WTC 7 "collapse" (MSNBC live)

[mp3228]

NYFD says it would "be brought down".

 

[Generic George]

NYFD says it would "be brought down".

 

 

I continue to be amazed at your lack of ability to pay attention to what is actually said or written.

 

The line was and I quote from your own clip "the building was unstable and eventually it would need to come down on it's own or it would be taken down. I would imagine it came down on it's own."

 

What do you think is going to happen with buildings that suffer massive damage from fire and huge chunks of concrete? Someone is going to come along and go "shazam!" the building is magically healed?

[mp3228]

I continue to be amazed at your lack of ability to pay attention to what is actually said or written.

 

The line was and I quote from your own clip "the building was unstable and eventually it would need to come down on it's own or it would be taken down. I would imagine it came down on it's own."

 

What do you think is going to happen with buildings that suffer massive damage from fire and huge chunks of concrete? Someone is going to come along and go "shazam! the building is magically healed?

 

Yes, and kerosene melts steel.

 

It doesn't matter than hundreds of firefighters were on ground-0 saying the feds were about to bring it down.

[Generic George]

Yes, and kerosene melts steel.

 

It doesn't matter than hundreds of firefighters were on ground-0 saying the feds were about to bring it down.

 

Ah, you do always manage to bring a smile to my face! There's nothing I find more amusing than your continued ranting about steel being melted by kerosene.

 

It's almost as amusing as your warped imperviousness to facts and explanations, while you insist that anyone who doesn't blindly accept your ignorant claims is somehow in denial.

 

For anyone just checking in on this, the 9/11 "Truthers", suffer from this delusion that there was a claim the twin towers collapsed as result of their steel support structures being melted by the fires started by the flaming kerosene from the airliner impacts. That kerosene is incapable of melting steel on it's own is in fact correct and they use this as "proof" that the fires couldn't have brought down the towers.

 

The problem with this is two fold.

 

1) Nobody ever claimed this, except perhaps in ignorance or in the initial chaos.

2) The steel didn't need to be "melted" to bring down the towers, for the reasons I'll list below.

 

a) Steel looses strength when heated. It's this that enables a blacksmith to work steel and iron in a coal fire.

At the temperature that kerosene burns, steel looses aproximately half it's strength.

c) The primary support structure for the Twin towers was the outside columns of the building. Roughly half to a third (depending on which building) of these suport structures were destroyed by the impact of the airliners.

d) When you combine destroying half to a third of the primary suports of a building, with the steel frame of the building loosing roughly half it's strength, you now have 25% to 33% of the strength the building was designed to have and the building collapses!

[socal swimmer]

I leave this forum for almost a year, and people are still arguing that 9/11 truth {censored}.

 

some things never change.

 

btw, generic george, arguing with him is useless unless you do it for the lulz

[Generic George]

I leave this forum for almost a year, and people are still arguing that 9/11 truth {censored}.

 

some things never change.

 

btw, generic george, arguing with him is useless unless you do it for the lulz

 

Oh I don't hope to change his mind, guys like him "can't handle the truth". I mean his utter imperviousness to explanations about the "steel and kerosene" bit is proof of that. Conspiracy theorists have always and will always been with us (kind of like the Great Old Ones, eh?).

 

But it is fun tweaking his nose and I do hope to provide a reality check for the BS guys like him peddle, for people who might be running across this {censored} for the first time.

[borisbadenov]

George, I agree with Social Swimmer, you will never, ever get people like mp3228 to see reason. They have been on the Kool Aid way too long.

 

People like mp3228 are convinced in their own mind. It is sadly ironic; people of his ilk will want us all to have an open mind, to listen to all points of view. In other words, accept what they preach. They totally believe that because they are "open minded" enough, that they alone have found the "truth" and we must all be like them yet they cannot ever accept anyone else's point of view. I call that naked hypocrisy.

[Maxintosh]

What do you think is going to happen with buildings that suffer massive damage from fire and huge chunks of concrete?

I'll tell you what is going to happen with buildings that suffer massive damage from fire. NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING! Never in the history of the world has fire EVER brought down ANY steel structured building, not even the one that lasted over a period of 17 hours and spanned 20 floors in England! Generic George, kindly take your propaganda elsewhere, it's not welcomed here. Nor is it welcomed with over 560 of the worlds most profound, educated and professional architects & engineers who would look at your "layman's theory" and laugh in your face because you obviously know nothing regarding steel structured buildings

[Generic George]

I'll tell you what is going to happen with buildings that suffer massive damage from fire. NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING! Never in the history of the world has fire EVER brought down ANY steel structured building, not even the one that lasted over a period of 17 hours and spanned 20 floors in England! Generic George, kindly take your propaganda elsewhere, it's not welcomed here. Nor is it welcomed with over 560 of the worlds most profound, educated and professional architects & engineers who would look at your "layman's theory" and laugh in your face because you obviously know nothing regarding steel structured buildings

 

Oh for giggles, can you answer one simple question for me.

 

If WTC 7 was destroyed by "The Conspiracy", why was it destroyed? What was the point of destroying it?

[xtraa]

Oh for giggles, can you answer one simple question for me.

 

If WTC 7 was destroyed by "The Conspiracy", why was it destroyed? What was the point of destroying it?

 

Building 7, The Solomon Brothers Building, contained numerous government offices, including the CIA, FBI, FEMA and some offices of the SEC commission. Many files relating to the Enron and MCI WorldCom investigations were destroyed in the collapse.

 

Oh for giggles, how do you like that:

 

Mayor Giuliani's emergency command bunker was installed on the 20th floor of this building due to its structural integrity. It was a heavily reinforced and self contained section of the building that would make a total collapse even more unlikely.

 

On top of that, Larry Silverstein said: O-Tone: 'We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors.' See NYTimes Article

 

There is still no official report explaining the collapse of WTC 7. It is however pending.

 

I don't believe in conspiracy, but I do believe in physics you know.

 

Forgive me if I should have hurt some creationists feelings here.

 

jm2c.

[Generic George]

Building 7, The Solomon Brothers Building, contained numerous government offices, including the CIA, FBI, FEMA and some offices of the SEC commission. Many files relating to the Enron and MCI WorldCom investigations were destroyed in the collapse.

 

Still giggling? Then how do you like that:

 

Yup still giggling. You're telling me that the eeevilll conspiracy that apparently controlled the entire government including all those agencies, nearly everyone in NYC, the media and the military, destroyed the building to get rid of their own stuff?

 

Oooh, Enron and MCI files! I'm sure those were worth the substantial risk of rigging a building in down town manhattan for a controlled demolition. You really have no clue what's involved in doing that do you? It's not something you can hide or pull off in just a couple of hours.

 

Wouldn't a standard fire have been just as effective, much simpler to pull off and easier to explain?

 

Mayor Giuliani's emergency command bunker was installed on the 20th floor of this building due to its structural integrity. It was a heavily reinforced and self contained section of the building that would make a total collapse even more unlikely.

 

On top of that, Larry Silverstein said: O-Tone: 'We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors.' See NYTimes Article

 

Gee, guess they didn't do as good a job as they thought or the architects screwed up the design. But that's not possible, because no architect has ever come up with a flawed design in the history of building things have they? Wait, you're telling me that they made major design changes to a building that could have compromised the integrity of the building? And this is an argument about how it couldn't have collapsed?

 

There is still no official report explaining the collapse of WTC 7. It is however pending.

 

jm2c.

 

It's not official, but

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...842.html?page=5

 

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

 

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

 

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

 

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

 

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

 

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

[xtraa]

No there is not any eeevil conspiracy.

 

And keep in mind: It absolutely makes no difference. The fact is that some greedy arseholes made very

much money. And the government did nothing to investigate.

 

9/11 comes with two groups of idiots:

 

The first group believes in a handfull of mullahs, capturing airplanes with capet-knifes and fly them pre-

cisely into some buildings after three weeks of training with a chessna and MS-Flight Simulator, one of them

straight into the Pentagon without anti-air, just to attack the USA for we still don't know what reason. At the

same time, Saddam has been attacked accidentally for some weapons of mass destructions that - as we know

today - never existed

 

The second group of idiots believes in some world-leader conspiracy, if nothing goes they take the jews,

starting with inside jobs and Rockefellers and ending up with Bush as a member of the Skull and Bones.

 

That being said, my point of view is very simple: When it comes to money, conspiracy ends. It just don't

make any difference if and who hired the terrorists or if they put booby traps in the building or whatever.

 

Fact is: Osama bin Laden is NOT guilty. Thats btw. the reason why the FBI still doesn't search or want him.

Fact is: Saddam Hussein is not guilty. He was placed in his position by Donald Rumsfeld personally, and

yes he became an evil dictator of some country, some several 1000 miles away. Thats it.

 

I just would like to know who earned all the money from the 'put options', and who besides Halliburton is

the winner of the war.

 

I am also not saying the Bushs did it I am just saying, they did nothing against it althrough the evidence

was chrystal clear and the CIA warned the government several times.

[Generic George]

I'm impressed, this is an almost completely fact free post.

 

The first group believes in a handfull of mullahs,

 

No mullahs involved in the actual hijackings.

 

capturing airplanes with capet-knifes

 

It doesn't really matter what the hijackers were armed with. The SOP for hijackings was to cooperate and go along with what the hijackers wanted. Even if you were pretty sure their "bomb" wasn't real. (Bomb is just an example, I'm not saying they used a bomb threat).

 

and fly them precisely into some buildings after three weeks of training with a chessna and MS-Flight Simulator,

 

Nope they used full fledged flight simulators at flight schools, among other things. Also with only a little training, flying a modern airliner is actually pretty easy. All the computerized controls and such. On Mythbusters (fabulous show) both Adam and Jamie were able to land (the most difficult thing to do) a 747 (in a simulator) the first time with NO prior training and their only aid a professional pilot talking them through the procedures, on the radio (not in the cockpit).

 

While it is very difficult to hit a specific point on a building. Hitting a structure the size of the Twin Towers with an airplane is actually quite easy.

 

Where the training and practice for pilots really comes in, is in the emergency/crisis situations. Which isn't really an issue given what they were trying to do.

 

one of them straight into the Pentagon without anti-air, just to attack the USA for we still don't know what reason.

 

Hollywood fantasies aside, US air space, 7 years after the end of the cold war and during peacetime was never crawling with fighters. Nor was the Pentagon surrounded by rings of anti-aircraft defenses. The last of those was dismantled decades ago.

 

If you can't figure out why they attacked us, well I can only conclude you have been living under a rock since birth.

 

At the same time, Saddam has been attacked accidentally for some weapons of mass destructions that - as we know today - never existed

 

We didn't attack him until like 2 years later.

 

The second group of idiots believes in some world-leader conspiracy, if nothing goes they take the jews,

starting with inside jobs and Rockefellers and ending up with Bush as a member of the Skull and Bones.

Fact is: Saddam Hussein is not guilty. He was placed in his position by Donald Rumsfeld personally, and

yes he became an evil dictator of some country, some several 1000 miles away. Thats it.

 

Which is it? There's no world wide conspiracy or the US is capable of installing leaders in other countries at will, when ever we choose? The two just don't really go together.

 

You are at least correct in that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Congratulations on getting a fact correct.

 

Fact is: Osama bin Laden is NOT guilty. Thats btw. the reason why the FBI still doesn't search or want him.

 

Yes, I'm sure the fact that he's most likely in one of the most lawless, xenophobic areas of the world, with extremely rugged and difficult terrain, while lying very, very low has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he hasn't been found.

 

I am also not saying the Bushs did it I am just saying, they did nothing against it althrough the evidence was chrystal clear and the CIA warned the government several times.

 

After 8 years of the bush administration, was there any doubt as to the extraordinary depths of their incompetence, cluelessness and stupidity?

[Generic George]

There has been an update to Popular Mechanics report on the collapse of WTC 7

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/re...ch/4278874.html

 

this bit makes an interesting point I had not previously considered.

 

Spurred by conspiracy theorists' questions, investigators did look specifically at the possibility that explosives were involved. "Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7," the report states, adding that investigators "found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse.

 

Here's NIST's page on WTC

 

http://wtc.nist.gov/

 

and the WTC 7 report

 

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/techbea...8_1120_wtc7.htm

 

The summary

 

 

 

November 20, 2008

 

blue divider

 

NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report

graphic showing the buckling of WTC 7 column 79

 

Graphic showing the buckling of WTC 7 Column 79 (circled area), the local failure identified as the initiating event in the building's progressive collapse.

 

Credit: NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory

View hi-resolution image

 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) today released its final report on the Sept. 11, 2001, collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City. The final report is strengthened by clarifications and supplemental text suggested by organizations and individuals worldwide in response to the draft WTC 7 report, released for public comment on Aug. 21, but the revisions did not alter the investigation team's major findings and recommendations, which include identification of fire as the primary cause for the building's failure.

 

The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.

 

In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7's Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column's failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

 

Other revisions to the final WTC 7 report included:

 

* Expanding the discussion of firestopping, the material placed between floors to prevent floor-to-floor fire spread;

* Clarifying the description of thermal expansion as it related to WTC 7's shear studs and floor beams; and

* Explaining in greater detail the computer modeling approach used to define where and when the fire in WTC 7 started and the extent of window breakage as a result of fire.

 

With the release of the final WTC 7 report, NIST has completed its federal building and fire safety investigation of the WTC disaster that began in August 2002. A three-year study of the collapses of the WTC towers (WTC 1 and 2) was completed in October 2005. More than 20 changes in the U.S. model building and fire codes have already been adopted based on the findings and recommendations from the investigation.

 

NIST will now work with various public and private groups toward implementing additional changes to the U.S. model building and fire codes including those based on the 13 recommendations from the WTC 7 report (one new and 12 reiterated from the towers investigation).

[Maxintosh]

There has been an update to Popular Mechanics report

Oh goodie... we can all sleep now, an update from popular mechanics, and we all know what an "authoritative figure" popular mechanics is on such matters

 

Talk about still giggling, they're a real side splitter

 

The fact is that fire could NOT have caused damage like that. First of all there were no characteristics of destruction by fire. Even a fire propelled by jet fuel couldn't have done what they claim it did.

 

The fact is that NIST has acknowledged that fires in building 7 burned out in 20 minutes in any given location. Because building 7 dealt with such high security issues, it was built with redundancy in its design when engineered. History has shown us, as with the fire that happened in the Windsor Building in Madrid, that an almost 24-hour fire cannot collapse a steel structured building. Yet some people want you to believe that a simple 20 minute fire could topple a building that was over engineered to such high standards as building 7 was.

 

The fact is that Larry Silverstein, the person who owned and leased the twin towers, said himself on PBS that it was his choice to "pull" building 7. The term 'pull' in the trade means 'demolition'. Silverstein used to just own one building of the three that was demolished, but luckily for him - just two short months before 9/11 - he decided to purchase all three structures and insure them for a whopping 3.5 billion dollars (which he has been paid). Can you say "follow the money"?

 

The fact is that high-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

 

The fact is that if a critical support column was to fail, as they imagine, then the building would have taken the path of least resistance, called The Laws of Conservation of Momentum, when it came down (ie, it would have toppled over and fallen to one side or the other). This is a fundamental law of nature. However, what in fact happened was that the building came down by taking the GREATEST path of resistance (this is known as pancaking.) when it came down (never is the history of the world has nature ever done this before, and now some people want us to believe that it not only happened for the first time in history, but it magically did so three times on that day).

 

The fact is that there are eye witnesses, some of which were firemen on the scene, that overheard someone counting backward (three... two... one...) just before building 7 started to come down, and then all of the witnesses said that a second later the building started to implode. This only happens in professional controlled demolitions. All three buildings also had evidence of thermite incendiaries found in steel & dust samples. Not surprising, thermite is used in controlled demolitions, as it has the capability to melt the steel beams in less than a second.

 

The fact is that many people were told in advance that they would have to move away from building 7 because it was "going to be brought down". You can CLEARLY hear two of the explosives in rapid succession in this video.

 

The fact is that all three buildings have been proven to show not just some, but all of the characteristics of a destruction by controlled demolitions. More information can be found here at wtc.nist.gov.

 

The fact is that tons of molten metal was found by CDI. Molten metal is a by-product of using a thermite incendiary during demolitions.

 

The fact is that they found chemical signatures for manganese, zinc, and barium on the support beams. Manganese, zinc, and barium is a by-product of using a thermite incendiary during demolitions.

 

The fact is that the day before 9/11 the twin towers were to be routinely swept of explosives throughout the building. However, at the last moment the person in charge of the buildings security cancelled it. That person just "happened" to be bushes brother. Weird. He also ran security for the two airports where the terrorist airplanes took off. What are the odds?

 

"WTC 7 fell on average 7 floors per second (47 / 6.5). One second after the onset of the collapse, the speed of descent was almost 10 meters/second; after two seconds, almost 20 meters/second; and at the end, about 60 meters/second (over 200 kilometers/hour). According to the analysis of Frank Legge (Ph.D.), the rate of descent of WTC 7 closely matches the rate of gravitational free fall, which – combined with the uniformity of the descent throughout the breadth and length of the building – is irrefutable evidence of controlled demolition." link

 

The fact is that seismic data from the University of New York proves that there were several explosions in the pattern of controlled demolition just before building 7 came down. More information can be found

.

 

The fact is that the "official" explanation of what happened is so full of erroneous errors, that anyone who is educated in these areas knows that it is an outright fraud. In fact many high ranking professionals (some of which are senior members of NIST) are now calling out for a full INDEPENDENT review.

 

 

First find the science, then deal with who may have done this atrocious act.

[xtraa]

There was a professor from some U.S. university. He was a specialist and accepted expert

for steel and concrete. He gave an interview on TV where he showed that there were some

very strange things with the pieces from WTC. He explained what was wrong with all of the

exhibits they analized. His conclusion was that the official statement of a collapse would be

impossible.

 

Next day he got fired and no one heard anything about him anymore.

 

Does s.o. remember his name?

[Generic George]

Oh goodie... we can all sleep now, an update from popular mechanics, and we all know what an "authoritative figure" popular mechanics is on such matters

 

As opposed to random nuts making claims on the internet? Besides, most of what they had was a summary of the NIST report.

 

The fact is that fire could NOT have caused damage like that. First of all there were no characteristics of destruction by fire. Even a fire propelled by jet fuel couldn't have done what they claim it did.

 

Not caused damage like what? Now you're claiming there was "no characteristics of destruction by fire"? Which is it?

 

I have a friend who lives in NYC and worked the clean up of ground zero and he tells me you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

 

You didn't bother to read the NIST report obviously, but given the comprehension impairments that you guys seem to suffer from this isn't surprising. Don't worry, I'm sure eventually they'll release a children's coloring book eventually.

 

The fact is that NIST has acknowledged that fires in building 7 burned out in 20 minutes in any given location. Because building 7 dealt with such high security issues, it was built with redundancy in its design when engineered. History has shown us, as with the fire that happened in the Windsor Building in Madrid, that an almost 24-hour fire cannot collapse a steel structured building. Yet some people want you to believe that a simple 20 minute fire could topple a building that was over engineered to such high standards as building 7 was.

 

Yeah, cause engineers and architects can foresee EVERY possible outcome and never make mistakes or fail to properly account for difficult to plan for contingencies, like say oh the Twin towers collapsing next to/onto WTC7?

 

As far as "Cannot"

 

The building you mentioned partially collapsed as a result of that fire. Not what I'd consider strong evidence for your point of view. Then there's the small problem that the Windsor tower had a considerably different structure and design. Also the fires in the Windsor building was being fought, unlike the WTC 7 fire.

 

Let me repeat that since it's important, there was nobody fighting the fire in WTC 7. No firefighters and the sprinkler system was disabled by the damage to WTC7. That's a VERY important difference between the fires in other buildings you use as a basis for ignoring the facts.

 

I don't know where you are getting this 20 minutes bit from, but it's probably related to the penchant you guys have for pulling numbers out of your ass and conflating unrelated times/events. The NIST report clearly indicates fires lasting for hours and there are plenty of example of fires raging in office buildings for hours despite people trying to put them out.

 

The fact is that Larry Silverstein, the person who owned and leased the twin towers, said himself on PBS that it was his choice to "pull" building 7. The term 'pull' in the trade means 'demolition'. Silverstein used to just own one building of the three that was demolished, but luckily for him - just two short months before 9/11 - he decided to purchase all three structures and insure them for a whopping 3.5 billion dollars (which he has been paid). Can you say "follow the money"?

 

Larry Silversteen suddenly went into the demolition business? I thought he was in real estate?

 

 

For what manhattan real estate costs and the income from a place like WTC is, 3.5 billion isn't that much money. Especially when you consider that rebuilding costs are estimated at $10 billion and that 3.5 is half of what he wanted to get. If this was some sort of elaborate insurance scam, it wasn't a very good one.

 

I find it endlessly amusing how you guys leap on the least little thing people say, while ignoring the context or the logic that "the conspiracy" would have to be pretty stupid to let him say something incriminating in a PBS documentary.

 

The fact is that high-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never "collapsed".

 

 

Never is not the same as impossible and according to the NIST report it has in fact now happened.

 

The fact is that if a critical support column was to fail, as they imagine, then the building would have taken the path of least resistance, called The Laws of Conservation of Momentum, when it came down (ie, it would have toppled over and fallen to one side or the other). This is a fundamental law of nature. However, what in fact happened was that the building came down by taking the GREATEST path of resistance (this is known as pancaking.) when it came down (never is the history of the world has nature ever done this before, and now some people want us to believe that it not only happened for the first time in history, but it magically did so three times on that day).

 

Read the NIST report it covers the issue of why the collapse of WTC7 happened the way it did. They even have an animation for the hard of comprehension like you. I have neither the time nor the inclination to teach you about basic physics.

 

Your ignorance doesn't translate into reality being forced to conform to what you want to believe.

 

The fact is that there are eye witnesses, some of which were firemen on the scene, that overheard someone counting backward (three... two... one...) just before building 7 started to come down, and then all of the witnesses said that a second later the building started to implode. This only happens in professional controlled demolitions. All three buildings also had evidence of thermite incendiaries found in steel & dust samples. Not surprising, thermite is used in controlled demolitions, as it has the capability to melt the steel beams in less than a second.

 

The fact is that all three buildings have been proven to show not just some, but all of the characteristics of a destruction by controlled demolitions. More information can be found here at wtc.nist.gov.

 

The fact is that tons of molten metal was found by CDI. Molten metal is a by-product of using a thermite incendiary during demolitions.

 

The fact is that they found chemical signatures for manganese, zinc, and barium on the support beams. Manganese, zinc, and barium is a by-product of using a thermite incendiary during demolitions.

 

OOH! A nameless, unsubstantiated report of people counting! Wow, how can I possibly counter that! You must be the sort of person Niccolae Carpathia wowed in the Left Behind novels by reading the names of the member countries of the UN (non-sequiture I know, but I'll get back to this).

 

Here read this. I know it uses more than a second grade vocabulary, but gambare!

 

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

 

WTC Thermite

 

Sulfur

 

In Steven Jones' PDF "Answers to Objections and Questions", to support his claim for Sol-gels/Thermite he states:

 

"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"

 

However when you look at the link he uses

<a href="http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsair0911,0,471193.story?coll=ny-homepage-right-area" target="_blank">http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsai...page-right-area</a>

 

You find out Mr. Jones edits out the VERY next line which states

 

"He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers."

 

 

The fact is that many people were told in advance that they would have to move away from building 7 because it was "going to be brought down". You can CLEARLY hear two of the explosives in rapid succession in this video.

 

Yeah, WTC 1 & 2 had already collapsed, why would people be told to move away from another severely damaged building after all? It's not like WTC 1 & 2 collapsing killed anyone?

 

Didn't bother to read the part about how the explosions necessary to cause a controlled demolition would have been far louder than any recorded, I see. Not really surprised by that I'm afraid.

 

The fact is that the day before 9/11 the twin towers were to be routinely swept of explosives throughout the building. However, at the last moment the person in charge of the buildings security cancelled it. That person just "happened" to be bushes brother. Weird. He also ran security for the two airports where the terrorist airplanes took off. What are the odds?

 

What people like you don't seem to understand is that correlation is not causation. Things happen every day that are 1 in a million odds. The fact that they happen is not unusual, in fact it would be highly unusual if unusual things didn't happen every day.

 

The fact that there has been no attacks by terrorists in the US since 9/11 is no more necessarily the result of actions by the bush administration, than that the bomb sweep was canceled before the attack on the twin towers.

 

How often did they have bomb sweeps? How often were they cancelled? You need to know these things before you can even suggest there might be a causal link.

 

The hijackers took off from the airports they did, because over months of preparation they had found security to be particularly lax and ineffective. Hmmm and the Bush administration has been particularly incompetent and ineffective. Yes, there might well be a connection, but it's more likely due to the incompetence and stupidity of the Bush family than any actions on their part.

 

"WTC 7 fell on average 7 floors per second (47 / 6.5). One second after the onset of the collapse, the speed of descent was almost 10 meters/second; after two seconds, almost 20 meters/second; and at the end, about 60 meters/second (over 200 kilometers/hour). According to the analysis of Frank Legge (Ph.D.), the rate of descent of WTC 7 closely matches the rate of gravitational free fall, which – combined with the uniformity of the descent throughout the breadth and length of the building – is irrefutable evidence of controlled demolition." link

 

irrefutable -

 

I gave up trusting any calculations from you guys, when one of your videos claimed that the top of one of the Towers fell faster than the speed of gravity.

 

The fact is that seismic data from the University of New York proves that there were several explosions in the pattern of controlled demolition just before building 7 came down. More information can be found

.

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...842.html?page=5

Claim: Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.

 

A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."

Fine Lines: Revisionists say sharp spikes (graph 1, above) mean bombs toppled the WTC. Scientists disprove the claim with the more detailed graph 2 (below). (Seismograph readings by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University: Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist; Arthur Lerner-Lam, associate director; Mary Tobin, senior science writer)

FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

 

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

 

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear — misleadingly — as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves — blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower — start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

The fact is that the "official" explanation of what happened is so full of erroneous errors, that anyone who is educated in these areas knows that it is an outright fraud. In fact many high ranking professionals (some of which are senior members of NIST) are now calling out for a full INDEPENDENT review.

 

Yeah, given the clear lack of knowlege on your part and the whole 9/11 conspiracy nut crowd, quotes taken out of context, distortion of what was actually said, the near total lack of logic to the actions "the conspiracy" is supposed to have taken. I'm good with the official story.

 

First find the science, then deal with who may have done this atrocious act.

 

Funny you mention science. Are you a creationist, because your attitude and method of arguing are a dead ringer for the way they argue vs evolution. You claim bit x out of context "proves" Y is impossible. You just flat out claim anything inconvenient to your beliefs is impossible.

 

There was a professor from some U.S. university. He was a specialist and accepted expert

for steel and concrete. He gave an interview on TV where he showed that there were some

very strange things with the pieces from WTC. He explained what was wrong with all of the

exhibits they analized. His conclusion was that the official statement of a collapse would be

impossible.

 

Next day he got fired and no one heard anything about him anymore.

 

Does s.o. remember his name?

 

Why are you people incapable of understanding that the events like the destruction of the WTC are by their nature, extreme events that are almost by necessity going to result in events that are outside of the normal.

 

It's not like there are lots of 110 story buildings that have had large passenger jets rammed into them at high speeds, to compare things to.

 

The fact that there are anomalies, is something to be expected. The fact that the story changes over time, as people have the opportunity to more carefully analyze things and recheck their initial conclusions, is an example of the scientific process at work. Not a conspiracy, not a cover up.

 

Initial reports are by their nature, often inaccurate, wrong and sometimes wildly incorrect, especially when they are coming from people who have never encountered that situation before.

[Maxintosh]

As opposed to random nuts making claims on the internet?

Pot, meet kettle. You are the only one coming off as a random nut making your stupendous claims that a common fire could bring down the twin towers AND building 7. Somewhere there's 5th graders in science class laughing at what you wrote.

 

you're claiming there was "no characteristics of destruction by fire"?

Of course things had characteristics of destruction by fire. Office materials, chairs, melted computers, plaster walls, etc. but none of those things are relevant to this conversation.

 

I have a friend who blah blah blah...

Here's a hint for you, cute little anecdotes posted on the internet DON'T equal real science! I know it's hard for you, but try to post a real fact.

 

You didn't bother to read the NIST report obviously

No I DID! It was hilarious. First they said there was no Thermite, then when pressed they admitted that they didn't even look for it

 

So much for NIST.

 

like say oh the Twin towers collapsing next to/onto WTC7?

If you weren't talking out your ass you'd realize that architects have to plan for things like this by law. But don't worry, what you said probably "sounded right" to people in the crowd uneducated in such matters.

 

Fact is that there were LOTS of other buildings that were a LOT closer to the twin towers, and none of them came down.

 

Fact is that only three buildings came down on 9/11, and ALL THREE were coincidentally owned by the same guy - and recently insured for 3.5 Billion dollars. Weird.

 

Then there's the small problem that the Windsor tower had a considerably different structure and design.

Of course it had a different design. ALL buildings of that nature have a somewhat different design. You're great with word games, I'll give you that.

 

The FACT remains that they were both steel structured buildings!

 

there was nobody fighting the fire in WTC 7

The OWNER of the building made that decision. See above regarding his insurance claim.

 

I don't know where you are getting this 20 minutes bit from

So let me get this straight, you're yapping your mouth off and accusing others of not reading NIST documents, when here all along it is YOU that hasn't been thoroughly reading all of them? What a joke!

 

Larry Silversteen suddenly went into the demolition buisness? I thought he was in real estate?

History has shown us that money, and people in high places, make people do strange things.

 

This really isn't important to me. I am interested in the science and you haven't presented ANY!

 

according to the NIST report it has in fact now happened.

I don't care what NIST says at this point. They and the U.L. have done some pretty suspicious things, to say the least. Math and science is where the truth will present itself.

 

Read the NIST report it covers the issue of why the collapse of WTC7 happened the way it did.

No, actually it doesn't.

 

They even have an animation

Oh, you mean a cartoon? I'm sure it's rather entertaining for people like yourself george.

 

We've been over this dilusional point of yours in the past.

First of all it's delusional not dilusional. Second of all delusional is a subjective word. Thirdly, To bad for you it is all still fact.

 

www.popularmechanics.com/technology...842.

OOHHH... more popular science propaganda! How fun!

 

Are you a creationist

You not only do not know the real facts about 9/11 but you don't know anything about me or anyone else in this thread either. I am not a creationist despite your misgivings. The fact is that you have yet to present one single credible fact that is repeatable in science, and in a strange way you are doing the same exact thing that the conspiracy theorists are doing. The only difference george is that you have a fish hook in your mouth and it leads to anything that the government wants you to believe.

 

I, on the other hand, as well as other good people here, are concerned with the truth. Not a whitewash, not a coverup, but the real truth of what happened on that terrible day. Thousands of innocent people lost their lives that day. Thousands more families were destroyed. Shame on you Generic George for trying to make a joke out people looking for the truth! I don't know what happened on that day, BUT I do know that it wasn't anything discussed in the "official" report, and I won't have losers trying to cram it down my throat.

 

You must have stood up for nixon during Watergate

[Generic George]

You not only do not know the real facts about 9/11 but you don't know anything about me or anyone else in this thread either. I am not a creationist despite your misgivings. The fact is that you have yet to present one single credible fact that is repeatable in science, and in a strange way you are doing the same exact thing that the conspiracy theorists are doing. The only difference george is that you have a fish hook in your mouth and it leads to anything that the government wants you to believe.

 

I, on the other hand, as well as other good people here, are concerned with the truth. Not a whitewash, not a coverup, but the real truth of what happened on that terrible day. Thousands of innocent people lost their lives that day. Thousands more families were destroyed. Shame on you Generic George for trying to make a joke out people looking for the truth! I don't know what happened on that day, BUT I do know that it wasn't anything discussed in the "official" report, and I won't have losers trying to cram it down my throat.

 

You must have stood up for nixon during Watergate

 

Thanks for the fact free refutation of my points.

 

You are an idiot, not someone looking for the truth.

 

You are so utterly convinced that you know what the truth is, that like any fanatic, you foam at the mouth if anyone suggests things might be other than how you believe they are.

 

You are such a moron I actually wonder from time to time, if you aren't an agent provocateur who's job it is to make 9/11 conspiracy nuts look even stupider than they do. Then I look over the claims about the conspiracy and am reassured that you are simply an idiot.

 

Your repeated claims that I somehow support guys like Bush or Nixon are simply further proof of this.

[Maxintosh]

Thanks for the fact free refutation of my points.

You made no points, therefore no refutation is needed. All you did was reinforce the same propaganda that the government wants everyone to believe. Too bad for you none of it holds water.

 

The fact is that the NIST WTC Report was written by people working under the direction of the Bush Administration. Imagine that

 

The NIST report is a shameful joke. To learn just how big a joke it is, see this site.

 

"NIST’s physical tests were inadequate. Their ASTM E119 tests and their workstation burn tests were improperly modeled. Further, the former produced results that contradicted NIST’s conclusions and the latter fell far short of testing the performance of realistic steel members in the actual fire conditions. The workstation burn tests showed that the temperatures were generally too low, especially in the ventilation-controlled WTC environments. The ASTM E119 tests showed that the WTC floor trusses should have easily withstood the fires they experienced on 9/11."

 

The fact is that the UL has since admitted that there is “no evidence” that any firm tested the steel at the twin towers.

 

you foam at the mouth if anyone suggests things might be other than how you believe they are.

I understand your frustration georgie. You thought that you'd just be a cowboy and post a few nonsensical "factoids" and then people would just blindly gobble them up under some hypnotic trance and singing your praises along the way. It doesn't work that way sunshine.

 

Even Kevin Ryan, a laboratory director at U.L., is now speaking up. Because of his whistle blowing, he was fired. His attorneys are now presenting credible evidence that the WTC's supports were probably exposed to fires no hotter than 500 degrees -- and yet the steel at the WTC was made to handle 3,000 degrees! Unlike you george, science doesn't lie, and a modest 500 degree fire will not harm steel forged to handle 3000 degrees. Nice try though georgie. I'm sure some people reading your tripe bought what you said hook, line and sinker, but most people today are much more conscientious, educated and responsible. They are not afraid of yahoos like you dissing them. They are only afraid of the truth getting buried.

 

You are such a moron blah blah blah

LOL. I am not the one posting nonsense from "popular mechanics" as if it were gospel

 

When anyone presses you for the real truth, all you do is resort to childish name calling and you still haven't presented any verifiable facts. 'nuff said.

[socal swimmer]

*smack*

 

stop arguing people.

[MGJulius]

Wow this is the epitome of a flame war, though it kind of funny to watch.

[whizkid515]

Why was this just posted NOW. This has to do with the OLD WTC 7, not the new one. I mean the video's title has "9/11" in it and the headline is that the twin towers collapsed. So, why again was this posted?

[Generic George]

Pot, meet kettle. You are the only one coming off as a random nut making your stupendous claims that a common fire could bring down the twin towers AND building 7. Somewhere there's 5th graders in science class laughing at what you wrote.

 

Well there was also the small matter of the 200 ton aircrafts that smashed into the towers at 500 mph. But hey what harm could that possibly cause?

 

Or the 110 story buildings that collapsed next to WTC7. But hey what harm could that cause?

 

Yes only a nut would think either of those could possibly hurt anything.

 

NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC Investigation pg.21

 

The following is the NIST account of how the fires in WTC 7 most likely led to the building's collapse.

The collapse of WTC 1 damaged seven exterior columns, between Floors 7 and 17 of the south and west

faces of WTC 7. It also ignited fires on at least 10 floors between Floors 7 and 30, and the fires burned

out of control on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. Fires on these six floors grew and spread since they were not

extinguished either by the automatic sprinkler system or by FDNY, because water was not available in

WTC 7. Fires were generally concentrated on the east and north sides of the northeast region beginning

at about 3 p.m. to 4 p.m.

As the fires progressed, some of the structural steel began to heat. According to the generally accepted

test standard, ASTM E-119, one of the criteria for establishing the fire resistance rating for a steel column

or floor beam is derived from the time at which, during a standard fire exposure, the average column

temperature exceeds 538 °C (1000 °F) or the average floor beam temperature exceeds 593 °C (1100 °F).

These are temperatures at which there is significant loss of steel strength and stiffness. Due to the

effectiveness of the SFRM, the highest column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 °C

(570 °F), and only on the east side of the building did the floor beams reach or exceed about 600 °C

(1100 °F). The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the

lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, primarily at or below 400 ºC (750 ºF), damaging the floor framing

on multiple floors.

The initiating local failure that began the probable WTC 7 collapse sequence was the buckling of

Column 79. This buckling arose from a process that occurred at temperatures at or below approximately

400 °C (750 °F), which are well below the temperatures considered in current practice for determining

fire resistance ratings associated with significant loss of steel strength. When steel (or any other metal) is

heated, it expands. If thermal expansion in steel beams is resisted by columns or other steel members,

forces develop in the structural members that can result in buckling of beams or failures of connections.

 

Chapter 2

NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC Investigation pg.22

Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of

Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the

building expanded enough that they pushed the girder spanning between Columns 79 and 44 to the west

on the 13th floor. (See Figure 1–5 for column numbering and the locations of girders and beams.) This

movement was enough for the girder to walk off of its support at Column 79.

The unsupported girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a

cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor (which, as noted in Section 1.2.3, was much thicker and

stronger). Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of

Column 79. This left Column 79 with insufficient lateral support, and as a consequence, the column

buckled eastward, becoming the initial local failure for collapse initiation.

 

Due to the buckling of Column 79 between Floors 5 and 14, the upper section of Column 79 began to

descend. The downward movement of Column 79 led to the observed kink in the east penthouse, and its

subsequent descent. The cascading failures of the lower floors surrounding Column 79 led to increased

unsupported length in, falling debris impact on, and loads being re-distributed to adjacent columns; and

Column 80 and then Column 81 buckled as well. All the floor connections to these three columns, as

well as to the exterior columns, failed, and the floors fell on the east side of the building. The exterior

façade on the east quarter of the building was just a hollow shell.

The failure of the interior columns then proceeded toward the west. Truss 2 (Figure 1–6) failed, hit by the

debris from the falling floors. This caused Column 77 and Column 78 to fail, followed shortly by

Column 76. Each north-south line of three core columns then buckled in succession from east to west,

due to loss of lateral support from floor system failures, to the forces exerted by falling debris, which

The Account of WTC 7 tended to push the columns westward, and to the loads redistributed to them from the buckled columns.

 

Within seconds, the entire building core was buckling.

 

The global collapse of WTC 7 was underway. The shell of exterior columns buckled between the 7th and

14th floors, as loads were redistributed to these columns due to the downward movement of the building

core and the floors. The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward as a

single unit, completing the global collapse sequence.

 

Of course things had characteristics of destruction by fire. Office materials, chairs, melted computers, plaster walls, etc. but none of those things are relevant to this conversation.

Here's a hint for you, cute little anecdotes posted on the internet DON'T equal real science! I know it's hard for you, but try to post a real fact.

 

You are totally devoid of a sense of irony.

 

No I DID! It was hilarious. First they said there was no Thermite, then when pressed they admitted that they didn't even look for it

 

So much for NIST.

 

They also failed to test for fairy dust as well. Aside from your paranoid ravings, is there some reason they should have? Thermite is not magic, you don't apply a little touch of thermite to steel and "melt tons of it". It would have taken TONS of thermite to melt the tons of steel you seem to think were melted (not that there were tons of melted steel in the first place)

 

NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC Investigation pg.26

 

3.3 HYPOTHETICAL BLAST SCENARIOS

Considerable effort was expended to compile evidence and to determine whether intentionally set

explosives might have caused the collapse of WTC 7 (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Appendix D). As a minimum,

the explosive material would have had to cause sufficient damage to a critical column or truss that it

became unable to carry its service load or that a lateral deflection would cause it to buckle.

Six combinations of explosive location and column/truss sections and two implementation scenarios were

considered. In the first scenario, there was ample time for optimized preparation of the structure

(including possible preliminary cutting of structural members) and use of the minimum mass of

explosives. In the second scenario, the explosive charge was to be placed in the shortest possible time,

which was to be no more than a 7 h to 8 h time frame.

SHAMRC, a software program that is used for analysis of explosive detonations, shock propagation and

structure loads due to blast and fragments, was used to simulate pressure histories from hypothetical

blasts. The pressure histories were then used to determine whether windows would have broken, which

would have provided visible evidence of a charge detonation to observers outside the building.

SHAMRC has a proven record of accuracy for explosive weights of less than 500 g (1 lb) to more than

4 x 106 kg (4,000 tons). A validated Shard Fly-Out Model (SFOM) was used to predict window

breakage. Simulations were performed for differing degrees of partitioning of a tenant floor.

Attention focused on a single hypothetical blast scenario. This scenario involved preliminary cutting of

Column 79 and the use of 4 kg (9 lb) of RDX explosives in linear shaped charges. The other scenarios

would have required more explosives, or were considered infeasible to accomplish without detection.

Calculations were also performed for a lesser charge size of 1 kg (2 lb) to evaluate threshold explosive

requirements for window fragility.

 

Deriving the Probable Collapse Sequence

 

NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC Investigation pg.27

 

Preparations for a blast scenario would have been almost impossible to carry out on any floor in the

building without detection. Preparations would have included removal of column enclosures or walls,

weld torches to cut column sections, and placement of wires for detonation. Occupants, support staff, and

visitors would have noticed such activities, particularly since they likely would have occurred around

more than one column.

Figure 3–1 shows the results for the two shaped charges applied to Column 79 on a tenant floor that was

highly partitioned, such as Floor 12. Nearly all the windows on the northeast section of the floor

subjected to a blast would have been broken, even by the smaller charge. Simulations for a floor that was

not highly partitioned led to more extensive window breakage.

 

Figure 3–1. Peak

overpressure and broken

window locations.

 

Top: 9 lb shaped charge; bottom: 2 lb charge.

The actual window breakage pattern on the visible floors on September 11, 2001 (NIST NCSTAR 1-9,

Chapter 5) was not at all like that expected from a blast that was even 20 percent of that needed to

damage a critical column in WTC 7. The visual evidence did not show such a breakage pattern on any

floor of WTC 7 as late as about 4:00 p.m. or above the 25th floor at the time of the building collapse

initiation. Views of the northeast corner of WTC 7 at the time of the collapse were obstructed by other

buildings.

 

Chapter 3

The window breakage would have allowed the sound of a blast to propagate outward from the building.

NLAWS, a validated acoustic wave propagation software program, was used to predict the propagation of

the sound of the hypothetical blasts. The calculations showed that all the hypothetical blast scenarios and

charge sizes would have broadcast significant sound levels from all of the building faces. For instance, if

propagation were unobstructed by other buildings, the sound level emanating from the WTC 7 perimeter

openings would have been approximately 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of 1 km (0.6 mile) from WTC 7.

This sound level is consistent with standing next to a jet plane engine and more than 10 times louder than

being in front of the speakers at a rock concert. The sound from such a blast in an urban setting would

have been reflected and channeled down streets with minimum attenuation. The hard building exteriors

would have acted as nearly perfect reflectors, with little to no absorption. The sound would have been

attenuated behind buildings, but this would also have generated multiple echoes. These echoes could have

extended the time period over which the sound could have been detected and could possibly have had an

additive effect if multiple in-phase reflections met. However, soundtracks from videos being recorded at

the time of the collapse did not contain any sound as intense as would have accompanied such a blast

(NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5). Therefore, the Investigation Team concluded that there was no

demolition-type blast that would have been intense enough to lead to the collapse of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001.

 

If you weren't talking out your ass you'd realize that architects have to plan for things like this by law. But don't worry, what you said probably "sounded right" to people in the crowd uneducated in such matters.

 

No. Nobody plans for something like the twin towers collapse until something like that happens. You can't possibly, since there are so many unknowns and they are such an extreme case. No building had ever sustained an event like the Twin Towers did and no buildings like them had ever collapsed.

 

Fact is that there were LOTS of other buildings that were a LOT closer to the twin towers, and none of them came down.

 

You haven't actually bothered to look at the arrangement of the site have you? It's pretty clear why WTC 7 got seriously damaged, especially when you look at how the aircraft hit the towers and how they collapsed. There were only really 3 other buildings that conceivably could have sustained similar damage. It's not like the other buildings in the area got away completely unscathed either.

 

Fact is that only three buildings came down on 9/11, and ALL THREE were coincidentally owned by the same guy - and recently insured for 3.5 Billion dollars. Weird.

Of course it had a different design. ALL buildings of that nature have a somewhat different design. You're great with word games, I'll give you that.

 

The FACT remains that they were both steel structured buildings!

 

Yes, the two buildings that were hit by the planes and one other, that were all part of the same complex and the other buildings that were part of the complex all had to be demolished.

 

You are like those guys in comedy sketches, who when showed a series of Rorschach blotchs, always reply with the same answer. Everything is either confirmation of your beliefs or it's part of the cover up.

 

The fact is that the buildings in the WTC were for the most part not built like other buildings. They were significantly different. Yet you keep going on like there's no differences between them and other buildings.

 

The OWNER of the building made that decision. See above regarding his insurance claim.

 

So you wanted more firefighters to die after all the ones who had died in the collapse of the twin towers? He has the ability to order around the NYFD how?

 

So let me get this straight, you're yapping your mouth off and accusing others of not reading NIST documents, when here all along it is YOU that hasn't been thoroughly reading all of them? What a joke!

 

You didn't bother to say where you got it from in the report. Given your past history it's not an unreasonable conclusion that the higher than 2nd grade vocabulary defeated your reading comprehension.

 

Here's one of several places where it describes fires that lasted considerably longer than 20 min.

 

pg. 20

 

By around 2:30 p.m., the visible flames had diminished, but the fire had spread both south into the

southeast corner and north, reaching two-thirds of the way to the northeast corner. By 3:00 p.m., the fire

had spread internally past the northeast corner and onto the north face. In less than 15 min, the fire

simultaneously spread rapidly to the east to engulf the northeast corner of the floor and more slowly

westward about one-third of the way across the north face. The fire continued spreading westward in

starts and stops, approaching the northwest corner of the floor around 3:45 p.m. At around 5:00 p.m., the

fire had reached the northwest corner.

 

This really isn't important to me. I am interested in the science and you haven't presented ANY!

 

You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

 

I don't care what NIST says at this point. They and the U.L. have done some pretty suspicious things, to say the least. Math and science is where the truth will present itself.

 

You don't care what anyone says unless they agree with you. Though the EEEVVIIILLL threat of the UL labs is a new one too me.

 

I'm not convinced you've graduated from High School personally.

 

Oh, you mean a cartoon? I'm sure it's rather entertaining for people like yourself george.

 

Do I have to start teaching you basic vocabulary as well. I said an animation, not anime or a cartoon. Apparently even that is too sophisticated for you.

 

First of all it's delusional not dilusional. Second of all delusional is a subjective word. Thirdly, To bad for you it is all still fact.

 

You really aren't in a position to make snide remarks about the occasional misspelling. Witness ...

 

OOHHH... more popular science propaganda! How fun!

 

You are mistaking Popular Mechanics for Popular Science. But it seems pretty clear that the complexity of street signs is enough to confuse your reading ability. Unfortunately, there isn't enough time before the heat death of the universe for me to track down all of your mistakes, but have fun.

 

You not only do not know the real facts about 9/11 but you don't know anything about me or anyone else in this thread either. I am not a creationist despite your misgivings. The fact is that you have yet to present one single credible fact that is repeatable in science, and in a strange way you are doing the same exact thing that the conspiracy theorists are doing. The only difference george is that you have a fish hook in your mouth and it leads to anything that the government wants you to believe.

 

I know that 19 guys, a couple of hundred thousand dollars in expense and an organization that made it's name using suicide attacks are far more plausible than.

 

1) An administration as proven incompetent as Bush and buds, managing to pull off a flawless conspiracy of vast and enormous scope

2) Flawless, except for a number of actions, that serve no readily apparent purpose, other than to provide nutjobs like you with the opportunity to point and go "THAT PROVES THERE'S A CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!!"

 

You don't have even a passing acquaintance with logic or common sense.

 

I, on the other hand, as well as other good people here, are concerned with the truth. Not a whitewash, not a coverup, but the real truth of what happened on that terrible day. Thousands of innocent people lost their lives that day. Thousands more families were destroyed. Shame on you Generic George for trying to make a joke out people looking for the truth! I don't know what happened on that day, BUT I do know that it wasn't anything discussed in the "official" report, and I won't have losers trying to cram it down my throat.

 

You must have stood up for nixon during Watergate

 

No you are not a good person, you are a hateful misanthrope, who derives a vastly over inflated sense of importance from the misguided belief that you have THE TRUTH and are waging a relentless campaign against the forces of evil by posting fact free rants on a message board that a negligible fraction of the population of the world even knows exists.

 

If there were a conspiracy they would be laughing their asses off at idiots like you and the irrational hallucinations you try to pass off as facts.

 

There's a saying that "Arguing with people on the internet is like participating in the special olympics. Even if you win, you are still 'special'". I am at least aware that I am 'special' for bothering to argue with nutjobs like you, I doubt you are capable of such self awareness.

 

 

Why was this just posted NOW. This has to do with the OLD WTC 7, not the new one. I mean the video's title has "9/11" in it and the headline is that the twin towers collapsed. So, why again was this posted?

 

Because the people who believe these things are insane nut jobs, who think that they are shining knights fighting the forces of evil by posting links to old youtube clips.

 

And I have way too much time on my hands, so I waste it arguing with them.

[socal swimmer]

Well there was also the small matter of the 200 ton aircrafts that smashed into the towers at 500 mph. But hey what harm could that possibly cause?

 

Or the 110 story buildings that collapsed next to WTC7. But hey what harm could that cause?

 

Yes only a nut would think either of those could possibly hurt anything.

 

NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC Investigation pg.21

 

The following is the NIST account of how the fires in WTC 7 most likely led to the building's collapse.

The collapse of WTC 1 damaged seven exterior columns, between Floors 7 and 17 of the south and west

faces of WTC 7. It also ignited fires on at least 10 floors between Floors 7 and 30, and the fires burned

out of control on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. Fires on these six floors grew and spread since they were not

extinguished either by the automatic sprinkler system or by FDNY, because water was not available in

WTC 7. Fires were generally concentrated on the east and north sides of the northeast region beginning

at about 3 p.m. to 4 p.m.

As the fires progressed, some of the structural steel began to heat. According to the generally accepted

test standard, ASTM E-119, one of the criteria for establishing the fire resistance rating for a steel column

or floor beam is derived from the time at which, during a standard fire exposure, the average column

temperature exceeds 538 °C (1000 °F) or the average floor beam temperature exceeds 593 °C (1100 °F).

These are temperatures at which there is significant loss of steel strength and stiffness. Due to the

effectiveness of the SFRM, the highest column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 °C

(570 °F), and only on the east side of the building did the floor beams reach or exceed about 600 °C

(1100 °F). The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the

lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, primarily at or below 400 ºC (750 ºF), damaging the floor framing

on multiple floors.

The initiating local failure that began the probable WTC 7 collapse sequence was the buckling of

Column 79. This buckling arose from a process that occurred at temperatures at or below approximately

400 °C (750 °F), which are well below the temperatures considered in current practice for determining

fire resistance ratings associated with significant loss of steel strength. When steel (or any other metal) is

heated, it expands. If thermal expansion in steel beams is resisted by columns or other steel members,

forces develop in the structural members that can result in buckling of beams or failures of connections.

 

Chapter 2

NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC Investigation pg.22

Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of

Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the

building expanded enough that they pushed the girder spanning between Columns 79 and 44 to the west

on the 13th floor. (See Figure 1–5 for column numbering and the locations of girders and beams.) This

movement was enough for the girder to walk off of its support at Column 79.

The unsupported girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a

cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor (which, as noted in Section 1.2.3, was much thicker and

stronger). Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of

Column 79. This left Column 79 with insufficient lateral support, and as a consequence, the column

buckled eastward, becoming the initial local failure for collapse initiation.

 

Due to the buckling of Column 79 between Floors 5 and 14, the upper section of Column 79 began to

descend. The downward movement of Column 79 led to the observed kink in the east penthouse, and its

subsequent descent. The cascading failures of the lower floors surrounding Column 79 led to increased

unsupported length in, falling debris impact on, and loads being re-distributed to adjacent columns; and

Column 80 and then Column 81 buckled as well. All the floor connections to these three columns, as

well as to the exterior columns, failed, and the floors fell on the east side of the building. The exterior

façade on the east quarter of the building was just a hollow shell.

The failure of the interior columns then proceeded toward the west. Truss 2 (Figure 1–6) failed, hit by the

debris from the falling floors. This caused Column 77 and Column 78 to fail, followed shortly by

Column 76. Each north-south line of three core columns then buckled in succession from east to west,

due to loss of lateral support from floor system failures, to the forces exerted by falling debris, which

The Account of WTC 7 tended to push the columns westward, and to the loads redistributed to them from the buckled columns.

 

Within seconds, the entire building core was buckling.

 

The global collapse of WTC 7 was underway. The shell of exterior columns buckled between the 7th and

14th floors, as loads were redistributed to these columns due to the downward movement of the building

core and the floors. The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward as a

single unit, completing the global collapse sequence.

 

 

 

You are totally devoid of a sense of irony.

 

 

 

They also failed to test for fairy dust as well. Aside from your paranoid ravings, is there some reason they should have? Thermite is not magic, you don't apply a little touch of thermite to steel and "melt tons of it". It would have taken TONS of thermite to melt the tons of steel you seem to think were melted (not that there were tons of melted steel in the first place)

 

NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC Investigation pg.26

 

3.3 HYPOTHETICAL BLAST SCENARIOS

Considerable effort was expended to compile evidence and to determine whether intentionally set

explosives might have caused the collapse of WTC 7 (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Appendix D). As a minimum,

the explosive material would have had to cause sufficient damage to a critical column or truss that it

became unable to carry its service load or that a lateral deflection would cause it to buckle.

Six combinations of explosive location and column/truss sections and two implementation scenarios were

considered. In the first scenario, there was ample time for optimized preparation of the structure

(including possible preliminary cutting of structural members) and use of the minimum mass of

explosives. In the second scenario, the explosive charge was to be placed in the shortest possible time,

which was to be no more than a 7 h to 8 h time frame.

SHAMRC, a software program that is used for analysis of explosive detonations, shock propagation and

structure loads due to blast and fragments, was used to simulate pressure histories from hypothetical

blasts. The pressure histories were then used to determine whether windows would have broken, which

would have provided visible evidence of a charge detonation to observers outside the building.

SHAMRC has a proven record of accuracy for explosive weights of less than 500 g (1 lb) to more than

4 x 106 kg (4,000 tons). A validated Shard Fly-Out Model (SFOM) was used to predict window

breakage. Simulations were performed for differing degrees of partitioning of a tenant floor.

Attention focused on a single hypothetical blast scenario. This scenario involved preliminary cutting of

Column 79 and the use of 4 kg (9 lb) of RDX explosives in linear shaped charges. The other scenarios

would have required more explosives, or were considered infeasible to accomplish without detection.

Calculations were also performed for a lesser charge size of 1 kg (2 lb) to evaluate threshold explosive

requirements for window fragility.

 

Deriving the Probable Collapse Sequence

 

NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC Investigation pg.27

 

Preparations for a blast scenario would have been almost impossible to carry out on any floor in the

building without detection. Preparations would have included removal of column enclosures or walls,

weld torches to cut column sections, and placement of wires for detonation. Occupants, support staff, and

visitors would have noticed such activities, particularly since they likely would have occurred around

more than one column.

Figure 3–1 shows the results for the two shaped charges applied to Column 79 on a tenant floor that was

highly partitioned, such as Floor 12. Nearly all the windows on the northeast section of the floor

subjected to a blast would have been broken, even by the smaller charge. Simulations for a floor that was

not highly partitioned led to more extensive window breakage.

 

Figure 3–1. Peak

overpressure and broken

window locations.

 

Top: 9 lb shaped charge; bottom: 2 lb charge.

The actual window breakage pattern on the visible floors on September 11, 2001 (NIST NCSTAR 1-9,

Chapter 5) was not at all like that expected from a blast that was even 20 percent of that needed to

damage a critical column in WTC 7. The visual evidence did not show such a breakage pattern on any

floor of WTC 7 as late as about 4:00 p.m. or above the 25th floor at the time of the building collapse

initiation. Views of the northeast corner of WTC 7 at the time of the collapse were obstructed by other

buildings.

 

Chapter 3

The window breakage would have allowed the sound of a blast to propagate outward from the building.

NLAWS, a validated acoustic wave propagation software program, was used to predict the propagation of

the sound of the hypothetical blasts. The calculations showed that all the hypothetical blast scenarios and

charge sizes would have broadcast significant sound levels from all of the building faces. For instance, if

propagation were unobstructed by other buildings, the sound level emanating from the WTC 7 perimeter

openings would have been approximately 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of 1 km (0.6 mile) from WTC 7.

This sound level is consistent with standing next to a jet plane engine and more than 10 times louder than

being in front of the speakers at a rock concert. The sound from such a blast in an urban setting would

have been reflected and channeled down streets with minimum attenuation. The hard building exteriors

would have acted as nearly perfect reflectors, with little to no absorption. The sound would have been

attenuated behind buildings, but this would also have generated multiple echoes. These echoes could have

extended the time period over which the sound could have been detected and could possibly have had an

additive effect if multiple in-phase reflections met. However, soundtracks from videos being recorded at

the time of the collapse did not contain any sound as intense as would have accompanied such a blast

(NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5). Therefore, the Investigation Team concluded that there was no

demolition-type blast that would have been intense enough to lead to the collapse of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001.

 

 

 

No. Nobody plans for something like the twin towers collapse until something like that happens. You can't possibly, since there are so many unknowns and they are such an extreme case. No building had ever sustained an event like the Twin Towers did and no buildings like them had ever collapsed.

You haven't actually bothered to look at the arrangement of the site have you? It's pretty clear why WTC 7 got seriously damaged, especially when you look at how the aircraft hit the towers and how they collapsed. There were only really 3 other buildings that conceivably could have sustained similar damage. It's not like the other buildings in the area got away completely unscathed either.

 

 

 

Yes, the two buildings that were hit by the planes and one other, that were all part of the same complex and the other buildings that were part of the complex all had to be demolished.

 

You are like those guys in comedy sketches, who when showed a series of Rorschach blotchs, always reply with the same answer. Everything is either confirmation of your beliefs or it's part of the cover up.

 

The fact is that the buildings in the WTC were for the most part not built like other buildings. They were significantly different. Yet you keep going on like there's no differences between them and other buildings.

 

 

 

So you wanted more firefighters to die after all the ones who had died in the collapse of the twin towers? He has the ability to order around the NYFD how?

 

 

 

You didn't bother to say where you got it from in the report. Given your past history it's not an unreasonable conclusion that the higher than 2nd grade vocabulary defeated your reading comprehension.

 

Here's one of several places where it describes fires that lasted considerably longer than 20 min.

 

pg. 20

 

By around 2:30 p.m., the visible flames had diminished, but the fire had spread both south into the

southeast corner and north, reaching two-thirds of the way to the northeast corner. By 3:00 p.m., the fire

had spread internally past the northeast corner and onto the north face. In less than 15 min, the fire

simultaneously spread rapidly to the east to engulf the northeast corner of the floor and more slowly

westward about one-third of the way across the north face. The fire continued spreading westward in

starts and stops, approaching the northwest corner of the floor around 3:45 p.m. At around 5:00 p.m., the

fire had reached the northwest corner.

 

 

 

You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

 

 

 

You don't care what anyone says unless they agree with you. Though the EEEVVIIILLL threat of the UL labs is a new one too me.

 

I'm not convinced you've graduated from High School personally.

 

 

 

Do I have to start teaching you basic vocabulary as well. I said an animation, not anime or a cartoon. Apparently even that is too sophisticated for you.

 

 

 

You really aren't in a position to make snide remarks about the occasional misspelling. Witness ...

 

 

 

You are mistaking Popular Mechanics for Popular Science. But it seems pretty clear that the complexity of street signs is enough to confuse your reading ability. Unfortunately, there isn't enough time before the heat death of the universe for me to track down all of your mistakes, but have fun.

 

 

 

I know that 19 guys, a couple of hundred thousand dollars in expense and an organization that made it's name using suicide attacks are far more plausible than.

 

1) An administration as proven incompetent as Bush and buds, managing to pull off a flawless conspiracy of vast and enormous scope

2) Flawless, except for a number of actions, that serve no readily apparent purpose, other than to provide nutjobs like you with the opportunity to point and go "THAT PROVES THERE'S A CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!!"

 

You don't have even a passing acquaintance with logic or common sense.

No you are not a good person, you are a hateful misanthrope, who derives a vastly over inflated sense of importance from the misguided belief that you have THE TRUTH and are waging a relentless campaign against the forces of evil by posting fact free rants on a message board that a negligible fraction of the population of the world even knows exists.

 

If there were a conspiracy they would be laughing their asses off at idiots like you and the irrational hallucinations you try to pass off as facts.

 

There's a saying that "Arguing with people on the internet is like participating in the special olympics. Even if you win, you are still 'special'". I am at least aware that I am 'special' for bothering to argue with nutjobs like you, I doubt you are capable of such self awareness.

Because the people who believe these things are insane nut jobs, who think that they are shining knights fighting the forces of evil by posting links to old youtube clips.

 

And I have way too much time on my hands, so I waste it arguing with them.

 

 

epic post is epic.

 

and long

 

and angry.