Most people admit, 9/11 is the 'mother of all stories.' Now from all corners of the globe, conservatives and liberals are mounting a growing campaign to alert the public that the WTC was leveled by a controlled demolition not burning jet fuel like the government contends.20 Jun 2005
By Greg Szymanski
William Rodriguez heard a series of explosions rock the lower levels of the WTC minutes before the north tower came crashing down, establishing further evidence the building collapsed from a controlled demolition not burning jet fuel like the government contends.
His eye-witness account adds a "personal and human touch" to the growing number of critics of the official government story, which have included well-known scientists, engineers, professors and even a Labor Department economist from President Bush's first administration.
Rodriguez, a maintenance worker on duty the morning of 9/11 and one of the last to leave the building, is also the lead plaintiff in a federal RICO lawsuit filed against Bush and others, alleging conspiracy to commit murder and other crimes in the WTC deaths of more that 3,000.
The case, filed last November in a Philadelphia federal district court, recently was moved to New York in a change of venue after a government's motion to dismiss was overruled, allowing legal discovery to continue.
Rodriguez's attorney, Phil Berg of Philadelphia, said his client doesn't know all the answers behind the 9/11 government conspiracy, but is prepared to testify he heard strange explosions far below the jetliner's point of impact, indicating a controlled demolition.
Besides the explosions, Rodriguez also has provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission that he accidentally stumbled across one of the supposed 19 Arab hijackers inside the WTC several months before 9/11.
"I had just finished cleaning the bathroom and this guy asks me, 'Excuse me, how many public bathrooms are in this area?'" Rodriguez told the 9/11 Commission. "Coming from the school of the 1993 [Trade Center] bombing, I found it very strange. I didn't forget about it."
Rodriguez, declared a 9/11 hero for leading a number of people to safety before the collapse of the towers, claims he saw United Airlines Flight 175 hijacker Mohand Alshehri in June 2001, telling an FBI agent in the family center at Ground Zero about the incident a month after the attacks.
Rodriguez said he never heard back from the bureau, but assumed agents were following up leads. Apparently never following up, hearings agents told the New York Daily News after the hearings they never heard of Rodriguez but did not discount his story.
"I'm very certain, I'll give it 90%" that Alshehri was casing the towers before the attacks," said Rodriguez.
Rodriguez's claim about hearing explosions just before the north tower collapse adds credibility to a growing amount of scientific research and an ever-increasing public outcry, discrediting the government's claim that jet fuel brought down the towers.
Voices demanding a further investigation have increased dramatically in the past year, seemingly coming from all corners of the scientific, academic and political spectrum. Even a growing number of conservative Republicans and a former Bush administration member have doubted the government story, saying 9/11 appears to be an inside job and the WTC most likely collapsed from a controlled demolition.
But in the face of mounting pressure, the Bush administration has remained steadfast in it's official story, which remained the same from the outset, claiming the WTC collapsed from burning jet fuel and the 9/11 attacks were mastermind by 19 Arab terrorists.
Recently, a chief economist in the Labor Department in Bush's first administration, stepped forward claiming evidence points to a controlled demolition as the cause for the WTC collapse, indicating 9/11 was probably an inside job.
Morgan Reynolds, a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former Bush team member, said:
"If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling.
The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings.
"More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right."
Although Reynold's is not an explosives expert or engineer, the scientific community has also weighed in on the controlled demolition theory.
In June 2004, a large group of distinguished scientific thinkers, including scientists, engineers and other professionals, banned together from around the world to investigate the collapse of the WTC, looking at 9/11 from a scientific point of view.
After an exhaustive research project still ongoing, the group called the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven (SPINE), provided the following general statement:
"We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations. Our analysis of the detailed evidence implies a staged attack employing a variety of deceptive arrangements. Indeed, every element of the September 11 attacks, including cell phone calls from fast-moving aircraft, has an alternate means of creation."
The panel of scientists then provided a further explanation based on their intensive research:
"We have found it to be a general principle that the closer one looks at the facts of 9/11, the less certain one becomes that the Bush/Cheney interpretation is true. Take for example the collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers. It was claimed by the White House (and subsequently propagated by the major media) that the towers collapsed because the intense heat of the burning jet fuel melted or weakened the steel columns that supported the twin towers. This sounded logical both to reporters and to the average citizen."
Spine then went on to list numerous observations pointed out by researchers, discrediting the government's jet fuel theory, including:
-- Jet fuel is basically kerosene and burns in free air at a temperature around 550 degrees celsius, the exact temperature depending on the mixing rate with atmospheric oxygen.
-- Inside the trade center towers, the burning fuel quickly depleted the available oxygen and became an oxygen-starved fire, which subsequently burned at a lower temperature, below 400 degrees celsius, which is typical for building interior fires.
--The temperature of the support columns was initially not greater than 30 degrees celsius. (The outside ambient air temperature was probably less than this.) During the relatively brief time that the building was invested with open fires on the floors affected by the impacting aircraft, it is unlikely that the temperatures of the beams rose more than, say 100 degrees. The steel in the World Trade Center twin towers would have had to reach 750 degrees celsius before a catastrophic collapse could have occurred.
-- When the NY Fire Dept. arrived on the scene, The fire director reported no excessive heat in the vicinity of the floor struck by the incoming aircraft. Fire crews doused the small remaining fires and assisted evacuees. By this time the support columns were probably cooling and not heating.
-- Building Seven, which was not struck by an aircraft, also collapsed. There was no massive diesel fire, as claimed, only a small office fire on one floor, clearly insufficient to cause the building's collapse.
Derrick Grimmer of Ames IA, a physics Ph.D. from Washington University and member of SPINE, wrote an extensive technical paper about the WTC collapse, expressing doubt about the government theory but doing it in a scientific manner. For those who may question the cursory approach taken by those who have criticized the government's story, Grimmer's approach is quite different and highly technical. The following are portions of his exhaustive research paper:
"What immediately struck some observers, this author included, is how much these collapses resembled a controlled demolition. Indeed, this was the first reaction of V. Romero of New Mexico Tech, until he recanted days later.
"The observed near free-fall times of the WTC towers (and WTC7) were a dramatic signature of a controlled demolition…Measured times are all around 10 seconds, which is close to calculated free-fall time, indicating the tower floors fell without much impediment. They essentially fell into air.
"The theory put forth by T. Eagar of MIT and other "establishment" engineers is that while no steel members actually melted or failed, the floor assemblies, bolted at their joists to the outer walls and inner core structures, did fail. The floor joists attachment bolts were weakened and gave way, twisting sideways and allowing the initial floor to "unzipper" itself all the way round and collapse to the floor below. The remaining floors then pan caked all the way down. Never mind that floor joist cross-members, placed to resist twisting, and additional support structures were not included in the MIT/FEMA/NOVA calculations and presentations (nor was the inner core collapse mechanism explained at all).
"Consider the following: if the pan caking effect caused the total building failure, why is it that no video of either of the WTC collapses shows any sign of stutter between floor collapses, which should have been very apparent especially in the first few floors of collapse when the speed of gravitational collapse was small? The implication from the above is that there were major energy sources other than gravitational involved in the WTC towers collapses.
"A discussion of the melted steel found at the base of the WTC complex, not explained by any official, forms the bulk of the remainder of this paper. The following discussion explores the possibility of whether it is possible to get sufficient volume of a relatively slow-reacting chemical compound, like thermite, either on or inside the inner columns to melt a section of them or otherwise weaken them to allow for the inner core to collapse.
"As Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc., commenting on the pools of molten steel he observed at the bases of the towers' elevator shafts, said: "If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure. Controlled Demolition, Inc., incidentally was the company contracted to remove the debris from both the WTC and from the 1995 bombing of the Murrah building in OKC.
"Also, in Sam Smith's Progressive Review)] there is an excellent discussion of the collapse of the WTC buildings from the perspective of professional firefighters. Included is an excerpt of an article by Jim Malott, a San Francisco architect, in the Nov/Dec 2001 issue of Designer/ Builder magazine. Malott states regarding a WTC tower collapse: "The outside of the building did not fail, it did not get hot enough…It was the core that failed."
For more informative articles, go to www.arcticbeacon.com where kind donations are accepted.