Eye Witness Testimony: North Tower Collapsed From Controlled Demolition

[Jazzz]

What kind of scars? Perforated eardrums, perhaps?

So you haven't read the title post either, like editor. Jesus!

 

[Bob_the_lost]

So you haven't read the title post either, like editor. Jesus!

I'm still not getting this fire injury stuff, why would the demolitions chosen be so innefficent as to cause burns? HE does not do that, and if you're going to demolish a building you don't use black powder..

 

[KeyboardJockey]

I'm still not getting this fire injury stuff, why would the demolitions chosen be so innefficent as to cause burns? HE does not do that, and if you're going to demolish a building you don't use black powder..

You'd need an awful lot of shaped charges put in places that couldn't possibly be hidden easily. I'm looking round my office and the only way you could make it collapse is put charges on each concrete pillar and they are in full view and there are eight of them plus a central core would have to be knocked out before the building would collapse because of explosives.

I'm quite prepared to belive 15 impossible things before breakfast but I'm not prepared to belive the tin foil hattery of bombs and pods.

Maybe Starfleet or the Klingons did it as that is a bit more beliveable than some of th conspiraloon stuff I've read.

 

[editor]

So you haven't read the title post either, like editor. Jesus!

How long are you going to keep your head in the sand and ignore my questions?

Why do you choose to ignore the overwhelming tide of eye-witness accounts that make no mention whatsoever of the building being bombed to the ground with invisible explosives, preferring to base the wildest of evidence-free theories on the vaguest of statements from a microscopic handful of people?

I repeat: who put the explosives there? How come no one noticed all the explosives being carted in and the explosives experts installing them? Why didn't they all go off at once? Why does the footage show the tower collapsing from the top?

And how come the tens of thousands of eye witnesses - including firefighters, fleeing occupants of the buildings, reporters, TV crews, policemen, utility staff, passers by etc etc - aren't of the opinion that the building was intentionally blown up from within?

Were they all deaf? Or are they all in on it too?.

Please serve up a vaguely rational explanation why no one seemed to notice a building-toppling massive stockpile of explosives tearing one of the world's biggest buildings apart, please.

 

[Jazzz]

Yes please because this is laughable, piss weak stuff.

Have you ever seen a house on fire, DrJ? You'll hear explosions going off all over the place as a wide variety of inflammable goods and gases explode. Big ones too, sometimes. Considering the size of the WTC - one of the world's largest buildings, stuffed full of utilities and equipment - I'm not at all surprised that there would be load explosions going off. In fact, I'd be astonished if the thing burnt in silence.

But more importantly, how come no one else - out of all the thousands of firefighters, police, eyewitnesses, reporters etc on the scene are of the opinion that the WTC was brought down by a series of bombs?

<rest of nonsense snipped>

How many houses have you seen on fire exactly?

Because I dare say that Louie Cacchioli, being a Firefighter, has seen a few more. And note that in his report he says 'WE' not 'I'. And you accuse me of coming out with 'piss-weak' stuff!

You are saying 'no-one' else believes there were bombs or heard explosions, simply because I haven't posted them up and the mainstream media now ignores them! This is ostrich logic, editor. It's not as if you have posted a single witness report to counter any of these opinions.

Did you listen to the reporter clip?

Lt Paul Isaac Jr - Firefighter
"Many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings... but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of this fact. There were definitely bombs in those buildings."

Steve Evans - BBC Reporter
"I was at the base of the second tower, the second tower that was hit... There was an explosion – I didn’t think it was an explosion – but the base of the building shook. I felt it shake … then we were outside, the second explosion happened and then there was a series of explosions…. We can only wonder at the kind of damage – the kind of human damage – which was caused by those explosions, those series of explosions."

Guess what - lots more

You've accused me of being personally obsessed with William Rodriguez, and yet again 'conspiraloon', and of posting 'piss weak' stuff when your fingers are typing absolute garbage, and you want me to apologise for calling you a twat? Tell you what - why don't you report the post? Seems to me you can't take what you dish out.

 

[editor]

You've accused me of being personally obsessed with William Rodriguez, and yet again 'conspiraloon', and of posting 'piss weak' stuff when your fingers are typing absolute garbage, and you want me to apologise for calling you a twat? Tell you what - why don't you report the post? Seems to me you can't take what you dish out.

I sincerely hope you get over your weird 9/11 obsession because it's really quite unhealthy, especially as you've recently taken to being abusive.

Ask yourself this: how come barely a soul here believes your fruitloop claims, despite you being granted endless opportunities to trot out half-baked theory after half-baked theory, year after year?

How come zillions of highly qualified experts, engineers, construction engineers, accident investigators, scientists, boffins and specialists - and even the fucking bloke who designed the towers - don't agree with your bonkers claims, despite being infinitely more qualified than you on the subject?

Why do you think you - and the laughable UFO-naut/chem-trail sites you often source this shit from - are right and they are all wrong?

Why do you think you know more than them?

 

[oi2002]

Ah yes but just who is behind the Ikeite conspiracy loons?

Cui bono? Whipping up paranoid delusions in the masses benefits only one sinister force. There is a obvious correlation between the sales of selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors and the density of tin foil hatted tittle tattle, its it's Big Pharma of course. They're draining off our vital juices as well you know...

 

[Jo/Joe]

Shame on this forum.

This is unacceptable.

We are not immoral if we choose not to go and shake some guys hand, or if we are skeptical about his opinion of 9/11. His heroism does not make him an expert on demolition or structural engineering does it?

Surely all sorts of sounds were going off on the day that could be interpreted in all sorts of ways.

 

[tangentlama]

Paul explained that he had worked on the WTC buildings as a student architect, and he knew why the buildings had "pancaked" the way they did. He said the X-bracings on the exterior of the building were bolted, not fused. The bolts had given way. He described the towers as two white elephants - "file cabinets" which had been built in defiance of normal building codes.

http://www. paranoiamagazine.com/paulsleg.html

Gaudi design proposed for WTC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2687565.stm

 

[Jazzz]

Why do you think you - and the laughable UFO-naut/chem-trail sites you often source this shit from - are right and they are all wrong?
...
Why do you think you know more than them?

Right. William Rodriguez' - the biggest hero going of 9-11 gets jeered at on these boards, you allude to these first hand testimonies as 'shit' (so much for you taking them seriously, as you promised) and you wonder why I get a little uptight!

For someone that dishes out so many insults and repetitive abusive questioning I am incredulous that you start whining as soon as you receive a mild insult...

• One reason why I think the towers were exploded is that the eyewitness reports are consistent with it, and they contradict the official version. As we have seen on this thread.
  
• Another reason is that the towers fell in free-fall time - impossible if the structure provided any resistance.
  
• Another reason is the evidence of a 'shockwave' as the buildings collapsed (helicopter footage and eyewitness reports)
  
• Another reason is the footage showing lines of cutting charges going off
  
• Another reason is the debris being flung out horizontally - huge steels!
  
• Another reason is the fact that there were no large pieces of rubble left in the debris - how did rubble demolish the last few floors?
  
• Another reason is the pools of molten steel - as we know, the fire tempature could not have melted steel. The presence of molten steel was even confirmed by a poster on this board!
  
• Another reason is the way the official investigation was a 'half-baked farce' (Fire Engineering Magazine) where the evidence was chucked away and not tested for explosives
  
• Another reason was the seismic 'spikes' associated with the collapses - consistent with a large explosion, not a building collapse
  
• Another reason is that the fire in the South Tower was almost completely out when it collapsed. There was no 'inferno'.

Now, I call it as I see it. You suggest I should follow authority, follow the majority. Now that truly is a 'piss-weak' argument, editor, deserving of utter contempt, I'm afraid.

 

[editor]

One reason why I think the towers were exploded is that the eyewitness reports are consistent with it, and they contradict the official version. As we have seen on this thread.

Strange how all those highly qualified experts, architects, scientists, construction engineers, structural engineering experts, fire chiefs, accident investigators and the other folks who actually have relevant qualifications don't agree with your fascinating amateur meanderings, isn't it?

So exactly why do you - a veritable Dumbo when it comes to the matter of specific, related engineering, accident and architecture qualifications and experience - think you know better than all those experts who do not agree with your wild conjecture?

Why aren't they all agreeing with your analysis? In fact, why aren't any of them agreeing with your fruitloop analysis?

Are they all too stupid to see what you can plainly see from the comfort of your keyboard or something?

 

[bigfish]

... And how come no one else noticed this 'controlled explosion'?

There certainly wasn't any shortage of eyewitnesses about that day, so why aren't they supporting this story?

But other eyewitnesses accounts do support the janitors claims. Have you tried looking?

“There was an explosion – I didn’t think it was an explosion – but the base of the building shook. I felt it shake …then when we were outside, the second explosion happened and then there was a series of explosions…We can only wonder at the kind of damage – the kind of human damage – that was caused by those explosions – those series of explosions.” – Steve Evans, BBC employee commenting on the demolition of the South Tower. (Eyewitnesses Tell of Horror, BBC, September 11th 2001; online at (discontinued link) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1537500.stm

“I heard this metallic roar, looked up and saw what I thought was just a peculiar site of individual floors, one after the other exploding outward. I thought to myself, “My God, they’re going to bring the building down.” And they, whoever they are, had set charges. In fact the building was imploding down.

I saw the explosions, and I thought, ‘This is not a good place to be, because we’re too close to the building, and it’s too easy for the building to topple over.’” – John Bussey, foreign editor for the Wall Street Journal describing the demolition of the South Tower. (The Newseum with Cathy Trost and Alicia C. Shepard. Running Toward Danger: Stories Behind The Breaking News of 9/11. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002: 87

 

[bigfish]

1. What is the primary source for this claim?

2. You are not reliable as a source. (Neither is prisonplanet or any of the other sites that are regularly posted.)

Neither is the BBC, but I notice you left them of your little list.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Neither is the BBC, but I notice you left them of your little list.

So show me some links from the Beeb about how the reporter met this bloke who was abducted by aliens for me, please.

 

[Wess]

Dr J....have you spoken to anyone about these delusional fantasies?...

PM me and I'll try to put you in touch with someone that may be able to help. No promises though...I think the paranoid delusions and fantasy's are just too far out there. A Frontal Lobotomy may be the only way to remedy the problem.

 

[Wess]

Neither is the BBC, but I notice you left them of your little list.

Neither are you but you weren't on the list either.

 

[editor]

“There was an explosion – I didn’t think it was an explosion

Wow. There's a convincing start.

Do you dispute that large explosions occur when huge buildings catch on fire?

 

[Streathamite]

oh sweetjesus the 9/11 conspiranoid threads are back...
,runs and hides under bed>

 

[tangentlama]

Paul explained that he had worked on the WTC buildings as a student architect, and he knew why the buildings had "pancaked" the way they did. He said the X-bracings on the exterior of the building were bolted, not fused. The bolts had given way. He described the towers as two white elephants - "file cabinets" which had been built in defiance of normal building codes. http://www. paranoiamagazine.com/paulsleg.html

Gaudi design proposed for WTC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2687565.stm

Do you dispute that large explosions occur when huge buildings catch on fire?

I know you weren't talking to me, but I wouldn't dispute that large explosions occur when huge buildings catch on fire.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I know you weren't talking to me, but I wouldn't dispute that large explosions occur when huge buildings catch on fire.

Most wouldn't, it's only bf that seems to, possibly with DrJ, but don't quote me on the last bit.

 

[Jazzz]

Strange how all those highly qualified experts, architects, scientists, construction engineers, structural engineering experts, fire chiefs, accident investigators and the other folks who actually have relevant qualifications don't agree with your fascinating amateur meanderings, isn't it?

So exactly why do you - a veritable Dumbo when it comes to the matter of specific, related engineering, accident and architecture qualifications and experience - think you know better than all those experts who do not agree with your wild conjecture?

Why aren't they all agreeing with your analysis? In fact, why aren't any of them agreeing with your fruitloop analysis?

Are they all too stupid to see what you can plainly see from the comfort of your keyboard or something?

A veritable 'dumbo'? Well I'd have thought my As for Physics and Applied mathematics A level might take me out of that category, but this is editor we are talking about

To come out saying that the towers were demolished, you must first be prepared to consider that 9-11 was an inside job. This takes out most of them. Secondly, you must be prepared to lose your job and pension. Third, you might very well be in fear of your life. Fourth, you know you are going to get a whole load of ridicule and abuse from the likes of you.

But hey, it seems the firemen are on the conspiracy side, if you bothered to read the quotes. And of course, there's the accident investigator that seriously doubts the offial version of the pentagon crash - or did you forget him?

And I've never felt the need to follow authority and the majority view, sorry. How many times are you going to make this piss poor argument that I must? Authority and the majority view held that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, didn't it? It's up to me what I believe. It's up to others what they believe. But if you really feel the need the go along with the majority lest others like you call you a smartarse, you are not capable of indepent thought.

 

[editor]

A veritable 'dumbo'? Well I'd have thought my As for Physics and Applied mathematics A level might take me out of that category, but this is editor we are talking about

You think an A level qualifies you to claim that world-leading experts in their field have all got it wrong?!!!

Bwahahaha!

But seeing as you clearly think yourself more knowledgeable than professionals who have made a career out of their specialised expertise, perhaps you might point out the errors in these two analyses please:

http://www.iaei.org/magazine/02_d/berhinig.htm
http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

Feel free to tell me where they've got it wrong.

 

[editor]

I know you weren't talking to me, but I wouldn't dispute that large explosions occur when huge buildings catch on fire.

Indeed:

Explosion

The chances of an explosive mixture developing when gas escapes is increased. Also, there are many combustible liquids and gases that can form an explosive mixture.

For example, a central heating system uses kerosene or fuel oil; a hot water heater uses piped gas; flammable liquids often are found in a cellar. During a cellar fire, a ruptured flammable liquid container or broken gas pipe may release a flammable gas.

If mixed with air and ignited by the fire, a violent explosion will occur. Firefighters may extinguish the cellar fire and then be killed by the explosion. The definition of an explosion is the rapid ignition of a combustible gas/air mixture that results in shock waves, structural collapse and heat release.

If there were no shock waves or structural collapse, it would be called a reflash or flash fire. Explosion in cellars during firefighting operations have blown street-level, plate-glass windows into the faces of firefighters standing on the side-walk, blasted firefighters back up cellar stairways out onto the sidewalk, buried firefighters beneath collapsing masonry walls in the cellar and seriously burned firefighters near the explosion.
http://www.firenuggets.com/dunn10.htm

 

[editor]

But if you really feel the need the go along with the majority lest others like you call you a smartarse, you are not capable of indepent thought.

This from the 'independently thinking' genius who believed that an untrained pooch "proved" Huntley's innocence beyond doubt and that Vialls fucking ludicrous yarns about the child murdering scumbag being as pure as driven snow.

And then there's the laughable yarn you swallowed about an untraceable, invisible "expert" posting on an untraceable invisible bulletin board.

Oh, and who can forget the bollocks you swallowed about two near invisible Manhattan-bound aircraft supposedly flying in a dangerous and illegal formation over a population the size of greater Manchester in the rush hour?

So how many thousands of people must have witnessed this amazing, incredible sight thundering over Long Island in the middle of the rush hour?

Well, according to your "independent thought", just two people in the entire world - and they conveniently insisted on remaining anonymous while conveniently deciding to retell their vision to just one person in the whole world - a conspiraloon with a website!!!

And then there's your research-untroubled, laughable claims about "missing aircraft" (cleared up with one email by two other posters) and, well, I could go on and on and on, but it's getting boring now.

I'm seriously thinking of banning all further 9/11 threads that must repeat the same old shit all over again because it's becoming as boring as kitten threads.

But at least they were pretty to look at.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

A veritable 'dumbo'? Well I'd have thought my As for Physics and Applied mathematics A level might take me out of that category, but this is editor we are talking about

I'm with ed on this one, A level maths and physics are nothing like the degree of learning needed for this, there's a reason that most countries take five years to train a civil engineer after all.

PS. Didn't know your ears were that big, and can you really fly?

 

[bigfish]

Do you dispute that large explosions occur when huge buildings catch on fire?

Do you dispute that large explosions occur when huge buildings are demolished using explosives?

 

[Loki]

Do you dispute that large explosions occur when fucking massive fully fuel-laden jetliners are crashed into skyscrapers by suicidal terrorists at several hundred mph?

 

[Jazzz]

You think an A level qualifies you to claim that world-leading experts in their field have all got it wrong?!!!

Bwahahaha!

But seeing as you clearly think yourself more knowledgeable than professionals who have made a career out of their specialised expertise, perhaps you might point out the errors in these two analyses please:

http://www.iaei.org/magazine/02_d/berhinig.htm
http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

Feel free to tell me where they've got it wrong.

You laughter is forced - you know that you have been getting it wrong big time on this thread, firstly proposing that William's Rodriguez' testimony was unique. As each of your posts get dealt with you become more and more desperate and now you are resorting to your old appeals to authority, and... most desperate of all... back to Huntley again! I ask you!

I think we have covered useful discussion on this now, I know where further discussion with you would lead, and to be honest I can't be fucked.

But I thank you for your contributions.

 

[bigfish]

You think an A level qualifies you to claim that world-leading experts in their field have all got it wrong?!!!

You think an Art degree qualifies you to claim that (so called) world-leading experts in their field have all got it right?!!!

 

[editor]

You think an Art degree qualifies you to claim that (so called) world-leading experts in their field have all got it right?!!!

It's not me claiming that qualified experts, specialists, construction engineers, investigators, structural engineers and the architect of the WTC have all got it wrong, you utterly clueless eejit.