"Controlled Demolition & the Official Story" by David Ray Griffin

http://www.wingtv.net/thornarticles/drg.html

Controlled Demolition
& the 'Official Story'​

by David Ray Griffin​

Another big question created by the official story is how the "hijackers," by crashing planes into the Twin Towers, caused them and Building 7 to collapse. One problem is that Building 7 was not struck by an airplane, and steel-frame buildings had never before been caused to collapse by fire alone, even when the fires had been much bigger, hotter, and longer-lasting. The Commission avoided this problem by simply not mentioning this fact or even, incredibly, that Building 7 collapsed.

Another problem, which I mentioned earlier, is that the collapses had all the standard features of controlled demolitions. For example, all three buildings came down at virtually free-fall speed. The Commission even alluded to this feature, saying that the "South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds." But it never explained how fire plus the impact of an airplane could have produced such a collapse.

Controlled demolition was also suggested by the fact that the collapses were total, with the 110-story Twin Towers collapsing into a pile of rubble only a few stories high. The core of each tower had consisted of 47 massive steel columns, which extended from the basements through the roofs. Even if we ignore all the other problems in the official "pancake" theory of the collapses, those massive steel columns should have still been sticking up a thousand feet in the air. Zelikow's commission handled this problem with the audacious claim that "[t]he interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft."

James Glanz, a science writer for the New York Times, co-authored a book in 2003 entitled The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center. This book contains an extensive discussion of the construction of the towers around the 47 interior columns. And yet when the Commission in 2004 published its incredible denial that these columns existed, the Times did not protest.

Another example: Breaking those massive steel columns would have required very powerful explosives. Many survivors of the towers have reported hearing and feeling explosions. But the 9/11 Commission failed to mention any of these reports. William Rodriguez told the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors about feeling and hearing a huge explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower, then rescuing people from its effects, but neither his name nor any of his testimony is found in Zelikow's final report.

The mainstream press has also refused to report Rodriguez's story, even though NBC News spent a day at his home taping it.

Note: The above excerpt was taken from a speech delivered at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on July 22, 2005

 

Hahahahaha. Cheers rat. A good breakfast laugh.

 

how about instead of spreading sunshine and bon mots u post us a thread telling us what u think happened?

 

I don't give a rat's ass (pun intended ) what happened, any more than you or rat does. This is just about politicaly naive idiots looking for a one-size-fits-all answer to all their problems at once, rather than trying to deal with all the complexities and non-sequitors that life throws at you. It's exactly the same mental process as God-botherers who answer every tough question by referring to God and the Bible.

 

what a load of reductionist crap that is. ur worldview might explain some ppl's motivation but it doesn't even begin 2 get close 4 me. anyway, it's illogical 2, b/c somehow u say it's less politically naive to believe unquestioningly everything ur spoonfeed on the tv than 2 challenge it. could a more prosaic explanation be that u just enjoy trolling?

 

Riiiiight.... Because I've spent soooo much time advocating "believe[ing] unquestioningly everything ur spoonfeed on the tv". I don't even *have* a T.V., mate.

How come you believe every stupid conspiracy theory that rat comes up with?

And "reductionist"? AHAHAHAHAHAH Please oh please explain what you mean by that! I'd really enjoy reading it.

 

gee i hope when i get old and cyncical i can be as bitter & twisted as u are!

 

Illuminati conspiracy theories are a load of reductionist crap. I think Jim has hit the nail on the head.

 

illuminati theories are rductionist crap and so is what jim's saying. he, and u do it 2 pb, try to characterise everyone who might subscribe to this view or that which doesn't conform with ur own view as being a conspiracy nutter. that's reductionist crap and lazy 2.

 

Let's have a hands-up; who knows what 'reductionist' means? If this is anything like the 'irony' debate over in Protest, this should be a lot of fun!