User Submission - Simple Logic Exposes the Truth

The following is a user submission sent in by SomeBigGuy focused on the 'collapses' of the twin towers and WTC7:

A lot has been said about the fact that no steel framed building have ever collapsed from fire before or since 9/11. I've found that if you take this one simple fact just a little further, the truth of 9/11 becomes unmistakable.

In order to convince everyone of the truth, this is the only argument you'll need. Lets take it from the top:

Something that pundits of the official story as well as the media like to ignore is that there was a third collapse on 9/11. Building 7 (WTC 7) collapsed around 5:20 on 9/11 and WAS NOT hit by any airplane. Officially it caught fire from debris and collapsed due to these fires. Additionally, the existence of diesel fuel stored in the building is often blamed for creating the non-existent inferno and bringing the tower down. However, even FEMA's half baked analysis of the collapses conceded that there was only a small probability of that being the case.

Additionally, the FEMA report states that it was the infernos that brought down the twin towers, not the impacts. This fact is supported by the fact that the buildings did survive the initial impacts and stood for an additional 90 minutes and 45 minutes respectively. This is further supported by these images that depict what affect a major structural failure will have on skyscraper:


And it wasn't the jet fuel that caused the inferno, according to FEMA, the jet fuel burned off in ten minutes. It was the resultant fire of materials in the building that caused the collapse, the furniture, computers, paper files and the planes' cargo.

Based on this, on 9/11 three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed due to fire. Despite the fact that there is little evidence of an inferno, this other basic truth proves this last theory false as well. No steel framed building has collapsed from fire in history, never. Here are some examples of buildings that have survived real infernos:

Furthermore, one of the towers suffered a far more severe inferno in 1975 and did not collapse:

Officially, as the fires weakened the steel columns in the building, the floors let go and "pancaked" down floor by floor until the entire building was reduced to rubble. Interesting characteristics of these collapses is that the concrete was reduced to dust and the buildings fell at free fall speeds. Free fall speeds? Implying no resistance by any of the 100 or so lower floors?

Now if we are to believe that three buildings can collapse in this fashion in one day, then there must be some historical precedent for such an event. Images of what happens to buildings after suffering a structural failure have been provided in this document. Additionally, images of what happens to steel framed buildings during an inferno have also been provided. Where is the historical precedent for steel framed buildings being reduced to dust due to office fires?

Answer, there are none. Are we to believe that three buildings collapsed in one day in a manner that has never occurred previously in the history of mankind?

Here are some examples of controlled demolitions:

In this document, we have seen images of buildings suffering structural damage, buildings being engulfed in an infernos, and buildings experiencing a controlled demolition. Which category does the three collapses on 9/11 fit into?

To anyone who insists the three buildings "pancaked" as the government insists it did, please provide examples of such an event happening in the past. Because if "pancaking" can happen three times in one day, then it would have to be a common occurrence. Buildings catch fire everyday throughout the world, if "pancaking" was a plausible theory, then it would be happening all over the world.

Physics and simple logic tells us that something that has no basis in reality cannot occur three times in one day. Until pundits of the official story can provide a historical precedent of collapses occurring from fire in the manner they say they did, then their argument is irrelevant.

Historical precedent tells us in no uncertain terms that the three collapses on 9/11 were controlled demolition. However, if this was the case, wouldn't someone have heard the explosions?

Well another often ignored fact by the media is the dozens of witnesses to secondary explosives on 9/11:

Here are several firemen:

Here's another fireman:

And another fireman:

And another fireman:

Heres a reporter:

And another reporter:

Here's a witness:

And another witness:

Sorry SomeBigGuy for taking so long to post this, please forgive me!

What we think we know about

What we think we know about Controlled-Demolition. Has anybody else read any of that sites pages? It's their resume and it pretty much clears the air on a few issues and murks it up on a few others. One of is the notion we have about how long it would take to prep a building for CD. I have always assumed that it would take months or at least weeks of planning to place devices in order to conduct a controlled demo. Yet if you read what their own website says this can be done rather quickly.
Read about how quickly the Sheikh A. Alakl Residential & Commercial Center in SAUDI ARABIA was felled in just 96hrs. And don't miss the clear connections they boast with the government in areas such as Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Department of Defense (DOD)Department of Justice, and the Department of State. Oh yeah and then there is their connection to the oil companies who's offshore riggings need to be removed and there is also a bit about Phillips Petroleum in Pasadena Texas.
If you ask me their 50+years of resume building is a bit scary. I know that if I am ever in the market to fell a skyscraper (or two or three) these are the folks I would be calling to do the job hell they even clear the site and help with the Forensics for you.

yeah, CDI did the cleanup

yeah, CDI did the cleanup for WTC and OKC..

I wonder if those

I wonder if those contruction workers who actually said, (you hear a rumble)"did you hear that, keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon", worked for CDI?

I believe what takes the

I believe what takes the longest in pulling off a controlled demolition is the planning of it, pouring over the blue prints to determine what explosives need to be placed where, how the explosions need to be timed, etc.

Once this plan has been formulated, its just legwork, putting the explosives in place.

The planning can be done behind closed doors months or years ahead of time, all it would require to put the plan in motion is an opportunity to place the explosives, maybe during the power down the weekend before.

Here's another thing to chew

Here's another thing to chew on:

Project H.A.A.R.P and liquefaction.

That could also have brought the WTC down.

Another theory is that in 1993 the first WTC attack also was staged in order to create an excuse to shut it down for a few weeks(remember only ATF was allowed in??) Maybe this time was used to rig the support columns with C4 and plant explosives in key load bearing walls. It would have been a simple matter of carpentry and paint to cover it up.

Somebiguy I don't think it

Somebiguy I don't think it would take all that long in planning where to place the explosives. And neither does CDI again I point to the 96hrs start to finish. Beginning of the planning to complete demolition. This company has 50+ years experience and they have put that experience into technologically advanced software design no doubt. How hard would it be to input into a data base the height and deminsions of a structure and the computer tell you were to place the bombs and how much explosives to use? I imagine not very hard at all.

why would they place bombs in 1993 and leave them where routine maintance might detonate one. That seems a little far fetched. Whomever placed the explosives had plenty of time over the weekend prior to 9-11 When the towers had been closed for the most part to anyone not part of a special team of engineers working on a supposed "power down" of some type to upgrade equipement. Never before ine the towers history had they ever had such an event.

Thats a damn good point, a

Thats a damn good point, a software program could crunch the numbers and spit out the results in a matter of seconds.

I can easily see one part of

I can easily see one part of the analysis of how the twin towers fell that you are missing. The impact of the airplanes hit several floors at one time and blew off the fire retardant material that protected the load bearing steel floor beams.

Jet fuel is essentially diesel fuel. Anybody that has tried to light a puddle diesel fuel will see that it doesn't catch fire on its own. It takes a lot of pressure, finely atomized, and high energy to get it lighted. However, once it starts to burn it will will burn a slow steady rate and can be difficult to put because it turns into a oily goo. It doesn't explode or serve as a good flame accelerant. I doubt that several thousands of gallons of fuel released by the airplane would have burned through in under 10 minutes. Sure some of the fuel got atomized on impact and that is what started the fire but we know that the majority of it puddled up and some of it even poured down into elevator shafts. The fuel no doubt soaked into other materials, paper, furniture, wood, which are much more easily burned and any only burned hotter because they were fuel ladden.

If you watch the excellent discovery documentary that explained how the towers collapsed they slowed the video down of the tower collapsing and even pin pointed the exact location that the first steel lattice grid broke on the buildings exoskeleton. From there it doesnt' take a rocket scientist to clearly see how it was a chain reaction of forced that compressed the building straight down.

If anyone has ever closely watched a building demolition you can clearly see the various pyrotechnics going off at different times and intervals at different points of a building. You can just willy nilly set off all the explosions at the same time to get a building that size to fall straight down in one spot. The only reason it did so on 9/11 is because the building literally came down onto of themselves.

And couldn't the other buildings have collapsed also maybe because, oh i don't know, 2 massive 90+ story buildings that constituted a large part of the foundation came raining down around them have anything to do with it.

Also, one last point. How do you explain the collapse that took place at the Pentagon almost an hour after it was truck by an airplane? That was a heavily fortified concert enclosure that was defeated by longer term heating, thats why.

What they did was to

What they did was to strategically place remotely detonatable bombs in between floors by lifting the ceiling tiles and planting them that way, no wires, they then instigated pre-programmed computer controlled sequential detonations on both towers, almost certainly from the recently renovated heavily fortified 'bunker' in WTC 7, that is the main - and same - reason they demolished WTC 7, so as to destroy all implicating forensic evidence, which was carried out to it's conclusion with their illegall 'vacuuming' of ground zero.