It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Really Smoking Gun OF 9-11. Evidence of WTC Demolition!

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 04:08 PM
Read carefully what Stacey Loizeaux says about the controlled demolition of tall buildings. The Loizeaux family is owner of Controlled Demoliton Inc. the first and leading controlled demolition company in the world. They also worked for the US Government during the Oklahoma City Bombing and removed debris from Ground Zero:

"Depending on the height of the structure, we'll work on a couple of different floors—usually anywhere from two to six. The taller the building, the higher up we work. We only really need to work on the first two floors, because—you can make the building come down that way. But we work on several upper floors to help fragment debris for the contractor, so all the debris ends up in small, manageable pieces."


The explosives on the upper floors are placed to fragment debris AND IN THE CASE OF WORLD TRADE CENTER TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THE COLLAPSE WAS CAUSED BY THE PLANE IMPACT

Even though the demoliton of both WTC towers was almost perfectly done THEY COULDN'T HIDE THE EXLOSIONS ON THE GROUND (WE ONLY REALLY NEED TO WORK ON THE FIRST TWO FLOORS!) -and they even made one BIG MISTAKE - let me explain...

The problem was: How can you HIDE the big explosions on the ground that are necessary to bring the towers down.

They used the first plane impact of Flight 11 in the North tower to hide the first ground-level explosion. When the first fire fighters arrived (see Naudets 911 film) the whole lobby of WTC1 was destroyed and the windows blown out!!! One firefighter states:"It looked like the plane had hit the lobby"!!!

And here comes the REAL SMOKING GUN of the 9-11 WTC Destruction: How could they hide the ground explosion prior to the South tower collapse??? They couldnt use the plane impact of flight 175. There were already hundreds of first responders and tv cameras on the scene! Nevertheless, the south tower was the first to collapse - live on TV!.

BUT!!! All the mainstream tv cameras filmed the top section of the wtc towers. They filmed the burning holes where the planes hit - noone expected the towers to come down (only few people

Now here the evidence of the CONTROLLED DEMOLITION OF THE WTC. In all movies that show the collapse of the South Tower (WTC2), you can see HEAVY SMOKE at the bottom PRIOR to the collapse. IT IS THERE, THEY COULDN'T HIDE THE TRUTH.

Check it out for yourself. Trust your own eyes! The videos i know of which show this are:
Pause video at 0.06 sec.
2.30 - 5.50 min.
14.00 - 14.07 min
They point the camera to the base of the towers in the seconds before and during wtc 2 collapse. GUESS WHAT!? Exactly this short part is missing / censored !!! The video was released 5 years after 9-11. Obviously someone told them to remove this important proof of controlled demolition!

Let me repeat this. This is undeniable proof that 9-11 was an inside job. THE REALLY SMOKING GUN!!! THEY COULDN't HIDE THE GROUND EXPLOSIONS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO BRING THE FIRST TOWER (WTC2, Southtower) DOWN. No mainstream media has reported on it. If you know of other movies which show this please make it public!

[edit: title]
Mod Note: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 10/4/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 03:41 AM
Good post.

I can definitely see the white smoke coming from below on the first vid. Nice catch.

I still don't know why people are willing to go by the official story. Maybe they are scared of the truth and would rather not think about it.

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 04:34 AM
I bet $ 1 someone will come and debunk this by telling you that a car was burning at the base of the towers :-)

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 04:54 AM
The video still doesn't prove your theory but then nothing has so far. They fell from the top down. Above where the planes hit up collapsed on to the bottom as shown in your videos. No controlled demolition to be seen. End of story again.


posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 05:11 AM
You know, I don't know about anyone else but whenever I see the phrase "smoking gun" in this context my heart sinks. It's been used over and over again and it has always been inappropriate so far - I don't believe this is any different.

This interview is from a controlled demolition expert which is absolutely fascinating but, as is so often the case, the "smoking gun" turns out to be a series of selective quotes which ignore any elements which do not support the desired conclusion.

In the interview linked above Stacy says:

"We have to go in and decide what is load bearing, what is not—what is safe to remove, what isn't. So there's quite a bit of in-the-field analysis that goes on."

"That's why we do test shots, which is going in and picking out a few key columns and actually loading them with explosives and shooting them ahead of time, to understand the loads within the columns."

These statements underline that her comments about where they work are generalisations only and each building is different - to the extent that they cannot be sure how a building will react until they have done an awful lot of analysis.

Later she goes on to talk about the prepartion work necessary such as removing partition walls and wrapping columns in order to get the effects they want. All of these comments make it clear that you cannot demolish buildings of this scale without one hell of a lot of very visible preparatory work.

The other point is, of course, that all of her comments, as informed as they are, are in the context of buildings a fraction the size of the WTC and how relevant they would be to such structures has to be questionable. (She was, of course, not being interviewed about these buildings in the article).

Finally, if the views of an experienced and respected demolition contractor are to be taken as the "smoking gun" even when they do not directly refer to the buildings in question what weight should be given to the "Implosion World" paper on the possibility of a controlled demolition where experienced and respected sources do not support the hypothesis at all.

Is this then the "smoking gun" which rules out demolition?

Implosion World Paper

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:31 AM
>The video still doesn't prove your theory but then nothing has so far. They fell >from the top down. Above where the planes hit up collapsed on to the bottom as >shown in your videos. No controlled demolition to be seen. End of story again

There is HEAVY smoke coming from the base of the South Tower just PRIOR to the collapse. This is evidence for the sub-basement explosions that were necessary to bring the tower down. Have you seen any videos of the WTC on 911. I have seen ALL of them! Nothing fell from the top down!!

>You know, I don't know about anyone else but whenever I see the >phrase "smoking gun" in this context my heart sinks.

I dont like the word "smoking gun" as well. I've used it because I read another "smoking gun " post about a stupid card game supposed to be the evidence. I want to distract people from this stupid posting to "real" evidence...

>These statements underline that her comments about where they work are >generalisations only and each building is different

Of course!!! I only cited this interview to show the importance of the ground-level explosions for the controlled demolition of ALL KIND of buildings, especially tall buildings!! That's all!

>Finally, if the views of an experienced and respected demolition contractor are to >be taken as the "smoking gun"

I don't used the INTERVIEW as a"smoking gun" Have you read my article at all ?????? The SMOKE RAISING FROM THE BASE OF THE SOUTH TOWER JUST PRIOR TO ITS COLLAPSE - THAT'S THE EVIDENCE! I only cited the interview to show the importance of the sub-basement explosions that caused the smoke for the controlled demolition of the WTC - AND the need to HIDE it.

But they failed to do so. 9-11 was the biggest controlled demolition event in history. It was done almost perfectly. You can't really see the squibs and little explosions taking place in TV and many eyewitnesses were to shocked to notice these little details during such a historic event. The only BIG MISTAKE was SMOKE and loud explosions coming from the base of the south tower prior to its collapse. That's in my opinion the most obvious proof of controlled demolition in my opinion! Thats all I wanna say.

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:50 AM

Originally posted by Akareyon
I bet $ 1 someone will come and debunk this by telling you that a car was burning at the base of the towers :-)

There was. I've seen video of it before. I think it was a van, actually.

That's not to say they couldn't set it on fire to justify the smoke, and white smoke coming from a car fire is kind of unusual anyway. Just saying, yeah, there actually was a burning vehicle down there before the collapses. I'll post the vid if I can find it.

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:14 AM
Yes ephrin I did read the post and I take your points both about the use of the phrase "smoking gun" (and you were so right about the card game) and the hiding of the explosions. Perhaps my comments got a little unfocussed.

I was trying to point out...

1. That I don't see any point in trying to explain one phenomenon by reference to controlled demolition when there are already a raft of "deal stoppers" for the controlled demolition hypothesis. This is particularly relevant in this case becasue you were making the point that "they" could not hide the explosion whilst I was highlighting the fact that before they even tried to do that they would have to hide weeks of preparation including removal of internal structures, test blasts and the wrapping of columns all in the lobby area of the building - I can't help but believe someone would have noticed some of this activity.


2. That whilst lots of amateur theorists are thinking of more and more bizarre ways to set and conceal explosive charges and orchestrate a controlled demolition which would have been the biggest in history several times over there are actually professionals in the business making it perfectly clear that the hypothesis just doesn't hold water.

So, it is futile to try to explain the "somking gun", (sorry), of some debatable evidence relating to a blast before the tower fell in terms of concealing a controlled demolition operation. It's a bit like putting the wrong guy in jail, it might make you fell better in the short term but the real culprit is still out there and nobody's looking for him.

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:45 AM
hi timeless test,

thx for your response

I dont share your opinion about this matter...

1) The removal of internal structures is not necessary for the controlled demolition. It helps but is not necessary. There are some - honestly very rare - witnesses of possible preparation work (Ben Fountain, Powerdown, weekend before 911). Why do you think they need hundreds of demolition workers and prepare the demolition at once, maybe in 4 weeks non-stop work??!. They could work floor by floor with very few workers. They had all the time in the world for the preparation of 9-11. 6-12 months , maybe even more. Why do you think they had not enough time ??!!

2) Who are the professionals you mention and how can they explain the failure of 3 steel structure buildings at once, when it never happened before ONE SINGLE TIME in history. The WTC could withstand multiple plane impacts like this and WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane at all.

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 10:08 AM

Time was an issue because a floor prepared for controlled demolition is totally stripped out with hundreds or thousands of holes drilled into columns and wired for detonation. Bear in mind that Stacey says they work on 2-6 floors depending on height but these buildings were higher than anything previously brought down. If this preparation was carried out over an exteded period of time it's impossible for me to believe it could be concealed.

It's also worth bearing in mind that the tallest building ever brought down in this way was 25 floors tall - this hypothesis demands that they do four buildings within hours of each other two of which are of a magnitude of size and construction that no one could be confident of how they would fall - and they do all this without anyone noticing?

For the opinion of the demolition professionals please see the link I posted to Implosion World.

posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 02:09 PM
This video always catches my attention. The metal looks like someone has a Welding torch to it the way the steel is just melting

posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 02:34 PM
regarding the car fire.

i've seen about ten of them.

the smoke is ALWAYS black. probably because of all the rubber, yeah?

which makes me wonder, if there IS white smoke coming from a car, is it a purposely planted red herring/alibi, like the lloyd's taxi at the pentagon? they needed a source of white smoke as an excuse for the white smoke they KNEW would pour out the bootom of the building when the thermite started reacting.

posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 02:54 PM
Again, people aren't thinking.

After the planes hit there were huge fires and debris, and crap dropping down the
elevator shafts, and probably fires starting in the bottom.

Natural gas lines were cut too.

Problems in the base are exactly what you'd expect.

posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 02:59 PM

Originally posted by mbkennel
Natural gas lines were cut too.

I'm pretty sure on this but not possitive. There were no natural gas lines running to the top of the buildings. Can someone help out in this?

posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 03:23 PM
No natural gas lines, but there was a service elevator that was connected to the lower floors that did fill with explosive gas and was forced out from the bottom. The main elevators were split between floors, but the service elevator was not. This only occured in one tower though to my knowledge.

posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 03:38 PM
Did they have Natural Gas service for the Windows of the World resturant?

posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 03:57 PM
Some good stories and eyewitness accoutns that may help...

posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 04:08 PM
Go to the last video link posted above.

At 11:32 there is some sort of noise with the camera and a fade into another part of the video. Why did this happen since there was already seemless coverage until this point? Was this done to save time or to cut something out that we aren't suppose to see?

At 11:45 there is missing video. You can see that there is a break in coverage because of the change of camera views.

Why would this part of the video that would show what hit the tower be cut out and only show the explosion? We have watched seemless video coverage until 11:32 and 11:45. I didn't watch the rest of the video to see if anything else was cut out that wasn't mentioned in this thread.

So there are now 3 spots on this video that have been tampered with. Why?

posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 04:13 PM

Originally posted by esdad71
Some good stories and eyewitness accoutns that may help...

I especially liked this part:

Mr. Pilipiak says he believes that Mr. Ortiz headed up the stairs, toward the 90th floor. None of the transcripts released yesterday show any messages from Mr. Ortiz, but they are clearly incomplete.

Mr. De Martini was next heard from about a half-hour after the plane hit, perhaps 10 minutes after the people on the 89th floor were freed. He does not identify himself by name, but by his job title, construction manager.

"Construction manager to base, be advised that the express elevators are in danger of collapse. Do you read?"

Only his end of the conversation is recorded. A few minutes later, he returns with another message: "Relay, that, Chris, to the firemen that the elevators — "

There is an interruption in the transmission.

"Express elevators are going to collapse."

He did not give his location, but Gerry Drohan, a colleague who was outside the building, said he also had a radio conversation with Mr. De Martini about the conditions on the 78th floor. Mr. De Martini wanted structural engineers brought up to the floor to look at steel, Mr. Drohan said, but police officers would not let them back into the building.

Mr. Drohan said that Mr. De Martini had asked him to pass his two-way radio to a police official in an attempt to persuade him, but that he was unsuccessful.

None of these conversations appear on the transcripts.

posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 10:02 AM
THank you Howard. Again, I wish you would all go to the local library, and pick up the book 102 Minutes, it will change your mind and answer alot of questions, from those who were there that day.

<<   2 >>

log in