Video: Ground Zero ironworkers on 9/11 anomalies
In these clips from the special Metal of Honor, cablecast by SpikeTV on Sept. 5, 2006, ironworkers from Ground Zero talk about the bizarre collapse and disintegration of the twin towers and the health effects of working in the toxic brew, among other matters.
Some quotes:
"I didn't think they were gonna fall. After being there in '93 and seeing the damage that was done, at the bottom of those columns ... that was some blast! And I didn't think so at all."
"When we were putting those towers up, in our wildest dreams those towers were built not to fall."
"We saw some of the thickest steel I have ever seen, bent like a pretzel. And you just couldn't imagine the force that that took."
"I don't know if a person who has never been an ironworker could imagine, but uh ... all of this massive iron, I mean pieces that weigh 20 or 50 tons, were all mangled and just crumpled up.
"You couldn't have paid a demolition company to take'em down straighter. You know, it was amazing, didn't really damage .. if they had fallen over sideways, could you imagine the damage to Lower Manhattan."
- Dem Bruce Lee Styles's blog
- Login to post comments
There is nothing in this
There is nothing in this video that provides any indication of CD, which I assume is what is being alluded to be the assertion that there are anomalies. This is the same level of "evidence" that people point to in videos where witnesses say "I heard like an explosion" or "It sounded like a missile". Of course the WTC collapse is going to create a debris field with elements that no one has ever seen before. Of course no one ever thought the towers could come down. The fact is while WTC 7 did fall into its footprint, WTC 1 and 2 really didn't. The debris field spanned the complex, destroying WTC 4, 5, and 6 and severely damaging several surrounding buildings.
THIS is not to say that CD was not used. But Truthers needs to be careful what they draw from videos like these. The fact that it did come down vertically and all the other observations are consistent with, but not proof of, CD.
"This is the same level of
"This is the same level of "evidence" that people point to in videos where witnesses say "I heard like an explosion" or "It sounded like a missile"."
If only a few people made comments like this, I would be inclined to agree with you (for example, people who select a few ambiguous observations of a missile at the Pentagon, while ignoring the 130+ witnesses who saw a plane, are being selective and misleading with the facts). But the sheer accumulation of details concerning secondary explosions in the WTC is a meaningful piece of EVIDENCE. See David Ray Griffin's "Explosive Testimony," for example.
"Of course no one ever thought the towers could come down."
...nor should they have, if you believe the government scientists who studied the collapse, and the architects and engineers who built the towers.
"The fact is while WTC 7 did fall into its footprint, WTC 1 and 2 really didn't. The debris field spanned the complex, destroying WTC 4, 5, and 6 and severely damaging several surrounding buildings."
...because WTC1 and 2 debris was literally "shot" from the towers as they collapsed. Now how does heavy steel debris get thrown several hundred feet horizontally without some additional energy behind it?
And as far as the "footprint" of WTC 1 and 2 is concerned: The debris field you describe is still incredibly tight given that two 1300-foot skyscrapers collapsed next to each other. The fact that WTC 4, 5, 6 -- and no other buildings -- were severely damaged is the incredible fact, NOT that there wasn't more damage done.
"THIS is not to say that CD was not used. But Truthers needs to be careful what they draw from videos like these."
Sure, caution is always encouraged. But you're saying we shouldn't consider the eyewitness testimony of welding experts to be proof of any kind?
The iron workers video presented here is not the foundation of an argument, at least not for people who have studied 9/11 for any amount of time. This video, however, is certainly another piece of cumulative proof of CD. I don't think anyone here is interpreting the video in isolation from other facts (pools of molten metal, collapse characteristics, and so on).
I totally disagree Les
I got this out of it...the ironworker said something to the effect that a demolition team couldn't have done it any better...that speaks to the obvious...that the chances that these massive buildings would all three collapse and all three into their own footprints is astronomical..
i also got out of it the shock of experienced iron workers who saw 50 ton beams of iron mangled...
i also got out of it superheated steel beams that ignite once they hit the air...
i also got out of it more corroboration of the pulveriztion of everything into dust....
it all looks like explosives...it so friggin obvious already...
You may disagree, but what does that mean?
Certainly, without a doubt, ironworkers are experts on CD. I would put them up as an expert witnesses tomorrow.....or maybe not. You’re missing my point. I listen to the videos and say "Gee that's really interesting". All of this information is useful, but its not proof.
Also, you need to separate the plethora of people that "heard explosions" as an explanation of the noises from the actual collapse, from fire fighters that reported secondary explosions before the collapse. The later would be considered evidence if provided as testimony under oath. The former is NOT convincing evidence, but only a person's interpretation of an event.
Certainly there IS "evidence" of CD, otherwise we wouldn't be here. But again, there is NOTHING in this video to raises to the level of evidence that would be believable to a jury after cross examination by a skilled defense lawyer (assuming it was Bush on trial!).
As far as your point about the debris field, without a comprehensive computer model to determine if in fact a collapse of such magnitude could NOT have created such a field UNLESS CD was used, you have no evidence, only a theory.
you make the wrong leaps...again
1. Ironworkers are not experts on CD. They are experts on the way iron changes under heat or other pressure. They are experts in the removal and handling of iron beams.....their shock at the deformities of the steel does provide "evidence", even expert evidence, that extraordinary forces (heat and pressure) acted upon the beams....again "evidence" for CD.
2. I don't know if you think you are a lawyer or not but your interpretation of what evidence is, is wlat wrong.
What a lay person heard IS evidence. Whether the fact finder will beleive that evidence after cross-examination is another thing.
Also, i would submit that firefighters easily posession knowledge beyond that of an ordinary lay person regarding what sounds like and explosion and what sounds like a loud bang...many of the firefighters had military backgrounds
To suggest that their expert opinion testimony would not hold up in court is wrong. Furthermore, contemporaneous statements/excited utterances have a higher indicia of reliability than other statements.
I don't need a computer model to tell me that the chances of 3 buildings all collapsing on the same day, at near free fall speed, into their own footprints, combined with molten metal in the basements of all three shifts the burden back to the "official" story believers...
its circumstantial evidence...you won't get Cheney saying...sorry guys i did it...