Discussion:
The Official 9/11 Story: A Fairy Tale
(too old to reply)
Republican Party Representative #33
2005-11-11 02:08:46 UTC
Permalink
Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade
Center

by Dave Heller, article originally appeared in Garlic and Grass

While it may be difficult to awaken everyone from their state-induced fog
of fear, we are at a critical point in history which requires us to try.
We truly must take an objective look at the facts and evidence
surrounding 9-11.

While none of the many 9-11 researchers knows exactly what happened on
that fateful day in September almost 3 years ago, any sensible person can
easily spot dozens of inconsistencies in the official story that is being
forced upon us.

And these inconsistencies are huge. They range from the apparent stand-
down of our immense military arsenal (for over an hour and a half) to the
small hole and lack of debris at the Pentagon. There was Bush's bizarre,
uninterrupted photo op in a Florida elementary school, and then there is
the matter of the remains of Flight 93 being scattered over eight miles
of Pennsylvania farmland, a fact which suggests the plane may have been
shot down. The official story seems wrong on all of these points.

But the focus of this article is on just one point: the odd collapse of
the three buildings in the World Trade Center complex.
How I First Began to Question: WTC7

The World Trade Center (WTC) contained seven buildings. The Twin Towers
were called buildings One (WTC1) and Two (WTC2). They collapsed in truly
astounding fashion, but the event that caused me first to question the
official story about the events of 9-11 was viewing videos of the
collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7).

If you've forgotten, WTC7 was a 47-story building that was not hit by an
airplane or by any significant debris from either WTC1 or WTC2. Buildings
3, 4, 5, and 6 were struck by massive amounts of debris from the
collapsing Twin Towers, yet none collapsed, despite their thin-gauge
steel supports.
World Trade Center Buildling 7 implodes
Viewing the Collapse of WTC7
The 9-11 commemorative videos produced by PBS and CNN are best. Both
clearly show WTC7's implosion.

Lower resolution Internet movies are also available.
WTC7, which was situated on the next block over, was the farthest of the
buildings from WTC1 and WTC2. WTC7 happened to contain the New York City
Office of Emergency Management (OEM), a facility that was, according to
testimony to the 9-11 Commission, one of the most sophisticated Emergency
Command Centers on the planet. But shortly after 5:20 pm on Sept. 11, as
the horrific day was coming to a close, WTC7 mysteriously imploded and
fell to the ground in an astounding 6.5 seconds.

6.5 seconds. This is a mere 0.5 seconds more than freefall in a vacuum.
To restate this, a rock dropped from the 47th floor would have taken at
least 6 seconds to hit the ground. WTC7, in its entirety, fell to the
earth in 6.5 seconds. Now, recall, we're supposed to believe that each
floor of the building "pancaked" on the one below. Each of the 47 floors
supposedly pancaked and collapsed, individually. Yet WTC7 reached the
ground in 0.5 seconds longer than freefall. Is this really possible?

Judge for yourself. Watch WTC7 go down. It takes 6.5 seconds. Take out
your stopwatch.

What About Towers One and Two?

The odd, swift collapse of WTC7 made me reconsider the Twin Towers and
how they fell. As I had with WTC7, I first studied video footage
available on the web. Then I acquired and watched a DVD of the collapses,
frame by frame.

What struck me first was the way the second plane hit WTC2, the South
Tower. I noticed that this plane, United Airlines Flight 175, which
weighed over 160,000 pounds and was traveling at 350 mph, did not even
visibly move the building when it slammed into it. How, I wondered, could
a building that did not visibly move from a heavy high speed projectile
collapse at near freefall speed less than an hour later?


WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 are the buildings in gray.

Next, I turned my attention to steel beams that fell in freefall next to
the building as it collapsed. The beams were falling at the same rate
that the towers themselves were descending. Familiar with elementary
physics, including principles of conservation of energy and momentum,
this seemed quite impossible if the towers were indeed "pancaking," which
is the official theory.

The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. I calculated that from that
height, freefall in a vacuum (read, absolutely no resistance on earth) is
9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the
tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds.
So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. Just
like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to
fail individually.

As I was considering this, another problem arose. There is a principle in
physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy. There is also the Law
of Conservation of Momentum. I'll briefly explain how these principles
work. Let's assume there are two identical Honda Civics on the freeway.
One is sitting in neutral at a standstill (0 mph). The other is coasting
at 60 mph. The second Honda slams into the back of the first one. The
first Honda will then instantaneously be going much faster than it was,
and the second will instantaneously be going much slower than it was.

This is how the principle works in the horizontal direction, and it works
the same in the vertical direction, with the added constant force of
gravity added to it. Jim Hoffman, a professional scientist published in
several peer-reviewed scientific journals, took a long look at all of
this. He calculated that even if the structure itself offered no
resistance, that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were
hovering in mid-air, the "pancake" theory would still have taken a
minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. So, even if the building
essentially didn't exist, if it provided no resistance at all to the
collapse, just the floors hitting each other and causing each other to
decelerate would've taken 15.5 seconds to reach the ground.

But of course the buildings did exist. They had stood for over 30 years.
The floors weren't hovering in mid-air. So how did the building provide
no resistance?

Yet another observation one makes in watching the collapsing towers is
the huge dust clouds and debris, including steel beams, that were thrown
hundreds of feet out horizontally from the towers as they fell. If we are
to believe the pancake theory, this amount of scattering debris, fine
pulverized concrete dust, and sheetrock powder would clearly indicate
massive resistance to the vertical collapse. So there is an impossible
conflict. You either have a miraculous, historical, instantaneous,
catastrophic failure that occurs within a fraction of a second of
freefall and that kicks out little dust, or you have a solid, hefty
building that remains virtually unaffected after a massive, speeding
projectile hits it. You either have a house of cards or a house of
bricks. The building either resists its collapse or it doesn't.

And we know the WTC Towers were made of reinforced steel and concrete
that would act much more like bricks than cards.

Thus, put simply, the floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings
fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to
reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how?
What About the Fires?

The official story maintains that fires weakened the buildings. Jet fuel
supposedly burned so hot it began to melt the steel columns supporting
the towers. But steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire,
since they're built from steel that doesn't melt below 2750 degrees
Fahrenheit. No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is really just refined
kerosene, will burn hotter than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit.

Steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire.
It's also odd that WTC7, which wasn't hit by an airplane or by any
significant debris, collapsed in strikingly similar fashion to the Twin
Towers. There wasn't even any jet fuel or kerosene burning in WTC7.

According to the 9-11 report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), "the specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the
building to collapse remain unknown at this tim."

Aside from its startling nonchalance, this statement makes a rather
profound assumption. Again, no building prior to 9-11, in the 100-plus
year history of steel frame buildings, had ever collapsed from fire.

Satellite shot of WTC ruins
The flattened ruins are WTC1 and WTC2 (in the middle), and WTC7 (at the
bottom)
This fact was known to firemen. Hence their unflinching rush up into the
skyscrapers to put out the fire. Partly it was bravery, to be sure, but
partly it was concrete knowledge that skyscrapers do not collapse due to
fire. Yet after 100 years, three collapsed in one day.

Did the FEMA investigators not think to ask the New York City Fire
Department how they thought the fire started, or how the fires could have
caused the astounding, historical collapse? This would seem to be an
elementary step in any investigation about a fire. Instead, they chose to
leave the cause of the collapse "unknown."
Conclusion

So if the science in this article is correct (none of it goes beyond the
tenth grade level), then we know that the floors of the three WTC
buildings were not pancaking but were falling simultaneously. We also
know that fire is an insufficient explanation for the initiation of the
collapse of the buildings.

Why, then, did the three WTC buildings fall?

There is a method that has been able to consistently get skyscrapers to
fall as fast as the three buildings of the World Trade Center fell on 9-
11. In this method, each floor of a building is destroyed at just the
moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall
simultaneously ? and in virtual freefall. This method, when precisely
used, has indeed given near-freefall speed to demolitions of buildings
all over the world in the past few decades. This method could have
brought down WTC7 in 6.5 seconds. This method is called controlled
demolition.

A controlled demolition would have exploded debris horizontally at a
rapid rate. A controlled demolition would also explain the fine,
pulverized concrete powder, whereas pancaking floors would leave chunks
of concrete. Controlled demolition would also explain the seismic
evidence recorded nearby of two small earthquakes, each just before one
of the Twin Towers collapsed. And finally, controlled demolition would
explain why three steel skyscrapers, two of which were struck by planes
and one of which wasn't, all collapsed in essentially the same way.

WTC collapses with huge explosions
The massive energy required to pulverize concrete into microscopic dust
suggests the use of explosives
Ongoing Questions

But having established that all three WTC towers had to have been
assisted in their failures, I asked myself, Who could have planted the
explosives to blow up the buildings in a controlled demolition? Could
fundamentalist Muslim fanatics have gotten the plans for those buildings,
engineered the demolition, and then gotten into them to plant the
explosives?

This seemed improbable. And after learning that WTC7 housed the FBI, CIA,
and the OEM, it seemed impossible. Then I thought, Why would terrorists
engineer a building to implode? Wouldn't they want to cause even more
damage to the surrounding buildings and possibly create more havoc and
destruction from debris exploding away from the building? And if they'd
planted explosives in the buildings, why would they have bothered
hijacking and flying planes into them? Perhaps WTC7 was demolished to
destroy evidence that would answer these questions. To this day, I don't
know. But this is how I began to question the official story about 9-11.

Recently I learned that President Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, is a part
owner of the company that not only provided security for both United and
American Airlines, but also for the World Trade Center complex itself. I
also discovered that Larry Silverstein, who had bought the leasing rights
for the WTC complex from the NY/NJ Port Authority in May of 2001 for $200
million, had received a $3.55 billion insurance settlement right after 9-
11 - yet he was suing for an additional $3.55 billion by claiming the two
hits on the towers constituted two separate terrorist attacks! He stood
to make $7 billion dollars on a four month investment. Talk about motive.

In conclusion, I'll repeat myself. None of the many 9-11 researchers can
definitively say exactly what happened on that fateful day in September
almost 3 years ago. But any sensible person can easily spot dozens of
inconsistencies in the official story that is being forced upon us. And
the fact is, most of the available 9-11 evidence points to at least some
level of government complicity or foreknowledge.

Please, read more for yourself. Don't take my word for it. Most of all,
do not buy the double-speak that visible politicians and the media use to
discount any question about 9-11. Clearly, there are no "conspiracy
theories" surrounding 9-11. The official story itself affirms that there
was obviously some kind of conspiracy. It's just a question of which
conspiracy occurred. We know it wasn't mere coincidence that several
hijackers happened to be on several different airplanes and happened to
hijack them at the exact same time and happened to pick the World Trade
Center as a target. The real question is, "Who was involved in the
conspiracy?"

Dave Heller, who has degrees in physics and architecture, is a builder
and engaged citizen in Berkeley, California.

http://www.physics911.net/closerlook.htm
--
Yes, My Views Do Reflect Those Of The Republican Party
http://www.bedoper.com
Pooh Bear
2005-11-11 02:21:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Republican Party Representative #33
Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade
Center
by Dave Heller, article originally appeared in Garlic and Grass
While it may be difficult to awaken everyone from their state-induced fog
of fear, we are at a critical point in history which requires us to try.
We truly must take an objective look at the facts and evidence
surrounding 9-11.
While none of the many 9-11 researchers knows exactly what happened on
that fateful day in September almost 3 years ago, any sensible person can
easily spot dozens of inconsistencies in the official story that is being
forced upon us.
************* YAWN ****************

What drugs are you on these days Jason ?


Graham
Krusty's Mom
2005-11-11 02:33:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pooh Bear
Post by Republican Party Representative #33
Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade
Center
by Dave Heller, article originally appeared in Garlic and Grass
While it may be difficult to awaken everyone from their state-induced fog
of fear, we are at a critical point in history which requires us to try.
We truly must take an objective look at the facts and evidence
surrounding 9-11.
While none of the many 9-11 researchers knows exactly what happened on
that fateful day in September almost 3 years ago, any sensible person can
easily spot dozens of inconsistencies in the official story that is being
forced upon us.
************* YAWN ****************
What drugs are you on these days Jason ?
It's better than your NeoCon Coolaid.
Post by Pooh Bear
Graham
OsherD
2005-11-11 02:56:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Krusty's Mom
It's better than your NeoCon Coolaid
What, Mama's Hot Alligator Tears (MHAT)?

Osher
JohnnyCJohnny
2005-11-11 02:29:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Republican Party Representative #33
Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade
Center
by Dave Heller, article originally appeared in Garlic and Grass
While it may be difficult to awaken everyone from their state-induced fog
of fear, we are at a critical point in history which requires us to try.
We truly must take an objective look at the facts and evidence
surrounding 9-11.
While none of the many 9-11 researchers knows exactly what happened on
that fateful day in September almost 3 years ago, any sensible person can
easily spot dozens of inconsistencies in the official story that is being
forced upon us.
Yes, the whole situation surrounding 9/11/01 stinks to high heavans. I
mean it has conspiracy written all over it. WTC-7 definitely was
brought down with explosive, even the developer/owner said they were
going to "pull" it. Also, there were hardly any fires at WTC-7.

Bush & Cheney the masterminds behind 9/11.

BTW, love your handle, #33.
Pooh Bear
2005-11-11 05:00:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
even the developer/owner said they were
going to "pull" it.
You've never heard of the phrase 'pull out' ?

Since when was 'pull' used to mean 'blow up' ?

It's astonishing what a tin-foil hatted view of the world does to sensible
analysis.

Tell me about the 'chemtrails' too won't you ?

Graham
JohnnyCJohnny
2005-11-11 14:02:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pooh Bear
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
even the developer/owner said they were
going to "pull" it.
You've never heard of the phrase 'pull out' ?
Since when was 'pull' used to mean 'blow up' ?
It's astonishing what a tin-foil hatted view of the world does to sensible
analysis.
Tell me about the 'chemtrails' too won't you ?
Graham
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up. Silverstein, the
owner of WTC-7, was actually quoted on the PBS documentary stating that
he received a call from the Fire Dept (NYFD) that they were going to
"pull" the building, and he said OK, and watched the building fall to
the ground. I mean, you can't get any more specific than that, the
building owner is on video tape saying the decision was made to "pull"
the building and then we watched it fall. I've seen the video, it is
very obvious what he meant.

They said nothing about "pull out". Why to skeptics just make things
up to suit their puproses? That is not what was said regarding WTC-7.
What was said was "pull", a common term for controlled demolition.
Funny, but it seems to me it is the "skeptics" who should be skeptical
of the official 9/11 story that is so full of inconsistencies and
irregularities that it is pathetic.

I have no idea about chemtrails. Honestly I don't follow that issue.
I think people are reffering to the trails left by jet plains? Big
deal.
Republican Party Representative #33
2005-11-11 14:39:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Post by Pooh Bear
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
even the developer/owner said they were
going to "pull" it.
You've never heard of the phrase 'pull out' ?
Yes. It's what your dad should have done.


However, as no one was fighting the small fires at WTC 7, there was no
one to "pull out".

You fucktard.
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Post by Pooh Bear
Since when was 'pull' used to mean 'blow up' ?
Probably since they started blowing up buildings.

"We're getting ready to pull building 6".
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Post by Pooh Bear
It's astonishing what a tin-foil hatted view of the world does to
sensible analysis.
Tell me about the 'chemtrails' too won't you ?
What do you need to know? Want to see patents on the technology used to
introduce various elements into the atmosphere?
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Post by Pooh Bear
Graham
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up. Silverstein, the
owner of WTC-7, was actually quoted on the PBS documentary stating
that he received a call from the Fire Dept (NYFD) that they were going
to "pull" the building, and he said OK, and watched the building fall
to the ground. I mean, you can't get any more specific than that, the
building owner is on video tape saying the decision was made to "pull"
the building and then we watched it fall. I've seen the video, it is
very obvious what he meant.
They said nothing about "pull out". Why to skeptics just make things
up to suit their puproses? That is not what was said regarding WTC-7.
What was said was "pull", a common term for controlled demolition.
Funny, but it seems to me it is the "skeptics" who should be skeptical
of the official 9/11 story that is so full of inconsistencies and
irregularities that it is pathetic.
I have no idea about chemtrails. Honestly I don't follow that issue.
I think people are reffering to the trails left by jet plains? Big
deal.
Poopbear isn't very smart or informed, I'm afraid.
--
Yes, My Views Do Reflect Those Of The Republican Party
http://www.bedoper.com
khobar
2005-11-11 14:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Republican Party Representative #33
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Post by Pooh Bear
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
even the developer/owner said they were
going to "pull" it.
You've never heard of the phrase 'pull out' ?
Yes. It's what your dad should have done.
However, as no one was fighting the small fires at WTC 7, there was no
one to "pull out".
You fucktard.
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Post by Pooh Bear
Since when was 'pull' used to mean 'blow up' ?
Probably since they started blowing up buildings.
"We're getting ready to pull building 6".
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Post by Pooh Bear
It's astonishing what a tin-foil hatted view of the world does to
sensible analysis.
Tell me about the 'chemtrails' too won't you ?
What do you need to know? Want to see patents on the technology used to
introduce various elements into the atmosphere?
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Post by Pooh Bear
Graham
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up. Silverstein, the
owner of WTC-7, was actually quoted on the PBS documentary stating
that he received a call from the Fire Dept (NYFD) that they were going
to "pull" the building, and he said OK, and watched the building fall
to the ground. I mean, you can't get any more specific than that, the
building owner is on video tape saying the decision was made to "pull"
the building and then we watched it fall. I've seen the video, it is
very obvious what he meant.
They said nothing about "pull out". Why to skeptics just make things
up to suit their puproses? That is not what was said regarding WTC-7.
What was said was "pull", a common term for controlled demolition.
Funny, but it seems to me it is the "skeptics" who should be skeptical
of the official 9/11 story that is so full of inconsistencies and
irregularities that it is pathetic.
I have no idea about chemtrails. Honestly I don't follow that issue.
I think people are reffering to the trails left by jet plains? Big
deal.
Poopbear isn't very smart or informed, I'm afraid.
--
Yes, My Views Do Reflect Those Of The Republican Party
http://www.bedoper.com
Ah, bedoper.com. Have you made the corrections you said you'd make yet?

LOL.

Paul Nixon
Vandar
2005-11-11 22:04:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Post by Pooh Bear
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
even the developer/owner said they were
going to "pull" it.
You've never heard of the phrase 'pull out' ?
Since when was 'pull' used to mean 'blow up' ?
It's astonishing what a tin-foil hatted view of the world does to sensible
analysis.
Tell me about the 'chemtrails' too won't you ?
Graham
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up. Silverstein, the
owner of WTC-7, was actually quoted on the PBS documentary stating that
he received a call from the Fire Dept (NYFD) that they were going to
"pull" the building, and he said OK, and watched the building fall to
the ground. I mean, you can't get any more specific than that, the
building owner is on video tape saying the decision was made to "pull"
the building and then we watched it fall. I've seen the video, it is
very obvious what he meant.
They said nothing about "pull out". Why to skeptics just make things
up to suit their puproses? That is not what was said regarding WTC-7.
What was said was "pull", a common term for controlled demolition.
Funny, but it seems to me it is the "skeptics" who should be skeptical
of the official 9/11 story that is so full of inconsistencies and
irregularities that it is pathetic.
You are aware of the fact that the FDNY does not do demolitions on
skyscrapers, aren't you?
JohnnyCJohnny
2005-11-11 23:32:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vandar
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Post by Pooh Bear
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
even the developer/owner said they were
going to "pull" it.
You've never heard of the phrase 'pull out' ?
Since when was 'pull' used to mean 'blow up' ?
It's astonishing what a tin-foil hatted view of the world does to sensible
analysis.
Tell me about the 'chemtrails' too won't you ?
Graham
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up. Silverstein, the
owner of WTC-7, was actually quoted on the PBS documentary stating that
he received a call from the Fire Dept (NYFD) that they were going to
"pull" the building, and he said OK, and watched the building fall to
the ground. I mean, you can't get any more specific than that, the
building owner is on video tape saying the decision was made to "pull"
the building and then we watched it fall. I've seen the video, it is
very obvious what he meant.
They said nothing about "pull out". Why to skeptics just make things
up to suit their puproses? That is not what was said regarding WTC-7.
What was said was "pull", a common term for controlled demolition.
Funny, but it seems to me it is the "skeptics" who should be skeptical
of the official 9/11 story that is so full of inconsistencies and
irregularities that it is pathetic.
You are aware of the fact that the FDNY does not do demolitions on
skyscrapers, aren't you?
Yes, I am aware of that. FDNY was just alerting the building owner,
because of course they know when something like that is about to
happen. His words, not mine. He said the Fire Dept. called him and
said they (not meaning the FD, but the demo contractors) were going to
"pull" the building, and then we watched the building fall. It's all
on video tape.
Vandar
2005-11-12 00:42:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Post by Vandar
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Post by Pooh Bear
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
even the developer/owner said they were
going to "pull" it.
You've never heard of the phrase 'pull out' ?
Since when was 'pull' used to mean 'blow up' ?
It's astonishing what a tin-foil hatted view of the world does to sensible
analysis.
Tell me about the 'chemtrails' too won't you ?
Graham
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up. Silverstein, the
owner of WTC-7, was actually quoted on the PBS documentary stating that
he received a call from the Fire Dept (NYFD) that they were going to
"pull" the building, and he said OK, and watched the building fall to
the ground. I mean, you can't get any more specific than that, the
building owner is on video tape saying the decision was made to "pull"
the building and then we watched it fall. I've seen the video, it is
very obvious what he meant.
They said nothing about "pull out". Why to skeptics just make things
up to suit their puproses? That is not what was said regarding WTC-7.
What was said was "pull", a common term for controlled demolition.
Funny, but it seems to me it is the "skeptics" who should be skeptical
of the official 9/11 story that is so full of inconsistencies and
irregularities that it is pathetic.
You are aware of the fact that the FDNY does not do demolitions on
skyscrapers, aren't you?
Yes, I am aware of that. FDNY was just alerting the building owner,
because of course they know when something like that is about to
happen. His words, not mine. He said the Fire Dept. called him and
said they (not meaning the FD, but the demo contractors) were going to
"pull" the building, and then we watched the building fall. It's all
on video tape.
I've seen it, but I would also say that you have grossly misinterpreted
the meaning of what Silverstein said.
JohnnyCJohnny
2005-11-12 13:07:55 UTC
Permalink
Why, I saw it and remember Silverstein said. I received a call from
the NYFD and was told that they had decided to "pull" it (WTC-7) and
then we watched it fall to the ground.

That's what he said. He said a decision had been made to "pull" the
building. How I'm I misrepresenting it?

Unlike most situations, anyone can watch the videotape of this
statement and make up their own mind.
Vandar
2005-11-12 18:06:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Why, I saw it and remember Silverstein said. I received a call from
the NYFD and was told that they had decided to "pull" it (WTC-7) and
then we watched it fall to the ground.
That's what he said. He said a decision had been made to "pull" the
building. How I'm I misrepresenting it?
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling
me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the
fire. and I said 'you know, we've such a terrible loss of life, maybe
the smartest thing to do is pull it', and they made that decision to
pull, and we watched the building collapse."

Considering the FDNY does NOT pull buildings as it relates to controlled
demolition, it's very reasonable to assume that what Silverstein was
saying is that as soon as they decided to give up on it and just let the
fire burn (pull the firefighting effort), it collapsed.
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Unlike most situations, anyone can watch the videotape of this
statement and make up their own mind.
They most certainly can: http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV
JohnnyCJohnny
2005-11-14 12:58:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vandar
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Why, I saw it and remember Silverstein said. I received a call from
the NYFD and was told that they had decided to "pull" it (WTC-7) and
then we watched it fall to the ground.
That's what he said. He said a decision had been made to "pull" the
building. How I'm I misrepresenting it?
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling
me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the
fire. and I said 'you know, we've such a terrible loss of life, maybe
the smartest thing to do is pull it', and they made that decision to
pull, and we watched the building collapse."
Considering the FDNY does NOT pull buildings as it relates to controlled
demolition, it's very reasonable to assume that what Silverstein was
saying is that as soon as they decided to give up on it and just let the
fire burn (pull the firefighting effort), it collapsed.
Actually, another known fact from that day is that the FDNY was not
actively fighting fires at WTC-7. I'm not sure why? Perhaps because
of the great loss that had already occurred, perhaps because the site
was to dangerous. So, the fire commander could not have been
referrring to pulling his men away.

"Pull" is a common term for controlled demolision. Of course, the FDNY
is going to be part of a decision to demolish a building in their
juristdiction. There are usually permits that have to be secured from
the Fire Dept. to demolish a building. On 9/11 with all the chaos
there was no chance for permits, so the Fire Dept was part of the
decision to demolish the building on the spot.

"and they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building
collapse."

Yeah, the Fire Dept. made the decision to demolish "pull" the building
and then Silverstein watched it collapse soon afterwards. It was all
captured on tape unfortunately for those who for some reason
desperately try to defend the "official" version of 9/11 events. The
thing I truly find amazing, is that someone who is skeptical should
naturally be skeptical of the government, and everything they do and
say, as the government is the one institution in society that has
proven time and again that they lie and have ulterior motives,
Watergate, Iran Contra, etc. Yet, so-called skeptics just take the
government at their word. What kind of rational analysis is that? You
are taking proven liars at their word regarding 9/11, even when they
have a horrendous track record for telling the truth?!? That is a
bizarre sort of "skepticism". Seems to me "skeptics" should be at the
front of the 9/11 Truth Movement, skeptical of the official government
version of events, especially in light of evidence that directly
contradicts that version.
Sky King
2005-11-14 15:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Post by Vandar
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Why, I saw it and remember Silverstein said. I received a call from
the NYFD and was told that they had decided to "pull" it (WTC-7) and
then we watched it fall to the ground.
That's what he said. He said a decision had been made to "pull" the
building. How I'm I misrepresenting it?
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling
me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the
fire. and I said 'you know, we've such a terrible loss of life, maybe
the smartest thing to do is pull it', and they made that decision to
pull, and we watched the building collapse."
Considering the FDNY does NOT pull buildings as it relates to controlled
demolition, it's very reasonable to assume that what Silverstein was
saying is that as soon as they decided to give up on it and just let the
fire burn (pull the firefighting effort), it collapsed.
Actually, another known fact from that day is that the FDNY was not
actively fighting fires at WTC-7. I'm not sure why? Perhaps because
of the great loss that had already occurred, perhaps because the site
was to dangerous. So, the fire commander could not have been
referrring to pulling his men away.
"Pull" is a common term for controlled demolision.
It is also a term used in context of "pulling" the fireman out of the
building.

So far, the 9/11 Denial Movement has never been able to come up with a
single piece of evidence of explosives.
JohnnyCJohnny
2005-11-14 15:22:02 UTC
Permalink
There are plenty of signatures that indicate explosives took the WTC
down, such as the rate of building collapses and the uniformity of the
collapses (which are both consistent with controlled demolitions and
not consistent with structural failures). Molten steel beneath the
buildings, another occurance associated with controlled demolitions and
not likely with structural failure as the energy is too disperse.

The main reason the 9/11 Truth Seekers can't produce actual explosive
residue is because the debris from the WTC collapses was quickly carted
away from the sites and destroyed, before a thorough examination could
be completed. Another suspicious move on the government's part. You
would obviously conclude that if the worst terrorist attoricity and
building failure in American history occurred, they'd want to take the
time to figure out exactly how and why the buildings collapsed. For
some bizarre reason, probably because they were covering up explosives,
the government quickly carted away the WTC debris and didn't perform a
serious investigation or hold evidence, and now we have no evidence to
examine. How convient if you're trying to cover something up.
tw
2005-11-14 15:46:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
There are plenty of signatures that indicate explosives took the WTC
down, such as the rate of building collapses
LOL! I think that's probably a constant which has a lot to do wkth local
graivity, ekshually...
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
and the uniformity of the collapses
What "uniformity"?!
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
(which are both consistent with controlled demolitions and not consistent
with structural failures)

Prove it.
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Molten steel beneath the buildings,
Gee, you don't think the enormous fires started by fuelled up aircraft ánd
sustaine dby offfice furnishings etc might have had something to do with it?
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
another occurance associated with controlled demolitions
Cite?
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
and not likely with structural failure as the energy is too disperse.
The main reason the 9/11 Truth Seekers
LOL!
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
can't produce actual explosive residue is because the debris from the WTC
collapses was quickly carted
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
away from the sites and destroyed,
Destroyed? How?
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
before a thorough examination could be completed. Another suspicious move
on the government's part. You
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
would obviously conclude that if the worst terrorist attoricity
What's an attoricity?
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
and building failure in American history occurred, they'd want to take the
time to figure out exactly how and why the buildings collapsed.
For some bizarre reason, probably because they were covering up
explosives,
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
the government quickly carted away the WTC debris and didn't perform a
serious investigation or hold evidence, and now we have no evidence to
examine. How convient if you're trying to cover something up.
JohnnyCJohnny
2005-11-14 16:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Buildings that collapse due to structural failure will collapse
unevenly and at a slower rate due to resistance from the standing
building materials, before they are finally brought down, thus there is
a delay and an uneven distribution of building materials at and near
the site. Controlled Demolitions act much more like what you'd expect
gravity to do to an object, hardly any resistance to slow the fall and
an even collapse. That is exactly what we saw at the WTC on 9/11/01.

As far as molten steel goes. It is not clear that the jet fuel fires
were hot enough to produce molten steel, and even if they were, there
is no reason to believe that the molten steel would remain in place
days after the collapse, after being smothered with debris that would
choke oxygen from the fire and cool the steel if that was the cause of
the heat. Molten steel is created in controlled demolitions, due to
the concentrated nature of the collapse and energy produced by such
concentration.

Science tells us the WTC were brought down by explosives. Ignore
science and reality if you want and believe the totally discredited
U.S. government's account. Why would anyone trust our government?!?
What have they done to gain our trust? Viet Nam, Watergate, Iran
Contra, lies lies and more lies. And this is who you believe
regarding 9/11. Naive.
Scott M. Kozel
2005-11-14 16:44:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Buildings that collapse due to structural failure will collapse
unevenly and at a slower rate due to resistance from the standing
building materials, before they are finally brought down, thus there is
a delay and an uneven distribution of building materials at and near
the site. Controlled Demolitions act much more like what you'd expect
gravity to do to an object, hardly any resistance to slow the fall and
an even collapse. That is exactly what we saw at the WTC on 9/11/01.
How many controlled demolitions have there been of buildings over 1,400
feet tall? There have been none even 1/10 that size.
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
As far as molten steel goes. It is not clear that the jet fuel fires
were hot enough to produce molten steel, and even if they were, there
is no reason to believe that the molten steel would remain in place
days after the collapse, after being smothered with debris that would
choke oxygen from the fire and cool the steel if that was the cause of
the heat. Molten steel is created in controlled demolitions, due to
the concentrated nature of the collapse and energy produced by such
concentration.
The collapse of a building over 800,000 tons and over 1,400 feet tall,
most definitely would greatly heat the crushed steel beams that wound up
at the bottom of the pile.

The investigative reports on the WTC collapses, did not claim that the
steel beams became "molten", though.
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Science tells us the WTC were brought down by explosives. Ignore
science and reality if you want and believe the totally discredited
U.S. government's account. Why would anyone trust our government?!?
What have they done to gain our trust? Viet Nam, Watergate, Iran
Contra, lies lies and more lies. And this is who you believe
regarding 9/11. Naive.
Logic tells us that 9/11 Deniers are kooks and a loons. Like most
conspirowackos.
JohnnyCJohnny
2005-11-14 16:53:06 UTC
Permalink
Logic tells you that our government can not be trusted. It is amazing
that people actually look towards the government, of all places for
trust and morals? As if the government has ever demonstrated either
trust or morals?!? I just don't get the marriage between American
conservatism and government. Two very strange bedfellows.

The official 9/11 story is full of holes.
Scott M. Kozel
2005-11-14 17:02:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Logic tells you that our government can not be trusted. It is amazing
Logic tells us that 9/11 Deniers cannot be trusted.
Logic tells us that comspirowacko cannot be trusted.
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
that people actually look towards the government, of all places for
trust and morals? As if the government has ever demonstrated either
trust or morals?!? I just don't get the marriage between American
conservatism and government. Two very strange bedfellows.
Government is made up of the people, and there are many things that the
government does adequately or well.
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
The official 9/11 story is full of holes.
The 9/11 Denial Movement's story is full of holes. Vomit too.
PGP
2005-11-15 00:26:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Logic tells you that our government can not be trusted. It is amazing
Logic tells us that 9/11 Deniers cannot be trusted.
Logic tells us that comspirowacko cannot be trusted.
The government has been shown to be, collectively, liars. Many times over.
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
that people actually look towards the government, of all places for
trust and morals? As if the government has ever demonstrated either
trust or morals?!? I just don't get the marriage between American
conservatism and government. Two very strange bedfellows.
Government is made up of the people, and there are many things that the
government does adequately or well.
Liar.
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
The official 9/11 story is full of holes.
The 9/11 Denial Movement's story is full of holes. Vomit too.
Zing!
--
Pretty Good Pimp

http://www.bedoper.com
Scott M. Kozel
2005-11-15 01:36:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Logic tells you that our government can not be trusted. It is amazing
Logic tells us that 9/11 Deniers cannot be trusted.
Logic tells us that comspirowacko cannot be trusted.
The government has been shown to be, collectively, liars. Many times over.
The 9/11 Denial Movemnent has been shown to be, collectively, liars.
Many times over.
PGP
2005-11-15 02:24:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Logic tells you that our government can not be trusted. It is amazing
Logic tells us that 9/11 Deniers cannot be trusted.
Logic tells us that comspirowacko cannot be trusted.
The government has been shown to be, collectively, liars. Many times over.
The 9/11 Denial Movemnent has been shown to be, collectively, liars.
Many times over.
Cite?
--
Pretty Good Pimp

http://www.bedoper.com
Vandar
2005-11-14 17:46:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Logic tells you that our government can not be trusted. It is amazing
that people actually look towards the government, of all places for
trust and morals? As if the government has ever demonstrated either
trust or morals?!? I just don't get the marriage between American
conservatism and government. Two very strange bedfellows.
The official 9/11 story is full of holes.
Not nearly as many holes as the "controlled demoliton" theory.
m***@yahoo.com.ar
2005-11-14 17:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Scott M. Kozel
How many controlled demolitions have there been of buildings over 1,400
feet tall? There have been none even 1/10 that size.
Well yeah none, but the collapse was *initiated* at the level of a
couple of floors: deja-vu. The rest of the destruction wasn't observed
before but that does not mean it should break the laws of physics.
The investigative reports on the WTC collapses, did not claim that the
steel beams became "molten", though.
No but they found molten steel though (
http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm )

"..Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural
Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides [Eaton] continued,
ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the
event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster."
(Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)

The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly
by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design
of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that "As of 21 days
after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was
still running." (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)

Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and
Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her
canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer
2002, "'Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel
flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet." (Penn,
2002; emphasis added.)

Dr. Allison Geyh was one of a team of public health investigators from
Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in the
Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In
some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel."
Scott M. Kozel
2005-11-14 17:21:16 UTC
Permalink
Scott M. Kozel
Post by Scott M. Kozel
How many controlled demolitions have there been of buildings over 1,400
feet tall? There have been none even 1/10 that size.
Well yeah none, but the collapse was *initiated* at the level of a
couple of floors: deja-vu. The rest of the destruction wasn't observed
before but that does not mean it should break the laws of physics.
According to whom? Where is your evidence?
Post by Scott M. Kozel
The investigative reports on the WTC collapses, did not claim that the
steel beams became "molten", though.
No but they found molten steel though (
http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm )
According to that kook site.
Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins
No credible person reported any such thing during the recovery.
PGP
2005-11-15 00:26:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sky King
Scott M. Kozel
Post by Scott M. Kozel
How many controlled demolitions have there been of buildings over 1,400
feet tall? There have been none even 1/10 that size.
Well yeah none, but the collapse was *initiated* at the level of a
couple of floors: deja-vu. The rest of the destruction wasn't observed
before but that does not mean it should break the laws of physics.
According to whom? Where is your evidence?
Post by Scott M. Kozel
The investigative reports on the WTC collapses, did not claim that the
steel beams became "molten", though.
No but they found molten steel though (
http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm )
According to that kook site.
Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins
No credible person reported any such thing during the recovery.
Are you stupid, or just ignorant?


3. There are several published observations of molten metal in the
basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For
example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural
Engineer,

‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from
molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch
thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural
Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)



The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by
Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of
the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that “As of 21 days after the
attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.”
(Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)

Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and
Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her
canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer
2002,

‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in
the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis
added.)

Dr. Allison Geyh was one of a team of public health investigators from
Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in the
Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some
pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel.” Further
information on the subject is available at
http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?p=11663.



Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the
rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten
steel. However, scientific analysis, using for example X-ray
fluorescence, would be needed to ascertain the actual composition of the
molten metal.



I maintain that these published observations are consistent with the use
of the high-temperature thermite reaction, used to cut or demolish steel.
Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end
products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So
the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough
to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting. On
the other hand, falling buildings (absent explosives) have insufficient
directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal. The
government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to
melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal come from? Metals
expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST) stated:

Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very
intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it
did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added.)

None of the official reports tackles this mystery. Yet this is evidently
a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse. So I
would very much like to see an analysis of the elemental composition of
the metal, and could do this myself if a small sample were made available
according to scientific courtesy. Any reader who knows of chemical
analyses or even photographs of this molten metal found below the rubble
piles of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is invited to speak out and contact the author.
This could lead to an experiment crucis.
--
Pretty Good Pimp

http://www.bedoper.com
Scott M. Kozel
2005-11-15 01:38:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Scott M. Kozel
Post by Scott M. Kozel
The investigative reports on the WTC collapses, did not claim that the
steel beams became "molten", though.
No but they found molten steel though (
http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm )
According to that kook site.
Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins
No credible person reported any such thing during the recovery.
Are you stupid, or just ignorant?
You are, apparently.

None of the crap that you posted is from a CREDIBLE source.

[crap snipped]
PGP
2005-11-15 02:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Scott M. Kozel
Post by Scott M. Kozel
The investigative reports on the WTC collapses, did not claim
that the steel beams became "molten", though.
No but they found molten steel though (
http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm )
According to that kook site.
Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins
No credible person reported any such thing during the recovery.
Are you stupid, or just ignorant?
You are, apparently.
Thank you, Peewee Herman.
Post by Scott M. Kozel
None of the crap that you posted is from a CREDIBLE source.
NIST scientists?

Structural Engineer Magazine?

Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine?


Who is credible, to you?

G.W. Bush?

; )
Post by Scott M. Kozel
[crap snipped]
Coward...

; )
I don't think you even believe your own crap anymore, Scott.




3. There are several published observations of molten metal in the
basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For
example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural
Engineer,

‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from
molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch
thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural
Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)



The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by
Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of
the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that “As of 21 days after the
attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.”
(Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)

Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and
Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her
canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer
2002,

‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in
the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis
added.)

Dr. Allison Geyh was one of a team of public health investigators from
Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in the
Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some
pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel.” Further
information on the subject is available at
http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?p=11663.



Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the
rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten
steel. However, scientific analysis, using for example X-ray
fluorescence, would be needed to ascertain the actual composition of the
molten metal.



I maintain that these published observations are consistent with the use
of the high-temperature thermite reaction, used to cut or demolish steel.
Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end
products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So
the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough
to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting. On
the other hand, falling buildings (absent explosives) have insufficient
directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal. The
government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to
melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal come from? Metals
expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST) stated:

Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very
intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it
did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added.)

None of the official reports tackles this mystery. Yet this is evidently
a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse. So I
would very much like to see an analysis of the elemental composition of
the metal, and could do this myself if a small sample were made available
according to scientific courtesy. Any reader who knows of chemical
analyses or even photographs of this molten metal found below the rubble
piles of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is invited to speak out and contact the author.
This could lead to an experiment crucis.
--
Pretty Good Pimp

http://www.bedoper.com
Scott M. Kozel
2005-11-15 02:46:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Scott M. Kozel
Post by Scott M. Kozel
The investigative reports on the WTC collapses, did not claim
that the steel beams became "molten", though.
No but they found molten steel though (
http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm )
According to that kook site.
Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins
No credible person reported any such thing during the recovery.
Are you stupid, or just ignorant?
You are, apparently.
Thank you, Peewee Herman.
Post by Scott M. Kozel
None of the crap that you posted is from a CREDIBLE source.
NIST scientists?
Structural Engineer Magazine?
Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine?
Who is credible, to you?
None of the crap that you posted comes directly from those sources.

[crap snipped]
Sky King
2005-11-14 19:08:15 UTC
Permalink
No evidence of controlled demolition has ever been presented.

The NIST report remains unrefuted.
PGP
2005-11-15 00:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Buildings that collapse due to structural failure will collapse
unevenly and at a slower rate due to resistance from the standing
building materials, before they are finally brought down, thus there is
a delay and an uneven distribution of building materials at and near
the site. Controlled Demolitions act much more like what you'd expect
gravity to do to an object, hardly any resistance to slow the fall and
an even collapse. That is exactly what we saw at the WTC on 9/11/01.
How many controlled demolitions have there been of buildings over 1,400
feet tall? There have been none even 1/10 that size.
And?
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
As far as molten steel goes. It is not clear that the jet fuel fires
were hot enough to produce molten steel, and even if they were, there
is no reason to believe that the molten steel would remain in place
days after the collapse, after being smothered with debris that would
choke oxygen from the fire and cool the steel if that was the cause of
the heat. Molten steel is created in controlled demolitions, due to
the concentrated nature of the collapse and energy produced by such
concentration.
The collapse of a building over 800,000 tons and over 1,400 feet tall,
most definitely would greatly heat the crushed steel beams that wound up
at the bottom of the pile.
The investigative reports on the WTC collapses, did not claim that the
steel beams became "molten", though.
And?




3. There are several published observations of molten metal in the
basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For
example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural
Engineer,

‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from
molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch
thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural
Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)



The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by
Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of
the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that “As of 21 days after the
attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.”
(Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)

Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and
Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her
canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer
2002,

‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in
the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis
added.)

Dr. Allison Geyh was one of a team of public health investigators from
Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in the
Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some
pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel.” Further
information on the subject is available at
http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?p=11663.



Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the
rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten
steel. However, scientific analysis, using for example X-ray
fluorescence, would be needed to ascertain the actual composition of the
molten metal.



I maintain that these published observations are consistent with the use
of the high-temperature thermite reaction, used to cut or demolish steel.
Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end
products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So
the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough
to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting. On
the other hand, falling buildings (absent explosives) have insufficient
directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal. The
government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to
melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal come from? Metals
expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST) stated:

Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very
intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it
did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added.)

None of the official reports tackles this mystery. Yet this is evidently
a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse. So I
would very much like to see an analysis of the elemental composition of
the metal, and could do this myself if a small sample were made available
according to scientific courtesy. Any reader who knows of chemical
analyses or even photographs of this molten metal found below the rubble
piles of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is invited to speak out and contact the author.
This could lead to an experiment crucis.
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Science tells us the WTC were brought down by explosives. Ignore
science and reality if you want and believe the totally discredited
U.S. government's account. Why would anyone trust our government?!?
What have they done to gain our trust? Viet Nam, Watergate, Iran
Contra, lies lies and more lies. And this is who you believe
regarding 9/11. Naive.
Logic tells us that 9/11 Deniers are kooks and a loons. Like most
conspirowackos.
I heard you're just another filthy dicksucker.
--
Pretty Good Pimp

http://www.bedoper.com
Sky King
2005-11-14 17:02:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Buildings that collapse due to structural failure will collapse
unevenly and at a slower rate due to resistance from the standing
building materials, before they are finally brought down, thus there is
a delay and an uneven distribution of building materials at and near
the site.
According to whom? Where is your evidence?
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Controlled Demolitions act much more like what you'd expect
gravity to do to an object, hardly any resistance to slow the fall and
an even collapse. That is exactly what we saw at the WTC on 9/11/01.
According to whom? Where is your evidence?
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
As far as molten steel goes. It is not clear that the jet fuel fires
were hot enough to produce molten steel, and even if they were, there
is no reason to believe that the molten steel would remain in place
days after the collapse, after being smothered with debris that would
choke oxygen from the fire and cool the steel if that was the cause of
the heat. Molten steel is created in controlled demolitions, due to
the concentrated nature of the collapse and energy produced by such
concentration.
According to whom? Where is your evidence?
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Science tells us the WTC were brought down by explosives.
According to whom? Where is your evidence?
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Ignore
science and reality if you want and believe the totally discredited
U.S. government's account.
According to whom? Where is your evidence?
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Why would anyone trust our government?!?
You haven't given us a single reason to trust you.
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
What have they done to gain our trust? Viet Nam, Watergate, Iran
Contra, lies lies and more lies.
Give us evidence instead of whining, ok?
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
And this is who you believe
regarding 9/11. Naive.
You are a gullible type. You have yet to refute the NIST report. Can
you explain why you are unable to?
Vandar
2005-11-14 17:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Buildings that collapse due to structural failure will collapse
unevenly and at a slower rate due to resistance from the standing
building materials, before they are finally brought down, thus there is
a delay and an uneven distribution of building materials at and near
the site. Controlled Demolitions act much more like what you'd expect
gravity to do to an object, hardly any resistance to slow the fall and
an even collapse. That is exactly what we saw at the WTC on 9/11/01.
As far as molten steel goes. It is not clear that the jet fuel fires
were hot enough to produce molten steel, and even if they were, there
is no reason to believe that the molten steel would remain in place
days after the collapse, after being smothered with debris that would
choke oxygen from the fire and cool the steel if that was the cause of
the heat. Molten steel is created in controlled demolitions, due to
the concentrated nature of the collapse and energy produced by such
concentration.
Science tells us the WTC were brought down by explosives.
In reality, science proves that they weren't.
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Ignore
science and reality if you want and believe the totally discredited
U.S. government's account. Why would anyone trust our government?!?
What have they done to gain our trust? Viet Nam, Watergate, Iran
Contra, lies lies and more lies. And this is who you believe
regarding 9/11. Naive.
Screw the government. I believe the facts, and the facts say that there
was no controlled demolition on 9/11. None.
Bryan Olson
2005-11-14 19:13:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Seems to me "skeptics" should be at the
front of the 9/11 Truth Movement, skeptical of the official government
version of events, especially in light of evidence that directly
contradicts that version.
Oh yeah... You're the guy who saw a 60 Minutes piece about a
stage magician then wrote how skeptics were irrational for not
accepting that the guy has parnormal powers.
--
--Bryan
khobar
2005-11-14 20:20:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Post by Vandar
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Why, I saw it and remember Silverstein said. I received a call from
the NYFD and was told that they had decided to "pull" it (WTC-7) and
then we watched it fall to the ground.
That's what he said. He said a decision had been made to "pull" the
building. How I'm I misrepresenting it?
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling
me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the
fire. and I said 'you know, we've such a terrible loss of life, maybe
the smartest thing to do is pull it', and they made that decision to
pull, and we watched the building collapse."
Considering the FDNY does NOT pull buildings as it relates to controlled
demolition, it's very reasonable to assume that what Silverstein was
saying is that as soon as they decided to give up on it and just let the
fire burn (pull the firefighting effort), it collapsed.
"Pull" is a common term for controlled demolision. Of course, the FDNY
You keep saying that but refuse to provide any proof. Why?

Paul Nixon
Diana BB
2005-11-13 12:48:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vandar
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Post by Vandar
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Post by Pooh Bear
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
even the developer/owner said they were
going to "pull" it.
You've never heard of the phrase 'pull out' ?
Since when was 'pull' used to mean 'blow up' ?
It's astonishing what a tin-foil hatted view of the world does to sensible
analysis.
Tell me about the 'chemtrails' too won't you ?
Graham
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up. Silverstein, the
owner of WTC-7, was actually quoted on the PBS documentary stating that
he received a call from the Fire Dept (NYFD) that they were going to
"pull" the building, and he said OK, and watched the building fall to
the ground. I mean, you can't get any more specific than that, the
building owner is on video tape saying the decision was made to "pull"
the building and then we watched it fall. I've seen the video, it is
very obvious what he meant.
They said nothing about "pull out". Why to skeptics just make things
up to suit their puproses? That is not what was said regarding WTC-7.
What was said was "pull", a common term for controlled demolition.
Funny, but it seems to me it is the "skeptics" who should be skeptical
of the official 9/11 story that is so full of inconsistencies and
irregularities that it is pathetic.
You are aware of the fact that the FDNY does not do demolitions on
skyscrapers, aren't you?
Yes, I am aware of that. FDNY was just alerting the building owner,
because of course they know when something like that is about to
happen. His words, not mine. He said the Fire Dept. called him and
said they (not meaning the FD, but the demo contractors) were going to
"pull" the building, and then we watched the building fall. It's all
on video tape.
I've seen it, but I would also say that you have grossly misinterpreted
the meaning of what Silverstein said.
He may have misinterpreted the words but a picture paints a thousand words.
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm

Then a visit here will help...

http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm
Bryan Olson
2005-11-13 14:34:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diana BB
He may have misinterpreted the words but a picture paints a thousand words.
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm
What a stupid page. "Squibs from cutting charges"? Squibs are
charges; what the heck do they even mean? Did they notice
that the near corner doesn't have any of these "squibs"? They
obviously don't know anything about explosive demolition.
Post by Diana BB
Then a visit here will help...
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm
Yeah, it refutes the idea of explosives taking down WTC7.
How many witnesses to the real implosions do you think you'd
have to interview before finding a few who thought they heard
a bang?
--
--Bryan
Vandar
2005-11-13 20:08:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diana BB
Post by Vandar
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Post by Vandar
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Post by Pooh Bear
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
even the developer/owner said they were
going to "pull" it.
You've never heard of the phrase 'pull out' ?
Since when was 'pull' used to mean 'blow up' ?
It's astonishing what a tin-foil hatted view of the world does to sensible
analysis.
Tell me about the 'chemtrails' too won't you ?
Graham
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up. Silverstein, the
owner of WTC-7, was actually quoted on the PBS documentary stating that
he received a call from the Fire Dept (NYFD) that they were going to
"pull" the building, and he said OK, and watched the building fall to
the ground. I mean, you can't get any more specific than that, the
building owner is on video tape saying the decision was made to "pull"
the building and then we watched it fall. I've seen the video, it is
very obvious what he meant.
They said nothing about "pull out". Why to skeptics just make things
up to suit their puproses? That is not what was said regarding WTC-7.
What was said was "pull", a common term for controlled demolition.
Funny, but it seems to me it is the "skeptics" who should be skeptical
of the official 9/11 story that is so full of inconsistencies and
irregularities that it is pathetic.
You are aware of the fact that the FDNY does not do demolitions on
skyscrapers, aren't you?
Yes, I am aware of that. FDNY was just alerting the building owner,
because of course they know when something like that is about to
happen. His words, not mine. He said the Fire Dept. called him and
said they (not meaning the FD, but the demo contractors) were going to
"pull" the building, and then we watched the building fall. It's all
on video tape.
I've seen it, but I would also say that you have grossly
misinterpreted the meaning of what Silverstein said.
He may have misinterpreted the words but a picture paints a thousand words.
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm
You expect us to believe that they only placed these "explosives" on one
corner?
Post by Diana BB
Then a visit here will help...
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm
The events of 9/11 in no way resemble any controlled demolition in history.
Pedantus
2005-11-14 00:09:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vandar
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Post by Vandar
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Post by Pooh Bear
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
even the developer/owner said they were
going to "pull" it.
You've never heard of the phrase 'pull out' ?
Since when was 'pull' used to mean 'blow up' ?
It's astonishing what a tin-foil hatted view of the world does to sensible
analysis.
Tell me about the 'chemtrails' too won't you ?
Graham
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up. Silverstein, the
owner of WTC-7, was actually quoted on the PBS documentary stating that
he received a call from the Fire Dept (NYFD) that they were going to
"pull" the building, and he said OK, and watched the building fall to
the ground. I mean, you can't get any more specific than that, the
building owner is on video tape saying the decision was made to "pull"
the building and then we watched it fall. I've seen the video, it is
very obvious what he meant.
They said nothing about "pull out". Why to skeptics just make things
up to suit their puproses? That is not what was said regarding WTC-7.
What was said was "pull", a common term for controlled demolition.
Funny, but it seems to me it is the "skeptics" who should be skeptical
of the official 9/11 story that is so full of inconsistencies and
irregularities that it is pathetic.
You are aware of the fact that the FDNY does not do demolitions on
skyscrapers, aren't you?
Yes, I am aware of that. FDNY was just alerting the building owner,
because of course they know when something like that is about to
happen. His words, not mine. He said the Fire Dept. called him and
said they (not meaning the FD, but the demo contractors) were going to
"pull" the building, and then we watched the building fall. It's all
on video tape.
I've seen it, but I would also say that you have grossly misinterpreted
the meaning of what Silverstein said.
That's silly, Silverman was very clear about what "pull the building"
meant. You can see him say again at about 4:00 mins into this trailer for a
conspiracy video....:)
http://70.84.33.210/~infomedi/video/previews/080405martialpreview4.wmv
PGP
2005-11-14 00:24:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pedantus
Post by Vandar
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Post by Vandar
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Post by Pooh Bear
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
even the developer/owner said they were
going to "pull" it.
You've never heard of the phrase 'pull out' ?
Since when was 'pull' used to mean 'blow up' ?
It's astonishing what a tin-foil hatted view of the world does to sensible
analysis.
Tell me about the 'chemtrails' too won't you ?
Graham
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up. Silverstein,
the owner of WTC-7, was actually quoted on the PBS documentary
stating that he received a call from the Fire Dept (NYFD) that they
were going to "pull" the building, and he said OK, and watched the
building fall to the ground. I mean, you can't get any more
specific than that, the building owner is on video tape saying the
decision was made to "pull" the building and then we watched it
fall. I've seen the video, it is very obvious what he meant.
They said nothing about "pull out". Why to skeptics just make
things up to suit their puproses? That is not what was said
regarding WTC-7. What was said was "pull", a common term for
controlled demolition. Funny, but it seems to me it is the
"skeptics" who should be skeptical of the official 9/11 story that
is so full of inconsistencies and irregularities that it is
pathetic.
You are aware of the fact that the FDNY does not do demolitions on
skyscrapers, aren't you?
Yes, I am aware of that. FDNY was just alerting the building owner,
because of course they know when something like that is about to
happen. His words, not mine. He said the Fire Dept. called him and
said they (not meaning the FD, but the demo contractors) were going
to "pull" the building, and then we watched the building fall. It's
all on video tape.
I've seen it, but I would also say that you have grossly
misinterpreted the meaning of what Silverstein said.
That's silly, Silverman was very clear about what "pull the
building"
meant. You can see him say again at about 4:00 mins into this trailer
for a conspiracy video....:)
http://70.84.33.210/~infomedi/video/previews/080405martialpreview4.wmv
What do you expect?

The shills are desperate.
--
Pretty Good Pimp

http://www.bedoper.com
Sky King
2005-11-14 00:58:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pedantus
That's silly, Silverman was very clear about what "pull the building"
meant.
Prove it, bubba.

And I mean definitive proof, absolute, unqualified proof that Silverman
used the term "pull it" as the slang is used by demolition teams.
Post by Pedantus
You can see him say again at about 4:00 mins into this trailer for a
conspiracy video....:)
http://70.84.33.210/~infomedi/video/previews/080405martialpreview4.wmv
That doesn't prove your case, bubba Pedant, does it? It does not show
us in any way whatsoever that he USED the term in the way you
arrogantly claim.

Now, prove it or admit you don't have ANY evidence for your claim.
Pedantus
2005-11-14 11:54:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sky King
Post by Pedantus
That's silly, Silverman was very clear about what "pull the building"
meant.
Prove it, bubba.
And I mean definitive proof, absolute, unqualified proof that Silverman
used the term "pull it" as the slang is used by demolition teams.
Post by Pedantus
You can see him say again at about 4:00 mins into this trailer for a
conspiracy video....:)
http://70.84.33.210/~infomedi/video/previews/080405martialpreview4.wmv
That doesn't prove your case, bubba Pedant, does it? It does not show
us in any way whatsoever that he USED the term in the way you
arrogantly claim.
Now, prove it or admit you don't have ANY evidence for your claim.
LOL....You must be thinking of the case for the existence of "bible-god"
or "jesus the undead", whatever....:)
tw
2005-11-14 13:50:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pedantus
Post by Sky King
Post by Pedantus
That's silly, Silverman was very clear about what "pull the building"
meant.
Prove it, bubba.
And I mean definitive proof, absolute, unqualified proof that Silverman
used the term "pull it" as the slang is used by demolition teams.
Post by Pedantus
You can see him say again at about 4:00 mins into this trailer for a
conspiracy video....:)
http://70.84.33.210/~infomedi/video/previews/080405martialpreview4.wmv
That doesn't prove your case, bubba Pedant, does it? It does not show
us in any way whatsoever that he USED the term in the way you
arrogantly claim.
Now, prove it or admit you don't have ANY evidence for your claim.
LOL....You must be thinking of the case for the existence of "bible-god"
or "jesus the undead", whatever....:)
i.e. you can't prove what Silverman meant by "pull the building" so you'l
run away. Again.
Pedantus
2005-11-15 02:10:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pedantus
Post by Pedantus
Post by Sky King
Post by Pedantus
That's silly, Silverman was very clear about what "pull the building"
meant.
Prove it, bubba.
And I mean definitive proof, absolute, unqualified proof that Silverman
used the term "pull it" as the slang is used by demolition teams.
Post by Pedantus
You can see him say again at about 4:00 mins into this trailer for a
conspiracy video....:)
http://70.84.33.210/~infomedi/video/previews/080405martialpreview4.wmv
That doesn't prove your case, bubba Pedant, does it? It does not show
us in any way whatsoever that he USED the term in the way you
arrogantly claim.
Now, prove it or admit you don't have ANY evidence for your claim.
LOL....You must be thinking of the case for the existence of
"bible-god"
Post by Pedantus
or "jesus the undead", whatever....:)
i.e. you can't prove what Silverman meant by "pull the building" so you'l
run away. Again.
It is you who has the problem understanding Silverman...guess he meant
pull my pud, er sumpin like dat, huh...:)?
PGP
2005-11-15 02:35:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pedantus
Post by Pedantus
Post by Pedantus
Post by Sky King
Post by Pedantus
That's silly, Silverman was very clear about what "pull the building"
meant.
Prove it, bubba.
And I mean definitive proof, absolute, unqualified proof that
Silverman used the term "pull it" as the slang is used by
demolition teams.
Post by Pedantus
You can see him say again at about 4:00 mins into this trailer
for a conspiracy video....:)
http://70.84.33.210/~infomedi/video/previews/080405martialpreview4
.wmv
That doesn't prove your case, bubba Pedant, does it? It does not
show us in any way whatsoever that he USED the term in the way you
arrogantly claim.
Now, prove it or admit you don't have ANY evidence for your claim.
LOL....You must be thinking of the case for the existence of
"bible-god"
Post by Pedantus
or "jesus the undead", whatever....:)
i.e. you can't prove what Silverman meant by "pull the building" so
you'l run away. Again.
It is you who has the problem understanding Silverman...guess he meant
pull my pud, er sumpin like dat, huh...:)?
Silvernstein.


And you're clearly a genius.
--
Pretty Good Pimp

http://www.bedoper.com
Vandar
2005-11-15 02:45:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by PGP
Post by Pedantus
Post by Pedantus
Post by Pedantus
Post by Sky King
Post by Pedantus
That's silly, Silverman was very clear about what "pull the building"
meant.
Prove it, bubba.
And I mean definitive proof, absolute, unqualified proof that
Silverman used the term "pull it" as the slang is used by
demolition teams.
Post by Pedantus
You can see him say again at about 4:00 mins into this trailer
for a conspiracy video....:)
http://70.84.33.210/~infomedi/video/previews/080405martialpreview4
.wmv
That doesn't prove your case, bubba Pedant, does it? It does not
show us in any way whatsoever that he USED the term in the way you
arrogantly claim.
Now, prove it or admit you don't have ANY evidence for your claim.
LOL....You must be thinking of the case for the existence of
"bible-god"
Post by Pedantus
or "jesus the undead", whatever....:)
i.e. you can't prove what Silverman meant by "pull the building" so
you'l run away. Again.
It is you who has the problem understanding Silverman...guess he meant
pull my pud, er sumpin like dat, huh...:)?
Silvernstein.
Silverstein.
Post by PGP
And you're clearly a genius.
And you clearly aren't.
Republican Party Representative #33
2005-11-12 00:52:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Post by Vandar
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Post by Pooh Bear
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
even the developer/owner said they were
going to "pull" it.
You've never heard of the phrase 'pull out' ?
Since when was 'pull' used to mean 'blow up' ?
It's astonishing what a tin-foil hatted view of the world does to
sensible analysis.
Tell me about the 'chemtrails' too won't you ?
Graham
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up. Silverstein,
the owner of WTC-7, was actually quoted on the PBS documentary
stating that he received a call from the Fire Dept (NYFD) that they
were going to "pull" the building, and he said OK, and watched the
building fall to the ground. I mean, you can't get any more
specific than that, the building owner is on video tape saying the
decision was made to "pull" the building and then we watched it
fall. I've seen the video, it is very obvious what he meant.
They said nothing about "pull out". Why to skeptics just make
things up to suit their puproses? That is not what was said
regarding WTC-7. What was said was "pull", a common term for
controlled demolition. Funny, but it seems to me it is the
"skeptics" who should be skeptical of the official 9/11 story that
is so full of inconsistencies and irregularities that it is
pathetic.
You are aware of the fact that the FDNY does not do demolitions on
skyscrapers, aren't you?
Yes, I am aware of that. FDNY was just alerting the building owner,
because of course they know when something like that is about to
happen. His words, not mine. He said the Fire Dept. called him and
said they (not meaning the FD, but the demo contractors) were going to
"pull" the building, and then we watched the building fall. It's all
on video tape.
Furthermore, of course FDNY would be on hand for any and all demolitions
in the city limits.
--
Yes, My Views Do Reflect Those Of The Republican Party
http://www.bedoper.com
khobar
2005-11-12 00:51:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Post by Vandar
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
Post by Pooh Bear
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
even the developer/owner said they were
going to "pull" it.
You've never heard of the phrase 'pull out' ?
Since when was 'pull' used to mean 'blow up' ?
It's astonishing what a tin-foil hatted view of the world does to sensible
analysis.
Tell me about the 'chemtrails' too won't you ?
Graham
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up. Silverstein, the
owner of WTC-7, was actually quoted on the PBS documentary stating that
he received a call from the Fire Dept (NYFD) that they were going to
"pull" the building, and he said OK, and watched the building fall to
the ground. I mean, you can't get any more specific than that, the
building owner is on video tape saying the decision was made to "pull"
the building and then we watched it fall. I've seen the video, it is
very obvious what he meant.
They said nothing about "pull out". Why to skeptics just make things
up to suit their puproses? That is not what was said regarding WTC-7.
What was said was "pull", a common term for controlled demolition.
Funny, but it seems to me it is the "skeptics" who should be skeptical
of the official 9/11 story that is so full of inconsistencies and
irregularities that it is pathetic.
You are aware of the fact that the FDNY does not do demolitions on
skyscrapers, aren't you?
Yes, I am aware of that. FDNY was just alerting the building owner,
because of course they know when something like that is about to
happen. His words, not mine. He said the Fire Dept. called him and
said they (not meaning the FD, but the demo contractors) were going to
"pull" the building, and then we watched the building fall. It's all
on video tape.
I thought the FDNY was reporting that they were uncertain about being able
to bring the fire under control and that it was Silverstein who suggested to
"pull it" to prevent further loss of life. That's what the conspiracy sites
say on the matter. Seems strange that you'd get simple detail wrong in all
this.

Paul Nixon
JohnnyCJohnny
2005-11-12 13:17:16 UTC
Permalink
No, that's not what was said. For one thing, the fires in WTC-7 were
very small and certainly posed no threat the the building structure, as
much larger building-wide fires have failed to bring down similiar
steel-framed buildings. There's no way WTC-7 was going to come down
from fires. Look at the pictures from 9/11/01, the fires are barely
even burning in two small areas.
Vandar
2005-11-12 18:08:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
No, that's not what was said. For one thing, the fires in WTC-7 were
very small and certainly posed no threat the the building structure, as
much larger building-wide fires have failed to bring down similiar
steel-framed buildings. There's no way WTC-7 was going to come down
from fires. Look at the pictures from 9/11/01, the fires are barely
even burning in two small areas.
You either haven't listened to or don't remember what Silverstein said.
JohnnyCJohnny
2005-11-12 16:50:34 UTC
Permalink
BYU professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC

By Elaine Jarvik
Deseret Morning News
The physics of 9/11 - including how fast and symmetrically one
of the World Trade Center buildings fell - prove that official
explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young
University physics professor.
In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives"
in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones.
In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed
publication next year, Jones adds his voice to those of previous
skeptics, including the authors of the Web site www.wtc7.net, whose
research Jones quotes. Jones' article can be found at
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.
Stuart Johnson, Deseret Morning News"It is quite plausible that
explosives were pre-planted in all three (WTC) buildings," BYU physics
professor Steven E. Jones says. Jones, who conducts research in
fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent,
international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized
notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations.
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all
three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes - which were
actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to
blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes.
As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives,
Jones said, "I don't usually go there. There's no point in doing that
until we do the scientific investigation."
Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11
Commission and NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and
Technology), ignore the physics and chemistry of what happened on Sept.
11, 2001, to the Twin Towers and the 47-story building known as WTC 7,
he says. The official explanation - that fires caused structural
damage that caused the buildings to collapse - can't be backed up by
either testing or history, he says.
Jones acknowledges that there have been "junk science" conspiracy
theories about what happened on 9/11, but "the explosive demolition
hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and
therefore is not 'junk science.' "
In a 9,000-word article that Jones says will be published in the
book "The Hidden History of 9/11," by Elsevier, Jones offers these
arguments:
· The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling
down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled
demolition" - and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why would
terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers
when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do
much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would
they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a
symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here,
along with other data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."

· No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings,
has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever
steel columns, he says.

· WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6
seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object
dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must
be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational
laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike
lower floors - and intact steel support columns - the fall must be
significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper
floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the
collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the
explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed
lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near
free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by
FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.

· With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a
piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the
towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were
falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without
explosives? Remarkable, amazing - and demanding scrutiny since the
U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."

· Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed
proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when
pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.

· Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require
temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel - and
neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that
hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a
few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20
minutes in any given location, he says.

· Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center
may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly
used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by
explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of
large quantities of metal," Jones says.

· Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by
numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions
occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says.

Jones says he became interested in the physics of the WTC
collapse after attending a talk last spring given by a woman who had
had a near-death experience. The woman mentioned in passing that "if
you think the World Trade Center buildings came down just due to fire,
you have a lot of surprises ahead of you," Jones remembers, at which
point "everyone around me started applauding."
Following several months of study, he presented his findings at a
talk at BYU in September.
Jones says he would like the government to release 6,899
photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage for "independent
scrutiny." He would also like to analyze a small sample of the molten
metal found at Ground Zero.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JohnnyCJohnny
2005-11-12 16:51:50 UTC
Permalink
Link to above story:

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C635160132%2C00.htm
Bryan Olson
2005-11-13 14:43:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up.
Help me out: where did you look it up?
--
--Bryan
PGP
2005-11-13 16:20:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up.
Help me out: where did you look it up?
"We're getting ready to pull building 6"...

Right before they imploded it.


There was no one to "pull" from building 7, as it had been evacuated
earlier that day. And there were no firefighting efforts at WTC 7.

For some odd reason.
--
Pretty Good Pimp

http://www.bedoper.com
Vandar
2005-11-13 20:09:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up.
Help me out: where did you look it up?
"We're getting ready to pull building 6"...
Right before they imploded it.
There was no one to "pull" from building 7, as it had been evacuated
earlier that day. And there were no firefighting efforts at WTC 7.
For some odd reason.
You need to listen to Silverstein's comments again (or for the first
time). The reason the Dept. Commander called him was to tell him that
they didn't think they could control the fire.
Scott M. Kozel
2005-11-13 22:10:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vandar
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up.
Help me out: where did you look it up?
"We're getting ready to pull building 6"...
Right before they imploded it.
There was no one to "pull" from building 7, as it had been evacuated
earlier that day. And there were no firefighting efforts at WTC 7.
For some odd reason.
You need to listen to Silverstein's comments again (or for the first
time). The reason the Dept. Commander called him was to tell him that
they didn't think they could control the fire.
A large diesel fuel tank was burning inside WTC 7, there were no people
in the building left to rescue, and NYFD had just lost a substantial
number of its personnel and equipment. It was a reasonable decision to
remove firefighting efforts from the building.
PGP
2005-11-13 22:46:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Vandar
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up.
Help me out: where did you look it up?
"We're getting ready to pull building 6"...
Right before they imploded it.
There was no one to "pull" from building 7, as it had been evacuated
earlier that day. And there were no firefighting efforts at WTC 7.
For some odd reason.
You need to listen to Silverstein's comments again (or for the first
time). The reason the Dept. Commander called him was to tell him that
they didn't think they could control the fire.
Cite?
Post by Scott M. Kozel
A large diesel fuel tank was burning inside WTC 7,
Speculation, unsupported by evidence.
Post by Scott M. Kozel
there were no people
in the building left to rescue, and NYFD had just lost a substantial
number of its personnel and equipment. It was a reasonable decision to
remove firefighting efforts from the building.
There were no firefighting efforts at WTC 7...
--
Pretty Good Pimp

http://www.bedoper.com
Scott M. Kozel
2005-11-13 23:30:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Vandar
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up.
Help me out: where did you look it up?
"We're getting ready to pull building 6"...
Right before they imploded it.
There was no one to "pull" from building 7, as it had been evacuated
earlier that day. And there were no firefighting efforts at WTC 7.
For some odd reason.
You need to listen to Silverstein's comments again (or for the first
time). The reason the Dept. Commander called him was to tell him that
they didn't think they could control the fire.
Cite?
Post by Scott M. Kozel
A large diesel fuel tank was burning inside WTC 7,
Speculation, unsupported by evidence.
Proven in the investigation.
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
there were no people
in the building left to rescue, and NYFD had just lost a substantial
number of its personnel and equipment. It was a reasonable decision to
remove firefighting efforts from the building.
There were no firefighting efforts at WTC 7...
The disposition of WTC 7 was unimportant at that point.
PGP
2005-11-13 23:50:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Vandar
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up.
Help me out: where did you look it up?
"We're getting ready to pull building 6"...
Right before they imploded it.
There was no one to "pull" from building 7, as it had been
evacuated earlier that day. And there were no firefighting
efforts at WTC 7.
For some odd reason.
You need to listen to Silverstein's comments again (or for the
first time). The reason the Dept. Commander called him was to tell
him that they didn't think they could control the fire.
Cite?
Post by Scott M. Kozel
A large diesel fuel tank was burning inside WTC 7,
Speculation, unsupported by evidence.
Proven in the investigation.
Cite?
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
there were no people
in the building left to rescue, and NYFD had just lost a
substantial number of its personnel and equipment. It was a
reasonable decision to remove firefighting efforts from the
building.
There were no firefighting efforts at WTC 7...
The disposition of WTC 7 was unimportant at that point.
That's a nice flip-flip, Scott.
--
Pretty Good Pimp

http://www.bedoper.com
Scott M. Kozel
2005-11-14 00:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Vandar
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up.
Help me out: where did you look it up?
"We're getting ready to pull building 6"...
Right before they imploded it.
There was no one to "pull" from building 7, as it had been
evacuated earlier that day. And there were no firefighting
efforts at WTC 7.
For some odd reason.
You need to listen to Silverstein's comments again (or for the
first time). The reason the Dept. Commander called him was to tell
him that they didn't think they could control the fire.
Cite?
Post by Scott M. Kozel
A large diesel fuel tank was burning inside WTC 7,
Speculation, unsupported by evidence.
Proven in the investigation.
Cite?
You've seen the official report links.
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
there were no people
in the building left to rescue, and NYFD had just lost a
substantial number of its personnel and equipment. It was a
reasonable decision to remove firefighting efforts from the
building.
There were no firefighting efforts at WTC 7...
The disposition of WTC 7 was unimportant at that point.
That's a nice flip-flip, Scott.
No, it is right in line with what I said. Given the number of
firefighters already killed and injured, and given the amount of FD
equipment that had been destroyed, and the fact that there was nobody in
WTC 7 that needed rescue, FDNY decided to stop firefighting efforts at
WTC 7, and it was a reasonable decision.
PGP
2005-11-14 01:18:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Vandar
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up.
Help me out: where did you look it up?
"We're getting ready to pull building 6"...
Right before they imploded it.
There was no one to "pull" from building 7, as it had been
evacuated earlier that day. And there were no firefighting
efforts at WTC 7.
For some odd reason.
You need to listen to Silverstein's comments again (or for the
first time). The reason the Dept. Commander called him was to tell
him that they didn't think they could control the fire.
Cite?
Post by Scott M. Kozel
A large diesel fuel tank was burning inside WTC 7,
Speculation, unsupported by evidence.
Proven in the investigation.
Cite?
You've seen the official report links.
That's correct.

So where is your supporting evidence of a large diesel fuel tank burning?

Or theirs, for that matter?

There was never any physical evidence of a large diesel fire.

Do you think diesel in a high-rise is unusual?

Do you think diesel can make a high-rise building collapse in a
symmetrical fashion?


The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to
collapse [“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the
total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the
best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability
of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed
to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)


A low probability of occurrence, eh? This is what you put your faith in?
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
there were no people
in the building left to rescue, and NYFD had just lost a
substantial number of its personnel and equipment. It was a
reasonable decision to remove firefighting efforts from the
building.
There were no firefighting efforts at WTC 7...
The disposition of WTC 7 was unimportant at that point.
That's a nice flip-flip, Scott.
No, it is right in line with what I said. Given the number of
firefighters already killed and injured, and given the amount of FD
equipment that had been destroyed, and the fact that there was nobody in
WTC 7 that needed rescue, FDNY decided to stop firefighting efforts at
WTC 7, and it was a reasonable decision.
There was no firefighting effort at WTC 7, Scott.

Please drill it through your head.
--
Pretty Good Pimp

http://www.bedoper.com
Vandar
2005-11-14 17:54:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vandar
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up.
Help me out: where did you look it up?
"We're getting ready to pull building 6"...
Right before they imploded it.
There was no one to "pull" from building 7, as it had been evacuated
earlier that day. And there were no firefighting efforts at WTC 7.
For some odd reason.
You need to listen to Silverstein's comments again (or for the first
time). The reason the Dept. Commander called him was to tell him that
they didn't think they could control the fire.
Cite?
http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV
Jay
2005-11-14 18:35:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vandar
Post by Vandar
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up.
Help me out: where did you look it up?
"We're getting ready to pull building 6"...
Right before they imploded it.
There was no one to "pull" from building 7, as it had been evacuated
earlier that day. And there were no firefighting efforts at WTC 7.
For some odd reason.
You need to listen to Silverstein's comments again (or for the first
time). The reason the Dept. Commander called him was to tell him that
they didn't think they could control the fire.
Cite?
http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV
Another "kook" cite:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
Scott M. Kozel
2005-11-14 18:49:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jay
Post by Vandar
Post by Vandar
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up.
Help me out: where did you look it up?
"We're getting ready to pull building 6"...
Right before they imploded it.
There was no one to "pull" from building 7, as it had been evacuated
earlier that day. And there were no firefighting efforts at WTC 7.
For some odd reason.
You need to listen to Silverstein's comments again (or for the first
time). The reason the Dept. Commander called him was to tell him that
they didn't think they could control the fire.
Cite?
http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
The highest reported hot-spot temperature was 1,341 F.

Steel doesn't melt until over 2,500 F.
Jay
2005-11-14 19:44:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Jay
Post by Vandar
Post by Vandar
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up.
Help me out: where did you look it up?
"We're getting ready to pull building 6"...
Right before they imploded it.
There was no one to "pull" from building 7, as it had been evacuated
earlier that day. And there were no firefighting efforts at WTC 7.
For some odd reason.
You need to listen to Silverstein's comments again (or for the first
time). The reason the Dept. Commander called him was to tell him that
they didn't think they could control the fire.
Cite?
http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
The highest reported hot-spot temperature was 1,341 F.
Steel doesn't melt until over 2,500 F.
Exactly. (actually ~2850 F. )

Jet fuel burns at ~1000 F. ( in open air. )

That temperature was recorded 5 days after the fact.

WHY was it so hot ( for so long )?

The official story that jet fuel without a properly proportioned oxidizer
brought down the towers and building 7 would be laughable, IF it weren't a
day of severe tragedy.
Scott M. Kozel
2005-11-14 20:00:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jay
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Jay
Post by Vandar
Post by Vandar
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up.
Help me out: where did you look it up?
"We're getting ready to pull building 6"...
Right before they imploded it.
There was no one to "pull" from building 7, as it had been evacuated
earlier that day. And there were no firefighting efforts at WTC 7.
For some odd reason.
You need to listen to Silverstein's comments again (or for the first
time). The reason the Dept. Commander called him was to tell him that
they didn't think they could control the fire.
Cite?
http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
The highest reported hot-spot temperature was 1,341 F.
Steel doesn't melt until over 2,500 F.
Exactly. (actually ~2850 F. )
Jet fuel burns at ~1000 F. ( in open air. )
That temperature was recorded 5 days after the fact.
WHY was it so hot ( for so long )?
Because there thousands of tons of combustibles in the buildings.
Post by Jay
The official story that jet fuel without a properly proportioned oxidizer
brought down the towers and building 7 would be laughable, IF it weren't a
day of severe tragedy.
Steel beams weaken and lose most of their strength at 1,000 to 1,200 F.
Those beams were carrying a tremendous load of weight, and were not
designed to carry it at those temperatures. Many of the steel beams in
the impact zones were severed. Once further multiple beam occurred in
the impact zone, that section of the building collapsed, leading to a
progressive collapse of the entire building.

Simple physics.
Vandar
2005-11-14 20:09:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Jay
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Jay
Post by Vandar
Post by Vandar
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up.
Help me out: where did you look it up?
"We're getting ready to pull building 6"...
Right before they imploded it.
There was no one to "pull" from building 7, as it had been evacuated
earlier that day. And there were no firefighting efforts at WTC 7.
For some odd reason.
You need to listen to Silverstein's comments again (or for the first
time). The reason the Dept. Commander called him was to tell him that
they didn't think they could control the fire.
Cite?
http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
The highest reported hot-spot temperature was 1,341 F.
Steel doesn't melt until over 2,500 F.
Exactly. (actually ~2850 F. )
Jet fuel burns at ~1000 F. ( in open air. )
That temperature was recorded 5 days after the fact.
WHY was it so hot ( for so long )?
Because there thousands of tons of combustibles in the buildings.
Post by Jay
The official story that jet fuel without a properly proportioned oxidizer
brought down the towers and building 7 would be laughable, IF it weren't a
day of severe tragedy.
Steel beams weaken and lose most of their strength at 1,000 to 1,200 F.
Those beams were carrying a tremendous load of weight, and were not
designed to carry it at those temperatures. Many of the steel beams in
the impact zones were severed. Once further multiple beam occurred in
the impact zone, that section of the building collapsed, leading to a
progressive collapse of the entire building.
Simple physics.
A difference in temperature of a few hundred degrees in different
sections of the same beam could cause a sufficient compromise in it's
load-bearing capacity to cause failure.
Jay
2005-11-14 20:10:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Jay
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Jay
Post by Vandar
Post by Vandar
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up.
Help me out: where did you look it up?
"We're getting ready to pull building 6"...
Right before they imploded it.
There was no one to "pull" from building 7, as it had been evacuated
earlier that day. And there were no firefighting efforts at WTC 7.
For some odd reason.
You need to listen to Silverstein's comments again (or for the first
time). The reason the Dept. Commander called him was to tell him that
they didn't think they could control the fire.
Cite?
http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
The highest reported hot-spot temperature was 1,341 F.
Steel doesn't melt until over 2,500 F.
Exactly. (actually ~2850 F. )
Jet fuel burns at ~1000 F. ( in open air. )
That temperature was recorded 5 days after the fact.
WHY was it so hot ( for so long )?
Because there thousands of tons of combustibles in the buildings.
Obviously these "combustables" were not hydrocarbons in nature because of
the heat generated.
So, WHAT were they?
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Jay
The official story that jet fuel without a properly proportioned oxidizer
brought down the towers and building 7 would be laughable, IF it weren't a
day of severe tragedy.
Steel beams weaken and lose most of their strength at 1,000 to 1,200 F.
Those beams were carrying a tremendous load of weight, and were not
designed to carry it at those temperatures. Many of the steel beams in
the impact zones were severed. Once further multiple beam occurred in
the impact zone, that section of the building collapsed, leading to a
progressive collapse of the entire building.
Simple physics.
OK genius, Explain WTC2 where *MOST* of the fuel exploded outside of the
building.
THEN explain WTC 7. If your "theory" is correct, IT should have landed on
it's face, NOT in it's own footprint.
Scott M. Kozel
2005-11-14 20:32:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jay
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Jay
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Jay
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
The highest reported hot-spot temperature was 1,341 F.
Steel doesn't melt until over 2,500 F.
Exactly. (actually ~2850 F. )
Jet fuel burns at ~1000 F. ( in open air. )
That temperature was recorded 5 days after the fact.
WHY was it so hot ( for so long )?
Because there thousands of tons of combustibles in the buildings.
Obviously these "combustables" were not hydrocarbons in nature because of
the heat generated. So, WHAT were they?
Wood, paper, plastic, paint, etc. Thousands of tons of it, in the 1.6
million tons of the Twin Towers.
Post by Jay
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Jay
The official story that jet fuel without a properly proportioned oxidizer
brought down the towers and building 7 would be laughable, IF it weren't a
day of severe tragedy.
Steel beams weaken and lose most of their strength at 1,000 to 1,200 F.
Those beams were carrying a tremendous load of weight, and were not
designed to carry it at those temperatures. Many of the steel beams in
the impact zones were severed. Once further multiple beam occurred in
the impact zone, that section of the building collapsed, leading to a
progressive collapse of the entire building.
Simple physics.
OK genius, Explain WTC2 where *MOST* of the fuel exploded outside of the
building.
Over 1/3 of the fuel remained inside each building, or about 3,000
gallons in each tower.
Post by Jay
THEN explain WTC 7. If your "theory" is correct, IT should have landed on
it's face, NOT in it's own footprint.
Non sequiter.
PGP
2005-11-15 00:16:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Jay
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Jay
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Jay
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
The highest reported hot-spot temperature was 1,341 F.
Steel doesn't melt until over 2,500 F.
Exactly. (actually ~2850 F. )
Jet fuel burns at ~1000 F. ( in open air. )
That temperature was recorded 5 days after the fact.
WHY was it so hot ( for so long )?
Because there thousands of tons of combustibles in the buildings.
Obviously these "combustables" were not hydrocarbons in nature
because of the heat generated. So, WHAT were they?
Wood, paper, plastic, paint, etc.
That would never, ever reach a temperature of 1300 degrees.
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Thousands of tons of it, in the 1.6
million tons of the Twin Towers.
Extinguished by 100s of tons of rubble and concrete.
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Jay
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Jay
The official story that jet fuel without a properly proportioned
oxidizer brought down the towers and building 7 would be
laughable, IF it weren't a day of severe tragedy.
Steel beams weaken and lose most of their strength at 1,000 to
1,200 F. Those beams were carrying a tremendous load of weight, and
were not designed to carry it at those temperatures. Many of the
steel beams in the impact zones were severed. Once further
multiple beam occurred in the impact zone, that section of the
building collapsed, leading to a progressive collapse of the entire
building.
Simple physics.
OK genius, Explain WTC2 where *MOST* of the fuel exploded outside of
the building.
Over 1/3 of the fuel remained inside each building, or about 3,000
gallons in each tower.
Pulling numbers out of the old ass again? Or did someone else invent that
figure for you?
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Jay
THEN explain WTC 7. If your "theory" is correct, IT should have
landed on it's face, NOT in it's own footprint.
Non sequiter.
Can't explain WTC 7 at all, eh?
--
Pretty Good Pimp

http://www.bedoper.com
Scott M. Kozel
2005-11-15 01:47:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Jay
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Because there thousands of tons of combustibles in the buildings.
Obviously these "combustables" were not hydrocarbons in nature
because of the heat generated. So, WHAT were they?
Wood, paper, plastic, paint, etc.
That would never, ever reach a temperature of 1300 degrees.
The flames they produce would provide the 1,000 to 1,200 F needed to
weaken the steel beams to the point where they would have very little
strength.
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Thousands of tons of it, in the 1.6 million tons of the Twin Towers.
Extinguished by 100s of tons of rubble and concrete.
Nope.
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Over 1/3 of the fuel remained inside each building, or about 3,000
gallons in each tower.
Pulling numbers out of the old ass again? Or did someone else invent that
figure for you?
Those were the scientific estimates from the investigation.
PGP
2005-11-15 02:34:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Jay
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Because there thousands of tons of combustibles in the
buildings.
Obviously these "combustables" were not hydrocarbons in nature
because of the heat generated. So, WHAT were they?
Wood, paper, plastic, paint, etc.
That would never, ever reach a temperature of 1300 degrees.
The flames they produce would provide the 1,000 to 1,200 F needed to
weaken the steel beams to the point where they would have very little
strength.
Cite?

Why don't buildings collapse regularly from fires then, Scott?
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Thousands of tons of it, in the 1.6 million tons of the Twin Towers.
Extinguished by 100s of tons of rubble and concrete.
Nope.
Because you say so?

; )
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Over 1/3 of the fuel remained inside each building, or about 3,000
gallons in each tower.
Pulling numbers out of the old ass again? Or did someone else invent
that figure for you?
Those were the scientific estimates from the investigation.
Look, everybody. Scott has some estimates for us!

*Scientific* estimates. (No source given...)


Say, how would you get equal amounts of fuel, from inequal collisions?

; )
--
Pretty Good Pimp

http://www.bedoper.com
Scott M. Kozel
2005-11-15 02:52:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Jay
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Because there thousands of tons of combustibles in the
buildings.
Obviously these "combustables" were not hydrocarbons in nature
because of the heat generated. So, WHAT were they?
Wood, paper, plastic, paint, etc.
That would never, ever reach a temperature of 1300 degrees.
The flames they produce would provide the 1,000 to 1,200 F needed to
weaken the steel beams to the point where they would have very little
strength.
Cite?
Why don't buildings collapse regularly from fires then, Scott?
Because they didn't get hit by a 150-ton aircraft with over 9,000
gallons of fuel, at over 500 mph.
PGP
2005-11-15 03:29:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Jay
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Because there thousands of tons of combustibles in the buildings.
Obviously these "combustables" were not hydrocarbons in nature
because of the heat generated. So, WHAT were they?
Wood, paper, plastic, paint, etc.
That would never, ever reach a temperature of 1300 degrees.
The flames they produce would provide the 1,000 to 1,200 F needed to
weaken the steel beams to the point where they would have very little
strength.
Cite?
Cite, asshole?
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by PGP
Why don't buildings collapse regularly from fires then, Scott?
Because they didn't get hit by a 150-ton aircraft with over 9,000
But you said 1000 degree fires were all that was needed to weaken steel
beams to the point of collapse. What does a plane have to do with it?
Post by Scott M. Kozel
gallons of fuel, at over 500 mph.
So you're saying WTC 7 was imploded?
--
Pretty Good Pimp

http://www.bedoper.com
PGP
2005-11-15 00:15:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Jay
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Jay
Post by Vandar
Post by Vandar
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry
for performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up.
Help me out: where did you look it up?
"We're getting ready to pull building 6"...
Right before they imploded it.
There was no one to "pull" from building 7, as it had been
evacuated earlier that day. And there were no firefighting
efforts at WTC 7.
For some odd reason.
You need to listen to Silverstein's comments again (or for the
first time). The reason the Dept. Commander called him was to
tell him that they didn't think they could control the fire.
Cite?
http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
The highest reported hot-spot temperature was 1,341 F.
Steel doesn't melt until over 2,500 F.
Exactly. (actually ~2850 F. )
Jet fuel burns at ~1000 F. ( in open air. )
That temperature was recorded 5 days after the fact.
WHY was it so hot ( for so long )?
Because there thousands of tons of combustibles in the buildings.
That's a really, really weak answer.
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Jay
The official story that jet fuel without a properly proportioned
oxidizer brought down the towers and building 7 would be laughable,
IF it weren't a day of severe tragedy.
Steel beams weaken and lose most of their strength at 1,000 to 1,200 F.
And that paper, wood and plastic reached those temperatures? (Forgetting
that it's not possible.)

How do you know?

Circular logic?

; )
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Those beams were carrying a tremendous load of weight, and were not
designed to carry it at those temperatures. Many of the steel beams
in the impact zones were severed. Once further multiple beam occurred
in the impact zone, that section of the building collapsed, leading to
a progressive collapse of the entire building.
Simple physics.
Simple thoughts for simple minds. You do know that's not how it happened
in the simulations, right?

I suggest you write that physics professor and tell him he has no idea
what he's talking about, and you have it all figured out.

Pick up the $1,000,000 while you're at it.
--
Pretty Good Pimp

http://www.bedoper.com
Scott M. Kozel
2005-11-15 01:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Jay
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Steel doesn't melt until over 2,500 F.
Exactly. (actually ~2850 F. )
Jet fuel burns at ~1000 F. ( in open air. )
That temperature was recorded 5 days after the fact.
WHY was it so hot ( for so long )?
Because there thousands of tons of combustibles in the buildings.
That's a really, really weak answer.
That's a really, really weak "rebuttal".

What I posted is true. Those two towers weighed over 1.6 million tons,
total.
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Steel beams weaken and lose most of their strength at 1,000 to 1,200 F.
And that paper, wood and plastic reached those temperatures? (Forgetting
that it's not possible.)
Large quantities of it burning will produce those temperatures.
PGP
2005-11-15 02:32:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Jay
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Steel doesn't melt until over 2,500 F.
Exactly. (actually ~2850 F. )
Jet fuel burns at ~1000 F. ( in open air. )
That temperature was recorded 5 days after the fact.
WHY was it so hot ( for so long )?
Because there thousands of tons of combustibles in the buildings.
That's a really, really weak answer.
That's a really, really weak "rebuttal".
Care to explain your statement?

How did thousands of tons of combustables achieve such a high
temperature, days after the fact?
Post by Scott M. Kozel
What I posted is true. Those two towers weighed over 1.6 million
tons, total.
Yes, and that's an entirely meaningless statistic.

Do you really think paper, wood and plastic stayed that hot, days after
the collapse, under all that rubble?

Furthermore, why do you believe this?
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Steel beams weaken and lose most of their strength at 1,000 to 1,200 F.
And that paper, wood and plastic reached those temperatures?
(Forgetting that it's not possible.)
Large quantities of it burning will produce those temperatures.
And, of course, you have cites to back up your latest claims?

; )


Are you suggesting the WTCs were made of creosote?

; )

And let's not forget, if what you're saying is true, skyscrapers would
collapse all the time from fires.

Why don't they?

; )
--
Pretty Good Pimp

http://www.bedoper.com
Scott M. Kozel
2005-11-15 02:50:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Jay
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Steel doesn't melt until over 2,500 F.
Exactly. (actually ~2850 F. )
Jet fuel burns at ~1000 F. ( in open air. )
That temperature was recorded 5 days after the fact.
WHY was it so hot ( for so long )?
Because there thousands of tons of combustibles in the buildings.
That's a really, really weak answer.
That's a really, really weak "rebuttal".
Care to explain your statement?
How did thousands of tons of combustables achieve such a high
temperature, days after the fact?
Because the amount of combustibles was enough to burn for 98 days.
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
What I posted is true. Those two towers weighed over 1.6 million
tons, total.
Yes, and that's an entirely meaningless statistic.
Do you really think paper, wood and plastic stayed that hot, days after
the collapse, under all that rubble?
They obviously did. The amount of combustibles was enough to burn for
98 days.
PGP
2005-11-15 03:28:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Jay
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Steel doesn't melt until over 2,500 F.
Exactly. (actually ~2850 F. )
Jet fuel burns at ~1000 F. ( in open air. )
That temperature was recorded 5 days after the fact.
WHY was it so hot ( for so long )?
Because there thousands of tons of combustibles in the buildings.
That's a really, really weak answer.
That's a really, really weak "rebuttal".
Care to explain your statement?
How did thousands of tons of combustables achieve such a high
temperature, days after the fact?
Because the amount of combustibles was enough to burn for 98 days.
Under those conditions?
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by PGP
Post by Scott M. Kozel
What I posted is true. Those two towers weighed over 1.6 million
tons, total.
Yes, and that's an entirely meaningless statistic.
Do you really think paper, wood and plastic stayed that hot, days after
the collapse, under all that rubble?
They obviously did.
Circular logic. Nice...
Post by Scott M. Kozel
The amount of combustibles was enough to burn for
98 days.
Thank you, broken record.
--
Pretty Good Pimp

http://www.bedoper.com
Laurence Doering
2005-11-14 21:31:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jay
Post by Scott M. Kozel
The highest reported hot-spot temperature was 1,341 F.
Steel doesn't melt until over 2,500 F.
Exactly. (actually ~2850 F. )
2,750 F (1510 C) for typical structural steel. [1]
Post by Jay
Jet fuel burns at ~1000 F. ( in open air. )
More like about 1,500 F (825 C). [1]
Post by Jay
That temperature was recorded 5 days after the fact.
Temperatures recorded using infrared imaging on September
16th were "over 800 F" (425 C), according to the USGS. [2]

Where did you get 1,341 F?
Post by Jay
WHY was it so hot ( for so long )?
Because combustion was still occurring deep within the pile of wreckage
at the WTC site. Are you claiming that building fires can't reach
temperatures over 800 F? If nothing was burning at the WTC site
several days after the collapse, why was there still visible smoke?
Post by Jay
The official story that jet fuel without a properly proportioned oxidizer
brought down the towers and building 7 would be laughable, IF it weren't a
day of severe tragedy.
The official story says the jet fuel burned off in less than 10 minutes
(probably less in the case of WTC 2, where more of the fuel on board
UA 175 was consumed in the large fireball outside the building.)

The official story says the fires that eventually caused enough structural
damage to make the WTC towers collapse were fed by the contents of the
buildings, not by jet fuel. The jet fuel was responsible for igniting
very large fires on most of several floors all at once, not for sustaining
the fire for an hour or more.

If you're going to laugh at the official story (or not, it being a
"severe tragedy" and all) you should at least get the official story
right.


ljd

[1] http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.html
[2] http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html
Bryan Olson
2005-11-14 01:05:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up.
Help me out: where did you look it up?
"We're getting ready to pull building 6"...
Right before they imploded it.
There was no one to "pull" from building 7, as it had been evacuated
earlier that day. And there were no firefighting efforts at WTC 7.
For some odd reason.
What a stupid response. It doesn't say where to look it up, even
though that's what was specifically asked; it doesn't indicate
'"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry'; and
as well as we can tell who it is quoting from the context of the
thread, it lies about the quote.
--
--Bryan
PGP
2005-11-14 01:22:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up.
Help me out: where did you look it up?
"We're getting ready to pull building 6"...
From the PBS special that is also the source of the Silverstein quote.
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by PGP
Right before they imploded it.
There was no one to "pull" from building 7, as it had been evacuated
earlier that day. And there were no firefighting efforts at WTC 7.
<crickets>
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by PGP
For some odd reason.
What a stupid response.
Yet, unlike yours, it is entirely factually correct.
Post by Bryan Olson
It doesn't say where to look it up, even
though that's what was specifically asked;
Was it asked of me, dummy?

Furthermore, was it my claim in the first place?
Post by Bryan Olson
it doesn't indicate
'"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry';
But it does give an example of it being used in that context.
Post by Bryan Olson
and
as well as we can tell who it is quoting from the context of the
thread, it lies about the quote.
In what sense is the quote "lied about"?
--
Pretty Good Pimp

http://www.bedoper.com
Bryan Olson
2005-11-14 22:59:50 UTC
Permalink
Uh, possibly I misunderstood you...

So, to be clear this time: Are you claiming that the New York
City Fire Department imploded -- or took part in imploding, or
supported someone else imploding -- Building Six of the New
York WTC?

Did they report imploding any buildings, so far as you know?
If so, which buildings, and where can we find the report(s)?

--Bryan
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up.
Help me out: where did you look it up?
"We're getting ready to pull building 6"...
From the PBS special that is also the source of the Silverstein quote.
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by PGP
Right before they imploded it.
There was no one to "pull" from building 7, as it had been evacuated
earlier that day. And there were no firefighting efforts at WTC 7.
<crickets>
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by PGP
For some odd reason.
What a stupid response.
Yet, unlike yours, it is entirely factually correct.
Post by Bryan Olson
It doesn't say where to look it up, even
though that's what was specifically asked;
Was it asked of me, dummy?
Furthermore, was it my claim in the first place?
Post by Bryan Olson
it doesn't indicate
'"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry';
But it does give an example of it being used in that context.
Post by Bryan Olson
and
as well as we can tell who it is quoting from the context of the
thread, it lies about the quote.
In what sense is the quote "lied about"?
PGP
2005-11-15 00:20:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan Olson
Uh, possibly I misunderstood you...
So, to be clear this time: Are you claiming that the New York
City Fire Department imploded -- or took part in imploding, or
supported someone else imploding -- Building Six of the New
York WTC?
They were present.

Are you claiming otherwise?
Post by Bryan Olson
Did they report imploding any buildings, so far as you know?
If so, which buildings, and where can we find the report(s)?
Why don't you do your own research, fucky?

Or do you think the debris and buildings just disappeared on their own?
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up.
Help me out: where did you look it up?
"We're getting ready to pull building 6"...
From the PBS special that is also the source of the Silverstein quote.
Fuckheads...
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by PGP
Right before they imploded it.
There was no one to "pull" from building 7, as it had been evacuated
earlier that day. And there were no firefighting efforts at WTC 7.
<crickets>
Fuckheads...
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by PGP
For some odd reason.
What a stupid response.
Yet, unlike yours, it is entirely factually correct.
Post by Bryan Olson
It doesn't say where to look it up, even
though that's what was specifically asked;
Was it asked of me, dummy?
Furthermore, was it my claim in the first place?
Fuckheads...
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
it doesn't indicate
'"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry';
But it does give an example of it being used in that context.
Post by Bryan Olson
and
as well as we can tell who it is quoting from the context of the
thread, it lies about the quote.
In what sense is the quote "lied about"?
Fuckheads...



You guys are so spanked, I can't believe you still continue the farce.
--
Pretty Good Pimp

http://www.bedoper.com
Vandar
2005-11-15 01:34:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Uh, possibly I misunderstood you...
So, to be clear this time: Are you claiming that the New York
City Fire Department imploded -- or took part in imploding, or
supported someone else imploding -- Building Six of the New
York WTC?
They were present.
Are you claiming otherwise?
Post by Bryan Olson
Did they report imploding any buildings, so far as you know?
If so, which buildings, and where can we find the report(s)?
Why don't you do your own research, fucky?
Or do you think the debris and buildings just disappeared on their own?
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up.
Help me out: where did you look it up?
"We're getting ready to pull building 6"...
From the PBS special that is also the source of the Silverstein quote.
Fuckheads...
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by PGP
Right before they imploded it.
There was no one to "pull" from building 7, as it had been evacuated
earlier that day. And there were no firefighting efforts at WTC 7.
<crickets>
Fuckheads...
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by PGP
For some odd reason.
What a stupid response.
Yet, unlike yours, it is entirely factually correct.
Post by Bryan Olson
It doesn't say where to look it up, even
though that's what was specifically asked;
Was it asked of me, dummy?
Furthermore, was it my claim in the first place?
Fuckheads...
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
it doesn't indicate
'"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry';
But it does give an example of it being used in that context.
Post by Bryan Olson
and
as well as we can tell who it is quoting from the context of the
thread, it lies about the quote.
In what sense is the quote "lied about"?
Fuckheads...
You guys are so spanked, I can't believe you still continue the farce.
Every time you are presented with facts, and your ridiculous, baseless
claims go unacknowledged (which is exactly what they deserve), you
resort to the same routine.
Pathetic, Jason. Very pathetic. You need a new hobby.
Pooh Bear
2005-11-14 02:12:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up.
Help me out: where did you look it up?
"We're getting ready to pull building 6"...
Right before they imploded it.
There was no one to "pull" from building 7, as it had been evacuated
earlier that day. And there were no firefighting efforts at WTC 7.
For some odd reason.
What a stupid response. It doesn't say where to look it up, even
though that's what was specifically asked; it doesn't indicate
'"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry'; and
as well as we can tell who it is quoting from the context of the
thread, it lies about the quote.
Without bare-faced lies, Jason would have no tale to tell.

Graahm
george
2005-11-14 23:06:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up.
Help me out: where did you look it up?
"We're getting ready to pull building 6"...
Right before they imploded it.
There was no one to "pull" from building 7, as it had been evacuated
earlier that day. And there were no firefighting efforts at WTC 7.
For some odd reason.
What a stupid response. It doesn't say where to look it up, even
though that's what was specifically asked; it doesn't indicate
'"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry'; and
as well as we can tell who it is quoting from the context of the
thread, it lies about the quote.
Pull out is a term used by military units, firefighters, police and
others...
And in the sex industry I shouldn't wonder..
The demolition claims are ridiculous. Any-one on the morning of 9/11
near a TV saw the aircraft hit the WTC.
Later released TV video showed firemen working in the interiors of the
towers before their collapse and destruction..
PGP
2005-11-15 00:21:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by george
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up.
Help me out: where did you look it up?
"We're getting ready to pull building 6"...
Right before they imploded it.
There was no one to "pull" from building 7, as it had been evacuated
earlier that day. And there were no firefighting efforts at WTC 7.
For some odd reason.
What a stupid response. It doesn't say where to look it up, even
though that's what was specifically asked; it doesn't indicate
'"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry'; and
as well as we can tell who it is quoting from the context of the
thread, it lies about the quote.
Pull out is a term used by military units, firefighters, police and
others...
Yet no one said "pull out".
Post by george
And in the sex industry I shouldn't wonder..
The demolition claims are ridiculous. Any-one on the morning of 9/11
near a TV saw the aircraft hit the WTC.
Really?!
Post by george
Later released TV video showed firemen working in the interiors of the
towers before their collapse and destruction..
And?
--
Pretty Good Pimp

http://www.bedoper.com
Vandar
2005-11-15 01:38:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by PGP
Post by george
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up.
Help me out: where did you look it up?
"We're getting ready to pull building 6"...
Right before they imploded it.
There was no one to "pull" from building 7, as it had been evacuated
earlier that day. And there were no firefighting efforts at WTC 7.
For some odd reason.
What a stupid response. It doesn't say where to look it up, even
though that's what was specifically asked; it doesn't indicate
'"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry'; and
as well as we can tell who it is quoting from the context of the
thread, it lies about the quote.
Pull out is a term used by military units, firefighters, police and
others...
Yet no one said "pull out".
No one said demolish either.
He said "pull it". Maybe he wanted to hook it up to his Winnebago and
"pull it" to Staten Island. Maybe he wanted to try to start the building
like a lawn mower. Maybe he meant that the best thing to do was masturbate.
Maybe he meant to purposely destroiy the building so his company could
lose billions of dollars.
Maybe you're an idiot.
Pooh Bear
2005-11-14 02:09:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by PGP
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
"Pull" is a commonly used term in the demolition industry for
performing a controlled demolishion. Go look it up.
Help me out: where did you look it up?
"We're getting ready to pull building 6"...
Right before they imploded it.
So basically you just made up your interpretation to suit your point of view
!

Graham
Warhol
2005-11-11 16:59:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pooh Bear
Post by JohnnyCJohnny
even the developer/owner said they were
going to "pull" it.
You've never heard of the phrase 'pull out' ?
Since when was 'pull' used to mean 'blow up' ?
It's astonishing what a tin-foil hatted view of the world does to sensible
analysis.
Tell me about the 'chemtrails' too won't you ?
Graham
some big Mossad man who shoved the pretzel down his little pencil neck!).

"PULL OUT" is technical TERM... Used only in the demolution sector... Google it... YOU STUPID RAT KOPF... and the term "pull out" was used in front of a Camera by the Jewish Owner of the WTC buildings... So now you will say that we can't believe our Ears and eyes...

my little genius, hows about addressing the issues instead of hurling your insults and focusing your vast brainpower on a jocular 'chemtrails' quip (which might, in fact, be true)?

Like, for instance, who forewarned all the Israelis at the WTC on 911, Dubya Bush's old business partner*, Osama bin Ladin?
i***@gmail.com
2005-11-11 14:16:08 UTC
Permalink
You have signed yourself as the Republican Party representative. Can I
raise some different issues. I do not dispute 9/11 took place. I am
much more interested in a rather larger explosion. I mean the one that
took place 13.7 billion years ago. GWB has made remarks endorsing
Intelligent Design. Could you please elaborate on this.

As you know there has been an academy of Unintelligent Design set up,
where our deficiencies are noted. I sometimes wish I had thermal eyes
and could tell the temperature of things in the oven merely by looking
at them. We are however meant to use our brains. We are meant to build
equipment to compensate for our lack of ability in any particular area.
There is however one area where there can be no compensation and that
is intelligence. Fructex Stultus (Fructex = Bush) is now being studied
by the academy.

Also why were the levees in New Orleans only half the height of the
Dutch dykes? Don't you agree that the fundamentalist view of divine
punishment is immensely damaging. Come to think of it wasn't 9/11
divine punishment getting back to the point?


You are posting in sci.physics. I think you should explain to the
scientific community why F Stultus is designed the way he is.
Republican Party Representative #33
2005-11-11 15:11:27 UTC
Permalink
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
DRAFT



Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?



By Steven E. Jones

Department of Physics and Astronomy

Brigham Young University

Provo, UT 84604





ABSTRACT



In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the
hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by
damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives. I
consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires
plus damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And
I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is
suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has
not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.





Let’s start with the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, which was never hit
by a jet. I ask you to take a minute to look at the collapse of this
building as a basis for discussion.







WTC 7: 47 - Story, steel-frame building..




WTC 7 on afternoon of 9-11-01. WTC 7 is the tall

sky-scraper in the back-ground, right. Seen from WTC 1 area.





WTC 7 collapsed completely, onto its own footprint





Now that you have seen the still photographs, it is important to the
discussion which follows for you to observe video clips of the collapse
of this building, so go to:



http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html Click on the three
photos at the top of this web-site page in order to see the videos of the
collapse of WTC 7. It helps to have sound.



Then consider a video close-up of the same building (SW corner) as its
demise begins:

http://st12.startlogic.com/
~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm



What did you observe?

Symmetry: did the building collapse straight down (nearly symmetrically)
– or did it topple over?

Speed: How fast did the building fall? (Students and I measure less
than 6.6 seconds; time it!)

Smoke/debris-jets: Did you observe puffs of smoke/debris coming out of
the building? Please note for yourself the sequence and fast timing of
observed puffs or “squibs.” Note that reference to web pages is used in
this paper due largely to the importance of viewing motion picture clips,
thus enhancing consideration of the laws of motion and physics generally.
High-quality photographs showing details of the collapses of WTC 7 and
the WTC Towers can be found in books (Hufschmid, 2002; Paul and Hoffman,
2004), magazines (Hoffman, 2005; Baker, 2005) and at
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/collapses.html.



My reasons for advancing the explosive-demolition hypothesis while
challenging the “official” fire-caused collapse hypothesis are these:



1. As you observed, WTC 7 collapsed rapidly and symmetrically -- even
though fires were randomly scattered in the building. WTC 7 fell about
seven hours after the Towers collapsed, even though no major persistent
fires were visible. There were twenty-four huge steel support columns
inside WTC 7 as well as huge trusses, arranged asymmetrically, along with
approximately 57 perimeter columns. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5.) A
symmetrical collapse, as observed, evidently requires the simultaneous
“pulling” of most or all of the support columns. The Second Law of
Thermodynamics implies that the likelihood of complete and symmetrical
collapse due to random fires as in the “official” theory is small, since
asymmetrical failure is so much more likely. On the other hand, a major
goal of controlled demolition using explosives is the complete and
symmetrical collapse of buildings.



Concluding remarks in the FEMA report on the WTC 7 collapse lend support
to my arguments:



The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to
collapse [“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the
total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the
best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability
of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed
to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)



That is precisely my point: further investigation and analyses are
needed, including consideration of the controlled-demolition hypothesis
which is neglected in all of the government reports (FEMA, NIST and 9-11
Commission reports). Note that the 9-11 Commission report does not even
mention the collapse of WTC 7 on 9-11-01. (Commission, 2004) This is a
striking omission of data highly relevant to the question of what really
happened on 9-11.



2. A New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the
collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” provides
relevant data.

Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-
rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire. (Glanz, 2001;
emphasis added.)

That’s correct – no such steel-beam building had ever before (or since)
completely collapsed due to fires! However, such complete, symmetrical
collapses have indeed occurred many times before -- all of them due to
pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called “implosion” or controlled
demolition. What a surprise, then, for such an occurrence in downtown
Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely collapsed on the same day,
September 11, 2001.



Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and
whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the
country… Most of the other buildings in the [area] stood despite
suffering damage of all kinds, including fire... ‘Fire and the structural
damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to
have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001;
emphasis added.)



The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting
to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials,
even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000+
oF needed to “evaporate” steel. However, thermite, RDX and other
commonly-used explosives can readily slice through steel (thus cutting
the support columns simultaneously in an explosive demolition) and reach
the required temperatures. (It is possible that some other chemical
reactions were involved which might proceed at lesser temperatures.)
This mystery needs to be explored – but is not mentioned in the
“official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.



3. There are several published observations of molten metal in the
basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For
example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural
Engineer,

‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from
molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch
thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural
Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)



The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by
Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of
the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that “As of 21 days after the
attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.”
(Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)

Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and
Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her
canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer
2002,

‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in
the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis
added.)

Dr. Allison Geyh was one of a team of public health investigators from
Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in the
Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some
pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel.” Further
information on the subject is available at
http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?p=11663.



Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the
rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten
steel. However, scientific analysis, using for example X-ray
fluorescence, would be needed to ascertain the actual composition of the
molten metal.



I maintain that these published observations are consistent with the use
of the high-temperature thermite reaction, used to cut or demolish steel.
Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end
products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So
the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough
to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting. On
the other hand, falling buildings (absent explosives) have insufficient
directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal. The
government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to
melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal come from? Metals
expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST) stated:

Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very
intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it
did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added.)

None of the official reports tackles this mystery. Yet this is evidently
a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse. So I
would very much like to see an analysis of the elemental composition of
the metal, and could do this myself if a small sample were made available
according to scientific courtesy. Any reader who knows of chemical
analyses or even photographs of this molten metal found below the rubble
piles of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is invited to speak out and contact the author.
This could lead to an experiment crucis.



4. Horizontal puffs of smoke and debris are observed emerging from WTC-7
on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to
collapse. (The reader may wish to view the close-up video clip again.)
The upper floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can
verify from the videos. In addition, the timing between the puffs is
less than 0.2 seconds so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is
excluded. Free-fall time for a floor to fall down to the next floor is
significantly longer than 0.2 seconds: the equation for free fall, y = œ
gt2, yields a little over 0.6 seconds, as this is near the initiation of
the collapse.



However, the presence of such “squibs” proceeding up the side of the
building is common when pre-positioned explosives are used, as can be
observed at http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.html. The same site
shows that rapid timing between explosive squibs is also common. (It is
instructive to view several of the implosion videos at this web site.)
Thus, squibs as observed during the collapse of WTC 7 going up the side
of the building in rapid sequence provide additional significant evidence
for the use of pre-placed explosives. Regarding this highly-secure
building, a NY Times article entitled “Secretive C.I.A. Site in New York
was Destroyed on Sept. 11,” provides an intriguing puzzle piece:



The C.I.A.'s undercover New York station was in the 47-story building at
7 World Trade Center… All of the agency's employees at the site were
safely evacuated… The intelligence agency's employees were able to watch
from their office windows while the twin towers burned just before they
evacuated their own building. (Risen, 2001)





5. The official FEMA 9-11 report admits a striking anomaly regarding the
North Tower collapse:

Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles
indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to
move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the
exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more
failures in the central core area of the building. (FEMA, 2002, chapter
2; emphasis added.)



North Tower showing antenna (top) at beginning of
collapse.


Yes, we can see for ourselves that the antenna drops first from videos of
the North Tower collapse. (See
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/wtc1_close_frames.html;
also http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/collapse.htm.) A NY Times
article also notes this behavior:

The building stood for more than an hour and a half. Videos of the north
tower's collapse appear to show that its television antenna began to drop
a fraction of a second before the rest of the building. The observations
suggest that the building's steel core somehow gave way first… (Glanz and
Lipton, 2002; emphasis added)



But how? What caused the 47 enormous steel core columns of this building
(which supported the antenna) to give way nearly simultaneously? That
mystery was raised by the FEMA report (FEMA, 2002, chapter 2) and the New
York Times (Glanz and Lipton, 2002) yet not solved in any official report
(FEMA, 2002; Commission, 2004; NIST, 2005). The odd behavior was not
even mentioned in the final NIST report (NIST, 2005), but some of us have
not forgotten.



Could random fires burning office materials in the building account for a
near-simultaneous “pulling” of these core supports? Certainly such an
event would have exceedingly low probability. Again, use of pre-
positioned explosives to cut the core columns first (standard demolition
practice) provides a simple yet elegant explanation for the observation,
satisfying the “Occam’s razor” test (Jones, 2005).



6. Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were heard and reported by
numerous observers in and near the WTC Towers, consistent with explosive
demolition. Firemen and others described flashes and explosions in upper
floors near where the plane entered, and in lower floors of WTC 2 just
prior to its collapse, far below the region where the plane had struck
the tower (Dwyer, 2005). For instance, at the start of the collapse of
the South Tower a Fox News anchor reported:

There is an explosion at the base of the building… white smoke from the
bottom… something happened at the base of the building! Then another
explosion.” (De Grand Pre, 2002, emphasis added.)



Firefighter Edward Cachia independently reported:

[We] thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because
it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came
down…It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane
hit. (Dwyer, 2005; emphasis added.)

And assistant fire commissioner Stephen Gregory provides additional
insights:

When I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down,
before No. 2 came down, ..I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation
with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned
me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and
I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it
was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing,
things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like
the building came down.

Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they
demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls
down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him,
but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to
ask you because you were standing right next to me… He said did you see
any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no,
I saw them, too. (Dwyer, 2005, Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory
FDNY WCT2 File No. 91 10008; emphasis added.)



It is highly unlikely that jet fuel was present to generate such
explosions especially on lower floors, and long after the planes hit the
buildings. Dr. Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator for NIST stated: "The jet
fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes.” (Field, 2005) On the
other hand, pre-positioned explosives provide a plausible and simple
explanation for the observations, satisfying Occam’s razor (Jones, 2005).
Thus, it cannot be said that “no evidence” can be found for the use of
explosives. This serious matter needs to be treated as a plausible
scientific hypothesis and thoroughly investigated.



7. The horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of feet and the
pulverization of concrete to flour-like powder, observed clearly in the
collapses of the WTC towers, provides further evidence for the use of
explosives – as well-explained in
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/index.html. (See also, Griffin,
2004, chapter 2.)



North Tower during top-down collapse.

Notice mysterious squibs far below pulverization
region.


Unlike WTC7, the twin towers appear to have been exploded “top-down”
rather than proceeding from the bottom – which is unusual for controlled
demolition but clearly possible, depending on the order in which
explosives are detonated. That is, explosives may have been placed on
higher floors of the towers and exploded via radio signals so as to have
early explosions near the region where the plane entered the tower.
Certainly this hypothesis ought to be seriously considered in an
independent investigation using all available data.

8. I totally agree with the urgent yet reasoned assessment of expert
fire-protection engineers, as boldly editorialized in the journal Fire
Engineering:



Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are
beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating [result] has emerged: The
structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel
in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.

Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official
investigation" blessed by FEMA… is a half-baked farce that may already
have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to
put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the
marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of
evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members-
described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the
evidence for anything.

Some citizens are taking to the streets to protest the investigation
sellout. Sally Regenhard, for one, wants to know why and how the
building fell as it did upon her unfortunate son Christian, an FDNY
probationary firefighter. And so do we.

Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the
incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic
investigation is imperative. More important, from a moral standpoint,
[are considerations] for the… present and future generations… (Manning,
2002; emphasis added).



9. The occurrence of nearly symmetrical, straight-down and complete
collapses of the WTC 7 and the Towers is particularly upsetting to the
“official” theory that random fires plus damage caused all these
collapses. Even with explosives, achieving such results requires a great
deal of pre-planning and expertise.



The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way
it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building
over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of
blast is the easiest to execute [favored by the Law of Increasing
Entropy]. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To
topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the
north side of the building first…



Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be
preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion,
demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own
footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat
requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the
world will attempt it. [Again, consistent with the Second Law of
Thermodynamics.]

Blasters approach each project a little differently... [A good] option is
to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other
columns so that the building's sides fall inward. (Harris, 2000; emphasis
added.)



Careful observation of the collapse of WTC 7 (video clips above)
demonstrates a downward “kink” near the center of the building first,
suggesting “pulling” of the support columns, then the building’s sides
pull inward such that the building “collapses straight down into its own
footprint” (Harris, 2000). FEMA admitted that WTC 7 collapsed onto a
well-confined footprint:

The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled
downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion… The average
debris field radius was approximately 70 feet. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5.)

Evidently we agree that this was a beautifully done implosion in the
collapse of WTC 7, and yet:

This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies
in the world will attempt it. (Harris, 2000; emphasis added.)

Consider: Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC7
and the Towers, when “toppling-over” falls would require much less work
and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan? And where would
they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a
symmetrical implosion anyway? The “symmetry data” emphasized here, along
with other data, provide strong evidence for an “inside job.” Proof would
require additional investigation and questioning of suspects outside of
Al Qaeda.

One of the people a thorough investigation should question under oath
would be demolition expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled
Demolition, Inc. Speaking of the way the WTC buildings came down, he
said in an interview: “If I were to bring the towers down, I would put
explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help
collapse the structure.” (Bollyn, 2002; emphasis added.)



Just right – “explosives in the basement” agrees with eyewitness reports
of explosions down low in the buildings (point 6 above). Also, this
would be the way to effectively severe the support columns, consistent
with both the initial drop of the communication tower (WTC Tower 1) and
the “kink” in the middle of WTC 7 as its collapse began. Yes, and as
president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., Mr. Loizeaux would know the
“handful of demolition companies in the world [that] will attempt” a
symmetrical controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000) His company is
certainly one of these and was hired to do the rapid clean-up work
following the building collapses. A thorough investigation might also
query the owner of WTC7, who received billions in insurance monies due to
the demise of the WTC buildings on 9-11. (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 17)



If you still haven’t looked at the rapid symmetrical collapse of WTC7 for
yourself, why not do so now? Watch for the initial “kink” or drop in the
middle, and for the “squibs” blowing in sequence up the side of the
building, and notice the symmetrical, straight-down collapse -- all so
common in controlled demolitions. See for yourself at:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html. A great deal of
further information is presented from a serious scientific point-of-view
at this site (http://911research.wtc7.net/).



10. I presented my objections to the “official” theory at a seminar at
BYU on September 22, 2005, to about sixty people. I also showed evidence
and scientific arguments for the explosive demolition theory. In
attendance were faculty from Physics, Mechanical Engineering, Civil
Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Psychology, Geology, and Mathematics
– and perhaps other departments as I did not recognize all of the people
present. Two local universities were represented (BYU and Utah Valley
State College).



The discussion was vigorous and lasted nearly two hours. It ended only
when a university class needed the room. After presenting the material
summarized here, including actually looking at and discussing the
collapses of WTC 7 and the Towers, all except one attendee agreed (by
hand-vote) that further investigation of the WTC collapses was called
for. The next day, the dissenting professor said he had further thought
about it and now agreed that more investigation was needed. He joined
the others in hoping that the 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of
video footage held by NIST plus others held by the FBI would be released
for independent scrutiny; photos largely from private photographers
(NIST, 2005, p. 81). We call for the release of these data to a cross-
disciplinary, preferably international team of scientists and engineers.



11. One attendee to the BYU Seminar on 9-11 anomalies suggested I review
the paper by Bazant and Zhou, which I did. Quoting:

The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand
as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial
aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p.
2.)



Correct – jet collisions did not cause collapses – we can agree on that.
MIT’s Thomas Eager also concurs “because the number of columns lost on
the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining
columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eager and Musso, 2001).



We continue with Bazant & Zhou:

The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the
structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained
temperatures apparently exceeding 800oC… (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)



But here we note from the recent NIST report that: “The initial jet fuel
fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” and office material fires
would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005;
p. 179, emphasis added.) Certainly jet fuel burning was not enough to
raise steel to sustained temperatures above 800oC. But we continue:



Once more than half of the columns in the critical floor.. suffer
buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure above
this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts
falling down onto the lower part below…”(Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)



Hold on – Bazant & Zhou do not explain how “more than half of the columns
in the critical floor [can] suffer buckling” at the same time to
precipitate the complete and nearly symmetrical collapse observed. There
were 47 huge steel core columns in each Tower, and 24 such support
columns in WTC 7 (NIST 2005; NISTb, 2005).



The WTC towers were solidly constructed with 47 steel core

columns and 240 perimeter steel beams. 287 steel-columns total.

Many doubt that random fires/damage could cause them to

collapse straight down (official theory), and suspect
explosives.



Steel-frame: Huge core (left), enormous Heat Sink. Notice workers
standing on floor pan which is

firmly attached to the interconnected
core columns.





They do NOT explain how steel-column temperatures above 800oC were
achieved near-simultaneously due to burning office materials. NIST notes
that office materials in an area burn for about 15-20 minutes, then are
consumed away (NIST, 2005, pp. 117, 179). This is evidently not long
enough to raise steel column temperatures above 800oC as required in the
Bazant & Zhou model, given the enormous heat sinks of the structures.
And to have three buildings completely collapse due to this unlikely
mechanism on the same day strains credulity. Moreover, the Final NIST
report on the Towers admits:

Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only
three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above
250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to
make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ...
Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence
that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST,
2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)



As for WTC 7, Bazant & Zhou say little but mention in a separate
“addendum” that burning natural gas might have been a source of the
needed heat (Bazant and Zhou, March 2002, p. 370). The FEMA report
(FEMA, 2002) addresses this issue:



Early news reports had indicated that a high pressure, 24-inch gas main
was located in the vicinity of the building [WTC 7]; however, this proved
not to be true." (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added)



12. I have read through the hundreds of pages of the Final NIST report
on the collapses of the WTC Towers. (NIST, 2005) It is interesting to
note that NIST “decoupled” and delayed their final report on WTC 7, which
is overdue as of this writing (NIST, 2005; NISTb, 2005) I agree with
some of the NIST report; for example:

Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact, standing for
102 min and 56 min, respectively. The global analyses with structural
impact damage showed that both towers had considerable reserve capacity.
This was confirmed by analysis of the post-impact vibration of WTC 2…
where the damaged tower oscillated at a period nearly equal to the first
mode period calculated for the undamaged structure. (NIST, 2005, p. 144;
emphasis added.)

At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near
1,000oC was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated
temperatures were near 500oC or below.” (NIST, 2005, p. 127, emphasis
added.)

NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to
obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC
towers… All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for
approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” (NIST, 2005, p. 140, emphasis
added.)

However, I along with others challenge NIST’s collapse theory. NIST
maintains that all three building collapses were fire-initiated despite
the observations above, particularly the fact that fire endurance tests
with actual models did not result in collapse. In a paper by fire-
engineering experts in the UK, we find:

The basis of NIST’s collapse theory is… column behaviour in fire...
However, we believe that a considerable difference in downward displace
between the [47] core and [240] perimeter columns, much greater than the
300 mm proposed, is required for the collapse theory to hold true… [Our]
lower reliance on passive fire protection is in contrast to the NIST work
where the amount of fire protection on the truss elements is believed to
be a significant factor in defining the time to collapse… The [proposed
effect] is swamped by thermal expansion … Thermal expansion and the
response of the whole frame to this effect has NOT been described as yet
[by NIST]. (Lane and Lamont, 2005.)



I agree with these pointed objections, particularly that the “response of
the whole frame” of each building should be considered, especially heat
transport to the whole frame from localized fires, and that the “core
columns cannot pull the exterior columns in via the floor.” (Lane and
Lamont, 2005)

The computerized models of the Towers in the NIST study, which
incorporate many features of the buildings and the fires on 9-11-01, are
less than convincing. The Final report states:

The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by
combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the
influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle
cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The
less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were
compared to observed events. The middle cases (which became Case A for
WTC 1 and Case C for WTC 2) were discarded after the structural response
analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events. (NIST,
2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)



The NIST report makes for interesting reading. The less severe cases
based on empirical data were discarded because they did not result in
building collapse. But ‘we must save the hypothesis,’ so more severe
cases were tried and the simulations tweaked, as we read in the NIST
report:

The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2)
was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of
simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the
simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports
[e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input,
but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the
pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were
adjusted... (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to
provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter
columns. (NIST, 2005, p. 180; emphasis added.)

How fun to tweak the model like that, until the building collapses --
until one gets the desired result. But the end result of such tweaked
computer hypotheticals is not compelling, sorry gentlemen. Notice that
the “the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors
were adjusted” (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added) to get the perimeter
columns to yield sufficiently – one suspects these were “adjusted” by
hand quite a bit -- even though the UK experts complained that “the core
columns cannot pull the exterior [i.e., perimeter] columns in via the
floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005; emphasis added.)



I also agree with Kevin Ryan’s objections regarding the NIST study.
Kevin Ryan, at the time a manager at Underwriters Laboratories (UL),
makes a point of the non-collapse of actual WTC-based models in his
letter to Frank Gayle of NIST:



As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel
components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting
information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last
year… they suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working
with your team… I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing
tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests…
indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal
stress caused by… burning [jet fuel, paper, etc.]. (Ryan, 2004)



That models of WTC trusses at Underwriter Laboratories (UL) subjected to
fires did NOT fail is also admitted in the final NIST report:

NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to
obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC
towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for
approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was
cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of
collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test
results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting
exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the
conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test]
results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining
a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of
time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on
September 11. (NIST, 2005, p. 141; emphasis added.)



So how does the NIST team justify the WTC collapses, when actual models
fail to collapse and there are zero examples of fire-caused high-rise
collapses? Easy, NIST concocted computer-generated hypotheticals for
very “severe” cases, called cases B and D (NIST, 2005, pp. 124-138). Of
course, the details are rather hidden to us. And they omit consideration
of the complete, rapid and symmetrical nature of the collapses.



Indeed, NIST makes the startling admission in a footnote on page 80 of
their Final Report:

The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the
instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower.
For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable
collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural
behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were
reached...(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)

Again, on page 142, NIST admits that their computer simulation only
proceeds until the building is “poised for collapse”, thus ignoring any
data from that time on.

The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each
tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building
became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. ...(NIST, 2005, p. 142;
emphasis added.)





What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of the
buildings? What about the observed squibs? What about the antenna
dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten metal observed
in the basement areas in large pools in both Towers and WTC 7 as well?
Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the
buildings were “poised for collapse.” Well, some of us want to look at
ALL the data, without computer simulations that are “adjusted” to make
them fit the desired outcome.



13. Kevin Ryan, the whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories, did
his own statistical analysis in a recent letter regarding the NIST
report, arguing that probabilities of collapse-initiation needed to be
calculated (Ryan, 2005). NIST nowhere provides such a likelihood
analysis for their non-explosive collapse model. Ryan’s analysis is that
the probability that fires and damage (the “official theory”) could cause
the Towers complete collapse is less than one in a trillion, and the
probability is much less still when the complete collapse of WTC7 is
included (Ryan, 2005). Nor does NIST (or FEMA or the 9-11 Commission)
even mention the molten metals found in the basements of all three
buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7).



So where does that leave us? I strongly agree with Kevin Ryan,

This [“official”] story just does not add up…. That fact should be of
great concern to all Americans…. There is no question that the events of
9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the
issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. (Ryan,
2004; emphasis added.)



14. The NIST team fairly admits that their report “does not actually
include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for
collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis
added.) Quite a confession, since much of the external evidence for
explosive demolition typically comes after collapse initiation, as seen
in cases of acknowledged controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000.)

The rapid fall of the Towers and WTC7 has been analyzed by several
engineers/scientists
(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin,
2004, chapter 2). The roof of WTC 7 (students and I are observing the
southwest corner) falls to earth in less than 6.6 seconds, while an
object dropped from the roof would hit the ground in 6.0 seconds. This
follows from t = (2H/g)1/2. Likewise, the Towers fall very rapidly to
the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected
debris which provide free-fall references
(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin,
2004, chapter 2). Where is the delay that must be expected due to
conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That
is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel
support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted
mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the
effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case –
somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the
falling floor pans.



How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve
momentum in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by
FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of momentum and
the fall times were not analyzed. The paradox is easily resolved by the
explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-
floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-
speed collapses (Harris, 2000).



And these explosives also readily account for the turning of the falling
Towers to fine dust as the collapse ensues. Rather than a piling up with
shattering of concrete as we might expect from non-explosive-caused
progressive collapse (“official theory”), we find that most of the Towers
material (concrete, carpet, steel, etc.) is converted to flour-like
powder WHILE the buildings are falling. The Towers’ collapses are not a
typical implosions, but quite possibly series of “shock-and-awe”
explosions – at least the evidence points strongly in this direction.
The hypothesis ought to be explored further.



Those who wish to preserve as inviolate fundamental physical laws may
wish to take a closer look. Consider the collapse of the South WTC Tower
on 9-11:
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.
mpeg





Top ~ 34 floors of South Tower topple over.

What happens to the block and its angular momentum?



We observe that approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a block,
to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the
Second Law of Thermodynamics. The torque due to gravity on this block is
enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still
puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we
understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable,
amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports
failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11
report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower
after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005,
p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)



Indeed, if we seek the truth of the matter, we must NOT ignore the data
to be observed during the actual collapses of the towers, as the NIST
team admits they did. But why did they do such a non-scientific
procedure as to ignore highly-relevant data? The business smacks of
political constraints on what was supposed to be an “open and thorough”
investigation. (See Mooney, 2005.)



So I with others call for an open and thorough investigation. I hope the
international community will rise to the challenge. The field is wide
open for considering the alternative hypothesis outlined here, due to its
neglect by studies funded by the US government.

15. Finally, and by way of review, we consider the variations and
inconsistencies in the fire/damaged-caused collapse models with time.
The earliest model, promoted by various media sources, was that the fires
in the towers were sufficiently hot to actually melt the steel in the
buildings, thus causing their collapse. For example, Chris Wise in a BBC
piece spouted out false notions with great gusto

“It was the fire that killed the buildings. There’s nothing on earth
that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning…
The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and
eventually they would have collapsed one on top of the other.” (quoted
in Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 25)

But as we have seen from later serious studies, the jet fuel burned out
within minutes following impact. Recall the statement of expert Dr.
Gayle refuting the notion that fires in the WTC buildings were
sufficiently hot to melt the steel supports:

Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very
intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it
did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added)

Then we have the model of Bazant and Zhou, which requires the majority
of the 47 huge steel columns on a floor of each Tower to reach sustained
temperatures of 800oC in order to buckle (not melt) – at the same time.
But as we’ve seen, such temperatures are very difficult to reach while
burning office materials, in these connected steel structures where the
heat is wicked away by heat transport. (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 26)
And then to reach the 800oC at the same time, well, no, this scenario is
far too improbable.

So that approach was abandoned by FEMA in the next effort (FEMA, 2002).
The FEMA team largely adopted the theory of Dr. Thomas Eager (Eager and
Musso, 2001), which was also presented in the NOVA presentation “Why the
Towers Fell” (NOVA, 2002). Instead of having the columns fail
simultaneously, FEMA has floor pans in the Towers warp due to fires, and
the floor connections to the vertical beams break, and these floor pans
then fall down onto the floor pans below, initiating “progressive
collapse” or pancaking of one floor pan on another. Very simple. But
not so fast – what happens to the enormous core columns to which the
floors were firmly attached? Why don’t these remain standing like a
spindle with the floor pans falling down around them, since the
connections are presumed to have broken away? This interconnected steel
core is founded on bedrock. FEMA does not totally ignore the core:

As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the
exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported
height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased [no mention
of the huge central core anymore!], they buckled at the bolted column
splice connections and also collapsed.” (FEMA. 2002; emphasis added)

This approach finally fails to account for the observed collapse of the
47 interconnected core columns which are massive and designed to bear the
weight of the buildings, and it has the striking weakness of requiring
the connections of the floor pans to the vertical columns to break, both
at the core and at the perimeter columns, more or less simultaneously.

That didn’t work out, so NIST goes back to the drawing board.
They require that the connections of the floor pans to vertical columns
do NOT fail (contrary to FEMA’s model), but rather that the floor pans
“pull” with enormous force, sufficient to cause the perimeter columns to
significantly pull in, leading to final failure (contrary to objections
of ARUP Fire experts, discussed above). Also, NIST constructs a computer
model -- but realistic cases do not actually lead to building collapse.
So they “adjust” inputs until the model finally shows collapse initiation
for the most severe cases. The details of these “adjustments” are
hidden from us, in their computerized hypotheticals, but “the hypothesis
is saved.” NIST also has Underwriters Laboratories construct models of
the WTC trusses, but the models withstand all fires in tests and do NOT
collapse. (See above for details.)

We are left without a compelling fire/damage model, unless
one blindly accepts the NIST computer simulation while ignoring the model
fire-tests, which I’m not willing to do. And none of the “official”
models outlined above accounts for what happens to the buildings AFTER
the building is “poised for collapse” (NIST, 2005, p. 142) – namely the
rapid and symmetrical and complete (no tall-standing central core)
collapses. Reports of explosions, heard and seen, are not discussed.
And they ignore the squibs seen ejected from floors far from where the
jets hit – particularly seen in WTC 7 (where no jet hit at all).
Finally, what about that molten metal under the rubble piles of all three
WTC skyscrapers?

Remarkably, the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts for
all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors
are cut using explosives, near-simultaneously, along with explosives
detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors
helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus
symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs -- really very
standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermite (whose end product is
molten iron) used on some of the steel beams readily accounts for the
molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles.

I believe this is a straightforward hypothesis, much more probable than
the official hypothesis. It deserves scientific scrutiny, beyond what I
have been able to outline in this treatise. It is quite plausible that
explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings, and set off after the
two plane crashes – which were actually a diversion tactic. The science
is sound. The implications are paradigm-shifting: Muslims are
(probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all.





CONCLUSIONS



I have called attention to glaring weaknesses in the “final” reports
funded by the US government and shown evidences for a likely alternative
hypothesis. In particular, the official theory lacks repeatability in
that no actual models or buildings (before or since 9-11-01) have been
observed to completely collapse due to the proposed fire-based
mechanisms. On the other hand, dozens of buildings have been completely
and symmetrically demolished through the use of pre-positioned
explosives. The “explosive demolition” hypothesis better satisfies tests
of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not “junk science.” It
ought to be seriously, scientifically investigated and debated.

A truly independent, international panel would consider all viable
hypotheses, including the pre-positioned-explosives theory, guided not by
politicized notions and constraints, but rather by observations and
calculations, to reach a scientific conclusion. Questioning (preferably
under oath) of officials who approved the rapid removal and destruction
of the WTC steel beams and columns before they could be properly analyzed
– and others as outlined above – should proceed in the United States.



None of the government-funded studies have provided serious analyses of
the explosive demolition hypothesis at all. Until the above steps are
taken, the case for accusing ill-trained Muslims of causing all the
destruction on 9-11-05 is far from compelling. It just does not add up.



And that fact should be of great concern to Americans and to all those
threatened by American military and security units in the wake of the 9-
11 events (Ryan, 2004). Use of powerful, pre-positioned explosives in the
WTC buildings would imply an “inside job” (Griffin, 2004, chapter 2).
Clearly, we must find out what really caused the WTC skyscrapers to
collapse as they did.

To this end, NIST must release the 6,899 photographs and over 300 hours
of video recordings – acquired mostly by private parties – which it
admits to holding (NIST, 2005, p. 81). In particular, photos and
analyses of the molten metal (probably not molten steel) observed in the
basements of both Towers and WTC7 need to be brought forth to the
international community of scientists and engineers immediately.
Therefore, along with others, I call for the release of these and all
relevant data for scrutiny by a cross-disciplinary, international team of
researchers. The explosive-demolition hypothesis will be considered:
all options will be on the table.



AFTERWARD



In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the
hypothesis that WTC7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by
damage and fires, but through the carefully planned use of explosives. I
have presented ample evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis,
which is testable and falsifiable and yet has not been seriously
considered in any of the studies funded by the US government.

At the same time, I acknowledge that other notions have sprung up in the
near vacuum of official consideration of this very plausible hypothesis.
These notions must be subjected to careful scrutiny. I by no means
endorse all such ideas. For example, the video “In Plane Site” promotes
the theory that a “pod” holds a missile under the wing of the 757 which
hit WTC 2 (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). Careful inspection of the
undercarriage of a standard 757 leads to the explanation that the so-
called “pod” was merely a reflection from the bulged undercarriage
(Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). I find that the “pod theory” is very
weak and distracts from central issues.

Again, there is a notion that something other than Boeing jetliners hit
the WTC Towers (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). Scrutiny of
photographs and videos provides compelling evidence that jets did in fact
hit these buildings (Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). A March 2005
article in Popular Mechanics focuses on poorly-supported claims and
proceeds to ridicule the whole “9-11 truth movement” (Chertoff, 2005).
Serious replies to this article have already been written (Hoffman, 2005;
Baker, 2005; serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm).



Those espousing weak or untestable claims should realize that they may be
damaging the effort to achieve a rational debate of important issues by
poisoning the process with “junk science”. Likewise, the notion that the
“explosive demolition” hypothesis should not be debated since it would
imply a “conspiracy theory” departs from good science as well as from
numerous historical precedents of empirical conspiracies (Jones, 2005).
Scientific inquiry is not or should not be dictated by politics (Mooney,
2005).





ACKNOWLEDGMENTS



I gratefully acknowledge comments and contributions by Jim Hoffman and
Jeff Strahl, and Professors Jack Weyland, David Ray Griffin, Steven
Benzley, David Long, Bryan Peterson and Harold Stokes.



REFERENCES



Baker, Jeremy (2005). “Contrary to Popular (Mechanics’) Belief,” Global
Outlook, Issue 10, p. 14 (Spring-Summer 2005).

Bazant, Z. P. and Zhou, Y. (2002). “Why Did the World Trade Center
Collapse? Simple Analysis,” J. Eng. Mech. 128:2, January 2002.

Bazant, Z. P. and Zhou, Y. (March 2002). “Addendum to ‘Why Did the World
Trade Center Collapse? Simple Analysis,” J. Eng. Mech. 128:369, March
2002.

Bollyn, Christopher (2002). “New seismic data refutes official
explanation,” American Free Press, September 3, 2002, available at:
http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html.

Chertoff, B., et al. (2005). “9/11: Debunking the Myths,” Popular
Mechanics, March 2005.

Commission (2004). The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States,
Authorized Edition, New York: W.W. Norton.

De Grand Pre, Donn (2002). “Many Questions Still Remain About Trade
Center Attack,” American Free Press, February 3, 2002, available at:
http://www.americanfreepress.net/02_03_
02/Trade_Center_Attack/trade_center_attack.html

Dwyer, James (2005). “City to Release Thousands of Oral Histories of
9/11 Today,” New York Times, August 12, 2005, with quotes of
eyewitnesses available in New York Times archives at
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812
_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_01.html and
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812
_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html.

Eager, T. W. and Musso, C. (2001). “Why Did the World Trade Center
Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation”, Journal of the
Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 53/12:8-11 (2001).

FEMA (2005). “World Trade Center Building Performance Study,” released
May 2002, available at: http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm.

Field, Andy (2004). “A Look Inside a Radical New Theory of the WTC
Collapse,” Fire/Rescue News, February 7, 2004. Available at
http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId=46&id=
25807

Glanz, James (2001). “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC;
Steel members have been partly evaporated,” New York Times, November 29.
2001.

Glanz, James, and Lipton, Eric (2002). “Towers Withstood Impact, but Fell
to Fire, Report Says,” Fri March 29, 2002, New York Times.

Griffin, David Ray (2004). The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions
about the Bush Administration and 9/11, Northampton, Massachusetts:
Interlink.

Griffin, David Ray (2005). The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and
Distortions, Northampton, Massachusetts: Interlink.

Harris, Tom (2000). “How Building Implosions Work,” available at:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm, ca. 2000.

Hoffman, James (2005). “Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth,”
Global Outlook, Issue 10, p. 21 (Spring-Summer 2005).

Hufschmid, Eric (2002). Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September
11th Attack, Goleta, California: Endpoint Software.

Jones, S. E. (2005). “The Official 9-11 Story as ‘Bad Science’,” Paper
in preparation.

Lane, B., and Lamont, S. (2005). “Arup Fire’s presentation regarding
tall buildings and the events of 9/11,” ARUP Fire, April 2005. Available
at: http://www.arup.com/DOWNLOADBANK/download353.pdf

Manning, William (2002). “Selling out the investigation,” Editorial,
Fire Engineering, January 2002

Mooney, Chris (2005). The Republican War on Science, New York, NY:
Basic Books.

NIST (2005). http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf (“Final
Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the
World Trade Center Towers (Draft)”), Sept.-Oct. 2005.

NISTb (2005). http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%
20Collapse%20Final.pdf%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf (Part IIC – WTC
7 Collapse, preliminary), 2005.



NOVA (2002). "Why the Towers Fell," originally broadcast Tuesday, April
30, 2002; see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/.

Paul, Don, and Hoffman, Jim (2004). Waking Up From Our Nightmare : The
9/11/01 Crimes in New York City, San Francisco:
Irresistible/Revolutionary.

Penn Arts and Sciences (2002). Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002 ,
available at
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/summer2002/k911.html.

Risen, James (2001). “Secretive CIA Site in New York Was Destroyed on
Sept. 11,” New York Times, November 4, 2001.

Ryan, Kevin (2004). Letter to Frank Gayle, available at
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451

Ryan, Kevin (2005). “A Call for a Personal Decision,” Global Outlook,
Issue 10, p. 96 (Spring-Summer 2005).

Williams, James (2001). “WTC a structural success,” SEAU NEWS; The
Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, October 2001,
p. 1,3.


Fair Use Notice

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making
such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of
criminal justice, human rights, political, economic, democratic,
scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a
'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section
107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for
research and educational purposes. For more information see:
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted
material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair
use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
--
Yes, My Views Do Reflect Those Of The Republican Party
http://www.bedoper.com
Happy Hippy
2005-11-11 15:22:36 UTC
Permalink
But Georgie was so *innocent* that
day- reading to the little kids.
I'll bet he reads to his own kids, too.
What a nice man. He couldn't have had
anything to do with it, obviously.
John
PGP
2005-11-12 19:21:31 UTC
Permalink
You skeptics and folklore people are doing a poor job of contesting any
9/11 evidence.

Piss yourselves lately?




Poor formatting from a cut and paste. Read the original PDF:

http://reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6.pdf





VI: THE COLLAPSE OF WORLD TRADE CENTER 1, 2,
AND 7
We now reach the center of the tragedy, the hecatomb of innocent airline
passengers and
office workers occasioned by the unprecedented and inexplicable collapse
of the two
World Trade Center towers. Here is where vast numbers of ordinary persons
were
immolated by the terrorist controllers for the sake of their insane
geopolitical plans.
Coming from a family which lived in New York for six decades after about
1910, having
lived in New York City (Flushing, Queens) from the age of 4 to the age of
16, having
attended New York City public schools from the first grade through the
twelfth (PS 23,
PS 20, JHS 185, Flushing High School), having worked in the city for a
year as an adult
living in Brooklyn, and having had an uncle who was a New York City
policeman, the
author is as much of a New Yorker as anyone. 9/11 has marked a decisive
new step
downward in the city’s decline, and the bitter recognition of this tragic
situation can only
spur on the exposure of the actual process involved in 9/11.
THE KEY: SECONDARY EXPLOSIONS
According to the official version, which the 9/11 commission hardly
comments on, the
twin towers fell because of the impact of the planes and of the effects
of the subsequent
fires. The problem is that this is physically impossible, as we will
show. The fall of the
towers thus depends on some other cause: controlled demolition of some
kind is the only
possible hypothesis. The key to seeing beyond the official version is to
chronicle the
presence of secondary explosions, since these are the tell-tale signs of
controlled
demolition. When we examine the literature, we find a multitude of
references to such
secondary explosions.
Louie Cacchioli, aged 51, was a firefighter attached to Engine Company
47, based
uptown in Harlem. “We were the first ones in the second tower after the
plane struck,”
Cacchioli recounted later. “I was taking firefighters up in the elevator
to the twentyfourth
floor to get in a position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a
bomb went off.
We think there were bombs set in the building.” Cacchioli was trapped in
an elevator but
was able to escape with the help of some fireman’s tools. (People Weekly,
September 24,
2001)
Auxiliary Fireman Lt. Paul Isaac Jr. also spoke of bombs in an interview
with internet
reporter Randy Lavello. Isaac had served with Engine Company 10 in lower
Manhattan
during the late 1990s, so he knew the area around the WTC. Isaac said
that many New
York firemen were very concerned about the ongoing cover-up of why the
World Trade
Center collapsed. “Many other firemen know there were bombs in the
buildings,” he
revealed, “but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the
higher-ups forbid
discussion of this fact. There were definitely bombs in those buildings.”
Among those
suppressing real discussion about what had happened, Isaac cited the
neocon heavy
James Woolsey, who had been CIA Director under Clinton, who had become
the New
York Fire Department’s antiterrorism consultant. (Marrs 34)
Teresa Veliz was a manager for a software development firm. She was on
the 47th floor
of the North Tower when American 11 struck. Veliz was able to reach the
ground level at
about the same time that the South Tower collapsed. Flung to the ground
in total
darkness, Veliz and a colleague followed another person who happened to
have a
flashlight. As she narrated later: “The flashlight led us into Borders
bookstore, up an
escalator, and out to Church Street. The explosions were going off
everywhere. I was
convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone
was sitting at a
control panel pushing detonator buttons. I was afraid to go down Church
Street towards
Broadway, but I had to do it. I ended up on Vesey Street. There was
another explosion.
And another. I didn’t know which way to run.” (Murphy; Marrs 34)
Ross Milanytch viewed the scene from the 22nd floor of a nearby building.
He reported
seeing “small explosions on each floor. And after it all cleared, all
that was left of the
buildings, you could just see the steel girders in like a triangular sail
shape. The structure
was just completely gone.” (America at War; Marrs 34)
Steve Evans, a reporter for the BBC, happened to be in the South Tower
that morning. “I
was at the base of the second tower, the second tower that was hit,” he
reported. “There
was an explosion – I didn’t think it was an explosion – but the base of
the building shook.
I felt it shake … then we were outside, the second explosion happened and
then there was
a series of explosions….We can only wonder at the kind of damage – the
kind of human
damage – which was caused by those explosions, those series of
explosions.”
(Christopher Bollyn, American Free Press;
www.zeitenschrift.com/news/wtc/_wahrheit.ihtml)
Fox 5 News, a New York television channel, was able to catch on videotape
a large white
cloud billowing out near the base of the South Tower. The newsman
commented: “There
is an explosion at the base of the building….white smoke from the bottom
…something
has happened at the base of the building… then, another explosion.
Another building in
the World Trade Center complex….” (Marrs 35)
Tom Elliott was at work at his desk in the offices of Aon Corp. on the
103rd floor of the
South Tower just before 9 AM. When the North Tower was hit, he decided to
leave the
building and began walking down the stairs with a small group of people.
At the 70th
floor, Elliott was encouraged by a woman to disregard the announcement on
the public
address system that there was no need to evacuate. When Elliott had
reached the 67th
floor, United 175 struck the South Tower, above where he was. Elliott
later told a
reporter what he was able to observe after that: “Although its
spectacularly televised
impact was above Elliott, at first he and those around him thought an
explosion had come
from below. An incredible sound – he calls it an ‘exploding sound’ –
shook the building
and a tornado of hot air and smoke and ceiling tiles and bits of drywall
came flying up the
stairwell. “In front of me, the wall split from the bottom up,” Elliott
recounted. Elliott
was able to get out of the South Tower by 9:40. (Christian Science
Monitor, September
17, 2001)
At 11:56 AM, NBC News broadcast a segment in which reporter Pat Dawson
summarized a conversation he had just had with Albert Terry of the FDNY.
Terry had
told the reporter that he had about 200 firefighters in the WTC buildings
at around 9 AM.
Then, Terry said, he had heard a kind of secondary explosion. Dawson:
Just moments ago I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City
Fire Department, who was obviously one of the first people here after the
two planes were crashed into the side, we assume, of the World Trade
Center towers, which used to be behind me over there. Chief Albert Terry
told me that he was here just literally five or ten minutes after the
events
that took place this morning, that is the first crash. The Chief of
Safety of
the Fire Department of New York City told me that shortly after 9:00 he
had roughly ten alarms, roughly 200 men, trying to effect rescues of some
of those civilians who were in there, and that basically he received word
of
a secondary device, that is another bomb, going off. He tried to get his
men out as quickly as he could, but he said that there was another
explosion which took place. And then an hour after the first hit here,
the
first crash, that took place, he said there was another explosion that
took
place in one of the towers here. So obviously, according to his theory,
he
thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the
building.
One of the secondary devices, he thinks, that [detonated] after the
initial
impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the
towers. The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted
in the building. So that’s what we have been told by Albert Terry, who is
the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department. He told me
that just moments ago. (Wisnewski 135-136)
Proponents of the official version have attempted to explain some of
these explosions as
having been caused by gas escaping from leaks in gas mains, but this
cannot account for
the phenomena described by Terry. Nor can such other explanations as
exploding
transformers, etc.
Ann Thompson of NBC reported at 12:42 PM that she had reached the corner
of
Broadway and Fulton on her way to the World Trade center that morning
when she heard
an explosion and a wall of debris came toward her. She took refuge in a
building. When
she came out again about 10:30, she heard a second explosion. Firemen
warned her about
another explosion. (Wisnewski 136; Trinkhaus, 4 ff.)
The eyewitness Michael Benfante told a German TV camera team: “As I was
leaving, I
heard it. I looked back, and the top of the North Tower was exploding.
And even then I
did not believe that the whole tower could fall. I thought, only the top
exploded and is
now going to fall on me. I turned around again and ran away. I felt the
rumble of the
explosions, the thunder of the collapsing building.” (German ARD network,
“Tag des
Terrors – Anschlag aus heiterem Himmel,” August 30, 2002, Wisnewski 136)
A reporter tried to film a standup with the WTC in the background, but
was interrupted
by the sound of an explosion: “We can’t get any closer to the World Trade
Center. Here
you can see the firemen who are on the scene, the police and FBI
officers, and you see
the two towers – A huge explosion! Debris is coming down on all of us!”
(“Verbrechen
gegen die Menschheit,” West German Television, Cologne, July 24, 2002;
Wisnewski
136)
Yet another eyewitness reported: “We heard a huge explosion, and
everything got black.
Glass was falling down, people were getting hurt when the glass hit them.
It was a big
explosion, everything got dark, this here is not snow, it’s all from the
building, a horrible
nightmare.” “I was on Sixth Avenue and I had just tried to call somebody
when I heard
an explosion and saw how the people were throwing themselves on the
ground,
screaming and crying, I looked up and saw all that smoke, as the tower
came down, and
all that smoke in one tower.” (Segment by Oliver Voegtlin and Matthias
Fernandes,
NTV, September 11, 2001)
Another European documentary showed a man with glasses recovering in a
hospital bed
who recalled: “All of a sudden it went bang, bang, bang, like shots, and
then three
unbelievable explosions.” (“Terror gegen Amerika,” RTL, September 13,
2001)
An eyewitness who worked in an office near the WTC described his
experiences to a
reporter for the American Free Press. He was standing in a crowd on
Church Street,
about two and a half blocks from the South Tower. Just before the South
Tower
collapsed, he saw “a number of brief light sources being emitted from
inside the building
between floors 10 and 15.” He saw about six of these flashes and at the
same time heard a
“a crackling sound” just before the tower collapsed.” (Christopher
Bollyn, American Free
Press, December 2, 2001; Wisnewksi 137)
Kim White, 32, who worked on the 80th floor of the South Tower, was
another
eyewitness who reported hearing an explosion. “All of a sudden the
building shook, then
it started to sway. We didn't know what was going on,” she told People
magazine. “We
got all our people on the floor into the stairwell . . . at that time we
all thought it was a
fire . . .We got down as far as the 74th floor . . . then there was
another explosion.”
(Christopher Bollyn, American Free Press, December 2, 2001)
A black office worker wearing a business suit that was covered with dust
and ashes told
the Danish television network DR-TV1: “On the eighth floor we were thrown
back by a
huge explosion.” (Wisnewski 138)
The German network SAT 1 broadcast a report featuring survivors who also
were talking
about explosions. One of these eyewitnesses, by the name of Tom Canavan,
was cut off
in mid-sentence by two FBI agents who barged in, grabbed him as he was
speaking, and
hustled him away; this scene was captured on tape. (Wisnewski 138)
NBC TAPES SHOW CONTROLLED DEMOLITION EXPLOSIONS
In his best-selling study and also in his prime-time special broadcast on
German
television in August 2003, Gerhard Wisnewski employed out-takes from NBC
News
cameras near the World Trade Center to provide actual examples of what
are almost
certainly controlled demolition charges being detonated. On the NBC tape,
we see the
two towers burning and emitting clouds of black smoke. Then, at about
frame 131 of the
tape, there emerges a cloud of white-grey smoke along about two thirds of
the 79th floor
of the South Tower. Two thirds of the southeast façade correspond to the
dimensions of
the central core column complex, which would be where controlled
demolition charges
would have to be placed. This line of white-grey smoke billows up,
contrasting sharply
with the black smoke from the fire. At about frame 203, another line of
white-grey smoke
emerges several floors below the first, and billows up in its turn. This
represents decisive
photographic evidence of controlled demolition charges being triggered in
the World
Trade Center. (Wisnewski 216)
Andreas von Bülow, the former Social Democratic Technology Minister of
Germany
under Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, noted in his study of 9/11 that news
tapes show
smoke being forced out of the hermetically sealed windows of both towers
in the minute
or so just before they fell. (Von Buelow 146-147) This is very likely
also evidence of
controlled demolition charges or other artificial processes going on
inside the buildings.
FIREMEN WERE CONFIDENT OF EXTINGUISHING THE FIRE
The Guiliani administration in New York City, and its successor, the
Bloomberg
administration, refused for a long time to allow the public to hear tapes
of the radio
conversations among the FDNY firemen on the scene at the WTC. In the
summer of
2002, press accounts surfaced which indicated that firemen had been able
to climb to the
Sky Lobby on the 78nd floor and been able to survey the extent of the
fire from there. The
fuselage of United 175 had struck the 80th floor, and one of its wings
had clipped the 78th
floor itself. The FDNY officers describe a situation with only two
pockets of fire, and
they express confidence that they will be able to fight the fire
successfully with two hose
lines. Two officials who are mentioned by name on the tape are Battalion
Chief Orio J.
Palmer and Fire Marshal Ronald P. Bucca, both of whom died when the South
Tower
collapsed. “Once they got there,” the Times says, “they had a coherent
plan for putting
out the fires they could see and helping victims who survived.” According
to the New
York Times summary, the two officers “showed no panic, no sense that
events were
racing beyond their control…. At that point, the building would be
standing for just a few
more minutes, as the fire was weakening the structure on the floors above
him. Even so,
Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire and called for a pair of
engine companies
to fight them….
The limited transcripts made available on the internet were as follows:
Battalion Seven…Ladder Fifteen, we’ve got two isolated pockets of fire.
We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor
numerous Code Ones.
The audio tape has never been released to the public. The Justice
Department claims that
it is evidence in the trial of Zacarias Moussawi in Alexandria, Virginia.
(New York Times,
August 4, 2002) Christopher Bollyn, already cited, commented: “The fact
that veteran
firefighters had ‘a coherent plan’ for putting out the ‘two pockets of
fire’ indicates they
judged the blazes to be manageable. These reports from the scene of the
crash provide
crucial evidence debunking the government’s claim that a raging steel-
melting inferno
led to the tower’s collapse.” (Marr 38-39)
Earlier in the morning, Pete Ganci, the Chief of the Department, and thus
the highestranking
uniformed firefighter in the city, had told Giuliani: “We can save
everybody
below the fire. Our guys are in the building, about halfway up the first
tower.” (Giuliani
8) Ganci was killed in action later in the day.
THE CASE OF WTC 6
CNN broadcast the image of smoke rising up from street level near the
base of Building
6, the Customs House. This video footage had originated at 9:04, about
one minute after
United 175 struck the South Tower. Remember that WTC 6 was on the north
side of the
north tower, so any explosions there cannot be regarded as having been
generated by the
impact to the South Tower. A powerful explosion inside WTC 6 had hurled a
cloud of
gas and debris 170 meters high. A CNN archivist commented, “We can’t
figure it out.”
(Marrs 36) This incident was soon eclipsed by the collapse of the South
Tower, and has
tended to be forgotten. The various official reports have had precious
little to say about
WTC 6. Overhead views of the ruins later showed a large crater in the
steel structure of
WTC 6; it was clear that this crater could not have been caused by fire.
(Von Bülow 163-
164)
THE AGONY OF THE FDNY
FDNY lost 343 firefighters that day, more than their casualties in the
previous hundred
years. It is worth asking why this came about. In the case of fires in
high-rise skyscrapers,
outside ladders cannot be used above a certain level. Therefore, the
firemen are trained to
use staircases to climb up to the fire and fight it within the building.
They could do this
with a certain degree of confidence because no modern, steel-framed,
fireproof building
had ever collapsed as a result of fire. On 9/11, three of them – WTC 1,
WTC 2, and WTC
7, all collapsed. Veteran firefighters knew what they were doing. Their
losses are not
attributable to any mistake on their part, but, in all probability, to
the fact that the twin
towers and WTC 7 were brought down by some form of controlled demolition.
The 1 Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia had burned lustily for many
hours in 1991, but
came nowhere near collapsing. The 1 Meridian fire burned for 19 hours,
leaping from
floor to floor and burning out as combustible materials were used up. On
May 4-5, 1988,
the 62-story First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles – a structure
that was more or
less comparable to the twin towers – burned for more than three hours,
with bright,
intense flames licking up the sides of the building. In a post-blaze
assessment, Iklim Ltd.,
a company that specializes in building inspections and structural
analyses after fires,
concluded: “In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors,
there was no damage to
the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam
and a small
number of floor pans.”
These comparisons were noted with some discomfort by the New York Times,
which
commented that “High-rise buildings are designed to be able to survive a
fire, even if the
fire has to burn itself out. The strategy is to ensure that the steel
support structures are
strong enough or protected well enough from fire that they do not give
way in the time it
takes for everything inside an office building, like furniture, to burn.
In major high-rise
fires elsewhere in the country, such as the 1 Meridian Plaza fire in
Philadelphia in 1991
and the First Interstate Bank fire in Los Angeles in 1988, this approach
has worked. But
the fires at 7 World Trade Center raged mainly on lower floors and never
burned out, and
in the chaos of Sept. 11, the Fire Department eventually decided to stop
fighting the
blazes.” One can sense the acute embarrassment of the mythographs; this
is all just
absurd. “What the hell would burn so fiercely for seven hours that the
Fire Department
would be afraid to fight it?” said one member of the investigation team
quoted in this
same article. (New York Times, March 2, 2002)
THE ROMERO ANALYSIS
An important early contribution to the discrediting of the official
version regarding the
WTC came in an interview with a New Mexico expert in mining technology
which
appeared a few days after 9/11. This highly realistic analysis appeared
in the Albuquerque
Journal of September 14, 2001 under the headline “Explosives Planted in
Towers, New
Mexico Tech Expert Says,” the byline belonged to Olivier Uyttebrouck.
Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that
explosive devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech
explosion expert said Tuesday. The collapse of the buildings appears "too
methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the
structures,
said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of
Mining and Technology.
“My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the
World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the
buildings that caused the towers to collapse,” Romero said. Romero is a
former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at
Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on
buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television
broadcasts. Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of
controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. “It would be
difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that,”
Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.
Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washingtonarea
subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon. He said he and Denny
Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to
an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research
programs at Tech.
If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could
have
been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said. “It could have been
a
relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points,” Romero
said. The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points
in
each of the towers, he said.
Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack
would
have been the collision of the planes into the towers.
The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent with a common
terrorist strategy, Romero said. “One of the things terrorist events are
noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device,” Romero said.
Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts
emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion, he
said. Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary
attack
would have been the collision of the planes into the towers.
(http://www.abqjournal.com/aqvan09-11-01.htm -removed from archive;
see http://emperors-clothes.com/news/albu.htm)
Here was an honest appraisal from a qualified expert. Romero successfully
identified
some of the main anomalies presented by the spectacle of collapse, and
proceeded from
there to the only tenable hypothesis: controlled demolition. He was also
acutely
perceptive in seeing that the aircraft impacts could not in themselves
have been the cause
of the fall of the twin towers; they rather had to be regarded as a
diversion or cover story
to make the fall of the buildings plausible to public opinion. However,
the America of
late September 2001 was marked by a climate of neo-McCarthyite hysteria
wholly
antithetical to public truth; Van Romero later retracted his highly
insightful remarks, and
is rumored to have since found preferment from the federal government.
But numerous foreign experts arrived independently at similar
conclusions. Steffen Kretz,
the news anchor of the Danish television channel DR-1, reported that “the
World Trade
Center Tower collapsed after two more explosions.” In a commentary of
this same
network, it was stated that the World Trade Center collapsed after an
additional
explosion. (Wisnewski 138) On 9/11, Denmark’s DR-1 broadcast an interview
with Jens
Claus Hansen, a high-ranking officer of the Danish Military Academy. His
view was:
“Additional bombs must have been placed inside the WTC towers – otherwise
they
would not have collapsed as they actually did.” Another guest was the
former NATO
General Keld Hillingsøe, who commented: “Additional bombs must have been
installed
in the buildings.” (Wisnewski 138) The Danish newspaper Berlingske
Tidende, the
leading conservative paper in the country, published an interview with
the explosives
expert Bent Lund, who pointed out that fire alone could not have caused
the collapse of
the twin towers. He estimated that about a ton of explosives must have
exploded inside
the buildings in order to bring them down in this way. (Berlingske
Tidende, September
12, 2001; Wisnewski 138)
THE VIEW OF A SWISS ENGINEER
Another leading authority who raised the issue of sabotage from within
the towers was
Hugo Bachmann, professor emeritus of building dynamics and earthquake
engineering at
the world-famous Swiss Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zürich –
where
Einstein had taught. As Bachmann told the Neue Züricher Zeitung Online on
September
13, 2001, at first glance there seemed to be two possibilities in the
fall of the towers. The
first was the fire and its effect on the steel supports. But Bachmann had
an alternative:
“In the second scenario, an additional terrorist action would have caused
the collapse of
the buildings. In this way, according to Bachmann, buildings like the
World Trade center
can be destroyed without great logistical exertion.” The article went on
to say that
“Bachmann could imagine that the perpetrators had installed explosives on
key supports
in a lower floor before the attack.” If the perpetrators had rented
office space, then these
“explosive tenants” could have calmly placed explosive charges on the
vulnerable parts
of the building “without having anyone notice.” Bachmann thought that it
was less likely
that explosives in the below ground parts of the building could have
caused the collapse.
Here the logistic problems would be harder to solve in order to put the
charges in the
right places, and the foundations were probably of more stable
construction than the steel
towers. Bachmann commented that “the question of whether in fact one of
these two
scenarios is applicable cannot be answered at this time.” But he felt it
was a central issue
that the second scenario should get more attention, whether or not it
applied to the WTC.
Bachmann observed that anyone who had enough knowledge of static
structures and
explosives technology could in principle destroy any building, since
every structure has
its Achilles heel. An attack aimed at that weak point would be relatively
easy to carry out,
but would require careful and time-consuming planning. Not all buildings
were equally
vulnerable, but the twin towers of the World Trade Center were in
Bachmann’s opinion
probably among the more sensitive targets. (Wisnewski 141-143)
OPPORTUNITIES FOR TAMPERING
There are numerous pieces of unconfirmed anecdotal evidence suggesting
strange and
unusual activities in the World Trade Towers in the days and weeks before
their
destruction. One New York businessman told me in an interview three years
after the fact
that he had visited a client in one of the towers numerous times during
the months
preceding the attack, and had always found that certain elevators were
out of service.
Another report came from Scott Forbes, an employee of Fiduciary Trust, a
firm which
was located on floors 90 and 94-97 of the South Tower. Eighty-seven
employees of
Fiduciary Trust were killed on 9/11. In an email account, Forbes reported
that over the
weekend of September 8-9, 2001, floors 50 and above of the South Tower
experienced a
“power down,” meaning that all electrical current was cut off for about
36 hours. The
reason officially cited was that the electrical cables in the building
were being upgraded.
Forbes was an information technology officer in charge of Fiduciary
Trust’s computer
network; his attention was engaged by the power down because it fell to
him to shut
down all the company’s computers and related systems before the power
went out. After
the power down, he had to turn the computers back on again, and restore
service on the
network. Because there was no electric power above the fiftieth floor,
there were also no
security cameras and no security locks. There were however many outside
engineering
personnel coming in and out of the tower at all hours during the weekend.
Forbes lived in
Jersey City and could see the WTC towers from his home; when he saw the
conflagration
on the morning of 9/11, he immediately related it to the events of the
previous weekend.
(www.serendipity.li/wot/forbes01.htm)
SEISMIC EVIDENCE
The seismic effects of the collapse of the towers were observed and
measured by
Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory just up the Hudson
River in
Palisades, New York. Here seismographs recorded two spikes reflecting two
shock waves
in the earth on the morning of 9/11. The crucial fact is that these two
spikes came just
before the collapse of the towers began. Specifically, Columbia
scientists at the facility
registered a tremor of 2.1 on the Richter scale at 9:59:04 EDT, just
before the beginning
of the collapse of the South Tower, and a 2.3 shock just as the North
Tower began to
come down at 10:28:31 EDT. Both tremors were recorded before the vast
majority of the
mass of the buildings hit the ground. Although they were not of
earthquake proportions,
these were considerable shocks, about twenty times more potent than any
previously
measured shock wave generated by a falling building. The 1993 WTC truck
bomb had
produced no seismic effects at all – it had failed to register. At 5:20
local time on the
afternoon of 9/11, there was also a 0.6 tremor from the collapse of WTC
7, also at the
beginning, rather than the end, of this building’s collapse. Dr. Arthur
Lerner-Lam, the
director of the Columbia Center for Hazards and Risk Research, commented
that “during
the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by
the towers and
neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing
other damage –
but not causing significant ground shaking.” But Lerner-Lam declined to
draw any
conclusions from the glaring anomaly represented by his data, which the
9/11
commission has also avoided. (Marrs 39 ff.)
After most of the pile was removed, experts found that there were pools
of what appeared
to have been molten metal which had congealed on foundations of the
buildings many
levels underground. Some steel appeared to have partially melted, other
steel had
undergone alternations to its crystalline structure, and still other
steel was full of holes,
like a Swiss cheese.
GIULIANI OBLITERATES THE WTC CRIME SCENE
Mayor Giuliani, by pedigree, was a creature of the highly repressive
bureaucraticauthoritarian
apparatus which had consolidated itself in the Justice Department during
the
Reagan years. He now performed yeoman service in defense of the 9/11
myth, a myth
which had its most obvious vulnerability in its most spectacular point:
the unprecedented
and physically inexplicable collapse of the twin towers. Giuliani used
the pretext that his
term was ending on December 31, 2001 to organize the massive obliteration
of the WTC
as a crime scene. Parallel to this, Giuliani engineered a confrontation
with the New York
firemen, both to divert public attention from his tampering with the
evidence, and also to
neutralize the potential of the firemen, the one group which might have
denounced the
presence of controlled demolition charges in WTC 1, 2, and 7, of which,
as we have seen,
they were well aware.
During the crisis, Giuliani had been eager to exploit for his own
political image the
immense admiration and gratitude which had been expressed around the
nation and the
world for the epic feats of the New York firefighters. The firemen were
now the most
revered symbols in the country: typical was the cover of Newsweek’s post-
9/11 issue,
which showed some firemen raising a flag over the ruins, with an evident
allusion to the
flag raising on Iwo Jima. Giuliani made a practice of appearing in public
wearing a
baseball cap emblazoned with the letters “FDNY.” The police he relegated
to his
windbreaker, which bore the legend “NYPD.” Giuliani proved to be
treacherous in
practice to both, and he did this by playing the firefighters against the
police, and vice
versa – all in the service of the 9/11 coverup. The firemen, once
revered, would soon be
“inexcusable,” according to Giuliani.
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION AGAIN
Giuliani brought in Controlled Demolition, the same highly suspect firm
which had
finished the demolition of the Murragh Federal Building in Oklahoma City
in 1995, and
which had disposed of the evidence there in the process.
This contract was let surreptitiously just eleven days after 9/11, and
empowered
Controlled Demolition to recycle the steel of the World Trade Center.
Giuliani has not a
word to say about this in his memoirs. The city accepted rock-bottom
prices for the steel;
the priority was to make it disappear fast. Trucks hauling the steel away
were equipped
with $1,000 Global Positioning System locators to ensure that none of
them went astray,
and that no suspect steel ended up in the back yard of a maverick 9/11
researcher. All
investigators, in fact, were banned from ground zero. Now Controlled
Demolition would
eradicate any chance of using the abundant physical evidence present in
“the pile,” as the
mass of twisted rubble of the WTC quickly came to be called. It was a
scene out of Kafka
– it was impossible to find out which officials were superintending the
destruction of the
evidence, to save a myth that was being used to set in motion a world
war.
Giuliani, along with ghostwriter Ken Kurson, has produced a relentlessly
self-laudatory
and self-promoting autobiography entitled Leadership. This work
constitutes a monument
of hypocrisy. During one of his visits to the WTC site, the Mayor noticed
that many
visitors were taking pictures of the site. Because there was so much to
hide, he found this
troubling: “I noticed a disturbing phenomenon – hundreds of people
carrying disposable
cameras and handheld video cameras. I understood the impulse – this was a
historic
event, and experiencing it up close had a tremendous impact. At the same
time, this was a
crime scene, and a dangerous one. I did not want anyone to get hurt, or
to damage
evidence as they scouted out the best angle for their snapshots. If we
didn’t do something
about it immediately, it would soon be out of control, a voyeur’s
paradise, and we risked
the site developing a distasteful freak show aspect.” (Giuliani 49) An
independent
photographic documentation of the crime scene, one the FBI would not be
able to
confiscate? Horrors! Giuliani promulgated his infamous order that all
photos were illegal
in the area around the WTC complex. Those who risked a snapshot also
risked going to
jail.
When it was a question of preventing public scrutiny, Giuliani considered
the WTC pile a
crime scene where there was evidence that had to be preserved. But when
it was a
question of sending the crucial evidence to the other end of the world,
Giuliani’s motto
became “scoop and dump” – with the help of Controlled Demolition. As
Thomas Van
Essen, Giuliani’s fawning appointee as Fire Commissioner, described the
scene: “…a
full-blown recovery operation was under way, and the site had become an
enormous
construction zone. Trucks and plows rolled around everywhere. Giant
cranes lofted
massive steel beams over the heads of the men below.” (Van Essen 263) The
steel was
being sent to a city land fill at Fresh Kills, Staten Island.
According to Van Essen, by the end of October Giuliani was filled with
humanitarian
concern about the danger of accidents to those working on the pile. One
of the main
groups present there were firefighters who were seeking the bodies or
other remains of
their hundreds of fallen comrades. According to the literary provocateur
Langewiesche,
“there were some among the construction workers and the police who grew
unreasonably
impatient with the firemen, and became overeager to repeat the obvious –
in polite terms,
that these so-called heroes were just ordinary men. On the other hand,
the firemen
seemed to become steadily more self-absorbed and isolated from the larger
cleanup
efforts underway. “ (Langewiesche 158) “Firemen were said to prefer
watches from the
Tourneau store, policemen to opt for kitchen appliances, and construction
workers (who
were at a disadvantage here) to enjoy picking through whatever leftovers
they came upon
– for instance, wine under the ruins of the Marriott hotel, and cases of
contraband
cigarettes that spilled from the US Customs vault in the Building Six
debris.”
(Langewiesche 159) Langewiesche reported with great gusto the discovery
of evidence
that the firemen had been looting even before the towers came down.
“Fifty feet below
the level of the street they began to uncover the hulk of a fire truck
that had been driven
deep by the collapse.” According to Langewiesche, the field
superintendent who only
wanted to get on with the job at hand felt “delight, then, after the hulk
of the fire truck
appeared, that rather than containing bodies (which would have required
decorum), its
crew cab was filled with dozens of new pairs of jeans from The Gap, a
Trade Center
store. When a grappler pulled off the roof, the jeans were strewn about
for all to see. It
was exactly the sort of evidence the field superintendent had been
waiting for. While a
group of initially bewildered firemen looked on, the construction workers
went wild.”
(Langewiesche 161) The firemen, we must remember, were those who knew
most about
the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, and they were also
the group most
likely to tell what they knew. In this sense, the firemen posed perhaps
the greatest
immediate threat to the 9/11 myth upon which the oligarchy had staked so
much. The
obvious campaign of psychological warfare against the firemen, therefore,
was of worldhistorical
importance. Given the stakes, it would be impossible to exclude that the
dungaree incident which Langewiesche found so delightful had been
cynically staged as a
means of keeping the angry and rebellious firemen off-balance, distracted
and confused.
The jeans could easily have been planted at a quiet moment during the
graveyard shift.
Langewiesche’s reporting came out during the fall in the Atlantic
Monthly, and rankled
deeply among the angry firemen and the bereaved families.
On October 31, Halloween, Giuliani decreed without any meaningful
consultation that
there would be an upper limit of 25 firefighters on each shift at the WTC
pile, along with
25 New York City policemen and 25 Port Authority patrolmen. Soon “the
rescue workers
were up in arms. Stories went around that we had simply given up on
finding bodies; that
the mayor wanted to speed the cleanup so it would be finished before he
left office; that
we had recovered gold from the trade center and didn’t care about
anything else….Union
officials started telling the workers we were haphazardly trucking
everything to Fresh
Kills – a ‘scoop and dump’ operation.” (Van Essen 265)
Langewiesche defends the Mayor’s justification of cutting the firemen’s
representation
on the pile: “when Giuliani gave ‘safety’ as the reason for reducing
their presence on the
pile, he was completely sincere.” (Langewiesche 161) In his view, the big
problem on the
pile was “firemen running wild.” (Langewiesche 162) In mid-October, an
audience of
firemen, policeman, widows, and orphans loudly booed several members of
the Giuliani
administration, but also Senator Hillary Clinton and a local Democratic
politician. (Van
Essen 258) On Friday, November 2, Giuliani was able to harvest the
results of his
provocations. In the morning, more than 1,000 firemen came together at
the WTC. Their
chants included: “Bring the brothers home! Bring the brothers home!”, “Do
the right
thing!”, “Rudy must go!”, and “Tom must go!”, a reference to Fire
Commissioner
Thomas Van Essen, a Giuliani appointee. Their signs read, “Mayor
Giuliani, let us bring
our brothers home.” Speakers denounced Giuliani’s hasty carting off of
wreckage and
remains to Fresh Kills as a “scoop and dump” operation. One well-
respected former
captain appealed to the crowd: “My son Tommy of Squad 1 is not home yet!
Don’t
abandon him!” This was met with a cry of “Bring Tommy home!” from the
assembled
throng. This scene soon degenerated into an altercation between the
firefighters and the
police guarding the site, and then into a full-scale riot. Twelve
firefighters were taken to
jail, while five policemen were injured. Giuliani had gladly sacrificed
the 9/11 myth of
national solidarity to the needs of his campaign of psychological warfare
and
provocations against the firemen. It was All Souls Day, the day of the
dead, November 2,
2001.
At a press conference that same day, Giuliani hypocritically condemned
the actions of the
firemen as inexcusable. The police wanted to make more arrests, and were
scanning
videotapes of the riot to identify firefighters. The city was appalled by
what had
happened; many newspapers were anti-Giuliani this time. One trade union
leader,
Gorman, called Giuliani a “fascist,” and referred to the Police
Commissioner and the Fire
Commissioner as Giuliani’s “goons.”
On Monday, November 11, Giuliani and his officials were again confronted
by 200 angry
firefighters and bereaved families at a meeting. Giuliani was accused
again and again of
running a “scoop and dump” operation. One widow protested: “Last week my
husband
was memorialized as a hero, and this week he’s thought of as landfill?”
When Van Essen
stammered that the department had been overwhelmed, a widow replied,
“Stop saying
you are overwhelmed! I am overwhelmed! I have three children and my
husband is
dead!” Dr. Hirsch of the “biological stain” theory discussed below tried
to defend
Giuliani by arguing that nothing resembling an intact body was being
found any longer,
but he was shouted down by firemen who knew from their experience on the
pile that this
was not so. Van Essen was forced to concede that, based on photographic
evidence he
personally examined, remains were indeed still be found that had to be
“considered intact
bodies.” (Van Essen 270-271)
Giuliani’s rush to eradicate the crime scene without regard to the
preservation of human
remains thus served two important goals. He was able to destroy much
pertinent
evidence, and he succeeded in throwing the firefighters on the defensive
and playing
them off against the police, the construction workers, and other groups.
He was able to
split the firefighters themselves. The firefighters were tied into knots
emotionally, and
were left with no time or energy to pursue the issue of justice for their
heroic fallen
comrades, which could only have been served by directly raising the issue
of the
indications of controlled demolition in numerous points of the World
Trade Center
complex. Nor was the cynical oligarchical strategy limited to Giuliani:
at the 9/11
commission’s last set of hearings in New York City, the FDNY, NYPD, and
other line
departments of the city were mercilessly baited by the likes of former
Navy Secretary
John Lehman, who told them that their operational coordination was
inferior to that of a
Boy Scout troop. So far the firefighters have not been able to mount a
challenge to the
9/11 myth, which necessarily portrays them as incompetent, in spite of
their heroism and
huge losses. Only by demolishing the myth, only by unearthing the story
of controlled
demolition, can the immense historical merits of the firefighters be duly
recognized.
Giuliani’s memoir is mainly for self-aggrandizement, but it also attempts
to shore up the
official version at certain key vulnerable points, since the Giuliani
legend and the 9/11
myth are now inextricably intertwined. The following remarks are
attributed to Dr.
Charles S. Hirsch, the Medical Examiner of New York City in the late
afternoon of 9/11:
“Most of the bodies will be vaporized. We’re going to end up with
biological stains,
where the tissue has become shapeless, amorphous masses of matter.”
According to
Giuliani, Hirsch estimated that the temperature inside the building had
reached 2,000
degrees (presumably Fahrenheit). Such a temperature is impossible in the
physical
universe as we otherwise know it to be constituted. (Giuliani 22)
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS: “BORDERLINE CRIMINAL”
The scandalous eradication of the WTC crime scene was one of the main
themes of
hearings held by the House Science Committee on March 2, 2002.
Congressman Anthony
D. Weiner, a New York Democrat, led off by contrasting the businesslike
handling of the
crash scene of Flight 186 on November 12, 2001 with the chaos and disdain
for the
integrity of evidence that had prevailed on the WTC pile under Giuliani’s
management:
“Within literally moments of that plane crash, the National
Transportation Safety Board
was on the ground sequestering evidence, interviewing witnesses,
subpoenaing
information, if necessary, and since then, they have offered periodic
reports. One month
and a day earlier, when the World Trade Center collapsed, nothing could
have been
further from the truth. According to reports that we have heard since,
there has been no
comprehensive investigation. One expert in fire engineering concluded
that there was
virtually a nonexistent investigation. We haven’t examined any aspects of
the collapse
that might have impacted rescue worker procedures even in this last
month. Second,
reports have emerged that crucial evidence has been mishandled. Over 80
percent of the
steel from the World Trade Center site has already been sold for
recycling, much of it, if
not all of it, before investigators and scientists could analyze the
information.”
Weiner pointed out that at the flight 186 Rockaway crash scene on
November 11, he had
been able to “watch the National Transportation Safety Board point to
pieces of evidence,
[and] say to local law enforcement, don’t touch this or it is going to be
a felony if you
do.” (House March 104) That had been the procedure before 9/11, and it
had become
procedure once again after 9/11; only in regard to the 9/11 events did
these methods,
mandated by federal law, go out the window. It was a massive breakdown of
the rule of
law, and all in the service of the coverup.
Weiner pointed out that there was also plenty of blame to go around for
the federal
government as well. This centered on inter-agency turf wars, always a
favorite means
used by moles to disguise the scope and motivation of what they are
really doing: “…we
have allowed this investigation to become woefully bogged down and in
fighting and
lack of cooperation among agencies. Researchers from FEMA did not get
timely access
to the designs of the building. News accounts have said there has been
friction between
engineers in FEMA because of concerns about where the information would
wind up.
Even the National Science Foundation, which has awarded grants to several
scientists to
study the collapse, but didn’t coordinate these efforts with FEMA or the
American
Society of Civil Engineers.”
The reality was even worse. FEMA’s Building Performance Assessment Team
(BPAT)
was carried out not by full-time government officials, but rather by a
group of volunteer
investigators, with a budget of just $600,000. (Ken Starr’s budget for
hounding Clinton:
more than $40 million.) FEMA volunteers had no subpoena power, and could
not stay the
hand of steel recyclers or confiscate evidence if they required it. They
were denied the
blueprints of the buildings. They generally could not enter ground zero,
apart from an
early walking tour. They never saw a piece of steel wreckage until
October. Out of
millions of fragments, the FEMA BPAT was able to save only 156 from the
recyclers.
Weiner also deplored the parsimonious budget that had been granted to the
investigation:
“…finally, we have seen and noted the painfully that the financial
commitment to this
investigation simply is not there. It is not uncommon to spend tens of
millions of dollars
investigating why a plane crashed. But we have yet to spend even a
million dollars on
this investigation, and the Bush Administration has refused to commit to
release the full
funding necessary.” (House March 48)
In a later hearing, Weiner elaborated that “thousands of tons of steel
were carted away
and recycled before any expert could examine what could have been
telltale clues.
Support trusses, fireproofing fragments, and even burned-out electrical
switches that
might have given scientists and engineers insight were lost forever even
before an
investigation was underway. (House May 20-21)
Weiner was also well aware that the Giuliani administration, just like
the Bush regime in
Washington, was behaving with implacable hostility towards any and all
investigations.
“We just heard testimony that the city was the opposite of cooperative.
That they had
refused to provide basic information,” said Congressman Weiner at the
March hearings.
He told the government witnesses from FEMA and other agencies: “The idea
that there
was some level of cooperation, I have to tell you, the anecdotal record
is replete with
stories of people having cameras confiscated from them, being stopped at
checkpoints.
You are officials of the United States Government. The idea that this
should have to be a
subject of a long negotiation over what information would be at your
disposal, to me is
most troubling.” (House March 133) Indeed, the FEMA’s Building
Performance
Assessment Team (BPAT) was not even allowed on the scene until October.
Weiner’s concerns were shared by Virginia Republican J. Randy Forbes, who
complained that he was “disappointed to learn that investigators were
unable to examine
recovered pieces of steel from the Twin Towers before they were recycled.
I am also
troubled that investigators had difficulty in obtaining blueprints,
design drawings, and
maintenance records because of liability concerns from the buildings’
owners. (House
March 55) It even turned out that, despite repeated urgent requests, the
investigators were
being denied the out-takes of the video tapes shot by the various
television networks
operating around the WTC on 9-11. This is a reminder that moles are
sometimes just as
necessary in the private sector as they are in government.
Glenn P. Corbett, Professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice,
reminded the
committee that “handling the collapse study as an assessment has allowed
valuable
evidence—the steel building components—to be destroyed. The steel holds
the primary
key to understanding the chronology of events and causal factors
resulting in the collapse.
The collapse of the world Trade Center towers were the largest structural
collapses in
world history. A disaster of such epic proportions demands that we fully
resource a
comprehensive, detailed investigation. Instead, we are staffing the BPAT
with part-time
engineers and scientists on a shoestring budget.” (House March 78)
Corbett called for a
World Trade Center Disaster Commission, but the Bush administration was
not
interested.
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a Berkeley professor of civil engineering,
related his own shock
in discovering that the structural steel was simply being shipped out: “I
believe I was the
first one to find out that the steel was being recycled. New York Times
reporter Jim Glanz
told me two weeks after the quake—after the collapse. And I tried to
contact the city and
also the New York Times reporters tried to make sure we could have access
to the steel to
do the research. It was not happening. And I went myself—directly
contacted the
recycling plant and made the arrangement.” (House March 128) Even so,
most of the
steel was soon gone.
Congressman Crowley of New York correctly suggested that the flagrant
illegalities and
abuses of the crime scene would permanently undercut whatever explanation
the
government was seeking to purvey: “I do believe that conspiracy theorists
are going to
have a field day with this. They are going to make the Warren Commission
look like a
walk in the park. And that is unfortunate not only for the Members of
Congress who are
trying to work on this issue, but for all the families out there that are
listening very
carefully to what we are talking about today, what these experts are
saying. And I just
think there is so much that has been lost in these last six months that
we can never go
back and retrieve. And that is not only unfortunate, it is borderline
criminal.” (House
March 129)
Congressman Christopher Shays of Connecticut, a liberal Republican like
Giuliani, ran
interference for the Mayor. He rejected the idea that the WTC was a crime
scene where
there was still something to be discovered, something to be proven: Shays
said he had “a
particular bias that the actions against us weren’t criminal acts, they
were acts of war,
acts of terror. And I kind of bristle when I think of our treating this
as a criminal act in
which we have to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that someone did it
and they were
at the scene or whatever you need to deal with in a crime.” (House May
115) This
chauvinistic rhetoric was a cover for the urgent need of annihilating the
evidence. For this
school of thought, there was no need for evidence because there was
nothing to prove and
nothing to learn; they thought they knew what happened a priori thanks to
CNN and
Bush. The supposed government of laws was in eclipse.
Small wonder, all in all, that the august, 125-year old fireman’s trade
paper Fire
Engineering blasted the entire inadequate investigation process in
January 2002 editorial.
Editor Bill Manning wrote that “for more than three months, structural
steel from the
World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for
scrap. Crucial
evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design
practices and
performance under fire conditions is on a slow boat to China, perhaps
never to be seen
again in America until you buy your next car.” Manning charged that “Fire
Engineering
has good reason to believe that the ‘official investigation’ blessed by
FEMA and run by
the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is a half-baked farce that
may already
have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to
put it mildly, lie
far afield of full disclosure.” “The destruction and removal of evidence
must stop
immediately,” Manning demanded. Elsewhere in the same issue, a fire
official deplored
that “we are literally treating the steel removed from the site like
garbage, not like crucial
fire scene evidence.” (Fire Engineering, January 2002)
An extremely serious aspect of the botched investigation of the World
Trade Center
events involved the issue of the four black boxes from the two planes
(American 11 and
United 175) – a cockpit voice recorder and a flight data reporter from
each plane. The
official version, as codified by the 9/11 commission, claims that not one
of these black
boxes was ever found. But a New York City firefighter named Nicholas De
Masi claimed
that he escorted FBI agents into the WTC ruins and helped them to find
and recover three
of the four missing black boxes. DeMasi’s account is supported by the WTC
volunteer
Mike Bellone, who said that he had seen at least one black box being
taken from the
wreckage. The three black boxes were removed from the wreckage with the
help of
DeMasi’s all terrain vehicle, according to this account. Then the three
black boxes were
taken away by the FBI, and have never been heard of again. The black
boxes of the two
planes that apparently hit the WTC are the only cases in which black
boxes from jetliners
have not been recovered. DeMasi wrote about this experience in his book
Ground Zero:
Behind the Scenes, which was published by Trauma Recovery and Assistance
for
Children (TRAC Team) in 2003. Here DeMasi recalls: “There were a total of
four black
boxes. We found three.” DeMasi’s story has been denied by the FBI and the
FDNY. It
has been largely ignored by the controlled corporate media, except for an
article in the
neocon New York Post which alleged that TRAC team was heavily in debt.
(Philadelphia
News, October 28, 2004)
THE FEMA BPAT REPORT OF MAY 2002: “A HALF-BAKED FARCE”
The worthy culmination of this “half-baked farce” was the FEMA BPAT
report issued in
May 2002. A key section is the one entitled “Structural Response to Fire
Loading,” where
the central tenets are developed in all their intimate poverty. According
to the
FEMA/ASCE experts:
• As fire spread and raised the temperature of structural members, the
structure was further stressed and weakened, until it eventually was
unable
to support its immense weight. Although the specific chain of events that
led to the eventual collapse will probably never be identified, the
following effects of fire on structures may each have contributed to the
collapse in some way. Appendix A presents a more detailed discussion of
the structural effects of fire.
• As floor framing and supported slabs above and in a fire arm are
heated,
they expand. As a structure expands, it can develop additional,
potentially
large, stresses in some elements. If the resulting stress state exceeds
the
capacity of some members or their connections, this can initiate a series
of
failures.
• As the temperature of floor slabs and support framing increases, these
elements can lose rigidity and sag into catenary action. As catenary
action
progresses, horizontal framing elements and floor slabs become tensile
elements, which can cause failure of end connections and allow supported
floors to collapse onto the floors below. The presence of large amounts
of
debris on some floors of WTC 1 would have made them even more
susceptible to this behavior. In addition to overloading the floors
below,
and potentially resulting in a pancake-type collapse of successive
floors,
local floor collapse would also immediately increase the laterally
unsupported length of columns, permitting buckling to begin. As indicated
in Appendix B, the propensity of exterior columns to buckle would have
been governed by the relatively weak bolted column splices between the
vertically stacked prefabricated exterior wall units. This effect would
be
even more likely to occur in a fire that involves several adjacent floor
levels simultaneously, because the columns could effectively lose lateral
support over several stories.
• As the temperature of column steel increases, the yield strength and
modulus of elasticity degrade and the critical buckling strength of the
columns will decrease, potentially initiating buckling, even if lateral
support is maintained. This effect is most likely to have been
significant in
the failure of the interior core columns.
Concerning the twin towers FEMA, had only agnostic conclusions to offer:
“With the
information and time available, the sequence of events leading to the
collapse of each
tower could not be definitively determined.” Concerning WTC 7: “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.”
(911research.wtc7.net) The
World Trade Center disaster was the centerpiece of an event which the
Bush
administration had seized on to start what may well turn out to be a
world war, but that
main event could not be explained, many months after the fact.
The FEMA report is redolent of conscious distortion and of fraud. The
illustrations in the
spring 2002 FEMA report do everything possible to make the twin towers
look like
flimsy, unstable structures. In one cross-section (Figure 2-1), the core
columns are
depicted in about one third of their actual dimensions. FEMA gives short
shrift or no
shrift at all to the cross-bracing core beams and the core columns. One
picture (D-13)
shows what is purportedly a core column with a construction hard hat on
it to convey its
dimensions, but this column is about half the size of the real core
columns.
FEMA’s illustrations offered in support of their theory of truss failure
(2-20, 21, 22)
show no steel columns in the core of the building at all. These fake
diagrams duly
impressed the radical empiricists at the New York Times, who quickly
reported that the
interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, not 47 massive
steel box columns.
The heart of the FEMA argument is that the astronomical temperatures
allegedly reached
by the fires weakened the floor trusses, leading to each floor pancaking
onto the one
below. As the floors fell away, the columns in the façade as well as the
core columns
remained standing, but they then quickly buckled at the points where they
were bolted
together, and came crashing down. This theory is not based on
observation, but on pure
speculation. It is a purely cinematic explanation of what happened – it
tries to account for
the phenomenon of collapse, but takes no notice of whether such a process
could occur in
the real world. In fact, the floor truss/pancake theory cannot function
in the real world.
Even if the floors failed, the strong structure of the 47 central
columns, minus a very few
which might have been severed by the impact of the airlines (even fewer
in the South
Tower) would have remained standing. That would have left a 110-floor
steel spine
intact, and this is not what was observed. Many of the deceptive drawings
contained in
the FEMA report then became the inspiration for the graphics used in the
NOVA
documentary program on this subject which was aired on PBS.
Because of the difficulties of the pancake theory, busy academics have
whipped up new
theories to try to meet obvious objections. Apologists for the official
version start with
the notion of killer fires – fires which, even though they are fed by
carpets, paper, and
office furniture, are able to melt steel. From here they develop the
notion of progressive
total collapse – the buildings do not fall to one side, but simply
collapse in place upon
their own foundations. Since no modern steel framed skyscraper had ever
succumbed to
fire, the attempted coverup then required new pseudo-theoretical
constructs. One of these
was the column failure, or wet noodle, theory. This suggested that fires
melted the core
columns, and that was that. Of course, even the coverup cannot change the
fact that the
fires were not hot enough to melt the core columns. Steel is a very
effective conductor of
heat, meaning that a serious hot spot on one floor is likely to be
dissipated up and down
the columns that pass through that hot spot. The internal and external
columns, that is to
say, act as cooling ribs. According to a study by Corus Construction
cited at
www.911research.wtc7.net, the highest temperature reached by steel in the
presence of
hydrocarbon fires was logged at about 360 degrees Fahrenheit – far below
what is needed
to weaken steel.
Given the disadvantages of the column failure theory, the truss failure
theory was
advanced. The trusses were relatively lightweight metal structures which
attached the
metal decks bearing the concrete slabs of each floor to the core columns
and the columns
in the façade. The trusses offered the added advantage of being invisible
from the outside,
so that it was possible to assert without fear of being refuted that they
had gotten
extremely hot.
MIT Professor Thomas Eagar is one who has rushed into the many breaches
of the
FEMA report in an attempt to shore up its credibility. Not content with
trusses and
pancakes, Eagar has propounded the zipper theory, which he has
judiciously combined
with the domino effect. Eagar’s argument is that if the angle on one side
of the building
had given way, then the unbearable load on the other angle clips would
have caused the
entire floor to become totally unzipped in just a few seconds. According
to Eagar, “If it
had only occurred in one little corner, such as a trash can caught on
fire, you might have
had to repair that corner, but the whole building wouldn’t have come
crashing down. The
problem was, it was such a widely distributed fire, and then you got this
domino effect.”
(www.911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/trusseseagar.html) In reality, the
buildings had
been designed to resist a Boeing 707, not just a trash can fire.
FACT CHECK
The melting point of steel is 1,538 degrees Celsius, equal to 2,800
degrees Fahrenheit,
although it will weaken and buckle at somewhat lower temperatures. But
the absolute
maximum that can be achieved with hydrocarbons, such as the kerosene-like
mixture
used for jet fuel is 825 degrees Celsius or 1517 Fahrenheit – unless the
mixture is
pressurized or pre-heated through the admixture of fuel and air, which in
this case it
could not be. Diffuse flames burn at a lower temperature, and fires fed
by inadequate
oxygen are cooler still. The best estimate is that the fires in the
towers were burning at a
temperature substantially less than 800 Celsius. The collapse of the
towers through the
effects of the fires is thus a physical impossibility.
LOIZEAUX PREDICTED THE COLLAPSE
In the March hearings of the House Science Committee, Robert F. Shea, the
Acting
Administrator of the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration
noted that “the
World Trade Center was a tragedy. And, frankly, it was an anomaly. No one
who
viewed it that day, including myself, believed that those tower would
fall. Our collective
thought process for laymen and engineers and firefighters changed that
day forever.”
(House March 60)
At those same hearings, a leaflet was distributed by the Skyscraper
Safety Campaign, an
organization which included many members of the victims’ families. Here
the
Congressmen were reminded: “The collapse of the Twin towers caused the
biggest loss
of life in a single incident on U.S. soil since the Civil War. Their
collapse constituted the
first failures of high-rise protected steel structures in history. Not a
single structural
engineer, including those working for the firm that built the Twin Towers
and those
working in the Fire Department of New York, seems to have anticipated
their collapse,
even when those individuals saw the extent of the fires raging in the
buildings. The Twin
Towers were designed to withstand the impact of the largest passenger
jets of their day, a
Boeing 707….” (House March 167)
However, it turned out that there was at least one expert who claimed
that he had
immediately intuited that the towers could collapse. As John Seabrook
wrote in the New
Yorker, “among the dozens of people I have spoken to recently who are
experts in the
construction of tall buildings (and many of whom witnessed the events of
September 11th
as they unfolded), only one said that he knew immediately, upon learning,
from TV, of
the planes hitting the buildings, that the towers were going to fall.
This was Mark
Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition Incorporated, a
Maryland-based family
business that specializes in reducing tall buildings to manageable pieces
of rubble.
‘Within a nanosecond,’ he told me. ‘I said, “It’s coming down.” And the
second tower
will fall first, because it was hit lower down.’” Loizeaux was billed as
a “structural
undertaker” whose job was to destroy old buildings. Here is Loizeaux’
version of how he
foresaw the disaster:
I thought, “Somebody’s got to tell the Fire Department to get out of
there….I picked up the phone, dialed 411, got the number, and tried it –
busy. So I called the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management” – which
was in 7 World Trade. “All circuits were busy. I couldn’t get through.”
But how could Loizeaux know what no other expert claimed to know, and
which went
against a hundred years accumulated by civil engineers in building
skyscrapers? If
suspects are those who had the means, the motive and the opportunity,
then Loizeaux
may well have had the means. According to the demolitions man:
First of all, you’ve got the obvious damage to the exterior frame from
the
airplane – if you count the number of external columns missing from the
sides the planes hit, there are about two-thirds of the total. And the
buildings are still standing, which is amazing – even with all those
columns missing, the gravity loads have found alternate pathways. O.K.,
but you’ve got fires – jet-fueled fires, which the building is not
designed
for, and you’ve also got lots of paper in there. Now, paper cooks. A
paper
fire is like a coal-mine fire, it keeps burning as long as oxygen gets to
it.
And you’re high in the building, up in the wind, plenty of oxygen. So
you’ve got a hot fire. And you’ve got these floor trusses, made of fairly
thin metal, and fire protection has been knocked off most of them by the
impact. And you have all this open space – clear span from perimeter to
core – with no columns or partition walls, so the airplane is going to
skid
right through that space to the core, which doesn’t have any reinforced
concrete in it, just sheetrock covering steel, and the fire is going to
spread
everywhere immediately, and no fire-protection systems are working – the
sprinkler heads shorn off by the airplanes, the water pipes in the core
are
likely cut. So what’s going to happen? Floor A is going to fall onto
floor
B, which falls onto floor C; the unsupported columns will buckle; and the
weight of everything above the crash site falls onto what remains below –
bringing loads of two thousand pounds per square foot, plus the force of
impact, onto floors designed to bear one hundred pounds per square foot.
It has to fall.” (The New Yorker, November 19, 2001)
Naturally, the pancake theory was original neither to Loizeaux nor to
FEMA. The
pancake theory had been advanced by “Osama Bin Laden” in the remarks
attributed to
him, allegedly made in mid-November 2001, and widely publicized by the US
government in December 2001. Here Bin Laden is alleged to have commented:
“We
calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would
be killed
based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that
would be hit would
be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all.
(Inaudible) Due to my
experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in
the plane would melt
the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane
hit and all the
floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.” But there are
indications that the
stocky figure shown on the tape may not be the supposedly ascetic Bin
Laden at all, but a
double or ham actor. (Meyssan 2002 192)
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM: WTC 7
In the May House Science Committee W. Gene Corley, the American Society
of Civil
Engineers representative on the BPAT, conceded that “Building 7, which
was across the
street from the main towers, also collapsed and provided us with the
first example that we
recognized of a building collapsing as a result of fire.” (House May 30)
WTC 7 presents
the image of a classical controlled demolition. Whereas the twin towers
are seen to
explode, WTC 7 implodes – it falls in upon itself with none of the
spectacular mushroom
plumes of smoke and powder which had marked the demise of the larger twin
towers.
The foundations collapse before the façade, the middle of the building
collapses before
the outer walls, and streamers of smoke are emitted from the façade. WTC
7 did imitate
the twin towers by collapsing almost exclusively upon its own
foundations. WTC 7
contained electrical generators and a supply for diesel fuel to operate
these, and
apologists of the official version like Gerald Posner have seized on this
circumstance to
make the collapse of this building plausible. But there has been no sign
of raging diesel
fuel fires, as can be seen from the photos of the fall of WTC 7, so the
apologists are
grasping at straws.
The owner of the WTC complex was Larry Silverstein, who recounted the
fall of WTC 7
in the September 2002 PBS documentary, America Rebuilds, complete with
this
astounding revelation: “I remember getting a call from the…fire
department commander,
telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain
the fire, and I
said, ‘we’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing is
to pull it. And they
made the decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.” “To
pull” would appear
to be the jargon term in controlled demolition circles for the deliberate
detonation of
charges leading to the destruction of a building. And if WTC 7 was
pulled, why not WTC
1 and 2? (Marrs 43)
ANOMALIES OF THE WTC COLLAPSE
The twin towers did not simply collapse as a result of gravity; they were
violently
pulverized in mid-air in an explosive process which hurled debris
hundreds of meters in
all directions – they were vaporized by an explosive force. Anomalies
abound. The North
Tower was hit first, was hit hardest in its core columns, and had more
jet fuel burn inside
its structure than the South Tower – but the North Tower exploded later.
The South
Tower was hit later, with a more glancing blow which had less impact on
its core
columns, and which also caused more jet fuel to be consumed outside of
the building in a
spectacular plume; the South Tower’s fires were less severe – but the
South Tower fell
first. WTC 7 was never hit by anything, and had fires only on two floors
(there are no
photos of WTC 7 enveloped in flames and smoke) – but WTC 7 fell anyway.
WTC 6
witnessed an explosion and fire which has never been explained or even
addressed.
Finally, we have the embarrassing fact that steel frame skyscrapers are
virtually
indestructible by fire. The official version of events argues that, at
least as far as the
towers are concerned, it was the combined effect of crash impact plus
fire which caused
the collapses. But even the South Tower collapsed well after most of the
jet fuel had
burned away, and a fire based on paper, rugs, and furniture melts steel
even less than one
based on jet fuel. By all indications, the South Tower began the collapse
sequence
precisely at the moment when, well after the impact had been absorbed,
the fires too were
subsiding. The hole made in the North Tower by American 11 had cooled so
much that,
just before the collapse of the North Tower, survivors were observed
looking out through
the gash in the side of the building. (Marr 41)
The upper floors of both towers, after showing symptoms of high pressure
which forced
smoke out through the widows, exploded into spectacular mushroom clouds.
Debris and
other ejecta were thrown at speeds of 200 feet per second to distances of
up to 500 feet in
all directions. The clouds then descended, always emanating from the
towers as these fell.
The mushroom clouds had expanded to two or three times the diameter of
the towers
after five seconds, and had expanded to five times the diameter of the
towers after 15
seconds. Blast waves broke windows in buildings over 400 feet away. In
the thick
mushroom clouds, solid objects were hurled out ahead of the dust, another
telltale sign of
explosive demolition.
One might have expected the buildings to tip over at an angle starting at
the points where
they had been hit like a tree which leaves a stump as it falls towards
the side where it has
been most chopped, but instead they did not topple and there were no
stumps; apart from
some initial asymmetry in the top of the South Tower, the two towers both
collapsed
down on themselves in a perfectly symmetrical way – a suspicious sign,
since this is one
of the prime goals and hallmarks of controlled demolition.
The fall of the twin towers took place at breathtaking speed. The tops of
the buildings
reached the ground as rubble no more than 16 seconds after the collapse
process had
begun. A weight in a vacuum would have taken 9.2 seconds to cover the
same distance.
This meant that air resistance and little else had slowed the fall of the
upper stories. This
indicates that the lower floors must have been demolished and pulverized
before the
upper stories fell on them. The building, in other words, had been
pulverized, and in
many areas vaporized, in mid-air. No gravity collapse could have created
this
phenomenon.
The non-metallic elements of the twin towers, especially the cement slabs
which formed
the horizontal surface of each floor, were pulverized into a fine dust,
with particles of less
than 100 microns in diameter. This was the dust which pervaded lower
Manhattan as the
explosive clouds spread from hundreds of yards in all directions. This
dust took a long
time to settle, but the Giuliani administration tried to convince office
workers in the area
that there was no danger. All the steel in the building superstructures
was simply
shredded. The exceptionally strong central core columns were neatly diced
into 10 or 20
floor segments – something which has never been explained.
According to Jim Hoffman, the leading expert on the collapse of the World
Trade Center
and the source heavily relied on here, the energy necessary to create the
mushroom
clouds and expand them to the extraordinary dimensions actually observed
to pulverize
virtually all the concrete in the towers, and to chop the steel into
segments is far greater
than the gravitational energy represented by the buildings in the first
place. According to
Hoffman, there must have been powerful additional energy sources at work.
When
prodded to do so at recent conferences, Hoffman has been willing to
speculate that these
energy sources might have been unconventional ones. High energy microwave
interferometry using coaxial beams for constructive and destructive
interference might be
a possibility, but this would require so much energy that, if it had to
be delivered as
conventional electric current, it would necessitate a cable about half a
meter in diameter –
and there is no evidence of this. So the problem remains intractable.
THE TWIN TOWERS WERE ROBUST STRUCTURES
The twin towers were robust structures. The structure of the twin towers
was represented
first of all by an internal core of 47 steel box columns which measured
36 by 90
centimeters; the steel was thickest near the base, where it attained a
thickness of 10
centimeters (about four inches), and tapered gradually down to 6
centimeters on the upper
floors. There were 236 exterior columns in the buildings’ facades; these
were 10
centimeters thick at the base, but only 6 millimeters thick in the
highest floors. Each floor
was a steel plate into which concrete had been poured. In the center of
the building was a
reinforced core featuring four steel columns encased in concrete. The
structure is
abundantly cross-braced, so that stress in one sector could be
efficiently shifted to other
parts of the structure. All steel columns rested directly on the bedrock
under Manhattan.
This structures had been designed to withstand 140 mile per hour winds,
and had resisted
them successfully for more than thirty years. They had been designed by
Lee Robertson,
the structural engineer who built the towers to absorb the impact of a
Boeing 707, an
aircraft roughly comparable in size and fuel capacity to the aircraft
that appear to have
struck the towers on 9/11.
In the case of the twin towers, the technical problem of how to account
for the immense
quantities of energy released would seem to point to an energy source
beyond the
capabilities of conventional controlled demolition. For a possible
explanation of what
kind of energy source could have been at work, we must turn our attention
to the realm of
new physical principles, and thus to the class of directed energy weapons
which are
probably most familiar to the general public in connection with President
Reagan’s socalled
star wars speech of March 23, 1983. We may be dealing here with high
energy
microwave interferometry using coaxial beams for constructive and
destructive
interference. The inherent problem with this conjecture, as engineer Ken
Jenkins has
pointed out, is that such a device would require a power cable half a
meter in diameter,
and the presence of such a power cable has not been demonstrated. The
solution to this
problem will indeed require more time and research.
--
Pretty Good Pimp

http://www.bedoper.com
PGP
2005-11-12 19:24:21 UTC
Permalink
Maybe you whiners should email this guy if you need more info?



http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm

$1 Million Contest Details

This is void where prohibited by law: including but not limited to
Colorado , Maryland , Nebraska , North Dakota, Vermont, New Jersey and
Tennessee. It is void anywhere prohibited by law.

The contest page supercedes all previous ones and all previous offers are
withdrawn. 11-Nov-2005. Only one significant change has been made since
the beginning except for clarification, point 12 about molten steel.

In response to challenges that one cannot prove a negative this paragraph
has been added. There are several famous negative "proofs" that are
accepted by the entire scientific community:

The Second Law of Thermodymanics.
The Heisenburg Principal

If I prove that I am at point A, that proves I am not at point B.

If one claims that there is an elephant in a room and we enter the
room to find that it is empty, that proves there is not an elephant in
the room.

This challenge has taken the form of the latter two logical statements
above. When people say you cannot prove a negative, they are referring to
statements like:

"This exists because there is no proof that it does not exist."

All explanations, in all parts of this contest must be supported with
detailed drawings for all significant events. Particularly, explain and
document with drawings and engineering the following video clips: 1) In
first video at 0:02 the puffs start below the collapse. 2) At 0:05
several floors blow out at the exact same time. 3) The explosions come in
waves. 4) The 3rd video shows puffs coming out of floors far below the
buckling section. 5) At 0:09 some puffs come out of single windows far
below the collapse. Remember that the government claims that the elevator
shafts were open chimneys so that would have been the path of least
resistance to the blown out windows in the lobbies. 6) At 0:12 at the
lower left corner of the building explodes ahead of the collapse. 7) The
7th video, the collapse is not floor by floor as the left side explodes
approximately 4 floors ahead of the right side at the corner, not the
middle of the floor as the FEMA drawings show. 8) The first north tower
video the same. 9) The second North Tower video the demolition "squibs"
of dust shooting out several floors below the "collapse". 10) In the last
video the fireman describes how was EVERYTHING reduced to dust,
everything. Not even standard controlled demolitions do that as building
7 showed. No building collapse has ever done that. Explain and document.

11) The second flash above and our screen saver show a video of pieces of
the building flying UP and out over 100 meters with trails of smoke and
dust following them (at 6.1 seconds you see the best example); provide
details and drawings of how this happened including the trails of smoke
and dust. Remember that steel is brittle, it does not flex like Iron.
Therefore there is no possibility of it flexing enough to catapult itself
upward.

12) This is a new requirement on November 11, 2005: There are several
published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three
buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7. For example,

Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural
Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides [Eaton] continued,
ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event,
to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster."
(Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)

The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized
publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the
design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that "As of 21 days
after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still
running." (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)

Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and
Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her
canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer
2002, "'Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed
in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet." (Penn, 2002;
emphasis added.)

Dr. Allison Geyh was one of a team of public health investigators
from Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in
the Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In
some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel."

Since steel melts at approximately 2,800° Fahrenheit. The maximum
temperature of a flame in open air is 1800 degrees F. FEMA and NIST claim
a temperature of only 90O° Fahrenheit was reached to weaken the steel.
Explain how the steel melted without explosives.

13) Entrants must prove how the trade towers steel structure was broken
apart without explosives in 8.4 seconds. There is a sequence of photos
in Eric Hufschmid's Painful Questions on pages 50 to 55 showing big steel
beams falling in the air where the explosives are staying ahead of the
falling beams. That shows exactly what the seismic data shows; namely,
the explosives were shattering the building faster than the rubble was
falling. The steel beams were falling at free fall speeds.

The formula for distance and time is:

s=œat²

Where:

s = distance in feet
a = gravitational constant: 32 ft/sec²
t = time in seconds.

The videos and seismic records show that the time of one structure's
destruction was approximately 8.4 seconds though the complete settling of
the building lasted slightly longer, perhaps as long as 12 seconds, but
not long enough to account for anything but explosives.

s = œ * 32 * 8.5²
s = 1156 feet

However, WTC 1 (the north tower) had a roof height of 1,368 feet. WTC 2
(the south tower) was nearly as tall, with a roof height of 1,362 feet.
Each floor was therefore approximately 12.5 feet.

It is therefore proven that the towers' structures were destroyed at very
close to free fall speed, perhaps faster since there is air resistance to
consider. Impossible without explosives.

14) Since it is alleged that the floors pancaked down on each other
crushing each floor as it went, entrants' must prove explosives were not
used with a time line with the energy needed, mass affected, time to fall
and time to break all of the hundreds of thousands of bolts, rivets and
welds, crush all the concrete plus thousands of computers, desks, copy
machines, all the office contents, the speed of the total falling mass
after each impact, and net mass falling after each observed ejection of
the dust clouds of concrete powder, and the energy required to send the
cloud all the way to New Jersey in a self-contained flow (this alone
requires 14 tons of explosives - the 14 tons paper must be disproved as
part of this contest. 15) Contestants must show exactly how the concrete
was pulverized and ejected with detailed drawings).

16) Force is a factor relative to resistance. For instance, we are on the
earth's surface spinning around the earth's center at 1000 miles per
hour. So we each have the POTENTIAL force of our individual masses being
in a wreck at 1000 mph. But since we and most of the objects on the earth
are all moving at the same relative speed, there is nothing for this
force to work against and we are unharmed - in effect there is no force.
The same holds true for the building collapses. The potential force to
crush the concrete by the falling mass is relative to the resistance it
meets. If there is no resistance, there is no crushing. If there is a
little resistance, then there will be a little crushing, and so on,
depending on the amount of resistance. If the bolts, rivets, and welds
held, then the building would not continue to collapse. If the resistance
of the bolts, rivets, and welds was less than the power needed to crush
concrete, then the concrete would not have been crushed until the whole
mass hit the ground. Entrants must prove that the steel bolts, rivets,
and welds still had the resistance to stop the falling mass long enough
for the concrete and contents to be crushed. Then they must explain what
made them fail after the concrete was crushed. The timing is important
since it takes time to do anything, especially to crush concrete, steel
desks, etc. Entrants must include the energy required, source,
resistance, and timing for breaking the bolts, rivets, welds, office
contents, and concrete.

17) Entrants' must prove how the floors fell straight down so that each
floor was crushed uniformly and how the pulverized dust was ejected from
a steel pan with a steel plate and carpet over it. The official diagrams
show each floor hitting in the middle of the lower floor. If so, then the
concrete in the center might have been crushed, but not at the edges.
Since all the concrete was pulverized, entrants must explain this in
detail. Moreover, the graphic and video at the top of this page show that
the collapses in that portion were not straight down: that the lower left
corner is 4 or more stories ahead of the right. This must be explained in
detail and, like every other significant point, with drawings and then
the mechanism that changed the fall to straight down.

To disprove explosives were used, entrants must further :

18) Provide a time and heat transfer study of attainable temperatures
within the core and perimeter columns based on best available data on
fuel load, air supply, efficiency of combustion and the spatial and
temporal extent of the fires, which the photographs and firemen's radio
transmissions show were small.

19) Describe in detail what “additional local failures” took place,
consistent with temperatures attained and initial damage.

20) Explain in detail how such local failures could lead to sudden and
complete failure of all core columns.

21) Account for the highly symmetrical and near-vertical character of the
collapses.

22) Describe the initiating event and mode of propagation of the final
collapse, consistent with the observed progression of the collapses,
including the near free-fall speed and (almost) complete disappearance of
the core columns.

The first person to prove explosives were NOT used in all of the above
with a full, detailed mathematical analysis covering all of the points
above will receive $1,000,000. The proof will be subject to verification
by a scientific panel of PHD engineers, physicists, and lawyers.

This offer is void where prohibited by law.

Jimmy Walter

mailto:***@walden3.org?subject=Engineering Data
--
Pretty Good Pimp

http://www.bedoper.com
PGP
2005-11-12 21:23:32 UTC
Permalink
Harry Hope <***@IX.NETC0M.C0M> wrote in news:***@4ax.com:


A double plonk for you, asshole.
Post by PGP
Maybe you whiners should email this guy if you need more info?
http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm
$1 Million Contest Details
This is void where prohibited by law: including but not limited to
Colorado , Maryland , Nebraska , North Dakota, Vermont, New Jersey and
Tennessee. It is void anywhere prohibited by law.
The contest page supercedes all previous ones and all previous offers
are withdrawn. 11-Nov-2005. Only one significant change has been made
since the beginning except for clarification, point 12 about molten
steel.
In response to challenges that one cannot prove a negative this
paragraph has been added. There are several famous negative "proofs"
The Second Law of Thermodymanics.
The Heisenburg Principal
If I prove that I am at point A, that proves I am not at point B.
If one claims that there is an elephant in a room and we enter the
room to find that it is empty, that proves there is not an elephant in
the room.
This challenge has taken the form of the latter two logical statements
above. When people say you cannot prove a negative, they are referring
"This exists because there is no proof that it does not exist."
All explanations, in all parts of this contest must be supported with
detailed drawings for all significant events. Particularly, explain
1) In first video at 0:02 the puffs start below the collapse. 2) At
0:05 several floors blow out at the exact same time. 3) The explosions
come in waves. 4) The 3rd video shows puffs coming out of floors far
below the buckling section. 5) At 0:09 some puffs come out of single
windows far below the collapse. Remember that the government claims
that the elevator shafts were open chimneys so that would have been
the path of least resistance to the blown out windows in the lobbies.
6) At 0:12 at the lower left corner of the building explodes ahead of
the collapse. 7) The 7th video, the collapse is not floor by floor as
the left side explodes approximately 4 floors ahead of the right side
at the corner, not the middle of the floor as the FEMA drawings show.
8) The first north tower video the same. 9) The second North Tower
video the demolition "squibs" of dust shooting out several floors
below the "collapse". 10) In the last video the fireman describes how
was EVERYTHING reduced to dust, everything. Not even standard
controlled demolitions do that as building 7 showed. No building
collapse has ever done that. Explain and document.
11) The second flash above and our screen saver show a video of pieces
of the building flying UP and out over 100 meters with trails of smoke
and dust following them (at 6.1 seconds you see the best example);
provide details and drawings of how this happened including the trails
of smoke and dust. Remember that steel is brittle, it does not flex
like Iron. Therefore there is no possibility of it flexing enough to
catapult itself upward.
12) This is a new requirement on November 11, 2005: There are several
published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three
buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7. For example,
Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural
Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides [Eaton] continued,
ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the
event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster."
(Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)
The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized
publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for
the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that "As of
21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten
steel was still running." (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)
Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and
Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her
canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer
2002, "'Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel
flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet." (Penn,
2002; emphasis added.)
Dr. Allison Geyh was one of a team of public health investigators
from Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported
in the Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public
Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten
steel."
Since steel melts at approximately 2,800° Fahrenheit. The maximum
temperature of a flame in open air is 1800 degrees F. FEMA and NIST
claim a temperature of only 90O° Fahrenheit was reached to weaken the
steel. Explain how the steel melted without explosives.
13) Entrants must prove how the trade towers steel structure was
broken apart without explosives in 8.4 seconds. There is a sequence
of photos in Eric Hufschmid's Painful Questions on pages 50 to 55
showing big steel beams falling in the air where the explosives are
staying ahead of the falling beams. That shows exactly what the
seismic data shows; namely, the explosives were shattering the
building faster than the rubble was falling. The steel beams were
falling at free fall speeds.
s=œat²
s = distance in feet
a = gravitational constant: 32 ft/sec²
t = time in seconds.
The videos and seismic records show that the time of one structure's
destruction was approximately 8.4 seconds though the complete settling
of the building lasted slightly longer, perhaps as long as 12 seconds,
but not long enough to account for anything but explosives.
s = œ * 32 * 8.5²
s = 1156 feet
However, WTC 1 (the north tower) had a roof height of 1,368 feet. WTC
2 (the south tower) was nearly as tall, with a roof height of 1,362
feet. Each floor was therefore approximately 12.5 feet.
It is therefore proven that the towers' structures were destroyed at
very close to free fall speed, perhaps faster since there is air
resistance to consider. Impossible without explosives.
14) Since it is alleged that the floors pancaked down on each other
crushing each floor as it went, entrants' must prove explosives were
not used with a time line with the energy needed, mass affected, time
to fall and time to break all of the hundreds of thousands of bolts,
rivets and welds, crush all the concrete plus thousands of computers,
desks, copy machines, all the office contents, the speed of the total
falling mass after each impact, and net mass falling after each
observed ejection of the dust clouds of concrete powder, and the
energy required to send the cloud all the way to New Jersey in a
self-contained flow (this alone requires 14 tons of explosives - the
14 tons paper must be disproved as part of this contest. 15)
Contestants must show exactly how the concrete was pulverized and
ejected with detailed drawings).
16) Force is a factor relative to resistance. For instance, we are on
the earth's surface spinning around the earth's center at 1000 miles
per hour. So we each have the POTENTIAL force of our individual masses
being in a wreck at 1000 mph. But since we and most of the objects on
the earth are all moving at the same relative speed, there is nothing
for this force to work against and we are unharmed - in effect there
is no force. The same holds true for the building collapses. The
potential force to crush the concrete by the falling mass is relative
to the resistance it meets. If there is no resistance, there is no
crushing. If there is a little resistance, then there will be a little
crushing, and so on, depending on the amount of resistance. If the
bolts, rivets, and welds held, then the building would not continue to
collapse. If the resistance of the bolts, rivets, and welds was less
than the power needed to crush concrete, then the concrete would not
have been crushed until the whole mass hit the ground. Entrants must
prove that the steel bolts, rivets, and welds still had the resistance
to stop the falling mass long enough for the concrete and contents to
be crushed. Then they must explain what made them fail after the
concrete was crushed. The timing is important since it takes time to
do anything, especially to crush concrete, steel desks, etc. Entrants
must include the energy required, source, resistance, and timing for
breaking the bolts, rivets, welds, office contents, and concrete.
17) Entrants' must prove how the floors fell straight down so that
each floor was crushed uniformly and how the pulverized dust was
ejected from a steel pan with a steel plate and carpet over it. The
official diagrams show each floor hitting in the middle of the lower
floor. If so, then the concrete in the center might have been crushed,
but not at the edges. Since all the concrete was pulverized, entrants
must explain this in detail. Moreover, the graphic and video at the
top of this page show that the collapses in that portion were not
straight down: that the lower left corner is 4 or more stories ahead
of the right. This must be explained in detail and, like every other
significant point, with drawings and then the mechanism that changed
the fall to straight down.
18) Provide a time and heat transfer study of attainable temperatures
within the core and perimeter columns based on best available data on
fuel load, air supply, efficiency of combustion and the spatial and
temporal extent of the fires, which the photographs and firemen's
radio transmissions show were small.
19) Describe in detail what “additional local failures” took place,
consistent with temperatures attained and initial damage.
20) Explain in detail how such local failures could lead to sudden and
complete failure of all core columns.
21) Account for the highly symmetrical and near-vertical character of
the collapses.
22) Describe the initiating event and mode of propagation of the final
collapse, consistent with the observed progression of the collapses,
including the near free-fall speed and (almost) complete disappearance
of the core columns.
The first person to prove explosives were NOT used in all of the above
with a full, detailed mathematical analysis covering all of the points
above will receive $1,000,000. The proof will be subject to
verification by a scientific panel of PHD engineers, physicists, and
lawyers.
This offer is void where prohibited by law.
Jimmy Walter
--
Pretty Good Pimp

http://www.bedoper.com
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...