Gasses from medical equipment that fire has reached? Debris that has fallen down elevator shafts and jammed on the floor above him? Paint cans, thinner, and cleaning fluid on the floor under reconstruction?
There are many things in the world that can explode and firemen are no more put through special training to recognize the sounds of explosions than anyone else. (Read the stories of soldiers and sailors during various wars hearing a lot of explosions–even after months of service–and failing to recognize the specific causes of different explosions.)
As to his “treatment” by the inquiry panel, since we do not have a tape of it, we only know his emotional response. A lot of people are offended by the ways the inquiries work. (Try reading the inquiry into the sinking of the Titanic). People who have never watched an actual inquiry (or who have emotional attachment to the way they have shaped the story) are often offended by what appears to be “grilling,” but the committees are generally trying to be sure that they get the details (facts) right while the witnesses are trying to convey their experience (which is not an attempt to twist the facts, but is a separate motive than simply narrating facts they know).
Did you actually read the version of events presented by Cacchioli in the article you referenced?
How is that consistent with a “controlled demotion”?
If it was a controlled demolition you’d have one set of explosions. Not an explosion, then TWO MINUTES LATER another explosion, then who knows how much longer as everyone runs down the stairs to get out of the building, but it’s gotta be a couple of minutes at least, THEN the tower collapses?
Makes no sense if the conpirators had planted demolition charges. They blow the charges and the building collapses. Done.
Random explosions that don’t bring down the building aren’t consistent with a controlled demolition, instead they argue the opposite, that the building is failing, random stuff is burning, god knows what small fires of burning office supplies and furniture and explosions of random junk are going off, and finally the structure is weakened past the breaking point and goes down.
You ever see a controlled demolition where they set off the charges at random, then waited while the building sways in the breeze, until a couple minutes later it collapses?
No, they blow the supports all at once and the building goes down.
There is another obvious fact the CTs refuse to believe. Crazy unexpected stuff happens during big disasters. Sometimes this is the reason for the disaster in the first place. Common events (i.e. house fires, car crashes, etc) are reasonably well understood, rare catastrophic events (i.e large passenger planes hitting multistory buildings) are not. You CAN’T talk about what you would ‘expect’ to happen when a plane hits the WTC the same way you would about a heater catching fire in appartment.
A good example of this is the 1987 King’s Cross Fire in which 31 people died. This fire in a London underground station was probably started by unlit match falling into an escalator. The fire did not appear to be dangerous, but suddenly flashed over, turning the escalator into a flame thrower and turning ticket hall into a furnace (over 1100F). The fire behaved in a completely unexpected and non-intuititive manner (laying down at the bottom of the escalator, moving horizontally rather than vertically). It took years of anaylsis and “tweaking” the computer model, (as well as a complete new theory of fire behaviour, The Trench Effect ) to explain the fire. Does this mean the King’s Cross Fire was a conspiracy too ?
Excellent post. It is helpful to step back and note that there are alternatives other than:
Uncritically accepting the government’s word, or
Giving credibility to crackpot theories which assert that a massive conspiracy and coverup was somehow engineered and yet undetected by anyone other than one Heroic and Ingenious Investigator.
Good luck getting him to answer this. I think I asked the same thing back on like page 4…referencing a ‘cite’ (a.k.a. the propaganda film by a CT organization served up as if it were hard data) by the other guy who has now been banned. If you listen to the interviews the firefighters are talking about explosions that happened even before they entered the building…as well as some that happened while they were in the building (what they TOOK to be explosions I should say). 50 MINUTES later the building falls down. Who ever heard of a ‘controlled detonation’ that takes 50 minutes (or even 5 minutes) to bring a building down??
Thus far the CT’s haven’t even tried to hand wave this away…they haven’t even acknowledged the question.
Not really, no, since the flashes were considerably below the collapse area–no metal hitting metal.
Which “guys”? Lemnitzer? He was fired before the existence of ON was known. And what has that got to do with anything?
How is that an even an argument?
What? Why?
Says you.
See #4
Since we don’t know the alleged plan, it’s hard to say. Would they be risking that Bin Laden would deny having planned the attacks? 'Cause that’s what he’s been doing all along, you know?
How do you come to this conclusion and what has that got to do with anything?
That’s… true. What has that got to do with anything?
What? I don’t quite understand what this is supposed to mean.
Why indeed.
What does that matter now? The “evidence” being brought forward can be debated but why do you insist on these outlandish “what-if” games?
That’s just guessing… I have no idea but wouldn’t attacking the Pentagon give the whole operation a stronger feel of an “act of war”? Not really important as such.
See #11
What evidence? The paper trail?
Who? What? You are aware Bin Laden has denied having anything to do with this on several occasions, right?
What did you miss? Quite a lot, apparently.
The facts remain: there was molten steel in the ruins of the buildings that fit with the temperatures achieved with controlled demolition. If anyone can explain to me how the fires got so hot, I will consider it thoroughly.
WTC7 fell too fast. You can see it on any video of its collapse, even if the building is partly covered by clouds. Just measure the top 100m and you can see that wtc7 falls 100 meters in 4.5 seconds. Considering air resistance, that’s just too fast. If you still disagree, I’ll try to find a java applet on-line that demonstrates this (a lot of schools have them but I can’t really be bothered).
There are a lot more problems I have with the whole thing but these two lead the pack.
Since the trial over that nutjob Zacharias… Doodyhead will soon be over, the tapes showing the jet hitting the Pentagon should be released (the trial was the reason for not releasing them), which, in turn, should result in a LOT of the conspiracy theorists cooling down (or just claiming the tapes to be fake…).
What I, for one, can’t understand, is why there isn’t a full investigation into this, considering the possibility of explosives having been used. I’m sure we can at least agree that the FEMA and NIST reports are nowhere near being complete, considering the magnitude of the event in question, right? …right?
So far, the only “evidence” that I have seen of “molten steel” has been a couple of selected quotes, provided without context or provenance, from one not particularly reliable conspiracy theorist. And the temperatures reported by the same source are far lower than required to melt steel.
There’s also video footage confirming the molten steel, if you would need that. Also, I believe there was a lecture at the Utah Academy of Science last week dubbed “Molten metal, flowing and in pools, on 9/11”.
Were you aware that a free-falling body falls 100 meters in 4.5 seconds, neglecting air resistance? Or are you saying that air resistance would have an appreciable effect on something that heavy in just 100 meters? If that’s not it, please explain what you mean by “too fast.”
How does a building “fall too fast”? Even assuming for a moment that it was brought down with explosives, how do they get it to fall faster than the pull of gravity? Unless Galileo was in on it too.
While the anti-CT’s put up a fight, I believe that there are just too many mysteries surrounding the collapse of these towers. It’s hard to imagine that the heat would be allowed to accumulate to such an extent when there were so many broken windows to allow it to vent. The internal components and outer wall shouldn’t have been subjected to such a massive heat treatment relative to a reasonable time which should have been required to cause any significant collapse. Yet I read from Popular Mechanics site that “NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.” From what I understand, these temperatures are based off computer simulations that were adjusted to the point where a collapse was finally initiated, and not actually off of solid evidence.
Well, if the building was collapsing in the way that one floor fell onto the next, each floor would provide a little, albeit lessening, resistance, slowing the fall down. You are quite clever to realise the aptitude of involving Galileo in our global conspiracy, but the case for CD would be that the main structure is taken down from under the collapse, forming a vaccum that pulls the building down into its footprint (as in “pulling” a building).
Also, since all the fires in WTC7 were supposed to have been on the south side, one would think that the building should have toppled south had the collapse been due to a fire, something even FEMA conclude has a “low probability of occurrence”.