William Rodriguez's testimony

I've got a question regarding the explosions.

If we are to believe that these explosions are the result of some kind of progressive controlled demolition, what physical evidence exists that supports that theory?

reply to post by discombobulator

On the one hand you have huge quantities of pulverized concrete, steel beams hurled hundreds of feet laterally, the upward trajectory of some of the debris, and molten steel flowing like lava seen by firemen at the bottom of the pile. There is also the pyroclastic flow of dust outward from the collapse. (This kind of thing also occurs with volcanoes where heated gases laden with ash flow out into cooler air.)

Angle cut beams, which would be a sign of controlled demolition using thermite shaped charges, were also photographed in the rubble. (Some debunkers have alleged that these beams were cut that way by welders helping in the cleanup afterward, but that point has not been conceded and has never been resolved to my knowledge.)

On the other hand you have microscopic iron spherules found as a component of the pulverized dust and the chemical signatures and remnants of thermate (the steel cutting incendiary) found by chemical analysis of the dust. (In fairness, it should be noted that there are disputes as to the meaning of the results of the chemical analysis of the thermate residues and signatures.)


[edit on 14-12-2009 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by discombobulator

 

On the one hand you have huge quantities of pulverized concrete, steel beams hurled hundreds of feet laterally, the upward trajectory of some of the debris, and molten steel flowing like lava seen by firemen at the bottom of the pile.

Angle cut beams (which would be a sign of controlled demolition using thermite shaped charges, were also photographed in the rubble. (Some debunkers have alleged that these beams were cut that way by welders helping in the cleanup afterward, but that point has not been conceded and has never been resolved to my knowledge.)

On the other hand you have microscopic iron spherules found as a component of the pulverized dust and the chemical signatures and remnants of thermate (the steel cutting incendiary) found by chemical analysis of the dust.

Ok, so your answer basically appears to be "thermite".

How does your answer reconcile with Richard Gage's statement as follows:

Richard Gage - "Well if you were trying to perform a deceptive controlled demolition, you wouldn't use traditional high energy explosives like C4 and RDX, which have loud bangs and bright flashes. Super thermite does not have a loud bang and bright flash as these normal explosives do for explosive controlled demolition."

According to Richard Gage thermite was not the source of these explosions.

So what caused the explosions?

reply to post by discombobulator

This subject is covered in great detail in other threads. Thermite and it's spinoff, thermate are incendiaries. They are mixed into explosives to create a "cutting charge".

Richard Gage is an architect, not an expert in explosive demolition techniques. His group, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have analyzed the WTC disaster and concluded from the standpoint of architecture and engineering that the buildings could not have collapsed in the manner implied but never completely explained by the Bush and subsequent administrations.

Both thermate and explosives appear to have been used in the demolitions, and there is evidence for both. People in the truth movement don't claim to know how everything was done on 9/11. We would like to see a proper investigation carried out to determine that.


[edit on 14-12-2009 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by ipsedixit

Two points:

1) If they found traces of thermite in the dust, why didn't they find traces of "explosives" as well? According to you the thermite was mixed in with the "explosives" presumably to demolish all of the concrete, so why was one found and not the other?

2) The point Gage was making was that thermite was used so as to be discrete. You are now suggesting that they used explosives as well, which have a very discernable signature. Why then was thermite required when the alleged perps decided against being discrete by employing some other type of "explosive" with an audible and visible signature?

[edit on 14-12-2009 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by discombobulator

 

On the one hand you have huge quantities of pulverized concrete, steel beams hurled hundreds of feet laterally, the upward trajectory of some of the debris, and molten steel flowing like lava seen by firemen at the bottom of the pile. There is also the pyroclastic flow of dust outward from the collapse. (This kind of thing also occurs with volcanoes where heated gases laden with ash flow out into cooler air.)

Angle cut beams, which would be a sign of controlled demolition using thermite shaped charges, were also photographed in the rubble. (Some debunkers have alleged that these beams were cut that way by welders helping in the cleanup afterward, but that point has not been conceded and has never been resolved to my knowledge.)

On the other hand you have microscopic iron spherules found as a component of the pulverized dust and the chemical signatures and remnants of thermate (the steel cutting incendiary) found by chemical analysis of the dust. (In fairness, it should be noted that there are disputes as to the meaning of the results of the chemical analysis of the thermate residues and signatures.)


[edit on 14-12-2009 by ipsedixit]

What do you think happened to all the detonators, and parts thereof, and the miles of detonator cord ?

Originally posted by discombobulator
reply to post by ipsedixit

 

Two points:

1) If they found traces of thermite in the dust, why didn't they find traces of "explosives" as well? According to you the thermite was mixed in with the "explosives" presumably to demolish all of the concrete, so why was one found and not the other?

I don't know. I've done a certain amount of what might be called original thinking on the subject of 9/11, but for the most part I just try to keep up with investigations published by others. You are asking a technical question that is beyond my competence.

Remember that for the most part, the real investigation of 9/11 is being done by citizens on their own tab. Not by law enforcement agencies with large budgets.

More investigation may reveal more pieces of the puzzle.

2) The point Gage was making was that thermite was used so as to be discrete.

This is Gage's opinion. He doesn't claim expertise in controlled demolition techniques.

You are now suggesting that they used explosives as well, which have a very discernable signature.

The suggestion that explosives were used on 9/11 started before the towers came down and has continued unabated to the present time.

Why then was thermite required when the alleged perps decided against being discrete by employing some other type of "explosive" with an audible and visible signature?

Just to cut to the chase on thermite. It is used to try to contain the debris field created by an explosive demolition. Being discrete has nothing to do with it. Gage is hypothesizing with regard to an attempt to make a controlled demolition appear to be a collapse. I think he is running a little wide here.

The destruction of these towers never looked like an ordinary collapse to anyone. Mainstream broadcasters like Dan Rather and Peter Jennings were saying they looked like controlled demolitions minutes after they happened. Huge explosions were heard by many. There was nothing discrete about these collapses.

Gage and his group are experts on the structural aspects of the towers, not on the demolition techniques. I have heard him say so himself in an interview.

I don't know where all of the speculation about being discrete came from. It's not part of Gage's principal conclusions about the destruction of the WTC.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by Alfie1

Controlled Demolitions Incorporated were brought in to clean up the site in a way that brought protests from people who wanted a thorough investigation of the crime scene. There are miles and miles of wire connecting Controlled Demolitions Incorporated to the federal government.

One of the oldest publications in the fire fighting trade called the investigation of the destruction of the towers a "farce".

Most people on the "pile" in the days following 9/11 were looking for survivors, not blasting caps.

reply to post by ipsedixit


ipsedixit

If you are suggesting that Controlled Demolitions Inc were "in on it" that is another tranche of people to add to an already huge conspiracy. The only reason you suggest is commercial advantage and I just don't believe that there are that many people prepared to murder 3000 plus fellow citizens and keep silent for ever, just because it is good for business.

Hoping to find survivors only occupied a few days but there were still about a hundred police and firefighters on the site every day so it is very surprising if not one ever noticed any demolition paraphernalia.

As regards the probability of controlled demolition in general, how come the police helicopters warned of collapse minutes before it happened, based on their obversations :-

www.skyscrapersafety.org...

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ipsedixit

 

If you are suggesting that Controlled Demolitions Inc were "in on it" that is another tranche of people to add to an already huge conspiracy. The only reason you suggest is commercial advantage and I just don't believe that there are that many people prepared to murder 3000 plus fellow citizens and keep silent for ever, just because it is good for business.

The whole point of the false flag operation on 9/11 and the wars that followed it was "commercial advantage". Somewhere approaching 1,000,000 people have been murdered either directly or indirectly as a result of 9/11, largely in the name of commercial advantage.

9/11 inaugurated the resource wars of the 21st century. From his own perspective George W. Bush believes he will be endorsed by historians in the long run. He believes he is fighting for "America", in the context of diminishing oil resources. In other words, America's leaders, despite all the lies they have told about nation building and replacing despotic dictators and WMDs, have decided to seize control of the last of the world's oil resources up for grabs.

This is a retrograde development in human history and parallels Hitler's activities in the lead up to WW2. People are fed up with this kind of criminal power play.

As in Hitler's time, many people, including business people, especially including business people were "in on it". That's the nature of fascism or corporatisim as Mussolini explained, the merging of state and corporate interests.

For obvious reasons I am not commenting on specific individuals. We need a real investigation in order to focus on people who may have been "in on it". The average guy operating a backhoe or a dump truck at the pile would just be doing another job.

Hoping to find survivors only occupied a few days but there were still about a hundred police and firefighters on the site every day so it is very surprising if not one ever noticed any demolition paraphernalia.

Here's a picture of the Teleblaster 2, a "wireless" explosives detonator. The company that makes it has been into wireless blasting since 1999. And they are just one company in British Columbia.

hiex.bc.ca...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b2950e5b6c2e.jpg[/atsimg]

HiEx Technologies Ltd. is a qualified firm with years of experience in the blasting and explosives industry. We provide quality products for blasting applications in mining, construction and logging.

Our TeleBlaster telemetry blast initiation system was designed for blasters by blasters ; a wireless blast initiation system used to safely initiate commercial explosives blasts.

We've worked hard to introduce and develop telemetric blast initiation in B.C. since 1999, proving radio remote initiation can be safe and extremely efficient.

As regards the probability of controlled demolition in general, how come the police helicopters warned of collapse minutes before it happened, based on their obversations :-

Eyewitness said that explosions happened in the building from time to time, until the final take down. In the video linked earlier in the thread, a reporter refers to a warning from a fire chief to get out of the building because he thought that if another explosion went off, the building might come down. The helicopter pilots must have seen something from their perspective that led them to the same conclusion.

As an aside, I must say that I am quite taken with the "Teleblaster 2". Like a lot of great modern industrial design it has a "cute" factor. It even has a little "Mini Me".



[edit on 14-12-2009 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by GoodOlDave


you seem knowledgeable in the area,

Why did the committee deem it necessary to question this man in a closed door session?

I just find it odd that the committee chose this route. Did the committee feel this man had info that could be damning to the nation's security or what?

reply to post by ipsedixit


ipsedixit

I can't go along with your scenario. You will have to explain to me exactly how 9/11 furthered the pursuit of oil.

So far as wireless detonation of explosives is concerned, yes certainly this can be done. However, what you have then is a wireless receiver attached to each detonator so you then have even more suspicious looking stuff in the debris.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ipsedixit

 

I can't go along with your scenario. You will have to explain to me exactly how 9/11 furthered the pursuit of oil.

Basically it involves signing advantageous deals for the exploitation of the Iraqi oil fields. Oil is that stuff they make gasoline out of. Gasoline is fuel used in cars and trucks. There is a lot on the web about this stuff. If you were really interested, you wouldn't ask that sort of question.

So far as wireless detonation of explosives is concerned, yes certainly this can be done. However, what you have then is a wireless receiver attached to each detonator so you then have even more suspicious looking stuff in the debris.

Is that so? So you are saying that a radio receiver right next to an explosive charge designed to cut through a steel girder would just be lying around after the blast. The WTC was full of computers. One firefighter said that he couldn't see one computer in the rubble, not one telephone. The largest piece of a phone he saw was a piece of the keypad.

There is a point when honest sceptical questions veer over into "I'm a shill playing stupid, questions." Are you one of those people?

Edit to add: Alfie, I don't want to come off sounding like a sarcastic, arrogant person. I just noticed that you registered on ATS recently. You are asking questions that mean either that you don't know much about 9/11 or that you might be a young person, possibly high school student. If you are the latter, I want to apologize for my tone, above.

Sometimes we get people posting in these threads who are not sincere and not forthright about their level of knowledge of 9/11. Sometimes people don't want to admit that they are "newbies". Sometimes discussion can get intense and patience might not be there for naive questions.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by ipsedixit


ipsedixit

Interesting, a few posts ago you were evidently trying to come across as measured and reasonable but you have become progressively more shrill and fanatical.

Yes, I do know that Iraq has oil and oil makes gasoline. What I don't know is how 9/11 was a clear false flag to justify war on Iraq when no single Iraqi was involved and no connection was demonstrated. Also, I am unaware how the US is making a profit from Iraqi oil in contrast to the huge continuing costs of military deployment in Iraq.

So far as detonators and wireless receivers are concerned you are assuming that everything went off and that nothing recognisable was left.
Not a reasonable expectation.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ipsedixit

 

ipsedixit

Interesting, a few posts ago you were evidently trying to come across as measured and reasonable but you have become progressively more shrill and fanatical.

Shrill like the whipporwill?

Yes, I do know that Iraq has oil and oil makes gasoline. What I don't know is how 9/11 was a clear false flag to justify war on Iraq when no single Iraqi was involved and no connection was demonstrated.

That was Bush's whiplash moment. Nobody could understand the point of going after Iraq in light of 9/11. The Bush administration tried to cobble together a case that Iraq was involved with bin Laden and Al Qaeda, but it was a shambles. The details are easily researched right on this website. Just search the Atta/Iraq connection, Al Qaeda training in Iraq, etc.

Do some research. I can't take your little hand in mine and lead you through this whole issue like a baby.

Also, I am unaware how the US is making a profit from Iraqi oil in contrast to the huge continuing costs of military deployment in Iraq.

American fascism is unlike that of the Nazis in the sense that in contrast to Nazi Germany, it is the corporations, not the state, who are in the driver's seat in America. In that sort of situation, looting the US defense department budget is fair game. Believe me the perps are making out like bandits.

In addition, remember this Iraq war was a stickup. Are they covering their costs? I think so.

www.ipsnews.net...

WASHINGTON, Nov 23 (IPS) - Oil exploration deals currently being negotiated between the Washington-backed Iraqi government and multinational oil companies could cost Iraqis up to 194 billion dollars in lost revenues and transfer more than two-thirds of the country's oil reserves to the control of foreign firms, a new report warns.

"In short, the winners for control of Iraq's oil are the U.S., the UK, and their oil companies," said Steve Kretzmann of Oil Change International and co-publisher of the report, "Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq's Oil Wealth".

"The losers are the Iraqi people," he added.

The report says that by binding the interim Iraqi government to a type of contract that gives the upper hand to their executives, multinational oil companies will guarantee themselves fat profit margins of 42 to 162 percent, far more the usual industry target of around 12 percent.

U.S. and British oil companies have been pressing for high returns on investments in Iraq, citing the country's volatile security and political situation.

"The form of contracts being promoted is the most expensive and undemocratic option available," said Greg Muttitt of PLATFORM, a London-based oil industry watchdog group. "Iraq's oil should be for the benefit of the Iraqi people, not foreign oil companies."

The contracts are called "production sharing agreements" (PSAs), which typically run between 25 and 40 years and are off-limits to public scrutiny.

They have been defended by some Iraqi officials, who say they would fast-track the nation's oilfield development.

"In order to make major quantum increases in oil, we need to have production-sharing agreements," Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi said recently.

But critics note that the terms of such contracts, now keenly promoted by the U.S. and Britain, bar local authorities from amending them in the future and are subject to confidentiality provisions.

So far as detonators and wireless receivers are concerned you are assuming that everything went off and that nothing recognisable was left.
Not a reasonable expectation.

The location of recognisable bits, in a mountain of wreckage, by someone who also happened to be familiar with the bit in question and found enough of them to become suspicious is highly unlikely.


[edit on 14-12-2009 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by ipsedixit


ipsedixit

9/11 furnished no reasons to attack Iraq. The connections which became apparent after 9/11 were to Al Qaeda and Afghanistan. I do not believe the US administration had any interest in interfering in Afghanistan but were forced to do so by public anger.

The reasons given for invading Iraq were alleged WMD and failure by Iraq to adhere to UN resolutions. Absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

The resultant war and occupation has come at a tremendous cost :-


articles.latimes.com...

Does that look like good business ?

If you are saying individuals have benefited please name them and give details.

Please cut out the patronising tone. I have not been patronising to you even though you are a truther.

reply to post by ipsedixit


ipsedixit

I should have asked you before but we got diverted. I am interested in your statements that :- " Thermite and its spinoff thermate are incindiaries." " They are mixed into explosives to create a cutting charge ."
Can you please give me a source for this mixture and what explosives are you talking about ?

Would this mixture cut diagonally or horizontally ?

Thanks in anticipation.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ipsedixit

 

ipsedixit

9/11 furnished no reasons to attack Iraq. The connections which became apparent after 9/11 were to Al Qaeda and Afghanistan. I do not believe the US administration had any interest in interfering in Afghanistan but were forced to do so by public anger.

The reasons given for invading Iraq were alleged WMD and failure by Iraq to adhere to UN resolutions. Absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

You have a very foggy sense of the way events unfolded. We are way off topic in this thread and I don't have time to lay the scenario out for you. There are abundant resources and information about these things on the web. Do the research.

The resultant war and occupation has come at a tremendous cost :-


articles.latimes.com...

Does that look like good business ?

You still, like many Americans, sadly, believe that your country is run for your benefit and that hardships and tremendous costs are shared equally by all citizens.

If you are saying individuals have benefited please name them and give details.

Who do you think that "tremendous cost" was paid out to, in the form of tremendous profit? Do the research and find out.

Please cut out the patronising tone. I have not been patronising to you even though you are a truther.

Well, I have to say I don't think you are a shill, but we are way off topic.

Please do some research. You are asking the questions of an "innocent". 9/11 was a big operation. It takes a while to get a handle on it. I think ATS has a thread with resources for people new to the issues posed by 9/11. There are numerous videos examining various aspects on YouTube and Google Video. Pick a topic and do a search.

reply to post by Alfie1

I think the video "9/11 Mysteries" has a segment where a demolition technician explains the process of setting shaped charges, etc. and actually straps one onto a beam. Research it.

Here is a video that is very interesting, talking about shaped charges. Remember, what is said in this video is not set in stone. Situations which are different might bring out variations in techniques or the specifications of the charges involved or the means of detonating them.





[edit on 14-12-2009 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by ipsedixit


ipsedixit

You think my take on events around 9/11 is "foggy" but you have no counter position. Suddenly, we are off topic.

Just to recap a moment. You appear to believe that WTC 1 and 2 and, presumably 7, were brought down by CD. You think this was done by shaped charges made up of therm*te mixed with explosives and set off by wireless.

You believe this was done to initiate war with Iraq, supposedly to benefit from oil.

You are not at all phased by the fact that no trace of explosives or detonators etc was found at the WTC site. When I point out to you that police helicopters were warning that the towers were coming down some minutes before they did, because they could see the instability, you suggested that explosives were being set off at various locations weakening the structure. A demolition by a thousand cuts ? Can you seriously believe this.

You present no evidence linking Iraq with 9/11 and patently there isn't any. Your claim of a profit motive is ridiculously spurious. You post an article suggesting the Iraqis have lost 194 billion dollars in revenue. This is presumably due to the dislocation of the war. However, even assuming all that lost revenue was directly handed to the US the US will have expended 694 billion dollars on the war by the end of the year. That rather neatly makes the US out of pocket by 500 billion dollars. You can buy a lot of oil for 500 billion dollars.

Then, to get back very directly on topic, your assertion that you can mix therm*te with conventional explosive and make a shaped charge is something I have never heard which is why I asked you about it. Please give me a responsible source for this, not a conspiracy site, and for its ability to cut diagonally or horizontally. Perhaps you need to research this more thoroughly.

Your final misconception is that I am not American but English.