Scientific American: Fahrenheit 2777 - 9/11 has generated the mother of...

[sabra]

<<SNIP>>
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000&colID=13

Fahrenheit 2777
9/11 has generated the mother of all conspiracy theories
By Michael Shermer


Noted French left-wing activist Thierry Meyssan's 9/11 conspiracy book, L'Effroyable Imposture, became a best-seller in 2002. But I never imagined such an "appalling deception" would ever find a voice in America. At a recent public lecture I was buttonholed by a Michael Moore–wannabe filmmaker who breathlessly explained that 9/11 was orchestrated by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Central Intelligence Agency as part of their plan for global domination and a New World Order. That goal was to be financed by G.O.D. (Gold, Oil, Drugs) and launched by a Pearl Harbor–like attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, thereby providing the justification for war. The evidence was there in the details, he explained, handing me a faux dollar bill (with "9-11" replacing the "1," a picture of Bush supplanting that of Washington) chockablock with Web sites.

In fact, if you type "World Trade Center" and "conspiracy" into Google, you'll get more than 250,000 hits. From these sites, you will discover that some people think the Pentagon was hit by a missile; that U.S. Air Force jets were ordered to "stand down" and not intercept Flights 11 and 175, the ones that struck the twin towers; that the towers themselves were razed by demolition explosives timed to go off soon after the impact of the planes; that a mysterious white jet shot down Flight 93 over Pennsylvania; and that New York Jews were ordered to stay home that day (Zionists and other pro-Israeli factions, of course, were involved). Books also abound, including Inside Job, by Jim Marrs; The New Pearl Harbor, by David Ray Griffin; and 9/11: The Great Illusion, by George Humphrey. The single best debunking of this conspiratorial codswallop is in the March issue of Popular Mechanics, which provides an exhaustive point-by-point analysis of the most prevalent claims.

The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No melted steel, no collapsed towers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For example, according to www.911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F. No melted steel, no collapsed towers. "The planes did not bring those towers down; bombs did," says www.abovetopsecret.com. Wrong. In an article in the Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society and in subsequent interviews, Thomas Eagar, an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains why: steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 degrees F; 90,000 liters of jet fuel ignited other combustible materials such as rugs, curtains, furniture and paper, which continued burning after the jet fuel was exhausted, raising temperatures above 1,400 degrees F and spreading the inferno throughout each building. Temperature differentials of hundreds of degrees across single steel horizontal trusses caused them to sag--straining and then breaking the angle clips that held the beams to the vertical columns. Once one truss failed, others followed. When one floor collapsed onto the next floor below, that floor subsequently gave way, creating a pancaking effect that triggered each 500,000-ton structure to crumble. Conspiricists argue that the buildings should have fallen over on their sides, but with 95 percent of each building consisting of air, they could only have collapsed straight down.


<</SNIP>>

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Shermer's rational answer will fall on deaf ears here.

It's a shame, but most 9/11 researchers show no ability to recognize mistakes. They keep reproducing the same lines over and over again, no matter how thoroughly or utterly refuted. Shermer points out one of the most stubborn lines - jet fuel can't melt steel - and it matters not how often you point out that steel doesn't have to melt to be compromised. To point out the physics of the cases is to instantly be assumed to be a supporter of the Bush administration, whether willingly or not.

Nice try, though, sabra. The best we can hope for is that someone reading in this forum will see that DU by and large doesn't believe things like Flight 77 denial and controlled demolition hokum.

[spooked911]

9. Have you read Jim Hoffman's rebuttal to Shermer?

You might be interested in it. Shermer is hardly being completely honest and rational.

http://www.911research.com/essays/sciam/index.html

And this is simply offensive and wrong to boot:

"The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics)."

Just like some 9/11 conspiracy theorists, 9/11 official story defenders often have an axe to grind-- probably even more so, since they are defending a clearly corrupt staus quo.

[Bolo Boffin]

10. What "clearly corrupt status quo"

do you imagine that I defend?

Don't want to get personal? Fine. What "clearly corrupt status quo" do you imagine that any "official story defender" here at DU defends?

Don't say the Bush administration, because that's crap. It is quite possible to believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and also see George Bush's administration as corrupt and dangerous to America. But I'm at a loss to think what "clearly corrupt status quo" you could mean besides that. I anticipate your answer eagerly.

[spooked911]

11. In general, the corrupt status quo of the national security state that is

accountable to no one, and that no politician including 99.9% of Democrats will question. The national security state that pushes for wars because of geopolitics and wages covert operations such as 9/11 to provide pretexts for wars. The national security state that assassinates politicians it thinks are trouble. The national security state that will not allow the media to question what it does. The national security state that keeps everything a secret in the name of national security. The national security state that allows the CIA to deal drugs with impunity and the national security state that allows drug money to be invested in our banks. The national security state that forces us to be friends with the noxious Saudis.

Beyond that, let me ask you-- do you think our country is perfect except for the Bush administration? Do you really think there is no significant corruption in the US and our elections are perfectly clean and everything about the 9/11 commission report is hunky-dory and peachy and doesn't cover-up embarrassing things about our country? If so, I have a really awesome bridge to sell you.

[Bolo Boffin]

21. :eyes:

It's still quite possible to recognize both the things you mention and that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

[spooked911]

24. Okay. FWIW, I think it is somewhat possible that flight 77 hit the Pent.

I can't completely rule it out-- just that there are oddities in what happened that do not make complete sense with flight 77. Plus the government is clearly hiding something-- even if it is to make us crazy and suspicious-- which is just not right.

[demodewd]

27. crazy and suspicious

Plus the government is clearly hiding something-- even if it is to make us crazy and suspicious-- which is just not right.

You're too kind.

[spooked911]

44. I know-- I am just a big softy at heart.

[seatnineb]

14. The corrupt status quo that would have images..........

.....such as this not analized

This object seems to be bearing down on the vicinity of WTC7.....

[philb]

17. Documentation of complicity below; also note Downing street memos; no WMD

Palme & other CIA operatives outed; Cheney/Enron/energy corruption; etc.

9/11 Complicity
http://www.flcv.com/offcompl.html

[stickdog]

41. You defend the officially sanctioned conspiracy theory that 19 ragtag,

hard drinking, cocaine snorting, stripper watching Muslims acted alone to hijack 4 planes and crash three of them into US skyscrapers and landmarks -- the 4th being brought down more than an hour after the second one hit the WTC only because the passengers aboard were warned about what happened to the other three and finally took matters into their own hands.

Of course, nobody else currently living in North America had anything whatsoever to do with this conspiracy other than the 19 hijackers who died that day and, of course, Zacharias Moussaoui who was in custody at the time, but can be definitely linked to the plot by a piece of paper with a phone number on it that luckily survived a 575+ mph crash that spewed debris for record breaking distances as it buried itself more than 40 feet into the ground.

[spooked911]

45. Apparently he does. And when I think how ridiculous the official 9/11

story is, it really makes me wonder about people like Boloboffin and LARED and Hack87.

How sad is it to be here all the time trying to defend what is clearly ahorrendous scam foisted upon the American people?

I mean most people probably just don't think about 9/11 that much or that deeply, and so they naturally defend the official version of events. But here we have poeple who are confronted with the improbabilities and inanities of the official story day after day and they still won't admit something isn't quite right.

[vincent_vega_lives]

46. I'm Hurt

You left me out... :cry:

[hack89]

53. Your concern for my welfare, while misguided, is very touching!

But don't despair - the humor of you and your fellow 9/11 "researchers", while unintended, always lightens up my day!

I actually feel sad for you - I can't imagine carrying a burden such as yours. Being one of the few enlightened ones among the millions of unwashed rabble is a tremendous responsibility that must bear heavily on you - I can only hope you have enough strength to carry out your mission to the world.

[LARED]

63. I love the smell of irony in the evening (nt)

[Ezlivin]

2. Stepping up to the plate...

For the sake of argument, let's accept Shermer's rebuttal.

But he never addresses the collapse of WTC 7. Since no plane hit that building and it was not ignited by jet fuel, how does one explain the perfectly symmetrical collapse?

Since every building consists largely of air, why do demolition teams take great pains to precisely locate their charges as to collapse the building in its own footprint? It seems that all that is truly needed is a collapse of an upper floor; gravity would then cause the building to fall straight down (right through that "95%" air that the other floors consist of).

Naturally, our discussion would be greatly aided by samples of molten (or "sagged" steel) and footage from any of the innumerable security cameras located throughout the towers and surrounding area.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. Did Shermer intend to say anything about 7?

If you want examples of compromised steel, go to the NIST website and look at their pictures.

wtc.nist.gov

The towers, more than most buildings, were largely air. Their revolutionary design allowed for every floor to have a maximum amount of floor space without pillars, so that the occupants could design their space to their desires. It is this structure that was fatally compromised when the planes crashed into them, and though they stood long enough to evacuate a lot of people, the fire overwhelmed the structure and those buildings collapsed.

One tower collapsed into 7. (I know it was across the street, and I know that another building was in between 7 and the tower. It doesn't matter. Parts of the tower fell into 7.) This caused a severe amount of structural damage to 7 on the south face, which is documented by eyewitness testimony. 7 was also built with an unusual design, because it was partially built above an electrical substation. Every scientific indication is that 7 fell due to a classic progressive collapse. NIST has uncovered zero evidence that a controlled demoliton toppled any of those buildings. No explosive residue, no deformed steel consistent with explosion, no evidence of a controlled demolition whatsoever.

Do you think any security cameras could have survived the collapse of those buildings? Well, you keep thinking that.

[Ezlivin]

4. Is Shermer's reply applicable to all buildings?

Shermer didn't mention WTC 7. Since he didn't, we can only assume that he meant to apply his logic to that building as well.

You said: "If you want examples of compromised steel, go to the NIST website and look at their pictures."

The photos were nice, but inconclusive. (For instance, it would have been nice to see one deformed steel beam with a caption along the lines "Steel beam showing effects of intense heating." We get lots of nice pictures of scientists using cool tools and a few twisted metal beams (along with the notation that where they came from is unknown), but not much else.

A link on the page takes you to a press release, where one can read statements like this:

"At a press briefing in Washington, D.C., NIST Director Arden Bement Jr. urged the public and news media to help the investigation team acquire more photographs and videotapes that could yield important insights into what happened to the collapsed WTC buildings, occupants and first responders."

So they were asking for help in solving the problem. That's outstanding. I wonder how many photographs and videotapes they received? I wonder if we've seen any of them?

The next paragraph says this: '"We have a long way to go in what is an enormous undertaking, but we have made good progress since we launched this investigation in late August," Bement said. "We aim to learn enough by the time it is finished for NIST to point to recommended improvements in the way people design, construct, maintain and use buildings, especially high-rises."'

Have you heard about any recommended improvements that have resulted from this investigation?

Again, the Press Release brings up the need for additional information:

"However, more information is needed. There are still many documents and materials that have not yet been located or provided.Many of these documents may have been destroyed in the collapses, but copies of some documents still may be available.

NIST is still seeking photographic and video images that could help to better document the initial damage and subsequent fire growth in the WTC towers and WTC 7. The investigation team is especially interested in WTC 7 and views of the south and west faces of the WTC towers.

At today's briefing, Bement asked the public and news media for help in providing such photos and videos. Efforts to gather photos or videos from media sources, especially unpublished photos and non-broadcast video footage, are in progress. NIST believes that the public and the media could assist significantly in this public safety investigation by sharing their unpublished photos and video footage."

You said: "The towers, more than most buildings, were largely air. Their revolutionary design allowed for every floor to have a maximum amount of floor space without pillars, so that the occupants could design their space to their desires."

It's my understanding that each floor required the same amount of support as in any other structure; the supports were just rearranged in such a way as to provide more contiguous space. So the WTC didn't have less support, it just had it arranged in such a way that the load was borne by the outside structure and the steel-reinforced concrete core. The WTC has been referred to as a "spindle-type" construction, due to the strong central core. As many others have pointed out, the destruction of supports holding the floor (the "clips"), would not affect the central core. Like old phonographic records dropping to a turntable, the collapsed floors should have exposed this spindle, which, like the old turntable, would still be standing rigidly upright.

You said:" It is this structure that was fatally compromised when the planes crashed into them, and though they stood long enough to evacuate a lot of people, the fire overwhelmed the structure and those buildings collapsed."

From all of the photographic evidence, it is not clear that "fire overwhelmed the structure." Fires have burned longer in many other buildings (as others have demonstrated) with no subsequent collapse.

You said: "One tower collapsed into 7."

Either it collapsed straight down in a "classic progressive collapse" or it fell over. You can't have it both ways.

You said:" This caused a severe amount of structural damage to 7 on the south face, which is documented by eyewitness testimony."

Are there any photographs of this damaged side?

You said:"7 was also built with an unusual design, because it was partially built above an electrical substation."

Does "unusual design" mean one that is particularly susceptible to collapse with minimum damage or limited fires? Are blueprints available that detail the unusual nature of WTC 7's design? Have we stopped building in such a shoddy manner? Are there lawsuits pending due to this poor practice?

You said:"NIST has uncovered zero evidence that a controlled demoliton toppled any of those buildings. No explosive residue, no deformed steel consistent with explosion, no evidence of a controlled demolition whatsoever."

So absence of evidence is evidence of absence? For many years there was no evidence that cigarette smoking caused cancer. Naturally, we could both answer the question of explosives if the original steel was made available for forensic investigation.

You said:"Do you think any security cameras could have survived the collapse of those buildings? Well, you keep thinking that."

Every demolition video I've ever seen shows views from outside the building as well as inside the building. Sure, the cameras inside are destroyed, but the wires that run the signal outside the building are intact. If you read the NIST's press release, they repeatedly stress the need for additional video and photographic evidence. There are hundreds of cameras surrounding the WTC complex, most of them for security. These are the cameras we should focus on. (And how many of the WTC cameras were "web cams" or something analogous wherein the signal was immediately uploaded to a server offsite? After all, the best data backup routines involve offsite storage of data.)

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Nope.

This is SOP around here, I know, but your reply has gone all over the place. Shermer's talking about a limited example of WTC flapdoodle, and now here we are, all over the map. If you find the following answer hard to follow, don't blame me. Pick a topic and let's discuss it thoroughly, instead of this scattershot mess that gets us nowhere.

Shermer didn't mention WTC 7. Since he didn't, we can only assume that he meant to apply his logic to that building as well.

No, you can't. Shermer's comments are clearly only refering to the towers.

Don't have a date handy on that press release, do you? Yes, NIST is asking for more info. No, there are no photographs I'm aware of of the south side of 7 after the collapse of the North Tower. However, as far as all evidence is concerned, NIST is satisfied that it has enough to reach its conclusions. Check out the Interim Report from last year - links at the site.

As of yet, the final report hasn't been finished, so, no, there are no recommendations yet. They are going to have pages of them after the report is released.

I said that 7 was a classic progressive collapse, based on the NIST information. There is no "having it both ways". The term "classic progressive collapse" doesn't in any way proscribe which direction the building materials go. The North Tower fell down, but even being largely air, there was still a heck of a lot of material that had to go somewhere - and some of it struck WTC 7.

The external tube supported the central core. Flat out, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Without the external support, the core collapses. Your image of the core standing alone is a complete fantasy.

When I said "fire overwhelmed the structure" I meant that precisely. Most buildings, including the WTC towers, were designed to withstand fire in several ways. The WTC towers had fireproofing on the structural steel, and the building was designed to shift weight from heated elements to cooler parts of the building. Most office fires move from one part of the building to the other, and as the fire moves, it heats different parts of the building. However, the WTC fires were started over too wide an area, over several floors, in buildings already compromised by the plane impacts. The fires overwhelmed the structure, and the buildings fell.

There are no photographs of the damage to 7's south face that I'm aware of. It's part of what NIST, even now, still would like to see, if anyone has some. However, the circumstance of the day pretty much negated anyone with a camera being on that side of the building after it was damaged. However, eyewitness testimony is what NIST is using, because that's all they have.

The unusual structure of WTC 7 wasn't dangerous until a building fell into it, which caused much more than "minimum damage". Also, they lay out a great number of fires over more than fifteen floors, which could hardly be described as "limited fires". Those kind of things just can't be accounted for in the design phase. Go to the NIST Interim report, where the structure of the building and the current known spread of the fires are laid out clearly and completely. (And if you've got this idea of "two small fires on the 7th and 12th floor", you're in for a rude awakening.)

Absence of evidence means, to scientists, an absence of theories. Until somebody produces credible evidence of explosions at the WTC, there is no rational reason to believe that there was controlled demolitions.

The original steel is available for forensic investigation. That's what NIST is doing with it. How you managed to miss that when you went to the NIST site is beyond me.

Outside the building? Where did you get the idea that security cameras were being viewed outside the building? Oh, in demolition videos. You're begging the question. Carry on.

[seatnineb]

12. Wrong.

I know....I know....I should not compare apples to oranges.

But I'm gonna do it anyway.....

WTC5 was adjacant to the North Tower......just like WTC7.

It too was engulfed in fire.





Yet here it is....3 week later....still standing.

[vincent_vega_lives]

48. and here we are...

4 years later...still going around in circles.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch4.pdf

4.3.2 WTC5 - Local Collapse Mechanisms

Two areas of WTC5 experienced local collapse under an intact portion of the roof. Although there was debris impact near this area, the symmetrical nature of the collapse strongly suggests that the failures were due to uncontrolled fires.

LOTS of good pics.

[seatnineb]

55. Really?

WTC5's fire was the kind of fire that WTC7 was dreaming about......



This was the best WTC7 could manage for the prying eyes of the world....



Now.........

Let's see what remained of WTC7 and WTC5.

[vincent_vega_lives]

60. Get a grip

"WTC5's fire was the kind of fire that WTC7 was dreaming about......"

WTF does that stupid quote mean?

Did you bother looking at the pics of WTC5 and 7 in the report?

[seatnineb]

61. Why don't you find some photographic evidence........

...to back up what the NIST says with regards to WTC7's southern face.....seeing as the NIST cannot do it themselves.......

Damage was observed on the south face that starts at the roof level and severed the spandrels between exterior columns near the southwest corner for at least 5 to 10 floors.

However, the extent and details of this damage have not yet been discerned, as smoke is present.

• Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:

− middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground

− large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14

− debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact

− from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side
possibly indicating damage extending to the west.

[seatnineb]

5. Eye witness testimony to the south face of WTC7.....

Could you show which appendix in the NIST report it gives this?

Thanks.

[Bolo Boffin]

7. It's over there.

Go look in the WTC 7 appendix, it's the only one in the interim report.

On edit: it's appendix L, section 2.

The following information about damage seen in WTC 7 was obtained from interviews of people in or near the building:

That statement is on pdf page 21, L-17.

[seatnineb]

13. There is no eye-witness testimony to the south side of WTC7.....

Bolo writes on Mon Jun-06-05 05:46 PM:

This caused a severe amount of structural damage to 7 on the south face, which is documented by eyewitness testimony.

This NIST PDF of 56 pages makes no reference to eye witness testimony regarding the south side of WTC7.

The only thing it say is this:

The following information about damage seen in WTC 7 was obtained from interviews of people in or near the building

Pathetic.

[philb]

16. WTC7 is known to have brought down by controlled demolition. Is there any

question about this? They have the owners admission and a video of workers involved in it.
I was not aware there was still any question about this. Is there?

[hack89]

18. We have the owner saying they "pulled" the firefighters...

out of the building - is that what you are talking about?

[Bolo Boffin]

22. That's what they're talking about

Evidently, they really believe that Silverstein was part of a Herculean effort to destroy the towers in an terrorist attack - said attack to be framed on innocent old Osama bin Laden and become the justification of American wars abroad for the next century - and then unwittingly admitted to demolishing the buildings in a PBS special.

[philb]

23. No, he said pull it(the building). Its clear from the context (imo)

WTC7
http://www.wtc7.net/pullit.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html#ref1
http://www.wtc7.net/
http://www.wtc7.net/collapsecause.html

[Bolo Boffin]

28. The context was firefighting, not building demolition.

Pay close attention.

Silverstein was talking to a firefighter, who was calling him to tell him that the fire in building 7 was not worth fighting, that to fight the fire there would be putting the lives of firefighters in unnecessary danger when they could be used more fruitfully elsewhere that day.

So Silverstein acceded that they should "pull it" and the firefighters made that decision to pull, and then they watched the building fall down.

The context is firefighting. The firefighting term "pull" means to stop fighting a fire. It dates back before radios existed. The way of informing firefighters of this decision then was by pulling on the hoses they were using to fight the fire. That is the context. That is what Silverstein meant. To pretend otherwise is willfully blinding yourself to the truth.

Do you honestly believe that Silverstein was party to one of the most heinous conspiracies ever, and that he then mistakenly admitted his part in said conspiracy to a PBS interviewer on camera?

[philb]

64. there apparently were no firefighters in WTC7; and it was said fires small

according to FEMA's report there were no manual firefighting operations in Building 7, so there would not have been any firefighters to "pull".

small fires but choice to not fight the fire
http://www.wtc7.net/b7fires.html

experiments indicate steel buildings not prone to collapse from fire

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

[Bolo Boffin]

65. Here are your small fires straight from the report

L.2.2 Observed Fire Locations

Photographs and videos were used to determine fire locations and movement within WTC 7. Most of the available information is for the north and east faces of WTC 7. Information about fires in other areas of the building was obtained from interviews, and is summarized as follows:

From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
• No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas
• No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th Floor from the exterior, stairwells or lobby areas
• In the east stairwell, smoke was observed around Floors 19 or 20, and a signs of a fully involved fire on the south side of Floor 23 were heard/seen/smelled from Floor 22.
• Interviews place a fire on Floor 7 at the west wall, toward the south side, at approximately 12:15 p.m.
• From West and Vesey Streets near the Verizon Building, fires were observed in floors estimated to be numbered in the 20s and 30s.
Looking from the southwest corner at the south face:
• Fire was seen in the southwest corner near Floor 10 or 11
• Fire was seen on Floors 6, 7, 8, 21, and 30
• Heavy black smoke came out of a large, multi-story gash in the south face
Looking from the southeast corner of the south face:
• Fire seen on Floor 14 (reported floor number) on south face; the face above the fire was covered with smoke
• Fire on Floor 14 moved towards the east face
Looking at the east face:
• Fire on Floor 14 (reported floor) moved along east face toward the north side Photographs and videos were used with these interview accounts to document fire progression in the building. The fires seen in photographs and videos are summarized:
Before 2:00 p.m.
• Figures L–22a shows fires that had burned out by early afternoon on Floors 19, 21, 22, 29, and 30 along the west face near the southwest corner.
2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
• Figure L–24a shows fires on east face Floors 11 and 12 at the southeast corner. Several photos during this time show fires progressing north.
3:00 to 5:00 p.m.
• Around 3 p.m., fires were observed on Floors 7 and 12 along the north face. The fire on Floor 12 appeared to bypass the northeast corner and was first observed at a point approximately one third of the width from the northeast corner, and then spread both east and west across the north face.
• Some time later, fires were observed on Floors 8 and 13, with the fire on Floor 8 moving from west to east and the fire on Floor 13 moving from east to west. Figure L–24b shows fires on Floors 7 and 12.
• At this time, the fire on Floor 7 appeared to have stopped progressing near the middle of the north face.
• The fire on Floor 8 continued to move east on the north face, eventually reaching the northeast corner and moving to the east face.
• Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

[Bolo Boffin]

20. Are you serious?

How did the people gather the information that they gave to the interviewers? By feeling it? Of course they reported what they saw: eyewitness testimony.

Pathetic, indeed.

[seatnineb]

34. No.

Where are the eye witness accounts that testified to the burning south side of WTC7?

There are no accounts in the report.

None.

[demodewd]

29. re: severe amount of structural damage

This caused a severe amount of structural damage to 7 on the south face, which is documented by eyewitness testimony.

Got any photographic evidence?

[Bolo Boffin]

30. re: severe amount of structural damage

I don't know of any photographic evidence.

Got any reason to dismiss the eyewitness testimony?

[demodewd]

31. re:eyewitness testimony

What eyewitness testimony?

[Bolo Boffin]

32. Post #7, this thread

I thought you had at least looked at the NIST interim report.

[demodewd]

33. Please..

I tried to go into NIST but can't get in for some reason. Why don't you quote some of the witness statements. Por favor

[seatnineb]

35. You ain't missing much Demo.....

There are no eye-witness accounts in the NIST report with regards to the all elusive south side of WTC7.

No testimony.

No photos.

Just bullshit.

[Bolo Boffin]

36. Go check that Appendix L again, 9b

There's several pages of information about the state of fires and damage in WTC 7, all based on eyewitness testimony. It starts on the page I pointed out in Appendix L of the Interim Report from last year, and moves on for quite a bit. There's illustrations and everything.

dewd: I've noticed that the NIST site is sometimes unavailable, and I don't know why that is. I have in the past reproduced the information about fires and damages here at the DU 9/11 forum. I believe I listed them all out in the recent film that I rebutted - but that thread, I'm not sure how far down it is.

Anyway, here's the direct link to the interim report:

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/progress_report_june04.htm

You'll want Appendix L - it's concerned solely with WTC 7. The final report on WTC 7 won't be available at the same time as the towers report, though. NIST is already saying that it will be later on.

Also, as far as I know, there's no actual statements listed in that appendix - just a compliation of information gathered from all the interviews they've done. So I can't quote statements.

[seatnineb]

37. Bolo......I dowloaded it a while back......

It would be nice to see the NIST include photos like this.......

[Bolo Boffin]

47. Would you mind

too terribly, explaining just what you think that photograph proves, if it's not too much trouble?

I know this is a road we travel down with you a lot. You post a picture, and your meaning is scrutable only to yourself, and we beg you and plead with you to tell us what you mean, and you post another picture, and we keep asking you to tell us in so many words what you actually think the pictures are showing....

Could we just cut past the chase and you go ahead and use English to explain what you mean? Pretty please? I'll sing at your wedding.

[seatnineb]

52. That is a shit load of smoke at the base of WTC2..........

.......don't you think, Bolo?

I'm sure the NIST or FEMA would have been only too happy to include it in their reports.

You know.....to show how much damage those severed elavators caused at the ground level......

But then again perhaps not.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. Yeah, how about that?

My eternal thanks for getting to the point.

[seatnineb]

56. Well if a lil' ol Cambridge lad on the other side of the atlantic

......can get hold of that photo........I see no reason why the NIST can't.

[stickdog]

43. What eyewitness testimony? Produce the quotes and name the

eyewitnesses you are talking about.

The fact that somebody CLAIMED that some sort of unsourced, unconfirmed and unknown eyewitness reports exist ain't evidence.

[vincent_vega_lives]

49. WTC7 Photos

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

Some good photos here.

[stickdog]

42. Show us "the severe amount of structural damage to 7 on the south face."

Surely you can find a single piece photograhic or video evidence to back you claims.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Hey, they've changed the home page at NIST

It doesn't have the link to the interim report any longer.

Here it is:

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/progress_report_june04.htm

[philb]

15. Your facts about the temperature steel melts at are not valid; you have to

carefully state your assumptions regarding temperature over time, mass of steel, configeration, etc.
Look at some of the engineering studies. The temperature of any fires resulting from 9/11 were not nearly as much as the temperature you quote, and were clearly not hot enough for long enough to melt the steel members or to weaken it enough to cause the collapse. The fires would have to be hot and concentrated for a prolonged period which didn't happen. The gasoline fire was short term.

The fires were not that hot, especially in the south tower where the fire was reported by firefighters to not be large or very hot and that it was controllable.

Its possible to do simulations and experimental studies of this question and the result is that the fires clearly were not hot enough to melt or cause collapse of the steel and concrete cores.

See some of the engineering studies, and note that the firefighters and engineers in the buildings observed and heard explosions in the towers.
http://www.flcv.com/911new05.html

[hack89]

19. You are wrong about the extent and temperature of the fires..

Read this excellent report by the Canadian research council on the role of fire resistance in the WTC http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/fulltext/nrcc42466/nrcc42466 ....

As you can clearly see, the jet fuel burned off quickly, leaving a regular building fire.

According to this web site for forensic fire investigators http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html#1.3

steel loses 50% of its structural strength and sags at 550°C (1022°F) while smoldering combustion in a regular house/office fire can reach 600°C (1112°F)

This Canadian site http://www.cwc.ca/design/fire / says
"Steel, for instance, quickly loses its strength when heated and its yield point decreases significantly as it absorbs heat, endangering the stability of the structure (Graph 1). An unprotected, conventional steel joist system will fail in less than 10 minutes under standard laboratory fire exposure test methods"

[philb]

25. Actually you don't know that; and there was no serious study

There are a lot of web sites and studies and discussions and lots of data relevant to this; but the authorities deliberatrely prevented a serious study from dealing with the issues.

As I noted before, one can do simulations and controlled experiments and in my opinion the results will clearly show that the fires could not have caused a collapse. And certainly not in the manner of the WTC towers- where there was clearly huge explosive force totally disintegrating all solid materials in the building; and splintering steel beams, etc.

Got any evidence that gravity has ever done such or could do that.
I'm pretty sure it could not.
But will gladly look at any evidence you might be aware of to the contrary.


And I've also seen no indication there was any fire official who had reason to think that WTC7 was likely to collapse?

Or that WTC1 or WTC2 would collapse- as Giuliani predicted before it happened.

No steel framed building has ever collapsed from a fire.

[hack89]

40. Lets see a study that supports your theory...

I would settle for a point by point debunking of any "official" study by a competent engineer.

[vincent_vega_lives]

50. What are your credentials?

And what is the source documentation you are basing your opinions on?

[carlvs]

26. Your Canadian link has changed

It is now http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/fulltext/nrcc42466/

[hack89]

39. Thanks (nt)

[philb]

66. Even 50% losss of strength is not enough to cause collapse, but

in this circumstance I think its unlikely that any significant portion of the steel beams would lose even this much.

I'll try to check on your stats more later.

[hack89]

67. I'm assuming you pulled that out of your a**,

judging by the quantity of scientific evidence you provided to back up your assertions.

[stickdog]

38. Yep. This is what passes for "science" as far as 9/11 is concerned.

Assume the officially sanctioned conspiracy theory MUST BE 100% correct and then work your way backward.

Don't worry about the lack of investigation. Don't bother examining any primary evidence. Just come up with ANY half-way reasonable sounding scientific rationale to buttress the officially sanctioned conspiracy theory, and you too can see your most fanciful speculations masquerading as as scientific article in a major scientific periodical!

[vincent_vega_lives]

51. Nope, not at all.

Your theories are always a mirror image if the process you describe however.

And how were you involved in the investigation again?

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stickdog]

58. "I know you are, but what am I?"

Is that really the best you can do?

[vincent_vega_lives]

59. I just thought it was delicious irony

that your analysis is exactly what you do in reverse.

[stickdog]

62. I don't pretend that I'm writing scientific articles that are anything but