not sure what your thinking here, there was no explosions at the WTC in 1975... it started on the 11th floor

bold statement, but completely false... from what i've read about the fire in 1975, it is just speculation.

So, this was a very serious fire which spread over some 65 per cent of the eleventh floor (the core plus half the office area) in the very same building that supposedly "collapsed" on 9/11 due to a similar, or lesser, fire. This fire also spread to a number of other floors. And although it lasted over 3 hours, it caused no serious structural damage and trusses survived the fires without replacement and supported the building for many, many more years after the fires were put out.

It should be emphasized that the North Tower suffered no serious structural damage from this fire. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced.

That the 1975 fire was more intense than the 9/11 fires is evident from the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break and flames could be seen pouring from these broken windows. This indicates a temperature greater than 700°C. In the 9/11 fires the windows were not broken by the heat (only by the aircraft impact) indicating a temperature below 700°C.

not critical thinking here... if the plane blew out all the windows, there were no windows left to shatter from the heat... just another CT'er with bad logic... and pretty much, no matter what was burning inside the building, the trapped heat would only get so hot, regardless. at best, the temps were the same, but in 1975, 3 - 5 floors were not destroyed by a 40 ton plane going 500 MPH...

and a big gaping hole in 9-11 let a lot of the trapped heat out, while in 1975 the heat had no way out...

You are right it was in 1993.


The World Trade Center bombing occurred on February 26, 1993, when a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York, NY. The 1,336 lb (606 kg) urea nitrate–hydrogen gas enhanced device was intended to knock the North Tower (Tower One) into the South Tower (Tower Two), bringing both towers down and killing thousands of people.

It failed to do so, but did kill six people and injured more than a thousand.

They failed the first time.

So now why do you supposed they would decide not to use explosives the second time? Explosives is their M.O.

They just needed to plant them better.

And you would think that after the first attempt, and after warnings of plans for a second attempt that THE BUILDING WOULD HAVE HAD BETTER SECURITY.

But security was non existent. This was by design. Oh, and guess who owned the security company? Relatives of George Bush. (The Bush Cartel)

9/11 Security
Courtesy of Marvin Bush


Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served. [Utne]
According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."

The company lists as government clients "the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S Air force, and the Department of Justice," in projects that "often require state-of-the-art security solutions for classified or high-risk government sites."

Stratesec (Securacom) differs from other security companies which separate the function of consultant from that of service provider. The company defines itself as a "single-source" provider of "end-to-end" security services, including everything from diagnosis of existing systems to hiring subcontractors to installing video and electronic equipment. It also provides armored vehicles and security guards.

The Dulles Internation contract is another matter. Dulles is regarded as "absolutely a sensitive airport," according to security consultant Wayne Black, head of a Florida-based security firm, due to its location, size, and the number of international carriers it serves.

Black has not heard of Stratesec, but responds that for one company to handle security for both airports and airlines is somewhat unusual. It is also delicate for a security firm serving international facilities to be so interlinked with a foreign-owned company: "Somebody knew somebody," he suggested, or the contract would have been more closely scrutinized.

As Black points out, "when you [a company] have a security contract, you know the inner workings of everything." And if another company is linked with the security company, then "What's on your computer is on their computer." [American Reporter]

A heightened WTC security alert was lifted on 9/6/2001...



The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday [September 11].

Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday [September 6], bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed. [NY Newsday]


WTC surveillance tapes feared missing
Imagine my surprise...

Surveillance tapes and maintenance logs are among the missing evidence as investigators try to figure out why the World Trade Center collapsed, federal officials said Monday. ... The lost records probably contain vital information that could help answer questions, Sunder said. Investigators are trying to locate copies of many destroyed documents from the building's owners and city agencies. [FortWayne.com]

If buildings can collapse because of a fire, then why were people told not to evacuate the building?


Dan Baumbach, 24, a software engineer from Merrick, was stunned to find that building officials in One World Trade Center were telling workers not to evacuate even after the first jet struck. "You can try it, but it's at your own risk," he quoted one official as telling a group of 100 people on the 75th floor. Many chose to follow that advice; Baumbach continued his descent from the 80th floor and survived, but only after braving the debris that fell when the neighboring tower collapsed. "The reason we got out was because we didn't listen," he said. [Newsday]

"In the neighboring south tower people were also evacuating, but an announcement over the PA system tells them their building is secure and they can return to their desks..."


Stanley Praimnath - WTC 2 Survivor:

'If they had continued on and exited the building, all of their lives would have been spared. As it was, that's not the way it happened. "As soon as we reached the concourse level, the security guard stopped us and said, 'Where are you going?' Stanley explained about seeing the fire in Tower One. According to Stanley, the guard said, "Oh, that was just an accident. Two World Trade is secured. Go back to your office."' [Mercola]

Marvin Bush and the Planting of Explosives

If the hypothesis of controlled demolition is considered, there inevitably arises one serious obstacle to its plausibility. And that is the fact that thousands of pounds of explosives would have had to have been planted in and around the buildings' core columns and throughout its clearly restricted internal framework. So how, the skeptical questioning goes, did anyone planting these explosives have such ready access to such intimate parts of the building? As with so many of the essential questions raised by 9/11, what often appear at first to be strong arguments against any kind of 'conspiracy theory' that 9/11 was an inside job turn, suddenly, into stunning revelations about heretofore uncovered information that ultimately serve to confirm and strengthen the suspicions about 9/11 being, indeed, a well-orchestrated conspiracy theory.

Take, as an example, this question of how the explosives were planted. How could the security apparatus of the World Trade Center Complex, which was presumably highly sophisticated after the 1993 bombing, allow or not notice the laying of the explosives that supposedly felled the buildings? Well, upon investigating this security apparatus at the WTC, we quickly stumble into the fact that Marvin Bush, George W.'s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom (now Stratesec), the very company in charge of security at the WTC in 2001. Again, it is important to note that the author is not making this up. "Marvin P. Bush, the president's younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport." And not to be outdone by this fact, we also learn that "from 1999 to January of 2002 (Marvin and George W.'s cousin) Wirt Walker III was the company's CEO."

That this stunning, remarkable fact is not front-page news in every newspaper in the country is a mystery I cannot answer, nor solve.

That there were well documented power outages and swaths of whole floor shutdowns and evacuations in the weeks leading up to 9/11, perfect opportunities to carry up and plant necessary explosives under the guise of 'maintenance' and/or 'retrofitting' work, only fuels well-placed suspicions.

In a People magazine article, Ben Fountain, 42, a financial analyst with Fireman's Fund who worked on the 47th floor of the South Tower, confirmed these evacuations by saying, "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on."

yep,and they somehow sequestered 600'000 pounds of Explosives,as Shaped Charges in each Tower,plus Miles of Det-Cord and electrical wiring,placed that stuff all over those Girders,without anyone getting suspicious,and without making any mess!
Go tell that to your Grandma!
Ever been in a Building being prepared for Takedown with Explosives?Actually it creates an Ungodly Mess!
Actually all the Explosives do is giving the Building the last Push,after it has been weakened to almost fall on it's own,a Fact you CTs gladly keep quiet!
Then,of course,to add insult to Injury,they have to go and Induce Fire in a Building that is loaded with High-Explosives of all Sorts!
Extremely smart!
You all really need to come up with better Scenarios!

Underground Explosions

One of the oft-repeated arguments against the intentional demolition hypothesis is that the buildings tumbled from the top down - not from the bottom first. Usually, in a classic demolition, a building is 'pulled' from the core with massive underground explosions and allowed to fall in on itself. Defenders of the 'official story' state that there were no underground explosions 'confirmed' in the lead up to the collapse of the Towers. This is a bizarre argument, and wholly untrue. Because any thorough review of the initial 9/11 reports and footage before the official story was consecrated detail much evidence and eyewitness reports specifically referring to massive underground explosions, secondary explosive devices, beams ejecting themselves from the tops of the buildings, etc. in the lead up to the collapse. All of which wholly support the controlled demolition hypothesis. The first 5 minutes of this clip show some examples of these initial reports.

Marvin Bush's security company.

See above post.

Laugh all you want. It doesn't change the facts or the evidence.

That there were well documented power outages and swaths of whole floor shutdowns and evacuations in the weeks leading up to 9/11, perfect opportunities to carry up and plant necessary explosives under the guise of 'maintenance' and/or 'retrofitting' work, only fuels well-placed suspicions.


So, was it possible? You're damn right it was possible.

you're in dire need to watch some Footage of Controlled Demolition!

Experts agree that to implode a building from the top down, as in the case with the Towers, the central core and foundation need to first be pulled and destroyed. Then the building can be brought down from above with well-timed explosives. Are the underground explosions reported and detailed above evidence of the core foundation being pulled? We don't know. However, this, and all other speculative conjectures, could have easily been put to rest if experienced, un-biased investigators were allowed to examine the remains of the WTC site. Steel beams could have been tested for evidence of explosives. Girders and joists could have been analyzed for damage patterns. Residue from incendiary and explosive devices could have been investigated. But the necessary evidence was destroyed.

In direct violation of federal law regarding crime scene protocol, the WTC debris pile was virtually locked down and illegally cleared of all pertinent evidence. No FEMA, industry experts, fire/arson investigators, nor any structural engineers were allowed to gather evidence for later laboratory investigation. They were given limited access to walk around segments of ground zero, to observe and take notes on the debris pile. But to suggest that this cursory review was sufficient examination to comprehensively detail the reason for the Towers' collapse, or to lucidly comment on perhaps the greatest crime in our nation's history, is scientifically absurd.

Why? Do you think the world trade center was your normal average everyday controlled demolition? I don't.

I think they took down the towers ANY WAY THEY COULD.

Besides, it looked a lot like a demolition to me. And I have seen demolitions in person.

yep,with a raging Fire going on!
Holy Mackerel!

And you have of Course,incontrovertible Evidence for your Claims!
Interesting,a demolition from the Top,when there is Damage by Planes and a Fire!
Like I said,you really need to watch some DemolitionFootage!
Your Claims are absurd!

While these intelligence failures suggest at least the reasonable possibility of U.S. government complicity in 9/11, there is a mountain of physical evidence that directly implicates high-level government knowledge and participation in the planning and execution of September 11.

Perhaps the most damning evidence lies in the bizarre collapse of WTC Building 7. Anyone familiar with the story of 9/11 knows about the collapse of the WTC North and South Twin-Towers. But a third high rise also fell that day. At 5:20 p.m., the massive 47-story steel frame Building 7, untouched by the hijacked airplanes, imploded in the exact manner of a professionally engineered demolition - at near free-fall speed, straight down, and with scientific precision into a compact pile of rubble, barely damaging any of the surrounding buildings.

The official explanation for the collapse is fire - as in fire weakened the building's structural support steel to the point where it could no longer hold its own weight upright.

The magazine Popular Mechanics has tried to posit the theory of lethal structural damage caused by the falling debris of the North Tower as reason for Building 7's collapse. But no existing public photographs, nor videos, show anything near their claim that 1/3 of Building 7's façade was gouged out. Furthermore, even if structural damage was significant, this would not account for Building 7's eventual symmetrical, box-like collapse, where all four corners, and all four facades of the building fell simultaneously straight to the ground. And most significantly, the official government explanation is still fire. So this essay will stay with fire as the stated cause.

Only FEMA has officially reported on Building 7's demise. And while their report hints at fire as the cause of the building's fall, even they admit the inherent weakness of that premise. "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue." That the necessary evidence to further investigate Building 7's collapse, (i.e. the steel beams, trusses, and support girders) was quickly and illegally cleared, shipped overseas, and recycled - before photographs could be taken or qualified investigators and explosives experts could be called in to sift through the evidence - only deepens the efficacy of the hypothesis that a well-planned, high-level intentional demolition caused the collapse of WTC Building 7.

It should again be noted here that Popular Mechanics magazine has tried to debunk some of the issues raised by the 9/11 Truth community - both in a feature article in March of 2005, and a recent 2006 book. Besides the inherent absurdity of a magazine tackling the research that should be undertaken by Congress and an independent Special Prosecutor with full subpoena power, their work is riddled with the same inconsistencies and conveniently isolated and selected bullet points they claim undermines the very research they are attempting to debunk. For a comprehensive and specific critique of their work, see the following link.

Read this again:


In direct violation of federal law regarding crime scene protocol, the WTC debris pile was virtually locked down and illegally cleared of all pertinent evidence.

No FEMA, industry experts, fire/arson investigators, nor any structural engineers were allowed to gather evidence for later laboratory investigation.

They were given limited access to walk around segments of ground zero, to observe and take notes on the debris pile. But to suggest that this cursory review was sufficient examination to comprehensively detail the reason for the Towers' collapse, or to lucidly comment on perhaps the greatest crime in our nation's history, is scientifically absurd.

yeah,That 9/11 TRUTH Community!

Imagine how this planning session between Bush, Rummy and Cheney must have gone:



BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Don, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers al-Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Don. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs, and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed, and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of nowhere somewhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of ****ing nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, okay.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do, and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork, and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world, and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington DC fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI-5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? ****, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!

ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!


The Idiocy Behind the '9/11 Truth' Movement
Why the "9/11 Truth" movement makes the Left Behind series read like Shakespeare.

http://www.alternet.org/story/42181?page=3

The very fact that evidence was cleared away suggests that there was indeed very possibly a lot of evidence for explosives and evidence that would have directly conflicted with the official lie about 9-11.

The fact that Marvin Bush's security company not only covered the WTC buildings, but the airports where allegedly the planes departed from is extremely and ridiculously suspicious, and the fact that this was NOT all over the news is damning evidence that this was an inside job.

And it is also very strange that a retired government employee from Zurich such as yourself would continue to make a lame attempt to debate these facts with only a mocking tone, and a laughing head and then attempt to make the argument personal by telling me I need to watch a demolition video (which is a meaningless remark anyway) seems pretty desperate.