Were There Bombs in the World Trade Center?

No.  As in my previous 9/11 twoofer post, it is quite easy to answer the “questions” being brought out by loose change.  The first piece of LC’s controlled demolition theory saw Dylan Avery and co. badly abusing firefighter’s descriptions of what they experienced that day.  It’s worth pointing out now that Lou Caccioli, the firefighter Avery quotes, has come out multiple times saying he believes the official story and never meant to add credence to the twoofer movement.  Here, Avery continues to misuse firefighter statements (halfway into this clip, it moves on to flight 93, which I’ve already covered):

The first thing that sticks out to me–after more blatant twisting of the way firefighters described what they saw and heard–is Avery claiming that the 1993 truck bombing of the WTC didn’t register on seismographs.  As a matter of fact, this is another patent lie.  It DID register.  In fact, Arthur Lerner-Lam, the man whose words Avery again takes out of context, had this to say: “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.”  I’d like Avery to explain how a seismograph picking up nitrate explosions in mines proves the controlled demolition theory.  What, pray tell, would you expect to happen when a 110-story skyscraper collapses to the ground?

Then, it comes out: Avery’s news articles are all directly from the American Free Press.  For those who are unaware, the American Free Press is not a legitimate news organization aligned with the AP (as if that would give it too much more credibility).  It’s an anti-gay, anti-Semitic, conspiracy-pushing rag that has not a single expert on its staff.  This little tidbit should put Avery’s “work” sharply into focus.

“Hotspots of literally molten steel” was never reported by Mark Loizeaux.  It was inexperienced contractors who said they saw molten steel; since they didn’t test the metal, you can’t come to that conclusion.  And I have to point out here that controlled demolition wouldn’t have melted steel, either, so it’s difficult to honestly follow Avery’s line of reasoning.  And yes, Dylan, I do think jet fuel played a major role in bringing down the towers.

NOW come the “squibs.”  Avery tries to tell us that detonating charges blew out of the building several floors below the collapse zone; unfortunately for him, there’s a more honest reality to this.  As the building collapsed, the air sealed inside was being compressed.  It had to go somewhere.  It took the path of least resistance, wich in this case was–you guessed it!–the windows.

It’s awful damn hard not to get really sarcastic at these points.  DUH.

And I’d really like to know why Avery points out that the camera tripod shakes before the collapse.  The camera seems to be quite a distance away…did someone bump the tripod?  Was it windy?  Where was the camera set up?  There are so many different explanations for this it’s just plain silly.

How DID the bombs get into the building, Dylan?  The explanation given by Loose Change doesn’t add up.  Here’s why: when Controlled Demolition, Inc. was asked to demolish a 32-story hotel in Chicago, it took a large team working for two weeks straight, without a day off, working 12- to 16-hour days to rig the building for demolition.  That’s less than one third the height of the WTC.  And in order to do this, they would have had to dismantle the area around the core–at the bottom of the building–and put it all back together.  Do you think this could possibly go unnoticed?  If they had a crew of two hundred, it would have taken well over a month to rig those towers the way they would have had to be rigged.  And they sure as hell wouldn’t have fallen the way they did, which was from the CRASH SITES, not the bottom of the building:

And the theory that Marvin Bush was “head of security” is absolutely hysterical.  Marvin, the brother of President Bush, was on the board of directors for Securacom.  He was NOT involved in heading the actual security for the WTC.  Even at that, his job with the board ended in June 2000, more than a year before the bomb-sniffing dogs were “abruptly removed.”  (The dogs were there in the first place because of phone threats, possibly made by the hijackers.)

The claim that Giuliani had the debris shipped to scrapyards overseas before it could be examined is also an outright lie.  Giuliani was a piss-ant; he couldn’t have ordered anything remotely like this as Avery claims.  In fact, FEMA was onsite immediately after the incident and NIST still has a large amount of debris.  A great deal of it, including a destroyed FDNY engine and a beam, is in a museum near the footprints of the WTC.  In the wake of 9/11, Giuliani couldn’t have blown his nose near that site without permission from FEMA.

What’s infuriating to me is that despite the very well-tested answers given to Avery and his twoof bwigade, they continue to spew the same rhetoric, distort the truth, and claim it’s the truth they’re after.  Not one credible expert has supported these nutball ideas.  Van Romero, also quoted by Loose Change, was very upset about being used.  What about Kevin Ryan, from Underwriters Laboratories?  First of all, UL didn’t certify the steel used to build the WTC, and they said so in a statement.  Second, Ryan didn’t work with steel; he worked in the water testing department.  He was fired after making a bogus statement about the incident, claiming that he had personal knowledge through his work at UL that proved the controlled demolition theory.  Ryan was fired–because, like all of us who work for major corporations, he was not authorized to make any statement, but he did so anyway.  And his statement was erroneous.

Here’s a video comparing the Chicago demolition and the collapse of the WTC:

The truth is out there.  They just don’t want to admit it.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Were There Bombs in the World Trade Center?

  1. Another neocon crash dummy talking. The guy is in total denial.

    For WTC 7, the best explanation that the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) came up with is that the failure of a single support causing a chain reaction resulting in a catastrophic collapse of the entire building. And what caused the failure of the supporting member? An office fire! That means that dozens of high rise buildings built with the same design are in danger of total collapse because of uncontrolled fires.

    I wonder how that alleged design defect will affect insurance premiums. Probably nothing. I doubt that the insurance companies ever took the NIST report seriously.

    What needs to be done is a real life simulation of a high rise building collapse . Use any such steel structure building ready for demolition and take out all of the supporting members for say two the three floors using cutter charges. See what happens when the upper floors descend on the still standing lower floors.

    If the official is correct, then the entire building will turn to dust. If not, more research needs to be done to explain what happened to the buildings on September 11,2001.

  2. Actually, they said it was a few things that caused WTC7 to collapse. When you say it was just and office fire, it sounds absurd to believe that’s all it would take to collapse. That’s exactly what you twoofers like to do, though–you twist things to sound a certain way to win converts.

    It wasn’t just any standard office fire. The building’s south face had a hole scooped out of it, and the firefighters were unable to fight the fire at all. When you badly damage a building then allow it to burn for seven hours, not fighting the fire at all, then YES, the building is likely gonna fall.

  3. You are absolutely wrong! Read the report.

    All other causes were eliminated by NIST, including controlled demolition and physical damage caused by the collapse of the towers.

    Yes it is absurd. A failure of a single supporting member lead to failure of adjoining members which collectively cascaded all the way up the building to the penthouse. The entire building from the 8th floor up with no inner support resulted in the entire building collapsed at free fall speed.

    Think of the implications if NIST were taken seriously. Suppose a large office building with a similar flawed design were to have an extensive office fire. Imagine fire fighters arriving at such a building on fire and refusing to enter the building on the basis that it it could come down on their heads at anytime.

    What needs to be done is for the civil engineer and architect professional societies to form a studies with the goal to validate or invalidate the NIST conclusion. Meanwhile, the armchair quarterbacks can continue debating the issue without consensus.

  4. Bill –

    I think Bill Maher summed it up to 9/11 truthers:

    “Stop asking me to cover this ridiculous topic and start asking you Doctor if Paxil is right for you.”

  5. Steve, I don’t know what makes you so stupid, but it really works! It seems that this discussion is way over your head. That’s OK. The world pities dummies like you. Hey, the next time you you lock yourself inside your car and cannot figure out how to get out, just call 911. They will tell you what to do.

  6. Bill, to answer your previous concern about similar buildings, there is a lot more that went into that decision. There was a hell of a lot more going on at Ground Zero, and with the damage AND the fires, it just wasn’t safe anymore.

    As to your last comment, say something intelligent rather than making it personal. You’re just proving our point for us.

  7. Whooo! What decision? Do you know something that the rest of us don’t know?
    In other words, are you implying that a decision was made that day to “pull” the building down because of a perceived extensive damage to the building? That would have been the worst insurance fraud in history.

    It also would have been damn near impossible. It would take at least a week for a large team of highly skilled demolition experts with full access the building to wire it up for demolition. Considering that, what would be the purpose of wiring the building with explosives and blowing it up later that day? Wouldn’t that be kind of suspicious? Hmmm.

    The answer is that WTC7 was supposed to have been hit by a third airplane that never arrived, being the last of the three flights that arrived at the scene, either AA 11, UA 175, or UA 93. That is, priority was given to hit the twin towers and then WTC 7 last. The event was staged in the morning in order in order to avoid delays to to air congestion. But the planners of the event overlooked one thing. Flight 93, which was scheduled for departure at 7:59 AM was 45 minutes late leaving the gate due to delays in removing construction equipment off the tarmac (from overnight runway construction). By the time flight crew lost control of the airplane, it was too late to head back to the Big Apple, as the airplane would surely be intercepted. So it wandered in the skies over Pennsylvania until it was shot down.

    Oops. Now with WTC7 now wired up with explosives, the planners had to do something to destroy the evidence. Using whatever resources were available at the site, incendiaries were set in order to give the impression of uncontrolled fires. Detonation was set at 5:20 PM that day. Apparently the BBC was informed of the building collapse 20 minutes before it happened. Oops! Another slip.

    Your problem is that you are in a state of denial.

    Now about poor Steve. Wouldn’t you consider his comment “I think Bill Maher summed it up to 9/11 truthers: ‘Stop asking me to cover this r idiculous topic and start asking you Doctor if Paxil is right for you.’” kind of being “personal” implying some sort of mental health disorder?

    You don’t need to answer by saying he was just being “satirical.” It is a typical hypocritical Neocon response to avoiding taking responsibility for their actions.

    It all leads to one thing and that is you can dish it out but you cannot take it!

  8. Hooooo, boy. ‘Nother twoofer case of putting words in another person’s mouth. Before I answer your first idiotic remark, bear in mind that I’m about to finish a degree in fire science and I’m training to be a firefighter. I already have more education than a lot of bottom-rung firefighters have.

    The DECISION I mentioned was the one made by the fire department. That day they had a lot of decisions to make. No, I did not refer to any other decision. At some point, they had to consider a number of factors. First and foremost was the fact that two 110-story buildings had collapsed and severely damaged all of the surrounding smaller buildings, including WTC7. The South face of the building had a hole in it, and the building had not been designed with that sort of damage in mind; it wsan’t built to take that kind of abuse. If it had, it’d have been build with central and external support columns, in which case it likely would have remained standing.

    But the fire commanders had to consider that, along with the extensive fires in the building. Was it safe to continue fighting that fire? They’d already lost entire engine companies to the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, so they were going to be quite wary of what else could be mortally dangerous to the remaining men. It’s never easy to admit loss and stop fighting a fire and it’s a decision firefighters rarely make. In this case, they didn’t even have room to continue fighting the fires defensively due to the enormous piles of rubble in the way.

    So the decision I refer to was the one made to keep firemen safe and stop fighting the fires in a building that was no longer believed to be stable due to damage. Talk about a slip.

    You give your theory about what happened to WTC7 as if it were glaring fact. Where the hell is your evidence? What incendiary material was used? A rudimentary chemical like gasoline? Or was it more complicated substance, like white phosphorus, magnesium, or some kind of combustible hydrocarbon? Oh, wait, I forgot you twoofers like thermite as your answer. If that’s the case, where is your evidence? Do you have some kind of residue from the debris to prove your theory? Have you even seen the debris? I’d guess you don’t. Whoops!

    As for the BBC announcing the collapse 20 mins prior, they have repeatedly admitted that the announcement was made in error. There were all kinds of rumors flying that day, and in the confusion a lot of things got mixed up by everybody there. They weren’t the only reporters to make that kind of mistake. You can’t latch onto one thing and call it solid evidence when you have nothing that really proves it.

    In reality, all you have are theories and conjectures, ideas that you’ve decided to pass off as fact because you just don’t want to believe that it really happened. Denial is a sad state to be in.

    Every single time you’ve posted so far, you’ve insulted somebody. You came out of the gate by calling me a “neocon crash test dummy.” Steve was making mention of the fact that you simply couldn’t come up with anything to refute the arguments given with evidence as strong as ours and you kept harping on the same things as if it were the gospel truth. I can’t take it? If you were capable of “taking it,” you’d calm down and quit ranting and raving like a lunatic.

    You STILL have not come up with anything even remotely close to making me believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Try again, shortbus!

  9. OK Mr. Mel, let me try to address the main points as I attempt to parse through your ramblings.

    What fire department would ever want to hire a dumbo like you? Why on earth did you bring the topic of bringing WTC7 down without qualifying it? What you really did was mislead the reader and it had nothing to do with the topic. The fire department could not fight the fire because the water main was cut off (that is why the sprinkler system did not work per NIST). That is why WTC7 continued burning.

    As for the explanation for the destruction of WTC7 that I gave is based on the following assumptions: (1) UA 93 was wandering in the Pennsylvania skies without a mission because it was 45 minutes late leaving the gate, and (2) the building was destroyed by controlled demolition later that day. I am relying on plain logic. My explanation of how WTC7 fell is a lot more believable than a relatively small fire bringing the entire building down.

    How could the BBC report be a mistake when the background showed WTC7 standing? What is the probability of that happening? Maybe the reporter traveled through time , took a look, and returned with the news.

    As for insults, the reference “twoofer”, in the original article is, in itself, an insult to folks like Dylan Avery. That’s OK by you, right? And then when you feel that one of your comrades got his/her feeling hurt, you heart bleeds with sorrow.

    The bottom line is that that lowlife Neocons can dish it out but can’t take it.

    Grow up! Take responsibility. Get a job if you can. And move out of your parent’s basement. Do something useful.

  10. Mr.? Check the picture, numbnuts. I am a WOMAN. Anyone mildly observant would have seen that.

    Sprinklers are a help, but they’re generally intended to stop a fire BEFORE it becomes major. The fact remains that the damage made the fires too dangerous to fight. It was NOT the damaged water main that made it impossible to fight the fires. If the building had been more stable, they’d have been able to fight whatever fire was in it, sprinklers or not. You can see this evidence in the OTHER HIGHRISE FIRES YOU IDIOTS POINT OUT IN ATTEMPTING TO PROVE YOUR ILL-CONCEIVED POINT.

    Dumbo? Is that the best you can do? Every time you throw something at me, I prove you wrong. But I don’t suppose that could possibly be because I actually have an education in the subject, unlike you.

    You still haven’t answered my questions about solid evidence. Where’s the residue? Where’s the smoking gun proof that incendiaries were used? Flight 93 was not “wandering” the skies, either. It was making a beeline for the US Capitol building. The only reason it didn’t get there was because the passengers fought back.

    Relatively small fire? That’s a hoot. If you look at ANY of the pictures from that day, the entire South face of the building is belching black smoke into the air. That’s not what we call a “relatively small fire.” If that was a small fire, then the College Hills fire was just a hiccup.

    What part of “rumor” did you not grasp? There were rumors flying all day. There was a rumor at one point just after the Pentagon was hit that it was a helicopter that someone had seen land moments before Flight 77 crashed. There were rumors of secondary devices that might have been on the planes with the hijackers. There were rumors that Iran had something to do with it. Since the BBC reporter was from ENGLAND, I don’t suppose he’d have known which building was WTC7 anymore than I would have at that point. Reporters said all kinds of things, including that Flight 93 had been shot down. That didn’t make it true.

    Uh, where was the bleeding sorrow? My main point, in case you missed it (likely since you have an IQ of 2) was that you need to come up with something fresh and make your point in a civil manner instead of simply insulting everyone. That’s not going to make anyone want to listen to you any more than Dylan Avery (who has called me many names over the past couple of years) wants to listen to me call his movement “twooferism.” Nobody made it directly personal until YOU got here, so STFU.

    Okay…get to know me before you toss ridiculous insults out there:
    -I do not live with my parents. I pay my own damned bills because I like my freedom.
    -My degree in fire science will not be the first degree I’ve earned. I’m also well educated in History and English.
    -If you’ll read my profile before speaking, you’ll find that I’m currently working as a fraud investigator AND an EMT.

    Do not talk to me about responsibility when you are partially responsible for denying the very real threat to this country by disseminating vicious lies based on little more than a shaky theory.

    It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. Here, there is nary a doubt in anyone’s mind.

  11. According to the NIST report, a working sprinkler system would have prevented the collapse of the WTC7.

    I could give a rat’s ass whether you are a woman or a man. So what? That’s irrelevant. However, looking at your picture, you might get a job at the fire department if you wear a long sleeve shirt at the interview.

    The crimes that occurred on September 11, 1001, at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Shanksville, Pennsylvania, were not thoroughly investigated. As a criminal investigator surely you would want evidence at a crime scene preserved. Yet NIST eliminated the possibly of controlled demolition because, it claimed, virtually all of the evidence was removed and subsequently destroyed. Historical accounts by firefighters and other emergency workers, released by New York City, tell of hot molten metal in the underneath the rubble of all three buildings. Could a fire have melted the steel? Could an office fire produce streams of molted metal seen shooting (on video) out of the sides of WTC1 and WTC2?

    A thorough objective criminal investigation needs to be conducted on the crimes that occurred on that day.

  12. Yes, but the only reason for that would have been the instability of the building making conditions unsafe for firefighters.

    Long-sleeved shirt? Really? I’ll keep that in the back of my mind, buddy. The thought had crossed my mind once or twice (and is largely the reason why I’ll never tattoo my hands or neck), but I’m so glad you pointed that out to me. What would I have done without that advice?

    The crime scene was as preserved as it could have been. As a crime investigator and a rescuer, saving lives would have come first. The evidence was not destroyed; in fact, it was picked through with a fine-toothed comb. Some of it, after being examined, was placed in a museum near Ground Zero. Don’t tell me you’re one of those who believes piss-ant Giuliani ordered it all hauled to recycling plants…?

    Fire didn’t melt steel, and nobody has claimed such. There were other metals in the towers, such as aluminum, iron and other alloys. Don’t you think it’s possible that those are the metals that did melt? And I don’t believe it was molten metal spewing from the tower in that video; I believe they’re sparks from an electrical station that blew out.

    The video footage proves that planes did hit the buildings. The planes ripped massive holes in the major support columns. With that sort of trauma to the building, the remaining supports expanded and sagged, and they could no longer hold up the tremendous weight above the holes. Doesn’t that sound at the very least plausible to you? If it WAS a setup, then why would they need to rig the buildings for demolition when the planes would have done the job nicely?

    One major glaring problem with all of the CT’s about 9/11, though, is witnesses. Something like this would have produced thousands of ’em. One thing I’ve learned is that every single crime that involves more than one perpetrator ALWAYS produces someone willing to tell the story. Do you honestly believe that a “crime” this enormous, which would have required thousands to pull off, wouldn’t have pricked the conscience of a few? If so, where are they?

    The President can’t even get a blow job from a two-bit intern without the whole of America knowing about it. There ain’t a snowball’s chance in hell they could have kept something like this quiet.

  13. I really believe that these truthers ( knuckleheads ) do not believe this crap at all. Their just trying to piss people off.

    I mean look at their point. Two huge commercial jetliners roaring around 400 to 500 MPH, carrying 20,000 gallons of aviation jet fuel, slam into the world trade centers, weighing in at around 130 tons each could possibly be the cause. DUH….. they know better, they just hate the U.S, and all the presidents men.
    Talk about a bunch of meatheads…lol………!!! Okeeeee, Bush did it…lol…..lol…..!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s