Engineers Request Permission to Speak Freely Regarding World Trade Building 7

Preface: This essay does not question whether Bin Laden and Al Qaeda attacked us on September 11, 2001, or whether Iran, Saudi Arabia or another nation-state had a hand in the attacks. It focuses solely on a peripheral issue regarding the third building which fell on that terrible day.

Former commander-in-chief President Bush said:

Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories.

Indeed, the 9/11 Commission was warned not to probe too deeply. For example, ACLU, FireDogLake's Marcy Wheeler and RawStory reported (quoting RawStory):

Senior
Bush administration officials sternly cautioned the 9/11 Commission
against probing too deeply into the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001, according to a document recently obtained by the ACLU.

The current commander-in-chief, Barack Obama, has also warned against questioning 9/11:

As anyone in the military knows, you can't give your opinion unless you get first "permission to speak freely".

We're not in the military. However, I am not entirely sure that matters, given that speaking out against government policies may be considered a type of terrorism in America today.

Many hundreds
of high-level military officers, intelligence officers, congressmen,
legal scholars and experts have broken the commander-in-chief's orders
not to question the government's official narrative regarding 9/11. And
see this and this.

But neither Bush nor Obama has instructed us not to discuss World Trade Center Building 7. Indeed, they have never once mentioned the
fact that a third building collapsed on 9/11 (and the 9/11 Commission
never mentioned it either), even though that building was not hit by a
plane.

And no one was killed when Building 7 collapsed. As such,
discussions of why Building 7 fell does not question Al Qaeda's
responsibility for the 3,000 deaths of innocent Americans which occurred
on 9/11. It doesn't even touch on U.S. military affairs since 9/11,
since no wars or anti-terror campaigns were launched to avenge anything
which happened in connection with Building 7.

For these reasons, I
will take the commander-in-chiefs' silence on this subject as
permission to speak freely. And the family members who lost loved ones
on 9/11 want this topic discussed.

Moreover,
if Building 7 collapsed for reasons other than the official
explanation, that does not necessarily show nefarious intent. For
example, Paul K. Trousdale - a structural engineer with decades of
experience - says

:

I had always thought the 3rd building was destroyed to prevent unpredictable collapse.

Here It Is

Have you ever seen Building 7 collapse? Here's footage from several different angles:

Top Experts Say Official Explanation Makes No Sense

Numerous structural engineers - the people who know the most about
office building vulnerabilities and accidents - say that the official
explanation of why building 7 at the World Trade Center collapsed on
9/11 is "impossible", "defies common logic" and "violates the law of
physics":

• Two professors of structural engineering at a
  prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo
  Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)

• Alfred Lee Lopez, with 48 years of experience in all types of buildings:

I
agree the fire did not cause the collapse of the three buildings. The
most realistic cause of the collapse is that the buildings were
imploded

• John D. Pryor, with more than 30 years experience:

The
collapse of WTC7 looks like it may have been the result of a
controlled demolition. This should have been looked into as part of the
original investigation.

• Robert F. Marceau, with over 30 years of structural engineering experience:
  

  From
  videos of the collapse of building 7, the penthouse drops first prior
  to the collapse, and it can be noted that windows, in a vertical
  line, near the location of first interior column line are blown out,
  and reveal smoke from those explosions. This occurs in a vertical line
  in symmetrical fashion an equal distance in toward the center of the
  building from each end. When compared to controlled demolitions, one
  can see the similarities

• Kamal
  S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering
  from UC Berkeley and 30 years of engineering experience, says:

Photos
of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the
unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as
well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well
planned and controlled demolition

• Steven L. Faseler, structural engineer with over 20 years of experience in the design and construction industry:
  

  World Trade Center 7 appears to be a controlled demolition. Buildings do not suddenly fall straight down by accident

• Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, writes:

Why
would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10
seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would
all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven
seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in
any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three
collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of
the dust.

• Graham John Inman points out:

WTC
7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and
external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a
steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on
this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?

• Paul W. Mason notes:

In
my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically
into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by
controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible
explanation!

• David Scott says:

Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced
collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . .

• Nathan Lomba states:

I began having doubts about, so called, official explanations for
the collapse of the WTC towers soon after the explanations surfaced. The
gnawing question that lingers in my mind is: How did the structures
collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating
causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from
an elementary structural engineering perspective. “If” you accept the
argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent
that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were
exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and “if” you accept the
argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural
framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature
of the failures.

Neither of the official precipitating sources
for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the
floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they
finally came to rest within the respective buildings. This means that,
given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural
framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the
burning aircraft. Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel
members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the
individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have
dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the
flames—just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same
rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have
resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining
intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and
stiffness.

Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to
compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its
tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, “if” the
structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken,
the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the
burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist
toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at
which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless,
the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper
floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a
concentric, vertical collapse.

For this reason alone, I rejected
the official explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers out of
hand. Subsequent evidence supporting controlled, explosive demolition
of the two buildings are more in keeping with the observed collapse
modalities and only serve to validate my initial misgivings as to the
causes for the structural failures.

• Edward E. Knesl writes:

We
design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist
the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall
structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is
impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of
the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below.

We
do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate
internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the
top.

The engineering science and the law of physics simply
doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled
demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening
effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the
partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that
more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse.
Where would such energy would be coming from?

• Michael T. Donly, P.E.:
  

• Antonio Artha,with 15+ years of experience in building design

Fire
and impact were insignificant in all three buildings. Impossible for
the three to collapse at free-fall speed. Laws of physics were not
suspended on 9/11, unless proven otherwise.

• Steven Francis Dusterwald:

The symmetrical "collapse" due to asymmetrical damage is at odds with the principles of structural mechanics

• John S. Lovrovich:

It
is virtually impossible for WTC building 7 to collapse as it did with
the influence of sporadic fires. This collapse HAD to be planned

• Travis McCoy, M.S. in structural engineering

• James Milton Bruner,
  Major, U.S. Air Force, instructor and assistant professor in the
  Deptartment of Engineering Mechanics & Materials, USAF Academy, and
  a technical writer and editor, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

• Christopher Michael Bradbury:

It
is very suspicious that fire brought down Building 7 yet the Madrid
hotel fire was still standing after 24 hours of fire. This is very
suspicious to me because I design buildings for a living

• David Anthony Dorau,
  practicing structural engineer with 18 years' experience in the
  inspection and design of buildings under 5 stories tall, who worked as a
  policy analyst for the Office of Technology Assessment, an arm of the
  U.S. Congress providing independent research and reports on
  technological matters

• Russell T. Connors, designed many buildings and other types of structures

• Lester Jay Germanio, 20+ years experience

• Daniel Metz, 26+ years experience

• Jonathan Smolens, 11 years experience, with a specialty in forensic engineering

• William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College

• Marshall Casey Pfeiffer

• Paul A. Thomas

• Steven Merritt

• Kers Clausen

• Dennis Kollar, American structural engineer

• Doyle Winterton, American structural engineer (retired)

The above is just a sample. Many other structural engineers have questioned the collapse of Building 7, as have numerous experts in other disciplines, including:

• The
  former head of the Fire Science Division of the
  government agency which claims that the World Trade
  Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of
  Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s
  leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in
  mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called
  for an independent review of the World Trade Center
  collapse investigation. "I wish that there would be a
  peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST
  investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has
  assembled should be archived. I would really like to see
  someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally
  and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.

• A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded

• Harry
  G. Robinson, III - Professor and Dean Emeritus, School of
  Architecture and Design, Howard University. Past President of two
  major national architectural organizations - National Architectural
  Accrediting Board, 1996, and National Council of Architectural
  Registration Boards, 1992. In 2003 he was awarded the highest honor
  bestowed by the Washington Chapter of the American Institute of
  Architects, the Centennial Medal. In 2004 he was awarded the
  District of Columbia Council of Engineering and Architecture Societies
  Architect of the Year award. Principal, TRG Consulting Global /
  Architecture, Urban Design, Planning, Project Strategies.
  Veteran U.S. Army, awarded the Bronze Star for bravery and the Purple
  Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam - says:

The
collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated.
The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to
implode as they did.

• A prominent
  physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in
  Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory
  for why Building 7 collapsed "does not match the available facts" and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition

Again,
this essay is not questioning whether or not Al Qaeda carried out the
9/11 attacks, or even the collapse of the Twin Towers.

It is simply questioning why a third building which was never hit by a plane collapsed on 9/11.

Comments

[High Plains Drifter]

flight 93 was shot down by a national guard pilot who was not in the scam. there were two crash sites in pennsylvania, the fake crash site and the real crash site. it is my understanding that both sites are under constant guard till this day. i am not sure what happened on flight 93. perhaps it was intended on being used to attack camp david. i think that a plane was supposed to hit wtc7 too, i would think. what hit the pentagon? probably a cruise missle of some sort........it is interesting how no one will talk at the pentagon to this day, afraid of repercussions i suppose. i can't imagine having to live with that.

http://www.rense.com/general67/radfdf.htm

one thing is for certain. we have all seen those people walking around inside of the pentagon with hazmat suits on. there was a reason for this.

[Guy Fawkes Mulder]

+1

[Bringin It]

HPD - Re. probably in new york, whenever you build a tall building, you have to make build in the necessary means to demolish the building whenver it outlives its usefulness.

Pre-wired, I can agree.  The RichardP claim is that they are pre-wired and pre-armed.  In constant stand-by as it were for the order to pull-it.  Like all the Wall Street high-so's are walking around, living, working and breathing in a giant minefield that's set to go whenever Larry yells "Pull-it".  I can't believe Blankfien and the boys would put up with that.

[RichardP]

I have no secret knowledge.  I have just always wondered how they would be able to insure such tall buildings.  Imagine the claims against the insurance companies if one or both buildings somehow fell and damaged many buildings surrounding them.  It makes sense to me that they could lower the risk of this happening, and increase the likelihood of finding someone to insure the buildings, if they pre-armed the buildings for demolition.  It makes sense to me, from an insurance standpoint, that they would do this for all tall buildings.

I have no reason to think I am right other than it seems logical.  But my view leaves us with the issue Bringin It raises:  who is going to go into such tall buildings if they know they are wired and armed for demolition?  The concern that folks might find out the buildings were pre-wired might explain the desire to not delve to deeply into things regarding the collapse of all three buildings.

When I saw all three buildings collapse, I immediately assumed they had been brought downw intentionally - based on what I saw as they fell.  I immediately thought of the insurance angle as the reason why my assumption might be correct.  It was years before I learned of the 9/11 conspiracy theories.  I was baffled that none of the theories I came across got anywhere close to the insurance angle.  I'm still baffled that the conspiracy folks don't/won't talk about the likelyhood that insurance companies won't let folks put up really tall buildings without some way to bring them safely down into their own footprint.  I wouldn't insure a tall building without such a provision in place.  Would you own a building next to a tall building that was uninsurable because, if it fell, it would probably wipe out your buildings?

[Husk-Erzulie]

Please expand on this fantasy dude.  Are the explosives built in or just the wires? etc. If you imagine it in a most detailed fashion it might become true (not).

[TBT or not TBT]

In Fight Club we have to make our own dynamite as a biproduct of our liposuction soap manufacturing, infiltrate the security of the buildings, and dynamite them thereafter.

[maximin thrax]

"the problem is if Building 7 is exposed as an dynamited (inside) job it automatically exposes the twin towers attack as also being known as apposed a surprise by those same insiders, otherwise how could the charges have been readied let alone in the right area of a 'surprise' in a matter of minutes"

Exactly. How long does it take to wire a building for controlled demolition, not just "fall anywhere" demolition? Weeks? If one assumes so, then to question whether #7 was "wired" in any way is to accept first thing that somebody knew at least the tower closest to #7 was going to get hit and collapse in such a way that a few supports in #7 would be compromised to provide the necessary cover.

So, you can't get to building #7 collapse unless you first go through the planned demolition of #1 and #2. To do that, you have to explain how any explosive and any wiring and/or controlls required to act in concert in a perfectly-coordinated demolition could survive the impact of commercial jet liners. And, why would anyone risk NOT succeeding in hitting perfectly a pre-planned impact location if your answer is that there was such a pre-planned location for impact. What were the chances of the airplane missing by a few yards and setting of the explosives immediately, blowing the conspiracy sky high?

Then, you have to wonder why, if the buildings #1 and #2 were brought down by demolition, WHY did they NOT plan to make the buildings fall like structural engineers would expect them to fall, instead of falling almost straight down as if to scream "controlled demolition goin' on here!"

[Millivanilli]

Wrong.   It is a question of engineering and physics.   Then you look at other questions.

[trav7777]

if you think WTC1 and 2 were "controlled" demolitions, then you are an idiot

[acrabbe]

this is trav showing his true colors. they are dull.

[The Rock]

GFY and STFU

[DaveyJones]

Amazing how one opinion refutes a pile of evidence and the opinion of experts in numerous areas

[DavidPierre]

trav666 'Re-Fruits' !

Polly Parrot squacking

Party Lies

Meaningless drivel

Slobber shorting out his keyboard

[maximin thrax]

So, you all in on the Global Warming hypothesis?

[DaveyJones]

what is that term in logic where you try to refute with profoundly irrelevant and opposite factors? My point was not that I believe this, it was exactly the opposite - so many other trained experienced experts in so many areas have so many questions   

[LostPosterity]

Global Warming..pfft...

Video from the South Pole in 1946.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x40A0sBL34

[DavidPierre]

trav666:

"if you think WTC1 and 2 AND 7 were NOT "controlled" demolitions, then you are an idiot"

There fixed it for you.

[psychobilly]

 So, you can't get to building #7 collapse unless you first go through the planned demolition of #1 and #2. To do that, you have to explain how any explosive and any wiring and/or controlls required to act in concert in a perfectly-coordinated demolition could survive the impact of commercial jet liners. And, why would anyone risk NOT succeeding in hitting perfectly a pre-planned impact location if your answer is that there was such a pre-planned location for impact. What were the chances of the airplane missing by a few yards and setting of the explosives immediately, blowing the conspiracy sky high?

Then, you have to wonder why, if the buildings #1 and #2 were brought down by demolition, WHY did they NOT plan to make the buildings fall like structural engineers would expect them to fall, instead of falling almost straight down as if to scream "controlled demolition goin' on here!"

How could the Twin Towers, with so many tenants, and so many columns (240 perimeter columns, and 47 core columns) be wired for a controlled demolition without the operation being noticed?

http://911research.wtc7.net/faq/demolition.html#access

How could charges have been pre-positioned in the Towers in such a way that the plane crashes and fires wouldn't have set them off?

http://911research.wtc7.net/faq/demolition.html#positioning

Supposing that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. Doesn't the fact that the Twin Towers came down in such a different fashion prove that they were not destroyed by controlled demolition?

http://911research.wtc7.net/faq/demolition.html#versus

Even if the Twin Towers were destroyed by explosives, is it correct to call them controlled demolitions when they don't look anything like cases previously seen? And what was controlled about the Towers being exploded?

http://911research.wtc7.net/faq/demolition.html#controlled

A Hypothetical Blasting Scenario: A Plausible Theory Explaining the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers Using Aluminothermic Incendiaries and Explosives with Wireless Ignition Means

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html

[Rick64]

So, you can't get to building #7 collapse unless you first go through the planned demolition of #1 and #2. To do that, you have to explain how any explosive and any wiring and/or controlls required to act in concert in a perfectly-coordinated demolition could survive the impact of commercial jet liners.

 If nano thermite was used then there would be limited explosions. These nano thermite charges can be rigged along any beam vertically or horizontally and would cut the beam rather than exploding although there might be small explosions. If these were set at spaced levels for example; in the basement and staggered every ten or twenty stories then the impact of the plane hitting would not dislodge them. IMO

 I find it difficult to explain that the buildings all fell symmetrically into their own footprint. In the towers the weakest point in the structure would be around the hole that the plane made or at least assume that there was a weak point and all sides weren't equally weak , so you would expect the top part of the building to fall at a tilt towards that weakest point, but it appears that the top of the north tower fell symmetrically then started to tilt a little as it came down but not enough to alter the building falling into its own footprint.

[maximin thrax]

First, they fell into their footprints (almost) because of gravity. No... really. Gravity. I'm not kidding. Just because you can't explain it doesn't mean it can't happen.

Second, show me a video of thermite-anything cutting through a sizeable steel section (over an inch thick), such as would be used to hold those buildings up. Thermite is hot, yes, but slow. Nano-thermite is supposed to react faster, fast enough to punch the steel like an explosive, which is supposed to explain explosions and large steel members flying out. I want to see 100lb per foot steel beams pushed horizontally 50 feet by nano-thermite.

[NidStyles]

Have you ever even worked with Thermite? This stuff burn's at around 5000*F. It cut's through concrete guy, and it isn't slow by any mean's.

[maximin thrax]

Thermite combusts at under 500 degrees and is slow in the sense that it's not an explosive reaction like dynamite. It doesn't punch and therefore can't move the objects it cuts through. The claim made for years is that explosions due to nano-thermite ejected large items laterally, and that nano-particles accelerate the burn rate enough to result in an explosion. What do you think?

[Reptil]

Nothing to add to DavyJones answer, except a video:

In there is some thermite too...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNXqkZO3Y1g

[DaveyJones]

nice, haven't seen that one

[DaveyJones]

as if presence of thermite or nano thermite is the only piece of circumstantial evidence that this was a inside preplanned orchestrated event. For just a very small sample, there's NORAD, the amazing coincidence of five different similar flight exercises that day which cause more than one poor tower control officer to ask is this the fake or real event, Cheney and George's bizzare behavior that day, an amazing number of witnesses to explosions, the building owners "we pulled it" slip, the bbc pre-announcement of tower 7 slip (which the bbc immediately pulled! - wonder why?), the immediate seizure and (to this day) non release of security camera footage surrounding the pentagon, the immediate removal of destruction and steel evidence against all laws connected with terrosit attack and investigation, the large number of honored experts in numerous disciplines who have spoken out......

and other thoughts:    

"In terms of energy density, thermite is roughly comparable to TNT, packing slightly less energy per unit of mass but about three times as much energy per unit of volume. In terms of power density, thermitic preparations range across a wide spectrum, whose upper end appears to be comparable to conventional high explosives. [1]  [2] 

Because thermites have historically had much lower power densities than conventional high explosives, they are classified as incendiaries rather than explosives -- a classification that has been exploited to conceal the use of aluminothermics in the World Trade Center attack. Despite the fact that high-tech aluminothermics have existed and been used by the military since the mid-1990s or earlier, methods of identifying explosive residues at crime scenes are frequently limited to analysis of nitro-aromatic explosives. [3] 

Energetic Nanocomposites

The term 'nano-thermite' applied to the unignited thermitic material discovered in World Trade Center dust is potentially misleading because it doesn't capture the complexity and sophistication of this material or its known analogs.

Perhaps a better term is energetic nanocomposites, a class of materials that has been used by the military for some time in applications spanning propellants, armor-piercing munitions, and reactive armor. In their diverse roles, energetic nanocomposites fulfill a range of requirements including: "high density, good mechanical properties, low sensitiveness, good stability, low cost, ease of manufacturing, and environmental acceptability." [4]  To achieve these requirements, scientists developing advanced aluminothermic materials have learned to embed the fine powders in a carbon- and silicon-rich matrix. Kevin Ryan explains:

The mixing [of ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum and UFG metal oxides] is accomplished by adding these reactants to a liquid solution where they form what are called "sols", and then adding a gelling agent that captures these tiny reactive combinations in their intimately mixed state (LLNL 2000). The resulting "sol-gel" is then dried to form a porous reactive material that can be ignited in a number of ways. [5] 

Graphic from a DTIC (Defense Technical Information Center) Review publication on advanced energetic materials.

Energetic materials such as aluminothermic sol-gels have been an active area of research in the US national labs since the mid-1990s or earlier, including under the auspices of NIST itself -- a fact documented by Kevin Ryan in his extensively footnoted article The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites. Also called "metastable intermolecular composites",

"nano-structured energetic materials", or just "nanoenergetics", these materials have been the subject of numerous conferences, research papers, and patents in the past two decades. [6]  [7]  [8]  [9]  [10]  [11]  It's also not difficult to find recent published papers on methods of reliably igniting such materials with minute low-power devices described as MEMS (microelectromechanical systems) and manufactured much like conventional integrated circuits. [12]  [13]  [14]  [15]  [16]  [17]  [18]  It requires little imagination to grasp how such techniques could be exploited to implement a covert, all-wireless controlled demolition.

Aluminothermics at the WTC

The discovery of unexploded super-thermite in the WTC dust augments a large body of evidence pointing to the use of aluminothermic materials in the destruction of the skyscrapers. The present review looks only at the evidence of explosives found in the dust and debris expelled from the Twin Towers.

Even before WTC dust was subjected to the kind of microscopic scrutiny described in Active Thermitic Material Discovered, several features of the dust analysis published by the USGS pointed to the use of aluminothermics. For example, the USGS data shows high levels of barium -- a fact that is difficult to explain, barring pyrotechnics. The high levels of iron and aluminum in the dust -- each ranging from 1.3 to 4.1 percent of the dust samples by weight -- also appears anomalous, although prosaic sources of the metals can be imagined.

Aluminothermic Residues: Iron-Rich Spheroids

Micro-spheroidal particles in WTC dust consisting mostly of iron were documented in at least two scientific reports by 2005: a compilation of data by the USGS and a report for the owners of a skyscraper adjacent to the World Trade Center complex that sustained heavy damage in the attack. [19] 

BY THE WAY: THANK YOU GEORGE FOR PUBLISHING THIS ON SUCH A NOW HONORED FORMAT. YOU ARE A TRUE PATRIOT AS TRUE AS TYLER 

[Rick64]

 First, they fell into their footprints (almost) because of gravity. No... really. Gravity.

  You totally ignore my reasoning that they cannot fall symmetrically unless most supports are equally weakened at or near the same time.

Second, show me a video of thermite-anything cutting through a sizeable steel section (over an inch thick),

 This is some experiments this guy did on his own using thermate because nano thermite materials weren't available. Not 1" steel but its not nano thermite either. This is with much less material than National Geographic as well as some others suggest is needed. Also as he points out you can shear bolts with it. (watch from 5:55)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYW-z7nrTZk&playnext=1&list=PLEE545ABF64C1F538

[maximin thrax]

I understand shearing bolts with it, but why go to all the trouble to place it when you've got a third of the supports sheared and out-of-control fires from the aircraft collision? Why would anyone WANT to control the collapse if in the end such control only invites suspicion of intentional demolition? It makes no sense. That's like arranging to poison somebody with an undetectable poison, then hiering a sniper to put a bullit in your victim's head as he lay on the floor dying!

And I didn't completely ignore your reasoning, there's no purpose in debating it. A building the size of the twin towers will collapse downward, whereas a smaller structure will colapse less symmetricaly because the non-structural mass that intervenes with collapse is a greater percentage of the building in smaller structures. One of the buildings, hit towards one side, started leaning as it fell, but for only a short period of time. Once the structure below failed it went straight down.

Look, if a building is overdesigned by a factor of two, and you have the condition where the top third leans to one side, suddenly that safety factor is well exceeded on that side and it will fall straight down. There's damned little material to stop it when it's that tall, so the top piece will slice through the bottom floors like a knife through butter. It's not at all intuitive. It's not a Godzilla stageset. 

[Rick64]

  I understand shearing bolts with it, but why go to all the trouble to place it when you've got a third of the supports sheared and out-of-control fires from the aircraft collision? Why would anyone WANT to control the collapse if in the end such control only invites suspicion of intentional demolition?

 They didn't place it after the fact. A third of the supports sheared ? I would assume that they knew the towers wouldn't collapse by the impact of the plane and fires. Would it have had the same catastrophic effect if they didn't collapse. Would they have had almost all Americans behind their cause of waging war in the name of patriotism? I doubt it. Would they have been able to pass the patriot act as well as other infringements on our rights? Would the world wage a war on terrorism replacing the war on communism? This war will last indefinitely and keep the MIC and corporations fed as well as being a facade for our hidden agendas. Don't misunderstand me, I believe there are fanatics that would and have done us harm, but I believe in this case they were used just like in the first WTC bombings.

 you have the condition where the top third leans to one side, suddenly that safety factor is well exceeded on that side and it will fall straight down. There's damned little material to stop it when it's that tall, so the top piece will slice through the bottom floors like a knife through butter.

 The top third leans to one side ,then you would expect that where the force and weight is the greatest on that side that it would collapse and precede any other collapsing of the building unless the structure was equally weakened on all sides which seems unlikely minus some assistance. 

[Bringin It]

Would Larry Silverstein still have an asbestos problem if they didn't collapse?

[Orly]

Did you ever see the demonstration on the moon of the astronaut dropping a feather and a hammer at the same time?  Guess which one landed first.  Answer: neither.  They both fell at the same rate and hit the surface at the same time.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/image/featherdrop_sound.mov

Lesson here is you can't change the laws of physics no matter where you are.  The fact that the buildings dropped at nearly the same rate that one would drop a hammer- no matter the height or weight or construction- indicates that there was no support at all under the buildings.

How is there no support under a giant steel building?  The obvious answer is that it was taken away somehow.  What do you suppose that "somehow" was?

[AnarchyInc]

Poor form Orly.  Everyone knows that that was filmed in Hollywood studio.

[maximin thrax]

"Did you ever see the demonstration on the moon of the astronaut dropping a feather and a hammer at the same time?  Guess which one lander first.  Answer: neither.  They both fell at the same rate and hit the surface at the same time."

Tell you what, Forrest, the next time that experiment is attempted PLEASE stand underneath both the feather and the hammer and report back to me the results.

Google MOMENTUM.

[NidStyles]

Momentum is a factor of acceleration and velocity. There's no way something that was free standing would gain that much momentum falling just 12 feet. There's no way something that large is only falling 12 feet would generate enough velocity to maintain it's accelearation without being effected by the floor beneath it.

[maximin thrax]

The twin towers weighed 500,000 tons each, empty. Add 10% for live loads. If, say, the top 20 floors began to fall 12 feet downward onto a floor beneath, that's about 100,000 tons landing on the lower structure. The path of least resistance for that 100,000 tons after falling "only" 12 feet is straight down.

[Reptil]

nope

There was a greater mass supporting the top of the tower before the collapse. It's not the weight, it's the lack of support from underlying floors, structures which made it collapse. THE AMOUNT OF WEIGHT DID NOT CHANGE DURING OR AFTER THE PLANES HIT.

Also, the central column collapsed first, which indicates your whole "theory" is bogus. Even if (the impossible) would have happened that the central steel column was damaged somehow, it would buckle, and not sink into it's own footprint, like it actually did. Steel, nor reïnforced concrete does that.

Furthermore, the pools of molten steel, and the satillite IR image shows a huge amount of residual heat, after the collapse. If the towers would've collapsed by gravity (somehow negating the fact the structure was able to carry it's own weight before the collapse), those pools and heat signatures wouldn't be there. The collapse would've required all residual energy.

A steel reïnforced concrete building doesn't turn to dust when it is damaged. It just doesn't.

There's a couple more clues.

It all points to a controlled demolition.

[dark pools of soros]

if they get pushed too hard they'll just say that those buildings were always wired for destruction and it's a safety feature incase of earthquakes or aliens

they can say anything and spread it over decades while JPM mines gold in afghany

[Orly]

Perhaps this will help to explain it:

Israeli "art students" living in the building for months...

http://radiodujour.wordpress.com/2009/10/10/art-students-camping-on-the-90th-floor/

Also this:

"Reason - the exterior cast aluminum WTC panels had been directly connected to the steel superstructure of the building, thus causing galvanic corrosion. In short, the "life cycle" of the WTC was not 200 - 300 years, more like 30 years or so."

It was going to cost at least $5 Billion to bring them down and rebuild them because of severe structural problems.

http://100777.com/node/1074

Can you say giant insurance fraud?

:D

[Bringin It]

Thanks Orly.

[Yen Cross]

You are good @ aud/usd. I'm going to short aud/jpy. My only problem, I love GBP/JPY. I'm sure we will never meet again. Thanks for your trade ideas.

[Orly]

It looks like the AUDUSD is a short trade to about 1.018.  It seems that the EURUSD is going to take a hit because of the uncertainty with the IMF chief placement and take the AUDUSD along for the ride.

I have the EURUSD short to about 1.365 but that could turn on a dime with some stablising news out of Brussels.

The GBPJPY seems to be trying to decouple from the Euro risk trade here.  The pair wants to move higher, despite the EURUSD trending lower. Watch for the whipsaws in GBPJPY.

Best of luck trading!

:D

[delacroix]

there was a billion dollar asbestos removal project, required to commence, on the wtc towers, within months of 9/11

[maximin thrax]

"Israeli 'art students' living in the building for months..."

BTW, how many Zionists went fishing in the North Atlantic the night the unsinkable Titanic sank? Thoughts?

/

[White.Star.Line]

I won't junk you, since this has turned into a heavily-conspiratorial thread, and you should be given a bit more slack. Give him a break guys!

The White Star Line loves to provide details on 1912's most popular disaster.

If you would have done some research, you would have learned that "zionists" may not have been as worthwhile a target as the powerful men who were formally invited by JP Morgan personally to sail on the Titanic. (Men who happened to be rich, influential, and strongly against the proposed formation of the federal reserve)
You would have also learned that JP Morgan owned the White Star Line, thus the Titanic, and yes, one year after their deaths, the FED was born.

But alas, just another conspiracy theory no different than planned WTC destruction.

[Orly]

Three.

One to keep a lookout, one to tow the iceberg into place and the third, a spokesman, to talk about the Holocaust and the global repression of Jews.

[AnarchyInc]

Brilliant!

[reinhardt]

is very witty:-)

[Husk-Erzulie]

Orly really is one of the sharper pins in the ZH cushion :~p  Was just thinking that the best way to deal with trolls is with superior wit and subtle <sarcing/> because my own initial response to tools is to yell at the top of my lungs "You fucking Tool!" *sigh, it's just not very effective actually.

[Vic Vinegar]

Interesting insights.  Thanks for those links.

[maximin thrax]

So... that's where all the "thermite" (aluminum-iron powder residue) found all over Manhattan came from?

[TBT or not TBT]

Not enough heat or oxidizer in close quarters to burn. For thermite you have to mix the oxidizer powder very finely with the powdered unoxidized metal.