BBC Piece Post-Mortem: Mark Loizeaux and the Special Engineer

It is difficult for me to know where to begin peeling away the layers of misinformation the BBC peddled to their audience in last weeks exposé on the collapse of Building 7 of the World Trade Center in New York. There are so many people out there grinding away at the production, I don’t feel the need to repeat what they have already done with journeyman-like effectiveness, yet there is something that I have yet to see addressed that I feel is crucial to exposing the overall lack of trustworthiness of the piece. And there is another related aspect of it, that I feel may in fact, be almost an unintended admission, of sorts.

At issue? Mark Loizeaux’s direct misrepresentation of fact and Peter Hayden’s uncanny admission.

I have to admit that I have been studying a little on the process of controlled demolition. A theory that I have been working on, that I submitted here, a month ago, led me to CDI, Mark Loizeaux’s family company.

It’s impossible to look into the process of controlled demolition without eventually turning pages on the CDI website. They wrote the book. I mean they really wrote the book. Mark’s father is credited with creating the process and the business itself. So these guys know a thing or two about bringing buildings down in a hurry.

Now in all fairness, the BBC piece did cover the fact that CDI has been suspect in the controlled demolition theory of the Trade Centers since it began. And they talk about the reason...

They were brought in almost immediately after the attack to help with the clean up.

Now, logically speaking, the people who are convinced that 9/11 was an example of a very well constructed controlled demolition, would have to view that fact as a big clue.

Let’s face it; if a group of rogue elements in the government were going to blow up a building on the QT, would they bring in a demo company to help with the clean up if they weren’t in on it? Of course not. Those people would recognize certain things that others wouldn’t, and so the gig would be up, and people would go to prison.

It would be stupid to bring in a company of demo experts to “clean up” your secretly demoed site. And if anything, these people are not stupid.

So, people looked at CDI right off the bat.

But one thing I don’t know if others found in their CDI research is something interesting that I came across a month ago, and it has been nagging at me, so I think I will toss it in here. I am not saying that CDI “did it”, but it is rather interesting.

This is from a Washington Technology article dated 12/16/02 Vol. 17 No. 18, titled “Survival Guide: Mark Loizeaux, demolition expert”;

“WT: Once a project starts, how do you manage risk?

Loizeaux: At the site, we track very carefully the chain of custody, the ownership of debris, hazardous materials, things like that. We track everything from cradle to grave in writing.”

I understand that this is a very dangerous business and that extends to the litigation of damages after the charges go off as well. People who are born into this life must also develop very stringent habits of covering their own asses, inside the buildings and out. Before the demo and afterwards. They have to or someone is going to sue them for a foundation crack in an adjacent building that was there a year before the demo, and they would lose everything. It must become second nature for them. Like a code. Because in their line of work they could lose everything in a flash, including their lives.

They leave nothing to chance, even cleaning their brass, so to speak. They would have it no other way. And there is CDI, on site, in charge of the “clean up”. Interesting to me at least.

Which makes me wonder why Mark Loizeaux would make such a glaring error as to say something on this program that is clearly untrue? And it is proven untrue by his own website.

At 27:23 into the BBC piece they introduce Loizeaux, correctly, as one of the foremost experts on demolition. He not only shows the J.L. Hudson building demolition, but mentions it by name as holding several world records for demolition. He probably shouldn’t have mentioned that one, for several reasons.

He says it took months to “prepare the structure” and took months “to set the charges. Months”. But that’s just not true, according to his website;

“CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.”

What took so long, according to the website, was the design of the implosion because there were 12 separate sections to the 2.2 million sq. ft. building. All built at different times, with different construction techniques. And no drawings of the building.

Now compare that to Building Seven. 47 floors, as opposed to the Hudson buildings 30 levels; the Hudson building had 2.2 million sq ft of floor space, where Building Seven had roughly 45,000 sq ft per floor totaling… 2.2 million sq ft.

So, theoretically, the demolition requirements would be similar and the design part would certainly be easier. Now, that would mean, that the actual charges if they used a 12 person team could be set in 24 days. Or, if they used 20 people… you do the math. But this is all factually based on real world experience provided by CDI’s own site.

So it didn’t take “months and months” to set those charges and by extraction, it wouldn’t take that time to have prepped Building 7.

But that wasn’t the misstatement that I was referring to. I just threw that one in for the fun of it.

At 31:10 into the piece, Mark Loizeaux commits what I know to be a misrepresentation of fact. He claims that yes, some of the windows facing the building were blown out, but, he says if explosives of the type that would be needed to cut the columns were used, then, he says, “…all of the windows on the surrounding buildings would be blown out all the way around. No way around it.”

Yet, on Mark’s own website, the same exact page that we talked about the other misinformation from Mark, he clearly boasts about how that job posed a significant problem with the surrounding historic structures and there old glass, and they were able to demo the Hudson building, another steel framed structure, without cause hardly any window breakage. On the sides facing the buildings!

“Even with all the precautions to control overpressure, the age, existing cracks, and poor condition of glazing windows in vacant structures on the north, east and west sides of the J.L. Hudson complex, window breakage was a concern.”

“There was far less window breakage in adjacent buildings than glass company crews were prepared to handle. Many of the broken windows appeared to have been those which were cracked before the implosion,…”

Unbelievable. The arrogance of these people. He mentions the one job that he has detailed on his site as being very successful in keeping from breaking vintage windows facing the building that was demo'd.

Not to mention the fact that they didn’t ‘break the windows all the way around the buildings”. “No way around it”? Apparently there was on the Hudson building. Which was, by the way, dropped in 1998. Three years before 9/11.

And that brings me to the last point, which is directly tied into CDI again.

During the video, Peter Hayden is addressing the issue of fore knowledge of the collapse of Building 7 and he says something very, very interesting. He says they had a 'special engineer' with seismic equipment who told them around 12:00 that day that Building 7 would fall in 5 hours. And of course, he was correct. At 5:21pm, Building 7 came down.

Now, why would a ‘special engineer' be there in the first place with seismic equipment shooting a building fire? Did he just happen by? And how did he get so accurate with the seismic equipment that it could tell the rumblings of regular office fires?

Here’s the payday boys and girls (I know you have been waiting for it): the continuation of the quote from CDI’s reporting on the J.L. Hudson building

“…cracked before the implosion, according to Dave Miller of Schnabel Engineering, the third party geotechnical firm hired to do pre/post blast surveys and record the vibration from the blast. Miller said that the vibration from the fall of the structure was well within allowable limits as recorded at adjacent properties.”

That’s right. CDI and Mark cover their asses so much, that they bring in engineers with seismic equipment to record the blast before and after in order to make sure no other damage is done to other buildings.

Is this why the 'special engineer' was on site on 9/11?

CDI website - 'Sensitive projects'...?

From the CDI website":-

"Department of Defense (DOD)
Controlled Demolition Incorporated (CDI) has the appropriate experience and expertise to assist Department of Defense (DOD) agencies and contractors in demolition operations on sensitive projects, domestically and internationally. Through the support of our international network of offices and agent relationships, Controlled Demolition Incorporated can respond promptly for defense-related consulting and performance requests on short notice."

Ten Stars

NIST and FEMA should turn over all of their data to willyloman, immediately. In 72 hours, you've revealed something about which they seem totally incapable.

Nice post

Great post. I was thinking the whole time "wow, Mark Loizeaux is an idiot." OR he is a bad liar. One thing you didn't mention is, when the interviewer asks about thermite, Mark gives some wise crack about not seeing thermite since high school. What?? He doesn't know that thermite is a perfect incendiary to cut right through steel? Come on....

The BBC Missing Question

The BBC didn't ask Mark Loizeaux this quesiton - the "jet crashing method" and "fire" you claim were used on 9/11, taking down buildings and having them fall in their own footprints is far less time consuming and less expensive than CD - why, you could use a bunch of old jets headed for moth balls and instead crash them into buidlings scheduled for demolition. So, Mark (hypothetical) why don't you now switch to simply crashing old jets into buildings and setting steel office buildings like WTC 7 on fire, and change your business completely?

Home Run!

It's a home run! CDI's involvement in both clean-ups of the 95' OKC Murrell Building and the 01' WTC towers stinks, by any measure.

It's a fantastic post! It is a revealing quote provided inadvertently by Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

"...a 'special engineer' with seismic equipment who told them around 12:00 that day that Building 7 would fall in 5 hours. And of course, he was correct. At 5:21pm, Building 7 came down."

I've hoped CDI's presence would come out more and apprecaite Willy Loman's post! Eric Hufschmid pointed out, some time ago, the suspicious coincidence of CDI being brought in on both incidents!

CDI's role deserves much more attention than it's ever received!

I believe, Mark Loizeaux can barely suppress his anger in the "Third Tower". He must try to defuse the ticking time bomb of public interest in his company's roles in these tragedies, but can barely contain his contempt for such inquiry. He's probably gotten away with so much for so long!

Mark Loizeaux and CDI....
...don't believe them!

months versus weeks

Good job on your various points. One consideration on your lesser point about the claim it took months to prepare for the similar sized building CDI did. While it took 24 days to set the charges, no time estimate is made for the design of where they were put. The issue here is whether demolition experts normally include planning time in guaging how much time is needed in preparation.

Jason Bermas & Alex Jones Commentary

for students of the OKC cover-up

"Crime Scenes Involving Explosives

Controlled Demolition Incorporated (CDI) has long term experience in dealing with forensic investigations and criminal cases associated with explosives. Professional management of evidence, security clearances ensuring confidentiality of operations and professional integrity stand behind the Loizeaux Group’s ability to respond for either the plaintiff or the defendant in a broad spectrum of cases. Reference the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building."

"While final decisions concerning the demolition were being made, CDI was contracted by the GSA to salvage sensitive government paperwork from the building prior to demolition."

“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

OKC deliberate internal demolition was trashed in this doc too.

Loizeaux reminds me of the carpenter who insists on still using hand drills when battery and electric are available.
The BBC could have asked him about his knowledge of exotic explosives and nano-thermites, and his knowledge of advanced military techniques for doing what he does...bringing buildings down. To put Mark Roberts in this piece is also an insult to investigative integrity.

The BBC piece was heavily weighted against controlled demolition at the end of the doc, the point in a story when the most powerful conclusions and questions should be answered. It's clear that they had a pre-defined point of view going into this doc. They tried to clean up their own doodoo with the Jane Standley thing without delving into who supplied and why she was supplied with erroneous information.

D for overall effort, because so much death lies at the feet of this grand deception.

Mark Loizeaux aren't you worried?

With just a few well placed "normal office fires" buildings can now be made to collapse at nearly free fall speed into their own footprint. Isn't that a threat to the highly specialized work that CDI has been doing all these years? What if someone figures out how to take down steel hi-rise structures without explosive demolition charges. Come on dude your a fraud! Your the demo expert, So how did WTC 7 fall at free-fall speed into it's own footprint if there wasn't a controlled demolition? You must have something to say don't you? Oh and was it your engineer who gave the 5 hour estimate on the time it would take to fix what went wrong on WTC 7, oops I mean for the fires to demo the building.


their mission is not to find the truth

mockingbirds of the empire

Two Questions...

Two questions in particular that spring to my mind that were completely ignored in the piece were firstly of course the destruction of the steel so quickly afterwards- lets think about this, the only steel framed building in history to have collapsed from fire alone (so we are told) and this crucial evidence is not examined but shipped away and melted down ASAP. What conceivable reason could there be for this other than a cover up .If the building did collapse from fire alone, the findings could affect the way buildings are constructed in the future. It seems certain procedures, in place to ensure evidence such as this is examined very closely to prevent similar collapses in the future, have been bypassed in this one case, why? Furthermore IF the official version is true, the whole controversy surrounding building 7, the twin towers and 9/11 as a whole could be cleared up very easily, right now with an examination of that steel, again WHY was it destroyed so quickly afterwards?

Secondly, fire? Where is it? We are told raging fires brought the building down, if it did wouldn't it have been engulfed in flame as it collapsed and afterwards? I can see a lot of dust and perhaps some smoke but wheres the fire?


The "why" question is a worthy one, but the trail is getting cold. Certainly, the steel should have been inspected by fire specialists- if only to help future structures to preform better, under such conditions. But 9/11 was an unusual day by any yardstick, so the mess was carted away as order was returned to NYC. What is striking to me, is how little has changed in the code books from this event, considering the failure of a major steel building from "fire". Let's face it, fire wasn't the issue any more than terrorists from the middle east were the vectors of such destruction. The cover-up continues...

The rapid recycling of the steel is a serious problem

The rapid recycling of the steel is something that any mature person should view with extreme skepticism.

NONE of the steel from WTC 7 was recovered for test and evaluation and less than 0.5% of the steel from the twin towers was recovered for those purposes.

In reference to Bldg. 7 it is simply incredible that this steel wasn't gone over with a fine tooth comb to ascertain just what caused the first allegedly fire induced collapse of a modern steel framed high rise building. Incompetence seems like it is out of the question as there are plenty of voices on record saying not to get rid of the steel so quickly, as it was serious evidence which would help explain what actually happened. It appears that there is only one answer for why it was done.

I was surprised to hear the BBC mention that NONE of the steel from WTC 7 was recovered for test and evaluation. They should have also been asking certain people why! That would have really made the show interesting!

The same really goes for the 99.5% of the steel from the towers that was never looked at by NIST or people competent in structural failure forensics.

Quick: copy and store

Folks, it would seem smart to capture all of this stuff at the CDI website, and store it. Otherwise it may simply disappear on us.

Did anyone notice how Peter Hayden...

...hesitated right before he mentioned the "special engineer" almost like he was about to say the person's name, and then thought better f it. Anyone else see that or am I crazy?

And is there a way to find out who that person was? If it was the same company that CDI mentions on his site, wouldn't that be an interesting coincidence?

Just my words for some time

A anonym expert, what a load of crap. He's (or she's) a hero, safed dozens if not hundreds of lifes with the forewarnings of the collapses, if the story is for real and the guy is for real we would know his name, besides it was Mark Luizeaux himself.

The Unkown Heroes

who knew all along...Now once, as for the Twins, would be a truly genious guess- but for a building that was not hit by an airplane? Whoaaa...It's astonishing.

In the 2005 book '102 Minutes', page 208 describes an EMT Rich Zarrillo apparently telling an aide of a FDNY chief Peter Ganci at the West street command post, that according to a 'Buildings Department' engineer that the WTC towers were in 'immenent danger of collapse'.

"Zarrillo heads out to the fire command post, situated in front of 3 World Financial, the American Express Building, where he relays this message to several senior firefighters. He says, “OEM says the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get out.” (OEM is the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management, which has its headquarters in WTC 7.) Fire Chief Pete Ganci’s response is, “who the f___ told you that?” Seconds later, they hear the noise of the South Tower as it collapses."

How could the "special engineer" be from CDI?

Wasn't CDI brought in only after the "collapses" to "investigate" and "clean up" the wreckage?

CDI was already signed on at noon that day, with a "special engineer" "seismically monitoring" Building 7? (Every cosmopolitan fire department should have such equipment ....)

Sounds, uh, suspicious to me.

great post 10 stars!

I just watched the BBC doc.The first 25 min give 911 truth a fair crack at the whip.The rest of the documentary is very pro government official version and most people who watch a documentary like that usually sway towards the last pieces of info given

The Mark Loizeaux interview made me pause for thought for a second,,,I could imagine people less well read on 911 issues would have been persuaded by his arguments,,,,like just how do you rig a building of that size without anyone noticing????of course it took months of stealth work.Lets face it most of the occupants of wtc must have been in on it,,,,the average worker would have taken no notice of the maintenance men going about their business,,,disappointing also were the fire guys near the end who were saying there was no conspiracy,,,how much were they paid to keep their mouths shut?

I also watched

the BBC doc. It seems to me all they are doing is digging a deeper pit of lies by trying to cover up the truth. The problem is the average Joe six pack is to dummed down by the mass media to do any critical thinking and will buy the "Official Lie" hook, line and sinker. What a shame. We have our work cut out for us fellow truthers.

Interesting. Very interesting.

And what's with this:

Among the dozens of people I have spoken to recently who are experts in the construction of tall buildings (and many of whom witnessed the events of September 11th as they unfolded), only one said that he knew immediately, upon learning, from TV, of the planes' hitting the buildings, that the towers were going to fall. This was Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition Incorporated, a Maryland-based family business that specializes in reducing tall buildings to manageable pieces of rubble. "Within a nanosecond," he told me. "I said, 'It's coming down. And the second tower will fall first, because it was hit lower down.' "

Was Loizeaux the "anonym" expert who "predicted" all of the three buildings failures?


The terrorist bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, generated seismic waves that were recorded on two permanent seismographs about 7 and 26 km away from the bombing. The seismogram recorded at 26 km shows two low-frequency wave trains, discrete sets of oscillatory signals, that begin about 10 s apart. Public release of this record prompted speculation that each wave train was caused by a different energy source.

To "test" the theory that "each wave train was caused by a different energy source" the seismologists chose to monitor the second set of exploding bombs (set by Controlled Demolition Inc) rather than carry out a scientific test by setting a single charge off, to see if they generated same two-part seismic signal.


CDI's old logo: (link fixed)

this is fantastic

this is fantastic information! Someone needs to save and archive these links before they disappear.

Willy, you da man.

I believe you just convicted Mark Loizeaux! EXCELLENT analysis. (I hope you archived all your source material.)

Keep it up, Willy.

"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

Yes, excellent post. I guess

Yes, excellent post. I guess the "special engineer" is probably the same as the "engineer type person" referred to by John Peruggia. See "Waiting for Seven" in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

Love to know who this guy was.


I think the biggest question anyone should have is, if CDI was involved with 9-11, why would they do it?I did a search of the founder of CDI, Jack Loizeaux. I found this very disturbing article which I'm pasting here lest the link go missing. I believe there is plently of motive here.

Mark is even quoted as stating: "A felony conviction for the company or its principals would mean the loss of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms license that allows CDI to handle explosives. It would mean debarment as a federal contractor, when 10 percent to 75 percent of the company's yearly gross income comes from government projects."

Could there be any bigger conflict of interest??? The BBC piece seems to only have succeeded in raising FAR MORE DOUBTS about the government story of building 7. Could the BBC possibly be playing at quite the opposite of what it may seem to be on the surface?



Fire Power: It Took Three Lawyers to Stop the Destruction of CDI Inc.
Earl Kelly, The Daily Record
October 7, 2000

Volume 1, Number 86_Law

The senior attorney in a two-lawyer firm got word that a long-time corporate client and the company's two principals faced federal felony charges stemming from allegedly illegal campaign contributions. A conviction — any conviction — would leave the company in ruins.

The attorney could either panic or put together a trial team.

William F.C. Marlow Jr. opted for the latter.

Marlow, with his partner Michael T. Wyatt, has his office in a converted house on a tree-lined street in Towson flanked by colonials, Cape Cods and Victorians. The exterior is peaceful, tranquil even.

Inside, a dynamite-ignition plunger sits on a bookcase, next to a white hard hat stenciled with the letters "CDI." Across the room, like a family portrait, hangs a four-photo montage of the implosion of the Traveler Building in Boston in March 1988.

The CDI on the hard hat stands for Controlled Demolition Inc., a world-renowned Baltimore County company that uses explosives to implode structures such as skyscrapers and hotels.

Marlow, 56, began representing CDI "between 25 and 30 years ago," when a late-evening emergency hit company-founder Jack Loizeaux at a time when his regular attorney couldn't be reached.

Marlow handled it and soon became Loizeaux's new regular attorney.

Now, CDI and Jack Loizeaux's sons, J. Mark and Douglas Loizeaux, were facing the battle of their livelihood, if not their lives.

"We needed some lawyers who weren't afraid to try a case." - William F.C. Marlow Jr.

A felony conviction for the company or its principals would mean the loss of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms license that allows CDI to handle explosives. It would mean debarment as a federal contractor, when 10 percent to 75 percent of the company's yearly gross income comes from government projects, J. Mark Loizeaux said.

"It was apparent from the start that the case was going to trial," Marlow said. "We needed some lawyers who weren't afraid to try a case."

Marlow graduated from the University of Virginia in 1966 and the University of Maryland School of Law in 1969.

"I have kept 30 years' worth of indexes of attorneys across the nation and in foreign countries," Marlow said. "These are solution-oriented attorneys."

Marlow knew former federal prosecutor Gregg L. Bernstein's reputation, but not the man. After interviewing several attorneys, he recruited Bernstein for the job.

"I needed somebody who could communicate well with a jury, and Gregg Bernstein certainly fits that description," Marlow said.

Bernstein, 45, is a partner in Martin, Snyder & Bernstein, P.A. He graduated from the University of Maryland in 1977 and its law school in 1981.

In 1987 he joined the federal prosecutor's office as an assistant U.S. attorney, a position he held for nearly five years.

Bernstein is accustomed to high-profile cases. In the summer of 1999 he helped win an acquittal for former state Sen. Larry Young on state charges of bribery and income-tax evasion.

Bernstein recommended Martin S. Himeles to round out the team.

"We decided we needed a technician who could distill reams of [financial] documents into something meaningful a jury could understand," Marlow said. "I will never, to my dying day, forget his cross-examination."

Himeles, 44 and president of the roughly 500-member Maryland chapter of the Federal Bar Association, is a partner in Zuckerman, Spaeder, Goldstein, Taylor & Better. He graduated from Yale University in 1978 and Harvard University School of Law in 1981, and he served as an assistant U.S. attorney from 1986 to 1990.

Himeles was on the team that won an acquittal for Thermal Science Inc. in 1995 when the St. Louis manufacturer of insulation for nuclear reactors was charged with falsifying laboratory reports.

But it was the case of the missing thiodiglycol that first brought Bernstein and Himeles together.

The two were assistant federal prosecutors when shipments of the embargoed cleaning agent (which can be combined with hydrochloric acid to form mustard gas) started showing up in Iraq and Iran at a time when those countries were at war with each other.

The case involved suspects throughout Europe, but Himeles and Bernstein won convictions.

In the CDI case, their job was to win acquittals for the Loizeaux brothers.

Marlow would take care of the company.

Four checks
The amounts involved were small — all told, $4,000 — and no one suggested that the candidate even was aware of the contributions, let alone influenced by them.

But to the prosecutors, it was a matter of principle.

"This is the case about two powerful businessmen who decided to use employees of their own company to funnel money into a federal campaign," Assistant U.S. Attorney Kathleen O. Gavin told jurors in her opening statement in September.

It was the first congressional-campaign contribution case ever tried in the U.S. District for Maryland, according to the defense attorneys.

Witnesses testified that the case against CDI, which has fewer than 20 employees, took shape during an investigation of contributions to Rep. Elijah E. Cummings' 1996 campaign.

Prosecutors claimed the Loizeaux brothers asked four CDI employees to contribute $1,000 apiece to Cummings' campaign because Cummings supported demolition of high-rise public-housing projects, which could mean more business for CDI.

The company then reimbursed each donor, some on the same day they made campaign contributions, the prosecution charged.

It is illegal for a corporation to reimburse employees for making campaign contributions because corporations cannot donate cash to federal campaigns. And it is illegal for anyone to use "straw contributors" to hide the identity of the true donor.

The defense attorneys countered by saying that CDI's payments to the employees were bonuses, not reimbursements.

After a two-year process and a trial that ran intermittently for three weeks, the jury came back in less than two hours — including a break for lunch.

Not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty.

Federal prosecutors did not return a reporter's calls for comment.

Back to work
A week after the verdict, Himeles and Bernstein pondered the government's prosecution of the Loizeaux brothers.

They'll leave it to others to speculate how four $1,000 checks would ever cross the prosecution's radar and what effect the case will have this winter when another businessman faces trial on similar charges.

But they do see the CDI prosecution as part of a larger picture.

"The federal government does these investigations and thinks a person did something wrong, then tries to fit the facts into a legal theory," Bernstein said.

Himeles said this case fit the pattern for white-collar criminal cases in other ways, too.

"The issue in most white-collar cases is intent. There are shades of gray," he said. "There is no alibi defense when the issue is intent, and there's a lot more potential for innocent people to be charged."

The Loizeaux brothers aren't sitting around worrying about it.

Three days after the CDI verdict, Marlow chased Douglas Loizeaux down by cell phone. Loizeaux was in Las Vegas, prepping the El Ranchero Hotel for explosives.

"Thank the Lord they had enough trust in me to accede to my recommendation of Marty and Gregg," Marlow said.

Reprinted with permission from The Daily Record.
Copyright 2000 The Daily Record.
From CDI's own website on the about us page pretty much sums it up:
A two thousand ton skyscraper collapses like a house of cards, crumbling in on itself - a waterfall of well-fractured steel and concrete debris. It lasts only seconds, and buildings within a few meters stand untouched. The very essence of Controlled Demolition, Inc. is in our name: CONTROL.


At 31:10 into the piece, Mark Loizeaux commits what I know to be a misrepresentation of fact. He claims that yes, some of the windows facing the building were blown out, but, he says if explosives of the type that would be needed to cut the columns were used, then, he says, “…all of the windows on the surrounding buildings would be blown out all the way around. No way around it.”


As I remember for the surrounding buildings (WTC1 foremost) most of the windows were indeed blown out, and that before either tower collapsed. Remember the Naudet video of the North Tower with the blown off marble panels and the broken windows in the lobby? I can remember pictures of WTC 5 and 6 where you could see broken windows, too. Now how is this possible? The official explanation is kerosine traveling down the elevator shafts- but kerosine needs a right oxygen part, it does not explode but deflagrate, and there was no possible way to explode in some floors like the 23., the lobby and the B4 floor, because the elevator shafts were hermeticially sealed by the Sky-Lobbies and only three went thorugh that whole building, two out of function and in C50 the passengers survived.

I do not remember pictures of surrounding builings of 7. But NIST claims it has them all, but refused to this day to make them open access. Why? Then we can evaluate if there were broken windows in the other buildings and when did that happened.

so, using round numbers, by

so, using round numbers, by ratioing the numbers down, WTC 7 could be wired for demolition by one man over 6 days, setting 80 explosives at 20 locations.



PS - of course, since WTC 7 had a "unique design", it would have been even easier.

The big theory

The BBC said that none of the 9/11 truthers had come up with the big picture theory of the crime. That's not exactly true. Some 9/11 researchers have not remained in the plane/no plane brain loop. Rather, it was - ok.. it was controlled demolition, now who and why.

A blogger named GeorgeWashington on this blog has done some great research on Richard Clarke and his initiation of the Continuity of Government provisions on 9-11. On the morning of 9-11, Colin Powell was in Lima, Peru to sign the Inter-American Democratic Charter. A Canadian group (FOCAL) that documented the event called it the Magna Carta of the Americas. Their description of Colin Powell's actions that morning contradict Powell's statements. Powell said he immediately flew back. FOCAL said that he stayed in Lima and went to the meeting with the heads of state to sign the Charter. I should note that when I found the Charter, I was not researching 9-11. I was researching the FTAA - Free Trade Area of the Americas.

What is the significance of the Charter? It creates the Union of American States - North and South America (FTAA) - similar in concept to the European Union. This charter if it was legally signed would subvert the U.S. Constitution and signing it would be a high crime (treason) against the people of the United States.

There were war games going on that day so the waters are muddied regarding who knew the real plan and who thought they were working on on the war games. So I set that aside and continued researching.

I can't really go into all of my research here because it would be a book but there are several big ideas - global in scope - that converge to provide circumstantial evidence that the same people who are developing the software and hardware for the emergency command and control centers (WTC 7) are the people to look at for the crime of 9-11. These big ideas are so big they are difficult to wrap your head around but if you think of the Internet as the spinal column for the world - and you have several really big players in the Internet who have the idea of controlling all world commerce via the internet (global supply chain management) - and that includes designing a global transportation system to bring the goods to market in the least cost, most efficient way, then you can begin to think about the stakes involved and you can begin to isolate who might be the perpetraitors.

Here are a few clues - Remember the sarin gas attack in Tokyo? The result of that was a command and control center for surveillance. The command and control centers are dual use. One use is to surveill for terrorists. The other use is to track freight, rolling assets, ports and shipping, vehicles, traffic management, etc. (Research Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems - IVHS) The IVHS includes emergency management - Hazmat, accidents, networked to hospitals and first responder services. As I said - dual use.

The attacks in Europe were on trains and a bus. The Minnesota bridge "collapse" was a demolition. The genius of it is that when there is an attack, the obvious response is 'command and control' - surveillance. Once the system is fully implemented, you won't be able to spit on the sidewalk without it being recorded and put in a database.

These command and control centers are completely contrary to everything American. They are the tools of a totalitarian regime.

There are two factions at war with each other - the oil-based economy faction and the virtual economy aka the "New Economy" - but more accurately the vapor economy because it exists only the imaginations of the global systems designers. They have a vision of the world with "free energy" and everybody with a job or business somehow connected to the Internet. To achieve their vision, they have to restrict our access to energy - to kill off economic activity dependent on energy. They want to rebuild everything 'green' - and the global supply chain management is a part of that vision.

Oh.. something I forgot to mention. Mohammed Atta was an urban planner from Germany and over half of the alleged hijackers were engineers - software, network, civil. The global supply chain control system in Europe is called Prometheus.

That's all for now. Maybe I'll write more tomorrow.

If they were involved

how can they live with themselves every day? I have a video clip from when they brought down the old Seattle Kingdome where Jack Loizeaux gives a prayer that 'no one gets injured'. I take it there wasn't such a prayer on 9/11.

CDI bullshit

Excellent post - but controlled demolition evolved in Europe and America before Mark Loizeaux’s father was born. Apparently CDI carried this and a number of other falsehoods in their literature for many years (although it's now absent from their website) and National Geographic did a PR job for them by repeating them in the "Demolition Dynasty" documentary. Implosion World debunk the claims rather scathingly:

I posted this elsewhere for Dr. Jones

however, I think everyone here at should consider looking into this as it shows that Mark Loizeaux doesn't know what the hell he's talking about :

I think it's time to prove that "thermate paint" does exist and that inconspicuous application of it to the steel beams would not have only been easy but technologically feasible in 2001.


Google Patents PDF link:

United States Patent 3,874,921
Todd April 1, 1975
Weldable primer compositions and processes employing same

EXAMPLES 10 - 21

A series of primer composition formulations were prepared and tested to more fully investigate various proportions of aluminum-to-resin and proportions of aluminum-to-metal oxide exothermic reactants, in order to further evaluate minimum effective aluminum content for purposes of adequate electroconductivity and to further evaluate the beneficial effects from the thermite reaction (2Al-Fe.sub.2 O.sub.3 .fwdarw.Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 + 2Fe + 200,000 calories per mol) with regard to extent of primer burn black during welding and with regard to resultant weld quality. The various formulations tested, hereinafter designated Examples 10-21, were applied in the film thicknesses indicated to Class M steel plates which were shot blasted on a Wheelabrator machine just prior to the tests, the coatings being applied by spray painting to simulate commercial application thereof.

The base mixture prepared for these examples comprise the following:

Proportion Per Gallon ______________________________________ 1. PKHC phenoxy resin 1.0 lb. 2. ETP-105 Terpene hydro- carbon resin 0.3 lb. 3. Solvent mixture (by volume) Methyl ethyl ketone 50% Balance to make Toluene 45% one gallon Cellosolve acetate 5% ______________________________________

To the above basic mix various amounts of N3983 aluminum powder and various amounts of inorganic oxide pigment were added and each resulting mix was sprayed on two of the steel plates to the film thicknesses indicated, as follows:

Metal Film Al/Resin Al/Oxide Example Al Oxide Thickness Proportion Proportion __________________________________________________________________________ 10 0.20 lb/gal 0.0 lb/gal 1 mil(s) 1:6.5 0% Stoic. 11 0.20 0.025 Cr.sub.2 O.sub.3 2 1:6.5 62/3% 12 0.065 0.0 1.5 1:20 0% 13 0.065 0.025 Cr.sub.2 O.sub.3 1.5 1:20 20% 14 0.065 0.065 Cr.sub.2 O.sub.3 1.5 1:20 50% 15 0.065 0.130 Cr.sub.2 O.sub.3 1.5 1:20 100% 16 0.065 0.260 Cr.sub.2 O.sub.3 1.5 1:20 200% 17 0.025 0.025 Cr.sub.2 O.sub.3 1.5 1:50 50% 18 0.025 0.050 Fe.sub.2 O.sub.3 1.5 1:50 100% 19 0.025 0.050 Cr.sub.2 O.sub.3 1.5 1:50 100% 20 0.025 0.100 Fe.sub.2 O.sub.3 1.5 1:50 200% 21 0.025 0.100 Cr.sub.2 O.sub.3 1.5 1:50 200% __________________________________________________________________________

The pairs of plates were then welded with one plate in the horizontal position and the matching plate placed on edge in the center of the first plate, with a fillet weld applied at the junction of the two plates on one side only, the welding rod used in each instance being low hydrogen rod No. 7108.

It was notable during this series of tests that the combination of aluminum powder and iron oxide or chromium oxide powder definitely contributed to the extent of primer burn-off ahead of and at the sides of the welding arc. As compared with those examples having no metal oxide present (Examples 10 and 12), this improvement was not readily determinable in the case where the stoichiometric proportion was 62/3% (Example 11) but proved quite noticeable when the ratio of inorganic oxide to aluminum is 20% stoichiometric (Examples 13-16), with further improvement at 50% stoichiometric (Examples 14 and 17), with still further improvement at 100% stoichiometric (Examples 15, 18 and 19), and with the improvement gained in the 100% stoichiometric examples being directly comparable to that found in the examples containing an excess of the metal oxide (200% stoichiometric in Examples 16, 20 and 21). On the basis of these tests and the stoichiometry of the thermite reaction it is theorized that the inorganic metal oxide reacts with the aluminum up to 100% stoichiometric ratio of oxide to aluminum and that when metal oxide is present in excess of stoichiometric (as in Examples 16, 20 and 21) the excess metal oxide does not react i.e. functions simply as an inert coloring pigment.

During the welding procedure it was noted that even in those examples where the aluminum-to-resin ratio is relatively low (1:50 in Examples 17-21) to electroconductivity of the primer coating was nevertheless adequate to readily initiate the welding arc. From these latter examples it is deduced that when the primer coating contains a sufficient amount of inorganic oxide to provide substantial exothermic reaction of the weld heat, then the proportion of aluminum in relation to the resin content of the composition can be lower and desirably should be lower in the instances where the oxide is to provide a substantial coloring or pigmentation of the primer composition, since the relatively high aluminum content would otherwise tend to mask the pigmentation of the inorganic oxide constituent. Related experimentation has indicated with regard to minimal aluminum-to-resin ratio that ratios as low as 1:100 permit welding arc initiation without serious arc impediment, particularly in formulations involving high aluminum-to-metal oxide ratios, since once the arc is initiated the burn-off of the primer composition proceeds sufficiently ahead of the arc so that no impediment to arc conductivity is presented as the weld melt progresses. Other experimentation with regard to maximal aluminum-to-resin ratios has indicated that above ratios of about 1:1 the composition becomes more difficult to apply in thin coatings and there can be degradation as to adhesion of the primer coating to the steel substrate.

During the course of these tests of Examples 12-21, no excess smoke was produced during the welding operations, and visual examination of the weld areas and the back sides of the plates behind the weld areas show definite improvement in appearance with progressingly increasing amounts of inorganic metal oxide up to 100% stoichiometric proportion in relation to the aluminum content, and without observable difference in burn back appearance in those cases where the inorganic metal oxide content was in excess of stoichiometric.