Eyewitness to the controlled demolition of the Towers on 9/11

[theSaiGirl]

This interview speaks for itself:

http://911review.org/Wget/Killtown/911-rescuer-saw-explosions-inside-wtc.html

If literally thousands of New Yorkers actually witnessed the explosion of bombs planted in cars and buildings that very morning - then what are we to conclude about those New Yorkers ?

Why haven't they spoken out more loudly ?
Why haven't they denounced the Big Lie, the monstrous hoax that this administration has perpetrated as a pretext for permanent war and imposition of a domestic police state ?
Why haven't they screamed for truth and justice ?

[Greeby]

1. Because if Bushco is willing to kill 3000 Americans to get its way

What makes you think they wouldn't kill little old you for trying to uncover the truth? :shrug:

[JoeJoefreedom]

2. Because there is nothing to speak out about.

New Yorkers are not a shy bunch. I know,I am one. If there was any truth whatsoever to this "myth", it would have been uncovered long ago.

[BattyDem]

3. According to a Zogby poll in 2004 , New Yorkers know something's not right

"Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals"
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855



I'd love to see what those numbers are today.

[RufusEarl]

4. They have a forum for the 9-11 conspiracy folks,

here at DU. Most here don't believe in the 9-11 conspiracy i happen not to be one of them.
I became convinced that the 9-11 WTC bombing was an inside jobs, when the 9-11 commission failed to look into the building #7 collapse.

I've seen and heard most of the conspiracy angles, and i'm convinced that someone imploded the WTC building. I have a background in construction, and engineering and i can recognize and implosion when i see one.

[sabbat hunter]

5. construction background

since you have a construction background i am sure you know the following
1) for a implosion to take place the supports have to be taken 90% of the way out
2) the building has to be emptied of everything, (right down to the wall beams)

so given those facts how can an active building (WTC 7) be imploded properly?

[BattyDem]

6. I understand what you're saying, but ..

Larry Silverstein (owner of the WTC) admitted to taking out building 7.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/archive7 (links to audio and video clips of Silverstein are also on the page)

"In a stunning and belated development concerning the attacks of 9/11 Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001."

"This admission appeared in a PBS documentary originally aired in Sept. of 2002 entitled "America Rebuilds". Mr Silverstein's comments came after FEMA and the Society of Civil Engineers conducted an extensive and costly investigation into the curious collapse of WTC 7. The study specifically concluded that the building had collapsed as a result of the inferno within, sparked, apparently, by debris falling from the crumbling North Tower."


Of course, Silverstein's comment contradicts FEMA's report, but I think the man would know if he talked to the FDNY about destroying it or not.

Everything about that day - except for the deaths of 3,000 people - is a lie! :grr: I wonder if we'll ever know what really happened.

[sabbat hunter]

8. you realize

that anyone can post to wikpedia and call it "Facts" or whatever.

what silverstein said over an open channel was "pull it" but that isnt the entire statement.

what he said was "we have had such a terrible loss of lives, the best thing might to be just pull it" as in pull everyone out so no one else dies.

and we all know how competant FEMA is. <sarcasm>

[BattyDem]

9. I simply used Wikipedia because it was the easiest starting point

for all the info, links, etc. I never take anything at that site at face value - I always follow up by viewing the source material myself.

I heard the clip ages ago and I just listened again. I still think it's an unusual choice of words, especially since he says, "I said, 'Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it' ... and then we watched the building collapse." I'm not a firefighter - "pull it" could certainly be industry lingo, but I still find it a bit odd that a real estate developer would use the term. I'm know I'm nitpicking, but I've always found that to be an odd choice of words. :shrug: :tinfoilhat:

Honestly, I don't know what really happened that day - but I don't believe the "official" story for one minute. There are just too many questions and inconsistencies. JMHO :-)

[petgoat]

18. pull everyone out so no one else dies.

Everyone was pulled out. They never fought those fires. So Silverstein's statement makes
no sense as an evacuation order.

More facts, less debunking!

[dchill]

19. Why don't you get off....

the "incompetent" train? Nothing this administration has done has been proof of or related to competence. Including involvement in/response to 9/11. It's only about opportunism.

The answer to "How?" is simple. With control of both houses of government, corporate control of most of the news media, steady increase in power over the judiciary, and the never-ending lies and fear-mongering, there was nobody to stop them, and nobody to answer to.

The answer to "Why" is always the same as the answer to "Why did the dog lick its genitals?" - Because they could. And they wanted to.

They were planning it for years. They didn't do it well, they just did it, and the media backed them up. And you know that. Just like the 2000 and 2004 elections. The "Official Theory" has at least as many holes in it as any of the conspiracy theories out there.

The only thing they're competent at is lying with a straight face. And sometimes, they're not even good at that. I repeat, it had nothing to do with competence. NOTHING.

[dailykoff]

11. Also helpful to remember:

1) There's more than one way to build (or unbuild) anything, and
2) The towers didn't implode so much as explode--nothing tidy there.

As for WTC 7, who knows what kinds of preparations they made? Are Rudy, Larry and the CIA really going to hold a press conference to tell us about it?

[sabbat hunter]

12. WTC7

we know that WTC 7 was still being used on the day of 911. that people were working in there. a building about to be imploded properly has its supports cut by 90 % before hand, has everything stripped down to the walls and explosives carefully place.

we know steps 1, 2 were not done. step 3 is conjuncture and speculation based on a result people want to see. there are those who say WTC 7 HAD to be imploded. i say, show me proof (more than the pictures of the collapse) that indicate a controlled demolition. remember WTC 7 had been damaged heavily from debris from the collapse of towers 1, 2.

[dailykoff]

15. (#14 is supposed to go here)

oops, sorry about that :)

[petgoat]

20. So since WTC7 fell so neatly, if you don't believe in CD

I take it you believe that random structural damage and diesel-fuel fires cut the supports by 90%
before the supports failed, stripped everything to the walls, and managed to mimic the effects of
explosives carefully placed?

[rman]

21. No need to cut supports before hand, thermite will just burn through

it anyway.
Also remote control detonators eliminate the need for actual "wiring" of the demo charges.
Also there was no need for preparations to prevent debris from damaging nearby buildings, nor to prevent to much dust from entering the area around the building.

All in all that saves a lot of time.

[Psychovise]

16. An explanation of the construction thing?

sabbat hunter, here's what I don't quite understand about what you posted… you made it sound like steps 1 and 2 would have to be done for a controlled implosion. But regardless of exactly how or why it happened, we all saw three different buildings fall neatly down into their own footprints… (As I understand it, this has never happened before due to fires in the history of engineering?) For the buildings to fall down like they did at all (at nearly freefall speeds, straight into their own footprints) are you saying that the insides must have been empty with 90% of the beams cut? If not, if the plane crashes and fires could have plausibly produced the results we all saw, then why couldn't explosives? I'm just a little unclear on that...

[sabbat hunter]

17. thats my point

i think the 'cover up' that is abound with 911 is the following
1) the absolute incompetance of the * regime.
2) that despite how they were billed, it is obvious that the WTC buildings were not as strong as they were supposed to be. that they were below code. how many other buildings out there are below code? how many more of them are death traps?

also they didnt quite fall into their own foot prints. look at the damage to surrounding buildings (wtc 7, the world financial center, etc etc)

one thing is for sure. these buildings didnt fall "neatly" at all.

[sabbat hunter]

7. desired result

when someone like killtown on his vanity site, seeks out "the truth" he is actually just looking for evidence that backs up his conclusion. much like how * only accepted evidence that iraq had WMD. anything contrary was thrown out.

there are those in NY looking for the full truth behind 911. but to those who were there and actually saw it we know the truth. that large airline jets hit the WTC 1, 2. that WTC 7 was heavily damaged from debris from the building collapses.

[stillcool]

10. Bull....Bull...and more bull....

[Pastiche423]

13. I agree w/you

I would only add shit.

[simonm]

23. Me 3rd

I'd like to add an exclamation mark (!) after you.

[dailykoff]

14. People were working in the towers on 9/11, too

but that didn't stop them from getting blown to smithereens. And don't forget that WTC 7 sits on a five-story substation, where preliminary work could have gone on unnoticed by office workers. And maybe WTC 7 wasn't a proper implosion by professional wreckers' standards.

What it boils down to is this: the chance of a fluke "natural" collapse is infinitesimal, but the visual evidence of a controlled demolition is overwhelming.

[simonm]

22. "911 Eyewitness" Video has high res video and scientific explanations

This documentary has solid scientific evidence along with high res video that supports the WTC demolishment.

Mostly facts without hype. I wish someone would mail a copy to every single police station in NY.


http://www.911eyewitness.com/

Edit: Forgot to mention the great audio. You can actually hear the explosions.

[Dancing_Dave]

24. I've always wondered the same things.

Talking to New Yorkers about it left me with one impression: the truth about what really happened is just more frightening than most people can face.

Such psychological repression of frightening truths tends to erode as time goes by and the delusion becomes a burden. It seems that finally New Yorkers are able to face the fact that their own experiences prove that the official theory is entirely wrong. The truth is finally bubbling up.

[SongOfTheRayne]

25. HAVE YOU NOTICED

That the closer the attacks were to the central government, the fewer people died? Towers=civillians=lots of casualties, pentagon=government=few casualties, Congress building= central government= plane was overpowered, NO casualties. Hmmmm....