portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

9.11 investigation

Second WTC Janitor Comes Forward With Testimony Of Basement Explosion

Jose Sanchez, while working in a sub-level 4 workshop of the north tower on 9/11, heard a bomb-like explosion, had his hair burned and rescued a co-worker who had his leg and knee broken from the basement blast taking place at the same time the jetliner struck the top floors.
Second WTC Janitor Comes Forward With Eye-Witness Testimony Of 'Bomb-Like' Explosion in North Tower Basement

By Greg Szymanski
 http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/29079.htm

A second WTC maintenance worker has now come forward with eye-witness testimony that a massive explosion erupted in the lower levels of the north tower at approximately the same time the jetliner struck the tower's top floors.

Jose Sanchez, 45, of New Jersey in a never-released tape recorded statement made in early 2002 to William Rodriguez, the first WTC maintenance man to claim a bomb exploded in the north tower basement, said he heard what sounded like a "huge bomb," causing lights to flicker on and off, while he worked in a small sub-level 4 workshop.

Sanchez, who worked for American Building Maintenance Co. at the WTC for 14 years, was unavailable for comment, but made the taped 2002 statement to Rodriguez, recounting his 9/11 personal experience.

Sanchez, who fell on hard times after 9/11, revealed the details of a basement bomb-like explosion while Rodriguez and two CNN interns, Carolina Inojosa and Evita Zerebrinsky, interviewed victims and documented information for the many unfortunate people having trouble getting needed government assistance after 9/11.

Besides questioning the credibility of the official story that burning jet fuel was the only factor in bringing down the towers, Rodriguez formed an assistance organization called the Hispanic Victims Group instrumental in helping hundreds of people get help after 9/11 left many victims unemployed and homeless.

"I knew Jose very well since we worked for the same company," said Rodriguez in a telephone conversation from his New Jersey apartment. "At the time, I taped his statements, I was more concerned about getting people needed assistance and, anyway, back then I really thought the government was seriously investigating the WTC attacks.

"But since then I have learned otherwise. I realize now they are covering-up the real truth and that's why I want to release Jose's statement. What really upsets me and, you can take this message to the White House, is that people like Jose and many others like him who experienced what happened in the basement of the north tower were simply ignored and never interviewed by the 9/11 Commission.

"If they really wanted to get at the truth, these are the very people who should have been interviewed, not public officials who knew very little about what occurred inside the buildings that tragic morning.

"However, instead we all have been ignored in order to cover up the truth. The victims, those who died and the families who lost loved ones deserve nothing less than the truth and I intend to keep talking until the truth is finally told."

Sanchez's explosive comments, shooting another large hole in the government story, now adds even more credibility to Rodriguez's recent statements that he heard a massive explosion in the WTC basement just seconds prior to the jetliner striking above while working in a sub-level 1 office along side 14 others, all who heard and felt the very same thing as Rodriguez.

Since the outset, the government has stood firm that only burning jet fuel brought down the towers, but has ignored mounting eye-witness testimony and scientific data showing that a controlled demolition was an additional cause.

The government also has not fully explained why it immediately tampered with a crime scene, a criminal offense, by having all the hard evidence from the WTC removed and shipped overseas before independent investigators had a chance to study the structural components of the towers in order to help determine the real cause of the tower's collapse.

While arguments continue in the scientific community about the structural cause of the WTC collapse, Sanchez's eye-witness testimony adds more credibility that explosives were placed and detonated in the lower level of the north tower.

In the 2002 taped statement, Sanchez recalls, at the same time Rodriguez and the others heard the explosion, being in a small sub-level 4 workshop with another man who he only knew by the name of Chino when, out of nowhere, the blast sounded as the two men were cutting a piece of metal.

"It sounded like a bomb and the lights went on and off," said Sanchez in the tape recording. "We started to walk to the exit and a huge ball of fire went through the freight elevator. The hot air from the ball of fire dropped Chino to the floor and my hair got burned," said Sanchez in the tape recording. "The room then got full of smoke and I remember saying out loud 'I believe it was a bomb that blew up inside the building.'

"I said 'Chino, let's go we gotta get out of here.' But Chino was wounded and told me he needed help. I remember him saying that the hot air came with such force that it broke his leg. We finally went out through another exit and his leg and knee were both broken."

Sanchez, all the time helping Chino, then recalls exiting into a parking lot on sub-level 4 where he encountered a group of other people also trying to flee. In the parking lot, a person assisted the pair, wrapping Chino's leg with a bandage from a first aid kit.

Chino was then driven in an SUV to safety while Sanchez decided to walk up four flights of stairs through the stairwell, trying to exit at the plaza level but being turned back by debris and falling glass.

"I went back down the stairwell to B-4 and encountered several people coming up. I told them to turn back around and then went across the parking lot up another stairwell, making a left and then finally getting outside," said Sanchez. "It took about 15 or 20 minutes to get outside and for me it was like a bomb with huge smoke all around. Then when I got outside, the other plane hit the south tower. It looked and felt like a war as I hid behind a wall to get out of the way of falling debris."

Saying that he felt disoriented and "didn't know what was happening," Sanchez eventually made his way to safety, arriving at his New Jersey home at about 3:30pm after fleeing down 34th St. and making his way to the ferry boat.

Asked how he felt in the aftermath of the attacks, he said:

"I felt a sense of loss and despair. I worked there 14 years and I worked through the whole complex, installing signs. I worked on all floors and that day I just happened to be in the basement.

"I think I was lucky to get out of the basement because I was near the stairwell."

For more informative articles, go to www.arcticbeacon.com where donations are accepted in the wake of media apathy.

homepage: homepage: http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/29079.htm


is this guy a janitor too? 13.Jul.2005 04:33

Mr. Tyn Foyle Hatz

"What happened was, I was down in the basement, all of sudden we heard a loud bang and the elevator door blew open, some guy was burnt up, so I dragged him out, his skin was all hanging off, so I dragged him out and pulled him out in the parking lot, and this was all that was left on [inaudible]"
"I was down in the basement"
"his skin was all off"
"did you hear that, keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon"

. 13.Jul.2005 04:55

.

.
that's a big hole for a pancake
that's a big hole for a pancake

has someone collated all the first person testimony? 13.Jul.2005 05:22

Strategis

I wonder if someone has collected and collated all the first person testimony of workers, janitors, maintenance people, fireworkers, rescue workers, external witnesses, etc. of the various events on 911. This would be a fascinating book.

. 13.Jul.2005 05:52

.

.
2001
2001
2001
2001
2005
2005

Wait. 13.Jul.2005 09:32

yum

"Hot air" broke his leg? Get real.

DBL Wait 13.Jul.2005 09:53

yum

I take that back, I remember the movie backdraft, sorry

Skeptic 13.Jul.2005 10:07

vintageconspiracytheory

Ok I'm skeptical about this controlled demolition stuff, I just can't get past the big questions and get into all these little details about how the government did this or this suggests that. Can someone (with out jumping down my throat) address this question I have on the whole controlled demolition stuff?

I find it hard to understand why the "government" would need a controller demolition to "get the masses to go to war" don't you think the airline crashes were enought for them to justify war on? Please understand I do think the government was complicit in some ways with those crashes, but let's say the towers didn't fully get destroyed - so we have a fire on the upper floors two airliners crashed and many dead, are you really telling me I should buy the controlled demolition stuff because that "wouldn't have been enough" to convince the american public to go to war? We needed a "bigger" event with controlled demolition. I just find it hard to grasp the fact that the bush administration couldn't have made it's case for war even it the towers didn't fall. So why would they have gone through all that effort? I just don't get it. Someone explain to me why this "controlled demolition" was needed to achive that the administration wanted? Again please don't call me a plant or a troll and really think about a response - I'm for real.

Punctuates the job 13.Jul.2005 10:36

&

It seems logical that a controlled demolition would destroy evidence and control the amount of damgage (even if it is total destruction of the building). This is prefereable to uncontrolled damage, and open time-frame of destruction etc. It would fit with the fact that maximum fatalities were not gained by the attackers, instead the tradecenters were hit at a time with minimal personel in the buildings. Also, it has been noted that the demolition of the buildings may be a sign that this job was perpetrated by those who profit from rebuilding them/loosing them. This idea seems interesting to me, but I haven't read much else about about it (Owners, Contractors, Port Authority?)

just art 13.Jul.2005 10:52

tuckett

The lightning bolt of truth struck precisely what which formerly stood highest : let whoever comprehends what has here been destroyed see whether anything is left in his hands, Everything that has hitherto been called "truth" has been recognized as the most harmful, insidious, and subterranean form of lie; the holy pretext of "improving" mankind, as the ruse for sucking the blood of life itself. Morality as vampirism. - nietzsche

and you will feign unbelief at these words, 'israel as the new capital of the world'

so i suggest that you read the writings of israel's first PM david ben gurion - or do a google and read some real history, not that bias history we were taught in school. and search the history of the 'rothschilds'.

then you will know why.


insurance scam 13.Jul.2005 11:24

getting warmer

"This idea seems interesting to me, but I haven't read much else about about it"

There is plenty, go through the archives here. The owner of the WTC complex not only got paid for the damage, he got paid twice, because he argued in court it was two planes and two buildings, not one single event. So he made allot of money. It was going to cost more money to tear it down and/or getting the building up to code. There was a new insurance policy taken out within the year before the attacks, you can ask the german shareholders who are upset about the double payment.

So if you think it's interesting, you will probably find this very interesting:

Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United
by Margie Burns

George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.

The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the company had a "completion contract" to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."

 http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm

--------

Speaking of interesting, it may surprise you to know, that fraud and scams are not foreign to the bush family. As you can see via the savings and loan scandal:

" Meanwhile, charges of conflict of interest against Neil Bush, the President's son, will be taken up at a September hearing by federal regulators. The younger Bush served on the board of directors of Silverado Banking, Savings and Loan Association of Denver, Colorado, which collapsed in December 1988 at an estimated cost to taxpayers of $1.3 billion. The charges accuse Bush of voting to loan over $100 million to business associates who subsequently defaulted, and failing to properly disclose the extent of his business dealings with the borrowers. Federal regulators may file a $200 million lawsuit against Neil Bush and other Silverado directors and officers. The Office of Thrift Supervision released documents stating that the 34-year-old Bush was "unqualified and untrained" to be a director of Silverado.

"He had no experience managing a large corporation, especially a financial institution with almost $2 billion in assets," the OTS documents said. With the president's son involved in the failure of one of the larger S&Ls, the crisis has received more attention in Washington and in the media. So far both Democrats and Republicans have pointed the finger at each other. Democratic National Committee Chair Ron Brown said that Republicans cannot escape the fact that "George Bush, Ronald Reagan and their high-roller friends ran the government, designed the S&L policy and handpicked the people that gutted the oversight agencies. They are now being forced to take responsibility for the greatest rip-off in American history."

"It Is The Single Greatest Case Of Fraud In The History Of Crime (Seattle Times, June 11 1991)."

 http://www.geocities.com/jurisnot/

---------------

Bottom Line 13.Jul.2005 11:58

mobile unit

To the poster who is skeptical of the need for demolition of WTC 1 , WTC 2 , AND MOST BLATANTLY , WTC 7 !! :
it has already been mentioned above , but allow me to restate the details that support the demolition theory.
first is the fact that mr. silverstein ( one of new york's high level elites ) had recently taken over lease/ownership of the entire WTC complex and had taken out a very FAT insurance policy on those buildings ...... he came out of this catastrophy with an extemely sweet bottom line !!!! also to restate the fact that silverstein was recorded on PBS saying that the decision had been made to " PULL " WTC 7 , he later retracted that statement when he was made to realize the implications of what he had said.
second , and more crucial to the bush junta , is the the almost total obliteration of any evidence that would expose the many holes in the official story combined with a wholesale violation of crime scene protocal in the rapid removal of debris ( evidence such as it was ) from the site.
all of this going on in plain site of the american people who were being spoon fed a toxic mix of reactionary anger and DISTRACTION !

oh you mean Ron Brown? 13.Jul.2005 12:29

same

It is worth noting that Ron Brown was just one of four Clinton campaign fund raisers to die under questionable circumstances. The others were C. Victor Raiser II, Hershel Friday, and Ed Willey, a total of three plane crashes and one "Fosterization". Following Brown's demise, his personal attorney as well as a co-worker at the Department of Commerce, Barbara Wise also died under questionable circumstances. As in the case of yet another "suddenly dead" member of the Clinton administration, Vincent Foster , Ron Brown's office was ransacked for files by Commerce staff immediately after his death.

. 13.Jul.2005 14:14

.

.
street level view of first collapse
street level view of first collapse
street level view of second collapse
street level view of second collapse

Szymanski NOT a reliable source for info 13.Jul.2005 14:41

reader

Sorry to say, but Syzmanski is not a reliable source for information and promotes stories to distract and distort the likelihood of exposing real cover-ups.


- Morgan Reynolds, on Coast to Coast, recently described how Syzmanski made up a story about him and never contacted him.

- Syzmanski is typically published by American Free Press. Here's how Syzmanski's associated website describes AFP:

"American Free Press
The grandfather of all alternative newspapers. This insightful publication prints news you can't get from the mainstream, corporate-driven media. Take a look and buy a subscription."

AFP, this 'alternative newspaper,' shows a picture of some cops on the front page with this description:

"PEACEKEEPING FAMILY: In order from left to right: Police officer Jeff Banister, Sgt. John Banister, police officer Gary Banister (ret.), Joe Banister and Fire Capt. Jim Banister."
 http://www.americanfreepress.net/

Perhaps not surprisingly, AFP is associated with a neo-Nazi publication, the Barnes Review:

American Free Press / Barnes Review
A neo-Nazi publication invents a new "no plane" theory - no plane in Pennsylvania, either

The American Free Press is an ultra-right-wing Holocaust denial website that claims that Flight 93 never existed. Presumably, the eyewitnesses to the flight are all Mossad operatives keeping "the truth" from the American public, although their "article" claiming "no plane" in Pennsylvania does not address the eyewitness testimony and the obvious physical evidence that shows their claims are mere "chaff," a distraction from the real story. These sorts of distractions seem to get more and more bizarre with each passing month -- and few of these distractions dare talk about the 9/11 wargames, NORAD and the role of Dick Cheney. Who benefits from redirecting the discussions about 9/11 complicity to blurry photos, evidence-less science fiction theories, and no plane stories that are absolutely refuted by eyewitness testimony and abundant physical evidence?
 http://www.oilempire.us/holocaust-denial.html#afp

- Syzmanski's associated website, Arctic Beacon, states that:

"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 Spiritual Phenomena;
Unpopular Science;
Suppressed Health Alternatives;
Legal/ Social Injustice and
Environmental Protection

and

Alien Presence on Earth and
UFO Phenomena."
 http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/arcticbeacon.html

So you can see that what's going on here, once again - sandwich in typical left causes (environment, alternative health, legal/social injustice) with UFOs and even, 'Alien Presence on Earth,' worse than just UFOs.

Here's another good one in there:

"If you think the Republic is worth saving, then donate to Public Domain Publishing . . . So join us in our fight to save the Republic by pledging your financial support to Voices of Freedom."

How many leftists do you know that refer to the US as 'the Republic,' and describe things as 'Voices of Freedom? Assuming the site is Libertarian, how many Libertarians are environmentalists and into 'legal/social justice?' Thus the site professes to be Left-oriented as far as it's goals, and lures people on the left to thinking they are being represented, but basically it puts out stories pushing rewritten nonsense about 9/11.

Here's an excerpt from the latest Syzmanski gem:

"Burn victim, Felipe David, employed by Aramark Co. and Salvatore Giambanco, a WTC office painter trapped in a basement elevator, were both unavailable for comment, but made their explosive testimony - never before released in America - to a Colombian television station in 2002 on the first anniversary of 9/11."

Both unavailable for comment. This is typical of Syzmanski - instead of real reporting, he rehashes clips from other mainstream stories and then tries to amplify them into the message he wants to send. His goal right now is to push the 'bombs in the basement' scenario on 9/11. There are a number of problems with this issue, one being that the first person involved in this, William Rodriguez, also said he saw one of the hijackers scoping the building ahead of time - that 'hijacker' turns out to be alive, according to the BBC, and so the story is tainted by this bizarre claim, which Rodriguez testified to the Omission Commission.

Rodriguez is also associated with the bogus RICO suit that promotes missiles on 9/11. Here's a critique of the suit:

In this critique of the complaint we point out some of the flaws with this lawsuit, which include:

* The complaint goes even further than Stanley Hilton's in its kitchen-sink approach of naming numerous defendants and numerous and wide-ranging allegations of criminality. This approach is diametrically opposed to the one that would appear to have the best chances of success: a narrow focus on the most provable charges against a few individuals.

* The complaint fails to apply the smell test to the allegations it lists, and includes thoroughly debunked and patently nonsensical claims among the valid ones. Interestingly, while it fails to cite any 9/11 skeptics' websites or books that provide substantial evidence of insider inolvement, it trumpets the hoax-promoting site LetsRoll911.org.

* The complaint is poorly organized and full of syntactic and structural errors, making it difficult to read and summarize. (In our critique, which reproduces the original complaint, we have attempted to clean up the structure in order to help the reader.)
 http://911review.com/review/disinfo/lawsuits.html#rodriguez


Another problem is that bombs before the collapses are connected the 'seismic spikes' stories that are examples of shoddy research -

"Proponents of basement bomb theories have adduced questionable interpretations of seismic data. They have suggested that the largest seismic spikes were generated at the beginnings of the collapse events. This ignores the marked increases in amplitude that start about ten seconds before the large spikes start. The most referenced charts are those recorded at the Lamont-Doherty station in Palisades, NY. These show a large signal lasting about eight seconds followed by a smaller one lasting more than fifteen seconds. The amplitudes of these signals make it easy to miss the signals that start about ten seconds before the large ones. Those smaller signals are still several times greater than the baseline signal seen at the beginning of the charts. Thus, contrary to indicating strong ground-coupled explosions of basement bombs at the collapses outsets, the charts suggest that the large spikes registered the ends of the collapse events, when the rubble reached the ground."
 http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/basementbomb.html#ref1

On Bombs in the Basement, website 911research points out:

"Theories that basement bombs were causative in the collapses should not be confused with theories that bombs damaged the basements and lobbies of the Towers at around the times of the plane crashes. A report from ChiefEngineer.org describes bizarre events in the basements of the towers. 1 This report has been combined with observations that windows in the lobby of the North Tower were broken to support the idea of basement bombs detonated coincident with the plane crashes. However, the ChiefEngineer report appears to be uncorroborated, and there are other explanations for damage in the lobby, such as impacts from ricocheting debris from the plane impact."

Here is what ChiefEngineer.org writes:

"Deep below the tower, Mike Pecoraro was suddenly interrupted in his grinding task by a shake on his shoulder from his co-worker. "Did you see that?" he was asked. Mike told him that he had seen nothing. "You didn't see the lights flicker?", his co-worker asked again. "No," Mike responded, but he knew immediately that if the lights had flickered, it could spell trouble. A power surge or interruption could play havoc with the building's equipment. If all the pumps trip out or pulse meters trip, it could make for a very long day bringing the entire center's equipment back on-line.
September 11, 2001, two hijacked commercial aircraft are flown into the World Trade Center towers.

Mike told his co-worker to call upstairs to their Assistant Chief Engineer and find out if everything was all right. His co-worker made the call and reported back to Mike that he was told that the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where they were and "sit tight" until the Assistant Chief got back to them. By this time, however, the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke. "We smelled kerosene," Mike recalled, "I was thinking maybe a car fire was upstairs", referring to the parking garage located below grade in the tower but above the deep space where they were working.

The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.

"There was nothing there but rubble, "Mike said. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press ? gone!" The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. "You could stand here," he said, "and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming." But there was still no answer.

The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. "There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything" he said.

They decided to ascend two more levels to the building's lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up "like a piece of aluminum foil" and lying on the floor. "They got us again," Mike told his co-worker, referring to the terrorist attack at the center in 1993. Having been through that bombing, Mike recalled seeing similar things happen to the building's structure. He was convinced a bomb had gone off in the building. Mike walked through the open doorway and found two people lying on the floor. One was a female Carpenter and the other an Elevator Operator. They were both badly burned and injured. Realizing he had to get help, Mike ascended to the Lobby Level where he met Arti DelBianco, a member of his work crew. People were now coming down the same stairway from above the lobby and Arti and Mike had to stay where they were to direct people out of the stairway door and into the building's lobby. If they didn't, people descending could walk past the lobby door and unwittingly keep descending into the sublevels of the building."
 http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029

The need for total demolition... 13.Jul.2005 15:36

Tony Blair's dog

was because of multiple crimes being covered up.

Silverstein wanted the whole WTC complex demolished or renovated but didn't
want to pay the multi billion dollars for it or the asbestos removal.

Silverstein got, through the demolition, an "already paid for"
demolition and enough insurance money to both build new buildings
and a have the rest of his criminal life paid for.

The FBI offices on the lower levels that were found "totally demolished"
by the fire crew, apparently investigated one or more big financial crimes.

The demolishing of those offices needed to be covered up as well, since
otherwise someone would have to explain that destruction.

The stock exchange offices where one of the planes flew straight into
experienced strange multi million dollar transfers just before and during the
"attacks". But thanks to forensics hard drives could be saved and these
transactions exposed. I have not yet seen any report on who, if anyone,
was charged with those crimes either.

Just to name a few other events apart from the regular "for suckering people
to go to war for oil" reason which was the main money maker for these scumbags.

The demolishing of the buildings helped a lot of coverups being performed
that day. And again made many people extremely rich right at the spot
and/or through the "anti-terrorist" business afterwards.

Hi Skeptic 13.Jul.2005 20:54

Monochromo

In case you haven't seen these videos of WTC7. Dan Rather was reporting live on CBS on 911 the fall of WTC7. Does it look like a controlled demolition to you? Remember, no plane or building debris hit WTC7. The vast overall structural ingretity of WTC7 was still well intact. It had a couple of small fires, and then it just collasped.

PBS had a documentary of 911 where Larry Silverstein said "pull it." Also, in another part of the PBS documentary a demolition worker taking down the rest of WTC6 says "We're getting ready to pull building 6." The assertion of myself and others is that "pull it" means demolish it. Why would Silverstein say that? Please check out the audio and video files. Thanks.
WTC7 - CBS video 1
WTC7 - CBS video 1
WTC7 - local CBS video 2
WTC7 - local CBS video 2
Larry Silverstein says pull it
Larry Silverstein says pull it

Hi Skeptic, just a few more files 13.Jul.2005 22:12

Monochromo

Just a few more files for people to check out!
Video of only small fires burning in WTC7
Video of only small fires burning in WTC7
Video of firefighters discussing what happened
Video of firefighters discussing what happened
PBS audio-We're getting ready to pull building 6
PBS audio-We're getting ready to pull building 6

In addition to Monochromo's... 14.Jul.2005 07:11

Tony Blair's dog

mp3 file of Silveretein spilling the beans, watch Silverstein lie
about not being able to contain the fires (check Monocromo's
"Video of only small fires burning in WTC7" to see the size
of the fires) and thus taking the decision to pull it(sic).

 http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV
(Windows Media Player video)

This clip is linked from this page:
 http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html

which holds a lot of additional information which may interest
people wanting to learn more about Silverstein and WTC 7.

Trying to understand and still not getting it 14.Jul.2005 09:56

skeptic

Thank you to some of the posters trying to explain the their rational in thinking there was a "need" for controlled demolition in 9-11. Am I to understand your points to be:

mobile unit - The reason I believe the towers collapse on 9-11 was caused by a controller demolition of the building by the owner "a mr silverstein" to collect insurance money.

Tony Blair's dog - The reason I believe the tower collapse on 9-11 was caused by a controller demolition was to cover up the multiple crimes of 1) to save "mr silverstein" money in demolition charges 2) destroy the FBI office to cover up implied help with "mr silverstein"'s building demolition. 3) to cover up multi million dollar transfers.

Monochromo - The reason I believe the towers collapse on 9-11 was caused by a controller demolition of the buildings is because of a "mr silverstein" so watch these video clips and you will understand it because I can't seem to put it in words.

If this is not a fair interpretation of your views let me know. Do these arguments sway any other skeptical readers? not me.

CONSIDER THIS... 14.Jul.2005 16:55

m. u.

you ignored the second part of my take on things , ie: the obliteration of evidence and the total violation of crime scene protocal in the rapid removal of CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE !
but if you are still inclined to favor the " official story " , start focusing your lens of scrutiny on this account because it is also a CONSPIRACY THEORY with less evidence to support it than many of those theories that implicate our own leaders !!!

OK, your still skeptical Skeptic 14.Jul.2005 22:24

Monochromo

Skeptic writes:

>>>Monochromo - The reason I believe the towers collapse on 9-11 was caused by >>>a controller demolition of the buildings is because of a "mr silverstein" >>>so watch these video clips and you will understand it because I can't seem >>>to put it in words.

I do believe it was a controlled demolition for physical reasons. Such as the way the building fell. WTC7 fell in it's own footprint for one. Also, upon close observation you can see the "classical crimp" in the middle of the building fall first. The "classical crimp" of demolitions means one of the main middle support columns falls first so the building falls in it's own footprint, so it doesn't fall to the sides. Then it falls in on itself. You should see another example of another similar building falling. Such videos do exist, such as videos of Las Vegas hotels being demolished. Sorry I don't have one to show you now.

Again I state, no plane hit WTC7, and no building fell into it. It had a couple of small fires, but the vast overall structual integrity was intact. Unfortunatly, the evidence was skirted away quickly to Asia in violation of federal law and melted down, so the evidence is destroyed. I cannot say for absolute certain 100% what took WTC7 down, but I do believe I have the best conclusion. FEMA said "they think it was fire", but their not sure. The 911 commission brushed it aside, there was really no mention of WTC7. Somebody told me it could have been "seismic" (because of WTC1 and 2 getting hit). Uh, I don't think so. Other buildings that were hit by WTC1 and WTC2 debris stood and held just fine. So I'm not going to sit back while the government and mainstream media sit and twittle their thumbs. I'm not going to take any of their silly explanations.

Some have tried to say (like Homeland Security Chief's Chertoff cousin, who did a strawman hitpiece on 911 skeptics in Popular Mechanics) "pull it" meant to "pull the firemen from the building". I'm not buying that. I believe it's an informal term meaning a building is to be demolished. Again note Silverstein said, "Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it, and they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse", and the WTC6 worker said "We're getting ready to pull building 6." Listen again.

Maybe the best thing would be to ask you. Not to be rude, but what do you think took down WTC7?

Note WTC7 was a FEMA emergency command bunker, and many federal government agencies were in there (FBI, CIA, FEMA, DIA, etc.)

Also, this is the first time in history modern steel-framed structures have melted from fire (according to the government and mainstream media's story of 911). Check out the recent fire of that building in Madrid a year or so ago. Or the 1991 Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia. Those buildings burned for many hours, even days. Sure, the guts of those buildings all burned out, but the structual integrity of the steel support columns all held. WTC7 only had 2 or 3 small, suffocated fires for a few hours, and then it collasped. Modern steel structure support columns of buildings are meant to withstand fire, and won't melt and collapse.

Understand the chain of thinking here. Chances are, if you are an American and a basic student of history, and I told you Roman emperor Nero burned Rome to blame it on his political enemies the Christians so he could get people behind him to persecute the Christians, you might believe me. You might believe me because you may have been taught that Roman emperors were psychotics, like Nero, Caesar, and Caligua. If I told you Hitler burned the Reichstag (a German government building) and blamed it on a mentally impaired Dutch Jewish Communist so he could get people behind him to persecute the Jews, you might believe me because you been taught over and over about what he did to the Jews. But if I told you a very small cabal of sinister people (much more politically sophisicated than my previous examples)in the US government/military industrial complex pulled off 911 and killed about 3,000 people on that day to get Americans behind the War on Terror/USA Patriot Act/Afghanistan/Iraq etc. etc, you might be resistant to that. You might be resistant to that because of all teaching you've had about America being the greatest and most moral country ever. Of course, most Americans are. But I'm implying that the evil cabal in power isn't. I don't think most Americans right now could handle the thought that some force in their government would do such a thing.

Silverstein had his financial motives to go along with this, but I don't believe he pulled the physical strings to make this happen. I like to stick to the physical evidence. Any better ideas than controlled demolition? I'm listening.

Check out www.infowars.com. I want to point you there to check out a movie called "911 Martial Law" by Alex Jones. You'll get a better break down of WTC7. With high speed internet you should be able to watch the movie streaming or download for free. If you have filing sharing software like Morpheus or Limewire, you can download it for free, just do a search on it.

Thanks Skeptic.

outside the box 21.Jul.2005 02:00

alex ansary alex_ansary@hotmail.com

dont give up the fight for truth.
outside the box, the only show, that talks about 911 as it really stands, besides courtney scott of mad as hell tv, and clyde lewis. and maybe one or two at kboo.
we are out there, have good information, and dont wear tin foil hats, but believe whatever the media trains you to believe.


I want to point something out to you monochromo 30.Aug.2005 01:57

the need to be careful

I feel like alot of times the information available is more important then the source. However, when you have similar information from a variety of sources then I feel you choose the most legitimate source you can find. I like some of Alex Jones' work but he is about the LAST I mean LAST source I would send a skeptic to. His prison planet stuff and all his banners are more then a little right wing wackoish. There are plenty of sites out there that have nearly identical information but present it in a much more clear and grounded manner. I use Alex Jones info as a last resort because he is just a bit too paranoid in his presentations.

Now I for one am EXTREMELY skeptical of the powers that be at the moment and I have little doubt that a whole hell of alot went down on 9/11/2001. I also strongly believe the government was complicit if not active in those events. However, I like to make sure I really source and then couch my arguments effectively. Your piece is clear and reasonable but using Alex Jones as your source I think might have been a mistake for the reasons I stated above and some I will make clear below.

So you understand where I'm coming from, you should know I also believe that it is nearly certain that WTC-7 was taken down with explosives as there doesn't seem to be any other reason that makes sense to me even with my limited grasp of physics. However, I think focusing overmuch on explosives in the basement sort of is the kind of nit picking of details like the "Umbrella Man" of Kennedy assasination fame who had an umbrella in Dallas. Sure it may very well be he was giving the signal for the hit but the getting lost in the details kind of analysis there is dangerous when trying to bring skeptics around. Much easier to present and far more alarming is all the FAA and NORAD related air defense response. I think Silverstein's insureance scam is a valid point but whether or not the buildings were blown up seems less relevant then the sketchy fact of him buying the WTC which was losing money and then making a killing on not one but two seperate insurance claims.

I also worry about what Alex Jones might also be into a number of his films have had what seem to be vaugely racist undertones and while I think Mossad might have been involved I think you raise the specter of anti-semitism when you focus on that like some in the right alternative media have. I realize that you have difficulty criticizing even the most vile of Likud Party controlled IDF actions without being called an anti-semite but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be vigilant about potential racists who hide behind similar arguments to ours as progressives. I'm all for solidartiy across political view points as long as Human Rights are first and foremost with environmentalism being a logical extension of the idea of Human Rights.

This post got a bit unfocused but I hope you understood my main points.

Response to: I want to point something out to you monochrome 23.Sep.2005 11:59

Eyes Wide Shut-Now open

RIGHT ON! I have been at unease since the Supreme Court put W in the Whitehouse.
After:
the shock of the 2000 election (I live in the land of hang)ing Chads
the shock of my towers (I hail from NJ - in view of NYC skyline)
the shock of the 9/11 commission
the shock of learning no WMD's
the shock of Eminent Domain's application to private sector
the shock of the delay in assistance in Louisiana (kind of like how Stalin stood down after promising to protect Poland from the Nazis and then annexed Poland after it was devastated)

I thought, "they knew those levies were defective and did nothing and claimed not to know. If they are capable of this, then maybe they were capable of orchestrating or allowing 9/11 to happen.

After all, the current mmembers of administration personally had something to gain and all the risk (loss of life, broken families, loss of homes and expense) went directly to the TAXPAYER. I win/win situation for the elite, compounded by the fact that the majority of tax dollars come from the middle class who works longer for the same pay and less benefits while the elite get tax breaks in the name of supply side economics.

So --- Whomever reads this message, please encourage your friends, family and especially the 40% who think our President is doing a good job to consider these issues ---and be more proactive by writing, calling and emailing your senators and congress. Tell them not to put it off. Every day of procrastination seems to be the loss of one more of our civil rights... Here is a suggestion for corresponding to government officials. When pondering cutting Federal expenditures to pay for restructure needed after hurricane Katrina---Instead of taking away the drug plan for seniors, how about senators, congress, the courts, and the administration giving up their FAT health benefits that they receive from taxpayers instead!

Check out "Scholars for Truth" 06.Sep.2006 12:23

justvisitingfromanotherplanet

While it is understandable that people might doubt the veracity of someone who talks about life on other planets or crop circles, it is difficult to counter the opinions of physics professors, philosphy professors, theology professors, and many other respected academics, scientists and thinkers (including some from Bush's own administration) who have studied the events of 9/11 and have reached conclusions similar or identical to those in this article. See  http://st911.org/ (Scholars for Truth).

The ungrammatical, misspelled, convoluted, uninformed, comments by many posters ("some guy named Silverstein") who challenge this article lead me to believe that these people possibly will not want to read, or be able to comprehend, the scientific explanations on the Scholars for Truth Site -- for everyone else, thank you for being willing to think critically and to challenge the media propaganda that is bought and paid for with our tax dollars).