UPI Hears ... (WTC Likely a Planned Demolition)

[Benhurst]

A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling." Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."

more:

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050613-102755-6408r.htm

[amazona]

1. we all saw two planes hit these buildings

Maybe we'd better wait for a better source than the Washington Times?

[AX10]

3. True

[Viva_La_Revolution]

4. I just saw 'Loose Change" last night....

The video clips in that movie definitely look like controlled demolitions to me. Have you seen it?

[tinrobot]

39. If it was explosives then why bother with airplanes?

Explosives alone would have done in the buildings, why complicate matters by adding in the uncertainty of a hijacking?

-- Planting explosives in a public building is difficult enough.

-- Successfully hijacking an airplane is difficult.

-- Piloting a hijacked airplane to hit the buildings is more difficult.

-- Hitting the buildings with the airplanes at or near the point where the explosives were placed is incredibly difficult.

Multiply all the difficulties together and it gets awfully close to impossible for a theory involving explosives to fit the facts. I think the simplest explaination applies here - we all saw the planes hit the building. Once they hit, the collapse was inevitable.

If there is a conspiracy - it is in how those airplanes were hijacked and got to the point where they hit the buildings.

[librechik]

63. Bldg Seven was never hit by a plane

And those planes in particular have remote control piloting built in to the standard designs. Highjacking was not the point. Distraction and deception was.

[Ezlivin]

71. Classic distraction

How can they level WTC with explosives and blame it on terrorists?

If we all see planes fly into the buildings, it becomes much easier to believe the official story of collapse. We are left to argue among ourselves over the real cause.

However, if the WTC was brought down with explosives, it would require such precise placement that we would all demand a thorough investigation.

The planes flying into the buildings was such a shock we were willing to believe the official story without question. While we were in "shock" they quickly carted off the debris and disposed of it (keeping select pieces for their later investigations).

[unblock]

5. but ... the moonie times is normally solidly in the shrub camp

so when they say something that goes against the official shrub party line, it has more credence.

then again, maybe they found some damaging psychological history on this guy and are waiting to put an end to all mihop theories with a well-timed leak,....

[The Doctor.]

29. Yeah - I'm curioous about this too.

You never see anything anti-Bush from WT.

Either this is a set-up, or Moon intends to make a big move.

Whether this guy is discredited or not won't matter if this accidentally gets people looking at the problem... therefore I'm not so sure it'll be 'accidental'.

Say... could Moon harness the collapse of the BFEE somehow?

[yodermon]

59. The moonie times IS usu. in the shrub camp.

Which is why this newspaper article has always intrigued me:



http://www.thelawparty.com/FranklinCoverup/franklin.htm

[Vincardog]

6. Only W saw the first plane hit. aWoL MIHOP look at the facts.

Nominated. Speaking of what we saw. The plane I was hit the WTC had most it's fuel explode in a big ball outside the building Where was the fuel for the fire? What about Building no 7? Nothing hit it why did they burn and explode it?

[Kevin Fenton]

72. Amount of fuel

"The plane I was hit the WTC had most it's fuel explode in a big ball outside the building."
Both planes had about 10,000 gallons of fuel, the fireballs outside the towers consumed max. 3,000 gallons, maybe as little as 1,000 gallons. That leaves 7,000 - 9,000 gallons for the fires in each tower.

[RaleighNCDUer]

80. And you know this how?

If 1000 or 3000 gallons explode, how do you keep the other 7-9000 gallons from exploding?

The fuel tanks are in the wings, are they not? Would those wings not have snapped back on impact as the fuselage plunged into the building? The breaking wings then would explode in a fireball, as we saw. There would not have been any fuel remaining to pool up and burn inside the building. The fire inside the building would consist mostly of flammables set ablaze by the explosion.

Try this. Take an aluminum can, fill it half full with gasoline. Put a firecracker in a hole in the can, light it and get way the hell away from it.

After the bang, look at the can and see how much gas remains. The explosion will destroy almost all in the first second, and the remaining amount will burn out in seconds. I promise.

[Kevin Fenton]

82. Fireball estimate

The amount of fuel in a fireball can be estimated by its size (there's some sort of equation). The size of the fireballs outside the towers was irregular, that's why the range (1,000 - 3,000) is so wide. Just about everybody who has tried to estimate the amount of fuel in the fireball has come to the same conclusion. The amount of fuel in the building is pretty irrelevant anyway, because it all burns up in the first 15 minutes or so and doesn't have much impact on the towers - even the NIST report says so.

[libertypirate]

83. Since NIST has estimated that 95% of the

fuel burned in the first minute that would make your estimate full of shit.

NIST -- National Institute of Science and Technology

that was their second publication of that information first round same amount of fuel 12 seconds.

[JackRiddler]

18. hmmm....

And I have yet to see any plane hit Building 7. Have you? But I have seen the owner of said building making a statement that allows of a fair interpretation that the building was intentionally demolished.

Anyway...

Isn't it of significance when committed Bush regime members start to say such things?

Oh, no, of course not. The standard statement will always be: no one's blowing the whistle, so there must be no case for a 9/11 inside job.

[EFerrari]

19. The argument as I understand it is that planes would not bring

the buildings straight down in that way. Nor would fire.

So, there's no question that planes hit the buildings. The part that is being challenged is what brought them down.

[jenn1977]

31. how did all 3 of them FREE FALL

in approx. 10 seconds or less?? remember building 7 was never hit by a plane.

All you have to do is watch the old 9/11 videos from CNN and all the rest of the major msm news networks and you can see the blasts going all the way down the building. and don't forget the firefighters and other rescue workers commenting on multiple blasts.

the WTC towers were built to withstand AT LEAST 2 hits from commercial airliners.

[tinrobot]

44. How? Because that's how gravity works.

Most people make the mistake of thinking the WTC buildings were solid, like a tree. They look solid from the outside, but they were essentially a hollow steel skeleton filled with lots of air.

Gravity works by pulling things straight down. In the case of the WTC, the hollow structure did nothing to prevent the debris from falling the way it was supposed to fall - vertically. A tree tips over only because the stump is solid and prevents the tree from falling straight down. The WTC was by no means solid.

In fact, if you look at the second collapse, you see the top of the building tip slightly (because it failed on the impact side) but then it falls vertically once the structure of the upper floors failed.

[stickdog]

53. What brought down the cores of the buildings at the exact same instant?

Just asking.

[Griffy]

66. You avoid the WTC7 question again... its because you cant explain it..

Gravity is just a theory! The truth is it would be VERY inlikley that they would fall so straight! If it was the heat that weakened the bolts holding the floor.. it would have given way on 1 side or the other 1st... causing the bldg to fall unevenly! And this happened.. TWICE! Its physics and I have studied it, have you? I speak from an engineering backround in construction and materials.

Look .. I understand how hard it is to believe, but why would you give bushco the benefit of the doubt! WTC7 is so unexplainable that the "911 commission" didnt even address it!

You see.. the big lie works well, even on good solid reality based folks like us....

In my opinion, we wont get to the bottom of 911 till bush is out of office, oh, say.. early '07 after Impeachment, think it wont happen, think again!

[RaleighNCDUer]

78. Which neatly explains all three buildings -- offering proof that the

two towers would by the nature of their construction collapse straight down.

Only it doesn't apply to the third building -- standard steel skeleton high rise which has NEVER collapsed from fire in the hundred years since the first one was built.

It's the Rathergate thing -- disprove a part of the argument, and claim to have disproved the entire argument.

Yes, the planes could conceivably have taken down towers 1 & 2, but there is no explanation for tower 3.

However, there was the man heard to say they should "pull it" ref #7. I suggest it was not because the fires were out of control, but because the fires were not going to bring the building down by themselves. So they withdrew their firefighters and blew the building, destroying all the evidence within of...?

[Bolo Boffin]

79. WTC 7 was not a standard steel skeleton

Please go check out the reports over at wtc.nist.gov.

WTC 7 was built over an electrical substation. That gave it a very unique structure, and structural damage along with constant fires spread over several floors is what brought that building down.

[RaleighNCDUer]

81. Always willing to gather more information, but

wtc.nist.gov takes me nowhere. Is that address correct?

What would make #7 unique in construction simply for being built over a substation? Nothing I've seen suggests that it was built any differently than any other high rise. Only #1 & 2 utilized a unique construction technique.

BTW, while I am willing to be convinced, as things stand I am just as leery of anything that comes from a .gov address as that comes from the Moonie Times and UPI. Do you have any other, independent citations?

[libertypirate]

84. Yawn -- So where did the buildings natural resistence go?

What energy screwed all that up? Gravity...

Um not quite since tall buildings are designed in fact to resist downward movement.

So where do you get the energy that turns three buildings into their parts before they hit the ground. Here is the kicker they fell in free fall time, meaning each building fell in the time it would take to drop them from the same height.

[Kevin Fenton]

73. Correction

"in approx. 10 seconds or less??"
Actually 14-16 seconds. See here
http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/times.html

"the WTC towers were built to withstand AT LEAST 2 hits from commercial airliners."
No they weren't, the designers thought they would withstand one hit from a 707, but they never did any calculations regarding the fuel.

[Frederik]

51. No one argues that the planes didn't hit the buildings.

The argument, made by many before Reynolds, is that the ensuing fires couldn't possibly account for the collapses. Besides, WTC7, which was not hit by a plane, collapsed in exactly the same way.

[libertypirate]

85. Karl Swartz does and quite well actually

[philb]

61. Do you believe everything you see on TV?

Where did the videos come from and do you know anything about the crediblity of the source?
Would you agree that a picture could have been made of a flying bus hitting the towers that looked real? My brother in college made such videos.

Are Jon Carlson and Schultz and etc. wrong about the identification of the engine pictured at the WTC site?

Something did happen and Boeings may bave hit the towers, but no one has provided solid evidence of that
Wonder why not?

[TomClash]

75. The planes flew into 1 and 2

There is a lot of eyewitenss testimony. A lot.

[libertypirate]

86. How much have you seen since the day of 9-11?

[TomClash]

89. I know several people who saw one of the planes hit the buildings - live

nt

[philb]

91. Name a witness who stated that they saw a Boeing 767 hit WTC building

seeing a plane and seeing a plane you know was a specific type of Boeing airliner are different things? Have you seen pictures of the planes that you can indentify that the planes were Flight 11 and Flight 175?

Its possible they were. But its also possible they weren't. No one has released anything identifying the planes that hit the WTC buildings or the Pentagon.

[TomClash]

93. I know that commerical airliners hit 1 and 2

I don't know if they were Boeing 767s or not.

[philb]

90. So what would seeing a plane hitting a building have to do with it falling

The WTC buildings were built to withstand a lot more than being hit by a plane. And no fire has ever caused a steel framed building to collapse.

[Barrett808]

2. LIHOP or MIHOP?

It would be interesting to hear him speculate on that.

[unblock]

9. it's almost impossible to conceive of a lihop controlled demolition

you would need a LOT of help to make be able to place all that demolition materials and not have it found early.

[Vincardog]

17. You are correct MIHOP is much more likely Who had the contract for

Maintenance of the WTC?

[John Doe II]

77. The contract for security on WTC

(and Dulles Airport and United Airlines) had Stratesec.
From 1995 till summer 2001 Marvin Bush, the brother of the President, was on the board of directors of Stratesec Inc.
Stratesec is not mentioned a single time in the Commission Report.
Does that surprise you ....

But anyway this is of course just a coincidence ....

[philb]

92. Depends on how your LIHOP is defined.

LIHOP is firmly documented regarding allowing "planes" to hit the buildings: http://www.flcv.com/offcompl.html

If you are talking only in terms of allowing controlled demolition:

Some who could have been responsible for LIHOP:
1. builders of the towers could have built in charges for bringing down in the future.
2. owners could have had charges set during maintenance proceedures
(there was a lot of major maintenance/renovation going on in period just before 9/11) note: owner made a lot of money from 9/11
3. security people could had had charges set, or allowed them to be set by someone(note: security provided by company of brother of Pres.)
4. combinations of "authorities" and (2)or (3)

[Benhurst]

10. Read the article.

"If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling."

[BattyDem]

7. Actually, the source is United Press International (UPI) ...

not The Washington Times. The Times carried the UPI story. I just thought I'd point that out since DUers don't really trust The Times. :-)

[unblock]

13. oh... the other moonie news arm.

a classic case of a distinction without a difference.

[BattyDem]

20. LOL! Ok ... but either way ...

they both normally kiss Shrub's butt ... so that makes this story a bit more intriguing. :-)

[Roland99]

8. Wash. Times has been more critical of * lately...wtf is going on?

And this some major stuff here.

Big-time * admin player moving into validating conspiracy theorists???

[libertypirate]

87. I thought they might be doing a controled demolition of Bush

if your going to fall on your ass, it's best to know what your landing on. I am not so sure some might not be happy with bush co.

[Just Me]

11. This is being printed in the Waaaa Times?!

shit

First, the minutes break on Murdoch's watch. Now, this?

*scratches head* Hmmm. Maybe, Murdoch is purely a capitalist, after all, and has an itchin' feelin' the BushCo/neoCON regime is going down?

[atommom]

12. Things just keep getting curiouser and curiouser!

I'll be interested to see how this one plays out. It's certainly not what I'd expect from a Murdoch pub. And right after the Newsweek slapdown, too.

:popcorn:

[Daphne08]

16. I don't understand it either.

Murdoch, now Moonie? (I know it's a UPI story, but it's in Moonie's paper) Remember the 1989 story that died?

Something is going on...but what? :shrug:

[EVDebs]

26. CIA runs some of these operations... Maybe CIA wants Bush out.

The CIA ran the Watergate 'get Nixon out' operation. They just made it look like it was only Nixon doing these things.

Adm Zumwalt Adm Moorer, Richard Helms, many at FBI, all wanted Nixon out.

Hey, maybe they've wised up and now want Bush out too ! Lucky us, we've hit the trifecta (apologies to GW).

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SaveElmer]

15. Oh Please!!!

What happened to the planes? Are they saying that someone arranged for their hijacking, and coordinated their impact to make it look like they caused the collapse? This just defies any sort of common sense. And of course, no one saw the men lining the buildings with explosives beforehand.

[Benhurst]

21. Do a simple Google search on "WTC planned demolition."

[SheepyMcSheepster]

23. delete

responded to wrong poster, sorry.

[EFerrari]

22. Actually, you coordinate the detonation to the impact, not

the other way around.:)

And, although I can't remember where, in 2001, there was a maintenance guy who thought he walked into a roomful of explosives. I didn't pay attention because I had swallowed the official version hook, line and sinker.

Who was that guy on CSPAN a few weeks ago, lecturing about how it was structurally impossible for fire to bring those buildings straight down without leaving some beams standing in the middle? I don't really follow this very closely, sorry.

[babylonsister]

27. David Ray Griffin was on CSpan, and also

wrote, "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About The Bush Administration and 9/11", and a follow-up, "9/11 Commission Report: Ommissions and Distortions."

[EFerrari]

38. Yes! Thank you. That was the ref I couldn't remember. n/t

[SaveElmer]

28. And the hijackers and passengers ?

Actually, If you say it is the collapse that was caused by explosives, wouldn't it take place after the planes hit ? The collapse didn't occur for what 30 minutes after impact?

And what about the planes? The government hired these arabs to volunteer to commit suicide to help the government maintain the coverup? And they were so convincing that all of the passengers who were in touch with loved ones noted they were arab terrorists.

This also assumes that the people who planned this were willing to allow the death of up to 10000 people for this purpose. I am cynical about the government, but not that cynical

This is a conspiracy theorists wet dream...nothing more.

[the other one]

32. All part of the scenery.

19 hijackers. All of them must have passed through security. Where is the video? Why weren't screeners curious as to why anyone would need a gas mask on the plane? It stretches credibility. Why was the flight recorder destroyed, but a passport which linked the hijacker to the flight was found in the wreckage? It seems rather easy to imagine a scenario where the flights themselves were fabrications and the buildings were hit by remote control plans. Where did the passengers go? Some remote airbase where they were executed. Or they were complicit.

The question is: The Bush people have lied about virtually everything else. Why would anyone believe anything they have ever said? I say we need hearings.

[havocmom]

34. That 'passport survives impact - black box didn't' detail is vexing

isn't it? Hmm, black box? No sign of a black box, but hey, we got us a passport and lookie here, it belongs to a terrorist suspect...

Sure. Makes sense :sarcasm:

Oh, I also saw owner of buildings talking about how they never fulfilled their economic potential and there were plans for other use for the rather valuable land.

[SaveElmer]

48. So the medical examiners...

Who identified remains of the passengers and returned them to the families were in on the conspiracy too?

[Frederik]

52. I don't think Reynolds argus that the hijacked planes

didn't hit the buildings.

[SaveElmer]

58. I was responding to this comment...

"It seems rather easy to imagine a scenario where the flights themselves were fabrications and the buildings were hit by remote control plans. Where did the passengers go? Some remote airbase where they were executed. Or they were complicit."

[EFerrari]

43. Wet dream? Then, I suppose there are a lot more people doing

laundry than you're comfortable with. :)

And, as you seem to have really studied this, how do we know who those hijackers were again? We have three on security tape, is that right? What about the other 16 -- if that is the number?

I've always wondered how the government was able to lay hands on faces and names so quickly.

I don't notice much compunction in this misAdministration about civilian casualties. And it really is ugly, isn't it, but this doesn't seem to me to be cynicism. It's more like knowing your enemy.

[tinrobot]

45. Then who piloted the airplanes?

That were broadcast live to the world hitting the towers?

You can certainly nitpick about who was on the planes, but regardless of who flew the planes, you can't dispute the fact that they were hijacked and they hit the towers.

[EFerrari]

49. I haven't. I saw the video just as we all did. Planes hit the towers.

But that isn't what is at issue. At issue is, what brought the towers down. Or, that's one of the issues, anyway. lol

[libertypirate]

88. Do you know of a technology that allows remote piloting of aircraft?

[SaveElmer]

50. So let me see...

The government is competant enough to pull off this massive conspiracy to blow up the towers and then cover it up, but you don't think they are competant enough to track persons of suspicion and have their pictures on file.

[EFerrari]

60. Exactly. If they actually had "persons of suspicion" that needed

tracking.

[philb]

62. Why would you think there were phone calls from the planes? >>

911 Cell Phone Call Experimental Evidence
( 911 calls likely faked) http://physics911.ca/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6

[SaveElmer]

65. Karen McSweeney was recorded at low altitude...

As they approached the city on Flight 11. Even this site's experiments show that was possible. So the government somehow manufactured these calls...getting someone who sounded like those on the plane to fool us all...?

And the calls from Flight 93...to loved ones...not 911 calls...were they faked as well?...and they were made from a much higher altitude. And of course, Todd Beamer called from an in-flight phone and reported the hijacking!

Are all of thse people in on the conspiracy as well?

[donco6]

42. Snicker.

Save your breath. The air gets real thin in this forum.

[SaveElmer]

46. Yeah I know...

Every once in a while I like to jump in for fun!!!
Cue "X-Files" theme!!!

[donco6]

47. Man, you're a glutton for punishment!

That's what I like about you.

[stickdog]

55. Typical bullshit "debunker" logical fallacy = "argument" by ridicule

It's known to be especially "effective" on message boards when it's done in teams.

[donco6]

57. I don't remember you being on the team.

We want our shirt back.

[EVDebs]

25. New Pearl Harbor....Operation Northwoods...pretext...

[Benhurst]

30. We know from Operation Northwoods the Joint Chiefs were

more than willing to sacrifice thousands of American lives to accomplish their foreign policy goals. Does anyone think the leaders of this society have improved since the 1960s?

[theearthisround]

33. Surreal responses over at FreeRepublic to these articles...

Doublethink anyone?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1422668/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1422470/posts

[Massachusetts]

35. Those guys are MORONS!

[Griffy]

67. They sound like some ppl here.."it doesnt fit what I know... so its bunk!"

Some of you here still believe the offical story.. do you alsothink bush won 2000 fairly?.. did he win '04?... how about Iraq has WMD.. ties to Al-Qeida..? Maybe you believe SS is in crisis? Canada drugs are dangerous.. need I go on?... So WHY OH WHY are some DUers not with us asking what REALLY happened? You are quick to dismiss the ideas some people have as to what happened, but what we are really asking.. WHAT REALLY HAPPENED?? It dont know.. AND NEITHER DO YOU... unless you started believing propaganda.. or dont think they would lie about this..!?! EXPLAIN to me plz.. how you can buy the official story?

WTC7.. explain to me how that building fell.. anyone that addresses this issue without an explanation for this is gapping hole in the "planes brought the buildings down" THEORY is trying to hide the truth... mostly from themselves!

[progressoid]

36. Aw jeez people, lets take a deep breath now...

in with the good air...
out with the bad air...

in with the good air...
out with the bad air...

in with the good air...
out with the bad air...

The moonies publish a story about an economist's views of structural engineering and building demolition and you see this a credible??? Yikes.

[stickdog]

56. No, we find it incredible considering that the Moonie Times is 99%

pro-Bush, and the guy speculating used to be in the Bush Administration.

[progressoid]

68. Right

An economist is speculating about a subject he isn't qualified to evaluate. And the story is published in a paper that is pro-bush.

Gee wiz - see any red flags there??

[wakeme2008]

37. there is another scenario with bin Laden and CIA

What IF

Team Bush/Neocon found out about the plane attacks and ran computer models of what would happen if it did happen. (these people have great computers for that and could dupe a passport in a heartbeat)

What if the computer models did not show complete destruction of the buildings and only minor lost of life...

What IF Team Bush/Neocon wanted a major terrorist statement for their invasion plans of Iraq/Iran/etc

IMHO, I could see them planting extra explosives in the WTC to "help" the planes controlled by bin Laden.....

[wakeme2008]

40. Sidenote to my reply and this thread

There are programmers etc at all the Touchscreen makers that IMHO, know the real numbers for the 2004 election and who really won it.


WHAT IF their strong beliefs in Bush are destroyed by the finding out he was behind part if not all of the WTC attack.... Even if bin Laden "controlled the planes", if Team Bush knew of the coming attack and not only did not stop it but maybe helped it along, and then they "helped" him get re-elected.....

All it takes is one spilling the beans and George's gig is over....

[RBHam]

41. No kidding....

Can't start thinking unclean thoughts...

[RaleighNCDUer]

69. An interesting take on it.

LIHOP with a push.

It explains a lot of coincidences necessary for LIHOP, and addresses some of the difficulties of MIHOP.

[philb]

64. Problems with official story at WTC

If standard proceedures were followed by FAA & military both planes would have been intercepted and the attacks prevented.

The impact areas don't appear to have been the size of Boeing airliners.

Some of those accused of being the hijackers clearly weren't.

There were lots of reports by firefighters and building engineers,etc. of explosions in the WTC buildings

The firefighters reported that the fires in WTC2 were not large and were dying out and controllable. Pictures from buildings across from WTC2 confirmed that the fires had mostly died out.

there are lots of pictures and videos showing explosions and massive exhaust outward of fine dust that resulted from pulverization of virtually all of the solid materials in WTC buildings, and shattering of the huge steel beams that were also hurled outward with great force. What other than massive explosions could cause this?

There was molten steel in the basements of WTC buildings that was hot for months after 9/11. What could have melted the huge steel beams? obviously not the very short lasting gas fires.

Some areas of the towers were full of the fine dust before the collapse according the the WTC building engineers, who also reported massive explosions before the collapse.


http://www.flcv.com/911new05.html
etc.

[Gloria]

74. And....two other skyscrapers have been hit by explosions subsquent

to 911 without collapsing. (not in the US, I forget where, but Griffin mentioned them).

Remember that Marvin Bush and his security team was in charge at the time.

And the stories that the buildings were open over the weekend and FEMA was there for some reason.

Griffin also said the sections of the steel were in 30 ft. lengths and that's how the building went down, as if it was wired to go down. He also notes that the steel was sent off to China as scrap immediately....why was evidence from a "crime scene" sent out of the country to be melted down so quickly? I remember this being reported, so Griffin isn't making that up.

[Jersey Devil]

70. 2 conclusions for this story, neither one good for Bush

Either:

1 - The Bush Admin hired a complete nutball (and God knows how many others like him)

or

2 - Bush is a criminal.

[I Have A Dream]

76. There was something on a local Pittsburgh radio station's news...

this morning about this. I was absolutely flabbergasted!