WT7 Collapse Caught on Video ---------------------------MPEG PART 2

[Bushknew]

I hope the Mods donÕt lock this thread. The first WT7 Collapse Caught on Video
Takes to long to open now and this is a continuation of that discussion and I think it merits discussion and exposure in the General Discussion Forum.

Thank you for letting this be discussed

http://globalfreepress.com/movs/911/wtc-7_collapse.mpg

Here are some questions that were IGNORED in the first thread.

1. How did falling debris on the OUTSIDE cause ignition of a fire INSIDE the WTC 7 that was so great to topple the building itself?

2. The WT7 building is in between two other buildings, why didnÕt they catch fire
and collapse as well?

3. The WT7 building burned (supposedly) and fell 7 hours after the collapse of both towers.

During these 7 hours, why didnÕt the firefighters notice it was burning? In the video, you
can hear the firefighters surprise, "ItÕs gone man"


To those of you who insist that the burden of proof is on us.

I ask you, what will YOU accept as proof?

Plus, there has been no investigation of 911 so how can you expect us to show you evidence to prove our case?

[bpilgrim]

1. why did it fall so cleanly? ANY other STEEL BUILDINGS that fell to fire?

in thier own FOOTPRINT no less in HISTORY?



Brief description:
The Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome) was the only structure left standing in the area where the first atomic bomb exploded on 6 August 1945. Through the efforts of many people, including those of the city of Hiroshima, it has been preserved in the same state as immediately after the bombing. Not only is it a stark and powerful symbol of the most destructive force ever created by humankind; it also expresses the hope for world peace and the ultimate elimination of all nuclear weapons.

:hi:

peace

[maha]

14. Yes, apparently so.

http://www.steel.org/news/innews/pr_amm_01_0912.htm

Structural engineers said the design integrity of the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center was such that the buildings could withstand the impact of two large passenger planes crashing into them. The buildings collapsed about two hours later after fire caused the steel supporting the buildings to lose its elasticity.

"Steel has a fire rating," said a structural engineer based in Pittsburgh. "A steel building like that will have about one hour (to stand) but when it gets hot enough, the building will come down."

Intense heat causes what is called the modulous elasticity of steel to be reduced. In the case of the World Trade Center crashes, thousands of gallons of aviation fuel were spilled into the building and ignited fires that burned at temperatures estimated between 800 and 1,000-degrees Fahrenheit.

"And then what you have is sort of a zipper effect," the engineer said. "When the steel began to weaken, the weight of the floors collapsed and it went down from there. When the planes went in, they probably took out support columns (at their points of impact). Then you have the weight of each floor falling down upon the next one and that brought the buildings down."

The buildings remained intact for more than an hour after impact, giving thousands a chance to escape before the buildings fell.

"I believe tens of thousands of lives have been saved by the structural integrity of the building," John Knapton, a professor of structural engineering at Newcastle University in England, said in an interview with BBC News Online. "It had a lot of its structure taken out, yet remained intact for more than an hour, allowing thousands to escape."

Ray Steeb, vice president and general manager with the Pittsburgh office of Turner Construction Co., said, "With such intense heat, steel loses its strength. It becomes like a noodle after it's cooked. The construction industry puts up fireproofing around the steel columns that give people one hour to two hours to get out of buildings in the case of fires. The columns (with proper fireproofing) should withstand 1,600-degree heat for one to two hours, and in most buildings that would give people time to get out."

Steeb called the collapse of the two towers "predictable," given their structure. "They came down just like they were supposed to," he said. "Once you get gravity involved, that's what happens. The buildings simply implode on themselves."

[bpilgrim]

38. psst... we are talking about WTC7

not to mention that those towers fell suspiciously as well and the evidence carted away in secret.

so once again are there any STEEL BUILDINGS in history that feel in their own footprint do to FIRE.

we are looking for other examples not the one that feel suspiously that day.

peace

[maha]

86. We were talking about STEEL BUILDINGS

Learn to read.

[paxamor]

141. Want to avoid B7 -- OK how about South Tower?

Maha wrote:
>We are talking about STEEL BUILDINGS .. Learn te read.

You are just so gracious and informative!

So let's talk about the South Tower, for example.
* The core, able to support the entire weight of the building, is largely unaffected by the crash, since the plane's fuselage emerged from the east corner.
* Perhaps 10 percent of the perimeter columns were severed. That would have little effect since the horizontal spandrell plates would shift the loads to intact columns.
* The fires never spread from the southeast side of the building to the other side, nor to other floors.
* The smoke was black by the time of the collapse, indicating smothering fires. IE: the steel was cooling.
* No flames could be seen from the outside of the building.
* Firefighters reached the crash zone and, without any sign of panic, began to implement a plan to extinguish the "two pockets of fire".
* The building would have to be glowing red hot if the steel were hot enough to be significantly softened.
* No steel-framed building has collapsed due to fire, even severe ones.
* Suddenly the South Tower's top starts to lean, but then crumbles in mid air and explodes into a huge dust cloud.

What's wrong with this picture?

[ElementaryPenguin]

139. 'Collapse of two towers "predictable"' - then why didn't the NY Fire Dept

Know that?? Didn't they just run up with their Chief - commiting suicide, I guess - no experts anywhere - including them - foresaw the towers coming down at that point!

I worked in the L.A. twin towers - steel buildings - SAME ARCHITECT as WTC - in fire drills, we were always told that only the floors ABOVE any fire would be evacuated!! And there sure as hell wasn't ANY talk of the building actually friggin' imploding and falling down!! "Predictable" my ass!! No one on Sept 11 predicted it!!

[paxamor]

140. wet noodles, zipper effect, etc.

Maha wrote.

>Ray Steeb, vice president and general manager with the Pittsburgh office of Turner Construction Co., said, "With such intense heat, steel loses its strength. It becomes like a noodle after it's cooked.

I'll just respond to this and leave alone the "zipper effect" nonsense by the unnamed 'structural engineer'.

So what temperature is needed to turn steel columns into wet noodles?
At 800C (not F) steel looses nearly 90% of its strength.
That's still a far cry from wet noodles.
But consider 2 things:

1. 800C is around the maximum temperature that hydrocarbons can burn in air.
That is accomplished with premixed fuel and air in the optimum ratio - as in a gas stove's blue flame.
Diffuse flames are much cooler.

2. Temperatures of steel in a building frame stay below flame temperatures, well below in most cases.
This is because of the thermal capacity of a large steel frame, combined with the thermal conductivity of steel.
In extensive tests of steel-frame carparks subjected to prolonged exposure to hydrocarbon-fueled fires
conducted by Chorus Construction co., the highest temperature recorded in any of the steel structures was 360 C.
http://www.corusconstruction.com/carparks/cp006.htm
Note that in those structures, the steel was uninsulated. At 360C, steel looses almost no strength.
(There were no collapses in these tests.)

3. Buildings are overengineered to support loads several times maximum anticipated loads --
usually 5 times static loads and 3 times dynamic loads.

4. Maximum anticipated loads are calculated based on the buildings floors bearing their maximum rated loads,
such as standing-room-only crouds. This is several times the loads that the WTC buildings were carrying on 9/11.
Also the dynamic loads due to wind were minor.

5. So for there even to be a chance of any kind of collapse, the steel would have to get up to around 800C.
But steel glows red hot at 700 C. Did anyone see WTC 1, 2, or 7 glowing red-hot?

[ElementaryPenguin]

143. WOW!!! America has really been Bushwacked by the official bullshit

Explanation!!! Those fucking towers didn't just fall down from fires!! BULLSHIT - all of it!!!

[maha]

2. Why do you keep saying

... the firefighters didn't know WTC 7 was burning? Everyone in New York knew it was burning. There were announcement on the news throughout the day that it was burning and expected to collapse, and then it did.

[Bushknew]

7. I understand that firefighters were trying to save lives but

if these steel buildings were collapsing because of fire and killing people then
Putting out the fire in the WTC 7 seems to be a priority to prevent further loss of life.

Now, Will you answer my questions?

1. How did falling debris on the OUTSIDE cause ignition of a fire INSIDE the WTC 7 that was so great to topple the building itself?

2. The WT7 building is in between two other buildings, why didnÕt they catch fire
and collapse as well?

[maha]

9. Answers to your questions

"if these steel buildings were collapsing because of fire and killing people then Putting out the fire in the WTC 7 seems to be a priority to prevent further loss of life."

The area was evacuated of everyone but authorized personnel long before WTC came down. They didn't fight the fire mostly because the FDNY was in a state of chaos, the water pressure was down, and so they let it burn. No deaths resulted from letting it burn, but more firefighters might have died fighting it.

"1. How did falling debris on the OUTSIDE cause ignition of a fire INSIDE the WTC 7 that was so great to topple the building itself?"

Think on a bigger scale. WTC "debris" was to ordinary "debris" what a 747 is to a paper airplane. The "debris" broke through the building's structure, obviously.

An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7

What keeps coming out of the conspiracy theories, IMO, is a total misunderstanding of the scale of what happened.

"2. The WT7 building is in between two other building, why didnÕt they catch fire and collapse as well?"

The pattern of the fall damage is still being examined, but here's a partial answer:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

Although WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7 collapsed completely, other structures such as the Bankers Trust Building (located at 130 Liberty Street) remained standing, sustaining only moderate localized damage. Robert Smilowitz, consulting engineer with Weidlinger Associates Applied Science division in New York City, led the team studying the Bankers Trust Building.

While not originally designed to sustain the loss of a column over a significant portion of its height, this structure's ability to arrest collapse demonstrated an inherent tenacity in the moment-connected steel frame lattice. To gain a better understanding of the building's response to the impact of debris from the falling WTC structures and identify specific design features that contributed to this performance, Smilowitz's team utilized simulation software from ANSYS Inc.

In order to represent the structural behavior in the damaged state, the team had to develop nonlinear spring representations of the girder/column moment connections (left). Detailed plate models of the connections were developed and analyzed parametrically to determine the appropriate nonlinear spring characteristics. These properties were then specified at the corresponding connections in the ANSYS model of the building.

Thanks in large part to ANSYS' static nonlinear analysis capabilities, the team was able to determine the diminished capacity of the connections resulted from the "out-of-plane" bending associated with the damaged state of the structure. This partially explains the damage pattern, which was contained in the northeast face of the building, extending from the initial impact area on the 22nd floor down to the eighth floor.

"It is difficult to draw conclusions," obsserves Smilowitz in his report to FEMA. "More detailed study is required to understand how the collapse was halted." He believes that a complete FEA analysis on the Bankers Trust Building-conducted in ANSYS-will aid current and future builders in constructing buildings better able to avert catastrophic collapses in the event of abnormal loading conditions.

http://www.ansys.com/customer_stories/case_studies/civil_foensic.htm

Having watched all this happen, it just doesn't seem fantastical to me that some buildings got smashed and some didn't.

Is there some reason you don't use plain single quotes? I find Õ very annoying.

[Bushknew]

17. It is "fantastical" thatÕs why I think

There should be an investigation, but they have conveniently shredded all the evidence ala ENRON now.

[maha]

18. The investigations are still going on

"There should be an investigation, but they have conveniently shredded all the evidence ala ENRON now."

In fact, the investigations are ongoing, including study of steel and other materials from the WTC.

Here's an article from JUNE 2003 about testing the steel:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/gallery/kolsky.htm

They're still conducting DNA tests on human remains, for pete's sake. There are about a thousand people missing whose remains haven't been identified. Did The Gubmint take them away, too?

[bpilgrim]

40. yet you act as if your are certain... interesting

besides the gov did cart away most of the evidence in secret, why do you continue to deny this FACT?

peace

[votein04]

55. Carted away evidence in secret??

It didn't look to secretive to me...or anyone else I've ever spoken to. When was this established as a "FACT"? If it's a fact, there must be something you can link me to supporting it?

And what kind of evidence are we talking about here? Twisted metal? Pulverized concrete? Scraps of plane?

I remember seeing a piece of plane in the street. That supports my belief that planes brought down the WTC.


I've asked some of the other pro-conspiracy types here...I'll ask you too.

What exactly are you suggesting/believing about the 9-11 events?
None of you seem to be clear on that. Do you think it was a government plot?

[bpilgrim]

57. Fire Engineering Mag Complained LOUDLY about it

the most respected journal in the industry.

almost all of it was immeaditly carted off, and sold to be melted down into soup cans and what not.

the largest crimminal act in us history and most of the evidence is sold to foreign countries with strick instructions to keep it SECRET, meaning NO examination of it.

look it up, or check the original thread.

peace

[votein04]

61. That's because the crime was obvious.

The only evidence that needed to be looked for was evicence regarding the identity of the hijackers.

They pretty much got that.

So....the crime was witnessed by millions. It was obvious what happened (planes hit buildings...buildings fall).
WHY is it important FROM A CRIMINAL perspective to examine all the metal?

Examining it to determine why the building failed I can understand. They figured that one out, and the explanation makes absolute perfect sense...

Again, what can you tell me about your suspicions/opinions about what you think really happened that day?

[bpilgrim]

64. i can tell you NEVER worked as an investigator

i'll go with the EXPERT opinions on this, sorry.

i can't tell you much, obviously, but i can show you a video that usually makes folks say 'wait a minute' wtf happened.

http://globalfreepress.com/movs/911/wtc-7_collapse.mpg

i am just asking questions... like how come we NEVER see this video on teeVee?

peace

[votein04]

69. And what are the "experts" saying?

Certainly not anything even remotely what you and the rest of the conspiracy theists are!

As for your video....I may have seen it on TV, can't remember.
Why are you asking that question?
What is your point in the context of this thread?

I'm tired of all the folks here posing pregnant questions without making any concrete statements of opinioin.

Do you think the building in the video was taken down as part of a government conspiracy?

Do you have any information about the video that might lead you to that idea...if in fact that is your idea?

[bpilgrim]

70. do a REAL investigation

but most of the evidence has been turned into spoons and soup cans.

no one has come up with an OFFICIAL THERORY yet almost 2 years later.

i want to make sure folks know about the many suspicious activites and events of that day WTC7 being one of them.

noing a but of history as well also causes me to be suspicous of all governments even my own.

so that being said, i am asking the brilliant minds of DU to help us speculate on what may have done such a thing to WTC7 since we have no athoritative official theory as of yet.

peace

[votein04]

72. I saw the planes hit the buildings, that's all the investigation needed.

i am asking the brilliant minds of DU to help us speculate on what may have done such a thing to WTC7 since we have no athoritative official theory as of yet.


You're asking the brilliant minds of DU to waste their time on a pointless exercise, and that makes me suspicious of you.

[bpilgrim]

75. good enough for you i suppose, but not for the scientific minded among us

thank goodness

peace

[maha]

79. SCIENTIFIC??

Where?

[bpilgrim]

84. yeah, anyone who uses and BENIFITS with logic and reason daily

like me :hi:

peace

[maha]

88. Not you, son.

You're annoying, not scientific.

[bpilgrim]

92. so are you back to disrupt again?

pardon me while i take your leave then :hi:

peace

[votein04]

94. Now THAT'S funny!

You call someone ELSE a disruptor?

WHO is polluting DU with dumb conspiracy threads?

[bpilgrim]

100. asking questions about what happened to WTC7?

i really don't see much 'FUNNY' in it other than a few folks who can't seem to controll themselves nor respect DU's rules about calling folks names or DISRUPTING THREADS.

if you have a problem hit the ALERT botton and the mods will help you out but PLEASE stop disrupting my thread... thanks in advance :toast:

peace

[maha]

104. I'm not following the program.

A wet blanket, I am. So sorry.

[votein04]

93. Yah, it's all about you.

You could benifit from a little common sense...but only time might give you some of that.

[bpilgrim]

101. attacking folks on DU is frowned upon and i kindly ask you to refrain

from such post.

thank you.

peace

[paxamor]

132. researchers versus "experts"

>Certainly not anything even remotely what you and the rest of the conspiracy theists are!
>
>As for your video....I may have seen it on TV, can't remember.
>Why are you asking that question?
>What is your point in the context of this thread?
>
>I'm tired of all the folks here posing pregnant questions without making any concrete statements of opinioin.
>
>Do you think the building in the video was taken down as part of a government conspiracy?
>
>Do you have any information about the video that might lead you to that idea...if in fact that is your idea?

The several videos of the collapse of Building 7 indicate demolition.
It is perfectly legitimate to explore evidence apart from theories about who the perpetrators are.
Indeed any legitimate crime investigation starts by establishing the facts of the crime.

You seem to want to close off debate by saying it's not letitimate to discuss details of the crime without a complete theory of the how the crime was perpetrated.

Those pointing out the red flags in the offical theory are making concrete statements.
They are researchers in the most genuine sense, examining physics and engineering precedent, to question the official story that three skyscrapers (for the first time in history) totally collapsed (and shredded and pulverized themselves) because impacts and fires.

Others will always follow the opinion leaders and 'experts', wanting everything wrapped up in a tidy package before they can even consider it.

[votein04]

63. BTW...what is so secret about the metal scrap from the WTC??

Are you sure the instructions weren't intended to protect the tragedy and victims from exploitation?
If a company knew it could get it's hands on WTC scrap they could cash in on whatever they made out of it because of the fact it's WTC scrap, understand?

So...that's perfectly understandable too. It was so infamous that any material being sold for scrap would need to be kept secret in that respect.

But what possible reason from a wacko conspiracy point of view could they have for keeping scrap metal secret??

[bpilgrim]

66. you'll have to ask the neo-cons i suppose

sounds like you are very ignorant to how fire and criminal investigations are typically run in this country, but so are most of us, and in paticular about the circumstances of what happened that day so i would suggest doing some reading at the prior thread and the websites out there that discuss this very topic for some more background info.

try this one for a start...
http://new.GlobalFreePress.com

peace

[votein04]

73. Thanks, but I'll leave that to you.

Beyond this most enjoyable hour spent dealing with this BS thread I'm not going to pursue this any further.

There's to many important issues - REAL issues - that actually deserve discussing....the most important of which is the upcomming elections.
Don't stay up too late searching out your wild conspiracies the night before the election and sleep through the vote, K?

[bpilgrim]

76. whish us luck

:hi:

btw: check out the online newspaper i built in my free time ;->
http://GlobalFreePress.com

peace

[maha]

81. It's a hoax.

The scrap was taken to various places for examination, but most of the intact pieces are accounted for. There are various plans for the steel, including using it to make a battleship. Some of it is still being examined by the structural engineering guys.

bpilgrim got hold of one crackpot magazine article and has created an entire religion around it.

[Stephanie]

83. Anyone could look at the metal

You just had to go to Pier 25 down by Stuyvesant HS where they were loading it onto barges to be hauled away. I spoke with the crane operator down there. He showed me the huge steel beams. I could climb on them if I wanted to. It wasn't secret. It was very public.

[maha]

89. They've still got a lot of it.

The structural engineering guys are still testing it.

[OudeVanDagen]

153. Thank you Stephanie

Yes, it was indeed very public; a VERY public act in fact, with hundreds of people taking photos, videos, and asking for souvieners. Maybe you also saw the ID and tracking numbers that investigators applied to each piece.

[bpilgrim]

98. Fire Engineering Mag is not known for publishing 'Crack Pot' articles

though maha may not be aware of that as maha has been consistantly mis or uninformed about many things regarding 911 in general and WTC7 in paticular.

most of the evidence was hauled away under Controlled Demolition Inc. direction.

and those FACTS have a lot of PROFESSIONAL INVESTIGATORS speaking out.

i am forever grateful to them and all others who will NEVER forget.

peace

peace

[maha]

105. They did this time.

Let's see -- I see X with my own eyes; I know people involved with X; the several New York newspapers have many articles about what's going on with X, and then there's one little trade magazine that says Y.

Which one to believe? Oh, the strain....

> FACTS have a lot of PROFESSIONAL INVESTIGATORS speaking out.

Other than the fire magazine article and people who send UFO sitings to rense.com, to which professional investigators do you refer?

[bpilgrim]

110. your replies speak volumes

peace

[DoNotRefill]

118. Yup...

Just like lots of explosives "experts" said that the OKC bomb couldn't have really been an ANFO bomb. Some of them had impressive credentials, and actually made sense. That doesn't mean they were right.

[bpilgrim]

120. well there are many unaswered questions there as well

like more than one explosion being reported and other bombs being found IN THE BUILDING.

btw: those OTHER explosions were record on a near by seismograph so can not be dissmissed.



Letter from Gen. Partin to U.S. Sen. Trent Lott

Benton K. Partin Brigadier Gen. USAF (Ret.)
8908 Captains Row
Alexandria, Virginia 22308
703-780-7652
July 30, 1995

Sen. Trent Lott
United States Senate
487 Senate Russell Office Building
Washington, DC 205102403

Dear Sen. Lott:

The attached report contains conclusive proof that the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, was not caused solely by the truck bomb. Evidence shows that the massive destruction was primarily the result of four demolition charges placed at critical structural points at the third floor level.

Weapons Experience: I do not offer such an analytical conclusion lightly. I have spent 25 years in research, design, development, test and management of weapons development. This included: handson work at the Ballistic Research Laboratories; Commander of the Air Force Armament Technology Laboratory, and ultimately management responsibility for almost every nonnuclear weapon device in the Air Force (at the Air Force System command, Air Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) levels). I was also the first chairman of the OSD joint service Air Munitions Requirements and Development Committee. (A more detailed resume appears at Tab 1.)

Observations in Oklahoma City: To verify earlier analysis, I visited Oklahoma City during the last week of June. There I had the opportunity to view hundreds of photographs taken throughout the cleanup operation as the layers of debris were cleared away. The photos present irrefutable evidence that at least four demolition charges were set off at four critical columns of the reinforced concrete structure at the floor level of the third floor.

Conclusion: Based on my experience in weapons development and bomb damage analysis, and on my review of all evidence available, I can say, with a high level of confidence, that the damage pattern on the reinforced concrete superstructure could not possibly have been attained from the single truck bomb. The total incompatibility of this pattern of destruction with a single truck bomb lies in the simple, incontrovertible fact that some of the columns collapsed that should not have collapsed if the damage were caused solely by a truck bomb, and, conversely, some of the columns were left standing that should have collapsed if the damage had been caused solely by the truck bomb.

more...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/ok8.htm

peace
peace

[OudeVanDagen]

154. FE Mag

is no longer the premier magazine it once was. Not even one of the top 5. It's taken huge steps backwards and has become known for publishing articles written by degreed or titled individuals with little hands on practical experience. Example: Took a beating over the sleep deprivation article written by an 'expert' who in reality belonged to a hick fire department that responded to only about 50 fires per year. Critically acclaimed and respected publication? No. Do pigs fly? Visit their website and check their forums. Real intelligent "how many lights do you have on your car?" group. Those articles and editorials about destruction of evidence at WTC are nothing more than the preceptions of editor who briefly visited site for his quickie photo op and souviener and who in truth hasn't a clue about structural collapse protocol. FE is BS.

[paxamor]

130. maha's sophistry

>The scrap was taken to various places for examination, but most of the intact
>pieces are accounted for. There are various plans for the steel, including
>using it to make a battleship. Some of it is still being examined by the
>structural engineering guys.

No the scrap was not accounted for -- it was shipped to blast furnaces in China and India with no forensic examination.
The "various places" it was taken for "examination" was Fishkills Landfill, and that was mostly the scrap that was too small to be worth recycling.

Well at least the (unpaid volunteer BPAT) "structural engineering guys" got to save 55 pieces of steel out of hundreds of thousands of pieces. Of course they don't even know what part of the buildings those souvineers came from.
What a serious investigation!

As for NIST, look, they have a whole piece of steel. How impressive!

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm

>bpilgrim got hold of one crackpot magazine article and has created an
>entire religion around it.

Maha's slamming of Fire Engineering Magazine and Bill Manning speaks volumes about his character.

Just as an example of the kind of dishonesty that runs through Maha's posts, in the previous, now closed thread, his last post denies the well-documented fact that the vast majority of the steel was recycled.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=211010&mesg_id=219131&page=

He asserts the steel is still being studied, but the NIST article he cites,

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/newsfromnist_kolskybar.htm

is not about testing the WTC steel. Rather it is about testing the "various types of steel used in the WTC buildings".
IE: they are testing steel and may use their findings to build some simulationns of the towers, long after the evidence is gone.

I recommend that people actually read the links that Maha posts -- they often don't support the point he is making.

[paxamor]

150. strength of belief

>I remember seeing a piece of plane in the street. That supports my belief that planes brought down the WTC.

Thank-you for your honesty.
You have a belief that the planes did it.
Belief is not based on a rational evaluation of evidence.
Rather it is a lense that affects the way you understand the world.
The believer does not let evidence or facts get in the way of their belief.
The piece of a plane you saw on the street was evidence that a plane hit a tower, not that it brought down the tower.
You persist in asking the advocates of a real investigation who they think the perpetrators are.
Maybe they don't know. They clearly are interested in finding the truth.
We don't expect police to refuse to gather evidence of a crime because they had no idea who did it.
This thread is about the collapse of building 7.
If you can watch the videos of B7's collapse and continue to believe that there is nothing wrong with the official story,
then I say you are a true believer!

>And what kind of evidence are we talking about here? Twisted metal? Pulverized concrete? Scraps of plane?

All of this evidence should have been studied carefully rather than destroyed.
The steel deserved the most careful scrutiny, since it was what supposedly succumbed to fire for the first time in the history of steel frame building fires.

[maha]

87. Because it didn't HAPPEN!!

For the past two and a half years NY newspapers have run news stories about the materials hauled from the site. IT WAS NOT HAULED AWAY IN SECRET!!!!!

Jeez, what a marooon...

[paxamor]

131. evidence destruction operation & "secrecy"

>For the past two and a half years NY newspapers have run news stories about the materials hauled from the site. IT WAS NOT HAULED AWAY IN SECRET!!!!!

Obviously what Bill was saying was that the evidence was hauled away while proper forensic analysis was prevented.
And it was secret in the sense that people were not allowed to document what was happening.
People taking photographs of Ground Zero were threatened with arrest.
FEMA's BPAT, the only entity charged with investigating the collapses while the evidence still existed,
was prevented, save one 'tourist trip', from examining evidence at Ground Zero.

So the site was sealed off, forensic examination was blocked, and the steel was trucked to barges destined for Asia as fast as it could be.
GPS locaters were installed in the trucks at $1000 a pop to make sure the steel didn't get delayed on its trip to the blast furnaces.

Sounds reasonable to characterize that as a "secret" evidence destruction operation.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/index.html

[nolabels]

134. search on google in cache with security solutions + wackenhut

Traced the link of the security solutions of the guy taking extra lunch time and hunched Wackenhut, the infamous GOP renta-goon company and walla

http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:m0fStvRnwG0J:www.ipsaintl.com/html/media_04_24_02.html+security+solutions+%2B+wackenhut&hl=en&ie=UTF-8


(snip)
Most recently, Mr. Jenkins had been President and Chief Executive Officer of Jenkins Security Solutions Group, Inc., a Hayward, California-based corporation specializing in global security solutions to Government, High Technology, Healthcare, Educational, Commercial and Financial industries.

Since 1977, Mr. Jenkins has directed, consulted on, or designed, numerous corporate, government and healthcare security systems and programs which included the application of integrated "state-of-the-art" technologies as well as the development of comprehensive security master plans, and compliance programs to include JCAHO, DEA, DHS and OSHA.
(snip)

http://www.kings.edu/twsawyer/ttguides/whut-preface.html
<http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/seeker1/activism/octopus.html>

UNTANGLING THE OCTOPUS

by Steve Mizrach

October Surprise, Iran-Contra, Noriega, Iraqgate, and BCCIThe Wackenhut Connection

The Wackenhut Security Corporation of Miami, Florida, has long been suspected of being a CIA front. The right-wing politics of George Wackenhut, who had ties to Belgian fascists and South American death squads, are well known. But few people realize that Wackenhut, a small company with "only a few" employees, gets some choice assignments, including guarding nuclear reactors, nuclear weapons facilities, the Alaskan Oil pipeline, and several American embassies; or that its board of directors contains several

luminaries from the FBI, CIA, and Army Intelligence, including Bobby Ray Inman. Wackenhut has led a covert crusade against whistleblowers at many nuclear power plants, using wiretaps to eavesdrop on them and various 'subtle' techniques to convince them not to talk; it also spied on Chuck Hamel, a critic of the Aleyska Oil Consortium's drilling policies, by setting up a fake environmental-law firm which sought to "pump" him for his sources. Wackenhut may have even used some operatives to try and help topple President Perez of Venezuela through a (failed) military coup, largely for money (rather than politics) it was given by Blanca Ibanez, the mistress of Jaime Luinschi, the former president.
(snip)

On edit title of post

[OudeVanDagen]

155. GPS - you got it ALL wrong

Absolutley NO trucks had GPS installed for tracking materials removed from the collapse zones - NONE.

The companies that supplied the trucks were from lists used by the DOT of NYC, and from lists used by the states of NY and NJ. Those lists were prepared and were in effect years before the incident and were prepared entirely for routine snow removal. The companies were on those lists for years and years. No trucks from the snow logistic list of the Port Authority were used.

Some trucks had GPS, but it was their companies that installed the units and the GPS had no role in the recovery and transportation of evidence.

[nolabels]

163. Here do a little reading

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html
(snip)
Highly Sensitive Garbage
Given that the people in charge considered the steel garbage, useless to any investigation in this age of computer simulations, they certainly took pains to make sure it didn't end up anywhere other than a smelting furnace. They installed GPS locater devices on each of the trucks that was carraying loads away from Ground Zero, at a cost of $1000 each. The securitysolutions.com website has an article on the tracking system with this passage.

Ninety-nine percent of the drivers were extremely driven to do their jobs. But there were big concerns, because the loads consisted of highly sensitive material. One driver, for example, took an extended lunch break of an hour and a half. There was nothing criminal about that, but he was dismissed. 3
(snip)

After you get done there you might want to check out Wackenhut a little more closely

[shockandawed]

3. what are you suggesting?

Look, any building that burns, even steel ones, will fall down after being allowed to burn. There was no water pressure in the WT7 after the collapse of the towers, and no one was attempting to fight the fire, so it collapsed after burning for hours.

[maha]

5. That can't possibly be true.

It makes sense. There must be another reason.

[paxamor]

137. the "inevitability" of steel building collapses

>Look, any building that burns, even steel ones, will fall down after being allowed to burn

Sounds nice, only problem is that it has NEVER happened.
It's not surprising that it never happened if you consider
some basic physics:

1535 C - melting point of steel
825 C - maximum temperature of hydrocarbons burning in the atmosphere
(premixed fuel and air - blue flame)
360 C - maximum temperature recorded in tests of uninsulated steel-frame
car parks subjected to prolonged hydrocarbon-fueled fires.
http://www.corusconstruction.com/carparks/cp006.htm

[stoner_guy]

144. Then what is the insulation for?

Every steel building that I've ever seen being built has all the girders covered with foamy looking stuff. The stuff is required by building codes to protect the steel from the heat of a fire. Why? Because if the steel overheats in a fire, the building will collapse.

Insulation can only slow the flow of heat from the fire into the steel. If the fire burns long enough the steel will eventually overheat and the building will collapse.

I'm no expert in construction or fires, but you've got to face the fact that all those buildings contain all that isulation (which costs real money to install) for a real reason. That reason is that steel buildings are prone to collapse if the steel is overheated by fire.

[paxamor]

149. it's the nature of engineering practice

>I'm no expert in construction or fires, but you've got to face the fact that all those buildings contain all that isulation (which costs real money to install) for a real reason. That reason is that steel buildings are prone to collapse if the steel is overheated by fire.

That's actually a very good question.
(Even though your repetition that steel buildings are prone to collapse due to fire is tiresome).
The answer has to do with the way engineers work.
Engineering involves uncertainty. Since you can never know exactly what stresses a structure will sustain --
What if a building were hit by a huge fire, earthquake, and hurricane at the same time, while it was filled to capacity?
Those are the kinds of scenarios that engineers think of.
Their job is to anticipate unimaginably terrible combinations of events.
For example, the designers of the WTC anticipated they would be hit by fully fueled 707-340s.
(that's over twice the fuel that the 767s were carrying).

So that's why the steel frames of buildings are insulated even though fires have never caused one such building to collapse.

This is very different from the way most people approach problems.
Engineers use redundant design and create structures that are many times as strong and survivable as they need to be.

It's because the cost of failure is so high.

[stoner_guy]

146. Q: Doesn't alumimunum burn?

Airplanes are made out of lots and lots of aluminum. If the aluminum from the wreckage burned too, wouldn't the fire be even hotter?

[paxamor]

148. aluminum isn't very good fuel.

Try this experiment:
Take some aluminum foil and put it in the blue flame of a gas stove.
(The gas flame is from premixed air and gas and so is hotter than any building fire.)
Does the flame seem to be much hotter because of the aluminum?
Does the aluminum burn easily?

[shatoga]

152. Thermite

magnesium ignites aluminum,
which melts iron.
which melts or burns through the target.
US Army techs taught me that.

http://www.thecatalyst.org/other/thermite/


Aluminum on ships of the US Navy burns and is responsible for having to abandon ship.

Get real!
Aluminum burns!

http://www.bartleby.com/65/th/thermite.html
>The aluminum reduces the iron oxide to molten iron and forms a slag of aluminum oxide on its surface. The reaction is very exothermic; temperatures above 2,500°C (4,500°F) are often reached. <

[RH]

158. Why then is aluminum added to rocket fuel?

:nuke:

[patdem]

4. Thank you thank you thank you...took me about an hour to download

the footage...AOL never even finished loading without 'view all' and MS did finally load..and I attempted to open from source...no go...then had to reload...at least four more times...till finally I decided to right click and download the sucker to my hard drive...to view latter...

Unless all the supports were torn down from the other two towers it did collapse from the bottom????

[DuctapeFatwa]

6. I don't think the regime wants the 911 events examined very closely

The regime has a lot of company. Most Americans feel like it is best not to ask too many questions.

"evildoers who hate freedom" seems to resonate, and the general consensus is that anyone who feels like they need more of an explanation is with the terrorists.

[maha]

10. Some of us think

That the Bush Regime and its ties to the Saudis needs much examination, but you're not going to learn about that by picking over the bones at Ground Zero.

[DuctapeFatwa]

15. You won't see any leaks that might embarrass Israel either

The US has special relationships with both Saudi Occupied Arabia and Israel. They are both Daddy's sweet girls.

[maha]

19. There you go.

There's a money-business connection trail that needs investigating big time.

[bpilgrim]

41. yeah, nothing to see here, move along

good advice

peace

[ProudGerman]

8. The evidence you need

Bring one or more of the hundreds of people that were involved in this supposed conspiracy that took at least several weeks to set up. Or you could bring us a thousand witnesses that say that they saw lots of men bringing in wire, blasting caps, C4, and also witnessed men with cutting torches cutting support members.

That oughta do it. Without that, your case has nothing to stand on.

[maha]

11. Thank you.

I suspect none of these people were ever anywhere near the WTC when they existed; they have no idea of the scale of the tragedy.

[Bushknew]

32. Yeah Yeah, I think the people that committed this conspiracy

Would be really willing to come forward and talk about it, good idea.

[pink_poodle]

12. I don't care what anyone says or how many people...............

shout "conspiracy"......................those buildings went down like elevators. And by gosh, they landed basically where they stood rather than toppling over. Just like when you see a controlled demolition.

[maha]

13. Yes, and this has been explained.

I saw the buildings go down (just north of the WTC, from a high-rise building) and I have no doubt as to why they went down as they did. I've explained it endlessly to people, and still they say, yeah, but, I don't want to believe you. So why bother to explain again?

If you really want to know I'll explain it again, but if you are enjoying your conspiracy theories and don't want to be bothered by facts, I'll let it pass.

[never cry wolf]

16. hey maha, save your time

i tried endlessly on thursday and these guys won't EVER believe you. i finally figured out that they can just play by themselves and i'll let the physics and engineering facts speak for themselves without me. their minds are made up.

[maha]

20. You are right.

You don't hear this junk in New York City, mostly because people who were there know better and are still too emotionally raw to listen to this nonsense.

[pink_poodle]

21. Thanks for expressing my opinions as junk! Sheesh! I am saying that.....

those buildings came down like elevators. So okay, if my opinion is junk to you then I won't even bother with yours!

[maha]

24. I'm an eyewitness.

Yes, I know they came down "like elevators." I saw it clearly. I was there. And I know why. I'm just asking if you actually want to know why before I waste time keyboarding it all again.

[pink_poodle]

26. Look, I have friends who were there that day and they also have..........

opinions that differ from yours. So before you become the self assigned "expert" then let others express their opinions rather than trying to shut them up because they saw something differently than you did. That is what happens. 10 people will witness an event and all will see it differently or with different views. So no need to be high and mighty with people about this. OK?

So what about the fire fighters and people who were there who heard and saw explosions on the lower levels. You were up in a tower, so I guess you did not see the ground level stuff going on????

[maha]

29. One more time.

"So what about the fire fighters and people who were there who heard and saw explosions on the lower levels. You were up in a tower, so I guess you did not see the ground level stuff going on????"

This has been explained several thousand times, and not only by me.

What happens which a piece of airplane or building weighing several hundred pounds falls approximately a quarter mile from the sky, reaches a velocity in excess of 200 mph, and hits asphalt?

It goes BOOM! I'm sure the ground shook quite a bit. Some of this stuff was in flames.

Those are your "explosions."

I saw clearly while the buildings were burning that the fire and smoke were all coming from the tops of the buildings, from the points of impact and above. There was clear blue sky BELOW the smoke.

In the famous video made by the French brothers, some of the "explosions" they heard turned out to be people hitting the ground.

[pink_poodle]

30. Yes, we are all so thick that we need it to be explained for the..........

thousand'th time. Come on! Okay, you believe what you want.

[votein04]

34. Why don't you tell us what YOU believe?

Or are you "just sayin'" they fell like elevators with no other thought in your head about it?

What is your point?

In the context of this thread it sure looks like you are trying to support the conspiracy theory....but please, enlighten me if I'm wrong.

[pink_poodle]

36. Doh! Now you are on the attack. Geez. Did you not read my original.....

post?????? What's the matter? I said already what I thought.

[votein04]

42. Oh please. I'm not "on the attack" at all. Just asking your belief here.

Forget I asked.

[maha]

82. I don't believe what I want.

I believe what I saw, and I believe what makes sense.

[votein04]

97. EXACTLY! This guy believes in his bizarre make-believe BS

[plaguepuppy]

31. Nice avatar

Is that a Ritz cracker or a slice of orange?

As to the "obvious explanation" of how the towers fell, you obviously haven't taken the time to read the FEMA of NIST documents. As one who has been there, has read the reports and has a very clear idea of the scale of events, I'd have to say that your belief in a comprehensive and tested explanation for how and why the buildings collapsed represents little more than blind faith.

Particularly when it comes to building 7 there is really no attempt to explain the path that led from the rather minor external damage to the southeast corner of the building to the elevator-like collapse of the building into its own footprint. The deisel fuel was stored mostly in underground tanks, and was pumped through double-wall metal tubing with leak sensors and automatic shutoffs, and only flowed when the emergency generators were actually running.

Somehow all this led to fires mostly on the 10-12th floors, home of the SEC and its Enron investigation files, seen in this picture of the northwest corner:


...and thence to a complete and symmetrical ground level structural failure of the entire building.

The words of Matthys Levy regarding the collapse of the towers are very apt here too:
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/discovery.wmv

[nolabels]

128. This almost sounds like a bad Joke for the one bullet theory

Let me get this straight now, diesel accidentally gets pumped up to the floors where the papers of from the investigation of SEC and Enron were being kept at and some how catches on fire and collapses the building. I missed "The collapse of WTC bldg #7 part I". These sure are weird co-winky-dinkies. What next?

[bpilgrim]

44. BS

shoot many of my friends who are from NYC are helping to spread the word about what really happened.

peace

[Bushknew]

22. What facts?

<<I've explained it endlessly to people, and still they say, yeah, but, I don't want to believe you. So why bother to explain again?
If you really want to know I'll explain it again, but if you are enjoying your conspiracy theories and don't want to be bothered by facts, I'll let it pass.>>


What facts?

FEMA doesnÕt even know what happened.

Quote:

<<The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. >>

http://www.wtc7.net/noprobe.html

ItÕs truly "fantastical" I tells ya.

[maha]

23. FEMA ain't engineers.

Why do you fixate on the FEMA report and ignore NIST and other agencies and private engineering firms that are conducting engineering and structural tests?

And what's with this sudden fixation on WTC 7? Is it that you've given up painting the destruction of WTC 1 and 2 as a mystery, so you're going after WTC 7 because less has been written about it?

[plaguepuppy]

37. What's with the sudden fixation?

It's not a sudden fixation, it's a long series of anomalies and unexplained events that heve not come close to being explained by anyone so far, despite your fervent beliefs to the contrary.

And it has nothing to do with the twin tower collapses being "definitively explained," which they clearly have not been. Take the time to actually read FEMA of the NIST "progress report" and you will learn just how preliminary all the collapse models really are.

One more interesting pic - this is the entire extent of the documented damage to WTC-7:



http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html

[maha]

96. Thanks for the photo

... but I've been down there several times since September 11. You really can't get the big picture of the damage from photographs.

[plaguepuppy]

47. No but ASCE is

...and it was, in deferance to your invincible ignorence, the ASCE (that's American Society of Civil Engineers)/FEMA report - see cover page:http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_titlepg.pdf

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtcreport.htm

And once more, if you bothered to read the interim NIST report, you would discover that it so far offers no explanations at all for the collapses, and is only in the preliminary stages (2 years after the collapses) of gathering data and defining research protocols.

Thanks for sharing.

[maha]

103. They're still doing DNA tests.

There's a little mobile lab of people in NYC who are still testing bits and pieces of human remains to try to identify the missing. Last week they released a couple of new names, but as I recall there are about a thousand people whose remains have not been identified.

Should I assume (a) there's a lot of work to be done and it takes time to do it; or (b) there's a government conspiracy hiding a thousand people?

The moral is, it takes time to do a thorough investigation of something this enormous and messy.

However, there are some things that are well understood, like why the two towers fell nearly straight down, and how the fire damaged the steel in the buildings. There are dozens of well-done engineering studies on the web that explain these things nicely, and which are consistent with what I saw myself.

Also, the material from the site was not hauled away in secret and hidden. That's just a hoax.

They are still working on exactly why things fell where they fell, but as an eyewitness to the collapse and as someone who's been to Ground Zero a few times, there's no big mystery about what happened there.

[paxamor]

142. all makes perfect sense!

>There's a little mobile lab of people in NYC who are still testing bits and pieces of human remains to try to identify the missing. Last week they released a couple of new names, but as I recall there are about a thousand people whose remains have not been identified.

Where are they looking for the remains given that Ground Zero was scrubbed by May of 2002?
On September 11, 2002, nydailynews.com reported that 1000 bodies were still missing.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/17949p-17009c.html
I guess their pace of id-ing is slowing down.

>There are dozens of well-done engineering studies on the web that explain these things nicely,

Could you please provide references to some of those well-done studies?

>Also, the material from the site was not hauled away in secret and hidden. That's just a hoax.

So then where is it?

>They are still working on exactly why things fell where they fell, but as an eyewitness to the collapse and as someone who's been to Ground Zero a few times, there's no big mystery about what happened there.

Two buildings exploded into huge dust clouds vaporizing 1000 people and pulverizing all the non-metallic contents to sub 100-micron powder, and a third skyscraper sank into its footprint in textbook controlled demolition manner.
No mystery there!
All makes perfect sense!
Move along now.

[paxamor]

133. maha's explanation

>Oh If you really want to know I'll explain it again, but if you are enjoying your conspiracy theories and don't want to be bothered by facts, I'll let it pass.


Oh please explain it to me Maha! I really want to know. Please enlighten me.
I know that you saw it happen, so you know exactly HOW it happened.
But I hope your explanation is better than Thomas Eagar's.
I tried to believe his story, but, unfortunately I couldn't help but notice it was full of lies.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/trusses.html

But I won't let my disenchantment with the MIT professor taint my hopeful anticipation that you will explain it all for me.

[votein04]

27. PLEASE get real here.

The way the buildings fell is pretty much what I'd expect for the type of failure that occurred.
It looked like a controlled demolition, but it wasn't.

I'm reporting this thread.

This kind of BS speculation is the kind of thing the right loves to see us doing.

[pink_poodle]

28. Yes, and you are so incredibly rude that you are not worth dealing with! -

:

[votein04]

33. I said this thread is BS speculation...how is that rude to YOU?

It's not your thread.

I've reported it for what it is anyway....BS speculation.

Deal with that, pardner. You want to speculate along with this threads author that 911 was a conspiracy by the Bush administration or that the twin towers were purposely felled by a controlled demolition then carry on. It makes us look pretty dumb so I have to wonder if it's a much more believable conspiracy of the right-wing disruptor variety.

[pink_poodle]

35. Because in your opinion, other peoples' opinions are BS. So who are.....

you to judge that other's opinions are BS????? Maybe people think your opinion is BS. Maybe you should be reported.

[votein04]

39. What opinions? This is all drama. Besides, I called the THREAD BS

The author, and yourself, don't seem to have opinions here anyway.

This thread IS BS because it's based upon absolutely nothing (all three of the authors original points are without merit) and yet it's implying that there was some form of home-grown conspiracy surrounding 9-11.
You've weighed in with non-committal support for that by saying the buildings fell as if they were a "controlled demolition".

I'm sorry if my well-founded feeling that this thread and the quesion it implies is BS. That's my opinion about the thread, not an attack on you.

The thread serves no purpose but to make us look like idiots and to waste time. Yes, I'm implying something there....and I'll let the mods decide if there's merit to it

[bpilgrim]

46. the other thread had over 300 posts

i don't think the mods agree with you and i am certainly very thankful for that.

peace

[votein04]

51. That supports what I'm saying...this is a dedicated time waster

The mods locked that thread.
I'm sure they're looking at this with great interest and any decisions they're making about these wild conspiracy threads that eat up time and energy are decisions in the making.

I believe that this kind of thing is disruptive, and I've told them as much.

It's so ridiculous that it apprears to me designed to make us look stupid. It certainly (as evidenced by the last 300 post thread) pits people against each other and uses up a lot of time and effort around here.

I'm sure they'll monitor the pro-conspiracy posters closely from now on, which suits me great.

[bpilgrim]

54. only in your mind...

apparantly a lot of folks are interested and something to say about it.

that thread was locked after 3 days on DU with over 300 posts and a new one was started which usually means the other one gets locked, SOP.

btw: i have been here for more than 2 years now i am sure they know all about me ;->

peace

[votein04]

90. A large number of posts doesn't translate into interest.

I'm not interested in this topic other than to see it die.
Yet I'm posting lots. I suspect it was a similar state of affairs on the other thread, but I won't be wasting my time checking it all out thanks.

I would be delighted to see the administrators enforce a new rule. No dumb wacky conspiracy threads about 9-11.

You've gone on the record as saying you believe the government perpetrated 9-11 to drum up support for the war...so the evidence of wackiness is pretty strong.

[bpilgrim]

116. yawn

typical of your illogical responces.

c u

peace

[Bushknew]

123. The thread serves no purpose but to make us look like idiots.

No, it makes you look like an idiot for protesting people that ask questions.

I donÕt believe that the WYC 7 could have been brought down by fire alone.

Again, SPARE ME YOUR JUDGEMENTS AND GIVE ME YOUR REASONS
as to why YOU BELIEVE a 7 hour fire was strong enough to collapse the WTC 7 building.

A plane did not hit the WTC 7 building and we are suppose to believe it collapsed by a fire that no one knows how was started.

Give me an example of another building of equal size and construction that fell in
7 hours by fire alone.

[bpilgrim]

45. there isn't a REAL explaination yet...

so how do you know what really happened?

peace

[votein04]

49. A REAL explanation for what exactly??

For the buildings falling down? Uh...I think two planes hit them.
Everything else that occurred on that site after that was a direct result of that.

That explanation exists now, and most rational people believe it.

Bush & Co are up to enough underhanded BS without us wasting our time trying to invent wild outlandish conspiracy accusations that make us look dumb.

[bpilgrim]

50. just because you are 'satisfied' doesn't mean the rest of us should be

some folks need more proof especially in light of the many mysterious events that day that have remained unexplained even OFFICIALLY.

so if you are satisfied why don't you just move on and let the rest of us discuss this in peace?

peace

[votein04]

52. Because it makes democrats look foolish, and I take exception to that.

So I think I'll hand around and continue pointing that out.

Peace.

[bpilgrim]

56. oh, politics/appearances is what got us into this mess in the first place

i'll remind you.

peace

[votein04]

59. WTH?

Just help me out and tell me what you think happened on 9-11. Or what you suspect. Or anything concrete. Anything.

[bpilgrim]

68. that is what i am asking the DU think tank, in paticular WTC7

any help appreciated :toast:

peace

[votein04]

85. Um..you've admitted you think the Bush Govt did 911 to drum up war support

Your wacked out conspiracy theory has been placed on the table for all to see.

I asked:
What do you think you're chasing here?
Building contractor coverup?
Government coverup?
Government attack on it's own people to drum up support for a war?

and you answered:

Government attack on it's own people to drum up support for a war

So, don't be surprised now that you've uncloaked the true nature of your conspiracy mindset that you get less and less input from the DU "thinktank".
The only thinktank this thread deserves is a few teenagers on an Island with some fireworks and a bottle of JD. A remote Island

[bpilgrim]

112. no... i said that was one of the possibilities...

i also said this may be a multinational conspiracy to 'AFGHANISTAN' our asses.

but there are even more POSSIBILITIES excuse us if they don't conform to your certainties that aren't even backed up by any 'OFFICIAL' theory yet, now that is what i call a 'true believer'

look if you don't have anything to do but disrupt can you do that somewhere else, please?

thanks :hi:

peace

[DoNotRefill]

119. What else do you expect?

Controlled demolition uses very little explosives, because it relies on a NATURAL FORCE CALLED GRAVITY to do the "heavy lifting". You can take down a pretty big building with 30 pounds of suitable explosives placed appropriately. That same amount of explosive wouldn't do much to the building's mass if it was solid and on the ground.

It's a LOT easier to knock something down than pick it up.

[votein04]

25. WHAT the HELL is your point???

Besides the fact that all three of your suppositions are wrong, what exactly is your point?
Was there a cover up during the disaster, is that what you're thinking?

"burden of proof"??? Burden to prove WHAT?

What will I "accept as proof"? The buildings are gone, that's enough for me.

And finally...what is "our case" that you refer to? I think it's "your case" and I think it's pretty much a waste of time and head space.

I hope this thread is locked. This kind of crap is what repukes love to point out when they accuse us of idiocy.

[plaguepuppy]

43. You're easy

"The buildings are gone, that's enough for me."

Yeah, and so is democracy, representative government and the Bill of Rights - your point is exaclty what? That every twist and turn of conflicting lies about the events of 9-11 that the Bush cartel has spewed since that day is completely and utterly true, and anyone who dares to question any part of the story is a despicable looney?

Can we have a show of handfs - how many DUers believe there was nothing whatsoever odd about the events of 9-11 or the junta's handling of the "investigations"?

[votein04]

48. You make some pretty wild connections there...

Democracy (far from being gone btw, as we'll see in '04), representative government, and the Bill of Rights have exactly WHAT to do with the attack on the WTC and the subsequent falling of those buildings?

My point is clear. Let me make it clearer.

The buildings fell because two planes were flown into them. Period.

Who is at fault for not preventing them is another issue.
What's happening to the Bill of Rights since then is another issue.
What happened in Florida during the last election is another issue.
How Junior managed to choke on a pretzel is another issue.

The buildings are gone. Yes, that's enough for me. They're gone because planes were fown into them. It's obvious and it's enough.

I think any talk about a conspiracy makes us look foolish. I can't say it any nicer than that.

All of the people here who seem to be running with this conspiracy theory don't seem to come out with any clear statement of belief. It's all just "how did that fire start" or "what was that explosion the result of" or "why did that building fall". Big PREGNANT questions packaged with their own answers that they won't give because deep down they know it's stupidity incarnate.

You've made the connection in your last post to me between these buildings falling and some other Bush & Co. track record items. So you also have answered the big pregnant question without really answering it.

Why don't one of you just come out and say it?
"I think Bush..or someone down in the deep dark bowels of his administration...orchastrated 911."
Say it!

[bpilgrim]

53. and you reveal massive ignorance to what has happened since 12-12-00

have you heard of the patriot act, voting machines that can't be audited, steel buildings collapsing by fire, illegal combatants, illegal preventive war, secret trials, no lawyers, ability to strip you of your citizenship, TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS, on and on...

sounds like you don't have a clue, especially to most folks who read DU daily.

but i am glad you found us, there is certainly plenty to learn here.

peace

[votein04]

58. I've heard of all those things, what's your point?

Again, what are you saying?

Let me stear you back to the straight and narrow here.
We're discussing 9-11.
Are you implying that steel buildings shouldn't collapse by fire?

Have you ever seen metal worked in a fire? Seen a horseshoe being made?

If you want to discuss the patriot act, voting machines that can't be audited,illegal combatants, illegal preventive war, secret trials, no lawyers, ability to strip you of your citizenship, TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS, on and on..." that's great. I'll read with interest and pitch in what I know and certainly learn something no doubt.

If you want to discuss 9-11 and imply that it was a government conspiracy then I'm going to have shake my head and call BS.

Don't suggest that a steel building can't collapse by fire and then call ME ignorant!!

But please, why don't you be the first among the few pro-conspiritors here to just come out and tell me straight up what you're trying to say here. Don't cite other wrongs by the Bushie admin and just attach them ambiguously to 9-11 and think you're actually saying something, you're not!

Say something, PLEASE!!! What is your personal opinion about 9-11???

[bpilgrim]

60. i smell a rat...

and i can't find ANY steel constructed building to collapse to fire in history, can you?

i say the collapse of WTC7 looks too clean and my scientific mind asks is this REPEATABLE has it happened before?

so any help would be appreciated :toast:



Brief description:
The Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome) was the only structure left standing in the area where the first atomic bomb exploded on 6 August 1945. Through the efforts of many people, including those of the city of Hiroshima, it has been preserved in the same state as immediately after the bombing. Not only is it a stark and powerful symbol of the most destructive force ever created by humankind; it also expresses the hope for world peace and the ultimate elimination of all nuclear weapons.

peace

[votein04]

65. You smell a rat.....OK.......can you be a little more specific?

What do you think you're chasing here?

Building contractor coverup?

Government coverup?

Government attack on it's own people to drum up support for a war?

What??

You need to do better than say you can't find any other buildings collapsing from fire. That doesn't mean diddle.

And what's with the Hiroshima Peace Memorial thing. Is that part of your argument or just part of your "peace" theme?

[bpilgrim]

67. Government attack on it's own people to drum up support for a war

and the RADICAL chaning of this nations long standing foreign and domestic policies primarilly the PATRIOT ACT and PREVENTIVE WAR.

they would require something very big something we experianced on 911.

the Peace Dome was an example of a steel building surviving a hellfire for hours and worse yet it didn't collapse.

peace

[votein04]

71. Finally, the light of day!!!

So the government needed to drum up support for the war and the Patriot Act and "PREVENTIVE" war, that's why you believe they brought down the WTC.

Thankyou for coming clean.

Now...let me tell you something. There's an election in a little over a year from now and we need to expend our energy in getting rid of Bush and electing the best democrat for the job.

This conspiracy talk is quite simply BS and it makes the rest of us on this board - by association - look stupid. It is good fodder for the right to use against us.
I encourage you to drop it and instead focus on things that are real...like the Patriot Act and the war and the idea of PRE-EMPTIVE war.

As for the Peace Dome building....I submit that you have no idea - NONE whatsoever - if indeed it survived "hellfire for hours" or not. Any usable fuel may have burnt up around it in a short time.
Not to mention that the heated metal didn't have to withstand 30+ stories of office building above it.
So far not ONE conspiracy theory point being churned out here holds an ounce of water. Not one.

Please, re-focus on real and important issues.

[bpilgrim]

74. that is one possibility

it could be a group of foreign nations doing an 'AFGHANISTAN' on us since our fools at the helm are so predictable...

but a lot of things don't match up to the official story and i will do whatever i can to get answers or to at least help the questions get out 'there'.

As for the Peace Dome building... i certainly do have an idea what happened to it as to millions of other people in the world and it survived almost a direct hit by a nuke and burned for hours yet it did not collapse, the point being that buildings made of steel are very strong and BUILT that way and i can find NO steel building in history that has collapsed so cleanly in it's own footprint to anything let alone FIRE.

can you?

thanks in advance :toast:

peace

[votein04]

80. The way the WTC fell makes perfect sense.

If you choose not to believe it, fine.

I wish you wouldn't sully the rest of us with this wacko conspiracy crap. But, oh well...

And you know squat about the Peace Dome in terms of where it was in relation to the blast or how much fire it had to withstand.
You conveniently don't answer my point that it didn't have the weight above it that the WTC did at their respective points of impact and burning. You don't know that it burned "for hours".


i can find NO steel building in history that has collapsed so cleanly in it's own footprint to anything let alone FIRE. can you?



I think a better question is:
Can you find any example of a steel building in history that was of similar (skelatal) construct as the WTC and that burned uncontrollably at a lower level (a level with at least 20 floors above it)??
If you can't then your point is moot.

[plaguepuppy]

95. I respect your stubborn resistance to facts

Reality check here - you're not an engineer, right?

You haven't read the ASCE/FEMA or NIST reports, right?

So in what sense should anyone believe that your repeated assertion that "it makes perfect sense" carries any weight whatsoever, beyond your stubborn repetition of an uninformed opinion and willingness to insult anyone who disagrees with you?



http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html

[votein04]

99. What facts?

You guys are swimming in a lake of bizarre conjecture.

The fact is 20-30 stories of building are HEAVY.
The fact is that metal will bend when it gets hot.

The EXPERTS have weighed in....many of them. Many independent ones.

This thread represents a fringe group of drugged up, wacked out conspiritors who see a cop behind every lamp post.

Don't pretend that this conspiracy theory crap actually comes from a position of anything even resembling legitimacy!

[plaguepuppy]

106. Watch you mouth

Spewing insults doesn't make your arguments any stronger, my "drugged-up" "bizarre" "conspiracy theory crap" friend.

So could you answer my questions on your qualifications to be a 24-7 hate spewer? Engineering background? Read any of the relevant reports?

Didn't think so... Now go back, wash your mouth out with soap, and shut the Hell up until you have something to say other than your generic spew of insults.

[votein04]

111. The truth hurts, sorry.

Don't be so sensitive, I didn't call you personally a drugged up wacko, I said this thread represents those kind of people.

And what, exactly, did I say that was profane? You're a little confused about the idea of bad words deservign of a mouth wash.

"Hate spewer"????
You are FAR to sensitive to be part of an online forum.

I feel strongly that this thread is disruptive and stupid.
It's wacko, bizarre, dumb, take your pick.

None of that is "insultive" or "hate".

So, why don't you just "shut the hell up" (oh my, now THAT'S a bad word).

Get onto something relevant instead of this conspiracy BS that makes all of us look stupid by association, please.

[bpilgrim]

117. Little Boy went off DIRECTLY over it that is why it is still standing...

Little Boy

After being released, it took about a minute for Little Boy to reach the point of explosion. Little Boy exploded at approximately 8:15 a.m. (Japan Standard Time) when it reached an altitude of 2,000 ft above the building that is today called the "A-Bomb Dome."

more...
http://www.csi.ad.jp/ABOMB

that kinda blows their whole theory about the top floors crashing onto the below structure which caused it to collapse.

a building is at it's GREATEST strength when latteral force is applied.

think about it...

any civil engineers out there? little help...
(on edit: thanks plaguepuppy :toast: )

peace

[OudeVanDagen]

156. Enough already!!

A-Dome wasn't a steel frame building - it was stone - designed and built in the European fashion of the early 1900s - and most of it was destroyed - only 10 or 15 percent of it survived.

[paxamor]

136. there are several examples

>I think a better question is:
>Can you find any example of a steel building in history that was of similar (skelatal) construct as the WTC and that burned uncontrollably at a lower level (a level with at least 20 floors above it)??
If you can't then your point is moot.

Yes, the The First Interstate Bank Building in LA had
a core and curtain wall construction (like most modern skyscrapers)
and burned out of control 40 floors below the top for 3 1/2 hours.
It's steel structure was undamaged.



http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

This fire had large flames leaping out of the building, far more
severe than the North Tower, and incomparably more severe than
the smoldering fire in the South Tower.

[never cry wolf]

138. i hate bumping this thread but...

... first interstate bank did not have 30% of it's structural support taken out in a violent collision prior to the fire causing the other structural members to be overstressed trying to compensate.

[paxamor]

147. wild exaggeration about impact damage

>... first interstate bank did not have 30% of it's structural support taken out in a violent collision

Neither North nor South Tower had nearly 30% of their columns knocked out.
The photos show that maybe 30% of the columns of one of four exterior walls of North Tower were severed.
South Tower had much less damage with almost certainly very little damage to the core columns.

Were is the evidence that the other 90+% of the columns were overstressed?

If I debunk the fire damage theory you'll argue impact damage.
If I debunk that I expect you'll go back to fire.

[OudeVanDagen]

157. Core and curtain wall construction - yes

trusses - no.

Apples and oranges.

[maha]

91. That's a separate issue.

You don't need the mystery sabotage of the WTC to make those connections. There are plenty of connections between the Bushes and Osama bin Laden. Just because I think your "notions" about how the WTC fell doesn't mean I don't know something pretty darn fishy is going on.

You might like my Bush Terrorism Timeline:

http://mahabarbara.tripod.com/mahachronicles/index.html

[Bushknew]

125. My name is Bushknew, of course I think they orchestrated 911 you imbecile

<<Why don't one of you just come out and say it? "I think Bush..or someone down in the deep dark bowels of his administration...orchestrated 911." Say it!>>

Dude, my name is Bushknew, of course I think they orchestrated 911 you imbecile.

After Andrew Card whispered into his ear, BUSH KNEW that there weÕre
four hijacked planes over the US and he went on for 30 minutes with his arms and legs crossed.

Are you fucking happy now?

I donÕt want to get into all the other 911 mysteries, this thread is only about the
WTC 7 building.

[bpilgrim]

62. Part 1 here --------------------------------------------- LINK

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=211010&mesg_id=211010&page=

a sincere thanks to all those who have participated to keep this issue alive to honor and respect all those we lost that fright filled horrid day and especially to their families who continue to fight to this very day for a REAL investigation into what actually happened for not only an answer for themselves personally but also to PREVENT this happening again in the future.

never forget.

...

9/11 widows - astounding article - posted by Stevie D

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=219760

http://www.nyobserver.com/pages/frontpage3.asp

<snip>
"Once Lorie began surfing the Web, she couldn’t stop. She found a video of President Bush’s reaction on the
morning of Sept. 11. According to the official timeline provided by his press secretary, the President arrived
at an elementary school in Sarasota, Fla., at 9 a.m. and was told in the hallway of the school that a plane had
crashed into the World Trade Center. This was 14 minutes after the first attack. The President went into a
private room and spoke by phone with his National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, and glanced at a TV
in the room. "That’s some bad pilot," the President said. Bush then proceeded to a classroom, where he drew
up a little stool to listen to second graders read. At 9:04 a.m., his chief of staff, Andrew Card, whispered in his
ear that a second plane had struck the towers. "We are under attack," Mr. Card informed the President.

"Bush’s sunny countenance went grim," said the White House account. "After Card’s whisper, Bush looked
distracted and somber but continued to listen to the second graders read and soon was smiling again. He
joked that they read so well, they must be sixth graders."

<snip>
"I couldn’t stop watching the President sitting there, listening to second graders, while my husband was
burning in a building," she said.

Mindy pieced together the actions of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He had been in his Washington
office engaged in his "usual intelligence briefing." After being informed of the two attacks on the World
Trade Center, he proceeded with his briefing until the third hijacked plane struck the Pentagon. Mindy
relayed the information to Kristen:

"Can you believe this? Two planes hitting the Twin Towers in New York City did not rise to the level of
Rumsfeld’s leaving his office and going to the war room to check out just what the hell went wrong." Mindy
sounded scared. "This is my President. This is my Secretary of Defense. You mean to tell me Rumsfeld had
to get up from his desk and look out his window at the burning Pentagon before he knew anything was
wrong? How can that be?"

http://www.nyobserver.com/pages/frontpage3.asp
peace

[votein04]

77. I think it's disgusting

That you use the memory of the people lost as a support group for your bizarre little conspiracy project.

"Keeping this issue alive" in no way is a demonstration of respect for those who lost their lives, make no mistake.

How many victims familes are you aware of that "continue to fight to this very day for a REAL investigation into what actually happened"?
Are you aware of who they are and exactly what they're fighting for?
Are they considering the same conspiracy theories you are?


As for your snippits...
Lori couldn't believe that junior kept talking to some second graders after finding out about the attack. So what? Was he supposed to run out of the room? Become hysterical?
Mindy couldn't believe Rummy continued his intelligence briefing.
Again, so what?
I dislike both these men as much as anyone, but these two observations are not valid to the rest of us. They are valid to victims families in a moment of crisis, that's all.
And how, if at all, do they tie in to your general conspiracy theme. Or are they just more disjointed pointless observations?

[bpilgrim]

109. if you are talking about the lack of ANSWERS then i AGREE 100%

btw: even if the prez didn't have a CLUE what to do it shouldn't have mattered the SS should have got him out of there - SOP again - as they rushed cheney out of his meeting he said his feet didn't even touch the floor as he was whisked to his secure location.

as to who and what they are... i know from the leaders, mentioned in the article, and from following their progress closely and PUBLISHING their progress in my online 'NEWSPAPER' and archiving their teeVee and radio apearances quite a LOT acctually about their line of inquerry actually and it is simular to what i am doing... RAISING QUESTIONS to FACTS about OBVIOUS and not so obvious, RAMPANT and INCREADIBLE BREAKDOWNS on that terrible day in the hope that the TRUTH may prevent another tragic day for THOUSANDS of us.

i hope that clears that up :hi:

peace

[votein04]

114. Again...there's no point to any of this...

btw: even if the prez didn't have a CLUE what to do it shouldn't have mattered the SS should have got him out of there - SOP again - as they rushed cheney out of his meeting he said his feet didn't even touch the floor as he was whisked to his secure location.


So what? They didn't. What do you want to do, harp about it? Why?
And how does it tie into your belief that the US Government perpetrated 9-11 to drum up support for a war?

as to who and what they are... i know from the leaders, mentioned in the article, and from following their progress closely and PUBLISHING their progress in my online 'NEWSPAPER' and archiving their teeVee and radio apearances quite a LOT acctually about their line of inquerry actually and it is simular to what i am doing... RAISING QUESTIONS to FACTS about OBVIOUS and not so obvious, RAMPANT and INCREADIBLE BREAKDOWNS on that terrible day in the hope that the TRUTH may prevent another tragic day for THOUSANDS of us.

So you're looking for answers....ways to prevent this in future.

Yet you admit that you already believe that the US Government perpetrated this attack themselves to drum up support for a war.
You have your answer and you're working backwards from it.

Meanwhile an election gets closer and this line of conversation only hurts democrats. Can you imagine a candidate raising the kinds of questions you are? He/she would be laughed off the political stage.
Why? Because it's a bizarre conspiracy theory!!! the key word there being "bizarre".

[bpilgrim]

122. of course, move along nothing to see here, little boy...

peace

[Stephanie]

78. Confusing the issues

I can accept that the bush* admin did many, many things wrong before, during and after 9/11, without accepting what to me is a completely illogical conclusion that the building came down by controlled demolition.

Not believing your CD theory does not exclude the other wrongdoing, that the bush* admin had many warnings, knew there would be hijackings, knew that planes might be used as weapons, expected this and got out of DC for their own personal safety, while issuing no warnings and taking no action to save the lives of others, because a terrorist act on American soil would jumpstart their PNACkian agenda of colonizing the ME.

I can believe all of that, but I can't believe there were any explosives in those buildings, one, because the security in those buildings was intense, two, because it would be IMO impossible to plant explosives w/o detection, three, because thousands of eyewitnesses at the site that day did not SEE any explosions, four, because no evidence of explosives was discovered in the aftermath, five, because explosives were not necessary to bring those buildings down. There were thousands of people all over that site before, during, and after. It's not possible to hide this, IMO. That's why I don't believe it.

Is BushCO at fault? Yes. Did they let it happen on purpose? I think so. Have they done everything in their power to stymie investigations in order to hide their culpability? Obviously. But I can separate those issues. Accepting that they LIHOP does not compel me to accept the theory of CD. Please don't confuse the issues.

[plaguepuppy]

102. explosives were not necessary to bring those buildings down

The security and other issues are at best speculative, and the idea of tight security at the WTC is quite a joke, but the issue of the physical possibility of the collapses without explosives is not dependent on any of those things. It depends quite independently on the actual events of the collapses as witnessed by various kinds of direct evidence, photographic and otherwise. And certainly how many people didn't see something says nothing about the evidence of those who did.

The physical world is a complex place, but is subject to rigorous physical laws that do not care what we think or what we consider possible or impossible. And those laws, based on my 30-some years in science and engineering, simply do not comport with a collapse caused by nothing but plane collisions and fires.

[Stephanie]

107. You have a witness who claims to have SEEN explosions?

An eye-witness, not a photograph or video?

[maha]

108. About now ...

... after almost three years have passed, there should be a number of people whose heads aren't screwed on all that tight who will be "realizing" they "remember" seeing explosions. That's how false memory syndrome works.

[plaguepuppy]

113. Ah, of course!

So child abuse is a fantasy too - I assume you know that the False Memory Syndrome Foundation was started by an avowed pederast?

But we digress, no?

[paxamor]

135. one huge explosion

The eyewitness reports of explosions are well-documented,
and many were from the day of the attack.

However, I find photographic evidence more compelling


If that's not an explosion, I don't know what is.
Of course, whether that was caused by explosives is another question.
It certainly wasn't caused by gravity.

[julka]

127. here's one

[bpilgrim]

115. that is your OPINION

and you are factually wrong on a NUMBER of issues

>> one, because the security in those buildings was intense
if this was an inside job there is NO security, just ask a SECURITY PROGRAMMER.

>> two, because it would be IMO impossible to plant explosives w/o detection

see above

>> three, because thousands of eyewitnesses at the site that day did not SEE any explosions

a tree falls in the woods...

besides we got first responders who not only heard/saw them but REPORTED them over their radios.

>> four, because no evidence of explosives was discovered in the aftermath

the EVIDENCE was hauled off site and turned into soup cans under the direction of Controlled Demolition Inc.

>> five, because explosives were not necessary to bring those buildings down

then what was it that caused them to collapse? and how are you so CERTAIN when there isn't even an 'officially' endorsed theory yet.

"There were thousands of people all over that site before, during, and after. It's not possible to hide this, IMO. That's why I don't believe it."

thanks for sharing :toast:

peace

[Bushknew]

121. SPARE ME YOUR JUDGEMENTS AND GIVE ME YOUR REASONS

as to why YOU BELIEVE a 7 hour fire was strong enough to collapse the WTC 7 building.

A plane did not hit the WTC 7 building and we are suppose to believe it collapsed by a fire that no one knows how was started.

Give me an example of another building of equal size and construction that fell in
7 hours by fire alone.

[ramblin_dave]

124. Some thoughts about controlled demolition

Eveything I have ever read or heard about controlled demolition says that such work takes considerable expertise. Those who do this work have to know what size charges need to be placed, where to place them and how to time them in order to get a building to fall down mostly in its own footprint.

That's why experts are hired to do this. You wouldn't just hire some guy to put a bunch a dynamite around and blow it up. The building could fall at an angle, or not fall completely and be unstable.

This certainly suggests that some uncontrolled event, like a truck bomb or an airplane would likely cause an unpredictable result - e.g. partial collapse, extreme tilt then collapse, etc. It seems like extreme luck (if one can use that word in this case) that these very tall buildings went down exactly like a controlled demolition.

[plaguepuppy]

126. Assymmetrical causes and symmetrical effects

Yes, there is an art and science to making buildings fall down in anything approaching a vertical fashion. Left to their own devices they would much prefer to fall down in a messy way, and any structure significantly taller than it is wide (47 floors will do) will have a strong tendancy to topple over. The only way to avoid that is a carefully timed sequence of cutting charges removing the vertical supports in unison. As Matthys Levy says, you have to make all the columns fail simultaneously - it's almost the definition of a controlled demolition. The chance of it happening completely by chance is one over several times the age of the universe, and cube that for the three in one day.

Here are some more video clips of WTC-7, if this link hasn't been posted here before:

http://killtown.b0x.com/wtc7.html

[Bushknew]

129. Westley Clark and Bob Graham

Thanks for posting that web site Plaguepuppy. ItÕs so sad that people have fear
challenging the official nonsense weÕve been given for fear they might get wacked.

Maybe people like Westley Clark and Bob Graham that have the balls and cred
will start challenging the official nonsense weÕve been given.

Those Dems that say this was a justified war are not worth their salt.

[LogicTrueFalse]

145. How true. It wasn't Muslim terrorism it's was republicans that did it

Why isn't this being broadcast 24*7 on the airwaves? All the dem candidates
should be pointing this out so the American people can see the truth.
Are you trying to get all the dems onboard with these obvious facts
as to how the repubs are trying to destroy America.

Strike while the iron is hot I always say.

[shatoga]

151. Careful/ WTC-7 is the kiss of death at DU

Or so it seems.
topics quickly locked.

members toombstoned.
This forum especially has lost many many members who were outspoken Bush critics.
Are sheep being drawn into confrontations designed to result in a toombstone (as I fervently believe) or?

Draw your own conclusions.

I contribute to DU

And coincidentally get rightwing mail afterward.
has DU been hacked?
Is lyndon Larouche right? (about the DLC)

God only knows.
I trust no one!

WTC-7 held the evidence to put Bush family and Greenspan in prison for life.
WTC-7 was struck by no airplane yet collapsed and burned, conveniently.

Reichstag Fire exemplified!/IMWIO

(in my well informed opinion.

NORTHWOODS

[plaguepuppy]

159. Kiss and tell - tales from beyond the pale

More about what was destroyed in WTC-6 and 7:

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_news&Number=271845&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1&t=0#Post271845

And some interesting connections documented by Nico Haupt:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID43/5074.html#1

[plaguepuppy]

160. What is it about SEC records ...

that makes then so uniquely flammable? Was in incendiary information about W's buddies at Enron? Or did they just have more flammable computers and chairs?

The beginning of the following clip from German tv shows the only significant fires that have been photographed in WTC-7, the same ones that can be seen in the pcture from the FEMA report. And oddly enough those flames are coming from exactly the floors occupied by the SEC:
http://thewebfairy.com/czech/TTVideo06.avi

Yet when it collapses (nice view later in the clip) the collapse starts at ground level, with no special behavior at floors 10-12. In fact it goes down like an elevator, with each floor blowing out just as it reached ground level. If you look closely you can see the west mechanical penthouse start down just before the main collapse begins - 47 floors below. That's some mighty peculiar action at a distance, kind of like Einstein's wireless cat.

[OudeVanDagen]

161. Penthouse

Another display of your mighty thin veneer of basic construction know how, lack of structural collapse experience and investigation protocol. Of course the penthouse is seen reacting to events below.

Here's what you should do - have a loved one stand across the street from a house while you go into the basement with a sledgehammer.

Knock out some lally columns - just one maybe two.

After the dust settles, and after you manage to crawl out from beneath the rubble ask your loved one what part of the house he or she saw collapse first - the roof or the 1st floor.

[plaguepuppy]

162. Despite your oddly stilted language

(and vengeful scenarios - crawl to your own loved one Jake) you really understand much less than you think. And you completely miss the significance of what happens to the penthouses. The sequence is the exact opposite of what you describe - the "sledgehammering" begins at the top of the building with the collapse of the east mechanical penthouse a good six seconds before there is any visible movement in the rest of the building. The east penthouse is the left end of the structure on the roof in the video.(http://www.wtc7.net/docs/wtc_7_cbs.mpg)

You can see the left end drop about 5 seconds into the clip; it falls level with the rest of the roof, then nothing at all seems to happen until about 12 seconds when the west penthouse starts to fall. Before it collapses all the way the whole building begins to collapse, at the ground floor.

So to correct your analogy, someone (please don't presume to volunteer me) hits the roof once with a hammer - nothing happens. Six seconds later you hit it again, and before your hammer is all the way through its swing the whole building begins to collapse, perfectly uniformly, from the ground floor. Silly me, it all seems so intuitively obvious when you put it that way. Buildings collapse like that all the time!

BTW - If it was the top that was weakened the most and so collapsed first, isn't it odd that the collapse then immediately shifted to the ground floor, the strongest and least damaged part of the building? Or is it my "thin veneer of basic construction know how" that keeps me from understanding this simple point?

[OudeVanDagen]

164. If you go on the roof

I will happily go in the basement and knock out a lally or two.

Everyone watching, EVERYONE, probably even those invisible top secret explosive crews that only you have seen, will see the roof you're standing on collapse under your feet before they see the first floor move.

THAT my dear chumbly is what happened to the penthouse. EVERYONE saw it move and EVERYONE with common sense knows it moved because of what happened below it.

[plaguepuppy]

165. EVERYONE saw it move and EVERYONE ...

Glad to hear that all your invisible playmates are in agreement on this one. EVERYONE must talk to you quite often, or else your psychic talents are very finely tuned to allow you to know what EVERYONE was thinking.

But it still doesn't pass the simplest test of logic: There is some unspecified damage at ground level (though none is actually documented there), and suddenly 600 feet above the east 1/4 of the penthouse falls, but only till it is level with the roof, with no movement at all of the rest of the building. What exactly carries this mysterious "failure" up 47 stories without affecting anything in between? Is there a sliding rectangle of columns on tracks that runs up the east side of the building to hold the east penthouse up?

All in all it sounds more like a Chinese puzzle box than a steel-frame building. We're not talking about the top moving because the whole building moves, we're talking about an independent movement of a small portion at the very top of the building not related to any dropping or hypothetical shaking of the whole building.

Hint: repeating a dumb argument several times, with more sarcasm and a LOUD VOICE, doesn't make it any more convincing. And whatever the hell it's supposed to mean, I'm not your "dear chumbly."


http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html