FDNY firemen eyewitnesses recall detonations in the South Tower:

Fireman 1: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
Fireman 2: We made it at least two blocks.
Fireman 1: Two blocks.
Fireman 2: And we started runnin'.
Fireman 1: Pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow.
Fireman 2: Floor by floor it started poppin' out.
Fireman 1: It was as if as if they had detonated, det ...
Fireman 2: Yeah, detonated, yeah.
Fireman 1: As if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom.
Fireman 2: All the way down. I was watchin it, and runnin'.

Video:
http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos...n_firehouse.mpg

----------

Eyewitness and member of the FDNY:

"We were trying to get some of the people out, but then there was
secondary explosions and then subsequent collapses."

Video: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/FDNY-explosions.mov ,
http://www.911blimp.net/videos/FDNY-explosions.mov

----------

FDNY firefighter eyewitness:

"As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway,
there was a heavy duty explosion."

Video:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/h...y.explosion.wmv ,
http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/heavy.duty.explosion.wmv

----------

The below mp3 is edited from the radio transmissions of North
Brunswick Volunteer Fire/Ladder Company #3 on 9/11 (
http://www.nbvfd3.org/nbvfd3_wtcaudio.html ). The mp3 begins with the
collapse of the south tower, at 3:23 min:sec there are three
beeps--this signifies that time has moved on roughly 20 minutes to the
collapse of the north tower.

Numerous reports of explosions are made in the transmissions. Below
are just a small sampling of quotes from this mp3:

"Tower two has had major explosion and what appears to be a complete
collapse"
"...those involved in the secondary explosion at tower 1, 'kay, I've
got five patients ..."
"We have got numerous people covered in dust from the secondary
explosion ..."
"We've got another explosion at the tower ..."

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_firefighters.mp3

----------

MSNBC reporter and eyewitness:

"At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as I got outside I heard
a second explosion and another rumble and more smoke and more dust. I
ran inside the building and the chandelier shook and again black smoke
filled the air. Within another five minutes we were covered again with
more soot and more dust. And then a fire marshal came in and said we
had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building
might not last."

Video: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.msnbc.2.wmv

----------

Video and audio clips of NBC reporter Pat Dawson reporting on the
comments made by Albert Turi, Chief of Safety for the New York City
Fire Department, claiming there were bombs planted in the WTC:

"The Chief of Safety of the fire department of New York City told me
he recieved word of the possibility of a secondary device--that is,
another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he
could, but he said that there was another explosion which took place
and according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices
that were planted in the building."

Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.reporter.1.wmv

Audio: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/S...daryDevices.mp3

----------

Eyewitness:

"I was about five blocks away when I heard explosions ... three thuds
and turned around to see the building that we just got out of ... tip
over and fall in on itself."

Video: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9...c.witness.1.wmv
, http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness.1.wmv

----------

Eyewitness:

"... and then all of a sudden it started like ... it sounded like
gunfire ... you know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang and then all
of a sudden three big explosions."

Video: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9...c.witness.2.wmv
, http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness.2.wmv

----------

Eyewitness:

"45 minutes into the taping that we were doing, there was an
explosion. It was way up where the fire was and the whole building at
that point bellied out in flames and everybody ran."

Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.reporter.2.wmv

----------

The following audio clips originate from CBS Channel 2 in New York.
The eyewitness reporter is in a helicopter as the WTC Towers collapse:

"CBS News Channel Eyewitness Describes 'Secondary Explosions' in the
WTC," Dan Perez, Prison Planet, April 27, 2004:

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/april2...yexplosions.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/Tower2Pulled.mp3 ,
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/Tower2Pulled.mp3

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/Tower1Pulled.mp3 ,
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/Tower1Pulled.mp3

----------

Eyewitness Louie Cacchioli, FDNY firefighter:

""
Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.

We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. 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 was bombs set in the building
""

"New York City--Those who escaped the carnage ran a horrifying
gauntlet," People, September 12, 2001:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010914230246/...74592-3,00.html

----------

Eyewitness Kim White:

""
Kim White, 32, an administrative assistant at Thebeast, a financial
tech company on the 80th floor of 1 World Trade Center, was talking
with an office temp when the first plane struck.

All of a sudden the building shook, then it started to sway. We didn't
know what was going on. I ran towards the reception area. It was
completely collapsed, but the receptionist was able to crawl out from
under it. People started to panic. We got all our people on the floor
into the stairwell, and then people began to calm down. At that time
we all thought it was a fire. Someone was joking, "I hope it wasn't
another bomb." Everyone was trying to keep things up-tempo. We got
down as far as the 74th floor, and someone there pulled us into their
office. They had a TV on, and we saw that a plane had crashed into the
building. Then there was another explosion, so we left again by the
stairwell.
""

"New York City--Those who escaped the carnage ran a horrifying
gauntlet," People, September 12, 2001:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010914235827/...74592-1,00.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20010914235840/...74592-2,00.html

----------

Eyewitness Neil deGrasse Tyson, Director of the Hayden Planetarium of
the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, and Vice
President of The Planetary Society:

""
4) As more and more and more and more and more emergency vehicles
descended on the World Trade Center, I hear a second explosion in WTC
2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable
-- a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion. First
the top surface, containing the helipad, tips sideways in full view.
Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style
implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point
of the explosion. A dense, thick dust cloud rises up in its place,
which rapidly pours through the warren of streets that cross lower
Manhattan.

...

6) I decide it's time to get my daughter, who was taken by the parents
of a friend of hers to a small office building, six blocks farther
from the WTC than my apartment. As I dress for survival: boots,
flashlight, wet towels, swimming goggles, bicycle helmet, gloves, I
hear another explosion followed by a now all-too familiar rumble that
signaled the collapse of WTC 1, the first of the two towers to have
been hit. I saw the iconic antenna on this building descend straight
down in an implosion twinning the first.
""

"An Eye-Witness Account of the World Trade Center Attacks from Neil
deGrasse Tyson," The Planetary Society, September 12, 2001:

http://www.planetary.org/html/society/advi...t11account.html

----------

Eyewitness Teresa Veliz:

""
"The flashlight led us into Borders bookstore, up an escalator and out
to Church Street. There were explosions going off everywhere. I was
convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone
was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. I was afraid
to go down Church Street toward Broadway, but I had to do it. I ended
up on Vesey Street. There was another explosion. And another. I didn't
know where to run."
""

"Teresa Veliz: A Prayer to Die Quickly and Painlessly" in September
11: An Oral History by Dean E. Murphy (Doubleday; 2002), pp. 9-15:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/veliz-bombs.htm

----------

Eyewitness Nadine Keller:

""
"I saw everything from my balcony in Soho. The first plane tried to
veer off the tower but slammed straight into it, followed by the
second plane," Nadine Keller of New York City wrote in an e-mail to
BBC News Online.

"There was smoke everywhere. I heard the bomb and saw both buildings
crumble like biscuits," Ms Keller said.
""

"Eyewitnesses tell of horror," BBC News, September 11, 2001:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1537500.stm

----------

Eyewitness Jeff Birnbaum, President of Broadway Electrical Supply Co.,
New York:

""
"When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most
eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a
popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it
all let go. The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building
let go. There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and
started coming down."
""

"On the Scene at the WTC," Jim Lucy, Editor, Electrical Wholesaling,
February 1, 2002:

http://ewweb.com/ar/electric_scene_wtc/

"Broadway Electrical Supply's Jeff Birnbaum recounts his experience as
an EMT at the World Trade Center on 9-11," Jim Lucy, Editor, CEE News,
February 13, 2002:

http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric...pplys/index.htm

----------

Eyewitness Robert Ivy:

""
... we felt a rumble like faraway thunder and turned. The impossible
was happening. The south tower of the World Trade Center shook, and in
what resembled an elemental act, fell to earth in a mighty shout. The
entire dissolution, the changeover from solid elements to ash, took
only seconds, and it was gone.
""

"Terror in the City," Robert Ivy, FAIA Editor-in-chief, Architectural
Record, September 12, 2001:

http://www.archrecord.com/news/fromTheFiel.../0109terror.asp

----------

The below is an interview of journalist Greg Szymanski, 9/11 hero and
eyewitness William Rodriguez, and Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan. William
Rodriguez recounts the bombs going off at various levels inside the
North Tower.

"9/11 Truth Expose," Prison Planet, June 27, 2005:

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/270605truthexpose.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/270605sept11show.mp3

----------

For more 9/11 eyewitness accounts of bombs in the towers, see the
below documentation resources:

"9/11 Firefighters: Bombs and Explosions in the WTC," What Really
Happened:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html

"Eyewitness Reports Of Explosions Before WTC Collapses," What Really
Happened:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/eyewitness.html

----------

""
... I met Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police
Officer, Paul Isaac Jr. at the World Trade Center Memorial. Paul,
along with many other firemen, is very upset about the obvious
cover-up and he is on a crusade for answers and justice. He was
stationed at Engine 10, across the street from the World Trade Center
in 1998 and 99; Engine 10 was entirely wiped out in the destruction of
the towers. He explained to me that, "many other firemen know there
were bombs in the buildings, but they're afraid for their jobs to
admit it because the 'higher-ups' forbid discussion of this fact."
Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as
the Fire Department's Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag
order down the ranks. "There were definitely bombs in those
buildings," he told me.
""

"Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a
Conspiracy Fact," Randy Lavello, Prison Planet, May 5, 2003:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lavel...0503_bombs.html

----------

In the below articles can be found the eyewitness accounts of William
Rodriguez, Felipe David, Salvatore Giambanco, and Jose Sanchez
concerning bombs going off the the World Trade Center:

"WTC Basement Blast And Injured Burn Victim Blows 'Official 9/11
Story' Sky High; Eye Witness Testimony Is Conclusive That North Tower
Collapsed From Controlled Demolition," Greg Szymanski, The Arctic
Beacon, June 24, 2005:

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/artic...18131/28031.htm

"Media Big Shots at NBC and New York Times 'Hush Hush And Evasive'
About Why WTC Janitor Story Never Appeared, A Story That Blows The
Official 9/11 Account Sky High," Greg Szymanski, The Arctic Beacon,
July 8, 2005:

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/artic...18131/28901.htm

"Second WTC Janitor Comes Forward With Eye-Witness Testimony Of
'Bomb-Like' Explosion in North Tower Basement," Greg Szymanski, The
Arctic Beacon, July 12, 2005:

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/artic...18131/29079.htm

"Two More WTC Workers Come Forward, One Seriously Burned And The Other
Hurt While Trapped In Basement Elevator, Both Claiming Massive
Explosion Took Place In Lower Levels Of North Tower On 9/11," Greg
Szymanski, The Arctic Beacon, July 13, 2005:

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/artic...18131/29110.htm

I am just passing this information on to this forum.

They say that Hell is repetition . . .

Round and round we go, where we'll stop, nobody knows...

nice compilation of data--i can asure you there will not be one civil response from those who believe the official "theory"

It doesn't matter what I believe. If you must know, I do not know what to think. I am just sick and tired of the debate. It's old and all I keep hearing is the same old crap from both sides.
Post something when it is a new development, please. That goes for both sides.

What about tower seven, wasn't someone quoted in saying "pull it" the term for a controlled demolition.

Terrified people hearing what sound like explosions in a burning, collapsing half-million ton building - gee, couldn't possibly be anything other than a bomb now, could it? Because in the twisted universe that conspiracy nutters inhabit, nobody is ever mistaken(at least when they are supporting the conspiracy theory) and nobody's words can ever be taken out of context.



That's what you call an eyewitness? Read the dates again. He wasn't even at the flippin' building during the attack!

This is typical of conspiracy nutter tactics - blinding you with BS and hoping you won't look too closely.





Well the fact of the matter is that trusses were used in the buildings, lots of them in fact. That is a matter of public record and can be confirmed by going to the engineering or architectural library of your local college/university.

Oh, and one other thing. If the bombs that brought down the building went off in the basement then why didn't the collapse begin in the basement?

Exactly

...and I think you have just provided a perfect example of both sides of the arguement being able to present the facts in a manner which supports their claims. You are correct in pointing out the dates, but all we can see from that is that he no longer worked in the fire station across the road from the towers, at no point is there any mention of his wherabouts on the day of September 11th, for all we know he may have been working, as a fireman, in another station nearby, and attended the attack, he's just as likely to have been sat at home watching TV and scratching his balls, but we cannot tell either way from what we have read. You're critisizing someone for something you do yourself.

Can I now label you a non conspiracy nutter, trying to blind us with BS?

I may be nuts, but I try to enforce a no BS policy.

But you know what? I read the order of the articles wrong. The link above that was described as being an eyewitness account, but it linked to a different article. So I thought the poster was trying to pass him off as an eyewitness when that wasn't the case.

It doesn't matter. If he had been present during the attack you can bet your ass that article would have said it. And what he said about the construction of the building shows clearly that he doesn't know what he's talking about. This whole bomb theory is completely insane. There's no evidence, just a bunch of statements taken out of context and some really sloppy science. They use this to build specious arguments that unfortunately some people buy.

no bs? --you expect us to take the words of investigators that were not present over the words of highly educated and credentialed individuals that were eye witnesses--im sorry but albert turi,paul isaac and lou cachioli are high ranking firefighters who know a bit about fires and structural collapses--to write off their testimony because of the 9/11 commission report seems naive to me--the list of highly educated and high ranking officials that do not accept the official story is immense and when the list of people including those who created the 9/11 commission report is compared to the list of those that DO NOT accept the results, it is almost laughable-in fact the people that believe the official lie do not dare assemble such a list

Simple explanation:
When a plane crashes into a building with a high speed and a huge amount of momentum, a huge amount of energy will be emitted, even though the plane hit at a rather high floor the energy would vibrate all the way down to the foundations. This could cause seemingly 'random' explosions which is simply loose kinetic energy after a huge collision.

Well one of your "highly educated, credentialed individuals" - Paul Isaac - just made a major error in describing the construction of the world trade center.

By the way, you never answered my earlier question.

some info
http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=685

Okay, i was going to leave this thread alone until I saw that.
Those were explosions, I will grant you that, but they were explosions of AIR UNDER PRESSURE.
Think about it for a moment, if that is possible. These were only sighted after the towers had started to collapse. If they were being responsible for the towers' collapse, would they not have gone off right before? Also, that is smoke you are seeing bellowing out of those windows, compound explosives do not produce that amount of smoke. This is smoke, built up from the upper levels, and not the dust from a detonation of explosive compounds.
Now try and wrap your brain around this one. When the towers began to collapse, this was a huge amount of material falling in a short amount of time, correct? Now, the floors of the WTC were huge, open areas with lots of air in them. When you suddenly compress that air, what happens? It wants to escape out the weakest point in whatever is holding it- the windows. True only certain windows on certain floors broke, but that is probably because these windows were near by other windows that had been broken out by people trying to escape. The air will naturally rush to the already open ports and not being able to get out fast enough, it will break other windows in the vicinity.
Now as for the whole argument of how jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to weaken the steel. Under most conditions, no, it cannot. However, I invite any of you with any knowledge of metalurgy or smithing to think about this while I educate those who do not have such knowledge.
Those planes crashed into the buildings, causing holes in the mid and upper floors of the WTC. The impact of the wreckage ripped away a lot of things that would insulate the steel beams and would knock around a lot of things to burn. Now you have jet fuel everywhere and burning inside. Now, don't lose me here, because this is where it gets complicated.
High winds at those altitudes drove air into the holes in these buildings. Now raise your hand if you know what this would tend to create. No one? A blast furnace, silly. More oxygen and fuel forced onto the fire makes it hotter, thereby causing it to sufficiently weaken (yes, weaken, the beams did not need to be melted to collapse) those beams thus initiating the collapses.
I invite you to debunk this one.

^Beat me to it

Actually there are two competing theories as to the main cause of the collapse. Explosives ain't one of them.

bldg 7 did not have a jet ram into it nor did it have any of the damage assciated with those types of impact(gaping hole ,stripping insulation,ect..)-it was demolishedaccording to an accidental slipped by silverstein yet the official story is they "think" it was fire--now if the official story is covering up lies about bldg7 we must deduce that the entire story is a lie henceforth we must investigate to see if there is evidence--first off highly educated fire officials that were eye witnesses claimed they heard and saw secondary explosives and some even went as far as stating "detonators...the type used to bring down a building"--now if you investigate the video of all the towers collapsing you see as pointed out by the link above--corner supports were obviously being "cut"--before the collapse even occurs a huge ball of fire is seen bellowing out the windows--i can find the thread where this was discussed and the still images are numbered and there is no doubt as to when the fire errupts out the window and the building begins to collapse--deny whats before your eyes if you choose to but the truth is even bush's own chief economist in his labor dept for his entire first term has accepted this reality--you sir are on the fringe now and the evidence speaks for itself --please comment on bldg 7

"Do not complain about anything you need not subject yourself to." - Nine Satanic Statements

Anyway, I know what caused those building to go kaboom. Big, huge, things they call airplanes. I watched it on video. It was misanthropically cool, really. I just wish children didn't have to die...as for the rest: "Go out and set them on fire!"

No, it was merely set on fire, hit by falling fragments from the million tons of debris coming down next door. Think that might had affected it? Nah.



That single statement that forms the basis of this entire theory, doesn't it?



I see. So by extension, if I prove that one of part of your theory is bunk, that discredits you completely? I'll keep that in mind.



Show me.



Maybe that's what you see, but most everyone else seems to see air being forced out of the windows as floors are compacted on top of one another.



1. High explosives alone do not cause "huge balls of fire."

2. I do not remember seeing a "huge ball of fire" bellowing fom the windows immediately prior to the collapse.



You mean Morgan Reynolds?

http://lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

So an "economist" from the department of labor thinks that the building was brought down by explosives, proving ... nothing. Do you get go to an accountant for medical advice, too?

thats funnt there were two building that were much closer that didnt belong to silverstein that caught fire and didnt collapse

actually no if you would pay attention i commented that this was an anomoly that invites further investigation which yields even more evidence

you will never be able to discredit the truth

Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department-He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit - the first crash that took place - he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.link
Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr.] explained that, “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department’s Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. “There were definitely bombs in those buildings,”link
Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.

We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. 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 was bombs set in the building.linkl


most everyone? like morgan reynolds? bush's own administration

thats where you are seriously mistaken it does not take an education of any sort to determine that explosions were used--all you have to do is pay attention to the collapses and acknowledge the tesimonies of credible witnesses--its clear as day-
note that in between frames 73-97 a ball of fire errupts from the building "after"which the towers collapses below is the video link so you can verify the timing

video link

Okay...I will refrain from name calling even though I want to so bad right here...
Anyway, look up info on commercial explosives like those that would have to be used for a demolition. They do not produce fireballs! Ever stop to think that the building began collapsing, and pushed fire some of the fire out as well?
Fire does travel downward in tall buildings as it seeks more fuel, a proven fact, ask any firefighter.
To me, those pictures just confirm my previous statements.

no but if detonators were used to take out the core and small fires were still burning it would produce the effect witnessed--the backdraft excuse is destroyed once you realize that the balls of fire in question were produced "before" the collapse--some more people with better credentials than you--all discrediting the official story is some way
****************************
Bill Manning, editor of the 125-year-old monthly that frequently publishes technical studies of major fires--Calls for Comprehensive Investigation of WTC Collapse-A group of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, with backing from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has been studying some aspects of the collapse. But Manning and others say that probe has not looked at all aspects of the disaster and has had limited access to documents and other evidence. A growing number of fire protection engineers have theorized that "the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers," the editorial stated.
*************************************
Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories -The following letter was sent today to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers.-
There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. 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. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. 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. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans.
********************************
USAF Col. George Nelson (ret.), a 30 year veteran, aircraft accident investigator and expert in aircraft maintenance and aircraft identification, stunned the Power Hour listeners by stating that in regard to the 911 attack at the Pentagon, “I didn’t see any damage on the sides of that hole, anything that would say that an airplane that size could have gone through a 16 or 18 ft. hole.” He was referring to the hole seen at the Pentagon before the collapse of the e-ring. He went on to say, “There would be large parts of that wing lying on the ground on the outside. It wouldn’t all go through that hole…It is impossible for all of the time change parts that have these serial numbers that are trackable to the specific aircraft,… it is impossible for them to be totally destroyed where these serial numbers could not be read.” www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm

Okay, I have a bit of a problem with this.
How does any of the 'reports' and 'evidence' you provide show there were bombs in those buildings? All it says are theories (granted, based on evidence I have not had access to, so I must include the possibility that they are false) that tell that the temperature in there was barely high enough to melt lead.
Also, softening metal is different than weakening it. If those planes in any way struck the core of those buildings, the massive force of the impact alone would have changed the properties of that section of steel (not to mention bending it). That kind of stress on beams not meant to carry that kind of load while bent will eventually take their toll.
ANyway, what I am saying is, that when forming a theory, use the scientific method, do your research on ALL aspects of the hypothesis at hand (not just those that support your case) then come to a conclusion. So far, it only looks to me what you have got is a loose hypothesis based on some questionable facts. Please follow the scientific method of research and follow these steps. I have done the same thing with the WTC towers and have come up with inconclusive results.

i know its a hard pill to swallow but the truth is as you dig deeper you find that the architec and construction manager both(minoru yamasaki,frank demartini) readily claimed that it could indeed withdstand "multiple impacts" from 707 jets that,although not as big,have a higher top speed and fuel capacity giving them a "higher" potential energy rating--when you factor in the motive of an oil pipeline that the taliban opposed worth an est 6 trillion with a "t"-haliburton and defense contracts worth 280 billion to date--the fact that the first plane flew directly over indian point nuclear facility and the second could have just as easily targeted the facility as the first shows an ulterior motive that did not included decimating the us-which a real terrorist would have done--norad standing down and not protecting the pentagon which was attacked 48 min after the "second" attack at the wtc complex--pools of molten steel--bldg 7 --bush's executive order w 199i signed three months before 9/11 ordering fbi special agent to desist investigating bin laden--silverstein "suddenly" purchasing tower 1 and 2 just two months before 9/11 and re-insuring them with a special terrorist clause that turned his 200 million investment into a 3 and maybe 7 billion dollar insurance pay off --the firefighter witness testimonyof secondary devices and "detonaters,the typed used to bring down a building",ect,ect,ect...

Thank-you so much, with out even knowing it, You have proven once again the tower's came down because of the attack and not do to a bomb.If you were going to post something, about how the goverment did this, i HATE to tell you, it did not work!!!

Aw...look! Someone's argument is falling apart.

They always do, There is no argument when your information is based on BS, and misreads. This people want to believe the goverment did this, there fore they read and see what they want not what is really there.

Actually, what you see in those video frames is the result of the floors above collapsing, causing a downrush of air and subsequent backdraft in the lowest floor which was on fire. It's actually proof that, as everyone saw at the time, the building collapsed from tbne top first.

Can i just mention one thing its probably been mentioned in previous posts but when then towers collapsed why was all the metal sold and shipped off straight away this was a crime scene and everything should have had forensic tests no matter how long it took, what were they hiding?

Ok, what proof do you have that it was sold right away?
And as for being shipped off, it was all shipped off to a landfill in Jersey where they would have the room to look it over piece by piece.

its was a crime scene it shouldn't have been shipped off anywhere

Yes, it was a crime scene, and yes, it should not have been shipped off, but it HAD to be shipped off.
I invite you to sift through god knows how many tons of metal and concrete to find little shreds of evidence without taking it somewhere where you could lay it out and compare peices and take notes in a safe environment.
By your reasoning, they should just reconstruct airplanes right at the scene of a crash. People die in those disasters and in every state of the US, whenever someone dies in any sort of an incident, the place is considered a crime scene. Yet, they take the airplanes to hangars and rebuild them there then find out what happened, in a clean, safe environment where tiny pieces of evidence can be more easily seen. Are you saying they should not have done the same thing in the case of the WTC?

And I repeat my question. What evidence do you have that the metal was sold right away?

Yes, some of the WTC steel was inappropriately shipped off - I read an editorial in a fire science magazine a few years ago complaining about that. But some steel was saved and tested in the course of the investigation.

As with many conspiracy theories, there is a kernel of truth somewhere in it. But it's just a kernel, and they warp and twist it into something unrecognizable.

well the kernel in question happens to be a federal offense--guiliani was responsible and even though he was the prosecuting district attorney in ny for years he claims that he didnt know he was supposed to save the debri--or was there another reason? this image from the oklahoma murrah bombing has an unusual piece of plastic covering a large piece of concrete slab that had shorn --accident? ha right --it obvious they were hiding something--oklhoma was exposed long ago as being an inside job where demolitions were used--if your curious check gen.benton k partin's name in the whistle-blower thread--coincidentally evidence from the waco seige had been destroyed in the ok bombing but it pales in scope to the evidence that was lost in the wtc 1) the case against Mobil Oil and James Giffen on illegal oil swaps between Iran and Kazakhstan (at that time before a New York grand jury as described in great detail by Seymore Hersh in the July 9 New Yorker magazine); and, even more important, 2) the evidence in the
investigation of gold price fixing stemming from charges brought against
Alan Greenspan, Morgan & Comapy, Goldman Sachs.

I'm starting to piece together some info on the actual groups involved and methods used in planting the explosives in the building. There are very strong Mafia links involved in the construction and maintenance of the WTC, AND the disposal companies that did the illegal removal of the rubble. I hope to start a thread on it soon, once I have more info.

Aw, isn't that cute...he will get back to us when he has the evidence...Any real timeframe (even an estimate) on when that will be?

I already have some documentation - it's not too "cute", buddy. It goes to the murders of three thousand people in the WTC. If it matters to you (likely not) I'll post it within the next week or so.

On a side note here............

I personally can't wait until someone here comes up with the theory that bombs weren't planted in London, but it was actually huge 747's that were the weapons.

You mean when you make up something plausible, right?

Anything can be plausible, you just need to get enough people to buy it (through alleged expert testimony [or here in the states, speculation])for it to become "fact."

Anything else then, is immediately written off as hogwash. Not even considering the other side of the story? Programmed, I say.

And are you any less programmed than I am by the half-truths and junk science used by the conspiracy theorists?
Like you, I use my brain. Unlike you, I use it to put the facts together, not make up my own.
Oh, one more thing. WHy is it that there are as many different conspiracy theories for a given situation as there are conspiracy theorists?

Who the hell do you think you are? Do you know me personally and know for sure what I research and what writers I follow? I most certainly think not.

And where do you get your facts?

What makes you think that your facts are full of more truths than the facts I acquire?

Who is to determine the true face of junk science?

It's neither of us. We can argue over what we believe to be the truth all day long, and we both will probably be a mile away from what's truly going on. We don't know because we're not important enough to know. But how can you discredit all conspiracy theories without even the slight consideration that you may be wrong? Especially considering that our best sources into the true motive of governing bodies come from those who have been important enough to know.

The way I see it, if a man works for The Man, then speaks out against The Man and gets murdered for it (Phil Schneider, Ron Brown, etc.), then that's a pretty substantial sign that there's something we're not supposed to know.

Logic and common sense shouldn't be overturned by misleading reports and tv news speculation.

I get my facts from the same places you do, though I think you pick up some extra 'facts' along the way.
As for junk science, there is a proven methodology (called the scientific method) used to uncover the truth. Any scientific investigation (or any investigation) that does not use this method is garbage. You will arrive at conclusive results, but not the truth because you did not investigate it fully.



How can I discredit them? Well, let's see. Let me think. Oh, I know! It's because all of you work from a core of incomplete facts and then twist it from there to form your own little version of what happened. Like I said before, for every theorist, there is a different theory. Think about how that applies to the credibility of your 'truths' for a moment.



Well, it is a good thing I don't watch TV then eh? Oh, one more thing, what did this...

...have to do with anything? I am well aware of people being 'silenced'. But is it government or just some wacko who wanted to off someone? It's not proof of anything other than they are dead.

This theory
can apply to ANYONE who has died of anything other than natural causes! This does NOT suggest and certainly NOT prove and theory!

I pick up only the facts with substantial proof. No extra facts.

When someone very very close to me tells me about being inside underground bases to inspect the water systems and having to go through 6 or 7 guarded and wired barriers, seeing nothing but guards with guns and empty prison cells, I tend to get the impression that something is going on.

When I'm told that this is supposed to be of limited knowledge, I know for a fact that something is going on.

I'm not saying I'm one of these idiots who spout off every piece of random information they read, believing it whole-heartedly as the truth. I am most definitely not. They say that there are two sides to every story and in between lies the truth. I generally accept that as how things are. I'm not saying that the reported agenda of the NWO is what is truly in effect. I'm saying that you can't deny the bonds that hold the group of super-elite in this country. The members of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Tri-Lateral Commission and Bilderberg Group....how could they all have these great connections without something suspicious going on?

If you've found complacency amongst the irregularities, that's fine. But don't tell me I'm wrong for believing otherwise. That's like me telling you that whichever religion you follow is wrong because there is no creator.

To each his own, I suppose. I've been up for too long and no longer find this debate important enough to stay awake.

In conclusion, however, I'll say this. You can discredit the NWO theory all day. You have that right. If you're right (which I certainly hope you are), and there is no such thing as a world takeover, then definitely good for us. Awesome. One last thing to worry about. But as long as the stories that come out have some valid points, I'm going to keep an open mind because I truly am ignorant. I've seen a few things more than the average person, but I'm still left in the dark.

But then again, unless you're a member of the ruling class, you are also.

Anyone who will accept the FBI finding Atta's passport a couple blocks from the WTC rubble as any sort of "proof" of the official 9/11 story is not someone I would credit with any use of their brain.

Same with anyone not wondering about the official FBI list of 19 hijackers being totally inaccurate. And the fake impostor Bin Laden claiming he did it video. And the stand down. And the destruction and confiscation of evidence.

"Lobotomies - come get your free lobotomies here!"

The same can be said of the conspiracy therorist!

just to clarify the misconception that a large aircraft has never struck a tall building --here is a reminder that shows it "has" happened before with much different results--
The Facts:

On Saturday, July 28 1945 a B-25 bomber, lost in fog, crashed straight into that era’s world’s tallest building – the Empire State building. For many people today, this disaster foreshadows the chilling events of September 11, 2001. But in 1945, many things were different. Human error, not hatred, caused the disaster. In the low fog, the pilot became disoriented and crashed into the 78th and 79th floors of the Empire State. Luckily, because it was Saturday, only 1,500 out of the average 10,000 workers were in the building. Still, 14 people lost their lives after the plane and both of its engines plowed a hole in the Empire State.
cont...

The B-25 is hardly what I would call a large plane. While bigger than your average cropduster, it was puny compared to the other bombers of WWII, and the large bombers of WWII were small compared to today's airliners. The incident mentioned also happened while the pilot was lost in the fog while trying to land. He wasn't going top speed, which for this plane would have been much lower than a jet airliner also.

Not only that, but you have to take into account the structure of the Empire State Building itself. The thing is like a giant steel cage. if one part takes an impact, then the rest can still stand on its own.
A building like the WTC towers are much less capable of handling that sort of stress. The impact they took was a lot more forceful, higher mass hitting at higher velocity, which equals FUBAR for whatever is in its way, which in this case was unfortunately people and buildings.