Saturday, July 12, 2008

The BBC, respecting its audience's intelligence since 1922

This is a picture of a chap called Mark Loizeaux




Mark Loizeaux runs one of the world's leading demolition companies, Controlled Demolition Incorporated, and holds the world record for bringing down the largest steel structure, the J L Hudson building in Detroit (WTC1 and 2 apparently didn't count when the records were being handed out)

Mark featured heavily in the BBC Conspiracy Files documentary last week about the collapse of WTC7 on 9/11





Mark explained that WTC7 couldn't have been brought down as the result of a deliberately planned demolition, even though the collapse looked like a deliberately planned demolition, because an operation like that...


'would take months to design and months to prepare the structure for the placement of charges'


requiring...


'hundreds of explosive charges along with miles of initiating cable and miles more detonating cord'


and thermate charges couldn't have been used to deliberately take down WTC7 because Mark couldn't see...


'how you could possibly get all of the columns to melt through at the same time'


Mark clearly has a point. Without months of meticulous planning and poring over architectural plans, more months of placing hundreds of charges with geometrical care, and the use of sophisticated firing mechanisms which ensured that the charges were detonated with milliseconds of accuracy, you'd have to be out of your box to think anyone could have taken WTC7 down with such precision

Not when someone could have achieved the same level of precision just by running around the building and setting a few desks on fire



.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

HI Stef,
I highly recommend you view this footage & interview of whistleblower Barry Jennings, recently released in response to the Beeb's recent hatchet job.
Barry Jennings Uncut

Anonymous said...

Also an interview with John Schroeder, a head fireman for the WTC complex who was in the lobby of the first tower after the 1st plane hit and experienced similar events.

ziz said...

Stef
Followed the link to the BBC Conspiracy Files WTC 7 Q & A
"The lead investigator on Nist's World Trade Centre investigation, Dr Shyam Sunder told the Conspiracy Files their investigation into Tower 7 was near completion:

"We've been at this for a little over two years and doing a two or two and a half year investigation is not at all unusual. That's the same kind of time frame that takes place when we do aeroplane crash investigations, it takes a few years."

The problem is that aeroplane crashes are the domain of the National Transport Safety Commission NTSC - there are only 4 plane crashes they have never investigated . They all occirred on September 11th 2001.

Their website passes enquiries on to the FBI who took over all 4 cases.The FBI aren't handling queries.

It is standard practice to track every serially numbered part recovered - this was never done. ... and of course all the scrap is now part of the Olympic stadium.

The Antagonist said...

For a giggle -- Whack the 'very essence' phrase from the poster into Google and hit "I'm feeling lucky".

Ziz - It's 2008 and the WTC7 investigation is only two years old. That only leaves five years unaccounted for. Perfectly reasonable considering it was just an investigation into something that happened on 'the day the world changed'.

Stef said...

"A two thousand ton skyscraper collapses like a house of cards, crumbling in on itself - a waterfall of well-fractured steel and concrete debris. It lasts only seconds, and buildings within a few meters stand untouched. The very essence of Controlled Demolition, Inc. is in our name: CONTROL."

The Antagonist said...

It was hard, nay impossible, to resist....

conrad turner said...

What I found curious was that the beeb didn't show the full collapse.The clip Stef shows is also cropped.The east penthouse falls first.It housed heavy equipment like air con and elevator motors/cable reels, if I remember correctly.Its a distortion of the full picture to ignore the damage that penthouse would have caused on its way through a building that had been burning for 6 hours.The Truthers like to trivialise the east penthouse,but the Beeb ignored it too..why ignore a perfect opportunity to demonstrate selective video editing being used to buttress a conspiracy theory?
Likewise, why is there almost no footage of the damaged south side?Theres a gash down the front that was facing the towers at least 20 floors high.Again,the truthers say this is superficial damage,but the BBC don't really go there either.They mention the damage to the corner,but nothing about the huge gash down the front.
Surely the emergency response would have been equipped with infra red cameras to look through the smoke.Surely they would have had sensitive listening equipment attatched to the support girders monitoring the shifting stresses.Wheres all this data?

Mark Loizeaux' opinion that superthermate weapons do not exist was taken at face value.They knew CDI were viewed with suspicion by the truthers - Did the Beeb verify the non-existance of superthermates with an independent 3rd party?They wouldn't have had to go far for research tips;Hammond from Top Gear did a documentary on thermate.
Heres a link to an essay over at 911 blogger.
911blogger.com/node/16565
Mark Loizeaux is shown to contradict his claims about the length of time to wire a building,and about shattering nearby windows,on his own companies website.If a tinfoiler can spot this,why can't the Beeb?

I've heard Steve Jones offer to send anyone a sample of debris if they want to do their own tests.Why didn't the beeb take some and test it themselves?
Why didn't they just wait till the NIST report was out and really shit on us?
THe BBCs portrayal of the truthers claims was really quite predictable,but it was such a weak debunking.
I think its more useful to someone that B7 remains shrouded in confusion.

Stef said...

First off, as I live in the UK I generally steer clear of commenting about 9/11 as I don't think there's much that people on this side of the Pond can add to things. Though the temptation proves irresistible when the Beeb periodically wades in with its horseshit

- The most promoted clips of WTC7 going down are selectively edited to make the time of the collapse look faster than it was and that pisses me off (all budding conspiraloons should seriously consider spending as much time combing through debunking sites as CT sites). I absolutely detest advocacy dressed up as objectivity. Enough of that nonsense goes on the mainstream. I used the clip that I did because the 'this is an orange' thing fits in well with even the debunkers admitting that the WTC7 does 'look like' a CD and I wasn't pushing the freefall timing bit

- WTC7 is definitely a 'troofer' magnet and draws a lot of attention that might be better spent elsewhere - so, yes, continued confusion is possibly useful. I hadn't considered the possibility that this latest BBC hit piece was rubbish by design. And it really was rubbish...

One thing that I am sure of is that Loizeaux definitely contradicts himself, quite severely

Stef said...

@anon re. the Jennings and Schroeder testimony

thanks for the links

I was so delighted to see something which made sense of Jennnings' inclusion in the BBC program (he was so heavily edited as to make what he had to say virtually meaningless) that I slapped up a quick post on the subject

I also included the Schroeder interview

After which I had a root around to see what debunkers had to say about Jennings and Schroeder

Somebody has done a fairly heavy duty number on the Schroeder interview and I'm still looking for the counter point of view on the Jennnings material. I've no doubt that I'll find something

That's the problem with eyewitness accounts...

Anonymous said...

At 27:23 into the BBC piece they introduce Loizeaux, correctly, as one of the foremost experts on demolition. He not only shows the J.L. Hudson building demolition, but mentions it by name as holding several world records for demolition. He probably shouldn’t have mentioned that one, for several reasons.

He says it took months to “prepare the structure” and took months “to set the charges. Months”. But that’s just not true, according to his website;

“CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.”

What took so long, according to the website, was the design of the implosion because there were 12 separate sections to the 2.2 million sq. ft. building. All built at different times, with different construction techniques. And no drawings of the building.

Now compare that to Building Seven. 47 floors, as opposed to the Hudson buildings 30 levels; the Hudson building had 2.2 million sq ft of floor space, where Building Seven had roughly 45,000 sq ft per floor totaling… 2.2 million sq ft.

So, theoretically, the demolition requirements would be similar and the design part would certainly be easier. Now, that would mean, that the actual charges if they used a 12 person team could be set in 24 days. Or, if they used 20 people… you do the math. But this is all factually based on real world experience provided by CDI’s own site.

So it didn’t take “months and months” to set those charges and by extraction, it wouldn’t take that time to have prepped Building 7.

But that wasn’t the misstatement that I was referring to. I just threw that one in for the fun of it.

At 31:10 into the piece, Mark Loizeaux commits what I know to be a misrepresentation of fact. He claims that yes, some of the windows facing the building were blown out, but, he says if explosives of the type that would be needed to cut the columns were used, then, he says, “…all of the windows on the surrounding buildings would be blown out all the way around. No way around it.”

Yet, on Mark’s own website, the same exact page that we talked about the other misinformation from Mark, he clearly boasts about how that job posed a significant problem with the surrounding historic structures and there old glass, and they were able to demo the Hudson building, another steel framed structure, without cause hardly any window breakage. On the sides facing the buildings!

“Even with all the precautions to control overpressure, the age, existing cracks, and poor condition of glazing windows in vacant structures on the north, east and west sides of the J.L. Hudson complex, window breakage was a concern.”
...

“There was far less window breakage in adjacent buildings than glass company crews were prepared to handle. Many of the broken windows appeared to have been those which were cracked before the implosion,…”

Anonymous said...

Knowing how difficult it is for Hollywood to come up with original ideas, I suggest the following film project: "Dude, where is my evidence, Dude?"

Basic story line: Americans wake up, demand the evidence for the 9/11 official report and are being told: "Sorry, all scrapped". Hilarious movie! Watch out for the guest appearance of George 'Fuck' Bush and his one-liner: "Osama whoo?"

Anonymous said...

"WTC7 is definitely a 'troofer' magnet and draws a lot of attention that might be better spent elsewhere"

E.g. here?

During the summertime, usually the busiest aviation time of the year, there were NO REPORTED SCRAMBLES from June 2001, [after the CJCSI change was put in place], until the morning of 9/11/2001.

Anonymous said...

Or even better here?

In early September, three weeks after wiring $100,000 to "lead hijacker" Mohammed Atta, Pakistan Army Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Lt Gen Mahmoud Ahmed was in Washington conferring with George Tenet and breakfasting on 9/11 morn with the new CIA chief Porter Goss.

Anonymous said...

Well the reason that wtc7 is such a magnet is that it such a no brainer,,a fuckin monkey could spot that it was a controlled demolition.A lot of people do not have the time nor inclination to explore the more esoteric aspects of 911.WTC7 is right in your face and unless you are a moron stoopid dumb fuck then there is no other explanation than inside job,,,there are only two dots to join.The first dot is pre planned demolitions charges in wtc7.Dot two push trigger.
It´s that fuckin simple.
Spooks and government dis-info are everywhere you can smell these fuckers a mile away.

All other oddities can be debated.the freefall collapse of wtc7 is not up for argument.

Anonymous said...

"Somebody has done a fairly heavy duty number on the Schroeder"

that somebody is Mark Roberts and he is one dodgy fucker.The De Niro look alike!

Schroeder is far more reliable than mr Roberts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4sHGHiRkPA