WTC Hero janitor blows 'Official 9/11 Story' Sky High!

For those that are curious about the elevator shaft please view this video as an "expert" explains to you how the elevator shafts were designed to not act as a chimney and were sorta hermetically sealed.

www.reopen911.org...

Originally posted by Lanotom
For those that are curious about the elevator shaft please view this video as an "expert" explains to you how the elevator shafts were designed to not act as a chimney and were sorta hermetically sealed.

Even if the shafts were "sorta" hermetically sealed, don't you think a huge plane crashing into the building and exploding might "sorta" break those seals?!?

Originally posted by Boatphone

Originally posted by Lanotom
Even if the shafts were "sorta" hermetically sealed, don't you think a huge plane crashing into the building and exploding might "sorta" break those seals?!?

Nope and I won't explain to you why because it's still a criminal investigation.

And also for future reference don't waste your time replying to my post as I will not futher reply to post by persons with disinformation.

So, anyone with a different opinion than you is giving out disinformation?!?

Man you are the KING of disinformation! I bet you work for some shadow group!!


Also, a plane crashing into a building would 100% break anything that was sealed or "sorta" sealed.

[edit on 26-6-2005 by Boatphone]

One thing that you can't miss is that both buildings collapsed in a controlled manner. They were "imploded". In the demolition business, it takes a lot of careful planning to get buildings to fall down like that. Explosives have to be precisely planted so that a building will fall in on itself, and not topple onto its surroundings.

On 911 we're supposed to bileive that two of the tallest buildings in the world just happened to do that. Both in under 20 mins.

Originally posted by GrandCourtJester
One thing that you can't miss is that both buildings collapsed in a controlled manner. They were "imploded". In the demolition business, it takes a lot of careful planning to get buildings to fall down like that. Explosives have to be precisely planted so that a building will fall in on itself, and not topple onto its surroundings.

On 911 we're supposed to bileive that two of the tallest buildings in the world just happened to do that. Both in under 20 mins.

What I always found interesting is the fact that both buildings were literally vaporized BEFORE the top of the building (the debris) hit the ground.

When I look at pictures like this and see the size and amount of steel, I'm somewhat skeptical it all hit the ground at THE SAME TIME.

Also, I tried pointing this out earlier on page 5.. The author of this post did William Rodrigez (the Janitor) very little justice..

William is making several charges aimed at the Government

I'll post a portion of the Civil suit since no one read it..

A. THE WTC TWIN TOWERS, AS WELL AS WTC BUILDING #7, WERE
DESTROYED BY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, AS CLEARLY PROVEN
BY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS; THIS DEMOLITION COULD ONLY HAVE
BEEN AN "INSIDE JOB."……………………………………………………P. 38

B. FEMA, WHICH REMOVED THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT COULD BE
INDEPENDENTLY EXAMINED, MAINTAINS A BLACK-OP SHADOW
GOVERNMENT DESIGNED TO REPLACE THE ELECTED GOVERNMENT
OF THE UNITED STATES…………………………………………………..P. 47

C. DEFENDANTS DELIBERATELY CONCEALED THE FACT THAT THEY
HAD AMPLE WARNINGS OF TERRORIST ATTACKS AND FAILED TO
ACT ON THEM, A WAR ON TERRORISM BEING NECESSARY TO
JUSTIFY THEIR POLITICAL
AGENDA………………………………………………………………….….P. 65

D. DEFENDANTS CONSPIRED TO AND DID ALLOW THE ATTACKS TO
HAPPEN BY DELAYING MILITARY INTERCEPTION OF THE HIJACKED
PLANES………………………………………………………………………P. 80
1. FLIGHT 11 (NORTH TOWER WTC) COULD HAVE BEEN BUT WAS
NOT INTERCEPTED………………………………………………...P. 83
2. FLIGHT 175 COULD HAVE BEEN BUT WAS NOT
INTERCEPTED………………………………………………….…..P. 88
3. FLIGHT 77 NOT ONLY COULD HAVE BEEN INTERCEPTED BUT
WAS ALLOWED TO FLY UNCONTESTED A FULL 50 MINUTES
BEFORE STRIKING THE PENTAGON…………………………….P. 95
4. AN UNPRECEDENTED NATIONWIDE "GROUND STOP" ORDER,
WHICH MUST HAVE HAD WHITE HOUSE APPROVAL,
PREVENTED EVEN THE MILITARY FROM FLYING AND
ALLOWED THE ATTACKS TO PROCEED………………………P. 102
5. THE CRASH OF FLIGHT 93 IN SOMERSET COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA, RAISES SERIOUS ADDITIONAL UNANSWERED
QUESTIONS………………………………………………………...P. 108
6. SOME ADDITIONAL REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL
STORY OF 9-11……………………………………………………..P. 117

E. THE ENTERPRISE HAS ENGAGED IN A CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT
ELECTION FRAUD………………………………………………………...P. 124


F. ENTERPRISE'S FLORIDA RECOUNT RIOT: ADDITIONAL
PREDICATE ACTS UNDER RICO………………………………………...P. 136

G. ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS AS TO INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS,
PREDICATE ACTS OF RACKETEERING COMMITTED BY THEM, AND
THEIR ROLES IN THE RICO ENTERPRISE……………………………...P. 139

H. THE FOREGOING FACTS SUPPORT CLAIMS AGAINST THE
DEFENDANTS FOR MULTIPLE ACTS OF CONSPIRACY,

RACKETEERING, DOMESTIC TERRORISM AND OTHER CRIMES…P. 146

Again, hes not only saying there were bombs, hes saying A WHOLE LOT MORE. Some janitor.

So yeah, debate whether or not there were bombs in the building.. but I strongly recommend (if you havent already) reading into the other topics hes presenting.. maybe start a new thread on him..

Lanotom, try and get an interview?

Or with his lawyer?

PHILIP J. BERG, ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff
706 Ridge Pike
Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania 19444-1711
Telephone (610) 825-3134

PHILIP J. BERG, Esquire, a Lafayette Hill, PA attorney, joined multi-millionaire Jimmy Walter, an American currently living in Europe, for a seven country/eight city tour, after conducting research with a team of experts on the attacks on the Pentagon and the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. The research team uncovered some very disturbing facts that cannot be reconciled with the information provided by the U.S. government and media.
www.scoop.co.nz...

[edit on 6/26/2005 by QuietSoul]

Originally posted by QuietSoul
Lanotom, try and get an interview?

Or with his lawyer?

LOL I'll pass. Thanks for the offer.

I'm untouchable to people like Prophet Yahweh and Jor-El but when it comes to this topic I already know more then I should so I don't want to be tied to his case with an interview. Really doubt he'd speak out to a stranger anyhow especially with a civil suit in progress.

.
If the elevator shafts were sealed they would have retained that seal below the crashpoint and would have only had the available oxygen inside the elevator shaft to burn.

For a combustable material to burn explosively it needs access to oxygen [air flow].
Only a C4 plastic explosive type material doesn't need oxygen to explode, it explodes due to the unstable molecules of which it is made, which is why it can acheive ballistic velocities.

Jet fuel will, burn and will burn hot with available oxygen, but it ain't gonna explode without [a tank of] pure oxygen that it can consume very rapidly [all at once].

note: a chimney has to have a bottom openning to feed it air as well as a clear and open top.

An elevator works as a major blockage of fuel down and airflow up & down.

[edit on 26-6-2005 by slank]

A friend of mine that reads through this forum (doesn't post) asked me to clarify this for him so I thought I would rehash it a little. In a prior post I said this concerning certain explosions that supposedly didn't happen and just COULDN''T have showed up on siesmographs. (But really, they did)

"I CAN explain.. and easily I might add.. I'm not going to post links to substantiate this, you will just have to go read prior posts but it is a WELL KNOWN FACT that the explosives in the truck bomb WERE NOT connected to any part of the structure connected -directly- to the ground. *Bottom Line*..I don't even think the truck was really that close to any box collumns. You don't have to be an "expert" to understand the implications of this fact. AND I'll bet my bottom dollar that the -alleged- bombs in 911 were directly connected somehow to the box collumns (which were in turn connected DIRECTLY with the ground. )"

In a nutshell, I meant that an explosion "coupled" directly with the ground is going to show up more intensely on a seismograph than one that ISN'T. (A strong explosion that might not be quite stong enough to show up on a seismograph would indeed show up if "coupled" to the ground. The explosion that happened at WTC in 93 was not coupled directly to the ground, the explosives were in a truck supposedly not too close to any box collumns. Quite simple to grasp really. Of course those -alleged- explosions on 911 right before each tower collapsing are a mystery still. I'm just speculating that if major bombs were used in such an instance (I really think they were) I think I could safely assume that whoever did this learned from -past mistakes- and placed these bombs directly onto box collumns which were in turn -coupled- to the ground hence the -showing- on the seismograph. I believe that there were smaller bombs as well used in different places.


Check this out.. (One of many concerning an explosion and precipitated the collapse of each tower, PRECIPITATE.. you guys know what that means don't you?)

www.planetary.org...



From "An Eye-Witness Account of the World Trade Center Attacks
from Neil deGrasse Tyson"

I'll paraphrase the important part:

"4) As more and more and more and more and more emergency vehicles descended on the World Trade Center, I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, THEN A LOUD, LOW-FREQUENCY RUMBLE that PRECIPITATES the unthinkable -- a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion. First the top surface, containing the helipad, tips sideways in full view. Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point of the explosion. A dense, thick dust cloud rises up in its place, which rapidly pours through the warren of streets that cross lower Manhattan.

I close all our windows and blinds. As the dust cloud engulfs my building, an eerie darkness surrounded us -- the kind of darkness you experience before a severe thunderstorm. I look out the window and can see no more than about 12 inches away."

Now listen carefully.. For some for you that are timing challenged. Notice how he said the loud, low-frequency rumbles PRECIPITATED the collapses. PRE = Before.. BEFORE the collapse.



This is one of MANY seperate accounds fro many different people who experienced this -low frequency rumble- prior to the collapse of each tower. Tied to the seismographic data it's hard to discount now isn't it?



[edit on 26-6-2005 by TxSecret]

Originally posted by turbonium
The thing is, regardless of this, WTC 7 WAS NOT hit by anything, and lost NO fireproofing, and had MINIMAL fires. Yet it too collapsed in free fall time. Totally different strucure, totally identical collapse time!! Geez, what are the odds? Must be VERY high!! I guess we can thus conclude that they had best stop contructing steel framed buildings, as they completely collapse with the smallest of fires!! Oh well, back to the good old reliable mud and grass huts!!

Oh, Yes, WTC 7 was hit by something. It was hit by the debris from the collapse of the North tower. I have posted a number of eyewitness accounts from firemen on the scene that clearly state that the south face of the building was SEVERELY damaged by the debris. Just like the Duesche bank building was, only more so.

In addition, the fire protection for this building had two components.

1) Active measures, i.e. the sprinkler system. Unfortunately the sprinkler system was knocked out due to loss of water pressure. the other active measure is the act of fire fighting by trained fire fighters. As we know, the firemen were pulled from the building and from a 600 foot radius around the building early on, because of the obvious structural damage.

2) Passive Measures, i.e. Sprayed on fireproofing. Sprayed on fireproofing is typically rated in hours of protection. In other words a 2-hour rated fireproofing system will give you two hours of protection before it fails. A 4-hour system will give you 4 hours of protection. New York Building codes requires a 2-hour rating. The building burned for 7 hours before it collapsed.

Both systems have to work together. Without the sprinkler system, the fireproofing is only good for the minimum allowed rating. Unlike the Windsor Tower in Madrid, WTC 7 did not have concrete core columns to support it.

The vulnerability of steel in a fire has long been recognized as one of the greatest threats in a structure fire.

Why do both buildings fall symmetrically? Wouldn't there be a high probability that the jet fuel is distributed unevenly, causing one side to lose mechanical resistance faster?

Why would a terrorist perform an act that would cause such a violent reaction, and supply the enemy with a raeson to invade his own country? What an incompetent terrorist!

You'd have to be a moron to believe that jet fuel traveling at 580 miles per hour is going to do a complete stop and pour down an elevator shaft for 800 feet then decide to explode in the cellar.

It's obvious where the jet fuel went - up in flames before it had time to pour into anything.

I guess Larry Silverstein is the luckiest man in the world. The only buildings to blow up that day were his. Buildings closer to 1 and 2 that took more damage are still standing.

Raging fire took down 7 in a perfectly controlled footprint. What raging fire? Oh, you mean the office fires from the government paperwork burning? Sorry, but that's not going to take the building down and there's no evidence of some 7,000 gallons of diesel burning, either. That would be a little bit obvious, like, massive pillar of black oily diesel smoke pouring out of the building.

Originally posted by StarBreather
Why do both buildings fall symmetrically? Wouldn't there be a high probability that the jet fuel is distributed unevenly, causing one side to lose mechanical resistance faster?

WTF are you talking about?

They didn't fall symmetrically

Watch a video of the south tower collapse, the top tilted noticeably to one side as it fell.

The top of the nort tower also shifted and twisted as it fell.

Remember we are talking about thousands of tons of building here. Gravity rules all. once it starts going downward, nothing is going to stop it from going downward. The center of gravity would have had to have moved over 100 feet laterally before it would have been outside the building envelope. if the structure were to tip over that far, the beams and columns would no longer be able to hold the building in a cohesive shape anyway.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The vulnerability of steel in a fire has long been recognized as one of the greatest threats in a structure fire.

Jeff King from MIT / Engineer Research Scientist, said Steel keeps a lot of its structural integrity even when heated until you begin to approach the melting point you don’t really see a catastrophic loss in strength. The way the towers fell implies a complete loss of strength, impossible
Link

HR, it's interesting how you sidestep what I said earlier about explosions and ground coupling.

But anyways, when you said"

"Watch a video of the south tower collapse, the top tilted noticeably to one side as it fell.

The top of the nort tower also shifted and twisted as it fell."

Yes.. you can safely assume we all saw that but you do realize if explosives were used to demolish these buildings that simple fact renders the "twisting and tilting" point moot. You do understand why don't you? If the buildings were wired for explosives in advance you know that they can control these explosives with pinpoint accuracy to get just about whatever result they choose. Building 7 was a prime candidate for a -partial collapse- just like Murah building Oklahoma was.. (Murrah did partially collapse if you didn't notice) WTC 1 and 2? I'm not going to say that they should have just partially collapsed due to the fact that all the support collums were more -concentrated- in a smaller area as opposed to having them more -spread out- al la building 7. I also understand in theory that the outer skin of WTC 1 and 2 helped keep everything -in- while it collapsed but I'm still not buying into it. When you watch the videos , at the beginning of each collapse it looks like something at the very bottom was removed.. The center spire starts falling before the outside does..(Keep in mind that the "exoskeleton" of WTC 1 and 2 were VERY strong so if the bottom was knocked out and the inner core -fell- the outside would resist) This would better explain the pulverizing that took place of all the material as the building came down. The inner part of the building coming down with the outside resisting. Two forces figting each other shredding everying up in the process. I would also like to mention something about the ludicrous "pancake" theory... If the slabs were strong enough to -compress- the one underneath it out of the way how come there were no partial slabs remaining after the building fell? I mean, there should have been some at least partial slabs visible. Curious eh? Of course building 7 just came down in perfect demo fashion... I don't care what anybody says. As far as I'm concerned WTC 1 and 2 had the bottoms knocked out from underneath them and since the floors around the impacts were weakened to some -extent- that in itself allowed for some sway in that area. I wish I could prove it though.




[edit on 26-6-2005 by TxSecret]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
They didn't fall symmetrically

Watch a video of the south tower collapse, the top tilted noticeably to one side as it fell.

The top of the nort tower also shifted and twisted as it fell.

It started to tilt slightly, but kept falling with no resistance from the lower floors.
This means:
1. At the beginning of the fall, the loss of resistance was already more or less uniform at the level of the impact, as if the jet fuel had been sprayed in aerosol form.
2. The lower floors didn't react to the uneven pressure of the upper floors. They reacted slightly, and this is why there is a slight tilt. If they reacted normally, the tilt would have been amplified and would be much more visible. No, the lower floors just disintegrated at some point.

Heres some photo's about the "tilt and twist" the past posters have been debating..



Better(bigger) collapse photos here: 911research.wtc7.net...

And videos here:
911research.wtc7.net...


Edit add:
ps. Just trying to throw sources out since other people havent been.. helps the "rest of us" understand what we're still learning..

pps. post sources, picture links, ect to back up your claims... again, for the "rest of us"

[edit on 6/26/2005 by QuietSoul]

You guys have a nice debate. Apparently since I disagree some people have decided I'm stupid, and a copmlete idiot, and a spoon fed sheep. Since some people can't keep this civilized I quit. God forbid someone should disagree with you. I love a good debate, until it becomes "you're an ideiot!"

[edit on 26-6-2005 by Zaphod58]

There is no way that the core of the WTC collapsed without sections being severed by shearing charges. Absolutely no way in Hell is it possible in the most remote sense that 47 continuous box collumns 1000 feet high cross-braced throughout the entire core are going to break into consistent 30-foot sections due to a short-lived kerosene (which is what JP4) fire on about 10 stories.

The towers were blown to pieces by pre-loaded explosives. It's the only possible solution.