Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Capsules   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   North Spore Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]
InvisibleUna
controlleddemolition

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 970
World Trade Center 7 collapse
    #5371421 - 03/06/06 04:11 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

My first post in a long time and, although i usually posted in the cultivation forum, i found this so simportant is needed to post here.

I've been recently reading up on the whole 9/11 issue and i've come to the conclusion that are many things that happened that (and before, and after) that have been omitted or distorted in the official accounts.

The greatest mystery of all is definately the collapse of building 7. Most people don't even know that WTC7, a 47 story building, totally collapsed later that day even though it was never hit by a plane.

I would love to hear your opinions since this forum is dedicated to 'science and technology' and not politics.




I've taken the liberty of cutting and pasting the following story together from:

www.wtc7.net

You can find the whole thing including references and all the video's and images there:

Building 7 was one of New York City's larger buildings. A sleek bronze-colored skyscraper with a trapezoidal footprint, it occupied an entire city block and rose over 600 feet above street level.

One of the most interesting tenants was then-Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management, and its emergency command center on the 23rd floor. This floor received 15 million dollars worth of renovations, including independent and secure air and water supplies, and bullet and bomb resistant windows designed to withstand 200 MPH winds.

Building 7 occupied a city block immediately north of the World Trade Center complex. WTC 1 through WTC 6 were on the superblock bounded by West, Church, Liberty, and Vessey Streets. Building 7 was wedged between the Verizon and U.S. Post Office buildings across Vessey Street from the WTC complex. It straddled an electrical substation that filled the first two stories of about half the block.

Fires supposedly broke out in Building 7 following the impact of Flight 175 with the South Tower. Small fires burned inside the building throughout the day until its sudden collapse at 5:20 PM.



Despite the fact that the fires in Building 7 were insignificant compared to other office fires, a decision was made not to fight them. The government has never explained that decision. 

Building 7 collapsed in a nearly perfectly vertical motion at near the rate of free-fall. The first sign of the collapse is the falling of the penthouse, immediately followed by the falling of the whole facade, as seen from either the north and south. The middle of the building's north wall fell slightly faster than its edges.

Dust engulfed the building when the roof had fallen to within about 15 stories of street level.  The nature of the collapse past that point can be inferred by the shape of the rubble pile and the fact that it was covered by the remains of the exterior walls. This means that, not only did the building continue to fall vertically until the end, the outer walls were pulled inward so that they fell on top of the rubble pile.

Each of the following videos shows the entire visible portion of the building falling with a vertical precision otherwise seen only in controlled demolition. Moreover, they show that the collapse took only about 6.5 seconds from start to finish. That rate of fall is within a second of the time it would take an object to fall from the building's roof with no air resistance

(copy and paste the links in your browser)

video broadcast by CBS
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc_7_cbs.mpg

video from an NBC news camera
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse.mpg

video broadcast on CBS
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg

Less than seven seconds after Building 7 began to implode, all that was left of the steel skyscraper was a rubble pile. The rubble pile is notable for several features:

* its location - It was centered around the vertical axis of the former building.
* its size - The pile from the 47-story building was less than two stories high.
* its tidiness - The pile was almost entirely within the footprint of the former building

The American Public was treated to wall-to-wall television coverage of the September 11th attack throughout the day and for nearly the entire following week. Yet most Americans remember only two skyscrapers collapsing in Lower Manhattan on the day of the attack: the Twin Towers. The total collapse of the third huge skyscraper late in the afternoon of September 11th was reported as if it were an insignificant footnote. The television networks played video of the jets impacting the Twin Towers hundreds of times. But most people never saw video of Building 7's collapse.

Building 7 was neither hit by an airplane nor, apparently, by heavy fallout from the collapse of either of the Twin Towers. If you believe the official story that it collapsed from fires, it would be the first case in history in which fires leveled a steel frame building. Shouldn't that have been newsworthy, given its implications for building safety and rescue and firefighting operations? Incredibly, it is very difficult to find any mention of building 7 in newspapers, magazines, or broadcast media reports about the September 11th attack.

Yet, despite the paramount importance of the remains, they were hauled away and melted down as quickly as possible. The steel was sold to scrap metals vendors and most was soon on ships bound for China and India. Some of the smaller pieces and a few token large pieces of steel marked 'save' were allowed to be inspected at Fresh Kills landfill by FEMA's BPAT volunteers.

Officials running the "cleanup operation" took pains to make sure the structural steel didn't end up anywhere but in blast furnaces. They installed GPS locater devices on each of the trucks hauling loads from Ground Zero at a cost of $1000 each. One driver who took an extended lunch break was dismissed.

FEMA's BPAT, the only official organization that reported on Building 7's collapse, was completely indecisive. Their report stated: 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. 

Later, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) was charged with investigating the collapses of the World Trade Center skyscrapers by the National Construction Safety Team Act (HR 4687), enacted on Oct. 1, 2002. 1 Unlike FEMA, NIST chose to separate their analysis of the Twin Towers and Building 7 into two separate reports. Although they initially promised to release their final report on Building 7 in mid-2005, they delayed the publication date multiple times. As of this writing the report is promised sometime in 2006.

A PBS documentary about the 9/11/01 attack, America Rebuilds, features an interview with the leaseholder of the destroyed WTC complex, Larry Silverstein. In it, the elderly developer makes the following statement:

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such 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. 
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pullIt3.wmv

This statement seems to suggest that the FDNY decided to demolish the building in accordance with Silverstein's suggestion, since the phrase "pull it" in this context seems to mean to demolish the building. At least that interpretation appears to be supported by a statement by a Ground Zero worker in the same documentary:

... we're getting ready to pull the building six. 

The earlier official report by FEMA, the World Trade Center Building Performance Study had blamed the collapse entirely on fires, raising the obvious question of how fires could have induced the total collapse of this steel-framed building when fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed building. NIST's WTC 7 inquiry appears to have been motivated by the need to supply additional causitive factors to make the collapse of this building without controlled demolition seem more plausible. Hence, it created a scenario of severe structural damage that cannot be easily confirmed or denied.



NIST would have us believe that the failure of a single column near ground level led, first to a vertical progression of failures, causing the collapse of the East Penthouse, followed by a horizontal progression of failures leading the the collapse of all of the building's 27 core columns, precipitating a total collapse.

In other words, NIST asserts that WTC 7 collapsed like a house of cards.

Even if one accepts all of NIST's claims about extensive structural damage to WTC 7, and its claims about fires on several different floors, its collapse scenario is not remotely plausible. The alleged damage was asymmetric, confined to the tower's south side, and any weakening of the steelwork from fire exposure would also be asymmetric. Thus, even if the damage were sufficient to cause the whole building to collapse, it would have fallen over asymmetrically -- toward the south. But WTC 7 fell straight down, into its footprint.


Fires versus Steel Buildings

Fires Versus Steel Buildings
The official explanation that fires caused the collapse of Building 7 is incredible in light of the fact that fires have never caused a steel-framed building to totally collapse, before or after September 11th, 2001.

Steel-framed highrises (buildings of fifteen stories or more) have been widespread for over 100 years. There have been hundreds of incidents involving severe fires in such buildings, and none have led to complete collapse, or even partial collapse of support columns.

The Interstate Bank Building fire consumed several floors but did not damage the steel superstructure. 
Recent examples of highrise fires include the 1991 One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia, which raged for 18 hours and gutted 8 floors of the 38 floor building; 1 and the 1988 First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles, which burned out of control for 3 1/2 hours and gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower. Both of these fires were far more severe than any fires seen in Building 7, but those buildings did not collapse. The Los Angeles fire was described as producing "no damage to the main structural members".



Research indicates that even if a steel frame building were subjected to an impossible superfire, hundreds of degrees hotter and far more extensive then any fire ever observed in a real building, it would still not collapse. Appendix A of The World Trade Center Building Performance Study contains the following:

In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments). 

In building fires outside of such laboratory experiments, steel beams and columns probably never exceed 500 C. In extensive fire tests of steel frame carparks conducted by Corus Construction in several countries, measured temperatures of the steel columns and beams, including in uninsulated structures, never exceeded 360 C.


This is me again :smile:

There's also a peer reviewed paper by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D. "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

A presentation (2 hours but very interesting) can be found here:
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/S...Seekers.org.wmv

I would love to hear your scientific opinions about this subject. Please only respond if you are at least a bit informed about the issue and don't call me a 'tinfoil hat.


Thanks!


Edited by Una (03/06/06 04:24 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMadtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 5 months, 23 days
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: Una]
    #5371476 - 03/06/06 04:22 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

By Steven E. Jones

Department of Physics and Astronomy

Brigham Young University





I didnt even know they taught sciences at Brigham Young. At a school funded and run almost exclusively by a science-hating religion, thats good for a laugh.


--------------------
After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action.  If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it.  - Ernest Hemingway

If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it.  In the law courts, in business, in government.  There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent.    -Cormac MacCarthy

He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.  - Aeschylus


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: Una]
    #5372375 - 03/06/06 09:05 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).




Was this before or after a 100 ton aircraft was flown into it at 300mph?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinebarfightlard
tales of theinexpressible
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/29/03 Happy 21st Shroomiversary!
Posts: 8,670
Loc: Canoodia
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: Catalysis]
    #5372549 - 03/06/06 09:57 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Well the twin towers were desgined to take multiple hits each.......The WTC tower 7 just had a regular fire going on inside of it and no steel building in history has ever collapsed because of a fire, even ones that burned MUCh longer than the one in building 7.


--------------------

"What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?" - Bill Hicks


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: barfightlard]
    #5373255 - 03/07/06 02:07 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

bellylard said:
Well the twin towers were desgined to take multiple hits each.......




But they weren't designed to withstand having burning jet fuel sprayed everywhere on the structure.

Quote:

bellylard said:
The WTC tower 7 just had a regular fire going on inside of it and no steel building in history has ever collapsed because of a fire, even ones that burned MUCh longer than the one in building 7.




WTC 7's collapse is fishy and it warrants further investigation.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleshriek
*********

Registered: 12/13/03
Posts: 3,274
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #5373377 - 03/07/06 06:11 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

hey una, good to see you back . (start posting more again in the cult forums and ethnobotanical garden, your posts and presence is missed greatly) , anyways, i dont know anything about 911 , sorry for the off topic reply .
:cool:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: shriek]
    #5373401 - 03/07/06 06:50 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

The collapse of WTC7 has allways been a little odd to me. Of all the 9/11 conspiracy theories, this is the only one that really holds much merit. I suspect that the building was heavily damaged when the twin towers came down. Although the fires should not have been enough to bring the building down, combined with the structural damage already sustained, the fires would be able to do more damage than typically expected. My guess is that there was considerable debate towards trying to save the building or to let it fall. In the end, I suspect they decided to let it fall rather than trying to save it because of safety. I suspect the reason this has been kept quiet is insurance based. I do not believe that explosives were used to bring down the building.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAsante
Mage
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 86,795
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: Seuss]
    #5373696 - 03/07/06 10:09 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

I've got a perfectly simple explanation for building 7 which needs no conpiracies of any kind.

Quote:

One of the most interesting tenants was then-Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management, and its emergency command center on the 23rd floor. This floor received 15 million dollars worth of renovations, including independent and secure air and water supplies, and bullet and bomb resistant windows designed to withstand 200 MPH winds.




Building 7 was of strategic importance and, just like in a james bond movie, was pre-rigged with inbuilt explosives years earlier for a controlled demolition as a "self destruct mechanism" to bury the archives (of high national security priority) under tons of rubble.

Why the coverup?

Perhaps they don't want you to know that certain government buildings have inbuilt explosives to effect a perfect demolition on demand.

If I look at that footage, or anyone who's watched too much Discovery Channel, you'll see that this is almost CERTAINLY a controlled explosive demolition. And that can only happen on such short notice if the charges were already in place, perhaps even built in from construction or snuck in during renovations etc.

They dont want you to know certain strategic buildings can be pulled down at the press of a button, with all employees inside.


It doesnt "resemble a demolition", it is the spitting image of a well planned perfectly executed demolition.
That building was rigged.


--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
higher knowledge starts here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinebarfightlard
tales of theinexpressible
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/29/03 Happy 21st Shroomiversary!
Posts: 8,670
Loc: Canoodia
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #5373740 - 03/07/06 10:26 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

I think the "smart guys" who came up with the design so that it could take multiple hits would have been smart anough to know that a jet comes loaded with fuel. The jet fuel didn't burn for that long anyways.


--------------------

"What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?" - Bill Hicks


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleUna
controlleddemolition

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 970
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: Asante]
    #5373878 - 03/07/06 11:21 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Building 7 was of strategic importance and, just like in a james bond movie, was pre-rigged with inbuilt explosives years earlier for a controlled demolition as a "self destruct mechanism" to bury the archives (of high national security priority) under tons of rubble.




Secretly imploding a building, burying tons of secret documents and falsifying the official report you do not consider a conspiracy?

Conspiracy. A combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is lawful in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful.


Also, as far as i know, explosives have a shelflife too. I don't think that years old explosives would still be reliable.

I have a theory about building 7: The attacks and demolition of the WTC towers were orchestrated from the emergency bunker of Guliani and they needed to get rid of the evidence.


--------------------
www.911blogger.com


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleusefulidiot
It's notfascist, it's...Neoconservative!

Registered: 11/21/02
Posts: 732
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #5374040 - 03/07/06 12:13 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

RandalFlagg said:
Quote:

bellylard said:
Well the twin towers were desgined to take multiple hits each.......




But they weren't designed to withstand having burning jet fuel sprayed everywhere on the structure.




Do you have a source explaining why the buildings designers wouldn't have accounted for burning jet fuel in the event of a plane crash?

I seriously doubt that burning jet fuel (kerosene) was hot enough to weaken enough of that steel to cause the entire structures to collapse, especially at near free fall speeds. Even if the top sections of those buildings did start to collapse, how can you account for the lack of resistance from all of the lower floors?

As for building 7.. Silverstein admitted publicly that they blew it up.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAsante
Mage
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 86,795
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: Una]
    #5374363 - 03/07/06 02:08 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Secretly imploding a building, burying tons of secret documents and falsifying the official report you do not consider a conspiracy?




Well technically you're right, but what I meant that pulling that building (as it was called on a broadcast oopsie) would be a national security matter which would be done whether Bin Laden or Dubya was flying the plane. In case of war etc it makes good sense to bury an archive under tons of rubble, because weeks of clearing that rubble by the enemy definitely is a great strategic advantage, so there needs to be no conspiratorial proof about who committed 9/11 in the "pulling" of that building.
Some James Bond scenarios make good sense.


Quote:

Also, as far as i know, explosives have a shelflife too. I don't think that years old explosives would still be reliable.




C4 (RDX plastique) had a shelflife of decades so they made a second version which doesnt keep as long to put people intending clandestine use at a disadvantage.

And the old C4 wasnt even made for longterm storage. There are many explosives and explosives formulations which would keep for decades. For such a purpose you'd naturally use airtight corrosion-proof charge containers, but any explosives engineer can prepare that in an explosives workshop.

If the building was rigged in this way it is quite possible that they used detcord (a kind of fuse that "burns" at 5.000 meters per second) disguised as electric wiring. The disadvantage of a detcord system is that if one part goes up, it all goes up near instantaneously. So the fire might have created circumstances which made the detcord go off, which took the building down.

If you take down a large building there are many splits and turns and many charges to set off. This means you have to use a LOT of detcord.

The time needed to set the entire detcord circuit off might very well take that single second of inertia that it takes the building longer than freefall velocity.

So accidental or deliberate, it might very well have been rigged years previous.


--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
higher knowledge starts here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleUna
controlleddemolition

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 970
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: Asante]
    #5374565 - 03/07/06 02:50 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Detcord needs a detonator cap to be set off. If you hold a match under it will melt but not burn. Even if random fires would have set off the cord the explosions would not have been synchronized (timing is very important in CD's) and the building would not have come down so neatly.

Watch this clip of explosions shooting upward on WTC7:
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/squibview.7.qt

The 9/11 Commission stated:

"Our aim has been to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11 and to identify lessons learned." (The 9/11 Commission Report p. xvi)

The Commission does not even mention the collapse of WTC7 in its 567 pages. What is your opinion on that? Or do you find it justifiable in respect to national security? If so, do you accept the possibility that there are more issues have been omitted or distorted for that same reason?


--------------------
www.911blogger.com


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedebianlinux
Myconerd - DBK
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/09/02
Posts: 8,334
Loc: Over There
Last seen: 7 months, 1 day
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: Una]
    #5375865 - 03/07/06 09:00 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Having worked in construction for a few years and having witnessed several demolitions of varying proportions I can definitely say, without any doubt whatsoever, that the WTC towers both came down with a precisely planned and planted demolitions. Whether or not the explosives were placed as part of the charade or were detonated as a last-ditch destroy-the-sensitive-information campaign is irrelevant in my eyes. Sensitive information is simply not more valuable than the negative effects of murdering a few hundered civilians on national television.

Una is corect in asserting that timing is of the most paramount importance in any kind of structural demolition. It is absolutely imperative that the timing be immaculate for the structre to come down 100% vertically. Despite the shocked state I was in when watching the destruction my logical mind immediately understood that the falling buildings were under the control of demolitions professionals.

I'm surprised that anybody has not come to the same conclusion after a few viewings of the perfect destruction filmed and avaialble for viewing.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedebianlinux
Myconerd - DBK
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/09/02
Posts: 8,334
Loc: Over There
Last seen: 7 months, 1 day
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: Seuss]
    #5375890 - 03/07/06 09:09 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
n the end, I suspect they decided to let it fall rather than trying to save it because of safety. I suspect the reason this has been kept quiet is insurance based. I do not believe that explosives were used to bring down the building.



Bollocks!
The aftermatch of the fallen towers was a great detriment to the safety of literally millions of people in the surrounding area. While I may be able to admit that the then current state of disaster assessment may not have been prepared to determine the extent of widespread health effects it was still easy to calculate that it is far safer to prevent the building from falling than to allow it to tumble and provide a major respiratory hazard exposure to literally a few million civilians.
The greatest safety hazard was most certainly the particulate fallout.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: debianlinux]
    #5376614 - 03/08/06 04:42 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

> The greatest safety hazard was most certainly the particulate fallout.

Not to the guy that has to go into an unstable building to put out a fire.  Particulate fallout was not a concern at the time that the events occurred... they had bigger problems on their mind, plus there was nothing they could do about it.  Look at it from a risk management standpoint rather than an environmentalist standpoint.

> I can definitely say, without any doubt whatsoever, that the WTC towers both came down with a precisely planned and planted demolitions.

Then you, my friend, are very ignorant.  I am as certain as I can be that the towers did not come down from explosives, but I cannot be 100% certain.  Nobody can be.  When I was working in the explosives industry, my boss was one of the primary investigators for the WTC bombing in the early 90's.  We were in his office watching the towers being evacuated (live) when he got the call to hop on a plane and head to NYC.  Although he had nothing to do with the investigation of the second attack on the towers, through him, I have contacts with the best of the best in the explosives industry.  Having debated this for hours upon hours with the absolute best, I am as convinced as I can be that there were no explosives, period.

What really gets me annoyed with this kind of crap are the pseudo-experts that come out of the woodwork making all kinds of claims that have no scientific basis what-so-ever.  The world is no Hollywood and real life behaves differently than a movie.  Let me give an example:

Quote:

Having worked in construction for a few years and having witnessed several demolitions of varying proportions




I have seen lots of cakes being baked in my day, but that does not make me a pastry expert.  There are a lot of different types of demolitions.  Explosives are used less often than thought.

Quote:

I can definitely say, without any doubt whatsoever, that the WTC towers both came down with a precisely planned and planted demolitions.




Ask any real expert and they will tell you that the WTC towers was a very sloppy demolition.  There was nothing precise about it.

Quote:

Whether or not the explosives were placed




Good point.  Explosives aren't just lumped in a room and detonated to bring down a building... they are placed on the superstructure to cut the steel structure that holds up the building.  Two shaped explosive charges are placed on either side of an I-beam, exactly opposite each other, and detonated simultaneously to cut the beam.  The cross sections of the I-beam must first be cut (four cuts per beam) before the explosives are placed on the remaining non-cut part of the beam.

In most buildings, the superstructure is hidden behind layers of drywall.  I'm curious as to when the demolition CIA team went into the building, tore down drywall to get to the superstructure.  Cut away the majority of the support.  Placed and wired explosives in a safe manner so that they wouldn't prematurely detonate.  Replaced the drywall, re-tapped the seams, painted the wall, rehung all the decorations, etc... all without anybody in the building noticing... good job, that... :rolleyes:

This isn't a job that would happen in one night, or even in a single week.  Months of preparation go into an explosives demolition.  The building is first weakened to the point that it barely holds itself up.  The explosives work by pulling out the bottom card in a house of cards, so to speak.

Quote:

It is absolutely imperative that the timing be immaculate for the structure to come down 100% vertically.




Timing is important, yes... but the real question is, "Why is timing important?"  It isn't so that the structure will come down 100% vertically, as mistakenly claimed.  It actually has to do with the shaped charges and the cutting effect they have on the I-Beams.  If the two shaped charges do not detonate at the same time, the beam will not be cut.

While we are on the subject, a building is almost never brought down 100% vertically using explosives because it is extremely difficult.

Quote:

Despite the shocked state I was in when watching the destruction my logical mind immediately understood that the falling buildings were under the control of demolitions professionals.




The mind does not function properly when in a state of shock.  This is a medical fact that cannot be denied.  One should not trusting a qualitative observation made in a state of shock.

Quote:

I'm surprised that anybody has not come to the same conclusion after a few viewings of the perfect destruction filmed and available for viewing.




I have said the same thing.  After comparing a real demolition with the falling towers, there is no doubt at all that explosives were not used.  Don't take my word for it, view the footage yourself... but know what to look for, because on the surface, it is hard to tell the difference.

Start out watching a real explosives demolition.  Look for the following:

1) a sequence of booms before anything happens to the building, about half to a quarter of a second apart.  Again, this will occur before the building moves.

2) flashes timed with each boom from the above.  The flashes will be seen at the foundation of the building.  They are very quick flashes, without the Hollywood fireballs.  There will be some smoke (dust for the most part) along with the flash.  The flashes will progress down the building from one side towards the other, most often.  You might have to step frame the video to really see what is going on, it happens quickly

3) one side of the building will start to fall, usually while the booms and flashes from 1 & 2 above are still happening.  The side to fall first will be the side that the flashes and booms first started on.  Notice that the building doesn't come straight down, but rather that one side tends to pull everything inward.

4) sometimes, but not always, a large pusher charge will be used to start the collapse of the building.  After (or during) the booms from 1 & 2, look at the foundation of the side of the building that first starts to fall.  Right before it begins to fall, look for a large flash and cloud of smoke/debit.

I'm not an expert in the field of explosives demolition, though I have had some training.  I have quite a bit of experience with explosives in general, having worked in an explosives research lab testing the properties of newly discovered explosives.  I have had college classes in the use of explosives in the mining industry.  I have worked with experts in the explosives demolition field and debated the facts of 9/11 with them extensively.  We will never know for certain, but in my mind, I am as certain as can be that explosives were not involved with the twin towers falling.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineChuangTzu
starvingphysicist
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 3 months
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: debianlinux]
    #5377435 - 03/08/06 12:58 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

I'm highly skeptical of any idea involving a skyscraper in New York City that is pre-rigged with explosives. There are just too many reasons why that is an insane idea. Detcord disguised as electrical wire??? What about the hundreds of electricians that would have performed maintenance on the building over the years? They're all in on it? As for rigging a flaming building for explosive demolition, that's no five-minute task, probably not even a 7-hour one.

There are reports of molten metal in the basements of the larger buildings weeks after the buildings collapsed. If these buildings shared a common basement area, the damage to building 7 could have consisted of a lot more than that due to fires and impact from the falling other buildings. The other buildings also came down in a near vertical drop and they were much taller and came down within something like 30 minutes of being hit.

And the one quote of a guy saying "pull the building", I would have to hear the actual tape to better judge this for myself but it's possible he could have said "pull out of the building" or something similar, or maybe he did say pull but meant pull out of.

If it's true that investigators weren't allowed to view the remains of the building and the steel was melted before it could be examined, maybe the building had a design flaw that is shared by other skyscrapers that if it were known would make it substantially easier to bring down buildings in future attacks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAsante
Mage
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 86,795
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: Seuss]
    #5377451 - 03/08/06 01:13 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Detcord needs a detonator cap to be set off. If you hold a match under it will melt but not burn. Even if random fires would have set off the cord the explosions would not have been synchronized




True.. but not exactly.
There are certain circumstances that can set off detcord without a blasting cap, and these might well occur in a burning building.

As for the twin towers, I don't believe explosives were involved and it takes alot more energy to make a tower fall over than to make it collapse in on itself if its not too strong.
WTC 7 is different imo, and explosives might well be involved while I don't see that with the Twin Towers. As for quick charge placement, that would be quite a challenge to do in seven *days* for a worldclass demolition company unless they would use brute force and brute force would be *very* visible on the footage.

Quote:

What really gets me annoyed with this kind of crap are the pseudo-experts that come out of the woodwork making all kinds of claims that have no scientific basis what-so-ever.




To avoid being heaped with the pseudo-experts I want to emphasize that I'm no expert whatsoever and that my comments on this matter are as speculative as anyone elses :smile:


Quote:

I'm highly skeptical of any idea involving a skyscraper in New York City that is pre-rigged with explosives. There are just too many reasons why that is an insane idea.




Two words: MK ULTRA
Just because it is insane doesnt mean it didnt happen. Governments do many odd things. It is outrageous, yes. Unethical, true. A security risk, indeed. But from a tactical standpoint it makes sense to make a building containing lets say an important archive collapse in on itself. It immediately buys time and it is reversible, considering you can excavate whatever you're hiding within a few weeks.

"Close up Building 7"
"Moment... Building 7 is closed up sir!"


Its this kind of efficiency the military seeks and with pre-rigged buildings you can have that.


--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
higher knowledge starts here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedebianlinux
Myconerd - DBK
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/09/02
Posts: 8,334
Loc: Over There
Last seen: 7 months, 1 day
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: Seuss]
    #5378274 - 03/08/06 05:09 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
debian, here is your ass




lol!
I had forgotten I had even replied to this thread and was wondering just who Seuss was reaming when I remembered.
Please, excuse my drunken posting.

I'll reword my entire post to soberly say,

"Having witnessed several demolitions I find it peculiar that the towers came down in what appeared to me to be a very controlled fashion. I would expect such a tall structure to fall over not straight down. Also it seems that it would fall in pieces and not just shudder to the ground in its entirety. I remember watching the footage and feeling conspiratorial dread over the fact that they came down so precisely."

Also, I would expect that if explosives were used that they were planted at the time the structure was built and not somehow rammed in after the fact; The latter concept seeming far more ludicrous.

'tis a shame to come back from a posting hiatus to spew drunken garbage, my apologies. i certainly don't consider myself even remotely amateur at demolitions and am only speaking from what I have simply been around to witness. i have read several "eye-witness" accounts that there were audible booms immediately prior to the falls.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleUna
controlleddemolition

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 970
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: Asante]
    #5380121 - 03/09/06 02:33 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Wiccan Seeker,

You didn't answer my questions (and i'm really curious)

The Commission does not even mention the collapse of WTC7 in its 567 pages. What is your opinion on that? Do you find it justifiable in respect to national security? If so, do you accept the possibility that there are more issues that have been omitted or distorted for that same reason?

Here's the picture again of these 'huge' fires in WTC7


--------------------
www.911blogger.com


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnnoA
Experimenter
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 06/17/99
Posts: 24,166
Loc: my room
Last seen: 20 days, 15 hours
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: Una]
    #5380211 - 03/09/06 03:30 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Interesting.

Hello Una btw.

Here is an article from popularmechanics.com
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y

WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleUna
controlleddemolition

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 970
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: Anno]
    #5380222 - 03/09/06 03:55 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Hi Anno,

consider this about that article:

Quote:

[35] This article in Popular Mechanics is, to be blunt, spectacularly bad. Besides the problems pointed out here and in note 11, above, and note 39, below, the article makes this amazing claim: ?In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999.? In reality, as genuine 9/11 researchers know, the FAA reported in a news release on Aug. 9, 2002, that it had scrambled fighters 67 times between September 2000 and June 2001, and the Calgary Herald (Oct. 13, 2001) reported that NORAD scrambled fighters 129 times in 2000. By extrapolation, we can infer that NORAD had scrambled fighters over 1000 times in the decade prior to 9/11. The claim by Popular Mechanics could be true only if in all of these cases, except for the Payne Stewart incident, the fighters were called back to base before they actually intercepted the aircraft in question. This is a most unlikely possibility, especially in light of the fact that Major Mike Snyder, a NORAD spokesperson, reportedly told the Boston Globe a few days after 9/11 that ?[NORAD?S] fighters routinely intercept aircraft? (Johnson, 2001).

As to why Popular Mechanics would have published such a bad article, one clue is perhaps provided by the fact that the article?s ?senior researcher? was 25-year old Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new head of the Department of Homeland Security (see Bollyn, 2005a). Another relevant fact is that this article was published shortly after a coup at this Hearst-owned magazine, in which the editor-in-chief was replaced (see Bollyn, 2005b). Young Chertoff?s debunking article has itself been effectively debunked by many genuine 9/11 researchers, such as Jim Hoffman, ?Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth,? Global Outlook 10 (Spring-Summer 2005), 21-42 (which was based on Hoffman, ?Popular Mechanics? Deceptive Smear Against 9/11 Truth,? 911Review.com, February 15, 2005 http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html, and Peter Meyer, ?Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11,? http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm. To be sure, these articles by Hoffman and Meyer, while agreeing on many points, take different approaches in response to some of the issues raised. But both articles demonstrate that Popular Mechanics owes its readers an apology for publishing such a massively flawed article on such an important subject.





from: The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
David Ray Griffin

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html


--------------------
www.911blogger.com


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: debianlinux]
    #5380227 - 03/09/06 04:04 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

To avoid being heaped with the pseudo-experts I want to emphasize that I'm no expert whatsoever and that my comments on this matter are as speculative as anyone elses




Exactly!  This type of statement earns respect rather than contempt.  In my eyes, this is what seperates a good skeptic from the tin hat brigade.  Regardless of which side one is on in the debate, being able to keep an open mind and knowing ones own technical limitations versus taking an absolute stand based upon a laymans understanding of the subject as taught by Hollywood.

Quote:

Please, excuse my drunken posting.




No apologies needed for stating an opinion, even a drunken one. :smile: To me, it is the debate itself that is important, not who is right or wrong.  In this case, we will never know for certain who is correct.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleUna
controlleddemolition

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 970
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: ChuangTzu]
    #5380581 - 03/09/06 09:28 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

ChuangTzu said:
And the one quote of a guy saying "pull the building", I would have to hear the actual tape to better judge this for myself but it's possible he could have said "pull out of the building" or something similar, or maybe he did say pull but meant pull out of.




here you go, it was posted above though.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pullIt3.wmv


--------------------
www.911blogger.com


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleUrineVanderslope
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/12/06
Posts: 29
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: Una]
    #5392663 - 03/12/06 05:24 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)



--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleUna
controlleddemolition

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 970
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: UrineVanderslope]
    #5394347 - 03/13/06 04:50 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:


Read these links.





There's nothing in your links with regards to the collapse of building 7 (see thread title).


--------------------
www.911blogger.com


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Capsules   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   North Spore Cultivation Supplies


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Would YOU trade your ADDRESS for a SHROOM print???
( 1 2 all )
ShrewDigsby 4,546 28 02/12/03 10:14 PM
by KingCobWeb
* wanna trade some cpu's? John 741 5 04/18/05 02:03 PM
by barfightlard
* What do you think of this trade. barfightlard 948 10 08/07/05 05:03 PM
by discoabe
* Day Trading, funkymonk 986 13 05/13/04 09:43 PM
by daba
* Trading computer parts/ And modem question KrazieH8er 704 3 11/15/03 04:06 PM
by funkymonk
* plant trade for computer help entheodome 621 3 02/17/07 09:20 PM
by entheodome
* So, after 7 years, we finally know what happened in WTC7
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Minstrel 4,249 72 09/04/08 01:09 AM
by pINNhEAD
* Extra ENERGY in 9/11 buildings: Tell the Teacher
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Visionary Tools 4,874 63 10/04/09 10:34 PM
by Diploid

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner
2,920 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 14 queries.