What about the fact that BBC reported WTC7 collapsing 20 minutes before its collapse? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

O, and Fox.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EWKtO_xXsk&feature=related

And this building didn't even fall from an explosion or crash, it just magically fell. Thank you FOX!

Sooo 2 news agencies reported this building falling before it did and you mean to tell me there was no prior knowledge of this? give me a break.



Just starting the thread for you. Please explain what you think happened to building 7.

Just starting the thread for you. Please explain what you think happened to building 7.Hey, I dunno, but it looks exactly like a controlled demolition, the owner of the building said that day that they decided to pull it, you can see a series of windows blow out - same line down a number of floors, but not other windows, just as they would in a controlled demolition, the building does not look very damaged, I have never seen a building go down from fire damage like that. I gotta say that the onus is on the other side, the ones who think the fires, which do not look serious, somehow caused a nearly perfect floor to floor flattening of the building, nicely in sequence.

Hey, I dunno, but it looks exactly like a controlled demolition, the owner of the building said that day that they decided to pull it, you can see a series of windows blow out - same line down a number of floors, but not other windows, just as they would in a controlled demolition, the building does not look very damaged, I have never seen a building go down from fire damage like that. I gotta say that the onus is on the other side, the ones who think the fires, which do not look serious, somehow caused a nearly perfect floor to floor flattening of the building, nicely in sequence.

Have you ever watch a building being prepped for a controlled demolition? All the support columns are laid bare and the explosive attached and wired. Nobody noticed this going on? It was done by Ninja demolitions experts? They had the ability to cloud men's minds, not to mention the security cameras?

Have you ever watch a building being prepped for a controlled demolition? All the support columns are laid bare and the explosive attached and wired. Nobody noticed this going on? It was done by Ninja demolitions experts? They had the ability to cloud men's minds, not to mention the security cameras?1) this is really not a good explanation for what happened, it simply raises issues around my implied explanation. You ever seen a building that mildly damaged by fire, fall down perfectly like that? 2) You are assuming a demolition has to be done in the very open, public way, the way one does with a building that has been abandoned. I don't think this is the case. I am not an expert, but I would assume charges could be brought in over time and put in place with leaving permanently open the places they are attached to supports. I don't know. But let me know about how the fire did this and pass on some other examples, preferably on film so we can see how they also looked like controlled demolitions.

Have you ever looked at the NIS:T report on WTC 7?

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

Hey, I dunno, but it looks exactly like a controlled demolition,
Are you an expert in CD? How could you tell the difference between a fire-induced collapse and a CD? All controlled demotions use very loud explosives that can be heard for miles...How do you account for the lack of any audible explosive sounds? There are numerous videos of the collapse, and none show the tell tale explosive sounds like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzZBXuyIE28


the owner of the building said that day that they decided to pull it,

I know when I want to covertly demolish a building...I always announce it to the media. Could it be that Silverstein was talking about "pulling" the firefighters from the area?


you can see a series of windows blow out - same line down a number of floors, but not other windows, just as they would in a controlled demolition, the building does not look very damaged, I have never seen a building go down from fire damage like that. I gotta say that the onus is on the other side, the ones who think the fires, which do not look serious, somehow caused a nearly perfect floor to floor flattening of the building, nicely in sequence.

The FDNY reported kinks in the outer structure hours before the collapse. They predicted the building would fall. The building burned for 7 hours without any firefighting efforts.

If you believe that building 7 was CD'ed, then please answer these questions:
1. Why would they cd a building that no one outside of NY had ever heard of..and why did they wait 7 hours to initiate the collapse?

2. Why did they wait for everyone in the building to be evacuated before initiating the charges? (no one died in building 7)

3. How did they manage to plant the explosive charges in the building without anyone noticing?

Are you an expert in CD? How could you tell the difference between a fire-induced collapse and a CD? All controlled demotions use very loud explosives that can be heard for miles...How do you account for the lack of any audible explosive sounds? There are numerous videos of the collapse, and none show the tell tale explosive sounds like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzZBXuyIE28Clearly you didn't read my post carefully, since I specifically said I was not an expert. People did report explosions. I would also assume that steps could be taken to reduce the sounds. IOW a normal controlled demolitions is, as the other poster mentioned, exposing all the supports, often you can see into the building and see the actual charges from outside the building because all the non-support walls on some lower levels are gone. Again, I don't know.

Why did one set of windows blow out just before collapse in a vertical line, just as in cds? If it was the building distorting why this perfect line?

Why haven't other fires made such a perfect demolition, when even profession demolitions often go wrong?

ARe there other examples of fire induced collapses of healthy buildings anything like this? Maybe there are. I don't know.


I know when I want to covertly demolish a building...I always announce it to the media. Could it be that Silverstein was talking about "pulling" the firefighters from the area?He said it, not them. You are assuming he was in on the conspiracy, if there was one, I was assuming the opposite.


The FDNY reported kinks in the outer structure hours before the collapse. They predicted the building would fall. The building burned for 7 hours without any firefighting efforts.Without much fire. So why don't demolition teams make kinks in the outer structure of buildings?


If you believe that building 7 was CD'ed, then please answer these questions:
1. Why would they cd a building that no one outside of NY had ever heard of..and why did they wait 7 hours to initiate the collapse?I could come up with some reasons, but the official explanation bears the onus of proof. I am skeptical of it.


2. Why did they wait for everyone in the building to be evacuated before initiating the charges? (no one died in building 7)Come on, you haven't read any conspiracy explanations for this? You don't know whose offices were in that building?


3. How did they manage to plant the explosive charges in the building without anyone noticing?Yeah, if we wanted to blow up a building in Europe with help from inside a similar building - again check out who had offices there - we could not set the charges without being discovered by those not in the know. Please.

Pineal, the work involved in setting the charges is extensive and exacting. (haven't you ever seen shows on the Science channel, or Discovery on controlled demolition? there have been many). WTC 7 was not an empty building on a lot somewhere. It was a working office building. Nobody is planting explosive charges on the buildings support beams without being seen.

Im not exactly sure why (I have ideas), but with the way the building went down, like a controlled demolition, and being that there were no exterior explosions, and the fact that 2 powerful media outlets reported this early makes me think that people knew WTC7 was going to fall. And remember they weren't presenting this as a warning, they both say WTC7 has already collapsed, and you can see in both links I posted it is clearly still standing as this news of its collapse is reported.

It doesn't even mater how it fell because 2 separate news agencies proved that they had previous knowledge of this event.. meaning CONSPIRACY bum bum bum!

Hey, I dunno, but it looks exactly like a controlled demolition, the owner of the building said that day that they decided to pull it, you can see a series of windows blow out - same line down a number of floors, but not other windows, just as they would in a controlled demolition, the building does not look very damaged, I have never seen a building go down from fire damage like that. I gotta say that the onus is on the other side, the ones who think the fires, which do not look serious, somehow caused a nearly perfect floor to floor flattening of the building, nicely in sequence.

When a building explodes, the air inside the building needs to expand outward. It usually happens nearest the weakest point that precipitates the collapse. Windows blowing out are a normal part of a building's collapse, even if it seemed convenient enough to allow basement-of-mother's-house-dwelling conspiracy nuts to use it as a foundation for their weird 9/11 belief system.

~String

:shrug: This is the conspiracies and other woo-woos thread.

It doesn't even mater how it fell because 2 separate news agencies proved that they had previous knowledge of this event.. meaning CONSPIRACY bum bum bum!

Links. And we're talking "credible links".

~String

Links. And we're talking "credible links".

~String

I already showed you the links on Youtube of the very news reports that im talking about.

Evidence required is a set of eyeballs. The building is very obviously demo'd - it free falls all as one piece, collapsing upon itself. This really is a modern litmus test for who can think for themselves.

Beyond that, I have absolutely no idea what happened on sept 11 2001. I really don't believe much said about any of the conspiracy theories, official or not. We will simply never know the complete truth.

Clearly you didn't read my post carefully, since I specifically said I was not an expert.

Then why should we take your opinion of "it looks like a cd" seriously?


People did report explosions.
True...lots of stuff explodes in a fire...however there were no loud explosions right before the building collapsed..as in other cds


I would also assume that steps could be taken to reduce the sounds.
Then you would assume wrong. There is no viable technique to muffle the sound of 180+db explosives so that it would not be recordable at all on the tapes we have of the collapse.


IOW a normal controlled demolitions is, as the other poster mentioned, exposing all the supports, often you can see into the building and see the actual charges from outside the building because all the non-support walls on some lower levels are gone. Again, I don't know.


Apparently you don't know about a lot of things


Why did one set of windows blow out just before collapse in a vertical line, just as in cds? If it was the building distorting why this perfect line?


From the video of the collapse I have seen..this is not true

Why haven't other fires made such a perfect demolition, when even profession demolitions often go wrong?

Because most fire are fought..this one wasn't.

ARe there other examples of fire induced collapses of healthy buildings anything like this? Maybe there are. I don't know.

The Windsor building fire burned for hours, and the steel area of the building collapsed. There really hasn't been a fire like in the WTC 7 in the history of building fires...where the fire burned for 7 hours without any fire fighter efforts.


He said it, not them. You are assuming he was in on the conspiracy, if there was one, I was assuming the opposite.

Without much fire. So why don't demolition teams make kinks in the outer structure of buildings?

I could come up with some reasons, but the official explanation bears the onus of proof. I am skeptical of it.

Come on, you haven't read any conspiracy explanations for this? You don't know whose offices were in that building?

Yeah, if we wanted to blow up a building in Europe with help from inside a similar building - again check out who had offices there - we could not set the charges without being discovered by those not in the know. Please.

There rest of this makes no sense...so I have no answer for gibberish.

I already showed you the links on Youtube of the very news reports that im talking about.

YouTube is not a "credible" link. How about a peer reviewed study or report.

~String

Links. And we're talking "credible links".

~String

Actually, String..both are legitimate links. Fox was just reporting what the BBC was reporting.

There were many false reports on 9/11 in the media...they were reporting truck bombs at the capitol that day.

The FDNY were reporting that building 7 would probably fall. Somewhere in the reporting process someone confused "may fall" with "has fallen"...truthers, rather than see this error in reporting, would rather believe that evil "perps" that initiated the attacks, sent press briefings to all the know news agencies, informing them that were about to blow up building 7, and somehow fox and the BBC fucked it up and reported it early. :rolleyes:

Evidence required is a set of eyeballs. The building is very obviously demo'd - it free falls all as one piece, collapsing upon itself. This really is a modern litmus test for who can think for themselves.

Beyond that, I have absolutely no idea what happened on sept 11 2001. I really don't believe much said about any of the conspiracy theories, official or not. We will simply never know the complete truth.

Your right about the litmus test. It clearly points out the cranks and tells the rest of us who to ignore.

They have videos of the muther fucking planes hitting the second building that I watched live as it happened. Now before you say "A 767 can't bring down a building" I will say do you know the size of fucking 767? They are huge!!!!. The physical force in itself is obvisously not enough. But a fire + an already weakened superstructure = falling building. And now you say "But jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel". I will then say... was jet fuel then the only thing in the building to burn? Also, how hot does the steel have to get to deform or lose strength? Not as hot is has to get to melt for sure (to lazy to get the exact numbers). I consider it falling as it did by the grace of god because it could have been so much fucking worse if they fell sideways. Also, to the fact that the planes hit at the top so what you really had was the top falling on the bottom part causing it to suddenly collapse, the quickest path for that is straight down.

Not to hard to understand if you bother to try, open YOUR mind and use it.

My own pet thing is not that the buildings were brought down in any sort of controlled demolition.... it's the possibility that the attacks were allowed to occur.

Admittedly, Occam's razor says it was stupidity on the part of my government...but I don't trust anybody.

Your right about the litmus test. It clearly points out the cranks and tells the rest of us who to ignore.

They have videos of the muther fucking planes hitting the second building that I watched live as it happened. Now before you say "A 767 can't bring down a building" I will say do you know the size of fucking 767? They are huge!!!!. The physical force in itself is obvisously not enough. But a fire + an already weakened superstructure = falling building. And now you say "But jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel". I will then say... was jet fuel then the only thing in the building to burn? Also, how hot does the steel have to get to deform or lose strength? Not as hot is has to get to melt for sure (to lazy to get the exact numbers). I consider it falling as it did by the grace of god because it could have been so much fucking worse if they fell sideways. Also, to the fact that the planes hit at the top so what you really had was the top falling on the bottom part causing it to suddenly collapse, the quickest path for that is straight down.

Not to hard to understand if you bother to try, open YOUR mind and use it.

Try and pay attention, the topic is just building 7.

http://wideshut.co.uk/images/host/images/03048598746258124800.gif

I consider it falling as it did by the grace of god because it could have been so much fucking worse if they fell sideways
/bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/22816000/ngbbs4dd884db69924.jpg


BACK ON TOPIC --->

Minus all the (magnificent) conspiracies posted on this thread about WTC 7.

The question that should have been answered earlier --- Why would someone want to fake/manipulate a fake (insurance?) claim on a <~30 million dollar building (non supported evidence, no idea what the building is actually worth).

2,985 people dead for a (relatively) small insurance claim? Or what, they needed new carpet? Explain the reasoning behind this extreme conspiracy so you can make some sense to everyone beside the apparently indisputable facts that you presented to us.

Thanks,
Tyler

There's nothing mysterious about the collapse of WTC 7. Massively damaged by debris from the towers, followed by out of control fires. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8

I do consulting work for Controlled Demolitions when the implode building in South Florida. Mainly interfacing between the various Building Departments and CDI. Since the exact methods of imploding buildings is considered propriety information by the company, it is not given out to the Building Department where it would, in Florida by law, become Public Record.

I go over the CDI plan and then explain to the Building Department in broad terms, what will occur and how the buildings will fall and what the affects on nearby structures may be, if any. Generally ground vibrations and air pressure with occasionally flying debris, mainly from gravel on top of roofs that may break windows.

I was also a rescuer for 10 days at the World Trade Center as a structural specialist, leading the structural engineer team for one of the Urban Search and Rescue teams.

That back ground is for the reader to consider in the following:

There was no implosion of the structures. The air plane strikes were sufficient in an of themselves to take the two towers down, though I admit, I was suppressed when I first heard they fell as I thought they would stand.

The “timing” of the floors falling was due to progressive failure of the ends of the steel joists as the overload from the floors above hit them.

The original cause of the collapse was overloading of the fire protection systems due to a fuel load far greater than anticipated when the building was designed. Planes were smaller back then, and a strike by an airliner was anticipated in the design of the structure.

The other buildings that collapsed were due to flaming debris that fell on their roofs and overwhelmed their fire protection systems. I observed other buildings in the area with these debris and airplane parts on their roofs that did not collapse.

I cannot explain why WTC 7 is said to be reported as having collapsed before it did. I would question the timeline as I am sure it collapsed normally as described above based on my time evaluating the collapse and going over the site with the various rescue responders.

/bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/22816000/ngbbs4dd884db69924.jpg


BACK ON TOPIC --->

Minus all the (magnificent) conspiracies posted on this thread about WTC 7.

The question that should have been answered earlier --- Why would someone want to fake/manipulate a fake (insurance?) claim on a <~30 million dollar building (non supported evidence, no idea what the building is actually worth).

2,985 people dead for a (relatively) small insurance claim? Or what, they needed new carpet? Explain the reasoning behind this extreme conspiracy so you can make some sense to everyone beside the apparently indisputable facts that you presented to us.

Thanks,
Tyler

And what did that have to do with anything?

Try and pay attention, the topic is just building 7.

http://wideshut.co.uk/images/host/images/03048598746258124800.gif

Sorry, my bad. It was late when I posted this.

There was no implosion of the structures. The air plane strikes were sufficient in an of themselves to take the two towers down, though I admit, I was suppressed when I first heard they fell as I thought they would stand.

Actually no.
Both towers took the hit from the planes and stood for a long time thus allowing people to evacuate.
Almost all the people who died were from the actual impacts or were trapped above the fire floors (mainly in WTC 1 where no egress past the impact floors was possible) or were people who were in or around the towers (mainly first responders) trying to help with the evacuations who were killed when the towers fell.


The “timing” of the floors falling was due to progressive failure of the ends of the steel joists as the overload from the floors above hit them.


Yes, the floors were only supported by the Truss Seats and the truss seats could at most hold 6 floors in a dynamic collapse scenario.


The original cause of the collapse was overloading of the fire protection systems due to a fuel load far greater than anticipated when the building was designed.

Not exactly.
The two main causes were that the steel insulation was sprayed on over primed steel (should have been put on bare steel) and much of it was lost when the planes hit and secondly the trusses were not considered structural and so didn't require nearly as robust insulation, but in the WTC design they were in fact responsible for the structural strength of the Exterior columns as they braced them. When the trusses sagged in the fire they pulled in the exterior columns leading to the collapse of the upper floors. The dynamic weight of the top floors impacting on the intact floors below the fire was far in excess of the capacity of the truss seats.


Planes were smaller back then, and a strike by an airliner was anticipated in the design of the structure.

Yes, but they were thinking about a plane in landing configuration lost in the fog, not a fully fueled 767 going ~500 mph. Still the computations they did were only on handling the impact, not on the effect of the fires, and the towers indeed did handle the impact. It was the unsurpressed fires which ultimately brought the damaged towers down.


I cannot explain why WTC 7 is said to be reported as having collapsed before it did. I would question the timeline as I am sure it collapsed normally as described above based on my time evaluating the collapse and going over the site with the various rescue responders.

Nothing more then miscommunication. They had pulled the firefighters back sometime before it went down since they were anticipating that it would (the failure was in stages and as the internals failed the people around there knew it was going to come down).

BBC was not IN ON IT.

Arthur

Evidence required is a set of eyeballs. The building is very obviously demo'd - it free falls all as one piece, collapsing upon itself. This really is a modern litmus test for who can think for themselves.

No it is not very obviously demo'd.

By the way, if you are actually interested in not remaining ignorant about the causes of the collapse then NIST produced an excellent report going into the cause and progression of the failure.

Arthur

No it is not very obviously demo'd.

By the way, if you are actually interested in not remaining ignorant about the causes of the collapse then NIST produced an excellent report going into the cause and progression of the failure.

Arthur

I've read the pile of shit.

I've read the pile of shit.

BS

Show ONE thing wrong with it.

Arthur

Go fuck yerself Arthur you are pointless to talk to on any subject.

Translation:

Since I actually can't point to anything wrong with the NIST report on WTC 7 I'll just cuss and act like I'm indignant for being asked to prove my assertion.

LOL, yeah that works.

Arthur

Could it be that Silverstein was talking about "pulling" the firefighters from the area?



The building burned for 7 hours without any firefighting efforts.



???

Are you an expert in CD? How could you tell the difference between a fire-induced collapse and a CD?
i am no expert on CDs.
i have personally never witnessed any.
i have however viewed quite a few videos of CDs involving different types of stuctures.

I know when I want to covertly demolish a building...I always announce it to the media. Could it be that Silverstein was talking about "pulling" the firefighters from the area?
the statement made by abe silverstien is a reality, he said it.
do not insult everyones intelligence by saying he was referring to removing the firefighters.

If you believe that building 7 was CD'ed, then please answer these questions:
1. Why would they cd a building that no one outside of NY had ever heard of..and why did they wait 7 hours to initiate the collapse?
building 7 was a part of our national security structure, a building that held offices and probably a good deal of sensitive information.
i have no answer for the 7 hour delay (if it happened).

2. Why did they wait for everyone in the building to be evacuated before initiating the charges? (no one died in building 7)
if you can't evacuate in 7 hours then something is wrong.

3. How did they manage to plant the explosive charges in the building without anyone noticing?
not hard to do, probably done when sensitive material was first stored there.

???

It's well documented that there were firefighters in the area, but they weren't in the area for dealing with building 7.

i am no expert on CDs.
i have personally never witnessed any.
i have however viewed quite a few videos of CDs involving different types of stuctures.

So?
Do you think the building should have toppled over?
If so, what do you think would have provided the massive lateral force to make that happen?


the statement made by abe silverstien is a reality, he said it.
do not insult everyones intelligence by saying he was referring to removing the firefighters.

Do not insult everyone's intelligence by saying he was referring to demolishing the building via explosives.


building 7 was a part of our national security structure, a building that held offices and probably a good deal of sensitive information.
i have no answer for the 7 hour delay (if it happened).

No it wasn't.
It was an office building that had some Secret Service offices, CIA offices and NYC emergency management offices, but it clearly wasn't vital to our national security, and more to the point, even if it was, that still doesn't provide a logical reason to blow the building up. To claim that WTC 7 was the objective that day is even more silly.

NIST explains the 7 hour delay, it took that long for the fires burning inside to cause the global collapse.

Try reading the report.



if you can't evacuate in 7 hours then something is wrong.

They evacuated in much less time.


not hard to do, probably done when sensitive material was first stored there.

Oh BS.
Nobody puts CD explosives into a building when it is built and occupied and also expect that all these explosives wouldn't have been noticed all these years.

Arthur

Evidence required is a set of eyeballs. The building is very obviously demo'd - it free falls all as one piece, collapsing upon itself. This really is a modern litmus test for who can think for themselves.

What would you expect for a non-controlled demolition - such as the building collapsing due to damage from falling debris and fire?

Would you expect it to topple over sideways? Or what?

What would you expect for a non-controlled demolition - such as the building collapsing due to damage from falling debris and fire?

Would you expect it to topple over sideways? Or what?

If a building fell over side-ways it would just suggest that there was an even greater flaw in the structural design than initially considered. Buildings to my knowledge first attempt to apply equal and opposite force in relationship to gravity. Namely it deals with standing upright, any cross-bracing or rubber stabilisers are then to deal with other forces that might be applied by winds, earth tremors or aircraft taking a nose dive.

Incidentally the initial WTC "retrofit" of the design to deal with aircraft was for the building being "clipped" by an aircraft, not a purposeful crash.

As for WTC7, as it's already been stated, there was a fire in the building that wasn't dealt with because firefighters were busy elsewhere, on top of that do you know the sorts of tremors created by a collapsing building? You could likely suggest that WTC 1 & 2 likely undermined WTC 7's structural integrity on collapse since it would of likely registered as a lvl 5+ quake in the localised vicinity.

If a building fell over side-ways it would just suggest that there was an even greater flaw in the structural design than initially considered.

Buildings the size of WTC 7 can't fall over sideways.
They have to fall just like they did that day, only with precisely placed and timed CD could you make it slightly fall to one side.


Incidentally the initial WTC "retrofit" of the design to deal with aircraft was for the building being "clipped" by an aircraft, not a purposeful crash.

There was no 'retrofit' they issue came up after the design was complete and the existing design was looked at and the designer said it would handle an impact, but the effects of the fires would be devastating.


As for WTC7, as it's already been stated, there was a fire in the building that wasn't dealt with because firefighters were busy elsewhere,

Not really, it wasn't fought initially because there was no water pressure because the mains in the area were cut by the collapse of the towers. Much later sea water was pumped in from tugs in the Hudson, but couldn't reach the fires high up in WTC 7.


Arthur

In the design of a controlled implosion structural elements are first weakened on the levels to be shot (that have explosives in them). This weakening is done by removing lateral resistance so the building can be toppled in the direction desired. Without weakening the lateral resisting elements, much of the building will not fall as happened in Miami a few years ago. This was not a building imploded by Controlled Demolition but by another firm.

Weakening consists of manually cutting steel in shearwalls and columns and removing the centers of shearwalls, leaving only the amount of structure (with a proper safety factor) for the building to stand under gravity loads and small wind loads.

Generally, the first level is shot and then each third level shot. Large beams and column transfer beams require additional work.

The explosives are set in a series of delays, for instance, the first level is shot, starting from the first columns that in the direction that the building is to fall, then the columns behind it are shot in a series that causes the building to lean toward the fall area.

In addition columns in levels to be shot are tied with cables from the bottom of the first column shot to the top of other columns to the rear to assist in pulling the building in the desired direction.

As the building starts to fall and lean, additional levels are shot, normally in the same sequence described above to further direct the fall as well as minimize the seismic vibrations as multiple levels hit the ground.

If done well, the final pile lays out like a pack of cards and is of a height that can be easily handled by heavy equipment.

What is important to note is that the building is not blown down by explosives but the building tears itself down by gravity forces. Minimal explosives are used. You just “cut its legs off”.

The failures of the various towers of 9/11 were not anything like a purposefully designed demolition.

It would have taken a massive amount of explosives failing proper weakening of the structures first which could not have occurred. In the case of these steel framed buildings, many shape charges would have been required, one on almost every column on at least one level so the building would pancake with out much leaning. The shape charges would have been very large since the web of the steel shapes would not have been weakened as normally done.

Shape charges make a lot of noise. The sound is supersonic. No such sounds were heard in the 9/11 collapses.

All conspiracy theories about 9/11 belong in pseudoscience or the cesspool.

As always, I mean that in the nicest possible way.

Hardalee

In the design of a controlled implosion structural elements are first weakened on the levels to be shot (that have explosives in them). This weakening is done by removing lateral resistance so the building can be toppled in the direction desired. Without weakening the lateral resisting elements, much of the building will not fall as happened in Miami a few years ago. This was not a building imploded by Controlled Demolition but by another firm.

Weakening consists of manually cutting steel in shearwalls and columns and removing the centers of shearwalls, leaving only the amount of structure (with a proper safety factor) for the building to stand under gravity loads and small wind loads.

Generally, the first level is shot and then each third level shot. Large beams and column transfer beams require additional work.

The explosives are set in a series of delays, for instance, the first level is shot, starting from the first columns that in the direction that the building is to fall, then the columns behind it are shot in a series that causes the building to lean toward the fall area.

In addition columns in levels to be shot are tied with cables from the bottom of the first column shot to the top of other columns to the rear to assist in pulling the building in the desired direction.

As the building starts to fall and lean, additional levels are shot, normally in the same sequence described above to further direct the fall as well as minimize the seismic vibrations as multiple levels hit the ground.

If done well, the final pile lays out like a pack of cards and is of a height that can be easily handled by heavy equipment.

What is important to note is that the building is not blown down by explosives but the building tears itself down by gravity forces. Minimal explosives are used. You just “cut its legs off”.

The failures of the various towers of 9/11 were not anything like a purposefully designed demolition.

Indeed.
Another thing to keep in mind is what it would have taken, in manpower, explosives and detcord to do a CD on a building the size of the WTC.

The tallest building done with CD was 1/3 as tall as the WTC, and yet the columns in that building were larger than could be cut with shaped charges.

A description of what it took is informative:


Double column rows installed in the structure between vertical construction phases, internal brick shear walls, x-bracing, 70 elevators and 10 stairwells created an extremely stiff frame. Columns weighing over 500 lb/ft, having up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 inch thick webs, defied commercially available shaped charge technology. CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel. CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties.

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/jl-hudson-department-store


It would have taken a massive amount of explosives failing proper weakening of the structures first which could not have occurred. In the case of these steel framed buildings, many shape charges would have been required, one on almost every column on at least one level so the building would pancake with out much leaning. The shape charges would have been very large since the web of the steel shapes would not have been weakened as normally done.

Shape charges make a lot of noise. The sound is supersonic. No such sounds were heard in the 9/11 collapses.

Again, Indeed.

Here is the Video of the Hudson going down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP1HJoG-1Pg

And here is a video of a tower more like the WTC in design (only 30 stories and at 390 ft, not as tall as the Hudson)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U


All conspiracy theories about 9/11 belong in pseudoscience or the cesspool.

As always, I mean that in the nicest possible way.

Hardalee

You're much more tolerant than I am.
I don't think anyone who actually looks into it could believe that CD was involved and so I tend to think that they are purposefully spreading disinformation.

Arthur

For anyone who is would like to know more about real demolitions of buildings, I suggest the following link:

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheLoizeauxGroupLLC?feature=mhum#p/u/0/-TARNVwF7Yg

The animated gif on the last page does not show the entire collapse...which began with east mechanical penthouse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus#t=10s

Which corresponds with the collapse of column #79:

http://sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4400&stc=1&d=1318256369

For those who were not aware...WTC7 had a unique construction because it was build over a Con-ed power station. It was these long-span columns that were the first to fail.

The animated gif on the last page does not show the entire collapse...which began with east mechanical penthouse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus#t=10s

Which corresponds with the collapse of column #79:

http://sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4400&stc=1&d=1318256369

Oh god, the comments....
I think YouTube comments are only rivaled by the Rants and Raves section of Craigslist when it comes to the lowest common denominator of the internet.

Henlon's Razor explains all of this. There, end of stupid thread.

What would you expect for a non-controlled demolition - such as the building collapsing due to damage from falling debris and fire?

Would you expect it to topple over sideways? Or what?

I would expect it to partially collapse..at the most, in fact not collapse at all, since that's what usually happens. These are the only 3 buildings to collapse from fire.

THis building burned for almost 24 hours:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/TorreWindsor1.JPG/200px-TorreWindsor1.JPG

This Building burned longer than either WTC1 or 2 and is fully repaired.

http://en.epochtimes.com/news_images/2007-8-14-fire-three.jpg

Love Mac's vid - Shows the two main outside columns getting taken out so the building falls inward on itself.

The building in the first pic is the Windsor Tower. The part of the building that was an all steel contruction collapsed...just like WTC 7....the part that was concrete and steel survived.

I'm not sure of the second building...what is that NF?

Have you ever watch a building being prepped for a controlled demolition? All the support columns are laid bare and the explosive attached and wired. Nobody noticed this going on? It was done by Ninja demolitions experts? They had the ability to cloud men's minds, not to mention the security cameras?

I don't get the planes flying into the buildings ? Was that a decoy then ? I believed the structural reports from the engineers my self . There was building flaws that caused the collapse. It was not built to take the weight of it self once momentum started . Gave it that demo job look because of it . You got to consider buildings are mainly space . They are the shell around space

I don't get the planes flying into the buildings ? Was that a decoy then ? I believed the structural reports from the engineers my self . There was building flaws that caused the collapse. It was not built to take the weight of it self once momentum started . Gave it that demo job look because of it . You got to consider buildings are mainly space . They are the shell around space

Me, we're talking about WTC building 7. No plane flew into 7.

I don't get the planes flying into the buildings ? Was that a decoy then ? I believed the structural reports from the engineers my self . There was building flaws that caused the collapse. It was not built to take the weight of it self once momentum started . Gave it that demo job look because of it . You got to consider buildings are mainly space . They are the shell around space

Me, there are some 9/11 truthers that believe NO PLANES hit the towers, they are divided into 3 groups. The planes were holograms, the planes were "video fakery" and were only on the videos...and the "space beamers" that believe an directed energy weapon "dustified" (their term) the towers.

While this thread is about WTC7...if you want to start a new thread about the twin towers, I'd be happy to explain it to you there.

I would expect it to partially collapse..at the most, in fact not collapse at all, since that's what usually happens. These are the only 3 buildings to collapse from fire.


Except each building design is totally unique.

How can you say because Design A, B or C didn't fail in a fire that design D shouldn't fail?

Arthur

For anyone who is would like to know more about real demolitions of buildings, I suggest the following link:

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheLoizeauxGroupLLC?feature=mhum#p/u/0/-TARNVwF7Yg

That is all a work of art my friend . I have taken a few building down . Not with explosives but enough to know what structural members it takes to be taken out for the collapse to happen. Fun really . Demo is fun . I pulled one down with my truck one time too . Poor neighbor kids had all there toys jammed in the building too. It was there hide out . They came home from school screaming " My toys My toys You bastard whads you do with my toys. I was not that popular with the kids in the trailer park that month . I can still hear them Screaming " My toys you Bastard " No wonder the world hates us that make mountains flat and rivers change there course . You engineers are in my boat so don't think you are innocent. It is your fault just as much as mine

I don't care if it's possible that it could fail by fire even, the fire raged on one side of the building mostly and they want me to believe it could take the whole building down at close to terminal velocity. Pack of lies.

For anyone who is would like to know more about real demolitions of buildings, I suggest the following link:

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheLoizeauxGroupLLC?feature=mhum#p/u/0/-TARNVwF7Yg

Posts like yours are a demonstration of why this section is of value.
Countering misinformation with hard fact.

I would expect it to partially collapse..at the most, in fact not collapse at all, since that's what usually happens.

What about the extensive structural damage due to building 7 being hit by debris from the collapse of towers 1 and 2?

What about the extensive structural damage due to building 7 being hit by debris from the collapse of towers 1 and 2?

Ya that would have been more believable if they Demo'd the building at that moment.

What about the extensive structural damage due to building 7 being hit by debris from the collapse of towers 1 and 2?

From what I understand, James....NIST concluded that the damage from the impact did not have a significant contribution to the collapse.

What does it mean that it's an anomaly? Should things always act as predicted? This is reality, shit happens.

NF, would you mind telling me what building that is in the second pic you posted...I'm not familiar with it.

China's Tallest building. World Financial Center.

What does it mean that it's an anomaly? Should things always act as predicted? This is reality, shit happens.

Well..I started this thread for another member to discuss the events of WTC7...I chose the word "anomalies" just to be as diplomatic as possible. That member has since chosen to avoid this discussion.

Woot!! I just broke 6000 posts...someone buy me a beer!

China's Tallest building. World Financial Center.


A fire broke out in the SWFC on 14 August 2007. The fire was first noticed on the 40th floor, around 16:30 (GMT +8), and soon the smoke was clearly seen outside the building. By 17:45, the fire had been extinguished. The damage was reported to be slight and nobody was injured in this accident.[13] The cause of the fire is still unknown, but according to some sources the preliminary investigation suggested workers' electric weldings caused the fire

So the fire burned for an hour and 15 minutes, and was fought by firefighters and caused "slight" damage. The WTC7 burned for 7 hours and was not fought....how do these two examples compare?

Hard to compare, true. Fire can be kinda random no? You guys are all really convinced that fire took out all of WTC7 main support structures at exactly the same time...amazing.

Hard to compare, true. Fire can be kinda random no? You guys are all really convinced that fire took out all of WTC7 main support structures at exactly the same time...amazing.

It didn't need to. As each of the columns failed, they transferred their loads to the surrounding columns. When enough of the columns failed, they imparted a load greater than the breaking strength of the remaining columns..which caused them fail all at once. No explosives or "nanothermite" required.

wtf is nanothermite.

Ummm problem : then it doesn't come down all in one piece. Someone was so generous to link us to some "real" demos where they take out sections of a building and they just slide right off until the next section gets ignited.

If you mean to tell me they made this building to fail(instantly) completely if any main beam failed, then I guess our conversation ends there...

I love how people with absolutely no training in demolitions, metallurgy, or physics think that their idle speculations are on par with the experts on these things. The bits about thermite, or nanothermite as they now love to claim, are always priceless.

Who brought up nanothermite goof?

wtf is nanothermite.

Ummm problem : then it doesn't come down all in one piece. Someone was so generous to link us to some "real" demos where they take out sections of a building and they just slide right off until the next section gets ignited.

If you mean to tell me they made this building to fail(instantly) completely if any main beam failed, then I guess our conversation ends there...

First...nanothermite. Back in the early days of 9/11 truth the truthers claimed that conventional explosives were used to bring down the 3 buildings at wtc. The only problem, as debunkers pointed out..was that conventional explosives make REALLY BIG EXPLOSIVE SOUNDS. The truthers really didn't have a way to explain this so they switched their theory to thermite (a combination of aluminum powder and iron oxide). When the debunkers showed that conventional thermite didn't react quickly enough or had enough energy to cut the columns...the truthers then changed their theory once again to nanothermite...thermite that has the particles at nano-meter scale...a substance that is pretty much unknown except in a few experimental laboratories. With this new substance they could claim anything...that it's both a incendiary and an explosive.

As you pointed out...most CD's do not bring the entire building down all at once. The building is brought down in stages to get the debris to fall where they want it. I don't think the evil perps that CD an empty building for no apparent reason would have considered this.

Ummm problem : then it doesn't come down all in one piece. Someone was so generous to link us to some "real" demos where they take out sections of a building and they just slide right off until the next section gets ignited.

Does your education in demolition of large office buildings consist of anything more than watching youtube videos (and particularly, youtube videos about 9/11 conspiracy theories)?

If not, why should anyone care about your opinion of what a video of WTC 7's collapse looks like?

I note that a central thrust of most 9/11 conspiracy theory material is a certain catering to the reader/viewer's ego - specifically, the implication that the dynamics of modern office building collapse under fire/kinetic damage is amenable to amateur analysis of photos and videos, and that actual experts with advanced degrees and years of real field experience don't know anything that some shmoe watching youtube can't learn in under 30 seconds. It's preposterous on its face, but one will never go broke playing to the egos of conspiracy theorists. Or, you might go broke, but it won't be for lack of an audience.

The Loose Change "documentary" was where this really jumped out at me - the idea that we can't trust all these independent experts, but somehow a layman watching youtube is going to learn enough about thermite and skyscraper dynamics in one hour to venture a meaningful opinion on mechanisms of structural failure from selectively-edited photos and videos. It's crazy, but it flatters the viewer's ego (also by telling them that they're in on a "secret" and so in some kind of information/intellectual elite).

The other leg that conspiracy theories walk on being the need to see the world as a controlled, predictable place. The idea that a few dozen shitheads in caves on the other end of the world could destroy the Twin Towers is terrifying in a way that a massive government conspiracy is not. It suggests that the idea of an ordered, controlled world is simply an illusion, and that we could all just suddenly descend into madness, barbarity and deprivation on a massive scale at any time. That we're subject to mere chaos and chance. Many people prefer to believe that governments (and specifically, the US government) completely control all aspects of life and business and everything else. Even if they are posited as malign, there is still comfort in the idea that events are controlled and planned - that our lives are governed by some powerful intellect.

And there ^^^ you have it.

Good post quadraphonics.

I loved that whole post Quad, but especially this bit:

The other leg that conspiracy theories walk on being the need to see the world as a controlled, predictable place. The idea that a few dozen shitheads in caves on the other end of the world could destroy the Twin Towers is terrifying in a way that a massive government conspiracy is not. It suggests that the idea of an ordered, controlled world is simply an illusion, and that we could all just suddenly descend into madness, barbarity and deprivation on a massive scale at any time. That we're subject to mere chaos and chance. Many people prefer to believe that governments (and specifically, the US government) completely control all aspects of life and business and everything else. Even if they are posited as malign, there is still comfort in the idea that events are controlled and planned - that our lives are governed by some powerful intellect.
So then... Conspiracy theories are the result of Cognitive Dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)

I don't really care if anyone thinks I'm a loon. Guess what, I've got nothing to loose here, I get to speak my mind. I haven't actually watched a lot of conspiracy videos (except some about WTC 7 which jumped out at me on it's own).

I got a set of eyeballs I calls em, like I sees em. I don't think fire brings down any building like that, I think the report lied. I could be wrong sure. It doesn't matter and that is true.

I notice the people going with the official story on WTC7 keep trying to bring in all the other B.S about sept 11. I am not doing that...I have no idea if that stuff is true or not. I know WTC 7 did not go down from fire. I have eyeballs.

I don't really care if anyone thinks I'm a loon. Guess what, I've got nothing to loose here, I get to speak my mind. I haven't actually watched a lot of conspiracy videos (except some about WTC 7 which jumped out at me on it's own).

I got a set of eyeballs I calls em, like I sees em. I don't think fire brings down any building like that, I think the report lied. I could be wrong sure. It doesn't matter and that is true.

Well...no offence NF..that is called cognitive dissonance. Even though you have no experience...you rely on your untrained eyes...rather than science to influence what you think brought down WTC7.

I think the report lied.

Have you actually read it?

Yes In this case I will.

Yes In this case I will.

Well..then by all means...fell free to be wrong. :)

It doesn't matter if I am right or wrong.

Have you ever looked at the NIS:T report on WTC 7?

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm
Yeah. Ha Ha, very good. Nice hypothesis. I suppose a classically trained aerodynamics engineer could come up with a convincing argument why flying pigs should exist too without being held to standards of evidence and rational physics.

That was a convincing conspiracy theory. Thanks for the entertaining read. :p


However, NIST’s WTC 7 investigation did follow the core tenet of NFPA 921, which is the application of the scientific method. The investigation was carefully planned, sources of information were identified and contacted, the building fire and collapse event and the investigation were documented, available evidence was obtained (including documents about the design and construction of the structure), and the origin of the fire was determined based on images, laboratory testing (conducted for the towers, but applicable to WTC 7), and mathematical analyses.

Additionally, in its study of WTC 7, NIST considered all available data and evaluated a range of possible collapse mechanisms: uncontrolled fires on the tenant floors, fuel oil fires, hypothetical blast events, and fires within the Con Ed substation. NIST developed a working hypothesis, modeled the fires and the building, and then used the models to test the hypothesis against the observed behavior of the building. This approach is fully consistent with the principles of scientific inquiry.

Well. . . except for two glaring items that even my nine year old can detect and point out. And his favorite subject in school is science.

First, at no time in history, before or since, has any modern steel frame structure ever collapsed because of office fires. This is a fact. Engineers and architects are well trained and competent in their trade, and have for decades designed buildings such as these to withstand the ravages of earthquakes, fires, planes, natural disasters, etc. When they do succumb to nature, their collapse is asymmetrical, not symmetrical. A student of nature and the universe knows this. Just one other example besides this building exhibiting this type of behavior during a fire with resulting similar collapse would make this NIST report a reasonable hypothesis. Otherwise, it is as reliable as the bibles "theory" of creation.

Second, they wrote, "Additionally, in its study of WTC 7, NIST considered all available data and evaluated a range of possible collapse mechanisms," which is in fact. . . untrue! They failed to investigate the most glaringly bloody obvious, didn't they? Um. . . controlled demolition? Simply, they failed to look at how the building fell, the classic signs of controlled demolition and adhered to Occam's razor. Why didn't they look for signs of controlled demolition? Because, they already assumed, (or were told) that was impossible.

It doesn't matter if I am right or wrong.

Then stop arguing that the WTC7 was demolished by the US government rather than a victim of a 7 hour unfought fire.

US Government? Why would I think that...some Jew Property owner made billions from it's demise.

US Government? Why would I think that...some Jew Property owner made billions from it's demise.


Ohh...so you're a Zionist did it kinda of guy. Yeah them fucking Jews..they are the root of all evil.

Ohh...so you're a Zionist did it kinda of guy. Yeah them fucking Jews..they are the root of all evil.

They brought it down with their jew rays.

They brought it down with their jew rays.

Yeah..so the Jews convinced our government to allow the killing of 3000 of our own citizen for what?

Fuck you NF you anti-Semite piece of shit!!

The failures of the various towers of 9/11 were not anything like a purposefully designed demolition.

It would have taken a massive amount of explosives failing proper weakening of the structures first which could not have occurred. In the case of these steel framed buildings, many shape charges would have been required, one on almost every column on at least one level so the building would pancake with out much leaning. The shape charges would have been very large since the web of the steel shapes would not have been weakened as normally done.
Yes. Simple office fires would suffice much easier. . .


Shape charges make a lot of noise. The sound is supersonic. No such sounds were heard in the 9/11 collapses.

Hogwash. There are plenty of eyewitness accounts of such.

Second, they wrote, "Additionally, in its study of WTC 7, NIST considered all available data and evaluated a range of possible collapse mechanisms," which is in fact. . . untrue! They failed to investigate the most glaringly bloody obvious, didn't they? Um. . . controlled demolition? Simply, they failed to look at how the building fell, the classic signs of controlled demolition and adhered to Occam's razor. Why didn't they look for signs of controlled demolition? Because, they already assumed, (or were told) that was impossible.
From the excerpt you quoted:

"...hypothetical blast events..."

If not CD, then what?

Yeah..so the Jews convinced our government to allow the killing of 3000 of our own citizen for what?

Fuck you NF you anti-Semite piece of shit!!

What are you, a Mossad agent? No need to be nasty now. I think he has hit a nerve? :rolleyes:

You needn't resort to Ad hominem attacks just because he knows the truth and your efforts to ridicule people into silence and obfuscate the truth is preposterously silly. One needn't be an, "anti-Semite" to call a spade a spade.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck, by god, an intelligent person calls it a duck. Shit boy. No reason to fly off the handle with a foul mouth when the cards are laid on the table and it's found out that there isn't anything in your hand but a bluff. You lost, now walk away.

What are you, a Mossad agent? No need to be nasty now. I think he has hit a nerve? :rolleyes:

You needn't resort to Ad hominem attacks just because he knows the truth and your efforts to ridicule people into silence and obfuscate the truth is preposterously silly. One needn't be an, "anti-Semite" to call a spade a spade.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck, by god, an intelligent person calls it a duck. Shit boy. No reason to fly off the handle with a foul mouth when the cards are laid on the table and it's found out that there isn't anything in your hand but a bluff. You lost, now walk away.

Sorry...that's what drinking will do. I apologize to NF for my rash accusations. That doesn't mean I lost...just lost my cool. Please feel free to present evidence that what I'm saying is untrue.

back to topic.

check out the work of this group of architects and structure engineers (or so they claim):

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html

From the excerpt you quoted:

"...hypothetical blast events..."

If not CD, then what?


19. Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?

No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines—or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors—could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.

As background information, the three systems contained two 12,000-gallon fuel tanks, and two 6,000-gallon tanks beneath the building's loading docks, and a single 6,000-gallon tank on the 1st floor. In addition, one system used a 275-gallon tank on the 5th floor, a 275-gallon tank on the 8th floor, and a 50-gallon tank on the 9th floor. Another system used a 275-gallon day tank on the 7th floor.

Several months after the WTC 7 collapse, a contractor recovered an estimated 23,000 gallons of fuel from these tanks. NIST estimated that the unaccounted fuel totaled 1,000 ± 1,000 gallons of fuel (in other words, somewhere between 0 and 2,000 gallons, with approximately 1,000 gallons as the most likely figure).

The fate of the fuel in the day tanks and the two 6,000-gallon tanks was unknown, so NIST assumed they were full on Sept. 11, 2001.

I have done a lot of research on this topic. I read an analysis, or saw an interview of someone who did research on this NIST report and submitted questions on the methodology, as well as the political and corporate interests that were behind the drafting of the report. There were no investigations or attempts to gather evidence looking into whether or not explosives may have been used to collapse the building. The question was never even considered as a possibility.

I have done a lot of research on this topic. I read an analysis, or saw an interview of someone who did research on this NIST report and submitted questions on the methodology, as well as the political and corporate interests that were behind the drafting of the report. There were no investigations or attempts to gather evidence looking into whether or not explosives may have been used to collapse the building. The question was never even considered as a possibility.

Then why didn't any of the cadaver dogs that were cross-trained in explosive training hit on any explosives?

Then stop arguing that the WTC7 was demolished by the US government rather than a victim of a 7 hour unfought fire.
why?
it probably was.
for good reason.
most will take that as the entire 911 scenario was a conspiracy, which of course it wasn't.
anybody with any sense at all cannot brush aside that building 7 was demo'd
the comment by silverstein, the way it fell.
911 happened as per the official story, except 7.
- my 2 cents.

I have done a lot of research on this topic. I read an analysis, or saw an interview of someone who did research on this NIST report and submitted questions on the methodology, as well as the political and corporate interests that were behind the drafting of the report. There were no investigations or attempts to gather evidence looking into whether or not explosives may have been used to collapse the building. The question was never even considered as a possibility.

That portion you quoted doesn't actually answer my question - unless you're trying to assert that the blast events mentioned in the portion you quoted here:
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2836400&postcount=79

Additionally, in its study of WTC 7, NIST considered all available data and evaluated a range of possible collapse mechanisms: uncontrolled fires on the tenant floors, fuel oil fires, HYPOTHETICAL BLAST EVENTS, and fires within the Con Ed substation. NIST developed a working hypothesis, modeled the fires and the building, and then used the models to test the hypothesis against the observed behavior of the building. This approach is fully consistent with the principles of scientific inquiry.
(Emphasis added by me)
Is in relation to the diesel tanks in the building (as opposed to the fuel oil fires mentioned seperately and before hand).

Then why didn't any of the cadaver dogs that were cross-trained in explosive training hit on any explosives?
Oh really? I've never heard that. Please reference me?

US Government? Why would I think that...some Jew Property owner made billions from it's demise.

Agreed. The whole thing stinks to high heaven and is pretty shady if you ask me.

Israeli Spyring (http://100777.com/usa/israeli_spyring)


Fox News, alone of all the media, actually ran the story as a four part broadcast, and put the story up on its web site. Then, without explanation, Fox News erased the story from their web site and have never mentioned it again.


Fox News has learned that one group of Israelis, spotted in North Carolina recently, is suspected of keeping an apartment in California to spy on a group of Arabs who the United States is also investigating for links to terrorism. Numerous classified documents obtained by Fox News indicate that even prior to September 11, as many as 140 other Israelis had been detained or arrested in a secretive and sprawling investigation into suspected espionage by Israelis in the United States.

Investigators from numerous government agencies are part of a working group that's been compiling evidence since the mid '90s. These documents detail hundreds of incidents in cities and towns across the country that investigators say, "may well be an organized intelligence gathering activity."

The first part of the investigation focuses on Israelis who say they are art students from the University of Jerusalem and Bazala Academy. They repeatedly made contact with U.S. government personnel, the report says, by saying they wanted to sell cheap art or handiwork.

Documents say they, "targeted and penetrated military bases." The DEA, FBI and dozens of government facilities, and even secret offices and unlisted private homes of law enforcement and intelligence personnel. The majority of those questioned, "stated they served in military intelligence, electronic surveillance intercept and or explosive ordinance units."

The report just goes on and on. . .

This documentary isn't flashy, or entertaining. In fact, it's just a lecture of facts. But yeah, if you wonder why 9/11 truth shit is so. . . well, yeah, you get the picture. . . here's why.

“The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”
― Vladimir Lenin

Missing Links (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7877765982288566190)
Did you know it used to be against the law to be a duel citizen? Well, until a Jewish Judge ruled that it was ok for Israeli citizens to be both US nationals and Israeli nationals. Then it was ok for them to partake in US government. . . Before that, the Mexican nationals in this country had to choose, either Mexico, or the US, not both.

Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9/11 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw)

In point of fact, there is nothing wrong with Jewish people, or Israelis. I have made many fine friends of them both. But the Zionist criminal Mafia out of Israel that runs the Mossad is as bad as neo-con elements that run the CIA, NSA and other black elements in the states. All peoples and cultures have the dirty little beliefs and secrets that are toxic to the global peace and culture.

Ohh...so you're a Zionist did it kinda of guy. Yeah them fucking Jews..they are the root of all evil.

Rev 3:9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars--I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.

Yes, evil Jews who are indeed mentioned the end of time.

Rev 3:9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars--I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.

Yes, evil Jews who are indeed mentioned the end of time.

What, they did it to the Christians, then the Romans, then the Atheists and Scientists, then the Germans, next it'll be the Americans, Russians and Chinese in quick succession in order to rule the world?

Nah, people are people. Some good, some bad. It depends on the choices they make, what they choose their reality to be and what is in their heart. Love, or fear. It isn't the end, just a shift, a different sort of renaissance. What kind and when? It will depend on just how much pain, imprisonment, lies, obfuscation, and lack of freedom the average of collective humanity is willing to take from it's patriarchal control paradigm. Dogmatic ancient scriptures and "religious leaders" which prevent the liberation of the individual spirit from this divisive and violent control paradigm certainly isn't helping the situation.

After all, what did the largely christian west blame the incident on? Islamic fundamentalists. The west funded and encouraged this movement and dogma during the 70's, 80' and 90's and were the ones that even made this explanation believable. They could have done the same thing with any fundamentalist group when they knew they were going to need some world wide terror threat to combat in order to take the place of communism. This group was just the obvious choice due to its opposition of established Arab vassal states of the west and the illegal creation of Israel.

This is really a weird thread. A discussion about some ignorant misguided zelot muslims crashing planes into building somehow morphs into an anti-semetic rant.:shrug:

This is really a weird thread. A discussion about some ignorant misguided zelot muslims crashing planes into building somehow morphs into an anti-semetic rant.:shrug:
http://wideshut.co.uk/images/host/images/03048598746258124800.gif
What plane?
What misguided zealot Muslims?
I don't think you have very good reading comprehension. :bugeye:

Here is what I don't get about the logic/logistics of the "fill buildings with explosives" crew:

1. What if the planes don't make it to the buildings? Then you blow them up anyway?
2. Why not just blow them up anyway, specially when full of people? Why do you need planes if the damage is done by explosives?? You could blame whoever you want later or fabricate fake evidence in a much simpler and cheaper way than training 20 arabs to fly...
3. What if Building 7 had no damage at all? Blow it up anyway? So was it sheer luck on the behalf of the conspirators that the building got at least some damage, or that damage was planned too?

You see, conspirators can not explain these with at least a decent cover story. And every good conspiracy need an at least half plausible cover story...

P.S.: In the Twin Towers on any given workday there were 50K people. Compared to that, losing only 3K is actually a fail for the "fill buildings with explosives" conspirators...

I have done a lot of research on this topic. I read an analysis, or saw an interview of someone who did research on this NIST report and submitted questions on the methodology, as well as the political and corporate interests that were behind the drafting of the report. There were no investigations or attempts to gather evidence looking into whether or not explosives may have been used to collapse the building. The question was never even considered as a possibility.

Then your research stinks.

In the NIST report they specifially mention modeling blasts to see if a blast event was possible (meaning consistent with the video evidence).

It was not.

Indeed, they pointed out that the SMALLEST blast capable of failing a single critical column would produce a sound of 130-140 DB at a half mile and no such blasts were reported or recorded in any of the audio tracks of any of the videos.

Arthur

Yes. Simple office fires would suffice much easier. . .

Indeed.
Simple office fires release an incredible amount of heat.
Which is why office towers have sprinkler systems.
Except they didn't work in WTC 7 that day because all the floors up to 21 were fed from the mains that broke when WTC 1 came down.

WTC collapsed because if a fire burns long enough (as it did in WTC 7) it exceeds the protective abilities of the insulation and causes metal to EXPAND.

What they found out was that there was significant magnification of these thermal expansion effects because of the long spans that many of the beams covered and that beam/girder connections that were designed to handle gravity loads weren't able to handle the lateral forces applied by the thermal expansion.

Of course if you had done any actual research you would know these simple facts.


Hogwash. There are plenty of eyewitness accounts of such.

Not supersonic shock waves of the intensity needed to fail a critical column.
ZIP were recorded before WTC 7 failed and that whole thing was recorded.

Arthur

...If you mean to tell me they made this building to fail(instantly) completely if any main beam failed, then I guess our conversation ends there...

Most buildings are like that. Look at the Oklahoma City bombing. The bomb just took out some important columns on the front of the building and the whole face of it collapsed.

Sorry...that's what drinking will do. I apologize to NF for my rash accusations.

Why apologize?

What you said about NF was spot on.

Clearly he believes that we should accept that the property owner would sanction this because he is Jewish.

Arthur

First, at no time in history, before or since, has any modern steel frame structure ever collapsed because of office fires.

BS, the steel framed top of the Madrid towers collapsed.

What you leave out in your little "before or since" is that all other steel frame office fires were surpressed by sprinklers and hoses and eventually put out.

No other tall steel building (except the top of Madrid) has ever been allowed to burn for 7 hours with absolutely no sprinlers and no external attempt to fight the fires.

Arthur

BS, the steel framed top of the Madrid towers collapsed.

What you leave out in your little "before or since" is that all other steel frame office fires were surpressed by sprinklers and hoses and eventually put out.

No other tall steel building (except the top of Madrid) has ever been allowed to burn for 7 hours with absolutely no sprinlers and no external attempt to fight the fires.

Arthur

And those that weren't did, indeed, collapse, but truthers ignore those examples with statementes like "But it didn't collapse completely", or "But the report says the steel was faulty" and so on and so forth.

There's one example i've seen of a steel framed structure collapsing in less than an hour as a result of an electrical fire.

The fire departments were a little busy with more important things than saving WTC 7.

In order to implode a building without weakening its structural elements first, in basically a pancake type failure, it would be necessary to do the following:

1. Set the explosives on most if not all structural elements of an upper floor, maybe 5 or 6 stories below top so the weight of the collapsing floors would break the connections of the floors below.
2. Fire all explosives at the same time so as not to produce leaning. This requires wiring of the explosives to go though hallways, etc. and to be timed precisely. Electrical detonation would be necessary or many explosive lines used.
3. Explosives would have to be very large as the structural elements could not be exposed and you would have to shoot through finishes.

4. Explosives would have to be placed properly not just to cut through the flanges of the members, but to cut through the webs also.

This would produce a very unique blast signature, blowing out an upper floor before the rest of the building collapsed. This did not occur on WTC 7.

My question to conspiracy theorists is, how could this have been done?

I’m willing to work with you on this. Any ideas? I’ll help with the design, but I cannot think of any way to do it without it being noticed.

And of course, blowing up building 7 even though no plane would hit it wouldn't attract any suspicion at all. Good plan.

And of course, blowing up building 7 even though no plane would hit it wouldn't attract any suspicion at all. Good plan.

Good point.

I got a set of eyeballs I calls em, like I sees em.

True enough - but it seems that you also have an unwarranted level of confidence in your ability to discern mechanisms of structural failure from using your eyeballs on clips of video.

I dunno - the premise that it should be obvious to any layman how that building failed, just from watching a video, seems to me to be obviously wrong on its face.

If it's so clear, then where is the plausible alternative explanation?

And of course, blowing up building 7 even though no plane would hit it wouldn't attract any suspicion at all. Good plan.

Nor serve any discernable purpose.

Most buildings are like that. Look at the Oklahoma City bombing. The bomb just took out some important columns on the front of the building and the whole face of it collapsed.

Thanks for making my point. A) explosion B) half the building still standing.

I forget the terminology, but it's a well known principle in architecture, there are usually a few key elements which, if they fail, the whole thing will go down.

Nor serve any discernable purpose.

$861 million reasons.

I haven't kept up with all the WTC 7 theories, but have any other buildings the same distance from the the two towers shown any effects which could lead to them collapsing the same way? Or is there a time limit for the kind of collateral damages that leads to the building sinking to the floor like that?

Sorry - some were torn down later...

Many of the surrounding buildings were also either damaged or destroyed as the towers fell. 5 WTC suffered a large fire and a partial collapse of its steel structure. Other buildings destroyed include St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, Marriott World Trade Center (Marriott Hotel 3 WTC), South Plaza (4 WTC), and U.S. Customs (6 WTC). The World Financial Center buildings, 90 West Street, and 130 Cedar Street suffered fires. The Deutsche Bank Building, the Verizon Building, and World Financial Center 3 suffered impact damage from the towers' collapse, as did 90 West Street. One Liberty Plaza survived structurally intact but sustained surface damage including shattered windows. 30 West Broadway was damaged by the collapse of 7 WTC. The Deutsche Bank Building, which was covered in a large black "shroud" after September 11 to cover the building's damage, was deconstructed because of water, mold, and other severe damage caused by the neighboring towers' collapse.[78][79]

So what caused the damage to WTC 7? Fire?

Some impact damage (minor to speak of when talking about collapse) and yes Fire. Interesting WTC 5 suffered partial collapse from fire...

Thanks for making my point. A) explosion B) half the building still standing.

I see, so any explosion should always do the same damage to any building involved? Do you have any appreciation for the unpredictable nature of catastrophic damage?

Some impact damage (minor to speak of when talking about collapse) and yes Fire. Interesting WTC 5 suffered partial collapse from fire...

Yeah of the upper floors. One of the common mistakes people make in these theories is to study every aspect in isolation. But there is more than one aspect here, the two towers falling, the physical impact of the destruction and fire. The whole is often more than the sum of the parts

$861 million reasons.

So your theory is that the building was intentionally destroyed for the insurance pay-off?

Given that such involves losing a building worth that much to begin with, and also running a huge risk of getting caught and imprisoned, I'm not seeing how that adds up to an incentive.

i believe building 7 was demo'd to protect what was inside it.

i believe building 7 was demo'd to protect what was inside it.

Funny way of "protecting" something.

Unless of course that something was secrets.

In which case, what were they and how could we know that they were actually there (since they were putatively destroyed "protected" by the collapse)?

So your theory is that the building was intentionally destroyed for the insurance pay-off?

Given that such involves losing a building worth that much to begin with, and also running a huge risk of getting caught and imprisoned, I'm not seeing how that adds up to an incentive.

Right because that stops everyone from committing a crime right? 400 Million was owed on the building and now Silverstein owns the new WTC 7 outright.

Also, I've not seen the "owners" of the U.S really go to jail even when they are caught committing crimes or even treason.

Funny way of "protecting" something.

Unless of course that something was secrets.

In which case, what were they and how could we know that they were actually there (since they were putatively destroyed "protected" by the collapse)?

There are some really stupid people here disguised as smart. We wouldn't know about them, because they're secret, and we wouldn't know because they're, again, secret. Why are they secret? See NWO thread.

There are some really stupid people here disguised as smart. We wouldn't know about them, because they're secret, and we wouldn't know because they're, again, secret. Why are they secret? See NWO thread.

This is circular - you've got a self-sealing premise that is impervious to reason or fact.

This is circular - you've got a self-sealing premise that is impervious to reason or fact.

Is that good or bad, im not much of a scholar.

EDIT: I see, I need a conclusive statement to be critqued... here it goes, were all fucked unless we do something bout it.

Right because that stops everyone from committing a crime right?

Massive risks and expenditures that exceed the payoff are usually reliable deterrents against highly-planned crimes-for-profit by wealthy people, yeah. Since they incur risk and are losing bets, and the supposed perpetrators have all kinds of risk-free ways of making tons of money legally.



400 Million was owed on the building and now Silverstein owns the new WTC 7 outright.

My understanding is that he still has ~ $400 million in outstanding bonds to pay off on the new one, but I'd love to see your source on this.

Even if it were true, it kind of ignores the point that Silverstein lost tons of rents during the time between 9/11 and when the new building opened - probably more than $400 million worth, from what I can tell.



Also, I've not seen the "owners" of the U.S really go to jail even when they are caught committing crimes or even treason.

Bernie Madoff is in jail. Jack Abramoff is in jail. Randy "Duke" Cunningham is in jail. Etc. Maybe you just don't really pay attention, and instead substitute whatever perception is convenient for your worldview.

Is that good or bad,

It's bad.

It's bad.

Care to explain mr. quadrphonics?

Bernie Madoff is in jail. Jack Abramoff is in jail. Randy "Duke" Cunningham is in jail. Etc. Maybe you just don't really pay attention, and instead substitute whatever perception is convenient for your worldview.

Whatever, perhaps they fell out of favor or were too small fish.

Industrialists and Wealthy men are not above such activity, I don't know why people think people at the top never do bad things just because...well hell if I know...nothing ever changes with power lust. It's the same as it was 2000 years ago.


Allegations of the Business Plot

In November 1934, Butler alleged the existence of a political conspiracy of Wall Street interests to overthrow President Roosevelt, a series of allegations that came to be known in the media as the Business Plot.[53][54] A special committee of the House of Representatives headed by Representatives John W. McCormack of Massachusetts and Samuel Dickstein of New York, who was later alleged to have been a paid agent of the NKVD,[55] heard his testimony in secret.[56] The McCormack-Dickstein committee was a precursor to the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

In November 1934, Butler told the committee that a group of businessmen, saying they were backed by a private army of 500,000 ex-soldiers and others, intended to establish a fascist dictatorship. Butler had been asked to lead it, he said, by Gerald P. MacGuire, a bond salesman with Grayson M–P Murphy & Co. The New York Times reported that Butler had told friends that General Hugh S. Johnson, a former official with the National Recovery Administration, was to be installed as dictator. Butler said MacGuire had told him the attempted coup was backed by three million dollars, and that the 500,000 men were probably to be assembled in Washington, D.C. the following year. All the parties alleged to be involved, including Johnson, said there was no truth in the story, calling it a joke and a fantasy.[56]

In its report, the committee stated that it was unable to confirm Butler's statements other than the proposal from MacGuire, which it considered more or less confirmed by MacGuire's European reports.[57] No prosecutions or further investigations followed, and historians have questioned whether or not a coup was actually close to execution, although most agree that some sort of "wild scheme" was contemplated and discussed.[58][59][60][61] The news media initially dismissed the plot, with a New York Times editorial characterizing it as a "gigantic hoax".[62] When the committee's final report was released, the Times said the committee "purported to report that a two-month investigation had convinced it that General Butler's story of a Fascist march on Washington was alarmingly true" and "... also alleged that definite proof had been found that the much publicized Fascist march on Washington, which was to have been led by Major. Gen. Smedley D. Butler, retired, according to testimony at a hearing, was actually contemplated".[63]

The McCormack-Dickstein Committee confirmed some of Butler's accusations in its final report. "In the last few weeks of the committee's official life it received evidence showing that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist organization in this country...There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient."

In response, Butler said that the committee had deliberately edited out of its published findings the leading business people whom he had named in connection with the plot.[22] He said on February 17, 1935 on Radio WCAU, "Like most committees it has slaughtered the little and allowed the big to escape. The big shots weren't even called to testify. They were all mentioned in the testimony. Why was all mention of these names suppressed from the testimony?"[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler


These days they just ask the government for trillions and don't even have to bother running the country. Just threaten to ruin the economic system. Fuckin genius.

Unless of course that something was secrets.
bingo.

In which case, what were they and how could we know that they were actually there (since they were putatively destroyed "protected" by the collapse)?
we couldn't know.
i've read that 7 housed certain legal proceedings and that approximately one third of its contents was irreplaceable.

it makes sense once you start thinking about it.

i believe building 7 was demo'd to protect what was inside it.

Thank goodness there happened to be a massive terrorist attack right above it, then. Otherwise it would have looked suspicious, eh?

(Or is that part of the conspiracy too?)

i believe building 7 was demo'd to protect what was inside it.

That's the logical conclusion of most reasonable intelligent people that can think. Yeah. . .

I sometimes wonder if the people who believe the NIST report don't know what was housed in WTC 7, or if they know and they are just too obtuse to see the astounding coincidences of the whole god forsaken thing.

Reports come out on TV before it comes down.

The man who owned the building took out an insurance policy for terrorism on it six weeks before it collapses due, not from terrorism, but to office fires. And he gets paid anyhow.

There is no flaming inferno, but it collapsed at a near free fall speed as though it were purposefully demolished.

The people near the scene know with incredible accuracy when it is going to come down.

Bernard Kerik, now federal inmate number 84888-054, along with Mayor Rudy Giuliani, were directed away from WTC 7, where the mayor's emergency command bunker was located. Why?

And last, but of course, hardly least, it happens to be the NYC, New york state, eastern network hub for a nexus between every intelligence agency in the country and the business world.

hmmmm. . . . . .

Sure, whatever NIST says. :rolleyes:

don't read something into my post that isn't there.
i believe 911 happened as spelled out by NIST except what happened to 7.
terrorist flew planes into the twin towers and the pentagon.
the government, not knowing what it was up against, decided to destroy 7 along with its contents.
the above scenario explains all the data as i know it.

Care to explain mr. quadrphonics?

Care to ask a specific question?

And it's Dr. quadraphonics, thank you very much.

Whatever, perhaps they fell out of favor or were too small fish.

An 8-term Republican Congressman busted for taking bribes from major military contractors is a "small fish?"



Industrialists and Wealthy men are not above such activity, I don't know why people think people at the top never do bad things just because...

It's not that I think powerful people never do bad things. It's just that I don't think Larry Silverstein would do something so stupid and obviously self-destructive.

we couldn't know.

Exactly. Therefore there can never be any evidence for your theory, and so no reason to believe it.



i've read that 7 housed certain legal proceedings and that approximately one third of its contents was irreplaceable.

I can think of at least one easier way to get rid of documents, than what you are proposing.

don't read something into my post that isn't there.
i believe 911 happened as spelled out by NIST except what happened to 7.
terrorist flew planes into the twin towers and the pentagon.
the government, not knowing what it was up against, decided to destroy 7 along with its contents.
the above scenario explains all the data as i know it.

But an intentional demolition of WTC 7 - which is what you are proposing - would have required extensive preparation and planning. It's impossible for the building to have been rigged with explosives for demolition between the time of the attacks and the collapse of the building.

Care to ask a specific question?

And it's Dr. quadraphonics, thank you very much.


Dr of what, .DR? Why is circular thinking a bad thing. I see it as this. If you have a small circle its bad, if you have a BIIGGGG circle its good. As long as you can color the circle in, maybe with zig zags.

That's the logical conclusion of most reasonable intelligent people that can think. Yeah. . .

I sometimes wonder if the people who believe the NIST report don't know what was housed in WTC 7, or if they know and they are just too obtuse to see the astounding coincidences of the whole god forsaken thing.

Reports come out on TV before it comes down.

The man who owned the building took out an insurance policy for terrorism on it six weeks before it collapses due, not from terrorism, but to office fires. And he gets paid anyhow.

There is no flaming inferno, but it collapsed at a near free fall speed as though it were purposefully demolished.

The people near the scene know with incredible accuracy when it is going to come down.

Bernard Kerik, now federal inmate number 84888-054, along with Mayor Rudy Giuliani, were directed away from WTC 7, where the mayor's emergency command bunker was located. Why?

And last, but of course, hardly least, it happens to be the NYC, New york state, eastern network hub for a nexus between every intelligence agency in the country and the business world.

hmmmm. . . . . .

Sure, whatever NIST says. :rolleyes:

Well you obviously haven't taken the time to actually read the NIST reports, but your lack of any education in the matter still allows you to conclude that WTC 1 & 2 were apparently destroyed to cover up the destruction of WTC 7.

The mental machinations which it takes to make such a deduction are frankly amazing.

Arthur

Well you obviously haven't taken the time to actually read the NIST reports, but your lack of any education in the matter still allows you to conclude that WTC 1 & 2 were apparently destroyed to cover up the destruction of WTC 7.

Before you read something, isn't it first instructive to find a little something about the authors and their motivations?

All this thread proves is that there is no chance of a rational discussion with people who have made up their mind that it was a conspiracy.

Since they won't actually look at the science behind it there is no evidence which would ever convince them otherwise.

Arthur

Suddenly everyone is an architect or as a minimum, a demolition expert.




There is no flaming inferno, but it collapsed at a near free fall speed as though it were purposefully demolished.

Since nobody answered my questions previously, let me repeat some concerning building 7:

1. If the purpose of bringing down building 7 was to hide/protect/disappear things held in the building, what was the attack against the Twin towers? Were they just accidental or planned? Or did they just use it as a cover/excuse?

2. How did they rig the building with explosives just in a few hours when it usually takes days to do such a job?

3. How did they know the building would be at least partially damaged, so they can demolish it with that cover story?

All I want to hear is a straight cover story that makes somehow sense, and logistically believable. Is there such? care to tell us??

The insurance thingy was about the Twin Towers if i recall, so let's not mix things up, this thread is about building 7.

It's not that I think powerful people never do bad things. It's just that I don't think Larry Silverstein would do something so stupid and obviously self-destructive.
Oh, I don't know. It didn't seem to be that stupid. He seems to be doing all right. :rolleyes:

Since they won't actually look at the science behind it there is no evidence which would ever convince them otherwise.

Arthur

There is no science behind it. If you look into the NIST report, you will find that all their modeling? It's classified. Why would that be? Should science be out in the open so others can try to reproduce their results? Or hidden? :p

the government, not knowing what it was up against, decided to destroy 7 along with its contents.

OK, finally a storyline. You are saying the government was opportunist and quickly made a decission. Except :

1. The government doesn't act that fast. Ever...
2. Rigging the building with explosives takes days. Did I mention the building was burning?
3. It would take dozens of people knowing it and they would be seen putting the charges in place.

You are trying to make us believe that there are government employees who would go into a burning building and put explosive charges all over the place thus endangering themselves for government sake mind you secretly when helicopters and cameras are all over the place???

And the government didn't know what was coming, so better destroy everything??? Why not just quickly move the most important things out? takes less time then blowing a building up... Mind you, what was lost were the SEC files, hardly something the terrorist would have been interested to get....

You see your storyline doesn't make sense. Come back with a better story...

There is no science behind it. If you look into the NIST report, you will find that all their modeling? It's classified. Why would that be? Should science be out in the open so others can try to reproduce their results? Or hidden? :p

None of their modeling is classified.
You can get the structures database which the model runs on from NIST.
Most of the software used is commercial.

Oh, I don't know. It didn't seem to be that stupid. He seems to be doing all right. :rolleyes:

He was doing all right before though.

In WTC 7 Silverstein Properties had a fully occupied nearly new 14 year old building with a $450 million mortgage.

Then after 9/11 they had to rebuild with the ~300 million left over from the Insurance settlement and again SP has a building and a mortgage.

Whatever, perhaps they fell out of favor or were too small fish.

You're the first I've heard claim that Bernie Madoff was "small fish".

You're the first I've heard claim that Bernie Madoff was "small fish".
Keep your reading and viewing pretty limited to government and corporate programming huh? :D

He was doing all right before though.

In WTC 7 Silverstein Properties had a fully occupied nearly new 14 year old building with a $450 million mortgage.

Then after 9/11 they had to rebuild with the ~300 million left over from the Insurance settlement and again SP has a building and a mortgage.

And they say crime doesn't pay. . . . :rolleyes:

None of their modeling is classified.

My apologies Arthur, you seem to be correct. I guess I just didn't look for them hard enough. Anyway, I guess I just interpret them differently. I think the modeling doesn't explain reality, sorry. We'll just agree to disagree.
Building 7 - NIST Model vs. Reality (2 min) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgaN5E6zk94&feature=player_embedded#!)

If it collapsed simply due to fire? Then there would be some resistance and at no time could it be dropped at nearly free fall speed. However that is how fast it was dropped.
Building 7 - NIST Finally Admits Freefall - Part I (10 min) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXZnvn7O2NY&NR=1)

Apparently the methodology should have been classified. Any rational educated adult can see the fairy tell they are trying to sell. My son acts just like those guys when he is trying to manipulate me. :rolleyes: I believe anyone who really believes that shtick, it's only because they want to so badly.

They didn't even scan for explosive residue...the NIST report is a carefully constructed (6 years in preparation) sham.

You're the first I've heard claim that Bernie Madoff was "small fish".

ummm YA. Certainly is.

Right because that stops everyone from committing a crime right? 400 Million was owed on the building and now Silverstein owns the new WTC 7 outright.

Also, I've not seen the "owners" of the U.S really go to jail even when they are caught committing crimes or even treason.

But why planes, neitzche? Wouldn't an ordinary fire have been easier to set up? Or a domestic bomb, come to that?

Thank goodness there happened to be a massive terrorist attack right above it, then. Otherwise it would have looked suspicious, eh?

(Or is that part of the conspiracy too?)

Another good question: if WTC7 was the target, why did they hit WTC1 and 2?

But why planes, neitzche? Wouldn't an ordinary fire have been easier to set up? Or a domestic bomb, come to that?

I don't pretend to know much beyond WTC7 being demo'd and a bit of speculation on the motive.

Another good question: if WTC7 was the target, why did they hit WTC1 and 2?

Hey, good questions aren't allowed in this thread!!! They ruin the conspiracy!!!

All I wanted for Christmas is a halfbaked story so they don't look like a complete idiot and all I got is this silly thread...

I think you got a fully-baked story...as in "wake and bake" :m: :)

It's impossible for the building to have been rigged with explosives for demolition between the time of the attacks and the collapse of the building.
the building was probably "rigged" for demolition as soon as the decision was made to store sensitive information there.
could have been years ago.

Hey, good questions aren't allowed in this thread!!! They ruin the conspiracy!!!

All I wanted for Christmas is a halfbaked story so they don't look like a complete idiot and all I got is this silly thread...

You guys are missing the point. When towers 1 and 2 fell we all thought damn, that's a shame... right?

But when we found out building 7 fell, the reaction was viseral. I wanted to go to war with whoever our goverment suggested. I mean for the love of God NOT BUILDING 7!!!

Am I right or am I right!;)

If it collapsed simply due to fire?
buildings 1 and 2 did not collapse "simply due to fires".
my opinion is that 1 and 2 was not a fail safe design.
the presence of butt joints in the perimeter columns supports that opinion.
i also feel that once the planes caused the damage it was only a matter of time before those buildings collapsed regardless of the fires.


Any rational educated adult can see the fairy tell they are trying to sell. My son acts just like those guys when he is trying to manipulate me. :rolleyes: I believe anyone who really believes that shtick, it's only because they want to so badly.
if you cannot understand how 1 and 2 fell then you need to familiarize yourself with how they were constructed.
once you understand the mechanics of the construction it becomes easy to see how and why they collapsed.

buildings 1 and 2 did not collapse "simply due to fires".
my opinion is that 1 and 2 was not a fail safe design.
the presence of butt joints in the perimeter columns supports that opinion.
i also feel that once the planes caused the damage it was only a matter of time before those buildings collapsed regardless of the fires.


if you cannot understand how 1 and 2 fell then you need to familiarize yourself with how they were constructed.
once you understand the mechanics of the construction it becomes easy to see how and why they collapsed.

Here are those butt joints indicated by yellow arrows:

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i41/macgyver1968a/wtcExtColumnsLarge-1.jpg

So...let me get this straight...you believe the twin towers collapsed due to the plane damage and resulting fire...but believe WTC7 was cd'ed? :bugeye:

if you cannot understand how 1 and 2 fell then you need to familiarize yourself with how they were constructed.
once you understand the mechanics of the construction it becomes easy to see how and why they collapsed.
The issue here is building 7.

Here are those butt joints indicated by yellow arrows:

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i41/macgyver1968a/wtcExtColumnsLarge-1.jpg
no.
the joints of which i speak are located in the perimeter columns.
there is also evidence of these types of joints being used in the core as well.


So...let me get this straight...you believe the twin towers collapsed due to the plane damage and resulting fire...but believe WTC7 was cd'ed? :bugeye:
yes.

no.
the joints of which i speak are located in the perimeter columns.
there is also evidence of these types of joints being used in the core as well.



Please clarify what you mean...The pic I posted showed where floor joists connect to the perimeter columns. That's where the failure occurred...what butt joints are you talking about?


yes.

So were AQ terrorists flying the planes?

My apologies Arthur, you seem to be correct. I guess I just didn't look for them hard enough. Anyway, I guess I just interpret them differently. I think the modeling doesn't explain reality, sorry. We'll just agree to disagree.

No, you can disagree all you want but actual scientists speint years in figuring out how it collapsed.

But in your case what is so funny is that even when proven wrong, you still cling to your rediculous conclusions.

In that video they compare a 47 story model with a video of just the 17 top stories and you wonder why they don't look exactly the same.

Secondly, the key to the model was the damage leading up to the START of the global collapse, and the key there is the very close match of the model to the kink and the falling in of the penthouse prior to the start of the global collapse, but as the collapse progresses the ability of the model to continue to match reality becomes less and less (read the NIST report to understand why).

But why not just presume that the NIST scientists are, like Silverstein, also "IN ON IT", because living in a fantasy world is so much more fun.

Bye

Arthur

Please clarify what you mean...The pic I posted showed where floor joists connect to the perimeter columns. That's where the failure occurred...what butt joints are you talking about?

The perimeter columns were connected to each other vertically with Butt Joints, that were bolted, and then welded, but as you can see in the picture you posted, the perimeter columns were also staggered over three floors and thus there was no weak row of butt joints running around a floor and as you point out, that wasn't the location of the failure, even in the pictures of the whole side of the WTC building being pulled in, the perimeter joints didn't fail, the columns buckled.

Arthur

The issue here is building 7.

If you claim that they did a CD on WTC 7 then you can't separate what happened to WTC 1 & 2 from WTC 7.

the building was probably "rigged" for demolition as soon as the decision was made to store sensitive information there.
could have been years ago.

There are FAR easier and much more positive ways to destroy sensitive information than demolishing a building, and more to the point, demolishing a building does little to ensure that sensitive information is actually lost.

Quite a bit of totally intact materials were recovered from the site.

Arthur

Please clarify what you mean...The pic I posted showed where floor joists connect to the perimeter columns. That's where the failure occurred...what butt joints are you talking about?
in the perimeter columns, what more can i say?

So were AQ terrorists flying the planes?
yes.
911 happened as a terrorist hit.
but something must explain silverstiens quote.
do you really believe "pull it" means to remove the firefighters? be honest.
if you have watched a number of different videos on CD's then you have to conclude that 7 was demo'd.
what else can explain this?

yeah, it's all speculation. but it's still plausible, and could probably be correct.

.

Quite a bit of totally intact materials were recovered from the site.

Arthur
Really? Do post a link.

If you claim that they did a CD on WTC 7 then you can't separate what happened to WTC 1 & 2 from WTC 7.

O.K. Sure. But I wasn't commenting on the demolition of WTC 1&2. But while we're at it, if this explanation is so sound, how on earth could anybody know that these building were going to collapse right after the buildings were hit? The engineers designed the to take the impact of several airplanes. This was understood. It was thought they would surive an impact. Yet the Office of Emergency Management knew, they gave the order to evacuate on the ground and get the firefighters and emergency personnel out. Huh? How'd they do that?

How did they know, that quickly in advance that the towers were coming down?

in the perimeter columns, what more can i say?

yes.
911 happened as a terrorist hit.
but something must explain silverstiens quote.
do you really believe "pull it" means to remove the firefighters? be honest.
if you have watched a number of different videos on CD's then you have to conclude that 7 was demo'd.
what else can explain this?

yeah, it's all speculation. but it's still plausible, and could probably be correct.

Well..Silverstein was talking to the fire chief at the time...do you think the FDNY was responsible for cd'ing the building? If the building was cd'ed covertly...then why talk about it on PBS? That doesn't make any sense.

So...AQ attacks the WTC 1&2...causing WTC7 to catch fire. So Silverstein calls the fire department and tells them to CD the building with the Hush-a-Boom brand silent explosives they planted in the building years ago.. to destroy sensitive government materials in the building...and collect the insurance money.

Well..Silverstein was talking to the fire chief at the time...do you think the FDNY was responsible for cd'ing the building?
no, the ultimate responsibility would be in the intelligence community.

If the building was cd'ed covertly...then why talk about it on PBS? That doesn't make any sense.
a goof or blurb from silverstein, maybe he was talking to someone he thought he could trust.

So...AQ attacks the WTC 1&2...causing WTC7 to catch fire. So Silverstein calls the fire department and tells them to CD the building with the Hush-a-Boom brand silent explosives they planted in the building years ago.. to destroy sensitive government materials in the building...and collect the insurance money.
did i say anything about "hush a boom" explosives or insurance?

The plot thickens...


the building was probably "rigged" for demolition as soon as the decision was made to store sensitive information there.
could have been years ago.

I have to give you credit, I haven't thought of that, probably because it is so crazy. Do you know ANY other building that is rigged with explosives, just "in case" they have to destroy sensitive material???

Also, now in the 21st century, when most of the sensitive material is simply digital on hard drives, do they still have to demolish a whole building or just one giant magnet would do the trick???

If you claim that they did a CD on WTC 7 then you can't separate what happened to WTC 1 & 2 from WTC 7.

Well, he can. Why do you expect logic from him?? What they are saying is that the Twin Towers where terrorized, and the government quickly used that opportunity to demolish Building 7.

According to Leopold it was done by years ago built in explosives....

do you really believe "pull it" means to remove the firefighters?

Alright, I will explain it. It could mean demolishing the building, but not necessary right away. It just means that the building is damaged beyond repair, and it should be taken down, sometimes in the future.

Sounds plausible?? Or did the quote say "we are going to pull it at 5 pm?"

The engineers designed the buildings to take the impact of several airplanes. This was understood....

How did they know, that quickly in advance that the towers were coming down?

Very simple: The firefighters didn't know the design or didn't trust it... It is called precaution...

no, the ultimate responsibility would be in the intelligence community.

So why did Silverstein tell the fire department to "pull"? I guess the fire department was supposed to tell the "intelligence community" to blow the building?


a goof or blurb from silverstein, maybe he was talking to someone he thought he could trust.


He was on NATIONAL FREAKING TV!! Ooops! I just admitted to blowing up my own building. :rolleyes:


did i say anything about "hush a boom" explosives or insurance?

Of course there is no such thing...just a term from JREF. You said the collapse looked like a cd...the only thing you left out..it didn't sound like a cd. Every single video of a building implosion features extremely loud, clear explosive sounds that start seconds before the collapse. (like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U)) The videos of WTC7 collapse lack these tale-tell explosive sounds. How do you explain that?

I guess it was NF that mentioned insurance fraud.

Alright, I will explain it. It could mean demolishing the building, but not necessary right away. It just means that the building is damaged beyond repair, and it should be taken down, sometimes in the future.

Sounds plausible?? Or did the quote say "we are going to pull it at 5 pm?"

Here the quote from the PBS show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100


"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Do you know ANY other building that is rigged with explosives, just "in case" they have to destroy sensitive material???
what kind of question is this?
i would have to have inside information to answer it and besides do you seriously believe that i would tell you if i did?

Really? Do post a link.

Natl Geo did a story on it (the people sifting through the rubble and all they found), shouldn't be hard to find and then a quick search shows items recovered:

http://boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/RTR2QOL3.jpg


http://www.nyu.edu/fas/projects/vcb/case_911/extremecloseup/kirshenblattimages/image7.gif

http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=41

There were of couse many more, including dozens of pictures from that morning showing the streets and sidewalks around the area littered with office papers, which is why demolishing a building is no guarantee that the contents will be destroyed.

Arthur

How did they know, that quickly in advance that the towers were coming down?

I'd have to do some digging to find it, but I've seen at least one guy who's involved in building forensics, or engineering or something along those lines who has stated that there came a point where collapse became inevitable - I don't remember all of the details, but it had to do with the lean of the upper part of the building, or something similar.

Apparently there's some critical angle for most/all buildings that if the lean exceeds that point, collapse becomes a matter of 'when' rather than 'if'.

Anyway, the point is maybe they made judgement calls based on the evidence they had available to them, and came to the conclusion that global collapse was inevitable.

I seem to recall camera crews in helicopters saying the same thing, or something similar anyway.

The engineers designed the to take the impact of several airplanes.

No, it wasn't. It was designed to withstand the impact of ONE of the largest aircraft of the time, a 707 - and it was assumed that it would not hit it as close to full speed.

Even so, the tower did indeed survive the impact of a fully fueled 767 going at close to its full speed for hours. It, unfortunately, could not survive the resulting fire.


Yet the Office of Emergency Management knew, they gave the order to evacuate on the ground and get the firefighters and emergency personnel out. Huh? How'd they do that?

Because the OMB understands that burning buildings collapse sometimes. It happens quite regularly.

You said the collapse looked like a cd...the only thing you left out..it didn't sound like a cd. Every single video of a building implosion features extremely loud, clear explosive sounds that start seconds before the collapse. (like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U)) The videos of WTC7 collapse lack these tale-tell explosive sounds. How do you explain that?

Except it didn't look at all like a CD.
Not only from the lack of explosive sounds.
The windows are NOT blown out, like they would be in the overpressure from explosives.

NIST did the work to see what it would take to sever the 79th column with explosives and they concluded that it would take 9 lbs of RDX and would have blown out lots of windows.

This was not observerd or heard.

See NISTAR WTC 7 Final Report Appd D.

Arthur

I'd have to do some digging to find it, but I've seen at least one guy who's involved in building forensics, or engineering or something along those lines who has stated that there came a point where collapse became inevitable - I don't remember all of the details, but it had to do with the lean of the upper part of the building, or something similar.

Except the failures were internal, with little leaning.

They were concerned that it was going to collapse because they could see quite a bit of external damage (though not really that significant structurally), the fires were not being fought and they kept hearing loud noises from the building as the internal braces (floors supported by long floor girders) failed. The building floors around the central area collapsed internally over a fairly long period of time until the critical vertical column #79 failed, leading to a rather swift propagation of the global collapse.

Note, that's a gross over-simplification and so for the actual details you simply have to read the NIST WTC 7 report.

Arthur

the building was probably "rigged" for demolition as soon as the decision was made to store sensitive information there.
could have been years ago.

So the suggestion is that buildings containing sensitive information are secretely rigged with explosive charges to demolish them - and that this rigging is done while the building is occupied, in secret? And that then they wait until there happens to be some nearby disaster, and then collapse the building and blame it on that disaster?

If so, then why didn't they go to the trouble to rig these explosives in a way that would demolish the building without such being (putatively) an obvious example of controlled demolition, to any layman who sees a video of such? Seems like you are attributing a superhuman level of skill and capability to the supposed perpetrators one moment, and then insisting that they are idiots who didn't even think to conceal basic, obvious facets of the alleged plot.

Yes, Quad...genius morons these "perps" were. Somehow these guys were smart enough to pull off the biggest "rube goldberg" conspiracy in the history of man...involving 100's if not 1000's of people who all stayed quiet...but the mastermind goes on pbs and admits to "pulling" the building. :rolleyes:

Also consider scale.

The CIA and the IRS occupied but ONE floor (25th) of that 47 story building.

The idea that to "protect" the contents of part of a floor you would choose as your method, to secretly plant CD explosives (and keep them hidden for 15 years) is simply nuts.

Arthur

That's what happens when you hire Michael Bay as your security chief. :)

Are you guys all talking to yourselves now?

You seem to have scared the CTers away.

Boo.

They were funny.

Before you read something, isn't it first instructive to find a little something about the authors and their motivations?

And what did you find about the Authors and their Motivations?

http://www.nist.gov/el/fire_research/rgann.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/el/ssunder.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/el/building_materials/tmcallister.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/el/building_materials/fsadek.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/el/fire_research/kbutler.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/el/building_materials/jgross.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/el/fire_research/kmcgrattan.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/mml/metallurgy/materials_performance/william-luecke.cfm

Shall I go on?

I'd have to do some digging to find it, but I've seen at least one guy who's involved in building forensics, or engineering or something along those lines who has stated that there came a point where collapse became inevitable - I don't remember all of the details, but it had to do with the lean of the upper part of the building, or something similar.

Apparently there's some critical angle for most/all buildings that if the lean exceeds that point, collapse becomes a matter of 'when' rather than 'if'.

Anyway, the point is maybe they made judgement calls based on the evidence they had available to them, and came to the conclusion that global collapse was inevitable.

I seem to recall camera crews in helicopters saying the same thing, or something similar anyway.
Yeah, I'd like a link to some explanation of how they knew, that day, that hour, that the twin towers were coming down. Who knew, how they knew, when they knew, etc. It's always putting the burden of proof on the skeptical, but really, it's the commission report that is unbelievable.

Buildings like that just don't fall. The never have, and never will. Yet they pulled the rescue personnel out. It doesn't make sense. WTC 7 was completely unoccupied, and the in twin towers, they were telling the fire fighters to abandon it, when there are reports from some fire fighters that they were getting the blaze under control. So what gives. Who made that call, and how did they come to that conclusion?

Except the failures were internal, with little leaning.
I know, I didn't say that it was a lot, did I? I should clarify that I primarily meant 1&2, but it occurs to me that the lean on 7, although it may not have been much was both measurable and visible. Again, I'm somewhat hazy on the details, and every time I go looking for specific information, it gets harder and harder to find because it's being drowned out by the dross.

I know, I didn't say that it was a lot, did I? I should clarify that I primarily meant 1&2, but it occurs to me that the lean on 7, although it may not have been much was both measurable and visible. Again, I'm somewhat hazy on the details, and every time I go looking for specific information, it gets harder and harder to find because it's being drowned out by the dross.

It wasn't leaning at all.

You might be thinking about the well publisized comment about the firefighters saying they were "putting a transit on it", but what they found was, it wasn't leaning.

The NIST report shows the movement of the building that starts AFTER the global collapse is underway (by doing frame subtraction of sequential images from videos), but there is no leaning until that starts.

Arthur

It wasn't leaning at all.

You might be thinking about the well publisized comment about the firefighters saying they were "putting a transit on it", but what they found was, it wasn't leaning.

The NIST report shows the movement of the building that starts AFTER the global collapse is underway (by doing frame subtraction of sequential images from videos), but there is no leaning until that starts.

Arthur

Like I said, it was 1&2 (or primarily 1&2) that I was thinking of as being on a lean.

And what did you find about the Authors and their Motivations?

http://www.nist.gov/el/fire_research/rgann.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/el/ssunder.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/el/building_materials/tmcallister.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/el/building_materials/fsadek.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/el/fire_research/kbutler.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/el/building_materials/jgross.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/el/fire_research/kmcgrattan.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/mml/metallurgy/materials_performance/william-luecke.cfm

Shall I go on?

http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Always-you-with-that-conspiracy-stuff-1.jpg

You don't get me, do you? You do realize that NIST is a government agency? Thinking logically is something you aren't very good at, so I don't think there is any point in continuing with this discussion with you. It won't be fruitful. There are many others in this thread that deserve my attention. I will get to them when I have the time. I will leave you with this video, maybe you will get it.

George Carlin comments on 9/11 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNoM0dj9C2s&feature=related)

In fact this statement:


How did they know, that quickly in advance that the towers were coming down?I'd have to do some digging to find it, but I've seen at least one guy who's involved in building forensics, or engineering or something along those lines who has stated that there came a point where collapse became inevitable - I don't remember all of the details, but it had to do with the lean of the upper part of the building, or something similar.

Apparently there's some critical angle for most/all buildings that if the lean exceeds that point, collapse becomes a matter of 'when' rather than 'if'.

Anyway, the point is maybe they made judgement calls based on the evidence they had available to them, and came to the conclusion that global collapse was inevitable.

I seem to recall camera crews in helicopters saying the same thing, or something similar anyway.

Was referring (exclusively) to Towers 1 and 2, that 7 may have been on a lean occured to me as an afterthought whilst replying to your (Arthurs) comments about Tower 7 (while commenting on the above post).

what kind of question is this?
i would have to have inside information to answer it and besides do you seriously believe that i would tell you if i did?

I dunno, logical?? After all you came up with a theory that has never happened in real life. You seriously consider that thousands of people work in a rigged building???

Nevertheless you seem to think this as a plausible scenario...

Oh yeah, your scenario is specially stupid, because the "demolition" didn't come around 11 am, when officials were still in panic but late in the afternoon when everything was mostly clear and there was no need to panic and blow the sensitive material...

I have not heard anywhere, from any source that they had thought the towers were going to collapse after they had been hit, who had said that while they were burning or anything about a lean. . . could you please substantiate this with a source?

Here the quote from the PBS show

OK I remember it now. It does sound suspicious, but let's try to come up with a plausible explanation:

1. He simply misspoke.
2. He meant by "pull", that they let it burn down, without putting up further effort to save the building.
3. Official explanation: "when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building."

That the fire marshal decided and executed a demolition of this size is not plausible....

Yeah, I'd like a link to some explanation of how they knew, that day, that hour, that the twin towers were coming down. Who knew, how they knew, when they knew, etc. It's always putting the burden of proof on the skeptical, but really, it's the commission report that is unbelievable.

What a bunch of BS.

They didn't know that the towers were coming down.
That's why 421 First Responders were killed when the towers came down.


Buildings like that just don't fall. The never have, and never will.

It didn't just fall, planes ran into each of the towers creating massive structural damage, shaking off the critical sprayed on insulation, severing the water supply to the fire supression system and starting massive multi-floor fires with thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

Yes, tall steel framed buildings that have that happen to them will probably always come down, or if like Windsor or WTC 7, if you let them burn, they will also probably collapse (but of course different designs might not, in WTC 7's case it was the design of the connections for the long horizontal beams that couldn't handle the lateral forces from thermal expansion that helped to precipitate the collapse).


Yet they pulled the rescue personnel out. It doesn't make sense.

NO THEY DIDN'T, they did give the order to leave WTC 1 even before WTC 2 failed, but it takes a long time to walk down all those stairs, so again a lot didn't make it (they don't know which or how many responders died in which tower though).


WTC 7 was completely unoccupied

Yeah, because it was a 47 story building, with visible severe damage and with fires burning all through it and with no water pressure in the standpipes after WTC 1 went down there was NO WAY TO FIGHT THE FIRES. Once they were sure that no one was in the building they abandoned it because there was really nothing they could do.



and the in twin towers, they were telling the fire fighters to abandon it, when there are reports from some fire fighters that they were getting the blaze under control.

No they weren't telling them to abandon it.
WTC 2 came down without any warning issued, indeed firefighters had JUST got to the LOWER fire floors when it came down.



So what gives. Who made that call, and how did they come to that conclusion?

Battalion chief Orio Palmer along with firefighters who had made it to the lowest fire floor (78 in WTC 2) said they thought they could knock back that fire in the Sky Lobby with a few hoses, they said that just a few minutes before the towers came down.

They all died.

Their last radio comments in no way indicates that the fires could have been put out in the whole tower as by that time they were a raging inferno.

Arthur

In fact this statement:
Was referring (exclusively) to Towers 1 and 2

Each of the twin towers did have a slight lean after the impact, but that wasn't itself critical to the failures of either tower.

I might take the time to find the actual dimensions, but the WTC 1 tower leaned to the North and about 7% of the gravity loads shifted from the South wall.

In WTC 2 the damage was more severe and asymetric, and the East walls loads went up 24% and the displacement was 7" off of vertical, and it was the East wall that failed due to the heavily loaded perimeter columns being pulled in and buckling.

I have not heard anywhere, from any source that they had thought the towers were going to collapse after they had been hit, who had said that while they were burning or anything about a lean. . . could you please substantiate this with a source?

The police helo pilots said that because they could see the side bowing in 8 minutes before WTC 2 went down but due to different frequencies they couldn't reach the fire fighters and get the word out.

http://www.debunking911.com/bow2.jpg

But they were told on the ground before even tower one came down to get their people out of there. Who did they get the order from above and who gave it then? How did they know if they were on different frequencies? Who told the people in charge to tell the command on the ground?

But they were told on the ground before even tower one came down to get their people out of there. Who did they get the order from above and who gave it then? How did they know if they were on different frequencies? Who told the people in charge to tell the command on the ground?

The person who gave the command to evacuate the WTC 1 tower did it because of the unsafe conditions in the tower, not because he thought it was going to collapse:


Assistant Chief Callan: "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower. Approximately ten minutes after that, we had a collapse of the south tower, and we were sort of blown up against the wall in the lobby of the north tower, and we gathered together those of us who were still able to."

About the same time NY Police Helocopter pilots were seeing the worsening conditions on WTC 2 and indeed said they thought it was going to collapse.


police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m.

But emergency responders inside the tower never got the order to evacuate due to faulty communications equipment and garbled lines of command, investigators with the National Institute of Standards and Technology said in its second interim report on the collapse's causes.

http://www.skyscrapersafety.org/html/article_20040619.html

The fact is what they saw proves it WASN'T explosives that brought the towers down, as explosives wouldn't cause that bowing in of the towers.

But that is indeed characteristic of FIRE damage.

Arthur

They didn't know that the towers were coming down.
That's why 421 First Responders were killed when the towers came down.


Q. Was debris still falling?
A. Debris was falling. It looked like birds.
There were people falling from the towers or jumping,
whatever it was they were doing. Abdo and I went into
No. 7, activated OEM, placed calls to EMS Citywide,
RCC, to tell them we were there and we were activated.
Maybe five, ten minutes, not even ten minutes
later, a rep from OEM came into the main room and said
we need to evacuate the building; there's a third plane
inbound. That was the only thing I really heard
because I said, Abdo, we've got to go, and we made it
down to the lobby of the building, street level, met up
with Chief Peruggia in the lobby of the building. He
said that there was no third plane but we needed to
5
R. ZARRILLO
re-establish OEM right there so we can coordinate what
was going on. He had already been to the command post,
so he told us, and he was trying to release people back
to be operational. He was looking for the Fire guy to
go back in. He was there with Captain Yakimovich. In
OEM with Captain Nahmod and I was Chief Maggio, who is
now retired, and another firefighter from the 1st
Division. We were really trying to establish OEM and a
treatment sector in the lobby of the building because
there were people coming around us.
Again, times are a little fuzzy initially for
me. A few minutes later, John came to me and said you
need to go find Chief Ganci and relay the following
message: that the buildings have been compromised, we
need to evacuate, they're going to collapse. I said
okay. I went down Vesey Street towards West.
Q. You were by yourself?
A. I was by myself, me and my helmet and my
radio. I got to the corner of Vesey and West. I found
some EMS vehicles. I think I saw Chief Gombo there.
I'm not really sure. I mentioned to the EMS people
there, again, not knowing who they were, I said you
need to get away from here, the building might
collapse, we need to leave this spot.
6
R. ZARRILLO
As I was walking towards the Fire command
post, I found Steve Mosiello. I said, Steve, where's
the boss? I have to give him a message. He said,
well, what's the message? I said the buildings are
going to collapse; we need to evac everybody out. With
a very confused look he said who told you that? I said
I was just with John at OEM. OEM says the buildings
are going to collapse; we need to get out.
He escorted me over to Chief Ganci. He said,
hey, Pete, we got a message that the buildings are
going to collapse. His reply was who the fuck told you
that? Then Steve brought me in and with Chief Ganci,
Commissioner Feehan, Steve, I believe Chief Turi was
initially there, I said, listen, I was just at OEM.
The message I was given was that the buildings are
going to collapse; we need to get our people out. At
that moment, this thunderous, rolling roar came down
and that's when the building came down, the first tower
came down.
The command post was situated right in front
of 3 World Financial, the American Express Building.
The garage was open and as that rumble started and we
saw it was coming down, the firemen that were in the
command area, I believe most of the chiefs, we all ran
7
R. ZARRILLO
into the garage of that building. It became dark, hard
to breathe. Nobody had any equipment because most of
the firemen dropped everything as they were running.
It became an obstacle course to get into the garage.
Again, it's sketchy with time, but it may
have been anywhere from ten to 20 minutes by the time
we found an emergency exit to get out of the building.
It was dark. There was no light.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110161.PDF?scp=1&sq=OEM%20wtc&st=cse (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110161.PDF?scp=1&sq=OEM%20wtc&st=cse)
I love eyewitness reports from everyday people, don't you? :) They are so non-political and non-biased. They don't have an agenda. If you don't understand that NIST and the 9/11 commission does, you don't understand the affairs of kings and men.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110161.PDF?scp=1&sq=OEM%20wtc&st=cse (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110161.PDF?scp=1&sq=OEM%20wtc&st=cse)
I love eyewitness reports from everyday people, don't you? :) They are so non-political and non-biased. They don't have an agenda. If you don't understand that NIST and the 9/11 commission does, you don't understand the affairs of kings and men.

Yeah, I'm well aware of that, but Callan himself says he didn't think it was going to collapse and he was only asking for an evac of WTC 1, but he's supposedly the source.

No big surprise though, on a day like that do you really think that messages were all relayed accurately and correctly?


Callan's warnings about the north tower, WTC 1, reached the Office of Emergency Management, OEM. Other people learned from OEM that the WTC buildings were going to collapse. EMT Richard Zarrillo was told to deliver the message.

http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives2.html

Again, Callan was in WTC 1 and it didn't come down for quite a while after that, they didn't know WTC 2 was just about to come down or they wouldn't have had firefighters going up the stairways when it did.

(note WTC 1 was the first tower hit but the last to fall)

Arthur

It is now the year 2011. Which means that the WTC attacks were ten years ago. And for the last ten years, there have been innumerable copies of this thread.

The concpiracy woo-woos are always going to make the same arguments, and countering them with fact and logic has never worked. They still just post the same stuff. They don't know because they don't want to know. They are concpiracy nuts enthusiasts.

But they were told on the ground before even tower one came down to get their people out of there. Who did they get the order from above and who gave it then? How did they know if they were on different frequencies? Who told the people in charge to tell the command on the ground?

Easier than I thought:

FDNY Assistant Chief Joseph Callan: "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower.
Source (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Callan_Joseph.txt)


Callan: "For me to make the decision to take our firefighters out of the building with civilians still in it, that was very tough for me, but I did that because I did not think the building was safe any longer, and that was just prior to 9:30."
Source (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/11/se.41.html)


EMS Division Chief John Peruggia: "I was in a discussion with Mr. Rotanz and I believe it was a representative from the Department of Buildings, but I'm not sure. Some engineer type person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident that the building's stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse.

I grabbed EMT Zarrillo, I advised him of that information. I told him he was to proceed immediately to the command post where Chief Ganci was located. Told him where it was across the street from number 1 World Trade Center. I told him "You see Chief Ganci and Chief Ganci only. Provide him with the information that the building integrity is severely compromised and they believe the building is in danger of imminent collapse." So, he left off in that direction."


According to Shyam-Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towers opposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam-Sunder said
Source (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aCuh.ATdfOXc&refer=top_world_news)


10:21: NYPD aviation unit reports that the north tower is buckling on the southwest corner and leaning to the south. NYPD officer advises that all personnel close to the building pull back three blocks in every direction.
NIST NCSTAR1-8 p.37


On the 56th floor, an architect believes the building was failing structurally.
Architect Bob Shelton had his foot in a cast; he'd broken it falling off a curb two weeks ago. He heard the explosion of the first plane hitting the north tower from his 56th-floor office in the south tower. As he made his way down the stairwell, his building came under attack as well. "You could hear the building cracking. It sounded like when you have a bunch of spaghetti, and you break it in half to boil it." Shelton knew that what he was hearing was bad. "It was structural failure," Shelton says. "Once a building like that is off center, that's it."
Source (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,174655-1,00.html)


Around 9:15, Drohan heard (Port Authority WTC Construction Manager Frank) DeMartini over the walkie-talkie.
"Any construction inspector at ground level."
Drohan acknowledged that he was on the street.
"Can you escort a couple of structural inspectors to the 78th floor?" DeMartini asked.
DeMartini had seen something in the steel–Drohan was not sure what–that he did not like. The drywall had been knocked off parts of the sky lobby, exposing the elevator shafts, and revealing the core of the building. That had prompted his first radio alert, warning that the elevators might collapse. Now DeMartini wanted inspectors from a structural engineering firm to come up to the 78th-floor sky lobby and take a look.
102 Minutes, p. 147

And so on and so forth.

People believed the towers were going to come down because the evidence was there in front of them suggested that they were severly damaged.

If you look at those quotes, you'll note that most of the focus was unfortunately on the North Tower, the first tower hit.

It was only the NYPD Helo pilots that were warning about the South Tower, and that info wasn't getting through to the NYFD, so when Callan says to evacuate the tower he was talking about WTC 1 only, which is why they were still going up the stairs on WTC 2 when it came down (it only lasted 56 minutes after impact till it fell).

Arthur

If you look at those quotes, you'll note that most of the focus was unfortunately on the North Tower, the first tower hit.

It was only the NYPD Helo pilots that were warning about the South Tower, and that info wasn't getting through to the NYFD, so when Callan says to evacuate the tower he was talking about WTC 1 only, which is why they were still going up the stairs on WTC 2 when it came down (it only lasted 56 minutes after impact till it fell).

Arthur
Yes, I know.

It is now the year 2011. Which means that the WTC attacks were ten years ago. And for the last ten years, there have been innumerable copies of this thread.

The concpiracy woo-woos are always going to make the same arguments, and countering them with fact and logic has never worked. They still just post the same stuff. They don't know because they don't want to know. They are concpiracy nuts enthusiasts.

Yeah, debating them is much like playing Whack A Mole

http://www.liesdamnedlies.com/WindowsLiveWriter/Whack-O-Mole-Game.jpg

Interesting. Ok, fine, you've convinced me. Sure.

Need another WHACK?

South Tower:


FDNY Battalion Chief Steve Grabher: "There was - somebody was insinuating that there had been a structural collapse and this is probably 15 to 30, 15 to 20 seconds before the building came down. I was hearing this. There was some collapse."

Q. "It might have been an interior collapse happening prior to the exterior?"

A. "Yes."

Q. "Nobody knew exactly what was going on. But you are saying you are pretty sure it was Ladder 4, the roof man."

A. "I'm almost positive it was Ladder 4 roof. I remember him saying his name. This guy was calm as a cucumber. I'm thinking this guy is about to die and he is as calm as a cucumber."

Q. "He didn't know it, I don't think."

A. "Then he said I'm losing consciousness."


Claiborne Johnston: "It seemed we were walking down very calm, very orderly . . . and all of a sudden you felt like the ground was falling out from under you," said Claiborne Johnston, who escaped from the 64th floor of the south tower. "You knew the structure had been altered severely, and the rest of the way down you could feel that."


FDNY EMS EMT Mary McMillan: As I was gathering it, I was saying to Mala, that I'm looking up at the building and I said to her, this is going to fall. I said we should get out of here. This is going to fall. She says I know. I think we are in the wrong place. I tried to tell Chief Grant and Chief McCracken I think it's going to fall, but they were so busy talking among themselves, I didn't have a chance to tell them what I was feeling. I think I should have shared with everyone, but when I felt that way, I looked around me. I gathered the resources, but I'm thinking what do I do when this thing falls. I looked around me and I saw this building on my right. It had the glass bottom doors and I just made reference to it in case god forbid, anything happened, my plan would be to run behind that building, grab my jacket over my head and just stay there for a while.

Sure enough, after my thoughts traveled through my head, all I heard was run and I heard the sound, a sound -- I can't really describe it. It was an unusual sound. Then they are saying run, so I started to run and I looked back and I saw this white smoke just moving in this boiling motion towards us and I was like oh, my god, what's going on. I was scared, I was frightened and I'm running and everybody's running


"At 9:37, a civilian on the 106th floor of the South Tower reported to a 911 operator that a lower floor – the '90-something floor' – was collapsing."
9/11 Commission Report, pg. 304


Stanley Praimnath & Brian Clark: It was like steel bending and creaking. It made this -- I can't explain the sound, but it's like -- it was an eerie sound.

CLARK: And we heard this boom, boom, boom.

OKWU: As the tower collapsed, Stanley Praimnath and Brian Clark were watching from less than a 100 yards away, just before they ran, two of the very last people to get out alive.
Source (http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/11/se.61.html)

Note that many witnesses describe an eerie sound before global collapse begins, some are unable to describe it beyond that, others will refer to it as metal breaking or tearing.


Tommy Castaldi: "Police and firefighters were coming in to the building when we reached the lobby," Castaldi said. "The building was swaying, burning and shaking. But they went up, not back to the street...."
Source (http://queenstribune.com/archives/featurearchive/feature2001/1101/feature_story.html)


Jaede Barg: The lights in the staircase went out. There were cracks in the stairwell walls with exposed pipes breaking through the plaster. The building was forcefully swaying, enough to require significant balancing. I recall the incredible sound of twisting metal with each sway of the building.
Source (http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-09-first-person-barg_x.htm)

One of the pieces I was specifically thinking of:

Among the dozens of people I have spoken to recently who are experts in the construction of tall buildings (and many of whom witnessed the events of September 11th as they unfolded), only one said that he knew immediately, upon learning, from TV, of the planes' hitting the buildings, that the towers were going to fall. This was Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition Incorporated, a Maryland-based family business that specializes in reducing tall buildings to manageable pieces of rubble. "Within a nanosecond," he told me. "I said, 'It's coming down. And the second tower will fall first, because it was hit lower down.' "

Before September 11th, the largest building ever to be imploded by accident or design was the J. L. Hudson department store, in Detroit, with 2.2 million square feet of floor space, which C.D.I. "dropped" on October 24, 1998. To do their work, Mark Loizeaux and his brother Doug need to understand the same forces and formulas that structural engineers study, but instead of using that knowledge to erect buildings they use it to take them down. They are structural undertakers, which may explain why Mark, when confronted with the spectacle of the crippled buildings, lacked the sentiment that builders feel for their creations--that innate sympathy which helped blind the engineers of the World Trade towers to the reality of what was about to occur. "I thought, Somebody's got to tell the Fire Department to get out of there," Loizeaux told me. "I picked up the phone, dialled 411, got the number, and tried it--busy. So I called the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management"--which was in 7 World Trade. "All circuits were busy. I couldn't get through."
Source (http://www.booknoise.net/johnseabrook/stories/technology/tower/index.html)

When all is said and done, those two buildings did their jobs, and they did them well, the fact that they did so well is a testimant to their design. They withstood the initial impacts, and stayed standing long enough for most of the people to evacuate.

Addendum:

Another of the pieces I was thinking of:

My Thayer School engineering training came back, and I realized that with that intensity of heat in a building in which the steel girders were insulated with asbestos, it had to collapse within one hour. I called the fire department, police, etc. and told them the building was guaranteed to collapse. I was told that 911 was only for emergencies, and I should callsomewhere else.

After about 40 minutes, as I saw (I have telescopes, binoculars, etc.) the top segment of the building listing about 3 degrees, I left my apartment and went out to walk in the street. Buidlings collapse if they list more than 3 degrees. As I walked down Bleecker Street, people gasped as the building collapsed. Like Lord Jim, my imagination surpasses any reality. I should have stayed and watched. I did for the second tower.

...We watched the second building, and I noticed it was more than 3 degrees, but as the telescope revealed, that was because the beams were buckling on both sides. A building like the WTC does not 'break off in the middle' and fall like a tree.
Source (http://www.alum.dartmouth.org/classes/62/bombdough.htm)

Is that enough, or do you want more?

Seeing as how people like Youtube so much:
WTC 7 Freefall claims debunked (pt 1) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rhY9c_iemA) Pt 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60A86cg16KQ)

The police helo pilots said that because they could see the side bowing in 8 minutes before WTC 2 went down but due to different frequencies they couldn't reach the fire fighters and get the word out.

http://www.debunking911.com/bow2.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I_NXk-Iqjk

That building doesnt look like its going to fall. if not for secondary explosions. It could be fuel lines going off, but thats just a major design flaw in that case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0_Ns2ShYKc

barring credibility this guy has statments of dead bodies and explosions in WTC7 which was not hit by a plane.

If I am the judge of anything, its man, and Kenneth Johannemann did not kill himself. Layed off from a job as a janitor were he made crap money anyways. He does not have the look of a man whos had a terrible life, or is manic deppresive. He carried a burnt man out of the bassment of the WTC basment.

It begs the question, can a bowing 777 bring down a 450,000,000 kg building, twice, in one day? That defies logic. The story DOES NOT fit.

So to summarize the thread so far, basicly nobody claims that they rigged building 7 on Sept 11th, while it was on fire, but the conspiracy is that the building was loaded either a few days earlier or even years before.

Now anyone who buys this shit, once more explain this:

1. How did they know that the building would get at least decent damage, so they can use that damage as a cover story for the demolition?

2. A building full of explosives and being on fire for hours wouldn't have explosions going on constantly that can be seen and heard for everyone outside? Now I know, some claim that there are explosions being heard, but sure they can not be seen.

3. How do you rig a building of this size without anyone noticing? And anyway, what is the purpose of it, to protect/hide sensitive material??? Let's stick to one conspiracy at a time. It is either protect or hide... The protecting thing is ridiculous, to hide it, they could have just started a fire with a gas explosion, no planes were needed...

Now I don't expect answers and this is my 3rd post going without plausible answers, so unless someone can come up with a decent storyline, the thread is over....

Hey, let's stick to 7, we like that number so much...



barring credibility this guy has statments of dead bodies and explosions in WTC7 which was not hit by a plane.

There is a huge building on fire. There is electricity and gas all over the building. Not to mention huge diesel tanks inside. It just makes sense that those things explode. People hear explosions at other big building fires too.

Just watch the movie Towering Inferno... :)

Dead bodies? Sure, the building was hit and damaged by huge debris while people were inside. It had a 20 stories large hole in it. Makes sense that there were casualties...

"but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0_Ns2ShYKc

barring credibility this guy has statments of dead bodies and explosions in WTC7 which was not hit by a plane.

If I am the judge of anything, its man, and Kenneth Johannemann did not kill himself. Layed off from a job as a janitor were he made crap money anyways. He does not have the look of a man whos had a terrible life, or is manic deppresive. He carried a burnt man out of the bassment of the WTC basment.

He was discussing events in WTC 1, not WTC 7 and the elevator shafts ran all the way from the impact location on WTC 1 down to the basement. The overpressure from the impact and conflagration caused a fuel/air mix to create huge fireballs/explosions in the lobby and sub-basement of WTC 1.

All well documented to have occured right after the plane hit.


It begs the question, can a bowing 777 bring down a 450,000,000 kg building, twice, in one day? That defies logic. The story DOES NOT fit.

No it does not "defy logic" considering the impact on the building of both the horrendous impacts that caused severe structural damage to the core and the ensuing fires that ultimately cased the steel framed buildings to fail.
Indeed the NIST report explains the damage from the impact of the collison and the subsequent fires quite well.
If you need help understanding the report simply ask.

Arthur

That building doesnt look like its going to fall. if not for secondary explosions. It could be fuel lines going off, but thats just a major design flaw in that case.

Why yes it does.

To anyone who understands that steel frames must remain vertical to retain their load carrying ability. That's the East side of WTC 2 and the impact of the plane was off centered and caused so much structural damage on the East side core columns that the whole building tilted towards the East (7" off of vertical) and the forces on those perimeter columns went up by ~24% to handle that tilt. In this picture you can see the raging multifloor fires that are weakening the perimeter columns and because of that, those columns are pulled in over 5 ft from vertical and thus their load carrying ability is being greatly reduced. Their failure, by buckling just a few moments after that picture was taken, is when the top block starts to move down. Once the top starts moving downward, the only thing keeping the floors from failing are the truss seats and they could only handle the weight of 6 additional floors, so they rapidly failed as well.

There were no fuel lines in or on the fire floors nor any significant secondary explosions.

Indeed the downward movement of the collapse clearly occurs prior to any expulsion of air that would be caused by explosives.

Indeed the downward movement of the collapse clearly occurs prior to any expulsion of air that would be caused by explosives.

Please explain. In my experience, in explosive demolition, the air (smoke) is expelled in advance of any visible movement of the building.

Thank you

Hardalee

Please explain. In my experience, in explosive demolition, the air (smoke) is expelled in advance of any visible movement of the building.

Thank you

Hardalee

That's the same thing that I said.

The downward movement occurs before the expulsion of air.

Had explosives been involved we would have seen the air come out first.

In addition, the bowing in of the perimeter columns is clearly representative of a significant failure of the building's structure and is clearly caused by the fire, not by explosives.

Arthur

Sorry about that. My bad reading.

No, no, actually you two were arguing different things there. Please to continue your conflict.

No conflict, Hardalee and I are saying the exact same thing.

And in the collapse, no explosions either.

http://s24.photobucket.com/albums/c23/JPPics/9-11/?action=view&current=WTC2Collapse.mp4

Duhr. Well now I feel just silly.

So why did Silverstein tell the fire department to "pull"? I guess the fire department was supposed to tell the "intelligence community" to blow the building?
He was on NATIONAL FREAKING TV!! Ooops! I just admitted to blowing up my own building. :rolleyes:
Of course there is no such thing...just a term from JREF. You said the collapse looked like a cd...the only thing you left out..it didn't sound like a cd. Every single video of a building implosion features extremely loud, clear explosive sounds that start seconds before the collapse. (like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U)) The videos of WTC7 collapse lack these tale-tell explosive sounds. How do you explain that?
I guess it was NF that mentioned insurance fraud.
like i said, it's speculation on my part but it DOES explain a couple of very big anomalies.

like i said, it's speculation on my part but it DOES explain a couple of very big anomalies.

What does it explain?

By the way anybody noticed, that the penthouse on the top of Building 7 collapsed first??

That doesn't happen with cd....

That's usually caused by karma.

By the way anybody noticed, that the penthouse on the top of Building 7 collapsed first??

That doesn't happen with cd....

It could happen with CD.

No reason that CD charges couldn't be used to create the same damage and fail the same columns in the same order the fire did.

The problem is (besides the obvious one of the inability to place these charges without being detected) is that there are secondary effects from explosives that weren't seen or heard.

Invariably the smarter members of the conspiracy groups always migrate to the use of NanoThermite as the medium because of the obvious lack of these effects and because they can assign nearly miraculous attributes to the stuff.

And the gullible eat it up.

Arthur

Fortunately for them Arthur, the company that makes Hush-A-BoomTM silent explosives also makes Not-So-Brite-NanothermiteTM...a substance that burns white hot, but gives off no light or smoke, and can cut through steel without leaving any traces of iron slag on the columns. ;)

That's usually caused by karma.

No it isn't...I just told you that.

Oh..and will this be the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?

No it isn't (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-572077907195969915)

Oh, just the five minutes, please.

Very well...like I said, this is not about Karma.

Now anyone who buys this shit, once more explain this:

1. How did they know that the building would get at least decent damage, so they can use that damage as a cover story for the demolition?


Blowing up a bilding outright would still be a "terrorist" attack.


2. A building full of explosives and being on fire for hours wouldn't have explosions going on constantly that can be seen and heard for everyone outside? Now I know, some claim that there are explosions being heard, but sure they can not be seen.

I presented video evidence of explosions on one of the towers, and a witness repprt of explosions in WTC7.


3. How do you rig a building of this size without anyone noticing? And anyway, what is the purpose of it, to protect/hide sensitive material??? Let's stick to one conspiracy at a time. It is either protect or hide... The protecting thing is ridiculous, to hide it, they could have just started a fire with a gas explosion, no planes were needed...

bad guys protecting themselves by destroying documents, see?

The NST gives a possible reason for the failiure of the frame, not THE reason, no one can, but a lot of people are dead who wanted to speak out against the offical report.

Blowing up a bilding outright would still be a "terrorist" attack.

This is true...but doesn't answer the question asked. How would they know ahead of time that an event would happen that would damage the wtc7 enough that they could use the pre-rigged explosives without arousing suspension? Even if they knew AQ was going to attack the towers ahead of time..there's no way to know that 7 would have been damaged and caught on fire.

I presented video evidence of explosions on one of the towers, and a witness repprt of explosions in WTC7.
What you posted was about the twin towers, not 7. The videos of the collapse show none of the tell-tale signs of imposion...loud explosives sounds immediately before the collapse, rows of intact windows blowing out etc.

bad guys protecting themselves by destroying documents, see?
These "bad guys" never heard of a paper shredder? ...or thought to use small incendiary devices to destroy the documents/computers...instead they figured bringing down the entire building was the best course of action?:rolleyes:

The NST gives a possible reason for the failiure of the frame, not THE reason, no one can, but a lot of people are dead who wanted to speak out against the offical report.
It's NIST, and the entire scientific community (with the exception of a few nutjobs) supports their findings. BTW, no one died in building 7.

Blowing up a bilding outright would still be a "terrorist" attack.

Not if it was by CD explosives carefully placed in the building.


I presented video evidence of explosions on one of the towers, and a witness repprt of explosions in WTC7.

When?
There are NO videos that include the obvious results of high explosives going off in the Towers prior to the collapse.

There were no reports of anything but loud sounds coming from WTC 7 as the floors inside failed.
High Explosives have a unique signature and NONE were recorded on any of the videos that day, and NIST tests of the smallest possible explosive required to cut one critical column allowing for preparation of the column for direct placement and pre-cutting of the column so that it would still hold until blown showed that you would get a 130 DB blast that would blow out windows in the tower and be heard over a mile away.

No windows were blown out and no thunderclap like that was heard prior to the collapse.


bad guys protecting themselves by destroying documents, see?

But knocking down a building does not ensure documents get destroyed. It would be a huge risk with a good chance of failure. In any case, just saying you can come up with a motive (no matter how rediculous it is) means nothing if you can't come up with someone with the means and opportunity and evidence that it was done.

You have none of that.

Arthur

The NST gives a possible reason for the failiure of the frame, not THE reason, no one can,

But what they did do is show a very scientific analysis that shows how fire alone could bring down the tower and do it in a manner that was consistent with the video record of it's failure.

Indeed, most of the original assumptions were shown to not be true.
That the damage from the WTC 1 falling caused significant structural damage or that the fuel tanks in the WTC 7 building were partially responsible.


but a lot of people are dead who wanted to speak out against the offical report.

BS

But knocking down a building does not ensure documents get destroyed. It would be a huge risk with a good chance of failure.

Arthur

Indeed:

http://www.resonancepub.com/images/paper.jpg

Very well...like I said, this is not about Karma.

It's totally about karma. The penthouse suite falls first. It's a sign from God.

It's totally about karma. The penthouse suite falls first. It's a sign from God.

No it isn't.

You're five minutes are up.

like i said, it's speculation on my part but it DOES explain a couple of very big anomalies.

What anaomalies?