church Street. There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. I was afraid to go down Church Street toward Broadway, but I had to do it. I ended up on Vesey Street. There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run."

www.thememoryhole.org...
--------------------

Police Officer described events which occurred inside Tower One after the second plane hit and well before that tower collapsed:

As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.

With that everybody was just stunned for a second or two, looking at the tower coming down. Then everybody started to turn towards the garage. That was it. We were just kind of blown into the garage with all the dust and the debris and



www.nytimes.com...

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

In addition, there are many eyewitness accounts of phenomena consistent with the use of explosives in the world trade center buildings:

Paramedic captain stated "somewhere around the middle of the world trade center 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 the popping sound and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as could see these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building" (pdf file; Google's web version is here). Compare this authenticated tape of a controlled demolition by a leading demolition company -- can you see the orange and red flashes on the near side of the building? How about at the base of this building, the Kingdome? Both of these tapes are posted at the "World Records" section of Controlled Demolition, Inc.'s website)


sfgate.com...

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





Source 911 PROOF www.911proof.com...



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Watch this video.

You can hear the explosions going off from across the bay.
www.thewebfairy.com...

Right-click the link and save it to your computer. If after you've downloaded it, you can't open the file, try dragging it into an open window in your browser and it should work.

Watch it again and look for the white smoke cloud that develops at the base of the tower after the first, large explosion and before the collapse.

[edit on 2005-11-25 by wecomeinpeace]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join