Eye-witness accounts of the WTC collapse support the idea that there were bombs in the building
There are certainly lots of sites with impressive lists of WTC-related quotes, including key words like “explosion”, “bomb” and occasionally even “demolition”. Be careful, though, because these clips aren’t always complete, and editing may convey a more definitive statement than the witness actually made.
Louie Cacchioli could be a good example. His story appeared immediately after 9/11.
Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.
We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building.
That final sentence understandably caught the eyes of many, and Googling for ""We think there was bombs set in the building" returns 958 hits (as we write). Great evidence, yes? Except another account now suggests it's not literally true.
Originally, on September 12, 2001, People Magazine ran a few short paragraphs about the 20-year veteran New York fireman hearing what sounded like bombs exploding in the north tower.
Short and sweet, that was it. A few short words about bombs exploding, but words that were repeated over and over again in story after story by writers and broadcasters who never even bothered to talk to him in the first place.
Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.
So Cacchioli heard a loud explosion, and said it sounded like a bomb, but no more. He doesn’t claim to know what it was at all What’s more, if you keep reading you find there’s another possible explanation (our emphasis)..
...I asked the senior man working to take the elevator.
He entered the elevator with the last company that went up. They went up to the 24th floor or the 22nd floor and the company was getting off. I think it was the truck company at that time, because he grabbed the last guy getting out, who was the irons man and he said "You gotta stay with me, because I need tools in the elevator."
At that time, the doors closed and that's when the power went out. Which, what we found out later was when the south tower fell down. They were able to force their way out of the elevator and for some reason the guy from the truck, from 13 truck, went to the right and he went to the left and found a stairwell and he was able to make it out.
Q. Who is "he"?
A. Louie Cacchioli.
Wall, in his testimony here (and along with many others) doesn’t appear to have realised at the time that the south tower had just collapsed. But it’s hard to believe there was no sound, no swaying of the building as the other tower fell, and if there was, couldn’t that (in conjunction with the power going off at the same time) make anyone think there was a “bomb in the building”?
Other accounts perhaps aren't entirely complete. Take this one from Jay Swithers.
I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go.
That's all you get here. So does this show Swithers believes there was a secondary device? Apparently not, as you can see from this later excerpt in the full version.
an ambulance pulled up which was very clean, S0 I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the - what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.
Then there's Dominick Derubbio. This is the quote you get on 911Review.com.
It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion ...
And this is the bit they've snipped (our emphasis)
It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion,
but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.
These qualifying comments often don’t make the final pages. Here’s another, from Albert Turi: this is what you read...
And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out.
And here’s the full quote, with what immediately followed:
And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower,somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out. i later realized that the building had started to collapse already and this was the ai:r being compressed and that is the floor that let go.
There might be a case to be made for saying his initial reaction was the correct one, and the second is him trying to fit the official story to what he saw and heard. But if you’re going to make that argument, then we’d say do it in the open, by reporting the witnesses full thoughts and commenting on those. Don’t hide them away.
It’s a similar story with FDNY Batallion Chief Brian Dixon:
... the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see -- I could see two sides of it and the other side -- it just looked like that floor blew out. I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out.
Definitive? Nope. Take a look at the original text.
I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That ís what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out.
Stephen Gregory is quoted everywhere. Here's the bit you read as proof of bombs:
... for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him. I saw a flash flash
flash and then it looked like the building came down. [It was from] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me.
... I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.
Originally taken from:http://www.hybrideb.com/evidence.htm
Page now changed, view the earlier version here
One key pair of sentences comes here:
"he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him. I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down."
But here's the bit they left out (our emphasis).
"he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down".
To be fair, the site does include a link to the complete transcript, but if you didn't bother to follow it then we think you may have been mislead. Especially as they've failed to include another couple of lines from later in his testimony:
I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.
Another impressive short quote...
"A debate began to rage because... many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade"
- NYFD Firefighter Christopher Fenyo
But what have they snipped? Here’s the full paragraph.
At that point a debate began to rage because the perception was that the building looked like it had been taken out with charges. We had really no concept of the damage on the east side of 2 World Trade Center at that point, and at that point many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade, and officers were gathering companies together and the officers were debating whether or not to go immediately back in or to see what was going to happen with 1 World Trade at that point. The debate ended pretty quickly because 1 World Trade came down.
Then we have this quote from a David Ray Griffin essay:
Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower. . . . There were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down” (NYT, Carlsen, pp. 5-6).
Here's the full version, with the snipped part in bold (which is our emphasis).
...there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit. We then realized the building started to come down".
And another, from the same Griffin piece:
Firefighter Joseph Meola said, “it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops"
Again, a possible attempt to offer an alternative explanation to explosives, that the “pops” may have been the building falling, has been omitted (our emphasis):
As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops. Didn't realize it was the falling -- you know, you heard the pops of the building. You thought it was just blowing out.
Then we have an attempt to make you think the Deputy Commissioner may have seen a “ring of explosions”:
A description of what appeared to be a ring of explosions was also given by Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick, who said: "We looked up at the [south tower] . . . . All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up . . . . It looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. . . . My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV."
Actually Fitzpatrick says he doesn’t recall thinking that, and offers an alternative explanation, but mysteriously that’s been edited out:
We looked up at the building straight up, we were that close. All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to collapse like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV.
Let’s make this clear: we’re not saying every account has been edited in this way, or even most of them. What you can see here is that there are plenty of examples where selective quoting has been used to prop up a particular point of view.
The message, then? Don't read too much into snipped testimonies, always go back to the source if you're interested, because these accounts of "explosions" and "bombs" may not always tell you the whole story about what the witness really thinks.