The Official 9/11 thread..scientific inquiry..and comparisons with demolitions

[Phoenix]

if you guys have not watched this video you cant comment on anything.

what about the workers who worked there? talking about the major reno's going on in the 6 weeks since silverstein took ownership

dust on everything every day they came to work the week leading up to it?
there are just too many facets left unanswered.

i can hope and pray that a real investigation is opened by the next administration

[Dollarmansteve]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

if you guys have not watched this video you cant comment on anything.

what about the workers who worked there? talking about the major reno's going on in the 6 weeks since silverstein took ownership

dust on everything every day they came to work the week leading up to it?
there are just too many facets left unanswered.

i can hope and pray that a real investigation is opened by the next administration

I'm such a sucker for giving you the sig-views. Good on you though, you know how to push buttons and use the board effectively.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Dollarmansteve

I'm such a sucker for giving you the sig-views. Good on you though, you know how to push buttons and use the board effectively.

well you seem to be doing ok by getting into the mix

id blow up ten towers for the money these miltary contracts got from 9/11

[Minte]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

if you guys have not watched this video you cant comment on anything.

what about the workers who worked there? talking about the major reno's going on in the 6 weeks since silverstein took ownership

dust on everything every day they came to work the week leading up to it?
there are just too many facets left unanswered.

i can hope and pray that a real investigation is opened by the next administration

It's been nearly 6 years. If the democrats could've nailed the presidents ass to the wall,I have to believe they would've. Bush will leave office with all the benefits of a retired president and life will go on.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Minte

It's been nearly 6 years. If the democrats could've nailed the presidents ass to the wall,I have to believe they would've. Bush will leave office with all the benefits of a retired president and life will go on.

sadly i think you are right

i mean..we did need to go to war over there...for the greater good and all that

[Dollarmansteve]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

well you seem to be doing ok by getting into the mix

id blow up ten towers for the money these miltary contracts got from 9/11

I propose a truce. In all reality you dont know me and I dont know you - it's all hear-say, speculation and GFY board bullshit. Plus it creates really stupid tension at shows / airports which is unneccessary.

I'll stay off your case as long as we can agree to disagree on all this conspiracy crap.

That is my olive branch.

[Martin]

9-11 is a conspiracy no matter what side of the fence you're on. Either you believe a couple of rag heads with nail clippers took over a few planes and crashed them into sensitive US buildings or this was a black flag operation. I just can't bring myself to believe a couple of guys with basic piloting skills and a nail clippers could have pulled this off. Buuuuuuuuuuuullsheeeeeeeet........

[Splum]

Kooks like Phoenix are why I will NEVER EVER vote for a Democrat again, not even in local elections. Fuck these kooky motherfuckers.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Splum

Kooks like Phoenix are why I will NEVER EVER vote for a Democrat again, not even in local elections. Fuck these kooky motherfuckers.

dont let too many other CDN's influence your vote simpleton

[dv2]

What I don't understand is given the poor handling of every aspect of that day, and then the complete lack forensic respect the crime scene was given afterward, how anyone can get totally pissed at people who want real answers to the reasons for this.

I mean, even a month and a half later, the wtc grounds were still being treated unlike any other crime scene. Instead of letting workers try their best to recover the remains of the victims, they impeded the process.
On Nov 2, 2001, Guliani reduced the number of workers who could search for remains at any one time. There had been as many as 300 fire fighters at a time involved in search and recovery, but he cut that number to no more than 25 who could be there at once.

Then to make matters worse, they started to remove all the debris like a dump site even fully aware that many bodies of firefighters, wtc workers, etc.
were in that pile? Why? How is that acceptable?

So asking some of these questions shouldn't outrage people as much as they
should be outraged at how this became the most fucked up
and poorly managed crime scene ever.

And for those that don't know, the real heroes of 9-11, the firefighters, are still to this day not big fans of Guliani, (Time's "Person of the Year 2001".)

[xlogger]

OMFG, Phoenix can you kill your self?!?! please??

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by xlogger

OMFG, Phoenix can you kill your self?!?! please??

uh no

but thanks for showing your vast intellect and wit in here.

[Dollarmansteve]

Originally Posted by Dollarmansteve

I propose a truce. In all reality you dont know me and I dont know you - it's all hear-say, speculation and GFY board bullshit. Plus it creates really stupid tension at shows / airports which is unneccessary.

I'll stay off your case as long as we can agree to disagree on all this conspiracy crap.

That is my olive branch.

........in case you missed it.

[dv2]

Is it a giant conspiracy to want answers to some of these mishandled
events? I mean actual credible answers to why certain decisions were made
and why no one has been fired or reprimanded for these failures?

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Dollarmansteve

........in case you missed it.

no worries steve

take it easy

[Splum]

Originally Posted by dv2

Is it a giant conspiracy to want answers to some of these mishandled events? I mean actual credible answers to why certain decisions were made and why no one has been fired or reprimanded for these failures?

I think the response to something that dramatic and tragic was quite heroic by all parties involved. To diminish that is a fucking disgrace.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by dv2

What I don't understand is given the poor handling of every aspect of that day, and then the complete lack forensic respect the crime scene was given afterward, how anyone can get totally pissed at people who want real answers to the reasons for this.

no one cares about or are upset at people "wanting answers" - people get annoyed at those people that "want a government conspiracy" irrespective of the answers that have been given.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

how about the massive explosions heard rippling through the buildings as a start...then the visual cue as it began falling.
then couple that with the video showing it collapsed into itself 9 -10 seconds later....a few simple calcualtions later...you are not suprised to find out they fell at g

I don't find it surprising at all that a tall building that just had a plane crash into it, jet fuel burning, multiple fires everywhere..... would have explosions happening moments before it fell.

If I recall correctly one of the first things that happened when one of the planes hit in one of the buildings was a elevator came crashing down into the lobby and spit out a nice fire ball at ground level. I would imagine there were fires on many different levels of the building. And God only knows what was in the WTC at different levels that could explode.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

two planes hit two separate buildings and took down 3 separate buildings?

I don't remember when the third building fell - if it was after the towers or not. But the building was on fire and who knows what fell from the towers into or onto the third building.

And if the third building - Wasn't it called WTC7? - fell after the towers, well, that should come as no surprise. Just the ground movement from the millions of tons of debris falling combined with the debris itself and then the shock wave is more than enough to take down a building - or at least weaken it to the point where it could still fall hours later.

[dv2]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I don't find it surprising at all that a tall building that just had a plane crash into it, jet fuel burning, multiple fires everywhere..... would have explosions happening moments before it fell.

If I recall correctly one of the first things that happened when one of the planes hit in one of the buildings was a elevator came crashing down into the lobby and spit out a nice fire ball at ground level. I would imagine there were fires on many different levels of the building. And God only knows what was in the WTC at different levels that could explode.



I don't remember when the third building fell - if it was after the towers or not. But the building was on fire and who knows what fell from the towers into or onto the third building.

And if the third building - Wasn't it called WTC7? - fell after the towers, well, that should come as no surprise. Just the ground movement from the millions of tons of debris falling combined with the debris itself and then the shock wave is more than enough to take down a building - or at least weaken it to the point where it could still fall hours later.

WTC 7 had less damage than some other buildings in the area.
The other buildings in the wtc complex, buildings 4, 5 and 6, stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire.

I mean, everyone is free to guess what could have brought wtc 7 down, but it sure is pointless.

[dv2]

I should add also, that the collapsing of WTC 7 isn't just somewhat mysterious
even too engineers. It also happened to fall exactly like wtc 1 + 2 did.

[viking1]

All i wanna see is the hotel video tape of what hit Pentagon,why come ,cia / fbi was in all hotel,gas stations ,in juts a few min after the attack and took everything away ? + some witness was in so shock of what they saw on this video tape, but never talked about it,funny .

[Aussie Rebel]

I saw this a couple of weeks ago and it definitely changed my views on 911, I'm just glad I dont live in the US, because after watching this doc I dont even think terrorists were involved,

[xroach]

Originally Posted by Dirty Franck

Im out of this thread. Have fun.

pwned....

[Minte]

Originally Posted by Aussie Rebel

I saw this a couple of weeks ago and it definitely changed my views on 911, I'm just glad I dont live in the US, because after watching this doc I dont even think terrorists were involved,

I know what you mean...I watched JAWS when it came out,sold my boat,sold my condo on the beach and never went back in the ocean again. ;)

[Splum]

Originally Posted by Aussie Rebel

I saw this a couple of weeks ago and it definitely changed my views on 911, I'm just glad I dont live in the US, because after watching this doc I dont even think terrorists were involved,

We are glad you dont live here too.

[Splum]

Originally Posted by dv2

I should add also, that the collapsing of WTC 7 isn't just somewhat mysterious even too engineers. It also happened to fall exactly like wtc 1 + 2 did.

Rosie is that you? How are you fat ass!?

[dv2]

Originally Posted by Splum

Rosie is that you? How are you fat ass!?

Yeah, thats a good scientific answer to the mystery of wtc 7.
Now we can see why the official story makes so much sense.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by dv2

WTC 7 had less damage than some other buildings in the area.
The other buildings in the wtc complex, buildings 4, 5 and 6, stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire.

I mean, everyone is free to guess what could have brought wtc 7 down, but it sure is pointless.

Oh gosh.....

Sometimes when a building is on fire it it falls down. Sometimes a building can catch on fire and it doesn't fall down.

One thing is fact though.... WTC did have more damage than other buildings in the area because clearly it fell down. I mean, a building that fell down is in pieces and clearly has more damage than a building that is still standing.

I'm sorry. Nothing can change my mind about what happened that day. Two airplanes were intentionally crashed into skyscrapers. The planes were driven by terrorists. Not by Bush, not by his followers, not by the military, and not by remote control.

It's simple folks. Thirty people can see a single car accident and walk away with thirty different versions of what happened. You take multiple incidents spread out over 24 hours witnessed by millions of people on TV, and well, you'll have lots of things that you cannot explain. Being as we don't have much practice crashing planes into skyscrapers, well, no one can really tell us what happened on that day.

And no fucking high school who makes a video is going to prove anything.

By the way, did it ever occur to anyone that the footage used in any of these videos was doctored? I mean, we all know EVERYTHING ON THE INTERNET IS REAL, RIGHT?

[WarChild]

Occam's razor (also spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off," those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"):

In other words, when more than one explanation exists to explain an event, most often the simplest is the truth. Think on that for a bit.

[griffin]

Wow!

Did you know the Illuminati organized the whole thing? The group initiated approx 5 trillion $USD in deriative contracts against the US stock market throughout the summer of 2001. When the markets plunged after the attack they raised their total wealth by several orders of magnitude. They then shifted to oil futures and doubled their total wealth again.

This was all because they decided in 2000 they wanted to move to California from Europe, and with the high real estate prices they needed the extra cash.

[dv2]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Oh gosh.....
Sometimes when a building is on fire it it falls down. Sometimes a building can catch on fire and it doesn't fall down.

Nice. Name one other time when a steel building on fire fell down.

WTC 1 + 2 fell down, but the official story is it was the plane crash combined
with the fires that brought them down.

Only 1 other steel framed building in history has collapsed from fire.
Guess which one. Do some fucking research instead of all this bullshit.

[Martin]

[Martin]

[CheeseFrog]

How does the WTC being brought down by explosives have anything to do with the US government? In all likelyhood, if explosives were involved, they were planted by terrorists. Or did the US govt plant the explosives and sat on their thumbs waiting for a terrorist attack to detonate them?

[CheeseFrog]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

contrary to your belief..weight has no effect on gravity.
so nothing would speed up at all.

Yeah but weight has everything to do with momentum. I might be able to catch Jordan Capri jumping out of a 2nd story window, but I'd end up flat as a pancake if I tried catching Rosanne Barr.

[notabook]

Originally Posted by CheeseFrog

How does the WTC being brought down by explosives have anything to do with the US government? In all likelyhood, if explosives were involved, they were planted by terrorists. Or did the US govt plant the explosives and sat on their thumbs waiting for a terrorist attack to detonate them?

I hate the black borders around your pictures.

[DWB]

keep spreading the TRUTH!!!!

[getthesex]

you mean the huge fireball that consumd most of the kerosene ???? what is that

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by getthesex

you mean the huge fireball that consumd most of the kerosene ???? what is that

when someting full of jet fuel smashes intoa b uilding and you see a huge fireball that races up and down like ten stories each way....thatis the jet fuel exploding..it explodes on impact


listen you have people like rochard who believe whatever their governement says...cause he thinks a jet holds millions of gallons of fuel.

people like 12 clicks who dont believe anything either way..but just want to stir the pot and watch the world burn...you cant blame him..he is in denial about being gay and so hates everyone.

Franck....i cant figure franck out cause i actually thought he was smarter then he lets on.

splum--who cares


most detractors are messed up in the head

[ColourMeHuman]

Originally Posted by Rochard

No one will ever be able to convince me that the WTC was bombed. I saw - on live TV - a large jet take out multiple floors of the WTC. The combination of the crash itself, the burning jet fuel, and the resulting fire was too much for the buildings to handle.

You can't compare a building on fire to what happened to the WTC. The building on fire didn't have multiple floors destroyed the moment the fire started, nor did it have millions of gallons of jet fuel concentrated in one area.

You can talk to experts all day long and every one of them will have a different idea of what happened. However, you can build thirty WTC towers, crash a jet airline into each one of them, and still get a different result each time.

If anyone thinks our government was able to pull this off without it leaking out yet is just plain stupid.

What about WTC 7? Most people still don't know this 47 story building collapsed later that day at approximately 5:30pm and no plane hit it! It fell into it's own foot print in 6.5 seconds. All the demolition experts who have looked at it say controlled demolition is most logical explanation.

[ColourMeHuman]

Originally Posted by ColourMeHuman

What about WTC 7? Most people still don't know this 47 story building collapsed later that day at approximately 5:30pm and no plane hit it! It fell into it's own foot print in 6.5 seconds. All the demolition experts who have looked at it say controlled demolition is most logical explanation.

Oh, and no structural steel building in history has even collasped due to fire.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by ColourMeHuman

Oh, and no structural steel building in history has even collasped due to fire.

oh... and how many buildings in history can be compared to both towers in terms of size and construction and where the fire was the result of a large, commercial airliner flying through the building?

0

[ColourMeHuman]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

oh... and how many buildings in history can be compared to both towers in terms of size and construction and where the fire was the result of a large, commercial airliner flying through the building?

0

No commercial airliner hit Building 7!!!!! It's almost half the size of the twin towers.

[hershie]

Originally Posted by ColourMeHuman

No commercial airliner hit Building 7!!!!! It's almost half the size of the twin towers.

Not sure why there is any controversy about WTC7 still. It was obviously not only fire but structural damage too:

I didn't have to look hard to find these tidbits on Wikipedia:

- As the North Tower collapsed, debris hit WTC7 "with the force of a volcanic eruption."[6] Much of the bottom 10 stories of the building's south face were destroyed, with damage visible as high as the 18th floor.


and I think this should make people feel more comfortable that there was no cover-up:


- In response to FEMA's concerns, the Commerce Department?s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) made a three-year, US$24-million investigation into the structural failure and collapse of several WTC structures, including 7 World Trade Center. The study drew not only on in-house technical expertise but also the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).[7]

NIST has released video and still-photo analysis of Building 7 before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, the NIST's interim report on 7 WTC displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The NIST interim report on 7 WTC details a 10-story gash that existed on the south façade, extending a third of the way across the face of the building and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior, but does not provide any photographs of the damage to the south façade.[1] A unique aspect of the design of 7 WTC was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns would severely compromise the structure's integrity. Consistent with this theory, news footage shows visible cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.[1]

NIST "anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007".[8][9] NIST released a progress report in June 2004, outlining its working hypothesis, which was that a local failure in a critical column, caused by damage from either fire or falling debris from the collapses of the two towers, progressed first vertically and then horizontally to result in "a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure".[10][11] In a New York magazine interview in March 2006, Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead WTC disaster investigator, said, of 7 World Trade Center, "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors?; he added "But truthfully, I don?t really know. We?ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7".[12]

Despite FEMA's preliminary finding that fire caused the collapse, conspiracy theorists believe the collapse was the result of a controlled demolition. When asked about controlled demolition theories, Dr. Sunder said, "We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who?s Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can?t worry about that. Facts are facts."[13] In answer to the question of whether "a controlled[-]demolition hypothesis is being considered to explain the collapse", NIST said that, "[w]hile NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, it would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."[9]

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by hershie

Not sure why there is any controversy about WTC7 still. It was obviously not only fire but structural damage too:

I didn't have to look hard to find these tidbits on Wikipedia:

- As the North Tower collapsed, debris hit WTC7 "with the force of a volcanic eruption."[6] Much of the bottom 10 stories of the building's south face were destroyed, with damage visible as high as the 18th floor.


and I think this should make people feel more comfortable that there was no cover-up:


- In response to FEMA's concerns, the Commerce Department?s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) made a three-year, US$24-million investigation into the structural failure and collapse of several WTC structures, including 7 World Trade Center. The study drew not only on in-house technical expertise but also the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).[7]

NIST has released video and still-photo analysis of Building 7 before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, the NIST's interim report on 7 WTC displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The NIST interim report on 7 WTC details a 10-story gash that existed on the south façade, extending a third of the way across the face of the building and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior, but does not provide any photographs of the damage to the south façade.[1] A unique aspect of the design of 7 WTC was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns would severely compromise the structure's integrity. Consistent with this theory, news footage shows visible cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.[1]

NIST "anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007".[8][9] NIST released a progress report in June 2004, outlining its working hypothesis, which was that a local failure in a critical column, caused by damage from either fire or falling debris from the collapses of the two towers, progressed first vertically and then horizontally to result in "a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure".[10][11] In a New York magazine interview in March 2006, Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead WTC disaster investigator, said, of 7 World Trade Center, "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors?; he added "But truthfully, I don?t really know. We?ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7".[12]

Despite FEMA's preliminary finding that fire caused the collapse, conspiracy theorists believe the collapse was the result of a controlled demolition. When asked about controlled demolition theories, Dr. Sunder said, "We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who?s Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can?t worry about that. Facts are facts."[13] In answer to the question of whether "a controlled[-]demolition hypothesis is being considered to explain the collapse", NIST said that, "[w]hile NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, it would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."[9]

Not to mention that the whole wtc was on top of a huge underground area that connected everything. Wonder if the support structure for the whole area JUST might of been damaged hmm.

[hershie]

Originally Posted by ColourMeHuman

What about WTC 7? Most people still don't know this 47 story building collapsed later that day at approximately 5:30pm and no plane hit it! It fell into it's own foot print in 6.5 seconds. All the demolition experts who have looked at it say controlled demolition is most logical explanation.

If you cared about the truth and your integrity, you wouldn't be the one throwing out bunk trying to create the real cover-up of the truth. In addition to my post above here is another take on WTC7:

from http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog...s/4213805.html

Recently, Rosie O’Donnell, a co-host of ABC talk show The View, made comments on the show that renewed controversy over the collapse of World Trade Center 7.

While saying she didn’t know what to believe about the U.S. government’s involvement in the attacks of Sept. 11, she said, “I do believe that it’s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics that World Trade Center tower 7—building 7, which collapsed in on itself—it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. World Trade Center 7. World Trade [Center] 1 and 2 got hit by planes—7, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible.”

She continued: “To say that we don’t know that it imploded, that it was an implosion and a demolition, is beyond ignorant. Look at the films, get a physics expert here [on the show] from Yale, from Harvard, pick the school—[the collapse] defies reason.” (Watch the clip here)

For those interested in what physics and demolition experts have said regarding WTC 7’s collapse, as detailed in our book Debunking 9/11 Myths, Popular Mechanics offers these notes:

1. Initial reports from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) misunderstood the amount of damage the 47-floor WTC7 sustained from the debris of the falling North Tower—because in early photographs, WTC7 was obscured by smoke and debris.

Towers 1 and 7 were approximately 300 ft. apart, and pictures like the ones here and here offer a clear visual of how small that distance is for structures that large. After further studies, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) told Popular Mechanics that debris from the 110-floor North Tower hit WTC7 with the force of a volcanic eruption. Nearly a quarter of the building was carved away over the bottom 10 stories on its south face, and significant damage was visible up to the 18th floor (see p. 24 of this report, and the screengrab below of an image of WTC7's damaged south face).

The unusual design of WTC7 is also crucial to the discussion, in that key columns supported extreme loads—as much as 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor—as the building straddled an electrical substation. “What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors,” NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told Popular Mechanics, “it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.” The tower wasn’t hit by a plane, but it was severely wounded by the collapse of the North Tower. Which is when the fires started.

2. The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center weren’t knocked down by planes—they both stood for more than a half-hour after the impacts. But the crashes destroyed support columns and ignited infernos that ultimately weakened—not melted—the steel structures until the towers could no longer support their own weights (NIST offers a primer here). Ms. O’Donnell fundamentally misstates the case with her use of the word “melted”: Evidence currently points to WTC7 also collapsing because fires weakened its ravaged steel structure.

Tower 7 housed the city’s emergency command center, so there were a number of fuel tanks located throughout the building—including two 6000-gal. tanks in the basement that fed some generators in the building by pressurized lines. “Our working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time,” according to Sunder. Steel melts at about 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit—but it loses strength at temperatures as low as 400 F. When temperatures break 1000 degrees F, steel loses nearly 50 percent of its strength. It is unknown what temperatures were reached inside WTC7, but fires in the building raged for seven hours before the collapse.

3. Demolition experts tell Popular Mechanics that wiring a building the size of WTC7 for clandestine demolition would present insurmountable logistical challenges. That issue aside, there’s a clear-cut engineering explanation for why the building fell the way it did. Trusses on the fifth and seventh floors of the building were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another; with the south face heavily damaged, the other columns were likely overtaxed. In engineering terms, the “progressive collapse” began on the eastern side, when weakened columns failed from the damage and fire. The entire building fell in on itself as the slumping east side dragged down the west side in a diagonal pattern. Still, damage to the Verizon Building (see p. 21 of this report), directly west of WTC7, and to Fiterman Hall (see here) directly north, show that it was hardly an orderly collapse.

NIST is currently preparing its final report on the collapse of WTC7, which is expected to be released this spring. In order to address concerns of conspiracy theorists, the organization added “Hypothetical Blast Analysis” to its research, according to a December 2006 progress report. The report also points out that “NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition.”


Now last time I posted something from the Popular Mechanics piece where they got together all those dozens of experts towards preparing their report, Phoenix here on GFY responded that the report has no credibility because one of the authors is related to someone in the Bush Administration. To just wily-nilly dismiss the report and all those experts like that speaks volumes on who is perpetuating a cover-up.

[ColourMeHuman]

Originally Posted by hershie

If you cared about the truth and your integrity, you wouldn't be the one throwing out bunk trying to create the real cover-up of the truth. In addition to my post above here is another take on WTC7:

from http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog...s/4213805.html

Recently, Rosie O?Donnell, a co-host of ABC talk show The View, made comments on the show that renewed controversy over the collapse of World Trade Center 7.

While saying she didn?t know what to believe about the U.S. government?s involvement in the attacks of Sept. 11, she said, ?I do believe that it?s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics that World Trade Center tower 7?building 7, which collapsed in on itself?it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. World Trade Center 7. World Trade [Center] 1 and 2 got hit by planes?7, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible.?

She continued: ?To say that we don?t know that it imploded, that it was an implosion and a demolition, is beyond ignorant. Look at the films, get a physics expert here [on the show] from Yale, from Harvard, pick the school?[the collapse] defies reason.? (Watch the clip here)

For those interested in what physics and demolition experts have said regarding WTC 7?s collapse, as detailed in our book Debunking 9/11 Myths, Popular Mechanics offers these notes:

1. Initial reports from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) misunderstood the amount of damage the 47-floor WTC7 sustained from the debris of the falling North Tower?because in early photographs, WTC7 was obscured by smoke and debris.

Towers 1 and 7 were approximately 300 ft. apart, and pictures like the ones here and here offer a clear visual of how small that distance is for structures that large. After further studies, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) told Popular Mechanics that debris from the 110-floor North Tower hit WTC7 with the force of a volcanic eruption. Nearly a quarter of the building was carved away over the bottom 10 stories on its south face, and significant damage was visible up to the 18th floor (see p. 24 of this report, and the screengrab below of an image of WTC7's damaged south face).

The unusual design of WTC7 is also crucial to the discussion, in that key columns supported extreme loads?as much as 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor?as the building straddled an electrical substation. ?What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors,? NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told Popular Mechanics, ?it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.? The tower wasn?t hit by a plane, but it was severely wounded by the collapse of the North Tower. Which is when the fires started.

2. The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center weren?t knocked down by planes?they both stood for more than a half-hour after the impacts. But the crashes destroyed support columns and ignited infernos that ultimately weakened?not melted?the steel structures until the towers could no longer support their own weights (NIST offers a primer here). Ms. O?Donnell fundamentally misstates the case with her use of the word ?melted?: Evidence currently points to WTC7 also collapsing because fires weakened its ravaged steel structure.

Tower 7 housed the city?s emergency command center, so there were a number of fuel tanks located throughout the building?including two 6000-gal. tanks in the basement that fed some generators in the building by pressurized lines. ?Our working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time,? according to Sunder. Steel melts at about 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit?but it loses strength at temperatures as low as 400 F. When temperatures break 1000 degrees F, steel loses nearly 50 percent of its strength. It is unknown what temperatures were reached inside WTC7, but fires in the building raged for seven hours before the collapse.

3. Demolition experts tell Popular Mechanics that wiring a building the size of WTC7 for clandestine demolition would present insurmountable logistical challenges. That issue aside, there?s a clear-cut engineering explanation for why the building fell the way it did. Trusses on the fifth and seventh floors of the building were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another; with the south face heavily damaged, the other columns were likely overtaxed. In engineering terms, the ?progressive collapse? began on the eastern side, when weakened columns failed from the damage and fire. The entire building fell in on itself as the slumping east side dragged down the west side in a diagonal pattern. Still, damage to the Verizon Building (see p. 21 of this report), directly west of WTC7, and to Fiterman Hall (see here) directly north, show that it was hardly an orderly collapse.

NIST is currently preparing its final report on the collapse of WTC7, which is expected to be released this spring. In order to address concerns of conspiracy theorists, the organization added ?Hypothetical Blast Analysis? to its research, according to a December 2006 progress report. The report also points out that ?NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition.?


Now last time I posted something from the Popular Mechanics piece where they got together all those dozens of experts towards preparing their report, Phoenix here on GFY responded that the report has no credibility because one of the authors is related to someone in the Bush Administration. To just wily-nilly dismiss the report and all those experts like that speaks volumes on who is perpetuating a cover-up.

If you believe government funded Popular Mechanics which is put out by Yellow Journalism king Hearst Publishing, then I have a bridge I want to sell you! Hearst is literally the father of Yellow Journalism!

Yellow journalism is a pejorative reference to journalism that features scandal-mongering, sensationalism, jingoism or other unethical or unprofessional practices by news media organizations or individual journalists.

The term originated during the circulation battles between Joseph Pulitzer's New York World and William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal from 1895 to about 1898, and can refer specifically to this period. Both papers were accused by critics of sensationalizing the news in order to drive up circulation, although the newspapers did serious reporting as well. The New York Press coined the term "Yellow Journalism" in early 1897 to describe the papers of Pulitzer and Hearst. The newspaper did not define the term, and in 1898 simply elaborated, "We called them Yellow because they are Yellow."[1]

[hershie]

Originally Posted by ColourMeHuman

If you believe government funded Popular Mechanics which is put out by Yellow Journalism king Hearst Publishing, then I have a bridge I want to sell you! Hearst is literally the father of Yellow Journalism!

Yellow journalism is a pejorative reference to journalism that features scandal-mongering, sensationalism, jingoism or other unethical or unprofessional practices by news media organizations or individual journalists.

The term originated during the circulation battles between Joseph Pulitzer's New York World and William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal from 1895 to about 1898, and can refer specifically to this period. Both papers were accused by critics of sensationalizing the news in order to drive up circulation, although the newspapers did serious reporting as well. The New York Press coined the term "Yellow Journalism" in early 1897 to describe the papers of Pulitzer and Hearst. The newspaper did not define the term, and in 1898 simply elaborated, "We called them Yellow because they are Yellow."[1]

OK so you don't trust anything from one of the most respected and independent magazines out there. How about the fact that their study was based on experts addressing directly the assertions made by the conspiracy theorists. Are all these people in on it too:


To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.

In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.

Air Crash Analysis
Cleveland Center regional air traffic control

Bill Crowley special agent, FBI

Ron Dokell president, Demolition Consultants

Richard Gazarik staff writer, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Yates Gladwell pilot, VF Corp.

Michael K. Hynes, Ed.D.,
ATP, CFI, A&P/IA president, Hynes Aviation Services; expert, aviation crashes

Ed Jacoby Jr. director,
New York State Emergency Management Office (Ret.); chairman, New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission (Ret.)

Johnstown-Cambria County Airport Authority

Cindi Lash staff writer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Matthew McCormick manager, survival factors division, National Transportation Safety Board (Ret.)

Wallace Miller coroner, Somerset County, PA

Robert Nagan meteorological technician, Climate Services Branch, National Climatic Data Center

Dave Newell director, aviation and travel, VF Corp.

James O?Toole politics editor, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Pennsylvania State Police Public Information Office

Jeff Pillets senior writer,
The Record, Hackensack, NJ

Jeff Rienbold director, Flight 93 National Memorial, National Park Service

Dennis Roddy staff writer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Master Sgt. David Somdahl public affairs officer,
119th Wing, North Dakota
Air National Guard

Mark Stahl photographer; eyewitness, United Airlines Flight 93 crash scene

Air Defense
Lt. Col. Skip Aldous (Ret.) squadron commander,
U.S. Air Force

Tech. Sgt. Laura Bosco public affairs officer,
Tyndall Air Force Base

Boston Center regional air traffic control

Laura Brown spokeswoman,
Federal Aviation Administration

Todd Curtis, Ph.D. founder, Airsafe.com; president, Airsafe.com Foundation

Keith Halloway public affairs officer, National Transportation Safety Board

Ted Lopatkiewicz director, public affairs, National Transportation Safety Board

Maj. Douglas Martin public affairs officer,
North American Aerospace Defense Command

Lt. Herbert McConnell public affairs officer,
Andrews AFB

Michael Perini public affairs officer, North American Aerospace Defense Command

John Pike director, GlobalSecurity.org

Hank Price spokesman, Federal
Aviation Administration

Warren Robak RAND Corp.

Bill Shumann spokesman,
Federal Aviation Administration

Louis Walsh public affairs officer, Eglin AFB

Chris Yates aviation security editor, analyst, Jane?s Transport

Aviation
Fred E.C. Culick, Ph.D., S.B., S.M. professor of aeronautics, California Institute of Technology

Robert Everdeen public affairs, Northrop Grumman

Clint Oster professor of public and environmental affairs, Indiana University; aviation safety expert

Capt. Bill Scott (Ret. USAF) Rocky Mountain bureau chief, Aviation Week


Bill Uher News Media Office, NASA Langley Research Center

Col. Ed Walby (Ret. USAF)
director, business development, HALE Systems Enterprise, Unmanned Systems, Northrop Grumman

Image Analysis
William F. Baker member, FEMA Probe Team; partner, Skidmore, Owings, Merrill

W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. senior vice president, CTL Group; director,
FEMA Probe Team

Bill Daly senior vice president, Control Risks Group

Steve Douglass image analysis consultant, Aviation Week

Thomas R. Edwards, Ph.D. founder, TREC; video forensics expert.

Ronald Greeley, Ph.D. professor of geology, Arizona State University

Rob Howard freelance photographer; WTC eyewitness

Robert L. Parker, Ph.D. professor of geophysics,
University of California, San Diego

Structural Engineering / Building Collapse
Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D. senior engineer, American Institute of Steel Construction

David Biggs, P.E. structural engineer, Ryan-Biggs Associates; member, ASCE team for FEMA report

Robert Clarke structural engineer, Controlled Demolitions Group Ltd.

Glenn Corbett technical editor, Fire Engineering; member, NIST advisory committee

Vincent Dunn deputy fire chief (Ret.), FDNY; author, The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety

John Fisher, Ph.D. professor of civil engineering, Lehigh University; professor emeritus, Center for Advanced Technology; member, FEMA Probe Team

Ken Hays executive vice president, Masonry Arts

Christoph Hoffmann, Ph.D. professor of computer science, Purdue University; project director, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University

Allyn E. Kilsheimer, P.E.
CEO, KCE Structural Engineers PC; chief structural engineer, Phoenix project; expert in blast recovery, concrete structures, emergency response

Won-Young Kim, Ph.D. seismologist, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University

William Koplitz photo desk manager, FEMA

John Labriola freelance photographer, WTC survivor

Arthur Lerner-Lam, Ph.D. seismologist; director,
Earth Institute, Center for Hazards and Risk Research, Columbia University

James Quintiere, Ph.D. professor of engineering, University of Maryland member, NIST advisory committee

Steve Riskus freelance photographer; eyewitness, Pentagon crash

Van Romero, Ph.D. vice president, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

Christine Shaffer spokesperson, Viracon

Mete Sozen, Ph.D., S.E. Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering, Purdue University; member, Pentagon Building Performance Report; project conception, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University

Shyam Sunder, Sc.D.
acting deputy director, lead investigator, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Mary Tobin science writer, media relations, Earth Institute, Columbia University

Forman Williams, Ph.D. professor of engineering, physics, combustion, University of California,
San Diego; member, advisory committee, National Institute of Standards and Technology

[Alky]

How come theres never really any pictures of actual fire from the WTC?

You would think that if there was enough fire to bring the whole thing down, there would have been huge flames shooting out windows and such.

Also Franck, you keep saying about the engineer who said it was coming down... what about the firefighters who reported that those floors were all clear? There are witnesses that support both arguments.

[juz]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html


End of thread