If the WTC were rigged for controlled demolition

[hack89]

why didn't they fall like this?:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157411,00.html

I thought one of the proofs for controlled demolition was they fell straight down instead of toppling over. (After all, we all know thats how building really fall over!)

[seatnineb]

1. I'm sorry...........

You were saying........

[Rob Conn]

4. Good find

The resemblance is uncanny. - R.C.

[Frederik]

6. For what it's worth

Some have voiced suspicion that this particular photo of the WTC collapsing is manipulated. As far as I know, it's the only photo which shows the tower tilting to the side like that, but I may be mistaken? Anyway, that would of course beg the question, who would be interested in doing that?

[staticstopper]

26. south tower tilt

"NARRATOR: These pictures show that the South Tower fell away from the impact wall and toward the side where the fire had concentrated. To the team, this suggested a particular mechanism for the collapse, which the video helped confirm."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2907_wtc.html



"The apparent source of this waterfall: molten aluminum from the jet's wings and fuselage, which had also piled up in that corner. Within minutes, portions of the 80th floor began to give way, as evidenced by horizontal lines of dust blowing out the side of the building. Seconds later, near the heavily damaged southeasterly portion of this same floor, close to where the aircraft had entered, exterior columns began to buckle.

Fifty-six minutes and 10 seconds after it was hit, the top of the south tower tilted horribly, to the east and then to the south, and initiated the collapse of the entire tower, floor upon floor."

http://www.skfriends.com/02.htm

[philb]

2. There is a huge amount of evidence of explosions in the WTC buildings

prior to the buildings collapsing, by firefighters, building engineers, other occupants, news reporters, seismic recordings, etc. And papers by engineers and scientists showing that planes or fires couldn't have brought the buildings down; plus confirmation by the firefighters that the fires were not large or hot and were controllable.
Plus documentation that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition. If it was done for WTC7 on a couple of hours notice to do it, why would it be so hard for the others where there was more time and known past oportunity to set the explosives.

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

I don't see anything relevant in your information. What is your point?

[Rob Conn]

5. Point?

Pretty good synopsis of that whole deal. I like your angle. But I'm uncertain about whether you are being sarcastic about the 'couple hours' and really do know that it takes at least a couple of weeks to plan and install a demolition. Also an important warning. I've spent a great deal of time sorting out whether 9/11 websites are rational, ignorant, or misleading. The page that you link to is on the Florida League of Conservative Voters site, and is almost exclusively comprised of links to disreputable websites. As usual, they utilize some reputable sources as well to provide an air authenticity. I caution you to question the intentions of many of these content providers. Many are hoping to distract your attention from more important issues, such as who did it, and what we should do as citizens in response, by making it appear that the examination of the physical evidence of the attack, most of which has been destroyed or made secret, will reveal a 'smoking gun' that will lead to indictments. Not gunna happen. Take a look at 911review.com and 911review.org. They both say that the other is the plant. Then look at which sites they recomment and reputiate. It's serious info war. 911review.com even has .org's whole site available with debunking commentary added. And then there's hack89. This post was basically irrational, so its most likely resulted from either humor, ignorance, or political intent. And I'm sure that hack89 isn't so ignorant. In fact its second hand propaganda from FOX News. I've noticed that there are a few members of DU who frequent the 9/11 group, and post dubious factual information supporting the official story. It would not be remotely paranoid to assume that this area is monitored and manipulated by some intelligence service or other. Assume that some of us are here to confuse the truth. Not to accuse hack89, of course. Can't actually accuse anyone. But I'm keeping a private list. Keep it real. - R.C.

[philb]

25. There are 2 ways to deal with evidence; specific and total

I compiled a big list of sites that had evidence related to WTC collapse; I haven't ranked them here or tried to analyse how credible each point they make are. I've spent more time than some think I should have but don't have time to do my own individual comprehensive assessment. I think collective discussion can cull out the chaff. But to make my list they had to have something that I thought added to the overall picture.

[LARED]

8. And papers by engineers and scientists??????????????

And where are these folks at???

I asked you previously to provide some evidence for this, and you came up short. Why do you continue to state this?

[seatnineb]

9. The evidence your "scientist" friends at NIST and FEMA ignored......

On the corner of Park Place and West Broadway, it is
as dark as night. Plumes of orange smoke curl out of
the windows of 7 World Trade Center. A fireman says
the building is going to collapse: "We've stopped
trying to put out the fire." A strange calm envelops
the street as several dozen cops, firemen, EMS
workers, and INS people in black helmets and vests
stare silently at the building. Pieces of No. 7
begin to fall. There are no sounds of impact; each
landing is silenced by the thick carpet of dust and
paper. Suddenly, just before 3 P.M, there are
screams: "Clear the area. Everybody out. Now. The
building's going to fall." Perhaps it's weariness,
but nobody runs. Everyone just moves deliberately.
The building doesn't fall yet.

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/news/articles/wtc/longestweek3.htm.

In fact WTC7 fell at................

5:20 P.M.: The 47-story Building 7 of the World Trade Center complex collapses.The evacuated building is damaged when the twin towers across the street collapse earlier in the day. Other nearby buildings in the area remain ablaze.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack.



So explain to us LARED, how firemen had predicted that WTC7 was going to fall nearly 2 1/2 hours before it did.......

[LARED]

10. You believe this this is meaningful??

Maybe the fireman thought the building would collapse because they stopped trying to put out the fires. Maybe WTC 1 & 2 collapsing a few hours earlier colored his view, gave him a foreboding.

[seatnineb]

11. Way too predictable as usual LARED...........

So what gave this foreboding to this particular cop.......nearly half an hour before the North Tower collpased........

The policeman stepped closer to Gertler and whispered. 'You don't understand. The building is going to collapse.'"

An exchange in the North Tower at 10 AM on September 11

http://www.dallasblack.com/site.aspx/reviews/books/twintowers

[LARED]

12. I've missed your point (I think)

What is the significance that some people thought the WTC building were going to collapse?

You post an unsourced article that state a cop in the North tower thought it was going to collapse at 10:00 AM; minutes after the South Tower collapsed.

This strikes you as important???????????????

Why??????????????

[seatnineb]

13. Wrong.

LARED.....

The "unsourced " article that you refer to is actually from a book called a 102 minutes....




I can see that you and your ilk have no answer for this kind of testimony.....

I was just walking down the street when someone
shouted: 'The building is going to collapse! It's
going to come down!' So I had to run. Then I heard an
explosion above my head, and that was it - it was
coming down - and I had to run in the other direction,
back the way I came.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0%2C3858%2C4254892-1103... .

[LARED]

14. I can see that you and your ilk have no answer

for this kind of testimony.

You act as if this testimony is damming in some way. I don't see it. As I said I think three times now;

this time with feeling.

Why is this important? What do you think these statements mean?

[seatnineb]

15. No.

There is a difference between saying:

"The building is going to collapse"

And.....

"The building could collapse"

Or

"The building may collapse"

[hack89]

16. So it all comes down to parsing the words of an unknown policeman

under enormous stress as related in a second hand tale. Sounds like grounds for convicting Bush to me!

[seatnineb]

18. Or does it come down to.............

.....that unknown firemen,cops and just unknown people in general had enough engineering savvy to predict that the buildings would fall.......

'The building is going to collapse! It's
going to come down!'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0%2C3858%2C4254892-1103 ...

'You don't understand. The building is going to collapse.'"
http://www.dallasblack.com/site.aspx/reviews/books/twin...

Clear the area. Everybody out. Now. The
building's going to fall."
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/news/articles/wtc/longestwe... .


.....and low and behold!

[hack89]

20. It would help if your links worked, however ...

It would make perfect sense if these warnings were made after the first tower collapsed, now wouldn't it? Can you fix these quotes in time perhaps?

[seatnineb]

21. Well that is interesting!

The NewyorkMetro seems to have lost this little gem!

Having gone from this...........

"Clear the area. Everybody out. Now. The
building's(WTC7) going to fall."

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/news/articles/wtc/longestweek3.htm.


...to this........

Page Not Found

We apologize for the inconvenience but it appears the link you've selected is broken.
Please visit our homepage and try again or contact us and tell us what's wrong. Thank you.


http://www.newyorkmetro.com/error.htm

The other links are still working.....for the time being.....

"You don't understand. The building is going to collapse.'"
An exchange in the North Tower at 10 AM on September 11, 2001.

http://www.dallasblack.com/site.aspx/reviews/books/twintowers


'The building is going to collapse! It's
going to come down!'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0%2C3858%2C4254892-110340%2C00.html.

[hack89]

22. Thanks - now, if you were fully aware of the 9/11 plot...

would you be hanging around a building that you knew will soon collapse and possibly kill you? Seems like a good time to take a vacation.

[seatnineb]

27. Good point.

But who says that these unknown people who gave warnings that the buildings would collapse were anywhere near the buildings when they did collpase.

Even the unamed cop in the north tower who says.........

"You don't understand. The building is going to collapse."

http://www.dallasblack.com/site.aspx/reviews/books/twin...

...says it with the best part of 30 minutes to spare.

That is a long time.

[philb]

24. None of those links work for me; but there are a lot of pictures out there

You've cherry picked and didn't present the whole story;
but its also not clear this picture is legit, or so one site says.

If the building top is falling considerably to one side, what major force caused its momentum to shift to a different direction. That would take quite some force. Or according to the physics that I've had. It appears it would fall on the building next to it; but apparently didn't.

[seatnineb]

28. Hmmm...

I think this photo.......



...is taken by Luigi Cazzaniga.

He was also responsible for filming this mini explosion at the base of the south tower just 5 minutes before it collapsed....

[LARED]

17. One more time for giggles

What do you think these statements mean?

Try a paragraph or so to let folks know what's on your mind.

[seatnineb]

19. Gee...........

I sense a coincidentalist conspiracy afoot!


"we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse."
Mayor Guiliani.


'The building is going to collapse! It's
going to come down!'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0%2C3858%2C4254892-1103 ...

'You don't understand. The building is going to collapse.'"
http://www.dallasblack.com/site.aspx/reviews/books/twin ...

Clear the area. Everybody out. Now. The
building's going to fall."
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/news/articles/wtc/longestwe ... .

[philb]

23. I don't agree with your assessment

I provided a lot of links; some were engineers and scientists and overall my assessment is that the case is stronger for explosions and demolition being responsible for WTC collapse than airliners and fire. There is a huge amount of info, studies, statements by firefighters, building engineers, seismic data, etc.

Some info is technical; some observational; some background;etc.
it would have been nice if a more serious investigation had been carried out; so we are left to weigh the evidence and info we have available; and try to get access to more evidence thats being withheld. I think more FOIA requests are needed.

I do this in my spare time but have spent a good bit of time looking at a lot of sites and studies.

What info do you find persuasive that fire brought WTC down?

[Rob Conn]

3. In fact...

Demolition involving the toppling of a building is far more rare than the standard practice of bringing the building straight down. This is due to the fact that most often tall buildings are surrounded by others. In fact controlled demolition is usually the practice of preventing exactly what we see in those pictures. Certainly the science of demolition has improved over time. I'm certain we could find images of demolitions that didn't go as planned. - R.C.

[Frederik]

7. Wow, you found a photo

of a demolished building toppling over. Now that's some serious debunkin'!