No. As in my previous 9/11 twoofer post, it is quite easy to answer the “questions” being brought out by loose change. The first piece of LC’s controlled demolition theory saw Dylan Avery and co. badly abusing firefighter’s descriptions of what they experienced that day. It’s worth pointing out now that Lou Caccioli, the firefighter Avery quotes, has come out multiple times saying he believes the official story and never meant to add credence to the twoofer movement. Here, Avery continues to misuse firefighter statements (halfway into this clip, it moves on to flight 93, which I’ve already covered):
The first thing that sticks out to me–after more blatant twisting of the way firefighters described what they saw and heard–is Avery claiming that the 1993 truck bombing of the WTC didn’t register on seismographs. As a matter of fact, this is another patent lie. It DID register. In fact, Arthur Lerner-Lam, the man whose words Avery again takes out of context, had this to say: “there is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context.” I’d like Avery to explain how a seismograph picking up nitrate explosions in mines proves the controlled demolition theory. What, pray tell, would you expect to happen when a 110-story skyscraper collapses to the ground?
Then, it comes out: Avery’s news articles are all directly from the American Free Press. For those who are unaware, the American Free Press is not a legitimate news organization aligned with the AP (as if that would give it too much more credibility). It’s an anti-gay, anti-Semitic, conspiracy-pushing rag that has not a single expert on its staff. This little tidbit should put Avery’s “work” sharply into focus.
“Hotspots of literally molten steel” was never reported by Mark Loizeaux. It was inexperienced contractors who said they saw molten steel; since they didn’t test the metal, you can’t come to that conclusion. And I have to point out here that controlled demolition wouldn’t have melted steel, either, so it’s difficult to honestly follow Avery’s line of reasoning. And yes, Dylan, I do think jet fuel played a major role in bringing down the towers.
NOW come the “squibs.” Avery tries to tell us that detonating charges blew out of the building several floors below the collapse zone; unfortunately for him, there’s a more honest reality to this. As the building collapsed, the air sealed inside was being compressed. It had to go somewhere. It took the path of least resistance, wich in this case was–you guessed it!–the windows.
It’s awful damn hard not to get really sarcastic at these points. DUH.
And I’d really like to know why Avery points out that the camera tripod shakes before the collapse. The camera seems to be quite a distance away…did someone bump the tripod? Was it windy? Where was the camera set up? There are so many different explanations for this it’s just plain silly.
How DID the bombs get into the building, Dylan? The explanation given by Loose Change doesn’t add up. Here’s why: when Controlled Demolition, Inc. was asked to demolish a 32-story hotel in Chicago, it took a large team working for two weeks straight, without a day off, working 12- to 16-hour days to rig the building for demolition. That’s less than one third the height of the WTC. And in order to do this, they would have had to dismantle the area around the core–at the bottom of the building–and put it all back together. Do you think this could possibly go unnoticed? If they had a crew of two hundred, it would have taken well over a month to rig those towers the way they would have had to be rigged. And they sure as hell wouldn’t have fallen the way they did, which was from the CRASH SITES, not the bottom of the building:
And the theory that Marvin Bush was “head of security” is absolutely hysterical. Marvin, the brother of President Bush, was on the board of directors for Securacom. He was NOT involved in heading the actual security for the WTC. Even at that, his job with the board ended in June 2000, more than a year before the bomb-sniffing dogs were “abruptly removed.” (The dogs were there in the first place because of phone threats, possibly made by the hijackers.)
The claim that Giuliani had the debris shipped to scrapyards overseas before it could be examined is also an outright lie. Giuliani was a piss-ant; he couldn’t have ordered anything remotely like this as Avery claims. In fact, FEMA was onsite immediately after the incident and NIST still has a large amount of debris. A great deal of it, including a destroyed FDNY engine and a beam, is in a museum near the footprints of the WTC. In the wake of 9/11, Giuliani couldn’t have blown his nose near that site without permission from FEMA.
What’s infuriating to me is that despite the very well-tested answers given to Avery and his twoof bwigade, they continue to spew the same rhetoric, distort the truth, and claim it’s the truth they’re after. Not one credible expert has supported these nutball ideas. Van Romero, also quoted by Loose Change, was very upset about being used. What about Kevin Ryan, from Underwriters Laboratories? First of all, UL didn’t certify the steel used to build the WTC, and they said so in a statement. Second, Ryan didn’t work with steel; he worked in the water testing department. He was fired after making a bogus statement about the incident, claiming that he had personal knowledge through his work at UL that proved the controlled demolition theory. Ryan was fired–because, like all of us who work for major corporations, he was not authorized to make any statement, but he did so anyway. And his statement was erroneous.
Here’s a video comparing the Chicago demolition and the collapse of the WTC:
The truth is out there. They just don’t want to admit it.