This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
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?
- 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.
The symmetrical "collapse" due to asymmetrical damage is at odds with the principles of structural mechanics
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
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
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.
»
- advertisements -
The powder is the oxydizer. Thermite is Red Iron Oxide and isolated Aluminum. It doesn't require oxydizers to react, just a torch hot enough to light it.
Good point. That is why we need an official investigation since building #7 did collapse and we do not know why.
Flight 93 was heading to the WTC when the passengers decided to make a stand and it crashed. It would have got there shortly after the other two arrived. I presume that having seen the two towers on fire, it would have headed to the next largest target...
I'll let you play join the dots on that one.
and how do you know the passengers decided to make a stand?
Maybe it was a conspiracy. But we are not allowed to think that. Where is Gary Larsons when we need him.?
"Grass?...GRASS! We have been eating grass"
But let us consider this...When the WTC was built they designed in the method to bring it down. All starting from the top and the next floor below would only be set off when the floor above had reached its critical point. A closed loop chain reaction.
I read somewhere, maybe 2-3 years ago that there were gold vaults in the basement of building 7 and the gold was removed a week before the implosion. Powerful motive there. There was no gold to be found after the implosion.
The gold vaults were in the basements of Building Four. Days after 9/11, massive trucks removed the gold.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/gold.html
Or how about this: These towers were designed assuming asbestos cladding around the steel members to prevent collapse in case of a fire, but ecological concerns ixnayed that while the buildings were going up. So the the steel heated up enough to fail quite easily with all that jet fuel, polyester carpet, furniture, and people fat burning in there.
Yes and that caused the bbc to announce that tower seven went down fiftenn minutes before it did. Try again
Yeah I wonder why no one ever has an answer to that. All this is smashing idiot americans in the head and they still can't see it. Mossad got sloppy on this one...but I guess they got away with it.
I really resent that Mossad jab. We joos are on the front lines day in day out, sacrificing everything, so you goyim can kick it with yer 40 ouncers and enjoy the freedoms those goddamned mulims wanna take from you. WE ARE YOUR HEROS! YOU OWE US MORE THAN YOU KNOW!
With an Al-Fe junction, the Al is less noble and will corrode. The Aluminum siding panels may have been turning into powder but the columns weren't affected.
Let me see if I follow your logic here. You are saying that the WTC 7 implosion delay was NOT done for the same reason as the WTC 1 and 2 delays, to wit, the IMF testing a powerful zombie virus on the subjects cut off from rescue? The whole thing was about testing the burn rate of the zombie virus, which explains why we never hear the cell phone calls from the top of WTC 1 and 2. They were all zombies. QED.
No, you can't follow it at all. If you wish to assume "implosion" then that is what you'll find.
What were the chances of the airplane missing by a few yards and setting of the explosives immediately, blowing the conspiracy sky high?
==> Well for starters, most explosives don't go off because of a violent impact. They go off when detonators go off. It is a well developed industry. Been around since "Nobel" of Nobel Prize fame. So, I'm gonna say zombies.
Which explosives, used in demolition, don't explode due to impact or heat? The truthers say nanothermite was used, but it burns at a relatively low temp. They haven't come up with a better alternative that would survive direct impact and firey explosion, so what did you have in mind?
Nanothermite doesn't burn at a low temp. It's encased when used to create a hot pool of molten iron. Which is why it's made with an enhanced oxydizer. It's designed purely to creat a pool of that molten iron that will flow into the softer material that the casing is wrapped around.
Det-cord could have been used as well.
I was a demo guy for my Platoon back when I was a hero.
Did you ever make a concussive charge out of thermite?
Thermite, in some form, is what conspiracist credit for the explosive failure of the towers, ejecting huge columns hundreds of feet laterally, making them fall at "near free-fall speed." If you claim only that some members were weakened by thermite to bring an early demise to 1 and 2, then how does one get to "free fall speed"? If you cannot get past an organic collapse rate, using thermite to only cut columns, then there's no reason to believe anything other than organic collapse occurred.
former secretary of defense, mister rummy, denies the existence of building 7 on mankow radio show:
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/68317/Donald_Rumsfeld_Questioned...
Building What?
must be one of those unknown knowns.
gotta love Rummy, always droppin hints.
Come on now, junkers, we all saw them wandering off the edge into the void. Just the kind of thing zombies do.
Well said. I'm not sure if Bill Clinton agrees with you, however:
http://memeburn.com/2011/05/bill-clinton-calls-for-internet-truth-regulator/
scams and ripoffs aren't going to prosecuted now, but the dissemination of information will be.
how can someone bring a child into this world?
Actually, we need more. Make more babies.
They've got the guns. We need the numbers.
Warriors in the womb. Sick or sad?
Every ponzi needs new blood. Spawning of replicants must continue, unabated. Works till we hit the limits of the planet.
The mainstream media, who work for our elite overlords, creates the reality they want us to believe and that the only reality you will whole heartedly believe forever. Got It?
Unconscious birthing -- the basis for the Matrix's continued existence
Anyone who junked the OP (zero govt) on this one:
I just have to say:
______
(one fills in one's most offensive known insult here)