How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis

[Bill Kelly]

Here's some other examples of the controlled demo of the Traymore and Sands hotels in Atlantic City, both made into public spectacles. Notice the explosions in the Traymore are placed all over the building while the Sands they are primarily at the base. In both cases, there is no mushroom cloud at the top or the collapse of the building from the top down but from the bottom up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFLiUE1cMpE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDnzftfLIK8

There's a few other reasons why it wasn't a controlled demo, including the fact that the guys who do that professionally are a small number who all know each other and it would have been planned well in advance and coordinated with the plane hijackings. In addition, John O'Neill, an Atlantic City guy and ex-FBI agent was on the job as head of security at WTC and it would have been impossible for such demolition charges to have been planted in advance without his knowledge or without anyone else seeing them.

In addition, Josiah Thompson worked on the insurance study of the WTC and 7 collapse and they concluded the buildings came down because of the fires caused by the planes crashing into them. A reasonable and logical conclusion that Tony and Robbyn Summers also come to in their new book The Eleventh Day.

Ms. Labadie was my logic teacher in school and I think she did a good job.

[James Lewis]

Back to the thread title...which was, as I recall, how demolition charges could have been placed in the World Trade Center, here's William Rodriguez. Emphasis mine:

Strange Recollections

Having worked at the WTC for close upon two decades, he obviously was very familiar with its general layout. The North Tower, in particular, was nigh a second home to him. An extremely affable fellow, Rodriguez had many friends in the WTC community. His days almost invariably began with breakfast with co-workers at the employees' cafeteria at Windows On The World, the elegant restaurant on the 107th floor.

Especially following the 1993 bombing, security in the towers was extremely tight. That was glaringly obvious wherever he went. So how did the culprits manage to gain access?

He started to look into the security company in charge of the WTC complex, Securacom, and was more than a little surprised by the identities of two of its top executives.

President George W. Bush's brother Marvin Bush and his cousin, Wirt Walker III, were both principals of the company. Further, he found this very same company was in charge of security at Dulles Airport and United Airlinesboth central to the attacks.

Brushing this curious connection aside as coincidence, he began to wonder about the practical difficulties the perpetrators would have encountered in gaining access to the buildings. He tried to recall having seen any suspicious people, or strange occurrences.

Pieces began to slowly come together.

He recalled seeing small teams of men in white "HazMat" coveralls busily moving about the building in the weeks preceding the attacks. Their presence didn't strike him as particularly odd at the time, except for the fact that they used the stairwells almost exclusively and avoided using the service elevators. But he now began to wonder about these men's real identities and true purpose.

One particularly bizarre incident snapped into focus, one that was so frightening he recalls it made his "hair stand up."

A few weeks prior to the attacks, he was working in a stairwell on the 34th floor, which he knew to be completely vacant. Suddenly, he heard the strangest soundone he'd never heard inside the tower in his nearly twenty years there.

It was a powerful, ominous, "rumbling" sound of something extremely heavy being rolled about. It sounded like a "huge metal dumpster on steel wheels, containing something extremely heavytonsbeing rolled around" a floor that he knew to have been totally emptydevoid even of furniture.

Yet, Rodriguez categorically maintains there was "someone" on that floor moving some monstrous contraption about.

Oddly, he admits to having been gripped by intense fear at the time, but he was having difficulty verbalizing to me the exact nature of his apprehension. While this didn't strike me as having been a particularly inauspicious occurrence, it was clear he had been deeply affected by it. He immediately reported the incident to the main office, but was reassured it was a vacant floor.

Rodriguez was emphatic that he felt so frightened by this incident he didn't dare open the door to look inside because he literally feared for his life.

He intuitively sensed grave danger behind that door, and did his best to avoid the 34th floor thereafter.

[NB: It is worth considering that long-term occupancy (and thus control) of a whole floor would have granted occupants virtually unlimited and unobstructed access from all sides to the entire 47-column central core of the tower via the elevator shafts. By sequentially disabling individual elevators for servicing,' the occupants would have had clear access to the entire 1,350-ft central load-bearing corefrom the topmost floor right down the 6th level basement sitting on bedrock.]

Willy does not strike me as a man who can be frightened very easily, and this one anecdote has always intrigued me. The emotions I saw in his eyes, and his body language as he was describing the event were real. I was left with no doubt that what he experienced that day was extremely frightening and deeply impressionable.



And, I might add, Rodriguez's testimony to the 9/11 Commission was sealed from the public, which makes one think that it was A) important, and B) extremely damaging to the official version. It also makes me think that Rodriguez was probably asked by the Commission to change his testimony, he refused to do so, and as a result, his testimony had to be sealed. Refer to the Warren Commission for further proof of that. Here's the link to the entire article:

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/931/331/E...osure.html

[Kyle Burnett]

In both cases, there is no mushroom cloud at the top or the collapse of the building from the top down but from the bottom up.

Yet in this case, which I presented previousl, there is a mushroom cloud of sorts at the top and the collapse of the structure is from the top down rather than from the bottom up. Do you not comprehend how that example exposes your if it doesn't look like a traditional controlled demolition then it isn't a controlled demolition argument as fallacious?

There's a few other reasons why it wasn't a controlled demo, including the fact that the guys who do that professionally are a small number who all know each other and it would have been planned well in advance and coordinated with the plane hijackings.

How do you figure this proves anything? Also, do you not realize that and a possibility for how the "would have been planned well in advance" happened is what this thread is about?

In addition, John O'Neill, an Atlantic City guy and ex-FBI agent was on the job as head of security at WTC and it would have been impossible for such demolition charges to have been planted in advance without his knowledge or without anyone else seeing them.

You're confusing impossibility with improbability, and in my first post in this thread I provided a possible explanation how people could have known about the buildings being rigged but see no reason to come forward with that information. Heck, it's possible that aliens or time travelers rigged the buildings using technology far beyond our own to go undetected. Granted, that's highly improbable given the available evidence, but that doesn't make it impossible.

In addition, Josiah Thompson worked on the insurance study of the WTC and 7 collapse and they concluded the buildings came down because of the fires caused by the planes crashing into them.

I don't suppose he produced any sort of experimental confirmation to derive that conclusion, did he? If he did, please present it. If not, you're just engaging in the logical fallacy of argument from authority.

Edited by Charles Drago, August 16. Ladies and Gentlemen: Please refer to this post as a template for efficient quoting. THANKS! -- CD

[James Lewis]

I have just one simple question, one that Mort Sahl asked, years ago, in his book "Heartland":

"How many lies can you allow yourself to believe, before you *belong* to the lie? Is it too late for America?"

My answer is: It's been too late for America for about 48 years now. At least.

[Carsten Wiethoff]

In addition, John O'Neill, an Atlantic City guy and ex-FBI agent was on the job as head of security at WTC and it would have been impossible for such demolition charges to have been planted in advance without his knowledge or without anyone else seeing them.

John O'Neill was on this job only for a few days, accounts differ somewhat about the number of days he actually was in his office at the WTC. If, at this time, everything was in place, he would not have noticed anything.

[James Lewis]

John O'Neill was hired as WTC head of security on August 23, 2001, which was only 19 days before the attacks. And the evacuations that I spoke of in a previous post took place in June and July of 2001 - well before O'Neill was hired.

EDITED BY CHARLES DRAGO, AUGUST 16. REASON: Gentlemen, I've edited this post by removing unnecessary, repetitive quotes. DPF we will not permit the wasting of bandwidth by reprinting in their entireties posts appearing directly above new responses. If you wish to reference/quote particular portions of preceding posts, please learn how to do so without reposting the whole damn thing. THANKS! -- CD

[Carsten Wiethoff]

And: (from http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/21/vic...or.expert/

O'Neill had recently retired from the FBI and had just taken over security for the World Trade Center, said New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik.
"That Tuesday was his first or second day on the job," Kerik said Friday in an interview with CNN's Larry King Live

[Bill Kelly]

So those who believe in a controlled demolition at WTC want us to believe that they were set without anyone knowing they were there, and placed by people who we will never know who they are and were coordinated with the hijacking of the planes but weren't connected with the hijackings because they were foreign covert agents and those responsible for the controlled demos were domestic conspirators.

In addition, we are to believe that we will never be able to know the truth and its too confusing to figure out except to blame Bush.

Please make you case for controlled demo without using the same discredited witnesses and so called evidence that has already been discarded by every reasonable analysis.

I believe that we can and have figured out the covert operations that took place on 9/11, just as we have figured out what happened at Dealey Plaza, though some insist on confusing the issues that distract from what really happened, and ignore the most significant issues.

I attended all of the public hearings of the 9/11 Commission, read and critiqued their report, and know and trust the judgement of Tony and Robbyn Summers who patiently listened to each and every one of the possible scenarios and came to the conclusions that there's no merit to any other than the one they profess, which also contradicts the official scenario in may ways.

You and Prof. Fetzer and others can continue to promote the controlled demo ideas and no planes - though the body parts of those who died have been identified, and your theories are rightfully relegated to the radical fringe element that doesn't deserve arguing with - since you can't make a convincing case.

[James Lewis]

Ah, so now we know exactly why you're promoting this nonsense...you were at the Commission hearings, huh? Why am I not surprised? I would like for you, sir, to tell me exactly which witness you consider "discredited". Certainly not William Rodriguez, whose testimony was sealed, right? Certainly not the firefighters who swear to this day that they heard bombs going off as the Towers came down, right?

And of course, you are an ardent supporter of Anthony Summers, whose conclusions are, shall we say, spurious at best, and active disinformation at worst. Get a clue, man. Gordon Liddy, a man who I'm no supporter of at all, put it best when, in one of his books, he said "Just because ten thousand people tell you that a horse is a dog, that doesn't make a horse a dog". If you want to keep promoting this utter Commission-based nonsense, please do. But at least try to refrain from insulting the intelligence of the people on this site who actually have a brain, and use that brain for purposes other than being a lapdog for the shadow government.

If you'll refer to my post "Of Fables, Foibles, and Deception", I think you'll find that you fit everything described in that post to a T. Study the facts before you attack the people who've already done that. And remember...how many lies must you believe before you belong to the lie? Saying that those buildings didn't come down through the use of demolition, when every piece of available evidence states otherwise, is tantamount to saying that JFK shot himself on November 22, 1963, and we all didn't see what we saw on the Zapruder film.

EDITED BY CHARLES DRAGO, AUGUST 16. REASON: Gentlemen, I've edited this post by removing unnecessary, repetitive quotes. DPF we will not permit the wasting of bandwidth by reprinting in their entireties posts appearing directly above new responses. If you wish to reference/quote particular portions of preceding posts, please learn how to do so without reposting the whole damn thing. THANKS! -- CD

[James Lewis]

But then, I suppose you believe the official version of JFK's murder, right?? I mean, if you can believe and support the 9/11 fable (and that's exactly what it is, a fable), I suppose you could believe that Oswald and the Magic Bullet did what it was claimed to do, right?