Diary (Diaries are not moderated)

9/11 Dilemma: WTC7 -- NIST/FEMA or Architectural Engineers.

By (about the author)     Permalink
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...)
Add to My Group

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

9/11 Dilemma: WTC7 -- NIST/FEMA or Architectural Engineers.

::::::::

I have a dilemma: Do I believe a bunch of supposedly distinguished architectural engineers or do I believe the government and their agencies, NIST and FEMA? I'm talking about the collapse of World Trade Center building #7 (WTC7) that occurred at 5:20 PM on 9/11. The architectural engineers say it was a controlled demolition meaning that the building was brought down on purpose using explosives and the cutting of the support columns. If it was a controlled demolition, that would mean placing all of the charges, etc. would have had to have been done well before and probably at least weeks before 9/11. NIST and FEMA and our government say that fires inside the building caused the collapse and therefore the collapse was not controlled.
The other part of the dilemma is do I simply believe one or the other, or do I actually have to use my own head.


This is what the architectural engineers say on their website, ae911truth.ORG :

Regarding the collapse of WTC7

1. Rapid onset of "collapse"
2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse (heard by hundreds of firemen and media reporters)
3. Symmetrical "collapse" -- through the path of greatest resistance -- at nearly free-fall speed -- the columns gave no resistance
4. Squibs, or "mistimed" explosions, at the upper 7 floors seen in the network videos
5. "Collapses" into its own footprint -- with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment
6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
7. Tons of molten Metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement (no other possible source than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
8. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
9. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
10. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
11. Fore-knowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise steel-framed buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never "collapsed".


In addition, there were a couple of little to moderate (at best) fires. I say "little to moderate" fires at best because by historical standards, the fires weren't very big. There was some damage as well from debris falling from the Twin Towers. Both the damage and fires were not symmetrically located.



The building was only about 16 years old and and has been described as "overbuilt." I have seen videos showing how all of the tremendous amounts of steel were positioned and interlaced; and yes, it certainly appears that WTC7 was indeed "overbuilt."

So, these supposedly distinguished architectural engineers say that absolutely every single characteristic of the collapse -- or dare I say implosion -- was exactly like that of a controlled demolition. And that there was not a single characteristic of destruction by fire.

Those architectural engineers also say that a symmetrical collapse would require that ALL of the supporting beams would have to fail at exactly the same time, which, seems to make perfect sense. What bothers me just a bit about this whole thing is that the damage and fires were not symmetrically located in the building. And when I watch the implosion, it is about as perfectly symmetrical as anything I've ever seen. And it happened SO quickly. If I had dropped a bowling ball from the top of WTC7 just when the implosion began, it would have reached the ground at virtually the same time as the top of the building. Just what DID happen to all of the supporting steel In World Trade Center #7? Did all of the steel simply give up?

I look at all of the above, and it sure seems like its an airtight case to me. How could it NOT be a controlled demolition? But, I don't have all of the input required to make my own intelligent decision. I must factor in the other side. After all, I don't want to jump to conclusions.

So, from the other side, we have the findings from the governmental agencies NIST and FEMA as requested by our government. NIST (National Institue of Standards and Technology) did an initial study about five or six years ago and has been hard back at it again for the last number of years.

Their argument: Both NIST and FEMA say fires were the cause for the implosion but neither one knows just how fires could have possibly caused the collapse that looked -- and indeed was -- exactly like a PERFECTLY CONTROLLED IMPLOSION.

I now have both sides to the story. But my dilemma remains, do I believe this side or do I believe that side? Do I just pick one, or do I actually have to use my brain to try to determine which side's argument is more logical? I hate that. My mom always said I didn't have any common sense. If that is true, then because I think the architectural engineers' argument is a bit -- quite a bit actually -- more rational and logical, then maybe I should believe the other side and that it really was the mysteriously wonder-working fires. And who am I to not believe the Official story? Maybe a coin toss is in order. But first, maybe I should find out if WTC7 was hit by an airplane. But that takes time, let's just flip .......... oh no(!) it was tails, what does that mean?

(Now why IS it so important to understand that the Official Story is a lie? Its because they are going to do it again! And, as the President said, the next 9/11 will make the original, "pale by comparison." Many people predict, it will be NUCLEAR(!) So, maybe just maybe, if enough people come to understand quickly enough, we can prevent the next (nuclear) 9/11. And if not, maybe just maybe, we can deter their plans for martial law and everything that comes with it. Please help reveal the Truth behind 9/11.) Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4kLPTdm8Lk

Please help make "The Shell Game" a best seller. It may be the BEST chance we have to bring the necessary attention to what happened on 9/11.

www. theshellgame\. net/

 

I'm a dull and simple lad Cannot tell water from champagne
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this diary has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
15 people are discussing this page, with 70 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Mark Shields said something like a woman was waiti... by tjb on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 5:50:41 AM
Mr. Watts, by the way in which you frame the dilem... by Tom Murphy on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 8:12:27 AM
In all your condecending posts to Truthers I have ... by Cheri Roberts on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 9:26:34 AM
“In all your condecending [sic] posts to Tru... by Tom Murphy on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 11:44:12 AM
Looks like bullshit, smells like bullshit, tastes ... by steve alten on Sunday, Feb 10, 2008 at 10:48:42 AM
This BS comment sounds oddly like a skit from Chee... by Tom Murphy on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 11:14:06 PM
The favored theory of trolls and hired mercen... by aberamsay on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 9:07:59 AM
Tell us Mr. Murphy, come on, you've never been... by Mr M on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 9:31:23 AM
Hell, I wouldn't even need a lawyer. I can see... by Harold Smith on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 10:26:15 AM
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government... by boomerang on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 10:01:32 AM
Regardless of how much evidence is presented which... by Munich on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 3:07:07 PM
but wrong. "In numerous instances, the result... by Stephen Demetriou on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 3:11:04 PM
Stephen, I hate to inform you but, I am sure that ... by David Watts on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 5:29:21 PM
If not here, some other thread. I have another que... by Stephen Demetriou on Friday, Feb 8, 2008 at 7:24:51 AM
I don’t like repetition when it comes to 9/1... by Tom Murphy on Friday, Feb 8, 2008 at 1:37:24 PM
I must say you are entertaining as well.I think Do... by Stephen Demetriou on Friday, Feb 8, 2008 at 2:47:54 PM
"This is what the architectural engineers say... by Alan Williams on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 4:03:26 PM
Why, pray tell, if it is so obvious to you, why ca... by David Watts on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 5:12:51 PM
How the loss of 1 column may have led to the colla... by Alan Williams on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 4:11:07 PM
for far out explanations?... by Stephen Demetriou on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 5:12:20 PM
What! Straight down? You are kidding aren'... by Munich on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 4:39:45 PM
So now, the claim is that explosions at the top ca... by Alan Williams on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 5:41:43 PM
take a look at ANY of the photos of WTC 4, 5, or 6... by Stephen Demetriou on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 5:09:40 PM
The illogical contortions people put themselves th... by David Watts on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 5:18:30 PM
Sounds like you've solved your "dilema&qu... by Tom Murphy on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 9:05:56 PM
have become, in a very short period of time, irrel... by Mr M on Friday, Feb 8, 2008 at 1:41:18 AM
Sounds like you've solved your "dilema&qu... by David Watts on Friday, Feb 8, 2008 at 3:28:16 AM
Many accept the idea that "every dog has it&#... by Tom Murphy on Friday, Feb 8, 2008 at 12:11:44 PM
"Why, pray tell, if it is so obvious to you, ... by Alan Williams on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 5:52:54 PM
Did I say anything about fire "causing" ... by Harold Smith on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 11:28:49 PM
how come the fire dept people (battalion chief), h... by Brad Griffeth on Friday, Feb 8, 2008 at 5:31:31 AM
And as far as the delay in the report, there could... by Alan Williams on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 6:07:02 PM
David, You were referring to yourself here we... by richard on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 7:20:30 PM
Sorry, I meant "Alan" .... my bad.... by richard on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 7:21:41 PM
Alan, any comment on the "free-fall"?&... by David Watts on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 7:31:55 PM
The buildings fell precisely in the time they shou... by Alan Williams on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 10:30:39 PM
complete collapses of steel framed buildings due t... by Stephen Demetriou on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 7:51:14 PM
Who was this guy and how would he know the buildin... by Stephen Demetriou on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 7:54:20 PM
With all due respect to the departed chief, he and... by Alan Williams on Friday, Feb 8, 2008 at 3:14:24 AM
This article contains quotes from the oral histori... by Brad Griffeth on Friday, Feb 8, 2008 at 6:04:26 AM
This is just the same old "we heard an explos... by Alan Williams on Friday, Feb 8, 2008 at 12:55:24 PM
"According to the FEMA report:  "Th... by Alan Williams on Friday, Feb 8, 2008 at 3:38:24 AM
LOL! What happened is that they realized that the ... by Harold Smith on Friday, Feb 8, 2008 at 7:54:37 AM
Harold,  You've got everything right. &nb... by David Watts on Friday, Feb 8, 2008 at 4:25:40 PM
OK, Alan, have there been any simulations done wit... by Stephen Demetriou on Friday, Feb 8, 2008 at 7:19:54 AM
I don't know Stephen.  Why don't you ... by Alan Williams on Friday, Feb 8, 2008 at 1:04:09 PM
The obvious, Alan, is that the buildings collapsed... by Stephen Demetriou on Friday, Feb 8, 2008 at 1:52:07 PM
Let us NEVER think in a vacuum like some of t... by boomerang on Friday, Feb 8, 2008 at 8:24:27 AM
Your Boomerang hits it right on the head.  Yo... by David Watts on Friday, Feb 8, 2008 at 4:17:07 PM
Yes, do use that line of thinking.  Use it to... by Alan Williams on Friday, Feb 8, 2008 at 5:12:13 PM
The whole animal includes the Twin Towers, Pentago... by David Watts on Sunday, Feb 10, 2008 at 1:41:35 AM
"LOL! What happened is that they realized tha... by Alan Williams on Friday, Feb 8, 2008 at 12:32:01 PM
So, you, Harold Smith, somehow just know the inner... by Harold Smith on Friday, Feb 8, 2008 at 3:05:09 PM
I'll take all that wriggling, squirming, imagi... by Alan Williams on Friday, Feb 8, 2008 at 5:37:43 PM
Let's cut to the chase: what you're actual... by Harold Smith on Friday, Feb 8, 2008 at 7:58:27 PM
Sir, you went right back to "the WTC" bu... by boomerang on Friday, Feb 8, 2008 at 6:01:40 PM
They're pretending that the buildings collapse... by Harold Smith on Friday, Feb 8, 2008 at 8:15:27 PM
WarFarm just posted this "up the ladder"... by boomerang on Friday, Feb 8, 2008 at 10:21:50 PM
That was certainly one of the more notable an... by Harold Smith on Friday, Feb 8, 2008 at 11:38:34 PM
No, it is just one tiny piece of "evidence&qu... by boomerang on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 7:14:34 AM
 No, it is just one tiny piece of "evide... by Harold Smith on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 8:46:37 AM
"Let's cut to the chase: what you're ... by Alan Williams on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 1:29:25 PM
"The WTC investigations have been a logical p... by boomerang on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 3:49:36 PM
What's wrong with you? Apparently yo... by Harold Smith on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 7:00:48 PM
The head NIST engineer on the WTC investigation li... by Bill Douglas on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 9:43:14 PM
"So, why should we infer that their conclusio... by Alan Williams on Sunday, Feb 10, 2008 at 3:58:32 PM
It could have been written more clearly, but I bel... by Harold Smith on Sunday, Feb 10, 2008 at 8:54:22 PM
"The whole animal includes the Twin Towers, P... by Alan Williams on Sunday, Feb 10, 2008 at 4:53:23 PM
I think you're technically correct, Harold. &n... by Alan Williams on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 2:41:33 PM
"The claim that fire has never before destroy... by Alan Williams on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 7:35:56 PM