35% of Democrats believe that George W Bush had pre-knowledge of 9/11

"Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance.  35% of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure."

Rasmussen Reports

As Andrew Bolt writes on his excellent blog we really do live in an age of irrationality.

Advertisements

27 Responses to 35% of Democrats believe that George W Bush had pre-knowledge of 9/11

  1. Matt Davis says:

    Well there we have it, conclusive proof that 35% of Democrats will believe anything, no matter how insane, provided that it confirms their hatred of G.W Bush and makes him look bad. No doubt these are also the same ridiculously large proportion of Americans who also believe that they have been kidnapped by aliens at some point in their lives.The Americans have a word for people like these; Loonytunes.

  2. Steevo says:

    Agreed Matt. There is no anchor but hate, paranoia or the mere need for an ‘explanation’ to satisfy a void. Conspiracy lunacy regardless of subject has evolved from a curious what-if pass time for a relative few to an increasingly popular impression in the American psyche.

    An article I read said 40% with Bush Derangement Syndrome, not that it really matters.

    No doubt the Democrats elected to office are very pleased.

  3. Andrew says:

    George Soros is brain washing people with these radical left wing blogs that he is pumping millions into, stating conspiracy theorys and lies about our President. Unfortunately, many American’s beleive what they hear, without conducting any independant research on their own.

    Our Nation is at a critical time in our history, and hopefully we will wake up, before we have a socialist mess in this country, as France does currently. The good news is that eventually socialism and liberal intolerance turns off people who desire freedom and democracy. France’s recent election is proof of that.

  4. Dennis says:

    Matt Davis
    Why is it the only way you examine the facts is to declare those who dissent ‘loonytunes’

    I do no think it was as straightforward as Bush knowing and doing nothing, however there are several puzzling occurences prior to, during and after the attacks on 9/11 that have never been conclusively & officialy explored.

    1. The failure of NORAD to scramble interceptor jets despite the FAA being aware of the planes veering way off-course.
    2. The President’s documented assertion that he saw the first plane crash into the twin towers as he was preparing for that mornings classroom, despite the fact that no images of the first plane hitting the tower were broadcast until the footage emerged three days later.
    3.The removal and disposal of the debris from the site before the crime scene was preserved and examined. The steel was removed and recycled and access by investigators to it was restricted.
    4. The collapse of World Trade centre building 7, despite it not being hit by any planes. The manner with which it collapsed and the fact it would have taken weeks to wire demolition explosives to ensure it fell in it’s own footprint.
    5. The eyewitness reports from two( Jose Sanchez & William Rodriguez) of the WTC longest serving maintenance staff of explosions in the basement area.
    6. The allocation of inadequate funds and a restrictive agenda to the 9/11 commision. The failure of the commision to assess and examine the facts as requested by the families of the bereaved.

    Even withstanding all the questions raised above, i think there is fundemental mistrust of the US government, regardless of party or the president in charge. The mistrust has buit up over decades.
    The dissenting mistrust was previously confined to fringe groups, however there has been a significant increase that cuts across demographic, social, political & racial structures.
    The upward trend can be partly attributed to the increased access to open source information and the declining use of the mainstream media (newspapers & published material) for a balanced & objective analysis of events historic or current.

  5. Dennis says:

    Matt Davis
    Why is it the only way you examine the facts is to declare those who dissent ‘loonytunes’

    I do no think it was as straightforward as Bush knowing and doing nothing, however there are several puzzling occurences prior to, during and after the attacks on 9/11 that have never been conclusively & officialy explored.

    1. The failure of NORAD to scramble interceptor jets despite the FAA being aware of the planes veering way off-course.
    2. The President’s documented assertion that he saw the first plane crash into the twin towers as he was preparing for that mornings classroom, despite the fact that no images of the first plane hitting the tower were broadcast until the footage emerged three days later.
    3.The removal and disposal of the debris from the site before the crime scene was preserved and examined. The steel was removed and recycled and access by investigators to it was restricted.
    4. The collapse of World Trade centre building 7, despite it not being hit by any planes. The manner with which it collapsed and the fact it would have taken weeks to wire demolition explosives to ensure it fell in it’s own footprint.
    5. The eyewitness reports from two( Jose Sanchez & William Rodriguez) of the WTC longest serving maintenance staff of explosions in the basement area.
    6. The allocation of inadequate funds and a restrictive agenda to the 9/11 commision. The failure of the commision to assess and examine the facts as requested by the families of the bereaved.

    Even withstanding all the questions raised above, i think there is fundemental mistrust of the US government, regardless of party or the president in charge. The mistrust has buit up over decades.
    The dissenting mistrust was previously confined to fringe groups, however there has been a significant increase that cuts across demographic, social, political & racial structures.
    The upward trend can be partly attributed to the increased access to open source information and the declining use of the mainstream media (newspapers & published material) for a balanced & objective analysis of events historic or current.

  6. Teddy Bear says:

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

    When those who claim to have had it as foresight,when there’s nothing in reality to sustain it, merely proves that their head is up their arse – hence continual hindsight.

  7. Kevin Sampson says:

    As a retired Air Force officer with a little over 2000 hours as an E-3 crewmember
    I would like to respond to some of your points.

    1. The failure of NORAD to scramble interceptor jets despite the FAA being aware of the planes veering way off-course.

    First and foremost is the posse comitatus act. You can find it on Wikipedia. Second, the simple fact is that there were no ROE for engaging civilian aircraft that had not committed a hostile act. Would YOU be willing to give the order to kill five or six hundred people because the aircraft they were on had ‘veered way off course’? Third, although the FAA was aware of the aircrafts deviation from their flight plan, they had not, as far as I am aware, received any of the highjack alerts that would have elevated the situation to a higher level.

    The bottom line is, 9/11 was a classic, textbook illustration of tactical surprise.

    2. The President’s documented assertion that he saw the first plane crash into the twin towers as he was preparing for that mornings classroom, despite the fact that no images of the first plane hitting the tower were broadcast until the footage emerged three days later.

    Please provide a link to said documentation.

    3.The removal and disposal of the debris from the site before the crime scene was preserved and examined. The steel was removed and recycled and access by investigators to it was restricted.

    Are you a complete idiot? There were THREE THOUSAND dead bodies in that mess. Do you have any grasp of the public health hazard that represented? It took months to clean up the site as it was, how long do you suppose it would have taken to ‘preserve the crime scene and examine it’? What about the hazards the investigators, not to mention the public, would have been exposed to in the mean time? Besides the aforementioned contagion risks, there was also large quantities of asbestos insulation used in the construction of the towers.

    The rest will have to wait for another day.

  8. Kevin Sampson says:

    As a retired Air Force officer with a little over 2000 hours as an E-3 crewmember
    I would like to respond to some of your points.

    1. The failure of NORAD to scramble interceptor jets despite the FAA being aware of the planes veering way off-course.

    First and foremost is the posse comitatus act. You can find it on Wikipedia. Second, the simple fact is that there were no ROE for engaging civilian aircraft that had not committed a hostile act. Would YOU be willing to give the order to kill five or six hundred people because the aircraft they were on had ‘veered way off course’? Third, although the FAA was aware of the aircrafts deviation from their flight plan, they had not, as far as I am aware, received any of the highjack alerts that would have elevated the situation to a higher level.

    The bottom line is, 9/11 was a classic, textbook illustration of tactical surprise.

    2. The President’s documented assertion that he saw the first plane crash into the twin towers as he was preparing for that mornings classroom, despite the fact that no images of the first plane hitting the tower were broadcast until the footage emerged three days later.

    Please provide a link to said documentation.

    3.The removal and disposal of the debris from the site before the crime scene was preserved and examined. The steel was removed and recycled and access by investigators to it was restricted.

    Are you a complete idiot? There were THREE THOUSAND dead bodies in that mess. Do you have any grasp of the public health hazard that represented? It took months to clean up the site as it was, how long do you suppose it would have taken to ‘preserve the crime scene and examine it’? What about the hazards the investigators, not to mention the public, would have been exposed to in the mean time? Besides the aforementioned contagion risks, there was also large quantities of asbestos insulation used in the construction of the towers.

    The rest will have to wait for another day.

  9. Kevin Sampson says:

    As a retired Air Force officer with a little over 2000 hours as an E-3 crewmember
    I would like to respond to some of your points.

    1. The failure of NORAD to scramble interceptor jets despite the FAA being aware of the planes veering way off-course.

    First and foremost is the posse comitatus act. You can find it on Wikipedia. Second, the simple fact is that there were no ROE for engaging civilian aircraft that had not committed a hostile act. Would YOU be willing to give the order to kill five or six hundred people because the aircraft they were on had ‘veered way off course’? Third, although the FAA was aware of the aircrafts deviation from their flight plan, they had not, as far as I am aware, received any of the highjack alerts that would have elevated the situation to a higher level.

    The bottom line is, 9/11 was a classic, textbook illustration of tactical surprise.

    2. The President’s documented assertion that he saw the first plane crash into the twin towers as he was preparing for that mornings classroom, despite the fact that no images of the first plane hitting the tower were broadcast until the footage emerged three days later.

    Please provide a link to said documentation.

    3.The removal and disposal of the debris from the site before the crime scene was preserved and examined. The steel was removed and recycled and access by investigators to it was restricted.

    Are you a complete idiot? There were THREE THOUSAND dead bodies in that mess. Do you have any grasp of the public health hazard that represented? It took months to clean up the site as it was, how long do you suppose it would have taken to ‘preserve the crime scene and examine it’? What about the hazards the investigators, not to mention the public, would have been exposed to in the mean time? Besides the aforementioned contagion risks, there was also large quantities of asbestos insulation used in the construction of the towers.

    The rest will have to wait for another day.

  10. Matt Davis says:

    Kevin Sampson, thanks you have clearly examined the facts and debunked the conspiracy theories of Dennis.Which allows me once again to state that those, like Dennis, who choose to believe fairy stories concocted of half truths twsited to suit their pre conceived prejudices and paranoia cannot then complain when they are viewed as ridiculous by those not viewing the whole matter through a politically motivated and tainted prism.

  11. Matt Davis says:

    Kevin Sampson, thanks you have clearly examined the facts and debunked the conspiracy theories of Dennis.Which allows me once again to state that those, like Dennis, who choose to believe fairy stories concocted of half truths twsited to suit their pre conceived prejudices and paranoia cannot then complain when they are viewed as ridiculous by those not viewing the whole matter through a politically motivated and tainted prism.

  12. Ami says:

    Dennis,

    1. My son, my cousin, and my cousin’s wife worked in New York City on September 11. On their way to work, all three saw plane one crash into the Trade Center. They also watched in horror as plane two rammed the second tower. My cousin and his wife had been through this before. Both were in the Towers in 1993 when an earlier, but less deadly attack occurred in the parking garage (basement) of WTC. Perhaps some conspiracy theorists are confusing the two incidents?

    2. My husband was a Crime Scene Investigator with the Nassau County Police Department (Nassau County shares a border with New York City), neighboring counties were asked to send all available assistance to the City. My husband, and hundreds of other CSI’s, spent the next six months working 14 hour days, 6 days a week at ground zero. There was an intensive and thorough investigation. Don’t believe anyone who tells you otherwise.

    3. My daughter was an American Airline’s Flight Attendant on 911. On 9-10 she had flown into New York from Chicago. She was planning on visiting with her dad and me for a couple of days. The visit became a lot longer than she had expected as everything was grounded for days. I was just glad that she was home safe and sound and I could put my arms around her tell her how much I loved her. I hated when she left and flew back to her base in Chicago.

    My daughter’s best friend was a United Airline’s Flight Attendant who had a trip to “the West Coast,” leaving from Boston on the morning of 911. Fortunately for her, her plane never left the ground because one hour earlier four planes had been hijacked.

    My daughter and her friend both personally knew pilots and flight attendants who died that day on those hijacked planes.

    4. My husband and I were sitting in our family room having a cup of coffee on the morning of 911, Fox News had just reported that a “light plane” had crashed into one of the Twin Towers. They had the image on the screen, but the fire seemed awfully large to have been just a “light plane.” A few mintues later the second plane hit and there was no longer any doubt as to what was happening, these were major hits.

    I’m afraid that your conspiracy theories simply don’t hold up to the overwhelming evidence of personal experiences by the thousands of people who witnessed those awful events.

  13. Ami says:

    Dennis,

    1. My son, my cousin, and my cousin’s wife worked in New York City on September 11. On their way to work, all three saw plane one crash into the Trade Center. They also watched in horror as plane two rammed the second tower. My cousin and his wife had been through this before. Both were in the Towers in 1993 when an earlier, but less deadly attack occurred in the parking garage (basement) of WTC. Perhaps some conspiracy theorists are confusing the two incidents?

    2. My husband was a Crime Scene Investigator with the Nassau County Police Department (Nassau County shares a border with New York City), neighboring counties were asked to send all available assistance to the City. My husband, and hundreds of other CSI’s, spent the next six months working 14 hour days, 6 days a week at ground zero. There was an intensive and thorough investigation. Don’t believe anyone who tells you otherwise.

    3. My daughter was an American Airline’s Flight Attendant on 911. On 9-10 she had flown into New York from Chicago. She was planning on visiting with her dad and me for a couple of days. The visit became a lot longer than she had expected as everything was grounded for days. I was just glad that she was home safe and sound and I could put my arms around her tell her how much I loved her. I hated when she left and flew back to her base in Chicago.

    My daughter’s best friend was a United Airline’s Flight Attendant who had a trip to “the West Coast,” leaving from Boston on the morning of 911. Fortunately for her, her plane never left the ground because one hour earlier four planes had been hijacked.

    My daughter and her friend both personally knew pilots and flight attendants who died that day on those hijacked planes.

    4. My husband and I were sitting in our family room having a cup of coffee on the morning of 911, Fox News had just reported that a “light plane” had crashed into one of the Twin Towers. They had the image on the screen, but the fire seemed awfully large to have been just a “light plane.” A few mintues later the second plane hit and there was no longer any doubt as to what was happening, these were major hits.

    I’m afraid that your conspiracy theories simply don’t hold up to the overwhelming evidence of personal experiences by the thousands of people who witnessed those awful events.

  14. tired and emotional says:

    Dennis, you are a menace. I wonder what your agenda is. You seem determined to attempt to spread groundless uncertainty and misinformation on this site. I wonder what you would have to gain from that. I wonder where your loyalties lie. Who are you really I wonder? No friend of Britain or America obviously, that at least is clear.

  15. Teddy Bear says:

    Ami – thanks for your story, I’m glad your family was spared.

    Kevin – Thanks for the info and perspective.

    T&E
    My guess is that Dennis, and a few others here, have probably been born and educated in the UK with Asian or M-Eastern parents. As are so many Muslims here in a similar situation, whilst they have the opportunity to grow and succeed within our society, their need to avenge the slights they have endured from time to time as outsiders, made them easy prey for their Imams to get them on the path of revenge. Using ‘Allah’ to conceal their immaturity and inferiority complex, their undermining, deceit and purpose makes them feel superior.

    Fsct is Dennis, it is far harder to create something positive than to destroy, and EVERYBODY suffers self doubts from many sources. It’s a pity you never grew up and thought about contributing positively instead of undermining. The real strength of a person is what they know about themselves in their heart and feel full contentmnent with.

  16. Teddy Bear says:

    Ami – thanks for your story, I’m glad your family was spared.

    Kevin – Thanks for the info and perspective.

    T&E
    My guess is that Dennis, and a few others here, have probably been born and educated in the UK with Asian or M-Eastern parents. As are so many Muslims here in a similar situation, whilst they have the opportunity to grow and succeed within our society, their need to avenge the slights they have endured from time to time as outsiders, made them easy prey for their Imams to get them on the path of revenge. Using ‘Allah’ to conceal their immaturity and inferiority complex, their undermining, deceit and purpose makes them feel superior.

    Fsct is Dennis, it is far harder to create something positive than to destroy, and EVERYBODY suffers self doubts from many sources. It’s a pity you never grew up and thought about contributing positively instead of undermining. The real strength of a person is what they know about themselves in their heart and feel full contentmnent with.

  17. Dennis says:

    Kevin
    On December 4, 2001, Bush was asked: “How did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?”
    Bush replied, “I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower—the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there’s one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there, I didn’t have much time to think about it.”
    [White House, 04/12/01]

    Thank you all for the critical analysis of ME..
    I am apparently an IDIOTIC,IMMATURE,MUSLIM,
    CONSPIRACIST with an agenda, who hates my home country.
    This balanced analysis is all based on my participation in a forum, and expressing a different view.
    While one could debase oneself, I refuse to acquiesce and offer any response of a personal nature.

    Ami…while I appreciate your personal experience and closer proximity to the events of 9/11/2001, I think it is more useful to view these events from a dispassionate viewpoint. Your attempted use of the definition conspiracy theorist as a ‘catch all denunciation’ is a weak & tired substitution for discourse
    I am grateful that you did not suffer any personal tradegy on 9/11.
    I ask you to take into account the scepticism expressed by Bill Doyle(Board member of ‘the coalition of 9/11 families’).
    It may also help to search for the views of the 9/11 families steering commitee regarding unanswered questions.
    http://911independentcommission.org/questions.html

  18. Steevo says:

    “On December 4, 2001, Bush was asked: “How did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?”
    Bush replied, “I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower—the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there’s one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there, I didn’t have much time to think about it.”
    [White House, 04/12/01]”

    So what? I was watching the morning live broadcast right after the first plane struck and also saw when the second struck. Reporters describing it as it was happening didn’t know what to think. I remember our Brian Gumble for CBS saying it could be accidents. I didn’t know what to think. This was completely new. Most of us simply could not have imagined it. From previous hijacked planes to go to another nation and/or holding passenger lives for ransom… to this?

    Your ‘interpretation’ of Bush’s immediate impression is sick in the head – your head Dennis.

    And you, want a “dispassionate” viewpoint?

    Go to Popular Mechanics and read their analysis. The highest caliber professionals in every necessary category methodically, step-by-step, disproving every conspiratorial premise.

    “Balanced analysis” LOL. Everything about you is Leftist. The nutroots at Daily Kos couldn’t have scripted stuff any better. You are counter to this forum’s intent. That is raw fact. You’ve also been directly challenged here to back yourself up and either have not responded or fail miserably. And you’re a direct liar as I’ve already shown.

  19. Steevo says:

    “On December 4, 2001, Bush was asked: “How did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?”
    Bush replied, “I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower—the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there’s one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there, I didn’t have much time to think about it.”
    [White House, 04/12/01]”

    So what? I was watching the morning live broadcast right after the first plane struck and also saw when the second struck. Reporters describing it as it was happening didn’t know what to think. I remember our Brian Gumble for CBS saying it could be accidents. I didn’t know what to think. This was completely new. Most of us simply could not have imagined it. From previous hijacked planes to go to another nation and/or holding passenger lives for ransom… to this?

    Your ‘interpretation’ of Bush’s immediate impression is sick in the head – your head Dennis.

    And you, want a “dispassionate” viewpoint?

    Go to Popular Mechanics and read their analysis. The highest caliber professionals in every necessary category methodically, step-by-step, disproving every conspiratorial premise.

    “Balanced analysis” LOL. Everything about you is Leftist. The nutroots at Daily Kos couldn’t have scripted stuff any better. You are counter to this forum’s intent. That is raw fact. You’ve also been directly challenged here to back yourself up and either have not responded or fail miserably. And you’re a direct liar as I’ve already shown.

  20. Steevo says:

    “On December 4, 2001, Bush was asked: “How did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?”
    Bush replied, “I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower—the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there’s one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there, I didn’t have much time to think about it.”
    [White House, 04/12/01]”

    So what? I was watching the morning live broadcast right after the first plane struck and also saw when the second struck. Reporters describing it as it was happening didn’t know what to think. I remember our Brian Gumble for CBS saying it could be accidents. I didn’t know what to think. This was completely new. Most of us simply could not have imagined it. From previous hijacked planes to go to another nation and/or holding passenger lives for ransom… to this?

    Your ‘interpretation’ of Bush’s immediate impression is sick in the head – your head Dennis.

    And you, want a “dispassionate” viewpoint?

    Go to Popular Mechanics and read their analysis. The highest caliber professionals in every necessary category methodically, step-by-step, disproving every conspiratorial premise.

    “Balanced analysis” LOL. Everything about you is Leftist. The nutroots at Daily Kos couldn’t have scripted stuff any better. You are counter to this forum’s intent. That is raw fact. You’ve also been directly challenged here to back yourself up and either have not responded or fail miserably. And you’re a direct liar as I’ve already shown.

  21. Kevin Sampson says:

    “This balanced analysis is all based on my participation in a forum, and expressing a different view.”

    Wrong. It is not based on your participation in this forum, or on your point of view. Nor on your maturity, religious persuasion, or agenda, none of which I mentioned at all. It is based on your unwillingness, or inability, to think critically and independently about the points you yourself raise, and supported by your refusal to respond to any rebuttal of those points.

  22. Kevin Sampson says:

    “This balanced analysis is all based on my participation in a forum, and expressing a different view.”

    Wrong. It is not based on your participation in this forum, or on your point of view. Nor on your maturity, religious persuasion, or agenda, none of which I mentioned at all. It is based on your unwillingness, or inability, to think critically and independently about the points you yourself raise, and supported by your refusal to respond to any rebuttal of those points.

  23. Kevin Sampson says:

    “This balanced analysis is all based on my participation in a forum, and expressing a different view.”

    Wrong. It is not based on your participation in this forum, or on your point of view. Nor on your maturity, religious persuasion, or agenda, none of which I mentioned at all. It is based on your unwillingness, or inability, to think critically and independently about the points you yourself raise, and supported by your refusal to respond to any rebuttal of those points.

  24. Dennis says:

    Go to Popular Mechanics and read their analysis…..disproving every conspiratorial premise.
    As they naturally would!!
    Steevo…I have to decline your offer of accepting the Hearst corporation’s take on that fateful days events. Popular mechanics is about as close to mainstream media as you can get.

    Steevo – ‘You are counter to this forum’s intent.’
    Who invested you with the power to make that distinction?
    I am a participant and shall endeavour to continue expressing myself as i see fit, hopefully to your ‘perpetual chagrin’

  25. Steevo says:

    LOL so the Hearst Corporation. They’re not mainstream enough for you… er, in other words, too right wing? You’re only lying to yourself, and caught again one more time.

    You desperate Left-winger. If you profess to know about American media you should at least know who sustains allies on your nutroot side.

    From the Hearst Corporation:

    CosmoGIRL!
    Cosmopolitan
    Esquire magazine
    Harper’s Bazaar
    Seattle Post-Intelligencer
    San Francisco Chronicle
    Houston Chronicle

    Who invested me “with the power to make that distinction?” You’re getting nutroots paranoid guy. How about the ‘power’ of reasoned blatant deduction, and the same from others here too.

    I believe you’re desperate coming here and in huge denial of who and what you’re about.

    Heck, anyone who judges the most gruesome inhumane murderers on this planet as “freedom fighters” is living in a deep well of sickening hate. Its no wonder you’re obsessed trying to deflect it all on America and Bush.

  26. Kevin Sampson says:

    “The eyewitness reports from two (Jose Sanchez & William Rodriguez) of the WTC longest serving maintenance staff of explosions in the basement area.” – Dennis

    I have not been able to find any reference to a ‘Jose Sanchez’ that was linked to the 9/11 attack. However, I have read the account Mr. Rodriguez gave of the event and have the following comments:

    At the time of the impact, he was in the first sub-basement of the building, clocking in to work (he had arrived 30 minutes late that day). He stated that he ‘heard and felt’ explosions come form somewhere in the building below his location, followed seconds later by another explosion from somewhere above his location. The implication is, of course, that the first explosion was that of the demolition charges which ‘really’ caused the structure to collapse, while the second was the impact of the aircraft.

    The first noteworthy aspect of this is the fact that Mr. Rodriguez, by his own admission, was not in any position to determine when either of these two explosions took place in relation to the aircraft impact. He attributes the second to the impact because it seemed to come from above him, but there is no direct evidence that this is so.

    Second, I am not a structural or civil engineer, and therefore will not comment on his claims as to the origins of the explosions. However, Mr. Rodriguez is also not a structural or civil engineer, therefore, I do not accept that he is capable of accurately determining the direction of origin of the explosions he described, given the circumstances.

    I do know something of physics, though, and one thing struck me about this. It is well known that the speed with which vibrations propagate through a medium is directly proportional to the density of the medium. In other words, sound travels faster through solids than it does through air. This means that the concussion created by Flight 11 impacting the 92 Floor would be transmitted downward through the structure of the building faster than it would through the air. Once it reached the lowest level of the building some of this energy would ‘bounce’ and be reflected back up the structure of the building. At some point it would meet the slower wave being propagated downward through the air. It occurred to me that this could produce the ‘two explosion’ effect described by Mr. Rodriquez. I don’t have access to the engineering constants needed to calculate the difference in propagation velocities. But if some one does I would encourage them to try it.

    Third, I think it is clear that all film and video of the actual event demonstrate that the collapse of the structure began around the 95th floor, where the aircraft impacted, and propagated downward. This casts serious doubt on the effectiveness of the putative explosions in the basement. I would even go so far as to say they appeared to play no role at all in the eventual collapse of the building. In this situation, I think an application of Occam’s Razor is called for, which does not support your theory.

    By the way Dennis, I’m shocked and disappointed that you failed to mention the highly significant coincidence that Rodriguez ‘just happened’ to be a half hour late for work that day. If he had shown up on time he probably would have been at his accustomed place on the 106th floor, and would not have survived the experience. Surely you don’t accept this as mere happenstance? (LOL)

  27. Kevin Sampson says:

    “The eyewitness reports from two (Jose Sanchez & William Rodriguez) of the WTC longest serving maintenance staff of explosions in the basement area.” – Dennis

    I have not been able to find any reference to a ‘Jose Sanchez’ that was linked to the 9/11 attack. However, I have read the account Mr. Rodriguez gave of the event and have the following comments:

    At the time of the impact, he was in the first sub-basement of the building, clocking in to work (he had arrived 30 minutes late that day). He stated that he ‘heard and felt’ explosions come form somewhere in the building below his location, followed seconds later by another explosion from somewhere above his location. The implication is, of course, that the first explosion was that of the demolition charges which ‘really’ caused the structure to collapse, while the second was the impact of the aircraft.

    The first noteworthy aspect of this is the fact that Mr. Rodriguez, by his own admission, was not in any position to determine when either of these two explosions took place in relation to the aircraft impact. He attributes the second to the impact because it seemed to come from above him, but there is no direct evidence that this is so.

    Second, I am not a structural or civil engineer, and therefore will not comment on his claims as to the origins of the explosions. However, Mr. Rodriguez is also not a structural or civil engineer, therefore, I do not accept that he is capable of accurately determining the direction of origin of the explosions he described, given the circumstances.

    I do know something of physics, though, and one thing struck me about this. It is well known that the speed with which vibrations propagate through a medium is directly proportional to the density of the medium. In other words, sound travels faster through solids than it does through air. This means that the concussion created by Flight 11 impacting the 92 Floor would be transmitted downward through the structure of the building faster than it would through the air. Once it reached the lowest level of the building some of this energy would ‘bounce’ and be reflected back up the structure of the building. At some point it would meet the slower wave being propagated downward through the air. It occurred to me that this could produce the ‘two explosion’ effect described by Mr. Rodriquez. I don’t have access to the engineering constants needed to calculate the difference in propagation velocities. But if some one does I would encourage them to try it.

    Third, I think it is clear that all film and video of the actual event demonstrate that the collapse of the structure began around the 95th floor, where the aircraft impacted, and propagated downward. This casts serious doubt on the effectiveness of the putative explosions in the basement. I would even go so far as to say they appeared to play no role at all in the eventual collapse of the building. In this situation, I think an application of Occam’s Razor is called for, which does not support your theory.

    By the way Dennis, I’m shocked and disappointed that you failed to mention the highly significant coincidence that Rodriguez ‘just happened’ to be a half hour late for work that day. If he had shown up on time he probably would have been at his accustomed place on the 106th floor, and would not have survived the experience. Surely you don’t accept this as mere happenstance? (LOL)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: