WAR: Former Bush Administration Economist Believes WTC Felled by Controlled Demolition

The top of the buildings fell straight down, compressing the floors below them. There was nothing to act on them to push them over to the side, so they would tend to fall straight down. Here's a good quote about the construction of the building.

" The NY/NJ Port Authority saved approx US$50million by not putting in carrying beams and vertical supports. All the buildings at the WTC had the exterior walls act as carrying beams and supports. The Port Authority saved more money by not putting in a sprinkler system at time of construction. I think the Arabs had very good knowledge that the towers would fall, the other buildings were just an extra gift. With proper construction loss of life would have been in the 400-600 range with damge to 3-4 floors of each tower. Failure to have in place aerial resucue as
Chicago does, shows a level of stupidity that is becoming the hallmark of the Decline of our Civilization. "

Originally posted by subz


As far as no evidence of it going off. Watch this video:

Tremor 12 seconds before the WTC1 collapses

Notice that the camera is not affected by the actually collapse of the WTC1. Therefore you can extrapolate that what ever caused the tremor 12 seconds before the collapse was more powerful than the combined energy released during the collapse of WTC1.

Or someone bumped the tripod.

I was thinking the same thing

either way....I still don't have a valid explanation of how pools of liquified steel , got to that state

and the evidence of them squibs going off in that pesky video...very very damning , to me !

I mean, c'mon, they weren't just going off by accident !

those were put there, with a specific job to do and they didn't just happen

to shake loose from the underside of the plane/or fall out of the cargo door

that just impacted the bldg and attached themseves to the bldg and fired

off simultaneously in sync with the bldg collapsing by accident did they...

eh ?

IF they were being carried on the plane, they would have almost definately detonated with the aircraft impact. To set off an explosive you have to have a detonator attached to it, and once that is done, they aren't very stable. That's why the very last step, as a demolition team is LEAVING the building, is for someone to go behind them and attach detonators. There would be no way for them to be sure they would attach to anything.

Here's an interesting article I just found.
www.republicanandproud.com...

As far as the shaking camera, there were fighters flying over the city after the impacts. One of them flying too low, or too fast over the building would shake the camera. I've been next to the runway when fighters were taking off in afterburner, and the ground shakes, and your chest vibrates badly. Depending on the type of fighter and how long he was in afterburner, that could go on for several seconds after it had passed by.

Toasted, there were no "Squibs." all you are seeing is the compressed air being blown out the windows.

There was no tripod taking that capture.
You can see it is a rumble.I dont think you could mimic a sleight tremble like that.If you can, I'd like to see it.
If you watch video's, you can see what shake is and what a tremble is.The difference is plain as day.It is rediculous to think someone just shook a camera

As for the 'squibs' Why do they shoot out from small cavities?
If this so called 'pancake' effect took place, would it not do this much larger? If you see the video's and there are many of both towers, you can see they shoot out many floors below, some WAAAY before the crubling section.

It as if they shoot out of one or two windows.If this so called pancake effect took place, we would be seeing many more and much larger.

Lets see here:
Southwark Towers, PA
Looks familiar doesnt it?


Now I urge you to go and watch the buildings at this site.
Reading Grain HeadHouse
Notice this one has it's top tipping and continue to tip and fall off leaving the bottom half of the building.Reminds me of that one TOWER I saw have it's top tilt and lean 22 degrees but somehow not fall off.

Schuylkill Falls Tower
This one looks very familiar to.Ah, WTC 7

Watch them HERE

Originally posted by Zaphod58
As far as the shaking camera, there were fighters flying over the city after the impacts. One of them flying too low, or too fast over the building would shake the camera. I've been next to the runway when fighters were taking off in afterburner, and the ground shakes, and your chest vibrates badly. Depending on the type of fighter and how long he was in afterburner, that could go on for several seconds after it had passed by.

You'd think a jet flying close enough to the camera to shake it would be audible, wouldnt you?

As for some one shaking the camera, it is a very fast vibration. If you can make a camera vibrate like that by shaking it, I would like to see it.

If you listen really closely, there's the helicopter that sounds like it's right over the camera, and there's a dull roar you can just barely hear over the sound of the rotors. That could easily be something going overhead fast, or the vibration could be from a helo that turned and the downwash hit the camera. From the sound of things that helo was right ontop of the camera.

It could also be caused by a fighter going supersonic within about 100 miles or so. Depending on the altitude, it could cause the camera to shake, but not show up on seismic equipment. Or that could be the spike that everyone says they see just before the tower fell. It was close enough so that it would appear to be something in the basement. There were a few scares after the hits, and some planes intercepted. If a fighter went supersonic to head out to investigate something, you'd get camera shake, and a seismic reading.

As an aside, the whole government involvment argument has always been bogged down in a more high tech scenario.

If 19 terrorists could do this the way the government says they did it then isnt it more than feasible that the government did it the exact same way the terrorists did?

Just a thought that entered my head and something I cant fathom.

Why has the "government did it" camp been completely mired in trying to explain ever more fanciful scenarios?

How about this scenario:

19, unwittingly U.S government sponsored, Islamic extremists hijacked 4 commerical airliners and flew them into the WTC towers and the Pentagon. The WTC towers then fell down completely due to the damage sustained from the airliner impacts.

The Islamic extremists thought they were martyring themselves for al-Qaeda . However, al-Qaeda is a CIA construct designed explicitly to act as a raison d'etre in a post-cold war era.

Think about it, George Bush Snr was head of the CIA during the Afghanistan war in which Osama Bin Laden publically recieved CIA training and funding to fight against the Soviets. When that operation ended in success the CIA (Bush Snr) could see the Soviet Union was on its last legs and would collapse.

Knowing, rightly, that the vast CIA would face a mamoth financial scaling back in the years after the Soviet Union collapsed Osama Bin Laden was instructed to form a new threat to America's existance. This time the threat, unlike the USSR, could be controlled by Americans to suit what ever need arose.

When Bush Snr. took over the helm as President he set about fomenting Islamic hatred for the United States. The smart way to do it would be to provide open support for Israel's actions against the Palestinians and get involved in a conflict in the Middle East (Iraq ver 1.0).

Clinton comes to power and could well of been in on the plot or not but for the purposed of this rant I'll asume he wasnt. Al-Qaeda starts bombing American embassies towards the end of Clintons last term. These couldnt be American operatives if Clinton was "in control of the government". If they were then its the Democrats fault, not Republican or so they could say.

Bush, whilst having nothing to do during Clintons terms, would set about getting his son into the Whitehouse so as best to capitilize on his al-Qaeda operation.

Bush Jnr. gets into power, al-Qaeda rears its head spectacularly and completes the Herculean task of bringing down both WTC towers and got a known hijacked airliner through Washington DC's defences and crashed into the Pentagon.

Why? I hear some of you ask.

Money and power.

The money generated from the War on Terror is measured in the hundreds of billions. The money is going directly to Halliburton and the Carlyle Group. Halliburton is Cheney's company and the Carlyle Group is a Bush family cash cow.

The power coming from the 9/11 attacks sees the CIA's funding increased and its place in America's power apparatus restored to Cold War levels. The power granted to the executive branch via the Patriot Act is phenomenal.

These guys have the means and the motive.

I don't agree with all the little details, but THAT is a theory that I can see. I may not necessarily AGREE with it, but I can definately see someone doing it.

As another aside though, it really was amazingly easy to hijack a plane then. I worked airport security on 9/11 and our hands were tied so tightly. The airlines wanted the security, but didn't want to pay for it, so out here we had problems getting parts for equipment because my company was hurting financially, and the airlines wouldn't pay $3K/machine/year for a maintenance contract. The regs at the time very clearly state that any blade less than 4 inches was allowed on the plane in the cabin. We didn't even check razor blades and box cutters. It was a joke then, and it's a joke now. I still work at the airport and some of the things that happen still.......

then why intimidate the witnesses into silence ? the florida witnesses[ from clubs , rental offices , hotels , etc ] of atta and his enterage were intimidated into silence by the fbi ! the fbi also confiscated all the police files in that town of venice florida...not a few, but took them ALL !

why intentionally block field agents from reporting arab pilots in training in more than one field office ? by more than one field agent ?

why confiscate pvtly owned security video of the pentagon ?

and how does your version work with silverstein saying that WTC7 was pulled ? while popular opinion still has it falling from fire damage ! [ what a crock ]

why lie about flt-93 ?

what about that pool of molten steel , how do you explain that ?


talk about circumstancial evidence...

ok.....I dare anyone to post actual evidence of these molten pools of steel....

Why don't some of the ....proponents of the pools of molten steel explain with facts and a sound theory how can steel be kept in that molten state for 5 weeks without any source to keep the steel in a liquid state.....

We want facts, otherwise this is just another bogus made up claim....

Originally posted by toasted
then why intimidate the witnesses into silence ? the florida witnesses[ from clubs , rental offices , hotels , etc ] of atta and his enterage were intimidated into silence by the fbi ! the fbi also confiscated all the police files in that town of venice florida...not a few, but took them ALL !

intimidate witnesses into being silent?.....why are you saying this, because noone would back up this claim of yours?.....

Originally posted by toasted
why intentionally block field agents from reporting arab pilots in training in more than one field office ? by more than one field agent ?

why confiscate pvtly owned security video of the pentagon ?

Do you know the procedures that field agents must follow when there is an investigation?..... Does the police release all the evidence when they are investigating a crime?.....and when that information is essential to find more criminals?.....

Originally posted by toasted
and how does your version work with silverstein saying that WTC7 was pulled ? while popular opinion still has it falling from fire damage ! [ what a crock ]

The "crock" is that there are people who can't understand that Silverstein was quoting the commander firefighter...and firefighters use the term to pull, to get people out of a building, so noone else dies or is hurt....

if Silverstein didn't use the term correctly...what a shock....he is not a firefighter who uses the term frequently....

Originally posted by toasted
why lie about flt-93 ?

Lie about flight 93?....what lie about flight 93?....

Originally posted by toasted
what about that pool of molten steel , how do you explain that ?

What molten pool of steel that was kept in a liquid state for 5 weeks?.... Where is the evidence for this?.... it was in that state for 5 weeks and noone thought about taking footage or pictures of these pools of molten steel?....

Originally posted by toasted
talk about circumstancial evidence...

what circumstantial evidence?...... You mean all those made up fantasies and exagerations?...


[edit on 25-6-2005 by Muaddib]

ok, this molten steel thing ...

Setting aside the accuracy and likelihood of this or otherwise just for a moment ...

Just steel ? - somewhat unlikely I'd suggest, so you'll have an alloy there which is going to affect the temperature ratings of the single materials being quoted, even if the more reactionary materials are burnt off.

Still hot ? - hmm, perhaps that has something to do with insulating effects of the tons and tons of debris on top of the basements, service ducts, or other structural cavities that the metal ended up pooling into.

Ignoring the Dimonia micro-nuke theory, if one wanted to compromise the steel supports, and do so discretely, would one have any other options than thermite, FAE's and similar explosive methods ? What about some form of plasma cutting ?

It would be interesting to see if there are any records of the buildings energy consumption leading upto the collapses, although if one was being sneaky about it one would simply run a separate power line in ... As to people seeing stuff like this, would your average office worker actually notice it, especially if it was in the service levels - if so, would they think that it was unusual, or just ongoing maintenance stuff ? (ok, this question kinda skirts around if not outright ignores the building service people and anyone who was overly curious, but what if it really was passed off as some form of building servicing or maintenance work equipment ?)

These explosions that are alleged, what if they weren't to damage the building, but to obscure the evidence of the other devices that had damaged the building.

No proof of course, just adding some points for debate, even if they do get ripped apart in the end.

... but returning to facts - did the source not suggest that there was evidence that there had been pools of molten steel, not that there were still pools of molten steel ?

'IT' , not just 'PULL' The words uttered are PULL 'IT' He then gets lazy and just says PULL ......

"I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it!' Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building ........... collapse."

So, looks like it WASNT the fire commander who suggested it, but good ole' Larry himself! and then they granted that wish by Larry.

Little more info you...

How did everybody know the building was about to collapse since the fire commander ordered firefighters away from the WTC 7 at 11:30 am—seven hours before it collapsed—so why would the firefighters need to be pulled out when the firefighters were never in the building to fight the fires in the first place?

"...the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities.
It appears that the sprinklers may not have been effective due to the limited water on site and that the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day.
WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY. -FEMA: WTC Building Performance Study, Chp 5 (05/02)

How ya like them apples

Originally posted by toasted
then why intimidate the witnesses into silence ? the florida witnesses[ from clubs , rental offices , hotels , etc ] of atta and his enterage were intimidated into silence by the fbi ! the fbi also confiscated all the police files in that town of venice florida...not a few, but took them ALL !

why intentionally block field agents from reporting arab pilots in training in more than one field office ? by more than one field agent ?

why confiscate pvtly owned security video of the pentagon ?

and how does your version work with silverstein saying that WTC7 was pulled ? while popular opinion still has it falling from fire damage ! [ what a crock ]

why lie about flt-93 ?

what about that pool of molten steel , how do you explain that ?


talk about circumstancial evidence...

Toasted you've missed my initial point. The point is that the "government did it" camp shouldnt be focusing on the technical details. The debunkers accept that a rag-tag group of 19 terrorists could do what we all witnessed on 9/11 - we should capitalize on that fact and say that IF these 19 terrorists could pull it off then it goes with out saying its possible the US government could of done it.

I know there is more than enough evidence that shows controlled demolisions but it does our cause no good in getting bogged down in it. It really has no bearing on the "why" to government involvement. Debunkers will have a much harder time refuting the motives the U.S government would have for carrying out these attacks themselves.

Dont give them bullets to fire with the technical aspects of the 9/11 attack. The mere fact that it occured, we all seen it and that even the most hardcore debunkers accept that it was possible that even 19 rag-tag terrorists could pull off this kind of attack plays squarely into our hands.

If the debunkers accept that these terrorists could do it then most certainly the U.S government could of done it the same way.

Originally posted by subz
The debunkers accept that a rag-tag group of 19 terrorists could do what we all witnessed on 9/11 - we should capitalize on that fact and say that IF these 19 terrorists could pull it off then it goes with out saying its possible the US government could of done it.

The mere fact that it is possible for a man to fly an airplane means that you have to accept the possibility that a trained pig can fly one too.

Thus, by your logic, PIGS CAN FLY!!

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by subz
The debunkers accept that a rag-tag group of 19 terrorists could do what we all witnessed on 9/11 - we should capitalize on that fact and say that IF these 19 terrorists could pull it off then it goes with out saying its possible the US government could of done it.

The mere fact that it is possible for a man to fly an airplane means that you have to accept the possibility that a trained pig can fly one too.

Thus, by your logic, PIGS CAN FLY!!

As can be seen by the above statement. When you pull the rug out from under these (professional) debunkers and deny them bullets to fire they resort to ludicrous babble.

The Bush administration are neo-conservatives. They require a great struggle of epic proportions, its part of their philosophy. If they have none they construct one. They do it to further their moral and economic goals.

The money going into Haliburton and the Carlyle Group is motive #1. The wide sweeping powers granted to the executive branch via the Patriot Act which is a direct result of 9/11 is motive #2.

Everyone seems to think that it would have been hard to hijack planes pre-9/11. I can honestly say that it WASN'T hard to do. Security screening was started in the 1970s and it DID cut down on hijackings, but the BIGGEST reason we didn't see as many hijackings in more recent years is because the return was too small. More often than not the hijackers just got killed and didn't get their demands met.

Security at the airports DID get better, and was stopping things like guns in bags, but if someone REALLY wanted to it's very easy to hijack or destroy a plane. One of the big arguments was how they got the box cutters on the plane. Pre 9/11 it was perfectly legal to carry anything with a blade less than 4" in length in the cabin on the plane. We didn't even LOOK for box cutters/razor blades.

As far as flying the plane goes, all you have to do is use the GPS/INS with autopilot, punch in the coordinates for where you want to go and let it fly the plane until you get close, then hand fly it into the buildings. It's NOT hard to fly a modern plane. A GPS/INS system is easy to operate as long as you know the coordinates of where you want to go. It probably is pretty easy to find the coordinates to anywhere on the web, or even just off a straight map.


One thing that's pretty funny I did read from a "knowledgable government source" was that we have been flying 737s to Australia for years, unmanned. I can think of a couple of MINOR problems with this statement.

One is the range of a 737:
Maximum range 737-600 6,038km
Maximum range 737-700 6,038km
Maximum range 737-800 5,449km
Maximum range 737-900 5,084km

Two is the distance between say LA and Sydney:
12081kim

Now, don't you think that SOMEONE would notice if a 737 landed, no one got off, or got on, and some guys drove up in cars to pay for the fuel?

Even if they stopped in Hickam AFB in Hawaii, they'd have to stop somewhere else, and about the only other places they could stop were all civilian airports. SOMEONE, somewhere would have noticed something, and talked to someone by now you would think.