In recognition of the casualties resulting from 9/11 and its aftermath....

I was in the process of making a music video in recognition of the 911 victims. I came across the vidoes about the cover up. I had seen this before and some what doubted it. Then as I was remembering what I was doing five years ago while I lay awake watching a rebroadcast of the Today Show from 9/11/01on MSNBC today. It came to me. I would hope to say that five years and counting of higher education would consider me an educated individual. There are three things that don't add up. The interview of a man in the Pentagon at the time of the "Plane Crash" basically proved the questionable facts I had gained from watching the video about a year and a half ago. To much of my surprise there has been ample amounts of facts proven in the newer versions. Either way, I still doubted it till about an hour ago. The questions I had about the Pentegon where, how does one here a crash/explosion and not evacuate the building. I don't care if it is built to withstand war time. Anyone would seek shelter in fear of other attacks, per se. He was being interviewed in his office with a co-worker, he didn't seem frightened to me. Rather, nervous his story wasn't adding up. Lastly, I was watching the rebroadcast and I thought to myself, when the Towers fall if it imploads then it was a cover up. Unfortunately, it didn't. The point where the plane hit first began to crumble appearing to bring down the other sections of the Towers outwards. I thought then see no cover up. One last fact that came to me was I remembered thinking to myself, at the point of the first tower collapsing, that it didn't seem logical or scientifically possible to me. I had class so I shrugged it off and ran off. So in answer to my question about the imploading. They had to have poorly placed the explosives in a manner that would make it seem as if it wasn't a planned demolition. One other thing that comes to mind is, I also noticed that later on in the year or perhaps the new year following 9/11 I remembered hearing about several members of Bush's administration resigning. I then thought to myself, why is every one doing this so fast after 9/11?

Be assured I am going to educate as many people as I can about this. My senator's especially. I believe that our government has failed us and that we should sue ALL of Bush's administration. Isn't he married to a Heinz? I believe so; they can afford the damages that would be awarded but in no way would they ever be sufficient! I almost don't believe in Democracy any more. I used to be a hard-nosed Republican, then loosened up to a Libertarian and now I am going to form my own opinions and decide from there. I have thought that surely someone that would know about it would come forward but then I started thinking, it is the government and I believe they would kill to hide something. Hence, J.F.K. and M.L.K.! All those people lost just to start a war or for whatever their reason there is no reason to have ever done something so disgusting. I think it was Adams who supported going into Florida when Spain and Rome where fighting over it and not many Americans supported him on that but it worked out cause we own it now. Politic don't seem hard. Politic to me are an easy deduction with the use of ethics that positively affect all involved and logic. It shouldn't ever have to do with greed, power or money.

Yes, & how about when Andrew Card tells Bush 2nd plane...

Yes, & how about when Andrew Card tells Bush a 2nd plane has struck the towers. Card walks away without waiting for any response & Bush just sits there not wanting any more information or doing anything??? Totally absurd!

Welcome edrohler, thanks for

Welcome edrohler, thanks for sharing your thoughts! My hot-button that got me started was someone saying something about "They shipped all the steel out...".

The collapse

This rant isn't well organized; it is my opinion on how this controlled demolition could have happened, in the way that we all saw. I point out where I am making an educated assumption, and some evidence is still being debated (SJ's source of positive thermate test metal). I might post this in a couple different areas, depending on if it applies to the conversation.

If you want to try and understand how the collapse occurred, you need to understand what the goal was for the image presented.

They wanted to have the planes crash, causing a lot of damage, and then have the fires burn for almost an hour. Then, they wanted it to look like the heat from the fire caused everything to collapse (at the crash zone), and then have the top 1/4 of the building smash through the rest of the building.

In order to do this, and not have anyone know about explosives, they used an unorthodox plan. Explosives would be used on a few necessary points of the building's infrastructure, the rest of the building's infrastructure would be cut into pieces by thermate, placed and timed so that by the time the building was collapsing, each thermate charge would have done it's job in eliminating the core columns. This is why a pan caking effect did occur; it really was like the 9/11 commission said, "The interior of the building was a hollow steel shaft, with elevators and stairs." The core columns were eliminated...

The thought of most people who don’t believe in the controlled demolition is "They would need TONS of explosives, squibs out every window, thousands of workers, thousands of explosives. No one could do that without anyone noticing!"

That is where thermate + securicom come into play.

Securicom had the access, even had multiple evacuation drills, complete power downs of parts of the towers for repair. All of this had to either go through, or be allowed by securicom. The Bush-securicom connection is well known, so I wont go into that. Securicom was also in charge of security for one of the airlines used (AA I think, not sure), as well as Dulles International Airport. They quickly changed their names after 9/11, wonder why? Why isn't this company out of business? Most security company's that screw up that bad, don't get hired again, or bought out by other companies...

Thermate was more responsible for the collapse than explosives were. A thermate charge applied to a core column would be lighter and more compact (I am assuming. I've seen Thermite used, and it doesn't take a lot, it's more about the placement and surface area with the steel) than the required explosive charge needed to take out that column (depending on the explosive I'm sure). Thermate is very inconspicuous, planted on columns (away from sight), they produce smoke, heat and light, which wouldn't be detectable from outside the building.

Due to the amount of molten under the rubble, and for how long it was hot under there, I'm sure that a LOT of thermate was used, and few explosives.

The explosives would be only for initiating continuous collapse, maybe every 15-30 floors. They must have been very strong though, to pulverize so much concrete. They also were the kind of explosives that do not produce heat, less noticeable.

Thermate is the key for having a demolition, look more like a collapse.

If you watch a traditional demolition, there are A LOT more squibs, out of almost every window. This is not the case with WTC 1/2/7.

If at some point they try to argue that the terrorists planted bombs in the buildings, why would they use such an unorthodox methods, designed to be discreet, unnoticed, and subtle. They would have wanted explosives to be big, loud, and noticed.