New Information on 911

[whatever4]

Please forgive if this news is, well, still seen as an "article". It's certainly new news to me, and perhaps might build into a big story. Maybe. It should be, but, *that* is old news.

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/28031.htm">WTC Basement Blast And Injured Burn Victim Blows 'Official 9/11 Story' Sky High; Eye Witness Testimony Is Conclusive That North Tower Collapsed From Controlled Demolition
WTC janitor pulls burn victim to safety after basement explosion rocks north tower seconds before jetliner hit top floors. Also, two other men trapped and drowning in a basement elevator shaft, were also pulled to safety from underground explosion..
June 24, 2005

By Greg Szymanski

What happened to William Rodriguez the morning of 9/11 is a miracle. What happened to his story after-the-fact is a tragedy.

But with miracles and tragedies comes truth. And truth is exactly what Rodriguez brings to the whole mystery surrounding 9/11.

Declared a hero for saving numerous lives at Ground Zero, he was the janitor on duty the morning of 9/11 who heard and felt explosions rock the basement sub-levels of the north tower just seconds before the jetliner struck the top floors.

He not only claims he felt explosions coming from below the first sub-level while working in the basement, he says the walls were cracking around him and he pulled a man to safety by the name of Felipe David, who was severely burned from the basement explosions.

All these events occurred only seconds before and during the jetliner strike above. And through it all, he now asks a simple question everybody should be asking? How could a jetliner hit 90 floors above and burn a man’s arms and face to a crisp in the basement below within seconds of impact?

Rodriguez claims this was impossible and clearly demonstrates a controlled demolition brought down the WTC, saying "Let’s see them (the government) try to wiggle out of this one."

Well, they haven’t wiggled out of it because the government continues to act like Rodriguez doesn’t exist, basically ignoring his statements and the fact he rescued a man burnt and bleeding from the basement explosions.

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/28031.htm">read the rest

[NashVegas]

1. Bad Link

When you click on it, it forwards to Microsoft's home page.

[donco6]

2. Link doesn't work?

At least, not for me.

[babsbunny]

3. The link didn't work for me

Thanks for this info!

[meegbear]

4. There are 2 "http://" in your link

FYI

[babylonsister]

5. Your links aren't working, but now I'm REAL interested! nt

[seemslikeadream]

6. WTC Rescue Hero Sues Bush and Others under RICO Statute

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=23412

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[babsbunny]

12. We should distribute this to everyone, but especially

KO, and that guy on Stephanie Miller who does "Conspiracy Corner"

[babsbunny]

13. If the Dems want to Impeach Bush

Why not talk to this guy?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

163. another Rodriques article by Greg Szymanski...

He refers to the article at arctic beacon...

Media Big Shots at NBC and New York Times 'Hush Hush And Evasive' About Why WTC Janitor Story Never Appeared, A Story That Blows The Official 9/11Account Sky High

http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/28901.htm

[theearthisround]

8. WORKING LINK HERE

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/28031.htm

[SmileMaker]

9. Correct link

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/28031.htm

[DS1]

10. fixed link

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/28031.htm

[DemInDistress]

11. please correct your link..

it came up as unknown host..i find the infomation interesting.i had read where others in the basement heard and saw severe damage where there should be none since the crash occured 90 floor up..
check that link..:hi: :dem:

[shraby]

19. I remember reading something about people

being injured in the basement, but don't remember where. It was a long time ago.

[geek tragedy]

14. More phony garbage.

Y'all get one guess as to whom Greg Szymanski works for.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&biw=800&q=%22Greg+Szymanski%22+%22american+free+press%22+&btnG=Search

[Frederik]

17. Mr Szymanski is not exactly

what I'd call a reliable source, but the story is about the janitor, and he's for real.

[geek tragedy]

20. His story is not believable either. My fiancee and her father were in the

subway below the WTC at the time. They suspected nothing until people came screaming onto the train after the plane struck.

[seatnineb]

23. Those basements in both towers took a pounding.

Look at the base of the south tower.



And don't bother using the severed elavator excuse....it won't work.

[geek tragedy]

24. That picture is supposed to make me doub what my fiancee told me?

Sorry, not buying it.

[seatnineb]

27. Yes.

Let's see.

The word of an anonymouse DU poster's fiancee' against a known World Trade center janitor.

You got no chance pal.

[geek tragedy]

32. You'll have to excuse me

but I promised myself I wouldn't debate the Tinfoil Hat Brigade.

Carry on.

[seatnineb]

34. That is why 6 of your posts have permeated this thread!

[whatever4]

37. I'll see your tin foil hat and raise you depleted uranium

Because I believe, in my humble opinion, they're both examples of massive cover-ups. Saying you think this talk is tin foil hat stuff only tells me you haven't read the details, because you don't refute any of them. Saying these things are not true is not to say they aren't possible. You may say there is not enough proof, but I see no reason to dismiss the possibility outright. In looking at everything else the Admin has done, they are completely plausible events.

You must admit that whoever took down those towers was vile and cared nothing for human life. You must admit the government we have now, here in the nation it occured, is probably one of the most corrupt we've ever seen, if not the most. If you can't see how our own government shouldn't be our own number one suspect, or how likely it is they would want to control the fall of the towers (if we agree they were complicit), then I don't know what to say. I don't think it's a stretch that they would want to control the fall of the towers, and I don't think it's a stretch they would want to do that, over simply crashing the planes into them. Bringing them down was much more horrific.

I have to wonder, and this IS wild theory, if making so many people sick was also factored in. To make it that much more difficult for anyone to ever "do anything", in terms of witnesses and stories. That was also made possible by bringing them to the ground.

Finally, if the Admin was complicit in any way, they would have wanted to control the disaster in a way that only the people they wanted hurt would be hurt. If the towers had gone sideways, it might have meant many more people, friends and family, would have had to be conveniently located somewhere else at the time. Had they fallen sideways, I have no idea what the numbers are, but many more people in many more buildings.

Call me crazy, if it's fun, but I think those considerations make it more than a possiblity to consider, that the falling of the towers could have been planned, and if planned, planned to happen in a controlled fashion.

[carlvs]

49. This just takes the cake!

A person is supposed to reject the on-site accounts of the woman he loves and her father, and instead believe the rantings from one site whose ultra right-wing perspective isn't hard to find (and from what I understand, has been banned from this site for promoting anti-semitic and racist views,) as well as another which is devoted in part to spewing out pseudo-scientific claptrap?!?!

There's just one way the portray my feelings over this turn of events:

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke::puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[seatnineb]

62. Sorry to puncture your ignorant bliss!

[carlvs]

78. Well, two can play at this game!

You and you fellow CTers want to hang around with the likes of the AFP? Well, you can tell a lot about someone by the company they keep. So let’s take a look at some of the sites they made available on their links page.

Our first stop is “The Barnes Review.” Described as a “historical magazine” by AFP, with such previous article titles as “The Smoke & Mirrors of ‘The Holocaust’” and (I kid you not) “Adolf Hitler: An Overlooked Candidate for the Nobel Prize” listed in their archives, one could say that they have a rather “unique” view of history.

Next on our travelogue is “The Truth Newspaper.” Now the AFP states that this site “expresses a point of view that is based upon the founding principles of our country.” Well I guess this is true if that also includes honoring any representation of the flag of those that fought for the right to enslave others.

Then there’s the link for the “Gun Owners of America;” an organization that manages the extraordinary task of making the NRA look tame in comparison.

Oh, and look who make an appearance here? Why it’s “DavidDuke.com.” I don’t think I have to go any further into the background of this lovely :puke: person to show why AFP would want to include him in their link list.

Lastly we have “YourChristianPresident.com.” Now a lot of people have quite rightfully complained about the hypocritical use of the religion by our current president. However, after perusing this site I have a feeling that this person’s complaints fall more into the “why is Bush not having gays burnt at the stake” branch of Christianity.

You all want to hang with those who feel that these kind of sites need to be made more public? Well do what you want, but don't you DARE tell me that I have to embrace them too... :grr:

[seatnineb]

87. Rubbish.

Neither you or I have to go to any of the sites mentioned by you to find evidence of explosions in the basement.

"Maggett, this is Ed at the OCC, I got word there's an explosion down on B-4. We got people hurt down there."

Port Authority Transcript.
9/11/01.

[carlvs]

90. I was just pointing out the crowd that AFP likes to hang with...

If you don't like it, TOO BAD!!!

[stickdog]

94. Logical Fallacy 17: Guilt by Association

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html

Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. It is pointed out that distasteful person A accepts claim P.
2. Therefore P is false

It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example the following is obviously a case of poor "reasoning": "You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn't believe it."

The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people.

Of course, the fact that someone does not want to be associated with people she dislikes does not justify the rejection of any claim. For example, most wicked and terrible people accept that the earth revolves around the sun and that lead is heavier than helium. No sane person would reject these claims simply because this would put them in the company of people they dislike (or even hate).

[emcguffie]

170. Thank you. I wish I had studied logic.

I usually get it, but I certainly do not have it at my command.

Thank you.

I have a feeling if all American kids had to study logic, we wouldn't be in this fix today.

[seatnineb]

113. You cannot disprove the damage to the basement then!

....which is what this thread is all about.....

The last stretch of floors went by rather quickly; 3rd...
2rd...1st... Basement. We ended up in some weird storage closet with two WTC workers. "You went too far! The exits are on the 1st Floor," one of them yelled from behind the disheveled pipes and disarray. I noticed that the walls down here were heavily damaged. It was dark, damp, and it looked like the building really took quite a structural blow.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PASCDiscuss/message/7


Who needs any of the web sites you mention?

[stickdog]

93. So WTC janitor William Rodriguez is a hateful Nazi because the work of

the guy who transcribed his interview sometimes appears on website that supplies links other sites that contain the work of Holocaust deniers?

You know, Pope Pius was a pretty big holocaust denier and Bobby Kenndy was Catholic, so I guess we know what HIS agenda was, right?

[LARED]

98. Of course not

the point is that AFP is a revisionist organization that actively works at revising history in ways to further a political agenda.

AFP is simply a blend of facts and sophistry.

If you are truly seeking facts and the truth then you are well advised to stay away from AFP.

[stickdog]

108. Agreed. As is Fox, CNN, MSNBC and network news.

Sure they their own agenda and it has many disagreeable elements. And sure some of the articles they write are full of shit and most are poorly documented. But at least they don't simply publish two competing press releases without any further investigation or analysis.

[LARED]

117. Sure the MSM has many problems, but

one on them is not being the created by Willis Carto. Willis Carto is a major player in the publication of AFP, and is a sleazy hateful anti-semitic individual.

[stickdog]

118. Two words: Rupert Murdoch (nt)

[LARED]

119. Are you actually equating Rupert Murdoch to Willis Carto?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl:

:rofl:

[Dancing_Dave]

77. There were other witnesses who reported the same explosion

For example, stationary engineer Mike Pecoraro:
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/underground/underground_explosions.htm

Remember, there were MANY sub-basements below the WTC, this explosion could have been to far away from the subway for anyone there to notice. But it was a major explosion that blew out walls in the parking garage and destroyed a whole machine shop with 50 ton hydraulic press.

[seatnineb]

21. Wrong.

From: j_montev@...
Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 5:25 pm
Subject: Personal Account

This is a personal account of a friend of a friend's... very detailed... i take no responsibility for anything said in it or the authenticity or it

The last stretch of floors went by rather quickly; 3rd...
2rd...1st... Basement. We ended up in some weird storage closet with two WTC workers. "You went too far! The exits are on the 1st Floor," one of them yelled from behind the disheveled pipes and disarray. I noticed that the walls down here were heavily damaged. It was dark, damp, and it looked like the building really took quite a structural blow.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PASCDiscuss/message/7

[geek tragedy]

26. Wow, an anonymous statement posted on the Internet!

And the person who was purportedly there didn't even post it.

That's not evidence of anything.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seatnineb]

36. But who in this forum knows you......

....or your fiancee'?

[seatnineb]

39. Here is witness who is NOT anonymouse.............

But still feels the explosion from BELOW.....even though the alleged plane hit from above.........

Although its(flight 175) spectacularly televised impact was above Elliott, at first he and those around him thought an explosion had come from below. An incredible noise - he calls it an "exploding sound" - shook the building, and a tornado of hot air and smoke and ceiling tiles and bits of drywall came flying UP the stairwell.

"In front of me, the wall split from the bottom up," he says.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0917/p1s1-usgn.html

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stickdog]

95. Pot meet your wife's kettle. (nt)

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jester_11218]

28. There is SOOO much evidence out there

It is simply amazing how much evidence is out there to disprove the official conspiracy theory. Once again, thanks to our media even the smart people of this nation are clueless.

Scary.

[whatever4]

33. Okay, let me get back to this a second

If you would. Are you saying that our government had no part in bringing down the towers, or that they did not use explosives to... help bring down the towers. Not sure which one is the more extreme "official" conspiracy theory, so I'm not sure where exactly smarts got left behind, and crazy boogie men took over.

As long as we can agree that a conspiracy of *some* kind brought down the towers, as opposed to say, a natural disaster, we're still moving forward.

Have to define the problem.

[JackRiddler]

51. so what does this show?

I see the South Tower has collapsed and the resulting dust cloud has formed and spread out on the ground and a part of it is visible around the base of the North Tower. So?

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[philb]

48. There were lots of witnesses to the explosions in the basements of WTC 1 &

2- firefighters, building engineers, helicopter news team, many others. I've posted URLs before.
http://www.flcv.com/911new05.html has some links

here is one
http://64.233.161.104/custom?q=cache:c4SKNriFRpIJ:www.reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6.pdf+Webster+Tarpley+9/11&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

and see the pictures of the explosions and fires in the basement of the buildings before the collapse- scroll down to near the last of the pictures.

German Engineers: planes and gravity could not have caused WTC collapse
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/GER312A.html

[earth mom]

15. Tried to nominate and we can't from this forum???!!!

:wtf:

[Moochy]

158. Bad for DU PR

No this forum is to remain a closet where skeletons are kept.

This forum elicits some of the most hateful incoherent detractors, who love this country so much that they can't accomadate the *possibility* that there was some complicity in 911. Yet they seem to have no skepticism for the official government story.

I read this forum for the links and the discussion that follow. I want answers and suspect that the 911 commission report was a coverup for the real planners of 911.

In the spirit of PR, and controlling the message, I guess you can't nominate from this group.

[seriousstan]

16. The Arctic Beacon - - - - -the Art Bell of the press. Nothing too weird to

print.

Their own mission statment.....
"Accordingly, our intended course is formatted in a monthly, highly colorful news magazine covering but not limited to the following topics: Government Secrets and Cover-ups; Religious and Spirtual Phenomena; Unpopular Science; Suppressed Health Alternatives; Legal/ Social Injustice and Environmental Protection and Alien Presence on Earth and UFO Phenomena."

[leveymg]

18. From The Arctic Beacon's homepage:

The Arctic Beacon's "soul is not for sale." Accordingly, our intended course is formatted in a monthly, highly colorful news magazine covering but not limited to the following topics: Government Secrets and Cover-ups; Religious and Spirtual Phenomena; Unpopular Science; Suppressed Health Alternatives; Legal/ Social Injustice and Environmental Protection and Alien Presence on Earth and UFO Phenomena.

[whatever4]

29. Terribly sorry for all the mess

I should have checked back sooner. A after I read more, it looked like it was an older story, so I didn't think they would be much interest.

So, I'm *not* the only one that thought she knew a thing or two to just now clue in on this? That surprises me.

There were some other articles, a few recent related to 911
on this page http://www.arcticbeacon.com/page/page/1518131.htm


I shouldn't have posted this on Latest News I guess. Sorry about that.

[JackRiddler]

35. Rodriguez is real, even if Szymanski is not...

Before the automatic debunkers swing into full action:

Rodriguez, whom I've met, says all this because he saw it and he means it. Period.

He's not the only one to describe an explosion and damage in the sub-basement levels around the time when the attack began.

Did the explosion really happen seconds before the aerial hit? Did it actually happen seconds later, due to an accumulation of fuel at the bottom through the freight elevator or ventilation shafts? Was it caused by the shockwave of the plane hit reaching the bedrock?

Or was it due to explosives?

None of this matters when, as Rodriguez says, neither the media nor the Commission will even acknowledge his story! There is no explanation for what he saw, because they won't even examine it. The very thought is verboten.

As a result, he ends up having to speak with the likes of a Szymanski, who readily invents facts in other stories and who writes in a cloying, propagandistic emotionalism; but in this case has no need of invention.

Szym is merely reporting what Rodriguez says. Anyone want to deal with that?

I don't want to hear your amateur reconstructions of what "really" happened to him and others in the basement, unless you also deal with the reality that the Commission and media refused to acknowledge it.

Why?

[LARED]

42. When you met Mr. Rodriguez

did he tell you how he knows the Jet crashed after the explosion. He was in the basement at the time. This is the material issue, as any damage that happened after the impact is easily explained.

As for the Commission and the media not dealing with this; why would they? 9/11 is old news, unless there is some compelling reason to believe there were explosions prior to the crash it remains old news.

I realize he may very much believe that the explosions happened before the crash, but people believe all sort of things that are not based on reality, why is he different?

[seatnineb]

44. Did you ask Geektragedy's Fiancee......

.....how she managed not to "suspect" anything until other people told her,despite the fact that she was in the subway below the WTC when AA11 hit?.

I thought not.

[LARED]

45. Huh?

How in the world would I ask her??? I don't know her, and she has nothing to do with Mr. Rodriguez's claim.

[seatnineb]

46. You know I meant that with irony.

It is Geektragedy.....in his ill fated attempt to discredit Rodriguez.....who says that his own Fiancee'...who was in the subway below the WTC, did not "suspect" anything until other people informed her that a plane had crashed in the tower above.

Do you not find it odd that Geektragedy's fiancee' did not "suspect" anything.

Considering that when AA11 hit the WTC it managed to cause a 0.9 siesmic signature on the richter scale........which apparently is the rough equivalent of a "large Blast at a construction Site"

http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/magnitude.html

[Make7]

50. That doesn't seem odd.

seatnineb wrote:
Do you not find it odd that Geektragedy's fiancee' did not "suspect" anything.

Considering that when AA11 hit the WTC it managed to cause a 0.9 siesmic signature on the richter scale........which apparently is the rough equivalent of a "large Blast at a construction Site"

http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/magnitude.html

The following question assumes two things:

• that you been close enough to a "large blast at a construction site" to feel it.
  
• that you have been on a subway in New York. (Although, I suppose any train will suffice.)

Do you really think, if someone on a subway actually felt the seismic event of the impact, that they would be able to differentiate the seismic motion from the motion of the train? And if they could, do you think they would know it was from a plane impacting the tower? Or perhaps they might "suspect" something else?

Earthquake Severity

Richter         Earthquake
Magnitudes      Effects

Less than 3.5   Generally not felt, but recorded.

seatnineb's link (you should read what you link to)

_______________________________________

So how was William Rodriguez able to determine that the explosions took place seconds before the plane impact? LARED certainly hit the nail on the head when he called that the material issue. I look forward to your explanation.

-Make7

[seatnineb]

60. Wrong.

There was only 1 freight elevator that ran in a shaft from the basement to the top of the tower where AA11 hit.


How could a fireball from the exploding jet fuel on the 94th floor come down this same shaft and into the basement....and burn Rodriguez's work mate.

The shaft in question was blocked by an elevator that was jammed on the lower floors.This elevator had survivors inside.They were not burnt.




That's why Rodriguez says this about his colleague:

His injuries couldn’t have come from the airplane above, but only from a massive explosion below. I don’t care what the government says, what scientists say. I saw a man burned terribly from a fire that was caused from an explosion below.

As for the Richter scale......

It was Geektragedy who made the mistake of comparing his Fiance's experience to Rodriguez's.


So..... the officials would have us believe that 0.9 was the seismic signature recorded when AA11 struck.

Make7, you are implying that 0.9 on the Richter scale would not be felt....

But on 9/11.......0.9 on the Richter scale in lower Manhattan was enough to do this damage in the basement of the north tower.


The last stretch of floors went by rather quickly; 3rd...
2rd...1st... Basement. We ended up in some weird storage closet with two WTC workers. "You went too far! The exits are on the 1st Floor," one of them yelled from behind the disheveled pipes and disarray. I noticed that the walls down here were heavily damaged. It was dark, damp, and it looked like the building really took quite a structural blow.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PASCDiscuss/message/7

[Make7]

67. I still look forward to your explanation.

The source you linked to said Richter magnitudes of less than 3.5 are generally not felt. Obviously if you are at the epicenter, magnitudes of less than that can be felt. However, 0.9 is very low on the scale. For example, you can feel the ground move from blasting at a construction site, but it isn't drastic. If you were in a car (or train, or New York subway) that was moving at the time, it would be difficult to tell what caused the motion. (Other than perhaps the sound of explosives used in the blasting.) That was my line of reasoning for my original question. (see below)

30 lbs. of TNT would do quite a bit of damage wouldn't it? According to your source that's what a 1.0 magnitude earthquake is equivalent to. (I never said that the seismic event was the cause of all the damage.)
____________________

So are you going to answer my original questions:

• Do you really think, if someone on a subway actually felt the seismic event of the impact, that they would be able to differentiate the seismic motion from the motion of the train? And if they could, do you think they would know it was from a plane impacting the tower? Or perhaps they might "suspect" something else?
  
  
• So how was William Rodriguez able to determine that the explosions took place seconds before the plane impact? LARED certainly hit the nail on the head when he called that the material issue. I look forward to your explanation.

-Make7

[seatnineb]

70. O.K

Let's break it down...

In the words of Rodriguez:

"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion."


Rodriguez has been able to distinguish from which direction the explosions were coming from.

In order to reconcile Rodriguez's experience with the official chronology......

Should Rodriguez not have heard the explosion from above first,as the plane hit.

Strange though is it not....that a witness in the south tower also experienced an explosion from below.....even though the plane hit from above.....

Although its(flight 175) spectacularly televised impact was above Elliott, at first he and those around him thought an explosion had come from below. An incredible noise - he calls it an "exploding sound" - shook the building, and a tornado of hot air and smoke and ceiling tiles and bits of drywall came flying UP the stairwell.

"In front of me, the wall split from the bottom up," he says.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0917/p1s1-usgn.html

[Make7]

71. Wow, you actually answered a question.

Article from original post:
"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion."

But before Rodriguez had time to think, co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"

David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries.

"He was burned terribly," said Rodriguez. "The skin was hanging off his hands and arms. His injuries couldn’t have come from the airplane above, but only from a massive explosion below. I don’t care what the government says, what scientists say. I saw a man burned terribly from a fire that was caused from an explosion below."

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/28031.htm

Okay, let's really break it down. In the first paragraph above he says "seconds after" and also "moments after". Which one is correct? I'll assume seconds.

Sound would take about one second to reach the basement from the impact area, based on the speed of sound through air. And if one watches video of the impact, it is obvious the plane doesn't instantaneously explode. Let's just add two more seconds to be conservative. So the sound arrives in the basement from the plane exploding seconds after its impact.

Now what could cause explosions in the basement levels at the exact time the plane hit the building? I have to assume there are electrical transformers in the basement, how else would you get power at the proper voltages throughout the building? You may know that electricity travels really, really fast. Fast enough to be almost instantaneous at short distances. You may also know that large electrical transformers do not like to see short circuits on their outputs. So the plane severing electrical cabling in the core could have caused some transformers to "explode" - which would happen almost instantly, to be followed seconds later by the sound of the explosion of the plane.
____________________

Let's look at the next paragraph. "...co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms..."

So his co-worker was not visible to Rodriguez when this happened. How does he know when, in the chronology of events, this takes place? Was it during the first "explosions" he heard? The second? Did the fire even make the sound of an explosion? How long did it take Felipe, who was just unexpectedly severely burned, to get to the office? How far away was he when he was burned?
____________________

And let's just look at the last line quoted above. "I saw a man burned terribly from a fire that was caused from an explosion below."

By his own account, he did not see his co-worker get burned. So, how on earth can he make a determination of when and how it happened?

-Make7

So, are you going to answer this one:

• Do you really think, if someone on a subway actually felt the seismic event of the impact, that they would be able to differentiate the seismic motion from the motion of the train? And if they could, do you think they would know it was from a plane impacting the tower? Or perhaps they might "suspect" something else?

[LARED]

73. You make an excellent point

The speed of sound in air is about 1000 feet per second or about 1 second to reach street level

The speed of sound through steel is 14,000 feet per second or about 14 times faster than sound through air.

It seems quite plausible that he heard two distinct sounds about a second apart.

[Make7]

74. That was going to be my next post - the steel / air difference. n/t

[seatnineb]

84. Interesting.............

But you forgot 2 things.

(From the Naudet documentary)

1)A sound was generated when the plane penetrated the exterior steel facade.

2)A sound was generated as the plane perforated the steel trusses and the concrete and the corrugated steel floors.

All of the above would have provided an excellent medium for "sound" to propagate through.

The plane would have encountered all of the above BEFORE it reached the core......which encased the freight elevator shaft whose cable would have to have been severed to to "blow up" the transformer in the basement.

And it would have been this sound that should have reached the basement first.....just as the much louder explosion of the plane itself begins to occur.....which as you correctly say would also have generated sound waves.....


But Rodriguez says the explosion came from below and with good reason.

In the words of Edward Calderon:

"Maggett, this is Ed at the OCC, I got word there's an explosion down on B-4. We got people hurt down there."
Port Authority Transcript.
9/11/01.

Edward Calderon is now dead.
And B-4 is 2 levels below where Rodriguez was.

As for the subway train.......I actually agree with you.....which is one of the reasons why Geektragedy made the mistake of comparing this incident to Rodriguez's.

[Make7]

96. Imagine that. Physics.

I agree that the impact of the plane with the building will make a sound. And to go further with that idea, the impact sound will be transmitted through the steel of the building, vibrating things attached to it which will transmit that motion to the air as sound.

Through steel, sound travels at about 14,800 ft/sec. The impact was at the 95th floor so the sound would go about 1180 ft to the basement.

(1180 ft) / (14,800 ft/sec) = 0.08 seconds

Now the speed of sound through air is about 1100 ft/sec. Same distance.

(1180 ft) / (1100 ft/sec) = 1.07 seconds

So the impact of the plane itself would take 0.99 seconds longer to reach the basement through the air than it would through the steel.

We can repeat this for the explosion of the plane which would occur a second or two later.

But before we proceed, let's look at what he actually said:

CNN, September 12, 2001:
William Rodriguez worked on the basement level of the north tower and was in the building when the first plane struck his building.

"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/new.york.terror/index.html

So it appears my mistake was in trying to explain an explosion that the witness never heard. The rumbles he heard could easily have been the noise of the plane's impact and the noise of the plane exploding.

You are correct that the sound he should have heard first was the plane impacting the building, I think that is exactly what he did hear first - that sound transmitted through the steel.

I guess it makes perfect sense why he heard it in the basement first and then from above. (Although according to CNN he didn't even state from which direction the sounds came.) Imagine that. Physics.

-Make7

[seatnineb]

112. Can you prove that Rodriguez did not say ...........

....the following?

In the words of Rodriguez:

"When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking,".....

"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above,"

Only Rodriguez can prove that he did not say the above.

And until he does just that.......no explanation you put forth can disprove his testimony that there was an explosion from below first....and then a second one from above.

[Make7]

124. When did he give testimony about explosions?

Was he under oath at the time? Do you have a transcript to share with us?

-Denial7

[seatnineb]

125. Don't get me wrong,Make7...........

..........If Greg Szymanski has invented or embellished the following statement which has been attributed to William Rodriguez:


"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above, Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion."

.......then I that is wrong.

Period.

So what is stopping Rodriguez from coming forward to say that Szymanski misquoted him ?

[LARED]

126. Mr Rodriguez's own words

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=44869&mesg_id=45055

The Ottawa Citizen

September 12, 2001 Wednesday Final EDITION

William Rodriguez, a maintenance worker in the centre, was in the basement when he heard a rumble. Not like an explosion, but more like a building of pressure. From all corners of the basement, other maintenance workers came running into his office. They said there was a fire in the building. Some kind of explosion. People were badly burned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=44869&mesg_id=45056

SHOW: CNN BREAKING NEWS 13:30

September 11, 2001 Tuesday

Transcript # 091124CN.V00

BROWN: Tell me what happened.

RODRIGUEZ: I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body. All of the skin.

[seatnineb]

127. No.

Until Rodriguez comes forward to deny that he has had any dealings with Sysmanski or that Sysmanski has in someway altered whatever Rodriguez told him......then this statement........

"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above, Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion."


...... still stands.

[LARED]

128. So what do you make of his original statements?

How do you reconcile the changing story? The first statements were right after the event. The statements from Sysmanski are nearly four years after the fact, and Sysmanski is not the most credible source.

You also have the issue of the differences in the speed of sound through air and steel. When considering this it is pretty easy to reconcile both statements. Rodriguez's original statements and his latest via Sysmanski can only be true if the first "explosion" was the impact of the jet felt via the steel in the basement and the second was heard from above.

This puts a serious dent in the CD theory.

[seatnineb]

129. Hmmm.

There is a common denominator.

The CNN transcript refers to 2 "rumbles".

The Sysmanski aricle refers to 2 "explosions".

The Sysmanski article elaborates on the direction from which these 2 seperate "rumbles" or "explosions" were heard.....courtesy of Rodrigueuz himself.

It has now been 5 or 6 days since the article of Sysmanski came out.

Websites relating to questions of 9/11 have duplicated Sysmanki's article like a virus.

If the quotes that are attributed to Rodriguez in the aricle are so innacurate ,as you are implying ,then why has Rodriguez not come forward to retract these same quotes given in his name by Sysmanski?

The only solution is that Sysmanski has written exactly what Rodriguez has told him.....and that is why Rodriguez has not retacted or lodged a complaint against Sysmanski......thus far.

[Make7]

130. So he didn't really know what happened on 9/11/01.

He thought they were rumbles that day - but some time later he "remembered" they were explosions?

Should I just discount whichever version of his story doesn't fit into my view of events? Or perhaps I should just discount all versions of his story.

-Make7

[seatnineb]

131. That's what you would like us to think!

"Will,buddy, you just keep ona' sayin' you heard em' rumbles!"

[Make7]

132. So it was Bush that was telling him what to say? I get it.

From a CNN interview on 9/11/01:
"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/new.york.terror/index.html

Are you suggesting George W. Bush talked to him on 9/11/01 and he has somehow forgotten to mention it? And even though George told him to say "rumbles", he now says explosions anyway?

It's finally starting to make some sense.

-Make7

[seatnineb]

133. No.

In the words of William Rodriguez.

"In my position....I was tried in a way to be bought.You know....remember...they called me national heroe...I was invited to the White House...I've been invited to a hundred different events...I have a room full of different decorations from different countries....and it's a way to buy you off"

[Make7]

138. He used the word "rumbles" on 9/11/01.

Did they try to buy him off that day? Or before the attacks perhaps?

Are you saying he has been bought off and that is why he used the word "rumbles" the first day? But now he uses "explosions" and he hasn't suffered any repercussions?

Can someone who can be bought off even be a reliable witness?
_____________________________________

"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion."

But before Rodriguez had time to think, co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"

David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries.

"He was burned terribly," said Rodriguez. "The skin was hanging off his hands and arms. His injuries couldn’t have come from the airplane above, but only from a massive explosion below. I don’t care what the government says, what scientists say. I saw a man burned terribly from a fire that was caused from an explosion below.

"I know there were explosives placed below the trade center. I helped a man to safety who is living proof, living proof the government story is a lie and a cover-up."

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/28031.htm

From that description, how much time do you think elapsed between the first "explosion" and when his co-worker got to the office?

-Make7

[seatnineb]

140. Can CNN be relied upon in Rodriguez's case.?

In the words of William Rodriguez.

"I came out with the story and I testified for national media on the same day of what I experienced and then I started to realise that the story was continously being edited and the whole information that I was giving was not coming out correctly".


By the way Make7, which CNN journalist(s) interviewed Rodriguez and who wrote that article featuring the rumbles?

That link you gave does not say.

But hey ,I guess you are not too bothered about that.

Regarding the time lapse:

Rodriguez says that the time between the 1st and 2nd explosions was 2 to 3 seconds.

And just as Rodriguez was going to pick up the phone to dial an emergency after the second explosion ,Davide came running in all burnt.

[Make7]

142. Aaron Brown interviewed him on 9/11/01.

(See Post #54) He used the term "rumble" in that interview.

There is no writing credit given for the online article.

Each of us has to determine which sources to be credible or not based on our views. Personally, I find people that write for the American Free Press to be questionable.
____________________

So - how many seconds is that from the first "explosion" until Felipe David came into the office?

-Make7

[seatnineb]

143. He uses the term "Roar" in this spanish article from 9/12-13/01

"Estaba en el subsuelo a eso de las 8.45, cuando hubo un estruendo."

"I was in the sublevels at about 8,45, when there was a roar."

Interesting that this article only mentions the one "Roar".

But Rodriguez indicates or implies that the "roar" came from below because he refers to the electical generators .....and we all know they were located below.....

"Pensamos que había sido un generador eléctrico, cuando vemos que entra a la oficina un hombre con la piel de los brazos colgando de los dedos. Una cosa horrenda”,"

"We thought that it had been an electrical generator , when we saw that a man with the skin of his arms hanging of his fingers entered the office. A horrible thing "

http://www.pagina12.com.ar/2001/01-09/01-09-13/pag08.htm

[Make7]

144. Doesn't he know the Spanish word for "explosion"? ( n/t )

[seatnineb]

145. He sure does! -"una aturdidora explosión"

In this book:"Martes de horror",

William Rodriguez says:

"una aturdidora explosión"

"A deafening explosion"

http://www.terra.com/actualidad/articulo/html/act183099.htm

[Make7]

146. This is disheartening.

That means the Argentine press is censoring Mr. Rodriguez too. Why else would the word "explosion" not be used right after 9/11? One might expect that sort of thing from CNN, but not from Argentina!

They probably edited out any reference to a second "roar" as well. Disgraceful!

-Make7

[seatnineb]

148. Roar ,Rumble and Explosion may have the same meaning.....

.....for Rodriguez.

"I always maintained my story from the day I was pulled from the rubble....listen...I showed up on CNN on that day(9/11)....if you(Alex Jones) can get a transcript....luckily I have a copy...and my story now is exactly the same one that I gave on that day(9/11)".

[Make7]

150. Conclusive proof of rumbles in basement of WTC1!!!

Doesn't quite have the same impact as:

Conclusive proof of explosions in basement of WTC1!!!

There is a Spanish word for explosion - it's explosión. If that is what he meant, that is what he should have said.

I think that to now say "rumble" or "roar" are equivalent to "explosion", is disingenuous. They have distinctly different meanings.
____________________

BTW - I'll be eagerly awaiting the results of the explosive residue tests on the clothing and WTC dust of Mr. Rodriguez.

-Make7

[seatnineb]

151. That " roar " still came from below.

“Estaba en el subsuelo a eso de las 8.45, cuando hubo un estruendo. Pensamos que había sido un generador eléctrico, cuando vemos que entra a la oficina un hombre con la piel de los brazos colgando de los dedos. Una cosa horrenda”, recordó el sobreviviente.
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/2001/01-09/01-09-13/pag08.htm

The electrical generators were located below Rodriguez....were they not?

[Make7]

153. I believe the generators were below him.

Perhaps you should explain more about why that matters to you.
____________________

Since your quote brings up the burn victim, I'll try asking this yet again:

How much time do you think elapsed between the first "roar" and when Felipe David entered the office?

-Make7

[seatnineb]

154. Rodriguez thought it was these generators that had blown.

Rodriguez felt the first explosion/rumble/roar from below him.

That is why he assumed it was the generators(situated below him) that had blown.

As for the time taken between the first explosion and the subsequent burning of Felipe David.....

Rodriguez does not specify.

What he does specify is that there was 2-3 seconds between the first explosion and the second explosion.

At some point after that, Mr David came running in with all his burns.

So we can safely say that between the time of the first explosion and the appearance of Mr Davide there is at least 3 seconds have elapsed

[Make7]

155. "my story now is exactly the same one that I gave on that day"

"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion."

But before Rodriguez had time to think, co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"

David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries.

"He was burned terribly," said Rodriguez. "The skin was hanging off his hands and arms. His injuries couldn’t have come from the airplane above, but only from a massive explosion below. I don’t care what the government says, what scientists say. I saw a man burned terribly from a fire that was caused from an explosion below.

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/28031.htm

The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment. A person comes running into the office saying explosion, explosion, explosion. When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th – freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Public%20Transcript%20021204%20Final1_withlinks.pdf

These don't seem to be quite the same thing:

• "His injuries couldn’t have come from the airplane above, but only from a massive explosion below."
  
• "What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft..."
  

Above? Below? Up? Down? Who knows? Does he?
__________

Okay, we agree it took more than three seconds and less than five minutes for Felipe David to reach the office.

-Make7

[seatnineb]

156. That is a good find.

I am interested in this:

In the words of Rodriguez:

"What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower"

But according to the NIST, there was no "58th freight elevator".

Perhaps Rodriguez mispoke or perhaps the NIST have transcribed incorrectly the words of Rodriguez.(might be worth listening to the tape,if there is one)

However ......there was a "48" freight elevator.

Perhaps this is the freight elevator that Rodriguez was refering to.


But according to NIST this "48" freight elevator only served these floors:

Car #48: B1-7, 9-40

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf

How could could a "ball of fire" come down the shaft of this "48" freight elevator, whose maximum floor was 40, when AA11 hit on the 94th floor?

Which is why Rodriguez asks the question:

"His injuries couldn't have come from the airplane above, but only from a massive explosion below."

[LARED]

157. The elevator shafts

were built over each other. To put it a different way one shaft from the bottom to the top might have three elevators using it.

As an example elevator X goes from floor -5 to 35. Elevator Y goes from 36 to 70, and elevator Z goes from 71 to 105.

Same shaft, but using diferent areas in the shaft.

[seatnineb]

159. What you say would imply

.....that the WTC lift shafts were like so....



.....running from the very bottom to the top continously .


But in fact the WTC lift shafts for local elevators were segregated by the skylobbies and the mechanical floors.

The freight elevator(#48) in question was one such "local elevator".
It terminated at the 40th floor.....4 floors below the 1st mechanical floor in the building.

Only the 2 express elevators ran from ground lobby to the top....as shown by the red shafts in the diagram.



But those express elevators did not run to the basement where Felipe David was burnt.

[Make7]

177. "stacking"

Making History: The World Trade Center

Otis Bulletin
March-April 1967

If each elevator in the vertical transportation system of the tower buildings had to be located in separate hoistways, excessive floor space in the structures would be devoted to hoistways alone. By using the sky lobby principle, however, space is saved since "shuttle-express" elevators (10,000 pounds, or 4,500 kilograms, at 1,600 feet per minute, or 8 meters per second) will speed passengers to sky lobbies on the 44th and 78th floors, while local elevators will operate using a sky lobby as their lower terminal, enabling the "stacking" of the local elevators one above another in a common hoistway. To further facilitate traffic at the sky lobby on the 44th and 78th floors escalators will provide two-way service between the floors immediately above and below. In addition to normal freight service one freight elevator in each of the towers will serve a total of 112 stops from the fifth basement to the 108th floor. It will rise 1,387 feet (422.8 meters) – 400 feet (122 meters) more than the former record rise in the Empire State Building. Ten elevators will travel from street level to five basement levels below the plaza.

http://www.otis.com/otis150/section/1,2344,ARC3066_CLI1_RES1_SEC5,00.html

Maybe Mr. Rodriguez mistakenly said the wrong elevator number.

-Make7

[LARED]

178. thanks n/t

[seatnineb]

179. Wrong.

This layout is usually reflected in the internal elevator zoning. Since all elevators require machine rooms above the last floor they service, mechanical floors are often used to DEVIDE shafts that are stacked on top of each other to save space. A transfer level or skylobby is sometimes placed just above those floors.

http://www.x-moto.net/articles/Mechanical_floor

The advantage is that the core efficiency is improved, as the hoistways extend the whole height of the building (except for the intervening equipment spaces) and occupy the same hoistway `footprint'.

http://www.cibse.org/docs/barney2.doc.




None of the local elevators above the 78th floor sky lobby were going to fall any lower than the the 78th floor sky lobby when AA11 severed their cables.

[Make7]

181. I thought Mr. Rodriguez said it was a freight elevator.

one freight elevator in each of the towers will serve a total of 112 stops from the fifth basement to the 108th floor. It will rise 1,387 feet (422.8 meters) – 400 feet (122 meters) more than the former record rise in the Empire State Building.

http://www.otis.com/otis150/section/1,2344,ARC3066_CLI1_RES1_SEC5,00.html

Would that shaft go all the way down to the basement from the impact area?

-Make7

[seatnineb]

182. Yes it would..............

.....only that shaft contained the freight elevator(#50) that was stalled on the lower floors AFTER AA11 severed it's cable.

But there was no fire.

The passengers in this elevator were UNBURNED and even unhurt.

Arturo was running 50A, the big freight car going from the six-level basement to the 108th floor.<snip>
When American Airlines Flight 11 struck at 8:46 a.m., Arturo and a co-worker were heading from the second-level basement to the 49th floor.
The imploding elevator door crushed Arturo's right knee and broke the tibia below it. His passenger escaped injury.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/sept11/2002-09-10-surivivo... .

[Make7]

183. A broken leg is unhurt? The link doesn't work. ( n/t )

[seatnineb]

184. I meant the passenger was unhurt.

Try this:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/sept11/2002-09-10-surivivor-griffiths_x.htm

[LARED]

134. Both versions can be reconciled

once you consider that any noise or vibrations in the basement would have been experienced before he heard the impact from above.

Will you acknowledge this is a serious possibility?

[seatnineb]

135. No.

You cannot reconsile the official story with Rodriguez' testimony.

That is why the 9/11 ommission duly ommited Rodriguez's testimony from their report despite the fact that they interviewed him.

Rodriguez describing the second explosion:
"When I heard the impact at the top of the building.It sounded very...pretty far away and it was so hard that the walls shake and broke.They cracked all over"

Any explosion due to the impact above Rodriguez would have been heard from above(relative to Rodriguez) by Rodriguez first.

But he heard an "una aturdidora explosión" from below first.

End of story.

[LARED]

136. A few questions if you don't mind

"una aturdidora explosión"

I believe that translates to "deafening explosion." Did Mr Rodriguez make this claim? If he did, I missed it.

You cannot reconsile the official story with Rodriguez' testimony.

Can you please explain this, as I have no idea why you believe this.

Any explosion due to the impact above Rodriguez would have been heard from above(relative to Rodriguez) by Rodriguez first.

That is simply not true. The impact of the jet into the tower would have created a massive shock wave to the core and perimeter steel. That steel is tied to the bedrock. This impact energy travels almost instantaneously to the ground via the steel, while the sound waves from the impact 1000 feet above takes at least a second to reach the ground.

[seatnineb]

141. Here is your "shock wave".

Oh yeah....those North Tower shock waves sure do behave stangely!

The plane ripped a path across floors 94 to 98, directly into the office of Marsh & McLennan, shredding steel columns, wallboard, filing cabinets and computer-laden desks. Its fuel ignited and incinerated everything in its way. The plane's landing gear hurtled through the south side of the building, winding up on Rector Street, five blocks away.

Just three floors below the impact zone, not a thing budged in Steve McIntyre's office. Not the slate paperweight shaped like a sailing ship. Not the family snapshots propped up on a bookcase. McIntyre found himself in front of a computer that was still on.

Then came the whiplash. A powerful shock wave radiated from the impact zone. It bounced from the top to the bottom of the tower, three or four seconds one way and then back, rocking the building like a huge boat in a storm.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4483827-110962,00.html

[LARED]

147. The author is using shock wave differently than I am

He is talking about the swaying back and forth of the tower as they vibrated from the impact.

I am talking about an impulse from the impact that would travel down the steel columns. Think of a long steel beam that is hit with a hammeron the far end. Hold the other end when it's hit, or better yet put a stethoscope on the opposite end of the hammer. You will feel and hear it almost immediately.

[seatnineb]

149. Really?

So what stopped the ceiling and the walls of the basement level (that Rodriguez was in) from vibrating,as this shock wave came down (from the impact point above).?

How could Rodriguez only experience this shock wave from below(as the floors shook) when by this point, the strength of the shock wave would have been reduced by the distance that it had covered up until this point.

[stickdog]

99. So sound travels how much slower than shock waves, again?

What mechanism could possibly have conveyed the force of the plane crash to the basement seconds before the sound of the plane crash could reach the same exact vicinity?

[Make7]

100. Sound travels faster in steel than shock waves in air. eom.

[stickdog]

107. Yes, but the difference would be about one second. And what would make

him think the sound came from below?

[Make7]

110. He never gave an exact time between events.

Was it one second? Ten? Who knows?

There seems to be some dispute about what exactly was said by Mr. Rodriguez. It appears that the day of 9/11/01 he may not have said he heard explosions and he may not have given any indication from which direction the sounds he did hear emanated.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/new.york.terror/index.html

-Make7

[LARED]

68. It is a well established fact that

jet fuel cascaded down the elevator shafts into the lobby. If it made it into the lobby, it is a sure bet it made it into the basement.

Try and think critically for a momnent (it won't hurt)

There was only 1 freight elevator that ran in a shaft from the basement to the top of the tower where AA11 hit.

How could a fireball from the exploding jet fuel on the 94th floor come down this same shaft and into the basement....and burn Rodriguez's work mate.

The shaft in question was blocked by an elevator that was jammed on the lower floors.This elevator had survivors inside.They were not burnt.


Hint 1. There are dozens of elevators. Do you tink that perhaps some (if not nearly all) were build on top of each other.

Hint 2. Fuel cascaded down the shafts not a fireball.

[seatnineb]

69. Wrong again.

The express elavators that you refer to only reached the lobby.....not the basement below.


There was only one shaft that led directly from the basement to the top.

In addition to normal freight service one freight elevator in each of the towers will serve a total of 112 stops from the fifth basement to the 108th floor. It will rise 1,387 feet (422.8 meters) – 400 feet (122 meters) more than the former record rise in the Empire State Building.

http://www.otis.com/otis150/section/1,2344,ARC3066_CLI1_FRM1_MTH10_RES1_SEC5_YRS2003,00.html


It was this shaft that the fuel or fire would have had to have gone down to reach the basement,and burn the colleague of Rodriguez.


But this shaft was blocked by an elavator whose cable was severed..... and had jammed on the lower floors therby inhibiting either the flow of jet fuel or a fire ball.......

That just leaves these shafts......

Ten elevators swill travel from street level to five basement levels below the plaza

http://www.otis.com/otis150/section/1,2344,ARC3066_CLI1_FRM1_MTH10_RES1_SEC5_YRS2003,00.html

Mohammed Atta's AA11 was nowhere near these 10 elavators.....but an explosion in one of these same elavators managed to burn Rodriguez's mate.

Try again.

[LARED]

72. You should stop and think about what you're posting

Do you think a stuck elevator is like a cork in a bottle and nothing can get around it?

Do you think the elevators that reach the lobby in the WTC have steel plates under them to seal anything from reaching the basement areas?

Have you every seen the outside of an elevator?

Have you ever seen the machinery that operates an elevator?

Do you even wonder what happens to the air in an elevator shaft as the car moves up and down?

Oh, try again. Please give it another try. I do realize the fires in the basement from easily explainable source is hard pill for you to swallow as it destroys much of your theory.

[seatnineb]

85. You are still wrong.

There was no fire or jet fuel in the one elavator shaft that ran from the basement to the top of the North Tower.

Arturo was running 50A, the big freight car going from the six-level basement to the 108th floor.<snip>
When American Airlines Flight 11 struck at 8:46 a.m., Arturo and a co-worker were heading from the second-level basement to the 49th floor.
The imploding elevator door crushed Arturo's right knee and broke the tibia below it. His passenger escaped injury.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/sept11/2002-09-10-surivivor-griffiths_x.htm.

Not a burn in sight.

Nothing.

Nill.....Nada.

So how could there be any fire in the basement from this particular shaft?......seeing as the "flaming jet fuel" would have had to bypass this jammed elavator from the point of impact.

However......
This is the cold hard reality of what happens when there is a fireball in your elavator shaft..................

A full elevator had just left the 78th floor, and Carmen was about to carry up six or seven stragglers. The plane struck as the doors of her elevator closed. They could hear debris smash into the top of the car; then the elevator cracked open, and flames poured in. Carmen jammed her fingers between the closed doors, pulled them partly open and held them as passengers clambered over and under her 5-foot-6 frame to escape.
Before finally throwing herself out onto the lobby floor, she glanced back to be sure the elevator was empty. That was when fire scorched her face with second- and third-degree burns, and literally welded her hooped right earring to her neck. Her hands were badly burned.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/sept11/2002-09-10-surivivor-griffiths_x.htm.

And you ran out of ideas a long time ago.

[LARED]

91. Once again you have failed to consider other possibilities

Stop, think. The elevators were built on top of each other. There is nothing at say the fuel and fire that made it to the basement had to come from elevator 50A.

Even if the fire and fuel came down elevator 50A the material you have posting in no way indicates that scenario is not possible.

Just in case you are worried, I have plenty more ideas.

[seatnineb]

120. There was no other shaft that led to the basement from the top floor !

Fact:
The only elavator that connected the basement to the top floor in the world trade center's north tower was 50a.

Fact:
This elevator was jammed on one of the lower floors in it's shaft after AA11 severed it's cable.

Fact.
The people in this elavator were not burnt.One escaped "uninjured".

Fact:
The other elevators(and their shafts) in the basement only went as far as street level.No further.

[LARED]

121. Elevator shafts?

The other elevators(and their shafts) in the basement only went as far as street level. No further.

Please elaborate on this.

[k-robjoe]

92. water

I haven´t read the whole thread, so maybe this has allready been discussed...

I´m wondering, it sounds like the sprinkler system was filling up the elevator shaft with water(?)

It just makes me think about the fires going on for days and weeks down below the rubble. That being from burning kerosine coming down the elevator shafs is allready... And then with the shafts being filled up with water...

[k-robjoe]

180. elevator car

Yes, what Carmen tells about what happened on the 78th floor is what will happen when the burning kerosine hits the elevator car. If it is going to explode, it will explode when it hits the car.

LARED wrote : "Do you think a stuck elevator is like a cork in a bottle and nothing can get around it?"

Hitting an elevator car, that´s when it would explode. I can´t see that it can bypass the car and continue down to the lobby, or first sublevel or second or third sublevel and then explode.

There´s also the time. A free fall from 110th floor would take 9 seconds or something. But Rodriguez heard the explosions down below just a second after the explosion above. (One explosion just a second BEFORE the explosion above.)

And then bypassing an elevator car or two on the way down...

[stickdog]

101. So jet fuel fell 98 floors without burning and then burst into flames when

it got to the subbasement?

Why is ANYTHING so easy for you to believe just as long as fits the official conspiracy theory? Don't you suppose that the reason that nobody will so much as acknowledge William Rodriguez's statements is because -- just like you -- they don't accept any reports that don't fit neatly into their preconceived constructs?

[LARED]

103. See this link

It is a chart form the recent NIST report

It shows that jet fuel was detected by the occupants of the building on nearly all floors below the imapct area. It's the dark blue color.

So obviously not all the jet fuel ignited on impact.




Also if you have been following the Rodriguez's story, it is plain that the sequence of events he now believes he experienced is explainable by simple physics. (BTW, Mr. Rodriguez's story has changed since 9/11, something most likely attributable to the reporter from AFP.

[stickdog]

106. But no floors below floor 10. Are basement floors even indicated on this

chart?

[LARED]

109. It appears that the chart stops at grade (nt)

[JackRiddler]

47. Please...

I don't think it's impossible that the basement explosion happened after the crash, and that he has this wrong; thus the basement event may have been caused by the accumulation of jet fuel or the shockwave from the impact. May have.

I do think he's telling a truth corroborated by other reports that there was a basement explosion. And I do know that this was always suppressed by the media and the commission from the beginning.

And this chestnut is out of bounds for any issue: "9/11 is old news." Right, ignore it for four years, then as it comes out anyway thanks to the efforts of underground media, declare it "old news." Same bullshit as is being applied to the DSM.

Should Cheney ever confess to orchestrating the lack of air defense response on 9/11, the corporate media will label this "old news" and liberals will say we should ignore right-wing conspiracy theories from known liars like Cheney.

[LARED]

52. Information is not supressed in the NIST report

If you look at the basement level there are reports of all types of damage. Smoke, fire, fire balls, collapsed walls, fallen ceiling tiles, and power outages. I have to stress it is unclear why people are surprised there is damage.

You should consider that common sense dictates that there will be damage in the basement, not reporting on this is hardly suppression, it is more akin to "dog bites man story" in the larger 9/11 story.

[philb]

64. where is the info in this table supposed to have come from?

[LARED]

66. The NIST guys made it up to annoy the CT'ers.

:sarcasm:

Go to the NIST full report and look it up.

[stickdog]

102. Is floor 10 the lobby? Because you said jet fuel was in the lobby,

Are any basement floors even represented in this graphic?

[LARED]

55. Did Mr. Rodriguez states he now believes

there was an explosion prior to the jet impacting? You have met him and have implied he does, but have not answered my direct question regarding this.

If there is suppression about a bona-fide explosion prior to the impact then I'm switching sides today and getting my tin foil beanie out of the closet. :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

If the real story is that there was fire, explosions, damage in the basement, then it's a story that has not been suppressed by anyone. It an story that has had lots of exposure and is old news.

I just don't understand the hysterical mumblings about the basement damages in the WTC's by the Ct'er. Putting on my best valley girl accent, and saying "well duh" right after someone tells me the basement was damaged as a result if the imapct is about where I'm at.

[stickdog]

104. Show us where the NIST report examines the evidence of fires

and explosions in the basement.

[LARED]

115. Here's some information

Pg 78

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf

Less than 15 percent of the jet fuel burned in the spray cloud inside the building. A roughly comparable
amount was consumed in the fireballs outside the building. Thus, well over half of the jet fuel remained
in the building, unburned in the initial fires. Some splashed onto the office furnishings and combustibles
from the aircraft that lodged on the impacted floors, there to ignite (immediately or later) the fires that
would continue to burn for the remaining life of the building. Some of the burning fuel shot up and down
the elevator shafts, blowing out doors and walls on other floors all the way down to the basement. Flash
fires in the lobby blew out many of the plate glass windows. Fortunately, there were not enough
combustibles near the elevators for major fires to start on the lower floors.

[LARED]

116. More information

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf

A survivor in the basement: “I saw a big bright orange color coming
through the basement with the smoke ... A fire ball came shooting out of the basement door.” Interview 100760 (NIST 2004)

[StrafingMoose]

123. You miss the point here...

The guy alleges there was an explosion in the basement, or from below. He alleges also he has proofs for it.

The "timing" issue shouldn't be even in the current debate, since "explosion(s) from below" squarely doesn't blend into the official story.

That's the point, IMO.

And as for the "old news" issue, well you're talking about a case with possible implications of US governement assistance in a mass murder case thus, rendering the "good benevolent force spreading democracy all over the world" halo totaly disfunctional. Without this, USA will never be able to justify any other military move with the "democracy spreading" theme.

Of course, no big corporate wants to touch sensitive issues.

[Dancing_Dave]

43. I know nothing about Greg Szymanski

except that he did a great job in researching and writing up this story! Lots of revealing direct quotes, arranged in a way which makes it possible for us to understand the WTC explosions and the official cover-up.

[graphixtech]

38. Willie is a Genuine Hero

Willie is a Genuine American Hero as well as an all around beautiful person.
I have been awed by this man's sincere selflessness.

Read aricles about Willie here:
http://911forthetruth.com/pages/Rodriguez.htm

Here is a brief movie trailer about Willie Rodriguez and
his experiences. Recommended viewing.
http://cinemar.com/


(fully agree with the Syzmanski comments of JackRiddler)

[Dancing_Dave]

41. What great guys William and Greg are!

It's appalling and incomprensible that our corporate media "news" takes no interest in such an obviously significant story. The "news" doesn't exist to give us any important truth about what's really going on, it's just there to DISTRACT us from the truth!

Also, it's appalling that no real forensic study has been done to determine what explosives caused all those explosions in the WTC complex on 9/11/2001! How many explosives experts discuss the explosions in the 9/11 Omission Comission report? In the FEMA report? The NIST report? The deadliest crime of 9/11/2001 was never given ANY real criminal investigation at all!

[LARED]

53. Mr Rodriguez's story seems to have changed

The Ottawa Citizen

September 12, 2001 Wednesday Final EDITION

William Rodriguez, a maintenance worker in the centre, was in the basement when he heard a rumble. Not like an explosion, but more like a building of pressure. From all corners of the basement, other maintenance workers came running into his office. They said there was a fire in the building. Some kind of explosion. People were badly burned.

Mr. Rodriguez' first thought was escape. He ran to the loading dock but it was blocked by other people trying to get out. He turned back into the building toward a freight elevator. People were trapped inside it. Water was spilling out, likely from the internal sprinkler system. Mr. Rodriguez thought the people trapped inside must be drowning.

He decided he had to rescue what people he could. He headed for the top of the tower, climbing the stairwell with a crew of police officers and fire fighters.

While he was climbing up the South tower, the impossible happened again. Eighteen minutes after the first airplane strike, another plane crashed into the second of the twin towers, ending any thought that the first crash was an accident.


The New York Sun

September 11, 2002 Wednesday

But Mr. Rodriguez got to work late the morning of September 11. He was still in the basement when the plane hit the tower. He thought a generator might have exploded when Felipe David ran in, screaming. Mr. David, who maintained the vending machines, was burned so badly the brown skin on his arms was white. Mr. Rodriguez took Mr. David's arm around his shoulder and ran out toward an ambulance.

Mr. Rodriguez looked up and saw the cloud of smoke. "I thought of the people at Windows," he says.

Then he turned around and ran back into the basement.....

Please note that at this point I think his story has been changed by others not him.

[LARED]

54. Mr. Rodriguez 's own words

SHOW: CNN BREAKING NEWS 13:30

September 11, 2001 Tuesday

Transcript # 091124CN.V00

BROWN: Tell me what happened.

RODRIGUEZ: I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body. All of the skin.

We went crazy, we started screaming, we told him to get out. We took everybody out of the office outside to the loading dock area. Then I went back in, and when I went back in I saw people -- I heard people that were stuck on an the elevator, on a freight elevator because all of the elevators went down. And water was going in, and they were probably getting drowned. And we get a couple of pipes and opened the elevator and we got the people out.

Geez who to believe? The man's own words or Slimy Szymanski?

[noamnety]

56. Do you have a link to that transcript? (nt)

[LARED]

58. Sorry no link

I got it off of Lexus Nexus

[Make7]

97. Here's an online article that has some quotes from that interview.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/new.york.terror/index.html

[philb]

57. WTC3 - evidence against the "pancake theory"

WTC 3 was subjected to extraordinary loading from the impact and weight of debris from the two adjacent 110-story towers. It is noteworthy that the building resisted both horizontal and vertical progressive collapse when subjected to debris from WTC 2. The overloaded portions were able to break away from the rest of the structure without pulling it down, and the remaining structural system was able to remain stable and support the debris load. The structure was even capable of protecting occupants on lower floors after the collapse of WTC 1. http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/WTC_ch3.htm

3.5 Recommendations

WTC 3 should be studied further to understand how it resisted progressive collapse.

The response of WTC 3 to the September 11 events is complex and noteworthy. WTC 3 was subjected to two loading events. The first event involved the collapse of WTC 2, which stood immediately east of WTC 3. Due to its proximity to WTC 2, substantial amounts of debris fell directly on the roof of WTC 3. Figure 3-6 shows large portions of the prefabricated assemblies from WTC 2 falling on top of WTC 3.

Debris from WTC 2 struck the building with sufficient force to crush approximately 16 stories in the center of the building, as shown in Figure 3-7. In spite of this extensive damage, the collapse did not continue down to the foundations or extend horizontally to the edges of the structure. In fact, the two northernmost bays (approximately 60 feet) remained intact all the way to the roof. A similar, but lesser condition existed in the southern bays. Even in the center of the building, the collapse stopped at approximately the 7th floor. This arrested collapse implies that the structure was sufficiently strong and robust to absorb the energy of the falling debris and collapsed floors, but at the same time the connections between the destroyed and remaining framing were able to break apart without pulling down the rest of the structure. This complex behavior resulted in the survival of large portions of the building following the collapse of WTC 2.

The second loading event was the collapse of WTC 1. Debris from WTC 1 fell along the entire length of the hotel. Lower floors at the southwest end of WTC 3 survived although they suffered extensive damage. The remaining portions of the building after both collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 are shown in Figure 3-8.

An FDNY fire company was in the building during the collapses of both WTC 1 and WTC 2 and survived. The firefighters were near the top of the building in the process of making sure that there were no civilians present in the building, when the south tower collapsed. Firefighter Heinz Kothe is quoted as saying, "We had no idea what had happened. It just rocked the building. It blew the door to the stairwell open, and it blew the guys up near the door halfway down a flight of stairs. I got knocked down to the landing. The building shook like buildings just don't shake." Subsequently, the firefighters were in the lower portion of the southwest corner of the building when the north tower collapsed (Court 2001).

The Chief Engineer of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (hereafter referred to as the Port Authority), Frank Lombardi, was in the lobby of WTC 3 with other Port Authority executives during the collapse of WTC 2. They survived the collapse and were eventually able to leave the building (Rubin and Tuchman 2001).

[LARED]

59. That is not evidence against the pancake theory

It is evidence that a differently designed structure held up under some extraordinary conditions.

WTC 1 and 2 are different structures than WTC 3

[philb]

61. in your opinion

[LARED]

65. It is not my opinion that they are

designed differently. That is a fact. They are different structures, hence you cannot point to WTC 3 lack of pancaking as evidence against the pancake theory.

Why is that not understandable?

[philb]

76. Are you really suggesting you think pancake effect caused this??

Totally implausible
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/mushrooming.html

[LARED]

79. Why are you changing the subject, and

what do you mean by "this" in your subject line.

[pauldp]

63. Mmm IHOP. Don't most high rise steel structured buildings pancake nicely?

they usually collapse neatly in their own footprint even from scattered fires.
Just look at WTC 7.


Nah Silverstein just happened to use the term "pull the building" by mistake.

It happens all the time, no biggie.

Butter and syrup anyone?



:sarcasm:

[stickdog]

105. Yes, WTC3 is different. It behaved normally. (nt)

[philb]

137. 911Research: Implausible Pancake Theories not supported by the evidence

Evidence of Controlled Demolition of WTC Buildings
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/towers.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/surviving.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/index.html

Fires in the WTC Rubble That Persisted for Months
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html

Reports from Firefighters at the Impact Zone Inside the South Tower- small controllable fires in South Tower http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/audiotape.html

Implausible Pancake Theories not supported by the evidence
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/official/index.html

[philb]

75. Some suggest the dust trails, metal effects imply use of advanced tech

technology such as Tesla scaler weapons at WTC

Dust trails, squibs, molten metal and a strange remnant of the building's core

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/dust%20trails/

[LARED]

80. I see plague puppyfound another advocate

for his vaporizing steel nonsense.

It's hard to believe he's still humping that foolishness after all we now know about the collapse

[carlvs]

81. Well, what do you expect?

After all, the CTers are still crowing about stuff being published on the American Free Press site, even though you don't have to look far to discover the TRUE motives of those who run it...

[LARED]

82. I expect that 50 years from now

someone will still be selling stories about the massive conspiracy on 9/11. And sophistry like AFP will be the norm.

BTW, guess who is the #1 guest on plague puppy's site

http://home.comcast.net/wsb-cgi-bin/ssi.cgi?PWPTool=GBView&State=True&wsbID=56016&GroupID=52513&Owner=jeffrey%2Eking2

What else would you expect.

[carlvs]

122. I can top that!

You know this "arcticbeacon" site where the CTers have gotten their latest "proof?" Well, their links page not only contains a link to AFP, but they also have one to a far right-wing site called "The Populist American".

Now they mention that this "site presents the message and commentary of exceptional men and women commentators."

Oh, really?

Would that also include the ones that made glowing comments about this document (I especially "love" the comments they added to it)?!?

[seatnineb]

89. Actually..........

I'll take the bullshit in here over AFP anytime!

[LARED]

139. And some would suggest the the dust trails

are actually the vermiculite flowing out of the columns as they fell. Plus all the friable materials in the building being pushed along.

But hey, why suggest something mundane to explain these trails when it's a lot more interesting to suggest Tesla scalar weapons.

What exactly is a Tesla scalar weapon anyway?

[philb]

83. Hots spots in building debris Too Hot for Jet Fuel- WTC fires not very hot

Five days after the collapse, on September 16, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) used an Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) to locate and measure the site's hot spots.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

Dozens of hot spots were mapped. The hottest spots at the surface of the rubble, where abundant oxygen was available, showed a temperature of 1377° F (747° C). This is, however, less than half as hot at the molten steel in the basement.

Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800° Fahrenheit (1535° Celsius). Kerosene-based jet fuel, paper, or the other combustibles normally found in the towers, cannot generate this much heat, especially in an oxygen-poor environment like a deep basement.

It should be noted that one of the few things capable of producing such extreme temperatures in these conditions is thermite, a chemical compound used in demolition explosives.




TOO HOT FOR JET FUEL

It has been calculated that if the entire 10,000 gallons of jet fuel from the aircraft was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction, then the jet fuel could have only raised the temperature of this floor to, at the very most, 536°F (280°C). You can find the calculation here.

Another reason that we know the fires were not serious enough to cause structural failure, is that witnesses tell us this. The impact floors of the south tower were 78-84. Here are a few words from some of the witnesses:

Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the south tower:


The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway


Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby:


We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped.


Ling Young was in her 78th floor office:


Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes...


The official story claims that temperatures, exceeding 800 degrees Celsius, were hot enough to cause the trusses of the south tower to fail, but here we have eye-witnesses stating that temperatures were cool enough for them to walk away.

YOU BE THE JUDGE

Lets examine some video footage of these explosions. A few of these downloads may take a while, but are worth it if you are not yet convinced…
http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html

[LARED]

86. Man, this method of finding some new tidbit you think is

important and then posting it is every thread is seriously irritating. If you think it is important just create a thread, and stop mucking up the topics

[seatnineb]

88. Good work Philb..........

:toast:

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

167. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nolabels]

168. As a mechanic and welder I have worked with much of it

On a smaller scale but in all kinds of different ways. Please don't tell me I don't know anything about my job that I have been doing for 28 years. This whole premise need to be ridculed, so here you go



MUSLIMS SUSPEND LAWS OF PHYSICS!, Part 1
(snip)
Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work, and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents a gallon on the open market.

Let us consider: One plane full of jet fuel hit the north tower at 8:45 a.m., and the fuel fire burned for a while with bright flames and black smoke. We can see pictures of white smoke and flames shooting from the windows.

Then by 9:03 a.m. (which time was marked by the second plane's collision with the south tower), the flame was mostly gone and only black smoke continued to pour from the building. To my simple mind, that would indicate that the first fire had died down, but something was still burning inefficiently, leaving soot (carbon) in the smoke. A fire with sooty smoke is either low temperature or starved for oxygen — or both.
( http://www.fosters.com/news2001c/september/11/04758CA1-AC58-4591-9F50-5976D2 BE2E04.jpg or http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/fires1-2.html)

But by 10:29 a.m., the fire in north tower had accomplished the feat that I find so amazing: It melted the steel supports in the building, causing a chain reaction within the structure that brought the building to the ground.
(snip)
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:_ZplFoLknPoJ:www.american-buddha.com/muslims.suspend.htm+petroleum+heat+melt+steel&hl=en&client=firefox-a

[vincent_vega_lives]

175. as a welder I'm sure you know that steel does not need to

MELT to loose a significant portion of it's strength.

[pointless]

114. skeptic

The explosion heard above probably happened at the same time as the one below. It takes a moment for sound to travel that far. The upstairs explosion was heard moments after the basement one according to Rodriguez.

The fire that burned the guy erupted from an elevator shaft. The elevator shaft is not the best place for explosives if the intention is to bring down the building.

Do the service elevators run all the way to the top nonstop?

I'm not implying that the guys story is wrong. Just pointing out a few things I noticed that were not mentioned or explained in the article.

[Perzuki]

161. SPINE

A professional group's answer to the NIST study . . .

In June 2004, a large group of distinguished scientific thinkers, including scientists, engineers and other professionals, banded together from around the world to investigate the collapse of the WTC, looking at 9/11 from a scientific point of view.

After an exhaustive research project still ongoing, the group called the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven (SPINE), provided the following general statement:

"We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations. Our analysis of the detailed evidence implies a staged attack employing a variety of deceptive arrangements. Indeed, every element of the September 11 attacks, including cell phone calls from fast-moving aircraft, has an alternate means of creation."

The panel of scientists then provided a further explanation based on their intensive research:

"We have found it to be a general principle that the closer one looks at the facts of 9/11, the less certain one becomes that the Bush/Cheney interpretation is true. Take for example the collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers. It was claimed by the White House (and subsequently propagated by the major media) that the towers collapsed because the intense heat of the burning jet fuel melted or weakened the steel columns that supported the twin towers. This sounded logical both to reporters and to the average citizen."

Spine then went on to list numerous observations pointed out by researchers, discrediting the government's jet fuel theory, including:

-- Jet fuel is basically kerosene and burns in free air at a temperature around 550 degrees celsius, the exact temperature depending on the mixing rate with atmospheric oxygen.

-- Inside the trade center towers, the burning fuel quickly depleted the available oxygen and became an oxygen-starved fire, which subsequently burned at a lower temperature, below 400 degrees celsius, which is typical for building interior fires.

--The temperature of the support columns was initially not greater than 30 degrees celsius. (The outside ambient air temperature was probably less than this.) During the relatively brief time that the building was invested with open fires on the floors affected by the impacting aircraft, it is unlikely that the temperatures of the beams rose more than, say 100 degrees. The steel in the World Trade Center twin towers would have had to reach 750 degrees celsius before a catastrophic collapse could have occurred.

-- When the NY Fire Dept. arrived on the scene, The fire director reported no excessive heat in the vicinity of the floor struck by the incoming aircraft. Fire crews doused the small remaining fires and assisted evacuees. By this time the support columns were probably cooling and not heating.

-- Building Seven, which was not struck by an aircraft, also collapsed. There was no massive diesel fire, as claimed, only a small office fire on one floor, clearly insufficient to cause the building's collapse.

Derrick Grimmer of Ames IA, a physics Ph.D. from Washington University and member of SPINE, wrote an extensive technical paper about the WTC collapse, expressing doubt about the government theory but doing it in a scientific manner. For those who may question the cursory approach taken by those who have criticized the government's story, Grimmer's approach is quite different and highly technical. The following are portions of his exhaustive research paper:

"What immediately struck some observers, this author included, is how much these collapses resembled a controlled demolition. Indeed, this was the first reaction of V. Romero of New Mexico Tech, until he recanted days later.

"The observed near free-fall times of the WTC towers (and WTC7) were a dramatic signature of a controlled demolition…Measured times are all around 10 seconds, which is close to calculated free-fall time, indicating the tower floors fell without much impediment. They essentially fell into air.

"The theory put forth by T. Eagar of MIT and other "establishment" engineers is that while no steel members actually melted or failed, the floor assemblies, bolted at their joists to the outer walls and inner core structures, did fail. The floor joists attachment bolts were weakened and gave way, twisting sideways and allowing the initial floor to "unzipper" itself all the way round and collapse to the floor below. The remaining floors then pan caked all the way down. Never mind that floor joist cross-members, placed to resist twisting, and additional support structures were not included in the MIT/FEMA/NOVA calculations and presentations (nor was the inner core collapse mechanism explained at all).

"Consider the following: if the pan caking effect caused the total building failure, why is it that no video of either of the WTC collapses shows any sign of stutter between floor collapses, which should have been very apparent especially in the first few floors of collapse when the speed of gravitational collapse was small? The implication from the above is that there were major energy sources other than gravitational involved in the WTC towers collapses.

"A discussion of the melted steel found at the base of the WTC complex, not explained by any official, forms the bulk of the remainder of this paper. The following discussion explores the possibility of whether it is possible to get sufficient volume of a relatively slow-reacting chemical compound, like thermite, either on or inside the inner columns to melt a section of them or otherwise weaken them to allow for the inner core to collapse.

"As Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc., commenting on the pools of molten steel he observed at the bases of the towers' elevator shafts, said: "If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure. Controlled Demolition, Inc., incidentally was the company contracted to remove the debris from both the WTC and from the 1995 bombing of the Murrah building in OKC.

"Also, in Sam Smith's Progressive Review)] there is an excellent discussion of the collapse of the WTC buildings from the perspective of professional firefighters. Included is an excerpt of an article by Jim Malott, a San Francisco architect, in the Nov/Dec 2001 issue of Designer/ Builder magazine. Malott states regarding a WTC tower collapse: "The outside of the building did not fail, it did not get hot enough…It was the core that failed."

For more informative articles, go to www.arcticbeacon.com

[philb]

152. Explosions and fires at WTC before collapse

http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/plate8.htm

http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/plate11.htm
http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/plate12.htm

[Perzuki]

NIST Forensic Report

The National Institute for Standards Technology (NIST) has just released results of its research on the catastrophic structural failure of WTCs 1 and 2. I spent some time reviewing it this morning. The report goes into detail about how fireproofing could have been dislodged by the impact of the aircraft, and how massive amounts of burning fuel could have weakened the resultant exposed beams to the point at which they would have failed. The NIST also reports that they performed tests on 232 pieces of steel from the structure, although they don't identify their possible location (i.e., horizontal perimeter beam, core vs. perimeter component, etc.). They DO report that the original structural steel exceeded its design strength.

The NIST will be receiving comments on the document until August 5th, and I encourage all here to read it, at:

http://wtc.nist.gov

My comments thus far are as follows:

a. It would be useful if they would have included a description of where those 232 pieces of steel were taken from.

b. Were any of those 232 components failure point locations? I don't think they were, since the only tests conducted seem to have been standard stress tests for new undamaged steel;

c. Why is there no account or explanation of why specimens of failed structural components were not gathered from the debris and preserved in the days immediately following the buildings' collapse. (Perhaps they were and I missed
it in the report.)

It is my understanding that in every catastrophic building collapse such as this, specimens of critical, structural failure points are gathered and studied in great detail. I can find no evidence that this was performed for WTCs 1, 2 or 7, and it is one of the most disturbing aspects of this tragedy.

[Perzuki]

160. NIST Forensic Report

The National Institute for Standards Technology (NIST) has just released results of its research on the catastrophic structural failure of WTCs 1 and 2. I spent some time reviewing it this morning. The report goes into detail about how fireproofing could have been dislodged by the impact of the aircraft, and how massive amounts of burning fuel could have weakened the resultant exposed beams to the point at which they would have failed. The NIST also reports that they performed tests on 232 pieces of steel from the structure, although they don't identify their possible location (i.e., horizontal perimeter beam, core vs. perimeter component, etc.). They DO report that the original structural steel exceeded its design strength.

The NIST will be receiving comments on the document until August 5th, and I encourage all here to read it, at:

http://wtc.nist.gov

My comments thus far are as follows:

a. It would be useful if they would have included a description of where those 232 pieces of steel were taken from.

b. Were any of those 232 components failure point locations? I don't think they were, since the only tests conducted seem to have been standard stress tests for new undamaged steel;

c. Why is there no account or explanation of why specimens of failed structural components were not gathered from the debris and preserved in the days immediately following the buildings' collapse. (Perhaps they were and I missed
it in the report.)

It is my understanding that in every catastrophic building collapse such as this, specimens of critical, structural failure points are gathered and studied in great detail. I can find no evidence that this was performed for WTCs 1, 2 or 7, and it is one of the most disturbing aspects of this tragedy.

[philb]

162. Implausible Pancake Theories not supported by the evidence

Implausible Pancake Theories not supported by the evidence
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/official/index.html

There clearly were huge explosions

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/mushrooming.html

WTC 2 top pulverized from below
http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/plate11.htm


WTC 2 new explosions
http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/plate12.htm

[Perzuki]

164. Popular Mechanics Debunks Conspiracy Theories

Please, all of you, take a look at and then comment on the following link. Thanks.

http://southerncrossreview.org/41/9-11.htm

[nolabels]

166. You did notice you are being TOLD something without any .........

collaborating evidence didn't you?. This is the establishment corporation that owns Popular Mechanics

Hearst Corporation
959 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY
10019-3737
www.hearstcorp.com

http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/hearst.asp

[Name removed]

169. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

171. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pepperbelly]

173. Why did P.M. go through an editorial purge just prior to this "debunking"?

It did, you know.

[pauldp]

174. Do you have a link for that? n/t

[Pepperbelly]

176. here's a bunch of them ...

take them seriously or with a grain of salt ... it's up to you.

http://www.google.com/search?hs=1RR&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&q=%22popular+mechanics%22+purge&btnG=Search

[petgoat]

185. PM Debunking Debunked

Jim Hoffman discusses Popular Mechanics's "straw man" hatchet job on the
9/11 truth movement.


http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html