Please carefully consider that WTC 7 was not hit by an aircraft on 9-11, was not attacked by terrorists, and only small fires that were not spreading and were contained on only one side of the building on the 12th floor were observed, yet the entire 47 story tall concrete and steel skyscraper building "buckled" in the center, penthouse first, then came straight down very quickly in a mere 6.5 seconds at free fall, not impeded in any manner whatsoever by any of the numerous floors below, imploding from within precisely into it's own footprints, the concrete pulverized and vaporized into toxic dust and powder, resulting in huge, billowing, pyroclastic clouds, and the massive steel core columns (18) cut and hurled horizontally, a truly perfect, classic example of a building brought down with deliberate purpose, and with a very high degree of advanced professional skills and substantial expert experience in a controlled fashion.
The Twin Towers also came straight down into their own footprints very quickly in less than 12 seconds each in a similar controlled fashion.
Most certainly a scientific investigation is called for to examine the scientific facts surrounding the probable implosion of WTC 7.
Please carefully consider that scientific facts once officially revealed to the nation can free the American people, their Congress, and their President, from the constant fear and terror generated by and since 9-11.
References:
1. EXCLUSIVE INN WORLD REPORT INTERVIEW with Physics Professor Dr Crockett Grabbe and Dr David Ray Griffin, "INN Takes on the History Channel", LINK www.innworldreport.net CLICK on TUE SEPTEMBER 04 for their complete interviews regarding 9-11.
A United States Marine Corps Viet Nam Era Veteran trying to do what I can and expecting Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch, to do what they can to keep the nation strong and free by remaining true to the Constitution first of all.
9/11 Truth is the single most important issue in all our lives right now. Used as a pretext for the genocide in Iraq and Afghanistan, this event is also a turning point and a catalyst for the bigger plan to implement an elitist one world government
Our soldiers are dying in these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan based upon this horrible lie. Not to mention over one million dead Iraqis, and the millions of displaced and shattered lives in both those countries. How about the current threats to start the next war with Iran - how much proof do you need?
rigged elections
repeal of Habeas Corpus
Patriot Act
Department of Homeland Criminals
legalized torture
Military Commissions Act
signing statements
criminalization of dissent
no fly lists
detention centers
How can this be happening? - it's happening because of the corruption which has overtaken the government. It's happening because the 5 corporations who control ALL of the mainstream media are owned by the same people who make the machinery and the bombs of war, it is in their financial interest to keep us in a state of perpetual conflict and confusion at the expense of our freedom, our rights as individuals, and any sense of dignity as human beings.
As long as we do not deal directly with this lie, we will continually be forced to play a part in all its subsequent crimes, and pay the ultimate price of our freedom because of willful ignorance or moral cowardice.
9/11 was carried out or assisted by elements within the US government
The war on terror is a hoax
Just Lies
Hatred
Fear
by
CasaZaza (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 110 comments)
on Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 10:37:20 AM
9/11 Truth is the single most important issue in all our lives right now.
9/11 "truth" is little more than a cottage industry which is catered toward a market segment among a paranoid few who are possessed of an idiotically-conceited sense of their own self-importance.
It's known as the 9/11 "truth" movement for the same reason bald people are called "curly".
by
F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 58 comments)
on Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 12:40:41 PM
That you can't see the pivotal importance of this false-flag operation is only a testament to your lack of reasoning ability, not to mention the morally bankrupt nature of your character.
by
CasaZaza (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 110 comments)
on Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 12:56:33 PM
9. WTC7, a steel-framed building collapsed on 9/11 even though it was not hit by an airplane. The 47 story tall building collapased in a perfectly symmetrical fashion on 9/11. In fact you can put a ruler on the screen as you view the collapse and it comes PERFECTLY STRAIGHT DOWN ON A LINE! The collapse exhibited every single characteristic of a controlled demolition; or perhaps better said, a finely produced implosion. And there was not a single characteristic of destruction by fire; much less asymmetrical fire or even asymmetrical damage. In fact, neither governmental agency, NIST nor FEMA has been able to figure out how fires could have caused the collapse. WTC7 was a TALL, NARROW, massively braced steel-framed building. For such a TALL, NARROW building to come down in such a precisely symmetrical fashion -- vs. falling off to the side -- and DIRECTLY into its own footprint at about the speed of a falling brick; common sense would say that would be impossible; unless of course, it had a lot of demolition help.
WTC7
There were even multiple reports of a countdown (as in 5..4..3..2..1.. explosions, collapse) heard over radios that ended with large explosions followed by the collapse. What does that tell you? That tells you they knew the exact second WTC7 was going to collapse. That can only mean they knew exactly what second they were going to “push the button” to start the controlled demolition. There are other factors easily researched that also show prior knowledge that WTC7 was about to come down.
Molten metal was observed below WTC7. That fact cannot be explained away other than in terms of a substance like thermite (evidence of which was found in the rubble) which melts metal like a scalding frying pan liquifies warm butter and is used in demolitions of steel-framed buildings.
Even Mr. Silverstein who had leased and insured all of the WTC buildings just weeks prior to 9/11 said later on PBS that he told them to “pull” (a demolition term) WTC7. An example of the use of this term happened just prior to demolishing WTC6 after 9/11: a worker in a hard hat can be seen and heard saying, “they’re gettin’ ready to pull buildin’ six.” Larry Silverstein subsequently collected several billions of dollars for his destroyed buildings.
Now put all of these things together -- there are more -- and see how contorted one’s reasoning would have to be to not understand WTC7 was a controlled demolition. The collapse of WTC7 alone virtually proves the Official Story to be a lie.
by
David Watts (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 226 comments)
on Monday, April 7, 2008 at 1:17:45 PM
You will likely find very soon, Gene, that the naysayers will say, the fires weren't limited. They will point out photos on websites, notably this one:
that purports to show that the fires weren't limited, though I think it hardly does that. It shows smoke being pulled up the side of the building in the eddy created by the slight breeze coming from the opposite side of the building. Only a few windows are blown out, fire is not being disgorged from blown out windows on multiple floors, only a few as might be expected, the smoke is fairly dark and not particularly thick, more indicative of a smoldering fire than an extremely hot fire. When compared to photos such as:
click here, you have a better frame of reference to dispute the argument WTC7 had intense fires burning. There were no doubt fires burning, but the extent of those fires, which are implied to have brought the building down, in conjunction with the damage to one corner and some of the facade, is not indicated to have been extensive or intense.
The resulting straight-down, free fall collapse also in itself argues against fire and damage bringing WTC 7 down. The official investigations found evidence of intense heat in column and dust samples, however that evidence was highly localized. MIT's Thomas Eagar, and if I recall correctly, FEMA's Gene Corley, said the columns DID NOT melt due to the fires. Given this, deformation of the columns would not have been sudden but gradual. In all three building collapses one sees sudden initiation of movement as the collapse starts. As you rightly point out in 7, the penthouse buckles. Note also a demolition wave can be seen breaking out windows, and squibs appear at regular intervals along one side, not on every floor, but at an interval. The gradual deformation that would likely occur with heating steel columns argues very plausibly that the collapse would more likely be asymmetrical and directional, as opposed to a sudden, straight down failure. The fact that the buildings fell at the speed of gravity is conclusive that the entire supporting structures must have come apart nearly simultaneously in order for that to occur. An upper mass falling through the path of MOST resistance is a nonsensical explanation for a demolition occurring at the speed of gravity.
Other videos of the two towers are very clear that the corner structures remain intact well after a horizontal demolition front moves past them, blowing out windows in a nearly horizontal pattern. A chaotic collapse would not likely produce such an effect, even if the upper mass could defy the structural integrity of the building below it and cause it to come apart at the speed of gravity. The most plausible explanation is that pre-positioned charges disintegrated the building out from under the upper mass. That WOULD produce a speed of gravity collapse, where as a collapse of one part through the structurally sound building below it is physically nonsensical, and so unlikely as to be thought impossible.
Combined with the several references that have become public in the last couple of years of explosions throughout the buildings, from the subbasements to the top most floors, and the references to "bringing the building (7) down..." controlled demolition is the most plausible explanation for the destruction of these buildings. The official story is indefensible and ridiculous. Those that do defend it are in the unenviable position of denying physical laws and common sense.
Thanks for your posting.
by
Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 163 comments)
on Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 10:40:06 AM
You will likely find very soon, Gene, that the naysayers will say, the fires weren't limited. They will point out photos on websites...
Photos on Web sites, numerous excerpts of testimony from first-responders who were there on the scene, and various video clips such as this one all indicate that WTC7 was heavily-damaged to the point that it had lost its structural integrity, that the building was fully-involved in fire, and that its collapse was deemed imminent, hence the eventual pulling of operations to a safe distance. In short, the notion that the fires were "limited" stands in contrast to an overwhelming number of reports from FDNY firefighters that WTC7 was "free-burning" and that nearly every floor was (or had been) ablaze during the time before its predicted collapse.
The fact that the buildings fell at the speed of gravity is conclusive that the entire supporting structures must have come apart nearly simultaneously in order for that to occur.
In fact, none of the buildings fell "at the speed of gravity". Such is not only a scientific impossibility, but is demonstrably false by way of a direct examination of the video evidence in which (at least in the case of the Twin Towers) the outer debris field can be seen far outpacing the collapse area on the way toward the ground.
The most plausible explanation is that pre-positioned charges disintegrated the building out from under the upper mass.
If such were the case, then why did we not hear the explosions of these "pre-positioned charges" immediately preceding the collapse initiation, as is the case with hundreds of clips featuring the controlled demolition of various structures which form the basis of our comparison to the Twin Towers' collapse?
Combined with the several references that have become public in the last couple of years of explosions throughout the buildings...
None of which speak of these "explosions" as having occurred immediately preceeding the collapse initiation, as is the case with the controlled demolitions we've come to know through video clips, whathaveyou.
As a matter of course there were various "explosions" heard throughout the buildings/area at various times throughout the morning. We're dealing with jet fuel. We're dealing with transformers. We're dealing with a variety of things which, when put into fire conditions, have a tendency to "explode" with a force loud enough to be heard and to which can be testified. But none of that necessarily points to deliberately planted charges, per se.
Far from it.
...and the references to "bringing the building (7) down..." controlled demolition is the most plausible explanation for the destruction of these buildings.
And what of the aforementioned testimony of the first responders (to which I referred earlier)? Does this not give us any indication as to the severity of the damage and fires of WTC7, thus giving rise to the probablility that, indeed, there exists a causal connection to the collapse of the building that followed?
by
F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 58 comments)
on Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 12:24:57 PM
"Free burning...?" The interesting video you reference does not say this. What it does show is a man, presumably a firefighter, giving his opinion from a distance. NONE of the video that shows the collapse, from various angles, shows a building fully involved, or with "nearly every floor [that] was (or had been) ablaze..." What they DO show are intact window frames throughout the building and, at best, smoke, with the exception of a few rows of windows in a couple of places belching smoke and fire. Your analysis also completely ignores what one of the official investigations makes perfectly clear: FEMA: the hypothesis of fire bringing down the building is "of low probability."
Speed of gravity
The collapse of these buildings was as close to the same time it would take a bowling ball to fall the same distance as to be considered the "speed of gravity." You are correct to say it was not, with precision and accuracy, in strict scientific parlance, at the "speed of gravity," however to split this hair this finely is a red herring. The buildings collapsed with a speed that defies logic, not to mention the laws of conservation of momentum and energy. The upper masses of either building did not possess the energy to travel through the path of MOST resistance and completely collapse the buildings at the speed we witnessed. The angular momentum of the south tower's 13 floor mass, above the impact zone, was arrested as it spun off to one side by the disintegration of the building below it. If the structural integrity of the building below it was not compromised, and in a gravity-only collapse there is no reason to think it was not, that mass should have continued its spin and fallen off into the street below. It did not. The videos clearly show on the side away from the compression of floors great billows of dust exploding out, and then the mass STOPPING its twist to one side and falling straight down as the building below it was imploded.
"Why did we not hear the explosions...?"
We did, especially in the case of the south tower. Eyewitness accounts from the NYFD Oral Histories talk about explosions, and earthquake-like rumbles before the collapse initiated. Video also corroborates this. The Oral Histories also reveal explosions happening, pre-collapse initiation, on multiple floors. Rings of explosions in timed sequence, "pop, pop, pop..." up and down, and around the buildings. Many firefighters and first responders independently giving the exact same, or very similar accounts. People on the street, firefighters, workers, civilians, police give accounts of explosions within the buildings. Reporters on the street outside, with video and audio rolling, show signs and sounds of explosions in some cases, or report having experienced multiple, ground shaking explosions. Long distance video set ups record "camera shake" in concert with explosive events. Explosions in the sub-basements completely destroying a 50-ton press so that it is no longer existant does not occur from an exploding transformer in an area not exposed to jet fuel, enhanced kerosene. Additionally, the jet fuel was said in the official reports to have burned off within minutes of impact, with most being consumed in the fireballs outside the buildings.
118 eyewitness reports from the Oral Histories were carefully selected as indicating, clearly and directly, explosions, as opposed to cracking, banging, collapsing sounds. Burns and charred remains of those involved in lower building level explosions also argues against incidental "explosions" caused by jet fuel that came no where near the areas involved, such as the main lobby, about 1000 feet below the impact zone.
Furthermore, FEMA's discovery of eutectic sulfidation on steel column samples, along with Worcester Polytech's discovery of evaporated steel in the swiss cheese-like holes, with edges sharpened to razor sharpness, in steel samples, or USGS discovery of once-molten molybdenum microspheres in dust samples, or RJ Lee's discovery of vaporized lead, and alumino-silicates, are all indicative of temperatures that are not thermodynamically accountable to hydrocarbon fires or gravity collapses. Nor is the molten metal found in the basements of all three buildings.
All of this disputes the nonsensical explanation given in the official account of what brought down these buildings.
by
Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 163 comments)
on Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 2:04:43 PM
You indicated that we (i.e., the "naysayers") would be relying heavily upon photos like the one to which you linked.
I am not relying on such photos, so much as the first-responder testimony.
"Free burning...?" The interesting video you reference does not say this.
You are correct. That particular video does not. I was referring to the pages upon pages of testimony from first-responders in which phrases like "free-burning" and "fully-involved" were used in conjunction with the fires of WTC7.
Would you like me to post some of them?
FEMA: the hypothesis of fire bringing down the building is "of low probability."
In and of itself? Probably low. But nobody is saying it was the fires, per se, which brought down either the Towers or WTC7.
You are correct to say it was not, with precision and accuracy, in strict scientific parlance, at the "speed of gravity," however to split this hair this finely is a red herring.
No, actually it isn't. Not when we're talking about the speed at which the Towers fell in relation to the "speed of gravity". Your problem, I suspect, is that your thinking strictly in terms of time, which, arguably, is a closer variable.
Tell us, have you done any calculations as to what the "speed of gravity" would have been in relation to the speed at which the Towers actually collapsed... as to the distance that would have been covered by a free-falling object during the time difference between the two? I think you should give this a try before you go spouting off about these supposedly negligible differences in speed.
In any event, I think you ought cease the fast and loose treatment of the phrase, "speed of gravity".
We did [hear explosions], especially in the case of the south tower. Eyewitness accounts from the NYFD Oral Histories talk about explosions, and earthquake-like rumbles before the collapse initiated.
How soon before the collapse initiated? Immediately preceding (as in the numerous video clips of CD to which I alluded), or just at various times during the morning before the collapse. This is important.
Video also corroborates this.
Can you point me to a clip? Specifically, I want to see a video of the Towers/WTC7 in which we can very clearly make out a very loud series of bangs right before everything comes crashing down. Something along the lines of this.
...molten metal found in the basements of all three buildings.
Molten metal is not a by-product of Controlled Demolition. At least not of the "explosive" variety (or of any variety, really). So I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. On the one hand, you talk as if the collapse of the buildings has all of the earmarks of a classic CD (e.g., witness testimony as to "explosions", "pops", camera shakes, etc.), and then, at the same time, you talk of "molten metal", which, if true, is more indicative of a very intense fire.
In any event, your argument seems a bit confused.
by
F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 58 comments)
on Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 3:12:44 PM
As Richard Gage points out, the collapse of WTC 7 actually accelerated on its way down. Plotting that next to a hypothetical free fall collapse show the curves to nearly match. The 6.5 sec descent was very, very close to free fall speed. Again, for that to happen, all of the support structure would have to fail nearly simultaneously.
by
Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 163 comments)
on Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 3:20:49 PM
Both are relevant as both you and I have referred to photos and written histories. In the case of 7, many videos, regardless of what was seen from the ground around the building, do not show a building fully involved. Photos do show some fires, but not a building fully involved as the Windsor fire I reference above, or of photos of WTC 4, 5, and 6.
And in the worthy analysis of the Oral Histories by Graeme McQueen, especially this one:
click here is a pdf) it is quite clear that many firefighters that were aware that building 7 was coming down well before it did, derived their opinion from being told that by those above them, not actual personal knowledge. This being the case, I have to, in this case rely heavily on what my own eyes see in the videos... a building not burning on all floors.
FEMA, I have to assume, knew about the damage AND the fires when making this statement.
Computation:
I trust this Pro. of Mathematics abilities, not to say I can't plug in the numbers myself, and then "spout off."
There are Oral History accounts of explosions both well prior to initiation of collapse, as well as, immediately before. The film 911Mysteries utilizes a clip, which I cannot find presently, that shows in corroboration with the oral histories a large explosive crack and rumble and then the building fails.
Molten metal vs explosives:
Molten metal is consistent with thermite, or a thermate-variant, as both produce molten iron, and are used a cutter devices to weaken or sever columns. Evidence of explosives are further found in photos of column ends in which steel flanges are bent outward, suggesting the force of the explosive pushed the column bending the flange prior to completely dislodging it.
It is entirely plausible both types of devices would be used, probably in excess to assure the job is complete, to bring down the buildings.
by
Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 163 comments)
on Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 3:49:52 PM
By the way, none of the links you've posted up to now work...
In the case of 7, many videos, regardless of what was seen from the ground around the building, do not show a building fully involved.
So. YOU. Say.
I would sooner trust the informed opinion of the guys who were actually there as to whether or not (or to whatever extent) the building was fully-involved in fire, than your armchair assessment of a few photos. So, too, I think, would any serious investigators into this matter.
...it is quite clear that many firefighters that were aware that building 7 was coming down well before it did, derived their opinion from being told that by those above them, not actual personal knowledge.
Even if this were true, so what? Show me the testimony of firefighters who disagreed with their higher-ups as to the condition of Seven and the notion that collapse was imminent. In any event, there are plenty who testified as to the damage/fires to which they were, personally, an eyewitness.
This being the case, I have to, in this case rely heavily on what my own eyes see in the videos... a building not burning on all floors.
In other words, you're implying that, on the basis of your personal assessment of a few photos/videos, there are members of the FDNY who were lying about the condition of WTC7. Nice.
So on which planet do you think that your personal opinion along these lines would trump the testimony of the firefighters who were there? Just wondering.
I trust this Pro. of Mathematics abilities...
One doesn't have to be a professor to run the calculations of which I speak. It's all fairly high-school stuff.
I take it, then, that your answer to my earlier question is in the negative?
It is entirely plausible both types of devices would be used, probably in excess to assure the job is complete, to bring down the buildings.
In how much "excess", exactly? How many pounds of thermite would it take in conjunction with how many pounds of explosives? Is there a precedent of this type of combination CD to which you can point, or is this all wild and unsupported speculation on your part?
by
F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 58 comments)
on Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 4:56:14 PM
I've noticed on OpEdNews sometimes the embedded links get a little something added onto the end of the URL. Look at the URL when they appear at the top of the page. If something is added, simply remove the extra bit. For instance, the mathematics prof link should end in .pdf. If it doesn't, remove whatever is after it. That should work.
by
Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 163 comments)
on Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 5:18:19 PM
No need to be insulting. I take the firefighter's words very seriously. But the great majority of clips I have seen of WTC 7 collapsing do not show a building fully engulfed in flames, as you imply (without, I might add, supplying the links and testimony you rest your argument on.) The firefighters are experts in what they do, but it is also true that the angles which are seen in numerous videos show more of the building than someone on the ground in close proximity to the building would be able to see. And, again, those videos DO NOT show a building with raging fires engulfing much of the building. The "Myths" site show some good fire images, but even those do not show a fully involved building. My point about the firefighters is, their opinions, like anyone's, can be influenced by authority figures. The notion for many of the firefighters that collapse was imminent was not necessarily their own judgement. They derived it from others. So, it is quite logical to think, especially when the bulk of videos and photos showing the collapse of 7 do not show a building completely, or even close to completely, on fire, that there is more to the stories you are presenting, saying the building was or had been on fire "on nearly every floor" as you put it. Especially if I can't see the references you make your argument on.
I am not trying to be argumentative, just putting out there what is clearly visible in most of the videos and photos that are available of WTC 7. I think you do need to present some visual evidence to the contrary. I am not saying any of the firefighters are deliberately lying, though it is certainly possible some might. I am saying they are not necessarily in the best position to make a judgement, or are free of influence by authority figures.
Computation (in case you can't get that link to work):
1/2(V*V) = gh = 32 * 576 (height of WTC 7) resolves to v = 192. 576/(192/2) = 6 seconds.
As stated above, Richard Gage shows the building collapsed in about 6.5 s. That is not much in dispute. Gage showed the building accelerated as it fell, something it would not do if the floors were pancaking and meeting resistance with each successive floor.
I have heard that accusation about the Mysteries film. I have yet to see credible proof of the accusation. I will try to dig up another clip I have in mind of a reporter on the street below in which the crack and rumble is audible. I may not get to it tonight though. Check back tomorrow.
Excess...? precedent...? These events are quite unprecedented. My bet would be they used more than necessary to assure the job gets completed. It is not me who is doing the wild speculation saying these buildings collapsed at free fall speed, contrary to physics and common sense.
by
Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 163 comments)
on Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 5:50:00 PM
...the great majority of clips I have seen of WTC 7 collapsing do not show a building fully engulfed in flames...
If you've seen the same clips I've seen, then we're only seeing one side of the building. From a distance.
In any event, "fully-involved" doesn't necessarily mean flames simultaneously shooting out of every available window.
My point about the firefighters is, their opinions, like anyone's, can be influenced by authority figures.
Authority figures who, in these cases that we're talking about, happen to be other FDNY firefighters. I'm not sure I get where you're going with this, if not to imply that there are some within the FDNY who lied as to WTC7s condition. And although you're not coming right out and saying this, I don't see where you've left any wiggle room here.
The notion for many of the firefighters that collapse was imminent was not necessarily their own judgement. They derived it from others.
In some cases yes, in other cases no (i.e., in other cases, they were speaking as to their own personal assessment of the building). In any event, nearly all of the testimony as to Seven's fires/damage/imminent collapse comes from (or is said by other firefighters to have come from) firefighters of the FDNY.
Once again, I don't see where you're going. On the one hand, you say that you take the firefighter's words "very seriously", but then you refuse to do so in instances where the notion happens to have been "derived" from firefighters by other firefighters. My point is that, any way you slice this, it's the firefighters' informed opinion against your personal assessment of a few photos. Is there even any contest here at all?
Good quotes in that links. Really. I have not seen some of these particular reports and they are very interesting.
Graeme McQueen’s paper is here. It is worth a good reading.
He notes that Deputy Chief Hayden in an article in Firehouse Magazine, in which Capt. Boyle also makes comments, and who is included in your collection, made a collapse prediction around 2 in the afternoon. The building held up for another three hours. And then collapsed straight down, in 6.5 seconds, near free fall speed, exhibiting many, if not all, of the signs of a classic controlled demolition: sudden crimp in the roof, demolition wave rippling through and breaking windows, squibs, bottom up implosion, billowing pyroclastic dust clouds.
And then, again, there is FEMA’s statement, which either was made with the statements regarding fire and damage in mind, or else was an unsupported assumption and their analysis that fire and damage as the cause of collapse was not of “low probability,” which they said it was and warranted more investigation.
NIST has yet to weigh in, and when it does will include an analysis that only entails floors 8 through 40 something. I guess they have their reasons for limiting the scope of the investigation, which is already late.
The 9/11 Commission said nothing about it.
It remains a mystery why 7 collapsed. Seven years on.
by
Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 163 comments)
on Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 9:41:19 PM
Graeme McQueen's paper is here. It is worth a good reading.
It's interesting the extent to which it's an Olympic-caliber, acrobatic excercise in hair-splitting (nit-picking, whathaveyou).
What seems to be missing in all of it is any sense of incredulity expressed by any fireman at the time that a "steel-framed" building could have collapsed given the fire/damage that WTC7 had reportedly sustained. To listen to 9/11 truthers, one would think that there'd be no reason whatsoever to pull any of the fire personnel back out of concern for building's collapse, because, after all, this sort of thing just doesn't happen.
And yet, we have the vast bulk of FDNY firefighters following such orders with little or no question - expressed then or now.
by
F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 58 comments)
on Monday, April 7, 2008 at 2:38:17 AM
WTC7 was a TALL, NARROW, massively braced steel-framed build
WTC7 was a TALL, NARROW, massively braced steel-framed building. For such a TALL, NARROW building to come down in such a precisely symmetrical fashion -- vs. falling off to the side -- and DIRECTLY into its own footprint at about the speed of a falling brick; common sense would say that would be impossible; unless of course, it had a lot of demolition help.
by
David Watts (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 226 comments)
on Monday, April 7, 2008 at 1:39:30 PM
Mr. Demetriou, this is an old battlefield you're fighting upon once again. The Second Battle of Bull Run (Manassas to those of Southern persuasion) perhaps?
The actual collapse time, when you factor in the East Penthouse Kink, brings the total to about 15 seconds. Mr. Gage, who is an architect and NOT an engineer, is out of his depth and into his conspiracy psychology.
by
Tom Murphy (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1351 comments)
on Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 7:30:49 PM
