9/11 Firefighter Sets the Historical Record Straight
By Manny Badillo – Victim’s Family Member – August 7, 2007
BROOKLYN, NY — Firefighter John Schroeder, assigned to Engine Company 10 directly across the street from the World Trade Center complex, holds back tears and describes his first-hand experience on Sept. 11th. His story directly contradicts many aspect of the National Commission on Terrorist attacks though corroborates many other eyewitness testimony. Standing outside the firehouse with my buddies, we were talking about how beautiful the day was. Then just like that, our lives changed forever. Some of those guys I would never see again.”
In this exclusive interview, Firefighter Schroeder recollects in great detail how he was one of the first firefighters to rush to the complex. “We first assembled on West Street, where we saw someone burnt beyond recognition. We were like ‘What is going on here?’ and then went straight into the Marriot building” From there, Firefighter Schroeder made his way to the lobby of the North Tower. “It looked like a bomb went off, and we started making our way up the stairs to rescue as many people as we could.”
As they were making there way up the floors, Firefighter Schroeder heard a huge explosion. “The elevators just blew right out. We couldn’t believe it. The plane hits 80 floors up but the elevators explode at least five minutes later? It was unreal.”
Firefighter Schroeder made it all the way up to the 23rd floor before barely hearing on the failing radios that another plane was coming in. That plane would hit the South Tower though for some reason “We were tossed like a rag doll by another explosion in our building. People were making there way down the stairwells burnt like you couldn’t believe. We were all shocked because it seemed as if there was fire everywhere, on so many floors. It just didn’t make sense”.
The stairwells were black, and at that point, firefighters were making the decision to head back down stairs. In making there way down to the third floor, they were not able to find an exit. “The lobby was like a war zone. We could not find our way out. Then, all of a sudden, one of the maintenance workers had a key that opened a back door that got us out of there. He saved my life.” That worker was Willie Rodriguez. “I want to thank him from the bottom of my heart. (Learn more about William Rodriquez.)
Firefighter Schroeder today has lost 40% of his lung capacity. “We haven’t been treated properly at all. From the day of the attack, our physical and mental health has deteriorated and it seems as if no one cares. To lose friends, to have to recover their bodies in the days after, to be offered no protections against that horrific-smelling dust that was everywhere even though the government said the air was OK to breathe is just not right.” Some of Firefighter’s Schroeder’s best friends have gotten out of the FDNY altogether while others accepted money and trips to help. “I stayed right here and did the right thing and now it feels as if I’m suffering the most. Where is our government to help the one’s with the toughest jobs on that day and the days after?”
John Schroeder, we want to thank you for being as brave as your job requires in speaking out about your experiences on Sept/ 11th. You have set the historical record straight by explaining your story. This Nation is forever grateful to you as your account will help to save and protect many more lives.
Today, tens of thousands of such 9/11 first responders are in dire need of medical care due to the environmental conditions after the 3 towers imploded at Ground Zero. Diagnosed with cancers and debilitating respiratory illnesses, these true American heroes have been denied the financial benefits required to save their lives. While suffering and deteriorating, their health crisis has been ignored by state and federal policy. Many have already died.
Composed of family members, friends and fellow Americans of individuals who perished on that fateful day, We are Change will fight to raise awareness and consciousness to the first responder’s illnesses and hardships. We are determined to put a face to the thousands of forgotten victims of the 9/11 attacks 6 years later.
Go to We Are Change and watch the videos – you will be changed.
Recent Comments
Rss Feed
-
Blogger’s Choice
It\'s time to say \"When.\" 
August 9, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Yes, we should take care of these men and their families completely.
By the way, there are logical explanations for secondary explosions that range from transformers blowing up inside the building to pockets of unspent jet fuel igniting as their fumes drift to find an ignition point. I am surprised that angle is not expressed here.
A good place to look into this is http://www.911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html
Check out that whole site for more information.
August 9, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Hi – I don’t want to start a fight here but…was anyone involved with the 9/11 myth site you mention in your comment a first responder? Are any of them even firefighters? My brother-in-law is a firefighter – and can damn well tell the difference between exploding transformers and explosive devices. I certainly don’t know the truth about the events of 9/11 – and very obviously, and by their own admission, neither do the people behind 911myths.com. I think the last person I’d try to argue with is someone who was there – it smacks of an arrogance totally unearned. To sit back in one’s chair and declare this account or that to be accurate or not is the height of conceit.
Frankly – I’ll listen to John Schroeder or William Rodriguez before any of these “myth busters” any day!
August 10, 2007 at 9:23 pm
9/11 Commission Ignored Firefighter’s Account of Explosions Inside WTC
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/090807_firefighters_account.htm
August 10, 2007 at 9:28 pm
A Sit Down With An 9/11 Fire Fighter
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7471885217846396761&hl=en
August 10, 2007 at 9:33 pm
William Rodriguez’s story
August 14, 2007 at 4:41 pm
The http://www.911myths.com site and others rely upon firsthand testimonies of firefighters, EMT’s, and other first responders who discuss these things. I’m not an expert, but I’ve talked to experts and have read their testimonies. Some explosions could have been transformers, others could have been pockets of unspent jet fuel that had gone as far as the basement through the maintenance elevator shafts, etc. Sure, the explosions could be pre-planted explosives but it’s highly unlikely for many reasons and the conspiracy theorists NEVER try to disprove any of these other explanations and so they are still possibilities that are more likely than unnecessary explosive devices.
The 9/11 commission report was interested in finding out why we were attacked and how to prevent it in the future. It wasn’t an investigation into baseless conspiracy theories. Those who have done their research see clearly what happened.
See http://www.911myths.com/html/william_rodriguez.html for more info on Mr. Rodriguez. It makes sense that a shock wave would go through steel much faster than through air and so he would be expected to feel a destructive shock-wave first and about a second later he would hear a shock-wave coming through the air from above. His burnt friend talking about fire shooting out of the maintenance elevator is also explained by jet fuel shooting down that shaft – if it were a bomb, he’d experience a shock wave and death, not a flame thrower effect. It makes complete sense that they would assume that it was a bomb in the basement. Sure, he’s a hero for what he did that day, but he’s a victim of his own assumptions.
August 14, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Debunking 9/11 Debunking – by David Ray Griffin
By virtue of his previous four books on the subject, David Ray Griffin is widely recognized as one of the leading spokespersons of the 9/11 truth movement, which rejects the official conspiracy theory about 9/11. Although this movement was long ignored by the US government and the mainstream media, recent polls have shown that (as Time magazine has acknowledged) the rejection of the official theory has become “a mainstream political phenomenon.” It is not surprising, therefore, that the government and the corporately controlled media have shifted tactics. No longer ignoring the 9/11 truth movement, they have released a flurry of stories and reports aimed at debunking it.
In the present book, David Ray Griffin shows that these attempts can themselves be easily debunked. Besides demonstrating the pitiful failure of Debunking 9/11 Myths (published by Popular Mechanics and endorsed by Senator John McCain), Griffin riddles recent reports and stories put out by the US Department of State, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the New York Times , Vanity Fair , and Time magazine. He also responds to criticisms of these efforts by left-leaning and Christian publications—which one might have expected to be supportive.
Throughout these critiques, Griffin shows that the charge that is regularly leveled against critics of the official theory—that they employ irrational and unscientific methods to defend conclusions based on faith—actually applies more fully to those who defend the official theory.
This book, by debunking the most prevalent attempts to refute the evidence cited by the 9/11 truth movement, shows that this movement’s central claim—that 9/11 was an inside job—remains the only explanation that fits the facts.
David Ray Griffin is professor of philosophy of religion and theology, emeritus, at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, California, where he remains a co-director of the Center for Process Studies. His 30 books include The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005), and 9/11 and American Empire (2006, with Peter Dale Scott).
available at http://www.amazon.com
August 16, 2007 at 8:54 pm
See http://www.911myths.com/html/omissions_and_distortions.html for the beginning of a review of the facts contained in Mr. Griffin’s book. From what I’ve seen of it is just a bunch of the same old regurgitated conspiracy theory garbage that’s been around for years – and has been thoroughly disproved.
Is it strange to anyone else that the only people the truther movement can scrape together are philosophers and theologians instead of structural engineers?
I’m all for keeping the government in check, but it should be legitimate accusations, not dreamed up nonsense.
August 16, 2007 at 9:25 pm
A physicist and a structural engineer debate the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center
Click to access Roberts_AnnotatedJones-RobertsonTranscript.pdf
August 16, 2007 at 9:43 pm
NIST and the World Trade Center
http://wtc.nist.gov/
August 16, 2007 at 10:12 pm
What happened to Building 7 is among the strongest evidence for controlled demolition, but because the official-story representative doesn’t want to talk about it, the host excludes it from the discussion. WTC 7 is critical to the issue because no controlled demolition could have been planned and executed in such a tall building in the hours between the attack on the Twin Towers and the collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 pm on 9/11. The completion of the preparations shows that people with full access to the infrastructure of WTC 7 and specialized engineering knowledge – neither of which is possessed by al Qaeda – had advance knowledge of the attack. If one Manhattan skyscraper occupied by security-minded government tenants could be rigged for demolition without the many innocent government and private-sector employees noticing and saying anything, then so could the Twin Towers. We will revisit this issue later, when Robertson challenges the feasibility of such an operation.
One interesting question is, why is Robertson unwilling to discuss Building 7? Is it really just because he lacks the in-depth personal knowledge that he would have gained by having designed that building? He’s a structural engineer who has been involved in the design of dozens of tall buildings. He’s been interviewed many times about the collapses of the Towers. Surely he has heard the questions about WTC 7. Is he not confident that he can answer any reasonable question on the topic – especially if it’s coming from a mere physicist?
Note also how his statement, if accepted as valid, would disqualify almost everyone on the planet from discussing the collapse of Building 7. It is truly an ingenious rhetorical maneuver.
August 16, 2007 at 10:16 pm
To put NIST’s pivotal claim to rest, there was simply no energy available to cause fireproofing loss. Previous calculations by engineers at MIT had shown that all the kinetic energy from the aircraft was consumed in breaking columns, crushing the floors and destroying the aircraft itself. But NIST’s tests indicate that 1 MJ of energy was needed per square meter of surface area to shear the fireproofing off. For the areas in question, more than 6,000 square meters of column, floor deck and floor joist surface, the extra energy needed would be several times more than the entire amount of kinetic energy available to begin with.
August 16, 2007 at 10:22 pm
“ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster.” What heat source was keeping this steel molten hot for weeks after the event?
August 16, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Is this enough dreamed up nonsense, or shall I keep going.
August 17, 2007 at 6:40 pm
illa – Perhaps Robertson knows when to say “I don’t know – I’d have to look into that” – which is something the “truth movement” doesn’t know how to do at all.
Smoldering combustibles in the pile can generate sufficient heat to make aluminum molten and perhaps even steel – this has already been addressed years ago. Please go check out the sites I linked to above.
Please please please please please go thoroughly investigate http://www.911myths.com and http://www.debunking911.com before posting more already debunked information.
August 17, 2007 at 7:00 pm
P.S. I’ve had conversations with Professor Jones via email and face to face and he has lied about the damage to WTC 7 on radio weeks after I gave him testimony about the damage. He also told me to my face “I don’t believe there was that much damage” after I read to him testimony of firefighters about the extent of the damage. That’s inexcusable. I even gave him photos and video that corroborate the testimonies and he didn’t reply to me and STILL hasn’t included this information in his paper or removed references in his paper about how WTC 7 wasn’t heavily damaged – in fact, he only includes north-side photos and one south side photo before the north tower collapsed and damaged building 7.
And this is one of the ONLY partially relevant people in the truth movement. I know of no structural engineers agree with them. I know of no controlled demolition experts agree with them. Professor Jones’ own university’s structural engineering group rejected his paper as being disturbing. Most of his paper is completely outside of his area of expertise! He comments on how buildings he knows nothing about “should have fallen”. His work in those areas is terrible. That said, I think the only thing he has going for him right now (which is actually in his area of expertise) is his “previously molten metal spheres” found in the debris. But we’ll see where that one goes.
August 17, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Then I suggest you read the NIST report yourself provided above and look up the MIT engineers that put NIST’s pivotal claim to rest, there was simply no energy available to cause fireproofing loss.
Previous calculations by engineers at MIT had shown that all the kinetic energy from the aircraft was consumed in breaking columns, crushing the floors and destroying the aircraft itself. But NIST’s tests indicate that 1 MJ of energy was needed per square meter of surface area to shear the fireproofing off. For the areas in question, more than 6,000 square meters of column, floor deck and floor joist surface, the extra energy needed would be several times more than the entire amount of kinetic energy available to begin with.
August 17, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Are these the MIT engineers you’re talking about:
Tomasz Wierzbicki, Professor of Applied Mechanics, MIT
Liang Xue, Ph.D. Candidate of Ocean Engineering, MIT
Meg Hendry-Brogan, Undergraduate student of Ocean Engineering, MIT
August 17, 2007 at 8:17 pm
I suggest you do your own research since at present most of my energy goes into stopping this unjust war. I will give you more physicists info and you can come to your own conclusion. Since you seem to have all the answers and I assume you are neither a physicist nor an engineer; because the physics of the energy needed doesn’t match and you would recognize this if you had either degree
These inconsistencies are huge. They range from the apparent stand-down of our immense military arsenal (for over an hour and a half) to the small hole and lack of debris at the Pentagon. There was Bush’s bizarre, uninterrupted photo op in a Florida elementary school, and then there is the matter of the remains of Flight 93 being scattered over eight miles of Pennsylvania farmland, a fact which suggests the plane may have been shot down. The official story seems wrong on all of these points.
But the focus of this article is on just one point: the odd collapse of the three buildings in the World Trade Center complex.
How I First Began to Question: WTC7
The World Trade Center (WTC) contained seven buildings. The Twin Towers were called buildings One (WTC1) and Two (WTC2). They collapsed in truly astounding fashion, but the event that caused me first to question the official story about the events of 9-11 was viewing videos of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7).
If you’ve forgotten, WTC7 was a 47-story building that was not hit by an airplane or by any significant debris from either WTC1 or WTC2. Buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 were struck by massive amounts of debris from the collapsing Twin Towers, yet none collapsed, despite their thin-gauge steel supports.
Viewing the Collapse of WTC7
The 9-11 commemorative videos produced by PBS and CNN are best. Both clearly show WTC7’s implosion.
Lower resolution Internet movies are also available.
WTC7, which was situated on the next block over, was the farthest of the buildings from WTC1 and WTC2. WTC7 happened to contain the New York City Office of Emergency Management (OEM), a facility that was, according to testimony to the 9-11 Commission, one of the most sophisticated Emergency Command Centers on the planet. But shortly after 5:20 pm on Sept. 11, as the horrific day was coming to a close, WTC7 mysteriously imploded and fell to the ground in an astounding 6.5 seconds.
6.5 seconds. This is a mere 0.5 seconds more than freefall in a vacuum. To restate this, a rock dropped from the 47th floor would have taken at least 6 seconds to hit the ground. WTC7, in its entirety, fell to the earth in 6.5 seconds. Now, recall, we’re supposed to believe that each floor of the building “pancaked” on the one below. Each of the 47 floors supposedly pancaked and collapsed, individually. Yet WTC7 reached the ground in 0.5 seconds longer than freefall. Is this really possible?
Judge for yourself. Watch WTC7 go down. It takes 6.5 seconds. Take out your stopwatch.
What About Towers One and Two?
The odd, swift collapse of WTC7 made me reconsider the Twin Towers and how they fell. As I had with WTC7, I first studied video footage available on the web. Then I acquired and watched a DVD of the collapses, frame by frame.
What struck me first was the way the second plane hit WTC2, the South Tower. I noticed that this plane, United Airlines Flight 175, which weighed over 160,000 pounds and was traveling at 350 mph, did not even visibly move the building when it slammed into it. How, I wondered, could a building that did not visibly move from a heavy high speed projectile collapse at near freefall speed less than an hour later?
WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 are the buildings in gray.
Next, I turned my attention to steel beams that fell in freefall next to the building as it collapsed. The beams were falling at the same rate that the towers themselves were descending. Familiar with elementary physics, including principles of conservation of energy and momentum, this seemed quite impossible if the towers were indeed “pancaking,”which is the official theory.
The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. I calculated that from that height, freefall in a vacuum (read, absolutely no resistance on earth) is 9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. Just like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to fail individually.
As I was considering this, another problem arose. There is a principle in physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy. There is also the Law of Conservation of Momentum. I’ll briefly explain how these principles work. Let’s assume there are two identical Honda Civics on the freeway. One is sitting in neutral at a standstill (0 mph). The other is coasting at 60 mph. The second Honda slams into the back of the first one. The first Honda will then instantaneously be going much faster than it was, and the second will instantaneously be going much slower than it was.
This is how the principle works in the horizontal direction, and it works the same in the vertical direction, with the added constant force of gravity added to it. Jim Hoffman, a professional scientist published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, took a long look at all of this. He calculated that even if the structure itself offered no resistance, that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air, the “pancake” theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. So, even if the building essentially didn’t exist, if it provided no resistance at all to the collapse, just the floors hitting each other and causing each other to decelerate would’ve taken 15.5 seconds to reach the ground.
But of course the buildings did exist. They had stood for over 30 years. The floors weren’t hovering in mid-air. So how did the building provide no resistance?
Yet another observation one makes in watching the collapsing towers is the huge dust clouds and debris, including steel beams, that were thrown hundreds of feet out horizontally from the towers as they fell. If we are to believe the pancake theory, this amount of scattering debris, fine pulverized concrete dust, and sheetrock powder would clearly indicate massive resistance to the vertical collapse. So there is an impossible conflict. You either have a miraculous, historical, instantaneous, catastrophic failure that occurs within a fraction of a second of freefall and that kicks out little dust, or you have a solid, hefty building that remains virtually unaffected after a massive, speeding projectile hits it. You either have a house of cards or a house of bricks. The building either resists its collapse or it doesn’t.
And we know the WTC Towers were made of reinforced steel and concrete that would act much more like bricks than cards.
Thus, put simply, 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?
What About the Fires?
The official story maintains that fires weakened the buildings. Jet fuel supposedly burned so hot it began to melt the steel columns supporting the towers. But steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire, since they’re built from steel that doesn’t melt below 2750 degrees Fahrenheit. No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is really just refined kerosene, will burn hotter than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit.
Steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire.
It’s also odd that WTC7, which wasn’t hit by an airplane or by any significant debris, collapsed in strikingly similar fashion to the Twin Towers. There wasn’t even any jet fuel or kerosene burning in WTC7.
According to the 9-11 report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “the specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this tim.”
Aside from its startling nonchalance, this statement makes a rather profound assumption. Again, no building prior to 9-11, in the 100-plus year history of steel frame buildings, had ever collapsed from fire.
The flattened ruins are WTC1 and WTC2 (in the middle), and WTC7 (at the bottom)
This fact was known to firemen. Hence their unflinching rush up into the skyscrapers to put out the fire. Partly it was bravery, to be sure, but partly it was concrete knowledge that skyscrapers do not collapse due to fire. Yet after 100 years, three collapsed in one day.
Did the FEMA investigators not think to ask the New York City Fire Department how they thought the fire started, or how the fires could have caused the astounding, historical collapse? This would seem to be an elementary step in any investigation about a fire. Instead, they chose to leave the cause of the collapse “unknown.”
Conclusion
So if the science in this article is correct (none of it goes beyond the tenth grade level), then we know that the floors of the three WTC buildings were not pancaking but were falling simultaneously. We also know that fire is an insufficient explanation for the initiation of the collapse of the buildings.
Why, then, did the three WTC buildings fall?
There is a method that has been able to consistently get skyscrapers to fall as fast as the three buildings of the World Trade Center fell on 9-11. In this method, 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. This method, when precisely used, has indeed given near-freefall speed to demolitions of buildings all over the world in the past few decades. This method could have brought down WTC7 in 6.5 seconds. This method is called controlled demolition.
A controlled demolition would have exploded debris horizontally at a rapid rate. A controlled demolition would also explain the fine, pulverized concrete powder, whereas pancaking floors would leave chunks of concrete. Controlled demolition would also explain the seismic evidence recorded nearby of two small earthquakes, each just before one of the Twin Towers collapsed. And finally, controlled demolition would explain why three steel skyscrapers, two of which were struck by planes and one of which wasn’t, all collapsed in essentially the same way.
The massive energy required to pulverize concrete into microscopic dust
suggests the use of explosives
Ongoing Questions
But having established that all three WTC towers had to have been assisted in their failures, I asked myself, Who could have planted the explosives to blow up the buildings in a controlled demolition? Could fundamentalist Muslim fanatics have gotten the plans for those buildings, engineered the demolition, and then gotten into them to plant the explosives?
This seemed improbable. And after learning that WTC7 housed the FBI, CIA, and the OEM, it seemed impossible. Then I thought, Why would terrorists engineer a building to implode? Wouldn’t they want to cause even more damage to the surrounding buildings and possibly create more havoc and destruction from debris exploding away from the building? And if they’d planted explosives in the buildings, why would they have bothered hijacking and flying planes into them? Perhaps WTC7 was demolished to destroy evidence that would answer these questions. To this day, I don’t know. But this is how I began to question the official story about 9-11.
Recently I learned that President Bush’s brother, Marvin Bush, is a part owner of the company that not only provided security for both United and American Airlines, but also for the World Trade Center complex itself. I also discovered that Larry Silverstein, who had bought the leasing rights for the WTC complex from the NY/NJ Port Authority in May of 2001 for $200 million, had received a $3.55 billion insurance settlement right after 9-11 – yet he was suing for an additional $3.55 billion by claiming the two hits on the towers constituted two separate terrorist attacks! He stood to make $7 billion dollars on a four month investment. Talk about motive.
In conclusion, I’ll repeat myself. None of the many 9-11 researchers can definitively say exactly what happened on that fateful day in September almost 3 years ago. But any sensible person can easily spot dozens of inconsistencies in the official story that is being forced upon us. And the fact is, most of the available 9-11 evidence points to at least some level of government complicity or foreknowledge.
Please, read more for yourself. Don’t take my word for it. Most of all, do not buy the double-speak that visible politicians and the media use to discount any question about 9-11. Clearly, there are no “conspiracy theories”surrounding 9-11. The official story itself affirms that there was obviously some kind of conspiracy. It’s just a question of which conspiracy occurred. We know it wasn’t mere coincidence that several hijackers happened to be on several different airplanes and happened to hijack them at the exact same time and happened to pick the World Trade Center as a target. The real question is, “Who was involved in the conspiracy?”
Dave Heller, who has degrees in physics and architecture, is a builder and engaged citizen in Berkeley, California.
August 17, 2007 at 8:32 pm
German engineers help the US
http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm
August 17, 2007 at 8:42 pm
As mainstream media as it gets – the BBC:
Sunday, 23 September, 2001, 12:30 GMT 13:30 UK
Hijack ‘suspects’ alive and well
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
August 17, 2007 at 8:42 pm
We definitely need a new investigation. NIST did not even have the floor plans for the floors simulated in WTC 2
http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/911-Events—part-3_12383-1800.html
August 17, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Purdue 9/11 simulation exposed as fraud: Media covers up hoax and conceals crimes
http://listserv.fsl.com/pipermail/wtcrc/2007-June/000604.html
August 17, 2007 at 8:46 pm
WTC 7
This steel-framed skyscraper collapsed into its footprint with all the characteristics of a standard controlled demolition.
No other steel-framed building that collapsed for any reason has ever shown any of those features — let alone all those features.
No other tall steel-framed building has ever collapsed from fires — the primary cause of WTC 7’s collapse according to the official story.
August 17, 2007 at 8:52 pm
180+ Architects and Engineers Question 9/11 (Structural and Civil Engineers; Mechanical Engineers; Chemical Engineers; Aeronautical and Aerospace Engineers; and Electrical, Computer, Systems, and Software Engineers)
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
August 17, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Paul Chen, former senior CIA official – http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/f7166b8705ceb334/5905343bc2ea9a77
August 17, 2007 at 8:55 pm
And Christine Boutine, France’s new minister of housing and urban affairs – http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=15archive/&entry_id=18296
August 17, 2007 at 9:54 pm
So are those the people at MIT that you’re talking about? If so, I have some information for you about their paper. If not, please post their names and a link to their paper and claims.
Yes, I am a software engineer, not a structural engineer. But I don’t have to be, because I’m not making claims that I need expertise to back up. I rely on people like Leslie Robertson, who was the chief structural engineer for the towers, who, by the way, disagrees with you about the towers’ collapse. I’ll also defer to the hundreds of thousands of structural engineers worldwide who also disagree with you. I’ll defer to the demolition experts who were on site at ground zero cleaning up afterward who I’ve talked to personally who also disagree with you. I’ll also defer to Asif Usmani, a structural engineer who specializes in fire’s effects on large structures, who ran 2D and 3D computer simulations on the towers and they fell in about 50 minutes with just fires alone because of expanding and buckling of the floors, which transferred loads through the exterior columns, through the hat truss, and into the core. This buckling was captured in photos and on video.
Go check out the http://forums.randi.org conspiracy theories section and see what they’ve found. There are experts there as well as just amateur researchers but in all cases, they post links to firsthand evidence and testimony and work through things quite well.
If, however, you would like to discuss these things here, feel free. The only thing I require is that we discuss one thing at a time and discuss it to completion and resolve it before introducing 100 other topics like you have just done. Are you willing?
For anyone else reading this, go check out http://www.911myths.com and http://www.debunking911.com and the randi forum I linked to above and see the other side of the story from the conspiracies. It’s quite interesting.
August 17, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Perhaps we could start with your comment:
“WTC7, which wasn’t hit by an airplane or by any significant debris”
You are incorrect. See http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
That is just one page that shows huge chunks of the north tower hitting WTC 7 and then it shows massive south-side damage as well as firefighter testimony about a 20-story hole, a bulge between floors 10 and 13 that, after putting a transit on that bulge, found it to be moving, at which time, they pulled firefighting operations out of the area a few hours before it collapsed.
Do you have a rebuttal to this, or should we move on to the next point?
August 17, 2007 at 11:36 pm
As I said above my energy can be better served on ending this unjust war and bringing our troops home. Just like GWB I’m not going to change your conclusion to why you think a certain way. I feel that no matter how much evidence I would put up, nothing would make you see that you might be wrong. Please notice how I used might, because that ultimately is a two way street!!
August 18, 2007 at 12:00 am
There is no way to prove axiomatically that the sun will rise tomorrow, and nobody in science cares in the slightest. When the sun doesn’t rise as scheduled, call me. Until then I absolutely refuse to waste time about this.
August 18, 2007 at 3:08 am
You avoided the point. Don’t you think it would be important to find out if your overall opinion is right or wrong? From what I read of your postings, if we were to take each point you’ve made and address each one, you would find that your overall opinion is based on untruth. I have given you specific detail and evidence to tear down one of your many points. Do you accept that you were misinformed? If so, we can move on to the next point. If not, then there is no reason to go on since you will have proven that you are more interested in your agenda than you are the truth. Have you seen these photos of the south side damage before? If not, then why wouldn’t you be interested in finding out more about the truth?
P.S. Your efforts will not end the war. In fact, regardless of what you think about the war, pulling out now doesn’t even make sense. But me making this comment will just give you an excuse to ignore the point at hand again anyway – watch, you’ll do it. 🙂
August 18, 2007 at 5:33 am
So let me get this straight, wtc7 collapsed because of severe damage and fire, and yes I have seen those supposed photos that the “conspiracy theorists” won’t show you, and I do not put all of my faith in jones either, but what I find strange is how fast it collapsed, the fact that it was reported that it collapsed before it collapsed, but perhaps even more strange is the sever damage done to WTC 5 and 6, esentially hollowed out, on fire the whole bit, much worse than damage done to WTC7, yet 7 collapses, this should have been investigated the day of the attacks, yet sadly the evidence is gone, and now everyone keeps arguing in this vaccum over details of how the towers collapse, when all we have our videos and eyewitness accounts. At the very least in the case of 9/11 there was extreme goverment incompetence, and certain facts need to come out. Also, these conspiracies wouldn’t be around in the first place if the government didn’t do things like classify firefighter radio transmissions, gather videos of the plane hitting the pentagon from hotel security cams and classify them, or release on a few frames at a time of the video of the plane hitting the pentagon. Oh there’s more much more I have seen 911myths before, its a pretty good site for sorting some of this stuff out, but it obfiscates quite a bit also, but oh well more power to you rcronk, more 911 truthers need to sharpen their research, and they won’t do it unless you make em work at it.
August 18, 2007 at 11:19 am
Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (Paperback)
by David Ray Griffin (Author)
August 18, 2007 at 2:36 pm
We’re sorry – those of us in the office don’t understand something here: Why are people who are questioning the “official story” called “truthers” – as if it’s something bad to ask questions when there are so many obvious holes in it?
It makes us wonder – if people who ask questions are called “truthers,” what are the people who don’t, called – “liars?”
August 20, 2007 at 3:05 pm
@franklee – The construction of WTC 7 was completely different than 5 & 6. It was built on top of the Con Ed power station and had a lot of load bearing trusses that transferred loads between the two buildings between floors 5 & 7. It was also a tube-like structure, like the towers rather than being a steel grid structure like 5 & 6. The east mechanical penthouse dropped into the building 18 seconds before the collapse was complete. From what I understand of the preliminary NIST findings, they think that this partial collapse damaged trusses 1 and/or 2, which, if they failed because of that damage, it would have pulled a line of columns over horizontally and started a global collapse. The building was creaking, leaning, and moving slowly for hours before it actually collapsed, which cannot be explained by demolition, but is explained by the preliminary official theory. You can find all of this at NIST as well as http://www.911myths.com and http://www.debunking911.com. Also, NIST and FEMA had people on site at ground zero as well as at the locations they were taking the steel to, examining each piece of steel and keeping all they wanted for further study. They themselves stated that they had full and free access to the steel and had full authority to keep anything they wanted.
@illa – From what I’ve seen of David Ray Griffin’s work, I’m not impressed. He’s a retired professor of philosophy of religion for crying out loud. His books contain the same errors spouted above. Why is it so difficult to get a group of structural engineers together to write something up about this? Why is it always religion, philosophy, or English teachers?
@saywhen – They are called “truthers” because they think they are seeking truth, but they are usually so blinded by ignorance and logical fallacy, that they end up inventing stories in their own areas of unknown instead of doing real research and finding the actual truth. Don’t get me wrong, I think we need to keep the government in check and watch their every move, but we need to do it responsibly and not with a bunch of invented big-foot stories – that’s counterproductive because as people get a bad taste in their mouth from these “truthers” they will assume that serious people challenging the government in the future are of the same ilk. And for some of these truthers, it’s not just ignorance, it’s outright lies forged because of vested interests – I’ve seen quotes chopped up by “truthers” to the point where the original meaning of the quote is carefully tailored to mean the opposite, matching that “truther’s” agenda. I’ve seen explosive sounds added to video to mislead. It’s reprehensible.
August 20, 2007 at 3:11 pm
I think we need to be careful of the “ignorant” comments, r – we could say the same about people who believe the way you do. We agree that subterfuge on either side is reprehensible – but to claim it’s only done by “truthers” is a falsehood.
August 20, 2007 at 3:14 pm
P.S. Even Griffin’s new pearl harbor quote was taken completely out of context and has a completely different meaning – see “Screw Loose Change – not Freaking Again edition”: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561 (It talks about “a new pearl harbor” at around 4 minutes, 30 seconds into the video.)
August 20, 2007 at 3:16 pm
@saywhen – I’m just explaining my own experience with people on all sides of the 9/11 issue. In my experience, the “truthers” have fit my description. Agreed that there is ignorance and poor research on all sides, but in my experience, the “truthers” are most guilty of it.
August 20, 2007 at 3:48 pm
We enjoy a spirited debate as much as the next guy – we just want to keep the name-calling out of it.
Our experience is that ignorance and shoddy research are obviously evident – most notably in the “official” report.
August 20, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Saying that someone is ignorant is a statement of fact, not name-calling.
Exactly which part of the official report is shoddy and ignorant and what are your personal qualifications for making such an assertion?
August 20, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Why does this conversation seem to be circular in nature? This is how it all started between you and illa – and we’re not interested in starting it again. Re-read your previous conversations for your answer.
We understand that by choosing not to jump into the debate we’ve set ourselves up for you using that to prove your point – but we’re willing to go there just to not have to start this all again.
It’s evident that you have a strong position and NO ONE is going to change your mind. That’s truly just fine with us. You’ve gotten some “publicity” for your site – good on ya. But we’re done with this as is illa – and if you choose to look at it as you’ve won rather than you’ve worn us out, go for it.
August 20, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Strange. The people here make assertions that have been addressed for years and I tell you (plural) where to go look (it’s not my site, by the way) to find some more information on it. You ignore what I post and refuse to discuss the specifics. I ask specific questions about your assertions and you say you’re too busy fighting the war in Iraq and bring up other stuff that has also been addressed for years. You make more unsupported assertions and I ask about the details for such an assertion and your qualifications for the assertion and you balk and ignore the question and tell me I’m just wearing you out and being stubborn.
It doesn’t sound like I wore you out or that I’m not willing to learn what you’ve learned, it sounds like you haven’t investigated 9/11 from another point of view yet – based on your many many posts of information that has already been addressed – and when I ask you about detail underneath your broad assertions, every single one of you have ignored the question and moved to other topics. I even tried to talk about one detail (damage to WTC 7) and provided photos, video, and testimony and that was completely ignored and I was accused of not changing my point of view. What?
That sounds like something very different than me “wearing you out.”
I’m getting used to this form of “argument” – make general assertion, completely ignore questions about details of that assertion, post a bunch of links to other stuff, completely ignore replies with links to information that give you more evidence about that other stuff, rinse, repeat.
Over the years, I have found that the “truther” point of view doesn’t stand up to scrutiny and so the above pattern is the only pattern that will allow the movement to continue.
Please break the chain and let’s really get something done here and let’s discuss details, one at a time. If you don’t want to discuss the details, that’s fine. I’ll go away. Just realize that I didn’t wear you out, I challenged your assertions and you refused to back them up with facts and refused to look at additional evidence. I handed it to you and your dropped it on the floor and moved on to something else. Why?
August 20, 2007 at 8:04 pm
yes your the man, your the man. we get it.
August 20, 2007 at 8:08 pm
by the way “da man” is just statement of fact.
August 20, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Well, I can’t argue against that. I wish we could have gotten along and moved toward some truth here. Oh well.
August 20, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Meaningless question IS ALSO A STATEMENT OF FACT BUT what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?
August 20, 2007 at 9:29 pm
One must give.
In this case, both sides of the argument should ideally be looking for places to give and change. I started to do that by looking up the MIT study and asking you about it to make sure I was looking at the right one but you refused to discuss it. I was hoping you (all) would do the same by opening up and looking at (and maybe even commenting on) the additional information I was handing you instead of ignoring it and posting 4 more links to unrelated information. I wish we could start over.
August 20, 2007 at 9:44 pm
I love how you want to dictate, how I choose to deal with my time. Perhaps herein lies the problem.
August 20, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Please cite the comment above where I dictated to you how you should use your time. I can’t find it.
By the way, it would have taken much less of your time to answer “yes, those are the MIT experts” or “no, it’s these ones ” than the extra long and unrelated comment you wrote instead.
August 20, 2007 at 10:30 pm
And if “the truth” is supposed to set you free, why is it “your truth” is being shoved down our throats. Truth is truth and can stand on it’s own. I feel no need to convince anyone of what I believe, but you need me desperately to see your point. I’ve heard your point and I still disagree and am entitled to disagree.
August 20, 2007 at 10:41 pm
I was hoping you (all) would do the same by opening up and looking at (and maybe even commenting on) the additional information I was handing you instead of ignoring it and posting 4 more links to unrelated information. I wish we could start over.
instead of ignoring it and posting 4 more links to unrelated information, you have no control over what I choose to comment on.
Now, find a site with people who enjoy having “your thoughts” shoved down their throats. And i suggest you
August 20, 2007 at 10:43 pm
PLAY NICE WITH THE OTHER KIDS!!
August 20, 2007 at 10:49 pm
P.S. I’m not a truther and your labels offend me.
August 20, 2007 at 10:54 pm
I’m not cramming the truth down your throat. I made a comment, someone asked some questions, I answered them and asked some of my own and I’m being accused of cramming the truth down people’s throats? This is a very strange place.
August 20, 2007 at 10:55 pm
PLAY NICE WITH THE OTHER CHILDREN, SON!!
August 21, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Ok Mom – or it is Dad?
August 22, 2007 at 2:57 am
I rest my case.
August 22, 2007 at 3:35 am
CIA inspector’s report on September 11 faults leaders
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2137476020070821
August 25, 2007 at 2:34 am
Iraq war veteran and experienced demolitions expert blows the cover on 9/11 inside job
http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=128&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=2
August 25, 2007 at 2:42 am
ABC/NBC Footage Captures White Smoke From WTC 2 Base Moments Before Collapse
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-364734785678120841&hl=en
August 25, 2007 at 2:55 am
Robert Fisk: Even I question the ‘truth’ about 9/11
http://news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article2893860.ece
August 26, 2007 at 9:59 pm
American Airlines – “9/11 Didn’t Happen”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/260807_b_airlines.htm
August 27, 2007 at 12:21 am
Hey, you two are discussing only the physical “conspiracy” aspects.
My hubby has been a contractor for 30 years. He stayed home and watched the replays at least 300 times on 9/11 alone. He & his contractor buddies (like the concrete framers, welders…) have discussed and concluded that the towers may have fallen just from the impact of the 2 planes (taking into gas fire thruout, and resultant vacuum), damage to 7 from 1 & 2 going down… IF ALL THE BUILDINGS WERE IMPROPERLY ENGINEERED AND SUBSTANDARD MATERIALS WERE USED, fire safety short cuts made and a building inspection department paid off instead …. Which is what they figure probably did happen. Trump built them, didn’t he?
Some engineering students we know tried setting up a computer simulation in the following year, and had to be very flexible (out of “code range”) to get a similar result.
The coincidences of the sprinklers being shut off, and the many other physical coincidences, not to mention the recent preceding activitys in some of the government offices that benefitted many close to our president is the “conspiracy” why they are certain the Bush’s et al had foreknowledge and used the information to their benefit.
August 27, 2007 at 12:57 pm
James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm