I finally heard the massive explosions inside the WTC....

[DemInDistress]

Up to yesterday I was a LIHOP believer. After watching this video and listening with EARPHONES (best) I am now
in the MIHOP camp. No doubt in my mind anymore 911 was a black operation,a special operation. The blasts heard just minutes before World Trade 2 collapses and seconds before World Trade 1 collapses is downright
criminal in its scope. Why MSM hasn't covered this in depth is puzzling but I urge anyone who missed the recordings of the blasts to listen, you too will be outraged. Excellent piece here..

http://madcowpolitics.com/documentaries.htm

scroll down to "Eyewitness to 911 -- Parts 1
2
3
Shame on Tom Kean

ps..dial up warning but worth every minute..

[Atman]

1. "Why MSM hasn't covered this in depth is puzzling"

That's a funny one!

[GrumpyGreg]

2. My God,do you actually believe this?

[EVDebs]

24. WTC-7 was never hit by a plane, now, was it ?

So, you think someone pulled the wool over our eyes ? Seems you've got some re-thinking to do.

Also, investigate the Wargames conveniently being held on Sept 11, 2001, and add the Saudi firm Ptech into the mix...and what do you come up with ? LIHOP at the least, MIHOP at the worst.

[ddeclue]

3. TINFOIL HATTERS ARE BACK..

Let's stick to getting Bush on the wiretaps please. He confessed on TV and it amounts to thousands if not millions of years of jail time, (literally!). What more can you ask for?

This whole conspiracy theory about the WTC keeps popping up when it has no basis in fact. I'm an engineer and a pilot and I'm really tired of hearing from non engineers and non pilots who think it was a demolition but don't know what they are talking about.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[karlrschneider]

5. Yep. I'm a graduate aeronautical engineer & commercial pilot both for

over 40 years and every time I read this idiotic crap I ruin a monitor. Good thing I have a big supply of extras.
jesusfuckingchrist.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

8. And here I thought

it was Hillary Clinton's fault........

Go figure ........

[Cults4Bush]

39. Well hopefully she'll get a censure like Holy Joe.

I personally would love to see a nice primary between someone against the war and her. Though we are not allowed to want such a thing in order to be thought of as a dem nowadays by some of the blind faithers on DU.
Which I feel is strangely reminiscent of the other side, but oh well status quo forever! Yay!

[dailykoff]

31. Don't blame the monitor

or the messenger, either. Look at the situation scientifically rather than emotionally and you'll realize we've been fed a pack of lies.

[Rich Hunt]

129. please explain...

How are DVDs about Satanism and Illuminati not 'emotional'? That stuff is sold to titillate.

[mirandapriestly]

102. My husband is an engineer and he does not use that as a

basis for knowing the truth about 911. A number of professionals have come out against the official theories, as well. You sound like you don't know anything about it.

[petgoat]

162. "you don't know anything about it"

Doesn't know and doesn't want to know.

Could be in a few months he'll realize how hysterical his denial is.

[leftofthedial]

113. not to be a dick, but

neither of your areas of claimed expertise has anything to do with building demolition.

:shrug:

[philb]

202. Majority of commercial & military pilots &Aer. Eng. on record re:9/11 say

alleged hijackers unlikely to have flown the planes, and remote control is a strong possibility.

How could hijackers on 4 planes armed only with box cutters get through locked doors with open communications between
flight stewards and pilots, and many of the pilots former military, and pilots able to prevent hijacking easily if they knew about it and chose to. Given they would have been warned by the flight stewards, and some were warned by FAA before the alleged hijacking, it seems prepostorous to me to suggest poorly armed hijackers could have taken over the planes without the pilots even pushing a button to warn FAA/airlines of such. Or that the pilots would have allowed it to occur, especially the last 2 planes where the pilots knew about the earlier planes.


Also they don't think the hijackers could have performed in the manner necessary to fly 2 of the planes through the extreme maneuvers that they required.

The choice of planes also is logical for hijackers who wanted an attack to succeed, and was unlikely to given the planes involved- without an extreme degree of luck or help.

[tridim]

7. Wait just a sec..

Because you're a pilot and an engineer you know exactly how and why the towers fell? That's kind of like diagnosing a brain dead woman via video tape. Are you a large scale structural engineer from the early 70's by chance? Did you get training as a pilot as to what types of buildings a plane would take down?

[ddeclue]

11. No..

I know how they fell because I've taken many years of training in the relevant engineering disciplines and have read the forensic reports from NIST.

Don't waste my time.

Doug D.
Bachelor of Aerospace Engineering,
Georgia Tech
Private Pilot, Single Engine Land
Orlando, FL

[John Q. Citizen]

28. If your time is so valuable, why post to these threads over and over

and over and over?

I guess your engineering here on this thread.

[EVDebs]

36. Many may be having too much spare time inside the Pentagon nyuk nyuk !

[John Q. Citizen]

72. EV, to funny. You know, I have no problem with people

who don't believe in LIHOP or MIHOP and will discuss it, make good points to buttress their argument, or even argue that whether it's true or false, I am wasting my time hoping anything might result from learning or discussing more about it.

These two or three self-proclaimed "experts" who are bound and determined that the subject is taboo, or that anyone who would consider it or discuss are somehow intellectually or emotional inferior are just boring and a we bit pathetic.

Their lack of imagination is appalling, and there attitude always condescending.

I'm re-reading the rules. There are two I'm going to start alerting on because their arguments are always personal attacks. They feel like disruptors, they say it's not in the least worth their time to discuss it, yet they alway show up in threads and disrupt anyone else who cares to discuss it.

[EVDebs]

81. I'm listening to a radio show right now and the host is believing WTC7

but is hesitant because her 'research' online leads her to feel the WTC1&2, which fell around 10am, lead her to believe that THOSE collapses caused WTC7 to fall. Fact is WTC7 fell around six hours later at after 5pm.

I'm also very interested in David Ray Griffin's work since seeing his cool, calm, exposition of FACTS on C-Span during the summer

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

I keep thinking they'll try to 'swift boat' him, but he looks pretty indestructable if you ask me. Besides, the ad hominem attacks are sure giveaways that the other side lacks intellectual 'ammunition' to fire back so they have to throw their monkey* like the real chimps do at the zoo.

The wargames, Sibel Edmunds, Indira Singh, Ptech coverup, the work of madcowprod.com and fromthewilderness.com , and all the strangeness the MSM refuses to cover...all adds up to more of the same stuff as the Warren Report did with me forty years ago. It stinks.

The similarities with Gerald McKnight, who says there was a government conspiracy to cover up facts by the Warren Commission -- in Breach of Trust, (duh, ya think ?),

""The Warren Commission Report on the assassination of President
John F. Kennedy . . . was instantly implausible because the authors hid the secrets they knew (and ignored the ones they didn’t). —David Ignatius, Washington Post Book World""

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/mckbre.html


and the Robert Baer suggestion in the Griffin link from wikipedia above:

""In a review published in the Nation magazine, Robert Baer dismissed the gist of Griffin's tome as one in a long line of conspiracy theories about national tragedies, but noted that the Bush administration had created a climate of secrecy and mistrust that helped generate such explanations. ("Dangerous Liaisons," September 27, 2004)""

lead me to suspect Baer is also 'instantly implausible' and that not too far into the future someone will break the true nature of the PNAC/BushCo conspiracy to cover up what really was going on behind 9-11. By then they'll have another 'release of the files will not be allowed until 2034' just as in the JFK files, so expect around 2090 for final mea culpas with our 'intelligence' community's involvement in this LIHOP or MIHOP as if it matters. Bush knew.

My personal belief of Bush's foreknowledge stems from the Aug 6, 2001 PDB, when the US had only 33 FAA Air Marshals and Bush did nothing to improve this (now I hear there are "thousands" according to a SF Chronicle article I've seen).

The incompetence is continuing on a daily basis now. A steady cavalcade of screwups bleeps and blunders.

[rman]

156. Other WTC building did not collapse,

in spite of being more damaged then WTC7. One building was between the towers and 7, it did not collapse.

[EVDebs]

41. Funny, Lt. Col. Steve Butler of Monterey Defense Language School

doesn't have as high an opinion of Bush and the whole 9-11 scenario LOL !

Air Force Colonel says "Bush Knew" about 9/11
By Mike Hersh
Aug 13, 2002

http://www.mikehersh.com/article_65.shtml

and

""Lieutenant Colonel Butler, who wrote in a letter to the editor of the Monterey County Herald charging that "Bush knew about the impending attacks," was vice chancellor for student affairs at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California — a US military facility that one or more of the hijackers reportedly attended during the 1990s.

In his May 26 letter to the newspaper, Butler responded to Bush supporters, who had written the paper opposing the congressional investigation into the September 11 events. He wrote:

"Of course President Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism. His daddy had Saddam and he needed Osama. His presidency was going nowhere. He wasn't elected by the American people, but placed in the Oval Office by a conservative supreme court. The economy was sliding into the usual Republican pits and he needed something on which to hang his presidency.... This guy is a joke. What is sleazy and contemptible is the President of the United States not telling the American people what he knows for political gain.""

Air Force Officer Disciplined for Saying
Bush Allowed September 11 Attacks
--Hijacker Attended US military School

by Jerry Isaacs
21 June 2002

http://www.sumeria.net/politics/bushknew/milschool.html

[Cults4Bush]

50. I tell you what your arrogance for being just a crappy ass cesna

driver is for shit.

I know a few fighter pilots (AD even) that will be laughing their asses off after reading the way you posted here.
Your aeronautical engineering degree is for designing aircraft or thus asoociated, not using them as missles to crash into mega structures (there really isn't a discipline for that is there Doug?).
Why on earth should we believe you, the media or anything this war criminal government says. You go on with your itty bitty piper cub and keep playing it off like you know it all just because you yessed yessed yessed what officals said. I mean just please ignore any of the multiple little conicdences and oddities surrounding that day. You go on and enable the wet dreams of PNAC'ers and Neocons everywhere.

You are aware that there are people with more relevant experience to the situation than what you have that disagree with you right? Then again Im sure that you think 2000 and 2004 were legitimate election cycles, and that Gannon was never really a male escort, that nearly every domestic intel service is not really spying on honest good Americans, that bushco really believed what they were saying about Iraq, etc etfuckingcetra.

All conspiracy theories according to the pukes on the other side. Which makes me wonder about where you get your mother fuckin talking points from boy, and trying to shut down discussion of topic because it makes you uncomfortable is right out of their playbook as well.

You want to go a little deeper on the insult game? We are ready for you and we are not gonna be pushed around by the likes of people who call into question our sanity and loyalty just because they disagree, got it megalomaniac man? It is our party too and the more you try and push us out the more you enable bushco.

As far as middle voters they are a fuckin' myth and they have nothing on the apathetic nonvote as for as vote mining goes. You know what keeps them apathetic? The stupid ass status quo that your precious fence sitting mythical middle voters endorse and enable through the centrist mouthpieces that have in fact moved the fuckin' center so far right that that Centrists these days would have been moderate repukes 5 years ago. Not to mention the absolute elitism every post Ive read by you wreaks to high heaven of (remember that little meme per chance? hmmm?).

In short my friend, your ego is indeed as empty as your insults. You can keep trying to build them up here though because frankly it is the funniest damn thing Ive seen on DU in a long time.

[bahrbearian]

77. Thanks for that, you set him straight,, and enlighten me.

[DemInDistress]

119. Cult4bush hey thanks for the support Doubting Doug seems

to believe I'm pushing tin foil tonight when all I wanted to do was share a find with other DU-ers. For more
than 4 years I heard reports of these explosions but never listened to them. last night a friend sent me this look and BTW the creator is a professional video man with 2 security clearances for the wtc. What I heard was
shocking,what the fuck was that sound. Flight 11 crashed at 9;03 am this blast was 9:56;57am followed by
9:57:07/17/21/27/ with three more at 9:58:07. Some freeper told me it was jet fuel that blew up..to suspicious
for me..then in part 2 world trade 1 10:20 am several major blast heard with 2 more to follow..
If you can I suggest you give this site a look. thanks again for the support.
:hi: :hi: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[petgoat]

56. the forensic reports from NIST.

Didn't that pretty color chart of the temperature gradients at the burning floors
insult your intelligence just a bit? It looked more like measured data than modelled
data (and it was supposed to). It was a total fantasy.

Plus the model stopped in time at the initiation of collapse--so it assumed that
initiation=total progressive collapse, and assumed what it should have proved.
Is that good science?

[stickdog]

146. Really? And exactly what did NIST's forensic reports examine?

Here's NIST's foremost "forensic report": http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-3index.htm

The "forensic" highlights:

1) No WTC-7 steel was recovered or analyzed.

2) No unprocessed, intact floor trusses were recovered or analyzed.

3) No testing for explosives (or sulfidation or other residue of any kind) was performed.

4) Only 12 total core columns were more than cursorily examined from WTC-1, WTC-2 & WTC-7 combined.

5) Of the recovered core pieces, none showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C.

6) Of 170 examined areas on the perimeter column panels, only three showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C and for one of these three forensic evidence indicated that the high temperature exposure occurred AFTER the collapse.

7) No recovered steel showed any evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for any significant time.

More:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x45315

[Griffy]

167. I've read NIST report too.. WHY DID WTC 7 COLLAPSE??

they dont know.. it says a severe force would be required to cause this failure, and they leave it at that!

So.. if your serious about the truth, explain to me why WTC 7 collapsed... and dont spare the jargon, I have a BS in ME and construction experience...

put up or open your mind to facts... dont assume you know, because if I show you the WTC7 collapse and you disdnt know it happened in NYC on 911, you would say, "thats a controlled demo" .. if you say you wouldnt.. your lying to yourself!

[karlrschneider]

27. Yes, I do know. And I had no idea this forum even existed.

So now I can remember to avoid it. We Democrats have enough problems without having idiot nutcases making us ALL look like idiotic nutcases.
I will not be back.

[Cults4Bush]

35. Ahhh... c'mon now. When you say "we Democrats" you're really only

talking about the ones you agree with aint ya Karl?

Got a fucking problem with people that dont think like you with your arrogant puffed upness (gods did you even fly fighters, I mean I could understand your hubris then... the other pilot on this thread thinks he's some freakin knowitall because he drives cesnas), than take this forum up with Skinner.

Fuckin' egogasms all over this thread.

[karlrschneider]

52. I fly a 6.5 million dollar corporate Gulfstream V.

And I do consulting work for Vanderbilt University in their aerospace research program. MANY DUers know me. You do not. Adios.

[Cults4Bush]

61. Yes well I baked my ass off in the Texas sun for Cindy Sheehan

Ive been involved with literally hundreds of grassroost activism projects, I even helped get Hillary elected (something Im starting to regret), I've been fighting Bush since 99 when he basically said my spiritual faith should not be allowed worship on base. I could go and on and on about all my fuckin knowledge and first hand experience of this fucked up party of Democrats but I will not act with the same arrogance you and your tag team friend here have shown.

Some of my closest friends fly aircraft that dwarf your GS-V in both scale, expense, technology and most notably armament. What did you fly in the military Karl? 130's, C5s or were you a shuffled off tanker puke pulling duty on 135s giving the jocks a good drink every now and then. Seriously you can almost always tell the real bad asses in the air from the ones who came up a little short in training.

See it kind of sucks to have all that elitism waved in your face and in the end it doesn't mean shit no matter how many DU'ers know you (btw about a dozen know me as well, but you do not... lol), what you know and how you feel because Karl this is the freakin internet man. What you do might give you an edge on some posters regarding technicalities involved with some types of aircraft. It does not give you the arrogant trump card you feel you so rightly have, and to use it as such to insult the integrity of peoples allegiances and their intelligence is conduct unbecoming of a professional knowitall such as yourself.

Again if you have a problem with this forum and actually believe it is hurting the Dems chances in 06 and 08 take it up with admin. Just dont come in here hurling insults left right and center and expect everyone to buckle down and lockstep to that broken drum your beating and in fact you should expect the same treatment in kind, otherwise you are not only being tactless, arrogant and eliist you would be being hypocritical as well.

Adios, and three bags full sir sorry I could not shut up and just agree with you sir. I'll make sure to censor myself more appropriately next time sir... because that is what you have tried to force in this thread here today. Im sure you are proud of it, aren't ya Karl?

[Rich Hunt]

130. my, that's a bit 'personal' n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

57. Remember you klutz... we have that in writing.

[DemInDistress]

120. karl. am I nut case ? I started this thread with good intentions

for 4 years I read reports, heard firemen describe massive explosions coming from the basement and more on the
upper floors. Karl flight 175 crashed into WT-2 at 9:03 am..these blasts are recorder at 9:56;57am 9:57;07 and a white cloud of smoke billows from the lower..then 9:57:21/27/37/45/am 4 more massive blasts on the upper
floors followed by 2 more explosions. Karl, can you explain the explosions because Tom Kean danced around the issue? Lease owner Larry Silverstein stated on camera,"I gave the order to PULL the building" why didn't
the justice dept look into that statement as well as the 911 Omissioners? karl many many unanswered questions
The dead of Sept.11 2001 want answers their families want answers and karl,i want answers. I supported this
president on 911 because he said,"he didn't know who did it" I gave him the benefit of the doubt so,lets find out who did it.As the weeks and months passed what did we learn? bush and cheney blocked stonewalled denied
key documents ,refused interviews,threatened daschle if he went independently for an investigation. every lie
every curve ball, every refusal by the bush crime family made me believe more he knew.The World Trade Center
attacks was a public tragedy and all intelligence/facts/video's/audio's/official's comments/be open for public
inspection ..
BTW,larry silverstein closes the lease in July 2001 plans 200 million in renovations and surprising triples the insurance on the complex. Was he expecting something? Karl, the stench of 911 grows more pungent with each new bush lie,surpression and denial of Freedom of Information requests regarding 911..
hey please listen to the explosions before you denounce someone with good intentions...

[Rich Hunt]

131. um, the thing was on fire all over the place

Wouldn't surprise me if it made lots of explosion-like noises.

That some firemen said it sounded like 'explosions' (I'm sure it did) doesn't
mean the thing was wired with explosives.

It didn't need to be. Nor is this 'controlled demolition' stuff key to
any possible 'LIHOP' or 'MIHOP' theories, even though the self-styled
'truth movement' is deliberately tying this 'controlled demolition'
and explosion stuff to LIHOP and MIHOP, without trying to come up
with ANY LIHOP or MIHOP theories that don't include the idea
that the twin towers in their entirety were wired with explosions
(a minor detail that has never been explained to me in terms of
its execution).

[petgoat]

137. some firemen said it sounded like 'explosions'

Others reported flashes of light at lower level floors.

William Rodriguez's report of basement explosions has been
corroborated by another janitor.

I don't think any LIHOP theory depends on explosives in the WTC.
MIHOP doesn't depend on explosives either. If the planes were
sufficient to bring down the towers, why would MIHOP agents bother
with explosives?

The building need not have been "wired". Radio-controlled detonators
would be far simpler and more flexible. Charges could have been placed
in the elevator shafts, using the elevator cars as movable staging
(standing on their roofs) relatively easily.

Other charges on the perimeter columns could have been hidden above the
suspended ceiling. On vacant floors this would have been simple.

[stickdog]

148. Yes, "we" Dems have enough problems without adding

critical thinking to "our" endless list.

[John Q. Citizen]

10. Wow. An expert!!! I'm so impressed by experts! You guys are

always right.

Can't have us little people discussing taboo subjects. No way!

[ddeclue]

13. Go to engineering school for 10 years and then discuss it with us.

Until then you really aren't qualified.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[LSK]

17. well I went there for 5 years

And have a degree in Mechanical Engineering. Not sure why you went for 10 years...

I havnt spent any time analyzing the WTC collapse but I have an open mind either way.

Why dont you offer us some concrete reasons why MIHOP is not possible?

[roseBudd]

30. Because eyewitnesses and video show 2 fuel laden planes

hitting and immediately bursting into incendiary flames. Eyes trump ears.

[LSK]

32. strength of materials, heat transfer and structures

How hot does jet fuel burn? For how long? Does it affect Steel? In what way? How much?

Seeing planes explode do not tell the whole story.

[tridim]

38. Eyewitnesses also said the second plane had no windows

Not saying it's the absolute truth but the eyewitness (a Fox reporter) did say that, and it's on video tape.

[EVDebs]

42. So which plane hit WTC Bldg 7 inquiring minds want to know ? nt

[petgoat]

58. "Eyes trump ears."

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, huh? QED?

[shance]

19. Who knows if you are really an engineer Doug,

or you just play one at DU.

There is no degree that can educate one to be honest and ethical. That is what is necessary to investigate any matter, not a degree in Engineering.

[John Q. Citizen]

22. Can't you guys figure out a way to build a steel frame skyscraper

that won't implode into it's own footprint anytime a small fire breaks out?

Or is that still beyond current scientific knowledge?

[Rich Hunt]

132. uh, yeah

They did that a long time ago. WTC could withstand a 727 crashing into one of its towers. What the towers could NOT withstand were 767s crashing into them.

[petgoat]

138. The towers were designed for 707s.

The 767s were not much bigger than the 707s.

[John Q. Citizen]

171. Was it a 727 or a 767 that hit Building #7?

Or do you mean that Building #7 wasn't constructed to withstand the towers a block away being hit by a 767?

[craychek]

25. k you might know this then

Why did building 7 of the WTC collapse? I can understand why the towers did, but I can not find any credible reason that building 7 would go. I just don't think that secondary fires would do it. Hell, how did those fires get started in the first place? Hmmmm....

Anyways if you can explain to me how that went down that would be cool. It might also get people to stop asking about it every 30 seconds. =P

[hack89]

46. Because it suffered severe damage and fires ...

from falling debris:

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

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

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayd ...

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti:

I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visc ...


Battalion Chief John Norman:

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. .... but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.

We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norm ...

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyl

Also there was this:

• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf

page 165

One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear.390 In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building’s Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported
that the building’s floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors:
6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30.391 No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to
approximately 2:00 p.m.

The Chief Officer then met with his command officer to discuss the building’s condition and FDNY’s capabilities for controlling the building fires. A Deputy Chief who had just returned from inside the
building reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7th or 8th floor.392 He indicated that the stairway was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside the building. The chiefs discussed the situation and the following conditions were identified:

• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. 395, 396 The order terminated the ongoing rescue
operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.

[The Doctor.]

62. LMAO!!!

Ok... Ok... seriously.

You can rattle off the official story all you want, but I'm no idiot- I actually watched the footage of Building seven going down...

Anyone who can watch that footage and still say that it was not a controlled demolition using well-placed explosives is either a complete moron or a frightened liar.

Here's the footage;

http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html

I've been waiting a long time for an explanation for this. Care to enlighten me?

[hack89]

67. There's expert eye witness accounts on one hand and on the other

there's you - an unqualified amateur google engineer. I watched the same footage and it is consistent with NIST proposed mechanism. Your resorting to playground name calling does wonders to your credibility also.

Laugh all you want but just remember - no one has written a technical debunking of the NIST report showing it was impossible. All we have is superficial analysis of internet video by unqualified amateurs. Fact is, behind your hysterics there is not much there.

[The Doctor.]

75. So what you are saying is...

That you have seen the footage of building 7, and it is definitely not a controlled demolition?

Tell me just when, ever a building has fallen flat- all four corners at exactly the same time- right into it's footprint as the result of 'several fires'?

Never.

Do you know why?

Because it is highly bloody unlikely and it doesn't take an engineer to tell you that.

I hope you're right, and that video was taken at just the right angle from, well... several different cameras to make it look like a controlled demolition.

I for one doubt you have even seen it yourself.

My credibility is irrelevant, I'm smart enough to know a controlled demolition when I see it and you trying to insult the intelligence of both me, and the vast majority of actual experts who viewed the footage does not change what it is.

I would love to be wrong, so if in all your knowledge of engineering you could explain to a simpleton like me how the building came down so very perfectly, I'd very much appreciate it.

[The Doctor.]

82. This is a collapse due to fire?

That's not a controlled demolition?

'Cause if that's not a controlled Demolition, then it's a bonifide Miracle of God.

[hack89]

88. You have no clue what the "official story" even is, do you,?

Beyond the basic fire and not demolition part? If you would actually read the NIST report, they identify a specific mechanism that would create exactly what you see in WTC 7 - an kink in the roof, a vertical cleaving of one third of the building, followed by a global collapse of the remaining two thirds of the the building. They even have pictures showing how it did not fall straight down in its footprint.

[The Doctor.]

89. Right.... and if the wind were exactly right,

and at just the moment after I spilled a bucket of glue my neighbor in the apartment below me threw a deck of playing cards out the window... a perfect 6 foot replica of The Eiffel Tower might build itself in the street.

I will admit that I have not read the 'full' explanation of just how the exact right perfect conditions were created to emulate a controlled demolition. If you have a link to the pertinent excerpt I would very much appreciate it. It's possible everything that I've read online may have been printed out of context or left out critical details.

But at least tell me this;

Can you look at that footage and at least understand how it is someone might come to the conclusion I have?

Or do you maintain that it does not at least appear to be just that?

[hack89]

96. I could understand why you might come to that conclusion..

what I don't understand is why you stopped there. Do you really think such a complex event could be perfectly captured in a single internet video shot from a single perspective?

One another point, it does not look like a standard building demolition. There was a vertical failure that cleaved off one end of the building - the floors did not collapse in a pancake fashion.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004WTC7StructuralFire&CollapseAnalysisPrint.pd

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Doctor.]

110. Why do you say "Bye Bye"?

Hey, this is a fellow Sox fan here.

Or is that a "You should be careful what you say kind of "bye bye""?

C'mon, if you just think I'm nuts, say so.
Running away after telling me to accept the official story is kinda suspicious.

Do my points have any merit?

No?

[hack89]

114. I am tired and going to bed -

But before I leave: I feel that the building would fall the same way whether it was demo or the NIST mechanism - there are only so many ways that big heavy structures under the influence of gravity can fall. The fact the the initial failure was vertical reinforces this point to me - one or two vertical support columns failing would produce a collapse like the one you see.

One (of several) reasons I don't think it is demo is the unwillingness of the CT community to venture beyond its superficial analysis of video and present a detail description of how demo was conducted - x tons of explosives, y number of men, z hours, with the explosives placed XXXXX. You expect me to believe that three building were wired with tons of explosives and no one noticed. I also question why no traces of explosives were detected despite the numerous dust and air test that were conducted at ground zero. For that matter, why hasn't a 9/11 researcher ever gone down to NY with a garbage sack, fill it with the dust that is still laying on many rooftops, and have it tested for explosives.

And a final matter is I find the silence of the engineering and scientific community particularly telling - notice that non-engineering amateurs are the only ones pushing the demo theory hard. And no, I don't believe the government has the ability to intimidate the entire engineering and scientific community into silence - my faith in mankind requires me to believe that people are basically good and some, if not most, would not remain silent or participate in a cover up.

Have a good evening. Bye Bye.

[The Doctor.]

116. Perhaps.

Those points have more merit at least.

And I think that one reason no one wants to talk about the monster in the room is that it's just plain easier and more comfortable not to.
If we don't talk about it... it's not there.

Have a good night.

[dailykoff]

117. Most of these points have been debunked here repeatedly.

Let's take the first: "there are only so many ways that big heavy structures under the influence of gravity can fall." There are an infinite number of ways for structures to fall, and most are asymmetrical, partial, and involve at least some lateral movement. The way this building fell is the least likely imaginable: symmetrically, completely, and with no lateral movement whatsoever, so as not to damage the structures on either side of it. Not an easy feat.

[hack89]

154. OK - we disagree nt

[petgoat]

163. "present a detail description"

Disinfo technique #14.

"Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand
completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

Example: 'Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is as innocent as you claim, who really killed
Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?'"

http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/disinfo.htm

Here's an article about what a demolitions expert had to say:

"If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small
amount of explosive, he said. "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in
strategic points," Romero said. The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points
in each of the towers, he said."

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html

my faith in mankind requires me to believe that people are basically good

You have never been seated on the jury for a murder trial then, I take it. Your tendency to believe
in the defendant's innocence would make it impossible for you to evaluate the facts rationally.

I also take it that you have never had a job involving sufficient conflict that people tried to
influence your work in any of the devious and sometimes even subliminal ways they do.

You expect me to believe that three building were wired with tons of explosives

You ever hear of wireless control? You load the issues with imaginary impediments.

Where is your authority for the assertion that explosive residue could be detected on
the dust?

[hack89]

169. OK

1. You don't any solution beyond "it was obviously demolition." so I fail to see how asking for a somewhat comprehensive theory that at least demonstrates a rudimentary knowledge of the complexities involved is disinfo. Your continued evasions and unwillingness to go beyond superficial analysis could also be considered disinfo - alot of noise but still unwilling to answer the question "what happened?" Your attitude guarantees Bush goes free - doesn't it? Would you walk into a courtroom with the "evidence" you have? You can't name a single participant (beyond the generic BFEE) to indict yet you think you can prove what happened?

2. Yet your expert later retracted his statement so obviously he had time to actually study the collapse.

3. Your court example is irrelevant. I can evaluate evidence impartially and determine innocence or guilt. You deem people evil and participants in murder simply because of their jobs or because they disagree with you. You make blanket condemnations of entire groups of people based purely on your biases - don't use the word "rationally" with me please.

4. And of course you can prove that wireless demolition of large buildings is a standard practice despite the real danger of premature detonation due to frequency interference.

5. Silly me - of course while its is common knowledge that modern chemical and spectral analysis can identify substances down to the molecular level, it never occurred to me that high explosives are made of unique molecules that can't be detected!

Have you ever tried Google? Here are some of many links:

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/april2002/kelleher.htm
http://advance.uri.edu/quadangles/spr2003/story3.htm
http://www-cms.llnl.gov/about/fsc.html
http://msig.ncifcrf.gov/abstract-0103a.html


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0792321383/104-5819387-7725568?v=glance&n=283155

[petgoat]

172. OK OK

"it was obviously demolition." Actually, I'm agnostic on the demolition issue,
but much provoked by the fact that the authorities can't prove their case because
they destroyed the evidence and the CD people can't prove their case 'cause the
authorites destroyed the evidence.

I fail to see how asking for a somewhat comprehensive theory that at least
demonstrates a rudimentary knowledge of the complexities involved is disinfo.

When any comprehensive theory can be dismissed as speculation when there is no
physical evidence, when non-engineers can be dismissed as unqualified, there's little
point. Besides, is 911research not comprehensive enough for you?

you think you can prove what happened

Nope. Nobody can. What we can prove happened: the physical evidence was destroyed
by the authorities, the official case about the guilt of al Qaeda was never proven,
the investigations were obstructed and impeded, the official reports are full of
contradictions and holes, and much of the pertinent information remains a secret.

One thing I've learned from cop shows is that when a witness's story keeps changing,
you've got a suspect. Well the official witnesses' stories keep changing.

I can evaluate evidence impartially

Since your statement " my faith in mankind requires me to believe that people are basically good "
completely contradicts that you must adjust one of the statements.

Faith is the stuff of religion, not science.


of course you can prove that wireless demolition of large buildings is a standard practice
despite the real danger of premature detonation due to frequency interference.

Of course I can not, and of course you know that. Wireless demolition is not standard because of
the expense of the receivers--expense which would be justified in a mission critical operation
like demolishing the towers. There is no problem with premature detonation if you use insensitive
receivers that will only respond to a very powerful signal. Further safeguards could be built into
a receiver by requiring that it receive a certain pattern of pulses before responding.

[hack89]

175. You completely missed my point..

about judging people - in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I will always see people in the best light. To do otherwise is bigoted. Surely this is a progressive attitude you would admire?

How many witnesses were there any how many changed their testimony? Seems like a weak argument - you cherry pick a handful of accounts out of thousands and make a broad generalization out of it. You cannot prove widespread changing of official accounts.

[petgoat]

177. widespread changing of official accounts.

NORAD's initial story was that no planes were scrambled until after the Pentagon
strike at 9:38. A week later they changed their minds and provided time lines
that admitted they were notified by FAA, but they claimed there wasn't time to
intercept the planes. NORAD's timelines never did square with FAA's.

Two years later, when the 9/11 Commission had to write all this down, they found
that NORAD's story didn't work, and they completely rewrote it, explaining that
the witnesses had been mistaken.

Rummy claimed he walked from the e side of the Pentagon to the west side, played
Florence Nightengale for half an hour, and walked back to his office--all in twenty
minutes.

Richard Myers provides two different stories in the same session of testimony to the
Senate Armed Services Committee, but that didn't stop them from voting to confirm him
as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I will always see people in the best light.

There's plenty of evidence. At the least they screwed up royally by ignoring the warnings,
and screwed up by failing to defend the skies. Since then they've changed their stories,
obstructed investigation, intimidated investigators, destroyed evidence, placed witnesses under
gag orders, and profited very handsomely from the very events that they failed to prevent.

Open your eyes.

[Griffy]

168. MISLEADING .. I have read it too... KNOW THIS EVERYONE!

they explain the mode of failure, as in how it progressed through the structure.. BUT READ they say they dont know what CAUSED the failure...

... from the NIST report.. page 29 (below) THEY DONT KNOW WHY.. just how!! Here's the proof that your "proof" is misleading and incorrect! I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say you just missed this page, no hard feelings, this is a charged topic, but please look closely and I welcome your reply!

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf


"Status of Initiating Event Analysis

NIST continues to evaluate the factors that could have caused column 79,
80, or 81 to fail
Possible contributing factors include:
�� Damage to components adjacent to truss #2 from debris impact
�� Damage to fireproofing from normal activities prior to event or debris
damage
�� Unusual fuel loads (fuel lines, high density of building contents)
Analysis to date indicates:
�� Massive size of columns 79, 80, and 81 appears to require severe
fires and/or damaged fireproofing to initiate thermally-related failures"

[hack89]

181. I don't understand the hysterics...

they identified areas for further study - isn't that how science works? That statement clearly identifies the report as a preliminary one. I think you have lost track of what the NIST studies are for - it is not a crime scene investigation but rather a series of studies to determine lessons learned from the WTC collapse that apply to building standards.

[Griffy]

189. Im saying.. and I ask again.. WHY did WTC7 collapse??

This report shows that they dont know why it collapsed, and are not even CONSIDERING demolition, because that would fit the physics we see. I dont know what happen exactly.. but I know it wasnt the fire or the damaged corner, and NIST agrees. I know exactly how science works, and the NIST study was to discover what happened and why... and they only have limited evidence to work from but they have the laws of physics to contend with, and a concrete pillar of a certain diameter requires a certain force to cause failure.

The hysterics are about some people that for 1 reason or another have decided they know the what happened... and people that challenge this cause hysterics in some... and worse, the proposed alternate theory makes people face the horrid corruption within our own goverment. Psychology is always at work, so understand the problem not just in the facts, but in the way humans deal with reality and information.

[hack89]

190. Don't you understand that they will studying this for years?

The scientific principle dictates an iterative process -

1. NIST has conducted a preliminary study and has posted it for public and peer review and comments.

2. Other organization will take issue with NIST and further experiments will be done to reconcile the differences.

3. The process will continue until the majority of participants agree that they have the best answer science will allow.

This entire process will accelerate the understanding of the physical processes involved, which in turn will contribute to the development of more advanced models, which will feed back into the entire cycle.

The reason NIST has not considered demolition in their studies is obvious - there is no question that demolition could bring down the towers so why study it? NIST is responsible for determining fire and construction standards for high rise buildings - they want to know how present standards are inadequate and what revisions are needed. If you were to go to the NIST webpage, this would be very clear. The invitation for comments was specific to proposed changes to fire safety standards.

NIST is not responsible for a criminal investigation - their focus is very narrow.

"“These agreements mark an important step forward to realizing the goal of this portion of our WTC investigation—improving practices, standards and codes for evacuation and emergency response in extreme events,” said NIST Director Arden Bement Jr. “They bring us closer to achieving the desired outcome for our overall WTC response plan: improvements in the way people design, construct, maintain and use buildings, especially high-rise buildings.” "

As far as I know, the FBI was responsible for the criminal investigation and since they reported that they detected no explosive residue there was no reason for NIST to model demolition - besides, there is no question that explosives could bring down the WTC so why study it?

[Griffy]

199. IT HAS been years.. you dont answer my question either!!

WHY did WTC 7 collapse?? not what COULD bring down a building... after all, gravity is just a theory!

heres your quote ...

"The reason NIST has not considered demolition in their studies is obvious - there is no question that demolition COULD bring down the towers so why study it?"

could.. could.. ? they arent studying what COULD bring down the buildings, they were studying what DID bring down the buildings! this is like saying.. we know cancer kills people, so why consider it in an autopsy.. get it?

It is the mere implication of admitting this is most likely a controlled demolition that everyone is avoiding, the facts are irrelevant to people that wont accept a reality in which the enemy is us!

I am a peer .. I am an engineer with construction experience... and this report is clear, they have determined where the failure began and how it progressed through the structure, leading to collapse. However it is also clear that they can not explain what event caused this failure, and neither can you. The official explanations are both weak and varied, do you deny this? Do you think fire caused the collapse? Have you watched the video?

I know the FBI should investigate, but duh.. bush... all I want is investigation, because I know it wasnt fire that did that and I dont have enough information to fill in all the blanks so I resist theorizing as much as possible.

I urge everyone to not close your mind.. here.. seek Reality.. doubt and scrutiny!

http://www.churchofreality.org

[hack89]

200. But they are investigating..

but the answer will take some time to arrive at. However, there are theoretical collapse mechanisms that have been postulated by skilled experts that are being investigated. What makes you think that they could determine the exact cause of collapse in a short time when there were no witnesses or direct measurements? With the scanty evidence they have, I am sure that pressed, NIST would tell you what they think happened but proving it is a much more difficult matter. How are you even certain the state of the art in modeling collapse dynamics is even advanced enough to give you the certainty you think they could produce.

I am sorry they could not provide an answer to meet your time frame but that's simply the way it is - is it your contention that since they have not quickly provided an answer there can be no answer? I am simply willing to wait until the science is done.

You remind of those who support ID - they find any gap in the science of evolution and loudly exclaim that it is proof that God was responsible. But a reasonable man would just say that science doesn't have all the answer all at once but they are working on it. Stop finding conspiracy in the knowledge gaps.

[Griffy]

201. They dont consider the obvious!

"However, there are theoretical collapse mechanisms that have been postulated by skilled experts that are being investigated." (I am a skilled expert, years in construction with engineering degree)... Are any of those "theories" that demo caused the failure?? WELL?? It is the INITIATING EVENT that we are talking about, they are not ging to suddenly figure out anything more about the cause, they just dont know WHY WTC7 collapsed. I gave you the page in which they state it would take severe force to cause this.


Why are they trying so hard to find the "reason", when the 1 most LIKELY reason is ignored, not for scientific reasons (as you said, they know demolition could do it), but IDEALOGY.. it is you that follws the ID thinker... your premise is it cant be demolition, so we must find the cause. (i.e. nature is too complex so there must be a creator, from the premise there is a creator, ipso facto)

Its not about how long it takes, its that the obvious POSSOBLITLY is shuned because of the implications. So what if they never find an alternate explination for the collapse of WTC7, what then.. do we all say, well we dont know why it collapsed?... was it a miracle? when will they look at the demolition theory?


AGAIN..you cant answer my question... WHY did WTC7 collapse? You dont know, and you just cant handle the possiblity that it was demolition... and THAT is the problem!

I want open minded debate, I dont know what happened either, but what I do know is the offical story is FAR fetched, and the most obvious possiblty is ignored. Can you deny that?... Can you deny that it LOOKS like demo?? I know looks can be decieving.. but can we agree on 1 thing? that it LOOKS like demo? we need to find common ground, because I just want answers in a time of unprecedented secrecy and cover-ups. Can you agree to that? Dont you wnat to know what happened?

Please try to address what I say, or we cant have a converstion.

[hack89]

203. Explain to me why a demo and a collapse due to fire..

can't look the same? There was a vertical cleaving of one third of the building which would be consistent with a lower level floor support failing. Look at this time line on page 24. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004WTC7StructuralFire&CollapseAnalysisPrint.pdf

I disagree that it was clearly demo unless you have an extensive library of videos showing large buildings collapsing. You don't even know what a building collapsing due to fire would look like but it doesn't stop you from believing that it had to be demo - sounds pretty faith based to me.

Of course I can't explain why WTC collapsed - is my ignorance proof of demo? Good luck with that it court!

Isn't the only way a computer study could prove demo would be to prove it was impossible for fire to do it? So in any case wouldn't you still have to wait a year or two? Who says the NIST study won't prove you right in the end?

I can deny that the official story is far fetched - I can't see how hundreds of people and tons of explosives with even thousands more involved in a cover up is less far fetched.

By the way, who do you propose to do this investigation you so badly want? Who has the expertise that isn't already involved with the government effort?

[Griffy]

212. Nist report shows collapse mode.. CAUSE is unknown...

try to follow me.. if we know that just a few columns failing would lead to the collapse we all witnessed on the video. The question is not so broad as to say fire did it... to claim this is to claim fire damaged the column enough to cause it to fail. As an engineer, you mighht as well say aliens did it, because that column, as stated in the report, would require a severe force to breach. So I hope this gives you pause... it is logic, we know the mode of failure, it is the cause that we dont know.

Now, I didnt say it was CLEARLY demo. I am pointing out that no offical study is looking into demolition as even a possiblity. This is about pyschology too, not just the physics. To some people the demo theory is as likely as UFO's did it or it was an accident! They cant believe it is even possible... until you explain the history of lies used throughout history around the world. The USS Maine, and the Gulf of Tonkin to name 2 in American history. These are facts too, but much less known. All that and bushs constant lies and illegal activities, to me, the more we see of bush (al la recent wiretap scandal) the more likely they were involved in 911. So.. can you even conceive of someone planting explosives in WTC7, even if it was that day, after planes hit?

Also.. you assume things again...

"I can deny that the official story is far fetched - I can't see how hundreds of people and tons of explosives with even thousands more involved in a cover up is less far fetched."

I never said such things.. in fact, the NIST report shows me that just 3 charges could do this, the area was evacuated already... THIS is speculation.. I am clear about what is fact and what is theory.. clear as I can be.. but you seem to think that I believe all sorts of speculation others have. I am focusing on 1 issue, the WTC7 issue is key, and it will someday open the whole thing up. I am sure fire did not cause those columns to fail.

I forgot.. do you have a techincal degree? Courses in physics, mechanics of materials, statics and dynamics??

[hack89]

215. So we both agree that the cause is unknown..

where we differ is our expectations of the NIST process. NIST's mandate is to extract lessons learned from the WTC collapse and apply them to building and fire standards. That is what NIST does for a living. Despite your desires, they are not conducting a criminal investigation - for their purposes there is no need to consider demolition because it is irrelevant to their mandate. It is unreasonable to write building codes with demolition in mind - surely even you grasp that simple fact.

There is no evidence of demolition - just alot of internet engineers conducting superficial analysis of internet videos. On the other hand there is evidence of severe structural damage and multiple fires raging for hours. I have no problem accepting that this would lead to the collapse of the WTC7.

I have a MS with practical experience in marine salvage and demolition (20 year Navy Officer.)

[John Q. Citizen]

91. If you read the expert eyewitness accounts you provide,

They don't match up. One says there was a hole 20 stories tall, another says the bottom was taken out, another says there was a bulge. Well which eyewitness account are you using for your theory?

[hack89]

94. And why would a bulge and a hole be incompatible?

the building suffered a big gouge and the remaining structure was overloaded and bulged out.

How is a "big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side" incompatible with a 20 story hole - 20 stories is a big chunk to me.

Your argument(?), while bush-like in its parsing of words, is weak.

[DemInDistress]

118. hack please explain to us tin foil hatters what those

"squibs,puffs,whiffs"of black smoke emanating from the corners of the building in the upper floors,southwest corner (on the right)are? In rapid succession exactly like a controlled demolition. its no mirage hack. If you continue to watch the building on the north face you'll also see more black Squibb's running from the lower
to the upper floors..hack, I surely hope you didn't buy into the 911 whitehouse official story. If you have any doubts about 911 you need to share them,...
BTW,did you at least listen to the blasts recorded by a professional?

[petgoat]

63. If all that is true, why did FEMA declare the WTC7 collapse a mystery?

Why didn't those guys tell FEMA about building bulge and the huge gaping
hole? Maybe they forgot, and didn't remember those things until later?

[hack89]

69. Could you please provide a link? n/t

[petgoat]

141. Provide a link to the FEMA/ASCE report on WTC7?

You mean you haven't read it yet? Why not?

It doesn't say anything about the damage later reported by the NYFD
brass.


It says in Section 5.7:

"Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th
floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown
at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the
best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/WTC_ch5.htm

It says the fire brought wtc7 down. It says nothing about structural damage bringing it down.
So either FEMA didn't have access to the FDNY brass, or FEMA didn't bother to interview them,
or they made up their story after FEMA's report.

[hack89]

186. Don't you think that, having suffered structural damage,

WTC would be more susceptible to fire induced collapsed? Logic can be applied here: structural damage leads to redistribution of forces (same weight, fewer support columns) which in turn stresses the remaining columns. These columns then require less fire exposure before they reach their weight handling limits and collapse. Simple isn't it?

Read this NIST presentation - you will see that not only were they aware of the damage, it figures prominently in their study.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004WTC7StructuralFire&CollapseAnalysisPrint.pdf

[petgoat]

188. NIST... [was]... aware of the damage

That's just my point.

NIST discovered all this structural damage FEMA/ASCE knew nothing about.

[petgoat]

60. What does your engineering training tell you about the molten

metal in the basement that us mere mortals are missing?

Not to mention the abolition of the law of conservation of angular momentum
with respect to WTC2.

[shance]

12. Are you are a 9-11 expert Doug?

It sounds as though you are threatened by legitimate questions being asked.

Why?

Why the arrogance and smug attitude towards those who seek honest answers? Have you even done the slightest amount of investigating the actual incident yourself?

If you had you would certainly be aware of the barage of unanswered questions and cover ups that have occured since September 11th. Try educating yourself a bit.

If you choose to blindly support the story you've been told, that's certainly your choice, however
the know it all attitude is a put off to those who are interested in knowing the truth, no matter how you want to spin it.

[Cults4Bush]

45. wrong post self delete

[LSK]

18. ok, give us a technical analysis why demolition is a stupid theory n/t

[Rainscents]

26. Tell me why, building #7 came down? Buiding #7 wasn't hit!

YOU TELL ME?!?!?! Since you know everything!

[hack89]

48. Read my post 46 nt

[The Doctor.]

66. Did that, now please explain why building seven went down

in a controlled demolition.

Here it is again;

http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html

Anytime anyone can explain this I'll feel alot better.

[hack89]

71. It didn't so I can't. nt

[babsbunny]

43. Please visit this website and get a free DVD

they encourage you to burn it and pass it around! It is Amazing! www.reopen911.org

[bahrbearian]

80. I've got that DVD, they sent it to me free,,it's great , all they want

is Answers,, nobody seems to really have em'

[The Doctor.]

54. Ok, that's fine and all...

But I've never had a satifactory explaination for building 7.

At approximately 5:30 pm 9/11/01, WTC building 7 came down in a perfectly controlled demolition.

Watch these very carefully;
http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html

As an engineer, I'm sure you can finally put my and other's fears to rest over this.

Thanks.

[Christophera]

68. Collapse Has No Basis In Fact. Near Free Fall & Total Pulverization, Real

Images of the actual event show particulate ejected at high velocity hundreds of feet skyward.



No collapse in history of any kind, has anything like this happening.

Due process has been violated in capitol crime, this calls for a suspension of legitamacy, of those having the duty for process, usually associated with discretionary application of labels like "acts of terror" upon mass murder.


Question authority. If they can serve their oath at any level, they will welcome the inquiry.

[GrumpyGreg]

95. Ditto,Doug

[Rich Hunt]

128. look at the site...

The person is selling DVDs of 'Hollywood stars and Satan' along with Mason / Illuminati stuff.
Might be sexy and fun to read, but hard science, it ain't.

[rman]

149. dude, we never left

[rman]

151. Disabled user profile hm?

I think you haven't even been around long enough to know about the coming and going of TC-ers and nay-sayers in this particular forum.

[Griffy]

165. I AM AN EXPERT.. I believe my years in engineering..

I have worked construction and project managment, and I want you to tell me why WTC 7 collapsed?.. Even NIST doesnt know, they have figured out which columns failed and what was the progression of failure. But they dont know WHY those columns failed. I DO know what I'm talking about and if you ACTUALLY watched the collapse of WTC7 and can tell me why it collapsed as it did, please share.

Now.. I will say that many people get carried away when they try to answer these serious questions... they are trying to understand what happened in a way that that fits the facts. I dont make up stories.. I just look at the facts and ask the right questions...

So I ask you.. WHY did WTC7 collapse!?

heres so info to get you started..

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

[karlrschneider]

4. And we wonder why many people think we're fucking nuts...

:eyes:

[ddeclue]

9. I really think the people behind this are COINTELPRO..

My turn to be conspiratorial.

I think the people trying to get Democrats and liberals all excited about WTC conspiracies are trying to do just that:

Discredit Democrats and make them look like kooks to scare off the in the middle voters.

It also serves as a distractor and a great waste of time and energy in debating the tinfoil hatters when they don't understand structures, materials, thermodynamics, combustion or even basic physics. They will go on all day and all night about it in infinite detail and you have to KEEP correcting their engineering misunderstandings and even then they won't believe you.

Doug D.
Bachelor of Aerospace Engineering,
Georgia Tech
Private Pilot Single Engine Land.

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[shance]

16. Oh Doug master engineer, one might wonder if you are countelpro.

Nice try on the spin. Theyve tried to do that with electronic voting as well, however the truth inevitably wins. Unless there are those like you who seem more interested in blocking Americans from doing the necessary research.

[EVDebs]

29. Ask him about those Wargames on 9-11 that MSM never speaks of

see site on oilempire.us

http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html

and more on WTC-7
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html

[LoZoccolo]

21. There is at least one case where you are partially right.

seventhson, infamous DU conspiracy theorist, outed himself as a disruptor on election night 2004, though there is no evidence that he was a part of a counterintelligence program.

[The Doctor.]

70. Anytime... still waiting for anyone to explain this;

http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html

Anytime.

[DemInDistress]

107. Dr.eldrich....did you hear from silverstein's mouth

"we had so much damage around here today,we (fire dept) decided to PULL the building" Who's we? Why no 911
testimony? Why no damn indictment? Silverstein who closed the lease for the WTC in July 2001 immediately triples the insurance. What are those "squibbs,puffs,whiffs" of Black smoke emanating from the southwest corners of World Trade 7? No doubt in this mind WT7 as well as the Twin Towers were wired before the crashes.

Thanks Dr. for th support in this thread. After 4 years of hearing about massive explosions I finally heard them on tape (use earphones for best results)and those explosions dont pass the smell test. One freeper told me it was the jet fuel exploding...yeah right 50 minutes later jet feul explodes..give me a break..

scroll down to "AUDIO CLIP SILVERSTEIN ADMITS TO PULLING WT 7
http://911verses.com/underground/

[The Doctor.]

109. Yep, I've read quite a bit of it...

None of it passes the smell test.

Unfortunately there's enough bogus information out there to keep real dialogue off-balance.

From what I gather there's a whole bit about no plane actually hitting the Pentagon... but I have seen the footage of the actual wreckage, and I believe that's just out there to discredit the effort.

Then of course there are the spooks that frequent message boards and sow disinformation and try to plant doubts as well.

There is very little doubt that this building was rigged to go down.

Now if you really want to do something about it, don't follow who made the most money... they won't investigate themselves.

Find out who LOST the most money... they might be very interested to know about this stuff.

I keep forgetting to mention that. If you want to get to the bottom of it, mail all the pertinent information to the auditors at the insurance company that had to ultimately pay out.

They might pay for their own investigation.

[DemInDistress]

115. Good point Dr,.

I do appreciate the feedback and support disputing Doug the know-it-all. I bet he didnt even listen to the blasts. This guy Rick Siegel is a high qualified videographer with many hours of doucmentary films and was
cleared by World Trade Security for both buildings..Flight 175 crashed at 9:03 am these blasts are recorded
at 9:56:57 am..9:57:07/17/21/28/36/41/55/ am and 9:58;21 ? (approx) minutes later the tower tips over to the south. No way in hell would cold steel below the 78th floor is going to neatly be snapped at 30' lenghts which turned out to be ideal for hauling away to Staten Island.

[DemInDistress]

112. doug...did you even listen to the 9 massive explosions

minutes before World Trade 2 collapses? Did you? or do you accept the 911 Whitewash ? Doug,I don't buy the
the official story. Why? Doug,there are 100 questions off the top of my head I could ask about the 911 Cover-up. In 4 years of searching 911 related materials this was my first listen to the explosions described by firemen and others. It was startling and woefully out of place since the flight 175 crashed at 9:03 am..why
doug would 9 hugh blasts occur in at least 2 different areas high up and in the basement? my guess
1.sub basement blast would weaken the core at the base
2. upper floor blast would weaken key intersecting steel beams
3.the last 4 explosions blows the middle core tilting the building and gravity takes over.

doug go listen to the video and use earphones ...then denounce the thread.

thank you
Dem

[Rich Hunt]

134. it's also a purposeful distraction...

...from a bunch of OTHER nitty gritty about 9/11 and the U.S. dealings in the middle
east that they won't (for some reason!) dare to touch! I guess they all got the 'memo'
from 'the boss' not to talk about his nasty illegitimate business dealings...

[petgoat]

143. OTHER nitty gritty about 9/11

Well if you have something to present, by all means do so. I'm inclined to
think Daniel Hopsicker's work about the Associates and activities of the alleged
hijackers in FL is worth a lot more attention. But the collapse of the towers is
interesting, and since it is the central horror of the attacks of that day, it's
not surprising that people gravitate toward it.

[rman]

152. So you think grand conspiracies do exist,

just not certain ones.

If you know that such a thing as cointelpro exists, then you also know that such things as false-flag ops exist - which obviously do involve cover up.

How can we be sure you're not a cointelpro operative?

[onehandle]

15. We're the "looney left" doncha know. nt

[EVDebs]

34. All a part of an updated Operation Northwoods, didn't you get the memo ?

US Military drafted plans to terrorize US cities to provoke war with Cuba
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

Naw, the DOD wouldn't ever plan on doing something like Project for a New American Century's 'A New Pearl Harbor', naw those loony leftist wackos couldn't hold a candle to the really balls-out rightwingnuts.

Remember, the left doesn't have the power to ever implement the nuttiest of the left's so-called plans. The right's plans are already in mothballs or ready to pull 'off the shelf', as Ollie North would have said.

[adolfo]

51. Addition

Here is a small list from US history for anyone that cannot believe a conspiracy of this magnitude is possible:


1932 The Tuskegee Syphilis Study begins. 200 black men diagnosed with syphilis are never told of their illness, are denied treatment, and instead are used as human guinea pigs in order to follow the progression and symptoms of the disease. They all subsequently die from syphilis, their families never told that they could have been treated.

1935 The Pellagra Incident. After millions of individuals die from Pellagra over a span of two decades, the U.S. Public Health Service finally acts to stem the disease. The director of the agency admits it had known for at least 20 years that Pellagra is caused by a niacin deficiency but failed to act since most of the deaths occured within poverty-striken black populations.

1977 Senate hearings on Health and Scientific Research confirm that 239 populated areas had been contaminated with biological agents between 1949 and 1969. Some of the areas included San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Key West, Panama City, Minneapolis, and St. Louis.

1990 More than 1500 six-month old black and hispanic babies in Los Angeles are given an "experimental" measles vaccine that had never been licensed for use in the United States. CDC later admits that parents were never informed that the vaccine being injected to their children was experimental.

1953 CIA initiates Project MKULTRA. This is an eleven year research program designed to produce and test drugs and biological agents that would be used for mind control and behavior modification. Six of the subprojects involved testing the agents on unwitting human beings.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/experimentation.html

Ignorance can be bliss but I prefer to stay informed.

Edit: added MKULTRA

[IndyOp]

78. Operation Northwoods - DoD plans terrorist attack on US soil to blame Cuba

Operation Northwoods or Northwoods was the code name for various false flag actions, including domestic terror attacks (such as involving the use of "hijacked" planes) on U.S. soil, proposed in 1962 by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders to generate U.S. public support for military action against Cuba. The proposal was presented in a document entitled "Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba," a draft memorandum pdf) written by the Department of Defense (DoD) and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) representative to the Caribbean Survey Group. The draft memo was presented by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13 with one paragraph approved, as a preliminary submission for planning purposes. However, McNamara rejected the proposal.

In addition, the existence of Operation Northwoods was often dismissed by the general U.S. public as an unfounded "conspiracy theory" until the draft memorandum was declassified in recent years through a Freedom of Information Act request by the independent non-governmental research institute, The National Security Archive.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods >

Remember... Tin is the New Black - Stylish, Rebellious, For the People!

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[Joe Chi Minh]

59. Hey! You're back. Bugger off!

Such a short memory... We got your promise in writing only a few minutes ago.

He obviously knows nothing about controlled explosions, of which the REAL experts say the exploding towers were a classic example. What dread hand and what dread eye framed THAT fearful symmetry!

[The Doctor.]

64. I'll feel sane again when someone can explain why building seven

Went down in a perfectly controlled demolition.

I know how scary it is to not be sure, to realize just how big and evil this could be, but that fear shouldn't stop anyone from at least taking a look and then figuring it out for themselves.

Please explain building seven. I'd love to believe it really went down because of fire, but after you see the footage, you know that's bullshit.

Here it is;

http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html

Explain it.

[John Q. Citizen]

103. Because you said you were leaving and here you are back

again, that why some people think you are nuts. Make up your mind, man. You are like an insect going round and round in an jar.

I'm glad your not my pilot. First we'd leave the airport and then you'd turn around and go back to the airport, and then we'd leave again and return again.

That's nuts!

Make up your mind and stick to it man. And get some help.

[seriousstan]

6. More news from the shady area of the "big tent".

[in_cog_ni_to]

14. Yup. No doubt about it...it's MIHOP.

Will I be able to hear the explosion WITHOUT earphone? I'll go try.:)

[tatertop]

20. Explosions or no explosions, it's still MIHOP.

EVERYTHING points to MIHOP.
Including the COMPLETE and total cover up
after the fact. Nothing nutty about that at all.

[Carni]

76. I agree with you

I don't think the buildings were blown up but there was still LIHOP or MIHOP as far as I am concerned in regards to the entire event and planes being flown into the buildings.

Where the hell is bin laden?

Answer: They were never actually interested in catching him.

All this new info about Atta and his pals being aboard Abramoff's gambling ship on 9-5-01 pretty much sealed it for me-- whether by design, or by acts of stupidity, this admin being in bed with a money laundering, drug dealing international cabal caused 911.

I certainly don't think I am a loon or tin foiler to notice the obvious--by deliberate design, or otherwise, this greedy crooked admin fucked up at the expense of it's citizens.

[petgoat]

142. cover up

Cover up doesn't necessarily mean MIHOP.

Could be they're covering up:

1. Al Qaeda agents who were tenants in the WTC buildings evaded building
security and planted explosives in the elevator shafts. Covered up because
it's embarrassing to Marvin Bush's security company.

2. Flight 93 was shot down just as the passengers were retaking control of the
aircraft. Ooops.

3. Flight 77 got through the Pentagon missile defense because the missiles were
turned off for the war games. They don't want anyone to know about the war games
because spies in the Pentagon (probably Mossad) told al Qaeda when the war games
were happening.

[DemInDistress]

125. yes definitely use earphones

when I first watched and listened I missed but when I watched with earphones, wow ! you'll ask,what the hell was that. Nine explosions within 3 minutes this after 50 minutes of fires,seems awfully suspicious
and why no 911 testimony under oath. 9:56;57am explosions begin..9:58:?
massive blast leads to the failure of WT2.
then in part 2 WT 1 is examined closely. For 4 years I read and heard of these blasts,now you can listen for yourself and you decide..to me it
was chilling,troubling and needs a public look.
thanks for the feedback..

[stillcool]

23. That's about it...

for me...not worth it to hang around here any more when taboo subjects are the only ones worth discussing. I've had my fill of Tweety posts, and blow-by-blow Freeper posts.

[sweetm2475]

33. Keep your head up DemInDistress!

I have read the negative posts here from some engineers or whatever, and while I don't really feel like wasting my time going fistacuffs with any of them, I just wanted to tell you not to get discouraged by people who chose to be closeminded and then get hostile with people who are not. I'm not an engineer, just someone lucky enough to be born with some common sense. If it looks like a bomb, sounds like a bomb, it's probably a bomb. And the same goes for all the rest of the 9-11 facts out there for any curious individual to find. So welcome to the MIHOP "Tin Foil Hat" world. Nice to have you.:toast: :tinfoilhat: :patriot:

[dailykoff]

37. It's a bomb alright.

There are many branches of engineering and most do not study steel frame high rise construction. Evidently they get the memos, though.

[bahrbearian]

83. They are not Memos , they are talking points.

[hack89]

49. And just how many bombs have you seen and heard?

excluding the movies of course.

[DemInDistress]

126. thanks sweetm for that encouragement..sometimes

I feel reluctant to lead a thread for those reasons but this site really
needs a look by analytical DU-ers. For 4 years I heard of these bombs
going off but I never heard them until last night. I wanted all my friends here to have a chance to listen too !! Why this man's video
received so little attention is telling? Think about it, flight 175 crashes at 9:03 am . The explosions begin 9:56:57am,then a from the base\of Wt2 white cloud of smoke belches out the basement.9:57:07/17/21
and 9:57:27 4 more loud bombs in the upper floors followed by 2/3 more
shocking loud and scary explosions. Three minutes later WT 2 tilts toward the south and collapses..

Thanks for the feedback
...:hi: :hi: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

One more thing..World Trade 7 a very bad loose end for the MURDERERS
it cant be explained/spun away..

[babsbunny]

40. I got my free DVD called, "A call to reopen 911

The Sept. 11 investigation" please visit www.reopen911.org I am a believer!

[mikelewis]

99. That's awesome that Ed Begley Jr. hosted this...

Thanks for posting the site.

[soulcore]

44. I'm also a believer

There are several peculiarities about that day, including the collapse of WTC7, the black boxes being missing from the wreckage, the vaporization of the plane at the pentagon yet the bodies were identified by fingerprints and DNA.

Answer me two questions…

Where is the plane?


How did fire cause this?
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg

Until such time as I have more believable answers to these and other fundamental questions about that day, my :tinfoilhat: will remain firmly in place.

Anyone wanna' take bets on how long this last until it's banished to the 911 dungeon?

[soulcore]

47. wow. that was quick.

Couldn’t even get a recommendation in.

It’s horrible how quickly these stories are suppressed, even on a website such as this.

*sigh

[mikelewis]

100. We must never question 9/11

[Gregorian]

53. I want to speak my two cents.

And I'll be simple about it. But don't discount that as being any less important. I am completely ready to accept IHOP of any sort. We know what they have done to this country in just about every other area.

Having said that, I have no side in this issue. There may have been explosives. BUT, I want to take the explanation which I believe could mimick explosions. I want to assume the following:

As the steel beams strained, the clips that hold the floors moved in a way that allowed that floor to lose its support. A piece or even that entire floor would, or could, drop. Once a single floor dropped, it was a domino affect. I'm interested in focusing on what happened when that first floor dropped. From the outside of the building, as that first floor came down, it would sound and look exactly like an explosion. Windows would pop out, and a huge noise would be emitted from that location. And immediately, the entire building would proceed directly to the ground. And it would all happen in a controlled demolition style.

That's it. You can tear it apart, refuse to believe it. But I think that is the most plausable mechanism by which those towers fell. And knowing what I know, I would still continue research to see if the administration pulled a stunt with explosives. Because that's just how much I distrust them.

[dailykoff]

55. Short answer:

The clip failure theory is pure hogwash. The floors were basically hung from the structural core like CDs on a spindle, and even if there had been some kind of domino failure, which is pretty unlikely, it wouldn't have affected the spindle, or even floors on the other side of the building.

Here's a link to recent post with a construction photo showing the actual relationship of the core to the floor diaphragms:

http://democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=64808&mesg_id=64881

[Joe Chi Minh]

65. Interesting about the alleged terrorists being guests in Abram's

casino. Or have I got it garbled?

[dailykoff]

74. Yes, very!

What's up with that anyway? Here's a link to a recent thread about it (a couple of threads below this one):

http://democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=64988&mesg_id=64988

[EVDebs]

86. Nope. Daniel Hopsicker's website madcowprod.com has the story

The Secret World of Jack Abramoff
http://www.madcowprod.com/06202005.html

and also the current cover story
http://www.madcowprod.com/

[Joe Chi Minh]

160. Naah,... just another coincidence, like the rapid-response

fighters being stood down that morning, no enquiry why they were stood down, why the CCTV films at the aiport, covering the time before the flights were removed, and why there's been no enquiryabout that ; why the sniffer dogs who used to check the building basements for explosives were "stood down" the week before, the buildings emptied out of hours and put in the charge of Neil Bush's "security" service; that kind of steel could not have melted at such a low heat; material relevant to investigating the matter was removed, etc, etc, etc.

Where's our expert aeronautical engineer when you need him? We just didn't realise how much transfer there was between aeronautical engineering and demolition/controlled explosions of buildings, metallurgy, rapid-response aerial defense, unexplained removal of CCTV film, use of sniffer dogs, coincidences relating to the President's family. What bad luck for Neil! Like being appointed the captain of the Titanic for that fateful trip, the terrorists sharing a taste for gambling at the same casino as one of the Republicans' chief financiers, and even being a guest of the latter! Coincidences, all ...just like the evolution of the universe, you simple-minded liberal nutjobs!

[Joe Chi Minh]

161. Seems it was Marvin, not Neil.

[Gregorian]

85. I know. That doesn't preclude that mode of failure though.

Failure can be phenomenal. With heavy concrete, even just the outside sections of floor could cause a failure.

Of course this is all speculation.

My only reason for posting was to present a possible means by which explosion-like actions could be observed.

[dailykoff]

90. Do you mean some kind of progressive collapse?

Frankly I think such a sequence would have been impossible based on the few construction details I know:

a) the floors were only about 12' apart, which doesn't allow for much acceleration;

b) the slabs were made of lightweight (60% weight) concrete;

c) there were beams as well as web trusses in the floor assemblies;

d) any floor that failed would have failed on one side first, meaning only a fraction of its weight would have loaded the floor below; and

e) I find it difficult to believe that such loading wouldn't have been well within the design live load limits of the floor assemblies.

Anyway this is all pretty speculative since we don't have access to the construction drawings and specifications.

p.s. here's the construction photo I mentioned:

[Gregorian]

182. Yes. I thought of all of that after I posted.

It really does not make my theory plausable. I can imagine that if just the outsides of the floors gave way, then the inner columns might not be able to withstand the stress, and fail. However, it's the timing that just doesn't make sense. I cannot see how failure of one portion of an entire floor giving way, could allow the structure to fall in a vertical way. But still, even if the building were to fall to one side just a fraction, then the inner columns might yield in a way that still allowed for the collapse that we saw. I like to keep my mind open to what I don't know.

As a last resort, I want to believe that there were charges set.

And I cannot for the life of me come up with another possible scenario. Although, I think there may be one. I've watched a lot of failure in my life. It can be very weird and unbelievable, what happens.

Wow. I'm drawing blanks. I don't like this feeling.


Two towers failing in the same mode, and at the same time lend credence to both scenarios. If one tower failed due to just the cause of the airplane, then the other tower would also probably be affected the same way. And also for explosive charges, if that were the case.

I think I'm saying that because both towers failed the same way, it doesn't rule out one kind of failure over the other.

Back to the drawing board for me. Oh, and thank you for that picture. I knew the construction, but not from that perspective.

[John Q. Citizen]

111. Gregorian, thanks for adding your 2 cents.

While I came to the building failures arguments rather late, I suspected the bush administration was covering something up from the get go.

9/11 just seemed too convenient for the bush crime family, and having followed thier patterns of unbelievable coincidences for so many years I naturally assumed they had a hand in this. Lihop/Mihop it's all the same unless this ever gets to a court of law, at which time a prosecutor would need a more concrete assertian.

One of the things that has always amazed me about the bush family is the story of the assasination attempt on Ronald Reagan. John Hinckley Jr., the guy who attempted to assasinate Ronald Reagan supposedly because he had a crush on Jodie Foster, is the son/brother of close friends and busness partners of GHW Bush the elder as well as Neil Bush, the third Bush son.

Osama is the son/brother of close friends and busness partners of the Bush family also.

What are the chances that 2 different sons of two different familys who are close to the Bush's commit spectacularly evil major, high profile crimes against the US?

John Hinckley Jr got off light because of "insanity" even though he attemped to kill our President, and then george w bush let's Osama slip through his fingers and doesn't really much care.

Is that bizarre or what?

Neil Bush was scheduled to have dinner with John Hinckley Jr's brother Scott, the day after the assasination attempt, but they cancelled because they didn't think it was appropriate seeing as John Hinckley had just committed his crime the day before, and since GHW Bush was vice President at the time.

Now I know that coincidences do happen but doesn't that seem a wee bit fishy to you? 2 sons? 2 crimes. Both very connected to the Bush family.

You can read about the Bush-Hinkley connection here at the web site of the former dean of the University of Montrana's Jounalism School. This guy is very interesting, he faught in the Battle of the Bulge, and he is a great writer

His site is the Treasure State Review http://www.nathanielblumberg.com/

[petgoat]

144. I accepted Tom Eagar's zipper theory as soon as I heard

about it in the book "Why Buildings Fall Down" in early 2002.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/039331152X.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/039331152X/102-1918447-1516948?v=glance&n=283155

It's certainly plausible. Until you learn that kerosene fires don't get hot enough to
weaken steel. Until you learn that while Eagar claimed the truss "clips" were zipper-like
flimsy, NIST claims they were so freaking strong that the sagging floors pulled the perimeter
columns inward and buckled them. Until you recognize the absurdity of the proposition that the
perimeter truss clips were flimsy and the core column clips were so strong that the pancaking
floors pulled down the core.

Until you recognize the criminality of recycling the steel that could have shown what really
happened. NONE of NIST's core steel samples show heating above 250 degrees C.

[rman]

157. Explosions can be heard well before the collapse;

those explosions could not be caused by collapsing floors.

Also the audio signature is clearly 'explosive'; a very strong spike followed by brief decay - it's more then just the sound of something big and heavy dropping down.

You can see and hear for yourself:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/
http://valis.gnn.tv/blogs/11088/Video_Clip_Hear_the_WTC_bombs?r=5

[Gregorian]

183. Oh.

I have to say that I've not spent the time it takes to analyze the tapes. And the one thing I wanted to check was just what you mentioned. Oh dear. I was afraid of that.

My theory is weakening quickly.

But my point stands, that very weird and unexpected things happen in failures.

I think there is a clue in the fact that there were two buildings. Two failures.

But at this point, I am sadly falling back on the concept that explosives were planted. I find it hard to believe. But not impossible. And in fact, more probable with every passing crime this administration commits.

[rman]

187. "unexpected things happen in failure"

Which is why it's weird that both towers failed in virtually identical, methodical ways, in spite of not having identical damage.

[DemInDistress]

191. These black "squibbs,puffs" what are they?

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm

Something is wrong here. the collapse of wt7 is highly suspicious. Can you tell us what you see?

[LARED]

192. It's called venting

As the building collapses air/debris get ejected out of the building.

[DemInDistress]

193. give me a break....venting rotf nice try

You'd make a good faux news reporter. Its evident you believe the 911 whitewash since massive explosions are heard prior to all 3 buildings collapsing. LARED,WHAT IS THAT MATERIAL MADE OF? MY,HOW UNUSUAL IT IT. IT APPEARS TO BE BLACK SMOKE POSSIBLY FROM SHAPED CHARGES. The same kind of squibs I seen in many controlled
demolitions. Do we believe you or OUR LYING EYES

[LARED]

194. re

You'd make a good faux news reporter.

No more than you would make an excellent Faux news viewer, although I would guess even Faux news viewers have more sense than many that believe in controlled demolition.

Its evident you believe the 911 whitewash since massive explosions are heard prior to all 3 buildings collapsing.

I'm sure you've considered than regardless of how the building collapsed it would make louad noises. Some might even call them explosions.

LARED,WHAT IS THAT MATERIAL MADE OF? MY,HOW UNUSUAL IT IT. IT APPEARS TO BE BLACK SMOKE POSSIBLY FROM SHAPED CHARGES.

Black smoke would most likely be from fires, soot, and debris.

The same kind of squibs I seen in many controlled demolitions.

Tell me about your experiance, please.

[DemInDistress]

197. I rely on opinions of experts

One of the people a thorough investigation should question would be demolition expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. Speaking of the way the WTC buildings came down, he said in an interview: “If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.” (Bollyn, 2002; emphasis added.)



Just right – “explosives in the basement” agrees with eyewitness reports of explosions down low in the buildings (point 6 above). Also, this would be the way to effectively sever the support columns, consistent with both the initial drop of the communication tower (WTC Tower 1) and the “kink” in the middle of WTC 7 as its collapse began. Yes, and as president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., Mr. Loizeaux would know the “handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt” a symmetrical controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000) His company is certainly one of these and was hired to do the rapid clean-up work following the building collapses.



If you still haven’t looked at the rapid symmetrical collapse of WTC7 for yourself, why not do so now? Watch for the initial “kink” or drop in the middle, and for the “squibs” blowing in sequence up the side of the building, and notice the symmetrical, straight-down collapse -- all so common in controlled demolitions. See for yourself at: http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html. A great deal of further information is presented from a serious scientific point-of-view at this site (http://911research.wtc7.net/).

read the rest and then tell me it was fire. What caused the pools of molten steel in the basement? Fire? (rotf).
edit to add site.. http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

[LARED]

198. Relying on experts is good practice

What do you think of these experts

http://wtc.nist.gov/

[DemInDistress]

205. without even reading the spin from NIST

I can tell you they tried in vain to cover up the MURDERS of 3,000 innocent people by the BUSH CRIME FAMILY,
which btw, includes Larry Silverstein. I noticed your the DU naysayer,you debunk ever claim made by truth seekers. Bet you feel good 3,000 people died. Did you listen to EYEWITNESS TO 911? Bet not..
Shame on you and your gop friends because I can't stomache spin artists.
Also, check out CONFRONTING THE EVIDENCE @ REOPEN911.ORG AND VISIT 911PROOF.COM One more thing LARED, WHY AREN'T YOU DEMANDING THE BUSH CRIME FAMILY RELEASE ALL THE EVIDENCE? 7,000 PHOTO'S DOCUMENTS AND 300 HOURS OF
VIDEOTAPE..AFRAID YOUR MAN BUSH WILL GO DOWN?

[LARED]

206. Didn't even read it.

It no wonder you are so uninformed?

[DemInDistress]

207. and you didnt listen to EYEWITNESS TO 911

SO MR.Knowitall..The fact that tom kean danced around the collpase of WT7 and ALL the explosions heard just prior to all 3 buildings collapsing were not discussed or included in your man's report. Why lared? why no
explanation of wt7 collapse? Massive explosions heard seconds brfore WT1 & 7 collapse? No answers lared?
Like your POS president even you cant answer.. No reply is necessary. I see you like to shit on the dead..

[LARED]

208. Actually I did watch almost all of those videos

I was not impressed.

BTW, your incessant name calling and accusations are clearly outside the forum rules and makes you look rather immature and stupid.

[Grateful for Hope]

209. I don't agree

I hear anger, and I hear frustration. But, I do not think of the poster as "stupid" or "immature". Isn't this also name calling BTW?

[LARED]

210. You don't agree?

So what? Are you DemInDistress' lawyer?

[Name removed]

211. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Grateful for Hope]

214. Many things about the 9/11 'official' story

require a huge tin hat to believe. For starters, that 19 partying, lacking-in-flying-skills "hi-jackers" could single-handedly level three huge buildings and part of the pentagon is surely the biggest fairy tale the US has possibly ever been told.

I don't know why there are some posters on this forum who never post anywhere else but here, and who also try to debunk every alternative theory someone postulates. Short of putting them on ignore, however, (which I don't want to do because it is interesting to watch their frantic efforts), I think it is important to observe their debunking efforts from a purely educational perspective. I am learning a lot about "technique" here, LOL!

[petgoat]

73. Hold Your Horses there, Dem.

Explosives do NOT necessarily mean MIHOP. This illogical link is what prevents
most people from thinking about the explosives issue rationally.

Explosives could have been planted in the elevator shafts by al Qaeda operatives
connected with WTC tenants. Car bombs could have been parked in the basement.
In this case the fault would simply be sloppy security. Which would embarrass
Marvin Bush's security company.

[DemInDistress]

135. petgoat...the cameraman who videotaped this

documentary is a professional,he had no ax to grind and his camera picked up massive blasts that
I finally heard. Goat,they need explaining especially the blast from the basement where a 12 ton press
was blown 1 floor up. Flight 175 crashes at 9:03am..these explosions are heard 9:56:57am thru 9:58:?
9 major explosions after 55 minutes of burning..even tom kean avoided the issue..
Please,listen to it..then get back to me.

[petgoat]

136. You don't understand.

I'll stipulate for the sake of discussion that explosives were used
to bring the towers down.

But I dispute the notion that the use of explosives proves BFEE complicity.
It could have been incompetence on the part of the security company.

Most people are unwilling to consider the possibility of explosives because
they assume it would require BFEE complicity.

I maintain that the explosives question (howdunnit) must be considered on its
own merits, quite separate from whodunnit.

Linking explosives to the BFEE is a logical leap that is not justified based on
the data we have, and prevents a dispassionate review of the evidence we have
(since the best evidence, like Kennedy's brain, seems to have disappeared).

[DemInDistress]

139. we do agree.."911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB".... nt

[Boxerfan]

79. You Friggin "experts" crack me up!!

Funny how the same Nay-sayers with the same claims of veracity wave thier tired old cut & paste CRAP!. Any good investigation will de-bunk the official story. Hell,I know more about that collapse than they ever will & all I know is welding & mechanics. The melting points for a jet fuel fire are nowhere near enough to cause metal fatigue & that "pancake" theory. Not even close.
I cut,weld,bend metal every day. One thing about FAILURES that is not debatable-they are RANDOM. Do those collapse look RANDOM to you?? Be honest-It's not even close,picture perfect collapses into thier own footprint in a free-fall.

When I saw the WTC 7 video my stomach dropped. I knew by mere intuition. But I felt I may have been wrong so I did as much research as I could. I am firmly MIHOP.

Here's a cut & paste from a letter I wrote last sept 11-To a relative I no longer talk to because despite everything they still support Buttboy.
-----------------------------------
"Today is also the 4th anniversary of a horrid horrid event. One that should have never happened. No able danger Clinton blame argument. There is ample documentation as to the warnings the outgoing administration gave the new administration. Not to mention ignoring over 100 individual warnings after they took office. Most infamous is the August 6 2001 PDB labeled “Osama determined to strike within US”. It outlined airliner attacks on buildings. Also FBI agents trying to report strange goings on at flight schools in Fla & Az...Only to be stymied by the administration & not investigated. Nope, can’t blame Clinton. It happened on Bush’s watch.

What made me so ultra left politically was my personal investigation into the events of 9/11.
While I initially believed the official story it was apparent this administration had no great urgency in pursuing Osama but were hell bent for leather to go into Iraq, facts be dammed
Well, after the last election-wich I saw as an obvious fraud-I began seeking answers. What I found was not pretty but it is truth.

This has so many implications in how we view the world the only correlation I can make is that it is like taking “The Matrix” pill. Your life will never be the same once you learn & can see anew. See the real motivations & the ability behind 9/11.

Are you aware of a document (previously) labeled The Project for a New American Century? It is signed by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Negropante etc... The whole group in charge basically. They all sponsored & signed on to this “project”. In this document they call for “a NEW PEARL HARBOR”. This is to get the US public to accept such things as a reduction of rights & civil liberties & a plan to dominate the dwindling oil reserves in the middle east. They knew well of the impending problems caused by peak oil & our economic dependency on foreign oil. It’s very interesting & you may enjoy reading it.

Well, you know where I’m going with this & like hell you say. Well I believe I can prove to some extent that they did it. If we Democrats had subpeano power we could prove it in any court in the land. Kinda makes you wonder why packing the courts is so important BTW. It’s not them precious fetus’s, they are covering their ass.

Let’s start with the initial lack of response by our Air Force. It is well documented that V.P. Cheney was in charge of war games that day. They mirrored the attack on the towers eerily enough. That still would not have prevented interceptor jets from scrambling & finding out why commercial airliners were doing U-turns with their transponders turned off. Yet the flights continued for almost an hour. Intercept time is MINUTES. Why were the airliners not intercepted as per standard procedures?

Then we have the “football” incident. The president is the “football” to secret service. Whenever there is a perceived threat, no matter how minor-they are to protect the President & remove him from danger. Why then did the football go unprotected? He was aware of the 1st plane hitting the WTC BEFORE he left for his day school photo op. He even mentioned he had seen footage of the plane hitting the tower & that he thought ”what a bad pilot” he had been for hitting the building!(more on that later).Then comes the infamous scene where the President sits there like a lump for almost 10 minutes while he reads “My Pet Goat”. It was obvious at this point to anyone that this was an attack. Why didn’t they protect the football?. He should have been carted away ASAP. That is (again) standard procedure. Yet he stayed an additional 55 minutes & even talked to the children about the attack.

Regarding the “what a bad pilot” comment the President made later. Well funny thing is, even though the President surely has all the latest electronic gadgets in his vehicles, there was NO available footage of the 1st planes impact till a day later when a citizen provided the footage. Hmmmm.

Now, to the WTC collapses. Too detailed to get into but the official story is provable as bunk. The melting points & temp’s are all off. The core construction denied etc...Like I said, lots of science stuff but nevertheless, provable that the plane impacts did not cause the near perfect collapses. What did?. Let’s look at WTC7. Nearly omitted in the official reports WTC7b was the nerve center for the WTC complex. It contained fortified emergency offices, generators & most important-The mainframe data banks. This building never suffered an airliner impact, was of fortified contruction,22 stories with a heavily fortified design. There were minor debris damage & fires yet the building was never perceived to be in any great danger. In fact Mayor Guiliani used the fortified offices as a command center for the 1st hours after the strikes. Yet this building also collapsed, 1st steel frame building in history to collapse. And it collapsed in a free fall ,into it’s own footprint. That is impossible except in a demolition. Well the owner of that building is actually on film saying he called for the building to be “pulled”. Pulled in this sense can really be used in only one way-as a demolition term. That’s the term used for a building to be destroyed by explosion.

How could they rig the buildings beforehand??? Well Jeb Bush was put in charge of security a few months prior to 9/11. The buildings were evacuated & the central cores shut down for the 1st time ever 2 weeks before the attacks. This was supposedly for maintenance. Thereafter the bomb sniffing dogs that normally patrolled the buildings were not allowed in. This is document able
fact ,not here say.

The Pentagon strike also begs some question. Why no debris field?. After all a airliner should leave some debris right? Check & see-There is virtually no debris & the area around the strike is largely unaffected-even consumable items such as wooden spools & a book left open on a desk-all undamaged. Also the “entry hole” for the airliner is 14 foot in diameter-an airliners gonna squeeze through that & punch consecutive neat holes in concrete for 4 layers. Yeeeeahhh-riiiiight.

Most telling to me is the actions taken since 9/11. They have tried to avoid any real investigation the entire time. The have never seriously attempted to capture those they claim ti be involved. Yet they work at a feverish pace to establish permanent bases in Iraq.

If this whole P N A C thing really was for the greater good of USA & screw everyone else, why is gasoline so expensive. Why are they allowing record profits at a time of war? Why are they writing checks we can’t cash for everything? W Where is the accountability?. Sad fact is they don’t care. About you, me or anyone who doesn’t contribute the kind of cash necessary to oil their machine, The only ones who can afford to play are corporations. And surely their only concern is the bottom line. The almighty dollar. Not USA, not it’s citizens or it’s infrastructure. Not it’s natural resources. They are all fair game for them in a sick race to the lowest bottom line for maximized profits. People be damned."

----------------

As of late I have new reports of the black boxes that were found at ground zero being examined but the report not disclosed . This compliments earlier eye witness accounts of the boxes being recovered-The official line is they were NOT recovered.
Then there were several hijackers partying on Abramhoffs casino barge just before the attacks,nice coincidence?
There's also VERIFICATION that the Bin-laden family was flown out of the USA as reported in Michael Moores film...

Way too many coincidences I'd say...The law of averages says MIHOP!!!

[The Doctor.]

84. There is no question about it...

The more someone is willing to look the truth square in the eye - the crazier everyone thinks they are.
Just a reminder for those reading this thread;




This is how the powerful get away with anything they want... the bigger, the more outrageous, the more devastating in it's implications an action is...

The less likely people will be to believe it.

No one wants to believe there's a 12 foot monster in the room... because it's scary and it's not possible, no one will look.

After all... why bother looking if it's not possible.

Anyone who thinks building seven's perfect geometric collapse was a result of 'several fires' in the building are some very scared human beings... and I don't blame them.

It's way easier not to believe the monster's in the room.

[bahrbearian]

87. Excellent post.

[Make7]

92. Lots of stuff in there to respond to, but let's cut to the chase.

Boxerfan wrote:

...Like I said, lots of science stuff but nevertheless, provable that the plane impacts did not cause the near perfect collapses.

I'm sure there are many people that would be very interested in seeing the proof that the plane impacts and subsequent fires did not cause the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2, myself included. What do you have?

-Make7

[dailykoff]

93. To start with,

there's the fact that plane crashes and fires damaged only three or four floor in WTC 1 and 2, and yet the entire structures disintegrated. So something other than fires and plane crashes must have damaged the other 106-7 floors in each building.

And that's a perfectly scientific conclusion.

[Make7]

97. And what exactly does that prove? ( n/t )

[dailykoff]

98. That's what we're trying to determine.

Welcome to the 9/11 forum.

[Make7]

105. First, thanks for the welcome.

Although I have been here far longer than you have, so it probably is not necessary.

Now perhaps I need to explain my post that you responded to. (I'll repost it here so as not to confuse you.)

I wrote:

Lots of stuff in there to respond to, but let's cut to the chase.

Boxerfan wrote:

...Like I said, lots of science stuff but nevertheless, provable that the plane impacts did not cause the near perfect collapses.

I'm sure there are many people that would be very interested in seeing the proof that the plane impacts and subsequent fires did not cause the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2, myself included. What do you have?

-Make7

Post#92

I think it really can go without saying that I was requesting a response from Boxerfan, but I probably needed to spell that out for you.

You responded to that post with something that does not prove anything one way or the other, and when I asked you what that proves you reply, "That's what we're trying to determine." If you do not understand the difference between proving something and trying to determine something, I doubt if this discussion will be a very productive one.

My initial question was a request for Boxerfan to show the proof claimed in the post to which I replied. I don't know why you felt compelled to reply with nothing that could be remotely considered proof of anything.

-Make7

[Boxerfan]

121. Boxerfan here!

Point one. This is a copy of a personal letter & it contains my opinion-Like it or not it's mine & I'm sharing.
Point 2. I believe the statement is correct. I doubt however I could do so to your level of satisfaction if what I have not said has permeated your cranial blockade yet.

Truth may be a hard concept for you to grasp if you want me to provide PROOF & become petulant when someone kindly points you to truth...Truth is all around in this case & seen as a whole the conclusion is unavoidable.What I & others here want to see is an actual investigation & there will be your PROOF.

Happy Newy Year Y'all!.... I'm hoping for a late FITZMAS!! Witha a basted Rove Butterball in the oven...Maybe a Cheney suprise casserole!! Yuummmy!
I could care less how we get rid of these murdering bastards-Just that we get rid of them.NOW! before they glass over Iran ferheavensake!

[Make7]

153. Gee whiz!

This was my reply to your post:

I wrote:

Lots of stuff in there to respond to, but let's cut to the chase.

Boxerfan wrote:

...Like I said, lots of science stuff but nevertheless, provable that the plane impacts did not cause the near perfect collapses.

I'm sure there are many people that would be very interested in seeing the proof that the plane impacts and subsequent fires did not cause the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2, myself included. What do you have?

-Make7

And here is more of the passage that I took that quote from:

Boxerfan wrote:

Now, to the WTC collapses. Too detailed to get into but the official story is provable as bunk. The melting points & temp’s are all off. The core construction denied etc...Like I said, lots of science stuff but nevertheless, provable that the plane impacts did not cause the near perfect collapses. What did?

Then you proceed by discussing WTC7.

Apparently I was under the mistaken impression that you had more information. Things like "too detailed to get into.." and "lots of science stuff" led me to believe you might have something else to offer that would show that the plane impacts and fires did not cause the collapse of WTC1 or WTC2. Perhaps I was mistaken. I will try to remember to refrain from asking you any questions in the future.

One final point before I'm off to bed: Do you imagine that you have said anything new in your post? I was hoping you might have had something new in the way of "science stuff". Oh, well.

Good night.

-Make7

[dailykoff]

155. You got what you asked for. Now you want "more information."

You asked for proof that the planes and fires "did not cause the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2," and I personally gave it to you in the next post, which you did not dispute.

If you really want "more information," I'd suggest looking for it on Mr. Hoffman's site (http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html) or in Dr. Jones' analysis.

[Make7]

196. Hardly. More information is what I originally asked for.

You think this is proof:

dailykoff wrote:

To start with, there's the fact that plane crashes and fires damaged only three or four floor in WTC 1 and 2, and yet the entire structures disintegrated. So something other than fires and plane crashes must have damaged the other 106-7 floors in each building.

Post#93

I believe that one of the current theories is that the local structural failure caused by the plane impacts and fires led to a progressive collapse of the rest of the structure. This would suggest that the "something other" that you refer to would be the portion of the building above and including the damaged areas.

At the risk of continuously needing to repeat myself to you, here is my reply to your previously quoted post:

I wrote:

And what exactly does that prove?

Post#97

I took your "That's what we're trying to determine" answer to mean that you don't really know what that might prove, if anything. I fail to see how your opinion on this matter proves anything at all.

I originally posted to see what information concerning the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 that Boxerfan alluded to in his post. Since I hadn't yet seen any more of the information implied, I was indeed hoping to see some "more information." Although based on his response, it does not appear that there will be any.

Gee, I have not heard of Mr. Hoffman or Professor Jones, thanks for the wonderfully suggestion.

:eyes: Make7

[Boxerfan]

158. Ok, here's some basic science...

Jet Fuel burns at aprox 700-1200 degrees F.What fuel was on the plane dispersed & burned in a fairly rapid manner.

The lowest carbon steel I can think of displays fatigue or plasticity only after prolonged exposure to heat above 1700 F.

So from a layman welders "science" I can tell you that is my "proof"
I believe the scenario - viewed as a whole - is the best proof.

BTW, I did mean Marvin Bush... I wrote this by memory so....I goofed there but like I said,this is just a synopsis I did for a relative.

[LARED]

159. A basic rebuttal

Jet Fuel burns at approx 700-1200 degrees F.What fuel was on the plane dispersed & burned in a fairly rapid manner.

Fuel burning is an issue of course, but what is more important is that the fuel ignited the other combustible materials in the building. Ask yourself why office buildings are fireproofed. The answer is that office fire can get hot enough to compromise steel.

The lowest carbon steel I can think of displays fatigue or plasticity only after prolonged exposure to heat above 1700 F.

Plasticity is important to this discussion, What is even more important is the temperature / strength properties of structural steel. Steel loses much of it strength well below 1700 deg. In fact if memory serves me correctly at 1000 F steel has lost at least 70 percent of it strength.

Regards

[petgoat]

164. "at 1000 F steel has lost at least 70 percent of it strength."

But none of NIST's core steel samples show heating above 250 degrees C--that's 481 F.

Except ASCE's (see FEMA Appendix C) samples showed bizarre erosion from extremely high temps.
But NIST chose to pretend that those samples didn't exist. Why? The sulfidative attack was
called by the NYT a great mystery and written up in the Journal of Metals.

The page on it still appears on the Worcester Polytechnical Institute's website. So why didn't
NIST answer the questions? Did they think "acid rain" was the answer?

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

[LARED]

166. But we know with ABSOLUTE certainly

that the steel inside was well above 451 F. We know with ABSOLUTE certainly that much of the steel saw over 1000 F temperatures. We know this because the NIST has extensive knowledge about the behaviors of fire in office building. As much as you crow about the few samples examined not being above 250C you ignore this.

Why do you ignore this reality?

[dailykoff]

170. That isn't certainty, it's wishful thinking.

Unless there's credible evidence of it, we don't know it.

[LARED]

173. So your spin is that the NIST

with it countless hours devoted to understanding the behavior of fires is worthless; of no value to understanding the temperatures in the WTC fires. Right.

See here http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/866/frd.htm

Spin to your hearts content but it ain't selling.

[petgoat]

184. So NIST has a lot of experience with the total progressive

collapses of steel structures due to fire?


They don't have any pictures of blazing infernos, they don't
have any core steel that shows heating above 250 C, and so
their entire evidence for high temperatures is their experience.

How can you think an analysis that fails to consider the
thermal conductivity of steel can be worthy of respect?

How can you think an analysis that fails to express regret that
the steel was destroyed can be taken seriously?

[LARED]

185. I said "behaviors of fires" not

total progressive collapse due to fire.

No one has experience like that. But that's not the point. My comments were about the behaviors of fires in office buildings.

They don't have any pictures of blazing infernos,

Yes they do.

they don't have any core steel that shows heating above 250 C,

They don't need it, to know what the approx temperatures in the building.

and so their entire evidence for high temperatures is their experience.

Lets be more precise. The evidence is based on years of empirically determined experience.

How can you think an analysis that fails to consider the thermal conductivity of steel can be worthy of respect?

Who says they didn't?

How can you think an analysis that fails to express regret that the steel was destroyed can be taken seriously?

Expressing regret is not needed nor expected for the NIST to do their analysis. Are you saying you would take the NIST report seriously if the expressed regret? Sound like faith based scientific inquiry to me.

[stickdog]

195. What DID the PHYSICAL evidence say, LARED?

Got any PHYSICAL evidence to back up your speculative pseudo-scientific claims, LARED?

Didn't think so :eyes:

Here's NIST's foremost "forensic report": http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-3index.htm

The "forensic" highlights:

1) No WTC-7 steel was recovered or analyzed.

2) No unprocessed, intact floor trusses were recovered or analyzed.

3) No testing for explosives (or sulfidation or other residue of any kind) was performed.

4) Only 12 total core columns were more than cursorily examined from WTC-1, WTC-2 & WTC-7 combined.

5) Of the recovered core pieces, none showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C.

6) Of 170 examined areas on the perimeter column panels, only three showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C and for one of these three forensic evidence indicated that the high temperature exposure occurred AFTER the collapse.

7) No recovered steel showed any evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for any significant time.

More:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x45315

[petgoat]

174. "ABSOLUTE Certainty" is the stuff of religion, not science

We know with ABSOLUTE certainly that much of the steel saw over 1000 F temperatures.

We can be so certain of this that there was no need to take samples to prove it--even though
every single piece of steel was stamped with an ID number so the impact zone pieces could have
been recovered. In fact in that way, the fact that we destroyed the steel proved our point!
Why would we destroy the steel unless we thought it was okay? I mean, Rudi was a former federal
prosecutor, and he knows about stuff like evidence and preserving a crime scene and stuff.

:sarcasm:

[LARED]

176. Wrong again

ABSOLUTE Certainty" is the stuff of religion, not science

Is just plain incorrect. Science had many elements that we know with absolute certainty. You could not have modern science without known constants that are absolute.

[petgoat]

178. Ever heard of Heisenberg? nm

[LARED]

179. Sure

What does Quantum physics have to do with your practice of faith based science?

A.K.A. 9/11 scientific inquiry.

[petgoat]

180. It's not my faith based science; YOU'RE the master of

"ABSOLUTE certainty".

[MrSammo1]

213. In fact if memory serves me correctly at 1000 F steel has lost at least 7

Problem is.........the steel never got that hot.

http://www.vancouver.indymedia.org/print.php?id=34507

And as the firemen who made it to the impact points reported.......there was only a few pockets of small fires at the time of the collapses.

[John Q. Citizen]

101. Yep. Even if specific parts of the sum of events on 9/11

are explainable using some rather creative acrobatics, when taken in it's totality, the official story is a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. In totality the "Official COnspiracy Theory" is a fabrication and completely implausible.


Like any crime, this comes down to:

Motive
Means
Opportunity

[eridani]

122. You mean MARVIN Bush, not Jeb, correct? n/t

[eridani]

123. Need links for the following two assertions (google not much help)

Well Jeb Bush was put in charge of security a few months prior to 9/11.

I think you mean Marvin.

1. The buildings were evacuated & the central cores shut down for the 1st time ever 2 weeks before the attacks. This was supposedly for maintenance.

URL?

2. Thereafter the bomb sniffing dogs that normally patrolled the buildings were not allowed in. This is document able fact ,not hearsay.

URL?

[DemInDistress]

133. bomb sniffing dogs..

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-nyaler122362178sep12,0,1255660.story

no luck ye with the 200 million dollars in renovations to be made after larry silverstein closed the lease in July 2001..silverstein also triples the insurance. Did
you know the WTC had about 6 billion dollars in pending asbestos litigation. Who's lease
a complex with lawsuits,make renovations triple the insurance and surprise surprise the
whole place is wiped out on one tragic day...go figure..

[eridani]

140. That would make it Thursday the 5th that the bomb sniffing dogs--

--were removed.

Now, what about that evacuation for two weeks prior to renovation? Anyone else have anything on that?

[petgoat]

145. "evacuation for two weeks prior to renovation?"

I think Dem is referring to reports by Scott Forbes, an employee of Fiduciary Trust,
that there were power shutdowns and a lot of "engineers" "running computer cable."

I believe Forbes actually posted these reports on DU.

Here's one article about him:

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html

[petgoat]

147. Dupe deleted nm

[DemInDistress]

127. boxerfan..thank you !!

your post adds new dimension. far to many coincidences to satisfy this camper from NYC. For 4 years
I heard people/firemen reported hugh explosions inside the WTC. Finally,last night I was able to hear the loud blasts myself. Shocked excited and puzzled. Why no follow with this man's audio and video?
Why no MSM? If flight 175 crashed at 9:03am why massive explosions at 9:56:57am thru 9:58:? 9 blasts
then 3 minutes later WT2 tilts toward the south and collapses in a free fall? So many unanswered
questions that need answers.
Thanks again for the feedback..

:hi: :hi: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Emit]

104. Shame on a lot of folks!

On a side note, just recently near where we live, a plane crashed at the Truckee, CA airport. On the news, the investigator of the crash gave a brief and cursory explanation of what likely went wrong from what the area showed---the length of the burn marks, etc. Then, he added that the remains of the crash would be sent to a special facility in Oregon and that the official results would not be known for probably a year. A year! Now, this was a small aircraft, killing probably 5 people or less--not a major national incidence. But the fact that they would treat this investigation with such tedious oversight stands in such stark contrast to the aftermath of 9/11.

In essence, the fact that there was no tedious investigation of the crashes --- the fact that within days of 9/11 ---- we were just told what to believe without such forensics, has always left me suspicious without even reading any of the MIHOP/LIHOP/9/11 stuff. It seems we were told "It was Al Qaeda, now move on..." without any forensics to support this. If there were forensic testing done, they sure got the investigation done quickly. But I recall hearing that the metal beams were sold to China as scrap without an investigation, for example.

By the way, for those more knowledgable than I about this, did bin Laden or Al Qaeda really ever confess to 9/11?

[DemInDistress]

124. emit..about that steel

our fearless leader former Mayor Rudy Giuliani a US Attorney himself must have been ordered/persuaded to ship out that steel ASAP. Yes much went to China and some in the US. but why remove crime scene evidence? especially when the storage space is available with easy access for investigators to study. The land fill was
closed so no problem there. Still its another reason not to accept the 911 official story and I hope you listened to the bombs going off just 3 minutes before the collapse,,here's my guess
1.2 massive blast heard in the basement..core column blasted away 9:56;57 followed by white smoke in the base
of WT2.
2 4 more blasts heard from the upper floors..9:57;07/17/21/27/
3 3 more blasts heard 9;58:07
three minutes later WT 2 tips south and begins to free fall..some freeper claimed the jet fuel caused the blasts..rotf !! 50 minutes later..no

[MrSammo1]

217. did bin Laden or Al Qaeda really ever confess to 9/11?

http://www.robert-fisk.com/usama_interview_ummat.htm

===============================================================
"Apparently, 'conspiracy stuff' is now shorthand for unspeakable truth." - Gore Vidal, from "The Enemy Within", 27 Oct 2002
===============================================================

[barb162]

220. yes, I watched a video replayed and replayed on TV a

dozen times where he sits on the floor with some others and bin Laden talked to another man about it, telling one of his aides to be patient after the first plane hit

[rman]

150. Explosions corroberated by recordings of emergency personel

radio communications, and eyewitnesses - the latter in MSM broadcasts that very day.

audio files of dispatch transmissions recorded on Sept. 11, 2001:
http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2005/11/30/nyregion/nyregionspecial3/index.html
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_05.html

[philb]

204. explosions were also witnessed by NYC firemen and policemen

http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html
http://www.flcv.com/nypolice.html

[DemInDistress]

216. since I can't edit I want to say, "the site is down"

but at least I got an earfull. Massive blasts heard prior to all 3 building collapses. Enough for me.
Yesterday,I got to view white hot dripping molten metal. Dripping from the 80th floor of WT2,some freepers
tell me its not steel. I said,"it must have been Bill Cilnton's sperms then (lol)" see it here,..
911.wtc.2.demolition.north.01.wmv

[Make7]

218. It's available here:

   http://www.question911.com/links.php

Scroll down to 911 Eyewitness (three parts)

(I hope that's the one we've been talking about.)

Your movie link seems to have been cut off. Did you mean to link to this?

   http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem2/911.wtc.2.demolition.north.01.wmv

If that is the one you're talking about, I have to say that it doesn't really have the resolution to be able to determine what it is that's coming out of the building. I've seen many times before that the fires were not hot enough to melt the steel, which I believe to be correct, but if this were molten steel then I guess there would no longer be any question that the plane impacts and fires alone could have caused the collapses. The structural strength of steel would have to be extremely low when it is in a liquid state.

-Make7

[DemInDistress]

219. Make7...you an I are on the same page..

You pointed me toward this Danish site. Yes,my feeling is its molten steel. It has the consistency of dripping metal. What could cause steel to turn WHITE HOT? Thermite.. Look it can't be a milk shake,or some sort of gelatin. The white that I see is steel. Give me 1 plausible replacement.
Eyewitness to 911 was the other site where the audio of massive blasts are caught on tape. The site was up for
a week and now its down. I was so disappointed.
I like you Make7, you have an open mind unlike that debunker LLARED.

[Old and In the Way]

221. It strikes me as funny-

If this administration had decided to make a case that AQ blew up the WTC's....Lared, et al, would have to argue against it. Would they then be preceived as the nutty conspiracy theorists?

I really have no idea who is right in this debate. But I do know this. This administration has demonstarted a willingness to lie to the American people which has cost thousands of lives and 100's of billions of dollars. They use fake journalists and fake news to futher their agenda. We do know they needed a "Pearl Harbor' type event to get their Pax Americana underway....and they got one. We know about Mockingbird and the government's willingness to use US citizens as props for their military ambitions. We know that the $400BB/year Pentagon got hit 45 minutes after the attacks started....and still couldn't protect Washington. We know Bush is turning this country into a police state and there's been a War on Truth for a decade. We do know they underfunded and slow walked the entire 9/11 Investigation...and got to pick the people they wanted to manage it.

So, really, why should I suddenly believe this government is telling me the truth about 9/11? Science can be used for or against the building collapse theory. They seem to have a vested interest in having the "Official Conspiracy Theory" beleived...afterall, it would be a capital crime if they had any foreknowledge or participation in letting/making it happen.

The thing about all 3 events of 9/11 that I find striking is that we must disbelieve our eyes. 93 crashed...no evidence of a plane. Pentagon crash....no evidence of a plane. WTC collapse...no evidence that the plane crashes would take down the buildings.

I have to take George W. Bush's word that things happened on 9/11, just as he says.