| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:25 am Post subject: Architect says explosive charges were built into WTC towers! |
 |
|
Paul Laffoley worked in the early 1960's for Emery Roth and Sons, a prominent New York City architectural design firm. In this interview with Mike Hagen on Radio Orbit on February 21, 2007, he drops two bombshells:
1. the construction company owned by the Bin Laden family worked on the WTC project.
2. he helped to design the WTC with explosive charges built into the towers in order to take them down neatly at any time. Saudi engineers helped with the design and knew where these charges were placed. Laffoley says the towers were demolished (although not WHO demolished them).
Listen to the amazing interview at http://www.mikehagan.com/2012/mp3/021207_PAUL_LAFFOLEY.mp3
Full story at http://kentroversypapers.blogspot.com/2007/04/bin-laden-construction-c ompany-worked.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
is this for real what about the architects blueprints?
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Banish
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 250
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
30 year old explosives? Dont they sweat and decay and the likes?
This isnt a new angle. Xymphora tried this one on about 3 years ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
there is no evidence for this. Why do the steel shafts show 45 degree angle cuts and have sulphur residue.
and why did Marvin Bush's guys rewire the building the weekend before 9/11.
Im afraid this is another disinformation
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Its not nessesarily disinfomation (i havent listened to it yet though).
Firstly making PROVISION for demolishing a building when its made is not a new concept at all. I have british civil engineering papers from the 70s suggesting it.
Also the use of thermite does woud INCLUDE H.Exp being used. Jones is VERY specific about that in his paper.
However if this man is suggesting that they actually put LIVE explosives into the towers when they were built I would find that ridiculous.
As said above I dont know of any high explosives with that sort of shelf life. I think it far more likely that simply the physical positions and control systems may have been inserted during or shortly after construction.
However I find even that (in the case of the WTC) hard to believe, if you were to get rid of buildings in the middle of manhatten you would plan to take them down with scaffold. No sane mayor of new york would plan to allow massive destructive explosions in NY (like I said..no SANE mayor).
But you never know, I`ll take a listen first.
C
_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
President Eisenhower 1961 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Actually there is no talk about planting explosives at the time. Only the host mentions this in passing, and its ignored by Laffoley.
He simply talks about how the Bin Laden engineers wanted first hand advice on the stress points of the structure and such. With an obvious intention to record such details for use in the future, if the building needed to be demolished.
This definitely sounds like something worth some more research.
For reference: The WTC conversation starts somewhere after 1/5th of the way through.
Can anyone get into this blasted website: http://www.sbg.com.sa/ ?
Anyone fancy risking their lives, giving Prince Abdullah a ring?
"Saudi Binladin Group, Prince Abdullah St., Al Rawdah District, P.O.B. 8918, Jeddah 21492, Saudi Arabia.
Tel: 966-2-664 3033 Fax: 966-2-664 3221/3225 Telex: 607439 SBG"
_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
Last edited by Fallious on Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:18 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Snowygrouch wrote: | Its not nessesarily disinfomation (i havent listened to it yet though).
Firstly making PROVISION for demolishing a building when its made is not a new concept at all. I have british civil engineering papers from the 70s suggesting it.
Also the use of thermite does woud INCLUDE H.Exp being used. Jones is VERY specific about that in his paper.
However if this man is suggesting that they actually put LIVE explosives into the towers when they were built I would find that ridiculous.
As said above I dont know of any high explosives with that sort of shelf life. I think it far more likely that simply the physical positions and control systems may have been inserted during or shortly after construction.
However I find even that (in the case of the WTC) hard to believe, if you were to get rid of buildings in the middle of manhatten you would plan to take them down with scaffold. No sane mayor of new york would plan to allow massive destructive explosions in NY (like I said..no SANE mayor).
But you never know, I`ll take a listen first.
C |
Generally I agree with you comments Snowygrouch, I certainly dont find it beyond credibility that top level contingency plans could be made to bring down buildings quickly. Obviously, nothing like the size of the WTC towers is brought down by CD normally, but what if the towers were failing and in danger of collapsing sideways? (IE what if the FBI had pulled it off in 93?). Against a threat of overwhelming collateral damage, CD would make a lot of sense then
Anyway, if there was a system in place that could be worked from, then the "mystery" of how WTC 1, 2 and 7 could be preped for demolition becomes one step easier to solve
Unfortunately, I cant get this interview to download or play it streaming: perhaps a bandwith problem at source? If anyone has a copy, perhpas you could rehost it on you tube or similar?
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Snowygrouch wrote: | Its not nessesarily disinfomation (i havent listened to it yet though).
Firstly making PROVISION for demolishing a building when its made is not a new concept at all. I have british civil engineering papers from the 70s suggesting it.
Also the use of thermite does woud INCLUDE H.Exp being used. Jones is VERY specific about that in his paper.
However if this man is suggesting that they actually put LIVE explosives into the towers when they were built I would find that ridiculous.
As said above I dont know of any high explosives with that sort of shelf life. I think it far more likely that simply the physical positions and control systems may have been inserted during or shortly after construction.
However I find even that (in the case of the WTC) hard to believe, if you were to get rid of buildings in the middle of manhatten you would plan to take them down with scaffold. No sane mayor of new york would plan to allow massive destructive explosions in NY (like I said..no SANE mayor).
But you never know, I`ll take a listen first.
C |
No one said the same explosives were in the towers all the time. Perhaps the charges were replaced at regular intervals. Or perhaps only the wiring was laid out during the building, with easy-to-access points built in so that explosives could be inserted when the time for controlled demolition became necessary. The architect does not make it clear which option was used, although his reference to the Saudi engineers from the Bin Laden Construction Company who worked on the WTC project appears to be implying that the locations of the explosives in the towers would have been known to Bin Laden. In other words, he seems to be insinuating that the terrorists blew up the towers! Many of us would agree that this shows naivety on his part. However, the question is beside the point. The real point of Laffoley's throw-away remarks is that the towers were designed so that they could be readily blown up. This refutes the argument by debunkers that it would have been impossible to wire the towers without anyone noticing. It also confirms what many already suspected, namely, that WTC 7 was pre-wired for controlled demolition, so that it would NOT have taken weeks for this to be arranged.
Laffoley claims that it was common practice in the 1960s to design skyscrapers so that they could be readily demolished. This does NOT necessarily mean that explosives were left lying around inside them, ready to be detonated. It merely indicates that a provision WAS made for quick wiring up of demolition charges. That's all we need to infer from his remarks, for it makes the demolition of the towers all the more believable and refutes the debunkers, who have said that it could not have been done.
Laffoley seems implicitly to be ascribing to the official account of who was responsible for the destruction of WTC and to be suggesting that Bin Laden's Saudi terrorists would have known where the explosives were and how to detonate them. This makes his testimony all the more convincing, irrespective of his naive, uninformed views about who blew up the towers, because it shows that he is not a 9/11 truther who is merely concocting a story in order to strengthen the case for controlled demolition of the towers.
The possibility that this is disinformation deliberately released to undermine the growing realisation that WTC 1, 2 & 7 were blown up cannot, of course, be discounted. Perhaps Laffoley is trying to create the escape clause for the US government that - yes, the towers WERE blown up, but it was the terrorists that did it! If he is (I personally don't think so, but I remain flexible on the issue), then the strategy is not going to work, because very few will think it plausible that terrorists could have wondered around the towers unnoticed, connecting up explosives at all the locations they knew about from the involvement of the Bin Laden Construction Company in the design of the towers. That is, not unless they had the approval of those in charge of security of the towers! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flamesong
Major Poster
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
There are no links from the front page. The Flash movie doesn't appear to have any links built into it and the page very much looks like it might have been built in 2000 (the © year). I'd say that unless this is just a facade and there is a site built behind it - www.tri.net.sa (whose site seems nonexistent) are on to a tax-free cushy number!
Page source code:
| Code: | <html>
<head>
<title>Saudi Binladen Group</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<script language="JavaScript">
<!--
function MM_reloadPage(init) { //reloads the window if Nav4 resized
if (init==true) with (navigator) {if ((appName=="Netscape")&&(parseInt(appVersion)==4)) {
document.MM_pgW=innerWidth; document.MM_pgH=innerHeight; onresize=MM_reloadPage; }}
else if (innerWidth!=document.MM_pgW || innerHeight!=document.MM_pgH) location.reload();
}
MM_reloadPage(true);
// -->
</script>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#010066" text="#FFFFFF" link="#66CCCC" vlink="#66FF66" alink="#009900" topmargin="0">
<div align="center"><object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swfl ash.cab#version=4,0,2,0" width="271" height="48">
<param name=movie value="/title2.swf">
<param name=quality value=high>
<embed src="/title2.swf" quality=high pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1 _Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="271" height="48">
</embed>
</object><br>
</div>
<p align="center"><img src="IMAGES/front.jpg" width="432" height="346"></p>
<p align="center"><font size="2"><img src="IMAGES/newlogo01.jpg" width="321" height="60"><br>
<br>
</font><font size="2"><br>
</font><font size="1" face="Tahoma" color="#666666">Copyright © 2000 Saudi Binladen
Group All rights reserved Reproduction in whole or in part in any form<br>
or medium without express written permission of Saudi Binladen Group. <br>
This site is built and maintained by</font><font size="1" face="Tahoma"> <font color="#FF0000"><a href="http://www.tri.net.sa" target="_blank">TRInet</a></font>
<font color="#666666">K.S.A</font></font><font size="2" face="Tahoma" color="#666666">.</font></p>
</body>
</html> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| There appear to be no links on the webpage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
As requested: Here's just the section of the interview relating to the WTC. Thought the rest is quite interesting  .
Click here to listen to Paul-Laffoley-WTC comments
Flamesong: Damn, I can't seem to find Bin Ladin corps official website - not that i'd wan't to talk to them about 9/11. I can hear the black helicopters just from thinking about that.
_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
Last edited by Fallious on Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:36 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flamesong
Major Poster
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Micpsi wrote: | | There appear to be no links on the webpage. |
Isn't that what I said? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| flamesong wrote: | | Micpsi wrote: | | There appear to be no links on the webpage. |
Isn't that what I said? |
I was confirming it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flamesong
Major Poster
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK, thanks for that. 
Fallious, I don't know what you are looking for but maybe you will find something via the ol' wayback machine.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.saudi-binladin-group.com
You will have to copy and paste the URL 'cos phpBB don't seem to like complex addresses! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| flamesong wrote: | OK, thanks for that.
Fallious, I don't know what you are looking for but maybe you will find something via the ol' wayback machine.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.saudi-binladin-group.com
You will have to copy and paste the URL 'cos phpBB don't seem to like complex addresses! |
Not looking for anything particular, just some leads to folks who might be able to confirm the story and perhaps provide more info.
The only thing available of their site on the wayback machine is the contact details - not great!
_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flamesong
Major Poster
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm a bit disappointed in you Fallious! 
Try clicking on the missing image icons. They are nearly all links.
And if you find yoursel on a page where you can't see any text, try clicking on the page and selecting all, if you have a Mac, Apple-A, if you have a PC, get rid of it! It will magically fill with the previously invisible text, highlighted by the text selection.
Call yourself an activist! 
e.g. From May 14 2001:
| Quote: | History of Saudi Binladin Group (SBG)
The history of Binladin began in 1931 when Mohammed Binladin founded the company. From its humble beginnings as a general contractor, the company has grown and prospered in parallel with the growth and prosperity of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Over the years the company has been entrusted with many major construction projects, projects that helped the Kingdom to develop its resources and expand its infrastructure.
Under the leadership of the late Salem M. Binladin, the company diversified into other areas and became an international conglomerate with interests ranging from its traditional construction business through, for example, industrial and power projects, petroleum, chemicals and mining, telecommunications, operations and maintenance, manufacturing and trading, to satellite communications.
In 1989, as part of the natural progression in the growth of the company, various autonomous divisions were created under the umbrella of the Saudi Binladin Group (SBG). Although each division has its own industry focus, all share the same mission -
The Iridium Project
to continue to deliver total qualityto customers in the global market placein keeping with the qualities and traditionsthat have become synonymous with the- Saudi Binladin Group -
SBG Index |
| Quote: | Bankers include:
ABN AMRO
Al Bank AlSaudi AlFransi
Arab Banking Corporation
CitiBank
Gulf Investment Bank National Commercial Bank
Riyadh Bank
Saudi American Bank
Saudi Cairo Bank
United Saudi Commercial Bank |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Portland Media Center at
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/03/356342.shtml
discusses the Paul Laffoley interview.
"secret studies in the 1980s on 'how much longer do these intentional lemons have' to last before the galvanic corrosion between the different metals of the bolts and the steel (with sea humid air/water between) make the structure unstable? Studies additionally ask "how much would it simply cost to take them down legally?" That is key: they would hardly be conducting studies on how to disassemble them piece by piece in the late 1980s...if demolition on the construction site itself (talked above in the Hogan program) was meant to be a LEGAL demolition. WTCs were additionally well beyond 'spec' and code with asbestos and would cost billions there as well. So the 'demolition from the start' mentioned in the interview was the illegal demolition they were talking even as they were bolting the huge erector set of the WTCs together."
(Part 5, #5) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flamesong wrote: | I'm a bit disappointed in you Fallious!
Try clicking on the missing image icons. They are nearly all links. |
Ah! Score 1 for conventional browsers. 0 for opera displaying no placeholder for broken images.
Lesson learned. *switches over to internet exploder*
Anhow, i've fired off an e-mail to the folks at Radio Orbit, I get the feeling the guy interviewing Laffoley was at least aware of the truth, so hopefully he will indulge my interest by forwarding my questions to Laffoley or answering them himself.
| Quote: | Hi there,
I was wondering if you could do me a great favour, of either putting me in contact with Paul Laffoley, or forwarding some questions to him. Or if you have the answers yourself, then do fire away!
I am an independent 9/11 investigator and though Paul might not be aware of it, his comments regarding the Bin Ladin groups involvement in the construction of the WTC's have sparked a great deal of interest in this are. This is something which was not studied by the 9/11 commission and clearly should have been.
I am searching for contact details for other architects who worked with Paul, who could possibly confirm and build upon his memories of the involvement of the Bin Ladin construction group at the WTC's.
I would appreciate any help you could provide in this matter.
Finally, I also just want to say, great work with the station. The Paul Laffoley interview was the first time I've heard of, and listened to the station, but with all the great stuff I see available from the McKennas, Rick Strassman and such I think I’ll be tuning in regularly.
Many thanks again for any help you can provide. |
Would be nice just to have some names of the architects, though I expect they are already documented somewhere on the web...
---------------------------------------------------------
http://www.digg.com/politics/WTC_Architect_recalls_Bin_Ladin_engineers _interest_in_demolition_methods
_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Banish
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 250
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not that you deserve it, but do yourself a favour and dump IExplorer, tis a piece of *. Get Firefox
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/
Oh yes. Bin Ladins. Explosives.
Werent the buildings built to last a thousand years? That what I thought one of the architects said. Why would they rig them to blow, unlesss that was the whole idea of building them in the first place.
Nothing happens by accident in polictics, and if it does you can be sure it was planned that way. I'm sure *that* can be extended to the other arms of the octopus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
festival of snickers
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 733
Location: the worlds greatest leper colony usa
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Remember the power downs and the removal of bomb sniffer dogs.
| Quote: | Ignition
Conventional thermite reactions require very high temperatures for initiation. These cannot be reached with conventional black-powder fuses, nitrocellulose rods, detonators, or other common igniting substances. Even when the thermite is hot enough to glow bright red, it will not ignite as it must be at or near white-hot to initiate the reaction. It is possible to start the reaction using a propane torch if done correctly, but this should never be attempted for safety reasons. The torch can preheat the entire pile of thermite which will make it explode instead of burning slowly when it finally reaches ignition temperature. |
http://www.answers.com/topic/thermite
Sounds to me like thermite could be built in and primed very close to the event (like that weekend). This would make a thermite impolsion more feasible given the limited amount a team could do in the six weeks between Larry buying control and 911.
I have heard this story before.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony Lawson
Validated Poster
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 370
Location: Phuket, Thailand
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:09 am Post subject: The Headline to this Topic is Misleading and Inaccurate |
|
|
The Headline to this Topic is Misleading and Inaccurate
The title, Architect says explosive charges were built into WTC towers! is clearly meant to be interpreted as coming from a direct quote, i.e.: ‘Explosive charges were built into WTC towers.’
Written in transcription format, it would look like this:
LAOFFOLEY: Explosive charges were built into WTC towers.
He said nothing of the kind.
The relevant passage in the MP3 recording starts at 39:30 and lasts for about three-and-a-half minutes. (I have spot listened through the rest of the interview, but I could find no further mention of the Twin Towers or 9/11.)
Micpsi goes on to misinform us with the following:
| Quote: | | 2. he helped to design the WTC with explosive charges built into the towers in order to take them down neatly at any time. Saudi engineers helped with the design and knew where these charges were placed. Laffoley says the towers were demolished (although not WHO demolished them). |
Again, this is extremely misleading because it implies that Laffoley was complicit, as an architect, in planning for explosive charges to be built into the WTC buildings. This is NOT what he said, nor was it implied. A far more accurate interpretation of the relevant passage in the interview can be found at:
http://www.digg.com/politics/WTC_Architect_recalls_Bin_Ladin_engineers _interest_in_demolition_methods
| Quote: | WTC Architect recalls Bin Ladin engineers interest in demolition methods.
A Former World Trade Center architect and artist recalls his job requirements, and how Bin Ladin engineers assisted with tower production and were asking architects where best to place charges to bring the buildings down in a controlled demolition. Remember Marvin Bush; head of WTC Security before 9/11 and friends with Bin Laden family? |
One oddity about this is that Fallious also posted the address for the last-named website, but, if one follows its hyperlink (connected to the headline) it loops back to: http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=65802#65802 which is the address for this topic. (Anyone wanting to check this should do it soon, because the ‘digg’ site might rubbish the post, at any minute.)
For anyone who hasn’t the time to find and listen to what you are all talking about, or who can’t be bothered, here is the relevant section, which lasts for about 3 minutes and 14 seconds.
| Quote: | LAFFOLEY …When I was there, there were these engineers from Saudi Arabia.. there was… actually part of the ben [sic] Laden Construction Company [indistinct interruption]…Yamasaki had worked with them and built them up [interviewer comment]. And they got… they started in Arabia and worked in, in, in for Yamasaki who were doing all kinds of things like ah, airports, schools, [a short list is given.]
So he just brought them over, and so I see these guys, you know, swarthy looking guys walkin’ around and some of them were asking me, wh.. where.. where would you put demolition ah, devices [noise from interviewer?] And I said, well, I’m… I’m not really an engineer, but I’m curious as to know why [starts laughing] why you want to know why… why you put things in to demolish it, and it isn’t even built? You know, it… it… was so strange to me, and he said ‘Well that’s the way things are going now.’ So in a certain sense the reason why they came down is because the ben Loyden [what it sounds like] construction company knew exactly where all, all, all the um… [mumble from interviewer] all the places were that..that they put demolition devices, because its New York in the six…
INTERVIEWER: So you believe it was demolished. It was brought down?
LAFFOLEY: Ye.. wh.. well in… in the early 60s and seventies, in New York, ah buildings were going up and down…like every six months. You go away, you come back and there’s a new building.
INTERVIEWER: So they built them with charges built into them?
LAFFOLEY: Built it so that it… it would come down, and so… so those guys new the whole story [hmm] and so it was very easy for them to, er, ah… ah… y’know to do… that. And um, so it actually came down from extreme capitalism. [laughs] you know wanting to do that. [/size] |
Laffoley goes on to talk about some walkways, he was suggesting, between the two buildings, some of his colleagues saying that it would help to make them stand up. Which was obviously a joke that went wrong, because he was fired, the next day. He left New York shortly after he left the architect’s office.
In light of the above, take another look at what Micpsi got out of that:
| Quote: | | 2. he helped to design the WTC with explosive charges built into the towers in order to take them down neatly at any time. Saudi engineers helped with the design and knew where these charges were placed. Laffoley says the towers were demolished (although not WHO demolished them) |
.
Take another look at Laffolley’s answer to the question: ‘So you believe it was demolished. It was brought down? It isn’t exactly unequivocal, is it.
And he certainly didn’t ‘help to design the WTC with explosive charges built into the towers.’ He was designing stuff like walkways; there is nothing to indicate that he had anything to do with the major structural design. Then comes the bit about Saudi engineers ‘helped with the design’, hot on the heels of the initial misdirection, implying that Saudi engineers helped him, Laffolly.
This is not to say that demolition charges were not built into the buildings, they probably were, but such a wild headline and the misquoting of what could well turn out to be a very valuable source can only lead to more muddy waters, and more damaging opportunities for others to point out that certain members of the British 9/11 Truth Movement haven’t even got the ability to listen to a clear recording of someone speaking, rather slowly, in English, without misinterpreting it, or deliberately misquoting it in order to bolster their theories.
One other point: I’ve counted 18 references to the word ‘explosive’ or its plural (including the headline and repeats in quotations), in the above posts, but Laffolly doesn’t use the word ‘explosive’ or its plural, even once. He only refers to ‘demolition devices.’
It is a classic example of someone misquoting someone else, then another person picking up the misquotation, then someone else doing the same… Over and over, so that the original is lost, forever.
Not good.
_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, it's speculative, but I think it's highly likely any insurance company in the world would laugh you out the door and beyond if you tried to insure your city centre skyscraper, fully kitted out with explosives/demolition devices/holographic space beams or whatever.
How many people would feel comfortable working in a building that could raze itself in under 10 seconds? Not many I'd wager - you'd hardly have time to get your coat.
Even the alternative - that the architect and structural engineer would know the best locations to set the charges - seems redundantly obvious.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony Lawson
Validated Poster
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 370
Location: Phuket, Thailand
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject: You might as well be working for the BBC |
|
|
Chek: Lying or Condoning Lies is Unacceptable
You might as well be working for the BBC. You’ve just dismissed Micpsi’s post as being ‘speculative,’ when he is virtually accusing what sounded to me like a decent citizen of colluding with Saudis to plant explosives in the WTC buildings, when they were being built, which is absolutely and categorically not true.
You are both as bad as thought criminal who posted a headline which read:
| Quote: | | Naudet Brothers Admit 9/11 Complicity |
Which, of course was a lie, as well, but which thought criminal attempted to pass off as a joke, and he topped that by slagging me off for calling the attention of the moderator’s to it. The thread has been removed, I am pleased to say.
Can’t you tell the difference between accurately quoting what someone said and turning it into something which you want to hear?
When will you and others learn that making up lies about what people say—or even simply misquoting them—is the best way to make decent, honest people think twice about coming forward to tell their stories. And if they see that other people accept these lies, with barely a shrug, it will cause them to firmly make up their minds that speaking out just isn’t worth it.
The 9/11 Commission were the liars, along with NIST and all the other agencies who backed them up. When a lie or a blatant misquotation is published in any post that is made under the aegis of The British 9/11 Truth Campaign, we are all in danger of being put into the same category as any other liars who twist people’s words around to serve their own evil purposes.
POSTING OR CONDONING LIES IS UNACCEPTABLE
DO NOTHING TO HARM THE GOOD NAME OF THIS WEBSITE
You might like to take note that my signature phrase (see under the line below) has been the same since I became a member of this movement. It is my mission to identify people who abuse the truth and to expose them, when I can.
_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What on earth are you on about AL?
The only speculative remark I made was regarding the impossibility of insuring a building pre-set with explosive charges.
But hey - if you can show me a quote from an insurance company that says different and proves that they're quite happy to do that, then go ahead and show me how I 'lied'.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony Lawson
Validated Poster
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 370
Location: Phuket, Thailand
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 2:42 am Post subject: Chek: What I am on about |
|
|
Chek: What I am on about
| Quote: | What on earth are you on about AL?
The only speculative remark I made was regarding the impossibility of insuring a building pre-set with explosive charges. |
Well, I’m afraid that you didn’t come anywhere close to making that clear, in your opening paragraph, but, sadly, you are certainly not alone. On this Forum, one is constantly having to resort to doing a set of mental gymnastics before being able to work out what some people are writing about, or referring to. Many of the culprits fall into the Super or Mighty poster category, I might add.
Unless a responder takes the time to be specific about what he or she is referring to, one is obliged to follow the normal rules of English grammar. In this case, you only bring up insurance, etc., after you have opened your post with ‘Okay, it’s speculative…’ so I, not unreasonably, took the possessive pronoun ‘it’s’ as referring to the headline of the topic which I had been ‘on about’ in my post. Starting the opening sentence of a post with ‘Okay,’ also tends to indicate that a reference is being made to a previously introduced subject, rather than the one which, in this case, you were about to introduce. So, the sense of your opening sentence was, to me, at least:
‘Okay, the headline is speculative....’ or ’Okay, Micpsi’s position is speculative….’
Can you understand my problem? There would have been no confusion, had you opened your post with something like:
‘This is only speculative, and has nothing to do with how the charges got into the buildings, but…’
Furthermore, you haven’t entered a subject in either of your posts on this topic. Had you done so, you might have saved me and yourself a lot of time and energy.
Having cleared that up, I still find it odd that you don’t seem to have any strong feelings about what Micpsi has done; basically libelling someone who was merely sharing his thoughts with a radio audience about how some Saudi engineer had asked him where the best place would be to put demolition charges in the WTC towers, which was twisted into:
| Quote: | | 2. he helped to design the WTC with explosive charges built into the towers in order to take them down neatly at any time. Saudi engineers helped with the design and knew where these charges were placed…. |
Doesn’t that kind of thing worry you?
It’s difficult to know what you are driving at, in your final paragraph…
| Quote: | | Even the alternative - that the architect and structural engineer would know the best locations to set the charges - seems redundantly obvious. |
…but you link the architect, the structural engineer and the charges together, one more time, which could indicate that you still believe that Mr Laffolly had a hand in setting up the buildings for controlled demolitions.
Rather than going for the record in the number posts you make, may I suggest that you concentrate a little more on the clarity of them, instead of the quantity.
Take care,
Anthony
_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ooooooooh a grammar nazi. Well, whatever floats your boat.
Personally, I’d just try to keep in mind that this is a public forum filled with humans. If we are talking about redundant text, unnecessarily taking up peoples time, the first person I'd nominate (in this thread at least) is you. There really isn't any need for your last three posts.
_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
The longer the post the harder the read.
I find that trolls have a technique of using massive posts to make it hard to follow threads. Not saying that this is the intention here - just something to watch out for and to perhaps try to avoid. (OK sometimes it is hard to do if a lot of info is being presented vbia links etc.)
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
The materials for thermite cutting are aluminium and iron. The ignition temp is very high - much higher than jet fuel burning for example. Close to the temperature of melting steel if I have read correctly. Why could a building NOT be built with thermite in situ? To ignite themite would require an ignition charge that could be inserted just before the demolition was to take place.
Psychologically not very re-assuring for workers, but technically safe (until someone decides to perform a 911)
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
