WT7 Collapse Caught on Video ----------------------------- MPEG

[bpilgrim]

http://globalfreepress.com/movs/911/wtc-7_collapse.mpg

has there been an official explaination yet?

thanks for any info :toast:

peace

[americanstranger]

1. I thought it was because

the building was weakened from all the collapses going on around it all day.

Could be wrong, tho. DLing the movie now.

-as

[bpilgrim]

4. well it certainly looks like the bottom goes out from under it...

i haven't seen an official theory on it yet, though... so if anyone has a link i would love to see it.

now i lived through the japanese earth quake and i have seen buildings tipped over laying in the streets, espically the ones made from steel, but i don't remmember any seeing any steel buildings falling in thier foot print when i rode my bike around kobe the day after but i will look that up as well but to my untrained eye it looks to 'clean' to me.

thanks :hi:

btw: are we ever gonna do a link exchange or yall gonna wait till i go out of business ;->

peace

[Sterling]

22. dito on thye LA 94 EQ

No building collapsed like WTC 1 2 or 7.

[SPAZtazticman]

224. the towers were designed to fall vertically

the towers were built so that, if they ever fell, they would collapse in on themselves instead of crushing half of lower manhattan and killing hundreds of thousands of people.

[hexola]

103. Like a trampoline...

Stand on a trampoline with a friend sometime. You stand still. Have him/her jump. When they land...the tramp goes down...Since you are not in motion...you will have the tendency to stay in place. However, you will start to drop slightly. On your way down (be it ever so slight)you will contact the tramp as it rebounds from your partners jump. The tramps upward motion will reverse your downward travel rather abruptly...However, the tramp will not bounce you up very far.

Thats my physics analogy...you are WTC7 - your friend are the towers.

Thats what I see happening to WTC7...the lower parts of its structure would be significantly weakend by the concussions of the towers falling...(or "bouncing")

Aren't earthquakes more of a lateral motion...thus explaining the tendency of stuff to fall over...?

[bpilgrim]

106. It fell about seven hours after the strange collapses of the other two AND

the kobe quake moved in BOTH DIRECTIONS not to mention that the penthouse collapses first.

peace

[hexola]

116. 7 hours or 7 minutes later...

the damage to WTC 7 would be the same...add the smoldering fires to that equation...

KOBE
"The focal mechanism of the earthquake indicates right-lateral strike-slip faulting on a vertical fault striking slightly east of northeast, parallel to the strike of the mapped faults"

http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/Programs/Geoengineering/research/Kobe/Somerville/qnews.html

[bpilgrim]

125. yeah, who needs any proof...

Dr. Rainer said every quake has two horizontal components, forward-backward and sideways, and a vertical component. Generally, he said, the vertical component is only half to two-thirds of the horizontal components.

"But in Kobe, because the rupture zone was virtually underneath the city, the vertical component was about the same size as the horizontal, and was very high."

http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/newsletter/v1no1/kobe_e.html



peace

[hexola]

134. Obviously you don't...

The point is...there would be very little lateral motion in the WTC7 situation...only vertical.

Unless I've missed something - the only "proof" you've offered is the similarity of the WTC7 collapse and a controlled implosion.

Cool Sites
http://www.controlled-demolition.com
http://www.implosionworld.com/

[bpilgrim]

139. you posted inaccurate information and then you say i don't need proof?

yeah... that makes sense to folks who don't have any credibility maybe :crazy:

peace

[hexola]

142. What was inaccurate?

just what was inaccurate?...you haven't posted one single fact - with the exception of the KOBE earthquake info?

[bpilgrim]

144. the kobe earthquake info

you tried to post some info to contradict my remark about it's up and down motion so i provided evidence to back up my statement.

secondly i have posted images and video of what happened and asked for answers you post crap trying to dismiss this all as a kooky conspiracy theory.

get a grip

peace

[hexola]

153. From your own KOBE source

The intense vertical movement is thought to have imposed such high compressive forces on 30 concrete columns at one subway station that they collapsed, causing a concrete roof 50 centimetres thick to cave in. There was little damage to the side walls.

These are the same compressive forces caused by vertical movement that would have weakend the lower regions of WTC7 -

And my KOBE source (UC Berkley) does not contradict your info...note the phrase "vertical fault"

[bpilgrim]

154. i said it moved in both directions

you seemed to try and contradict it with your following post then i responded with PROOF that it did move in both directions.

AND the TOP of the building collapsed first and it DIDN'T cave in on ONE side and leave something standing at the end it all came down CLEANLY not like the destruction i witnessed in kobe.

now unless you have some actually facts pertaining to wtc7 i think we should 'move on'

peace

[hexola]

159. My point was...

that the destruction you decribe in KOBE was more akin to lateral motion. And you have provided us with proof that there was equal lateral and vertical motion. I used your source to compliment my argument that the vertical force would cause lower structual damage - but leave certain stuctures (walls...sides of buildings) intact...

The video source only shows the upper half of the building...so how can you know what happend at the base? I can't see the lower half of WTC7 so I dont know what gave away first...

[bpilgrim]

165. i showed an overhead shot with no walls as well AND

the ROOF gave way first then the bottom AND all four corners went down evenly, way too clean.

you talked about lateral force being enough to weaken the building and i agree BUT no japanese building collapsed CLEANLY after the initial earthquake or during and the ones that DID didn't do so UNIFORMLLY.

it is the UNIFORMITY of the collapse that seems wrong to a 'natural' random disastor.

peace

[hexola]

174. of course not...

the japanese buildings were all exposed to lateral and vertical forces...and of a greater magnitude...the lateral motions would not let them collapse cleanly...why would you expect anything to happen uniformly in a major earthquake...?

[bpilgrim]

177. not JUST earthquakes...

point me to another building that collapsed in its own foot print by fire or explosives that wasn't a CD.

lets stay focused...

peace

[hexola]

181. well...there probably aren't any

...its not like there are slews of buildings catching fire or blowing up everyday...for any reason...it a bit too rare to typify...

CDs happen everyday...

I'll concede - It looks like a CD - and if WTC7 wasn't nearby to the destruction of 2 of the largest buildings in the world -I'd say you were onto something...

[bpilgrim]

183. there aren't

and there has been 0 steel structures to collapse due to any fire as well, at least none that i could find, but i am always open to new sources.

peace

[hexola]

186. Combination of factors...

but its not just fire in the case of WTC - its massive structual trauma + fire...

Just how many fires - worldwide - have there been in buildings of the scale of WTC7 in the past 20 years...? Not many...and most of them didn't occur in the midst of one of the greatest human tragedies in history. Consider that most of the firefighting gear and many of the firefighters in NY were killed and destroyed when the towers fell...they let WTC7 burn.

They usually try to put those out...but 9-11 was a little different...

[bpilgrim]

190. "its massive structual trauma + fire" - at wtc7? Oh'Really? got any links?

i don't care how tall they were i just want an example of a fire bringing down a steel building and how many hours did it take.

btw: MASSIVE STRUCTUAL TRAUMA from an aluminum tube? got any links for that?

peace

[hexola]

191. Only if..

you can provide me an example of a similar steel building that was allowed to burn uncontrollably and didn't collapse. Got any links?

[bpilgrim]

196. here you go...

The A-bomb Dome standing quietly on the bank of the Motoyasu River is the remains of the Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall, which was nearly directly under the atomic bomb that exploded at 8:15 A.M., August 6, 1945. The name A-bomb Dome emerged spontaneously due to the shape left at the top of the destroyed building.

btw: usually they try to put these things out but aug 6 1945 was a differnt kinda day.

peace

[hexola]

198. Not good enough -

How about something comparable - an atomic blast?..please...that's not the same kind of fire and force...looks like quite a bit of stone/concrete too...

Why is it so hard to belive that WTC7 may have colapsed? It seems no more far fetched than your theory...yeah I'll admit. It looks like a CD - but only if you look at the video out of the 9-11 context...

[neuvocat]

201. Newton's Law:

Action and reaction. There are forces that act upon an object in both vertical and horizontal directions. These forces oppose each other.

There is a horizontal component. The planes strike the buildings and the buildings are able to withstand the force applied to them. After all, the planes did not go through the buildings. Neither did the buildings topple over. If the planes could go fast enough to fly through them then perhaps things would be a lot different.

Now look at the vertical components. The building is standing. You have the force of gravity acting upon it and the force of gravity is being resisted enough to keep them standing.

But do you remember that those planes are still in the buildings? Of course you do. Now you have the weight of the building. You also have the weight of the planes inside the building.

Can anyone tell me of any other time in history where a very tall building had a plane in it for several hours? Buildings like that aren't designed to hold passenger airplanes in them for several hours. Oh and let's not forget that there are still people in the planes, not to mention the fuel contained in them, so how can anyone suppose that the buildings will continue to stand?

Of course it is still theoretically possible. However there is still that ripple effect that was mentioned earlier. Those ripples also happen to have vertical and horizontal components to them. Still think the buildings are gonna stand after all that force being exerted on them? Hells no.

[bpilgrim]

205. nothing is good enough for you

it is your turn to show some proof.

peace

[Bushknew]

345. Are you saying that a plane crash is more devastating than an atomic blast

Are you saying that a plane crash is more devastating than an atomic blast?

[JHB]

227. Are you kidding?

For one thing, the Dome was still standing because it was directly under the blast: most of the forces on it acted downward... the same direction it's load-bearing members were designed to hold.

Second of all, it's nowhere near a similar case. The dome is only what, 5 stories tall? WTC 7 was 47. You think maybe if you stacked nine or ten Domes on top of each other they might not be able to support the weight?

[SPAZtazticman]

290. massive structural trauma from an aluminum tube

that was travelling at several hundred miles per hour!

[LARED]

203. That is not true

there has been 0 steel structures to collapse due to any fire as well

There have been a few dozen steel buildings that collapsed from fire. All were multilevel buildings, 5 to 10 stories if memory serves me correctly

I'll see if I can find the links.

[bpilgrim]

204. then lets see your proof

"There have been a few dozen steel buildings that collapsed from fire"

i would love to see them.

thanks :hi:

peace

[hexola]

207. No lets see YOUR proof

Can you produce a blasting cap? - explosive residue? - undetonated explosive? - real evidence of cutting charges?

A video the resembles other Controlled Demos is not proof.

[bpilgrim]

218. Controlled Demolition Inc. hauled it all away in secret...

Why was the evidence, the metal parts of the collapsed towers, not kept to be analyzed? Why was the metal hauled away, with the aid of reputed underworld truckers, and then sold overseas to those nations pledging absolute secrecy of the contents? Certain flag officers contend their treasonous Commander-in-Chief, supervised by Daddy, ordered this to be done. — Sherman H. Skolnick: The Overthrow of the American Republic, Part 14

http://www.skolnicksreport.com/ootar14.html

i have plenty of questions and you offer nothing but noise or attacks, just chill and lets try to find the answers.

peace

[maha]

292. In fact

The city started to sell off scrap, but structural engineers put a stop to it and studied the scraps first.

So what planet are you from?

[bpilgrim]

312. ah, thats not what i've seen

where is it now? got a link.

peace

[gbwarming]

328. It's in plain sight if you care to see

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_apndxD.pdf
D.5 Conclusions and Future Work

The ongoing volunteer effort of the SEAoNY engineers is securing WTC steel pieces that will provide physical evidence for studies on WTC building performance. As of March 15, 2002, seventeen engineers,
visiting four salvage yards, have identified approximately 150 pieces. Pieces have been identified that are from WTC 1, 2, 5, and 7. Documentary photographs and videos have been taken and coupons collected.

Future studies are expected based on the pieces and data collected. Coupons have been collected for metallurgical tests to determine the temperatures to which they were subjected and their steel characteristics.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is currently conducting environmental tests,
abating asbestos as necessary, and shipping available pieces to its Gaithersburg, MD, facility for storage and
further study. As of May 2002, a total of 41 steel pieces had been shipped to NIST.


http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf

Testimony of Dr. W. Gene Corley
Senior Vice President
CTL Engineering
Chicago, IL
On behalf of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Before the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards
& Subcommittee on Research Committee on Science
U.S. House of Representatives
March 6, 2002
<snip>

ASCE's Efforts Related to the World Trade Center
Building Performance Study Teams
On the afternoon of September 11, 2001, the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE (SEI/ASCE) began assembling two teams of experts to study the performance of the buildings at the World Trade Center Complex and the Pentagon. The goal of the studies is to increase our knowledge and understanding of how buildings subject to extreme forces, such as those caused by the crash and resulting fires, perform under these unusual circumstances.

The scope of the WTC study team is quite broad. Although much of the nation’s attention has been riveted to the collapse of the twin 110-story towers, the WTC team is also examining several of the buildings in the surrounding area to determine what lessons might be learned from the performance of those structures as a result of their
being impacted by falling debris and ensuing fires. Of particular interest to the engineering community is the performance of WTC 7 and the Banker's Trust Building.
...

Data Collection
Simultaneous with the efforts to assemble the team and organize the supporting coalition, work began to collect data and information pertinent to the study. A significant part of this data collection phase was holding a meeting of the team in New York City to examine the wreckage and the surrounding buildings impacted by the collapse. On September 29th, the City of New York granted the team access to the World Trade Center site and from October 7th to the 12th, the entire team was on site. The team was provided with unrestricted access to all areas of the site except for areas where their presence might have impeded the on-going rescue and recovery efforts and areas
which were determined to be extremely hazardous. To aid the team in this intense 6-day effort, FEMA made its Regional Operation Center (less that 8 blocks form the WTC site) available for use by the team on a 24-7 basis. During this time period, team members also examined structural debris at the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island and at the two recycling yards in New Jersey.

Samples of structural steel were obtained and have since been subjected to laboratory analyses. Under the guidance of selected team members, numerous professional engineers who are members of SEAoNY are continuing this work on the team’s behalf and have been visiting recycling yards and landfills regularly since the beginning of
November. Additional samples of the structural steel have been obtained and are presently being stored at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland for use in future studies.
<snip>
There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World
Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures.

Resources are always an issue with building performance studies, particularly for one whose magnitude and scale is unprecedented. The total amount of resources being dedicated to support the team’s activities is approximately $1 million, which has allowed the team to do the initial reconnaissance of the site and the building materials,
begin the process of hypothesis setting, and conduct some limited testing. This raises the question of what amount of money would be sufficient. It is our opinion that $40 million would be a sufficient amount to fully fund a comprehensive study of an event of this magnitude and complexity.

[bpilgrim]

330. "taken and coupons collected... 41 steel pieces had been shipped to NIST"

:wow: what a MASSIVE investigation... and the jury is still out eh?

well maybe we can brainstorm some simular occurances in history to help them speed things along?

shoot, we got the best damn think tank right here DU :bounce:

any engineers out there... little help please :hi:

peace

[gbwarming]

337. Selective vision

Those links directly contradict your assertion that the scrap was hauled away secretly and sold overseas before anyone got a chance to examine the wreckage. They also describe far more sampling than the 41 archived coupons that you chose to ridicule.

[bpilgrim]

338. no, they hauled MASSIVE AMMOUNTS AWAY in secret, Burning Questions..

After 9-11 Administration Damage Control Efforts:

Fire Engineering Magazine assails the incredible speed that the evidence in
the WTC collapse is being destroyed. Never
in the history of fire investigations has evidence been destroyed this fast
before exhaustive investigations can be completed. <"We must try to find out[br />why the twin towers fell" By James Quintiere,Baltimore Sun 1/3/01
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.towers03jan03.story
-WTC "INVESTIGATION"?: A CALL TO ACTION from Fire Engineering Magazine]

...

"Burning Questions...Need Answers": FE's Bill Manning Calls for Comprehensive Investigation of WTC Collapse

Fair Lawn, NJ, January 4, 2002-Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief, is summoning members of the fire service to "A Call to Action." In his January 2002 Editor's Opinion, "$elling Out the Investigation" (below), he warns that unless there is a full-blown investigation by an independent panel established solely for that purpose, "the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals." Manning explained: "Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers .... The lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world."

In an interview with the New York Daily News today, Manning reiterated his call for a "full-throttle, fully resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. He is asking members of the fire service to read "WTC 'Investigation'? A Call to Action" in the January 2002 issue of Fire Engineering and at fireengineering.com and to contact their representatives in Congress and officials in Washington to ask that a blue ribbon panel be convened to thoroughly investigate the WTC collapse.

Among those also calling for the investigation are Sally Regenhard, the mother of Christian Regenhard, the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) probationary firefighter killed in the World Trade Center (WTC) attack, and founder of the Campaign for Skyscraper Safety; Give Your Voice, a civilian relatives' group headed by Michael Cartier, who lost his brother in the collapse; prominent structural engineers and fire-safety experts, and New York State Senators Charles Schumer and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

more...
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

peace

[maha]

358. Oh THAT article.

I remember reading that when it came up. It is wrong. I live in New York and have access to better information, I guess, but the stuff about hauling the building away in secret and/or shutting off investigation is totally bogus. A number of engineering firms and agencies went through every sliver of those buildings.

Just one example:

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/report/news/december5/wtc-125.html

[bpilgrim]

360. "Fire Engineering" the fire industry most respected journal

(3) Sifting operations at the Staten Island landfill. Almost immediately, much of the steel from the site was shredded and sold to foreign markets instead of being preserved as crime scene evidence. (Photo 1 by FDNY Photo Unit; photos 2 and 3 courtesy of FEMA.)

"Steel really has no memory," Once you melt down steel from the World Trade Center, it could end up in a soup can or the fender of a car—anywhere, really."—Bill Heenan, president of the Steel Recycling Institute in Pittsburgh, "WTC steel's being put to work again," New York Daily News, Jan. 17, 2002

Before the end of the year, most of the steel from the twin towers will have been recycled. As of yesterday, 157,759 tons of the steel had been hauled out of Ground Zero.—"WTC steel's being put to work again," New York Daily News, Jan. 17, 2002

more...
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=ARCHI&Subsection=Display&ARTICLE_ID=163446&KEYWORD=wtc

btw: your link points to an old professor guessing about what happened. he only mention wtc7 ONCE and only to acknowledge that NO steel building in U.S. history has collapsed from fire. what kinda proof is that? :shrug:

peace

[maha]

364. It may be, but

The article is full of disinformation. I remember discussing it with people when it came out. I was astonished, because I'd been keeping up with the several structural investigations through the New York Times and other sources, and the fire magazine article just didn't jive. The author had some axe to grind.

As for your steel building comment -- the WTC collapse was way outside the scope of any building fire or collapse that's ever happened on planet earth. It can't be compared to anything else. The engineers say that everything that happened is explainable, given the scale and magnitude of the disaster. Just because nothing like it has ever happened BEFORE means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. There is no architectural disaster that can be compared to it, anywhere, because no buildings of that size ever sustained any damage of that magnitude before.

[bpilgrim]

370. we are talking about WTC7...

trying to keep this topic focused...



The Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome) was the only structure left standing in the area where the first atomic bomb exploded on 6 August 1945. Through the efforts of many people, including those of the city of Hiroshima, it has been preserved in the same state as immediately after the bombing. Not only is it a stark and powerful symbol of the most destructive force ever created by humankind; it also expresses the hope for world peace and the ultimate elimination of all nuclear weapons.

source...
http://whc.unesco.org/sites/775.htm

look at this remarkable building, one of japans first to reinforce themselves with STEEL and suffered seveir trama and fire damage yet it was still standing in the end.

the problem is with it's collapse, so clean, due to fire? we can't find ANY example of another STEEL BUILDING falling in it's footprint due to fire in HISTORY.

peace

[paxamor]

303. minor detail of a 100000-fold difference in energy

>These are the same compressive forces caused by vertical movement
>that would have weakend the lower regions of WTC7

So S-waves of 2.3 magnitude from the North Tower collapse - shaking that you could barely feel -
are the "same compressive forces" as the S and P waves in the 7.2 magnitude Kobe earthquake.
Well, sort of, if you ignore the minor detail that Richter 7.2 is about 100000 times as strong as 2.3.

If 2.3 magnitude quakes could level steel buildings, we'd have alot of flat cities.

[bpilgrim]

313. good point

and welcome to the DU :toast:

peace

[maha]

314. I grew up in an earthquake plane, believe it or not.

It's like a flood plane, except we had earthquakes.

Anyway, in my experience Richter 3.0 to 4.0 feels like a truck driving by your house. Below that you can't feel them. I was in a 4.0 earthquake once and watched my daughter's crib bounce across the room, but that was all that happened.

[Must_B_Free]

145. How much are they paying you

to spin this?

[Pobeka]

228. I don't buy the trampoline theory

If that was true, why, over all these decades of demolishing buildings with explosives in constrained city spaces, have we not lost an adjacent building?

[paxamor]

302. trampoline 'theory'

You can't be serious!?

The largest seismic source on 9/11, the North Tower collapse at 10:28AM, had local magnitude of 2.3.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html

Most steel frame buildings are designed to survive earthquakes of at least a magnitude 8.
The 8.1 magnitude earthquake in Mexico city in 1985 only caused the complete collapse
of one such building, and it its engineering was questionable.
The Richter scale is logarithmic, with each whole number increment corresponding to a 10 fold increase in energy.
So according to your trampoline theory, ground shaking with only 1/1000000 th the energy
that the Building 7 was designed to survive caused its total collapse nearly 7 hours later,
or so weakened the building that fires caused it to totally collapse,
when fires have never caused even the partial collapse of a steel building.

Interesting theory!

[DoNotRefill]

170. Entirely different kinds of force being applied...

Earthquakes are a kind of wave motion in the crust of the earth. Picture a thin sheet of plastic laid flat, and then lift one side up and put it right back down. That's the kind of surface motion you'd see in an earthquake if you could watch it from the side in cross-section. When the foundation lifts as the wave passes, it imparts lateral motion, giving a toppling motion. If the interior structure is intact, that can make it fall sideways, because the structure itself holds the building firm, preventing pancaking.

[bpilgrim]

178. show me an example

of any other buildings that fell in their own foot print that wasn't done by CD.

the earth quake in kobe had both horizontal and verticle motion going own.

i didn't see any steel structures that pancaked in on them selves i saw random collapses here and there as expected.

wtc7 falls perfectly all four corners all at the same time.

peace

[hexola]

182. right!

thats because in KOBE there were strong horizantal forces (equal to the vertical)...at WTC it was all vertical...

The KOBE argument isn't serving you well...

[bpilgrim]

184. huh? i have seen clean collapses and random collapses

the clean ones were ALL due to CD all the others were partial or as ive said a whole steel building collapsing sideways, INTACT.

the point being, it was all very MESSY, cept the CD ones.

peace

[gbwarming]

185. Are there any examples of toppled large buildings (non-earthquake)?

I'm not familiar with any of those either. It's not clear to me how a tall building should fail - I don't think the angle could get very large before the bending and shear stresses would cause the vertical structure to buckle. Without those elements there would be nothing to force the rotation and any collapes would become more vertical

[bpilgrim]

187. well the issue is the uniformity of the collapse...

if this was a natural, random occurence, i would expect to see some randomness of the collapse.

however in a CD this is exactly what i would expect to see.

think back to any building you seen that had been badly damaged to the point of destruction and collapse usually there is something left standing.

you see, a building is a ridged structure and built to withstand a great verticle load so that even as something gives way at on part of the building and it collapses there it usually isn't powerful enough to pull the whole building down around it at the same time because there is a LOT of resistance to the collapse by the other undamaged parts of the building.

anyways, if you have any examples of this happening in the past i would love to see'em.

thanks :toast:

peace

[gbwarming]

194. That is my question

How would a large building collapse... it seems we have no examples that do not come from earthquakes where we know there are lateral ground movements. Are there any buildings that have toppled that are, say, 10 or more times taller that their base dimension?

There are examples of whole floors of smaller buildings collapsing in the Kobe earthquake (photos E1-E7) that did not fall to the side. This _might_ be the most likely failure mode: http://geoinfo.usc.edu/gees/Reports/Report3/japan/KOBE.HTML#DAMAGE%20TO%20INFRASTRUCTURE

[bpilgrim]

197. we have OTHER examples via BOMBS, WINDS, WEATHERED, fires and such...

but nothing collapses in it's own footprint that i know of cept CD thats why i came to my favorite think tank to pose the question to.

peace

[nostamj]

20. that was absolutely a factor

BUT... from NYC's post:

"275-gallon diesel tanks sat on the fifth, seventh and eighth floors"

this was the fatal blow to that building--assuming it could have been saved following the damage from the collapse of the towers.

[bpilgrim]

28. so there was a fire than an explosion?

and it took out a main support collumn that brought the whole thing down?

why does the roof cave in first?

peace

[Dancing_Dave]

64. That Diesel stash would have made a more OKC type gash

By itself. Look at the Oklahoma City bombing pictures where there is a big gash in the building caused by a truck full of fertilizer. Or any other videos of what one big bomb did to a building. This is a different and much smoother pattern of demolition by many bombs inside which disintigrated the whole thing and let the bits free-fall.

Here's a good informative article with a lot of the basic data about what happened: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/LOU308A.html

[sybylla]

79. Only if you added fertilizer to it.

Diesel isn't explosive on its own. I will burn well, but you really have to tweak it to get it to burn hot. Won't explode.

On the other hand, 6000 gallons of diesel probably has some serious weight to it. Destabilize the building and i could see how it could bring it down.

[ProudGerman]

259. Several problems with your analogy

First, in OKC, the bomb was parked outside, away from the structure. The 275 gallon tanks were inside the structure, and because of their weight, would have to be close to main support columns.

And more importantly, the CD theory requires large numbers of people to be involved, and massively extensive wiring to be done without someone catching on. (we are talking about miles of wire)

Also, in every controlled demolition, teams go in with cutting torches and do strategic cutting of support beams. Explain how that was done in the weeks before without anyone noticing?

Many, many workers for weeks on end before hand would have had to set the building up for a CD. You're trying to say that all that happened, without a single person asking why. The people doing the work would have known exactly what they were doing even if they weren't told, so they would have to be in on the conspiracy as well.

I just don't see that happening with that many people involved. Bring forward someone who put one blasting cap in that building before hand, and then I'll begin to think about the CD theory.

[jmowreader]

305. You can do "strategic cutting of support beams" with explosives

Civilian CD firms do it with cutting torches because acetylene is cheaper and safer than explosives, but any combat engineer can set the charges to clip a steel beam in half. It's taught in the context of dropping bridges, but the same principles will work here.

I don't think there's any way the CD theory is true, but the buildings' dropping like they were imploded sure adds to the credibility of the theory.

[Must_B_Free]

199. That's not a CD

it's lopsided at best. Have you seen how CD is done? Perfectly timed and placed simultaneous explosions.

[Dancing_Dave]

67. That was kinda the official version....

But one problem with that official theory is that most buildings that were right next to the Twin Towers were unscathed. The WTC 7 demolition sequence went off hours after the Twin Towers fell, and no big chunk of those buildings ever hit it.

Now here is a very important clue to this mystery: THE CIA AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE HAD SOME TOP SECRET RESEARCH OFFICES IN WTC 7. So top secret, that evidence about them would have to be destroyed in any case. So what if neo-cons like Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld hijacked this part of the military industrial complex and got them involved in a propaganda coup, covert psy-op 9/11. He certainly has the power to DEMAND that as Secretary of Defence. And if these guys helped in the destruction of the Twin Towers, all evidence of what they were doing would have to be destroyed...and was destroyed when WTC 7 was thouroughly disintigrated.

[never cry wolf]

100. wrong again

most of the buildings adjacent to the towers sustained such heavy damage that they were unsafe for habitation, beyind repair and had to be demolished. in auto accident phraseology, they were totalled.

[Must_B_Free]

200. Obviously his point was that they

didn't collapse in the signature Controlled Demolition style.

[Sterling]

2. Great find DLing now

nt

[bpilgrim]

6. psst...

are you at home or work?

peace

[ronnykmarshall]

3. It was a UFO!!!

Just like the one that flew off the side of WTC 2 just before it collapsed! It had lasar beams on it. I know. I seen it.

[bpilgrim]

5. got any proof?

peace

[ronnykmarshall]

7. I seen it!

That's all I need to say. I seen it!

[TomNickell]

11. Oh, in that case....

I guess you are right.

[bpilgrim]

12. oh

well, that isn't really good enough, sorry,

thanks for your input though :hi:

peace

[Bushknew]

17. LOL / But did an architect see the UFO? That is the question!

But did an architect see the UFO? That is the question!

[TomNickell]

10. NO! NO! NO!

IT WAS ANTI-GRAVITY DEATH RAY THAT ACTUALLY MADE THE HOLE IN THE PENTAGON INSTEAD OF THE 767 THAT HASN'T BEEN SEEN SINCE!

ISN'T THIS OBVIOUS? ISN'T THIS CLEAR?

IF YOU DON'T SEE THAT THIS IS OBVIOUS, YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY WORKING FOR KARL ROVE!

GO BACK TO THE FREE REPUBLIC!

[hang a left]

60. why are you always in everyone's face

when 9-11 is questioned eh?

[Sterling]

110. That ? is almost as interesting as some of the 9-11 stuff?

Why he is allowed to hurl cruel personal insults at posters is troubling.

[Dancing_Dave]

71. UFO's are relative...

:hippie: A UFO is just a flying object that isn't identified yet. Later on, people often figure out what they really were. As of now, what hit the Pentagon is a UFO...there's enough evidence that it wasn't really the Boeing 757 that the Bush Regime claimed it was, but there's several other things it coulda been and we don't know for sure what it was yet. One of these days, will get enough clues to make it an IFO--identified flying object.

As a musician I've occasionally been hit by UFO's at concerts, but then I identified 'em as someones underwear or whatever. There are lots of POSSIBILITIES.

[NYC]

8. Giuliani's bunker in 7 WTC.

Bunker built 1998 on 23rd floor, according to this:
One of the running gags of the Giuliani years was ‘‘the bunker’’ — press shorthand for the $15 million Emergency Command Center the mayor built on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center in 1998.

My note: It was originally supposed to cost $8, but apparently wound up $15.

...burning fuel apparently undermined what is known as a transfer truss. The trusses, a series of steel beams that allowed the skyscraper to be built atop multistory electricity transformers, were critical to the structural integrity of the building and ran near the smaller diesel tanks.
A failure of the same type of structural bridge contributed to the collapse of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City when it was bombed in 1995.
...
Jerome M. Hauer, who was the director of Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management at the time the command center was opened at 7 World Trade, said several teams of engineers reviewed plans to open the office there. But no one ever mentioned any hazard associated with placing fuel tanks above ground, near a transfer truss, he said.
"There were a host of people who looked at this," said Mr. Hauer, who is now a managing director of the crisis and consequence group at Kroll Worldwide, a security consulting company based in New York. "We relied on their judgment."
...
... 275-gallon diesel tanks sat on the fifth, seventh and eighth floors and were fed through pipes from the larger tanks near ground level. The team member said that while the diesel fuel remains the most likely candidate for feeding the fires, it was still unknown whether there could have been other sources of fuel in the building, kept there by tenants like the Secret Service that have disclosed little of what their spaces contained. (I had thought Giuliani’s bunker was on the 8th floor.)

... Oklahoma City, during the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building, a large transfer girder on the building's third floor gave way, helping to precipitate a progressive collapse that later analysis showed was responsible for most of the 168 deaths.

... http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/02/nyregion/02TOWE.html?pagewanted=1

NO NYT LINK FOR THIS:

NY TIMES December 20, 2001
City Had Been Warned of
Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center
"Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes. The 6,000-gallon tank was positioned about 15 feet above the ground floor and near several lobby elevators and was meant to fuel generators that would supply electricity to the 23rd-floor bunker in the event of a power failure. Although the city made some design changes to address the concerns - moving a fuel pipe that would have run from the tank up an elevator shaft, for example - it left the tank in place. But the Fire Department repeatedly warned that a tank in that position could spread fumes throughout the building if it leaked, or, if it caught fire, could produce what one Fire Department memorandum called "disaster."

[Minstrel Boy]

26. I'm a LIHOP-MIHOPer,

but I think this is the most logical explanation. And even conspiracies must be beholden to logic.

Talk of explosives at the WTC and no airplane at the Pentagon only distract from the central issues of 9/11 that we need to keep hammering.

[bpilgrim]

41. we are talking about WT7

and it is the only one to collapse of it's immediate neighbors, in it's OWN footprint no less, all very cleanly.

it seems strange to me.

peace

[Minstrel Boy]

55. I know, and it is strange, but

when I learned about Guiliani's massive fuel tank in WTC 7, that was enough for me to file away its collapse as a curio, rather than a smoking gun.

Sure, it's possible that it was demolished. But there's also a reasonable explanation for why it collapsed as it did without needing to invoke demolition charges. But there's no reasonable explanation for why the skies weren't defended, why the warnings were unheeded, why pre-9/11 investigations were impeded, why the cover-up, and so on. I think pounding away on those matters is a better use of our energies.

[bpilgrim]

80. well i was one of the first to pund on the S.O.P. breakdown and others BUT

as 911 roles around we need to resurface ALL the issues that the MEDIA refuse to deal with just to get people to LOOK at this horrific event again 'in a new light' to borrow a pharse, hopefully in a calm and rational way.

this is one of the MANY questions that hasn't been anwsered effectivly or officially and i think it is worth mentioning, at least.

:hi:

peace

[Bushknew]

140. How did the collapse of the towers cause the ignition of the fuel tanks in

How did the collapse of the towers cause the ignition of the fuel tanks in WTC 7?

Why would the WTC 7 have massive tanks of fuel in them in the first place?

[KoKo]

84. b.pilgrim, sorry to seem clueless but what is WT7? I've seen posts poppin

up here on Du and what building are you talking about. I only know about the twin towers collapsing.....is this some building next door to the towers that collapsed but no one is talking about it?

Is this some new building collapse I haven't heard about....what??

thanks!

[bpilgrim]

90. WTC-7: The Improbable Collapse

Mysteries abound about World Trade Center 7's (WTC-7) demise on September 11, 2001. In the early evening in the Big Apple of that horrific day this 47-story steel building suddenly collapsed. An odd series of failures had occurred.

They begin when a small amount of debris falls from the implosion of World Trade Center 1, a block away. Somehow small fires subsequently break out in WTC-7. The fireproofing systems completely fail. The fires burn all day from an unknown fuel. Eventually, the flames reach tanks of diesel fuel at ground level. Suddenly, the penthouse begins to fall. The entire lower levels immediately experience the same massive failures. About seven seconds later the entire building is gone. It takes a minute for 2 million square feet of office space to become a large pile of rubble.

Satellite photos later confirm that the vast majority of WTC-7's rubble rests in what was the building’s footprint. The neatness of the rubble enables clean-up crews to swiftly remove and recycle the steel after just a cursory examination.

World Trade Center 7 (WTC-7) was built in 1985. It was located across Vesey Street from the main World Trade Center compound. It was a largely-conventional steel building which had forty-four floors. Somewhat dark and sleek, it was designed by Emery Roth & Sons. It collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001. Fortunately, WTC-7 had been evacuated and no one is known to have been killed by its demise.

It fell about seven hours after the strange collapses of the North and South Twin Towers. (WTC-2, the South tower, collapsed around 10:00 a.m. WTC-1, the North, came down about a half hour later.) The unknown quantity of debris from WTC-1 is said to have caused fires in WTC-7 that prevailed on the 11th floor.

more...
http://www.media-criticism.com/World_Trade_Center_7_2003.html

:hi:

peace

[KoKo]

131. Thanks, I remember hearing about that building...but didn't pick up it was

called WTC7........ I won't even ask what happened to 3-6.....were they also buildings next to Towers 1 & 2? WTC7 is the only building I remember in reports at the time that was evacuated because it was declared right off as "structurally unsound" so I didn't think any more about it. So.......I see it collapsed and now some folks think it was detonated......

Oh well.......I'm a :tinfoilhatter: so I guess anythings possible.....

[JHB]

233. WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6...

Breif summary from http://septterror.tripod.com/the911basics.html

WTC 3: The Marriott World Trade center hotel. The 22-story hotel originally was the Vista when Hilton opened it in 1981. It was destroyed by debris from the collapsing towers.

WTC 4 and 5: The "Plaza Buildings" each had nine stories, with WTC 4 on the south and WTC 5 on the north. Both buildings were heavily damaged and were torn down in 2001-2002.

WTC 6: The US Customs House; eight stories. Severely damaged in the attack and demolished by construction crews in 2001-2002.

[rooboy]

52. I will pay $50 to the person...

who can provide me with video footage (not Rumsfeld's slide show) of AA77 crashing into the Pentagon. To this day I'm yet to see anything.

[Nederland]

105. And I will pay $500 to the person

...who can show me what happened to the AA77 and the 64 people who were aboard if flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon.

[Dancing_Dave]

98. I can't quite understand

Why you or anyone else who realizes that the Bush Regime was complicit in 9/11, can't research all the evidence on the web and figure out that the official story we heard about what happened on 9/11 was just another Bush lie that he could get the corporate media to stupidly parrot. He had millions of dollars to offer to American scientists and engineers who would just offer some quick underinformed speculation which would seem support the official myth. Of course, some did go for the easy money. It was a corruption of the whole research grant process which many scientists are now objecting too. Now, everyday more and more scientists around the world are bravely speaking out against the official propaganda version of what happened on 9/11, even though they can't make nearly as much money off of telling the truth about this as they could by lying about it!

This is exactly the kind of independent mindedness that Jefferson, Adams and the other designers of democracy ASSUMED EVERY CITIZEN WOULD HAVE. If we don't support it and recover our independent intelligence, our Democracy is doomed.

You don't say anything to show me that you understand the process of controlled demolition, as opposed to a single inflamation of fuel, that you've seen this video and other videos of controlled demolition to recognize the pattern there or really looked at the completely different thing that happens when a bunch of diesal fuel catches fire.
If you if you want to have any hope of ever bringing down the Bush Regime, you MUST master all that evidence and start thinking more open mindedly about what really happened on 9/11. It is the ONE AND ONLY WAY WE CAN GET RID OF THE BUSH REGIME AND THE NIGHTMARISH DOWNWARD SPIRAL IT HAS CREATED.

[never cry wolf]

107. why would they need controlled demolition???

i guess i just don't get your point. that fact that the planes alone could do all that damage is not damning enough? if LIHOP or MIHOP were ever proven these guys would be hung by their gonads, with or without bombs. the fact that hundreds, maybe thousands of well respected (maybe even dem, most intellectuals are dem, ya know) engineers and scientists from many different fields seem to feel that the planes were quite adequate to do the job. i think your efforts would be better spent researching the bfee links to the saudis and the lack of military response to the hijackings (someone told them to stand down) if you want to nail them on 9-11.

and on edit, so would mine.

[bpilgrim]

111. to MINIMIZE DAMAGE

and who would want to do that?

the neo-cons running the 'show'

peace

[Dancing_Dave]

249. Right on.

:hippie: And I will add a bit more detail on that. Part of the reason for doing Controlled Demolition is that there's already a lot of people who know HOW to do it. Then you can see how those neo-con artists would balance some considerations in their plot, like we have millions of bucks in Wall Street investments so we can't destory all of lower Manhattan with toppeling towers, but we do have to disintigrate as much evidence as possible --solution CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. :think:

[Dancing_Dave]

247. I understand where your coming from

:) And maybe what you can contribute would be more to people who are studying and activating on those sides of the issue. When I think about it a little more, we do have to go on with the fact that not every citizen is going to be able and willing to understand all the physics issues related to the destruction of the WTC. I find some of it pretty hard to follow myself. I took quite a bit of physics up into college, but now I've been working as a musician for a while and haven't been practicing calculations involving the melting point of steel and so on. I know enough to UNDERSTAND anything at Physics911.org , but in a fast debate I can't always come up with the right calculations real fast...it's just not something that I've had to practice much. Yet in truth, that kind of debate is NOT what makes theoretical and experimental science progress. A WILLINGNESS TO CONSIDER A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THEORIES WITH AN OPEN MIND IS THE BASIC SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE, AND CITIZENS IN DEMOCRACY MUST ALL BE ABLE TO DO THAT TO MAKE AUTHENITIC DEMOCRACY WORK.
:think:
There, that's what I had to say.

[TrogL]

248. It's simple high school physics

• gravity works
  
• conservation of energy
  
• behaviours of solids, liquids and gases with their various states
  

What we're being asked to do is believe in magic.

[Minstrel Boy]

127. I appreciate

where, I think, you're coming from, but I have done a lot of 9/11 research on the web. Enough to fill eight binders with evidence of foreknowledge, failure of standing operating procedure, insider trading, anthrax, cover-up, etc. And I've read Ahmed's The War on Freedom, Chossudovsky's War and Globalisation, Forbidden Truth, Dreaming War, etc. Clearly I'm a bit, well, obsessed with the material. But it warrants obsession, because I believe it ranks among the greatest atrocities perpetrated by a government against its own people, and because it was the Pearl Harbor of the long-predicted resource war at the dawn of the end of the age of oil.

I say all this because I want you to know I'm hardly naive about the Bush Administration. But neither do I want to be gullible. And there are a lot of 9/11 blind alleys that can eat up time and, more significantly, credibility. And when you're trying to persuade a people that their government has perpetrated a massive, murderous fraud, credibility is a precious commodity. It's not to be squandered lightly.

[Bolo Boffin]

151. Well, there I must disagree...

It is the ONE AND ONLY WAY WE CAN GET RID OF THE BUSH REGIME AND THE NIGHTMARISH DOWNWARD SPIRAL IT HAS CREATED.

Well, we could also organize behind the winner of the Democratic primary, get out the vote and send the Republicans in Charge home.

Then the new Democratic president could void Bush's secrecy orders, release the long overdue papers concerning Iran-Contra, and watch the entire BFEE be carted away to Guantanamo to spit-shine Al Qaeda boots.

That's another way we can get rid of the Bush regime.

[rooboy]

49. JEROME HAUER is one 'sus' dude.... n/t

[Dancing_Dave]

77. Oddly enough, that whole official theory has now been abandoned.

That truss theory was uncritically parotted throughout the U.S. corporate media. But as more evidence has been processed, that theory has been abandoned as untrue EVEN BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY WHICH IS NOW DOING THE OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT FUNDED INVESTIGATION OF WHY THE TWIN TOWERS AND WTC 7 COLLAPSED. They clearly state in a recent Progress Report that "nothing we say should be taken to imply that the trusses had any critical role in the collapses". So another official 9/11 myth you heard uncritically repeated throughout the U.S. corporate media has proved false.

We'll never get rid of the Bush Regime as long as people cling to the silly old official propaganda theories, just because they heard the lies echoed from so many newspapers and TV stations after 9/11. This is indeed the moment of truth when citizens will have to realize that Bush got that whole da_n corporate media to lie their asses off and all those official theories were a hoax. Our Democracy will survive IF AND ONLY IF us citizens can wake up and realize that. :toast:

[Dancing_Dave]

263. Interesting about Giuliani's Bunker....

It's to bad this interesting article contains the out of date "melting truss" theory of the WTC buildings collapsing, indeed even the Federal investigation of the collapses, which originally brought it to peoples attention doesn't buy it anymore. This investigation has now been transfered from FEMA to the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). One of their recent Progress Reports says "nothing we say should be taken to imply that the trusses played a critical role in the collapses"....OOPS I see I've already said that before in post that ended up right by this one :crazy: GETTING TO THE REAL POINT HERE:

:) However the more interesting part of this post has do with Giuliani's Bunker in WTC7. WT7 also housed some secretive CIA and Department of Defence research offices. I believe that the explosions in the World Trade Center were put there to DESTROY EVIDENCE, as well as to create a PROPAGANDA SPECTACLE. Planes have hit steel buildings before, the buildings did not disintigrate, and their were big chunks of plane that were easy to indentify, and provided plenty of evidence about what happened. When the WTC towers were demolished to smithereens, away went so much evidence about what hit 'em. Now why was WTC 7 blown away like that? I've heard that there were no casualties in WTC 7, people had plenty of time to get out before it was demolished. I wonder wheather stuff was moved out of Giuliani's Bunker, or the CIA and DOD offices BEFORE 9/11? That would be a very interesting lead to follow indeed. Allright New Yorkers, start talking to all the moving guys you know, were any of 'em doing any work at the WTC before 9/11?

[TrogL]

267. Lemme get this straight

The purpose for demolishing the towers was to cover up the evidence of demolishing the towers to cover up the evidence of demolishing the towers to cover up the evidence of demolishing the towers....

The purpose in blowing up building 7, but waiting 7 hours after the other towers fell down, was to cover up that they had moved stuff out of the offices. So you're concealing the lack of evidence. Why bother?

[Dancing_Dave]

279. Let me make this clearer.

I think there were too purposes involved. One was obviously to create a PROPAGANDA SPECTACLE. As we all know, that was very effective indeed and helped change our whole world for the worse.

But when we get down to the fine details of this covert operation, we have to realize that one ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL aspect of any covert psy-op (Mossad call 'em False Flag Operations) like this is that evidence that could be used to trace the crime back to who really did it, well, it's easy to see that evidence would have to be destroyed. The method of VERY THOROUGH CONTROLLED DEMOLITION just blew so much evidence to smithereens, what planes really hit, who all were on them, and so much more was difficult to impossible to figure out after everything had been disintrigated in such a thorough demolition.

Most demolitions are not quite so thorough, they don't usually blast everything into such tiny bits. How small the bits were didn't matter for the Propaganda Spectacle, but it did destroy more evidence. All the parts of covert psy-op 9/11 hang together.

[TrogL]

289. You're just saying the same thing again

The purpose of destroying the evidence is to destroy the evidence.

Why would they keep the evidence in building 7???

There's no point.

If you're talking about the evidence of the massive destruction of the towers, you're still in a circular argument.

[Dancing_Dave]

306. Enron Files, CIA and DOD secret research offices and so on...

It's hard to find the right balance between repeating to much and repeating to little hear. There was lots of evidence to destroy with WTC 7. As has been mentioned there were files related to the case against Enron. Enron has everything to do with 9/11. The Bush Administration actually SUPPORTED the Taliban early on, but when Cheney and Enron couldn't get a satifactoy pipeline deal out of 'em, the Bush policy reversed all the way and they started planning a war in Afghanistan to put in some leaders they could do buisness with better. And we were on the road to 9/11.

Besides that evidence, there were secret research offices of the CIA and DOD in WTC7. If Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld had them "help" in destoying the WTC and creating the New Pearl Harbor needed by the PNAC agenda, they would naturally destroy the evidence that could possibly point back to them. That's just basic covert operations technique. And the Secretary of Defence, or the President certainly has the authority to simply order them to do such a thing.

So that's some evidence gone with WTC 7. What was especially gone with the Twin Towers was evidence about exactly what hit them and why and who all was really on those aircraft....so the cover for the covert propaganda operation was complete.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

349. Perhaps a more interesting trail to follow...

Would be whether or not there was a rather large transfer of data from any computers housed in that building.
It might also be of interest to know if such a transfer occured that day, or shortly before that day.

[RummyTheDummy]

9. Damn..

It downloads for me but then i get that damned file not found error box on real player. annoying.

[bpilgrim]

15. try quicktime ------------------------------------------ LINK

http://apple.com/quicktime/download

it's free as well :hi:

peace

[CaptainMidnight]

13. this is a huge smoking gun

I mean, buildings dont' fall this cleanly due to some "catastrophe" on the inside, like an exploding fuel tank.

I guess that fact that a CIA HQ was in there, and all of the SEC's papers regarding Enron had absolutely nothing to do with it! Or the fact that the building was not hit by any WTC debris that weakened it or that buildings closer to WTC 1 and 2 did NOT collapse.

Captain MIke

[Az]

29. So explain to me

why would a conspirarist place explosives in such a way as to minimize damage while laying waste to the single greatest disaster the US has ever experienced? This is the bit the grand conspiracy majors never really explain.

Think this through for a minute. There is massive damage being done. Lets repeat that for emphasis. Massive damage. On a scale never scene before. And the big theory is they planted explosives to take the buildings down in a controlled fall? I think the propellor on the beanie is twirling the wrong way guys.

Think it through further. If they need to cover up their tracks they are going to make sure the buildings fall down how you expect them too. Why paint a great big question mark on the matter by doing a controlled demolition.

Now think through safety standards in New York. Building specs are going to call for extreme measures. Including catastrophy. Thus they are going to design buildings such that any destabalization is not goin to endanger neighboring buildings. These are massively tall buildings we are talking about. Not some brownstones. Add to this the physics involved. A building that tall cannot canter that far off center line. The loss of stability causes the entire system to disintergrate. This leads to an immediate collapse.

This conspiratal line of thinking trully strikes me as a psychological need rather than a reasoned approach to this disaster.

It is entirely possible that George and Co. may well have had a hand in this matter. But these scenarios are completely off the mark. They flew a pair of jets into the towers people. That is more than enough destructive force. Then all this talk about controled detonations.... I am sorry this is simply beyond reason. There is no need. There is no reason. There is no sense to it. Terror = destruction. Terror is not about controlled demolition.

[never cry wolf]

37. for my 400th post

i will respond to AZ's well reasoned and logical post. i am with ya all the way. in addition one of the posted claimed on another thread that one of the reasons to blow up the towers was to hide the evidence in the planes (don't quite know what the evidence would be, btw.) well wt7 had no plane in it so just what may have been the motive??

here a great link from nova: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

and here's another that has over 40 links in the engineering and construction subset that explains the whole thing. i obviously didn't read all the links but i read many of the articles in engineering news record when they were published.
http://www.tenlinks.com/NEWS/special/wtc/#Engineering%20and%20Construction

[bpilgrim]

43. they don't talk about WT7 though

unless it is BURIED :shrug:

peace

[never cry wolf]

51. look at post 38

to see where link on post 21 will lead you. take you a little time to read all those technical articles on WT7, but they are there.

[bpilgrim]

54. i see 'SUSPECTED' though i see nothing conclusive

:hi:

peace

[never cry wolf]

128. that was just page one

of a quick google search, all of my links have been from page one, the info is readily available. besides, there is absloutely to EVER know in almost any fire any of the exact causes unless someone was standing inside of the burning building watching. here's another link:

http://www.gostructural.com/V3N7/WTC.pdf

[Dancing_Dave]

293. There's a lot in this post, I'll try to explain

:) This strikes me as a really sincere and meaningful post, so I will try to explain, one question at a time.

Though the distruction was massive it could have been much worse and destroyed the whole Financial District of lower Manhattan (Wall Street) if the Towers toppled over, as steel buildings have occasionally done in major earthquakes. The people with resources to do 9/11, had investments in Wall Street worth millions, and indeed made millions there by knowing 9/11 was going to happen. So as evil and unscrupulous as these people were, they had their reaons to contain the destruction down there by using the well-known methods of Controlled Demoltion.

There have been controlled demolitions on nearly this scale before, but they did not kill a bunch of firefighter and other people in the buildings. So you probably never saw them on the "News". It was just the time when these buidlings came down that created such a terrifying propaganda spectacle.

The plot was to a)create a terrifying propaganda spectacle

b)make it all look like this damage was done by someone else, thus bringing in the PNAC agenda, the already planned invasion of Afghanistan and the millions Cheney hoped to make from that, the already written Patriot Act terminating many constitutional rights, and so on.

c)disintigrate evidence that could lead to who really did the crime, or disprove the official version of events.

The demolition methods they chose perfectly fit those criteria.

You say a little about the physics of the buildings. Check out this article to learn some more: http://911pi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5396090821&f=9606022231&m=433601662

[TrogL]

295. But they didn't need any of this

All they needed to do was hit the buildings, not knock them down. The psychological effect is the same and you don't need all this other stuff.

[zekeson]

130. Yep, smoothest "clean demolition" I have seen

Not that I am an expert, but I have seen several on TV!

Controlled Demolition, Inc., the company to handle the demo of the Landmark, Dunes, Aladdin, Sands and Hacienda casinos in Vegas, Mendez Caldera office building in Brazil in 1978, and the Oklahoma City federal building would be proud.


hmmm

[Bushknew]

14. No plane crash equals no fire equals explosion!!!!

No plane crash equals no fire equals explosion!!!!

[JHB]

234. How do you get "no fire"...

...when plenty of flaming debris was blown out of Towers 1 & 2?

[Bushknew]

318. How did falling debris on the OUTSIDE cause a fire INSIDE of the WTC 7?

How did falling debris on the OUTSIDE cause a fire INSIDE of the WTC 7 building?

Why would the WTC 7 have massive tanks of fuel in them in the first place?

This area was surrounded by firefighters, the WTC 7 supposedly burned for 7 hours, why didnÕt the firefighters notice it was burning?

[bpilgrim]

16. how come we don't ever see this on teeVee?

:shrug:

peace

[Bushknew]

18. Because the American media is fair and balanced?

My member is more fair and balanced.

[bpilgrim]

19. yeah, it wouldn't be fair to the bush regime i guess, what was i thinking

good call ;->

peace

[never cry wolf]

21. there was fire and huge chunks of debris

the building was gutted by an uncontrolled fire caused by burning debris which also did structural damage. there is speculation the the 6,000 gallons of deisel fuel on the second floor and the 36,000 gallons below the first floor in the loading dock contributed to the uncontrolled fires if their containment systems were comprimised by the devastation across the street.

here is a very nice link with many other engineering type links: http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/Fire/News/wtc.html

[bpilgrim]

23. so another fire brought down another steel building

is that the first time this has ever happened to steel buildings?

peace

[Sterling]

24. Wheres the fire?

dont see it.

[cthrumatrix]

50. a fire....doesn't look that bad ....and it the building falls...?

this doesn't pass the common sense test when you look at the video. If there was a fire that were "consuming" the buidling i could understand.....i don't see that.

[AmeriCanadian]

133. This is the truth, you can see in the video ...

... that the building is on fire. A brother of mine that works for FEMA was on site at the time. WTC7 was in an uncontrollable burn. The structure mearly fell under its own weight; weakened by the inferno.

There was no larceny involved.

[maha]

208. I'm an eyewitness

to the WTC collapse, and I cannot tell you how heartily sick I am of the "bomb" conspiracy theorists.

WTC 7 burned all day and collapsed from structural damage. Just about the entire NYC fire department and NYPD were down there at the time, and if they'd had any suspicion there were bombs going off they'd have said something. They didn't.

The WTC was destroyed by terrorists. What needs to be investigated are the connections between those terrorists and the Bush Regime.

The "bomb" theories are just red herrings.

[Bushknew]

25. Calling all Conspiracy "debunkers"

Boloboffin, Analep É.

LetÕs focus our attention on what happened on building #7

[maha]

210. Fine.

Building 7 was being monitored all day by several hundred firefighters and NYPD, plus emergency workers, and somehow none of those people concluded that the building came down because of a bomb. It was self-evident that the building came down because of structural damage caused by the collapse of towers 1 and 2.

I was in lower Manhattan on September 11, and I believe I speak for others who were there when I tell you you can take your conspiracy theories and shove them where the sun don't shine.

What needs to be investigated is Bush's connections to al Qaeda and how much he knew before September 11.

The bomb thing is bogus.

[Bushknew]

223. Yet these firefighters didnÕt notice the fire burning for 7 hours!!!!!!!!!

<<Building 7 was being monitored all day by several hundred firefighters and NYPD,>>

Yet these firefighters didnÕt notice the fire burning for 7 hours that eventually
Brought down building 7?!!

By the way, How did the collapse of the towers cause the ignition of the fuel tanks in WTC 7?

Why would the WTC 7 have massive tanks of fuel in them in the first place?

[maha]

235. Who says so?

There were news reports throughout the day that WTC 7 was on fire and was expected to collapse. And then it collapsed.

[TrogL]

236. Possibly for the backup generators

In the event of power failures, people still need to be able to function in the buildlings. The air conditioners, elevators, emergency lighting need to keep running. Also the file servers (NT and UNIX) need to be given enough time to do an organized shutdown, or in the case of mission critical applications, stay up.

In a complex the size of the WTC, and the mission critical nature of the business going inside, they would need huge generators, requiring plenty of fuel.

[SPAZtazticman]

294. simple

it was damaged by falling debris from the towers, it was shook by the collapse of the towers, stuff inside, probobly including a backup generator with a lot of diesel fuel, burned and weakened the steel, until it collapsed.

[Dancing_Dave]

27. Thank you!

:hippie: Thanks for putting some real enlightening evidence up, unlike certain people who never have done ANYTHING constructive to help sort out all the evidence and figure out the truth about what happened...they just make silly prejudiced remarks which will all be forgotten when the truth is found.

Now the great significance of WTC 7, is that it came down in a perfect controlled demolition pattern just like the Twin Towers, but it WASN'T EVEN HIT BY A PLANE! Whoever was responsible for the whole 9/11 covert operation, clearly used the same demolition technique on all three buidlings-- SO THE PLANE CRASHES AND JET FUEL HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW THESE THREE BUILDINGS WERE COLLAPSED!

Here's a good informative article about WTC 7:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/LOU308A.html
It's nice to inform yourself with articles like this before you jump into a discussion about the explosions in the WTC...it helps you to avoid saying anything that turns out to be embarrassingly stupid when the people who are really studying this figure out what happened!

[Az]

33. This is evidence of contruction standards

Not controlled demolition. Why are the grand conspiracy crowd so fixated on controlled demolition. Controlled demolition is exactly what the bad guys (conspiracy or no) do not want. They would much rather have seen the buildings fall over. More destruction that way. In fact building falling over is exactly why construction codes require buildings to be designed to fall in that manner rather then topple over onto other buildings in disasters. Do you honestly think it would be a good idea to design buildings that would be giant domino sets? Bad idea.

[Sterling]

58. Not true at all.

Now if you were talking about reall "terraists" then yes but the fact is Bushco needed very specific targets takin out with as little "colateral" damage as possible.

The towers were chosen for the shock value and it seems building 7 was chosen for more specific reasons.

Have you ever visited the WTC site. If you were there before and after you would be confused as to how two very tall buildings collapsed into their relitively small easments without damaging surrounding buildings.

Building 7 is even more confusing as all the other buildings around it are intact.

I believe if it was a controlled demolition it was done that way in an effort to minimize damage to other key parts of downtown like the Stock Exchange for example.

That would be far more damaging in the long term to our economy than the WTC itself.

[hang a left]

65. I have watched a couple of

hotels that were imploded in Las Vegas. They fall similar in fashion.

[mumon]

30. Here's the simple explanation:

via my late father who used to work there & was a structural engineer:

The plane hit the inside, caued a fire, which melted the steel structure (it was very hot), which caused the upper floors to collapse on the lower ones, which created a "pancaking" effect- since the floors with rubble on them couldn't stay up with the added weight, which caused the collapse.

[Bushknew]

31. A plane did not hit building 7 Kanzeon

What is your explination for it?

[Az]

32. You did know

that these two towers had just cratered the area didn't you? Think about the ground level damage of the Two Towers crumbling into the area must have caused. Its suprising Tower 7 didn't fall earlier. We are talking about a lot of energy being put into the ground there. The foundation was compromised in the extreme. Big buildings like firm foundations. Without them they go fwoomp.

[bpilgrim]

46. how come it's neighbors didn't go 'fwoomp'?

:shrug:

peace

[Az]

48. Smaller structures

And they later had to be demolished. The damage in the area was extensive. The height of a building places more stress on the foundation. Pretty straight forward.

[Sterling]

59. Not true

surrounding buildings were intact.

[MacCovern]

73. Surrounding buildings were damaged!

Try this list on for size:

Destroyed on September 11th

1 World Trade Center
2 World Trade Center
Marriott Hotel
4 World Trade Center
5 World Trade Center
6 World Trade Center
7 World Trade Center
St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church
North Bridge

Sustained damage, but would be restored or already restored

1 Liberty Plaza
East River Savings Bank
3 World Financial Center
2 World Financial Center
1 World Financial Center
4 World Financial Center
N.Y. Telephone Building
90 West Street
Winter Garden of WFC
Millenium Hilton
Federal Bldg (90 Church Street)

[bpilgrim]

82. and how many of those FELL IN THEIR OWN FOOTPRINT as well?

that is the other issue i have... the more there are the more implausible it sounds to me.

engineer challenge: how often to buildings collapse into their own foot print when attacked with explosives, or other violent means, and last but certainly not least FIRE?

peace

[Az]

87. Explain to me why

a terrorist or a conspiracist would want a building to fall that way.

It is reasonable to expect that construction standards mandate that buildings over a certain height must be designed such that they will fall inwards rather than fall over. You do not build such structures without consideration of how they will come down. There is no sense to why someone would want to destroy a building as an act of terror in a controlled manner.

Please if you wish anyone to consider your theories you are going to have to establish what the motive for such a blast would be.

[bpilgrim]

93. if you were trying to MINIMIZE DAMAGE that is what you do...

and as you RIGHTLY point out 'TERRORIST' wouldn't want to do that but the TERRORIST in the WH would.

:hi:

peace

[Az]

135. Ok, listen to yourself

Minimize damage. They knocked the two tallest buildings in the world down. Any other damage is just chump change. And you think they wanted to minimize damage? Then why not take out the Statue of Liberty? Much less economic cost and enough terror to scare the populace into compliance. They struck the single most devastating economic target they could get to. This was about causing damage. And it succeeded.

Ok, cards on the table. Why do you believe the terrorists could not have managed to pilot some planes into the buildings and that caused the damage? Why does it have to be so orchestrated? Look inside yourself and see what it is you are really struggling with. Where is the sense in limiting damage in the most damaging scenario ever carried out in US history? To repeat Maccovern's excellent list this was the minimized damage of the day:

1 World Trade Center
2 World Trade Center
Marriott Hotel
4 World Trade Center
5 World Trade Center
6 World Trade Center
7 World Trade Center
St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church
North Bridge

Sustained damage, but would be restored or already restored

1 Liberty Plaza
East River Savings Bank
3 World Financial Center
2 World Financial Center
1 World Financial Center
4 World Financial Center
N.Y. Telephone Building
90 West Street
Winter Garden of WFC
Millenium Hilton
Federal Bldg (90 Church Street)

8 Buildings at the center of the US economic district were destroyed.
11 Buildings were damaged and saved.

This is not minimizing damage. This is obliteration. So why in the midst of this destruction do you believe there was a need to take the risk to plant charges to create a controlled demolition?

Let us try another tact. Is that the best way they could have done it? Such an operation would have required an army of participants. You would need engineers to survey the buildings and plan the explosives. You would need the cooperation of security teams inside the buildings that would die in the resulting explosions. You would need the cooperation of nearly every civic service within NewYork to close its eyes while you planted the charges and waited. To what purpose? The risk increases exponentially with each person you add to the conspiracy. You think they can find that many sociopaths that will stay silent? It simply doesn't work. Its too great a risk when they have so many alternitives.

You can have your conspiracy without all the grand schemes. You only need George and Co to ease back on security and press some buttons and the terrorists will follow through on the rest. Jet planes crashing into buildings do a lot of damage. Even if the buildings had not fallen over this would have shattered our sense of peace. There is no need for more damage than that.

Think things through logically. What was the intent? What is the most effective way to achieve it? What is the least amount of risk needed? Then apply what we do know. Two planes crashed into the tallest structures in the world. The structures fell down causing massive collateral damage destroying a number of close by buildings. How are the planes crashing into the buildings not enough to send terror throughout the nation? Why the need for more damage but oddly controlled damage? It doesn't fit.

Seriously I understand your need to make things fit your beliefs. I feel your pain as well. But needing something to be the truth and reality are two different things. Fight for that which is most likely. George and Co left our defenses down and practically invited terrorists in. They don't need more than that for their purposes. They knew the type of damage they wanted to do to us and merely had to let them do it while making sure they themself were secure and far away when it happened.

Peace

[bpilgrim]

143. huh? WT7 fell in it's OWN FOOTPRINT

call me suspicious but that doesn't look right to me and i still haven't heard an explaination that fits.

now YOU have a hardtime understanding why someone else would have used the cover of a well known upcomming terrorist attack to hide their own work then i am left to conclude that you haven't really thought much about this and how tramitically it has changed outr nation for the worse to benifit a few dastardly men.

if history is not enough to make you suspicious nor your own eyes than all i can say is get out of my way unless you have some PROOF to offer other then your own limmitted understanding and imagination.

how many buildings have you seen that feel in their OWN FOOTPRINT other than CD ones.

peace

[Az]

147. Answer the one question

Why? Why would they want the building to fall in its own footprint? Just answer that. There is no sense to it. The most destructive attack was an attempt to limit damage? Does that make any sense? It went down 7 hours after the attack. Officials had been warning everyone away from the buidling because it was unstable.

So Why?

[bpilgrim]

156. to minimize and control the damage.

how many times to i need to say that?

if you knew two planes were going to hit the towers that day but they were not enough to actually bring them down but you NEEDED them to come down or you wanted to be in control of their fall to minimize damage what would you do?

now this is a perfectly logical possibility so don't go flying off the handle and try to insult my inteligence or my psycology and just think about it.

peace

[Az]

163. Minimize damage

What damage was minimized? 8 buildings destroyed. 11 Buildings severely damaged. They flew 2 jets into them. This is not minimizing damage. Minimizing damage is not blowing up any buildings. Minimizing damage is stopping the terrorists. from getting on the jets.

You are saying the blew up the buildings to minimize damage. Say that again. They blew up the building to minimize the damage. Do you see the contradiction? If they blew up the building they wanted to cause damage. And those 2 jets kind of threw a monkey wrench into the whole minimize damage theory as well. You don't initiate a controlled demolition by slamming a pair of fully fueled jets into a building.

I'm sorry. You are going to have to provide some sense of how the damage was minimized and how that is sensible. Simply saying to minimize the damage is not an argument.

[bpilgrim]

172. yes, it brings them straight down

notice that the buildings on either side of wt7 sustained very little damage the wtc7 is completly gone.

i think you get the picture now.

btw have you ever heard of controlled demolition? why do they blow them up that way? to MINIMIZE DAMAGE but completly destroy the target.

now if those towers were to fall to one side or the other you would have had much more destruction, surely you can see that right?

so if i knew i had two planes going into the towers and i needed a few buildings to dissapear with minimum damage to surrounding buildings this would provide the PERFECT OPPROTUNITY.

don't get me wrong i am not saying that is what happened just a PLAUSIBLE explaination considering the evidence.

peace

[Az]

176. But you have no explanation

as to why they would want to minimize damage while causing the greatest damage ever to strike the US. Thats the problem here. There is no reason to minimize the damage when you are destroying the most valuable things in the area.

Yes there are anamolies that we need to investigate. But everything you do not understand does not immediately mean it was planned that way and all went according to that master plan.

[bpilgrim]

179. it could have been MUCH worse, they made sure it wasn't

why is that so hard to understand?

i am asking for reasonable explanation why wtc7 fell uniformally in its own foot print or at the very least other examples where this occured thus far i haven't seen any.

just because i don't have all the answers is no reason for me to give up or make up some theory when i am looking for answers to REASONABLE questions.

you don't have any either so why keep bugging me or trying to make me look like a kook?

get back to me when you have some answers, i will be all ears.

peace

[hexola]

195. more flawed logic..

You said:
notice that the buildings on either side of wt7 sustained very little damage the wtc7 is completly gone.

WTC7 is larger and quite different from the buidings that surround it. If all the other buildings were clones of WTC7 - you might have a point...

[bpilgrim]

219. the CLEAN COLLAPSE is the issue...

lets stay focused.

peace

[AmeriCanadian]

149. Perhaps you didn't read my explanation

... The building caught fire from the adjacent towers and burned unchecked for hours.

It was a burned out hull that FDNY couldn't stop.

The building collapsed straight down under its own weight via the thermally weakened structure.

again, there was NO LARCENY INVOLVED

[bpilgrim]

157. if it was a burned out 'hull' how come we dont see any fire damage?

thanks :hi:

btw: please find another steel building in history that has collapsed from a fire as well.

thanks :toast:

peace

[AmeriCanadian]

161. <shakes head> WTC1 & 2 didn't fall because of the planes

... they fell because the fire weakened the structural steel.

Once again, study the video close. The building was fully engulfed and evidence of it can be seen from the smoke rising from the windows before collapse.

Also, I know first hand witnesses that would tesify to my accounts on these threads.

There was no more conspiricy around WTC7 further than the inital attack on the two towers.

[bpilgrim]

173. psst... we are talking about WTC7

and the building fell in it's OWN footprint... pretty bizzar, no?

peace

[AmeriCanadian]

193. I was illustrating the fact that 1 & 2 fell because of ...

... heat induced structural failure, not the initial impact.

Likewise, WTC7 collapsed straight down under itself by the same mechanism.

[bpilgrim]

220. got any examples where heat from a fire brought a steel building down?

or a natural collapse that was so uniform?

those are the 2 big issues and so far i haven't seen any.

peace

[maha]

214. Yes.

Eyewitnesses (I'm one) don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories. And there are at least a million eyewitnesses.

[bpilgrim]

221. not true

many heard explosions ESPECIALLY the first responders and reported what they heard over their radios.

peace

[maha]

231. Very messy explosions.

See my message #225 about the explosions, and stop making a fool of yourself. It's annoying.

[Must_B_Free]

254. "Then why not take out the Statue of Liberty "?

Because they needed 3000 deaths.

If you study the Bible you'll find that "3000 deaths" is used repeatedly in association with conscription into a new era -
(for example, "New World Order" or "Everything changed after 911".)

The religious fundamentalist terrorists who created the event most likely had this in mind for the overall script.

[TrogL]

285. Where?

I study the Bible. This is the first I've heard of this. I just did an online search for the phrase and came up empty.

[maha]

316. Oh, goody.

Which book of the Bible discusses the New World Order?

[never cry wolf]

114. short answer,

almost always for high rises and most buildings. their center of gravity is such that they really, physically have little choice. things fall DOWN, they don't fall out. tho sometimes after a rough night i do fall over.

[bpilgrim]

119. clean and dirty

the only steel buildings i've seen that had been damaged to the point of collapse that did so in their own foot print are the ones that were done on purpose... all the others that were accidental or bomb related didn't collapse so cleanly.

do you have any evidence of such, i would love to see it, and it shouldn't be hard to find since it is so natural for buildings to fall so cleanly.

thanks :hi:

peace

[Az]

137. The vast majority of buildings

that we get to see demolished are not that tall. This was a 47 story building. Its foundations had just been hammered by the Twin Towers crumbling into the ground. 5 other buildings were destroyed. There is no need for charges to bring this one down. Your increduality is based on your lack of experience with demolition. This does not constitute evidence. It simply constitutes your's and my horror at the monstrousity committed on that day. Our minds real and seek something to latch it upon. Something to make it all make sense even if it is horrible. We seek to set things in such a way that someone must have had control of the situation. Control is not always present. Life is uncertain. We only have each other to lean upon.

[bpilgrim]

146. don't collapse in their footprint unless they were CD

no matter how tall.

now how bout some proof to back up your thoughts?

peace

[hexola]

164. or unless...

they happen to right next to the two of the biggest buildings in the world that have just catastophically collapsed...

[bpilgrim]

166. then why only those 3?

and why so cleanly?

peace

[DoNotRefill]

167. "foot print"

I'm no Engiweenie, I'm just a guy who used to enjoy blowing stuff up as an adolescent (in a much kinder, gentler time, before a kid with a bunch of firecrackers became a Terra-ist).

I assume by "footprint" you mean the area that the building used to occupy, ie within the foundation, right? How would a building fall OUTSIDE of it's footprint? How often does that happen? Even big buildings, if they suffer only partial destruction, still fall pretty much within their footprint. Look at the collapse of the Federal building in OKC. When the building failed, it didn't fall sideways, it fell DOWN. In geologic terms, that pattern of debris fall is commonly referred to as a "slump", it falls down, and then balloons out at the base.


About the ONLY way I can figure to get a building to fall sideways as it fails is by something on the order of a nuclear detonation at a distance, with one entire side of the building drastically weakened suddenly, and accompanied by a HUGE pressure wave, giving sideways momentum.

[bpilgrim]

175. OKC didn't fall

thats the other problem most buildings ive seen destroyed by natural or bomb attacks didn't completely fall in their own foot print.

this is way too clean for my eyes though i am not an expert.

i was in downtown kobe after the quake and i have seen steel structures where their foundation gave way and they toppled over... in tact, lying in the street, with my own eyes.

peace

[DoNotRefill]

270. Sure it did.

The entire structure didn't collapse, but once the bomb went off, severing the structural supports near ground level, most of the building "pancaked".

[TrogL]

275. No it didn't.

The front fell off. The floors directly behind pancaked. Most of the building was left standing.

(

better picture)

[Sterling]

113. Most of those buildings were on the WTC site

B7 was across the street off site and the two buildings on either side still stand.

None of the buildings imploded on their own footprint other than WTC 1, 2 and 7.

[DoNotRefill]

162. "Fwoomp"

Is that a technical term? I LIKE IT!!! :)

[never cry wolf]

38. look at my post 21 above

click on the little blue line that is underlined. on that page you will find the links to the following to answer your question.

An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7, by Professors Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson
A Nation Challenged: The Site; Engineers Have a Culprit in the Strange Collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel Fuel (NY Times)
Diesel suspected in 7 WTC collapse (Chicago Tribune)
Collapse of tower 7 examined (The State, S.C.)
Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center (N.Y. Times)
7 World Trade Center
Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center

the web is a wonderful thing, use it please.

[bpilgrim]

47. i see a lot of 'suspected' but nothing CONCRETE

got any official sources that explain it?

peace

[Dancing_Dave]

35. But the building we're talking about wasn't even hit by a plane!

:) That's the strange thing we're considering here. It was collapsed in a rapid series of explosions like the others, but it turned out that no plane was even needed to do that. The planes were just added on to create a scapegoat to blame this on... the whole point of the propaganda opperation. And most of the evidence about those planes and how they got there was destroyed when the buildings they hit were demolished...see how neatly this whole criminal plan fits together.

As for the pancakeing truss theory you heard, a number of scientists and engineers believed it for a while after the event, but those who went on to study all the data some more disproved it. There's lots of evidence of explosives, the accounts of firemen who saw, heard and felt them for example. It very often happen that first official theory of why something happened turns out to be false, even if lots of experts believed it. More evidence turns up and we often have to revise our ideas.

I have posted a thread here before about the National Institute of Standards and Technology and others finding evidence that led them to give up the pancakeing truss theory.

[Character Assassin]

56. No, you're not considering anything. You've convinced yourself already

As for the pancakeing truss theory you heard, a number of scientists and engineers believed it for a while after the event, but those who went on to study all the data some more disproved it.

Zzzzzz.... nothing you have posted, either with links or personally, has been able to support that some mass, nefarious conspiracy was/is at play here.

There's lots of evidence of explosives, the accounts of firemen who saw, heard and felt them for example.

So firemen actually saw explosives planted, just waiting to go off, hmmm? Why didn't they radio in that the place was rigged to blow?

[Dancing_Dave]

85. Indeed they did radio about the explosives

and you have added ABSOLUTELY NOTHING CONSTRUCTIVE TO UNDERSTANDING WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON 9/11! What's YOUR theory of what all happened, and what evidence and independent reasoning do you have to show for it?

Don't fool yourself that a cover-up based on nothing but prejudice is going to stop more independent minded people who are not political and media suckers from figuring out what really happened. And then all the little moments of prejudiced stupidity will be forgotten.

[bpilgrim]

40. wrong buildings...

sorry to hear about your father.

peace

[RC]

81. Jet fuel burning in air doesnot burn hot enough to soften steel.

In the second impact the plane hits near the corner at an angle and most of the fuel burns OUTSIDE the building, yet this building falls first.

[cthrumatrix]

34. the point is...."NO INVESTGIGATION"....on any of this....

so many questions...soo many people wanting to avoid the "heat" for national security ....right.

[Az]

36. You walk up and look in the crater

You see the building collapsed in the crater. You have your answer. There is a limited ability to search a site. A controlled demolition after a pair of jets has smashed into a building makes no sense. Even the most brazen of conspirators would not bother with a controlled demolition. If you are going to plant explosives then plant them so they cause the maximum damage. Make the building fall over not down. Why on earth would anyone want a controled demolition of the building?

[bpilgrim]

39. where did the crater come from?

and why doesn't it make sense to have a CD durring a terrorist attack especcially if you KNEW it was comming MONTHS in advance?

seems like it would be the IDEAL time, well if you wanted it to go undetected that is.

peace

[Az]

45. Reason

The crater came from the worlds two tallest towers collapsing. Add into this the falling debri piercing the surrounding building structures and you have more than enough localised desrtuction to level 7. There were constant warnings throughout the day about other buildings being in danger of collapsing. 7 was one of them that fell.

Tall buildings are not solid blocks of wood. They are structures held aloft by engineering and balance. Destabalize that balance and it falls.

The question still stands if you are going to knock down the tallest buildings in the world and kill thousands ... why on earth would you give any notion to a controlled demolition. Why would you not want the builings to fall over instead of down. It takes extra effort (particularly dangerous in secretive conditions) to bring about a controlled demolition. Why take the extra risks for a controlled demolition when an uncontrolled fall would bring more terror and destruction?

[bpilgrim]

53. well how come it's neighbors didn't need to be torn down?

if there was so much destruction in the area and if you study the film of the towers collapse they fell pretty much in their own footprints WITHOUT much heavy debrie being ejected so why was it's neighbors still standing?

and why did it's roof go just before it's base?

looks a little too clean to me but i admit i am not an expert, would love to hear what the 'OFFICIAL' theory is, though.

as to your second question, to cover it up as a target.

peace

[Sterling]

63. Again that is BS

Bulding seven did not fall into the crater. This is obvious if you actually know where building 7 was or if you have ever visited the site. You are also the only person I have ever seen make such a claim.

[Sterling]

62. Building seven did not collapse in the crater.

Have you even seen the site at all?

A controlled demo was used to limit damage to other important buildings in the area. Bush had his shock value from the attack, "collateral" damage needed to be controlled.

[Sick of Bullshit]

70. If you're looking at this from the "America-hating terrorists" theory

it would make no sense, since those kinds of terrorists would love to maximize the damage.

HOWEVER, you have to think out of the box on this.

In all three cases of attacks, the damage was minimized-- The WTC was attacked before most of the workers had arrived, the Pentagon was hit in the one place where damage would have been minimized (after the plane allegedly made a spectacular 270-degree loop at super high speed). Wow.

Now consider this-- how many of the TOP people (CEOs of big companies, Pentagon brass, etc.) were killed in the two attacks? Lots of the WTC CEOs just happened to be at a "charity event" at Offut AFB hosted by Warren Buffet on that day. Whew! Lucky for them, eh? Bu$$$h must have gone there later in the day to congratulate them on their great luck.

Meanwhile, back in NY, the WTC is in the heart of New York's financial district. A foreign terrorist group would want to maximize damage. BUT... a "terrorist group" that rubs elbows with the financial power brokers of the country would want to MINIMIZE damage, and would not want SERIOUS disruption in the financial system of the country, because, after all that is where they make their bread and butter.

[never cry wolf]

42. please see my above posts

it is being investigated and analyzed by engineers up the ying yang. the hyatt regency collapse was studied for years and believe me, this one is and will be as well. it is all out there and in the open in engineering and construction trade journals. unlike some others on this thread i have provided links to legitimate analysis done by top people in their profession.

[cthrumatrix]

44. I'm talking about 911 in general...."national security"...my ass

can somebody PLEASE tell one dam good reason how the FBI can release the photo's and names of the 19 hijackers if they all used fake id's?

I'll wait for my answer....

[sweetheart]

57. I used to work in WTC 7...

and it was on the 40th floor on Salomon Brother's options trading floor of WTC 7. (equity options) The thing i used to marvel at every day on arriving to work was how close the building was to WTC 1... and how, on sitting at my desk and eating my breakfast that WTC 1 was 60 floors above me up in to the clouds, yet it was as if i could reach out the window and touch it....

My "window" would be in the photo you picture a coupla stories beneath the left side of the air vent across the building's front at the top... as i think the building was 46 or so floors... i don't remember as i never went "up" beyond to 42 to the bond floor.

Given the proximity of WTC7 to 1, i was surpised it did not fall at the same time, and it actually DID NOT surprise me that it fell later.
... nor does it surprise me that it fell from street level as the wtc 2 rubble surely had eviscerated the building at street level.

The long and short: no conspiracy theory.

There used to be a circular tunnel connecting the wtc 7 with the plaza that i used at lunchtime. I challenge only the poeple on this board who have used that walkway to speak up on the new conspiracy theory that 7 was an insideous act... bollocks.

[Sterling]

61. Other buildings were just as close and did not collapse.

And I don't see what walking the tunnel has to do with having an opinion on the subject.

[sweetheart]

66. the walking tunnel means you've been there

The deutche bank building on liberty street had to come down and it was farther away than 7. 140 west street and world fi... were heavily damaged and yet further away.

The point about the round tunnel was that you are aware of how narrow vesey street was, and how far up in to the sky wtc1 went considering how concrete masses fall downwards tending to not fall perfectly downwards. I was surprised the millenium hotel still stands, yet it was significantly further.

What i've observed is that the "event" has been hyjakked by people who were not there, and have never been there to mean something else than what it was.

I accept that the WTC was a command and control center for the american global debt markets, and may have been a legit economic-military target given its function... as don't we bomb command and control facilities also when attacking opponents.

The people i knew who died (jumping off 1) would be more than furious to discover that their unfortunate demise has been perverted as a reason to mass murder 1000's of people, including invasions and bankrupting the american treasury. More than that, the people I knew who died would have been fucking livid. They were all globalists, free traders and benign imperialists at worst.... but certainly not the basis for a mass murder extermination campaign driven by militarist fuckheads in washtington.

Those fuckheads have never been to the WTC except to marvel at the pit... and who are they to claim any sort of comprehension as what was an appropriate foreign policy memorial action to monument the victems deaths... surely this was not another litany of foreign policy abuses and mass murders of brown people.

I hear ya sterling, and perhaps i made my point wrong, but i see the even hyjakked by a bunch of people who've never been there.

[Sterling]

68. I don't agree with all the conjecture here on this matter

But I don't buy the "official" story either.

I never used the tunnel but I am well aware of how close all those structures were to the WTC towers. The fact that the only building across the street that went down was 7 is suspect in and of itself but the WAY it went down much like the towers does not add up. I was in the Northridge quake of 94 and like B Pilgram I find it hard to swallow that building 7 went down they way it did. Buildings in LA that had been damaged at the ground floor or foundation level tipped over broke apart, collapsed in sections, not disintegrated on to the footprint.


I think if our Gov was involved they wanted maximum shock value with minimum damage to infrastructure. Thus a controlled demo of specific buildings might be possible, and that is what they looked like to me. But like I said I do not claim my hunch is right only that like the other "oddities" about 9-11 we deserve better answers than we have been given.

[MacCovern]

72. Enough of the Northridge Quake Already....

Please!

The WTC buildings collapsing has very, very little in common with an
earthquake in California, but you insist on making this comparison
over and over and over again.

[bpilgrim]

76. how about the kobe quake then...

the day after, when i rode my bike through town, i saw plenty of destruction but nothing that i can rember breaking as cleanly as wt7 but i have also seen many buildings attacked with explsions, thanks to modern media, and i've seen CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS on the teeVee as well and if i had to break down all the DIFFERNET TYPES of building destructions i have seen into ONLY two groups they would be these...

CLEAN

and

DIRTY

guess where most types i've seen belong to...
the clean ones were definately the minority group since they only contain the CD types of destruction i have seen with my own eyes.

guess what category wt7 falls into...

now maybe you can see why many folks might have a problem with this.

peace

[MacCovern]

96. I can see the problem.....

folks have with this. The September 11 WTC attacks were a very
unique event in history. I am not an engineer, but then again the
engineers will take the next who knows how many years to decipher the events.

I know that planning a controlled demolition takes weeks for a skyscraper. Perhaps you've seen documentaries on TV in years gone by
about the people that design and plant the explosives for these spectacular events. It is complicated and requires great precision.
Unless you think that weeks in advance of September 11th, that crews
were planting explosives at WTC 7, I think I've satisfied your
conspiracy theory!

WTC 7 was fatally damaged by the collapse of buildings one and two,
and it doesn't strike me odd that it fell cleanly. It was a skyscraper
that was heavily damaged at its base and collapsed under its own weight.
Perhaps in "Godzilla" movies tall buildings fall like dominoes, but
in the real world, things are different.
I remember on September 11th how shocked I was how easily WTC 1 and 2 "absorbed" the airliners crashing into it.
All of these events are something new to everyone, and it's good to ask questions about "why" and "how" but I'm not one to jump on to a conspiracy bandwagon when other answers make a much more sense.

[bpilgrim]

104. listen pal i have SEEN buildings tip over and fall in the KOBE QUAKE of 95

and they were the STEEL ONES!

so don't get condensending with me...

"Perhaps in "Godzilla" movies tall buildings fall like dominoes, but
in the real world, things are different."

two types of collapses...

CLEAN and DIRTY

peace

[maha]

212. LIsten, pal, I've SEEN the WTC towers collapse! I'm an eyewitness!

And there were NO BOMBS. I had a clear view. There were NO BOMBS BELOW THE POINTS OF IMPACT.

The buildings collapsed from the top down. The weight of the floors above collapsed the floors below, one at a time. Slam, slam, slam, all the way down. I saw it clearly.

Building 7 burned for hours before it came down. It was monitored closely through the day by the NYFD and NYPD, plus emergency workers, who were with the building all day, and none of these people suspected bombs. It was evident that tower 7 came down because of fire and structural damage caused by the collapse of towers 1 and 2.

You can watch your video a thousand times; videos can't capture the entire scene. You can't see the scale. You can't see the entire area in one view, as I could. I was watching from a high-rise office building and could view the entire scene. Even honest videos are a distortion.

[Bolo Boffin]

216. Thanks, maha, for your eyewitness account.

Of course, it's not going to be enough, but I appreciated you posting it.

Folks, we've got to do a better job of documenting these events from now on. Millions of eyewitnesses, the largest forensic investigation in world history, hundreds of videos, thousands of pictures, and the financial records of the hijackers is obviously not enough to convince the 9/11 conspiracy hawkers. We've all got to buy digital cameras and keep a blank tape in the VCR. Whenever a possible terrorist act occurs, we must be diligent and thorough in our documentation. Do not flee from the burning skyscrapers that threaten collapse. Enter the skyscrapers and take a picture of every room on every floor (don't forget the elevator shafts!). Work your way through the entire building, and then you may flee to safety. Don't let the fire stop you, and take pictures of every person you meet in the building! Some of them might be the people that planted the bombs.

For God's sake and our own, please don't surrender to the horror of the moment. Think about the chronic horror of having to deal with these relentless attacks of darkweaving every day. Document the disasters you witness thoroughly.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[maha]

226. It's all still very raw for me.

I used to commute through the lower levels of the WTC every day, and I can still close my eyes and see it exactly as it was. September 11 itself is never completely out of my consciousness. It's burned into my brain.

These ghouls, these conspiracy weenies, enrage me. That may not be rational, but there it is.

[bpilgrim]

222. the first responders on scene reported explosions

so you must have been too far from the scene.

peace

[maha]

225. There were very red, very wet explosions.

Oh, there were explosions. Just about any debris falling from that height would cause explosions. There were big chunks of building and parts of the plane hitting, which would have been explosive. It's been reported by the first responders (you must have missed this on the tape) that some of the explosions they heard were of bodies hitting the asphalt.

However, from a greater distance, one could see clearly that nothing combusted below the points of impact. There were no detonations below the points of impact. There were just big things falling, some in flames, including some of the people, and breaking to smithereens when they hit the ground.

[TrogL]

229. Stop trying to confuse these people with the facts

They've already picked their world view and refuse to let anything shake it.

Reminds me of conservatives.

[bpilgrim]

321. this was BEFORE the collapse

ace

peace

[maha]

350. Cognitively challenged?

Yes, I know it was before the collapse. Once the buildings collapsed, things were no longer falling from the sky.

Let's see if I can walk you through this. Plane hits building. Plane hits the other building. Are you with me so far?

Now, the buildings did not collapse right away. They stood and burned like a couple of giant candles for quite a long time. You may have seen photographs.

While the buildings were burning, big chunks of things were falling to the ground from above the points of impact. These things were falling from a great height, because these buildings were both more than 1,360 feet high. Big chunks of building fell to the ground. Chunks of the planes fell to the ground. Great big heavy things were falling approximately a quarter of a mile to the ground, and hitting asphalt. They went "boom" when they hit. Even the people, both flaming and not flaming, who were jumping to their deaths made a "boom" when they hit, as well as a big splash, because they were falling from such a great height. This fact has been commented on by many people.

When big heavy things fall from a great height, it sounds like an explosion. It is an explosion, actually, just not the kind you have in mind.

And this is all over your head, isn't it?

[bpilgrim]

362. resorting to PERSONAL ATTACKS again?

how mature of you.

i would suspect that FIRST RESPONDERS know the difference, though.
anyways, the main issue is why did WTC7 fall so 'clean'

until you can provide some REAL INFO please stop sniping at me.

thank you :hi:

peace

[maha]

366. It's a syndrome

You aren't foolin' anybody, son.

The First Responders initially thought the booms they heard were explosions, and then they figured out they were not explosions.

This is not rocket science. When great big things fall from a big height, it makes a big boom. The correct response on your part would be, "Oh, yeah, you are right. I didn't think of that." The fact that you refuse to acknowledge anything so obvious reveals you to be a Twerp of the first magnitude.

None of the first responders had ever experienced anything like what was happening before. Nobody's ever experienced anything like the WTC disaster before.

[bpilgrim]

373. apparently

but that doesn't explain how the WTC7 building fell so cleanly.

more does it address the EXPLOSIONS reported BEFORE the buildings collapsed.

but i am sure you are already convinced that a fire brought it down nice and neatly all in its own foot print is perfectly natural which of course you are entitled to believe but unless you have some facts that explain that please stop with the sniping.

thanks :hi:

peace

[DoNotRefill]

282. two kinds of force...

gravity, pulling the structure down, and lateral, moving side to side. Earthquake damage is almost exclusively lateral (the ground actually moves like a wave in water), while fire damage, et cetera, are almost exclusively vertical, ie gravity.

If you're interested in why the buildings in Kobe went sideways, do some research on geology, and how earthquakes actually operate. The buildings in Kobe fell sideways because their entire structure remained intact, while the ground itself "tilted" as a result of the quake.

Think back to your experience in Kobe. I'd imagine that most of the buildings fell in the same direction, which was in a straight line from where the plates shifted. Am I right?

[Sterling]

83. Actually it does.

Sorry you don't see the connection.

[sweetheart]

78. deserving better answers

certainly you hit a nerve with that statement... we deserve better answers, for EVERYTHING.

The photo does look like a controlled demolition, and likely this was absolutely necessary. 7 was a very thin building, and surely the ground level damage and fires... necessitated its end... and maybe indeed it was a demolition that created the space to access the north side of the area where living buried victems might still be found.

We deserve to know that they shot down the flight over pennsylvannia (93?) and that they deliberately stood down at andrews AFB due to an executive order to let the saudi's get about their business.

Methinks the conspriacy theory, as relevant as it truly is, is wrongly focused on 7. Better to explain why we spend a fucking zillion dollars per year on defense and intelligence, yet when these fuckups fail to deliver, they are forgiven. My bushido sense has no tolerance for warriors who fail to defend their nation, or intelligence cowards who fail to defend their nation.

A whole cemetary should be created on an undersea lava flow for ALL american intelligence, government and military people who die over the next decades... as those cowardly shits should be buried on a sea bed and forgotten. Whatever may happen out of it all, i have an irrational trust that GOD has kept score... and all those fuckups who think they got away with being incompetent, but keeping their pensions... may find the pension waiting for them at the end of this life a bit thin... to say the least. woof!

You have a good heart sterling. Rock on.

[Sterling]

89. I actually share you view

That the investigation is better focused on the more tangible elements of the event. However I do respect those who are looking into the odd way the buildings went down although I do not agree with much of the speculation.

It just creeps me out to see people I respect like yourself and nostJ belittling those that are interested in the subject along with the likes of Tom N who's sole purpose here seems to be to attack skeptics in general.

[MacCovern]

69. Great Posting Sweetheart!

As I read many of the replies to this WTC 7 collapase I am
able to see that many of the posts are from people not
thinking clearly.

You and "AZ" made great common sense posts, and maybe your
post will wake up some of the other to reality.

I am also livid after reading some of these other junk posts.

Any adult with any common sense and thinking clearly can tell
that WTC 7 suffered so much structural damage that it couldn't
survive.

[Sterling]

91. Really?

"Any adult with any common sense and thinking clearly can tell
that WTC 7 suffered so much structural damage that it couldn't
survive. "

Show us. It's certainly not in the file I just watched. I saw no fire and no damage.

[sweetheart]

102. What is your objective sterling?

CLEARLY, you are aware of how narrow vesey street was.

Ever since the '93 attack on the WTC, i had to use the north side of vesey street for jogging for years, as my daily jogging run took me down vesey from broadway, across the west side highway and down along the hudson to the battery... and on my vesey street run, i saw over and over how small a place it was (outside of how high), and on seeing the rebuilding of 93, and the attempts to put up "suicide bomber proof" gates to the parking zone... etc.

Somewhere in that rambling, i wanted to say that i always appeared to me that if the WTC fell, and for some reason, i always used to think it would fall sideways towards the hudson destroying world FI... and vesey was a narrow street. The photograph is showing above the 36th floor only... and my calculations may be wrong.. 38 perhaps. There could be significant damage below floor 10 where one would expect it to be.

You have to remember in all this that the evidence for all the lawsuits against ALL the criminal graft of the dot-com theft was sitting in WTC7.... and by demolishing that building and destroying that evidence, the wall street banks likely saved themselves a gazillion dollars.

If your objective is to show conspiracy, methinks your time better spent on the lies of the shrub, than reworking tiresome footage of conjecture regarding the offices of the SEC and SSSB (shroeder salomon smith barney).

We can win against these evil shits in washinton, but it serves us no favour to rework tiresome conspiracy theories when at worse, the building was taken down to facilitate the resucue effort. If we must declare conspiracy, surely the current wave of lies is richer ground than old photos?.. yes?

[bpilgrim]

109. "old photos" - excuse me?

so we have COMPELLING VIDEO that screams out for a more detailed investigation on the WORST DAY in modern american history and you just want us all to move on?

please...

peace

[sweetheart]

120. old photos indeed

That grave and terrible event, when reinterpreted as an act of perverted corruption across the board by our government does nothing to help win in 2004.... fact.

The deliberate stupidity for which the shrubbies are on record is much better material to grind them down... what is it that leads us to self destruct with conspiracy theories when a new (old) film of just another building collapse comes out.

...you want us all to move on? Yes. I do. We have collectively and individually travelled a lotta ground since 9/11 and we cannot go back there expecting to win todays battles.

The focus serves nothing but to trivialize all of us on the left... after all, what are we but a bunch of conspiracy theorists that see the darkest intentions in a video of the top few floors of a building.

No matter whether it was indeed a controlled explosion... so what.

We were lied to... so what. No matter what your emotional charge on that, those lies were too long ago to win in 04... i'm for keeping current... and YES, those photo's are now frikking ancient.

[bpilgrim]

124. "just another building collapse" - i see it a little different than that

you may move on, i am a collecter, sorry :hi:



peace

[Sterling]

118. I dont argue which info is most compelling

I agree that other areas are more compelling to joe six pack. I have produced a local TV show that deals with 9-11 and have yet to cover this stuff. I do however believe there is SOMETHING to it. I think to forget it is a mistake and I do appreciate those who are looking into although I may not agree %100 with their conclusions.

[NYC]

188. Deutsche Bank didn't collapse.

http://www.wnbc.com/wtc/1507176/detail.html
Damaged Bank Building Could Contain More Victims Of 9/11
Deutsche Bank Soon To Be Opened Up To Recovery Workers
POSTED: 3:09 p.m. EDT June 11, 2002

http://www.wnbc.com/News/1528873/detail.html
No More Remains Found
FDNY Wraps Up Search
POSTED: 8:09 a.m. EDT June 25, 2002

Deutsche Bank Mold
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/PDF/DailyNews-5-8-02-MoldMayToppleBuilding-DangerousFungusInfestingGroundZeroSkyscraper.pdf
3 page PDF file about black mold.
Same thing in normal format: http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/Labor/Fungus,_Asbestos_May_Doom_Deutsche_Bank_Bldg_Near_WTC
Fungus, Asbestos May Doom Deutsche Bank Bldg Near WTC

Daily News - May 8, 2002

http://www.nydailynews.com/2002-05-08/News_and_Views/City_Beat/a-150188.asp

Mold May Topple Bldg:
Dangerous Fungus Infesting Ground Zero Skyscraper

By Ralph R. Ortega and Greg Gittrich

A 40-story skyscraper at the edge of Ground Zero withstood the
terrorist attacks but could be demolished because of a gross
infestation of foul mold.

The steel and glass face of the Deutsche Bank tower on Liberty St.
was ripped open by a violent wave of debris from the collapsing
World Trade Center.

While the rubble damaged a major structural column in the
building, engineers have deemed the tower stable.

The real problem is what's inside the walls.

Officials at Ground Zero say an aggressive fungus =97 described as
looking like black splotches has spread rapidly in the walls and
ventilation ducts of the building, which was valued at $178
million before Sept. 11.

Cleanup crews and bank employees who have been in the tower said
the mold is everywhere.

"It's hard to believe the building will stay up," said a city
official at the disaster site, who asked not to be named. "But
ultimately it's up to the owners."

Deutsche Bank has not released details about the mold.

But city officials said they believe the fungus grew rapidly
because of dark and damp conditions in the abandoned building.
They said it does not appear related to any toxic contaminants
from the collapsing towers.

Water Damage Serious

Sprinklers inside the bank building at 130 Liberty St. apparently
were triggered by intensely hot fires at Ground Zero and soaked
many of the floors.

The water eventually stopped, but weeks went by before workers
were able to seal a 24-story gash in the building's facade.

"They got a big problem," said Terry Gordon, an associate
professor at the New York University School of Medicine who
researches workplace air quality.

"When someone has mold in the house, they rip the walls out,"
Gordon said. "Some people think that's extreme. But you have to
deal with it and be careful. You don't want to open it up and have
it spread around."

Gordon said removing the mold from the tower would be a monumental
task.

The bank is concerned enough about the mold and asbestos
contamination in nearby buildings that it has allowed few
employees to retrieve items from the offices, sources said.

Those who have gone into the tower say they have had to undergo
safety training and don a protective suit and respirator.

"You need permission from a senior level," said a bank official.
"You have to go through all the safety steps because they believe
it's not safe."

Deutsche Bank officials have been tight-lipped about the tower's
fate.

But the bank has quietly discussed razing or partially demolishing
the building if the mold can't be scrubbed away, sources said...

[NYC]

189. Deutsche Bank didn't collapse.

http://www.wnbc.com/wtc/1507176/detail.html
Damaged Bank Building Could Contain More Victims Of 9/11
Deutsche Bank Soon To Be Opened Up To Recovery Workers
POSTED: 3:09 p.m. EDT June 11, 2002

http://www.wnbc.com/News/1528873/detail.html
No More Remains Found
FDNY Wraps Up Search
POSTED: 8:09 a.m. EDT June 25, 2002

Deutsche Bank Mold
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/PDF/DailyNews-5-8-02-MoldMayToppleBuilding-DangerousFungusInfestingGroundZeroSkyscraper.pdf
3 page PDF file about black mold.
Same thing in normal format: http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/Labor/Fungus,_Asbestos_May_Doom_Deutsche_Bank_Bldg_Near_WTC
Fungus, Asbestos May Doom Deutsche Bank Bldg Near WTC

Daily News - May 8, 2002

http://www.nydailynews.com/2002-05-08/News_and_Views/City_Beat/a-150188.asp

Mold May Topple Bldg:
Dangerous Fungus Infesting Ground Zero Skyscraper

By Ralph R. Ortega and Greg Gittrich

A 40-story skyscraper at the edge of Ground Zero withstood the
terrorist attacks but could be demolished because of a gross
infestation of foul mold.

The steel and glass face of the Deutsche Bank tower on Liberty St.
was ripped open by a violent wave of debris from the collapsing
World Trade Center.

While the rubble damaged a major structural column in the
building, engineers have deemed the tower stable.

The real problem is what's inside the walls.

Officials at Ground Zero say an aggressive fungus =97 described as
looking like black splotches has spread rapidly in the walls and
ventilation ducts of the building, which was valued at $178
million before Sept. 11.

Cleanup crews and bank employees who have been in the tower said
the mold is everywhere.

"It's hard to believe the building will stay up," said a city
official at the disaster site, who asked not to be named. "But
ultimately it's up to the owners."

Deutsche Bank has not released details about the mold.

But city officials said they believe the fungus grew rapidly
because of dark and damp conditions in the abandoned building.
They said it does not appear related to any toxic contaminants
from the collapsing towers.

Water Damage Serious

Sprinklers inside the bank building at 130 Liberty St. apparently
were triggered by intensely hot fires at Ground Zero and soaked
many of the floors.

The water eventually stopped, but weeks went by before workers
were able to seal a 24-story gash in the building's facade.

"They got a big problem," said Terry Gordon, an associate
professor at the New York University School of Medicine who
researches workplace air quality.

"When someone has mold in the house, they rip the walls out,"
Gordon said. "Some people think that's extreme. But you have to
deal with it and be careful. You don't want to open it up and have
it spread around."

Gordon said removing the mold from the tower would be a monumental
task.

The bank is concerned enough about the mold and asbestos
contamination in nearby buildings that it has allowed few
employees to retrieve items from the offices, sources said.

Those who have gone into the tower say they have had to undergo
safety training and don a protective suit and respirator.

"You need permission from a senior level," said a bank official.
"You have to go through all the safety steps because they believe
it's not safe."

Deutsche Bank officials have been tight-lipped about the tower's
fate.

But the bank has quietly discussed razing or partially demolishing
the building if the mold can't be scrubbed away, sources said...

[sweetheart]

244. better late than never

That tower is likely coming down. Mold, terrorists, whatever.

I don't believe anything except my eyes. It was close to the site, similar distance wise from the "epicenter" and like 7 will have to come down. They lie about all kinds of things these days, and mold is a new excuse to demolish a skyscraper.

Geez, i have asbestos roof slates on my roof, should i tear down this house? ha! Its a scam. The lies are so thick, that the only truth is what happens visibly... and i don't buy the mold story unless it is formally presented by city engineers, not some heresay from deutschebank without formal press releases from upper management.

Bottom line, its coming down like 7 did, just a lot later. Does that make it a conspiracy? No. Does that make 7 a conspiracy? No.

[Stephanie]

88. Other buildings did not have massive diesel tanks inside

You think that diesel fuel had nothing to do with it?

Also, remember that WTC 7 didn't fall until five in the afternoon.

[Sterling]

92. Where's the fire?

Or masive explosion that a giant fuel tank would set off?

[Stephanie]

94. You're saying there was not a fire in Building 7?

Are you saying that just based on your video? Because I don't think it's in dispute that Building 7 was on fire.

[Sterling]

97. I think it is safe to say

I have seen with my own eyes buildings engulfed in flame that did not collapse. The WTC 7 was not engulfed in flame, far from it. I have never seen a building implode straight down on it's footprint from a catastrophe. Only from a controlled demo.

Was there a fire in 7? Could be. Was it significant enough to cause it to collapse in the manner it did? I don't see how that is possible.

[sybylla]

101. Diesel fuel is not explosive

It burns, but it is not explosive. It is a bit more processed version of home heating fuel, the tanks for which are stored in the basements of many homes here in the north. To use it, in a furnace, you have to spray it out of a nozzle to mix a sufficient amount of oxygen to get it to ignite.

[Sterling]

115. But you should be able to SEE a fire

that caused a building to collapse, right?

[Stephanie]

121. You mean on that video? Or what?

I think the fire was clearly visible to those who were there. That is not really a logical argument. You're saying that because YOU can't see flames engulfing the building in your video, that the fire was not fierce enough to destroy the building. Is that what you're saying?

[sybylla]

122. If it was a diesel fire, sure

But I'm not a structural engineer nor a fire marshall. And you can't see what is happening in the lower floors from the video.

[Bushknew]

141. How did the collapse of the towers cause the ignition of the fuel tanks in

How did the collapse of the towers cause the ignition of the fuel tanks in WTC 7?

Why would the WTC 7 have massive tanks of fuel in them in the first place?

[Dancing_Dave]

112. Maybe this map will help

If you worked in WTC 7, WTC 6 was between you and the North Tower(WTC1). The South Tower(WTC2) was yet further south. WTC 6 did have one bomb go off on it's roof, but was not disintigrated like WTC 1,2, and 7. Other buildings closer to the Twin Towers were not disintigrated. But WTC 7 housed some CIA and DOD research offices so secret that as much evidence about what they were doing would have to be destroyed in any case. And indeed, it was destoyed by demolition at the same time as the evidence of what really hit the Twin Towers was destroyed. Airplanes have hit steel buildings before, but never once before did these buildings disintigrate in a controlled demolition, and there was a whole lot more evidence left about what really happened.

The explosion and collapse of WTC 3 on 9/12 was clearly a seperate event caused by explosives within that building.

I rest my case.

[sweetheart]

132. altitude and that map

wtc 6 which i call "the customs house" was so tiny a building that i never noticed it. Next time you see a photo of downtown manhattan pre-9/11 see if you can even view wtc6. It is directly below where the first aircraft hit, 80 floors above its roof.

In all honesty, have you actually stood next to a WTC tower looking up from its base? The height of those buildings was reallly tremendous, leading me to not be the least surprised that material fell 100+ yards around them destroying other structures.

Note how, in recent news, that blue square to the south of WTC2, the deutsche bank building now has to come down... and it was as far (according to your map) from wtc2 as WTC7 was from WTC 1. Given your deep trust in gravity only pulling falling 1000+ feet structures straight down, i have no argument.... but i question that trust.

If I were standing on vesey street and you told me WTC2 was going to collapse in 1 minute, i would have run for my life to the north to avoid being killed by falling bits... as my trust in vertical-only collapses of the world's tallest structures is less resolute.

I hear the theories, but i am more inclined to take that attack at face value. The height of the buildings involved is the missing factor on the map.... and perhaps yourself having been up in one tower or the other, you might feel the almost irrational sense that if you jumped out the window, you cold land in the east river... the height was soooo high, that no photo really communicates the potential. That a zone 1-200 meters from the center of mass of those towers was totally destroyed is absolutely no surpise.

I don't mean to be difficult, just i'm sceptical of the conspiracy theories on this. Does it not trivialize us all to harbour them when they are clearly of no advantage politically.

[peacetalksforall]

74. The film is heart stopping, but the circles are maddening

Everyone is going in circles. I, for one, never really knew anything about WT7 so I was trying to learn from these posts. Someone says it was the proximity, another said it was the 3 fuel tanks, another destabalization. I don't know much - I'll have to learn several key points not included here - how long after the 2nd aircraft did it go down, a layout of the geography (though the account of the former tenant-employee is very helpful), whether an internal fire is recognized and how long it burned before the collapse, and whether it burned from bottom to top...lots of things that are not being said here or in some other sequence. I have no time to read engineers words, but often layman basics can contribute greatly. Right now, based on the little data, my gut says that the collapse was perfect. It doesn't make sense that a reactive disaster such as this could be so clean. Just like taking down an old hotel in Vegas - on TV.

I now know, however, that I'll want to read a book or two about it, though if a book about the Pentagon crash comes out at the same time - I'll opt for the Pentagon book first.

The crash that wasn't or so it seems.

Does anyone to keep TWA in mind while this unravels?

I hope everyone continues to post articles about the the regimes lack of interest in releasing data - all in the name of national security, of course.

Due to national security = yeah right!

[peacetalksforall]

75. I want to add, that I was watching TV that monrning and my first

gut reaction was that the collapse of WT1 and 2 was 'helped'.

[Sterling]

95. but the circles are maddening"

Tell me about it. I thought I remembered you posting some really hateful stuff targeted at skeptics a while back and look at you now?


I agree that the B7 issue is confusing. I took a trip down GZ a week ago just to get my bearings on where things were and grew even more skeptical about the collapse after taking it all in.

Bottom line, it's worthy of serious investigation by someone not connected with Bush and that has not happened yet.

[peacetalksforall]

99. If it's the Bush CABAL, I consider the worst possible scenario of

possibility. Criticizing skeptics? Only if something is said that defies all the logic I use in assessing the worst.

[Sterling]

108. Yes logic is our friend

lol

[slack]

86. looks like controlled demolition

after this film, i would bet a lot of money to that conclusion.
but i believe, the testimony of eye-witnesses is much more confidential on this issue.

[MacCovern]

117. Great 3-D image of WTC 7 & surroundings

I think this will give a good picture of what was around WTC 7:

http://www.cbsnews.com/digitaldan/wtc_photo_page/3dwtc.html

Notice that contrary to many postings in this thread, all of the
buildings around WTC 7 suffered damage, and the Verizon building suffered major structural damage as well as the building behind WTC 7. In front of WTC 7 was WTC 6 which was virtually obliterated by the collapse of WTC 1.

[bpilgrim]

123. here is an even better one ------------------ HIGH REZ satelite shot

now is that wt7 accross the street on the right?

peace

[MacCovern]

126. Yes, WTC 7 is across the street

It is true that WTC 7 was not part of the crater.
The "shell" of WTC 6 is across the street from WTC 7.

[Dover]

129. Where was O'Neill when he died? Which building?

I've never heard any details about that.

[Yentatelaventa]

136. A very simple explaination

Take a course in engineering or other physics course and it will make sense.

I have to admit it's an easy sell for the uneducated and emotionally sensitive. Science is not a gift of birth for everyone obviously.

[bpilgrim]

148. lol

yeah, that has me convinced.

btw: in my profession - cs - i deal with logic constantly.

peace

[AmeriCanadian]

150. You speak the truth

As bad as we want this Administration OUT, it does us no good to conjure up wild assed, hair-brained schemes that simply are not true.

Are you an engineer as well?

[bpilgrim]

158. and some folk can get by with saying so little

:shrug:

peace

[Dancing_Dave]

138. Maybe people are finally waking up!

This seems to be the first DU thread where I see a lot of different people starting to realize that the whole Bush Regime story about what really happened on 9/11/2001 is just another deceptive propaganda myth like these bogus "leaders" come up with all the time, even if they could get the whole U.S. corporate media to stupidly repeat their myth!

Far to few Corporations own this whole media now, and they can decide to lie all together, as well as presenting "experts" who are willing to present misleading speculation for big money....especially when you can't get a research grant or make anywhere near that by telling the truth!

Yet our whole system of Democracy is based on the assumption that independent minded citizens will truely THINK FOR THEMSELF about all the evidence they can possibly get. Without that, our whole Democracy, civilization and way of life will perish....and we have let this go far to far already.

But we could still turn this around...so many Citizens do have computers they could use to find the hidden truth out there. Now the kids who's future is most endangered by the Bush Regime and all the sold-out lying media who repeat their myths, has really grown up with the technology they need to escape the trap! More power to the authentic web-surfing seekers of truth and justice!

[Nottingham]

152. Thank so much to the Underground!

:bounce: The Truth is out there!

[DoNotRefill]

155. Y'all didn't blow stuff up as kids, did you...

With a building like that, it's much more difficult to make it fall over than it is to get it to drop.

Think about it. To get it to actually fall over sideways, you would have to put enough explosives or whatever to sever all or most of it on the bottom, and enough explosives to overcome gravity's effect (to go straight down) on a big, heavy effing building without totally pulverizing the side that the sideways blast is on.

Got a few decks of cards and too much time on your hands? You can experiment with this. Build a card house several stories tall. Then start removing the lower supports. When it collapses, it doesn't go sideways, it goes DOWN. When it gets to the table, stuff'll spread out from the bottom, but the trajectory is still straight down.

Rebuild it. Now try punching it sideways. you'll poke a hole in it, cards from where you poked it will fly out, but the rest will collapse....DOWN.

Rebuild it again, but this time on a tablecloth. Simulate an earthquake by "snapping" the cloth (to form a wave-like ripple). Care to guess what happens?

Everybody's heard the old saw that in the Northern Hemisphere, rivers run North to South, while in the Southern Hemisphere, rivers run South to North, right? Wrong. Rivers run DOWNHILL, regardless of where you are.

[bpilgrim]

160. i am talking about a STEEL BUILDING HERE not a deck of cards.

you show me 1 building in history that has collapsed in it's own foot print due to fire other than the 3 on 911 and i would start to think it was possible but i haven't found one.

besides if what you said were true why would you need a team of CD experts to collapse buildings shoot sounds like the welders could do it.

peace

[DoNotRefill]

277. the principles are identical.

When you're dealing with structural failure, the general principles are identical, with the same exact forces (namely gravity) at work. If you undermine the structural integrity of a building, it'll generally collapse on itself, just like a house of cards.

My house caught fire and burned, years ago. Guess what? It collapsed into it's own footprint. And yes, I saw it with my own eyes.

You've yet to offer proof (or even theory) of ANY kind of lateral motion that would make the building topple sideways.

Regarding welders collapsing buildings, sure, they could do it. All they'd have to do is cut the structural supports. They generally don't, because cutting structural supports with welding tools is bad for the immediate health of the person or persons doing the cutting.

Are you at all familiar with how controlled demolition works? They wire the structural supports with shaped charges, which produce plasma (similar to some kinds of torches) that severs the supports. They'll place "kicker charges" on the supports to ensure when they go, the structure doesn't drop straight down a couple of inches. That's why CD doesn't use large quantities of explosives. It's using GRAVITY to do most of the actual destruction.

[RobertSeattle]

169. In other words...

...Gravity Sucks! (Just like this thread - These 9/11 conspiracy theories makes DU look like a nut house.)

[Bushknew]

192. How did the collapse of the towers cause the ignition of the fuel tanks in

How did the collapse of the towers cause the ignition of the fuel tanks in WTC 7?

Why would the WTC 7 have massive tanks of fuel in them in the first place?

[FreeperSlayer]

168. huh

eom

[TrogL]

171. A simple, coherent explanation

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html

WTC 7, a substantial 47 story office building in its own right, built in 1987, was damaged by the collapsing towers, caught fire, and later in the afternoon also totally collapsed.

...

The list of collapsed buildings (as confirmed by the New York Times through Saturday, 2001.0915) included all seven buildings of the World Trade center complex — including WTC 6, the U.S Customs House to the north; WTC 3, the 22 story Marriot World Trade Center hotel just west of Tower Two; and WTC 4 and 5, the Plaza Buildings to the east (although satellite images suggest much of WTC 5, the north Plaza Building, was still standing).

[bpilgrim]

180. pfft... please thats like the childrens version

and with the video we all just saw i think we need more than that.

peace

[maha]

209. Were you ever there?

Did you ever visit the World Trade Center before September 11? If not, you have no concept of how massive those buildings really were.

I'm an eyewitness to the collapse of towers 1 and 2. I had a clear view from a high-rise building on West 17th Street. The buildings collapsed from the top down. It was evident to anyone who watched the buildings burn and collapse that they collapsed as a result of the damage done by the planes.

Tower 7 burned all day until it collapsed. People who were there were surprised it stayed up as long as it did. The surviving NYC Fire Department, plus NYPD and other emergency workers -- this amounted to a few thousand people -- were witnesses to what happened to Tower 7, and not one of those people has advanced a "bomb" theory. The only ones who believe in bombs are those who watch the videotape.

Wonder why that is?

[Emillereid]

202. The way all the buildings collapsed on 911 is puzzling

Anybody seen these sites:

http://www.american-buddha.com/muslims.suspend.htm

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064

It appears that the fact that the WTC building came down on their own foot prints is weird enough and they were directly hit. WTC 7 doesn't make sense -- even if there is lots of trauma -- ground shaking, etc., that building looks like it came down like a stack of pancakes and from what I can gather about the engineering of these building that shouldn't have happened.

[bpilgrim]

206. agreed

:hi:

peace

[hexola]

211. Just read a little about Controlled Demolition...

Controlled demolition requires a great deal of planning and preperation. Many, many parts of a building have to be pre-cut with torches and charges have to detonate in a very specific preplanned way.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807

Some quotes from the article:

Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI’s 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI’s implosion design.

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.

At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest structural steel building ever imploded, eclipsing the record CDI set in 1997 with the felling 344 sq. ft. tall #500 Wood Street Building in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Those facts make it seem HIGHLY unlikely that this was controlled demo...

[rman]

213. then how come b7 did collapse as neat as it did

apparently the carefull preparations for controlled demolition are not necessary?

what 'natural' cause could make the entire ground floor of a large building give way within, like a second or so?

[Dancing_Dave]

251. IF IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB, THEY COULD DO THAT.

There is overwhelming evidence that a large number of explosives were planted around the WTC complex in preparation for 9/11. Indeed, the explosives that brought down WTC 3 didn't even go off until 9/12. There's no doubt, some people with the right connections got in their with lots of explosives.

I started a thread here earlier about "Who Put All Those Bombs in the WTC?" Unfortuneately, it was not one of the most constructive discussions at DU. Some people seemed to blinded by prejudice to recognize the topic.

There was a lot of construction going on in the WTC in the months leading to 9/11, but what these construction workers were doing there has been COVERED-UP: Even the National Institute for Standards and Technology, which has funding to study what happened to WTC 1,2 and 7, can't get the owners and top managers of the buildings to say what those contruction workers were doing. And Ashcroft's InJustice Department won't supoena anyone to MAKE them tell the NIST what was going on there.

So that's when all those explosives were installed...

[TrogL]

253. and what, pray tell, did the safety inspectors have to say

about all this?

When buildings are built, especially a state-of-the-art, new design building, they are inspected with a fine comb to make sure everything's done correctly. Then even X-ray the welds and test the integrity of the concrete.

You've fallen into a logical fallacy - circular argument.

You're saying the proof that the bombs were there was that the bombs were there.

[TrogL]

256. Motive?

Why install explosives?

What does it get them?

Why have the airplanes if you already have the explosives?

[leftofthedial]

215. yes. the official explanation is a bunch of guys living in caves

in Afghanistan planned this.

Then 19 evil doers crashed two airplanes into WTC1 and WTC2.

This triggered several unbelievably picture perfect controlled collapses in which these massive structures collapsed into their own footprints.

Glad I could help clear that up.

[TrogL]

217. You've got it right.

Shit happens.

They planned to crash airplanes into things. That's it. That's all they planned. Everything else was happenstance.

Guess what? Gravity works. Left to their own resources, things fall down. They don't fall sideways except in Godzilla movies.

What other way did you expect the building to fall?

[Abaques]

230. This is one of the stupidest topics I've seen on DU....

I've been lurking for more then a year now, but just started posting in the last month or so and this entire thread is about the most bogus thing I've seen.


The arguments I've seen for a bomb causing wt7 to collapse (and many of the arguments against) are mostly just laymen making things up that sound right.

My old roommate has a master's degree in civil engineering. After the towers collapsed (and after the shock had passed) we discussed what actually made the towers fall and why. My roommate basically explained that it was most likely fire, as uncontrolled fire in steel buildings generally leads to their collapsing. This was all well before any investigation had taken place.

To add to that, Nova or Frontline (not the best tools of Bushco) did a story on why the towers went down, and it explained that fire was indeed the factor that caused the towers (all of them) to collapse.


The fact is, this is not something that non-experts can effectively debate. If there are any civil engineers out there, let them look at all the evidence and decide.

To add to that, the more time we waste arguing about conspiracy theories that cannot be proven or dis-proven or whatever, it distracts us from the most important thing: getting rid of Bush in '04.


Lets keep our eyes' on the prize people.

[ElementaryPenguin]

241. "Steel Buildings generally collapse..." And not ONE of the NY firefighters

Understood this?? If any one of these fire experts had ANY clue this would happen - would they have sent all of these men barrelling in - pointlessly - to be killed. No engineers around to tip them off? And what about the firefighters' claims that they heard several explosions during their rescue attempts?

Name ONE other building that collapsed from being hit at the TOP!! Or from a fire at the TOP!!! I used to work in the twin towers in L.A. - also steel buildings - and the SAME architects as the NY World Trade Center. When we had fire drills the fire marshalls said they would only evacuate the floors that were BELOW the fire!!!!!!!!!!! Explain that!!

[JHB]

242. Oh, fer cryn' out loud!

The fire fighters went into the Towers to try to bring the fires there under control. When it became apparent they couldn't do that, they ordered their people out...but many didn't get the message, and many others couldn't get out in time.

As for WTC 7, once it was evacuated (Guliani himself was trapped in the building for a short time), they just let it burn. Having just lost so many people and so much equipment when the main towers collapsed, they didn't have anything close to what they would need to fight the fire in #7.

[Abaques]

243. Did you read my post???

If not, then re-read the whole thing.

Now, where did you get your degree in civil engineering?

If you don't have one, then where did you get your degree in physics, material science, or mechanical engineering?

If you don't have one of those either, then please tell me what demolitions or construction company you worked for and in what capacity?


As I mentioned, it was my friend with a masters in civil engineering who made that statement, not me. I am merely repeating it.


As I stated in my post, why the buildings fell (all of them) is not up for political discussion. Civil engineers (the people who figure out how to keep buildings up) are the most qualified people to discuss exactly how a building collapses.


We should not be discussing the technical reasons that the buildings fell, but the human factors that allowed people to fly airplanes into buildings. That means putting a harsh light onto our intelligence agencies and the Bush administration for their failings.


Again, all this rampant speculation about something that people have no expertise in is pointless and hurts our cause: getting Bush out in '04.


Eyes on the prize. We CAN take back this country.

[patcox2]

308. The only explanation for your comment is you are stupid or a liar.

You say that in the event of a fire, they would only evacuate the floors below the fire? Thats so asinine, rock solid stupid, completely clueless, it doesn't deserve a response.

[bpilgrim]

320. got any proof?

i would like to see/read about one steel building that collapsed from a fire, PLEASE?

fyi: we are not talking baout the towers... WTC7

:hi:

peace

[Abaques]

324. WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed because of fire

Read the official acount here:


http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm

[haymaker]

232. Again, all the usual suspects, new and old,

in full attack mode.

Again I ask, was there ever an intense inspection and investigation with regard to the rubble? If so, who performed it?

[PopSixSquish]

237. So I Have a Couple of Questions

Now I don't know jack about engineering or controlled demos, so consider me the ultimate "lay person" when it comes to these things.

1)When the 1989 quake hit NoCal, Interstate 80 and the upper level of the Embarcadero made of concrete and steel (?) support bars collapsed or pancaked right on top of the lower level killing several people. It didn't fall over to the right or left, it fell straight down. So how is that different from this building falling straight down? BTW, I knew someone who worked for CalTran and saw a picture of the steel support rods sheared right off. And they didn't rebuild the upper level of the Embar. afterward

2)In a car or truck bomb explosion, doesn't most of the energy go up and out from the ground? So you wouldn't see a building collapse from this type of explosion correct? You would see half of the building torn away (OKLA City, African embassies) But if this source of the energy destroying the building comes from higher up in the building such as fires burning on upper floors, wouldn't the building collapse straight downward away from the energy source?

I am in no way dismissing anyone's theories, I am truly curious and I come to DU to learn.

[TrogL]

238. Yes and no

1. ...It didn't fall over to the right or left, it fell straight down...

Yup, gravity works.

2. source of the energy destroying the building comes from higher up in the building ... wouldn't the building collapse straight downward away from the energy source

Nope. Forces act equally in all directions. The destructive force of fire acts relatively slowly compared to an explosion. An explosion cannot act in one direction only (shaped charges use lenses to reflect the explosion in one direction). If there were explosions going on in the tower, the debris would be forced outwards, not straight down and they wouldn't appear as flashes in one window, they'd be visible in all windows simultaneously.

[PopSixSquish]

239. Thanks.

I didn't think about the explosion debris part of it

The big question for me is why in the name of whomever, aren't we having investigations left, right and sideways? So every theory can be discussed in PUBLIC!!!!!!!!

[TrogL]

240. That's the conspiracy - not this other nonsense

Those airplanes should never have hit the buildings the first place.

A clear investigation would show Republicans preventing the prosecution of terrorism, starting with the killing of the Gore proposal back a few years ago.

[Abaques]

245. Right on!

Common sense prevails again. Thanks TrogL.

[Dancing_Dave]

246. Congrats Bpilgrim!

:) It's hard to get a good discussion of the WTC disaster issue going at DU. A political and historical discussion of PNAC and LIHOP and generally WHY 9/11 happened often gets people thinking here. But when it comes to figuring WHAT REALLY HAPPENED on 9/11 and some of the issues become technical, we have lagged behind the Libertatians who hang out at sites like American Patriot Friends Newtork, or American Free Press. Of course, if you call a Libertarian a conspiracy theorist, they'll just take it as a compliment!

But this thread did get some DUers to start thinking for themselves about this issue and the evidence relevant to it. Good show. :toast:

P.S. Here's 2 more threads that got people thinking
http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID43/5750.html#68
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=269&mesg_id=269

[bpilgrim]

322. thanks dave

and likewise, i appreciate all you've contributed to this very serious thread. that MANY try to dismiss OUT OF HAND and put folks down who are ASKING QUESTIONS as kooks is something that is hard for me to fathom really.

i am simply an american who wants to know what happened on that horrific day.

it will be up to us, the folks who ask questions, that will make sure this country doesn't collapse next.

i have been a quite man all my life but now i will not be quite any longer.

thanks for the links i will check them out :toast:

peace

[Emillereid]

250. For those who support the official explanation of the WTC --- please

respond to the following arguments found at these websites (they also give engineering/physics/chemical reasons that the official stories are problematic -- I posted these before, but they haven't been addressed) :

http://www.american-buddha.com/muslims.suspend.htm

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064

[TrogL]

252. Been there already

The steel parts in question aren't all that big, and they didn't need to be heated to the full melting point of steel to start bending and warping.

Note that structural steel at 550 degrees C (1022 F) has 60% of the strength of steel at normal temperatures.

That was enough to make them fail. Only one would have to fail. The extra stress on the remaining ones would cause them to fail, causing a domino effect.

Remember, the shell of the building was designed to maintain its external integrity against wind. Its internal integrity is up to those spars (or whatever they're called). The building has already been damaged by slamming a large airplane into it.

It wasn't just the fuel burning, was the entire contents of the floor; paper, furniture, computers, carpet, wall coverings, ceiling tiles, photocopier solution, bookcases - there's lots of flammable stuff in an office. It's only fireproof to the point that a burning cigarette won't set it off, not thousands of gallons of flaming jet fuel.

He's obviously never spent any time camping. If you're lazy, you light a campfire with kerosene. Sometimes you have to use quite a bit to get it going and it almost immediately burns out if you've got wet wood. You certainly can't cook hotdogs over a kerodene fire - it's too cold. But as soon as the wood catches and coals form, now you've got a nice hot cooking fire.

I can't find one to link to, but certainly you've seen pictures of the side of the building at the height of the fire. The whole of one floor is floor to ceiling fire - it's white hot. That's way hotter than a kerosene fire.

There's some talk about how smoky the fire was and that it meant it wasn't a fully involved fire. All fires smoke. If this fully involved fire was putting out that much black smoke, then it must have been huge.

Here's a telling point.

The terrorists apparently predicted the whole scenario — the fuel fire, the slow weakening of the structure, and the horrific collapse of the building — phenomena that the architects and the NY civil engineering approval committees never dreamed of.

This is the mind-reading I was complaining about above. There is no proof whatsoever that the terrorists' thinking extended beyond hitting towers with airplanes.

[Emillereid]

288. Could you please address some of the engineering specifics of the articles

such as the following observation:



"Given that none of those floors was holding a grand piano sale or an elephant convention that day, it is unlikely that any of them were loaded to the maximum. Thus, any of the floors should have been capable of supporting more than its own weight plus the two floors above it.  I suspect the WTC was engineered for safer margins than the average railroad bridge, and the actual load on each floor was less than 1/6 the BreakingStrength.  The platters were constructed of webs of steel trusses.  Radial trusses ran from the perimeter of the floor to the central columns, and concentric rings of trusses connected the radial trusses, forming a pattern like a spider web



(seehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_



world_trade_structure300.gif or ). 



Where the radial trusses connected with the central columns, I imagine the joints looked like the big bolted flanges where girders meet on a bridge — inches thick bolts tying the beams into the columns. 



In order to weaken those joints, a fire would have to heat the bolts or the flanges to the point where the bolts fell apart or tore through the steel.  But here is another thing that gives me problems — all the joints between the platter and the central columns would have to be heated at the same rate in order to collapse at the same time — and at the same rate as the joints with the outer columns on all sides — else one side of the platter would fall, damaging the floor below and making obvious distortions in the skin of the building, or throwing the top of the tower off balance and to one side." http://www.american-buddha.com/muslims.suspend.2.htm#MUSLIMS%20SUSPEND%20LAWS%20OF%20PHYSICS!,%20Part%202

Did you read the articles throughly. If this fellow is right, then maybe while the heat of the fire might have been able to weaken the steel for a few floors, I can't imagine that the fire (which by the way seemed to either be outside the building or blowing black smoke (lower temperature)) was hot enough to weaken the steel much below the floors that were hit and the weight of the floors should not have been enough to crash the whole thing to ground without 'some' resistance. Like the fellow who wrote the first article, I am left with an uneasy feeling that something is wrong. Perhaps the building were not built that well.

[TrogL]

291. Look at his language.

(oops, hit return too early)

...I suspect the WTC was engineered...

...I imagine the joints looked...


That's fiction. He's talking through his hat.

[Abaques]

317. Actually...

The floor joints were not anything near what the bridge joints you are refrencing. They were somewhat smaller.


Check out the information on the Nova show on the subject here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/


In particular, note the animation of floor collapse here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/minutes.html




Now, for further technical refrence, please see the study performed by FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers here:

http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm

[Emillereid]

346. The animation might explain the first few floors that were subject to the

direct impact of the planes and the heat -- but what of the floors below -- their fire retardant insulation should have stayed intact (certainly the planes couldn't have blown the insulation off all the floor platters) and assuming some redundancy, one would think that the supports for the lower floors could have offered some resistance for the floors falling above -- the way they came down they appeared to have all given way in all directions at the same time.

Much of the fuel by the way should have boiled off -- it's boiling temperature is much lower than the purported temperatures reached.

[maha]

353. The fire retardant had worn away

"their fire retardant insulation should have stayed intact "

Investigators found that the kind of fire retardant used when the buildings were built -- some sort of spray-on stuff -- had seriously eroded away even before September 11.

"way they came down they appeared to have all given way in all directions at the same time."

No. I had a clear view of the entire disaster from a high rise building north of the WTC. When the tops of the buildings caved in from structural damage, the weight of the top several floors collapsed the floor just under the point of impact. And when that floor collapsed, the floor just under it went. And then the next floor. Slam slam slam all the way straight down. This happened very quickly and doesn't show up in the videos all that well, but that's how it was.

Regarding the fire -- it wasn't jet fuel that was burning. The buildings were burning; the jet fuel just ignited the buildings. By "buildings" I include all the stuff inside the buildings, including furniture, wiring, office equipment, people, and lots and lots of paper. Huge inferno. Flames shooting out and all that.

[maha]

255. Not the "official" version

My version, as an eyewitness. The "bombs" theory is bogus. Give it a rest.

[Dancing_Dave]

257. It must be said

That from many angles it was NOT possible to see explosives going off. So if you didn't see them, it only proves that you were looking from one of those angles.

When I asked to hear some WTC experience at the NYC indymedia site, several people said that from their distance and position they couldn't see the bombs explode but could feel them shake the ground. Other people who were there saw and heard explosions, and there are even people who were severely injured in explosions, and you'd have a hard time telling those folks that no explosions happened!

The effect of controlled demolition does not make one big bang that will look like an explosion to anyone at a distance, unless they are familiar with what a controlled demolition looks like. The wave of smaller internal bombs going off in in rapid succession down the building produces an overall smooth collapsing effect...which is just what can be seen in many videos, even if you can't make out the individual explosions. :)

See data at:
http://911pi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5396090821&f=9606022231&m=433601662
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html

[maha]

258. One more time

OF COURSE people felt explosions. Massive chunks of buildings and airplanes were falling to the ground from a great height. In fact, some first responders realized that what they first thought were explosions were bodies hitting the asphalt.

DUH!

The only persons injured from "explosions" were in the buildings near the points of impact. These are survivors who were seriously burned when their offices caught fire. Generally, though, people either got out in fairly good shape or they were pulverized. No one who was on the ground was seriously burned.

"wave of smaller internal bombs going off in in rapid succession down the building produces"

That's GARBAGE. Anyone who watched could see why the buildings collapsed the way they did. Once the top floors collapsed from structural damage the weight brought the buildings down, floor by floor. No "smaller internal bombs" were needed. And there is no way anyone could have set "smaller internal bombs" like that without being caught.

I will trust what I saw with my own eyes, thank you.

[TrogL]

260. Wonderful, wonderful stuff

for proving my point. Thank you.

When they demolish a building, they try to make the entire thing come down at once. Somewhere up above is a link to a site showing exactly that. I'm sure you've watched documentary shows on TV about building demolitions.

That's not what we're seeing.

When they set off the shaped charges to blow out the supports (after laboriously weakening them with saws - a week's long process) they display a sharp-white actinic light, almost like looking at a welding torch or an arc lamp. It displays in all the windows simultaneously.

Compare this with the slow-rolling billow of a gasoline explosion. You've seen plenty of these. In the movies, when stunt people do explosions with dynamite, they don't use dynamite. It looks crappy and unexciting. To boost the action, they use gasoline. It makes a big, messy fireball. Remember the footage of the bomb at Olympic Park? You could barely see it - it was just a bunch of sparks. That was a dynamite bomb.

What all those nice pictures are showing us is a perfect example of ordinary fire being squished out of a burning building by pancaking floors.

There's no "hot gases" with a dynamite explosion - it's a waste of energy. The purpose of a dynamite explosion is the shock wave. You don't get a good shock wave from a gassy explosion like gasoline.

As to all that nonsense about the smoke preceding the collapse? It's basic hydraulics. The other day, I bought new air mattresses for the kids and spent the next two hours pumping them up. I would pump and pump and blow and blow and send a tremendous amount of air into the mattress and it just sat there limp, gradually raising itself a few millimetres at a time. That building is wide. A small drop in the ceiling would be a large surface area compared to the width and height of the windows, hence it would force tremendous amounts of air out, pushing the smoke and flame along with it. It's basic physics.

Why didn't it happen on every floor? Because it wasn't a controlled explosion - otherwise it would have been every floor.

He makes a big point about the dust at the bottom below the fire being white and the "dust" above the fire being grey. Do I really need to point out that dust (probably mixed with broken glass) is white (or thereabouts) and smoke is grey??

Ok, now for the antenna. The antenna is attached to the concrete core. The floors are collapsing first. Of course the antenna doesn't move. It doesn't move until the weight of the trash from several collapsing floors weakens the integrity of the central concrete core, which breaks off and blummets down, smashing the remainder of the concrete core and the floors. You can see it in the pictures. Thank you for linking to them.

Finally, he invokes Occam's Razor (incorrectly) saying that planned explosions is the simplest explanation. This involves a conspiracy of thousands occuring directly under the eye of thousands of others with perfect coordination of thousands of chaotic events like explosions and wind currents. There's a much simpler explanation.

Planes go crash.
Fuel goes whoosh.
Fires goes sizzle.
Building fall down and go boom.

[Abaques]

261. And where did your degree in civil engineering come from?

That from many angles it was NOT possible to see explosives going off. So if you didn't see them, it only proves that you were looking from one of those angles.


That is not an argument.


As I've posted before, the only people fit to analyze and comment on the data are civil engineers. If you aren't one, then every bit of analysis you make means squat.




Lets keep our eyes on the prize people: No more Bushco in '04!!!

[TrogL]

265. He thinks the civil engineers are in on it

But isn't that a lovely bit of logic? The proof for the explosions is that you couldn't see them.

[TrogL]

269. Wanna scare the shit out of somebody?

Take a heavy piece of wood like a two-by-four and whack it against a wooden desk. People will swear up and down they've heard an explosion, especially if they've already got "explosion on the brain" from having just witnessed one.

[ElementaryPenguin]

262. Been showing this to people all day, and EVERYONE says it's a demolition!!

Every last person that has seen it today - thinks it looks like a CONTROLED DEMOLITION!! And they ARE FUCKING STUNNED!!!

[TrogL]

264. Logical fallacy

Like things are not the same. This is left over from the middle ages. Get with the 21st century.

Incidentally, "everybody says" is yet another logical fallacy.

[ElementaryPenguin]

268. Well, being that 47 minutes AFTER 2nd Trade Center is hit -

BushCo has the air space over D.C. completely undefended - I gotta figure there was a helluva lot more going on that than the official BushCo version!! But perhaps it seems kosher to you, that of all the 285 million Americans who could have been arbitrarily attacked by these "terrorists" - it's Tom Daschle - leader of the opposition party - opposed to the Patiot Act - who happens to be attacked! So, you can continue to ridicule any speculation here - as to another explanation for the fall of this building - but the fact is - to the naked eye - this doesn't look like the way a building normally responds when it's on fire - and the fire hardly appears to be a raging one. Just out of curiosity, have you personally ever seen a burning building implode like that one? I certainly never have, nor have any of the people I have shown this to. As these are not easily persuaded people - they are very accomplished, very bright lawyers.

[Abaques]

272. Lawyers are not civil engineers.....

Ask the experts, not the laymen.


Also, I don't think either TrogL or myself have defended Bush's actions on 9/11. But I beleive that the reason DC airspace was undefended had more to do with the Bush administration being incompetent then some giant conspiracy.


Occam's Razor. Use science, not conjecture.

[ElementaryPenguin]

274. And the attack on Daschle, which Chimpy said was done by the evil doers...

No conspiracy there either. Simply incompetence in the U.S. Postal Department, I guess, huh?

[Abaques]

280. Ahem, off topic.

Yes, Daschle was attacked. But I've seen no evidence showing that Bush was behind it. Just more indications that Bush and friends are simply incompetent.

[ElementaryPenguin]

287. Don't tell me you're one of those wacko "COINCIDENCE Theorists"!!!

They are the wackiest!!! Cheney & Rumsfeld were dead certain - had irrefutable evidence, that Iraq posed such an imminent to the U.S., that our nation would probably not even survive had the U.N. weapons inspectors been allowed to continue to do their job!! Nothing sinister there. Just another "honest" mistake from a bunch of incompetents!! And these incompetents don't care about oil, or empires, or defense contractors, or PNAC, right?? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME??????

[bpilgrim]

323. S.O.P.

why did that fail? our prez could have been taken out in the intial attack and the system should have conformed to standard operating procedure until someone took the helm which would have required airplanes in the air.

whats occam go to say about that?

peace

[TrogL]

273. Lawyers?

Lawyers.

You're kidding me, right?

Lawyers?!?!!?

Once upon a time, I drew a diagram of a highway interchange and my mother said I should take it and show it to the guy next door because he was a lawyer. I didn't understand it then, and I don't understand it now.

I just checked the curriculae of a couple of Faculties of Law at various universities. No engineering courses that I could find.

When lawyers go to court over this kind of thing, guess who they bring along as expert witnesses? Engineers.

If they're such experts in structural design, why do they hire architects for their new offices?

"Looks like" is not "is". Get over it. The map is not the territory.

[ElementaryPenguin]

281. Are you structural engineer?

eom

[TrogL]

286. Nope

and I'm not the one making the extraordinary claim.

[bpilgrim]

326. suprise

btw: we are just showing a clip of video and asking QUESTIONS what is wrong wit dat :shrug:

peace

[maha]

359. You're annoying the hell out of me, that's what's wrong.

All of your "questions" have been answered. Yet you keep asking, like an endless loop.

Your "questions" are detracting from the REAL unknowns, like what did Bush know beforehand, and how deeply is he involved with Saudi financiers who also fund al qaeda.

Tell you what -- come to New York City. Stand around on streetcorners in the Financial District and stop people -- many of whom are survivors -- walking by with your questions. Surely, at some point during the day, you will be soundly smacked.

[bpilgrim]

361. then go to another thread

and NONE of my questions have been answered. shoot there isn't any official theory that has even been written yet that explain the collapse of wtc7.

if you find one... please submit :hi:

peace

[Abaques]

266. So then, is everyone that you've shown it to..

...a civil engineer or a demolitions expert?

Although absolutely no one has addressed this, the only people qualified to explain why and how a building collapses are civil engineers and demolitions experts (most of whom are civil engineers).


Quit spreading FUD.

[ElementaryPenguin]

271. No. But a grand jury, for example, will not be exclusively comprised of

Civil engineers and demolitions experts. Now that you mention it, I have read some comments from demolitions experts who say that this buildings fell like they were controlled demolitions.

[Abaques]

276. I care more about what is factual then what a grand jury might believe.

The truth is more important.


If you have demolitions experts opionions on why and how the buildings fell, then post links. The burden of proof is solely upon you in this argument.

[ElementaryPenguin]

278. Why shouldn't you be held to the same burden of proof? Because

your roommate was an engineer?? Gee, case closed, I guess!!

[Abaques]

284. Because I am not making a claim.

I am simply shooting holes in yours.


I simply related what a civil engineer had told me based off initial evidence. That does not make it fact and I did not present it as such.

If you are questioning me for believing that civil engineers are the correct people to analyze why and how the building fell, then we can go no further. Because they simply are the most qualified to judge that.



The only position in regards to this issue is that experts be given all the evidence and allowed to make an independent judgement as to what the technical cause for the buildings collapse was.

You are attempting to act as that expert, when you are clearly not in possesion of all the evidence and are also clearly not a civil engineer or demolitions expert (the relevent experts).


You may make the (possibly valid) claim that Bush is covering things up. Well, the best way to solve that problem is to take back the White House in '04 and have a legitimate President allow for a completely independent investigation.

[TrogL]

283. Like is not "is"

You are living in the 15th century, using witch-burning logic.

Do us all a favour and just eliminate the verb "to be" from your vocabulary. Your thinking will be a lot clearer and you won't keep falling into these "fallacy of identification" logical fallacies.

If I used this logic, I'd never get any sleep.

There are children who play outside my apartment window. They apparently do nothing but scream for entertainment. It sounds like somebody is being murdered or raped. If I used the logic that was sounds like a kid being killed is their actual death agony, I'd constantly be running downstairs to intervene.

Get these demolitions experts the facts of the situation, get them up in front of a court of law, then let's hear what they have to say for themselves.

(clarity)

[LearnedHand]

333. FUD??!? n/t

[Abaques]

339. Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt

FUD

[SPAZtazticman]

296. NOTE TO ALL CONSPIRACY THEORISTS:

first of all, what possible motive would anyone have for making world trade SEVEN collapse? second, the towers were designed when they were built to pancake in on themselves in the event of a collapse. I guess it seemed smart to the archetect for his buildings not to fall over sideways and crush half of lower manhattan

[TrogL]

297. There is no evidence of this

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html

He was more worried about it not being blown over.

[Capn Sunshine]

299. There is too proof

which can be found documented cross checked and double diddly certified at

http://www.theresnoconspiracybuildingsfallstraightdowntheyaredesignedthatway.com

[Emillereid]

298. The temperature doesn't seem to have been sufficient

This article that examined the chemistry of the WTC fire concluded that the fuel would not have been sufficient to reach the necessary temperatures.
http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064

We have assumed that the entire quantity of jet fuel from the aircraft was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction.

We have found that it is impossible the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor beyond 280° C (536° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

[TrogL]

300. Apples and oranges

They're talking about steel beams. We're not. We're talking about small trusses. The buildings involved in the British study also didn't have an airplane inside them.

For the rest, see my campfire analogy above.

We've been over this already.

Say something new.

[Emillereid]

304. What's the weight of an airplane?

Aren't they made of light weight aluminum? I imagine that much of the stuff that initially burned would have blown off as ash, yes? How long did it take for the airplane to burn or melt?

Obviously even if the heat was sufficient to melt the trusses at the floors that were hit, we all know that heat dissipates -- certainly the trusses on the floor below would have had to fail/break on the floors below not because of heat, but because of weight -- anyone know what the tolerances were. They apparently should have held their own floor and a couple more, but were they in fact built that strong.

Didn't the architect of these building actually say that the building were designed to take a direct hit from a plane -- one not that much smaller than the ones that hit?

The WTCs were built with small trusses? At what temperature would they melt or lose sufficient strength to collapse?

I agree that we're all speculating -- but I am for one impressed that there are sufficient 'scientific' questions regarding the collapse of these buildings that they should not simply be dismissed, but should be analyzed carefully and objectively by real scientists. The articles concerning the temperatures of the fires on 911 and the melting temperatures of steel etc. are not so easily dismissed especially since they actual were calculated using perfect 'conditions' . Are there any articles on the net that have run the real numbers -- calculated the actual weight of the planes, the actual amount of fuel, the angles of the impacts, the weight of the floors, the tolerances of the trusses, etc. etc. etc. We don't need analogies about camp fires or playing cards, we need real analyses with real facts. I am a scientist -- but I have seen enough written to keep an open mind on the matter, especially in view of this administration's ties to the writing of "Rebuilding America's Defenses" wherein the powers that be surmised that in order to get the American people behind their militaristic vision another Pearl Harbor might be needed and who could imagine the political viability of creating weapons that target specific genotypes. People who think like this are capable of anything!!

[jmowreader]

311. According to Jane's All the World's Aircraft

A Boeing 767 has maximum takeoff weight of 156,490 kg (344,278 lb)
A Boeing 757 has maximum takeoff weight of 99,790 kg (219,538 lb)

[Dancing_Dave]

301. New Site WTC7.NET

Yes, there's a great new site about the strange and interesting fate of WTC 7. It disintigrated JUST LIKE THE TWIN TOWERS -- BUT IT DIDN'T EVEN GET HIT BY A PLANE. And that is just the BEGINING of all the strange things which will make you question the official story that we all heard about what happened 9/11.

Here it is http://wtc7.net

This is a lot deeper than Watergate...

[Emillereid]

307. For those who believe the weight of the upper floors

brought the buildings down please address this observation:

"I need a faith booster shot.  I would like to find a picture of all those platters piled up on the ground, just as they fell — has anyone seen a picture like that?  I am told it was cumulative weight of those platters falling on each other that caused the collapse, but I don't see the platters piled up like flapjacks on the ground floor. "

[patcox2]

310. The floors were made primarily of concrete, a brittle material.

By the time they reached the ground estimates of their speed based on the film indicated they were going something like 80 mph. They hit the bottom and the kinetic energy of that kinda tonnage smacking the ground at that velocity was plenty to completely obliterate any semblance of the original structure.
Besides, your logic is fucked; what are you suggesting, that the debris of the building wound up somewhere else? Or that only "controlled demolition" could smash a reinforced concrete floor falling from 1000 feet in the air?

Anyone here have any idea of the work, the infrastructure, required to do a controlled demolition, generally hundreds of ccharges, they usually will remove the thermal insulation on the steel members to make sure the charges work, they will cut half way through critical members to make sure the structure will fall. Just how and where do you think all this could take place in an occupied building without being noticed? And if you think it could be done without being noticed, you are utterly ignorant of what it entails, thats for sure.

[paxamor]

332. concrete to dust

>By the time they reached the ground estimates of their speed based on the film indicated they were going something like 80 mph.

So an 80 MPH impact will convert concrete into 60-micron powder?
Hmmm, I don't think I want to get my concrete from where-ever you're getting yours.

And anyway that concrete dust was spewing out of the towers from the first few seconds of each "collapse",
when the speed of the falling top was more like 10 MPH.

>Besides, your logic is fucked; what are you suggesting, that the debris of the building wound up somewhere else?

UM, yes, the concrete landed in the form of powder the consistency of talcum powder all over Lower Manhattan.

[patcox2]

334. Why not change the subject, moron.

The post I am responding to asked why there weren't 100 visible floors standing stacked like pancakes.

It was an idiotic question. They were smashed in the fall.

Now you are saying, just exactly what, I don't know, and I am sure you don't either. I never said all of the concrete was reduced to 60 micron powder, so go slay your straw man elsewhere. Not that he's dead anyway. What are you suggesting, that only hidden explosives could have produced so much dust, only hidden explosives could have pulverized a significant portion of the concrete part of the structure? Or that aliens in UFOs stole the floors so that we would all be confused about what happened? What the hell are you suggesting?

Wow, in the face of your stunning logical proof I am truly tempted to abandon the scientific method, which of course relies on verifiable, repeatable observation, as opposed to the kind of inductive reasoning, highly logical of course, but completley divorced from reality, that produces absurdities like Aristotle's natural history and Lysenko's theories of inherited adaptation.

[bpilgrim]

336. look whos talkin...

are you tryin to get your posts yanked?

peace

[Emillereid]

343. Although the concrete turning into dust instead of pieces is peculiar,

the 'platters' the engineer is referring to is the steel trusses that supported each floor -- if they came down vertically on top of one another certainly they didn't turn into dust like the concrete, nor would they have melted (fire was too far away for most floors) or in other way evaporated. Falling down like pancakes because of the weight of successive floors is the official explanation -- so where are the steel platters that supported each floor?

Remember one of the central tenets of the scientific method is falsifiability -- in order show a problem with a prevailing theory doesn't mean one has to substitute an alternative theory. I haven't a clue what really happened -- I'm just not satisfied with the official theory.

[maha]

356. What steel platters?

Are you imagining that each floor rested on a steel platter? Not so.

This article does a good job of answering all the conspiracy nut questions,actually, including how the fire damaged steel and how the building fell straight down.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

See also:

http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1017/news_1-1.html

[bpilgrim]

335. how many buildings have you blown up?

just curious as to where you have recieved all this apparant knowledge about CD.

thanks :hi:

peace

[maha]

315. The problem is, I think ...

those of you who refuse to believe us eyewitnesses have no understanding of the scale of what happened. You don't grasp the size and the weight of the buildings. No other building collapse on this scale has ever happened before on the planet Earth. You really can't compare it to anything else.

I guess you had to be there.

[Emillereid]

309. In the interest of science here is an MIT professor's explanation

of the WTC collapse -- I don't think it answers all the questions, but it at least addresses some.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

[paxamor]

327. In the interest of science here is deconstructed version of said article

http://www.wtc7.net/911research/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_jom/eagar_0112.html

The purpose of the original article wasn't to answer any questions -
it was purely to decieve the public. Eagar the sophist compares the columns in the towers to rows of dominoes. How obvious do the lies have to be?

[Abaques]

319. For all the conspiracy theorists.....

You have the burden of proof upon you in this case because there is a credible explanation for the collapse of all the towers. The report was conducted by FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and can be found here:

http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm



If anyone wants to contradict anything in that report, then to be taken seriously they will need to provide expert (ie civil engineering or demolitions expert) opinion and evidence to that regard.


For those of you who will dismiss the report because of its government connections, then fine. Then when we take back the government in 2004 I suggest that the entire 9/11 chain of events be re-investigated by an independent counsel.


All this conspiracy talk does nothing more then divert us from working on the real goal we should have: removing Bush from the White House.


Keep your eyes on the prize people.

[bpilgrim]

325. well, it says the jury is still out and that a FIRE has never brought down

a steel building before in history though they 'THINK' that is what caused it to collapse and NOT any structual damage from the collapsing towers.

so sounds like they need OUR help... anyone got any links of this happening in the past?

thanks in advance, and i'm sure fema sends their regards as well :toast:

peace

[Abaques]

340. Are you a civil engineer?

I doubt it.

Find me one who agrees with you and then we'll talk.

[bpilgrim]

342. Fire Engineer's Bill Manning Calls for Comprehensive Investigation of WTC

After 9-11 Administration Damage Control Efforts:

Fire Engineering Magazine assails the incredible speed that the evidence in
the WTC collapse is being destroyed. Never
in the history of fire investigations has evidence been destroyed this fast
before exhaustive investigations can be completed. <"We must try to find out[br />why the twin towers fell" By James Quintiere,Baltimore Sun 1/3/01
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.towers03jan03.story
-WTC "INVESTIGATION"?: A CALL TO ACTION from Fire Engineering Magazine]

...

"Burning Questions...Need Answers": FE's Bill Manning Calls for Comprehensive Investigation of WTC Collapse

Fair Lawn, NJ, January 4, 2002-Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief, is summoning members of the fire service to "A Call to Action." In his January 2002 Editor's Opinion, "$elling Out the Investigation" (below), he warns that unless there is a full-blown investigation by an independent panel established solely for that purpose, "the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals." Manning explained: "Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers .... The lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world."

In an interview with the New York Daily News today, Manning reiterated his call for a "full-throttle, fully resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. He is asking members of the fire service to read "WTC 'Investigation'? A Call to Action" in the January 2002 issue of Fire Engineering and at fireengineering.com and to contact their representatives in Congress and officials in Washington to ask that a blue ribbon panel be convened to thoroughly investigate the WTC collapse.

Among those also calling for the investigation are Sally Regenhard, the mother of Christian Regenhard, the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) probationary firefighter killed in the World Trade Center (WTC) attack, and founder of the Campaign for Skyscraper Safety; Give Your Voice, a civilian relatives' group headed by Michael Cartier, who lost his brother in the collapse; prominent structural engineers and fire-safety experts, and New York State Senators Charles Schumer and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

more...
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

peace

[Abaques]

344. And this supports you contention that explosives were involved how?

Well?

[bpilgrim]

347. it supports a cover-up... what are they hiding?

well?

fyi: i am only asking questions and discussing suggestions and by using the logic of deduction trying to narrow the possibilities down.

peace

[maha]

357. Read this.

I believe it answers all your questions.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

[bpilgrim]

363. It doesn't even mention WTC7 - please excerpt your links in the future...

either EXCERPT any realavant parts or i ain't clicking on your links anymore which most are OLD and have been disproven by now - like the floor joints and attachment to columns clips being the primary surce of failure.

time is precious...

peace

[maha]

365. What's the point?

You could get an engineering statement explaining the collapse from Gawd Almighty, and you'd still be asking stupid questions that reveal you have no concept of what happened. You are hopeless.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology did a study of WTC 7. Why don't you look it up yourself? Thanks much.

[bpilgrim]

368. its a very popular custom at DU

so you made us hunt and peck through all the stuff you posted only to discover it didn't say anything really about WTC7 and now you say that there has been a study that has a well informed conclusion well all i can say is finally.

ill look for it myself, thanks for your contribrutions :hi:

peace

[maha]

355. What's this with FEMA?

I don't trust FEMA, either, but FEMA didn't do the primary building necropsy. The federal study was under the auspices of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Private engineering firms also investigated. Why aren't you discussing what the ENGINEERS found?

[bpilgrim]

369. here are some interesting finds at the civil engineer web site ------ LINK

http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/report.php

links to this interesting report...
http://victoria.indymedia.org/news/2003/02/11467.php

peace

[paxamor]

329. They wrote a report, so the official explanation must be right!

They even had some volunteers looking at some scraps of steel at Fishkills with tape measures!
How compelling!

>You have the burden of proof upon you in this case because there is a credible explanation for the collapse of all the towers.

No there isn't. FEMA's report only pretended to explain the collapse of the North Tower. They didn't explain the South Tower, and admitted they were clueless about Building 7.

>For those of you who will dismiss the report because of its government connections, then fine.

How about we dismiss the report because the so-called investigators were not allowed to examine the evidence. They couldn't even get their hands on the blueprints, let alone the steel.

http://www.wtc7.net/noprobe.html

I think you'll find the commented version of the report much more informative than the original version.

http://www.wtc7.net/911research/wtc/official/fema.html

[bpilgrim]

331. thanks for the info!

and welcome to DU :toast:

peace

[Abaques]

341. Yes, they wrought a report....

And that doesn't make it the exact answer, but you and your tinfoil hat ilk are trying to come up with some wild accusations of demolitions being planted in the buildings in order to knock them down is just insane.

You have utterly no solid proof at all to back up your claim. None. All you have is suggestion and inuendo.

I have clearly presented a route for a thurough, independent investigation to take place once we have the White House back, but you simply ignore that in order to move your agenda foward.

By wasting all of our time on this subject, you serve to further divide and to derail the left in general when we need to get our act together and get Bushco out of the Presidency.

Priorities people.

[Imaginejohn]

348. bld 7

buildings normally fall straight down under their own weight.
I was with the owner of an achetech and engineering co. on 911, we were in a building in N.O. L.A.
i thought they would topple over, he said it was normal for them to fall down. i did though see an experession on his face in disbelief when they actaully came down, and when i asked him ( later) if the "smoke/dust" should spew up, he gave me the impression that it should not. what got me was the amout of dust, going UPWARD, not the dust itself.

WTC 7

looking at the WTC 7 vid, it did twist a bit before falling, it acted as though 1 coener was taken out, or it had lost its legs.
i have seen 3 vids, and 3-4 pics of 7 before it went down and there was not that much fire damage, at least not grom the veiw point that all the vids were taken.
all of the pics. vidds, were taken from behind the bld, looking toward the WTC's, we do not know what extent damage was done to the front of the building, or from what.

If you want more facts before speculating see my site
( it has limited bandwidth, so try tomorrow if it goes down)
hey, its free...


i read a few posts here and i made a web page just for u guys
+( gals?) for Bld. 7

http://wtc7.batcave.net/7.html

---------------
2 good articles on 7

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/986

http://killtown.b0x.com/wtc7.html

--------------------

my group...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/King_George/

--------------------

new, unseen and computer enhanced pics of 911

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/physics911/
( photos section)


Brad

[maha]

351. Your information is less than reliable.

I guess people who don't live in or near NYC are in the dark about things, but the web site you are using as a source is, um, not accurate. As in, a pack of lies. I wouldn't trust FEMA as far as I could throw it, but FEMA was not the only organization, and not even the primary organization, studying the wreckage for clues.

Somewhat better information here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/

Lots of good information here:

http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/WTCTragedy.html#Analysis%20of%20Collapse

[Must_B_Free]

352. here's a nice analysis of impact

http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/77comment2.html

[maha]

354. Looks more like nice Freeper propaganda.

Oh, yes, it's Clinton's fault. Always. :mad:

[bpilgrim]

367. look who's talking

your info is all dated - 02 - and talks about folks guessing in the immediate aftermath but has nothing complete or comprehensive nor official.

guess we will have to wait and see... too bad they carted all the evidence away then melted it down most in secret.

why :shrug:

peace

[maha]

371. They did NOT cart the evidence away in secret.

Total baloney.

Here's an article from June 2003 on testing WTC steel.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/newsfromnist_kolskybar.htm

Of course, this won't shut you up, because it doesn't say what you want it to say.

[bpilgrim]

372. I stand by what the fire engineering folks and others said

and besides... we are talking about WTC7
http://victoria.indymedia.org/news/2003/02/11467.php

but of course none of that matters to you... only the 'official' story which of course there is NONE.

all the sources you posted claim WEAKLY that a fire caused it to collapse, they don't even attempt to explain why it did so cleanly.



Brief description:
The Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome) was the only structure left standing in the area where the first atomic bomb exploded on 6 August 1945. Through the efforts of many people, including those of the city of Hiroshima, it has been preserved in the same state as immediately after the bombing. Not only is it a stark and powerful symbol of the most destructive force ever created by humankind; it also expresses the hope for world peace and the ultimate elimination of all nuclear weapons.

show ONE example of a STEEL building collapsing in it's foot print due to FIRE... just 1.

peace

[newyawker99]

374. I am locking this thread

Please continue the discussion here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=219680&mesg_id=219680



NYer99
DU Moderator