The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True

FULL ARTICLE:
http://www.911truthseekers.org/modul...m.php?itemid=2

Multiple Evidence of Controlled Demolition

There is a reverse truth to the fact that, aside from the alleged cases of
9/11, fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse. This
reverse truth is that every previous total collapse has been caused by the
procedure known as "controlled demolition," in which explosives capable of
cutting steel have been placed in crucial places throughout the building and
then set off in a particular order. Just from knowing that the towers
collapsed, therefore, the natural assumption would be that they were brought
down by explosives.

This a priori assumption is, moreover, supported by an empirical examination
of the particular nature of the collapses. Here we come to the second major
problem with the official theory, namely, that the collapses had at least
eleven features that would be expected if, and only if, explosives were
used. I will briefly describe these eleven features.

Sudden Onset: In controlled demolition, the onset of the collapse is sudden.
One moment, the building is perfectly motionless; the next moment, it
suddenly begins to collapse. But steel, when heated, does not suddenly
buckle or break. So in fire-induced collapses---if we had any examples of
such---the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin
to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to
bend. But as videos of the towers show,[19] there were no signs of bending
or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of
the planes. The buildings were perfectly motionless up to the moment they
began their collapse.

Straight Down: The most important thing in a controlled demolition of a tall
building close to other buildings is that it come straight down, into, or at
least close to, its own footprint, so that it does not harm the other
buildings. The whole art or science of controlled demolition is oriented
primarily around this goal. As Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled
Demolition, Inc., has explained, "to bring [a building] down as we want, so
.. . . no other structure is harmed," the demolition must be "completely
planned," using "the right explosive [and] the right pattern of laying the
charges" (Else, 2004).[20] If the 110-story Twin Towers had fallen over,
they would have caused an enormous amount of damage to buildings covering
many city blocks. But the towers came straight down. Accordingly, the
official theory, by implying that fire produced collapses that perfectly
mimicked the collapses that have otherwise been produced only by precisely
placed explosives, requires a miracle.[21]

Almost Free-Fall Speed: Buildings brought down by controlled demolition
collapse at almost free-fall speed. This can occur because the supports for
the lower floors are destroyed, so that when the upper floors come down,
they encounter no resistance. The fact that the collapses of the towers
mimicked this feature of controlled demolition was mentioned indirectly by
The 9/11 Commission Report, which said that the "South Tower collapsed in 10
seconds" (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, p. 305).[22] The authors of the report
evidently thought that the rapidity of this collapse did not conflict with
the official theory, known as the "pancake" theory. According to this
theory, the floors above the floors that were weakened by the impact of the
airliner fell on the floor below, which started a chain reaction, so that
the floors "pancaked" all the way down.

But if that is what happened, the lower floors, with all their steel and
concrete, would have provided resistance. The upper floors could not have
fallen through them at the same speed as they would fall through air.
However, the videos of the collapses show that the rubble falling inside the
building's profile falls at the same speed as the rubble outside[23] (Jones,
2006). As architect and physicist Dave Heller (2005) explains:

the floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly.
The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in
such a short amount of time. But how?. . . In [the method known as
controlled demolition], each floor of a building is destroyed at just the
moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall
simultaneously, and in virtual freefall. (Garlic and Glass 6)

Total Collapse: The official theory is even more decisively ruled out by the
fact that the collapses were total: These 110-story buildings collapsed into
piles of rubble only a few stories high. How was that possible? The core of
each tower contained 47 massive steel box columns.[24] According to the
pancake theory, the horizontal steel supports broke free from the vertical
columns. But if that is what had happened, the 47 core columns would have
still been standing. The 9/11 Commission came up with a bold solution to
this problem. It simply denied the existence of the 47 core columns, saying:
"The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which
elevators and stairwells were grouped" (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, 541 note
1). Voila! With no 47 core columns, the main problem is removed.

The NIST Report handled this most difficult problem by claiming that when
the floors collapsed, they pulled on the columns, causing the perimeter
columns to become unstable. This instability then increased the gravity load
on the core columns, which had been weakened by tremendously hot fires in
the core, which, NIST claims, reached 1832°F, and this combination of
factors somehow produced "global collapse" (NIST, 2005, pp. 28, 143).

This theory faces two problems. First, NIST's claim about tremendously hot
fires in the core is completely unsupported by evidence. As we saw earlier,
its own studies found no evidence that any of the core columns had reached
temperatures of even 482°F (250°C), so its theory involves a purely
speculative addition of over 1350°F.[25] Second, even if this sequence of
events had occurred, NIST provides no explanation as to why it would have
produced global--that is, total--collapse. The NIST Report asserts that
"column failure" occurred in the core as well as the perimeter columns. But
this remains a bare assertion. There is no plausible explanation of why the
columns would have broken or even buckled, so as to produce global collapse
at virtually free-fall speed, even if they had reached such
temperatures.[26]

Sliced Steel: In controlled demolitions of steel-frame buildings, explosives
are used to slice the steel columns and beams into pieces. A representative
from Controlled Demolition, Inc., has said of RDX, one of the commonly used
high explosives, that it slices steel like a "razor blade through a tomato."
The steel is, moreover, not merely sliced; it is sliced into manageable
lengths. As Controlled Demolition, Inc., says in its publicity: "Our DREXSTM
systems . . . segment steel components into pieces matching the lifting
capacity of the available equipment."[27]

The collapses of the Twin Towers, it seems, somehow managed to mimic this
feature of controlled demolitions as well. Jim Hoffman (2004), after
studying various photos of the collapse site, said that much of the steel
seemed to be "chopped up into . . . sections that could be easily loaded
onto the equipment that was cleaning up Ground Zero."[28]

Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials: Another feature of controlled
demolition is the production of a lot of dust, because explosives powerful
enough to slice steel will pulverize concrete and most other non-metallic
substances into tiny particles. And, Hoffman (2003) reports, "nearly all of
the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine
power."[29] That observation was also made by Colonel John O'Dowd of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. "At the World Trade Center sites," he told the
History Channel, "it seemed like everything was pulverized" (History
Channel, 2002).

This fact creates a problem for the official theory, according to which the
only energy available was the gravitational energy. This energy would have
been sufficient to break most of the concrete into fairly small pieces. But
it would not have been anywhere close to the amount of energy needed to turn
the concrete and virtually all the non-metallic contents of the buildings
into tiny particles of dust.

Dust Clouds: Yet another common feature of controlled demolitions is the
production of dust clouds, which result when explosions eject the dust from
the building with great energy. And, as one can see by comparing videos on
the Web, the collapses of the towers produced clouds that are very similar
to those produced by controlled demolitions of other structures, such as
Seattle's Kingdome. The only difference is that the clouds produced during
the collapses of the towers were proportionally much bigger.[30]

The question of the source of the needed energy again arises. Hoffman
(2003), focusing on the expansion of the North Tower's dust cloud,
calculates that the energy required simply for this expansion---ignoring the
energy needed to slice the steel and pulverize the concrete and other
materials---exceeded by at least 10 times the gravitational energy
available.

The official account, therefore, involves a huge violation of the laws of
physics---a violation that becomes even more enormous once we factor in the
energy required to pulverize the concrete (let alone the energy required to
break the steel).

Besides the sheer quantity of energy needed, another problem with the
official theory is that gravitational energy is wholly unsuited to explain
the production of these dust clouds. This is most obviously the case in the
first few seconds. In Hoffman's words: "You can see thick clouds of
pulverized concrete being ejected within the first two seconds. That's when
the relative motion of the top of the tower to the intact portion was only a
few feet per second."[31] Jeff King (2003), in the same vein, says: "[A
great amount of] very fine concrete dust is ejected from the top of the
building very early in the collapse. . . [when] concrete slabs [would have
been] bumping into each other at [only] 20 or 30 mph."

The importance of King's point can be appreciated by juxtaposing it with the
claim by Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead investigator, that although the clouds of
dust created during the collapses of the Twin Towers may create the
impression of a controlled demolition, "it is the floor pancaking that leads
to that perception" (Popular Mechanics, 2005). The pancaking, according to
the official theory being defended by Sunder, began at the floor beneath the
holes created by the impact of the airliners. As King points out, this
theory cannot handle the fact, as revealed by the photographs and videos,
that dust clouds were created far above the impact zones.

Horizontal Ejections: Another common feature of controlled demolition is the
horizontal ejection of other materials, besides dust, from those areas of
the building in which explosives are set off. In the case of the Twin
Towers, photos and videos reveal that "[h]eavy pieces of steel were ejected
in all directions for distances up to 500 feet, while aluminum cladding was
blown up to 700 feet away from the towers" (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 7).
But gravitational energy is, of course, vertical, so it cannot even begin to
explain these horizontal ejections.

Demolition Rings: Still another common feature of collapses induced by
explosions are demolition rings, in which series of small explosions run
rapidly around a building. This feature was also manifested by the collapses
of the towers.[32]

Sounds Produced by Explosions: The use of explosives to induce collapses
produces, of course, sounds caused by the explosions. Like all the previous
features except the slicing of the steel columns inside the building, this
one could be observed by witnesses. And, as we will see below, there is
abundant testimony to the existence of such sounds before and during the
collapses of the towers.

Molten Steel: An eleventh feature that would be expected only if explosives
were used to slice the steel columns would be molten steel, and its
existence at the WTC site was indeed reported by several witnesses,
including the two main figures involved in the clean up, Peter Tully,
president of Tully Construction, and Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled
Demolition, Incorporated. Tully said that he saw pools of "literally molten
steel" at the site. Loizeaux said that several weeks after 9/11, when the
rubble was being removed, "hot spots of molten steel" were found "at the
bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement]
levels" (both statements quoted in Bollyn, 2004).[33]

Also, Leslie Robertson, the chief structural engineer for the Twin Towers,
said: "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and
molten steel was still running" (Williams, 2001). Knight-Ridder journalist
Jennifer Lin, discussing Joe "Toolie" O'Toole, a Bronx firefighter who
worked for many months on the rescue and clean-up efforts, wrote:
"Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole remembers in February seeing a
crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground
Zero. 'It was dripping from the molten steel," he said'" (Lin, 2002). Greg
Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint, Inc., which supplied some of
the computer equipment used to identify human remains at the site, described
the working conditions as "hellish," partly because for six months, the
ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees
or higher. Fuchek added that "sometimes when a worker would pull a steel
beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel"
(Walsh, 2002). And still more witnesses spoke of molten steel.[34]

This testimony is of great significance, since it would be hard to imagine
what, other than high explosives, could have caused some of the steel to
melt.

The importance of the nature of the collapses, as summarized in these 11
features, is shown by the fact that attempts to defend the official theory
typically ignore most of them. For example, an article in Popular Mechanics
(2005), seeking to debunk what it calls some of the most prevalent myths
about 9/11 fabricated by "conspiracy theorists," completely ignores the
suddenness, verticality, rapidity, and totality of the collapses and also
fails to mention the testimonies about molten steel, demolition rings, and
the sounds of explosions.[35]

2. Testimonies about Explosions and Related Phenomena in the 9/11 Oral
Histories

Most of these 11 features---all but the slicing of the core columns and the
molten steel in the basements---are features that, if they occurred before
or during the collapses of the towers, could have been observed by people in
the area. And, in fact, testimonies about some of these phenomena have been
available, since shortly after 9/11, from reporters,[36] fire fighters,[37]
police officers,[38] people who worked in the towers,[39] and one prominent
explosives expert, Van Romero, [40] who said on that very day after viewing
the videotapes, that the collapses not only resembled those produced by
controlled implosions but must, in fact, have been caused by "some explosive
devices inside the buildings" because they were "too methodical" to have
been chance results of the airplane strikes (Uyttebrouck, 2001).[41] Some of
these testimonies were very impressive. There were, however, only a few of
them and they were scattered here and there. No big body of testimony was
readily accessible.

But this situation has dramatically changed. Shortly after 9/11, the New
York Fire Department recorded over 500 oral histories, in which firefighters
and emergency medical workers recounted their experiences of that day.
[Emergency Medical Services had become a division within the Fire
Department(Dwyer, 2005a).] Mayor Bloomberg's administration, however,
refused to release them. But then the New York Times, joined by several
families of 9/11 victims, filed suit and, after a long process, the New York
Court of Appeals ordered the city to release the bulk of these oral
histories, which it did in August 2005[42] (Dwyer, 2005b). The Times then
made them publicly available (NYT, 2005).[43]

These oral histories contain many dozens of testimonies that speak of
explosions and related phenomena characteristic of controlled demolition. I
will give some examples.

Explosions

Several individuals reported that they witnessed an explosion just before
one of the towers collapsed. Battalion Chief John Sudnik said: "we heard . .
.. what sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw tower two start
coming down" (NYT, Sudnick, p. 4).

Several people reported multiple explosions. Paramedic Kevin Darnowski said:
"I heard three explosions, and then . . . tower two started to come down"
(NYT, Darnowski, p. 8).

Firefighter Thomas Turilli said, "it almost sounded like bombs going off,
like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight" (NYT, Turilli, p. 4).

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters "heard explosions coming
from . . . the south tower. . . . There were about ten explosions. . . . We
then realized the building started to come down" (NYT, Carlsen, pp. 5-6).

Firefighter Joseph Meola said, "it looked like the building was blowing out
on all four sides. We actually heard the pops" (NYT, Meola, p. 5).

Paramedic Daniel Rivera also mentioned "pops." Asked how he knew that the
south tower was coming down, he said:

It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was---do you ever see
professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and
then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'? . . . I thought it was that. (NYT,
Rivera, p. 9)

Collapse Beginning below the Strike Zone and Fire According to the official
account, the "pancaking" began when the floors above the hole caused by the
airplane fell on the floors below. Some witnesses reported, however, that
the collapse of the south tower began somewhat lower.

Timothy Burke said that "the building popped, lower than the fire. . . . I
was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the
building popped. I thought it was an explosion" (NYT, Burke, pp. 8-9).

Firefighter Edward Cachia said: "It actually gave at a lower floor, not the
floor where the plane hit. . . . [W]e originally had thought there was like
an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom,
boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down" (NYT, Cachia, p. 5).

The importance of these observations is reinforced by the fact that the
authors of the NIST Report, after having released a draft to the public,
felt the need to add the following statement to the Executive Summary:

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting
that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using
explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. . . . Instead, photos and
videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the
fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating
floors downward.

Firefighters Burke and Cachia presumably now need to ask themselves: What
are you going to believe, your own eyes or an official government report?

Flashes and Demolition Rings

Some of the witnesses spoke of flashes and of phenomena suggestive of
demolition rings. Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory said: "I thought .
.. . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . .
.. saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You
know like when they demolish a building?" (NYT, Gregory, pp. 14-16).

Captain Karin Deshore said: "Somewhere around the middle . . . there was
this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then
this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that
building had started to explode. . . . [W]ith each popping sound it was
initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then
it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could
see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both
up and down and then all around the building" (NYT, Deshore, p. 15).

Firefighter Richard Banaciski said: "[T]here was just an explosion. It
seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed
like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions"
(NYT, Banaciski, pp. 3-4).

Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick said: "It looked like sparkling
around one specific layer of the building. . . . My initial reaction was
that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions
on TV" (NYT, Fitzpatrick, pp. 13-14).

Horizontal Ejections

A few witnesses spoke of horizontal ejections. Chief Frank Cruthers said:
"There was what appeared to be . . . an explosion. It appeared at the very
top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally.
And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the
beginning of the collapse" (NYT, Cruthers, p. 4).

This testimony is important, because the official theory holds that the
ejections were produced by the floors collapsing. So listen to firefighter
James Curran, who said: "I looked back and . . . I heard like every floor
went chu-chu-chu. I looked back and from the pressure everything was getting
blown out of the floors before it actually collapsed" (NYT, Curran, pp.
10-11).

Battalion Chief Brian Dixon said, "the lowest floor of fire in the south
tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because
.. . . everything blew out on the one floor" (NYT, Dixon, p. 15).[44]

Synchronized Explosions

Some witnesses said that the explosions seemed to be synchronized. For
example, firefighter Kenneth Rogers said, "there was an explosion in the
south tower. . . . I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One floor
under another after another . . . [i]t looked like a synchronized deliberate
kind of thing" (NYT, Rogers, pp. 3-4).[45]

Why Does the Public Not Know of These Reports? If all these firefighters and
medical workers witnessed all these phenomena suggestive of controlled
demolition, it might be wondered why the public does not know this. Part of
the answer is provided by Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac. Having
said that "there were definitely bombs in those buildings," Isaac added that
"many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they're
afraid for their jobs to admit it because the 'higher-ups' forbid discussion
of this fact" (Lavello, n.d.). Another part of the answer is that when a few
people, like Isaac and William Rodriguez, have spoken out, the mainstream
press has failed to report their statements.

3. Implications

The official theory about the collapse of the towers, I have suggested, is
rendered extremely implausible by two main facts. First, aside from the
alleged exception of 9/11, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been
caused to collapse by fire; all such collapses have all been produced by
carefully placed explosives. Second, the collapses of the Twin Towers
manifested at least 11 characteristic features of controlled demolitions.
The probability that any of these features would occur in the absence of
explosives is extremely low. The probability that all 11 of them would occur
is essentially zero.[46]

We can say, therefore, that the official theory about the towers is
disproved about as thoroughly as such a theory possibly could be, whereas
all the evidence can be explained by the alternative theory, according to
which the towers were brought down by explosives. The official theory is,
accordingly, an outrageous theory, whereas the alternative theory is, from a
scientific point of view, the only reasonable theory available.[47]

4. Other Suspicious Facts

Moreover, although we have already considered sufficient evidence for the
theory that the towers were brought down by explosives, there is still more.

Removal of the Steel: For one thing, the steel from the buildings was
quickly removed before it could be properly examined,[48] with virtually all
of it being sold to scrap dealers, who put most of it on ships to Asia.[49]
Generally, removing any evidence from the scene of a crime is a federal
offense. But in this case, federal officials facilitated the removal.[50]

This removal evoked protest. On Christmas day, 2001, the New York Times
said: "The decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses
from the WTC in the days immediately after 9/11 means definitive answers may
never be known."[51] The next week, Fire Engineering magazine said: "We are
literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like
crucial fire scene evidence (Brannigan, Corbett, and Dunn, 2002). . . . The
destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately" (Manning, 2002).

However, Mayor Bloomberg, defending the decision to dispose of the steel,
said: "If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the
design, that's in this day and age what computers do.[52] Just looking at a
piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything."[53] But that is not
true. An examination of the steel could have revealed whether it had been
cut by explosives.

This removal of an unprecedented amount of material from a crime scene
suggests that an unprecedented crime was being covered up.[54]

Evidence that this cover-up was continued by NIST is provided by its
treatment of a provocative finding reported by FEMA, which was that some of
the specimens of steel were "rapidly corroded by sulfidation" (FEMA 2002,
Appendix C). This report is significant, because sulfidation is an effect of
explosives. FEMA appropriately called for further investigation of this
finding, which the New York Times called "perhaps the deepest mystery
uncovered in the investigation" (Killough-Miller, 2002). A closely related
problem, expressed shortly after 9/11 by Dr. Jonathan Barnett, Professor of
Fire Protection Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, is that
"[f]ire and the structural damage . . . would not explain steel members in
the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated" (Glanz, 2001).
But the NIST report, in its section headed "Learning from the Recovered
Steel," fails even to mention either evaporation or sulfidation.[55] Why
would the NIST scientists apparently share Mayor Bloomberg's disdain for
empirical studies of recovered steel?

North Tower Antenna Drop: Another problem noted by FEMA is that videos show
that, in the words of the FEMA Report, "the transmission tower on top of the
[north tower] began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement
was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one
or more failures in the central core area of the building" (FEMA 2002, ch.
2).[56] This drop was also mentioned in a New York Times story by James
Glanz and Eric Lipton, which said: "Videos of the north tower's collapse
appear to show that its television antenna began to drop a fraction of a
second before the rest of the building. The observations suggest that the
building's steel core somehow gave way first" (Glanz and Lipton, 2002). In
the supposedly definitive NIST Report, however, we find no mention of this
fact. This is another convenient omission, since the most plausible, and
perhaps only possible, explanation would be that the core columns were cut
by explosives---an explanation that would fit with the testimony of several
witnesses.

South Tower Tipping and Disintegration: If the north tower's antenna drop
was anomalous (from the perspective of the official theory), the south tower's
collapse contained an even stranger anomaly. The uppermost floors---above
the level struck by the airplane---began tipping toward the corner most
damaged by the impact. According to conservation-of-momentum laws, this
block of approximately 34 floors should have fallen to the ground far
outside the building's footprint. "However," observe Paul and Hoffman, "as
the top then began to fall, the rotation decelerated. Then it reversed
direction [even though the] law of conservation of angular momentum states
that a solid object in rotation will continue to rotate at the same speed
unless acted on by a torque" (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 34).

And then, in the words of Steven Jones, a physics professor at BYU, "this
block turned mostly to powder in mid-air!" This disintegration stopped the
tipping and allowed the uppermost floors to fall straight down into, or at
least close to, the building's footprint. As Jones notes, this extremely
strange behavior was one of many things that NIST was able to ignore by
virtue of the fact that its analysis, in its own words, "does not actually
include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for
collapse initiation were reached" (NIST 2005, p. 80, n. 12). This is
convenient because it means that NIST did not have to answer Jones's
question: "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives?"
(Jones, 2006).

This behavior is, however, not strange to experts in controlled demolition.
Mark Loizeaux, the head of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has said:

[b]y differentially controlling the velocity of failure in different parts
of the structure, you can make it walk, you can make it spin, you can make
it dance . . . . We'll have structures start facing north and end up going
to the north-west. (Else, 2004)

Once again, something that is inexplicable in terms of the official theory
becomes a matter of course if the theory of controlled demolition is
adopted.

WTC Security: The suggestion that explosives might have been used raises the
question of how anyone wanting to place explosives in the towers could have
gotten through the security checks. This question brings us to a possibly
relevant fact about a company---now called Stratesec but then called
Securacom---that was in charge of security for the World Trade Center. From
1993 to 2000, during which Securacom installed a new security system, Marvin
Bush, the president's brother, was one of the company's directors. And from
1999 until January of 2002, their cousin Wirt Walker III was the CEO (Burns,
2003).[57] One would think these facts should have made the evening
news---or at least The 9/11 Commission Report.

These facts, in any case, may be relevant to some reports given by people
who had worked in the World Trade Center. Some of them reportedly said that
although in the weeks before 9/11 there had been a security alert that
mandated the use of bomb-sniffing dogs, that alert was lifted five days
before 9/11 (Taylor and Gardiner, 2001).

Also, a man named Scott Forbes, who worked for Fiduciary Trust---the company
for which Kristen Breitweiser's husband worked---has written:

On the weekend of [September 8-9, 2001], there was a "power down" condition
in . . . the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no
electrical supply for approximately 36 hours from floor 50 up. . . . The
reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was
being upgraded . . . . Of course without power there were no security
cameras, no security locks on doors [while] many, many "engineers" [were]
coming in and out of the tower.[58]

Also, a man named Ben Fountain, who was a financial analyst with Fireman's
Fund in the south tower, was quoted in People Magazine as saying that during
the weeks before 9/11, the towers were evacuated "a number of times" (People
Magazine, 2001).

Foreknowledge of the Collapse: One more possibly relevant fact is that then
Mayor Rudy Giuliani, talking on ABC News about his temporary emergency
command center at 75 Barkley Street, said:

We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center
was gonna collapse, and it did collapse before we could get out of the
building.[59]

This is an amazing statement. Prior to 9/11, fire had never brought down a
steel-frame high-rise. The firemen who reached the 78th floor of the south
tower certainly did not believe it was going to collapse. Even the 9/11
Commission reported that to its knowledge, "none of the [fire] chiefs
present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible" (Kean
and Hamilton, 2004, p. 302). So why would anyone have told Giuliani that at
least one of the towers was about to collapse?

The most reasonable answer, especially in light of the new evidence, is that
someone knew that explosives had been set in the south tower and were about
to be discharged. It is even possible that the explosives were going to be
discharged earlier than originally planned because the fires in the south
tower were dying down more quickly than expected, because so much of the
plane's jet fuel had burned up in the fireball outside the building.[60]
This could explain why although the south tower was struck second, suffered
less structural damage, and had smaller fires, it collapsed first---after
only 56 minutes. That is, if the official story was going to be that the
fire caused the collapse, the building had to be brought down before the
fire went completely out.[61]

We now learn from the oral histories, moreover, that Giuliani is not the
only one who was told that a collapse was coming. At least four of the
testimonies indicate that shortly before the collapse of the south tower,
the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) had predicted the collapse of at
least one tower.[62] The director of OEM reported directly to Giuliani.[63]
So although Giuliani said that he and others "were told" that the towers
were going to collapse, it was his own people who were doing the telling.

As New York Times reporter Jim Dwyer has pointed out, the 9/11 Commission
had access to the oral histories.[64] It should have discussed these facts,
but it did not.

The neglect of most of the relevant facts about the collapses, manifested by
The 9/11 Commission Report, was continued by the NIST Report, which said,
amazingly:

The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the
instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For
brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable
collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural
behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were
reached. . . . [Our simulation treats only] the structural deterioration of
each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the
building . . . was poised for collapse (80n, 140).

Steven Jones comments, appropriately:

What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of the
buildings? . . . What about the antenna dropping first in the North Tower?
What about the molten metal observed in the basement areas . . . ? Never
mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the buildings were
"poised for collapse." Well, some of us want to look at all the data,
without computer simulations that are "adjusted" to make them fit the
desired outcome. (Jones, 2006)

Summary: When we add these five additional suspicious facts to the eleven
features that that the collapses of the Twin Towers had in common with
controlled demolitions, we have a total of sixteen facts about the collapses
of these buildings that, while being inexplicable in terms of the official
theory, are fully understandable on the theory that the destruction of the
towers was an inside job.

5. The Collapse of Building 7

As we have seen, the 9/11 Commission simply ignored the facts discussed
above. Still another matter not discussed by the Commission was the collapse
of building 7. And yet the official story about it is, if anything, even
more problematic than the official story about the towers-as suggested by
the title of a New York Times story, "Engineers Are Baffled over the
Collapse of 7 WTC" (Glanz, 2001).[65]

Even More Difficult to Explain

The collapse of building 7 is even more difficult to explain than the
collapse of the towers in part because it was not struck by an airliner, so
none of the theories about how the impacts of the airliners contributed to
the collapses of the towers can be employed in relation to it.

Also, all the photographic evidence suggests that the fires in this building
were small, not very hot, and limited to a few floors. Photographs of the
north side of the building show fires only on the 7th and 12th floors of
this 47-floor building. So if the south side, which faced the towers, had
fires on many other floors, as defenders of the official account claim, they
were not big enough to be seen from the other side of the building.[66]

It would not be surprising, of course, if the fires in this building were
even smaller than those in the towers, because there was no jet fuel to get
a big fire started. Some defenders of the official story have claimed, to be
sure, that the diesel fuel stored in this building somehow caught fire and
created a towering inferno. But if building 7 had become engulfed in flames,
why did none of the many photographers and TV camera crews on the scene
capture this sight?

The extreme difficulty of explaining the collapse of building 7--assuming
that it is not permissible to mention controlled demolition---has been
recognized by the official bodies. The report prepared under FEMA's
supervision came up with a scenario employing the diesel fuel, then admitted
that this scenario had "only a low probability of occurrence."[67] Even that
statement is generous, because the probability that some version of the
official story of building 7 is true is the same as it is for the towers,
essentially zero, because it would violate several laws of physics. In any
case, the 9/11 Commission, perhaps because of this admission by FEMA,
avoided the problem by simply not even mentioning the fact that this
building collapsed.

This was one of the Commission's most amazing omissions. According to the
official theory, building 7 demonstrated, contrary to the universal
conviction prior to 9/11, that large steel-frame buildings could collapse
from fire alone, even without having been hit by an airplane. This
demonstration should have meant that building codes and insurance premiums
for all steel-frame buildings in the world needed to be changed. And yet the
9/11 Commission, in preparing its 571-page report, did not devote a single
sentence to this historic event.

Even More Similar to Controlled Implosions

Yet another reason why the collapse of building 7 is especially problematic
is that it was even more like the best-known type of conventional
demolition--namely, an implosion, which begins at the bottom (whereas the
collapse of each tower originated high up, near the region struck by the
plane). As Eric Hufschmid has written:

Building 7 collapsed at its bottom. . . . [T]he interior fell first. . . .
The result was a very tiny pile of rubble, with the outside of the building
collapsing on top of the pile.[68]

Implosion World.com, a website about the demolition industry, states that an
implosion is "by far the trickiest type of explosive project, and there are
only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough
experience . . . to perform these true building implosions."[69] Can anyone
really believe that fire would have just happened to produce the kind of
collapse that can be reliably produced by only a few demolition companies in
the world? The building had 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns. To
hold that fire caused this building to collapse straight down would mean
believing that the fire caused all 81 columns to fail at exactly the same
time. To accept the official story is, in other words, to accept a miracle.
Physicist Steven Jones agrees, saying:

The likelihood of near-symmetrical collapse of WTC7 due to random fires (the
"official" theory)---requiring as it does near-simultaneous failure of many
support columns---is infinitesimal. I conclude that the evidence for the
9/11 use of pre-positioned explosives in WTC 7 (also in Towers 1 and 2) is
truly compelling.[70]

Much More Extensive Foreknowledge

Another reason why the collapse of building 7 creates special problems
involves foreknowledge of its collapse. We know of only a few people with
advance knowledge that the Twin Towers were going to collapse, and the
information we have would be consistent with the supposition that this
knowledge was acquired only a few minutes before the south tower collapsed.
People can imagine, therefore, that someone saw something suggesting that
the building was going to collapse. But the foreknowledge of building 7's
collapse was more widespread and of longer duration. This has been known for
a long time, at least by people who read firefighters' magazines.[71] But
now the oral histories have provided a fuller picture.

Widespread Notification: At least 25 of the firefighters and medical workers
reported that, at some time that day, they learned that building 7 was going
to collapse. Firefighters who had been fighting the fires in the building
said they were ordered to leave the building, after which a collapse zone
was established. As medical worker Decosta Wright put it: "they measured out
how far the building was going to come, so we knew exactly where we could
stand," which was "5 blocks away" (NYT, Wright, pp. 11-12).

Early Warning: As to exactly when the expectation of the collapse began
circulating, the testimonies differ. But most of the evidence suggests that
the expectation of collapse was communicated 4 or 5 hours in advance.[72]

The Alleged Reason for the Expectation: But why would this expectation have
arisen? The fires in building 7 were, according to all the photographic
evidence, few and small. So why would the decision-makers in the department
have decided to pull firefighters out of building 7 and have them simply
stand around waiting for it to collapse?

The chiefs gave a twofold explanation: damage plus fire. Chief Frank Fellini
said: "When [the north tower] fell, it ripped steel out from between the
third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned
that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the
building collapsing" (NYT, Fellini, p. 3).

There are at least two problems with each part of this explanation. One
problem with the accounts of the structural damage is that they vary
greatly. According to Fellini's testimony, there was a four-floor hole
between the third and sixth floors. In the telling of Captain Chris Boyle,
however, the hole was "20 stories tall" (2002). It would appear that Shyam
Sunder, the lead investigator for NIST, settled on somewhat of a compromise
between these two views, telling Popular Mechanics that, "On about a third
of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about
25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out" (Popular Mechanics,
March 2005).

The different accounts of the problem on the building's south side are not,
moreover, limited to the issue of the size of the hole. According to Deputy
Chief Peter Hayden, the problem was not a hole at all but a "bulge," and it
was "between floors 10 and 13" (Hayden, 2002).

The second problem with these accounts of the damage is if there was a hole
that was 10 or 20 floors high, or even a hole (or a budge) that was 4 floors
high, why was this fact not captured on film by any of the photographers or
videographers in the area that day?

With regard to the claims about the fire, the accounts again vary greatly.
Chief Daniel Nigro spoke of "very heavy fire on many floors" (NYT, Nigro, p.
10). According to Harry Meyers, an assistant chief, "When the building came
down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories" (quoted in
Smith, 2002, p. 160). That obvious exaggeration was also stated by a
firefighter who said: "[Building 7] was fully engulfed. . . . [Y]ou could
see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the
other" (NYT, Cassidy, p. 22).

Several of the testimonies, however, did not support the official line. For
example, medical technician Decosta Wright said: "I think the fourth floor
was on fire. . . . [W]e were like, are you guys going to put that fire out?"
(NYT, Wright, p. 11). Chief Thomas McCarthy said: "[T]hey were waiting for 7
World Trade to come down. . . . They had . . . fire on three separate floors
.. . . , just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the
afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said
'we know'" (NYT, McCarthy, pp. 10-11).

The second problem with the official account here is that if there was "very
heavy fire on many floors," why is this fact not captured on any film? The
photograph that we have of the north side of the building supports Chief
McCarthy's view that there was fire on three floors. Even if there were
fires on additional floors on the south side of the building, there is no
photographic support for the claim that "the flames [on these additional
floors went] straight through from one side of the building to the other."

Moreover, even if the department's official story about the collapse of
building 7 were not contradicted by physical evidence and some of the oral
histories, it would not explain why the building collapsed, because no
amount of fire and structural damage, unless caused by explosives, had ever
caused the total collapse of a large steel-frame building.[73] And it
certainly would not explain the particular nature of the collapse---that the
building imploded and fell straight down rather than falling over in some
direction, as purportedly expected by those who gave the order to create a
large collapse zone. Battalion Chief John Norman, for example, said: "We
expected it to fall to the south" (Norman 2002). Nor would the
damage-plus-fire theory explain this building's collapse at virtually
free-fall speed or the creation of an enormous amount of dust-additional
features of the collapses that are typically ignored by defenders of the
official account.

The great difficulty presented to the official theory about the WTC by the
collapse of building 7 is illustrated by a recent book, 102 Minutes: The
Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers, one of the
authors of which is New York Times reporter Jim Dwyer, who wrote the stories
in the Times about the release of the 9/11 oral histories. With regard to
the Twin Towers, Dwyer and his co-author, Kevin Flynn, support the theory
put out by NIST, according to which the towers collapsed because the
airplanes knocked the fire-proofing off the steel columns, making them
vulnerable to the "intense heat" of the ensuing fires.[74] When they come to
building 7, however, Dwyer and Flynn do not ask why it collapsed, given the
fact that it was not hit by a plane. They simply say: "The firefighters had
decided to let the fire there burn itself out" (Dwyer and Flynn, 2005, p.
258). But that, of course, is not what happened. Rather, shortly after 5:20
that day, building 7 suddenly collapsed, in essentially the same way as did
the Twin Towers.

Should this fact not have led Dryer and Flynn to question NIST's theory that
the Twin Towers collapsed because their fireproofing had been knocked loose?
I would especially think that Dwyer, who reported on the release of the 9/11
oral histories, should re-assess NIST's theory in light of the abundant
evidence of explosions in the towers provided in those testimonies.[75]

Another Explanation: There is, in any case, only one theory that explains
both the nature and the expectation of the collapse of building 7:
Explosives had been set, and someone who knew this spread the word to the
fire chiefs.

Amazingly enough, a version of this theory was publicly stated by an
insider, Larry Silverstein, who owned building 7. In a PBS documentary aired
in September of 2002, Silverstein, discussing building 7, said:

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling
me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and
I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to
do is pull it."[76] And they made that decision to pull and we watched the
building collapse. (PBS, 2002) [77]

It is very puzzling, to be sure, that Silverstein, who was ready to receive
billions of dollars in insurance payments for building 7 and the rest of the
World Trade Center complex, on the assumption that they had been destroyed
by acts of terrorism, would have made such a statement in public, especially
with TV cameras running. But his assertion that building 7 was brought down
by explosives, whatever the motive behind it, explains why and how it
collapsed.

We still, however, have the question of why the fire department came to
expect the building to collapse. It would be interesting, of course, if that
information came from the same agency, the Office of Emergency Management,
that had earlier informed the department that one of the towers was going to
collapse. And we have it on good authority that it did. Captain Michael
Currid, the president of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, said that
some time after the collapse of the Twin Towers, "Someone from the city's
Office of Emergency Management" told him that building 7 was "basically a
lost cause and we should not lose anyone else trying to save it," after
which the firefighters in the building were told to get out (Murphy, 2002,
pp. 175-76).[78]

But that answer, assuming it to be correct, leaves us with more questions,
beginning with: Who in the Office of Emergency Management knew in advance
that the towers and building 7 were going to collapse? How did they know
this? And so on. These questions could be answered only by a real
investigation, which has yet to begin.

6. Conclusion

It is, in any case, already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one
very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an
inside job, orchestrated by domestic terrorists. Foreign terrorists could
not have gotten access to the buildings to plant the explosives. They
probably would not have had the courtesy to make sure that the buildings
collapsed straight down, rather than falling over onto surrounding
buildings. And they could not have orchestrated a cover-up, from the quick
disposal of the steel to the FEMA Report to The 9/11 Commission Report to
the NIST Report. All of these things could have been orchestrated only by
forces within our own government.

The evidence for this conclusion has thus far been largely ignored by the
mainstream press, perhaps under the guise of obeying President Bush's advice
not to tolerate "outrageous conspiracy theories." We have seen, however,
that it is the Bush administration's conspiracy theory that is the
outrageous one, because it is violently contradicted by numerous facts,
including some basic laws of physics.

There is, of course, another reason why the mainstream press has not pointed
out these contradictions. As a recent letter to the Los Angeles Times said:

The number of contradictions in the official version of . . . 9/11 is so
overwhelming that . . . it simply cannot be believed. Yet . . . the official
version cannot be abandoned because the implication of rejecting it is far
too disturbing: that we are subject to a government conspiracy of 'X-Files'
proportions and insidiousness.[79]

The implications are indeed disturbing. Many people who know or at least
suspect the truth about 9/11 probably believe that revealing it would be so
disturbing to the American psyche, the American form of government, and
global stability that it is better to pretend to believe the official
version. I would suggest, however, that any merit this argument may have had
earlier has been overcome by more recent events and realizations. Far more
devastating to the American psyche, the American form of government, and the
world as a whole will be the continued rule of those who brought us 9/11,
because the values reflected in that horrendous event have been reflected in
the Bush administration's lies to justify the attack on Iraq, its disregard
for environmental science and the Bill of Rights, its criminal negligence
both before and after Katrina, and now its apparent plan not only to
weaponize space but also to authorize the use of nuclear weapons in a
preemptive strike.

In light of this situation and the facts discussed in this essay---as well
as dozens of more problems in the official account of 9/11 discussed in my
books---I call on the New York Times to take the lead in finally exposing to
the American people and the world the truth about 9/11. Taking the lead on
such a story will, of course, involve enormous risks. But if there is any
news organization with the power, the prestige, and the credibility to break
this story, it is the Times. It performed yeoman service in getting the 9/11
oral histories released. But now the welfare of our republic and perhaps
even the survival of our civilization depend on getting the truth about 9/11
exposed. I am calling on the Times to rise to the occasion.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ENDNOTES


--
"What we're talking about here, is late night, early morning, low
clouds." www.iamthewitness.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
Is Science and Reality still important or has it taken
a backseat to the fictional tales told by western politicians?
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

But steel, when heated, does not suddenly buckle or break.

Not true. Steel, when heated and under stress, can break. It is not
made of chewing gum.

The buildings were perfectly motionless up to the moment they
began their collapse.

Huge massive objects are not known to dance when you whistle.
An object at rest will remain at rest until acted upon by a force.

Straight Down: The most important thing in a controlled demolition of a
tall
building close to other buildings is that it come straight down

So what operative force would send the building to coney island?
Unless a force is applied, it's going to go pretty much straight down
because that is the only force applied to
all of the parts. Interactions between equal parts sum to zero net
horizontal motion, with some scattering.

Could it be that an airplane, even one commandeered BY COMPUTER, has
considerable mass and velocity and is
capable of doing work upon colliding with something?

"the floors "pancaked" all the way down.
But if that is what happened, the lower floors, with all their steel
and
concrete, would have provided resistance. "

That is like saying that if you put a nickel on a scale it weighs 5
grams, but if you put another one on they both wiegh
4.9, another.. all 3 weigh .. such that when you get a huge stack of
nickels (or floors), they become weightless and unable to fall further.

Why do you bother? You don't have any sense.. any background,
experience, any idea what you are talking about.. because like the
stupid majority, you
get all your conclusions from somewhere else.. you can't think.
Programmed not to think. Robot people. Americans.

U.S. Big Oil Inc. and U.S, Big Weapons Inc put that plane into the
building. It happened at peal harbor, it happened at vietnam... and
soon enough it will happen in Dallas, probably, as the US Big War inc
will bilk the taxpayers out of more war-drive money, and they, the
americans, will nuke Dallas to convince the americans.

The steel melted because it was melted by the fire. A fuel fire might
not always get so hot, but if it HAS ENOUGH OXYGEN (as if the author
KNEW **** ABOUT ANYTHING)
it will burn hot enough to melt steel. In any columnar spaces, air
could be sucked up into the flame in large volume, making it very very
very hot. I would think a 15 minute to melt time sound reasonable for
huge steel immersed in very hot flame.

America, and the world, has been ass-****ed by washington dc.
Bin-laden doesn't exist, and never did.

"harbinger" wrote:



FULL ARTICLE:
http://www.911truthseekers.org/modul...m.php?itemid=2

Multiple Evidence of Controlled Demolition
Halleluja! Could you please tell us how this revelation has changed
your life? If you tell us the joy your new found faith brings perhaps
we can share it and aus.politics, aus.bicycle and can.politics can
revert to the boring old discussions of politics and bicycles.

I only needed to look at the collapse to know it was controlled demolition.
Most of the jet fuel you watched burn in the air in the initial explosion.
All the jet fuel would have completely burnt after a minute or two.
There are people seen standing in the holes caused by the plane damage. This
is the area where all the jet fuel was spent. If its so hot why are they
seen standing there? They jumped out because if the smoke.
Office materials were left burning after the collapse.
You can even see a thermite reaction going on in some of the footage. Jet
fuel can't melt steel. The maximum temperature of jet fuel in open air
combustion is 1000C less then the metling temperature of steel.
Those who criticise Prof JOnes are exposing their own ignorance. The paper
that he has written has nothing to do with him. THe facts and chronology and
thread of logic is called 'scientific reasoning' and upon such reasoning,
that we all use to know why its important not to **** on the dinner table -
because you eat there - you can see that there is no doubt that those
buildings were rigged with explosives and thermate was used to cut through
the steel before the demolition sequence was initiated. You see columns of
steel being blown out 100s of meters. ANd you also see massive clouds of
pulversied cement.
If you dropped a cement floor from 500 meters above the ground and it landed
on base rock, it wouldn't pulversie completely into powder.

There has even been examinations of the particulate size of the cement
powder and it is characteristic of explosives. The energy needed to
pulversie cemement to that extent can only come from the energy of
explosives.

The evidence supporting controlled demolition is not a loose string. It is
compelling and apparent in every direction you study. This is because that
is what happened. WHen you you investigate the truth, the evidence never
contradicts it.

--
"What we're talking about here, is late night, early morning, low
clouds." www.iamthewitness.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
Is Science and Reality still important or has it taken
a backseat to the fictional tales told by western politicians?
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


"Gordon Levi" wrote in message
...
"harbinger" wrote:



FULL ARTICLE:
http://www.911truthseekers.org/modul...m.php?itemid=2

Multiple Evidence of Controlled Demolition
Halleluja! Could you please tell us how this revelation has changed
your life? If you tell us the joy your new found faith brings perhaps
we can share it and aus.politics, aus.bicycle and can.politics can
revert to the boring old discussions of politics and bicycles.

There has never been CREDIBLE evidence supporting controlled
demolition. It's a myth, just like the myth that a jet did not hit
the Pentagon.

I'm not talking about the pentagon.
I'm talking about three buildings that collapsed we are expected to beleive
from fire.
The assumption priori is controlled demolition. All the intitial facts of
the fact that they collapsed is controlled demolition. You then need to work
to discount controlled demolition. In this whole thread none of you have
done that., You have attempted to ridicule the authors extra-curricula
activites, you ahve attempted to push fire-theories of which have little
evidence anyway, and yet none of you ahve provided conter-argument to the
controlled demolition theory.

Good work. You are a bunch of retards. ****wits. And traitors of humanity
and I wish up on you painful and miserable deaths.

--
"What we're talking about here, is late night, early morning, low
clouds." www.iamthewitness.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
Is Science and Reality still important or has it taken
a backseat to the fictional tales told by western politicians?
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


"ralph" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:50:00 +1000, "harbinger" harbinger@hotmail
wrote:

The evidence supporting controlled demolition is not a loose string. It is
compelling and apparent in every direction you study. This is because that
is what happened. WHen you you investigate the truth, the evidence never
contradicts it.

There has never been CREDIBLE evidence supporting controlled
demolition. It's a myth, just like the myth that a jet did not hit
the Pentagon.

These bull**** stories are lies and delusions spread by attention
seekers so desperate for attention they'll even crosspost to a bicycle
newsgroup

harbinger wrote:
I'm not talking about the pentagon.
I'm talking about three buildings that collapsed we are expected to beleive
from fire.
The assumption priori is controlled demolition. All the intitial facts of
the fact that they collapsed is controlled demolition.

Actually, NONE of the facts support this, idiot

You then need to work
to discount controlled demolition. In this whole thread none of you have
done that.,

He hasn't discounted the possibility that they were destroyed by Santa
Claus either

You have attempted to ridicule the authors extra-curricula
activites, you ahve attempted to push fire-theories of which have little
evidence anyway, and yet none of you ahve provided conter-argument to the
controlled demolition theory.

You haven't provided a counter-argument to the Santa Claus theory.

Good work. You are a bunch of retards. ****wits. And traitors of humanity
and I wish up on you painful and miserable deaths.

Ooooh, scary! Do your parents know you're using their computer?

wrote in message
oups.com...
snip
harbinger wrote:
Good work. You are a bunch of retards. ****wits. And traitors of humanity
and I wish up on you painful and miserable deaths.

Ooooh, scary! Do your parents know you're using their computer?

Probably not, but his rubber room keeper allows him use of one.
(He must keep a byke in there as well)

"harbinger" harbinger@hotmail wrote:

I only needed to look at the collapse to know it was controlled demolition.
Of course, and I don't want argue with that. Most people who have
discovered the Truth and are anxious to share it with everybody have
also undergone some personal transformation. That is why I asked the
question that you ignored in your in understandable desire to share
your revelation with me. I'll repeat my question.

Could you please tell us how this revelation has changed
your life?