samedi 9 janvier 2010

Loosechangeguide - Section 3

Avant propos
[page en construction]

Ce document est un miroir du site malheureusement disparu, le nom de domaine n'ayant pas été renouvelé. Elle a été restaurée à partir de est une mine d'informations permettant de décrypter la thèse conspirationniste des attentats du 11 septembre 2001. Il répond point par point aux arguments exposés par Loose Change 2. La reproduction de ce site a pour objectif d'en assurer la pérennité.

Les textes surlignés en jaune, et parfois précédées du repère temporel MM:SS, sont la transcription de l'audio de Loose Change 2, à laquelle contre-argumente l'auteur de

Les textes surlignés en bleu sont des extraits de documents cités par l'auteur.

9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide

And debunking of various 9/11 conspiracy theories

Sections of this document :

Much of the case for "controlled demolition" of the WTC Twin Towers (although, curiously, not of WTC 7) rests on the fact that many witnesses reported hearing and seeing secondary explosions after the planes hit. I've never been surprised in the least by these reports. Why wouldn't there be secondary explosions, and things that sound like explosions or bombs, in a disaster of that type and magnitude in buildings of that type and magnitude? I have yet to hear from a CTist why that's surprising.

One thing we often don't know is exactly when and where those explosions were heard, and this video certainly makes no effort to clarify that. For instance, how many people, in both towers, heard (but didn't see) flight 175 hit the south tower and reported that as a big secondary explosion? How many people were reporting the same event, but when those reports are listed, it looks like many events? We don't know.

And how many of these explosions were electrical systems shorting, transformers and switchgear blowing, generators failing, steam pipes bursting, flaming debris and steel beams falling down elevator shafts, etc. Several reports call the sound of the actual collapse of tower 2 a "huge explosion."

Electrical explosions do happen in skyscrapers:

Electrical Fire Hurts 6 at Trade Center

An air-conditioning transformer five stories below the World Trade Center caught fire after an explosion last night, the authorities said. Six people were injured, none of them seriously, but the 110-story twin towers did not have to be evacuated, the authorities said. The fire was first reported at 10:02 P.M. in a 13,000-volt transformer in the Trade Center's refrigeration plant, which provides air conditioning and ventilation for the complex, the Fire Department and the Port Authority said. The electrical fire, which went to three alarms, was brought under control at 11:24 P.M., said a Fire Department official, Lieutenant Erick Weekes. NEW YORK TIMES July 24, 1992

Remarks on the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing by Fire Chief Donald J. Burns

"Usually, a report of an explosion in a high-rise indicates an electrical problem such as a large short or a transformer explosion. "

Video of a transformer explosion.

What the various explosions reported would have to do with CD, I don't know. When you demolish a building with explosives, you set the charges to go off in a precise order at demolition time, not in a random fashion for nearly an hour. Some CTists have suggested that bombs were placed at different locations within the building. I have yet to hear a plausible explanation for why that would be. Large bombs would really mess up your carefully-prepared controlled demolition. What's more, no one I know of has come up with any plausible explanation of how this massive amount of CD work could have been accomplished.

So, before we get back to the video, I'd like to propose a little thought experiment to the conspiracy believers. I've asked this before but no one has ever answered. Please describe, in as much detail as possible, what you would EXPECT to hear and see after a fully-loaded airliner hit a skyscraper at top speed, causing enormous damage, and the building caught fire to the point of collapse?

And when a billion-pound building does start to collapse, what would you EXPECT to see and hear at the lower levels?

Because in order to be surprised by what did happen, you must have some expectation of what SHOULD have happened. So I'd like you to stop and think about that. More than that, I'd like to HEAR what you have to say on the matter.

And if you can't come up with an answer, then please talk to the experts: structural engineers, fire safety engineers, and failure analysts. Does it bother you that none of them agree with you?

Once I was driving on the highway and an 18-wheeler blew a tire as it pulled alongside me on the left. The tire was just a few feet from my window. I described it as "like a cannon going off in my ear." But no cannon went off in my ear. I was using a common simile to describe a dramatic event. Please keep that in mind throughout this section.

Please keep in mind that I'm not disputing what witnesses say they saw and heard. I'm just suggesting that there are many plausible explanations for those phenomena that don't involve implausible bombs.


9:59. New York City, New York. The South Tower of the World Trade Center collapses to the ground in approximately 10 seconds.

How approximate is that measurement?

29 minutes later the North Tower follows suit, collapsing in approximately 10 seconds.

How approximate is that measurement?

Later that evening at 5:20, WTC 7, a 47 story office building 300 feet away from the North Tower, suddenly collapses.

Misleading. The fire department believed it was too damaged to stand and cleared the area around it long before it collapsed. The collapse of the south tower was a surprise. The collapse of WTC 7 was expected. That's why there were no casualties.

The building's tenants included the CIA, Department of Defense, IRS, Secret Service and Rudy Giuliani's emergency bunker.

Bad place to put tanks that can hold 43,000 gallons of diesel fuel. WTC 7 also included a Consolidated Edison electrical substation (mostly outside its footprint) and a 4 inch gas line. The NIST report on WTC 7 is due out sometime soon after this document is released (April 22, 2006). The tenants listed here are some of the smaller ones at WTC 7. The big tenant was Salomon Smith Barney.

And the S.E.C. was using it to store 3 to 4 thousand files related to numerous Wall Street investigations.

Because that's where their offices were. it's good that they keep files on things.

Although every single building surrounding Building 7 stood intact, it fell straight down,

No, they were all heavily damaged. But they didn't have raging fires in them. And the building fell leaning slightly to the south.

Into a convenient little pile, in 6 seconds.

Convenient? What a bizarre assumption that is. If you say it's convenient, you must know whom it's convenient FOR. Please inform me. Little pile? I often see CT claims that the pile was "2 or 3 stories" high. The pile was 12 stories from basement to top, and spread out over 150 meters.


Left: WTC 7 debris pile after Vesey street cleared for access. Right: Damage done by WTC 7 to 30 W. Broadway.

The visible collapse of WTC 7 was fairly quick. But seismic readings time the rumblings of the building (culminating in collapse that measured 0.6 on the Richter scale) to 30 seconds before the mechanical penthouses on top start to cave in.

Official explanation? Falling debris from the Twin Towers created an internal fire,

The NIST report on WTC 7 isn't out yet. Real investigations take time.

Which ignited several fuel tanks inside the building.

Why not show the building when smoke was pouring from nearly every floor?

If this is true, then it would be the third building in history to collapse because of a fire.

Uh, no. You only got that wrong by a few million buildings.

Anyway, all three of these steel frame buildings sustained heavy damage in addition to massive fires.

The first two would be the Twin Towers.

Remember those 767s that hit them?


On July 28th, 1945, a B-25 bomber lost in the fog crashed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building.

Narrator says B-52, which is an 8-engine jet.

14 people dead, 1 million dollars in damage. But, the building stands intact to this day.

The fire took only 40 minutes to extinguish.

B-25: loaded weight 33,500 lb, fuel capacity 670 gallons, hit ESB at approx 150 mph.

The 767s that hit the WTC weighed about 280,000 lbs and held over 10,000 gallons of fuel each. They hit the World Trade Center with over 200 times the kinetic energy of the B-25 that hit the ESB.

B-25 Compared to 767-200ER, superimposed over footprint of  WTC tower

(Blue indicates floor plan of a "typical" skyscraper) Source: FEMA

Look at the size of the 767 compared to the floor plan of the tower, and keep in mind that every bit of both 767s entered the towers at around 500 mph.

On February 14th, 1975, a three alarm fire broke out between in the 9th and 14th floors in the North Tower.

Only the 11th floor had significant fire damage. Firefighters had full access to the fire. The fire never left the concrete-enclosed cable shaft on the other floors. It was a 3-alarm fire, not a 12-alarm. The building was not hit by an airliner at 500 mph with resulting structural damage to load-bearing columns and beams. Fire was not fueled by accelerant. Fire insulation was not blown off the steel.

According to the New York Times, "The fire leads to intense scrutiny of the towers, and eventually to a decision to install sprinklers."

On May 4th, 1988, a 62 storey skyscraper in Los Angeles burned for 3 hours and spread over 4 floors.

It did not collapse.

Because firefighters fought the fire the whole time and put it out.

On February 23rd, 1991, a 38 storey skyscraper in Philadelphia, built in 1973, burned for more than 19 hours and spread over 8 floors. It did not collapse.

Fire was contained by fire dept. and sprinklers from floor 30 and up. Bldg was not damaged prior to fire. Fire protection coating was not blown off. Contributor kookbreaker writes,
"The Philadelphia fire LC mentions was the Meridian Building. The firefighting efforts were abandoned after 11 hours because the fire department feared (ta-dah) pancake collapse! The building was effectively destroyed in any case. It had a large net over it and had to be reinforced before it could be brought down!"

And that's damage caused by fire alone. Suppose it had also been hit by a 767 fully-loaded with fuel and flying at top speed?

On October 17th, 2004, a 56 storey skyscraper in Venezuela, built in 1976, burned for over 17 hours and spread over 26 floors, eventually reaching the roof. Guess what? It did not collapse.

Fire was put out by military helicopters. No airliners hit, etc.


On February 12th, 2005, the Windsor Building in Madrid, a 32 storey tower framed in steel reinforced concrete, burned for almost 24 hours, completely eradicating the upper 10 stories of the building. Although the top 10 floors of the building fell, the building itself did not collapse.

Building was concrete core, curtain wall construction. Building was not hit by an airliner. Steel beams failed due to heat but the concrete core did not. Here's what ARUP, a major fire-safety engineering firm, had to say about that fire:

The fire led to the collapse of virtually all the slab edge bay above 17th floor as well as one internal bay on the north side. The transition floor resisted the impact of the partial collapses. Below this level there was substantial structural damage and deformation, but no significant collapse.

The steel perimeter columns, even if they had been protected, or even concrete columns, would not necessarily be expected to survive the effects of such a 10-storey blaze.

The central concrete core appeared to perform well in the fire and on initial observations seems to have played a major role in ensuring the stability of the building throughout the incident. The role of cores in multiple floor fires is now an immediate area of study required for the industry, and Arup have commenced investigating this issue.

And yet on September 11th, 2001, two 110 storey skyscrapers, completed in 1973, burned for 56 minutes and 103 minutes respectively, over 4 floors,

Evidence that they burned on 4 floors only? And did you notice that airliners hit them?

Before collapsing completely to the ground. One might argue, that this was due to the construction of the World Trade Center.

Or, one might make a much better argument that the buildings stood as long as they did because they were so well built.

Let's look at, what was inside those buildings.


The Twin Towers were composed of 200,000 tons of steel, 425,000 cubic yards of concrete, elevators, 43,600 windows, 60,000 tons of cooling equipment, and a 360-foot television antenna. The core of each tower was 87 by 133 feet, comprised of 47 [Steel] box columns 36 by 16 inches thick.

Those are the outer dimensions. The columns were hollow.

The North Tower was completed in 1970 standing at 1368 feet tall and the South Tower was completed in 1973 clocking in at 1362 feet tall, making them the tallest buildings in the world until the Sears Tower was completed in 1974. And to think... the government want have us believe that these massive structures were destroyed by 10,000 gallons of jet fuel.

Nope, the government didn't say that. You did, straw man.

However, eyewitnesses, video footage and a little common sense quickly refutes that claim.

I look forward to seeing your evidence.


The second plane hits the South Tower between the 78th and 82nd floors at 9:03 AM, barely hitting the southeast corner, the majority of the jet fuel exploding outside in a massive fireball.

Barely hitting the corner? The entire plane went into the building AT 550+ MPH! Here is the footage from the video that goes with statement 383. Now, Mr. Avery, tell the people in the south tower that the plane "barely hit." What kind of person are you?

By the way, there are conspiracy theorists who claim that NO planes hit the World Trade Center.

Yet, this Tower collapses first, even though the North Tower was hit straight on,


And had already been burning for 18 minutes longer.

Several factors are involved here.

1) Because the south tower was struck closer to a corner, the forces on the damaged area may have been more uneven than in the north tower, which was struck head-on and fairly centered.  We've seen how the top of the south tower tilted sharply towards its damaged side as it fell.

2) Flight 175 was traveling at approximately 550 mph when it struck the south tower,, far faster than flight 11 when it hit the north tower the additional kinetic energy it carried may have done more damage to structural members and fire protection.

3) The south tower was hit at a point much lower than the north, and had far more weight bearing on the damaged areas: in terms of square footage, the equivalent of the entire Chicago Citigroup Center (right) on top of a weakened, off-center base.

4) The fire protection on the south tower steel was only half as thick (3.4" or 2 cm) as the insulation in the north tower. Source (interesting side note to CTists; if skyscrapers can't be brought down by fire alone, why do they fireproof them?)


Galileio's Law of Falling Bodies calculates the time in which an object will travel a certain distance in complete freefall.

Here goes the free-fall argument again.

Distance (D) = 16.08 times Time in seconds squared.

The South Tower was 1362 feet (415 m) tall.

1362 = 16.08 times 84.70. Or, 9.2 seconds.

At this point "Loose Change puts a timer on the collapse of the south tower. But look at the angle they choose: the top 30 stories are completely obscured by smoke. We know that the top of the building tilted sharply to the south (towards the camera and to the right) as it began to fall.

It appears in the still at 00:00 that the top of the south tower has begun to lean. Remember, there are 30 floors above the impact point, the equivalent of an entire very large office building. But this scene in LC starts at this exact instant: the tower is in motion at 00:01 (1/100th of a second into the scene). I wondered if the original video might show more of this scene prior to what "Loose Change" shows as 00:00.

Surprise! It does. Someone has edited the original video to make it appear that the collapse starts at their 00:00 timing. IN FACT, THE "LOOSE CHANGE" SCENE STARTS ABOUT 2 SECONDS AFTER THE COLLAPSE VISIBLY BEGINS IN THE ORIGINAL. That's dishonest.

Note helicopter hovering, text scrolling. Picture 4 corresponds to "00:00" in the "Loose Change" video. Tower has clearly begun to collapse by picture 2. This isn't so easy to see in these stills, but it's obvious in the original video. This sequence covers about 5.5 seconds.


The Twin Towers came down in nearly freefall speed.

No, they didn't. CTists trot this argument out all the time. It is patently absurd. You don't have to know any physics to disprove this idea. Just look at how much faster the falling debris outside the building travels than the floors are falling. Debris hits the ground hundreds of feet before the bulk of the building does. (photos not from LC)

200,000 tons of steel shatters into sections no longer than a couple feet long.


Sometimes it's hard to get a sense of scale when dealing with the WTC. Fritz Koenig's sculpture "Sphere" is 15 feet in diameter and weighs 22.5 tons. Of all the monumental-sized artwork at the WTC, it was the only piece to survive at all. A hole was smashed in its top, and inside the recovery workers found human remains, an airline seat, a Bible, and papers from the top of WTC 1. The photo at right shows it in Battery Park in 2005. It will be moved back to the WTC when the memorial is complete.

425,000 cubic yards of concrete is pulverized into dust.

Assumption. I've seen lots of that concrete that wasn't dust. And keep in mind the acres of gypsum sheet rock, insulation, ceiling tiles, etc., all of which would turn to dust much easier than concrete.

Thousands of lives are extinguished instantly.

Ah, he finally mentions the lives lost. 2,749, to be exact, and many of those people did not die "instantly."


So what brought down the World Trade Center?


Let's ask the experts.

Please. It's about time, isn't it?

Van Romero. Vice President for Research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

Oh, I thought you'd be asking structural engineers, the people who design and test the systems that hold buildings up. Romero is not a structural engineer or an expert on fire safety engineering, nor was he involved in the investigation in any way. We'll see what he uses to form his opinion, on the day of the attacks.

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center, there were some explosive devices inside that caused the towers to collapse. The collapses were too methodical to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures."

Ten days later. "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail."


Why would Romero change his mind so suddenly?

Why didn't you ask him? Better yet, why not show us the Albuquerque Journal article in which he states his reason for the retraction. Okay, I can guess why. It turns out that Van Romero, unlike CTists, is a stand-up guy. He talked to the experts.

Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says

By John Fleck, Journal Staff Writer

A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives.

Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion. Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.

Romero said he believes still it is possible that the final collapse of each building was triggered by a sudden pressure pulse caused when the fire reached an electrical transformer or other source of combustion within the building.

But he said he now believes explosives would not have been needed to create the collapse seen in video images.

Conspiracy theorists have seized on Romero's comments as evidence for their argument that someone else, possibly the U.S. government, was behind the attack on the Trade Center.

Romero said he has been bombarded with electronic mail from the conspiracy theorists.

"I'm very upset about that," he said. "I'm not trying to say anything did or didn't happen." (C) 2001, Albuquerque Journal


Hyman Brown. Civil Engineering Professor and the World Trade Center's construction manager.

" It was over-designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, high winds, bombings and an airplane hitting it... although the buildings were designed to withstand  "a 150-year storm" and the impact of a Boeing 707,"

Yes, a 707 lost in the fog, traveling at approach speed after dumping fuel. Anyway, the buildings did withstand the impact, despite heavy damage. What impresses most engineers is how long the buildings stood up.

"jet fuel burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit weakened the steel."

Kevin Ryan. Underwriters Laboratories, the company that certified the steel that was used in the World Trade Center,

Got that wrong. U.L. Didn't certify any WTC steel, and Ryan didn't work for a division that had anything to do with testing steel or any other construction material. He tested water.

Statement from U.L.:

"U.L.'s Fire Protection Division has assisted NIST in its investigations regarding the collapse of the WTC towers. However, Mr. Ryan was not involved in that work and was not associated in any way with U.L.'s Fire Protection Division, which conducted testing at NIST's request. Rather, Mr. Ryan was employed in U.L.'s water testing business, Environmental Health Laboratory, in South Bend, Indiana.

"...Mr. Ryan wrote the letter without UL's knowledge or authorization. Mr. Ryan was neither qualified nor authorized to speak on UL's behalf regarding this issue. The opinions he expressed in the letter are his own and do not reflect those of Underwriters Laboratories Inc..."

In a letter to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology: "We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119."

This standard is for certifying entire building assemblies. Source (Thanks Mark)

"The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications."

Who are "we?"

"Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F."

Straw man. Who said the steel melted? This shows just how unqualified Ryan is. A structural engineer or fire safety engineer would know better. The official explanation is that the steel in the floor trusses expanded and twisted, overstressing the connections between the joists and the columns. By the way, steel is white at melting point Red-hot is actually fairly cool as steel goes. Note on the graphic below that steel at less than half its melting point is down to less than one-fourth its strength.

Source: Eurocode

Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

He didn't. You're making that up. Another example of dishonesty.

"This story just does not add up."

Why isn't there a single structural engineer who agrees with you?

"If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."

I'm sure we can all agree? Assumption. How about all the fires ignited by the jet fuel? How about the massive structural damage, Mr. Ryan? Are you taking those into account?

Ryan's statements directly contradict statements from so-called "experts",

Ad hominem. Those experts are "so-called" because they're experts. Ryan isn't.

which claim that 2000 degree heat inside the WTC caused the towers to collapse.

Days after writing this letter, Kevin Ryan was fired from his position.

In the water testing department.


Not even the experts agree with each other.

That's flat wrong. The experts do agree with each other. It's the non-experts like Ryan who disagree. As far as I know, as of April, 2006, not a single structural engineer in the world has expressed support for any WTC conspiracy theory, and certainly no one who worked on the investigation has. Zero.

So what else could have caused the Twin Towers and Building 7 to collapse?

"Occam's Razor" is about to get very dull.

[Newsman Peter Jennings voiceover] "10 o'clock eastern time this morning just collapsing on itself. The second building that was hit by the plane has just completely collapsed. We have no idea what caused this. Almost looks like one of those planned implosions."

Almost like.

"As if a demolition team set off, when you see the whole demolitions of whole buildings. It folded down on itself and it was not there anymore. If you wish to bring anybody who's ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows , that if you're going to do this, you have to get at the"

"if you're going to do this?" I'm pretty sure Peter Jennings has never reported on an airliner crashing into a skyscraper.

"at the under infrastructure of a building and bring it down."

Expert opinion?

"We heard another explosion and I'm assuming that's the one that came from the lower level."

Unidentified speaker.

"Since there were two..."

" Right, cause it was like 18 minutes apart. "

"Well... This is, no the first, the first explosion and there was the second explosion in the same building."

"There were 2 explosions."

"Federal Agencies that were down there do believe that there was some sort of explosive device,"

Unidentified speaker. Who, in which agencies?

"somewhere else besides the planes hitting."

Yes, there was lots of confusion, and an explosion on the lower level. Why shouldn't there have been? Officials later concluded that there was not an explosive device.

"NBC's Pat Dawson is close to the scene of that attack, Pat?"

"Just moments ago I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department, "


"Albert Turi, he received word of the possibility of the secondary device"

Possibility of "a" secondary device is what he actually said.

"that is another bomb going off, he tried to get his men out as quickly as he could,"

Assumption. Most explosions in the world are not due to bombs.

"but he said that there was another explosion which took place and then, an hour after the first hit here, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the Towers here. He thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building,"


"The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building."


"There were two or three similar huge explosions and the building"

Yes. Is there evidence of a bomb?

"literally shook, it literally shook at the base of this building. First one and then the other, some say after secondary explosions. "

" ...big explosion happened, all of a sudden the elevator blew up, smoke, I dragged the guy out, his skin was hanging off,"

Unidentified speaker. Yes. Is there evidence of a bomb?

"and I dragged him out and I helped him to the ambulance. We started coming down the stairs from the eighth floor. Big Explosion. Blew us back into the eighth floor."

Yes. Is there evidence of a bomb?

"Just came out of the tunnel, and it blew." "The subway tunnel?" "Yeah. "

"So, tell us what's happening out there."

"We just witnessed some kind of secondary, follow up explosion on the World Trade Center number 2." "Secondary."

Yes. Is there evidence of a bomb?

"We understand now there has been a secondary explosion on Tower 2."

Yes. Is there evidence of a bomb?


"There was another major explosion. The building itself, literally the top of it came down sending smoke and debris everywhere."

Yes. Is there evidence of a bomb?

What would you expect to hear when 200 million pounds falls onto 800 million pounds?

(Keep in mind, again, that my comments are directed to the CTists, not to the witnesses.)

"We are five blocks from the World Trade Center. And, and we were standing here, when, when there was some sort of collapse, or explosion."

Yes. The building collapsed. Is there evidence of a bomb?

"Do you know if it was an explosion, or if it was a building collapse?"

"To me it sounded like, to me it sounded like an explosion..."

Yes. I'm sure it did sound that way. Is there evidence of a bomb?

"We heard a big explosion coming down."

Yes. It did come down. Is there evidence of a bomb?

"Everything it went black. Everything came down, glass started popping, people got hurt, stuff went on top of them,"

Yes. The building collapsed. Is there evidence of a bomb?

"and there was a big explosion, and everything got dark. Real dark like smoke."

Yes. The building collapsed. Is there evidence of a bomb?

"The FBI is here as you can see, they had roped this area off, they were taking photographs and securing this area. Just prior to that huge explosion that we all heard and felt."

Yes. Is there evidence of a bomb?

"Get out of the area. The second Tower is coming down."

"Did they tell you the second Tower is coming down?" "Yes, it's about to collapse."

A reasonable assumption, considering what happened to WTC 2.

"At 10:30 I tried to leave the building. As soon as I got outside I heard a second explosion."

Yes. The building collapsed. Is there evidence of a bomb?

"And another rumble, and more smoke, and more dust. I ran inside the building, the chandelier shook and again black smoke filled the air. Within another 5 minutes we were covered again with more silt and more dust. And then a Fire Marshall came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last."

"We just saw that as well, the second Tower, the only one that was standing, Tower number one just ah we saw some kind of explosion a lot of smoke come out of the top

Yes. Is there evidence of a bomb?

"of the Tower, and then it collapsed down onto the streets below."

"David Lee, what can you tell us?"

"John, just seconds ago there was a huge explosion and it appears right now the second World Trade Tower has just collapsed."

Yes. It made a lot of noise. Is there evidence of a bomb?

One eyewitness was standing among a crowd of people on Church Street, two and a half blocks from the South Tower, when he saw a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15.

Yes. Is there evidence of a bomb? What would you expect to see when a building like this collapses: electrical cables severed, transformers blowing, etc.


He saw about six of these flashes, accompanied by a crackling sound before the Tower collapsed.

Yes. Is there evidence of a bomb? What would you expect to see when a building like this collapses: electrical cables severed, transformers blowing, etc.

Ginny Carr was attending a business meeting on the 36th floor of One Liberty Plaza, across the street from the WTC, and caught the entire first attack on tape.

A second explosion can be heard nine seconds after the crash.

An explosion, or what sounded like an explosion. Is this surprising?

"...sounded like some crash..."

Again, how many of these people are reporting the same event(s)? we don't know.


So, what happened in the North Tower? Ask Willy Rodriguez.

Willy, a janitor who worked in the World Trade Center for 20 years was in sub level 1 when the North Tower was hit.

"And all of a sudden we heard boom! And I thought it was a generator that blew up in the basement. And I said to myself: Oh my God, I think that's the generator."

Was it? Or was it a shock wave traveling down the elevator shafts, or something else?

"And I was going to verbalize it, and when I finished saying that in my mind, I hear boom!"

Sound takes time to travel.

"Right on the top. Pretty far away. So, it was a difference between coming from the basement and coming from the top. And thats..., everybody started screaming. And a person comes running into the office saying: Explosion, explosion, explosion! He had his hands extended. And all the skin was falling from under his arm. All the way to the top of the fingertips. And it was hanging from both arms. Hanging and hanging. And then I looked at his face and he was missing parts of his face. And I said: What happened? What happened? And he said: The elevators, the elevators. And then..."

Makes sense, an explosion traveling down the elevator shafts.

"When I..., there were many explosions, and when I actually talked about those explosions, they said that:"

Who are "they?"

"Well, there were so many kitchens in the building. They have probably those gas canisters. And I say: I don't believe that, because the building was a class A building. They have very strict guidelines of what you can put in a kitchen. And I really doubt it was gas. So, there was a lot of misconceptions of what happened on that day in terms of the explosions. Up to today, I haven't received an actual explanation about the different explosions that I heard on the upper floors. And on the way to the top."

From whom is he expecting an explanation? He was in the basement, so why is he being used as a judge of what happened 1,000 feet above?

Here's how Rodriguez initially described the first sounds:

"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "and then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."

He doesn't say anything about an explosion. If the sound in the basement level was a bomb, what was it for? It certainly had no effect on the columns.


The windows in the lobby of the North Tower were blown out, and marble panels were blown off of the walls.

Not surprising. Marble and glass aren't very flexible.

This was brushed off as damage from a raging fireball that went barreling down the elevator shafts.

Brushed off? How is describing an explosion, which many people described, brushing something off?

However, the World Trade Center's core and elevator shafts were hermetically sealed, AKA, air-tight.

Ridiculous. Geez, I wonder how people got in and out of the elevators?

The fire could not possibly have had enough oxygen to travel 1,300 feet down, retaining enough energy to destroy the bottom 8 floors of the building.

Evidence? Speculation. The "fire" would not have had to travel down the shaft. If jet fuel traveled down the shaft, it could cause a major vapor explosion in that enclosed space.


On 9-11, New York City lost 343 firefighters at the World Trade Center. Since they were the ones inside the Towers before and as they collapsed, I'd say they've got a pretty good grasp on what happened.

Speculation. How many surveyed the damage at the point of collapse?

So, what does the FDNY think? First, we have this interview from the Naudet brothers' documentary.

"...what do we do? We made it outside, we made it about a block?" "We made it at least 2 blocks and we started running... Boom-boom-boom-boom. Floor by floor it started popping out. It was like, as if they had detonated?" "Yeah, detonated." "Take out the building. Boom-boom-boom-boom."

Simile: "like" or "as if" they had detonated.

"...all the way down, I was watching it and running. And then you just saw this cloud of shit chasing you down. Could not..."

In these interviews, numerous members of Engine 7 describe explosions preceeding the collapses.

How many?

Not to mention the damage to the lobby of the North Tower.


"I heard a loud boom. And my first... I was, I was right at the desk there on the lefthand side when you come into Tower 1. And I walked out, you know I didn't go out I walked to where all the doorway, where the glass was broken, and I looked out and i've seen in the building across the street. I seen the shadow coming like the, I seen the shadow on a building across the street coming down. I wasn't expecting to see the damage that I saw in the lobby. And, and the people, the bodies, the burned people, the injured people, I really wasn't prepared for that. The lobby was about 6 storeys high and the lobby looked as though a bomb had exploded there."


"It's a... all the glass was taken out, there were 10 foot by 10 foot, a marble panels that were once walls that were loose from the wall of the Trade Center. I went around by the freight elevator and I could see it was just blown."

47:42 "30th floor. We hear another...explosion."

Yes. Is that evidence of a bomb?

"And at that time we heard a huge explosion."

Yes. Is that evidence of a bomb?

Firefighter Louie Cacchioli told People Weekly: "I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building.

Caccioli was upset at People Weekly for misquoting him. He never said there was a bomb. What he may have heard is the collapse of the south tower.

For more than a year, the Port Authority blocked the release of a tape of firefighters' transmissions from the World Trade Center on 9-11.

Another accusation of obstruction of the investigation. Evidence that such obstruction occurred? None. The tapes were used IN the investigation.

In November 2002, the tape was released to the New York Times and other "news outlets."

Why the parentheses around "news outlets"? Is the "American Free Press" more accurate than the New York Times?

Why did it take so long to get the tape released?

Because an investigation was under way. Note that no indication is given of when the following quotes were said. Remember that my comments are directed toward the makers of this video, not to the eyewitnesses.

"I got, uh, an eyewitness who said there was an explosion on floors 7 and 8, 7, 8."

Yes. Is that evidence of a bomb?

"Battalion 3 to Dispatch, we've just had another explosion."

Yes. Is that evidence of a bomb?

"...Warren Street, because of the secondary explosion."

Yes. Is that evidence of a bomb?

"We've got numerous people covered with dust from the secondary explosion."

Yes. Is that evidence of a bomb?

"We got another explosion on the Tower, 10-13, 10-13."

Yes. Is that evidence of a bomb?

"Tower 2 has had a major explosion and what appears to be a complete collapse surrounding the entire area."

Yes. The building did collapse.

"I was involved in the secondary, uh, explosion at Tower 1, Kay..."

Yes. Is that evidence of a bomb?


Chief Palmer had reached the fire on the 78th floor of the South Tower and devised a plan to put it out.

9:52 a.m., 13 minutes before collapse. "... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

That code means fatalities.

If the 78th floor was a raging inferno like the government would have us believe, then Palmer wouldn've got as far as he did

Sorry, the fire was raging on the floors above. Who in the government are you speaking of? Why are you never able to be specific when making these accusations? And why was stairway A accessible? Elevator machinery protects WTC 2 Stairway A, saves lives.

And certainly wouldn't be able to put it out.

Speculation. What about the huge fires above?

On August 12th, 2005 an additional 15 hours of radio transmissions and transcripts of interviews with firefighters Was finally released to the public.


Firefighters describe 2 events consistent with the controlled demolition:

The "controlled demolition"? No experts agree with you. There are many things these events could be consistent with. How many of these reports are NOT consistent with CD? Almost all of them, because they describe events well before the buildings collapsed. Does it make sense to start with the least likely explanation for the phenomena these people encountered? The sound I heard from the 18-wheeler's tire blowing out was consistent with a cannon firing, but did I go looking for cannons?

Video now shows a controlled demolition of a brick building. It looks NOTHING like the towers as they came own, except for the dust at the end.

Interesting that all these eyewitness reports are included when it seems that might help the conspiracy story, but hardly any corroborating eyewitness reports were included from the Pentagon and flight 93 crashes.

Reader "Charlie" forwards this info about executing the controlled demolition of a large building:

People do not understand the work involved in a controlled demolition. I have copied the information below from Controlled Demolition Inc's website. It shows the work involved in their world record (in terms of building height - 439 feet, or 134 meters), demolition of the J.L. Hudson building in Detroit:

Homrich/NASDI's 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI's implosion design. During that period, the lower two basements of the structure were filled with engineered fill and the perimeter basement walls bermed to 1st basement level with soil to support perimeter walls which would surely have failed under soil and hydrostatic loads once the horizontal support of the Hudson's internal structure was removed by the implosion.

Double column rows installed in the structure between vertical construction phases, internal brick shear walls, x-bracing, 70 elevators and 10 stairwells created an extremely stiff frame. Columns

weighing over 500 lb/ft, having up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 inch thick webs, defied commercially available shaped charge technology. CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel. CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties.

CDI's 12 person loading crew took twenty-four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

Of course, the Twin Towers destroyed everything around them. I suppose the CD advocates would say that this is because it didn't matter how the towers fell.

What none of them has been able to explain is how the work could have been accomplished, how it could have remained unseen, and how it could have withstood the damaged caused by the airplane crashes, explosions and fires.

Bright flashes from inside the building

Could have been caused by electrical cables & boxes going.

And a number of crackling sounds before the buildings collapsed.

Could have been caused by electrical cables & boxes going.

Video shows other controlled demolitions. Again, they look nothing like the WTC collapses.

What does science have to say about the collapses?

Hey, it's another article by Chris Bollyn of "American Free Press"! Remember how well he did with the Pentagon jet engine story? This oughta be good.


The collapse of the World Trade Center was picked up by Columbia University's observatory in Palisades, New York. The South Tower registers at 2.1 earthquake. The North Tower registers at 2.3 earthquake. Won-Young Kim told Chris Bollyn that their seismographs pick up underground explosions from a quarry 20 miles away.

That's nice.

These blasts are caused by 80,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate and cause local earthquakes between Mag. 1 and 2.

And? What else could cause such readings? Is the writer suggesting that 80,000 lbs of ammonium nitrate were in each of the 2 towers?

The 1993 bombing of the WTC did not even register, because it was not coupled to the ground.

False. It did register.

During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the Towers and the neighboring structures

Now check Chris Bollyn's conclusion in the American Free Press article:

I can tell you one thing: my laughter is producing about that much energy right now.

Converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage but not causing significant ground shaking.

In comparison to an earthquake. A 2.1 or 2.3 earthquake would be very small.

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

- Arthur Lerner-Lam, Lamont-Doherty seismic center, Palisades, New York.

Sorry, Chris Bollyn. Better luck next time. I hear there are openings at "Weekly World News"


Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. Told the American Free Press that in the basements of the WTC,

(Uh oh, another AFP article. Let's see if they get it right.)

Where 47 central support columns connected to the bedrock, Hot spots of "literally molten steel" were discovered more than a month after September 11th.

Loizeaux never said he saw molten steel. This was reported to him by contractors on the scene. The metal was never tested. It could very well have been aluminum, which melts at less than half the temperature of steel.

These incredibly hot areas were found at the bottoms of the elevator shafts down 7 basement levels. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed."

Speculation that it's steel. And how in the world would molten metal in basements advance the CD theory?

He said that molten steel was also found at World Trade Center 7.

Speculation that it's steel.


The highest temperature was in the east corner of the South Tower, where a temperature of 1377F was recorded.

Hot enough to melt aluminum.

The molten steel in the basement was more than double that temperature.

Speculation that it's steel. Who measured that it was double the temperature? No one.

Do you still think that jet fuel brought down the World Trade Center?

Straw man. I didn't think it did before. What about the damage and other inflammables?

NOW they include a shot with the helicopter, but again, this scene starts when the tower is already in motion.

In all the videos of the collapses explosions can be seen bursting from the buildings 20 to 30 storeys below the demolition wave.

Remember the squibs?

Really strange "squib" music playing now.


Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. And here.

Here, now! What do you expect to happen to the compressed air caused by several hundred million pounds of building coming down? That windows won't be blown out and debris ejected?

And what in the world would be the point of exploding a few random charges on random floors? That's not how demolitions are done.

Etienne Sauret was filming her documentary, World Trade Center: The First 24 Hours, and caught both collapses on tape. Watch carefully. The tripod shakes 12 seconds before the North Tower begins collapsing.

Indeed. How do yo know that someone in the room didn't shake it? Anyway, of course the building is going to shake before it comes down. What do you expect? That's a serious question. What do you expect?

And something is knocked off the right hand side of the building.

And? Are you suggesting that explosive charges went off, and that 12 seconds later the building started to fall? That would certainly be an extraordinary demolition. The seismic data clearly show vibrations from the buildings getting stronger and stronger, leading up to the collapse. This is even more prominent with WTC 7, which was rumbling for 30 seconds prior to collapse.


You're probably asking, if there were bombs in the building, how would they get in there without anyone noticing?

Speculation. I wasn't "prolly asking" that at all, because you've presented no evidence to lead me to believe that bombs were there.

Ben Fountain, a financial analyst who worked in the World Trade Center, told People Magazine that in the weeks before 9-11,

Look at the other hilarious stories that appear on the screen...probably another AFP piece.

There were a number of unannounced and unusual drills where sections of both the Twin Towers and building 7 were evacuated for 'security reasons'.

So you're saying that during those brief evacuations, teams of demolitions experts swarmed over the buildings with thousands of pounds of explosives, dismantled the area around the core to access the columns and planted their charges, and repaired everything and cleaned up? If that's what you're suggesting, you are completely insane.

There were phone threats. That's why the bomb-sniffing dogs were doing extra duty. Seems like if there were thousands of pounds of explosives in the buildings, those dogs might have detected them.

Daria Coard, a guard in the North Tower, told Newsday that security detail was working 12 hour shifts for two weeks before 9-11, but on Thursday the 6th, bomb sniffing dogs were abruptly removed from the building.

Yes, abruptly after the threats stopped.


So who authorized all this?

The head of security and recent FBI counterterrorism chief, Paul O'Neill. He had been on the job at the WTC for only a few weeks after retiring from the FBI. He died in the south tower after reentering it to help with rescue efforts. I would think that the FBI's head of counterterrorism might know of a massive conspiracy to take down the WTC, and would choose not to be in the buildings when the attack took place.

President Bush's brother, Marvin, was Board of Directors at Securacom from 1993 until fiscal year 2000.

I assume this means on the Board. This job ended in June, 2000.

Securacom, now known as Stratesec, is an electronic  security company backed by Kuwait-American corporation, which provided security for United Airlines, Dulles International Airport, and from the early 1990s up to the day of 9-11, the World Trade Center...

The UA contract was in the 1990s. The company only provided some of the security at the WTC. Marvin Bush has been on the board of many companies.

Marvin is also the former director at HCC Insurance Holdings, which insured parts of the World Trade Center on 9-11.

HCC was the smallest of the WTC's 19 insurers, underwriting $2.4 million, or 0.068% of the $3.55 billion total. The largest insurers were SR International/Swisss RE and Lloyd's Syndicate. Anyway, why would someone who insures a building want to destroy it?

More information on this was supposed to be disclosed and never was.

According to whom?

To date the SEC has not revealed what they have learned. What are they supposed to be revealing?

Man, the demerits are really piling up.

If only we could examine the debris from the World Trade Center and figure out what happened.

Experts did examine the debris. Extensively. The last steel wasn't removed from the WTC site until May 29, 2002.

Unfortunately, Mayor Giuliani began shipping the remains off to recycling yards overseas before investigators could even examine it.



Not even FEMA was allowed into Ground Zero.


"At the beginning of October, the team visited the collapsed and damaged buildings at Ground Zero and over a period of six days collected a significant amount of data on building performance under extreme conditions." Source

"Team members toured what was left of the 16-acre World Trade Center plaza, interviewed officials and eyewitnesses, and examined remnants of fallen structures at the Staten Island landfill and at salvage yards. Steel samples were cut and catalogued for further study, and some were taken back to WPI for analysis (see the "deep mystery" of melted steel)"."The investigation consisted of visiting Ground Zero, a survey of the WTC site, land-fill and steel recycling centers, review of videotape records, eyewitness accounts, interviews with building design teams, and analysis using computer models."  .Source

Essentially, they blocked off a crime scene and destroyed all the evidence.


Dr W. Gene Corley, head of the building performance assessment team, in his testimony to the House of Representatives:

"There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures". Source

Guess who was allowed into the site?
Controlled Demolition, who was also responsible for cleaning up after the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995.

"Allowed into the site?" They were the major cleanup contractor. They are acknowledged as the best in the world. Why mention the OK City bombing? What's that got to do with the WTC? Do you just like things that go boom?

It gets better than that. On July 15th, 2001.

What do you mean, "Better than that?" Better than what? Are you going to be specific at some point?

Controlled Demolition destroyed two 400 ft tall fuel reserve tanks from the World War II era.

1927 and 1949, to be specific, which wasn't the WW II era.

The demolition was conducted for no apparent reason, and drew numerous complains from the neighborhood.

You're killing me here! Killing me!

The site remains vacant to this day and a reason for the demolition has never been disclosed.

The demolition work was contracted by Keyspan Energy, which owned the tanks. They were no surprise. Public hearings were held about them. Some neighbors were concerned about possible damage to their properties. Source

We're almost an hour in. Are you going to check a single fact at some point? Even one?

Regardless, I think what happened to the World Trade Center is simple enough.

Let's hear it.

It was brought down in a carefully planned controlled demolition.

Plus, bombs were strewn all over the building. That's your "simple" explanation? Do you have any idea how huge and complex a job that would be, even if the buildings were unoccupied and the workers and work did not have to go unseen? Why not ask a demolitions expert? Nah, that would ruin your fun.

It was a psychological attack on the American People, and it was pulled off with military precision.

Okay, that convinced me. Let's move on.

<= Previous section : AA Flight 77 and the Pentagon

Next section : United Flight 93 =>

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire