Originator of WTC Demolition Theories: A Closer Look

[ref]

This is quite an interesting story. David Rostcheck, not a poster child for modern day truthers. And, I have nothing against bisexuals or gays. Let's make it clear from the beginning.

The first archived mention of a controlled demolition theory was written by David Rostcheck. Here is his original post, written on September 11, 2001.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/davidr.html

This is considered the first demolition speculation. But who is this David Rostcheck?

A search of his e-mail address gives this:
http://listserv.unl.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9902&L=lmw-l&P=4749

It is David promoting the newly released bisexual resource guide. David was the president of Bisexual Resource Center:

My name is David Rostcheck. In addition to being a software engineer and benefitting a lot from open source, I'm a director for the Bisexual Resource Center
http://features.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=16066&cid=2020634

But this is not all, he was also a civil rights activist with the Pink Pistols, a gay-friendly pro-gun group. See his article here:
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2002/libe182-20020715-02.html

David also has a website, which is weird to say the least:
http://www.thisisdavidr.net/

It includes writings like:


I know, this is not what you are looking for. You're looking for the articles and editorials, for history, for opinions, for the body of work, for something you can disagree with. But this is what you get. If you're one of those people looking for answers, well, there are answers in here, but they're hiding in the noise. You're going to have to dig them out, just as I did. And if you've one of those who has already dug out more than you ever wanted to find, who knows that the taste of the red pills stay in your mouth forever, well...

He has also some strange encrypted messages:
http://www.thisisdavidr.net/home.html

There he asks questions like:
What is peak oil?
What is wrong with the U.S. "Dollar"?
What is the Sprott Report?
What do wargames have to do with the 9/11 attacks?
Who is Catherine Austin Fitts and what does she know?
Who is Ted Butler and why is he important?


But then there is one more strange part. An article written by him in 2002:
http://www.thisisdavidr.net/columns/celebrating_september_11th.html

No mention of controlled demolition or inside job. Quite the contrary:


We know our enemies are Muslim extremists who hate the American way of life. They hate our religious tolerance, which makes room for all religions - including the vast numbers of peaceful Muslims who are horrified by the actions of the terrorists. They hate our society's commitment to equal rights under the law. They want their women to wear head-to-toe burlap, while American women can lay by the pool in a bikini and a smile - then go to work and run a corporation. And most of all, they hate the idea that a society they consider weak and morally decadent can turn around and lay an ass-whipping on them like nothing they've ever seen, after they held off another superpower for years. They know that if they peek their head out of the wrong cave or talk a little too long on the cell phone, some tough young Air Force aviator is going to send a smart bomb right through their door, and some of his even tougher Marine friends are going to be right behind it.


Here he describes himself like this:

Libertarian activist David Rostcheck is the Executive Director of the North Bridge Training Institute (www.northbridgetraining.com (http://www.northbridgetraining.com)), an education and training company. He teaches the Engage! series of political action training classes and is producing the CounterAttack 2003 conference for gun rights activists. Rostcheck also works as a civil rights activist with the Pink Pistols, a gay-friendly pro-gun group.


So in brief:

The man who first brought up the controlled demolition hypothesis is a civil rights activist with the Pink Pistols, a gay-friendly pro-gun group, president of Bisexual Resource Center, and writes some strange encrypted messages on his website. To top it all, a year after 9/11 he writes stuff like: "We know our enemies are Muslim extremists who hate the American way of life." and mentions no inside job.

What do you think the average gay-scared no-hijacker truthers think of this?

[The Almond]

Fascinating and informative as always Ref. I've long wondered where 9/11 conspiracy theories got started. The internet, it seems, is a very strange place to archive data, but it might be the best resource for asking questions about internet related phenomena.

[defaultdotxbe]

as interesting as it is im sure there are many folks who arrived at their conclusions independently

[Mince]

If the originator of the memo is actually an engineer, he's not a very good or a very smart engineer, at least according to that memo. All discerning scientists know you form even your opinions and certainly your scientific theories based on extensive observation and testing. This idiot writes this memo only hours after the attack essentially telling its audience, the attack was a CD...just because, offering no scientific analysis. This letter seems like it was written by yet another idiot truther merely claiming to be engineer/scientist. He sure did dupe a lot of people though.


ETA:

Jesus Christ, I just discovered he's a software engineer. What a joke.

[mortimer]

I don't quite see how his sexuality or support of gay issues enters into this at all. Am I missing something?

[Mince]

I don't quite see how his sexuality or support of gay issues enters into this at all. Am I missing something?


Perhaps it's merely a statement of fact.

[mortimer]

Perhaps it's merely a statement of fact.

Should we start making posts about what DRG had for dinner last night, or what color socks Dylan is wearing today?

[Swing Dangler]

I would have to disagree with you on who originated WTC demolition theories.. I would argue that the originator of the WTC demolition theories were the.

Date: 9/11/01

1. ABC's Peter Jennings and reporter Don Dahler following the collapse of the north tower, the first assumption is again that controlled demolition must have been used to take down the building.

"Yes Peter its Don Dahler down here. I'm four blocks north of the World Trade Center. The second building that was hit by the plane has just completely collapsed."

"The entire building has just collapsed as if a demolition team set off....when you see the old demolition of these old buildings. It just folded in on itself and it is not there anymore."

Peter Jennings: "If you wish to bring, if anyone has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows, that you're going to do this you have to get at the, at the under infrastructure of a building and bring it down."

2.NBC's Pat Dawson reported the working hypothesis of the FDNY in the immediate aftermath of the towers' collapse.

"The chief of safety of the Fire Department of New York City told me he received word of a possibility of a secondary device -- that is another bomb going off. He tries to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said that there was another explosion which took place and according to his theory, he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building."


3. CBS:News' Dan Rather also commented that the collapse of building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, resembled a deliberate attempt to demolish the structure using incendiary devices.

"For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down."

4.MSNBC news anchor Rick Sanchez reported that police had found suspicious devices in and around the WTC area and that the secondary explosions, which were reported by numerous survivors, were thought by police to be bombs.

"Police have found what they believe to be a suspicious device and they fear that it may lead to another explosion."

"I spoke with some police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the World Trade Center aside the ones caused by the planes, may have been caused by a van that was parked on the building that may have had an explosive device in it."

5. FBI-USA Today News Report: Lauren Ashburn: "Joining me is Jack Kelley, now he is a foreign correspondent - war correspondent - and just came back from Israel. He has some information about these attacks. Jack, what can you tell us happened, first in New York."

Jack Kelly: "Um, apparently what appears to happen was that at the same time 2 planes hit the building, that there ... that the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings, which also exploded at the same time and brought both of them down."

Lauren Ashburn: "Now that's the first time were hearing that, so 2 planes and explosives that were in the building, is that correct?"

Jack Kelley: "That is the working theory at this point, that is still unconfirmed but that is what the FBI is going on at this point."

So in summary it wasn't David Rostcheck that originated the WTC demo theory it began on 9/11/01 with mainstream media reports.



This is quite an interesting story. David Rostcheck, not a poster child for modern day truthers. And, I have nothing against bisexuals or gays. Let's make it clear from the beginning.
The first archived mention of a controlled demolition theory was written by David Rostcheck. Here is his original post, written on September 11, 2001.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/davidr.html
This is considered the first demolition speculation. But who is this David Rostcheck? A search of his e-mail address gives this:
http://listserv.unl.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9902&L=lmw-l&P=4749
It is David promoting the newly released bisexual resource guide. David was the president of Bisexual Resource Center:
http://features.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=16066&cid=2020634
But this is not all, he was also a civil rights activist with the Pink Pistols, a gay-friendly pro-gun group. See his article here:
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2002/libe182-20020715-02.html
David also has a website, which is weird to say the least:
http://www.thisisdavidr.net/

It includes writings like:


He has also some strange encrypted messages:
http://www.thisisdavidr.net/home.html

There he asks questions like:
What is peak oil?
What is wrong with the U.S. "Dollar"?
What is the Sprott Report?
What do wargames have to do with the 9/11 attacks?
Who is Catherine Austin Fitts and what does she know?
Who is Ted Butler and why is he important?

But then there is one more strange part. An article written by him in 2002:
http://www.thisisdavidr.net/columns/celebrating_september_11th.html
No mention of controlled demolition or inside job. Quite the contrary:
Here he describes himself like this:
So in brief:
The man who first brought up the controlled demolition hypothesis is a civil rights activist with the Pink Pistols, a gay-friendly pro-gun group, president of Bisexual Resource Center, and writes some strange encrypted messages on his website. To top it all, a year after 9/11 he writes stuff like: "We know our enemies are Muslim extremists who hate the American way of life." and mentions no inside job.What do you think the average gay-scared no-hijacker truthers think of this?

[The Almond]

Should we start making posts about what DRG had for dinner last night, or what color socks Dylan is wearing today?

I think Ref's point is that this gentleman did not fit the profile of the typical "truther." Given the anti-government, anti-handgun and anti-homosexual opinions seen (at least at the LC board), this first truther would be of interest.

[Mince]

I would have to disagree with you on who originated WTC demolition theories.. I would argue that the originator of the WTC demolition theories were the.

Date: 9/11/01

1. ABC's Peter Jennings and reporter Don Dahler following the collapse of the north tower, the first assumption is again that controlled demolition must have been used to take down the building.


The broadcasters did not assert or even presume the collapses were a controlled demolition (of course, how could they with no scientific education and having witnessed the events mere minutes earlier?). They merely stated that the collapse(s) looked like a controlled demolition, because (you know what?) it did look like a controlled demolition.

So, the broadcasters are not the originators of the proposition that the collapses were a controlled demolition. If the OP is accurate, that distinction belongs to a software engineer having made his conclusions mere hours (minutes?) after the collapse(s).

[GStan]

David also has a website, which is weird to say the least:
http://www.thisisdavidr.net/


Understatement of the year. BTW, the font on some this site appears to be gray, just slightly darker than the white background. If any of you venturing to the site are computer challenged, highlighting the text with your cursor will make it easier to read. (But it will not do anything to make it easier to understand.)

His philosophy seems to be, 'if no one can understand what I'm saying, then they won't be able to refute it.'

Thanks for the info Ref.

[ref]

I think Ref's point is that this gentleman did not fit the profile of the typical "truther." Given the anti-government, anti-handgun and anti-homosexual opinions seen (at least at the LC board), this first truther would be of interest.

Exactly. His sexuality has nothing to do with the claims of course.

[peteweaver]

Originally posted by Swing Dangler:
3. CBS:News' Dan Rather also commented that the collapse of building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, resembled a deliberate attempt to demolish the structure using incendiary devices.

"For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down."

Dynamite is not an incendiary, its an explosive.

Incendiaries are not used in controlled demolitions Btw.

[Brainster]

I don't quite see how his sexuality or support of gay issues enters into this at all. Am I missing something?

Because many "Truthers" would consider him a pervert.

[Mince]

Understatement of the year. BTW, the font on some this site appears to be gray, just slightly darker than the white background.


And this guy is a software engineer (reportedly).

[GStan]

4.MSNBC news anchor Rick Sanchez reported that police had found suspicious devices in and around the WTC area and that the secondary explosions, which were reported by numerous survivors, were thought by police to be bombs.

"Police have found what they believe to be a suspicious device and they fear that it may lead to another explosion."

"I spoke with some police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the World Trade Center aside the ones caused by the planes, may have been caused by a van that was parked on the building that may have had an explosive device in it."

5. FBI-USA Today News Report: Lauren Ashburn: "Joining me is Jack Kelley, now he is a foreign correspondent - war correspondent - and just came back from Israel. He has some information about these attacks. Jack, what can you tell us happened, first in New York."

Jack Kelly: "Um, apparently what appears to happen was that at the same time 2 planes hit the building, that there ... that the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings, which also exploded at the same time and brought both of them down."

Lauren Ashburn: "Now that's the first time were hearing that, so 2 planes and explosives that were in the building, is that correct?"

Jack Kelley: "That is the working theory at this point, that is still unconfirmed but that is what the FBI is going on at this point."

So in summary it wasn't David Rostcheck that originated the WTC demo theory it began on 9/11/01 with mainstream media reports.

It was prudent for FBI and Police to be suspicious of this at the time, even without evidence of it. Once the second plane hit, it was clear to everyone, including law enforcement, that this was an attack on the WTC, not an accident. Many of these same officials could have worked the scene 8 years prior when terrorists attempted to bring down the buildings with explosives. It was not an unreasonable assumption to make. Have any of those FBI or police officials who were quoted joined the truth movement to expose this obvious cover-up?

[defaultdotxbe]

Dynamite is not an incendiary, its an explosive.

Incendiaries are not used in controlled demolitions Btw.
in the Trutherverse dynamite is an incendiary and thermite is an explosive

[Dave Rogers]

If the originator of the memo is actually an engineer, he's not a very good or a very smart engineer, at least according to that memo.

He's also not a very well-informed engineer. From the memo:


The building stays up. A reinforced concrete building is *extremely* strong.


Yet when the truth movement finds out the building wasn't made of reinforced concrete, do they re-examine their beliefs?

ETA: Missed one.


Sprinklers can kill incredible infernos, and that's what these do.


He was basically just guessing, and he guessed wrong. And yet six years of conflicting data hasn't persuaded some truthers to abandon a hypothesis based on some erroneous guesswork. That's the epitome of woo.

Dave

[Totovader]

I would have to disagree with you on who originated WTC demolition theories.. I would argue that the originator of the WTC demolition theories were the [list of newscasters making vague statement or quick judgments in lack of solid evidence].

Swing- you just shot yourself in the foot. All of these reporters would be willing to clarify their statements (and some have), and do not believe in the CD theories.

So your "basis" for belief at worst abandoned the theory long ago.

[Mince]

Swing- you just shot yourself in the foot. All of these reporters would be willing to clarify their statements (and some have), and do not believe in the CD theories.

So your "basis" for belief at worst abandoned the theory long ago.


He would likely have known that with proper research (before making his post).

[Swing Dangler]

The broadcasters did not assert or even presume the collapses were a controlled demolition (of course, how could they with no scientific education and having witnessed the events mere minutes earlier?). They merely stated that the collapse(s) looked like a controlled demolition, because (you know what?) it did look like a controlled demolition.

So, the broadcasters are not the originators of the proposition that the collapses were a controlled demolition. If the OP is accurate, that distinction belongs to a software engineer having made his conclusions mere hours (minutes?) after the collapse(s).

According to your logic, only people who have a scientific education can originate a controlled demolition theory. This includes David Rostcheck. Perhaps you should be debunking Ref.


Totovader
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
I would have to disagree with you on who originated WTC demolition theories.. I would argue that the originator of the WTC demolition theories were the[list of newscasters making vague statement or quick judgments in lack of solid evidence].
Swing- you just shot yourself in the foot. All of these reporters would be willing to clarify their statements (and some have), and do not believe in the CD theories.

So your "basis" for belief at worst abandoned the theory long ago.
Toto reading comprehension problems again? Read the title of the thread again and focus on something else.

[Drudgewire]

The man who first brought up the controlled demolition hypothesis is a civil rights activist with the Pink Pistols, a gay-friendly pro-gun group
One of my shooting buddies is gay.

Wait, I should re-word that. :eye-poppi

[Mince]

According to your logic, only people who have a scientific education can originate a controlled demolition theory. This includes David Rostcheck. Perhaps you should be debunking Ref.


Incorrect. According to my logic, only people who've done research, observation, experimentation and applied critical thought and analysis can originate a controlled demolition theory---not newscasters minutes after or software engineers hours after the building collapses, silly.

According to your logic, a bartender can perfor a Coronary Artery Bypass and Graft even if he's not had a medical education as long as he's "smart" enough and done enough internet research.

[Brainster]

5. FBI-USA Today News Report: Lauren Ashburn: "Joining me is Jack Kelley, now he is a foreign correspondent - war correspondent - and just came back from Israel. He has some information about these attacks. Jack, what can you tell us happened, first in New York."

Jack Kelly: "Um, apparently what appears to happen was that at the same time 2 planes hit the building, that there ... that the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings, which also exploded at the same time and brought both of them down."

Jack Kelley? This Jack Kelley of USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/2004-01-13-reporter_x.htm)?

USA TODAY foreign correspondent Jack Kelley was forced to resign last week after he repeatedly misled editors during an internal investigation into stories he wrote, the newspaper's top editors said Monday.

Got any reports from Stephen Glass or Jayson Blair you want to share with us, Swing?

[Totovader]

Toto reading comprehension problems again? Read the title of the thread again and focus on something else.

That's an entirely insufficient response.

I have no problem with my reading comprehension. You claimed that there were better sources for the CD claims. You failed to realize that these sources don't actually believe in CD.

Can you address that or not?

[Swing Dangler]

That's an entirely insufficient response.

I have no problem with my reading comprehension. You claimed that there were better sources for the CD claims. You failed to realize that these sources don't actually believe in CD.

Can you address that or not?

So now your putting a condition on the title of the thread? "Originator of WTC Demolition Theory (who still believe in CD): A Closer Look".

[Drudgewire]

Jack Kelley? This Jack Kelley of USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/2004-01-13-reporter_x.htm)?
:dl:

[Totovader]

So now your putting a condition on the title of the thread? "Originator of WTC Demolition Theory (who still believe in CD): A Closer Look".

Not in the least. Apparently, you're the one with reading comprehension problems. As I said in my first post (the one you ignored):

Swing- you just shot yourself in the foot. All of these reporters would be willing to clarify their statements (and some have), and do not believe in the CD theories.

So your "basis" for belief at worst abandoned the theory long ago.

[Swing Dangler]

Jack Kelley? This Jack Kelley of USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/2004-01-13-reporter_x.htm)?
Got any reports from Stephen Glass or Jayson Blair you want to share with us, Swing?

I missed the part in your story where Jack was guilty of fabricating the 9/11 report?

Because you are very aware that Rick Sanchez's report corroborates Jack's 9/11 report, right? Right?

[Swing Dangler]

Not in the least. Apparently, you're the one with reading comprehension problems. As I said in my first post (the one you ignored):

Toto- how did David Rostcheck arrive at that theory on 9/11?

[Mince]

Toto- how did David Rostcheck arrive at that theory on 9/11?


A software engineer...mere hours after the collapse(s). I don't know. Pretty perplexing, isn't it?

[peteweaver]

in the Trutherverse dynamite is an incendiary and thermite is an explosive

Funny how even the most basic principles of science are lost on 'truthers'

[ref]

So now your putting a condition on the title of the thread? "Originator of WTC Demolition Theory (who still believe in CD): A Closer Look".

It's likely that even David Rostcheck believed in controlled demolition only for a very short while. This from him, written on 12/12/2001:

America is currently at war with terrorist groups. To say "America is at war" captures correctly the idea that the American people, not just the American government, are engaged in war. We, the people, were targeted by the September 11th attacks, and it is we, the people, who will battle back and subdue the terrorists. For every one of us who serves aboard a ship or plane or carries a rifle, dozens more will dig through wreckage, contribute money and food, notice suspicious activity, train ourselves in self defense and first aid, drive the engines of our economy, and work to pay the taxes that fund the soldiers and police. Within hours of the attack, citizens spontaneously began flying the flags that currently blanket our nation. Called forth from history, where it had waited patiently, the phrase "united we stand" returned to American public life, to be written on flags, scrawled in dust, hung on bridges, and spoken from podiums. The fanatics who attacked the United States consider us to be a weak and decadent nation, but the old men who walk smiling through our streets have always known that we have this power to unite in single, unstoppable purpose.
http://www.thisisdavidr.net/columns/the_lost_city.html

[Totovader]

Toto- how did David Rostcheck arrive at that theory on 9/11?

You continue to dodge my point.

How many times are you going to do that? Do I really have to keep posting it?

[Swing Dangler]

A software engineer...mere hours after the collapse(s). I don't know. Pretty perplexing, isn't it?

He arrived at that conclusion based upon the same way those list of mainstream media talking heads and reporters arrived at that conclusion.

Totovader
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
I would have to disagree with you on who originated WTC demolition theories.. I would argue that the originator of the WTC demolition theories were the[list of newscasters making vague statement or quick judgments in lack of solid evidence].
Swing- you just shot yourself in the foot. All of these reporters would be willing to clarify their statements (and some have), and do not believe in the CD theories.

So your "basis" for belief at worst abandoned the theory long ago.
Hmm no question for me here. What dodge are you referring to?
What you should have done and may still do is try to explain how those people I listed did not originate the CD theory.

[Swing Dangler]

I missed the part in your story where Jack was guilty of fabricating the 9/11 report?

Because you are very aware that Rick Sanchez's report corroborates Jack's 9/11 report, right? Right?

Pat are you there? Ohhh Brainster where are you?

[Totovader]

Hmm no question for me here. What dodge are you referring to?

There need not be a question mark for you to dodge the point. I've posted my point twice, now- I don't think I need to keep doing that. You're just going to continue to dodge it and others have noticed- if that's the best I can get out of you, then so be it.

What you should have done and may still do is try to explain how those people I listed did not originate the CD theory.

What I should have done is pointed out the inconsistency in your claim- which is exactly what I did, and exactly what you have ignored 3 times, now.

[Mince]

He arrived at that conclusion based upon the same way those list of mainstream media talking heads and reporters arrived at that conclusion.


Of course. And, regardless of what you believe, they were all incorrect in their procedure and presumptions. Though they duped many people and many still rely on their dialog. "Look, a television news reporter says (minutes after the collapse) it was a controlled demolition." You might be surprised how many of your bretheren use this as an empirical argument in favor of controlled demolition.

[ref]

He arrived at that conclusion based upon the same way those list of mainstream media talking heads and reporters arrived at that conclusion.

Hmm no question for me here. What dodge are you referring to?
What you should have done and may still do is try to explain how those people I listed did not originate the CD theory.

To me the difference is this.

The media people speculated that it maybe looked like a demolition, reported possible devices and so on. They didn't say "this was demolition".

David Rostcheck on the other hand said:
"In summary, it looks exactly like a demolition - because that's what it is"

and

"But look at the footage - those buildings were *demolished*."


Two days after David posted his mail, on 9/13/2001, Peter Meyer wrote his article "World Trade Center Bombing (http://www.billstclair.com/Serendipity/wtcm040419/wtc_0913.html)", which was based on the writings of David.

This is why David is the originator.

[Garb]

Just because a news reporter makes a similie, doesn't mean they are originating any theories.

The noise sounded like two freight trains going over a trestle right over your head; it was an ugly roar. My wife said the noise when the house went was like a giant pencil sharpener working.


http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/1953beecher/storiesFJ.php

Are they originating freight train crash theories, or just describing the tornado?

[westprog]

The broadcasters did not assert or even presume the collapses were a controlled demolition (of course, how could they with no scientific education and having witnessed the events mere minutes earlier?). They merely stated that the collapse(s) looked like a controlled demolition, because (you know what?) it did look like a controlled demolition.

So, the broadcasters are not the originators of the proposition that the collapses were a controlled demolition. If the OP is accurate, that distinction belongs to a software engineer having made his conclusions mere hours (minutes?) after the collapse(s).

And the fact that police were finding suspicious items hardly points to a controlled demolition. Anything left unattended can be a suspicious item. Certainly nothing found in the streets around the WTC is likely to involve demolition.

[Brainster]

I missed the part in your story where Jack was guilty of fabricating the 9/11 report?

Because you are very aware that Rick Sanchez's report corroborates Jack's 9/11 report, right? Right?

So surely what you're saying is we should be checking into Rick Sanchez's reporting?

[leftysergeant]

The thing is that a lot of people just spouted off about what stuff looked like as it happened, but mostly were way off target. It looked, superficially, like the buildings were brought down by CD. I say supeficially because only the dust clouds that formed were totally consistant witrh CD, and those only to the extent that they spread out and sought their natural level, which, at initiation, was straight down until they hit the ground, then horizontal, unless they hit an obstruction, at which point they rose up like a crashing wave and oozed around the obstrutions, then smoothed out when they reached the river. The towers did not resemble CD it any other way, because the cores did not fall to pull the rest of the building down. There is no way that any explosive device was ever at anytime detonated on the core columns.

Did you notice that no single police report or after-action interview identified any of theose "suspicious devices" that the police reported finding around the area? They were obviously nothing of any real import or hazard, were they?

Probably just junk from the aircraft or office equipment. I'm sure that any cop find, say an oxygen generator at a crash site would be very hesitant to touch it, and might well, actually should, call the bomb squad to dispose of it.

Da Twoof was born out of the immature minds of people too freaking lazy to do any follow-up research and was nutured by whackadoodles with crank theories to sell. They were fed by the off-the-cuff remarks of people who had no clue what happened.

[ref]

Da Twoof was born out of the immature minds of people too freaking lazy to do any follow-up research and was nutured by whackadoodles with crank theories to sell. They were fed by the off-the-cuff remarks of people who had no clue what happened.

I think it's very fitting, that David Rostcheck himself seems to have abandoned the demolition theory very rapidly. But his unresearched and totally uninformed claim started a life of its own.

Remember, that Rostcheck said things like "reinforced concrete building" when talking about WTC. It shows how off his remarks were.

But does it make a difference, that the author of this uninformed piece later very likely has changed his mind? No.

In just mere 2 days after the publication of Rostcheck's writing, as I mentioned, Peter Meyer had written his "World Trade Center Bombing (http://www.billstclair.com/Serendipity/wtcm040419/wtc_0913.html)" -article.

David Ray Griffin in turn cites Peter Meyer about controlled demolition in his book "The New Pearl Harbor" in 2004.

It is of course unknown, how many others were influenced by Rostcheck and later by Meyer, but the origins of the demolition conspiracy were laid there. And they continue.

But I still consider Jim McMichael as the main influence behind controlled demolition theories in general. His article "Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics! (http://web.archive.org/web/20020221070838/http:/world.care2.com/jmcmichael/files/index.html)" was published October 21, 2001. This article really drew the CT crowds. It would be interesting to know, how much he was influenced by Rostcheck/Meyer.

[mrbaracuda]

And this guy is a software engineer (reportedly).

Those are weird people. At least the ones I know heh. Thanks for the info, ref!

[AZCat]

I think it's very fitting, that David Rostcheck himself seems to have abandoned the demolition theory very rapidly. But his unresearched and totally uninformed claim started a life of its own.

Remember, that Rostcheck said things like "reinforced concrete building" when talking about WTC. It shows how off his remarks were.

But does it make a difference, that the author of this uninformed piece later very likely has changed his mind? No.

In just mere 2 days after the publication of Rostcheck's writing, as I mentioned, Peter Meyer had written his "World Trade Center Bombing (http://www.billstclair.com/Serendipity/wtcm040419/wtc_0913.html)" -article.

David Ray Griffin in turn cites Peter Meyer about controlled demolition in his book "The New Pearl Harbor" in 2004.

It is of course unknown, how many others were influenced by Rostcheck and later by Meyer, but the origins of the demolition conspiracy were laid there. And they continue.

But I still consider Jim McMichael as the main influence behind controlled demolition theories in general. His article "Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics! (http://web.archive.org/web/20020221070838/http:/world.care2.com/jmcmichael/files/index.html)" was published October 21, 2001. This article really drew the CT crowds. It would be interesting to know, how much he was influenced by Rostcheck/Meyer.


Trickle-down stupidity.

[Viper Daimao]

Trickle-down stupidity.

Or Voodoo Engineering, as it were.