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.
This is foolish. Duh, because they control the Justice Department, the legislative branches, the executive office, the courts, and the media.
Truth tellers are powerless. All we can do is raise awareness, period.
The only ones who are real threats to them are whistleblowers and people with hard evidence.
THAT is your argument? What the fuck is wrong with you? I pray that GW remain alive and well to seek the truth and tell it.
The last thing any government needs are martyrs who died at the hands of the government for exposing their lies. It's easier to plant operatives like yourself on boards like these to try and ridicule and discredit "truth seekers" such as GW.
The Nazis, the Stasi, the Soviets, the Chinese all used or are using operatives. You're trying to convince us that the biggest SUPERPOWER, the largest EMPIRE which ever existed is not using operatives to infiltrate the population, to discredit truth and to distribute propaganda?
What should frighten you is that YOUR government is so comfortable that they DO NOT FUCKING CARE what anyone exposes as truth because they have ESTABLISHED themselves as the PERFECT OLIGARCHS.
The US is officially the TWILIGHT ZONE. Try and escape it.
Ah HA!
ANOTHER counter-propaganda-ist emerges!
That you responded to my post as if I was ACTUALLY asking why the Government is allowing GW to live can only mean one of 2 things:
1. You are really stupid. And by stupid, I mean REALLY, REALLY stupid...in the literal sense of being profoundly handicapped.
OR
2. YOU too are a counter-propaganda-ist and you are threatened by my expose of GW as being a government plant into the blogoshere.
Since you used a big word like "oligarch" in a sentence, I cannot say that you are stupid in the profound sense of a true handicap. Plus, the vituperation you directed towards myself--an innocent Truth Seeker--concerned about government prolifration of counter-blogging-insurgents is a sign that my message threatens you.
Therefore, it is reasonable for me to conclude that YOU, sir, are ALSO a government operative spreading counter-lies, infiltrating populations, spreading dis-information in order to discredit the TRUTH.
Breathe slowly and deeply -- sometimes that helps.
See what happens when things go all 'meta'...
GW's disinfo technique is the same as Glen Beck's.
If you believe NISTs story on WTC7 please identify yourself. Are you a fool, a government sycophant, a Mossad/MI6/CIA asset? Or just goddam plain stupid.
Simple fact that there was spherical metal (remelted as you see on the floor in a welding shop) found all around the remains of 7, if evidence enough of a controlled destruction. That only happens when metal gets hot enough to melt. Fire never gets that hot by itself. Thermite used in the industry does.
Thank you, GW. You put a lot of effort into this article and I appreciate it.
WTC 7 was the clincher for me that day. Up until the point of its controlled demolition I, in my state of shock, was willing to believe the story the government-controlled MSM was spinning. But the moment that building came down - the moment TPTB pushed it a little too far - I snapped out of my state of shock and began my own investigation into who in the world was the real enemy. People like you helped me discover the truth and I am grateful.
Red, just like w/JFK and other matters, they don't care how many of us know the truth, especially at this point. It's more like an in-your-face kind of thing. It's more like they're just screaming at us, with media complicity, "What are you going to do about it?".
This shit is way too obvious. They are satanic murderers, totally in control.
It would seem one can believe in:
A. it was planned and those that did it gained 1. power and control 2. well more of #1.
or
B. Modern buildings are un safe and prone to fall down as in building 7 collapse in seconds.\
so if B, did the insurance industry up the cost of insurance on our modern buildings? If not why not?
about 6 months post 9/11, I posted on "Free Republic" a conservative (GOP) site on a less well written article on bldg 7, that" some of the information was hard to just dismiss out of hand". my right to post were immediately closed, thank my lucky stars I did not post I thought it was an inside job, a hit team would have been sent..LOL
"Free republic" is a CIA front organizaton
It was perhaps a couple of years ago I got into a back-and-forth with someone here on ZH (don't think that person is around anymore), someone whom I thought was fairly sharp (and I had a sense of respect for), that just couldn't get this point that you're making- that one cannot just simply jump in and bring down a building in a matter of a few hours! (and, while the building is on fucking fire!)
The bigger the lie the more people tend to believe it...
exactly , but how in total does that disqualify this as an inside job?
it also points to the fact that this aspect is a false flag event in terms of financial terrorism, which we are suffering the results from now
this war we are in however, is against the american people, and is just as destructive as the wars against the arab states
JohnQ, you misunderstand if your post is directed at me. I thought my point would be obvious; it qualifies it exclusively and beyond all reasonable doubt.
Excellent thought bringing in the insurance aspect. Those fuckers would never overlook an opportunity to raise rates on all of these unstable buildings!
The gov can't tell us - If the truth were known that normal office fires could bring down high rise buildings, people would refuse to come to work. The economic impact of such knowledge, the lawsuits, the costs of having to bring all these buildings and bring them up to Code -would cause an economic collapse of bliblical proportions. The DOW would drop 5,000 points in two days -massive unemployment would result -riots in the cities, the dead would awaken, dogs and cats living together -We simply cannot know the truth. It's for our own good.
Anyone who takes the time to read about 911, view the images and videos on there own will come to the uncomfortable conclusion that the final explanation is false.
Truth is linked to a way of life, one that is in concert with the way things really are.
This personal quality of truth is opposed to how many people understand truth. Truth does not consist in a series of verifiable and interlocking hypotheses. Nor is it a philosophical system consisting in satisfactory, mutually consistent propositions… the way that truth is sought and engaged with is not through detachment but through a living relationship of faith and love with the object we seek. People seek more than objective truth, facts or information. The goal is not to find information, or even to discern fact, but to bring ourselves, as living subjects, into engagement with reality, culminating ultimately in a participation in the ground of what is real.
As human beings we are made with the desire to know, that the object of that desire is truth, and that the truth shall set us free.
CONSIDER... TPTB have intentionally created a false dicothomy with the events on 911.
A false dichotomy, is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options. The options may be a position that is between the two extremes or may be a completely different alternative.
Truthseekers and sheeples fall into a vicious circularity, or infinite regress. This intentional enigma is a culling for incremental advancement of globalization and yes... a new order.
Those of us seeking the truth are marked, labeled and listed so as to be dealt with at some future time.
We the people, are distracted by Roman-like escapism and distraction that are social controls employed by TPTB to hide inadequacies and divert attention from NWO agenda which causes malcontent among the populace. The opportunity to wrap oneself up in the 911 false dichotomy, provides the ideal escape from issues of war, disease, political unrest that would otherwise have a more detrimental affect on the psychology of the population.
We the people have become distracted from our founding social contract as a nation as stated in our Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence,promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Keep the faith George Washington. Thank you for your information and patriotism.
I enjoyed the post. Just wanted to note that no 747's were involved in 9/11 so you should go back and check the facts attributed to the 747s. I believe they were all 767s and 757s, but I know none were 747s
What I find most curious is how the Royal Saudi's and the Bin Laden Family (who had spawned Osama Bin Laden) were flown out of the Country on September 13, (with Presidential approval), during a time when all planes were grounded.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2115127/Why-Saudi-royals-links-9...
http://www.wesjones.com/saudi1.htm
http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/09/22/saudi-royal-ties-to-911-hijackers-via-f...
Yeah I was sucked right in by Michael Moore's Farenheit 911 documentary when it came out using the same strawman of the Saudis getting out fast afterwards.
As time went on I realised what a complete dupe I had been. Michael Moore's agent was none other than Ari Emanuel, the brother of Rahn Emanuel, while their father was once a member of the terrorist organisation, Irgun. Zionists through and through!
Of course there was no mention of the dancing Israelis, the art students, the multitude of arrests of Israelis eventually secreted out of the USA. A mountain of evidence to pinpoint the real culprits!
F#@k!!! I was led around with a ring in my nose for so f$#king long. Alan Sabrosky was my final wake up call to the reality to that day.
"Yeah I was sucked right in by Michael Moore's Farenheit 911 documentary when it came out using the same strawman of the Saudis getting out fast afterwards."
Would you care to actually present POINTS that are relevant for debate on this?
I'm not defending Moore or anything (Fahrenheit 911), but WAY too many people operate on such superficial comments/statements (that's how propaganda works; unless you can provide more than superficial documentation then it's but propaganda itself [and one could at least get the spelling right; that goes a long way toward being taken seriously]).
For me, I believe that there IS a Saudi connection (what, with bin Laden being from a wealthy Saudi family, oh, and being on the CIA's payroll).
Is/were Israeli powers involved in all of this? Probably (power has to be in on all that happens). If you want to make your head spin just read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/04/israelstehranconnect... It's ALL about deception (and the closer to "official" sources the more likely it's pure deception). After reading this article is should be clear that Israel's stance against Iran has more to do with attempts at resource grabs -oil in particular- than anything else: like this should be a surprise given that ALL WARS ARE OVER/ABOUT RESOURCES.
Seer, Moore himself has answered questions, saying that 911 truth is "unAmerican." Since then, slowly, he has come around, but he's still diverting toward the Pentagon, which I feel is a distraction, instead of focusing on the towers. At least he's being man enough to change his position. I can't find the videos in which he calls 911 truth "unamerican," but I've seen them before, and he definitely was saying that a few years ago. Here's a more current one, though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1gk7iqNksg
First, please excuse the typos but I am visually impaired, and my patience with editing is limited but I wanted to post thisbecause I have a lot of knowledge inon this topic.
Getting back to the topic of lies, there is another story here never discussed, the failure of the fireproofing.
Prior to the invention of lightweight asbestos fireproofing around the end of WWII, highrises were constructed with concrete encased steel whose massive weight and bulk made the entire structure more of a showpiece than a functional structure, as evidence by the claustraphobic lobby of the Empire State Building.
Combining asbestos with cement and spraying it onto the steel made a strong durable fireproofing that enabled the eliminatioin of concrete casing.
In the late sixties a Dr. Selikoff brought to the public awareness the fact that asbestos caused three nasty diseases, Asbestos , ling cancer and Mesothelioma.
Soon afterwards, another Ivy League epidemiologist, MacDonald, conducted retrospective studies on Asbestos workers and communities in Canada, South Aftrica , and Australia.
The workers he studied mined three cmpletely different typees of Asbestos. In Canada , they mined Chrysotile, derived from common Serpentine rock, a curly fiber , soluble over time in water. In South Africa he tested Amosite workers., Amosite was a glass like fiber, very straight and brittle. In Australia he looked at crocidolite, a fiber of mollecular width, straight as an arrow and stronger than steel. The tree fibers have only the word asbestos in common, Just like a bunny rabbit,a dog and grizzly bear have the word mammal in common.
MacDonald found that the australian miners and millers dropped like flies, having many orders of magnitude more disese than the general working population . the South African workers also had a lot of disease , but much than the australians., and the Canadian workers had disease levels for all there maldies essentially the same as other canadian hard rock moners. Anon significant elevation in lung cancer was found and this was theorized to be from amosite being imported into the are for mixingg=.
Prior to the implementation of OSHA, standards forworker exposure were set by a voluntary society of government and academic industrial hygienists call ACHIH. The stadars were called TLVs. the TLV s recognized the relative safety of chrysotile, ratifying MacDonalds findings.
MacDonald followed up wit study, the gold standard of Epidemiology, that further demonstrated the benign nature of chrysotile exposure.
Tje fireproofing that protected the first fifty four floors of the WTc was chrysotile, the kind from Canada.
The hard cement mixed with f
chrsotile was sprayed onto the first fifty four floors of the WTCas it was being built. Then the governemtn stepped in, well intentioned and poorly informed, it banned the further use of any type of Asbestos for fireproofing My memory ails me as to the timing, but I think the NYC Health Deepartment beat the EPA to the punch. But I do remember reading somewhere that the investor of the fireproofing said at the time that if a fire ever broke out above the 65th floor, the building was doomed.
In order to resume construction after the ban, the National Institute o f Standards and Technology was brought in and rushed appproval of a make do substitute. Unlike the original commercial versions made by Johns Manville and WR Grace, this produat was fluffy, not a hard cement mix. The original required choppping and scraping with metal tools to remove. The new stuff could be blown off in a strong wind.
The NIST approved produat was tested in a still oven. I personally witnessed the installation of this inferior product all through the late eighties and nineties.
Thus we have well intentioned government stupidity"
The failure to differentiate between extremely hazrdous asbestos types and trypes shown to be benign by excelllent epidemiologincal evidence.
The sanctioning of a dangerous substitute, that fils in the turbulend of a fire.
How many more people are at risk from less spectacular fires because this issue has not been seriously addressed?
Truthers, please forgive me for talking about Stupid.
Fireproofing is largely an irrelevant topic for several reasons.
First, the trusses were tested at 2,000 degrees F, under load, for hours, and showed no sign of degradation. The trusses were weaker than the outer walls' or central cores' steel.
Second, the outer walls and central cores were more primary support than the trusses.
Third, the fires were nearly out and were not hot enough to damage the steel--not even close.
Fourth, no high rises in history have ever fallen from fire, yet several have burned much hotter and much longer.
Fifth, there were pools of molten steel, as GW makes clear. No fires could have done this.
Sixth, and finally, we know nanothermite was one of the causes of the collapse, from several labs who have not only found evidence that it was used in the chemical residues on the surviving steel, but we also know that un-ignited nanothermite chips (pristine) have been found in the rubble.
So, a focus on the fireproofing is nothing but a diversion from the hard evidence that is overwhelmingly incriminating.
(poor spec. fireproofing)
we used to call it monkey-dung
Left click the Mouse and it will allow you to spell check.
Give him a break. He has poor vision.
The paper lobby won out in the end and "FLUFF" was accepted as fireproofing. It often gets in the way of framers, electricians and mechanical contractors who just scrape it away while no one is looking to get on with their work. I'm absolutely certain it has happened dozens of times in YOUR building already just look above the ceiling...
Your title is confusing, GW, and the sarcasm or facetiousness or whatever is not apparent to me because of the way you present the bullet points for it not being an "inside job."
While I've come across at least one demolition expert who claims it could have been wired in five or six hours with a crack team, who would send that team in there after 10:00 or so? Would they have been on call? WTF?
Further, the reason "to prevent a disorderly collapse" is absurd on its face because the building would not have collapsed.
I doubt that a plane was headed for this building, honestly, but that one's tough to know. Clearly, this building was wired at least a week beforehand. These operations leave little to chance.
So yes, it was part of an "inside job." An "inside job," by definition, does not require for folks to die. An attack on property of this size is an attack. Destroying evidence can be part of an "inside job," too.
The question is why it had to fall, and the primary answer is that it housed evidence of this crime (likely an operation center), of other crimes, and produced insurance returns.
The gold was under WTC 4. This is not to say that the destruction of WTC 7 could not have helped with looting, but let's get the facts straight, golders: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/gold.html
Below is a helpful link w/which I have a few probs:
http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_07.htm
From the above link: " As a result of the collapse of Building 7, Larry Silverstein pocketed almost $1 Billion, $500 million of it in profits.
While it endorses the theory of Silverstein's "pull it" comments, which I think actually refer to fire department personnel, it has other quality info.
"Perhaps a government official from the CIA, Department of Defense, the IRS, the SEC branch investigating the infamous Wall Street corporate fraud cases, the Secret Service, or New York City's Office of Emergency Management (OEM) knows something about Building 7's odd collapse. All of those agencies strangely had offices in Building 7. The presence of OEM is particularly disturbing. They occupied a recently reinforced bunker-like space on the 23rd floor. Equipped with bulletproof windows, bomb-proof walls, and hurricane resistant windows, the office housed a sophisticated command center with top of the line military communication and logistical equipment. Perhaps Building 7 was a command center of a different kind, used as the true Ground Zero for the operation carried out on 9/11. A command center that became a crime scene after 8:46 a.m. that morning. A command center that needed to be destroyed."
I'm sure that you can easily find many more links to support this theory. It's merely one I find quickly (it's late here).
Here's some similar explanations from one more piece, even linking to the great David Ray Griffin, the Mark Lane of 911:
"Two motivations that seem the most promising to explore are a. destruction of evidence and b. insurance payouts to owner Larry Silverstein.
WTC 7 housed an emergency command center on the 23rd floor built in 1998 during Mayor Giuliani’s tenure at a cost of $15 million. I join many in the 9/11 inquiry movement who find it plausible that this fire and wind resistant unit housed the command center for the destruction of the Twin Towers as well as a homing device bringing the planes to their targets.[7] Many think that the building was brought down to destroy the equipment and the computers involved in the conspiracy. Others have noted that Building 7 also contained offices of the Securities and Exchange Commission including files for approximately three to four thousand cases, including one that may have demonstrated the relationship between Citigroup and the WorldCom bankruptcy.
While destruction of the evidence has a strong appeal, I suspect that it was not the primary motive. For one thing, if the conspirators required that evidence needed to be destroyed in this way, I suspect they would have planned to bring the building down well before 5:20 PM.
Much more interesting as a line of investigation, it seems to me, is the insurance payout to Larry Silverstein. According to author Don Paul, Silverstein Properties won an $861 million award from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties’ estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million, netting a profit of about $500 million.[8]
David Ray Griffin also suggests that Silverstein’s insurance considerations should be investigated as a motive in the destruction of the WTC buildings. Griffin points out that on April 26, 2001 Silverstein had taken out a lease on the WTC and wound up with a multibillion-dollar settlement when a federal jury ruled in December 2004 that the attacks constituted two occurrences.
More important perhaps, is that according to court filings, Silverstein had a plan to seek a huge profit from a small and brief investment in the World Trade Center apart from his claim for a double payment for the destruction of the Twin Towers. Griffin quotes court documents to the effect that Silverstein had only $14 million invested in the insurance deal for the Twin Towers (compared to 50 times as much by his lenders) through limited liability investment vehicles. The deal was structured to enable Silverstein to “walk away” from the lease if the buildings were destroyed, ending up with a balance of $1 billion. Griffin surmises that if the allegations are confirmed, “then it provides circumstantial support for those who believe that Silverstein took out the insurance with the knowledge that the buildings would be destroyed.” (Emphasis in original) Griffin believes that consideration of the “destruction of the WTC as an inside job cannot be ruled out a priori on the grounds that there would have been no conceivable motive.”[9]"
link: http://desip.igc.org/WTC7.html
And here's the NYT (MM) for the quibbling about whose responsibility the decision for placing a "command center" there was: http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/giuliani-911-and-the-emer...
So insurance and the destruction of the command center look like plausible motives.
But another huge motive is the destruction of evidence of a rough estimate of 3 to 4 THOUSAND cases for the SEC. Also, the EEOC was affected:
http://www.wanttoknow.info/010917nylawyerwallstreetsecfiles
and the link below the quote for the next one:
"FEMA's nonchalance about WTC-7’s collapse is stunning. Structural failures of this magnitude do not normally take place. In addition, there was high-profile, large-budget government agencies leasing office space in WTC-7 that day. Besides the SEC, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Department of Defense (DOD), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and New York’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM) were all tenants. None of the current heads of these departments have been vocal in demanding to know why this building collapsed. In addition, while some details have been released, a full accounting of what data these agencies lost has not been prominently reported."
http://www.media-criticism.com/World_Trade_Center_7_2003.html
I hope the links are helpful and that this is the kind of evidence you're looking for.
Again, as for the idea that it was wired after the towers were hit, it is not impossible, according to a European demolition expert I saw interviewed--possible but not likely. Still, the idea that one would wire it after the 911 attacks, in good faith, is ludicrous. And it would in no way have been wired beforehand without nefarious intent.
So I hope those three motives--insurance money, destroying a command center, and destroying important evidence for many cases with several agencies--are enough to counter the absurd (or facetious?) idea that it was somehow separated from the rest of the obvious inside job operation. I hope this is what you're looking for.
One last point--many of the same claims about the OKC Fed bld and case files are made, credibly (esp relating to Waco).
As has been stated by PNAC types, "never let a crisis go to waste." I suspect that LOTs of utility was gotten out of this event.
I tend to believe that a lot of this was a cover-up for imploding financial sector. TPTB's power is utterly dependent upon our financial/economic hall-of-mirrors. And we know that mirrors tend to crack when stressed... WTC 7 was THE real target, though, as you mention, it wasn't [likely] targeted by an aerial attack, it was painted as just collateral damage to what we've been programmed to believe was the "main event" (targets).
Were there paper trails in SEC docs that needed to be cleaned away? Perhaps there were real anti-crime dogs within the SEC who were guarding these docs, dogs that couldn't be lead away/bribed (dogs of the caliber of former FBI investigator John O'Neill)?
Someone posted a link noting the statistical probabilities for the official events. I didn't look at it (I already know that it's insanely low, esp given that building experienced free-fall speed [which would completely reduce the probability to ZERO]). But... what were the odds that the top hunter of Al Qaeda -John O'Neill- would die in this attack, as head of WTC security (recently hired after leaving the FBI in disgust)? Keep in mind that the FBI (where O'Neill" had worked) wasn't exactly friendly with the CIA: cops vs SPOOKS, with the CIA/SPOOKS being in the upper league (and likely over-seer of any high-level orchestrations [think G.H. Bush, former head of CIA, talking about New World Order...]).
They occupied a recently reinforced bunker-like space on the 23rd floor.
And that construction providing for an excellent opportunity for a comprehensive pre-wiring and placement of explosives in WTC7 to be detonated on 9/11...
I'd be curious as to other significant maintenance/construction projects taking place in other WTC buildings. I know that with large buildings there's almost always such activity going on, so it's not necessarily anything to be suspicious of (and that's why, if it was the case, that any setup operations could be carried out in plain sight).
We know that there was work going on in WTC 1 & WTC 2 (I hadn't known that that was also the case with WTC 7) AND the Pentagon building. And in all of these cases the primary locations of work were obliterated. Statistically speaking, this seems highly unlikely attributable to chance...
I agree, Seer, and it's been well noted on these threads before, even by GW in his links in his pieces. But the question presented was WTC7, so I focused on it in my response, not the others.
What about the missing Gold and Silver in Building 7? Only a fraction of the Gold that was supposed to be stored there was ever recovered.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/gold.html
I clearly post above, I think from the same source? that the gold was beneath WTC 4.
Excellent job Clashfan. I couldn't have said it better myself, so I didn't. The idea that because no one died in building 7, it was therefore NOT an inside job, is either (a) a clumsy and ineffective use of irony by GW, (b) a pathetic attempt at covering up or rationalizing something that can't and shouldn't be covered up or rationalized, or (c) a rather pathetic argument that is really beyond stupid. GW, you really shouldn't breath life into such terrible nonesense, even if you didn't mean to.
@" why has not one person talked?" ...
let us ask why has not one person listened?
Lot's of people in the know have spoken, they just don't live long enough to get a pen to paper. 3 men can keep a secret if two are dead.
-BD
Sorry but this too cute-by-half pseudo Socratic approach to factual provocation can be quickly lost on the casual reader and only diminishes the need for greater clarity and vigilance in ensuring that the criminals responsible for 9/11 are brought to justice.
A better post would have been to challenge the usual suspect trolls rather than potentially serve them.
For this, this article gets a one star from me, despite all the great commenters educating and reminding everyone about the true extent of those atrocities that day.
Let's assume for a moment that this is correct, that explosives were loaded into the building(s) and detonated to control the collapse.
Why has not one single person talked?
Presumably you'd need a bunch of people skilled in this role, a bunch of trucks to deliver it, and a bunch of cash to shut them up. We'd be looking at maybe 50 people with direct knowledge or a hell of a lot of "Delivery men putting boxes of 'paper' around support coloumns." It's reasonable to assume that if there were delivery men, they're either dead, suddenly rich, or really, really dumb.
How scary do you have to be to ensure that in 11 years, not one single person in that group has died and made a deathbed confession, or simply made anonymous tips in the right way to uncover the evidence?
If it's a conspiriacy, it's the best kept secret ever.
It's always best to have actual information to back up one's position...
Do some research. A good starting place is the "Manhattan Project."
And, in ALL wars there are atrocities that get covered up, in most times it's because people believe that they were essential in serving the greater good. The people involved, then, don't talk in terms of the atrocities they committed, if they even mention them at all.
Further, you're a perfect example of the bulk of people programmed to block the outing of any direct information: if you don't know about the Manhattan Project then that would suggest that you've made ZERO attempt to research whether your position is sound.
Go back to S[h,l]eep...
Daniel Ellsberg: “Secrets … Can Be Kept Reliably … For Decades … Even Though They Are Known to THOUSANDS of Insiders”
Thanks again George. I would suggest that TPTB are not keeping a secret but are instead maintaining a state of confusion which permits the secret to be obvious to all but believed by few. The financial collapse is just another part of this carefully crafted plan of distraction. I do agree with Ellsberg that thousands of insiders know various levels of truth, though not involved in directly, that would shock the American public into demanding a criminally conclusive inquiry. On the other hand never forget these same criminals were never held responsible for Vietnam.
So we are left to ponder and explore on our own what may have brought down the 3 buildings knowing full well our government does not intend to assist in any way whatsoever. I would assume that packing hollow columns with thermite would be the most practical method of demo but I don't see how that might account for molten rivers of steel for months after their collapse.
Here is another theory that seems far less likely than thermite but is nonetheless interesting to consider.
(Part 1 of 2 Full) Amazing interview with Dimitri Khalezov, former Nuclear Intelligence officer of the Soviet Union. Because of the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty of 1976 between the USA and the former USSR and Dimitri's military role in the USSR's Nuclear Intelligence division, Dimitri had certain knowledge of the WTC demolition schema, which was required to obtain the original WTC building permit in New York (i.e. NY did not issue a building permit without submitting a demolition schema). Dimitri uses his insider information combined with his military background to explain the events of 911 in depth. He leaves no 911 question unanswered.
In Part 1, Dimitri explains:
- Dimitri Khalezov background
- Planes and explosions
- Pentagon mentioned (explained fully in Part 2)
- Nuclear detonations explained
- WTC1 & WTC2 nuclear demolition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNuKAdGlxFo&list=PLD09BC1E9A11541DE&index...
Pristine nanothermite chips have been found in the rubble, by several labs.
That doesn't meant that energy or DU-type nuke weapons were not used.
It just means that nanothermite was used.
"I would suggest that TPTB are not keeping a secret but are instead maintaining a state of confusion which permits the secret to be obvious to all but believed by few."
Well, yes, they are keeping from telling the actual facts directly, so... by default it's keeping a secret: I suppose that they could pull a "depends on the meaning of 'is' is." But... yes, create a state of confusion to cloud things, this is a fundamental tactic in WAR and in any sizable operation which is highly dependent upon the chaining of many activities for execution: businesses also do this (which brings up another rebuttal point against those who don't think it possible for large numbers of people to keep silent about large-scale secret undertakings).
Excellent GW..as always, your posts are chocked full of back up.
I feel sorry for the sheeple that still believe the "official" version - because anyone that really looks at ALL the evidence, comes to a completely different conclusion.
But they didn't have the Internet in those days?
I don't think the same rules apply today