[FoRK] Re: Flight 93

Corinna < corinna.schultz at gmail.com > on > Thu Feb 2 07:30:35 PST 2006

"Regina Schuman" <rschuman at jfcsjax.org> wrote in message
> I would expect a GIANT BLOB of molten steel in the basement - steel
> melted.

There are pictures of cranes pulling up beams which are dripping from their 
bottoms. Also, I remember reports about the intense heat which was felt from 
the hole for, what was it, weeks?

>That's what caused the collapse.

Not exactly. The idea is that the central beams, the one which bear all the 
weight of the building needed to be weakened/destroyed/cut/whatever, in 
order for the building to collaspe as quickly as it did (it was a near 
free-fall collapse, which you can see from the video).
> Are the eyewitness reports
> included in the 911 Commission report?  "Eyewitness reports" is just so
> vague.  I need a lot more.

Sorry, I was summarizing the reading I've done. The news-people on the scene 
reported these statements, and people who were interviewed early on said 
things like this. Also there's statements taken for an Oral History of 911 
project, where people say these things (I heard they made it available on 
line).  Many of these statements were generally made before the official 
story was repeated endlessly (and thus contaminated people's memories).  The 
911 comission left out a bunch of stuff.

here's a quote from 
(which is someone quoting someone else. I don't have the original source, 
but I remember reading this elsewhere... it's verifiable, at any rate.  The 
whole thing is worth reading)

 "[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on 
television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going 
all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."--Firefighter Richard 

 "I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know 
like when they demolish a building?"--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen 

 "[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on 
certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."--Paramedic 
Daniel Rivera

"The above quotations come from a collection of 9/11 oral histories that, 
although recorded by the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) at the end of 
2001, were publicly released only on August 12, 2005. Prior to that date, 
very few Americans knew the content of these accounts or even the fact that 
they existed. "
 In June of 2002, NBC television played segments from tapes recorded on 
9/11. One segment contained the following exchange, which involved 
firefighters in the south tower:
> Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've just had another explosion.
> Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've had additional explosion.
> Dispatcher: Received battalion command. Additional explosion.11
> Firefighter Louie Cacchioli, after entering the north tower lobby and 
> seeing elevator doors completely blown out and people being hit with 
> debris, asked himself, "how could this be happening so quickly if a plane 
> hit way above?" After he reached the 24th floor, he and another fireman 
> "heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb [and] knocked off the 
> lights and stalled the elevator." After they pried themselves out of the 
> elevator, "another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits 
> about two minutes later . . . [and] I'm thinking, 'Oh. My God, these 
> bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!'"12

> Also, the buildings didn't pancake from the bottom, like you see in
> planned demolitions. They collapsed from the top, upper floors crashing
> down on the floors below.

It is rare, but sometimes controlled demolitions are done from the top. In 
this case, it wouldn't look like the airplanes caused the buildings to 
collapse if the demolition began from the bottom, right?  :)

If you look at the videos, there's puffs (suspiciously symmetrical) of 
ejected material several floors below the damage as the building is coming 
down. In a controlled demolition, the floors below the collapse are blown 
with cutter charges to prevent obstruction of the collapse, that way the 
building ends up in its own footprint, with minimal damage to the 

The main thing here, is that if it was a natural collapse, you would not 
expect to see the symmetry, the free-fall speed, or the sideways ejection of 
material, multiple floors below the actual damage, and so on.

In this article http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
The author looks at 11 characteristics of controlled demolitions and 
discusses how the WTC meets those characteristics. It's pretty damning, and 
I haven't seen it refuted anywhere, so if anyone knows of a refutation, I 
would like to see it.

Like I said, there's are a lot of good questions being asked, and no answers 
forthcoming. It really smells like a coverup of some sort to me... like 
Pearl Harbor (or even worse). Do you really think Bush is so incompetent 
that he would stay in a classroom while this is going on? You've probably 
seen the video... I bet he was thinking "Oh my God. They really went ahead 
and did it. I hope we get away with it..."


FoRK mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://xent.com/pipermail/fork/attachments/20060202/ec47312a/attachment-0002.htm

More information about the FoRK mailing list