Preface: If you believe that the government always tells the truth, you have gotten lost in a bad neighborhood, and you should turn around and get back on the freeway as quickly as possible.
If you believe that politics, war and terrorism do not greatly affect your lifestyle, your investment portfolio and the economy, you are sadly mistaken. See this, this, this, this and this.
If, on the other hand, you believe that 9/11 was an inside job, then please point out any inaccuracies, shortcoming or erroneous conclusions contained within the post. Please don’t just label it as being a “limited hang-out” propaganda sell-out hit piece … instead, if you believe it is wrong, please link to actual evidence which disproves what I am saying, or which adds pieces of information which you think are missing. Maybe I’ll agree with you, maybe I won’t. But I will consider every comment.
People who state that 9/11 was an inside job are claiming that it is a false flag operation which killed people, was used to justify wars in Iraq and elsewhere and a power grab in the U.S.
But World Trade Center building 7 – the third building to collapse on September 11th – has nothing to do with any inside job:
- No one died as a result of the collapse
- No airplane hit the building, and so it was not directly involved in the terrorist attack
- No wars were launched to avenge WTC7
- No power grabs or loss of civil liberties ensued because of the collapse of this building
- Unlike the rest of 9/11, the government has been very quiet about its destruction
As such, the collapse of the building – also known as the “Solomon Brothers Building” – was not an inside job.
Of course, the building might have been demolished to save lives. 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.
(some point to the World Trade Center owner's statement about the decision to "pull" the building as confirming Trousdale's theory).
So why am I wasting your valuable time in discussing this?
Because the government – as part of its political cover-up of negligence before and on 9/11 – pretended that the building collapsed due to “natural causes”. This should not be entirely surprising … we know that government personnel sometimes misspeak about things like the economy or Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, and they may also have made some minor errors peripherally related to 9/11:
- The EPA misspoke about the dangers to heroic first responders from toxic chemicals at Ground Zero
- Government officials misspoke about 9/11 being wholly unforeseeable … including pretending that Al Qaeda’s plans to fly planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon were a complete surprise
- Top government personnel misspoke about Iraq’s role in 9/11
Again, this post has nothing to do with “9/11 inside job”: no one died when building 7 collapsed.
What Do the Experts Say?
What does the evidence show about the Solomon Brothers Building in Manhattan?
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)
- 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
- 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 [please ignore any reference in this essay to the Twin Towers. This essay focuses solely on Building 7]. The most realistic cause of the collapse is that the buildings were imploded
- Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, writes:
Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day [i.e. on September 11th]? 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:
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.
***
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 … 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 ….
- 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 [Again, please ignore any reference to the Twin Towers ... this essay focuses solely on WTC7]. 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 top experts in other relevant disciplines, including:
- A demolition loader for the world’s top demolition company (which is based in the United States), Tom Sullivan
- The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that Building 7 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)
- 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
Watch this short video on Building 7 by Architects and Engineers (ignore any reference to the Twin Towers, deaths on 9/11, or any other topics other than WTC7):
Fish In a Barrel
Poking holes in the government’s spin on Building 7 is so easy that it is like shooting fish in a barrel.
As just one example, the spokesman for the government agency which says that the building collapsed due to fire said there was no molten metal at ground zero:
The facts are a wee bit different:
- The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks (page 3)
- A structural engineer who worked for the Trade Center’s original designer saw “streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” (pages 31-32)
- An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, “They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event.”
- New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.”
- A NY firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a “foundry” or like “lava”.
- A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that “feeling the heat” and “seeing the molten steel” there reminded him of a volcano.
- An employee of New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed “Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet.”
- The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.”
- According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, “Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6.”
- A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero “descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams.“
- According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.”
- A retired professor of physics and atmospheric science said “in mid-October when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire–which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December.”
- A fireman stated that there were “oven” like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.
- Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, “There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red” and “the blaze is so ‘far beyond a normal fire’ that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires.” (pay-per-view)
- A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said “for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal – everything from molten steel beams to human remains….”
- New York mayor Rudy Giuliani said “They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days.”
- As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O’Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, “was dripping from the molten steel.”
- A rescue worker “crawled through an opening and down crumpled stairwells to the subway five levels below ground. He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–molten metal dripping from a beam“
- And see witness statements at the beginning of this video
- Indeed, not only was structural steel somehow melted on 9/11, but it was evaporated. As the New York Times reports, an expert stated about World Trade Center building 7:
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures.
(pay-per-view). Evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them
Please remember that firefighters sprayed millions of gallons of water on the fires, and also applied high-tech fire retardants. Specifically, 4 million gallons of water were dropped on Ground Zero within the first 10 days after September 11, according to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories:
Approximately three million gallons of water were hosed on site in the fire-fighting efforts, and 1 million gallons fell as rainwater, between 9/11 and 9/21 ….
The spraying continued for months afterward (the 10 day period was simply the timeframe in which the DOE was sampling). Enormous amounts of water were hosed on Ground Zero continuously, day and night:
“Firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on [ground zero]. You couldn’t even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there,” said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. “It was like you were creating a giant lake.”
This photograph may capture a sense of how wet the ground became due to the constant spraying:
The fact that there were raging fires and molten metal even after the application of massive quantities of water and fire retardants shows how silly the government spokesman’s claim is.
Again, this has nothing to do with “inside job” … no one was killed in the collapse of Building 7, no wars were launched based on a rallying cry of “remember the Solomon Brothers building”, and no civil liberties were lost based on a claim that we have to prevent future WTC7 tragedies.
It is merely meant to show that government folks sometimes lie … even about issues tangentially related to 9/11.
Please help me understand this:
9/11 was the worst disasters to happen on American soil during our lifetime. On that day about 3,000 of us died, including 343 firefighters, 23 NYPD, and 37 Port Authority Officers. Since that time we have the Patriot Act, bank bailouts, TSA, National Defense Authorization Act, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, saber rattling about Iran and Syria, the housing bubble, bank bailouts, and companies like MF Global operating with impunity.
Does it make sense to you that a 47story modern skyscraper can collapse at free fall speed after burning for a few hours from an ordinary fire?
Does it make sense that a Boeing 757 could slam into a building such as the Pentagon and not show the impact of the engines, wings, and tail section?
The Pentagon is touted, as being one of the most secure buildings in the world yet there are no videos showing a plane slamming into it nor is there evidence of wings, tail sections, or engines at impact. Why? Could it be that something other than an airplane hit the Pentagon?
The crash at Shanksville PA is also questionable due to debris from the wreckage being found eight miles away from the original crash site?
I believe we will not have liberty nor will the world be safe until 9/11 is reinvestigated with full subpoena powers.
A reinvestigation of 9/11 with full subpoena powers could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that that official 9/11 version may have been bogus. If the official 9/11 version were debunked war crimes tribunals would be the logical next step.
Please help me understand why good folks like you are not demanding a reinvestigation?
you are correct imo. the sign that decent
people have taken the reigns of power in the world
will be what you have suggested. however, we may
never see that day or it may come after we are
all gone so we must press on as best we can without
losing our minds. share, live and learn. speak out
and speak up at every opportunity and support them that do
go to the core and the heart.
.
there is in mind and logic inductive and deductive
reasoning, the heart is love.
inductive goes from the particular fact, observation,
to the general principle. deductive goes from the
general principle to imply or deduce a suspected
fact or incident.
this is how they, we, end up being "governed" by
wrong or "bad" ideas or false principles and premises.
in induction you have what has been identified as
"fraudulent induction", or people being induced by
fraudulent statements of fact or expectation, assuming
flawed presumptions propagated by "experts" and insiders
to be sound or true. my assertion is that these
fraudulent induced ideas and memes are dictating
to us a paradigm of collapse because these induced
"facts" lead us to a false principle. in the mind
a principle is a principle and as such must be
adhered to even if it is false, as long as the individual
believes it is a principle, once of that status in the mind there is nothing but a truer principle that can intervene regarding the power of the principle.
so there is the battle line and ground.
identifying fraudulently induced commitments and
"events". also see control fraud and its effect on
money supply, debt and deflation. scam, in short.
.
induction (n.) late 14c., "advancement toward the grace of God;" also (c.1400) "formal installation of a clergyman," from O.Fr. induction (14c.) or directly from L. inductionem (nom. inductio) "a leading in, introduction," noun of action from pp. stem of inducere "to lead" (see induce).
As a term in logic (early 15c.) it is from Cicero's use of inductio to translate Gk. epagoge "leading to" in Aristotle. Induction starts with known instances and arrives at generalizations; deduction starts from the general principle and arrives at some individual fact. As a term of science, c.1800; military service sense is from 1934, American English.
.
All yall are stupid tards for wasting keystrokes on 911 minutiae
@kitler,
bingo. 4 buildings, 4 planes. i've done the math
and it adds up. someone has a receipt and someone
has payment for 4 remote controlled planes. or 3
planes and one missle.
"means, motive and cui bono?". h.s.t.
.
"Mick O'Regan: ....Do you think that the event completely transformed the way in which Americans see themselves and their own vulnerability?
Hunter S. Thompson: No, the event by itself wouldn't have done that. But it was the way the Administration was able to use that event. Even use it as a springboard for everything they wanted to do. And that might tell you something. I remember when I was writing that column you sort of wonder when something like that happens, Well who stands to benefit? Who had the opportunity and the motive? You just kind of look at these basic things, and I don?t know if I want to go into this on worldwide radio here, but ... " ..
.
"... turn the american dream into a chamber of looting."
Hunter S. Thompson's Famous 9/11 Interview - III
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyCck98_mbY
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/911-shock-opera-act-4-%E2%80%...
George, I think it to be an extremely logical conclusion that WTC7 was also wired like WTC1 and WTC2 to collapse.
If flight 93 was intended to hit WTC7 but for "some reason" did not arrive it would help explain all of the subsequent drama that followed when the original "cause" for the collapse failed to arrive.
There even was a course correction on 93 that changed it's heading to N.Y. just before it was brought down.
http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=flight+93+flight+path+map&um=1&hl=en&safe=...
The use of disinformation and diversion to manipulate public opinion is a highly developed art. It is well understood not only by psychological operations experts in the national security establishment, but also by marketing and public relations wizards. With the engineering of public reaction to September 11, disinformation has been used with a sophistication and depth that is historically unprecedented. A key tool in this modern form of psychological warfare is the "meme" -- an idea that acts like an infectious agent to spread itself through a population. Through careful construction of memes, the perpetrators could depend on others to unwittingly promote their cover story and conceal the truth. Their disinformation strategy was twofold. First, they would sell the official story to the masses through the compliant mass media, relying on people's desire to believe the official story. Second, they would seed specious ideas in the community of "9/11 skeptics" in order to distract and discredit them.
.
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/index.html
.
BBC now admits al qaeda never existed, Bin Laden had NO organization!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_658141&feature=iv&...
.
etc. etc...
This is kinda mind blowing GW:
ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH
UNITED 175 IN THE VICINITY OF HARRISBURG AND PITTSBURGH, PA
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRMED-911-AIRCRAFT-AIRBORNE-LONG-...
Overwhelming Evidence Pentagon Aircraft Data Is Not From An American Airlines 757
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21149
"..Based on Flight Tracking protocol, the only reason the Central Processing System would choose to route messages through the ground stations located at MDT, then later PIT, over the numerous ground stations much closer and surrounding NYC, is due to the aircraft being in the vicinity of MDT, and then later, PIT. This means that the aircraft observed to strike the south tower, was not United 175." ..
.
"This evidence strengthens previous evidence uncovered by Pilots For 9/11 Truth that a standard 767 cannot remain in control, stable or hold together at the speeds reported by the NTSB for the South Tower aircraft(6). So, if UA175 was somewhere out in Pennsylvania when an aircraft was observed to strike the south tower, and a standard 767 cannot perform at such excessive speeds as reported, then where did the airplane come from which was observed to strike the South Tower? That is a great question and the reason we are still here after 10 years attempting to get answers for the day that changed our world, and will never go away until those questions are answered.
Send this evidence to your Congress Representative, your Senators, Judges, Lawyers, print it out and hand it to your pilots when boarding a flight (Pilots love reading material while in cruise). Call into talk shows, tell them about this evidence. Grab our DVD's and make copies, hand them to friends, family, co-workers, etc. Demand a new investigation into the events of 9/11. The 9/11 Families, The 9/11 Victims, The American People, The World, deserves to know Truth about what happened on September, 11, 2001. "
.
comment: dove zakheim could answer these questions
would be my guess and he might still be on the govy
payroll? he is an electronic, remote control genius
and worked for the pentagon in 2001. any bells going off on that?
nah..... from " shadow government, notes from the loyal
opposition."
.
do you think he could be a little more in your face?
.
A lost teachable moment
Posted By Dov ZakheimFriday, September 14, 2012 - 10:07 AM
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/blog/2200
.
just saying…
Posted on September 16, 2012 by jischinger
http://maxkeiser.com/2012/09/16/just-saying/
Here is what a Boeing 747 looks like after a crass into flats in Holland!
EL AL Flight 1862 Boeing 747----- 04.10-1992,i dint take any thing down besides excately what it hid into,the corner of the Condo complex,Klein-Kruitberg Groeneven,and debris everywhere,and it bigger than the 767 Boeing.
Wikipedia has the Info!EL AL Flight 1862.
7 is still standing.
I don't like the way GW operates. Anybody who peddles the "incompetence" card when there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary is merely a shill working to the agenda of the most despicable criminals humanity ever created.
I recently mentioned something similar in a (non) post on his website which was never to see the light of day. Why would such a so-called champion of free speech ban my post? Maybe it's because I posted this link which I also happened to mention is much closer to the truth than the "incompetent government" cr*p he endorses.
It's a good read and if you haven't seen it already, give it a peruse -- it's certainly an excellent antidote to the idea's he effects upon you. Here it is again.
PDF here
Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001
http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Collateral_Damage_911.pdf
"..This is not a ‘proof’ that $240 billion was laundered, but it provides probable cause for paying serious attention
to Durham’s claim that it was indeed what happened. When one looks deep enough into the murky cloud of
black ops and secret financing – the world of Durham’s husband - her claims regarding 1991 and 2001 begin to
gather credibility." ..
.
",,..The hypothesis of this report is: the attacks of September 11th were
intended to cover-up the clearing of $240 billion dollars in securities covertly created in September 1991 to fund a
covert economic war against the Soviet Union, during which ‘unknown’ western investors bought up much of the
Soviet industry, with a focus on oil and gas. The attacks of September 11th also served to derail multiple Federal
investigations away from crimes associated with the 1991 covert operation. In doing so, the attacks were justified
under the cardinal rule of intelligence: “protect your resources”2 and consistent with a modus operandi of sacrificing
lives for a greater cause." ...
I didn't ban it. I haven't seen it. Try posting it...
Thermite isn't used for demolition. It's used for welding.
Thermite isn't used for demolition. It's used for welding.
The amount of ignorance displayed in those "expert" statements is breathtaking.
1. No one even mentions, much less takes into account in any way, that the WTC twin towers were built on a different construction principle with a strong outer wall and a center core but no load bearing vertical pillars in-between.
I know from looking at construction plans that the same was true for WTC-7.
2. Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity.
No one mentions that large parts of the WTC twin towers were bolted together pieces of steel.
If you take your time to look at films and photos during the construction, you can see that the number of bolts holding together outer wall vertical beams was rather low. The result is that those bolts can fail long before the tensile strength of the pieces it is holding together is exceeded.
A very convincing confirmation is the fact that photos show punched out pieces of the outer wall lying on the ground, after the airplane impact but before any tower collapsed. That would never have been possible if the building steel was completely welded together or a large number of rivets or bolts had been used. One photo, but there are better ones: http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
This was only possible because of the relatively weak bolt connections within the outer wall.
(Up to this day, I have no concise information of how the inner core columns were held together, or how much or little construction of WTC-7 differed from the twin towers. But it is reasonable to assume that construction of WTC-7 was not very different, though.)
3. Molten steel on the ground, or red-glowing pieces, many weeks after collapse:
What exactly does this confirm?
That the fuel did put a lot of heat into the steel?
That the collapse of a 1360 ft high building converts a lot of potential energy into heat, not all necessarily emitted into pulverizing pieces or warming up air?
*If* this is interpreted to confirm existence of Thermite or other demolition agents, how much of those agents must have been present to create such heat? Is the calculated amount even feasible?
So unless someone starts putting together a picture that doesn't willfully ignore such crucial questions, I can only yawn.
2. Addendum:
Here is the photo I was looking for: http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/pict34.jpg
See is a panel of the outer wall, the main load bearing columns clearly visible.
The picture shows there are four holes in the connection plate, that means exactly four bolts for each pillar held it to the next piece.
And then some "expert" dares to elaborate about the tensile strength of the steel pillar?
The Core Structures
The Structural System of the Twin Towers
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
.
notice the bolts in this photo....
"This photograph from Ground Zero is apparently of one of the smaller core columns connected to a set of I-beams. "
.
"...Nonetheless, the structural engineers of the World Trade Center ended up following draft versions of the new 1968 building codes.[31] The tube-frame design, earlier introduced by Fazlur Khan, was a new approach that allowed more open floor plans than the traditional design that distributed columns throughout the interior to support building loads. The World Trade Center towers used high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure, supporting virtually all lateral loads such as wind loads, and sharing the gravity load with the core columns. The perimeter structure containing 59 columns per side was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces each consisting of three columns, three stories tall, connected by spandrel plates.[31] The spandrel plates were welded to the columns to create the modular pieces off-site at the fabrication shop.[32] Adjacent modules were bolted together with the splices occurring at mid-span of the columns and spandrels. The spandrel plates were located at each floor, transmitting shear stress between columns, allowing them to work together in resisting lateral loads. The joints between modules were staggered vertically so the column splices between adjacent modules were not at the same floor.[31]"
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
The Perimeter Walls
The Structural System of the Twin Towers
One question from a "truther agnostic", if you will:
Why has molten steel NEVER been seen in any other high-rise fire, or subsequent collapse?
I thought there never was any other comparable high-rise collapse?
Point me to one.
But you're ignoring the main point:
Explosives don't melt steel either. Thermite melts in an precise spot, as the burn is so fast that very little heat has time to spread into the adjacent structure.
So what else made whole steel beams glowing red??
all i hafta say is
ENRON
WORLDCOM
SALI/CITI
NYC Office of security management
Secret Service
GWB & co.
Gold valuts
Put options on UAL , AMR
Bankers Trust CEO
Insurance fraud-silverstein
THERMITE
GW - troll elsewhere
Interesting that the buildings immediately adjacent to WTC 7 weren't catastrophically damaged by fire or debris. Given WTC 7 was across the street from the WTC complex and 300 feet from the nearest WTC Tower, as well as partially blocked by the destroyed WTC 5 and WTC 6, and was tucked between other undestroyed buildings, it is even more problamatic that it perfectly collapsed in on itself from a couple of fires and some minor debris damage.
There could have been significant seismic stresses put on 7, from the collapses of the big towers.
Michael Hess, WTC7 explosion witness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=BUfiLbXMa64
Barry Jennings' account of WTC 7 explosions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PbbZE7c3a8Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9LLHTh_UjBc
9/11 - WTC 7 Explosion on Audio (heard by firemen)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0YvrKfWkxdw
A solid gold unicorn might have crashed into building 7.
7 was in direct line of fire from multiple-ton pieces of falling debris. Major, not minor, damage to the south side is the likelier outcome. And read firefighter statements posted below; fires were heavy.
Thank you Harley guy
What exactly is the point GW is trying to make? Lost on me.
--------------------
(one) problem (of several types) with GW articles is that it appears that GW can't see the holes in his own logic and I think that is because he simply doesn't have much common sense and / or life experience.
For example, one cannot decide to demoilish a building in a controlled manner, pick up the phone and order it done in a few hours. This isn't pizza delivery work. Do I need twenty links to prove this contention? Maybe for GW or others who grew up in a virtual world or for kids who never played with lego blocks, lit things on fire or rebuilt car engines. If you don't have the metaanayltical tools borne from experience, I guess a cheap second is to use Appeal to Auhtority argumentation - lots of links... which can be okay at times. But it appears that GW falls for the fallacy that consensus yields fact (and not just on this topic). How one uses consensus matters. (And facts gotta connect to conclusion made.)
------------------
So, how strange that GW should quote so many experts on the issue of collapse from damage vs. controlled demolition and then not follow up on the hypothesis that a controlled demolition requires planning and work far in advance of 9-11, a conspiracy by definition. (Isn't that an inside job by definition?) Maybe GW is just ribbing us and is full on board the inside job train. If not...
-------------------------------
We are now in a house of mirrors in which honest truth-seekers, disinformationists, idiots, true believers, misguided but righteous volunteers, and self promoters now dependant on a niche, all compete.
Where does GW fall in the blogger topology? What is his record? .
When one finds a glaring fallacy such as pointed out above in his argumentation, then he should not be trusted no matter where he fits in in my opinion.
That's the primary point he was, and also deliberately wasn't making, he just wanted to leave it to the reader to explicitly realize it, within the context of the numerous damning quotes from seasoned professionals.
I could go on posting the photos of WTC7 taken from the side, that show that the building had severe damage before it collapsed; that it had settled/twisted in on itself, that the roof and elevator shack on the top had obviously settled, that the building had deformed from being hit by debris falling from hundred's of feet above.
I could post a frame analysis of its rate of collapse, compare that to free fall speed.
I could calculate the KE of a beam falling 1,300 feet and how that would compare to the KE of a bomb, how much PE or KE would be in one floor of WTC 1 or 2 falling from 1,300 feet, or how much KE would be affected if one took an accidental plane crash as a 707 attempted to land in NYC, and then increased the speed from 200 mph to 550 and had a full fuel load.
I could show you dozens of videos with a real controlled demo and point out the det cord, and the time it takes for said cord to light and fire, and the time it takes the charges to go off, and the noise it makes, and the time involved and how structures seem to stand there after you hear hundreds of explosions and see the dust before the buildings collapse and how all of this is lacking in WTC 1,2,7.
I could show you reels of mistakes in news reports as facts are clouded in the fog of war that is a stressful event such as this.
But you guys do not even understand what KE = 1/2 mv^2 means, so it would not matter as those Who Believe will not be swayed by rational evidence or analysis.
That's the troll-calling-card right there. LMAO
I could show you photos of an authentic alien autopsy, and of Bigfoot riding a unicorn too.
Kinetic Energy = half of mass times velocity squared. Waiting on your promises...
You say:
I could go on posting the photos of WTC7 taken from the side, that show that the building had severe damage before it collapsed; that it had settled/twisted in on itself, that the roof and elevator shack on the top had obviously settled, that the building had deformed from being hit by debris falling from hundred's of feet above.
I say: put up or shut up.
At this point what does it matter? What's done is done, and no matter how much evidence is put forth there will never be a day in court. The results have been what they wanted, wars in the middle east, our rights stripped, and out of the Stalin/Hitler playbook the invisible enemy who can be anywhere at anytime or anyone. So what I am saying is WHO THE FUCK CARES ANYMORE? Move on. Lets look at our current condition and start looking at things we still can change. 9/11 is much like ufos either you believe or you don't and you can't be swayed either way.
That you cannot discuss PE means you cannot support your belief system and cannot understand any counter argument.
When any of you post the PE of a beam at 1300 feet, then get back to me on this matter.
Until then, most of you who 'believe' are all members of a Dunning-Kruger set.
It's a simple question.
What are PE and KE and how do they relate to this?
I'd like to see any photos of the south side too. Absent that, here are some interesting fire dept statements regarding the south side of bldg 7 condition:
http://scotthorton.org/stress/2006/09/17/last-word-on-building-7/
Shortly after 9/11 I saw a program on television that included video footage of the damage to Bldg 7 before it fell. I saw the huge chunk gone from one of the bottom corners of the building, and I saw the bulge in the side of the building that the firemen in your article talk about, along with the fires. At one point, the building seemed to be leaning out towards the street. Eventually the video showed the building collapse. I don't think it came down exactly into its own footprint because of the leaning.
The building disintegrated over the course of hours. But I wasn't there, so maybe the people in the video were lying about the time it took for the building to disintegrate. And so would the fireman in the link you gave be lying.
Nothing I saw in that video was consistent with a controlled demolition. Unless the controlled demolition was designed to take hours from the beginning of the collapse until the end. And I've not seen the video since.
Edit: To be fair - it could have been a controlled demolition that brought the building down at 5:20 when it actually collapsed. But they would have been bringing down a badly-damaged building that was already slowly collapsing - as evidenced by what the video I saw showed from street level and by what the firemen said.
----------
A question for GW: You say "put up or shut up" regarding pictures showing the damage to Bldg 7. Are you claiming that there was no such damage to Bldg 7 as Lera describes in his first paragraph? The "put up or shut up" comment seems an odd comment to make if you know and understand how badly damaged Bldg 7 was before it fell.
The Hiroshima Dome??Withstood a Nuclear bomb???
CBS raw footage in and around bldg 7 and towers between tower collapses. Pretty good stuff if you haven't seen (posted Jul '11):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp2SC_aduTA&feature=player_embedded#!
Barry Jennings account of what happened to him inside building 7 prior to its demolition I find to be extremely insightful.
his time line is fuzzy to me
It is easy to prove that the official conspiracy theory proposed by the US government cannot be true by using probability theory to estimate the chance of that event happening as proposed. A simple model proposed shows the chance of the official theory being true is 0.0000000000000000000001 (see link below). Even if you give very generous probabilities for passports surviving fires that black boxes did not, free fall collapses of 3 steel-framed building into submicron dust and pyroclastic flows (100 have caught fire elsewhere and not one has collapsed) , 4 successful hijackings using boxcutters, NORAD missing in action, and an entire plane vaporizing at the Pentagon, the chance the official conspiracy theory is true is less than 1 in a trillion.
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DAV504A.html
It is no surprise that 90% of Germans do not believe the ofiicial conspiracy fairy tale.
According to a survey conducted by TNS Emnid, one of the largest polling institutes in Germany, nearly90 percent of Germans do not believe the U.S. government explanation of what happened on September 11, 2001.
The poll was conducted for the German magazine World of the Miracles.
In addition to 89.5% not buying the official 9/11 story, the poll found that 73.7% of surveyed Germans believe that the Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy and nearly 80% believe the CIA conducts covert operations on German soil.
http://world911truth.org/90-percent-of-germans-do-not-believe-official-9-11-story/
What do the people of Borneo think of all this???
Seriously, citing the German people's opinion, which is no more or less enlightened than anyone else, is ridiculous.
The author called for citations, specific and direct links to evidence and you gave him the profound authority that the German people don't believe it.
Hard hitting, man... You should work for the modern day media.
The people of Germany probably find it easier to believe the U.S. Government lied about or does not truly understand what happened on 9/11 because the implications arent as personally consequential. After all, its not nearly as depressing when say the people of Borneo are misled about mass casualty events because it's not like it's your government doing the lying. Simply said, people are biased into believing they can trust those they know [or think they know] more than those they dont have any affiliation with...
Just leave these here .... the full El Al 747 that departed for Tel Aviv after all flights on that day were grounded, given special clearances
http://truth11.com/2010/03/30/full-el-al-flight-took-off-on-911-from-jfk...
and the dancing Israeli's who filmed the WTC attacks from atop a furniture moving van in NJ
http://www.takeourworldback.com/dancingisraelisfbireport.htm
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html
govt. inside job? which govt.? the usual criminal investigation to determine the perpetrator's has not even been instigated yet, a lot of evidence has already been destroyed. The 'special commission' has issued the official story, dyodd.
There are thousands of websites dedicated to the 911-conspiracy, can't we keep ZH somewhat focused on financial analysis and investment guidance?
GW and the Pinocchio Paradox
GW, you should make a list of all the atrocities committed by the United States. [Now, I know that list would be extremely long (and grizzly!), but we're talking about a Truth-Teller here in GW...a guy who takes the time to insert an average of 150 links in every one of his posts, so I think he's up for the task.]
Then, as you peuruse the List of Atrocities ask, "Why don't more people know about all criminal acts committed by the US?"
The answer, of course, is apparent upon a moment of reflection: "People are ignorant and afraid of the truth. As a result, they need Truth-Seekers like GW to lead them out of the darkness of their caves."
But the next question that follows, GW, will not be a pleasant one. But you are a Truth-Seeker, so I know you won't be afraid.
And the next question is:
IF half of what GW writes about all the horrific crimes and the snuffing out of anyone who stands in the way of the Great-Evil-Military-Corporate-Industrial-Complex is actually true, then why is GW allowed to live?
Seriously, you and Lew Fucking Rockwell are amongst the few who dare to tell the truth. But for you intrepid Truth-Seekers, we would all live in darkness. It would be so much simpler and easier for our Great-Imperial-Overlords if you were silenced. And as you've chronicled so well over the years, Our Evil Masters have both the means and the incentive to snuff out dissent.
So why do THEY let you live, GW?
There's only one logical conclusion: THEY let you live because YOU, sir, are one of THEM. YOU, sir, are a counter-propagandaist. YOU, sir, are a liar and a plant. YOU are The Pinocchio Pundit.
Reading GW is like trying to figure out Pinnocho, as he FINALLY tells the world: "My nose grows now! My nose grows now!"
[If you, The Reader, don't like my comment; and you just know that since I called GW a liar I am NOT to be believed, then know this: Yes, Dear Reader: I am the liar. And I am lying when I write: "Everything GW writes is a lie".
Postscript: Of course, you do realize that I was lying when I called myself a liar. Right?