Top Construction Firm: WTC Destroyed By Controlled Demolition on 9/11

Respected Middle East expert and former BBC presenter Alan Hart has broken his silence on 9/11, by revealing that the world’s most prominent civil engineering company told him directly that the collapse of the twin towers was a controlled demolition.

Respected Middle East expert and former BBC presenter Alan Hart has broken his silence on 9/11, by revealing that the world’s most prominent civil engineering company told him directly that the collapse of the twin towers was a controlled demolition.
Speaking on the Kevin Barrett show yesterday, Hart said he thought the 9/11 attack probably started as a Muslim operation headed up by Osama Bin Laden but that the plot was subsequently hijacked and carried out by Mossad agents in collusion with elements of the CIA, adding that since its formation, Israel has penetrated every Arab government and terrorist organization.

Link

Wow. Things are being uncovered at an alarming rate now.

“My guess is that at an early point they said to the bad guys in the CIA – hey this operation’s running what do we do, and the zionists and the neo-cons said let’s use it,” said Hart, making reference to how top neo-cons like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their fellow Project For a New American Century authors had called for a “catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor,” the year before 9/11.
“The twin towers were brought down by a controlled ground explosion, not the planes,” said Hart, adding that this view was based on his close friendship with consultants who work with the world’s leading civil engineering and construction firm.

Link

This has been known by experts and civilians alike. Its good to know that the masses are now learning about it and something will be done about it in short time.



[edit on 17-6-2010 by Shadow Herder]

OK so what is the name of this worlds top construction firm please ?

I hate this kind of BS. As has been discussed before, Mr. Hart never reveals the name of the construction firm, so the story ends as soon as it starts. Creating hype that utterly fails to deliver only serves to make it look to the uneducated like there is no evidence for controlled demolition.

To people who have done their homework, this is at best a nuisance. Please focus your time on the evidence that has verifiable sources.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Respected by who. BBC? Did you not see the planes that hit the towers. I understand you probably have never been on one, but trust me. They're big and fast and full of jet fuel. As I watched, I knew they would fall. This wasn't a great shock. I'm suprised they withstood the initial impact. Grow up. The only conspiracy here was among the murderous muslim religion.

reply to post by astrogolf

That is funny, I was amazed and stunned that they fell. And, so fast. Defies logic.
I didn't get to see the cheering Israelis. Missed that, but you can't be everywhere. Thank God for eyewitness accounts and the internet.

The world's most prominent mental institution has told me that all truthers are suffering from paranoid personality disorder.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

“The twin towers were brought down by a controlled ground explosion, not the planes,” said Hart, adding that this view was based on his close friendship with consultants who work with the world’s leading civil engineering and construction firm."

I'm getting conflicting information here.

The picture clearly shows the point of failure not being at ground level. You can CLEARLY see the structure below the point of failure standing upright and undamaged. You can CLEARLY see the point at which the collapse initiated was NOT at ground level. Looking at that I can see that the collapse initiated ABOVE ground level. If that collapse was initiated by airplanes and fire or nano thermite or explosives or energy weapons or a combination of those is a mystery. I know one thing for sure though. The collapse of that building in the picture was NOT initiated at ground level!

Then according to his source (I don't discredit him for not revealing his source. He does not want to damage his sources reputation) that same tower was brought down by a ground explosion.

So either that picture is fake, or he misunderstood his source, or he is lying. His source may have said the collapse was aided by a ground explosion and he mistook it for meaning the collapse was caused by a ground explosion. Or his source may have said that only the collapse of certaian towers (tower 7 maybe) were caused by a ground explosion.

I don't doubt that the journalist is credible but this is a situation where person A, a member of the mainstream media (BBC), is telling me what person B thinks. Person A may be 100% correct when he tells me what person B is thinking and he also may be mistaken or have taken a quote out of context. I will never know without reading or hearing what person B said for themselves.

Either way it's a good source even though it's just a little mysterious when you put it with that picture. Again I feel like i'm being misled either deliberately or accidentally and I can't tell who is doing the misleading.

Originally posted by Alfie1


The world's most prominent mental institution has told me that all truthers are suffering from paranoid personality disorder.

Did they tell you that when you were in their custody?

In a recent 911 poll on ATS over 95% of the participants didn't believe the OS.

I think that would put you guys in the fringe.

It's ok, almost nobody believes your BS.

You guys are a joke.

The final twitches of a headless chicken.

Originally posted by Point of No Return

Originally posted by Alfie1


The world's most prominent mental institution has told me that all truthers are suffering from paranoid personality disorder.

In a recent 911 poll on ATS over 95% of the participants didn't believe the OS.

So then, it's as I thought.

About 95% of ATS members are truthers.

100%, quadruple confirmed.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Ah, another pro.

One of the guys, that specializes in the 911 forum. They only ever post in the 911 forum, with the sole intent of debunking.

So we got people that come to this conspiracy site, only to debunk 911 conspiracy, almost 10 years after it happened.

You must really be guys of principle, fightin for our collective sanity.

Whatever, to most, it is clear why you "guys" are here.

Karma will get you, I promise.

[edit on 17-6-2010 by Point of No Return]

reply to post by Point of No Return


The thing is, when you step outside the zany world of ATS conspiracy theories : i.e. into the real world, you get these sort of opinion poll results :-

www.angus-reid.com...

reply to post by Alfie1


You are here spreading your vile to the people that visit this forum, so jeah, that's your public.

Again, you aren't fooling many.

For quite a long time now the issue has not been "were the WTC towers brought down by controlled demolition?" We know they were. There is abundant evidence of it.

Although I realize that many people need to have this confirmed by "experts".

Mr. Hart's statement is much like statements made by academics from time to time, calling into question the Bush administration's interpretation of the 9/11 incident. I'm sure it's helpful in some sense but what would be more helpful would be a spokesman for the engineering conpany in question to come out and go on the record on this issue.

This won't happen, for the same reasons that the mainstream media never really went after Bush on issues arising from 9/11 and it's aftermath. The fact is that this engineering firm still has to do business in a world largely controlled by the perps in this case or their friends.

I know this is an exaggeration, but only a slight one. For this engineering firm to come forward and say what their professional opinion is regarding the destruction of the WTC would be something like coming forward during the Nazi era to say that it wasn't the nutty Dutch communist who set the Reichstag on fire but that authorities should be investigating Hermann Goering and associates.

I truly believe that we are living during a period analogous to the "phony war" after WW2 was declared, where nothing seemed to be happening, no serious fighting, leaflets being dropped, etc.

The fascists/corporatists who brought you 9/11 and the holocaust in Iraq and Afghanistan and also the financial catastrophe in the US, not to mention the comedy of eco-carnage in the Gulf of Mexico, are still pretending to be nice guys at home. I wonder how long that is going to last.

One day people are going to wake up and realize that maybe the "experts" are unreliable, and not so expert after all. Childhood's end.

[edit on 17-6-2010 by ipsedixit]

I don't know how much faith I can put into this guy's claims.

He has one respected demo company telling him it was controlled demolition. I'm sure anyone can find 10 reputable demo companies saying in no way was it controlled demolition.

It just adds more to the speculation and back and forth nature of arguments that is 9/11 "truth" than actually answering any questions. While I can understand his reason for not wanting to reveal his source, not revealing it does more to damage his claim than to back it up. Atleast in my opinion.

And, this picture has always puzzled me. I've wondered many times why the top half of the building did not continue to topple over as it seems it will in this picture, but instead "corrected" itself and went straight down.

reply to post by ThaLoccster

And, this picture has always puzzled me. I've wondered many times why the top half of the building did not continue to topple over as it seems it will in this picture, but instead "corrected" itself and went straight down.

Jeah, it should've just fell sideways and the rest of the building shouldn't have colapsed with it, especially not in that amount of time.

Some will say pancake theory but they clearly have no grasp on reality.

reply to post by ipsedixit


I think you are being extremely generous to Mr Hart. If his source is so fearful of being named why spout off to a media person in the first place ?

The obvious question is was there ever a source in the first place ?

Originally posted by Point of No Return

Originally posted by Alfie1


The world's most prominent mental institution has told me that all truthers are suffering from paranoid personality disorder.

Did they tell you that when you were in their custody?

In a recent 911 poll on ATS over 95% of the participants didn't believe the OS.

I think that would put you guys in the fringe.

It's ok, almost nobody believes your BS.

You guys are a joke.

The final twitches of a headless chicken.

This all depends on what your definition of truther is. I think of truther as somone who supports theories that the WTC collapsed because of controlled demolition via explosives, super thermite, energy weapons, or missiles/drone planes. My definition of truther involves no delusions or paranoia just people who question what they were told and, based on the evidence they have found, support one, or all, of the many demolition theories.

I think when he is calling truthers delusional he is referring to people who, instead of supporting demolition theories, believe that it's a PROVEN FACT and TRUTH that the WTC towers were demolished by ____________ (most commonly the government b/c they are the ones who told us they were not demolished). When this person (like impressme)is presented with credible science, independant non government related investigations, and experts who present evidence that it was at least POSSIBLE for the twin towers to have collapse from airplanes and fire they are instantly ignored. Even though experts, studies, and independant investigations have said that it is possible that the airplane fire theories to have happened they still say it is a PROVEN FACT and TRUTH that the WTC towers were demolished by the government. They believe that it is physically IMPOSSIBLE for a building to collapse after being hit by a 110-150 ton 500 mile per hour airplane and being set on fire

The delusion is that it was a PROVEN FACT and TRUTH. If it was a PROVEN FACT and TRUTH (instead of a theory) that the government demolished the WTC towers and MURDERED thousands of innocent people then I would be standing outside of the white house with every single person that I know protesting. OR The noncorrupt people in the police, FBI, justice system, congress, etc. would arrest and prosecute the people in the government who were involved.

95% of people on ATS don't believe the OS! DUH! This is because ATS this is a conspiracy theory forum site! Even I don't believe the OS and I believe that it was possible that the WTC towers collapsed from airplanes and fire. (unfortunately I also believe that it was possible that the WTC towers could have collapsed from something in addition to airplanes and fire)

SOURCES:
en.wikipedia.org...

www.newspolls.org...

"Some people believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up. Others say that the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan group of honest and well-respected people and that there is no reason they would want to cover-up anything. Who are you more likely to agree with?"

48% No Cover-up
42% Cover-up

"Some people say that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success. Other people say the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is nonsense. Who are you more likely to agree with?"

47% Attacks were thoroughly investigated
45% Reinvestigate the attacks

"Federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them".
59% "not likely"
20% "somewhat likely"
16% "very likely"

"The collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings".
77% "unlikely"
10% "somewhat likely"
6% "very likely"



I wonder if that last question was this:

"It is a PROVEN FACT and TRUTH that the collapse of the twin towers was caused by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings"

90% unlikely
9% somewhat likely
.9% very likely
.1% That is what really happend. That is the PROVEN TRUTH.


Those are the people who I think are delusional. The .1% and maybe even the .9%. And i'm saying, as a person who believes that it was possible that something other than fire and airplanes caused or aided in the collapse of the WTC towers, that anyone who honestly believes that the PROVEN FACT and TRUTH is that the towers were demolished is DELUSIONAL.


[edit on 17-6-2010 by iamcpc]

Originally posted by Alfie1


The world's most prominent mental institution has told me that all truthers are suffering from paranoid personality disorder.

What's the opposite of a "truther"? Someone who feels most comfortable with lies?

Originally posted by Point of No Return

Again, you aren't fooling many.

Yeah, and we woulda gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids and your dog.....

Gotta love these google-fu warriors.....

Originally posted by winston_jones

Originally posted by Alfie1


The world's most prominent mental institution has told me that all truthers are suffering from paranoid personality disorder.

What's the opposite of a "truther"? Someone who feels most comfortable with lies?

The opposite of a truther is a debunker. Someone who supports the OS theories that a combintation of 110-150 ton 500 mile per hour airplane impacts and fire damage caused the collapse of the twin towers.