4 votes

Neil Cavuto Interviews 911 Firefighter Hero Bill Butler 9/22/11 - "It looked like a bomb had hit the lobby."

How does a plane crashing on the 93rd floor blow up the lobby?


Firefighter hero Bill Butler states, "It looked like a bomb had hit the lobby," of the World Trade Center, and Neil Cavuto completely ignores him, immediately interjecting and changing the subject.

Wouldn't you think that any real journalist would say, "Wait! What? Did you just say that it looked like a bomb had gone off in the lobby?"

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Woah, Fox News made this video private!

Anyone happen to notice when Fox News hid it?

Good thing I downloaded it. Based on history, I had a feeling the state controlled media might 'lose' the video. The last thing the media wants to do is accidentally report the truth.

Will be uploaded soon.

It is so painful

to watch these "official lie" proponents going thru contortions in an attempt to find any way to rationalize their denial of the truth.
It's really sad.
I worry about what might happen to their mental states when they find out that it actually was an inside job. They might not be able to handle it.


A good chunk of the A&E/911 Truth presentation is devoted to the psychological issues surrounding both trauma and an assault on one's world view...which generally results in denial in the face of proof...

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

Bump for the obvious


The buildings did not collapse

Anyone with eyes can see that the twin towers blew up. They did not simply collapse.

Debris when up, sideways and down. The twin towers did not fall like building 7.


Important point, and millions observed it, have video records from different angles. Debris from the towers flew / and fell many yards away from the base. Sure they blew-up.
Now I do not remember how the fires started in Building 7, it was some distance away from the towers hit by planes.

Looks like Blowback

to me.

Have you ever heard of a

Have you ever heard of a simile? Or a metaphor? Or a figure of speech? Or in your universe, do people always speak completely literally 100% of the time?

How does a plane crashing on the 93rd floor blow up the lobby?

That would seem to be the obvious question.

And what kind of demolition

And what kind of demolition destroys the lobby and then hours later bring the building down?

The kind that was timed to coincide with the plane hits above..

The charges needed to cut supports below ground, and that were testified to by William Rodriguez as going off in the subbasement beneath the office, lifted him and others off the floor when they went off. These were probably responsible for the damage to the lobby...knocking marble off of walls and breaking windows throughout... And these went off merely seconds before the plane hit.

Have you not watched the A&E Truth Video. There are 128 emergency responders who have testified to multiple explosions...or do you not view evidence and take NIST's word?

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

The towers were not the first

The towers were not the first steel framed buildings to collapse due to fire. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MRSr1MnFuk&feature=player_em...
They were the largest, but not the first. If you're going to make an argument, use facts.

Don't even go there...

There are way too many metallurgists that have a massive problem with this part of the story. It was a 47 year metallurgist that brought me out of the matrix on this one, fully explaining the nature of steel and showing me various tables for heat, distributions and dissipation that then become further altered with thickness, make-up, and connections to even more steel that isn't located within the blast furnace...ooops...I mean open air office fire.

Dissipation is also enabled when the steel is connected together as box's stacked one on top of another via connections with 3 to 5 times the strength needed for any weight they were was holding. A great deal of energy, administered to each connection at the same time would have been needed. God I hate these conversations...

All of the columns were accessible via the elevator shafts.

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

Intellectually dishonest

Are you claiming that bridges and regular buildings are built the same as skyscrapers? Because, you are aware that the buildings that we're discussing on 9/11 were skyscrapers, right?

And you're also aware that no skyscraper fires, nor any type of damage, have ever resulted in instantaneous symmetrical collapse into the footprint, even ones that burned 18 times as long?

Nor has any building, for that matter, ever symmetrically collapsed into it's own footprint instantaneously, except with a controlled demolition. Even when a demolition goes wrong, the building does not collapse into it's own footprint. Only a perfectly timed and executed demolition results in this.

Why are you so willing to accept distortions and lies, yet deny witnesses and footage of the actual event? The only way people claim to "debunk" 9/11 is by avoiding the actual evidence.

Wait, you're the one ignoring

Wait, you're the one ignoring the fact that the buildings were hit by 767's fully loaded with jet fuel flying at 500-600 mph, and I'm the one being intellectually dishonest?

Oh, and how do you explain the fact that the collapse of the towers did not make nearly enough noise that would be expected form a controlled demolition? And what kind of perfectly timed demolition has explosions going off hours before the collapse happens?

Oh, and another thing about those planes...

flying at 500-600 mph at sea level is impossible, they would break up like the Egypt Air flight did once hitting density at speed. That speed is only possible at high altitude. Pilots for 911 Truth have already dealt with this enigma.

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

128 first responders testified to multiple explosions...

...which never made it to either repor...

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

The planes did not bring the buildings down.

Everyone agrees on this, including NIST. NIST concluded it was fire that brought the buildings down, all three.

Don't ignore all the witnesses of huge explosions and the live footage of huge explosions. You can actually listen to yourself and watch these yourself!

9/11 Firefighters Tell Of Huge Explosions Before Towers Collapse

'No witnesses to this huge explosion 9/11' - Shyam Sunder

9/11 Firefighter The Buildings Collapsed To Dust

Side arguments are really irrelevant anyway, because buildings, or anything for that matter, simply does not collapse into itself in the path of most resistance, without demolishing all support structure.

And they were built to withstand a similar sized plane...

...hitting them.

In fact, if you google the video of the DESIGNER OF THE BUILDING describing what would happen if a plane did hit the building, he described it as a pencil puncturing a screen door. Is a screen door going to collapse from a pencil puncturing it?

Google the Windsor Building fire. Then explain to me how this happened with the twin towers... and Building 7... from fire... in only a couple of hours... with flames you could barely even see.

The Windsor Building burned like an inferno... for 24 hours. Still standing.

That's why we build skyscrapers out of steel in the first place. So they don't collapse in case of a fire.

The WTC was built with 47 of the thickest, strongest steel beams ever created at the time running straight up the middle. Explain to me how the strength of these columns all gave way at once... not even slowing the upper floors of the building as it was collapsing.

Watch this...


Are all those experts wrong?? They're willing to stake their reputations... engineers, pilots, firemen, etc.

A 707 (the largest plane at

A 707 (the largest plane at the time) is nowhere near as big as a 767. And I'm glad you brought up the Madrid Windsor fire. The bottom 17 floors were encased with a concrete-reinforced steel core. The upper floors, which were not reinforced with concrete, all collapsed. The bottom 17 floors all had columns with fire proofing, except for the 9th and the 15th whose columns buckled (the weight was redistributed to the rest of the building, and two was not sufficient to cause a collapse). The general design of the building is totally different from the WTC. You're comparing apples and oranges. For every expert you put out, there are dozens who oppose them (though they're probably in on the conspiracy, all of them). And if you're claiming that the towers fell at free fall speed, you're wrong. Why did the debris fall faster than the buildings?


The palne hit and caused an energy wave to pulse throughout the building, traveling up and down the structural steel core, and urged on by fire, created enough vibratiuon after an hour or so to weaken the connections of ...oh crap...do you listen to what you are being told?

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

Irrelevant. Objects do not collapse into themselves.

Not, without their entire structures being obliterated at the same moment in time.


1) 707-320 = 145ft 9in x 152ft 11in
2) 767-200 = 156ft 1in x 159ft 2in

"Nowhere near as big" - californians4ronpaul


One Meridian Plaza, Philadelphia - 38 story skyscraper, "burned uncontrolled for nearly 20 hours."


Caracas Tower, Venezuela - 56 story skyscraper, "fire roared out of control for 17 hours."


Windsor Building, Madrid - 32 story skyscraper, burned uncontrolled for over 12 hours (see timeline 23:00-13:30).



Beijing CCTV headquarters....



Now THAT'S a fire...

compared to this.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA

....LMAO, Oh,silly me, you "offical story" guys are right .... nothing to see here... how foolish to actually think for myself. It was brown people and fire, I see it clearly now.

≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make
violent revolution inevitable."
John F. Kennedy

Ah refreshing to see someone

Ah refreshing to see someone that understands the basics of structural engineering and physics.

It's a waste of time arguing honestly as frustrating as it is. All conspiracy theories operate the same way. They are based on questioning the 'official' story, and anything that can be construed to imply a contradiction is used as fact. There can never be produced a scientifically sound alternative that would stand up to anywhere near the level of questioning that the official story has.

And from a structural perspective, if you wanted to bring down the towers by demolition after the crashes, you wouldn't need to put charges below the crash site. You'd simply have to sever the internal steel columns in such a way that they push out and down. But all the conspiracies are based on the demolition of a steel column and beam cubic construction, which the towers were not. They were the first structures of their type to ever be built, and I'm pretty sure you'll never see another built like them. They have no capacity to prevent progressive collapse.

The official story is

the conspiracy theory.

Ah refreshing to see someone

who doesn't understand the basics of the laws of physics, structural steel and pure fantasy.

Truly it IS a waste of time arguing with such people and as frustrating as it is, I still do it since their governmental echo chamber can't be shut off from without and the LRAD nature of it threatens the well being and security of my fellow citizens.

All cointelpro/troll/snake type truth denials operate the same way, with its practitioner placing his tongue firmly in his cheek and trying to appeal to psuedo-logic as a redirect for absolutely vital and valid problems with the "reality" behind a story (or the physics surrounding it). One way is to feign "specialist status" and insider knowledge as done above.

They rely on the fact that the disconnect of matching of what you are told, to what you saw will not impede your acquiescence since most will not have the credentials to personally come to a defend-able conclusion about the occurrence. By them claiming those credentials via innuendo or assertion, and with them the assumptive ability to discern the probability without the needed data, you are now "let off the hook" and therefore have no more need to think about...or "waste your time" with this stuff anymore.

This is then massaged some more. But hey, it's easy. In our case, years of indoctrination into the "bend to specialists" paradigm that all my age (54) and younger have been the victims of, push you into your conditioned response of "respecting authority"...especially if it is governmental.

They will use a sort of "assumptive" conclusion that has no basis in reality, like saying how the "official story" has somehow "stood up" to unbelievable levels of questioning yet still stands on its own...no matter that NO questions have been answered by NIST and FOIA requests from engineers designing skyscrapers and setting standards, and asking for the mathematical models relied upon in the "stand up" story are denied on the basis of "risks to public safety". Funny, the guys that design and build skyscrapers and don't want them to collapse into their footprints, can't get the information to prevent such occurrences because giving this to them would somehow cause an inflated "risk to public safety".

Then you'll find these operatives claiming things like "No Steel Beam Cubic Construction" when anyone with eyes can see that the towers were constructed with a core that was exactly the opposite of such a statement. That its skeleton was constructed of structural steel beams in a cubic framework...or maybe rectangular..


Of course then they'll tell you that we've "learned" from this...and this construction will never happen again...as if any architect or engineer in the world can view this "data" and all now know EXACTLY what went wrong and what not to do in the future.

If you believe all of this I have a structural Steel Bridge to sell you.

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?


The real issue for me that got me taking a serious look at the "truther" movement was WTC 7. While there may be an explanation for the twin towers, I have yet to hear a plausible reason for the third tower to have collapsed on the same day. It was not struck by a plane, and did not sustain near enough damage for a catastrophic, symmetrical collapse.

Leaving aside the two main towers for now, there are more than enough outstanding questions related to WTC 7, the Pentagon, and the hours that went by with rogue planes uncontested in the air to make one seriously question the official story. In the end, it all adds up to one carefully orchestrated lie that has had a catastrophic effect on our economy and our psychology as a nation.

OK meme boy...

I continue with my tin foil experts at A&E/911. People of incredible credentials who are putting their lives, businesses and careers on the line for no recompense...and who are asking for an investigation of NIST itself...

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?