portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

9.11 investigation | imperialism & war

9/11 Mysteries: Demolitions (2006)

(1:30:46)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O7LwySqtr4

Clearly and systematically examines the way in which the World Trade Center buildings were demolished, using analysis and sources ignored, obfuscated or deliberately withheld from corporate mass media and U.S. government presentations.

See Also :

Anatomy Of A Great Deception
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/02/429225.shtml
Sequence of World Trade Center Towers' demolitions on September 11, 2001

1 Pre-collapse sub-basement explosions
lower basements and substructure

2 Pre-collapse interior blasts
endo-skeleton, cutting core columns

3 Pre-collapse ground-level explosions
upper basements and lower supports

4 Top-level collapse initiation
"cracking the top"

5 Mid-collapse squibs
shooting sections ahead of blast wave

6 Final time-delayed roll
exo-skeleton and pulverization


Constructive criticism of the film:
 http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/911mysteries/index.html

 http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/911mysteries/index.html

homepage: homepage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O7LwySqtr4


I have even more mysteries (related to your theory) 22.Feb.2015 06:26

Mike Novack

a) How could several tons of explosives be transported to the buildings, carried up into the buildings, and the demolitions placed in the time interval between when the building hit by a plane and the demolitions going off?

b) If the theory is that the demolitions were placed well in advance (to get around "a"), how could the planners know WHICH buildings were actually going to be hit? Knowing the plans of those hijacking the planes would not be enough, since in the actual event some other building might actually get hit.

c) So add that the hijackers also fake and could include skilled pilots on a suicide mission. But in THAT case why either "a" or "b" since easier to just include a few tons of explosives in the baggage, yes? Well not explosives, since a different effect. But how about powdered aluminum, magnesium, etc. (really hot, fast fire)

Tall buildings unsafe? Probably yes for the new ones. I would say that we have just seen a "test in practice" of the post asbestos insulating materials in an impact/fire disaster. Being a fibrous material, the old fashioned asbestos insulation tended to stay in place even if badly cracked, etc. Let's see if we see something similar for a newer tall building if subject to earthquake plus fire, etc. Just fire, the insulation materials now used instead of asbestos probably OK. But are they lacking the shock resistance of the very fibrous mineral asbestos.

Just knowing "they are keeping secrets, not telling us the truth" doesn't mean you know WHAT you are being lied to about.

all been addressed and dismissed in the video series 22.Feb.2015 07:26

i

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmIjDfpTeMc

It was the elevators (freight) hitting the basement after the planes flew into the building cutting the cables.

the theories have been debunked completely which is why no serious engineer / scientist will come near this stuff.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmIjDfpTeMc

conspiracies to the death 22.Feb.2015 07:44

please not again

OK. Back up a minute.

Those on Indymedia who automatically hate capitalism, hate corporations without any critical thought now want us to believe that there is motivation for

1) Those who are in authority to want the collapse of huge buildings in NYC with loss of life
2) Building ownership/management complicit in ensuring a total loss of their investment

Sure, huge amounts of explosives were hauled in past building security, put out of sight in critical places, then triggered in a coordinated way by what, radio? Cell phone? Thousands of feet of concealed wires? The RF situation was so screwed up at the time that police and fire radios on protected frequencies didn't work right, so yeah. A perfect concealment of huge amounts of explosives and the wiring to set them off.

How could any of the anti-capitalists who dominate this "independent" media be so self contradictory as to suggest that the building owners and management would conspire to destroy their own capital?

The amusement from reading indymedia continues ...

Sure, huge amounts of explosives were hauled in past building security? 22.Feb.2015 07:50

i

Evidence?

none.

Watch the videos linked above for an objective look into these theories.

in your tiny mind 22.Feb.2015 09:24

official story

the theories have been debunked completely which is why no serious engineer / scientist will come near this stuff.

keep repeating this

keep trolling indy w/ this

keep talking to your self

your parroted version are not debunked proof

More "Lies" from troll i 22.Feb.2015 09:26

Plenty of time to do it

one of the bush brothers was in charge of security just prior to the towers falling

also they could of been installed many months in advance

when there were proven times that the building was closed for repairs etc

Plenty of Reasons for Please Not Again 22.Feb.2015 10:06

Listening Larry

There was plenty to make off the demolition by the insurance companies
There was plenty of war to "now go wage" around the globe
There was plenty of profits in the war - military complex to be grabbed by those in power
There was plenty of liberty and freedom changes to limit citizens for their "own protection"
There was plenty of reasons that have nothing to do with independent media
There were so many reasons to do this that it would make your head hurt

sucking your own tailpipe of info 22.Feb.2015 11:55

i

you people have been sucking your own tailpipe of information so long we are witnessing the "Todd Akin" effect.

where you just huddle in your own like-minded cocoons and re-affirm each others biases, mis-information, and BS to the point you are completely surprised when things like a GOP landslide occurs, (you blame ballot manipulation), because you don't know anybody who voted GOP, so therefore it must be cheating.

You never venture out of your ideological safe/comfort zone to be challenged on your beliefs. This is why it sound so shocking, and you blame on some NSA paid troll.

This 911 religious belief is a "Todd Akin" like psychosis.

the series of videos explains how you became this way.

educate yourself. Its not too late.

Hey Mike Novak: " mysteries (related to your theory) " 22.Feb.2015 12:07

answers

Thanks for your open and legitimate questions Mike.

It's straightforward to explain and understand what happened.




Mike Novack wrote:
---
" How could several tons of explosives be transported to the buildings, carried up into the buildings, and the demolitions placed in the time interval between when the building hit by a plane and the demolitions going off? "
---

Short answer:

1) Elevator modernization, and

2) Asbestos 'removal'
(actually demolition-disposal... at the full life safety, health and logistical expense of TTC and NYC occupants)


No it would not, as you are implying the way you've worded your question, have occurred "right before" / "same day as"
the airliner impacts.

This would had to have been done weeks, and more likely months prior to the attacks. Perhaps not all at once, and probably not at a "consistent" rate of speed... i.e. it would have been done sporadically, in stages, and as covert / under darkness / after hours access to the Towers was made available.

Ideally, of course, in between times that janitorial service employees and regular office executives/employees occupied the buildings.

See the article by Susan Lindauer now on the PDX IMC newswire (and many other references):

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/02/429226.shtml

Between August 23, 2001 until September 3 or 4, 2001 -- for approximately 10 to 12 nights -- trucks mysteriously arrived at the World Trade Center complex, in the time interval after janitorial crews had left (2:30 a.m.) the building and before Wall Street execs showed up (5:30 a.m.) for work. 3 a.m.-ish wee hours.

Elevator renovations were in progress during 2001 at the World Trade Center. Access to elevator shafts was needed in order to place cutter charges to demolish the extremely robust and resistant core columns of the Towers (left intact from the airliner impacts) that would need to be removed in order for the buildings to vertically collapse into their own footprints at free fall velocity i.e. in 10 seconds.

(ELEVATOR WORLD March 2001 magazine article PDF)
 http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/arch/wtc_elevator_renovation.pdf

More on elevator, building access in weeks/months prior to demolition:

 http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p1.html
 http://www.aneta.org/911experiments_com/AceElevator/
 http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/529-tom-sullivan-eso.html

9/11 Elevator Access
(4 mins.)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJFBi5Zgj9E

Keep in mind also that, the 9/11 Commission did not examine (and was not provided with/didn't seek out documentation related to) the elevator, asbestos removal or other improvements-renovations at the WTC Towers prior to the attacks.

Marvin Bush (yes the _other_ brother) was CEO of Stratesec aka Securacom.

This firm had control over not only World Trade Center security and surveillance cameras but also those of Washington Dulles Airport and United Airlines, before and during 9/11.

Marvin Bu$h--director of WTC, Dulles airport and United Airlines security firm
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/02/43867.shtml
 http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm

Bu$h Family Babysitter Killed in Fairfax, VA
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/10/273301.shtml

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratesec

Another company named Kroll Inc. had sold security equipment for the World Trade Center to the New York Port Authority after the 1993 bombings:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kroll_Inc.

Just prior to the September 11 attacks, Kroll's managing director Jerome Hauer hired former FBI special investigator and terrorism expert John P. O'Neill to head security at the WTC complex. O'Neill died in the building collapses.



The World Trade Center towers were a gigantic financial, real estate, insurance coverage and safety liability (to their property owners, and the New York Port Authority) by the late 1990s.

Many tons of asbestos had been used in their 1960s-early 70s design and construction, and were required to be removed by state and Federal regulations.

An extension had already been granted for the WTC as of 2001, and some small-scale preliminary removal of asbestos had been attempted-started in the Towers during the 1990s, but it would cost at least $2 billion (probably far more), and may not even have been practically/technically feasible to fully accomplish, i.e. remove __all__ of the asbestos material from the huge buildings' interior structural members, walls, columns, shafts etc. for disposal.


Demolition of the buildings and attributing it to "19 hijackers" / terrorism, while having the debris pile up and be largely shipped out to China (and thus also not available for full engineering evaluation/examination/forensic testing) within 72 hours of the airliner impacts.


Also, the attribution of "terrorism" allowed Larry Silverstein, owner of the WTC to double his money on the "acts of God/terrorism" clause in his insurance coverage contract, as there were two (2) airliner impacts.




Mike Novack wrote:
---
" If the theory is that the demolitions were placed well in advance (to get around "a"), how could the planners know WHICH buildings were actually going to be hit? Knowing the plans of those hijacking the planes would not be enough, since in the actual event some other building might actually get hit. "
---

See above Mike. I'm sorry but your question is somewhat illogical -

If we do assume that the explosives (not "demolitions") for controlled demolition of each of the towers were placed in advance, then -

it's also assumed and understood as a corollary that the airliner impacts were merely a sham/cover for what actually 'destroyed' them.


The World Trade Center main Towers were indeed designed to be survivable of multiple impacts from fully loaded jetliners (not to mention constant exposure to up to 140 mph winds, etc.)

As you see from watching the videos of the towers, right after being struck.

Watch one of the posted online videos, which isn't just a few-seconds clip but actually holds the camera view for 10-20 seconds, in a longer shot showing the entire tower from side of its aircraft impact.

The towers gently sway back and forth after the plane hits, but (of course) stay up exactly as designed.

And as the builders mention, probably each Tower building could sustain additional such impacts.

See the explanations of WTC design engineers and construction personnel here :

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/02/429225.shtml#441278




Mike Novack wrote:
---
" the hijackers also fake "
---

It's apparent that pilots were not needed for this 'mission' -- only in a "Lee Harvey Oswald" capacity, anyway as patsies to make it seem as though 4 airliners had been "hijacked".

Plenty of remote guidance technology existed as of the 1990s, and earlier, for large aircraft.

The four planes used had been rigged in advance and were guided to their targets far more accurately than any unreliable (Hani Hanjour), cocaine-snorting (Mohamed Atta), alcoholic perverts as "hijackers."


Must read Kevin Ryan article -

Muslims Did Not Attack the U.S. on 9/11
 http://digwithin.net/2012/03/17/muslims-did-not-attack-the-u-s-on-911/



Mike Novack wrote:
---
" But in THAT case why either "a" or "b" since easier to just include a few tons of explosives in the baggage, yes? "
---

[ RE: 'explosives on the planes' / 'planes as "bombs"' ]

See above. The aircraft were essentially incapable of "bringing down" the buildings on their own.

Even if they had been somehow "loaded up" with explosives (or whatever you're suggesting).

Heck they even had many tons of jet fuel: which of course ended up burning off almost completely in the first few minutes. As we all know, NIST itself was absolutely not able to attribute "jet fuel" as a primary cause of the WTC towers' collapses in its final reports.

As we also know, the designers/builders of the WTC (see above) made the buildings capable of surviving multiple jet airliner impacts.


Mike Novack wrote:
---
" But how about powdered aluminum, magnesium, etc. (really hot, fast fire) "
---

WTC building demolitions -- particularly those of the 2 main Towers -- were apparently accomplished using multiple types of explosives.

This was necessary due to the requirement for free-fall collapse into own footprints.

The extremely strong core columns could not be taken out by airliner impacts alone.
(NIST and of course the WTC designers verify this)

Residue of nanothermite was found in the WTC debris, and molten steel/aluminum -- produced by temperatures far hotter than "office fires" (NIST's explanation for all 3 buildings' collapses, even Building 7 which wasn't hit by an airliner) -- was not only observed at the scene but is visible in many videos.

Fires burned at thousands of degrees for months after the collapses at the site. Molten steel was present in the basement/foundation area of the Towers (and was not fully explained/accounted for by NIST).

All these observed conditions add up to more than one type of explosive (and one in particular, thermite) being used in the demolitions.


Mike Novack wrote:
---
" Tall buildings unsafe? "
---

See the article by Kevin Ryan as posted on PDX IMC newswire :

Are Tall Buildings Safer As a Result of the NIST WTC Reports?

 http://digwithin.net/2012/09/07/are-tall-buildings-safer/
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/02/429222.shtml


No structural design, building or fire codes were changed (even though NIST publicly claimed otherwise) as a result of the NIST reports on the World Trade Center building collapses.

They should have been; not because steel frame skyscrapers are inherently 'unsafe' or scary in themselves, as "tall buildings"...
but because NIST has groundbreakingly claimed that "office fires" -- not 'airliner impacts', 'jet fuel' etc. -- had caused weakening of the steel structures of the WTC towers and thus their free-fall collapse into their own footprints.

No, not just "partial collapse" , "falling over" , "weakening of structure", "sporadic damage" etc. --

We're talking here about NIST attributing "office fires" as the cause of __global free fall collapse__ of steel frame skyscraper buildings into their own footprints, in a matter of several seconds (10 seconds for WTC 1 & 2, under 7 seconds for Building 7).

The only three steel frame skyscrapers to have ever in engineering history collapsed due to such cause.
(according to NIST anyway)


Yes Mike,

you should Listen to Larry.

RE: " 911 religious belief " 22.Feb.2015 12:11

you mean

Belief in the official U.S. government explanation for what happened on 11 September 2001 -

1) Airliners "hijacked" by 'religious extremists'

2) U.S. responds with "holy war" aka War On Terror, by invading the country of origin of the Afghanistan Hijackers ?



oops, oh wait ...

meant to say -

2) U.S. responds with "holy war" aka War On Terror, by invading the country of origin of the Iraqi Hijackers ?


oops, oh wait ...

" religious belief " ................ LOL

you mean 22.Feb.2015 12:20

i

the disinformation war is over. Almost everybody has moved on.

you remind me of one of those old Japanese soldiers found years after the war ended on some Island, still thinking he is fighting for the cause. (ask your parents if you don't understand the reference).

there will always be individual zealots cut off from reality, tilting at windmills.

I love the one about Bush's brother in charge of security. Never heard that one, but there is no more credible evidence of that as their was Obama's brother (the one that lives in the Hut in Kenya, that Obama won't even send $20 to) being in charge of WTC security. No evidence, no testimony, just internet-hayshakers making the claim.

Again, nobody of any importance believes this crap and their are hundreds of partisan types in Washington who would LOVE to be able to blame this on the Bushs. But they don't because they would look like insane opossum's peckers and not like a legitimate person.

But it is entertaining to watch you, so please continue if you must.

RE: " No evidence, no testimony, just internet-hayshakers " 22.Feb.2015 12:28

you mean

Yourself. Spamming up this thread.

Stratasec / Securacom Marvin Bush WTC security on 9/11 = fully documented.

Brothers in Arms 22.Feb.2015 13:41

Wow

One FACT in common with "i" opinions is that it's exactly the same opinions as Dick Cheney

Wow 22.Feb.2015 16:12

i

thanks. that's the nicest thing someone here has said to me.

A wonderful man, and very smart or in your twisted eyes, someone smart enough to pull the wool over the nations eyes and boo-foo you in the rear at the same time.

Either way, a badge of honor!

9-11 Was a Government Sponsored Act of Terrorism. 22.Feb.2015 17:21

Tracy Mapes

There is no use arguing the point.

It's time to start fucking some shit up and making these 'Assholes' pay for what they have done to Our Country.

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

P.S. - The most opportune time for the loading of the Twin Towers was after the 1st failed bombing attempt. They had full access to the Buildings until they were cleared for re-opening, both during the investigation and construction fazes.

Take Care,

-Tracy Mapes

Badge of Honor 22.Feb.2015 17:27

Fail

It's your own words - it speaks volumes out here on indymedia

Fail 22.Feb.2015 17:37

i

oh no, Im not respected on Indymedia. Oh no. oh the shame...

LOL...

foolishness of i 22.Feb.2015 18:55

You Said It

Is it really funny ?

(quote) oh no, Im not respected on Indymedia. Oh no. oh the shame...

LOL... (end Quote)

911 info - video 911 TERROR ATTACK ANSWERS 23.Feb.2015 16:16

i is Dick Cheney

 http://youtu.be/SvBTDdGgPk4 [EPIC] 911 TERROR ATTACK ANSWERS

i's theories have been debunked completely which is why no serious engineer / scientist will come near his stuff except those that are selling the Official Story.

i is Dick Cheney 24.Feb.2015 16:07

i

yes, its me. Did you see my trial today? Nope? because it didn't happen because your theories are based on blind hate and not on evidence, logic, or anything else the rational world views of value.

have a nice day...

RE: everything posted by "i" 27.Feb.2015 22:15

.

>