9-11 was an inside job

[Caleb]

Presenting some of the evidence that the WTC 1 and WTC 2 were brought down by explosives.  The following indications are typical of controlled demolition, but not typical of "gravity induced" collapse. (I use the term "gravity induced" because, whereas the controlled demolition theory allows for a gigantic amount of energy coming from the pre-planted explosives, all the energy of the "official" theory would come from normal gravitational processes.)

1)  SUDDEN ONSET. 
Steel subjected to stress does not give out suddenly.  It gradually loses its integrity. This is in contrast to what was actually seen:  The buildings were motionless one moment, collapsing the next.

2)  FELL STRAIGHT DOWN.
Some apologists for the official story (even on this forum) will make the ludicrous claim that "of course the buildings fell straight down: they have no where else to go."  If this is the case, why are firms paid big bucks to demolish buildings so they fall straight down.  Of course buildings will fall down.  Gravity pulls them down. Its getting them to fall straight down, so the collapse does relatively little damage to surrounding structures, that is the trick.  Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition, said that in order to bring a building straight down so that no other structure is harmed the demolition needs to be "completely planned" using "the right explosive and the right pattern of laying the charges."

3)  RAPID COLLAPSE
WTC 1 and 2 fell quickly, the South Tower falling in just over 10 seconds. This is just a little over free fall speed, and is typical of controlled demolition.  If the official theory is true, we should expect that each story would provide a modicum of resistance before giving way, and the towers should have fallen much more slowly.

4)  TOTAL COLLAPSE
This is one of the strongest points, because the official pancake theory fails to account for the 47 interior steel core columns.  These should have been left standing if the official theory is accurate.  Instead, they were demolished. Any theory that does not account for the demolition of the core column is insufficient. As will be seen shortly, the controlled demolition theory accounts for it quite nicely.

5)  SLICED STEEL
Controlled demolition uses high explosives to cut steel into small pieces.  The rubble at WTC ground zero is consistent with this theory.

6) PULVERIZED CONCRETE
Controlled demolition generates a lot of dust, as concrete is pulverized. Any video of the collapse will show that the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 is consistent with this theory.

7)  DUST CLOUDS EJECTED
Some who accept the official theory will say that the official theory can also account for the dust clouds, because each collapsing floor would generate a rush of air that would eject the pulverized concrete.  This may be true for the lower floors, but NOT for the upper floors.  Gravity has a rate of acceleration of 10 meters per second per second. Thus, at the very beginning of the collapse, the collapse was only occurring at 20-30 miles per hour, hardly generating enough energy to pulverize the concrete.  And yet, video from the scene shows that a large amount of concrete dust is seen to be ejected from the top of the building, very early in the collapse, when gravity had not yet had time to build up sufficient speed (and thus energy) to pulverize the concrete.

HORIZONTAL EJECTIONS
One of the features of controlled demolitions is that they tend to eject lots of matter from the collapsing building. In the case of WTC 1 and 2, heavy pieces of steel were ejected up to 500 feet away, and pieces of aluminum were ejected over 700 feet. The official theory cannot account for these, whereas the controlled demolition theory can.

9) DEMOLITION RINGS
A distinctive feature of controlled demolitions are "demolition rings", which are a series of small explosions that produce flashes which can be seen running rapidly around a building.  These demolition rings were reported in the oral histories that were released by court order in 2005. As this is a distinctive feature of controlled demolitions, it is impossible to account for these in any of the posited official theories.

10) MOLTEN STEEL
Massive quantities of molten steel were found in the basement of ground zero. The official theory only asserts that the steel was weakened, not melted, by the fires, because hydrocarbon fires cannot reach a high enough temperature to melt steel. The presence of molten steel, then, is indicative of the presence of extremely hot fires, and is consistent with the controlled demolition theory.

11) SOUNDS OF EXPLOSIONS
The oral histories released in 2005 contain a large number of people who testified to the presence of explosions in the buildings.  Particularly devastating to the official theory is the testimony that these explosions occurred in the basement!

FIVE ADDITIONAL SUSPICIOUS FACTS

1) STEEL REMOVED
The City of New York removed the steel before it could be properly examined to determine the cause of collapse.

2) NORTH TOWER ANTENNA DROP
The video of the collapse of the north tower shows its antenna drops right before the collapse.  This is indicative of the interior core, the 47 massive steel columns, collapsing FIRST.  This is devastating to the official story because the official story says that the cause of collapse was the pancaking of each floor. If the interior core collapsed first, that would require some sort of theory in addition to the pancake theory; NIST says that each pancaking floor pulled sections of the interior core with it, but that wouldn't hold any water if the interior core collapsed FIRST.

3) SOUTH TOWER TIPS THEN DISINTEGRATES
This is very suspicious. The top of the south tower, during the collapse, begins to tip.  It then inexplicably readjusts itself  to return to a full vertical collapse, then disintegrates.  The law of conservation of momentum says that once the upper 34 floors began to tip, they should have continued their descent at that angle, unless acted upon by a torque.  Thus, the upper 34 floors should have fallen well outside of the building's footprint.  Instead, they readjusted course, then disintegrated. The conventional theory cannot explain this phenomenon.

4)  WTC SECURITY
Some have questioned how explosives could have been pre-planted in the building. From 1993 to 2000, Securacom was in charge of security for WTC. Marvin Bush (W's brother) was one of the company's directors.  And from 1999 until January 2002, Wirt Walker III was CEO of Securacom. (Wirt Walker III is W's cousin.)  Scott Forbes testified that on the weekend of September 8-9, 2001, there was a power down in the WTC complex. They were told that this was to upgrade the cabling. But for this time, while the power was off, there was no security cameras, and according to Forbes "many `engineers' were coming in and out" of the towers.

5)  FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE SOUTH TOWERS COLLAPSE
Rudy Giuliani testified that he was told that the South Tower was going to collapse while he was in the command center.  Who knew this? The collapse of the south tower caught all emergency personnel on the scene by surprise.

[MaineShark]

1) Says who?

2) Reliably causing a vertical collapse of a small (relatively speaking) building takes careful planning.  Do you have any comprehension of how strong the force of gravtiy is on that much mass?  It would require tremendous levels of energy to cause any sideways motion on a building that size.

3) This has already been addressed numerous times.  The people saying this don't take into account the forces involved or the presence of the basement levels.

4) Why would they remain standing?  People act like steel is this amazing wonder-material that cannot be destroyed.  It's not.

5) I haven't seen evidence of steel slicing on the level needed to demostrate demolitions work.  We'd be talking thousands of shape-charge slices, which leave distinct markings.

6) Oddly enough, so does any building collapse.  Or, to put it another way, why would controlled demolition produce more dust than other collapses?  The controlled demolition procedure would directly impact only the steel supports, so why should it have any particular effect on the concrete?

7) Yup, a 20-30 mph wind is slow and definitely wouldn't kick up any dust!  I think you can ask anyone who's tried to paint a car outside to contradict that one.

8) Again, do you have any comprehension of the energies involved?  Of course debris was ejected.

9) Of course, that wasn't show in any of the videos, was it?  If you watch a video of a controlled demolition, they are quite obvious racing through the building.

10) Hydrocarbon fires can cut steel, easily.  Acetylene being one hydrocarbon that is regularly used for such purposes.

11) I'm curious if any of them were asked to listen to recordings structural elements of a building failing under stress, as well as recordings of explosives being detonated, and then asked to determine which was which.  Most people seem unable to tell the difference between a firecracker and a gunshot, and those are distinctly different sounds.

I'd keep going, but it's time for breakfast.

Joe

[Caleb]

I love how how the government apologists can't let any challenge to the official story go unchallenged.  I don't have time to rebut your answers, and frankly don't want to get into a debate with you on it. For now I have presented 11 indicators of controlled demolition. Some are completely unexplainable given the government's official story (like explosions in the basement prior to the collapse.)  Others are explainable only with effort, but each is far more consistent with controlled demolition. I will comment just briefly on this one:

11) I'm curious if any of them were asked to listen to recordings structural elements of a building failing under stress, as well as recordings of explosives being detonated, and then asked to determine which was which.  Most people seem unable to tell the difference between a firecracker and a gunshot, and those are distinctly different sounds.

You know, this type of argument really pisses off the people who lived through this and gave honest testimony about what they saw and heard. It's basically an argument from the stupidity of the victims ... so I'm sure you can understand why they get pissed off when you use it.  One of them said, when questioned about it:  "Look!  I've been in that building for 20 years!  I know sounds that come from 80 floors above me and sounds that come from the basement, and I'm telling you there were explosions in the basement!"

I guess I'll go with him over you, since he was there.

Caleb

[MaineShark]

I love how how the government apologists can't let any challenge to the official story go unchallenged.  I don't have time to rebut your answers, and frankly don't want to get into a debate with you on it. For now I have presented 11 indicators of controlled demolition. Some are completely unexplainable given the government's official story (like explosions in the basement prior to the collapse.)  Others are explainable only with effort, but each is far more consistent with controlled demolition.

Who, precisely, is a government apologist?  I'm an engineer, and I have a low tolerance for people expressing bad engineering.  The evidence supports the "planes caused the collapse" theory.  That's why you don't see hordes of structural engineers calling for a new investigation.  If there were all these inconsistencies that were legitimate, don't you think some good percentage of the millions of engineers would be saying, "hey, what gives?"  All I've heard from the conspiracy side on that issue is that there is an even larger conspiracy than the one they claim demolished the buildings, which is silencing all the engineers.

11) I'm curious if any of them were asked to listen to recordings structural elements of a building failing under stress, as well as recordings of explosives being detonated, and then asked to determine which was which.  Most people seem unable to tell the difference between a firecracker and a gunshot, and those are distinctly different sounds.

You know, this type of argument really pisses off the people who lived through this and gave honest testimony about what they saw and heard. It's basically an argument from the stupidity of the victims ... so I'm sure you can understand why they get pissed off when you use it.  One of them said, when questioned about it:  "Look!  I've been in that building for 20 years!  I know sounds that come from 80 floors above me and sounds that come from the basement, and I'm telling you there were explosions in the basement!"

Eyewitnesses are among the most unreliable sources of evidence available.  Ever try the experiment where you take a group of people and show them either a picture or a short video that they watch for a minute, then put it away and spend ten minutes talking about something else, and finally ask them basic questions about the scene they viewed?  Heck, even without the ten minute interval, most people cannot recall even basic details about what they just saw with any accuracy.

The brain is a remarkable thing that can rationalize things it does not understand in order to provide a working model for the owner of that brain.  That is fundamental to human nature.  If someone's brain encounters a previously-unknown situation, it will immediately begin attempting to build a model to fit it, or try to fit it into an existing model.

And, as I said, what qualifies someone who was there to identify the difference in sound between a structural failure and an explosion?  Has he ever been inside a building during a demolition?  I thik not.  Sounds from failures above could be transmitted down through steel columns (steel is an excellent transmitter of sound; as anyone who's used a railroad track to listen for an approaching train) only to resound off the concrete foundation.  And vibrations and structural stresses could cause individual connectors to fail in the basement, prior to the collapse.

I guess I'll go with him over you, since he was there.

I'll go with the answer that actually fits physics.

Joe

[Insurgent]

I wasn't able to make it to his presentation, but didn't the WTC custodian William Rodriguez witness explosions in the basement before the plane hit?

[jaqeboy]

I wasn't able to make it to his presentation, but didn't the WTC custodian William Rodriguez witness explosions in the basement before the plane hit?

Yes, Wm. Rodriquez reported basement explosions on the B-2 level (2 levels below street level) 6 or 7 seconds before the plane impact. (He reported this to the Keane-Hamilton commission, as well, but it did not get included in their report.) He rescued a man named Felipe David who was near enough to that explosion to have some portion of the skin blown off his arms and one side of his face. Could probably Google him, or go to Rodriquez's site: http://william911.com/ - info on that may be there somewhere (I haven't perused the site). I believe he has come out with a DVD telling his story - one in our group picked up a copy. Maybe MV911T could get hands on it and show it for those unable to attend his talk.

[jaqeboy]

I love how how the government apologists can't let any challenge to the official story go unchallenged....

Who, precisely, is a government apologist?  I'm an engineer, and I have a low tolerance for people expressing bad engineering.  The evidence supports the "planes caused the collapse" theory.  That's why you don't see hordes of structural engineers calling for a new investigation....I'll go with the answer that actually fits physics.

Joe

See Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth: http://ae911truth.org/

[jaqeboy]

Who, precisely, is a government apologist?  I'm an engineer, and I have a low tolerance for people expressing bad engineering.  The evidence supports the "planes caused the collapse" theory.  That's why you don't see hordes of structural engineers calling for a new investigation.  If there were all these inconsistencies that were legitimate, don't you think some good percentage of the millions of engineers would be saying, "hey, what gives?"

For you engineers and architects: http://bpathvideo.blogspot.com/2007/04/proof-of-controlled-demolition-from.html

Architect, Richard Gage explores the flawed conclusions of the 911 Commission report and the conclusions of NIST, in this new presentation on evidence supporting controlled demolition for World Trade 1, 2 and 7. The presentation at Sonoma State Univ, Project Censored, April 20, 2007, is divided in 3 parts, this is part 1. Parts 2: http://bpathvideo.blogspot.com/2007/04/part-2-proof-of-controlled-demolition.html ; Part 3: http://bpathvideo.blogspot.com/2007/04/proof-of-controlled-demolition-with.html

[MaineShark]

Who, precisely, is a government apologist?  I'm an engineer, and I have a low tolerance for people expressing bad engineering.  The evidence supports the "planes caused the collapse" theory.  That's why you don't see hordes of structural engineers calling for a new investigation....I'll go with the answer that actually fits physics.

See Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth: http://ae911truth.org/

20 whole members, none of who are named, and nothing but "coming soon" in the pages?  Not precisely helpful at this point in time.

For you engineers and architects: http://bpathvideo.blogspot.com/2007/04/proof-of-controlled-demolition-from.html

Architect, Richard Gage explores the flawed conclusions of the 911 Commission report and the conclusions of NIST, in this new presentation on evidence supporting controlled demolition for World Trade 1, 2 and 7. The presentation at Sonoma State Univ, Project Censored, April 20, 2007, is divided in 3 parts, this is part 1. Parts 2: http://bpathvideo.blogspot.com/2007/04/part-2-proof-of-controlled-demolition.html ; Part 3: http://bpathvideo.blogspot.com/2007/04/proof-of-controlled-demolition-with.html

I will certainly look these over when I have time later.  Thank you.

Joe

[jaqeboy]

3 June 07 - 911 Truth demo/video Q&A at Democratic candidate debate

Democratic presidential candidates are coming to Saint Anselm College in Manchester on Sunday afternoon, June 3rd. 911 Truth groups from around New England and New York are coming to Manchester to demonstrate outside and pose questions to the candidates. Details can be found at http://merrimackvalley911truth.org. Videographers especially are invited! Videos to be posted on YouTube.

If you are sincerely curious why someone would question the government's story on 911, I'm sure there will be an opportunity to discuss that with some of those attending. There is sure to be literature, books and DVD's, available at this gathering. If there will be a pre-debate or after-debate meetup, the details will appear on the MV911T site.

[jaqeboy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070523/us_nm/wtc_insurance_settlement_dc

World Trade Center insurers in $2 bln settlement

By Joan Gralla and Dan Wilchins Wed May 23, 7:01 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Seven insurers have agreed to pay an additional $2 billion to developers of the World Trade Center, resolving all outstanding claims from the September 11, 2001, attacks and speeding redevelopment of the site, New York State officials announced on Wednesday.

The settlement, which will be split between the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the Ground Zero site and developer Larry Silverstein, who held the lease on the buildings when they were destroyed, ends more than five years of litigation between Silverstein and the insurers.

...

[jaqeboy]

Who, precisely, is a government apologist?  I'm an engineer, and I have a low tolerance for people expressing bad engineering.  The evidence supports the "planes caused the collapse" theory.  That's why you don't see hordes of structural engineers calling for a new investigation....I'll go with the answer that actually fits physics.

See Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth: http://ae911truth.org/

20 whole members, none of who are named, and nothing but "coming soon" in the pages?  Not precisely helpful at this point in time.

Hope this helps, Shark:

===================================

Documentation at: http://www.ae911truth.org/

On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned
Architects (Degreed & Licensed)
   
Architectural Professionals (Degreed)
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
Walnut Creek, CA
   
Scott Page, M. Arch / Designer
Berkeley, CA

Don Gibbons, Architect
Pleasant Hill, CA
   
Jeffrey Tam, Architectural Professional
Oakland, CA

Jeff Arnold, Architect
Orinda, CA
   
Oscar Cisnero, Architectural Professional
Antioch, CA

John Cole, Architect
Walnut Creek, CA
   
Elwin Wong, Architectural Professional
Oakland, CA

David Crawford, Architect
Walnut Creek, CA
   
Henri Tso, Architectural Professional
Walnut Creek, CA

Haluk Akol, Architect & Structural Engineer
Lafayette, CA
   
Arthur Stopes, Planner
Berkeley, CA

John Eisenhart, Architect
San Diego, CA
   
Ken Huthcinson, Architectural Professional
Eugene, OR

Joe Bellows, Architect
Martinez, CA
   
Jan Leits, Architectural Professional
Berkeley, CA

John Howland, Architect
Walnut Creek, CA
   
Michael Reuter, Architectural Professional
Berkeley, CA

Eric Douglas, Architect
Howard Beach, NY
   
Chris Jung, Architectural Professional
Berkeley, CA

Peter Hendrickson, Architect
Santa Rosa, CA
   
Tim Clark, Architectural Professional
Albany, CA

Osvaldo Valdes, Architect
New York, NY
   
Jason Wilkinson, Architectural Professional
Berkeley, CA

Lily Livingston, Architect
Oakland, CA
   
Wendy Sitler, Designer
Berkeley, CA

Chris Swigert, Architect
Oakland, CA
   
Dominique Roddier, phD, Naval Architect
Berkeley, CA

Jim Bedinghaus, Architect
St. Petersburg, Florida
   
Karlene Gullone, Architectural Professional
San Francisco, CA

C. Bryan Phelps - AIA, Architect
Boulder, CO
   
Dave Heller, Architectural Professional
Berkeley, CA

Christian Mungenast AIA, Architect
Arlington, MA
   
Kurt Worthington, Urban Planner
San Francisco, CA

Engineers (Degreed & Licensed)
   
Engineering Professionals (Degreed)
Ken Kious, Electrical Engineer
Walnut Creek, CA
   
Gregg Brazel, BSCNE, Constr. Engr'g
Evanston, IL

J. Marx Ayres, PE, Mechanical Engineer
Santa Monica, CA
   
Ted Muga, BSCE, Civil Engineer
San Diego, CA

Robert Nielson, PLS, Land Surveyor
Walnut Creek, CA
   
Kevin Ryan, BS Chem., Certified Quality Engineer
Bloomington, IN

John F. Shanahan, PE, Electrical Engineer
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
   
Ken Jenkins, BS Carnegie Melon, Electrical Engineer
San Rafael, CA

Joseph Testa, P.E., Civil Engineer
Thousand Oaks, CA
   
John Shinn, phD., Chemical Engineer
Pleasant Hill, CA

John L Bursill, Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer Avionics
Sydney, NSW
   
John Rexroat, Mfr. Engineer
Walnut Creek, CA

Nazareth "Blue" Lansing, Engineer
Houston, TX
   
Tony Szamboti, BS, Mechanical Engineering Professional

Dr. Michael Voschine, PhD., Structural Engineer
Miami, Florida
   
Doug Plumb, EE, Elecrical Engineering Professional
Toronto, ON

Rob Tamaki, M.A.Sc., P.Eng., Civil Engineer
Vancouver, BC
   
Christopher Backus, BS, Mechanical Engineering
Redmond, WA

Jasper Tomlinson MA(Oxon) CEnv MCIWEM, Environmental and Water Resources Engineer
London Uk, London
   
Jason Griffin, BS, Civil Engineer
Washington Dc,
   
Jay Easwaran, Ph.D. (Metallurgy & Materials Sci.), Metallurgical Engineer
Indianapolis, Indiana
   
John Sotelo, BSME, MD, Mechanical Engineer
Eureka, CA

S. Drake, Electrical Engineer
Bear, DE
   
Ron Wilson, Engineering Staff
Fort Worth, Texas
   
Crystal, Mechanical Engineer
Seattle, WA
   
David Gregg Ph.D., Chemical Engineer
Moraga, California
   
James Brooks, B. Civil Eng, University of Texas, Engineering Consultant
Austin, TX

Others and Students
Angelo Petraglia, B. Arch., Student
Jackson, NJ
   
Ellis Goldberg BSEET, MBA, Marketing Engineering Consultant
Danville, CA

Mr. Roman Dulgarov, Student
Goose Creek, South Carolina
   
Abhinav Dhaka, Student
New Delhi, Delhi

Sterling Weeks, Student
Irvine, CA
   
Lloyd Hart, Construction Contractor
Oak Bluffs, MA

Peter Hinners, Realtor
Joliet, IL
   
Dr P S Gill MD, Medical Doctor
Southampton, Hampshire

Matthew Naus, Teacher
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
   
Jason Northrup, Computer Tech/IT Consultant
San Rafael, CA

Brooke Stiltner, IT Consultant/Student
San Francisco, CA
   
max, jr
Bozeman, MT

Johan L Golibal, Engineer
Spain, The Future
   
Robert S. Lynch, Structural Steel Detailer
Falls City, TX

Sam Christmas, Technical Support Analyst
Brighton, Uk, East Sussex
   
Randy Caruso, Web Designer
Beacon, NY

Rita Hill, Software Engineer
Trinidad, CO
   
John Mustanich, Mr.
Millbrae, CA

Justin Keogh, Physics Student
Tucson, AZ
   
Brian Kausler, Student
La Grande, Oregon

Harrison Heitman, Student
Conyers, GA
   
See Yang, Student
Maplewood, MN

Bill Donnelly, Computer Consultant
Chico, CA
   
Gabriella Sankovich
Richmond, CA

Thomas Spellman, Urban Activist
Lake Geneva, WI
   
Bruce A. Scherzer, Retired Power lineman
Bay City, Michigan

and by Active Participation

We cordially invite all Architects, Engineers, Interns and affiliates to JOIN US in this worthy patriotic cause. We welcome everyone who has an interest in contributing to the success of ongoing investigations into the WTC building collapses on 9/11. We want to hear about your interests, background, and what type of contribution you may be well-suited to make. Please let us know the kinds of activities that would appeal to you the most, such as forming/participating in a committee, local speaking arrangements, authoring statements, presenting lectures, appearing on radio, etc. in Section IV on the join form.

With our deepest appreciation,

Richard Gage, Architect

_______________________________________________
Project-Censored-L mailing list
Project-Censored-L@sonoma.edu
https://webmail.sonoma.edu/mailman/listinfo/project-censored-l

=====================================

Maybe us engineers can start a local chapter, eh?

Jack Shimek, Mechanical Engineer, Material Science and Metallurgy
Amherst, New-Hampshire

[jaqeboy]

Oh, I see the headings over the names got munged up when I copied and pasted it into this little box. Properly formatted membership list here: http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php

[lastlady]

Thanks for posting Jack!

[MaineShark]

Hope this helps, Shark:

Some, although I do like the format on the Scholars' site, where they have bios for the folks.  Can't get everything, eh?

Joe