Originally Posted by @_@ Artman
I have met some great guys from the NYC FD, NYPD, and NYPA and the ones who were there had this to say (paraphrasing of course):
* All of them said that in their careers prior to 9-11, none of them had the experience to handle, much less witness a crisis of that nature. They had what they were trained for, nothing else. Many heard and saw things they questioned that day, but there was nothing, nothing
that presented to them a controlled demolition (all agreed to that). One fireman said that the sounds emitted from the people who impacted the ground from a hundred stories up is the same as a grenade going off.
It's very interesting to go back to footage recorded on the day itself (when the event was unfolding and the memory of the witnesses was not colored by politically expedient pronouncements), and listen to what government agencies, such as the FBI, were saying on the mainstream media. There are countless extracts suggesting that "the current line of thinking is that devices have been planted in the buildings
" or words to that effect. These are not my words; I am merely quoting those of law enforcement, as relayed by the MSM at the time. I don't have the time to go trolling the net to quote links that you are undoubtedly familiar with.. but here's one in *hundreds* of
others. Listen to what the commentators are saying re. what the FBI etc are thinking.
* I have talked to demolition experts (how come no one in the Truther movement does?) and they laugh at the mere idea of such an operation, much less clandestine*.
Actually, I have. I video-interviewed a demolition expert who used to work for Loiseaux and has been running a successful demolition business in Orange County (they take down buildings using explosives, or from the top down in piecemeal fashion, or by swinging a wrecking ball on a chain from a crane, or by using ropes/lines.. etc etc. This was in August 2004; the purpose of the interview was actually unrelated to 9/11, but I took the opportunity at the end of the 45 minute interview (just before I was about to break down) to ask him if there was any possibility that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolitions (how could I resist?). He immediately asked if I was still rolling tape. (I was, of course) He said he could not comment on camera for obvious reasons; he had a business to run, he did not want to get involved, or have any associations with such lines of thought. Two things of interest that are in the interview, however, are as follows, which I was unaware of at the time:
(1) The term "pulling" a building in the demolition business refers to attaching lines to the structure and literally "pulling it down", or "over"
. (Larry Silverstein's referral to "pulling it" did not mean what many in the Truth Movement have implied, i.e. a demolition term for taking a building down with explosives. However, he was not referring to "attaching lines to #7 to "pull it". Also, he was not referring to pulling any firefighting operation out of #7 because there was no operation ongoing to fight any fire in #7 that coincided with the timeline he was referring to! The "pull it" comments have been taken out of context on both sides of the argument; unfortunately Mr.Silverstein has not shed any credible light on what he was referring to, either.
(2) Demolition crews tend to avoid operations using explosives when there is a full overcast, especially when there is a full cloud cover of low altitude (ie under 3000 ft). Apparently, a full low overcast can contribute to collateral damage to (glass) windows in nearby structures, presumably by standing LF waves bouncing off the low cloud and causing amplification of the such waves by "in-phase summation".
Whole sections of concrete, drywall, electrical and plumbing fixtures have to be gutted to even consider placing detonation wiring, charges or squibs into any building for detonation. It would take over a year or more to set up one building the size of one WTC tower.
One year! That's a lot of explosives charges.... and apparently, according to the official story, the 3 major buildings failed without the aid of such. (That is a scary thought... I wonder if other large structures have been examined and retrofitted to guard against complete failure due to fire damage?)
It remains peculiar that both towers came down in almost identical fashion, at almost freefall acceleration against the line of most resistance (namely the 47 column cores) of which nothing remained except a large pile of massive, neatly severed girders.
I still ask: "how did all that concrete get pulverized in mid air, literally in the first few seconds after the initiation of the collapses, well before hitting the ground, and above
the region of structural failure? The Twin Towers were literally reduced to steel and dust, and there is very little in the way of macroscopic pieces of reinforced concrete apparent in the photos of the wreckage. Reinforced concrete does not transform itself in mid air into fine powder, all by itself... C'mon physics majors... what was that energy source?
Aspects of the Twin Towers demise like this are why people are now speculating about explosives use. Such a notion is only deemed as "outlandish" or "nuts" if attributed to a false flag attack. Had al Qaeda
been blamed from the get go in rigging the buildings beforehand, this would have been gleefully acceptable to the media. Unfortunately, rational debate has been closed off, in the political need to create and sustain a bogeyman.
Of course there was a conspiracy. Everyone knows that, unless one has almost zero command/comprehesion of the English language. The $2.3+ trillion question however, is who organized it? If a group of 19 people (allegedly) with pocketknives, whose members included a coke and liquor freak, a 100lb lad who was unable to fly a 2 seater Cessna (even after plenty of practise), and a Saudi Airlines pilot who wasn't even in the US at the time (!) could singlehandedly run rings around the entire US military, evade every intelligence and law enforcement agency, and somehow all manage to simultaneously board commercial planes without being apprehended by airport security, then we are in deep doo-doo if a real "bona fide" terrorist gang with malintent towards the US were to initiate a real campaign against soft targets here. It doesn't beat thinking about... and any organization with sufficient funds could do it so easily, given the will and enough psychopathic dysfunctionality.