Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Toxic service company explosives in the elevator shafts

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 08:18 AM
Original message
Edited on Sun Nov-20-05 08:18 AM by Kevin Fenton
The Strange Case of the WTCs Elevator Service Company

When the WTC was built, the Port Authority hired the worlds leading elevator company, Otis, to engineer, manufacture, install and service its elevators; the contract was worth US$ 35 million and was highly prestigious, as it was for the largest vertical transportation system in history comprising over 200 elevators plus a few dozen escalators.
www.otis.com/otis150/section/1,2344,ARC3066_CLI1_RES1_S...
Otis is owned by the United Technologies Corporation, which also owns companies like Pratt & Whitney (aircraft engines) and Sikorsky (helicopters).
http://www.utc.com

What happened to the people stuck in the elevators during the 1993 bombing?
When the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, Otis Elevator's mechanics led the rescue of 500 people trapped in elevators. Some mechanics were dropped onto the roofs of the twin towers by helicopter. Others, carrying 50-pound oxygen tanks on their backs, climbed through smoke to machine rooms high in the towers.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/12/19/usat-mec... (the USA Today Article)
Now thats what I call service. Id be somewhat concerned about going up in a helicopter, never mind jumping out of one onto a 1,400 foot high building that was still smoking.

What was Otiss reward for this sterling work?
They lost the contract. In 1994 they left and the WTC elevators were taken over by a company called the ACE Elevator Company, Inc., who were based in New Jersey. I cant find anything about this and believe you me Ive tried (was the contract up for tender? was it terminated prematurely? how much was the new contract worth? I cant find anything). You would have thought giving the worlds largest contract to a small local company like ACE would have raised an eyebrow to two, but theres nothing. What makes this doubly odd is that ACE seems to have gotten some of Otis WTC employees:
The strategy had worked after the 1993 terrorist bombing, when many of the same mechanics working for Otis Elevator, which had the contract then were hailed as heroes. (USA Today article)
The men that were there in 93, most of them, a lot of them were still there.
http://www.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/jones.htm
Otis lost the contract and then ACE got their people? Sounds fishy to me.

Who the hell is the ACE Elevator Company?
A.C.E. Elevator Co., Inc., established in 1980, is now celebrating its 20th anniversary. We are proud to be recognized as the largest privately owned Elevator Company in the tri-state area.
http://www.nycooperative.com/Contractors/elevators.html

The only other reference I can find to a contract they held was in an Audit Report on the New York Yankees Rental Credits by the NYC Comptroller. It implies they had a contract with the NY Yankees.
http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov/bureaus/audit/PDF_FILES/...

I guess they must have had a few other small and medium-sized contracts in the New York and New Jersey area. However, they are never mentioned in industry analyses and they dont appear to have any other big contracts.

This is a 33-page list of union claims against elevator companies in New York and New Jersey. ACE is mentioned once, Otis must be in there a hundred times. This shows you how small they were:
http://www.iuec1.org/claimlist.pdf

ACE also appears in another context political donations. The donations were mostly small a few hundred or a thousand dollars, but a Village Voice article added them up and came up with the number US$ 44,900 in total donations to the Conservative party in 1995-1998. They also made other donations, for example charitable ones.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/9843,barrett,874,1.htm...

So what happened on 9/11?
Few elevators performed properly. Most elevators, even those on low floors, stopped functioning the moment the jets hit.
In a fire emergency, an elevator is programmed to return to its lowest floor and hold its doors open. On Sept. 11, many elevators far below the crash zones failed to do this, although they continued to have electrical power. The reason for this failure is unclear. Some elevators returned to their lowest floors but didn't open. That made it hard for firefighters to know whether elevators had returned to lobby floors or were stalled somewhere higher. The doors of nearly 50 elevators in the north lobby alone were closed. (USA Today article)
Gee, I wonder why they failed.

What should the elevator mechanics have done?
The industry takes pride in rescues. In the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, elevator mechanics worked closely with the firefighters making rescues.
"Nobody knows the insides of a high-rise like an elevator mechanic. They act as guides for firefighters, in addition to working on elevators," says Robert Caporale, editor of Elevator World, a trade magazine." (USA Today Article)

And what did the ACE elevator mechanics who had so distinguished themselves when they worked for OTIS do?
Well, first they gathered in the South Tower lobby and then, the elevator mechanics many of the same men involved in the rescues in 1993 left the buildings after the second jet struck, nearly an hour before the first building collapsed. (USA Today Article).

Before I go on to what the elevator mechanics did after leaving the South Tower, I should point out that there is a discrepancy concerning how many mechanics actually assembled in the lobby. This is the official story:
In an interview, ACE Elevator President Ron Baamonde says the crewmembers left on their own because they were in danger. He says ACE followed the Trade Center's emergency plan. After a jet hit the north tower, 81 crewmembers reported to the fire command station in the south tower lobby. Two reported by radio.
And this is what one of the mechanics said:
Not all personnel were there, naturally, because this was within a 15- 20-minute period after A Tower was impacted. We had at least maybe two-thirds of the total personnel that were there close to 70 to 80 people that work for Ace at that time In the lobby, some of the bosses were calling, they were taking head count, they were trying to figure out who was there, who was missing. They would come up with a name, they would call him on the radio. And in most cases, nobody was answering.
http://www.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/jones.htm
Not a big discrepancy, but it would be nice to know how many guys were actually there.

So, the mechanics left the South Tower, what then?
Well, they kept going, We were ordered to go from Church Street up to Broadway. We stood there for about 20 minutes or so, and as we started to go up another block, we were about a block and a half away when B Tower finally came down We ended up down on the South Street Seaport Museum Everybody had soda and some drinks, and a lot of the men decided to leave. They went home.

In stark contrast to the ACE employees, a passing elevator mechanic from another company rushed into the WTC and died trying to rescue trapped passengers.

Some people have called the elevator mechanics cowards, but I wouldnt agree with that. There was no stampede, had they been told to go up with the firemen, as they expected, they would have gone. It was a failure of leadership. Why did the bosses want to stay in the towers?

What happened to ACE Elevator after the WTC collapsed?
The Company filed for chapter 11 protection on Dec. 21, 2004 When the Debtor filed for protection from its creditors, it listed $5,285,000 in total assets and $7,700,000 in total debts.
http://bankrupt.com/TCR_Public/041230.mbx
Hmm, thats not a lot of assets for a company that had such a prestigious contract, is it?


OK, the elevator shafts, from which many of the core columns were accessible, were the easiest place to put explosives and there are a number of oddities related to the elevator maintenance company, but so what? This, in itself, does not mean that there were explosives in the elevator shafts. Now lets turn to the eyewitness statements:

North Tower
(1) Erik O. Ronningen
On September 11, 2001, from the south windows of my office on the 71 st floor of Tower One, I was sitting at my desk looking out across a beautifully crystal clear New York Harbor skyline. Sipping my normal 20-ounce cup of coffee, I was preparing for a scheduled 10:00 AM meeting on the 77 th floor.

After the plane hit:
The floor began to fill with smoke, and the carpets with water flooding out of the freight elevator shaft. And from all around, the cry of people yelling to evacuate the building.

When he got downstairs:
The main lobby was a shambles. Chandeliers down; the marble walls in broken piles on the floor; the giant directional signage dangling from the ceilings; all the windows broken, the revolving doors broken and off kilter and the elevator doors all blown out.
http://www.projectrebirth.org/getInvolved/erikR.html
Comment: His narrative makes it clear that this is before the South Tower collapsed, as he comes out of WTC 1 and then sees it fall down. There were only three elevators from the lobby to the impact zone in WTC 1, so its hard to see why all the elevator doors should be blown out. Plus, the amount of damage to the lobby is too much for overpressures from 3 falling elevators and a couple of hundred gallons of jet fuel.

(2) Kenton Beerman
Kenton Beerman, 24, was also sending e-mail at work when an explosion rocked 1 World Trade Center, making it sway back and forth for 10 seconds. At first, Beerman thought the building would fall into the Hudson River. Then he realized it had stopped moving and saw thousands of pieces of paper fluttering outside. ``We thought it was a bomb in the freight elevator,'' Beerman said, because the sound of the explosion seemed to have come from that direction.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/11_APwitnesses.html
Comment: The sound of American 11 hitting and exploding was above him.

(3) David Frank
I noticed that the inch thick dark green marble lining the elevator bank's walls, had buckled and snapped. Major structural damage. They won't let anyone in here for a very long time.
http://www.mwoa.org/David_Frank.html
Comment: This was on floor 78.

(4) Firefighter Cacchioli
CACCHIOLI AND CREW ENTER NORTH TOWER AND GO UP TO 24TH FLOOR
the north tower looked like a war zone. When he entered the lobby, Cacchioli recalls elevator doors completely blown out and another scene of mass chaos with people running, screaming and being hit with debris.
I remember thinking to myself, my God, how could this be happening so quickly if a plane hit way above. It didnt make sense, said Cacchioli.
At that point, Cacchioli found one of the only functioning elevators, one only going as high as the 24th floor, a twist of fate that probably saved his life.
the doors opened on the 24th floor, a scene again that hardly made sense to the seasoned fireman, claiming the heavy dust and haze of smoke he encountered was unusual considering the location of the strike.
Tommy Hedsal was with me and everybody else also gets out of the elevator when it stops on the 24th floor, said Cacchioli, There was a huge amount of smoke. Tommy and I had to go back down the elevator for tools and no sooner did the elevators close behind us, we heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb. It was such a loud noise, it knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator.
Luckily, we werent caught between floors and were able to pry open the doors. People were going crazy, yelling and screaming. And all the time, I am crawling low and making my way in the dark with a flashlight to the staircase and thinking Tommy is right behind me.
I somehow got into the stairwell and there were more people there. When I began to try and direct down, another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later, although its hard to tell, but Im thinking, Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!
But still it never crossed my mind the building was going to collapse. I really only had two things on my mind and that was getting people out and saving lives. Thats what I was trained for and thats what I was going to do.
I remember at that point in the stairwell between the 23rd and 24th floor, I threw myself down on the steps because of the smoke. It was pitch black, I had my mask on and I was crawling down the steps until I found the door on the 23rd floor.
When Cacchioli entered the 23rd floor, he found a little man holding a handkerchief in front of his face and hiding under the standpipes on the wall, used for pumping water on the floor in case of fire.
Leading the man by the arm, he then ran into a group down the hall of about 35 to 40 people, finding his way down the 23rd floor stairwell and beginning their descent to safety.
Then as soon as we get in the stairwell, I hear another huge explosion like the other two. Then I heard bang, bang, bang - huge bangs and surmised later it was the floors pan caking on top of one another.
I knew we had to get out of there fast and on the 12th floor a man even jumped on my back because he thought he couldnt make it any farther. Everybody was shocked and dazed and it was a miracle all of us got this far.
When the group led by Cacchioli finally made it to the lobby level, he was unable to open the door at first, the concussion of the explosions or perhaps the south tower falling, jamming the lobby door.
Finally jarring it loose, the group entered the lobby finding total devastation with windows blown out and marble falling form the walls, but strangely no people. At that point, it was either left or right to an exit, Cacchioli, the man he originally found by the standpipes and another lady going right while the others went left, a move which by the grace of God saved his life.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... (philb)
Comment: This is incredible. He noticed several discrete explosions (probably around 10:00), even if one of them was the South Tower collapsing, the others could not have been, as the South Tower only collapsed once.

(5) Firefighter Michael Yrembinsky
When we got to 22 we heard there was Port Authority command post on 22. So we were stopped there my officer wanted to find out some information my officer lieutenant Andy Desperito he went over to the command post. We noticed in the hallway that the elevator shaft had been blown out there was nothing there no doors no framing nothing.
(philb)

(6) Lieutenant James Walsh
What else I observed in the lobby was that theres basically two areas of elevators. Theres elevators off to the left hand side which are really the express elevators that would be the elevators thats facing north. Then on the right hand side theres also elevators that are express elevators and that would be facing south. And you could see the shafts of the elevators on the extreme north side and the other express elevator on the extreme south side. They looked intact to me from what could see the doors anyway. In the center of these two elevator shafts would be elevators that go to the lower floors. They were blown off the hinges. Thats where the service elevator was also.
Q: Were these elevators that went to the upper floors? They werent side lobby elevators.
No Id say that they went through floors 30 and below, and they were blown off the hinges.
(philb)

(7)
We went in, busted through one of the windows, opened up, made like a door. The maintenance guy said I think the elevators are working, or it was the Chief said it. The Chief went around and says take a look at some of the elevators. I think we had a
maintenance guy with us at the time. He said these low-rise are working, it will get you up to 16. So we went up to 16, which was great because, walking 16 flights, we wouldn't be able to operate.

Now I'm about 20 to 25 feet from the windows and the building starts to shake, and I look out and I'm just seeing all the steel from the south tower coming down right in front of my face, just all the steel, I mean, everything. Then someone gave a Mayday to get out of the building. So it took us quite a bit of time to hit the lobby and it was just destroyed. I mean, it looked like -- it wasn't the same lobby 15 minutes ago. It was just completely gone, every window was shattered, all the ceiling tile, the elevator banks had let go it seemed, the floor was all crushed down.
(philb)

(8) FIREFIGHTER BERTRAM SPRINGSTEAD
We came to the lobby, and the lobby was a disaster. It never registered that the other building had collapsed. We came outside, and we walked the same way we came in. We went back to the -- you didnt go through the doors. All the glass was broken on the ground floor when we came in the first time, I guess from the elevators collapsing or I dont know. All the glass was gone.



Q. Okay. Did you get any sense that the elevators were running at any time when you got there or at any time was there any talk about
A. The elevator doors were blown off.
Q. Blown off?
A. Yeah. You could see they were a disaster.
Q. Was there evidence of fire or smoke in that area? Did you get the sense that fire had been in that shaft or was in that shaft, the elevator shaft?
A. No, no, I never thought - I just assumed that they must have plummeted from being cut
(philb)
Comment: Whats really odd is the questions that are asked, like Was there evidence of fire or smoke in that area? The answer No, no. was kind of unusual too.

(9) Mike Pecoraro
Deep below the tower, Mike Pecoraro was suddenly interrupted in his grinding task by a shake on his shoulder from his co-worker. Did you see that? he was asked. Mike told him that he had seen nothing. You didnt see the lights flicker?, his co-worker asked again.
Mike told his co-worker to call upstairs to their Assistant Chief Engineer and find out if everything was all right. His co-worker made the call and reported back to Mike that he was told that the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where they were and sit tight until the Assistant Chief got back to them. By this time, however, the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke. We smelled kerosene, Mike recalled, I was thinking maybe a car fire was upstairs, referring to the parking garage located below grade in the tower but above the deep space where they were working.
The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.
There was nothing there but rubble, Mike said. Were talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press gone! The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. You could stand here, he said, and two inches over you couldnt breathe. We couldnt see through the smoke so we started screaming. But there was still no answer.
The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you cant see anything he said.
They decided to ascend two more levels to the buildings lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up like a piece of aluminum foil and lying on the floor. They got us again, Mike told his co-worker, referring to the terrorist attack at the center in 1993. Having been through that bombing, Mike recalled seeing similar things happen to the buildings structure. He was convinced a bomb had gone off in the building.
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/underground/underg...

South Tower, probably explosives
(10) Will Jimeno
Officer Will Jimeno of the Port Authority Police Department recalls his experience on Sept. 11, after he and four other officers, including his close friend Officer Dominick A. Pezzulo, entered the South Tower of the World Trade Center.
We are one floor under the main concourse area, where all the stores are, (Suddenly I hear a loud noise and) look over to the Sarge and say, "Hey, Sarge, is there a second plane coming?" And, just then, it is like an earthquake when the plane hits the south building. The whole concourse above us collapses. There are a lot of civilians all around, and I don't know what happens to them, but I think it has to be bad.
Dominick runs first, I am behind and the Sarge is behind me. Antonio is behind the Sarge, and Chris is bringing up the rear. But Chris never makes it, because the shock wave pushes him back into the main concourse area, and he takes the worst of it. Dominick and I and the Sarge just make it around the corner, but Antonio doesn't. Everything just starts hitting us, and then the wall comes down on top of me.
I am flabbergasted. My friend Dominick is crushed down in the push-up position, and my legs are pinned completely by heavy concrete. Sgt. McLoughlin sees the walls breaking apart, and they are falling on him. And the ceiling falls on him, 20 feet away from me. I can't see him, but I can hear him.
The lights are flickering, but they don't go out. Dominick begins to wiggle himself out. Sgt. McLoughlin does everything by the book, and so we are talking about what we have to do. I have an old pair of handcuffs, and I begin to scratch at everything around me, trying to free up some of the concrete. The Sarge is hurt bad, and he has a few thousand pounds crushing down on him. But he keeps talking to us to steady us, keep us calm.
Dominick is a weight lifter, and he finally pushes everything off him. He gets free, and he begins to work on getting me out. My left leg is completely stuck under immovable concrete. He is bending over just a little when we hear the collapse beginning.
http://www.jsonline.com/lifestyle/people/mar02/25560.as...
Comment: This is incredible. There is only one elevator shaft that goes from the impact area in the South Tower to the level where all the stores are its a freight elevator shaft maybe the one they were running towards. United 175 was carrying approx. 9,100 gallons of fuel. According to NIST, less than 15 percent was used up in internal fireballs, which gives us under 1365 gallons (lets call it 1300 gallons) shared between the impact floors and the 20+ elevator shafts that ran from the impact floors. NIST estimates the pressure generated by the fireball to be over 3,000 pounds of force for a window and frame over 10 ft2 more than enough to break a window. This gives us two problems: (1) if we assume half the fuel used in the internal fireballs (650 gallons) went down the elevator shafts (this is very probably an overestimate) and that it was equally distributed between, say, 25 elevators on the impact floors (actually there were probably more) then there should only be an average of 26 gallons in each elevator shaft; 26 gallons of jet fuel would expand in a fireball to cover an area of only around 9,000 cubic feet, which means the fireball would be much smaller than the elevator shaft, and (2) in any case, theres no way a jet fuel explosion can destroy a concrete ceiling like that.


Thats enough eyewitnesses. Im going to draw some conclusions:
(1) Much of the eyewitness testimony (number of explosions, scope of damage caused by explosions) is inconsistent with the idea that the damage was caused by the jet fuel. Therefore, I think there were explosives and that some of them went off prematurely.

(2) The eyewitnesses give me the impression the explosives were in the elevator shafts, which is supported by the fact that this would be the easiest place to put them, and by the strange goings-on with the elevator service company.

(3) If youre planning a false flag operation where a plane hits a tower that you then take down with explosives, the absolutely worst place to put the explosives is in the elevator shafts, because some of them are going to go off due to burning jet fuel coming down the shafts. Whoever placed the explosives in the shafts was either (1) not expecting a plane, or (2) even more incompetent than Rummy. I go for (1).

This is what I think happened:
After the 1993 bombing the powers-that-be shat themselves at the thought of a successful repeat and decided that the most palatable alternative was to put explosives in the towers to prevent one tower falling on the other. Otis didnt want to be part of that, so they got a small, local company that was only too willing to help out.
On 9/11 the explosives started going off without being triggered after the planes hit, causing two problems: (1) if the explosives went off out of sequence, they could actually cause the tower to topple to one side and destroy the buildings it fell on, and (2) having the explosives in the building was obviously illegal and them exploding was a bit of a giveaway that they were there, therefore it was better to destroy the towers to get rid of the evidence. The fact that the presidents father was meeting Osamas brother that day might also have given the public the wrong idea about how coordinated the attack was.

See? Its that simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
1. Since so many people must have been involved..
in the planning and installation of all those explosives it shouldn't be too hard to find some real evidence - or this another example of the BFEE's amazing ability to intimidate thousands of people into absolute silence. And of course it is impossible to imagine that anyone involved would have the moral courage to step forward to denounce murder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. If you were a party to murder,
would you admit it just like that?

Anybody with knowledge is an accomplice before the fact and is looking at a very long time in jail or maybe worse. Given that there's no heat on anybody with any foreknowledge, why shouldn't they just sit tight and hope it will all blow over? That's what I'd do. Besides, it's not their fault, is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. You plea bargain with a low level flunky..
and give him immunity to testify against his superiors - just like they go after organized crime.

And of course everyone involved is a moral coward unwilling to step forward to take responsibility for their actions. You have such a dark, cynical view of mankind - if people are not basically good how can you hope for a better world?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Who?
Who would plea bargain with a low-level flunky? There is no investigation. I guess if you squeezed the head of the ACE Elevator Co. (I'm sure he must know something) then he'd roll over on somebody, but nobody's squeezed him, so he hasn't rolled over yet.

"And of course everyone involved is a moral coward unwilling to step forward to take responsibility for their actions. You have such a dark, cynical view of mankind - if people are not basically good how can you hope for a better world?"
Yes, I have a very dark, cynical view of mankind and I don't hope for a "better world". In what way should it be better?
When I search my memory I can only think of one person who came forward to admit to murder without being squeezed and I seem to remember that Crime and Punishment was a work of fiction.

btw, "thousands of people" - thank you for pulling a number out of your ear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Well,
Edited on Sun Nov-20-05 03:09 PM by hack89
Of course there are thousands involved with the 9/11 cover up:

1. All the people needed to wire the building with explosives
2. All the people subverting NORAD to stand down the air defenses.
3. All the scientist at NIST involved in creating a white wash report.
3a: All the scientists in America who see the obviously poor science in the NIST report but say nothing.
4. etc, etc etc per all the CTs in this forum.

How many people do you think have direct or indirect knowledge of at least part of 9/11 and have said nothing?

You have my sympathy - I could not imagine living in the world as you perceive it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. It's not so bad
(1) In your opinion, how many people does it take to put a few dozen charges in a few elevator shafts? Thousands?
(2) NORAD wasn't stood down, merely poorly led, so this is a moot point.
(3) In two of NIST's three scenarios the towers don't fall down, so I doubt everybody there was subverted.
(3)(a) It's a huge report and it'll take a long time for the scientific community to digest it. They're not party to a conspiracy anyway.
(4) The Able Danger people have already come forward, I guess there's more, but it'll take time.

How many people would know there were bombs in the WTC?
I suppose you could do it with about 10, but I doubt the real number would be so low. I'd say reasonable estimates start at 50.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. a few dozen charges?
Edited on Sun Nov-20-05 03:42 PM by hack89
how many tons of explosives do you think were needed to produce the damage we saw on 9/11?

As for the NIST reports, many on this board knew within hours that it was a white wash based on poor science. Why would an engineer or scientist who is an expert in the field need months to digest it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Amount of explosives
"how many tons of explosives do you think were needed to produce the damage we saw on 9/11?"
Oh, lots.

"As for the NIST reports, many on this board knew within hours that it was a white wash based on poor science. Why would an engineer or scientist who is an expert in the field need months to digest it?"
Why are you asking me this question, when you already know the answer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. So...
Truck loads of explosives shipped and sneaked into the WTC with no noticing - OKAAY

So you are in agreement that CT suspicions concerning the NIST report are not grounded in reality and knowledge in science and engineering is actually required to understand and critique the report? That's a load off my mind!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. If I understand you correctly (and also reading between the lines)..
not many explosives were necessary because the weight of the building above the floor with explosives (and it would require only one floor)would be sufficient to destroy the entire building. No need for explosives on every (or every 10) floors - just in a couple of strategic places. So my question would be: why couldn't extensive physical destruction of support columns and extensive fires - all on one floor - have the same effect as explosives? The prevailing CT on demo is that there was a massive amount of explosives on nearly every floor (how else can you explain the squibs?) You are saying now that a small amount of explosives could have the same effect - that opens the window to the official story as far as I am concerned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-05 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #23
29. Exaggeration
"extensive physical destruction of support columns"
Extensive? We're talking about around 30 columns out of 283.

"extensive fires"
Extensive? Prove it.

"The prevailing CT on demo is that there was a massive amount of explosives on nearly every floor (how else can you explain the squibs?)"
It isn't and you know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-05 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #20
27. My feeling is
that if you thought you had a good argument, you wouldn't have to keep exaggerating.

"As for the NIST reports, many on this board knew within hours that it was a white wash based on poor science."
You are out of your ear again. Link please.

In the base case scenario, the towers didn't fall down; that's a pretty simple concept to understand. Do you seriously believe that United 175 severed 10 core columns, but didn't damage the drop ceiling, as NIST claims?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rich Hunt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. LOL

My sentiments exactly. You make my day.

Some people's 'conspiracy theories' reflect an extremely poor view of government in general, of educated professionals, and of humanity in general. The more individuals and groups involved in a 'conspiracy theory', i.e., the broader it is, the less plausible it is. Boxcutters and knives, people.

(I say this because a conspiracy consisting of the WHOLE of one, two or three smaller groups is more plausible than one in which large numbers of people are scattered across a large number of institutions. Whether or not it is their intention, were such a conspiracy theory be accepted as fact, government as an idea and professionalism as an idea would be discredited. Perhaps that IS the real intention here. But since when do Democrats renounce government, middle-class professionals and academics?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Amount of conspirators in WTC demolition
You need three groups smaller groups:
(1) People to actually place the explosives and set them off;
(2) Cover, most probably in the elevator company;
(3) Some people in the government/establishment to do the actual deciding.

If you think 9/11 was done by Al Qaeda acting alone, then how many people do you think were involved there? Surely, it has to be more than 19.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-22-05 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #18
55. Lets think about this...
I would think you would need the following groups of people:

1. Skilled engineers to analyze the building to determine how to engineer the demolition system.

2. Skilled demo engineers to actually design the demo system. Considering that most demo setups last only weeks at the most before they are blown up it would be interesting to see who has the experience to build a reliable, redundant system that could last for years. Since it has never been done before, surely there was extensive testing done - another group of potential witnesses.

3. The explosive were surely custom made to ensure that they would still work after years in place (standard C4 or RDX deteriorates over time especially when exposed to heat and moisture). Regardless, it would be a huge order and there are few places that manufacture such explosives so there is a whole factory of people who are potential witnesses.

4. All the people required to ship and install the explosives.

5. All the people over the years that maintained and tested the system to ensure it would work when necessary.

6. Plus all the folks in the government both Democrat and Republican over a 12 year period.

And answer this question for me - this was obviously a Clinton decision unless you feel that this was a completely lower level decision. Why would the Bush administration accept this scheme without question?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-23-05 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #55
56. Not six groups
Groups (1) and (2) are the same. CD usually takes so long because they take out dividing walls, etc. No testing was done.

(3) Factory workers have no idea for whom they are making a product.

The same applies to the people shipping (for example you get it through a front company). The people who install it are the same as group (1) and (2).

(5) The people who maintain the system are the same as (1), (2) and (4b)

(6) I know you like exaggerating things, but how did you work out there were 12 years between 1994 and 2001? And why would "all the folks" have to know? Wouldn't this knowledge by highly restricted?

"This was obviously a Clinton decision unless you feel that this was a completely lower level decision."
I would imagine it was a Clinton decision.
"Why would the Bush administration accept this scheme without question?"
Neither of us know whether they questioned it or not. I would hope they accepted it for the same reasons it was put in place at the start (i.e. not because they already knew about Atta and Co.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bryan Sacks Donating Member (732 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-05 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #16
37. What's so funny?
Rich,

When I was in graduate school, the biggest joke running was the credentialization process. It was the one subject we all understood would never be given the scrutiny it deserves. Exactly who is positioned to expose the credentialization process for what it was? The weaker student who got passed along despite failing his prelims because of his personal connections to his professors? The professors who did the passing along?

Over time, everyone in academia gets implicated in systems like these. Very few people can remain unblemished. Regarding prelims, what i'm describing is a conspiracy. Professors in essence agree that "We will all pass along this student who we all know has failed to meet our stated standards for reason we do not want made public, and we will lie about this if asked." Professors who hate each other nevertheless get in league with one another because they need each other's cooperation in this conspiracy from time to time, and for other professional reasons.

The corporate media operates slightly differently, with a similar result. Do you really think that all of those White House reporters, many of whom are very smart people, haven't known on some level that they're been lied to by this Administration AS A MATTER OF POLICY on a host of issues for five years now? Of course they know. But they play along, out of careerist motives, cowardice, protective descriptions of self that separate them from the corrupt liars they report on and other profeessional considerations. That's why when a story like the Downing Street Minutes breaks, one which categorically illustrates that the government has been lying for years, the corporate media still tread lightly. Because they've ingested the lies for so long and conveyed them to the public, they're somewhat psychologically invested in keeping up the facade. They can't go nuts about exposing the truth because they feel implicated in the system of lies.

In government, I suspect, it's something very similar.

The idea that whistleblowers always have someone to go to--in academia, in government, in media--is what's laughable. Has Sibel Edmonds gone to people? Did you read the "Vanity Fair" article this summer? Guess that investigation of Dennis Hastert will be wrapping up any minute, huh? And those Able Danger fellows, heck, there the toast of the USA now that they've once again exp
None of this necessarily 'discredit' government or academia (it IS meant to discredit the corporate media). It just points out that, like all institutions, neither seeks to expose it own inner workings which, if light were shone on them, would appear quite ugly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
4. Good post! Though I'm not sure I agree with your conclusions...
It is possible, what you say -- assuming you believe the hijackings were for real and all that.

I am sure there were explosives planted in the elevator shaft, the core area.

I'm not sure the explanation is so innocent. Either the burning plane fuel set off bombs-- or the planners decided that the plane/missile impact was a good diversion for setting off some of the pre-planted bombs in the core.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. Elevator shaft
I'm sure they were in the elevator shafts, too (maybe only in the elevator shafts). If you want to demolish the WTC with explosives, you have to put some in/by the elevator shafts, because so many of the core columns are right by them. You can't put the explosives just on the other the other columns and hope it'll work. Besides, the eyewitnesses really do support the claim that there were explosions in the elevator shafts.

It's not just the problem that some burning fuel might trigger the bombs, there's also the problems of overpressures due to falling elevators and possible debris falling down the shafts and setting the explosives off. AFAIK no debris did fall down the shafts, but this possibility could not have been ruled out beforehand. If it were a false flag operation, then why not just pick an easier target, I don't know, like a warship in harbour? There must be dozens, if not hundreds of people still walking around who saw the explosives and one day they'll put two and two together and we'll be in business - you can fool all of the people some of the time and you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

I see no reason why pre-planted bombs would be set off in the basement at the time of the impacts. This is a dead giveaway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. The WTC was picked for its symbolic effect and the overall shock&awe
value. Synthetic terror on a WARSHIP??? I guess you don't know much about syntehtic terror.

Look hundreds of thousands of poeple in NYC most liklely DO know they bombed the WTC, but people there are cynical and don't want to make trouble.

But polls in NYC show most people know something was not right with 9/11-- I forget the exact percentage, but more than half NYers had suspicions about the attacks, and many of them knew something was odd with WTC7.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-05 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #19
28. Pearl Harbour
Didn't that involve warships? I thought that you thought that there was something funny going on there.

The risks of a false-flag attack clearly outweigh the benefits of such attack when compared to another possible target. If lots of people do know something was funny, then in the end it will come out. Besides, how do you account for the oddities with the elevator service company after the 1993 bombing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-05 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #28
36. Terrorism usually terrorizes regular people-- not the military.
"The risks of a false-flag attack clearly outweigh the benefits of such attack when compared to another possible target. If lots of people do know something was funny, then in the end it will come out."

Maybe, maybe not. Even at this point, I doubt more than a small fraction of the overall population thinks 9/11 was an inside job or synthetic terrorism. The Kennedy assassination was certainly "funny", and has the truth "come out" with any real world consequences?

"Besides, how do you account for the oddities with the elevator service company after the 1993 bombing?"

I think you have raised a good point with the elevator company, and perhaps they were in on the job. The quesiton of course is why they rigged up the towers for demolition. I tend to doubt it was completely for altruistic reasons (e.g. to save lower manhattan).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-05 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. It's not altruism
The problem is that the (suicide) bomber will always get through (OK, he might not, but he might). It's obvious that the towers were a liability after the 1993 bombing and they should have been taken down because they were a danger to the people in them, the surrounding area and the US as a whole, but taking them down whom mean admiting defeat, which was politically unpalatable. So the powers-that-be chose to completely fudge the issue and put the stupid explosives in the stupid towers. Words cannot express how wrong this was - you can't put bombs in offices where people work - just think of what might happen (somebody might even crash a plane into the building and set them off).

Actually, the best thing to do after the 1993 bombing would be to stop shafting other countries, which would dry up the supply of young men hell bent on attacking the US, but, for one reason and another, this appears to have been a non-option. Taking the towers down would have been seen as a symbol that the US was losing its global dominance (it is, why not admit it?), so that was a non-starter. We were left with the bombs. I think it shows that the two main parties in the US have a far too cosy relationship with each other (this applies especially to the co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission) and that they are willing to collaborate with each other to deprive the voters of information that would be crucial to the way they would vote. I guess that this is still a formal democracy, but without free access to information, what is the value of such democracy? I really don't think that I have a rosy view of 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-05 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Okay. You certainly have an interesting perspective.
I agree with with some things you say (second paragraph is fine) but this: "It's obvious that the towers were a liability after the 1993 bombing and they should have been taken down because they were a danger to the people in them, the surrounding area and the US as a whole" --is not so clear to me.

"So the powers-that-be chose to completely fudge the issue and put the stupid explosives in the stupid towers. Words cannot express how wrong this was - you can't put bombs in offices where people work - just think of what might happen (somebody might even crash a plane into the building and set them off)."

So, do you KNOW this is what happened? Or this is your best guess? You seem rather confident in this hypothesis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-05 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. This is the third time I've changed my mind about this
and I'm sure I'm getting closer every time (on this issue, I'm not so sure about, for example, how come the hijackers weren't caught and I constantly flip-flop on whether Hanjour was on American 77, so I can't be getting any closer there either), although whether I'm actually there yet is another question. So this is my best guess - I find that when writing I (I guess other people do to) sometimes leave out some nuances that would better reflect my real position. However, I am fairly confident I'm barking up the right tree.

What I mean by the towers being a liability is that they were indefensible - there was no guarantee another suicide bomber would come along and get the bombing right this time. There was no policy, no measure, no set of measures that could definitively prevent a bomber from setting off another bomb in the towers (except banning vehicles from approaching the towers, which would have been somewhat problematic). A successful repeat would have had catastrophic results - if Yousef had been successful, it would have been a much, much bigger event than 9/11, because of the far higher casulties (even if only the North Tower fell) and the far greater loss of data (which wasn't backed up off-site in 1993). 9/11 was probably the second biggest event of my life (I mean world event, after the end of the cold war - not losing my virginity), can you imagine a much bigger event than 9/11? I have great difficulty doing so. The powers-that-be must have been aware of the possibility of a repeat and they must have done something about it. I can't see anything else, so this pushes me in the direction of explosives planted after the 1993 bombing and I see confirmation for this position in the obvious nature of the fall, the problems with the elevator company, the "foreplay" explosions and the various other funny goings-on on 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-05 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. Okay, but I tend to think that the powers that be ARE the terorrists
I simply don't think there are sophisticated terrorists getting into the US that "the powers that be" are unaware of.

My position is that "the powers that be" can control major acts of terror fairly well. Thus, my thinking about how much of a liability the towers are is rahter different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-22-05 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #45
49. Why not?
"I simply don't think there are sophisticated terrorists getting into the US that "the powers that be" are unaware of."
I think this is one of the main unspoken assumptions of the "9/11 truth movement" - you just can't understand how the US can get beat.

I don't really see why the powers that be should be aware of sophisticated terrorists, but unaware of unsophisticated terrorists. Surely, it should be easier to catch unsophisticated terrorists than sophisticated ones. It's not so farfetched to imagine the the terrorists found a hole in US security and exploited it - there must be holes that can be exploited, why can't they have found one of them?

"My position is that "the powers that be" can control major acts of terror fairly well."
Obviously, there have been state-sponsored false-flag operations before (for example the "mishap"). However, I would argue that they are in the minority, whichever way you want to count it.

"I simply don't think there are sophisticated terrorists getting into the US that "the powers that be" are unaware of."
The authorities do not arrest every terrorist they find immediately. Generally they follow him for a while to find his co-conspirators and then roll the whole group up. If the authorities were aware of the hijackers before 9/11 (and I guess they were), then there is a legitimate reason for not rolling them up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-22-05 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. False-flag terrorism--
Webster Tarpley argues that essentially ALL major acts of terrorism is state sponsored synthetic terrorism. There certainly is abundant precedence to think this.

The thing about sophisticated terrorists is that they don't just materialize out of the blue. Wherever they came from, the chances are very high that state intelligence agencies were onto them, probably in contact with them in some way. In particular, it is very likely that US or British intelligence was onto them as well. That is why I think the more "sophiticated" they were, the more likely they were pawns of some sort. The amateurs are much more difficult to detect, but are also less likely to inflict major damage.

There are at least two clearly documented cases where the 9/11 hijackers were in contact with the CIA or FBI before the attacks. If we include the Israeli art students and other connections of the hijackers to intelligence servies (Florida flight schools), the chances are good that ALL of the 9/11 hijackers were under some control/surveillance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-23-05 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #52
57. Tarpley is crazy
His 9/11 book is the worst I have read ever in my adult life. The idea that Al Zawahiri is an agent of MI6 is mad. Tarpley only has detailed knowledge of one group of terrorists (those in Italy during the strategy of tension). He bigs up the synthetic aspect there and then applies it everywhere he shouldn't. I'm amazed you take him seriously.

"There are at least two clearly documented cases where the 9/11 hijackers were in contact with the CIA or FBI before the attacks."
Which two do you mean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-05 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #28
41. Also, you have to wonder why the Bush administration would lie
us into the Iraq war. Did they really think they could keep the lies hidden? Didn't they realize the truth would come out?

Why does any criminal commit a crime if they think the truth will come out?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-05 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. Bad process
Paul O'Niell's main criticism of the Bush administration was that they had no idea about how to run the country, what sort of processes were appropriate to the US government - every other administration (even Reagan!) has at least had some sort of policy-analysis apparatus, but the Bush/Cheney White House is driven by spin, rather than the desire to choose sound policy that will pay off in the long term - even Dr. Rice charges round the world like a loose cannon. They really thought Iraq had WMD and that 150,000 troops would be enough (actually I believed the former, but not the later).

"Why does any criminal commit a crime if they think the truth will come out?"
They don't. Criminals commit crimes they think they can get away with. Given that, if it were a false flag operation, it must have been subject to some sort of review by competent professionals, they should have raised the relevant objections and thrown the plan in the bin as being too risky. If it was a false-flag operation why no implicate Iraq and/or Iran?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-05 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. Maybe it was an incompetent false-flag operation
:)

Or they didn't want implicate any one country with 9/11-- maybe they wanted more operatonal flexibility: thus "stateless" terrorists. The planners knew 9/11 could be used to seel any war on the middle east.

Interestingly, Jeremy Glick on flight 93 said the hijackers looked Iranian. Was this some attempt to blame Iran that didn't pan out?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-22-05 03:03 AM
Response to Reply #46
50. On incompetence
We have to have realistic standards. The level of incompetence that we can legitimately be expected from the hijackers is that which we might get from a well-trained amateur or semi-pro. The level of incompetence that we can legitimately expect from a state-run organisation is that which we might get from a professional. I find it harder to beleive that a professional might screw things up than an amateur/semi-pro.

Afghanistan was implicated by 9/11. There's nothing there. The US is going to leave.

Regarding Glick, he probably just said the first Middle Eastern country that came into his head. My understanding is that Iranians are different ethnically from Arabs, but I have no idea how. I don't think I could tell teh difference between an Iranian and an Iraqi.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
5. Related
Related. Interview with Rodriguez :

http://www.iamthewitness.com.nyud.net:8090/DarylSmith_1...

5-10 minutes out, he talks about a company doing some work in the towers prior to 911.

( I think it was this segment of the interview. But if it was the first segment, just change the number to 1109051 in the URL. )



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Kind of related
Or at least pretty interesting :

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001944.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouvet_Island Donating Member (227 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. This is hardly related.
If you have specific information on the properties of explosives used in controlled demolition, it'd be interesting. The effect of the explosive used in that munition is trivial to achieve with a range of other explosives. Especially without much of a restriction on weigth or volume.

There is also nothing about that weapon that is specifically more terrifying than loosely aimed cluster munition JDAMs, artillery shells with fragmentation munitions or maybe the best example, using a 100 m diameter incendiary rain weapon in an urban area containing 10-20 000 civilians and no anything near fully operative medical facilities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouvet_Island Donating Member (227 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
7. There are a few things.
1. Air fuel wasn't the only possible explosive material. Fires produces a number of hot gases and by product that often can spread fires to distant part of buildings through ventilation, in explosive manner.

To take the elevator shafts in particular, they would contain an amount of grease, aint that a heavy oil? It could be that especially fires in the bottom of elevator shafts or heat aggrevating at the top of them could produce an amount of uncombusted, heated petrochemical mix, that would in relative sense be contained. To be specific Oxygen starved combustion of petrochemicals produce stuff that can be flammable or explosive if you later add either temperature or oxygen, or say if the office fires would produce gases that would add potency to the mix like say PCB from the Light tube condensators or maybe some of the thin metals in computer parts going to the air. Or bad paints getting hot, etc,etc.

I'd think there was stored different types of oils and grease in the shafts, maybe with sort of an autofeed at the top, possibly a tank.

This is not something I have specific knowledge about, but I have some training in fire safety from offshore security/safety courses. On a rig, you mostly put out fires by shutting valves or oxygen completely with explosive valves. And many of the scenarios means it will just say "poof", you wouldn't have time for a single clap of your hands. So you basically mostly focus on getting off the rig, strapped to the sides in those boats which actually as a matter of their peculiar design will act sortof like a washing machine in the slightest waves, making absolutely everyone incredibly seasick and distributing the collective puke in spherical fashion. And so that part is mostly what they focus on. But people that know about platform fires could probably tell you more about that sort of thing, like how much air, what type of oil at what temperature and how closed off and what oxygen to make it say poof.

I am not trying to argue you, this just is what immediately struck me and I personally believe that if one want an argument to like a hammer, it should have good if not necessarily full answers to obvious attacks. As you state, it aint a common example, it was the largest elevator system built at its time, likely with special patents, with 70s style restrictions on chemicals used, and ran by a company that we can't check if or how followed rules. People could argue this was a special case and absent any more specific information on this question good discussion could end in a big questionmark.

A different theory could be presented that the good elevator company wanted to switch the entire system based on problems with fire safety. I doubt this though, but it should be examined for it to be ruled out.

2. What exactly would be the purpose of blast charges in the elevator shafts, in the high floors? Tkaing out the core colums, the concrete left would certainly not have enough support in them to keep the building up. And how would you control them, with big holes in the shafts at the plane entry? And the main vector of the shockwave going vertically, how would this not make the top floor shoot squibs out of the windows. I don't have a specific answer or countertheory, but I think saying it is that simple is a bit quick.

Thermite doesn't go boom, and also it specifically does not leave forensic evidence besides molten steel which would probably go down in the rubble where it could be handled. Other kinds of explosives would likely spread a chemical signature along with the dust over the whole of manhattan. Thermite would ignite at fire temperatures. Many common explosives would not, like RDX based components burns and melts like a plastic, and I don't think modern detonators would go off at those temperatures though I am not really sure then about that. I think it would be possible and rather trivial to rig the (possible) explosives so they wouldn't go off in a fire, which would make sense no matter. If this was done by the authorities like in your theory, I fins it very hard to believe they would use people with no clue about explosives to do this. Actually I find that entirely impossible, they would have used the company that did the cleanup or people like police or FBI explosives experts or just something.

The testimony is highly interesting though, and it is also interesting about the company. More data, especially of the type that can be harvested with a phone and a recorder or a car and a video camera would be very interesting. Penal Records or previous bancrupcy of the owners/mangement and staff of the company also could be interesting.

Illustrations about the locations of the people you quote would also be enlightening.

And I'd be interested in connecting tunnels between the WTC1 and 2. If they were connected, explosives particularly in the basement or lower level of the tower that went first. Like what was described about the heavy door, high pressure shockwaves travelling in confined spaces will keep their momentum better than you would think, travelling in water I know of concrete and almost directly comparable examples where relatively small dynamite charges treated heavy metal doors 3.5 kilometers downwards a car sized tunnel like tin foil, and it was a side door, not at the focus of the momentum or anything. It was a really interesting read though, my compliments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Some answers, some don't knows
"1. Air fuel wasn't the only possible explosive material. Fires produces a number of hot gases and by product that often can spread fires to distant part of buildings through ventilation, in explosive manner."
Don't know.

"To take the elevator shafts in particular, they would contain an amount of grease, aint that a heavy oil? It could be that especially fires in the bottom of elevator shafts or heat aggrevating at the top of them could produce an amount of uncombusted, heated petrochemical mix, that would in relative sense be contained. To be specific Oxygen starved combustion of petrochemicals produce stuff that can be flammable or explosive if you later add either temperature or oxygen, or say if the office fires would produce gases that would add potency to the mix like say PCB from the Light tube condensators or maybe some of the thin metals in computer parts going to the air. Or bad paints getting hot, etc,etc."

"I'd think there was stored different types of oils and grease in the shafts, maybe with sort of an autofeed at the top, possibly a tank."
I don't think there's enough combustibles at the bottom of a shaft to sustain a fire for long. I guess it could explode, but I can't see how any of this would be stronger than a jet fuel explosion and would cause damage to a concrete floor/ceiling.

"A different theory could be presented that the good elevator company wanted to switch the entire system based on problems with fire safety. I doubt this though, but it should be examined for it to be ruled out."
Lots of money was spent on upgrades after the 1993 bombing - over 100 million dollars. I'm sure Otis would have liked to switch elevators, as it would have meant more money for them and the elevators were being switched at the time of the attack on 9/11. However, the elevators weren't to be used in case of fire.

"2. What exactly would be the purpose of blast charges in the elevator shafts, in the high floors? Tkaing out the core colums, the concrete left would certainly not have enough support in them to keep the building up. And how would you control them, with big holes in the shafts at the plane entry? And the main vector of the shockwave going vertically, how would this not make the top floor shoot squibs out of the windows."
Squibs did shoot out the windows and louvers. This is a photo of the impact of American 11. You can see squibs coming out of two sides of one the mechanical floors at the top:


"Thermite would ignite at fire temperatures. Many common explosives would not, like RDX based components burns and melts like a plastic, and I don't think modern detonators would go off at those temperatures though I am not really sure then about that. I think it would be possible and rather trivial to rig the (possible) explosives so they wouldn't go off in a fire, which would make sense no matter."
I think this is a rather moot point, as there do seem to be explosions from the lift shaft. In any case, there is also the question of overpressures from falling elevators and falling debris from the plane - there's no way to proof a detonator against being hit by a big chunk of aluminium.

Looking into ACE is on my list of things to do.

I couldn't find many illustrations. There are some in the various NIST reports, though.

There's supposed to be some connection between WTC 1 and WTC 2, but I don't think it was on every level of the sub-basement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouvet_Island Donating Member (227 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-05 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #12
25. I think you can rule out overpressures from falling elevators,
entirely. It is not a violent enough reaction, It would build pressure gradually and maybe bend stuff, not rip. I doubt the shafts and doors would be tight enough. And I really don't think the elevators were filling the shafts sufficiently, that there was air passage on the sides which would be an easier route for the air to take.

A chunk of aluminium hitting most modern explosives would accomplish little. Maybe if stuck between a core column and a big part of the plane, but that'd be about it. Many of them are safe to shoot at with handguns. The detonators use different explosives, but I think for this type of thing maybe high voltage would be a more logical option. Anyway any possible bombs off the impact floor of the aircraft could likely be considered safe.

I meant later when those other people heard bombs, you would see squibs at least around out of the burning/smoke filled floors.

Jet fuel in itself is not explosive, the vapor in a fortunate combination of air/oxygen is, and even then it would have to be pressurised to amount to much of an explosive effect, relatively. The same with petrochemicals, don't try it but you can drop a burning match into a gasoline tank if it is full and not hot. But gasoline vapor is explosive at normal pressure, and especially in confined areas which is a relative term. The initial WTC fireball comes from the fuel hitting air and other stuff at 500 mph, which means a lot of it would turn into tiny tiny drops, making for big fireball. When airplanes use kerosene instead of one with more energy like gasoline, it is because the fuel is compressed a little in the engines before burning and less dense fuel compresses better, making it burn hotter and more completely, thus more efficiently.

The vapor in itself or the fuel, I can't imagine that making any kind of explosion inside the WTC after the inital fireball. It is well possible the WTC estimates of the amount of fuel that went into the buildings are high as well. This fuel burning with little oxygen or parts of it not on fire boiling, I think by itself it would not make much of an explosive mix even combined with the other culprits. But I don't think you would need a lot of other (petro)chemicals to fill those shafts with a more potent mix. That squiff photo seems to show that the shafts could pull in oxygen from the top of the building, and so it is possible that there could be and explosive vapor mix, though it is also possible this would be impossible, if you follow.

I meant that the chemicals/oil used and stored in the tower could be a fire/explosices hazard in case of fire.

I don't mean to put any authority in these suggestions, I am not a real expert in this and so it is well possible what I suggest could be easily ruled out by said real experts. It'd be interesting to hear how the investigation continues. More comments from the quoted witnesses as an example, that would be wonderful. Have a nice day!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-05 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #25
30. Elevators
"I think you can rule out overpressures from falling elevators, entirely. It is not a violent enough reaction, It would build pressure gradually and maybe bend stuff, not rip. I doubt the shafts and doors would be tight enough. And I really don't think the elevators were filling the shafts sufficiently, that there was air passage on the sides which would be an easier route for the air to take."
You can't rule it out. It does depend on how tight the shafts are, as you suggested, but I did find one example (after the ESB was hit by a bomber) where a falling elevator blew the hatch doors off. You'd have to find out lots of facts like where all the elevators were, what the clearance was, etc., to rule it out.

A chunk of debris may not set an explosive off, but could dislodge it or damage the fuse/timer.

"I meant later when those other people heard bombs, you would see squibs at least around out of the burning/smoke filled floors."
If by "burning/smoke filled floors" you mean the impact floors, then the answer is not necessarily, because some of the elevator shafts that had the later explosions weren't connected to them.

I pretty much agree about the fuel.

"I meant that the chemicals/oil used and stored in the tower could be a fire/explosives hazard in case of fire."
Certainly, but I don't really know where they were stored - probably on the mechanical floors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouvet_Island Donating Member (227 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-05 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #30
47. clarification
"You can't rule it out. It does depend on how tight the shafts are, as you suggested, but I did find one example (after the ESB was hit by a bomber) where a falling elevator blew the hatch doors off. You'd have to find out lots of facts like where all the elevators were, what the clearance was, etc., to rule it out."

I meant it seems it is a bad fit with the observed facts, though I might be thinking in terms of the wrong type of elevator doors. In Norway the common type is a rather thick steel quality sliding door patent. They maybe obviously had a less solid design there.

One thing though is to destroy some hinges but all the witness observations you cite say the doors were "blown out", and so all put together it also seems strange to me if this should be the cause of the booms people heard etc. I thought this wasn't the lowest floor of those elevators, blowing out one or a few doors is OK but It seems strange for them to be blowing out all the doors of the lower floors.

Many of the witnesses use the word blown out, and there is all the other reported damage. It seems to indicate more pressure or force than falling elevators.

The chemicals and so would perhaps be a fire hazard anywhere in the towers? If ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-22-05 03:08 AM
Response to Reply #47
51. Not just overpressures
"I meant it seems it is a bad fit with the observed facts ... I thought this wasn't the lowest floor of those elevators, blowing out one or a few doors is OK but It seems strange for them to be blowing out all the doors of the lower floors."
The lobby was the lowest floor for the express elevators to the roof, but not the lowest floor for the big freight elevator (number 50), which went down into the sub-basements. The ESB hatch door that was blown out was probably a different model to the WTC ones (I didn't think of this, thanks), but I don't know how different it was. Again, you are correct that the scale of the damage (i.e. number of doors blown out on different floors) indicates it wasn't just overpressures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
10. Related 2
I dont know if this has been posted allready. These are two clips from the DVD "911Eyewitness".

( A must-see if one hasnt seen them) :

http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/911eyewitness_wtc... ( WTC 1 collapse, ca. 5 min. )

http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/911eyewitness_wtc... ( WTC 7 collapse, ca 2 min )





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
21. why were the only elevators reported with blown doors the lower level elev
Edited on Sun Nov-20-05 08:49 PM by philb
ators? What could have caused these explosions other than explosives?
see
FDNY Lieutenant James Walsh statement

why were the only elevator doors that were blown the low level elevators that went up to about floor 24?
When were they blown and why?

Remember that several firemen reported using these lower level elevators to get up to the 22 to 24 floors when they first got to WTC1.


the other elevators on N & S elevator banks went up as far as the skylobby, which was floor 78.

The earliest statements I saw noted evidence of early explosions on floors 22 to 24, maybe big explosion on one of these would affect the others. Isn't this where ONeill died; and where Port Authority and FBI offices were?

But I didn't see early reports of the lower level elevators having blown doors. When did this happen?

And when did the explosions in the basement happen, that Pecoraro, Rodrigez and several others reported?

some of the answers might be in http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html
which is the source of several of these witness statements


note: Kenton Beerman was on floor 53
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theSaiGirl Donating Member (184 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. Prof. Jones and the common-sense "physics" of imploding skyscrapers
The key thing to understand here, is that the actual "events" (representation of events in media broadcast video and audio), such as buildings getting hit and then toppling - or something slamming into the half-vacant wing of a Pentagon sitting securely under the air defense grid over DC (and region) generously provided by NORAD and funded with your tax subsidies....
none of the details of the actual pyro-technic ops, require all that many people.

It's the people required to enable and secure the psy-op as "official" belief, the thousands who saw controlled demolition, right before their very eyes, three times in one day.
Their willingness to comply with that fundamental Big Lie, shows us how far the American "Reichstag Fire" syndrome has gone.

Witness Tucker Carlson, openly ridiculing, condescending and dissing a fully credentialed (magnum cum laude) physics guru from BYU -
What does it say about the depths of intellectual degeneracy to which our mass corporate-run media has sunk ?
That it could so brazenly insult the intelligence of its audience !

We are reminded here of Plato's tragic account, where con-artist politician and opinion-shaper Thrysamachus "wins" the argument through skillful deceit, and manipulative use of rhetoric and imagery - thus proving that "truth" can be altered, erased or manufactured by the assurance of mass compliance. He knew his audience.
And, in like manner, Achibiades proceeded to sell Athens on a suicidal democratic crusade of conquest, plunging all the Greek city-states into self-destructive madness... by the carefully crafted technology of rhetoric, public relations, information warfare (oracle of Apollo ad Delphi) and just plain lies.

But we lack even the class of the ancient Athenians.

9/11 is more on the order of a late Roman spectacle.
Complete with bread, circuses, scapegoats and lies.

The most basic and elementary premises of physics and mechanics, are spat on and mocked over corporate media (MSNBC - whatever audience remnant remains to it). Very post-modern ?
Or heralding a regression to the dark ages where nothing can be
"known" for certain. Where evidence is absurdly planted (Pentagon "plane" fragments and Atta's magic passport) or arrogantly destroyed
before the eyes of the crowd (the FAA air traffic control tapes of that morning, criminally destroyed by order of an FAA manager).

But, at the same time, cheap and common as Latin American banana republics with comic-opera theatrics.

That's exactly how 9/11 - the PSY-OP and dazzling pyro-technic video performance actually looks, against a third-rate half-worked Hollywood B-grade movie script:

19 crazy Arab Muslims with box cutters, masterminded by a dialysis patient from a cave in lower Afghanistan.

The real tragedy here, is not the mass fascist compliance of the American media drones with the Big Lie of 9/11 (and the waves of little lies); it's the fact that such compliance would not be so forthcoming, were it not for the sad and woeful state of American's post-literate populace - stripped naked before the eyes of the civilized world ... as a dumbed-down herd, most of whom probably slept thru their Jr. High School science classes, and then barely slid thru High School Chemistry and Physics.
That's how basic 9/11 is.
And that's why the perps could afford to be so sloppy in actual execution of the "attacks".

Because their greatest odds staked that a willful and compliant population of firemen, cops, engineers, union construction workers - all would democratically buy into the transparent absurdity of "jet fuel fires" causing skyscrapers of steel and concrete to collapse and disintegrate into their own perfectly symmetric footprints, with hot pools of molten steel and tons of concrete rendered utter dust (according to Prof. Jones of BYU) ..... transparently ridiculous.

A really clever 9/11 would have had the Towers going down almost concurrent with the "hits" or at least closer in time, instead of sitting there and smoldering before imploding, so much, much later.
Likewise with WTC7 which, for reasons yet to be determined, they failed to level until 5:30 that evening.
Which looks like it couldn't possibly have been part of the original script But shows how Capone-sloppy they could afford to be when it came to actual EXECUTION of the op.

It is more empirical validation that 9/11's ultimate message transcends the "Reichstag Fire", in both scale and scope, because it truly seeks to capture the mind and culture of whole populations; which have already been drugged, disciplined or otherwise pacified to play the now boringly redundant role of "good Germans", in this whole sorry, embarrassing spectacle.

More than the disastrous and sloppily-executed invasion and occupation of Iraq; more than the rotting hulk of economy and infrastructure, more than the tragic decay of our public education system, the way we are now being laughed at (and despised) by much of the civilized world, who have pretty much figured out that 9/11 was an inside job of the MIHOP variety...
9/11 now emerges as the historical Rosetta Stone of our time. Much bigger than the earlier Kennedy assassination.
Or the OKC Murrah Bldg. bombing (BATF-engineered), or Waco, the '93 WTC bombing (supplied and organized by the lead FBI informant)...
or a host of other pschological degradations of the American psyche - whose willful compliance with the Big Lies at the heart of these events, is the basic premise for a successful psy-op, to begin with.

It leaves us all with the shame of insulted intelligence and the stale taste of mass intellectual mediocrity in our mouths.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PerpetualYnquisitive Donating Member (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-05 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Succinctly put, theSaiGirl. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-05 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #24
35. Great post, as depressing as the subject is...
But welcome to DU anyway!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-05 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #24
39. the shame of insulted intelligence and the stale taste of mass intellectua
"the shame of insulted intelligence and the stale taste of mass intellectual mediocrity in our mouths."

that pretty much describes your post and the posts of every other CTers....

bye bye
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rich Hunt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-05 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #24
44. I have faith

If this is a conspiracy, it certainly would be a lot bigger than any assassination conspiracy - it would require hundreds or maybe even thousands, and then there would be all of the people connected to the conspirators. Therefore, there is a greater chance that the truth will come out, so we're really not stuck with a 'Rosetta stone'.

I do believe that will be the case this time. We're not talking about an assassination of one, two or three people - we're talking about thousands, and the destruction of two buildings, and four plane crashes. I find it hard to believe that we will never make sense out of it, however making sense out of it will be a huge project that should not just be left up to law enforcement and 'official' investigators.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theSaiGirl Donating Member (184 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-22-05 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #44
53. "Faith Abides"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theSaiGirl Donating Member (184 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-22-05 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. "Faith Abides"
E. argues:
"The South Tower videos are reliable -- no one could have controlled
for the unknown number of possible video and still cameras that could
have been aimed at the relevant portion of the building at the time
of the south tower crash -- there would be no way of someone making
fake video without the threat of someone with a camera who was not
part of a conspiracy capturing a plane-less explosion -- they would
not have tried it for that reason. There is not reason to question
the south tower plane and there is not enough evidence to question
the north tower attack. And when it comes to the Pentagon you have
not even the grounds to raise the question -- planes definitely were
involved."
---------------- .

Who has questioned the absolute certainty of witnesses and video cameras that
would have been focused on the South Tower for the 2nd hit.
Especially, after the 1st one .. with that long time interval.

But look at the inherent logical flaw in E’s reasoning:
"...-- there would be no way of someone making fake video without the
threat of someone with a camera who was not part of a
conspiracy capturing a plane-less explosion -- they would not have
tried it for that reason...."

How touchingly naive he sounds. The corporate/state controlled media
apparat always establishes the "official" video record of events after
the fact. They could proceed to manufacture and distribute as much
computer generated fantasy images as they liked. And that is exactly
what they have done. I have viewed 2 distinct videos of the 2nd hit
at the South Tower which are completely inconsistent. How is that
possible ? It means that at least one must be fake for certain.
And indicates that probably BOTH are fakes.

One assumes an active population of "independent" journalists,
photographers and spectators, of sufficient number and influence, that
the "real" pictures would somehow make it into the public arena.

What about the JFK hit ?
Logic would suggest that there was more than one film of the JFK
killing. How many did we get to see, besides the Zapruder film (which
we finally got to see in 1968, five years later) ?
It took us over 30 years to find out that there was at least one
other home-movie of that event .... 30 YEARS !!!!
The FBI, Secret Service, and CIA-assets in the media, worked their
asses off overtime that very day, and in the weeks after Dallas, to
confiscate or purchase whatever photo/film evidence existed of that
event.... so that it could be suppressed and distorted if necessary.
And the most recent research now confirms that the version of Zapruders home movie we have now, is pretty-clearly and sloppily doctored. Check out Fetzer’s latest work on that.
Do we never LEARN from all that twisted HISTORY ?
Look at the damn JFK hit to see how they typically handle the "blowback" from
unwanted cameras and spectators.

So now, we have victim-witnesses to 9/11 in the person of William
Rodriguez and others who openly protest that their were "explosions"
in the Towers. How much coverage in the media have they gotten ?
To the average media-brainwashed mind-dead American, they, and their
honest testimony, might just as well not even exist.
Read Rodriguez's detailed account of his efforts to get coverage in
the media and how they sabotaged and silenced him.

So let's say I was one of those random spectators, after the 1st hit
on the North Tower; and then I set up my video-cam and captured the
engineered explosion of the South Tower - with no plane in sight.
WHERE WOULD I GO TO PUBLICIZE SUCH A DEVASTATING PIECE OF EVIDENCE ?

Would I turn it over to CNN or C-SPAN, or MSNBC or FOX or NPR ?
That one's a no-brainer.

The most that I might be able to do is put it out on the WEB, or
produce my own DVD for mass distribution.
Which would then subsequently be labeled as an "after-the-fact fake".

In fact, if you look at disinfo sites like oilempire, the first thing
they scream is that the videos analyzed at sites like WEBFAIRY, Plaugepuppy, 9/11hoax, 911fjoreknowledge, etc.) videos are "suspect" - when they are simply analyzing the fakes distributed by the media itself !!!
You have to place 9/11, as a mass media hoax, in historical
perspective, alongside all the other media hoaxes we have lived
through in our lives. And there have been so, so many of them..

I have heard arguments that "they would not have tried it for that reason.."
Please don't insult your own intelligence
The hell they wouldn't.
They already know they control the media from top to bottom.
Even the fake "alternative" media.
Imagine the arrogance and megalomania of being in such a position,
along with their legacy of contempt for the intelligence of the
American "boobouisee" (as Mencken perceptively termed it).
Now magnify that exponentially, in an age of instant televised
propaganda, holographic imagery, computer generated imagery...

I confronted this early on - before I had even looked at the Tower
demolitions. I live right down the road from Andrews AFB, which
would have been the one to scramble jets to intercept the alleged
Flight 77 that supposedly hit the Pentagon.
I thought that thousands of military personnel and their families
would scream blood murder at what appeared to be a deliberate NORAD
stand-down. Would they have allowed themselves to be presented to
the world as derelict in their duty, when it came to defending the
airspace over DC ? UNTHINKABLE !!!
Or so I thought...
We all know that thousands of military and civilian personnel know
enough about this nation's air defenses, that they would reject the
9/11 Pentagon fantasy on its face ... don't we ?
I'm still waiting ...... for those dogs to bark.
Still waiting.... and now I know what dirty silent dogs most of them
are. Just like the hundreds of firemen and cops that know, in
general, what really happened in Manhattan that day.

The only true wild-card in this whole 9/11 psy-op caper is the
Internet: the WEB and the blogosphere.
That theatre of combat is still a real problem for them.
And you can see how desperately they are fighting in the WEB arena, to
muddy the waters, discredit honest researchers and drown out the
truth.

I am here recommending Eric Hufschnmid's comments on the mass psychology of
embracing the Big Lie. (Not that I necessarily agree with his
politics or his complete analysis or the eccentricities of Eric’s political views) - but on this one point - the
willingness of thousands to go along with a known lie ... Hufschmid
is right on with his analysis of media manipulation and mass psychology.

After you capture the media and render your population captive to it, you exert a form of control over imagery and information that can be totalized in the epic visionary media programs of Goebbels and Rosenberg, at the high point of mass brainwashing (via mostly radio, film and print .. then proceeding to academia and the “scientific establishment”) .... a form of control and manipulation much more efficient than the naked fist of coercion. People are persuaded what to think or not think, what to question or not question .. the parameters of the unthinkable are established as the boundaries of the socially acceptable in discourse ..
After all , who wants to be marginalized as a “conspiracy theorist”, a “wing-nut”, a “paranoid”, a “tin-foil hatter” .?

So we see the real significance of Tucker Carlson breezily suggesting that any American suspecting an inside job, should immediate “leave the country” or “stop paying taxes”.
Thus, LIHOP are MIIHOP are bound together as mentally questionable (or possessed of common demon) before consignment to the fires of the auto-da-fe.
Carlson’s behavior is the signal that they are moving directly to more Soviet-style methods of marginalization and suppression. By tagging disloyalty to the lies of the State as a psychiatric problem.
Isn’t that compassionate of Tucker and his colleagues in the media ?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-05 02:05 AM
Response to Reply #21
31. Explosions in elevators
"Why were the only elevators reported with blown doors the lower level elevators? What could have caused these explosions other than explosives?"
They weren't. The bank that Walsh said was blown out also contained the service elevator.

"why were the only elevator doors that were blown the low level elevators that went up to about floor 24? When were they blown and why?"
"Remember that several firemen reported using these lower level elevators to get up to the 22 to 24 floors when they first got to WTC1."
Yes, I noticed that to. It seems that there was an initial explosion when the plane hit - even NIST mentions the fireball in the North Tower lobby - (I guess this came from the service elevator) then a later series of explosions (maybe after 9:45?).

"And when did the explosions in the basement happen, that Pecoraro, Rodrigez and several others reported?"
They were right after the plane hit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-05 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #31
48. Henrik Melvang says there were explosions in basement just before collapse
Edited on Mon Nov-21-05 09:19 PM by philb
according to his video/ or ground level (seen at street level)

Some of the firemen reported ground level explosions just before the collapse
http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html
also a N Y policeman reported a ground level explosion

Some of the burn victims were from explosions in lobby area just before the collapse after walking down the stairs- I remember some from WTC2
survivor statements
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andre II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-05 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
32. Thanks for the research
Hi Kevin,
thanks for the research. This opens up a new interesting field for questioning the official story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
screembloodymurder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-05 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
33. Very interesting analysis.
But you would think someone at Otis would speak up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-05 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. I wouldn't
because (1) foreknowledge would make them an accomplice before the fact, (2) their not speaking up straightaway would be held against them and (3) they don't have any proof.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jul 16th 2018, 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC