Anyone else out there who still questions the collapse of the WTC?

[plaguepuppy]

Some pictures of the collapses:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/gallery/Explosions.htm

Sure looks a lot like explosions to me...

[frogfromthenorth2]

1. Sure looks like you never saw the video of that event to say...

something like that...

[bpilgrim]

5. have you seen this video? ------------------------------- WTC7

http://new.globalfreepress.com/911/wt7/flash_8fps

peace

[frogfromthenorth2]

7. And your point being?

What does that prove?

[bpilgrim]

35. i was asking a question

if you had see it...

'clean' isn't it?

I still can't find an example of any 'dirty' - vs surgical/controlled - destructive force creating suck a clean collapse, can you?

:hi:

peace

[JHB]

68. That's because no 40+ story building...

...has previously collapsed except by controlled demolition.

However, once the support members fail, the primary force acting on the building (or, more accurately, all the parts and peices of the building) is gravity, which tends to make things fall down -- straight down. It's not very complicated.

Can you provide any counterexamples? (and I don't mean buildings on the order of 5 stories, I mean skyscrapers).

[William Seger]

74. You're exactly right

Getting a building to fall straight down is no trick at all, regardless of the "controlled demolition" hype. Getting it to fall over sideways -- now that would take some tricky explosives. What most people don't understand about the collapses is that the separate components of buildings are designed with the assumption that the other components are all in place and acting as they were designed. If you knock out some columns, not only do the columns above come straight down, but the failure of the beams and slabs they carry will propagate failures laterally, in adjacent columns and beams and slabs, because of the torsion of the unbalanced loading. If this all happens within a matter of seconds, the building simply never has time to develop any kind of sideways "tipping" action. And as for "evidence of explosives" in those pictures, structural failures are typically "explosive" because the components are literally exploding from having internal forces suddenly exceeding their capacity to resist.

(Edit sp; I keep forgetting about the spell checker)

[veracity]

90. What madeTower Seven collapse?

Tower Seven was NOT hit by a plane. It accordioned exactly as the other two buildings. Any causes? Just asking. Also...for the record, on September 10th - Towers One and Two (I don't know about the others) were combed from top to bottom by FBI agents using sniffer dogs. They went through every floor, upending every trash bin and looking for something. That's an eye witness statement from someone worked on the 96th Floor of Tower One and did not get to work on time on the 11th. Something was up....and no one has discussed this openly, either.


Lots of information here:
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_facts.html

[Beetwasher]

94. When the Towers Collapsed the debris blasted outward

effectively undercutting the foundational support of Tower 7. It would have been a miracle if it didn't collapse. Tower 7 was right next to the towers 1 & 2. The structural damage was immense from the collapse of the two towers.

[bpilgrim]

102. lol - the dust cloud took it out?

r u being sarcastic?

peace

[Beetwasher]

103. Umm, it wasn't JUST dust you know

I was there...Yes, the DEBRIS clouds from each tower when they collapsed were incredibly powerful...

[bpilgrim]

105. do you any sources

at the very least?

how come the ROOF collapsed first?
how come it only took out that building?
how come it didn't kill all those people hit by the DUST?

:shrug:

peace

[Beetwasher]

108. It DID kill lot's of people who were hit by DEBRIS

It didn't just take out that building, however that building was the closest, so it suffered the worst damage.

Again, I was there. I saw what was in that DEBRIS (Get it? DEBRIS, large pieces of which were moving outward at high impact speeds) cloud with my own eyes and I'm lucky to be alive. There are lots of questions to ask about 9/11, this is not one of them.

[bpilgrim]

113. again... do you have ANY sources?

nor do you address any of the OTHER issues i raised.

just because YOU are satisfied does NOT mean 'case closed'

there hasn't even been an OFFICIAL EXPLAINATION yet, so i don't know how you can be satisfied about such a complex unprecidented event.

peace

[Beetwasher]

121. What other issues?

I never said case closed. But you just don't have any evidence of anything. It's merely speculation on your part. I'm just telling you what I saw.

I don't know what you mean by the roof collapsing first. To me, in the videos, the building falls as if it's bottom has been taken out, just like it would if the foundational supports were compromised. Sure, it could have been from a demolition, but the debris cloud was powerful enough to do it too. Occams razor.

As far as sources, you can believe me or not, but I was there. I saw it firsthand. And the debris cloud from the collapsing towers was strong enough to blow cars through the sides of buildings and pieces of concrete that were bigger than me flew like newspaper whipped by a strong breeze...

You can believe what you want, but you also have no evidence. All the pictures and websites posted on this thread prove nothing, and I've seen and read them all. There's nothing conclusive in any of them that I've seen or that contradicts my eyewitness account. Could it have been a controlled demolition? Sure. But I don't think so, and I was there and I saw it with my own eyes and to me it's perfectly believable that #7 was taken out by the high speed debris cloud.

[bpilgrim]

125. the roof collapsing first, an article that reports the damage to wtc7

from the dust cloud.

why no other buildings collapsed, how many people were killed by the dust cloud.

and if you didn't notice the roof collapse firt then you probably aren't looking that closely and that coupled with you are allready satisfied makes it hard for me or others i suspect to take you seriously.

now i have presented video evidence of a 'CLEAN' collapse, something that hasn't occured before in history from a 'dirty' event and i am asking for ideas on how it occured not dogmatic opinions with absolutely no sources to back up your claims.

like i said just because YOU are satisfied doesn't mean the event has been explained.

dirty event: 'dust clouds and fires cause steelbuilding to collapse in its foot print' causes clean event.

doesn't add up for me.

here is a picture of a building that had it's foundation SEVERLY damaged...

yet it didn't fall in it's own foot print.

in fact i saw buildings that had tipped over intact after their foundation was shook to the core AND buildings that were burning for HOURS yet didn't colapse in their own foot print.



buildings are designed not only to stay up but to stay intac even if their foundations are severly damaged.


i rode my bike for hours around kobe on day 3 and say nothing but DIRTY destruction which is why i was sceptical from day one.

anyway, if you have any evedince of other steel buildings falling in their footprint by a 'dirty' event PLEASE POST and contribute to the discussion.

thanks in advance :toast:

peace

[JHB]

131. Again, none of those compare with WTC7 or the Towers...

The ones at top are only four stories, so there are very few joints between its load-bearing members (possibly none, but that's less likely).

The closest one is the Sannomiya one (says "<something> Beer"? at top), but that's not that big either; about three times the height of the streetlight, about eight stories?

The WTC buildings were whole orders of magnitude different. If you tried to tilt any of them as much as that Sannomiya building, the joints between their structural members would have snapped and they would have collapsed well before you reached even that degree of tilt.

[bpilgrim]

158. nothing compares 100%

but my point is 'CLEAN' vs 'DIRTY' collapses.

i can not find an example of a 'clean' collapse from a 'dirty' destructive force.

can you?







more dirty pictures...
http://www.eqe.com/publications/kobe/building.htm

peace

[Beetwasher]

162. You're Comparing Earthquake Damage to Explosive Damage

There's a BIG difference. The damage caused by the planes were more akin to bombs and therefore more like what you call a "clean" demolition. The towers obviously fell from the top down. A "clean" demolotion would have a series of explosions throughout the structure that would be evident in any visual footage. There is no evidence of this any of the footage of the WTC.

[bpilgrim]

167. i am comparing DIRTY collapses to CLEAN collapses - VIDEO

bombs usually cause DIRTY collapses unless they are CONTROLLED.

more video...
http://globalfreepress.net/911/mov/south_tower_collapse.mpg

peace

[Beetwasher]

168. No, you're comparing earthquake damage to explosive damage

You can't lump them into the category of dirty and compare them as being any way similar, just because YOU lump them into the same category of "dirty", a category that you completely made up. The explosive damage caused by the planes is more akin to what you call a "clean" demolition than it is to ANY earthquake damage.

Additionally, none of those other EQ damaged buildings you showed come anywhere near the scale of the WTC and some of them, show similar pancaking-like damage anyway. Though they didn't collapse all the way because obviously they weren't heavy enough, unlike the WTC, which was collosal.

Where are the secondary explosions in that footage? It collapses from the top down, as would be expected and you can even see it clearly tipping over...That footage does nothing to help your case. Sorry, I just don't see any evidence for the controlled demolition theory. There would be clear evidence of the explosions necessary for a controlled demolition, such as shockwaves and projectile debris where the explosion took place, and they just aren't there.

[bpilgrim]

176. i am comparing massive destructive forces including fire and earthquakes

as well as explosive and any other kind of destructive force you can think of and i am saying that 'dirty' destructive forces always results in dirty collapses not CLEAN ones.

can you give me an example of a clean collapse from a 'dirty' destructive force?

i am eager to see such evidence.

peace

[Beetwasher]

177. You've already posted the evidence

Several pictures that you posted clearly show buildings collapsed pancake-like (mid-story) from EQ damage (or "dirty" damage as you put it). I'm assuming when you say "clean" you mean this pancake-like effect. They stopped after only a couple of floors collapsed because they were not heavy enough to continue downward. This type of collapse is NOT uncommon, as shown by photographs that YOU posted in this link:

http://www.eqe.com/publications/kobe/building.htm

The fourth photo is one example of a building collapsing on itself without tipping over. This is the caption:

"Mid-height collapse of a mixed-use building (built circa 1977) in Nishinomiya. This type of collapse was very common in this earthquake."

Another w/ this caption:

"Concrete-frame structure with a mid-story collapse (Flower Road, Kobe)."

Notice the buildings didn't topple over, but collapsed straight down. If they were heavier they would have most likely continued downward.

[bpilgrim]

210. those are partial collapses we are talking 100% collapse

in short 0 catastrophic failures of steel buildings but 1 and that was still a dirty collapse.

i have provided pictures of building where whole floors failed yet it still did NOT bring the whole building down.

ans there are 0 steel buildings in HISTORY that have collapsed due to fire even in the kobe quake which was orders of magnitude greater in destructive force unleashed that day.

and none of the buildings that did come down, other than old wooden structures, fell in their own footprint.

peace

[JHB]

228. And I reiterate:

i have provided pictures of building where whole floors failed yet it still did NOT bring the whole building down.

And I reiterate: The buildings you show are a fraction of the size of the skyscrapers which collapsed at the WTC. The tallest one shown was about 1/4 the size of WTC7, and most were a tenth of its size. All that additional weight makes a tremendous difference.

[Beetwasher]

232. There has never been a building as large as WTC 7 or the Towers

that have been hit by jumbo jets before. This even was UNPRECEDENTED as far as everything about it. The whole event, including the buildings, was COLLOSSAL. Buildings DO collapse like they did, as evidence by those pictures. Since they were BIGGER, their own weight collapsed them further, to rubble.

[Beetwasher]

133. I'm not asking you to take me seriously

Personally, it doesn't matter to me one way or another. I'm just telling you what I saw.

If you're talking about WTC 7's roof collapsing first, that's not what the video looks like to me. The video you posted does NOT show the roof collapsing first. The building falls as if the bottom was taken out and it all happens pretty much at once and appears to happen from the bottom. I just watched it again. There's no way you can say the roof collapses first because you can't see the bottom of the building. Some structure on the roof, in the back, appears to drop, but if what was under it dropped first, that would be perfectly "natural". There's no way to really tell and there's certainly no visual evidence of any explosions :shrug:

Your pictures of other building collapses are not evidence of anything. Sorry, but all those buildings are totally different than WTC 7 and the towers and were not demolished in any where near the same manner and were MUCH smaller and constructed MUCH differently. I'm not trying to convince you, believe anything you want. I'm just telling you what I saw. I don't feel the need to post sources or anything else of other building collapses because I'm not trying to convince anyone. Each event is unique and there's never been anything else like what happened on 9/11, so comparisons are pretty useless.

Earthquakes produce much different destruction than what we saw on 9/11. The towers actually collapsed from the top down, pancake like. WTC #7 actually collapsed from the bottom up after having it's foundation demolished from the debris cloud. That's what it looked like to me. As I said, I just see no convincing evidence to believe otherwise. If some was provided I would consider it, but so far I haven't seen it yet. It's a pretty amazing claim to say that these three buildings were actually destroyed by explosives. If I'm to believe that claim, I'll need to see convincing evidence. Considering the cover-up that's involved in investingating 9/11, I doubt any would be forthcoming, so until then, I'll just trust my own two eyes and the more plausible (to me anyway) explanation. :shrug:

No hard feelings, but I just don't find your arguments and evidence convincing. That's not to say you're wrong, just that I'm not convinced on the evidence that's been presented. My evidence is very clear footage of two planes crashing into the respective buildings and the obvious footage of the devastating debris cloud, plus my own firsthand witnessing of the event. To me it seems that was enough to cause the destruction that followed, no explosives necessary and the weight of the buildings involved was enough so that they collapsed, relatively, into their own footprints.

[bpilgrim]

163. then why continue to post on this matter?

if you don't expect anyone to take you seriously :shrug:

here is a better video that shows the roof colapsing first...
http://globalfreepress.com/movs/911/wtc-7_collapse.mpg

btw i understand that earthquakes are a completely different event but i mention them as another example of a 'dirty' event causing random - dirty - damage as i would expect to see from this 'dirty' destructive force.

in fact i posted images where some uildings floors colapsed but did not bring the rest of the structure down.

pics...
http://www.eqe.com/publications/kobe/building.htm

i am simply looking for another eample of a steel building collapsing in its own footprint due to fire or explosive force that wasn't controlled and i can't find any so i remain sceptical.

peace

[Beetwasher]

164. Because I'm giving my POV as a firsthand witness of the event

You can take it as you will. I know there are a lot of people who believe as you do on DU. I am simply looking for some convincing evidence for this theory and I haven't seen any, so I remain skeptical ;-)

That footage seems practically identical to the other footage and I still don't see the roof collapsing first. You can't see the bottom of the building in that shot either.

[frogfromthenorth2]

165. Silent explosions (or implosions)....

That's all I ear over these images.... POWERFUL silent explosions (implosions).... WOW

They sound EXACTLY like SILENT black helicopters....

[TrogL]

270. There most certainly are silent explosions

Don't you remember the "hush-a-boom" from Rocky and Bullwinkle?

[wingnut]

170. I have seen with my own eyes

an apartment building where the ground floor collapsed and the top 2 floors landed right on top of it. Rescue workers arriving on the scene assumed that it was just a 2 story building at first.

This was in Northridge during the big quake in 93.

If the building had been taller, and thus heavier, it probably would have compacted floor #2 as well, and possibly kept going in a chain reaction as speed increased.

[Beetwasher]

172. Yup

Precisely...

[bpilgrim]

178. you witnessed a failure in design that still didn't completely collapse

the building and we are talking about steel buildings here as well that are extremely strong and built to hold at least 3 times its own weight and doesn't account for the massive failure unless their was a design flaw that hasn't been explained yet but to occur in two completely different buildings is stretching it a bit.

i am looking for just 1 example of a steel building collapsing 100% in its own foot print due to fire and i can't find one on the whole internet yet 3 buildings did so on that day.

lot's of questions need answering.

peace

[wingnut]

186. the flaw has been explained

The 'hanging lattice' design, where the floors are pretty much just hanging from the rigid outer shell. The metal got hot enough for long enough, and a floor dropped, starting the ball rolling.

As a steelworker, I find this explaination completely plausible.

[bpilgrim]

188. please provide sources

i haven't seen any official blueprints that bear out your claim please link to a repetuable edu or gov source and then we can actually have a detailed discussion.

peace

[wingnut]

190. well

The blueprints and models I've seen were presented by the guy who designed it, on the Discovery channel.

Maybe it's on their website. I dunno.

[Dancing_Dave]

239. "The Building Falls as if the bottom was taken out"

Indeed it does, Beetwasher, but that really contradicts the whole gravitationally-driven chain reaction theory you are pushing. Here's a good exact discussion of the kind of technique that could be used to achieve exactly that result:
http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=22

Your experience and your theory are not really matching up. You need to think about what you saw from some other points of view to find the truth. Much bigger sky-scraper fires than happened on 9/11 did not cause the kind of rapid explosive collapse we see in WTC 1,2,7, and (the next morning) 3. They did not create the kind of EXPLOSIONS we see in pictures of the events. Nor did steel sky-scrapers hit by planes (such as the Empire State Building years ago) ever do any such thing.

Try thinking of it like this: the WTC was totaled out Mafia-style.

:think:

[kysrsoze]

181. Billy, what are you talking about? There's a simple explanation

The videos and photos make perfect sense. All of these gigantic buildings are actually built AROUND a massive, strengthened central structure in the middle of the building. When the incredible heat from thousands of gallons of fuel finally weakened the structural beams above (heat rises), the immense weight of the building came crashing down into itself, there by causing pressure to blow out the sides as every floor collapsed onto the next.

Remember the rubble at the bottom? It was everywhere. You simply couldn't see any sideways movement because of the huge cloud of dust. I'm sure there was some, but the tower coming straight down makes a lot of sense.

Regardless, you can't compare this type of implosion with the damage caused by an earthquake or structural fault in one portion of a building or foundation. Earthquakes are essentially side-to-side movement at a very rapid pace, combined with a bit of up and down movement from the waves of earth moving, which is why buildings which are designed to be "earthquake-proof" provide a lot of horizontal shock absorption.

Sorry, no conspiracy on how it fell. Of course the story of the plane crashes and whether anyone knew about them is another story.

[bpilgrim]

191. I am talking about wtc7...

not the towers though they also fell mysteriously and cleanly into their own footprints as well...

now that makes 3 steel buildings for the FIRST TIME in HISTORY to ever collapse 100%, in their own foot print, due to fire or a 'dirty' destructive force.

btw: the DEVSTROCTIVE FORCES that struck kobe on Jan 17, 1995 were orders of magnitude greater than that which was released on 911 and STILL no steel building collapsed due to fire and only 1 'completely' - it was dirty - collapsed.

any engineer worth their salt would demand an opend and through investigation.


peace

[Frodo]

196. I don't know which pictures YOU were looking at, but

the two towers did NOT fall "into their own footprints".

[bpilgrim]

200. WTC7 collapse ------------------------------------- FLASH

http://new.globalfreepress.com/911/wt7/flash_8fps/

and here is some video of the towers falling pretty much in their own foot print as well.
http://new.globalfreepress.com/911/mov

peace

[Frodo]

201. Mybe we're talking a matter of degrees.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/wtc.zoom.html

The rubble pile several times their footprint. Covering the whole superblock several stories deep and crushing neighboring buildings.

[bpilgrim]

203. WTC7 was not crushed by the towers and it fell in it's footprint.

falling straight down is the issue not how high the pile.

peace

[TrogL]

271. So what you can't win by logic

you try to win by repetition.

What I tell you three times is true - the Hunting of the Snark

[wingnut]

169. not just debris

but concussion. Many people who are killed in explosions aren't killed by being hit with flying objects, but by the shockwave. Just air, basically.

[Cooley Hurd]

194. Fire, started by debris from 1WTC, caused 7WTC to collapse...

When 1WTC (North Tower) came down, a HUGE 50(ish) story tall section of the North Wall of 1WTC fell outward, demolishing 5WTC and smashing the lower floors of 7WTC. Later in the day on 9/11, there were reports that the lower floors on 7WTC were burning uncontrollably and that they feared 7WTC would collapse. They even showed video of it burning before the collapse.

Everything I've said - the huge section of 1WTC hitting both 5WTC and 7WTC, the fires in 7WTC, and ultimately, the collapse of 7 WTC - can be easily verified because I have the entire day's live news feed (from MSNBC) on DVD (originally taped but recently transferred to DVD). I'll try to digitize it today or tomorrow and upload it to my website (difficulty getting up and around now due to the fact I'm still recovering from a car accident and have a broken leg - in other words, I hope you appreciate it;)). But I can say that 7WTC's destruction was most likely caused by fire, which was caused by the debris from 1WTC's north wall hitting it...

On edit - here's a great link to an interactive map of the WTC complex and the fate of each building:
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-groundzeromap0519.flash

[Cooley Hurd]

195. Here's a pic to support my claim...

Here's a picture of the WTC complex a day or so after the attack.


This close-up shows the remains of the three buildings. If you look closely at 5 WTC, you can see a swath of destruction the plows through the building, leaving only the western end of the building standing. This was caused by the north wall of 1 WTC. In the video of the collapse of 1 WTC that I have, you see a huge section of the north wall fall to the north.

Also in the picture, the north wall swath appears to continue into the remains of 7 WTC. And MSNBC was reporting after 2 pm that 7 WTC was burning and by 4 pm, it was in danger of collapsing (they received their info directly from the NYFD, according to their correspondent). I'll try to get the 1 WTC collapse, as well as the reports of the fire digitized inj the next few days...

[Beam Me Up]

223. A MUCH BETTER PICTURE SUGGESTS YOU ARE WRONG!!

If your theory is correct WHY did building 6, obviously heavily damaged from the collapse of building 1, WHY did it NOT collapse?? Building 5, also heavily damaged, did NOT collapse.

However we see that Building 7, further away from the collapsing towers, COLLAPSED STRAIGHT DOWN INTO ITS OWN FOOTPRINT WITH ALMOST NOW DAMAGE TO THE BUILDINGS ON EITHER SIDE OF IT.

These are anomalies that stretch the "official story" beyond credibility.

[JHB]

230. Because 5 & 6, like most of the Kobe buildings...

...were relatively small (~ 7 stories), so they weren't holding up a skyscraper's worth of weight. Not surprisingly, therefore, even severe structural damage didn't trigger a total collapse.

[Cooley Hurd]

234. My apologies - I mislabeled 6 WTC as 5 WTC...

...in my orignal post. Please substitute 6 WTC for 5 WTC in my original post...


If you look closely at 6 WTC in both your photo as well as mine, you can clearly see a swath cut through the building where the north wall of 1 WTC came crashing down. The north wall, part of the exoskeleton of the building, didn't telescope like the pancaking floors themselves did, but fell outward, smashing into both 6 WTC and the lower floors of 7 WTC, which started the fire that ultimately let to the failure of the steel, causing the building to collapse into its own footprint. I'll get the video of 1 WTC collapsing (taken from the west and clearly showing the north wall falling outward and into both 6 WTC and 7 WTC) digitized in the next few hours which supports what I'm saying...

[JHB]

229. You've got some mislabeling, alg

WTC6 (the Customs building) was between 1 & 7. WTC 5 was further east, next to the Post Office.

[Cooley Hurd]

235. Ooops! My mistake - I meant 6 WTC...

I've edited the graphic & if you substitute 6 WTC for 5 WTC, it makes more sense...

[Beaker]

185. haven't you ever heard of a "shock wave"...?

there were TONS and TONS of debris falling with a LOT of force.

[veracity]

116. But....

Tower Seven collapsed EXACTLY the same way as the other two towers. Debris may have blasted outward....but the coinicidence of having three identical accordion collapses, in sequence is just a bit much. But, we'll never know, will we?

[Beetwasher]

135. No, they didn't collapse identically

The towers collapsed from the top down. WTC 7 collapsed from the bottom up.

[Dancing_Dave]

236. WTC 7 was NOT next to the Twin Towers

WTC 7 was not next to either of the Twin Towers, and was on a different block from the rest of the WTC complex. WTC 6 was between WTC 7 and the North Tower (WTC 1) and the South Tower (WTC 2) was even further away. While WTC 7 was thoroughly demolished hours after the Twin Towers, none of the other buildings close to WTC 7 and on the same block had any serious structural damage. Look at a map or satellite photo's of the WTC complex, before and after. The WTC complex was systematically totaled out, and some wealthy and powerful people in NYC came out ahead. A mafia-style crime.

[JHB]

110. Uncontrolled fire

Possible ignition sources: debris thrown from the tower plane impacts, debris from the collapse, secondary cause from the collapse (broken gas lines, etc.). Extra fuel from the big tank of deisel fuel to power Guliani's Emergency Command Center, controversially located in WTC7 (Rudy himself had to flee the building after the first collapse).

I don't know exactly how it caught fire, but it was on fire at least since shortly after the collapse of the first tower, and it burned until it collapsed about 7 hours later. NYFD had lost too many men and too much equipment in the Towers to fight it, so they pulled back and just kept it from spreading.

[bpilgrim]

114. would be the first time in history that a FIRE collapsed a STEEL building

in its own foot print.

i can't wait till the OFFICIAL story comes out.

peace

[William Seger]

151. That makes it impossible?

How many times in history has a fire like that been ignored because more important stuff was happening?

On edit: FEMA has released a preliminary report on what happened. Anyone who thinks that either expert opinion or common sense will sway conspiracy-nut opinion must not be very familiar with conspiracy-nut "logic".

[bpilgrim]

175. that makes it unlikely and suspicious to say the least - no STEEL BUILDING

collapsed from the fires that burned for days during the kobe disater.


http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/effects-kobe.html

peace

[TrogL]

269. Any really tall buildings in Kobe?

Any of them hit by big airplanes?

Any of them use lightweight construction?

[DeadBroke]

251. dogs

I have also heard - from more than just one or two people - the story about bomb sniffing dogs, but I can't seem to find anything anywhere, and I was told it happened on the weekend just before 9/11.

I know that the Port Authority - with other law enforcement agencies - often used the Trade Center for training exercises. One weekend that I worked there, in 1991 I saw the Port Authority and NYPD do hostage scenarios. A freight elevator operator once told me about the FDNY using the Trade Center to test Motorola portable radios and drill on their firefighter accountability systems.

The dog incidents may have been a similar training exercise.

[plaguepuppy]

93. But that's exactly wrong !

Controlled demolition is anything but hype, and in fact it is very difficult to make a tall skinny structure fall straight down. If all the load-bearing members aren't taken out at exactly the same time the remaining ones will initiate a tipping which will tend to rapidly increase. That's why no buildings except WTC 1, 2 and 7 (and every successful controlled demolition) have ever collapsed like this before.

Building 7, unlike the towers, looks like a classic controlled demolition, with the collapse starting at the bottom, with the ground floor blowing out. As the upper portion settled each successive floor was blown out in sequence - if they hadn't, the whole thing would have toppled like a domino. The bottom floors of WTC-7 were very asymmetrical, since it was built over an electrical substation and had long cantilever trusses extending to the north.

[William Seger]

143. That just doesn't make sense.

You seem to be ignoring the possibility that what actually happened refutes your assertion, rather than your unsubstantiated assertion proving that it "must" have been a controlled demolition.

But no, it isn't necessary for "all the load-bearing members [to be] taken out at exactly the same time." It's only necessary for the columns to fail before any appreciable tipping develops. I just don't see anything impossible about that happening, given how structral failures can propagate laterally very quickly when structural integrity is lost, whereas it would take a relatively long time for a heavy building to overcome inertia and start falling sideways. And if the central columns collapsed first, which certainly appears to be the case here, then there's nothing at all surprising about the building falling straight down in its own footprint. What forces were acting on it to make do anything else?

Your claim that it would be "very difficult" to make it fall straight down is simply not logical, not is it supported by any actual facts. I recall one Discovery channel story about a controlled demolition that required making a building fall mainly to one side -- or more accurately, to prevent debris from falling to one particular side -- and they made a big deal about how it was necessary to take out entire rows of columns in a carefully calculated delayed sequence that allowed time for some tipping to develop, and even then the tipping was only in the last rows of columns and exterior wall to be taken out. So, it wasn't at all like the building fell over sideways; it was just that hardly any debris fell to that one side. Sorry, but my common sense tells me that that was much more impressive "controlled demolition" feat than making a building fall straight down.

[Dancing_Dave]

237. Your theory just doesn't match the numbers of what really happened.

The kind of gravitationally driven collapse you are theorizing about, just doesn't match the measured speed of collapse, amount of energy required to pulverize so much material and so on. It might sound plausible before you investigate the details of what really happened, but it just doesn't add up. Check this out:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/
:think:

[bpilgrim]

96. there has never been such a clean collapse of a steel building, ever

due to fire or any other 'dirty' destructive force.

though I have PLENTY of 'dirty' examples of partial collapses...


if anyone can think of any 'clean' collapses from a 'dirty' force, please post.

thanks in advance :toast:

peace

[Ani Yun Wiya]

257. Tall buildings and collapse by fire.

A forty+ story building in Chicago recently had a huge fire.
People were trapped and died.
The fire burned for about ninety minutes at temps in excess of
2000 degrees according to the fire department officials interviewed.

Why didn't this building, a structure similar to WTC 7, collapse?

[TrogL]

272. Because it didn't have two earthquakes go off next to it

or tons of debris piled on top.

[BigDaddyLove]

142. The most interesting thing about the video is.....................

the camera placement itself. It's on a tripod, with a clear view of the building, seemingly waiting for it to fall.

Was there advance warning of it's imminent collapse? It would seem that someone knew when and where to place their camera to catch the event as it happened.

[frogfromthenorth2]

145. LOL You got it!!! You proved the conspiracy!"!

Yeah...Why pointing cameras to the major site of a terrorist attack? Doesn't it sound fishy to you. Cameras directly pointing where event are unfolding and have been unfolding all day. Wow, what a coincidence!!!!

/sarcasm off

[BigDaddyLove]

180. Actually......................

I was more or less asking a question.

To me, the 'events' weren't unfolding directly upon WTC7, which is why I wonder how someone thought to get their tripod set up so that they could center that particular building up in their viewfinder ready for it's collapse, especially with all of the ghastly scenes happening all around them.....you'd think that they'd want a much wider view so as to catch anything that may happen.


PS Your sarcasm is MUCH appreciated.

[ronnykmarshall]

193. Reporters were told the buildings might fall.

After the attacks, fire department officals were warning that the buildings might come down. I remember hearing this before #7 came down.

[plaguepuppy]

221. Actually it is a little strange

There really wasn't much happening that would keep people filming building 7 at 5:30 in the afternoon, not even much smoke coming out, yet several good tripod shots were taken from different spots, including two on the same street (the last two clips):

http://thewebfairy.com/911/7/index.htm

And yes, the roof definitely does drop first, just look at
http://thewebfairy.com/911/7/7detail.wmv

At 6 sec. the left end of the roof (the east mechanical penthouse) drops, then nothing happens for about 5 seconds. At 11 sec. the west penthouse starts to drop, and then just as it starts to fall the whole building begins to collapse at ground level.

[JHB]

231. Not strange at all...

It was known to be on fire, and was one of several buildings in the area officials were concerned might collapse.

Given the mere possibility, there are enough cameras in NYC that at least several would be kept trained on them in order to be sure any dramatic developments were caught.

[Dookus]

2. umm.....

I never heard anybody say they doubted the towers collapsed.

Those photos don't show anything other than impacts from planes, followed by a structural collapse.

[DuctapeFatwa]

3. The only people who think those were explosions

Have never seen an old building destroyed by implosion.

[foreigncorrespondent]

4. But what makes a building implode?

I'm not tinfoil hatter, but I was always lead to believe that strategically places bombs is what causes a building to implode?

[plaguepuppy]

6. Yes, that's exactly what makes them implode!

The image we have of what a building collapse looks like comes almost entirely from looking at controlled demolitions< which are done with the help of lots and lots of high explosives:

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/

What is remarkable is that when you do look at the videos, what we see in the WTC collapses looks exactly like a controlled demolition, explosions and all. Check out the videos on this page for some good examples:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/

[Gore1FL]

33. They were designed that way

The structure was built differenlty that shorter buildings. Much of the structural strenght was in the exterior wall construction.

Remember, they not only wanted these things to stay up, but they wanted to be able to down them in a century without risking the surrounding city blocks.

Additionally, when you consider the impacts, it makes sense that the building would collapse in where the structure was demolished rather than collapse away.

[bpilgrim]

39. the core was designed to bear loads up to 3 times the weight of the tower

and was the strongest part of the tower.

more...
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_jom/eagar_0112.html

peace

[MadHound]

60. Sorry, but that is wrong, recheck your Physics 101

The strongest part of the WTC was the core, the exterior walls had very little load bearing capacity, relatively speaking. Also, if the building was going to collapse due to the impacts plus the heat(you know, the official explanation), it should have collapsed towards the side of the impact instead of coming straight down.

No the big lie is right before you on that videotape. Not one but two large towers defy the laws of physics, collapse pretty much straight down while doing little harm to the surrounding buildings. Only much later does another WTC building come down, due to "damage". Funny, it too comes straight down, harming nothing around it.

[JHB]

69. Harming nothing around it?

I guess I'll have to stop in at St. Nicolaus' Orthodox Church -- oh, wait -- it was flattened by debris from the South Tower.

And gee, I wonder what those twisted metal beams embedded in upper sories of the World Financial Center buildings were, if not bits and pieces of the Towers? Any what took a big chunk out of the CCNY building if not falling bits of skyscraper?

Exactly what laws of physics were defied? Why wouldn't pieces acting primarily under the influence of gravity come primarily straight down?

[MadHound]

77. Exxxxcuuuuuse me!

So it was before my first cup of coffee, and I forgot to put it the word "relatively". And that is the correct statemnet, relatively little damage occurred to surrounding structures. Of course, it is relative to what would have happened if the beams HAD indeed melted and let go, in which case the top of the towers would have fallen over sideways and flattened even more buildings and caused more damage.

As for pieces coming straight down, well most of them did(or did you fail to notice that pyroclastic-like cloud on the tape). Sure, some pieces would collide with others, thus altering their trajectory. Others would get blown by the wind, and still others would richochete off of the ground. Of course we will never be able to ascertain what each and every piece of debris did, since this crime scene was cleaned up, starting the day afterwards, and the vast majority of debris has been turned into scrap.

[Blue_Chill]

138. Sorry you are wrong and I can prove it.

You wrote: The strongest part of the WTC was the core, the exterior walls had very little load bearing capacity

Leslie E. Robertson, cheif engineer of the WTC, begs to differ.

"The introduction of the outrigger system, structurally linking the outside wall to the services core. In most skyscrapers the internal pillars provide the building strength, and the outer walls exist merely to keep the elements out. In the Twin Towers the outer walls were strong steel tubes, built using closely spaced columns and beams. The outer walls actually carried the load for the buildings. Each three-inch concrete floor slab was suspended from the external walls by steel beams that connected to the internal core."

-Leslie E. Robertson

http://www.graduatingengineer.com/articles/feature/01-11-02c.html

[frogfromthenorth2]

140. Excellent debunking!

eom

[MadHound]

171. Relatively speaking, no, I wasn't wrong

If you check here <http://www.skyscraper.org/tallest/t_wtc.htm> and here <http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_jom/eagar_0112.html> you will find articles explaining how strong and innovative design the core was. In fact the core was designed to hold up to three times the entire weight of the building. The exterior lattice work was designed to hold just the weight of the wall or floor that was designed to fit into that particular cell. The core was designed to hold the entire building. Even your own reference notes that the core carried some of the weight for the exterior lattice work:

<snip>
"Each three-inch concrete floor slab was suspended from the external walls by steel beams that connected to the internal core. " <snip>

So, relatively speaking(and if we didn't learn anything else from Mr. Einstein, we hopefully all learned that everything is relative) the strongest part of WTC WAS the core, with the exterior lattice work carrying RELATIVELY little load.

[Blue_Chill]

174. No you weren't

From your first link - "Faced with the difficulties of building to unprecedented heights, the engineers employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube" of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extended across to a central core"

this clearly explains the design was made so the exterior referred to as "the hollow tube" would hold the weight.

Your second link stinks of tin hat theory and in no logical mind would hold more weight then the words of the man who lead the design of the tower himself.

[kysrsoze]

182. Ummm, you forgot about the thousands of degree temperatures

which weakened the steel in that central structure. Thousands of gallons of burning fuel in an enclosed space make for one heck of a blast furnace.

[NavajoRug]

213. You are absolutely wrong about this . . .

. . . as is anyone else who believes this crap about explosive charges bringing the buildings down.

The WTC towers were constructed using a design that was innovative at the time -- to maximize the amount of interior office space, the buildings were designed with no interior columns other than the central elevator core. The external support was provided by an external lattice frame that was rarely used in the world at that time (the external frame is what required the towers to have such a plain-looking exterior with narrow windows).

The central core was certainly strong enough to hold up the WEIGHT of the entire building with plenty of margin to spare, but this does not mean that the central core was designed to hold up even a single floor of the building. For concrete slabs, the critical support is not the weight, but what is called a "bending moment" -- that is, the slab must be supported on all sides or else it will collapse.

The two towers collapsed not because of a failure of the structures to properly "hold up" the weight of the buildings -- they collapsed because the heat of the fire and destruction of part of the external lattice frame caused the flood slabs to separate from the external frame. Once this happened and one floor slab fell out of place, the external frame was no longer rigid enough to hold up the structure because the distance between adjacent floors was too great.

A similar case involves a box truck steel container that has its top ripped off -- even though the side walls are "strong enough" to hold themselves up on their own, the loss of the lateral support provided by the roof of the box causes the whole thing to collapse.

In my opinion, the REAL issue with the collapse of the WTC towers is whether that external lattice frame should ever have been used in the first place -- but nobody is asking that question, are they?

[DeadBroke]

247. a note about those exterior walls

Excellent point by NavajoRug: "...should ever have been used in the first place ... " (sorry to take that out of context).

I worked on the Trade Center several times during my tenure as a NYC Ironworker and from those experiences I can state that the exterior walls made of interconnected box columns shared equally in carrying the floor weight with the I-Beam columned core. The floors were truss design; one end of each truss bolt-connected to angles welded to beams of the core and the other end of the truss bolt-connected to clips welded to the box columns forming the exterior wall. As such the weight of each truss and the weight of the floor and contents above was equally distributed to the core and exterior wall. But, the core needed to be both stronger and stiffer than the exterior walls for dampening wind load, and for the added weight of the building mechanicals.

In 1979 I worked on the renovations (for Braun Equipment of Elmwood Park, NJ) to the sky top resturant called Windows To The World. Placement of ovens, walk-in freezer and refrigerator boxes was critical so as not to overload one section or area of floor or the trusses below. The same is true with mobile aisle shelving I installed, (Tab Systems) and with rotary shelf files. These objects are very heavy and their placement, or location on the floor is important to maintain and not overload what the engineers called the tension and stress factors in the trusses. MacKenzie Doors of 72 Reade Street in NYC installed and maintained a rolling fire door over a stairwell cut into the floor linking two levels of the Port Authority Contract Library. That opening had to be located to maintain structural equillibrium. In essence I am saying that the truss design of the floors and their weight capacities were very relevant factors.

It is my belief that the Trade Center's design, the use of trusses instead of conventional steel framing was a recipe for disaster.

[NavajoRug]

252. Good post -- thanks for relating your experiences . . .

I am not familiar with the structural design of other major buildings, but it would be interesting to find out if any other buildings in New York City were built since 1972 using the same external frame design. If not, then I suspect that a lot of structural engineers were not convinced that this was a safe design.

[DuctapeFatwa]

8. yes, the placement is very precise

There is math involved.

Sometimes they will show the demolitions on TV, if everything was done correctly, they just fall down neatly in on themselves - like the WTC Towers did.

Of course the reason the WTC Towers imploded so perfectly like that was because evildoers hate freedom.

[Beam Me Up]

11. Precisely

...because they hate our freedom and because jet fuel can melt steel. From now on, I assume, people who want to demolish steel, glass and reinforced concrete buildings will not have to resort to hiring demolition teams and paying for costly explosives. They'll just set fire to hundreds of gallons of kerosene about three quarters of the way up the structure and let it burn until the building falls straight down into a neat little pile. Easy clean up and all. Hey, it worked on 9/11 with both towers AND building 7, right?

[Gulf Coast J]

81. Easy cleanup?!

I suggest reading American Ground : Unbuilding the World Trade Center by William Langewiesche is you think anything about the cleanup was easy.

[tritsofme]

14. How often do we see very large buildings collapse unintentionally anyways?

nt

[bpilgrim]

40. not often but when we do they are MESSY

i'm sure the towers are the tallest of record but that certainly doesn't explain why it was so clean.

i was in the kobe quake and saw plenty of destruction and most of it was all MESSY.

peace

[Gore1FL]

45. dude!

you are the first person I have seen claim that ground zero wasn't messy!

[bpilgrim]

49. i am referring to the COLLAPSE

not it's remains.

peace

[Solomon]

71. I read somewhere that after the '93 bombing of the WTC, they

rigged the buildings with explosives so that if struck again, they could bring the towers straight down without them keeling over and doing more damage. Makes perfect sense to me. If you know the towers are a target, then pre-rig them in case another hit comes.

[JHB]

73. Source?

Where did you read this?

It's not exactly a trivial claim.

[frogfromthenorth2]

99. Yeah, right, hu hum... makes sense....

Good grief....

[William Seger]

161. Oh yeah

That "makes perfect sense to me" too :crazy:

[kysrsoze]

183. That's ridiculous. If you watch the video, the buildings collapsed...

from top to bottom. The buildings fell down on themselves. The bases of the buildings were the last to go - they were at the bottom.

If you watch this video from the same site, you'll see that one side of the building gave way right where most of the fire was. You could see the entire top of the building start to tip in that direction, then just fall straight down on the rest of the building.

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/--=Close-up%20of%20south%20tower%20collapse.mpg

Again, a ridiculous conspiracy theory - the guy doesn't watch his own videos.

[A HERETIC I AM]

9. They collapsed because of a sustained, kerosene induced fire that ...

heated the steel structure to the point that it was unable to sustain the load above. If you took metal shop in HS, you would know you don't need an explosive to do this. Just heat. For a long time. The reason the South Tower collapsed first is because the impact was lower and more to one side of the building and therefore the load on the heated sections was higher.

The only explosions or explosives were Jet Fuel (basically, Kerosene)
assisted by paper and carpeting.

[frogfromthenorth2]

10. Finaly... somebody who makes sense...

Good sum up of the real explanation for the collapse.

[Beam Me Up]

12. ummmm

precisely how much heat--and time? To soften steel to structural collapse I mean? How hot can you get kerosene and carpeting to burn? --It's NOT the same thing as an acetylene torch, you know.

[plaguepuppy]

18. Lots of heat, to be exact

From :
http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm

[TomNickell]

82. Hot enough....

You don't need an acetylene torch. That melts the steel into liquid. White hot.

You just need to -weaken- the steel. Ordinary fire will do that just fine.

[plaguepuppy]

15. Took metal shop, and college physics, and used to blow things up as a kid

And you can bet your bippie that the kind of collapse you describe (if you could in fact heat the steel hot enough) wouldn't look anything like what actually happened.

You are seeing pulverized debris - concrete, gypsum, dense stuff - being thrown out horizontally at high speed. Did they cover that in metal shop?

But even the FEMA report (not a real hotbed of conspiracy theory) admits that the kerosene burned off within a few minutes, and didn't contribute much to the long term heating of the structure. And all you have left after that is office contents for fuel and poor airflow to provide oxygen.

FEMA report: http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtcreport.htm

[A HERETIC I AM]

27. i had a response all typed out, went to look up a reference, and i crashed

so...in short....to hell with it...

My first post DID NOT SAY the fire was all kerosene. I said it was INDUCED by the fuel. And i am sure you learned in your physics class that steel doesnt have to be near melting to bend or break. In fact, all that had to fail was rivets. NOT beams. Rivets.

about 1 1/2 inches in diameter

I am just a dumb f**kn truck driver. I never took college physics. Hell! i couldnt even spell it till i saw you type it out.

So...i'll just take my "Bippie" and shut the hell up and leave all these here complicated threads to the brains of DU.

one last thing though.....400,000 pounds or more of aluminum traveling at 400 knots or better can MOST CERTAINLY pulverize a concrete slab and so can floor joists and walls collapsing and pancaking downward.

[MadHound]

62. You obviously don't know your fires do you

Fortunately I do, since I was a firefighter for a number of years. First, what I want you to do is go back and look at a tape of the towers, after they've been hit, but before they collapse. Notice the tremendous amount of black smoke rolling out, that is a sign of a fire that is being smothered. Think about it, sprinklers are going off, you have flame retardents in the carpet, furniture, the drapes, etc. In addition, in the south tower, we all watched as at least half of that plane's fuel load was consumed in a fireball on the outside of the tower.

The fact that these were, relatively speaking, small fires is confirmed by the firefighters up on the scene. If you read transcripts of their radio conversations, you will see them calling for three hoses, and discussing how small and containable the fires are. Three hoses! I've gone to garage fires that needed five hoses! This was a small fire people, not some raging inferno that was melting steel.

And go back to Physics 101 rather than shop class. If(big if) the fire was on one side, and was hot enough to melt that steel, wouldn't you expect that the tower would keel over towards the side that is getting melted? Instead, the towers come straight down, in a nice neat demoltion that causes, reletively speaking, very little damage to the surrounding building. You can demonstrate this in your very own home. Take a long candle and apply a fire to it on just one side. Note that when the candle melts and keels over, it does do towards the heat source, not away, not straight down.

And you really need to check out you incendiaries a little closer. You are correct that jet fuel is essentially kerosene(though there are some refinement measures that allow jet fuel to be burned without the need for a wick). However you are incorrect in that thinking that jet fuel "explodes". I have another experiment for you. Get some kerosene and put it in a glass. Swirl the glass around so that you have some good fumes going on. Drop a lighted match into the glass, and then watch said match snuff out as it hits the liquid. No explosion. Same thing with jet fuel. These fuels burn, but unlike gasoline and others, they don't explode. It doesn't need to, since jet fuel is powering a jet, not driving pistons. Big difference.

[JHB]

70. Small fires?

I'm sure it didn't look that way to the people who chose to jump rather than burn, and there were a lot of them.

If I recall correctly, the sprinklers were knocked out by the impacts (pipes and sensor systems cut).

You might try another experiment: get some kerosene, put it in a glass, swirl it to get some goof fumes going on, and then hold the match over the lip for say 10-15 sec. That would be a more realistic simulation of mixing and ignition source exposure, and obviously one more likely to actually ignite it.

And the fires did not simply melt the structural members and ties, the ongoing heat from the fires weakened them, and gravity did the rest.

[MadHound]

88. Where to begin?

Well let's start with the jumpers. Who knows what was going through their minds? We certainly don't, and to judge the overall strength of a fire simply from their actions is foolish. Panic does strange irrational things to a person, and apparently that is what happened. I think that I will stick with what the trained professionals who were on the scene, and their accounts of what was going on. And I was stating before, they were calling for only three hoses, THREE! That is relatively speaking, a small fire, even if they had three two inchers going up. Hell most serious house fires call for four or five.

And no, you are not recalling correctly, the sprinkler systems were performing as they should, spraying out between ten and twenty gpm, each and every sprinkler head. Sprinklers are very difficult to disable, since they work off of mechanical switches rather than electric ones. Once the switch is tripped on one, all of the sprinklers fire up. And since the main water pipes came up the central core in both towers, the plane couldn't have cut those. Oh, and then there is the matter of the firemen who were on the scene who reported that the sprinklers were working. Then there is the matter of the fire retardent carpeting, drapes and other office fixtures. I don't know about New York, but I do know that most states require by law that such fire retardent materials be installed in building over a certain number of stories. You know, for fire safety purposes, so that people can get out of these boxes.

As far as your kerosene experiment goes, hell you can swirl and hold your match all the live long day, and that kerosene is not going to explode! Kerosene in no way, shape or form, explodes upon ignition, it burns and expands, hence it's suitability for jet fuel. Gasoline explodes, violently, thus it is no way suitable for jet fuels, though it does drive a mean piston engine.

And I have a question for you. If a kerosene fire(burning temp between 1100 and 1700 degrees F) actually did weaken structural steel(melting point at 2800, malleability point between 2000 and 2500 degrees F) to the point where the structure would collapse, why did the towers come straight down, rather than listing horribly to one side like physics dictate? And of course we're assuming all of this, since kerosene can't reach the required temperatures needed, the fire was being smothered(as evidenced by all of the roiling black smoke), half the fuel needed to perform this miracle in the South Tower was lost in that fireball we all saw, and the firefighters on the scene reported that the fire was not that large, nor hot.

No, this is a line of BS being fed to us that is on par with the Magic Bullet theory. Don't buy it, go out and do your own research, and then get back to me and tell me how this is possible.

[DeadBroke]

245. Some fire suppresion info

Prior to the collapse, as a NYC Union Ironworker, I had several opportunties to work at the Trade Center, specifically; in both towers, #7, on the pedestrian overpass connections to Battery Park City, and on repairs from the '93 truck bomb.

During these stints I befriended WTC maintenance workers, some PANYNJ Police, and other Union tradesemen who took me on "behind the scenes tours" so to speak of the WTC. I was able to see the fire suppression systems up close and was given thorough explanations as to their operations. I was very intrested in this due to my own firefighting - mostly as a 30 year plus volunteer with a few years service as a civillian federal firefighter at a NJ Army base.

The Trade Center, like many other high rises with sealed windows, had a pressurized stairwell and hallway system. It pulled fresh air from the outside, forced it into the stairwells, and also pushed air and smoke out. It's intent is to allow safe smoke free egress for occupants. It failed during the 93 bombing because a generator in the basement was rendered useless from the blast; but evacuees on 9/11 have stated it worked. One of the issues of 9/11 is a question as to what degree if any the pressurized stairwells had towards feeding the fire. Usually firefighters will isolate or radically reduce the stairwell pressures near the fire floors so that the fires aren't fed and increase the pressures above to aid ventilation of smoke and increase firefighter visability. It's unknown how much control firefighters had of this system and if it in fact fed fires.

The Trade Center, because of it's height - like hundreds of other high rise structures, had a sprinkler system that was supplied from water tanks. Water flowed down, by gravity from these tanks into the sprinklers; 10,000 gallon tanks just below the top floors, and smaller 5,000 gallon tanks on the motor room floors near each Sky Lobby. These tanks were strictly for fire suppression - sprinklers and standpipe hoses, not for toilets and such - those had their own supply tanks for water. The sprinklers were gravity fed from these tanks. These tanks for fire suppression were refilled by pumps that drew water from street level water mains. Only the lowest 5 or 6 floors had the typical low rise sprinkler system where water comes to the sprinkler grid directly from the street water mains. All the floors above were gravity fed from above tanks. The only known and confirmed working sprinklers on 9/11 were the those on the lowest floors, in the lobby and loading dock, set off by fires - burning fuel that came down the elevator shafts.

Evacuees on 9/11 reported water running down stairwells. The water is thought to be from severed standpipes - the verticle pipes that would connect the tanks to the sprinkler grids, and resupply the tanks from the street mains. It's believed the standpipes were severed, either by collision with the planes or by disassociated steel framing members because the resupply diesel powered pumps peaked, usually an indication of a break, and also because firefighters able to use handlines had insufficent pressure. FDNY use 200' of 2.5" hose with a 7/8" smooth bore nozzle for their high rise packs. A smooth bore nozzle is used by FDNY, and nearly all other fire departments in high rise firefighting because it only requires 50 PSI nozzle pressure. The other choices, a fog or combination nozzle requires 100 PSI. 2.5" hose is used because it flows more water under less pressure than 1.5" or 1.75." FDNY that did reach some fire areas reported they did not have adequate pressures or water flows on their hand lines. The runaway peaked diesels and lack of water flow and pressure with reports of water running down the stairwells indicates the sprinkler system did not work as planned due to severed standpipes.

[A HERETIC I AM]

107. If you think i inferred Kerosene explodes like gasoline then...

i was unclear. I know a match will go out if dropped into a bucket of it. But that wasnt the case at the WTC. The fuel was essentially atomized by the forces of the impact. Turn 150,000 gallons of kerosene into a mist and add lots of heat. What do you think will happen?

Also, the south tower most definetly listed towards the impact before it started down. The tapes show this. The North towers collapse started in the center which makse sence since the plane hit essentially in the middle, driving all the way into the cetral core.

I dont dismiss your theories out of hand, i just think the idea that a major financial center like that being brought down by explosives is a bit much.

[MadHound]

120. Well, if you turned that kerosene into a mist and added a flame

It would burn, with no "explosion", just like it burns in a jet engine. You are implying that a kerosene fire is responsible for the explosions in the WTC that we're seen, photographed and heard by withnesses. That is simply not so, nor can it be so due to the nature of kerosene/jetfuel. The very lack of explosiveness is a big reason why it is used in jet engines.

[TrogL]

225. For a firefighter, you don't know the first thing about fire

"fire retardents" don't make the things so they won't burn, just so they won't ignite as easily. Given enough heat, anything will burn.

Jet fuel explodes, just as gasoline does in your car engine.

[plaguepuppy]

246. Exploding car engines and burning jets

Sorry, jet fuel really is burning in those jet engines, and gasoline (except for preignition or "knocking") isn't actually detonating in your engine either. In both cases the fuel is burning very efficiently with finely tuned droplet size and air mixture to maximize energy output...

but exploding? No, not on good days.


A very bad day

And dumping a planeful of fuel into a building, even at high speed, is not an efficient way of atomizing the fuel and mixing with air, resulting in a very rich mixture and lots of wasted fuel. Even the FEMA report concluded that most of the fuel had burned off within 5-10 minutes of impact and served mostly as an ignition source.

So that leaves us with smoky, oxygen-starved fires (=black smoke) fueled only by office furnishings, and air only available at the edges. If the pressurized stairway system DeadBroke describes was working it could also have contributed some oxygen, but if it were doing so it would also have caused smoke to flow out under more pressure than we see. By the way DB, thanks for your explication of the sprinkler system. I hadn't heard any stories of them working but wasn't sure how they failed.

[TrogL]

266. Do this at home

Take a can of pop. Don't shake it up. Throw it at a wall as hard as you can. Lots of atomized stuff all over the wall.

[plaguepuppy]

274. Um, sorry Trog

That's the soda, not the can getting atomized!

[TrogL]

275. What are you not understanding here?

It's a simple analogy.

soda -> gasoline/kerosene

[RBHam]

13. Intersting theory, that

Some Survivors Say Bombs Exploded Inside WTC
by Christopher Bollyn, American Free Press

"Despite reports from numerous eyewitnesses and experts, including news reporters on the scene who heard or saw explosions immediately before the collapse of the World Trade Center, there has been virtual silence in the mainstream media."

"Van Romero, an explosives expert and former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at New Mexico Tech, said on September 11, "My opinion is, based on videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center, there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse."

"The collapse of the structures resembled the controlled implosions used to demolish old structures, and was "too methodical to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures," Romero told The Albuquerque Journal hours after the attack."

"Demolition experts say that towers are the most difficult buildings to bring down in a controlled manner. A tower tends to fall like a tree, unless the direction of its fall is controlled by directional charges. The World Trade Center towers "smokestacked" neatly, falling within the boundaries of their foundations."

"After being hit by the aircraft, the twin towers appeared to be stable. Then without warning, at 9:58 a.m. the south tower imploded vertically downwards, 53 minutes after being hit. 10:28, 88 minutes after being struck, the north tower collapsed. "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said. If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic places," he said."

"One of the first firefighters in the stricken second tower, Louie Cacchioli, 51, told People Weekly on September 24: "I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building.""

"A lead engineer who designed the World Trade Center towers expressed shock that the towers collapsed after being hit by passenger jets. "I designed it for a 707 to hit it," Lee Robertson, the project's structural engineer said."

"Another architect of the World Trade Center, Aaron Swirski, lives in Israel and spoke to Jerusalem Post Radio after the attack: "It was designed around that eventuality to survive this kind of attack," he said."

"Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the World Trade Center's construction manager, watched in confusion as the towers came down. "It was over-designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, high winds, bombings and an airplane hitting it," he said."

more...

http://www.babelmagazine.com/issue36/bombswtc.html

[plaguepuppy]

16. Aaron Swirski

There's an interview where he talks about all the built in fire safety, and how all the elevator shafts and stairwells of the core would be closed off by fire shutters to prevent them from acting as chimneys. He was quite obviously shaken at the fact that they had collapsed, and that this fire shutter design might have kept people from escaping.

Here's the interview (he makes big error on number of people in towers, understandable under the circumstances - he gave it on 9/12):

http://www.jpradio.com/Archive/2001/09/11/asx/010911swi.asx

More eyewitnesses on explosions in the buildings:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/veliz-bombs.htm

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/underground/underground_explosions.htm

[gmoney]

17. Read that fireproofing was removed...

Dimly remember somewhere reading that a lot of asbestos fireproofing material had been removed from the towers years ago, due to health concerns. That was part of the design that could withstand a 707... but that taking it out was enough to lead to the collapse.

Yeah, it is strange though... suppose those were the same type of charges used at Oklahoma City?

[Must_B_Free]

197. really?

I've always heard asbestos was easier to seal than remove. removal kicks the dust up, which is where the danger is.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

20. Let's Try Some Engineering Links, for a Change

<delurking>
You need some links. Yeah, big time.

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/wtc.php
http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm

One possible explanation: civil engineers are part of the New World Order.

Alternative explanation: it was not necessary for the steel to melt for the buildings to collapse. Rather, all that was necessary was for the steel to get hot enough to weaken. The steel did not have to reach its melting point.

Example:
Have you ever had a press-fit rear wheel bearing changed on the axle of an old full-size American car? The old bearings are sometimes on the axle so tight that one is tempted to heat them with a torch to aid in their removal. This practice is forbidden. Why? Because the heat from the torch will weaken the steel in the axle. You need not add anywhere near enough heat to the axle to melt the steel to cause damage. You just have to get it hot enough to weaken it.

</delurking>

[plaguepuppy]

23. Been there, read that, bought the textbook

And there's really very little beyond conjecture in any of the available literature. The FEMA/ASCE report is as close as we have to an official attempt at explaining the collapses, and it plainly admits not being definitive.

Was there enough heat to soften the steel? Nobody knows, and FEMA never attempted to find out, either in terms of calculating the energy output of the fires or looking at pieces of steel to determine heating history. NIST has begun to do a little of the latter, a very preliminary calculation of the WTC-1 fire heat output bases on the observed behavior of the smoke plume. But so far no attempt to calculate interior temperatures.

Engineering, like most professions, is very conservative by nature and not inclined to rock the boat (i.e. bite the hand that feeds). And when something is out of your exact area of expertise it's easy to accept whatever seems to be the popular consensus, without asking any hard questions. Let's not kid ourselves, cognitive dissonance hurts!

[RBHam]

28. That's because Rudy G sold the evidence to China...

Tough to do a forensic investigation when the evidence has bee sent off to a totalitarian state that seems to have a "special" relationship with the Bush Crime Family.

How could you Rudy? Just to save your sorry-ass hypocritical, authoritarian, nazi art historian ass? huh?

prick. you SHOULD look embarrassed when anybody calls you "America's Mayor". Benedict Arnold was more than 200 years before his time, for now treason is a well paid career choice!

[plaguepuppy]

32. Is this what they mean by "closure"?

“Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.”

N.Y. Daily News, 4/16/02

And yes, WTC-7 is a real problem: very little damage, a few localized fies, and suddenly *boom*, straight as an arrow into its own footprint.

http://www.geocities.com/killtown/wtc7.html

http://www.wtc7.net/

[Beam Me Up]

24. It still stretches to credulity two points:

First: How HOT would it have to be to get the steel "hot enough to weaken" it to structural failure and collapse? The internal steel core of that building was immensely IMMENSELY strong--not an axel on a car! And even then I doubt seriously that a kerosene and debris fire could reach temperatures of the kind of torch you are describing in your example.

Second: Even if what you are suggesting did happen (and I don't believe it for a second) WHY would the building decompose as it did--imploding straight down, essentially in free fall? Again, as I've said sarcastically above, IF buildings can be demolished like this merely using kerosene, WHY, heretofore, have we needed to use highly trained demolition crews with precisely timed and strategically placed explosive charges?

There is NO WAY IN HELL *ANY* of those buildings--but particularly building 7--collapsed as a result of structural failure due to "fire". It is IMPOSSIBLE by the laws of physics.

That leaves only ONE explanation. They were demolished. Plane and Simple. And...and this is what no one wants to hear...IF THEY WERE DEMOLISHED then the whole government conspiracy theory that Arab terrorists did it because they hate our freedoms falls apart.

Edit: typo

[Gore1FL]

34. More questions

how much weight was the remaining structure able to hold?

A helathy chuck of the building was gone. The WTC was designed in a masnner where the structura support was mostly from the outside walls.

A good 1/4 was gone with 20 stories above it being supported by the other 3/4 in a clearly uneven weight distribution balance. Who is to say it wouldn't have collapsed without heat?

[Beam Me Up]

38. Wrong

the outer walls were not the primary support. The inner support columns down the building's core were the primary support.

FEMA Misrepresented the Towers' Construction

Chapter 2 of FEMA's report, "WTC 1 and WTC 2", appears to be carefully crafted to support the "truss theory" or "pancake theory". The comments added to the chapter exposes many deceptive techniques employed in the article.1 Those techniques are nicely summarized by a comparison of The following two structural framing plans of a typical floor of the Twin Towers. The first is taken from a the book "Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel"2, and is corroborated by several other sources. The second is from FEMA's report.





It is clear that the FEMA plan is misleading because of the far too small dimensions of the core column cross-sections. If the first drawing can be believed -- and unfortunately it cannot be verified because accurate building drawings have not been made public -- then one can surmise that the FEMA plan has the following misleading characteristics.

* The core columns (red boxes in the turquoise region) are neither shown to scale nor in their correct positions. They are drawn far smaller than their actual dimensions.
* It fails to show the structures connecting the core columns to eachother, implying the core is entirely dependent on the floor diaphrams for bracing.
* All trusses are shown with a spacing of one truss for every other perimeter wall column, instead of a truss for every column, with alternate spacing used only for the cross-trusses.

What do all of these misrepresentations have in common?

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

[Gore1FL]

42. Well Maybe

Those graphics mean nothing to me. I am not an architect. I therefore don't know the credibility of the site referenced relative to to any other take.

So, while I may or may not be wrong, I am willing to accept that I am wrong and give you the point. It does seem rather odd to me that with the extremly high number of architects in this country, I have never once heard about a group of them coming out with facts and figures questioning the FEMA report. Notheless, for the sake of argument I conceed the point.

This leads to this glaring issue:

There is still no rational explanation as to why bombs would be planted. The destruction of the building added NOTHING to public opinion that the impacting planes had already achieved.

No one would go to the expense and risk required to achieve nothing.

[Beam Me Up]

51. No one would

and yet apparently someone did.

The only other possible explanation is that extremely tall buildings such as the WTC have SCUTTLING mechanisms built into them (to bring them straight down when there might be the possibility of shearing and falling sideways into other structures due to traumatic structural stress). This, of course, would not be common knowledge.

[themanintheback]

19. Hmmmmmm......

Anyone who would lie, cheat and steal and lead thousands of Americans to their death in a war for big oil devised by Karl Rove wouldn't think twice at having the CIA blow up the WTC.

Why would anyone think Bush could do the former but not the latter?

[Must_B_Free]

198. Far too obvious

If you look at it that way - of course they did. Noone else really benefitted, not bin Laden, not Al Queda... Are we really naive enough to look at history and think "naah, noone would do that for power, would they?"

[CityZen-X]

21. America-Not A Country

Let me tell you something that is so real. That day, 9/11, as I watchd the events in real time, I said to myself, this is jive something is not right here, Mr. Jones! And you know there is something not right here, and you do know what it is don't you Mr. Jones!?

I do not trust any faction of government what so ever, since. And my faith in my fellow man has been disolved to say the least!
I am prepared for the ultimate action of an anarchist, that you may not have the stomach for. I want my country back-by any, and all means!

[Beam Me Up]

22. find the puppet masters n/t

[RBHam]

31. Be smart about it, but there is a precedent...

Read my sig line. We have a duty.

[Must_B_Free]

199. I knew it too

on that day 911. When I saw it on TV I knew we were being brainwashed. I didn't think they would be so fast with it, but to was obvious from the moment I saw it.

[ironflange]

25. Here's a wardrobe suggestion

:tinfoilhat:

[RBHam]

30. Here's a common reaction from the 'coincidence theorists'

[JHB]

72. Argument from anti-authority

Sure, just because we think a couple of airliners fuelled for transcontinental trips crashed into the Towers are quite sufficent to bring about the subsequent fires and collapses we obviously are blind to everything.

After all, it's not even REMOTELY possible that arrogant opportunist bastards like the PNAC Gallery would be so full of themselves that they'd get caught flatfooted (even if LIHOP, by the scale of "it"), then instead of hanging their heads in shame, resigning, or committing seppuku (like they would if they had a shred of real honor), they make a full-court press for their wet-dream list. No, something like that could NEVER happen!
</sarcasm>
:spank:

[101 Proof]

26. I still do

and I still believe that the airplanes themselves did not make the buildings collapse. I thought I saw explosions on the first few levels of the WTC when it was going down.

I believe more happened there than what the government is telling us.

[plaguepuppy]

29. If only...

tinfoil was all it took to protect us from this all-too-real shit.

But at least the beer is a start!

[militarymanusaf]

63. What about duct tape? *sarcasm*

After all, chimpy said that duct tape will protect from WMD. Well golly jee, if duct tape can protect myself and other murikans from WMD, then it should have been able to protect WTC! :wtf: :crazy: :wtf: :crazy: :wtf: :crazy: :wtf: :crazy:

[TrogL]

226. saw them where?

You were an eyewitness?

You were standing close to the towers?

You can't see explosions. You can't see the wind. You can see the effects of things. You can see the wind push trees. You can see catastrophic events push clouds of smoke and debris around.

There may very well have been debris thrown clear as the building came down because the lower levels were pancaking. You don't need bombs to do this.

[Rex]

36. I see we're pulling out this old argument

Geez, that's so 2001...get with the times! At least go out and buy something to help fight terrorism! <yeahitssarcasm>

[Gore1FL]

37. Why would it take the collapse to piss people off?

I was plenty pissed when the planes hit the towers and people plummetted to their death rather than being burned alive. The falling buildings were added tragedy, but did nothing further to galvanize American resolve than was laready acheived.

What impact would collapsing the towers have that the planes hitting them wouldn't?

I am not discounting MIHOP, LIHOP, etc, but why go to the great lengths necessary to secretly plant bombs in a building when the end result nets no difference than not?

No one would go through the great lengths required to fulfuil the pre-requisits of this theory -- especially with the risks involved, if the end result yielded nothing.

[Beam Me Up]

41. A: It was a SPECTACLE

meant for TV consumption.

B: (Especially true for building 7 which collapsed although it was not hit by a plane) To hide evidence.

[Gore1FL]

43. It already was a spectacle

Why commit resouirses and treasure while undergoing a high risk to achieve a net gain of 0?

[Gore1FL]

44. Building 7?

The enwergy released from the two towers collapsing was approx 1/10 of the Hiroshima blast. Two concrete and steel towers 110 stories high have a lot of potential energy.

[Beam Me Up]

47. I don't think so

The towers colapsed mid morning. Building 7, relatively undamaged, around 5:30 pm:

http://new.globalfreepress.com/911/wt7/flash_8fps

[bpilgrim]

50. a steel reinforced bldg. that only partially collapsed after being NUKED

http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/index_e2.html

another example of a dirty collapse...

peace

[Gore1FL]

57. how close to the detonation?

n/t

[bpilgrim]

98. the famous "A Bomb Dome," stands at the epicenter of the blast

the famous "A Bomb Dome," named for the domed-shaped metal framework that remained following the blast. The building, formerly the Hiroshima Prefectural Building for the Promotion of Industry, stands at the epicenter of the blast, and was the only structure in the area to survive. Now a World Heritage site, the building remains just as it was following the bombing, as a symbol of the destruction wrought by the nuclear attack.

http://www.tracyanddale.50megs.com/Japan/html%20files/ppark.html

peace

[JHB]

87. Not a valid comparison

That building was a Hiroshima's ground zero (i.e., right under the air-bursting bomb), so all of the force on it was downward. The roof, floors, and other horizontal parts were pretty-well blown away by the blast, but since the force of the blast was in the same direction as their normal load-bearing (and wasn't sufficient to buckle them outright), the vertical members stood. A similar thing happened in the Tunguska blast in 1903(?): trees at the center were strupped, but stood, surrounded by dozens of miles of blown-down trees pointing away from the blast.

However, it is disingenuous to compare this Hiroshima building with the Towers or WTC 7. The Hiroshima building is only about 5 stories tall. You'd have to stack nine of them on top of each other to reach the height of WTC7, and more than twice that for the Towers. The stresses and loadings are on a completely different scale.

[bpilgrim]

100. wtc collapsed from a vertical force with apparently no resistance

that is the problem you see as thats where it's greatest strength was built into it.

so why did it fail all at the same time?

if the top 20 floors fell on top of the core it should have meet some resistance that would have diverted its dessent.

think about what happens when something smaller hits something larger it usually changes direction, but not in this case.

something very strange occured here in my mind and i am still waiting to hear the official story.

peace

[Rex]

46. After having a couple of years to think about it

I believe that for some people, the "explosion theory" would totally validate this as being an inside job...it also has insidious overtones of much more than a mere vendetta by Osama: that the BFEE had planned for the buildings to come down and worked with Osama to make it happen months before 911 occurred. That Bush is in fact in league with his supposed enemy to make billions in energy/construction/military costs/expenditures at the taxpayers expense.

I'm not saying I agree with the notion, I did at first because I wanted to blame Bush, after all this time I still just don't know what happened on 911.

[bpilgrim]

48. the end result was much BIGGER than afghanistan

and even iraq is, tragically, only just the begining.

a reality more are waking up to DAILY.

the PNAC agenda called for an event on par with another PH (almost 3,000 lives) and as the first bombing proved... if you don't take'em DOWN your not gonna get the kinda of millage the neoCONs needed for their plans for the new AMERICAN centuary.

and ALWAYS remember... the message wasn't primarily aimed at you or me it was aimed at POLICY makers to SHOCK and AWE them into HASTY ACTION and it WORKED perfectly.

there were plenty of secrets buried in that rubble as well, especially WTC7

the neoCONs have BIG PLANS for our future.

peace

[bpilgrim]

52. one PRIMARY target of 911 (Shock-N-Awe) JUDGES

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/nation/7585416.htm

Judges beginning to balk in war on terror
BY RICK MONTGOMERY
Knight Ridder Newspapers

For many months after Sept. 11, 2001, the scales of justice consistently tipped in favor of the Bush administration's approach to fighting terrorism and detaining suspects deemed threats to national security.

...

"Historically," he said, "the further you get away from the notion that the nation is in immediate, imminent danger, the more courts have been inclined to step back and reassess."

But the war is far from over and, until the high court says otherwise, the government will continue to take steps necessary to protect Americans, said Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo.

"This country has become a battlefield, and (terrorists) will kill us anywhere they can," Corallo said. "All you have to do is go to lower Manhattan and see the hole in the ground."

more...
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/nation/7585416.htm

[bpilgrim]

54. and another... Patriot Act II was signed into law

read all about it...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=963100&mesg_id=963100

peace

[RBHam]

56. 9-11 is used to justify everything BushCo does,,,

From tax cuts to faith based programs to exporting death and destruction around the world to drilling for oil in alaska...

Shock and Awe, indeed.

And, BOY HOWDY, they is workin' that card overtime.

These guys are so arrogant, they even publicized their strategy on this years ago. They needed a Pearl Harbor, they got one.

Excepts of “THE GRAND CHESSBOARD – American Primacy And It’s Geostrategic Imperatives”
by Zbigniew Brzezinski
http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/1990s/grandchessboard1997.html

Two years ago a project set up by the men who now surround George W Bush said what America needed was "a new Pearl Harbor". Its published aims have, alarmingly, come true.
: John Pilger :12 Dec 2002
http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759

[Rex]

53. I agree with you

At first I thought that 911 was aimed at US, the citizens. After the anthrax letters my mind changed to thinking that this was an attack NOT on American citizens, but an attack on our government (the Pentagon should have clued me in). Then I thought, no not our government...specific people (like the Democratic leaders in Congress) were targeted. I believe this new Homeland Dept is nothing more than a creation to keep people convinced that 911 was about them. Part of me thinks it was, I can see no reason to hit civilian targets and it is the MO of people who use terror as a weapon. Never forget what Reagan once said, "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter."

[Beam Me Up]

55. 9/11 was necessary

to achieve the first part of PNAC's agenda
that is, to place our military, in perpetuity, in the Middle East region.

When it comes right down to it, the "need" to have a strategic armed force in the Middle East is directly related to Global Population Demand relative to Global Petroleum Supply. Whoever controls, strategically (militarily), the remaining and dwindling planetary oil reserves will control the fate of the contemporary world.

HOWEVER, keeping in mind that petroleum supply is directly related not only to energy consumption in the industrialized world, but most specifically AGRICULTURE -- both as energy to drive the machinery of agribusiness AND as fertilizers to enhance food production -- it becomes clear that mere strategic CONTROL of NON-renewable petroleum resources is NOT a sufficient term SOLUTION to INCREASING Global Demand.
ULTIMATELY, from a purely materialistic perspective, a dramatic, and most likely sudden, reduction in global population will be the ONLY, and FINAL, SOLUTION to the peak-oil problem.
( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=965984 )

MOREOVER 9/11 would not have been necessary if Clinton had agreed to PNAC's terms in 1998. See:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=965887#966357

[fob]

192. What if ...

The collapse was to cover-up the "terra attack"?

With everything, except Atta's passport, pulverized to bits it's considerably more difficult to piece together the truth.

Also, I've been reading all the posts and have a question for those that say what's so strange about it collapsing straight down, after all it was only under the influence of gravity, that result is to be expected. My question is this, when I followed the links to pictures of the WTC after impact, it shows the smoke plumes being pretty forcefully being blown to the direction the plane that hit the south tower came from. Gravity was NOT the only force in play. If the structure simply failed it SHOULD have fallen in the direction of the wind, NOT straight down.

What if the south tower was felled first because the plane hit lower and at the exact opposite corner the wind was coming from making it more likely to fall into other buildings/people so the "planted" devices had to be calculated for the wind and the building imploded first due to the pending danger. And then the calcs done for the north tower which due to being hit higher up and more "square" allowed for more time to deal with the demo.

fob

just a thought

[Dancing_Dave]

243. It was partly a local "mafia-style" crime.

Did anyone complain when John Ashcroft immediately took the New York Police Department off the case of investigating 9/11 as a CRIME? And decided the FBI bomb squad would not do any investigation either?

What we need to do is see who could have BENIFITTED from totaling out the unprofitable WTC, collecting insurance from a large number of policies, as well as the BILLIONS of dollars of Federal compensation, quite a bit of which ended up lining some fat cats wallets!

The Bush Administration made the decisions that made 9/11 possible. But there's a local dimension to the WTC crime. Who dares to investigate it?
:think:

[Bobby Digital]

58. Come on now

If the government wanted to fake a terrorist attack, they could do so a lot more easily and less riskily than whatever the hell is being suggested here. A suitcase nuke would have done the trick.

[Indiana Democrat]

59. So....I guess....

....You've seen a lot of 110 story buildings hit by jets full of fuel and collapse?

And the twin towers were just out of the norm?

[Q]

61. I've never put much thought into the collapse of the towers...

...until I recently watched a couple videos. One set of videos (from commercial tv) clearly shows small incremental explosions below the level of the collapsing building. It LOOKS very similar to controlled demolitions. I must have watched these videos a dozen times now...and it's very convincing evidence that something 'helped' the buildings fall.

- The other video shows one of the planes just before it hits the tower. The video APPEARS to show something underneath the plane and some kind of 'tube' leading to the front. Just before impact there APPEARS to be some sort of flame coming out the front of the tube. It doesn't look like an engine on fire because it came out of the center/front of the plane.

- There is always the possiblity that these videos have been 'edited' to show these thngs. But I've been editing video/digital video for over thirty years now and to my eyes there are no signs of tampering.

- I didn't have a 'theory' before watching and studying these videos. But now I have to believe that something went on that day that 'helped' the buildings to collapse in such a uniform manner.

[Must_B_Free]

202. explosions - hard to tell

could be internal fire being forced out by pressure from the inside from the falling debris overhead

'tube' - red herring.

[neebob]

64. I don't doubt that Bush knew it was going to happen

and did nothing to stop it, but it's a long way from there to arranged the hijackings and set charges in the WTC towers. That's just way too far out there for me, even if the collapse hadn't been explained to my satisfaction.

[rman]

65. you mean "lots of dust = explosions"?

if you want solid evidence of foreknowledge, just look at the unusually high volume of apparent insider trading ("put options") shortly before 9-11, wrt the companies most affected by 9-11.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org

Theories regarding remote control planes and pre-set demo charges are little more then speculation that undermine the efforts to expose the thugs for what they are.

[Q]

66. Various theories aren't meant to 'undermine' anything...

- But at some point we have to question what we see with our own eyes. Watch the videos with the 'explosions' happening below the collapse. What are they? They are evenly spaced and each one appears right before the next section collapses.

- Granted...this is not as 'important' as other aspects of 9-11 as related to the Bush* administration and national security...but neither should they be ignored.

- Everything is 'speculation' at this point...considering that the Bushies have wrapped 9-11 in the flag and secrecy.

[SpiralHawk]

67. Thanks for raising the question again, rman

What are the names of the inside traders who purchased the "put options" just before 9/11?

They knew 9/11 was going to happen, and wanted to profit from it.

To find out this answer, all BushCo needs to do is to check one frikking sales order. It's been over 2 years, and they "still haven't gotten around to it."

Any citizen who is paying attention, has to wonder why BushCo refuses to name these inside criminals. Too close to home?

Let the truth be revealed. May justice prevail.

[TomNickell]

75. Earthquake.....

Bush used his earthquake-generating machine to bring those buildings down!
Isn't that OBVIOUS?

Use Common Sense, please.

1. Many, many structural engineers and architects have studied that collapse--designing buildings that will stand such an attack is a major goal--; these people find nothing suspicious or strange. In fact, there is a real question why the buildings did not fall immediately after the planes took out a substantial part of their support structures (much of which were on the -outside-).

2. These were extremely complex, chaotic events. You can expect all kinds of noises and puffs of smoke. Until you have systematically ruled out -other- explanations, a deep conspiracy is not the likely conclusion.

3. Why does the Government Agency (or terrorist cell) that has arranged to fly jetliners into skyscrapers take the enormous additional risk of planting explosives? Why in the -same- buildings? If you have that capability, why not take down most of the NY skyline?

[bpilgrim]

128. causes DIRTY collapses not CLEAN ones

and i know i survived one of the biggest and most devestating in japans recent history...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=966052&mesg_id=967332&page=

to your first point, i have yet to hear the official story let alone the media story backed up by serious peer reviewed analysis yet.

so if you have please SHARE the info with the community, thanks :toast:

2. you are right these were extremely complex and chaotic events and one would expect a DIRTY result not a clean one. do you have any other examples in history that could acount for the 'CLEAN' destruction of that day?

3. PIGGY BACKING - when one group tries to cover up its evil deeds by staging it's own attacks during the same time period. think about the anthrax attacks like when the army of god folks started sending out fake anthrax letters to abortion clincs across the country hoping to cloak the source and confuse the masses (they did a piss poor job) a tactic well known to investigators.

hope that helps answer some of your questions. it still doesn't answer the main question of this thread but they are important to keep in mind when thinking this problem through.

peace

[Minstrel Boy]

76. Marvin Bush, Sakher Hammad, and the death of Katherine Smith

Just a bunch of dots. Connect if you please.

Marvin Bush

Electronic security for the World Trade Center was provided by Stratesec, which is backed by an investment firm linked for years to the Bushes and the Kuwaiti royal family. Marvin Bush became a director of Stratesec in 1993, when it was capitalized by the Kuwait-American Corporation, which became the company's major investor.

Stratesec has contracts with the Department of Defense, and was also handling security for Dulles Airport and United Airlines at the time of the attacks.

Marvin left Stratesec in 2000, which was his first year on the board of Houston Casualty Co., one of the insurance carriers for the World Trade Center. He left in November 2002.

Sakher Hammad

Early in 2002, five Middle Eastern men are convicted of fraudulently obtaining Tennessee drivers' licenses from a Memphis woman, Katherine Smith. At least one of the men is said to have driven from New York City to Memphis on September 11, 2001. Another of the five, Sakher Hammad, is found at his arrest to have in his possession a photo ID pass to the World Trade Center for September 5, 2001. He says he was there to do maintanance work on the underground level sprinklers.

The death of Katherine Smith

On the day before she was to testify in the case, Katherine Smith dies under very mysterious circumstances. Her car supposedly hits a tree and catches fire, but the FBI determine that gasoline was poured on her clothing before the car hit the tree, and the car had been traveling too slowly to cause much damage. The gas tank was unruptured, yet the fire was so intense it cooked the passenger compartment down to the frame, burned off her limbs and left her charred beyond recognition. Witnesses saw flames erupt from the back seat and engulf the interior before the impact.

On June 1, 2002, OC Smith, the Memphis medical examiner who identified Katherine Smith's body and probed the mysterious death of Harvard University microbiologist Don Wiley (who supposedly fell from a Memphis bridge in December 2001), is attacked with chemical spray, bound with barbed wire, and left lying in a nearby parking lot with a bomb tied to his body. He is rescued several hours later. This follows the bombing of his office on March 13.

Surveillance tapes and maintanance logs missing

AP Story: World Trade Center surveillance tapes and maintanance logs missing
"Surveillance tapes and maintenance logs are among the missing evidence as investigators try to figure out why the World Trade Center collapsed, federal officials said Monday.

"Many documents destroyed in the disaster 'are pretty key in carrying out the work,' lead investigator Shyam Sunder said."
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/local/4702997.htm

Thanks, as always, to Paul Thompson's timeline http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/index2.html

Also see:

"Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United"
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm
"9/11 Security Courtesy of Marvin Bush"
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911security.html
AP story: "Is mysterious state death tied to terrorism?"
http://www.oakridger.com/stories/021802/stt_0218020021.html

[sistersofmercy]

115. That's some intense info

Thanks for posting :yourock:

[Minstrel Boy]

78. seismic activity spikes at the start of the collapse

Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on September 11 that has still not been explained.

The Palisades seismic record shows that — as the collapses began — a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth. These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses.



A video of the north tower collapse from a stationary position, showing a tremor that shakes the building the cam is mounted on before the tower begins to fall.
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/Shaking%20before%20WTC-1%20collapse.mpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtcshake.mpg

[ProfessorGAC]

79. Seismologists Have Always Been Able To Tell. . .

. . .spikes due to explosions. They move through the solid rock at almost 4,000 meters per second and spike the meter suddenly.

There is no mistaking an explosion on a seismograph. They picked up seismic spikes in SoCal when they tested nukes underground in Nevada. There was absolutely no question what those spikes were. And, that was 300+ miles away.

If these scientists had documented evidence of an explosion, they would have reported it in every science journal in the country.

I wouldn't put much stock in this fact.
The Professor

[RBHam]

80. Thermite and the WTC Collapses

Following the collapse of the World Trade Center molten steel was found in the basements of the buildings, and thermal hot spots with temperatures in excess of 700°C remained for many days after the collapses.

more...

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm

[robpopulace]

92. New 911 WTC video

Im not sure if you guys have seen this.

I live in S.Korea and earlier this month I was listening to Malloy online, with Asia's version of CNN on in the background. Malloy was interviewing Ellen Mariani (911 widow) and during a commercial break I saw some terrorist training video I hadn't seen before (no monkeybars). They showed new footage of the attacks "filmed from an angle sources in Washington said they had not seen before." I thought this item would be repeated but it wasn't.

Later, the CNN website came out with this story.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/05/holiday.terror.threat/index.html

It has video but I don't have Realone Superpass. What I remember from the video was the first strike looked like the firefighter documentary video but closer. the second strike looked like it was filmed nearby the Brooklyn Bridge. That video might have had a clearer view of debris hitting WTC7. That's why I post this now.

Anyway the day after they put the story online, CNN had a followup story saying the "al Qaeda" video contained coded messages, but they didn't show the 911 footage.

During this time I checked LBN and major news sources and I couldn't find anything. I even checked the conspiracy sites... nothing. I just wondered if you guys/gals have seen this.

[DoYouEverWonder]

83. Yes

especially with the way WTC7 collapsed. Nothing in the 'official' story makes sense. Odd enough that you would have one building collapse from the crashes. Even odder to have 3 buildings collapse and for all 3 to collapse perfectly, just like they do in a controlled demolition. So if they did WTC7 on purpose and (and so far no one has proven that it wasn't)then they did WTC1 & 2 on purpose too.

Couple of questions for those of you who have studied this event. Is it possible that the equipment or controls to bring down 1 & 2, was in 7 and therefore WTC7 had to be destroyed?

Also, how many people were killed or injured that were in WTC7? I don't recall any. Nice of them to give themselves enough time to get out? Put the system on autotimer and head for home?

[Minstrel Boy]

86. I'm a skeptical MIHOPer regarding demolition, but

WTC 7 ....



I just can't account for its controlled collapse. Its fall took only about 6.5 seconds from start to finish. That rate is within a second of the time it would take an object to fall from the building's roof with no air resistance. And the fact the building had tenents such as the CIA, the Secret Service and the Office of Emergency Management raises eyebrows. At least these eyebrows.

I'm still a skeptic - I can't say with anything like certainty that the buildings were demolished - but I've seen enough (some of which I posted above) to say that it is a valid line of inquiry to ask if more than the impact of planes account for the destruction, which was massive, and yet virtually self-contained.

Videos showing the collapse of WTC 7 from various angles:
http://wtc7.net/videos.html

Critique of the FEMA report regarding the WTC 7 collapse:
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

[plaguepuppy]

95. Another interesting clip of the WTC-7 collapse

Actually it's a detail from the same video you show in your post:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm

[JHB]

173. To him it looks like squibs...

...to me it looks like buckling of the facade along that corner as the supports give way and different parts of the building start free-falling a fraction of a second before the adjoining part.

[HarryLime]

189. can you elaborate further?

"Looking at the upper right-hand corner of the building we see a rapid series of small explosions travelling upward just as the building itself begins to fall. The size, placement and timing of these 'puffs' is very consistent with squibs from cutting charges of the type used in professional controlled demolitions, and in fact nothing but small explosive charges could create such an appearance. The decreasing volume of the building from the collapse itself could not create enough pressure to cause such localized high-velocity effects, and this early in the collapse would have only created a modest overpressure."

Pup, I agree with your conclusions. However, I am at a loss for explaining to others why these must be squibs.

Why could their not be enough pressure from the "decreasing volume of the building" to eject this material in this fashion? Also, what is overpressure?

Thanks.
;-)

[Beetwasher]

97. The Whole Bottom Support Structure of #7 Was Demolished By

the collapsing towers. The tower debris blasted outward and undercut the foundational supports of #7. It's amazing it lasted as long as it did before it collapsed.

[DoYouEverWonder]

147. Do you have a link to that bit of info?

And if that is true, wouldn't WTC7 have come down when the supports were cut? And assuming that it would not be possible to have cut all the supports, wouldn't parts of the building be left standing, for instance the back and side where there wasn't much damage?

[Beetwasher]

150. Not necessarily

It could have had enough structural integrity to remain standing for a bit and then when it gave, the whole structure, because of it's tremendous weight, just collapsed on itself.

I don't have a link handy. I do remember reading that this was a POSSIBLE explanation. I also saw firsthand the type of devastation that the debris cloud was capable of. I was there. I just find this explanation more plausible than someone planting explosives throughout the building. The devastation from the collapsing towers and ensuing debris blowout was immense. WTC 7 was not the ONLY building that was effected from the blowout of the debris cloud. It just got the brunt because it was right at the foot of the towers.

[TomNickell]

84. Conspiracy Corner, anyone???

n/t

[RBHam]

91. Your screaming the epithet "Conspiracy Theorist!"

Does not make the screaming inconsistencies of the "offical story" go away, sorry. You'll have to have us arrested, eventually. Ignoring us didn't work, ridiculing and villifying us hasn't worked,
and EVERYDAY more people wake up to the fact that they are being lied to.

"In the beginning of a change,the patriot is a scarce and brave man, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
Mark Twain

"Fear not the path of truth, for the lack of people walking on it."
Robert Francis Kennedy

[TrogL]

227. "You'll have to have us arrested"

Interesting how these conspiracy nuts think anyone who disagrees with them is in on it.

[tinrobot]

85. They didn't want controlled demolition...

The point you're missing is that controlled demolition reduces damage and casualties.

If I were a terrorist trying to destroy the WTC, I'd want it to topple over and destroy as many other buildings and people as possible. In fact, this is exactly what they tried to do with the truck bomb in '93.

It was sad the buldings fell, but fortunate the buildings fell the way that they did. We would have had triple the casualties and damage if they hadn't fallen straight down.

[Minstrel Boy]

89. But minimizing damage and casualties is the point.

Demolition is one way in which the magnitude of the event is removed from bin Laden's control.

[frogfromthenorth2]

101. Excellent point

They wanted CHAOS, not CONTROL....

[Minstrel Boy]

112. "They wanted CHAOS, not CONTROL...."

And since they didn't get it, I'd say that's an argument for a group above al Qaeda having a hand in shaping the events of the day.

[frogfromthenorth2]

119. Yeah, right, hu hum... makes sense....

good grief....

[MoonRiver]

104. This is an amazing thread. Thanks for all the info.

The most astounding fact is the collapse of WTC-7, which fell in exactly the same type of downward and inward implosion DESPITE NOT BEING HIT WITH A PLANE! How could this happen? There isn't a logical explanation except a demolition type of action, IMO.

I don't know what it means though. I think its possible that terrorists could have done it. If they wanted to ensure a complete destruction of the towers this would do the trick. As much as I am a LIHOP fan, I can't imagine that * could pull this off. The enormity of the crime is so huge that somebody would have squealed either before or after the event.

[frogfromthenorth2]

106. Question is: WHAT DOES THAT PROVE

What's the point of that? Why did they need planes? How can anybody place that amount of explosive without being notice. It makes NO SENSE and this thread is a waste of bandwidth IMO... (and still I post on it...go figure...)

[bpilgrim]

109. how many demo experts does CONTROLLED DEMOLITION use to take down

a building?

not very many.

some more interesting details...

Bush-linked company handled security for the WTC, Dulles and United

George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.

The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the company had a "completion contract" to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."

It also had a three-year contract to maintain electronic security systems at Dulles Airport, according to a Dulles contracting official. Securacom/Stratesec also handled some security for United Airlines in the 1990s, according to McDaniel, but it had been completed before his arriving on the board in 1998.

McDaniel confirmed that the company has security contracts with the Department of Defense, including the U.S. Army, but did not detail the nature of the work, citing security concerns. It has an ongoing line with the General Services Administration - meaning that its bids for contracts are noncompetitive - and also did security work for the Los Alamos laboratory before 1998.

more...
http://www.makethemaccountable.com/burns/030204_BushFamilyCompanyHandledSecurity.htm

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[MoonRiver]

123. And so they would have hired John O'Neill who died in the towers

trying to save others. Interesting that O'Neill had just started the job of managing security in the WTC before its collapse. O'Neill of course was the CIA whistle blower who quit because his investigation of bin Laden was being undermined by our government!

:scared:

[JHB]

124. Say What!?

The most astounding fact is the collapse of WTC-7, which fell in exactly the same type of downward and inward implosion DESPITE NOT BEING HIT WITH A PLANE! How could this happen? There isn't a logical explanation except a demolition type of action, IMO.

Seven hours of uncontrolled fire isn't a logical means of weakening structure? And once the structure fails, it's not logical that GRAVITY pulls them pretty much straight down?

[NavajoRug]

214. This may come as a surprise to many people, but . . .

. . . most tall buildings are designed so that in the event of a catastrophic failure they inflict minimal damage on adjacent structures even if the "demolition" of the building is completely haphazard and not controlled in any way.

[KFC]

111. No. This is flat out stupid.

The demolition theory has been debunked thoroughly.

This crap is on a par with the holographic airplanes and a missle hitting the pentagon.

[frogfromthenorth2]

117. "holographic airplanes " lol....never heard that one before

Actually, the towers never existed... That's why they collapsed so easyly...

[bpilgrim]

118. you don't want an investigation?

there is NO official story as of yet, hello...

the internet is an EXCELLENT way to hash out the questions that need to be answered at the very least and is a PROVEN model for solving COMPLEX problems so i don't see the problem EXCEPT folks who are telling us to MoveOn.

peace

[sistersofmercy]

122. QUESTION: Does anyone know of similar buildings anywhere in

the world where an accidental explosion or fire has caused such collapses? Also, how does the explosion of OK building compare to WTC? Force of explosion etc? Just curious because I have always found it strange that the buildings collapsed the way they did, rather than listing to one side.
For the longest time, I refused to accept LIHOP or MIHOP until I processed the entire reaction to 9/11. Factor in a national trend of increased religious activity, people who had previously been more of spectators had turned devout participants in all christian sects in the aftermath. IMO the increased nationalism and religiousness went had in hand to serve as a perfect rallying tool.

[JHB]

126. Remember, these were skyscrapers...

...in terms of lateral loads compared to primary loading just to keep it up, and its like a house of cards. Tilt it and it breaks into small peices and collapses.

[Minstrel Boy]

127. I could see that with WTC-1 and WTC-2, but WTC-7

?

[JHB]

146. WTC7 was 47 stories tall...

...at least 5 times as big as any building presnted as a counter-exanple, and closer to 10X most of them. Whole different ball of wax.

[sistersofmercy]

132. Sorry meant 7 more specificly I thought that one wasn't

considered a skyscraper. Also wasn't there some Japanese skyscraper that collapsed some years ago? Probably from an earthquake. Surely there has been a collapse somewhere in the world that is comparable.

[bpilgrim]

129. CLEAN vs DIRTY

of all the different destructive forces that can be applied to buildings wether man made (explosives, wrecking ball, etc) or natural (earthquakes, hurricanes, etc) can be categorizied by 2 types of collapses CLEAN or DIRTY.

the ONLY ones i have come across that have collapsed cleanly are either by CONTROLLED DEMOLITION or by design (flaws).

in my opinion for 3 buildings to ALL fall in their foot prints from a 'DIRTY' destructive force is against all odds.

:hi:

peace

[frogfromthenorth2]

130. "is against all odds"

And WHAT DOES THAT PROVE. NOTHING!..... geee

[librechik]

136. read your Sherlock Holmes. It proves one thing:

"When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

But you're not really here to be convinced, are you, froggy?

[frogfromthenorth2]

137. Convinced?

Sure I am! I am convinced the some tinfoil is going to waste!

[ProfessorGAC]

152. Sorry, librechik, But I'm Not Convinced Either

First, those building didn't fall in their own footprint. Both towers toppled to the west about half way through the collapse of each.

Secondly, the "evidence" put forth was conjecture not fact. I'm not defending froggie, but how was that supposed to convince anybody.

Last points: I've been reading these threads for 2 freaking years. Nobody has ever pointed out to me one single frame of tape that shows one of two things required to prove secondary explosions:

1. A supersonic shock wave indicating high explosive discharge. Or, a low velocity efflunce wave, both of which are visible on videotape.
2. Clear indications of high speed ejectate from any spot of the building which would be indicative of explosives being detonated inside the building and accelerating the air from between 300 and 1000 meters per second.

I contend that the building was, indeed, not designed to withstand the impact of a large airplane (remember a 757 is twice the size and weight of a 707), and the possibility that said plane would be completely full of fuel.

Finally, the notion that the building was built to withstand 3 times the forces that caused it to collapse is simply in error. The design of the building was such that each floor was built to hold up the 3 floors above it. It's not a matter that the floors were built to withstand the forces of a 300 hundred story building!

Since each floor was built that way, no floor in the entire building was required to hold up more than three floors. When the interior beaming was damaged 30 floors from the top, some of the supports were forced to hold beyond the three floors. Add to this the exponential reduction of tensile strength as steel is heated, and the exponential increase in maleability as steel is heated (remember, it doesn't need to be molten to be forged), and there are some clearly sound reasons to believe that no extrinsic events were needed to make those buildings collapse.

And, you folks know me. I'm no Bush apologist, and i'm no ostrich. I don't trust the gov't, i especially don't trust the mob in charge, but i don't believe that any detonation was required.

And, conjecture one wishes to be true to support an existing conclusion does not make for compelling evidence.
The Professor

[frogfromthenorth2]

154. " I'm not defending froggie, but..." There is no shame in admitting you

are defending "froggie".... Let's face it, you were defending me....weren't you?!? lol

:-)

[ProfessorGAC]

157. No You Can Do It Yourself

I'm expressing my own view, you were expressing yours. You don't need me to defend you. You were doing fine on your own.

But, i wanted them to know that being new had nothing to do with no being convinced. I've read these threads for a long time now, and always come away unconvinced by the science that goes into the conclusions there was a bomb.

So sue me, i say.
The Professor

[frogfromthenorth2]

160. I know, I know.... I was just trying to lighten up

the conversation a little bit...

And I just learned something: these threads have been going on for 2 years now!?!? Wow.... well I think I will try to stay off them because I see that there is no point trying to reason with the tinfoil crowd....

[Beetwasher]

156. Thank You! Precisely!

I have seen no evidence aside from conjecture that "this has never happened before" or "the odds that this could happen are astronomical" and "other buildings have never collapsed like this".

I have yet to see evidence of the secondary explosions, and that evidence would be pretty clear from the footage we have.

[bpilgrim]

187. wtc7 feel in its foot print. and i am not convinced by the official story

either.

here is a video that clearly shows this fact...
http://new.globalfreepress.com/911/wt7/flash_8fps/

and here is one that shows explosive force perceeding the collapse of the tower all the way down...
http://globalfreepress.net/911/mov/south_tower_collapse.mpg

check out the tower movs here for a better angle and resolution.
http://globalfreepress.net/911/mov/

as to the load bearing capibility of the wtc i would like to see your docuentation on that but there is no doubt that is was the strongest part of the structure and many folks are questioning why/how they failed so devestatingly.

we all need to study and learn from this event if we hope to prevent a future disastor and so far i am SHOCKED and AWED at the deleberitate and immediate destruction of evidence and the lack of any serious peer reviewed probe and analysis of what actually happened.

now as learned man yourself i am sure you to want to answers to the many questions that STILL remain unanswered.

peace

[sistersofmercy]

134. Yes I agree with your point completely

but I'm trying to compare impact of explosion and size of building. Wasn't one of the buildings not a skyscraper or do I have it all wrong? :shrug: :hi:

[bpilgrim]

141. WTC7 collapse ------------------------------------- FLASH

http://new.globalfreepress.com/911/wt7/flash_8fps/

wtc7 was 47 stories
more...
http://www.wtc7.net/

peace

[sistersofmercy]

144. Oh OK, I'm confused

Was there a smaller building in the area that collapsed? Or am I thinking of one they thought might collapse? So what is the official reason for 7's collapse? The debris from the other towers plus the trembling ground? Then how come there was not a complete domino effect in the entire area?

[bpilgrim]

206. i am as well

there has never been an official story as of yet.

and that is i keep bringing it up and asking questions though i certainly don't have the answers.

the central point in my mind though is why did those three wtc buildings collapse so cleanly?

i am waiting to see the official report and i am looking forward to reading the peer review of it as well since the current psedo-official story doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

peace

[bpilgrim]

208. maybe you are thinking of wtc6

some good pictures and maps here...
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7.html

see also...
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_other.htm

peace

[sistersofmercy]

139. BTW, do you have a map of other buildings close by?

Why didn't other buildings fall? I think I'm going to do some googling because I seem to remember a skyscraper collapsing somewhere several years ago, in Japan I think. I agree that the WTC buildings should have collapsed differently under the circumstances.
A friend of a friend knew a person working in a nearby office building to, I believe it was, tower 2, said from his window what he saw was that most of the debris falling was actually bodies and body parts, prior to the collapse.
What I will never understand is why helicopters were not able to rescue some of the people in the windows.

[bpilgrim]

148. here ya go...

more...
http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/images_loaned.html

peace

[sistersofmercy]

153. Thanks! Ok so why didn't other buildings in the area fall as well?

[Beetwasher]

159. They did

WTC 7 collapsed, which was the closest building. Other nearby buildings were pretty close to collapsing and some were demolished later because the structural damage was so bad. If you look closely at that photograph you can see the tremendous damage to the other surrounding buildings.

[demodewd]

179. re: WTC7

The WTC7 was the closest building? The WTC7 was across the street from the "closest" buildings and the buildings north and south? of WTC7 are quite intact.

[Beetwasher]

184. Should have said "one" of the closest buildings

WTC 5 and 6 were quite intact? Are you kidding? They suffered massive structural damage as did 3 and 4, the Millenium hotel and the WFC, among others...

[DoYouEverWonder]

149. Not real safe

The smoke, flames and updraft were terrible. Same reason they couldn't attempt a roof rescue, aside from the fact that the roof doors were all locked.

[sistersofmercy]

155. I recall seeing some helicopters fairly close to the buildings before they

were ordered to back off. Isn't locked rooftop access a violation of fire codes? Was that the usual practice for the WTC buildings?

[DoYouEverWonder]

166. Keep in mind

that especially when cameras are using zoom lenses, thing flatten out and appear closer than they really are. Under the circumstances that day I really doubt if they could get helicopters close enough to do any good safely.

As for the roof, most buildings in NYC required that roof doors be left open. However, in the case of the WTC towers I'm not sure what the rules were, especially on the tower with the antenna. Helicopters certainly wouldn't have been able to land on the tower with the antenna and either way for the above mentioned reasons, a roof landing probably wouldn't have been possible anyway.

[Fescue4u]

204. No one who understands engineering

Questions it.

The building fell the only way it possibly could. Structures that tall simply CANNOT topple due to the lack of sideways tensile strength (as opposed to support strength)

[LoZoccolo]

205. The whole MIHOP theory about tower 7 can be debunked so easy.

It's like this:

Why blow up tower 7? There's no motive. I'd venture to guess most people didn't even know that tower 7 collapsed, or even that it existed.

Like if the whole purpose of this alleged conspiracy was to freak people out, why would they even bother with 7? Wouldn't 1 and 2, or even just 1 be enough?

I'm not MIHOP at all about any tower, but the tower 7 theory strikes me as something MIHOP people would even think was absurd if they gave it some thought.

[bpilgrim]

207. there are a lot of secrets in the rubble of wtc7

and when you look at who the occupants were you know they certainly weren't small.

Secret C.I.A. Site in New York Was Destroyed on Sept. 11

The Central Intelligence Agency's clandestine New York station was destroyed in the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center, seriously disrupting United States intelligence operations while bringing the war on terrorism dangerously close to home for America's spy agency, government officials say.

The C.I.A.'s undercover New York station was in the 47-story building at 7 World Trade Center, one of the smaller office towers destroyed in the aftermath of the collapse of the twin towers that morning. All of the agency's employees at the site were safely evacuated soon after the hijacked planes hit the twin towers, the officials said.

The intelligence agency's employees were able to watch from their office windows while the twin towers burned just before they evacuated their own building.

Immediately after the attack, the C.I.A. dispatched a special team to scour the rubble in search of secret documents and intelligence reports that had been stored in the New York station, either on paper or in computers, officials said. It could not be learned whether the agency was successful in retrieving its classified records from the wreckage.

A C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment.

The agency's New York station was behind the false front of another federal organization, which intelligence officials requested that The Times not identify. The station was, among other things, a base of operations to spy on and recruit foreign diplomats stationed at the United Nations, while debriefing selected American business executives and others willing to talk to the C.I.A. after returning from overseas.

But United States intelligence officials emphasize that there is no evidence that the hijackers knew that the undercover station was in the World Trade Center complex.

The agency is prohibited from conducting domestic espionage operations against Americans, but the agency maintains stations in a number of major United States cities, where C.I.A. case officers try to meet and recruit students and other foreigners to return to their countries and spy for the United States. The New York station, which has been led by its first female station chief for the last year, is believed to have been the largest and most important C.I.A. domestic station outside the Washington area.

The station has for years played an important role in espionage operations against Russian intelligence officers, many of whom work undercover as diplomats at the United Nations. Agency officers in New York often work with the F.B.I. to recruit and then help manage foreign agents spying for the United States. The bureau's New York office, at 26 Federal Plaza, was unaffected by the terrorist attack. -New York Times (11/04/01)

more...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00711F63C5D0C778CDDA80994D9404482

maybe someone is trying to cover something up :shrug:

peace

[LoZoccolo]

209. I think they usually use a shredder.

The government routinely destroys documents in keeping with retention policies; I'm pretty sure that doing that would attract less attention than blowing up a building.

And hey, this article makes it seem like it was against the CIA's goals to destroy the building that housed the documents, seeing as then they lost some measure of control over them and sent people to protect them. And yeah, of course they deal with secrets, they're an intelligence agency, that's their job!

[bpilgrim]

211. not on EVIDENCE unless they have something MASSIVE to hide

maybe they do... how come no video of wtc7 is shown on teeVee?

maybe the terrorist targeted their building too and they - our gov - just don't want to 'panic' us peons at their collosal FAILURE :shrug:

food for thought :hi:

peace

[plaguepuppy]

217. Another interesting tenant: the SEC

Yep, that one, the one with all those records from the Enron investigation. And it just so happened that the floors it was on were the ones most visibly involved with fire:



An interesing ongoing thread about the WTC collapse over in the Konspiracy Korner:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=4861

[bpilgrim]

222. yeah, they have NOTHING to hide

cept the most massive corporate fraud and corruption in this nations history :argh:

thanks for the link :toast:

peace

[DeadBroke]

249. the photo of fire in #7

appears to me, to be of the eastside or West Broadway end of the building. The entrance or front of the building was on the southside or Vesey Street side facing the main Trade Center complex, where a glass enclosed pedestrian overpass also connected the two. (This picture looks as if it was taken right outside the Kit-Kat Club, a popular and expensive nudie bar). WCBS-TV in NYC at one time showed a video taken from aboard a NYC-NJ Waterway ferry that very briefly shows fires along the front of this building. This photo only shows a small portion - just one view of the fires. The fires along the front side were much larger - more flame, more smoke; and the front also had bad damage to the granite, aluminum, and glass facade - large holes. Newspaper accounts and interviews suggest the fires in #7 were much larger and more intense than what the photo here is able to show.

A great deal of discussion has centered on these fires, specifically why FDNY did not extinguish them. I know from sitting on them lunchtime that the building's standpipe and sprinkler connections - the Y-shaped brass fittings that FDNY would need to pump water into for a fire - were on the front or Vesey Street side, which became inaccessable when the towers across the street collapsed. That short stretch of city street was also jammed with all sorts of fire, police, EMS and other emergency vehicles, and news trucks. The collapse of the towers across the street also broke water mains (and sewer and power and telephone lines) under the street. There were conflicting reports about water supply in that area. Buildings nearby had water suggesting all was well, but that water was from their roof top tanks, not from the street level water mains. Evacuees from #7 (EEOC employees) reported that the sprinkler system activated, and firefighters, news reporters have reported hearing the sprinkler gong on #7 sounding. (A sprinkler gong is mounted outside a building and sounds when water passes through it into a sprinkler system). Security personnel at #7 reported that the fire alarm panel in the lobby lit up with several locations and that the elevators, according to state safety statutes returned to the lobby. In local news reports FDNY confirms that #7 sprinklers did activate, but with only the buildings tank water as supply and without supplements from FDNY the system ran dry allowing the fires to spread. The city and FDNY lost water in the mains of the loop west of Broadway, and had to deploy LDH, Large Diameter 5" Hose from working mains north and east into the area.

[Beam Me Up]

215. Building 7 was THE KEY to the whole NY Operation

Indeed, why would the 9/11 perpertrators colapse building 7?

First we have to acknowledge that Building 7's collapse is HIGHLY suspicious.

* It was not hit by a plane.
* What damage there was to the building was caused by FIRE. No one knows precisely how these fires got started.
* Although some above insist Building 7 collapsed due to damage caused when the two towers collapsed, this seems highly unlikely. According to FEMA's own report, Building 7 collapsed because of damage due to FIRE. If you look at the map here: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-groundzeromap0519.flash two things are obvious. First, Buildings 6 and 5 stand BETWEEN building 7 and where the towers fell. Moreover, Building 7 is located across the street from the main WTC complex.
* Buildings 6 and 5, although significantly damaged and closer to the towers, did not collapse.
* Moreover, the buildings to either side of Building 7 (which conceivable sustained as much debris damage as 7 did) did not collapse.
* Finally, Building 7 more than merely "collapsed" it imploded straight down into its own foot print with its exterior walls laying directly on top of the core debris, precisely as you would expect if it were intentionally demolished.

So, it is BECAUSE of the highly suspiscious nature of Building 7's collapse that we have to look for some answer to the question--WHY? If it was demolished WHY?

One Hypothesis: BUILDING 7 WAS DEMOLISHED TO HIDE EVIDENCE THAT THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ON THE 23rd FLOOR HAD BEEN USED AS A COMMAND POST FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TWO TOWERS.

Building 7 housed then-Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management, and it's emergency command center on the 23rd floor.

"In 1999, Giuliani opened a $15 million emergency management center at 7 World Trade Center. The city boasted that the command center's walls could withstand 200 miles per hour winds, and the ventilation system was designed to blow out chemicals or germs. Although it was on the 23rd floor, critics assailed the center as "Rudy's bunker." Michael Daly of the Daily News likened it to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's shelter. "Of course, the mayor's inner circle will not have the cozy security of the traditional underground setting. They will be in the first-ever aerie-style bunker, a 46,000-square-foot expanse on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center." http://www.gothamgazette.com/iotw/terrorism/


How curious that on the day of the attack, Guiliani and his Entourage set up shop in a different headquarters, abandoning the special bunker designed precisely for such an event. http://www.washingtontechnology.com/news/16_14/state/17274-1.html

[worldgonekrazy]

212. Well yes, but it is pointless

I don't know, I don't really buy the whole "towers were demolished thing", but the one bit of info that makes me wonder is how fast Controlled Demolition got in there to clean shit up. Somebody wanted the evidence disappeared and that tells me that they have something to hide. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that the towers were rigged with bombs.

But this really is pointless to speculate on, IMO, because we can never know for sure. It is much better to focus on the Gross Negligence aspect of 9/11 because a) it is much easier to prove and b) is enough in and of itself to doom Bush. I'd like to think the truth will come out and I think if it did it would point to LIHOP, but we all know something of that nature would NEVER be released by the gov't. If you think the Warren commission was a snow job take a look at what the 9/11 commission is doing. They don't even WANT to know.

[goforit]

216. Some one knows......And I would start with the former mayor Ed Koch.

Ed Koch forewarned fellow friends not to go to work that day
and I want to know how he knew.

Read Al Franken's book "Lies lies and liars that tell the lies."
pg. 104.

[Myra]

218. Not really. It was clearly imploded. A controlled demolition.

So, not that many questions.

It was like the Reichstag fire in pre-WW2 Germany.

[karlschneider]

219. Haven't you figured out all these oddities? All caused by J-rays from

Saturn. Or S-rays from Jupiter. Jesus, the rightwingers see this shit and are rightfully convinced we are a bunch of morons.
:eyes:

THE GODDAMN BUILDINGS WERE HIT BY VERY LARGE FAST AIRPLANES AND THEY FELL DOWN, WHERE GRAVITY USUALLY MAKES SHIT FALL.


The "interesting" part of these sorts of discussions is that the the people with no education in structural engineering know so much more than those with college degrees in the field.

Gawd, protect us from somomoric idiots.

[plaguepuppy]

220. Gawd, protect us from somomoric idiots

I agree, especially from ones that can't spell!


http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/BillHicksElite.mp3

[karlschneider]

240. Stuff it. Your criticism of a typo is on a par with your paranoid WTC

delusions.
(I wasn't going to mention this, but what the hell...I am a aeronautical engineer and a commercial pilot since the early 1960s. I am not impressed with your tinfoil theories, nor happy about how fucking stupid it makes us look.)

Now you can whine and hit 'alert'. Go ahead, you know you want to.

[plaguepuppy]

241. Go ahead, you know you want to....

And your degree is in advanced taunting and baiting?

Go ahead, live dangerously, spew some more dirty words - you know you want to...

[TrogL]

224. So who do you trust?

Architects and structural engineers or people reading things into photographs?

I've talked to several architects and engineers about this. I've also watched the PBS special where they quoted architects and structural engineers. The architects say the PBS people got it right.

The building fell down because the building fire (paper, furnishings and whatnot) ignited by the burning fuel from the airliners triggered a structural defect. Gravity worked liked it was supposed to and whole thing came crashing straight down.

[plaguepuppy]

233. "...your own eyes or what I'm telling you the experts think?"

Actually the one "authority" I've spoken to, retired from the Army Corps of Engineers with experience in demolition and construction, was sure from the beginning that it was a controlled demolition and helped convince me of it. And there's a lot less certainty among the scientific community about exactly how and why the collapses occurred the the TV documentaries would lead you you to believe.

This business about it being "natural" for buildings to fall straight down is total hogwash: tall skinny objects tend to topple over. End of Physics lesson. It's especially obvious in the case of building 7, which failed from the bottom (as you recall the upper part settled down intact, seemingly collapsing as it hit the ground).

Once that first floor fails there is nothing to keep the 600' tall slab of WTC-7 standing upright; it is no longer even attached to the ground. In fact it is essentially an inverted pendulum, the classic model for progressive instability. Once it starts to lean in one direction the force making it lean rapidly increases in the same direction. And it had a very irregular footprint, and was built over an electric substation.

But yet somehow "Gravity worked liked it was supposed to and whole thing came crashing straight down."

[LARED]

238. Still at it with the inverted pendulum goofiness?

And there's a lot less certainty among the scientific community about exactly how and why the collapses occurred the the TV documentaries would lead you you to believe

That's true. The exact failure mode is under investigation. Of course you fail to mention that NO ONE in the scientific community thinks it was a controlled demolition.

This business about it being "natural" for buildings to fall straight down is total hogwash: tall skinny objects tend to topple over. End of Physics lesson.

Actually the notion that you gave a physics lesson is hogwash. It is completely natural for the WTC towers to fall straight down given the progressive failure of the structure from top to bottom. Now if the bottom floors were asymmetrically removed it might topple over. That's a big might.

In fact it is essentially an inverted pendulum, the classic model for progressive instability. Once it starts to lean in one direction the force making it lean rapidly increases in the same direction.

No it's not essentially an inverted pendulum. A pendulum has a nearly frictionless hinge or pivot point. The WTC towers were nothing like that. The force you alude to that makes a building topple over is gravity in this case. So exactly how does gravity increase the force making something topple over? It doesn't

[plaguepuppy]

242. Goofy is as goofy does...

First off I was talking about WTC-7, which did indeed fail at ground level. Frictionless? No, but compared to the size of the building and the forces involved, a broken first floor no longer attached to the ground is more like a pivot than a rigid attachment.

This business about it being "natural" for buildings to fall straight down is total hogwash: tall skinny objects tend to topple over.

Still true. Do you really not understand the concept of instability? Tall skinny object, irregular base (built over a power substation, cantilever trusses extending to the north), yet somehow it collapses - literally - into its own footprint without toppling over, and you find this perfectly natural?



"Of course you fail to mention that NO ONE in the scientific community thinks it was a controlled demolition." (sic)

This is silly to the point of being delusional. NO ONE ? You really claim to personally know the entire scientific community and what each individual thinks? Getting a little grandiose there, dude.

"So exactly how does gravity increase the force making something topple over?"

Very simple really - try balancing a yardstick on your finger: as it deflects to one side the force component (remember vectors?) in that direction increases the more it deflects, meaning that as soon as it deviates it will accelerate in the same direction. It's called negative stability, and it happens in a lot of mechanical systems. Only some kind of restoring force pushing it back toward the vertical could prevent it from toppling, and there is none in this system.

[DeadBroke]

250. About #7

You may remember that a few months ago I posted a message in one of the old threads about how #7 was a "loose" building - how one, on a quiet weekend could "feel" the subway trains pass, and how it "leaned" (more than usual) during construction as the crane hoisted columns and beams from street level delivery trailers.

Since that time I have been able to speak with other ironworkers and tradesmen who were employed on #7 and in October I obtained a portion of the structural steel blueprints from one of them - an old LOcal 40 drinking buddy. I have had a copy - a redacted version - since 1991. Mine only shows some columns and floor beams for the floors I worked on and only detail the important information I needed to properly locate the materials I was erecting. The sets I recently obtained show the column and beam number sequences and other structural-architectural items such as stairs, platforms, and sleepers for elevator rails.

These more detailed prints have enabled me to try to identify a few of the columns and beams that I've seen in photographs published in newspapers, on television shows, in trade magazines - and in photos taken by ironworkers who loaded the steel framing members onto barges.

That last source, those private photos are the best. They're in color and the markings are in some instances very clear. There are also shackles, steel cable chokers, and personal items - gloves, shoes and a soda can that enable me to "size" the webs, flanges, and lugs of the steel.

All that said, I can match the markings of one column and one beam, loaded into a barge, to bldg #7. The column is from the 10th floor of the A or front side. It's flange - the thickness, is about twice the size of the 3/4" choker in the picture, easily 1.5" or more. The column, it's honestly hard to tell - there's a bunch of ironworkers posing in front of it, looks banana shaped. It certainly is no longer straight; and a clip - or lug at what would be the top end where a beam would bolt, looks like it was ripped or torn away. The beam bears markings that would put it on the 15th floor near the freight elevator and service stairs. The web is very wavy, which to me looks like it experienced lots of overload, and clips that once bolted to bracing are twisted and also looked torn away.

Back to my conversations with those tradesmen - it's become pretty clear to me that while #7 was built over the old westside powerplant it was, structurally speaking, completely independent of that plant; having it's own pilings to bedrock and massive pads that allowed exceptionally large starter columns and long beams in between. Each piling has a specially formulated concrete cap on top. That cap is very resistant to compression and the anchor bolts, to which starter columns are bolted, are embeded deep in that concrete and welded to rebar. Those caps on #7 are huge, each needing several truckloads of concrete to fill. I do not have the blueprints for the starter columns; but the ironworkers that erected them tell me that because of their weight only one could come at a time via trailer truck. That's unusual, starter columns are big but trailers - even the type that expand and have extra wheels - can, from my experience, usually carry two. Each worker tells me that they were very big (thick flanges and webs), heavy columns.

All that said, I don't feel - IMHO and meaning no disrespect, that this heavy base of #7 - heavy columns on huge pads connected to bedrock, could act as a pivot or fulcrum. I understand the yardstick explanation, but think the tip of a finger doesn't apply here. It's more like a yardstick that's stuck deep in the ground.

[plaguepuppy]

253. Footing of Trade-7, and a fire suppression question

As I understood it building 7 kind of bridged over a Con Ed substation that went up to about the second floor level, with very substantial coulmns outside the footprint of the substation, as you describe so nicely. And obviously as long as these are intact there is not going to be much pivoting going on.

But what happens at the outset of the collapse is that the base of the building fails. We know this because the initial motion is straight down, with the upper portion of the building still essentially intact. And we know it had to be a complete failure of all the weight-bearing columns at the same time, to allow this straight-down motion.

Once that ground-level failure happens there is no more connection between the tower and the foundation, right? It's a less than perfect pivot, but the smashed-up ground floor of the tower would not be a stable platforn, and would certainly allow the tall narrow building to topple easily. And given the odd trapezoidal floor plan there is no way it could fall straight down:



Question about fire suppression: Aaron Swirsky claims that there were some kind of automatic fire shutters that would isolate the elevator shafts to prevent them from acting as chimneys.
http://www.jpradio.com/Archive/2001/09/11/asx/010911swi.asx
(excuse stupid comment about number of workers in building, it was the afternoon of 9-11)

Do you know if this system was actually in place, and if it worked as intended?

[LARED]

255. A few points

1. Looking at the video it is clear that the penthouse starts to move down just before the outside of the building. This tells me that all or some of the internal load bearing supports failed before outside supports, hence dropping down the internal floors a moment ahead of the outside. Basically The tower collapsed into itself.

2. The tower would not be considered unstable based on its dimensions. The worst case height to width ratio is about 3.5 to 1. That would be stable in the sense that it is not easy to tip over. Also there is no lateral force available to make it tip over if all the load bearing supports failed at the same time.

3. The trapezoidal shape is meaningless if there are no lateral forces, based on your position that all the load bearing columns failed at the same time.

[DeadBroke]

264. those shutters

The only elevator related fire shutters that I saw at the Trade Center (the towers) were pre 1993. They were the steel rolling door type, activated (like sprinklers are) by 185 degree (F) fusible link, hand chain, or by electic motor, made by Overhead Door of Pa. and were located over elevator doors for the freight elevators that did the garbage runs, and outside and inside the kitchen for the skytop resturant. I know that similar doors were installed after the 93 bombing by McKeon Doors in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, but I don't have any 1st hand knowledge as to type, quanity and location. McKeon is one of those 'double breasted' companies - sometimes union, sometimes not. I've been told by reputable people that the work they (McKeon) did at the Trade Center after 93 was part of a larger PANYNJ bid contract that included fire/security doors at JFK, LaGuardia and EWR airports.

As far as #7; While those base or starter columns certainly were unique (IMHO) in size and held long beams spanning the powerplant it's really not uncommon to see similar structural scenarios all over NYC. Many office buildings built after the late 60s (Trade Center towers for example) have massive lobbies, atriums, retail areas, etc. #7 had a beautiful lobby - beautiful rose granite, lots of mirror finish stainless steel and huge lights of glass.

I understand your viewpoint about structural collapse when the base columns fail - and by base I believe you mean the lowest, or starter columns; but I haven't read or heard of any accounts where the base columns were the initial failure points. It's my understanding from local newspaper accounts (I've tried VERY hard to post a newspaper link about this - nearly spent all day trying too, but the problem appears to be that the archives I'm reading are available through my subscription, and don't or can't work when I post them) that the collapse initiated in the lower 1/3 of the building where 1 or 2 floors were heavily involved with fire - and not at the base, and not where the powerplants fuel was burning. One report says that a two, maybe three story section in that lower 1/3 of the building had lots of debris damage and an intense fire. That damaged burning section shifted - and those floors were no longer aligned with the ones above or below. The mis-alignment worsened, the columns failed and collapse began. While nearly everyone very casually says "straight down" the collapse of #7 has also been described as a "V" shaped incident. If viewed from the south, the floors directly above the misaligned section began collapsing in the center - with the east and west ends following - making a V.

[DeadBroke]

276. More on elevators

I have spent several days searching news reports and can not find anything more on elevator shutters but; 1. I have spoken with my former co-workers and other tradesmen at the Trade Center and have confirmed that the doors on the passenger elevators were equiped according to codes with "leveling restrictors" which prevent anyone inside from prying open the doors of a stalled or stuck elevator car that is more than 18" above a floor. 2. The remains of the crew from FDNY Ladder 4 were found in what would be the lobby of the North Tower with the "Jaws Of Life" indicating they were forcing open the doors of elevators and trying to overcome those restrictors in elevators that had stalled or became stuck in the lobby. 3. One report in the Record newspaper of Hackensack states, in an interview with John Jay College fire science professor Glenn Corbutt that approx 300 people were trapped in elevators the North tower.

[TrogL]

268. Oh, really?

tall skinny objects tend to topple over

Take 30 toilet paper rolls and stack them on top of each other. Touch the fourth one from the top. See what happens.

Do it again with pencils.

Ever played Jenga? http://www.centralconnector.com/GAMES/jenga.html

[number6]

244. yes, I do ....

lots of interesting stuff on here ...

[plaguepuppy]

248. Some new pictures

I've added a few new images at:
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/gallery/Explosions.htm

Check out the last two...

[Rainbows]

254. Many ...

Me Too!!!

[MercutioATC]

256. I guess the REAL question is WHY?

If the WTC towers were brought down by our own government, why? The plane crashes were more than spectacular enough to give them free rein for at least a while. Why bring them down, causing hundreds of millions of dollars of damage and thousands of lost lives?

Personally, I don't believe they did, BECAUSE the arguement makes no sense. Nobody (except the terrorists) had any interest in creating such damage.

[plaguepuppy]

258. Who had any interest in creating such damage?

Aside from the much greater psychological impact of seeing the buildings actually collapse (and 9-11 was above all else a Psy-Op against the American people), there was indeed one group thet stood to benefit from the demolition of the WTC: the owners of the building.

Consider some of the following...



Approximate footprint of structural 'scaffolding' required, as per the 1992 Plan, by Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson, PC. Consulting Engineers, with Emery Roth Architects.
*Largely found to be 'untenable,' the plan required (est1 1/2) times the rent able square footage of the property, for decommission scaffolding. In the case of a typical 60 story urban skyscraper, this would not have been an insurmountable problem, however the environmental impacts here were enormous. They included; terminal deconstruction and reconstruction roadway access, and disposal of ( ? ) tons of debris. A large 'secured' zone that would have restricted, or limited access for thousands of area workers. Plans included provisions for temporary structures to attach to the adjacent buildings, buttressing over some and adjoining to others. Each adjacent property was studied to assess their (current) load capacities as well as full engineering studies for each supporting structure so required. To my knowledge no final architectural renderings were done, although I saw plans for the proposed 'bridgeways'. This benign point is rather important since it indicated that the 'plan' was being marketed as such.

Unlike the Empire State, which floats on rockers, WTC was anchored to bedrock with vertical members that were calculated to flex, causing an annoying top-heavy feel in high winds. I suspected that the 'electrolytic effect' of the aluminum members with the steel trusses was a major issue. This was denied by the engineer that I asked, although it was- "an important concern throughout the project." Another said: "The buildings are literally shrinking."

They concluded that; "The maximal 'safe' life of these buildings was just 60 years, indicating they would reach their peak potential value shortly before reaching their 1/2 life, in 2025." To estimate the total financial 'liability' to the building owners, this group concluded that the property inherently required about (5._?) x the average maintenance budget of a standard urban office tower. Access to such information would have severely impacted the property costs and resale value.



Supporting Facts, Assumptions and Curious Questions:

I would speculate that in 1989 through 1993, as the downtown real estate market was falling, there were perhaps reasons to suspect that the WTC owners might have contemplated the first bombing. After Battery Park attracted their biggest tenants, the property quickly lost it’s viability. (At the time, Geoff Parker reported that a friend of his was given a whole floor in the South tower to use as a drumming studio, for free!) By 1996, the internet had decentralized the financial industry, further diminishing the lease/return opportunities of this property. ( I don’t know the actual math, maybe it was going up again.)

The building cost about $1.5B to build and was worth about $4. to 5.B at its peak. But, it would have cost about $20B to un-build it in 2010 dollars, or as it neared its 1/2 ‘safe’ life. Obviously it HAD to be imploded and there was never going to be a ‘break-even’ point for the owners.

The first attempted attack was evidently planned to kill all of us, or at least scatter the group’s paperwork. Building #7 was actually a protective scaffold, designed to catch the debris as the North building fell. Why did they plan it so only this building would fall, particularly northward? Would they receive the insurance then appeal for a government bail-out to de-construct the main tower, sometime later?

Minoru Yamasaki was working for the Saudi’s when he took on this project. After its completion in 1973, he returned to Saudi Arabia to consult on other projects.

-TSGordon, Systems Engineer

[plaguepuppy]

259. About WTC-7 collapse - where were the fires?

Here's the only known picture of fires in Trade-7, showing a small area of visible flames on the north side of the building, it looks to me on floor 12 or 13.


This same area of flames is also seen in a pre-collapse video of WTC-7 that recently came to light, starting with a telephoto view from the north that zooms in on the burning area:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/Bld7.qt

So we might ask, what especially hot fuel happens to reside at the location of the fires?



Oh, you mean that SEC, the one that housed the files from the Enron Investigation? Yeah, I hear they used to stack up wooden pallets in the halls and play with matches, too bad they got so careless! You have to be real careful when you're investigating certain people.

[MercutioATC]

260. So the government blew up downtown Manhattan to save somebody

money on demolition costs and destroy Enron records? Sounds a little farfetched to me.

[HarryLime]

261. this story is more farfetched

Sounds a little farfetched to me.

...So, the story of 19 suicidal Muslim rookie-pilot hijackers able and willing to execute skillful bullseye Kamikaze actions at the helm of Boeing 767s flying at upwards of 400 mph at the request of a dialysis patient's request from his hovel in Afghanistan which is heard over a cell phone--all makes sense to you? Not me. Plague Puppy is right.

[MercutioATC]

262. So there WERE no terrorists? The gov't engineered the whole thing?

Wow! That's certainly way out there. I'm not saying that the government didn't hide info and embellish certain points to make themselves look better, but the leap from there to "Bush did it" is a long one. What's so difficult about believing that Bush (generally a moron) and his advisers (more occupied with taking care of wealthy cronies than looking out for us) disregarded reports they should have heeded and generally just screwed the whole thing up? A conspiracy this large, somebody would talk...I really believe they're just incompetent.

[plaguepuppy]

263. Chance favors the prepared mind

Mr. Childs began thinking about the future of the World Trade Center months before it was destroyed. Silverstein Properties had commissioned Skidmore, Owings & Merrill to be involved in renovating the complex after it took over the trade center's commercial space in the summer of 2001 on a 99-year lease from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/26/nyregion/26TICK.html

[MercutioATC]

265. And..? Seems a terrorist attack is a pretty extreme method of demolition.

Yes, the towers were nearing their "halflife". The colapses were, in fact, probably a boon to the owners. To translate this into a motive for the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil is a stretch...

[plaguepuppy]

267. A convergence of interests

A very large potential liability is converted into a big windfall for lucky-ducky owners. Enron investigation files are destroyed in SEC offices on floors 11-13 of WTC-7. The bloodthirsty neocons got the green light for their war of world conquest. The Customs House in WTC-6 held records of potentially embarrassing transactions between Bush interests and the Saudis and other parties, also rumored to involve drug money laundering.

About the only clear losers were the American people, the Afghans, Iraqis and the rest of the Arab world.

As George later said "All in all it was a fabulous year for Laura and me!"

[RH]

273. That's half right.

The days when governments engineered are long since gone.

Governments are engineered, commodities for sale or rent.

Anybody who does not believe it should try for themselves. Start a political party with nobody but your ordinary members to pay the bills and see how far you get. Big money exchanges behind closed doors are always specific: You give me this and I'll give you that.

:pals:

The days when governments were clearly defined entities are also long gone. Grey areas. Fuzzy edges. Follow the money.