Thread: 9/11 Conspiracy

Since September 11th 2001, the very day the event happened, I've been seeing conspiracy theories pop up left and right - some of them laughable, like the theory that the planes were not planes at all but missiles with wings; but a few of them actually make you stop and think, and appear to make a bit of sense - Like the one about the... uhh.. um, well I can't think of any off of the top of my head right now but I'm sure they're out there. Yeah. They've got to be.

Alright, so there are no conspiracy theories that make even a lick of sense to me. Why? I don't know. Maybe I've just never heard of any. But here's your chance - You have the opportunity to present your case to listening ears. I want you to give me the best you've got, because I know you've got to have something better than "The buildings fell down too perfect"

I don't know if there was a conspiracy but, I saw one video that was pretty convincing.

It is short, and presents some good facts that really make it look like it is a conspiracy.

I don't know much about this but the general agreement is that these theories are rubbish. However, I went to a talk by a 911 survivor who was supposed to debunk a lot of these theories that were presented by one of the professors at my university, but all he did was tell a sappy tale about his experience. It was touching of course, but he lost some credibility because whenever someone tried to ask him to talk about a conspiracy theory, he would get angry and turn the audience against the person. It was crazy. I'll get the name of the guy if you're interested.

There is somewhat of an ongoing debate on this thread.

I presented some of the best theories, some great videos, and my opinion about the stupid theories: they only take the public's attention away from the theories that are valid.

I love conspiracy theories. My favorite books are about them, and my favorite radio show is Art Bell Coast to Coast. However, I am very skeptical of them and usually just look at them as good fiction. I have yet to come across a convincing one about 9/11. I keep hearing stuff about, "But this board should have gone that way and the wall should have fallen over there..." I am not even close to being an engineer or a demolition expert, so that stuff sounds like the adults on Charlie Brown to me. I would love to find a 9/11 conspiracy theory that makes some kind of sense to me.

i've seen a bunch of theories that make me laugh, but basically its coincidental facts that get to me the most with this one. all the other conspiracies are based too much on speculation. like the coincidence of there being training operations on the morning of september 11th that simulated attacks on the world trade center, pentagon, and white house, which confused command centers. just the fact that no jets were scrambled in time for the pentagon attack made me wonder the day of the attacks. and then theres building 7, no steel structured building had ever collapsed due to fire before 9/11. now yes, buildings one and two did have airplanes crash into them and blow huge holes in the sides of them, but building 7 had little to no structural damage and somehow collapsed. while a near-by building was gashed by an enormus chunk of falling debris and never collapsed, i'm not sure what happened to that building eventually but they put a huge cover over it after the attacks. you don't have to look hard at any pictures or videos, it's pretty much right out in plain view. if you want to see a possibly convincing theory look into building 7, the history, the owners, the offices, and the collapse. i'm convinced the bush administration at least had prior knowledge.

blabla building 7 blabla is the only reasonable intresting government-related theory I heard about.

What, however, if far more important, and better proven, is that some weird transactions just 'happened' to be made from the WTC at the last minute. And some something-billion insurance or wtc-rent or something like that. If anything around 9/11 is rotten, it has to do with money. Like always.

Besides that, the real 'government conspiracy' is way out there. How they shamelessly tied 9/11, al-quadia, taliban and osama bin laden to Iraq and Saddam.

A friend sent this to me a while ago

1) New York City has 11 letters
2) Afghanistan has 11 letters.
3) Ramsin Yuseb (The terrorist who threatened to destroy the Twin Towers in 1993) has 11 letters.
4) George W Bush has 11 letters.
5) The two twin towers make an "11"


This could be a mere coincidence, but this gets more interesting:

1) New York is the 11th state.
2) The first plane crashing against the Twin Towers was flight number 11.
3) Flight 11 was carrying 92 passengers. 9 + 2 = 11
4) Flight 77 which also hit Twin Towers, was carrying 65 passengers. 6+5 = 11
5) The tragedy was on September 11, or 9/11 as it is now known. 9 + 1+ 1 = 11
6) The date is equal to the US emergency services telephone number 911. 9 + 1 + 1 = 11.


Sheer coincidence..?! Read on and make up your own mind:
1) The total number of victims inside all the hi-jacked planes was 254. >2 + 5 + 4 = 11.
2) September 11 is day number 254 of the calendar year. Again 2 + 5 + 4 = 11.
3) The Madrid bombing took place on 3/11/2004. 3 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 4 = 11.
4) The tragedy of Madrid happened 911 days after the Twin Towers
incident.

Sheer coincidence..?! Read on and make up your own mind:
Now this is where things get odd:


The most recognised symbol for the US, after the Stars & Stripes, is the Eagle. The following verse is taken from the Quran, the Islamic


holy book:

"For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced: for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah and there was peace."


That verse is number 9.11 of the Quran.


Still uncovinced about all of this..?! Try this and see how you feel afterwards,:


Open Microsoft Word (or WordPad if you don't have Micro Word) and do the following(TRY THIS FOR REAL)

SERIOUSLY GUYS..DO THIS!!


1. Type in capitals Q33 NY. This is the flight number of the first

plane to hit one of the Twin Towers. The 3 letters MUST be in CAPITAL LETTERS TO WORK


2. Highlight the Q33 NY


3. Change the font size to 48.


4. Change the actual font to the WINGDINGS




Okay q33 ny isn't the actual flight number, but as far as i'm aware all the other facts are genuine

I understand you don't necessarily agree with the point they're trying to make in whatever your friend sent you tiddlywink, but I still wanna say how completely ridiculous those things are.
eg "You can spell Osama if you fold a dollar bill correctly! No way!" So the freaking founding fathers picked out the name so Osama could bomb the world trade center a few centuries later and people could spell his name by folding the dollar bill?
Afghanistan and New York also picked their names in prevision of the 9/11 bombings.
The guy who came up with wingdings was also in on it.
Heh. A good laugh on the subject

Originally Posted by tiddlywink101

Open Microsoft Word (or WordPad if you don't have Micro Word) and do the following(TRY THIS FOR REAL)

SERIOUSLY GUYS..DO THIS!!


1. Type in capitals Q33 NY. This is the flight number of the first

plane to hit one of the Twin Towers. The 3 letters MUST be in CAPITAL LETTERS TO WORK


2. Highlight the Q33 NY


3. Change the font size to 48.


4. Change the actual font to the WINGDINGS




Okay q33 ny isn't the actual flight number, but as far as i'm aware all the other facts are genuine

haha, thats brilliant

retarded, as well. Wait... tiddlywink, dont' tell me you actually take that as 'evidence.'

I never said it was evidence as I wasn't trying to prove anything. So don't be so hostile

I think the problem really is that a lot of people laugh before they heard who blew up that building, Donald Duck or Osama Bin Laden.

Meaning: People make up their mind about these kind of things a bit to fast. They often just don't Want to believe anything like that.

or something

I have yet to be convinced by an 9/11 conspiracy theory. The evidence just doesn't hold enough weight for me.

That doesn't however mean we should automatically dismiss them.

I do believe, however, that the Bush administration, and many of their associates, had A LOT to gain from 9/11. I am not against the theory that they may have let 9/11 happen but for the government to attack itself would be a rather bizarre hypothesis.

i forgot to mention something

you cant really convince a conspiracy theorist that its not a conspiracy because they will just tell you that its all part of the conspiracy

thanks

spiritofthewolf

Saying "It wasn't a conspiracy, because I just know it wasn't!" doesn't realy hold any value. Facts are facts. As I said before, all the little things that make no sense make it look like a conspiracy, because if they had nothing to hide you couldn't really acuse them of anything. In this case you can. Certain theories are stupid, but some are not so stupid and they have proof to back them up.

maybe the terrorist that did 9/11 want us to think our own GOV planned it out and did it themselves, maybe instead of our GOV brainwashing us, maybe the Terrorist are trying to brain wash us instead----OOOOOOO another Conspiracy-----thats how stupid the 9/11 conspiracy BS is, get the hell over it...all you conspiracy theorist are wasting your time, because honestly Conspiracy or no Conspiracy, you actually think we will know the honest to god truth...

Thats what happens with every major HAPPENING, like the JFK assasinations..its a conspiracy, no its not, 9/11 same deal... Like i said before, if 9/11 was truly an inside job, we would know by now because someone would have talked...plain and simple, bottom line..its just human nature..like when you tell your friends you had sex with the hottest chick at your school and she told you not to tell anybody about it..well, eventually you cant hold it in any longer and you open your mouth...Thats involving a living breathing single person---9/11 involves thousands of innocent dead people, i dont see how any person could deal with the guilt of killing that many people and keeping it from the nation.....if they can, then they have changed the way human nature works

Originally Posted by spiritofthewolf

maybe the terrorist that did 9/11 want us to think our own GOV planned it out and did it themselves, maybe instead of our GOV brainwashing us, maybe the Terrorist are trying to brain wash us instead----OOOOOOO another Conspiracy-----thats how stupid the 9/11 conspiracy BS is, get the hell over it...all you conspiracy theorist are wasting your time, because honestly Conspiracy or no Conspiracy, you actually think we will know the honest to god truth...

Thats what happens with every major HAPPENING, like the JFK assasinations..its a conspiracy, no its not, 9/11 same deal... Like i said before, if 9/11 was truly an inside job, we would know by now because someone would have talked...plain and simple, bottom line..its just human nature..like when you tell your friends you had sex with the hottest chick at your school and she told you not to tell anybody about it..well, eventually you cant hold it in any longer and you open your mouth...Thats involving a living breathing single person---9/11 involves thousands of innocent dead people, i dont see how any person could deal with the guilt of killing that many people and keeping it from the nation.....if they can, then they have changed the way human nature works

Is it me or did you not address a single fact in that rant pertaining to any of the events of 911?

So you think someone would have talked only 7 years later? So you think the type of person involved solely for money would have a sudden change of heart and give it all away and go to prison for life?

Originally Posted by spiritofthewolf

Thats what happens with every major HAPPENING, like the JFK assasinations..its a conspiracy, no its not, 9/11 same deal...

Well now that you've mentioned it...
JFK assasination video
Yeah, you're right. No conspiracies. It's all just terrorists and crazy people with weapons. I mean what would people have to gain from 9/11... Lets all just shut up, like someone said in the comments of the vid, at least you're not kissing some kings ass (like the rest of the non free world).

Originally Posted by memeticverb

We might actually see a debate on this forum if people could stick to the empirically verifiable data, and not silly arguments like "Bush isnt smart enough to pull it off." Or "Someone should have come forward with an admission of guilt". Come on. People are not stupid enough to buy into any of these arguments.

Exactly.

I stopped posting here after I got tired of seeing those replies over and over. Oh, and also the ones that mention the dumb conspiracy theories as an argument that all theories are dumb.

No, just because someone decided to make up some theory about missile with wings and posted it on the internet doesn't make the other theories invalid. It only makes that theory invalid, dumb, and pointless to even mention in an argument.

Keep an open mind. Research, research, research... then make your own opinions about things. There were a few very good posts that helped explain some questions I had... that's because I read/saw the post/video, then researched some more, found out the credibility of the source, and thought it over based on what I already knew.

Empirically verifiable data is a nice way to put it memeticverb...

and for those who believe 9/11 was an inside job.....go educate yourself

http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-M.../dp/158816635X


i copied this from the link above:


It is absolutely amazing the kind of reviews people will dare to give. As one prior reviewer astutely noticed, many "reviews" were done by people with an agenda to sell who obviously did not read the book. In fact, even before the book was published you had 911 conspiracy folks writing negative assertions about the book before it was even published. This tells you the mindset of such people and the prejudice they have. There is simply no way you can be objective by trying to trash something before you've even read it. But such is the folly of some. And let me say that I am particularly disappointed with Ed Haas, who appears to be just using this forum to promote his conspiracy agenda instead of reviewing the book honestly.

As someone who came to this issue trying to objectively ascertain what the truth is regarding 911, and as a former native New Yorker for over 30 years, I will now try to render an honest review of this book as one who has actually read it and also has verified many of its points from my own research. I will also point out some of the facts which prove that most of the negative reviewers did NOT read the book.

First, let's dispense with the most obvious nonsense arguments. It is a fallacy of logic to argue that because the book was done by folks at Popular Mechanics (PM), which is owned by Hearst Communications, that this automatically dismisses the evidence from the many independent scientists, engineers, physicists, and other experts. This is known as the genetic "consider the source" fallacy. Such reasoning is flawed and is just a way of avoiding the facts presented by PM.

Second, it has not been conclusively proven that the Ben Chertoff who used to be the head of the magazine's research department at PM is in any way related to Michael Chertoff, the head of Homeland Security. Now, according to Ben's mom, Michael MIGHT be a distant cousin (p. 102). Yet conspiracy theorists unwisely take a MIGHT and turn it into a conclusive fact. Nonsense. If that is the case, then I can argue that the Bush administration is using Bush's baked beans to poison us all in a worldwide conspiracy to dominate the world...LOL. And do I even need to point out that people having the same last name does not necessarily mean they must be related. That fallacy is called the non sequitur. But let's move on.

One argument has been made that the people at PM are not scientists and engineers. Fair enough. But that's a red herring designed to divert our attention from the facts. They CONSULTED many scientists and engineers and reported what THEY said. That is the point. But since we are on the topic of "scientists and engineers," perhaps we are to believe that David Ray Griffin, who doesn't have the first degree in relevant scientific or engineering fields, is a credible source of information about what happened on 911? Mr. Griffin has been shown to be an author with an agenda who cannot see that he has been duped by the likes of French author Thierry Meyssan, who "...never visited the United States for his research" (p.59). So the work of Griffin is highly suspect and lacks real credibility.

It is easy for some reviewers to talk big talk about PM committing "straw man fallacies" while committing their own fallacies, but the facts are otherwise. This book is excellent in its presentation of the facts and documentation. The only problem I had is that it didn't use the standard numerical reference techniques most scholarly books use. I would have also liked it if they made it easier to contact the many experts consulted by providing contact information such as email addresses. That way, it would be easier to verify that these experts really said what it is claimed they said.

However, I have found in my research that if you really want to contact someone, all you need is some basic information and you can usually follow-up and make contact. Other than that, the book does a great job of answering (with credible sources from those expert in the relevant fields) most of the major wild 911 "inside job" conspiracy theories.

The book is divided up into 4 major sections: The Planes, The World Trade Center, The Pentagon, and Flight 93, with an afterward by James Meiggs, editor-in-chief of PM, 3 appendices (Appendix A: Experts Consulted, Appendix B: World Trade Center Report, Appendix C: Pentagon Building Report), notes and an index. I will now highlight points from each major section:

The Planes:

The book nicely puts the issue in a conspiracy "claim" vs. "fact" format, which makes things easier to follow. Some claim that the 19 "amateur" hijackers with box cutters taking over planes and flying them and hitting "75 percent" of their targets raises a lot of questions. Perhaps. But you don't need to be an expert flyer to crash a big plane into a big building. That's common sense. But "Debunking 911 myths" points out that "The hijacker pilots...may not have been have been highly skilled, but they were not complete amateurs" (p. 4).

Some have tried to argue that there was a "missile" or "pod" underneath the planes that hit the Towers. However, this assumption was based on an inaccurate interpretation of bad photography. "Debunking" consulted Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. His findings? "After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a `pod'...In fact, Greeley confirms the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear" (pp. 9, 10). So, conspiracy theorists have mistaken lighting angles and pixel distortion on digital images for some kind of "pod" or missile.

Another false claim debunked by "Debunking" is the idea that there was a "stand down" order given to the military so that the hijacked planes could reach their targets. "Debunking" catalogs all the confusion on 911 and shows that even though the hijackers had turned off the transponders, fighter planes were ordered to battle stations. But with over 4,000 planes in the air, and an inadequate ATC system, it is not hard to see why intercepts were delayed (pp.14-19). It was also pointed out the NORAD's more sophisticated radar focused outside the continental US for threats, not inward. No need for wild conspiracy theories.

The World Trade Center:

One claim is that the Towers were not brought down by the combination of large planes full of jet fuel slamming into them and the subsequent damage, but they collapsed due to intentially placed bombs or controlled demolition charges.

However, "Debunking" provides evidence from credible independent sources that this was not the case (pp. 28-58). I have personally watched video of authentic controlled demolitions and the Towers and building 7 do NOT precisely match them. In real demo, the puffs of smoke from the charges going off, sometimes called "squibs," always come first and then the building comes down. With WTCs 1,2, 7 the "squibs" show up only AFTER the building begins to collapse. But conspiracy theorists ignore that little fact to their detriment.

Conspiracy theorists are fond of making mention of the work of professor Steven Jones of BYU. It is claimed that he found something in a sample of the WTC rubble which indicates to him that explosives were used. However, the credibility of Mr. Jones is in question on many counts.

First, his own colleagues at BYU, who are civil engineers while he is NOT, do not find his work credible. Second, "Debunking" consulted metallurgy professors (specialists in metals analysis) who "...found flaws with the evidence Jones uses to support his arguments...Alan Pense, professor emeritus of metallurgical engineering at Lehigh University, said: `The photographs shown to support melting steel are, to me, either unconvincing ...or show materials that appear to be other than steel'" (p. 41).

Third, what really caught my eye was this info regarding the "thermite" allegedly found by Mr. Jones. "Richard Furehan, professor of metallurgical engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, says that Jones does not provide adequate evidence to show that thermite reactions did take place...even if they did, that would not necessarily indicate the presence of explosives. THE THERMITE REACTION COULD HAVE OCCURRED WITH ALUMINUM METAL AND ANY OXIDE THAT HAPPENS TO BE NEAR IT (p. 42, emphasis added.). So, a thermite reaction can take place in other ways. Interesting that we don't hear that from the conspiracy folks.

And finally, "Debunking" provides more information from various experts showing that Mr. Jones' work is "naïve and unscientific" (as Dr. Thomas Eagar of MIT personally told me in a private email), but space won't permit me to go into further detail.

When it comes to building 7, most conspiracy theorists always mention the words of Larry Silverstein on a nationally televised show using the words "pull it." These words are interpreted to mean that Silverstein was admitting he told a "fire commander" (note not a demolition specialist) to "pull it" (misread to mean demolish building 7). However, "Debunking" points out from 4 different demolition experts that "pull it" is "not slang for controlled demolition" (p. 57). Even after Silverstein clarified his words, saying that his concern was to "pull" the squadron of firefighters from the building, conspiracy theorists still cling to their misinterpretation and misapplication of Silverstein's words. What's more, with all the fuss over the collapse of Towers 1, 2 and building 7, people forget that other buildings and structures either fully or partially collapsed that day (such as the St. Nicholas Church, the North Bridge - wonder if Silverstein owns those too, or if demolition charges were placed in those too).

And yes, despite false claims to the contrary, "Debunking" did address in detail the Empire State Building and the B-25 that crashed into it and listed the vital differences between that incident and the collapse of the Towers (pp. 29-32).

The Pentagon:

One conspiracy theory about the Pentagon, circulated mainly by a French writer who never visited the United States, is that flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Some say it was a missile (although no credible witnesses say they saw one) and other say it was a "Global Hawk" (a smaller, unmanned plane, although no one saw that either and no GH parts were found).

Pentagon Video - Some people argue that if flight 77 hit the Pentagon, then the security camera should clearly show it. Yet "Debunking" points out that the Philips LTC 1261 camera filmed at one frame per second, while the plane was traveling at about 780 feet per second. Now, anyone who knows anything about photography can understand what that means; you will not get a clear image of a plane (p. 61).

Small Debris - Although most conspiracy theorists claim that the debris of the Pentagon was too little to be from flight 77, they also do not investigate the fact that most airplane crashes do NOT leave great remains. "Debunking" gives several examples of this fact. So this does not prove flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

Intact Windows - Now the idea that regular windows could remain intact after a commercial jet hits a building would seem rather incredible, but not when you know all the facts. "Debunking" explains that the Pentagon windows were blast resistant and weighed "1,600" pounds each (p. 71). Wow! My first reaction was `What the heck kind of window weighs that much?' It seems they wanted them to withstand a powerful missile or bomb. But these were not household windows, and therefore any conspiracy argument from intact windows after the plane crash appear to be based on ignorance.

Flight 93:

"Debunking" deals a death blow to the main conspiracy theories surrounding this flight. Instead of the flight crashing due to the heroics of the brave passengers, the flight is said to have either been shot down by an F16 or a mysterious white jet. But the facts show that the Army Colonel Donn de Grand-Pre lied on the Alex Jones show about knowing the pilot who allegedly shot down flight 93. Mr. Grand-Pre also lied about contacting General Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time (pp. 77-80).

"Debunking" also proves, from a credible source, that the white jet that was seen around the wreckage of flight 93 was not a military plane but "a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corporation" (p. 82).

Cell phones - Conspiracy theorists are fond of saying that all those calls were somehow faked because cell phones can't work above 8,000 feet. However, "Debunking" proves from cell phone company sources that this is not true: "While not exactly reliable, cell-phone calls from airplanes were possible in 2001...because cell sites have a range of several miles, even at 35,000 feet...says Rick Kemper, director of technology and security at the CTIA - The Wireless Association" (pp. 83,84).

When it comes to the small amount of wreckage found at the flight 93 crash site, "Debunking" also documents, from experts in air crash analysis, the fact that most plane crashes routinely leave little wreckage (pp. 86-90). The problem, then, is that while conspiracy believers ask many questions, they seem to rarely find credible answers from proper authorities.

So despite what you hear from some fake reviewers of the book, the book does address most of the wild conspiracy claims they tried to say the book did not address (which shows they didn't read the book).

In conclusion, it seems to me that the fake reviews by people with an agenda to push shows the dishonesty and disingenuousness of those in the 911 conspiracy movement. The facts show from this book, and other sources available online, that if the "official story" has holes in it the size of a "hundred pound block of Swiss cheese" (as one reviewer opined), then that goes hundreds of times more for these wild "inside job" theories which have no credible, factual support.

I applaud the people at PM for doing a fine job of putting together a masterful work disproving these nonsensical theories that ultimately dishonor the memory of the lives we lost on 911 and their surviving families. Remember, Remember, the FACTS about the 11th of September...because the Master Himself said it best: "and you shall know the truth, and the truth will make you free" (John 8:32).

Nice try, Spiritofthewolf.

At least you admit that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. But this means the official government story is a lie since they have vehemently denied this fact.

The twin towers, as already pointed out, collapsed symmetrically, straight down, into the path of greatest resistance, at a rate of about 6-10 floors per second. If this is what you expect from a failure in a support column, or even several somehow failing simultaneously, then you should recheck your logic.

As soon as the affected steel gave way, all the weight shifted to the other beams, causing them to give way. You claim "simple physics" prove a conspiracy. Do you really believe the highest levels of government would let construction-illiterate people like ouselves have that kind of proof. Since the WTC towers had never been hit by a plane before, there is no ground to say what "should" have happened

Why would Osama confess to such an act? He got SCREWED. Al Quaeda got SCREWED. How could he benefit from that? Osama bin Laden was also an educated constructionist. He knew about construction, and about how to bring down construction.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Nice try, Spiritofthewolf.
The twin towers, as already pointed out, collapsed symmetrically, straight down, into the path of greatest resistance, at a rate of about 6-10 floors per second. If this is what you expect from a failure in a support column, or even several somehow failing simultaneously, then you should recheck your logic.

Wrong wrong wrong

I try not to get involved as much as possible but this one just bugs the crap out of me

If you see in any close-up video, the top section actually fell at an angle. Of course the rest fell in a straight line after being pummeled by the top section, but it was hardly perfect. Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NejV8cE3wc

Comparing WTC7 to a controlled demolition is also a bit annoying - Sure they post videos showing how similar they are, but where are the videos of buildings taken down in a non-controlled manner to show how different they are? They've got really nothing to compare it to. I'm not completely dismissing WTC7 as an inside job however using logic like that is simply useless.

Actually if you ever seen a building getting blown up like that, there is always a delay. Its not 10 seconds, but there is a delay. Thats because of inertia, and that the fact that the supports are not blown away but cut by the explosions. Also the fact that not all the supports are blown at once, because they are trying to control the way it falls.

The fire fighters themself were among the most quoted as having heard explosions in the buildings. And yes I have seen them being interviewed about this topic before.