The biggest sign that the official story is untrue is the official story. The official story is fluid. It has changed constantly from the beginning. For example when you say "the official story" ask yourself what that term means to you, what you think happened. Remember the official story used to include the terrorist passport falling out of the towers while they burned. The official story used to include Osama living in a giant under ground bunker that looked like something out of james bond. The official story used to say a lot of things that it doesn't anymore. Write down what you think the official story is then do some googling. See if you can find 2 independent sources that verify that story. Then see how long either of them have been trumpeting that version of the story. Then wait a year or so and check again, tell me if the story has stayed the same.
Personally what changed my mind was reading the issue of popular mechanics that is supposed to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories. Before that I didn't pay much attention to 9/11 or any of the conspiracy around it.
I now think the official story is full of shit because of popular mechanics. Their descriptions of what happened are absolutely interplanetary. I can't remember it exactly but they said the plane at the pentagon vaporized and the plane in Pennsylvania just punched itself straight down into the ground and the wings folded up behind it and then - you guessed it - most of it vaporized. See, that is why there is no wreckage. Their theory of building 7 has since been dismissed and abandoned as well but you'll still find that issue being trotted out to silence dissent.
Honestly one of the most enlightening experiences of my life. once I read it I knew TPTB weren't even trying. They didn't have too. It was as if they were like "you wanna know what happened on 9/11? the planes turned to vapor... now get outta here you bother me."
Amazing. I still see people vehemently defending the idea that the passport fell to the ground and was found by LE virtually unscathed and within hours of the crash.
Funny, looking into the story we find that a mysterious man found it and then ran off after giving it to LE. And thankfully this mystery man somehow knew it was the terrorists and gave it directly to the chief of the terrorism task force.
I would like passports that are so durable that they stay completely intact in a building supposedly burning so hot that the metal beams holding it up melted. I could make a fortune with a material like that.
Much of the evidence establishing who did the crime is dubious and miraculous. Alleged Hijackers are even reported to be alive.
Investigators found Satam al-Suqami's(one of the hijackers) passport on Vesey Street following the planes crashing into the Twin Towers. How could a paper passport have survived the impact and subsequent blast, when the Black Boxes were allegedly destroyed? How did it come to be just laying on the sidewalk?
The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York.
Cell phones didn't work at 30,000 feet in 2001, hell not even 4000 feet. If this was in a criminal court, this piece of information alone would be considered a smoking gun
Disposing of the Crime Scene, the rapid and illegal scrapping of the WTC ruins at Ground Zero disposed of almost all of the structural steel indispensable to any investigation of the collapse mechanics.
I will preface this all with saying, I do not intend for any bullet point list to effectively prove an inside job. Instead, this list will serve as evidence for the necessity of an independent Citizens Investigation into 9/11. The totality of circumstances are too great to ignore.
The model was built without physical evidence. "In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the [FEMA] BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S." -Joseph Crowley, U.S. Congressman, Committee on Science, 2002.
Flight 11 crashed into the north tower 26 minutes after controllers lost contact
Flight 175 crashes into the south WTC tower 23 minutes after NORAD was notified, 43 minutes after air traffic control lost contact with pilots
Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon 42 minutes or more after contact was lost, one hour after NORAD notification of first hijacking
Wiki timeline of events
Flight 77 crossed major military bases and airports on its flight back to DC
Silverstein Properties had planned to meet on September 11 on the 88th floor of one of the towers to "discuss what to do in the event of a terrorist attack," but canceled the meeting late on September 10 "because one participant could not attend." -NYT
"So many unconnected dots, contradictions and implausible coincidences. Like the fact that NORAD was running an imaginary terrorist-attack drill called "Vigilant Guardian" on the same morning as the real-world attacks. At 8:40 a.m., when a sergeant at NORAD’s center in Rome, N.Y., notified his northeastern commander, Col. Robert Marr, of a possible hijacked airliner—American Flight 11—the colonel wondered aloud if it was part of the exercise. This same confusion was played out at the lower levels of the NORAD network." - New York Observer
More sections are in the comments. Here I would like to link to some writing I have done regarding the nature and prevalencey of psychopathy, and the history of abuses by covert institutions, to provide important context for 9/11.
When I see comments here, it's normally one of these:
Building 7
No wreckage at Pentagon
Bush's reaction from that school
How fast the towers fell
My favorite (that no one probably says anymore): Jet fuel can't melt steel beams.
EDIT: It would appear that my last point was in questioning. The final one was satire, it's often used as a strawman by truthers and the opposition. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Yeah, the engineers who built it factored that in. Same with every other steel building on the planet. They don't collapse when they burn. Ever. These three buildings are the only three. Strange, no?
Jet fuel obviously can not melt steel beams and NIST claim they found no melted steel beams, they only claim the steel needed to be hot enough to weaken them.
But, there is photo and video evidence of melted steel, you also have several credible eyewitness testimony, saying they saw melted steel.
WTC 7 went into free-fall (click for a compilation), literally gravitational acceleration (the official reports even admit this) which is impossible in a steel framed building, there is nothing in science or engineering that would explain how every single supporting column would disappear within mere fractions of a second, the only explanation, within the realms of science, is explosives of some description, taking out the columns in a timed sequence.
This violates basic Newtonian physics, IF, you choose to believe the official report that fires caused the collapse, obviously it is impossible for a building to go into freefall in any other scenario, this explains why NIST refuse to release there data for independent validation, the only relevant documents that support their theory that fire brought down a steel framed building (first time in history, still to this day) are classified for public safety, they will not even release them to a licensed NYC architect in regards a FOIA request
Thus their findings cannot be replicated or falsified due to the withholding of data and so if anyone outside of NIST believes what they say, they believe it on pure faith.
The acceleration of gravity in New York City is 32.159 ft/s2. WTC7 had 2.25 seconds of literal freefall, this is equivalent to approximately 8 stories of fall in which the falling section of the building encountered zero resistance. The collapse was complete in 6.5 seconds. Free-fall time in a vacuum, from Building 7's roof is 5.96 seconds
For any object to fall at gravitational acceleration, there can be nothing below it that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance. If there is anything below it that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance, then not all of the potential energy of the object would be converted to motion and so would not be found falling at gravitational acceleration (where did every single structural supporting columns go, instantly, at the exact same time?)
There's no exception to that rule, those are the conditions that must exist for gravitational acceleration to occur for the entirety of the duration of the time it occurs, this is basic Newtonian physical principles.
You either agree with this very basic concept, or you need to start making a case for a new realm of science that has never been witnessed before.
According to Sir Isaac Newton’s law of the conservation of momentum, it should have kept tipping over, but it didn't, it fell through the path of greatest resistance. The top was tilting at approximately 20 degrees or so, how could it be exerting a uniform, symmetrical pressure on the floors below? it didn't and couldn't.
Watch a compilation of the collapse what you are observing is approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east.They begin to topple over, not fall straight down.The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives?
[Video evidence also shows that the lower sections of the Towers do not even begin to start collapsing until the upper sections are completely destroyed]([Imgur](http://i.imgur.com/Ag88tNY.jpg\)) This is an impossibility if we are to believe the official reports
NIST's global collapse theory, in regards the complete collapse of two 110 story skyscrapers violates Newton's laws of motion.
It is scientifically impossible and completely illogical that these two buildings, which had an upper block exerting a force of only 36% of its static weight, could crush the larger, stronger, undamaged lower section of the building
to the ground, when the building, at any level, was designed to support several times the weight above
it, while it maintains its downward acceleration.
The persistent acceleration of the top section of the building is
direct evidence that some other source of energy was used to remove the structure below it,
Videos show that the section of the building above the plane impact point was the first section to disintegrate
The Pentagon attack does appear of some sort of Red herring but there is not a single bit of evidence that a 757 airliner crashed at the Pentagon (the alleged photos of tiny scraps of the plane on the lawn are easily disproved by basic physics), in fact, all available evidence suggests the exact opposite.
Why is there no physical evidence for a airliner crash at this site?
Why is the alleged pilot of this plane, not on the flight manifest and how did he avoid all CCTV at the airport, along with all the passengers?
Why does the alleged Flight11's flight data recorder show that the airplane was too high to have even struck the lamp posts?
Why did they tamper with the only video they ever released, which does not show an aircraft, only a small explosion and why did the FBI confiscate all CCTV in the area, in a coordinated, almost pre-emptive swoop
Why does the NTSB not plan to issue a report or open a public docket? The NTSB has issued a report for all planes that crash in the U.S, not for 9/11, Why?
The physically impossible Barbara Olson phone calls
How would it even be possible that the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation”s capital?
and the above is just scratching the surface, the official account is truly bizarre, the probability that it can be true, really is zero.
All evidence suggests that flight 93, which crashed over at Shanksville, broke up before impact, there were debris fields miles and miles apart to support this conclusion, Donald Rumsfeld even said the plane was shot down
But still, we are led to believe that the ground literally consumed the plane! That’s right, the government claims (without a shred of proof or any evidence at all offered to the world) that the plane ended up completely underground. Remember though, they found the drivers license of one of the alleged hijackers, a bit burnt and found ABOVE ground, i am not making this up, this is the official story.
"Hi Mom, This is Mark Bingham"
Perhaps the most compelling evidence in favor of the demolition theory is that the NIST WTC Reports, which took up to seven years to produce, exhibit all six of the characteristics of politically motivated pseudoscience
Lack of experiment - NIST performed no physical experiments to support its conclusions
The results of experiments were ignored or contradicted in the conclusions - steel temperature tests performed on the few steel samples saved suggested that the steel reached only about 500 degrees Fahrenheit. This is more than a thousand degrees below the temperature needed to soften steel and make it malleable—a key requirement of NIST’s hypothesis
There was no peer review and public comments from peers were ignored - NIST published its own WTC reports and therefore its work was not subject to peer-review as is the case for all legitimate science.
The findings cannot be replicated or falsified due to the withholding of data - NIST will not share it computer models with the public. A NIST spokesman declared, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, that revealing the computer models would “jeopardize public safety.”
False conclusions are supported by media or marketing propaganda - NIST’s pseudoscience was fully and uncritically supported by the mainstream media, many journalists have since stated they were under pressure from management to not report 9/11 stories if they were critical of the official narrative.
Hypotheses that are supported by the evidence were ignored - Throughout its seven-year investigation, NIST ignored the obvious hypothesis for the destruction of the WTC buildings—demolition
To conclude, the WTC reports produced by NIST represent the most obvious example of politically motivated pseudoscience in history. The physical experiments NIST performed did not support its conclusions. The reports were not peer-reviewed and public comments that challenged the findings were ignored. NIST will not share its computer models (the last supposed evidence that supports its conclusions) with the public and therefore its conclusions are not verifiable.
>Call lasts for 7565 seconds, placing the end of the call at 11:41. It last for 1 hour and ~38 minutes after the plane had already crashed.
These calls were made from the airplane's airphone destined to two different interfaces: One was to the GTE's assistant landline telephone, the other was to a cellphone.
These calls could not have remained connected by a system mistake because airphones charge per time, the system was built to only count the time the client is connected in order to avoid overcharging him by allowing calls to "stay connected" when they were not. The fact that they also disconnected at different times rules out any possible system fault which, if possible, would at best disconnect both calls at the same time since they would have "disconnected" at the same time, the time of the crash.
The ACARS data also corroborates the above, seen that the only possible explanation for the calls to remain connected after the airplane crashed is that the airplane from where the calls came from never crashed in the first place.
THE TOWERS' COLLAPSES
SOUTH TOWER
The section above the airplane impact zone tilted and then fell vertically, violating Newton's First Law of Motion in which a body in motion (rotation in this case) tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force. In this case this was the expected movement of the top if it was simply collapsing.
Despite the fact that the top section tilted and was only ~30%(33floors) of the building it was still capable of destroying the remaining ~69%(76 floors) completely, directly violating Newton's third law.
NORTH TOWER
A problem with this collapse is that despite the fact that the top section fell vertically and almost symmetrically, it can be clearly identified a concentrated destruction almost as fast as the debris fall occurring on the right face of the building.
Sharing the exact same result as the South Tower, the North tower also violates Newton's third law by an even larger margin. The top section was only 15.45%(17 floors) destroying the intact 93% 83% (92 floors).
According to NIST, WTC1 fell only 28% longer than pure free-fall:
>"The upper section of the building then collapsed onto the floors below, within 12s, the collapse of WTC 1 had left nothing but rubble."
If it was free fall it would have been 9.32s without air resistance, meaning that -according to NIST- all floors provided a resistance that add up to 2.77s (12s - 9.32s).
Below the collapse area there were 95 floors.
2.77s / 95 floors = each floor being destroyed in 0.029s
29/1000ths of a second.
According to NIST, each floor -composed by concrete and steel- was being destroyed as fast as the impact between a stick and a cue ball.
Despite the top being only ~16% of the building (weaker and lighter), the result was still a perfect vertical gravity assisted downfall destruction of the remaining 93% 83% perfectly intact structure (stronger as well) defying yet again another law of physics -Newton's third law- in which a smaller and weaker body cannot destroy a bigger and stronger body.
For example: for every floor of the 93% 83% destroyed another floor of the 16% has to be destroyed. If Newton's third law had been respected, the building would be standing with ~75 floors, not 0.
A better explanation of the laws of physics violation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPwwcXF_V0c&t=2329
The only fires that last long enough and could be responsible for the building to collapse were only on 3 floors and they were only partial small fires.
For a better comparison on the dimensions of WTC7's small office fires, here you have an example of normal office fires (or just plain office fires) and extreme office fires (or infernos).
Despite public belief, the building did in fact collapse with sudden onset of free-fall (18 visible stories in 3.9s), there were no stages. A better explanation is provided below.
There was also a loud explosion that occurred right before the penthouse collapse. That explosion cannot possibly be from any structure "snapping" or "failing" because you would hear in that same video the rest of the building collapse as well, which you do not. If you cannot hear the entire building collapse then that explosion couldn't possibly be from a column failing.
In contrast with the WTC7 building, here you can see the other buildings that were hit with exponentially bigger forces (hit directly by the towers' debris), some which under larger fires and did not globally collapse:
Our main intelligence officers, Porter Goss and Bob Graham, were sitting at a friendly breakfast with the man most instrumental in paying the hijackers, as the planes hit the towers. Graham and Goss investigated themselves for colluding with the enemy and reported that they were not looking for specific culprits that any such search would be 'foolishness, just part of finger pointing.
The most official links have been re-written to tell a different story now , one in which it was Saudi Arabia who did the paying, However, the attack was paid for with at least one $100,000 check and that check was signed by Ahmad Umar Sheikh who was the assistant of General Mahmoud Ahmad of Pakistan's ISI. Ahmad was with our top intelligence officers as the planes hit the towers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_J._Goss
Goss and Graham investigated themselves and decided that looking for specific culprits in the 9/11 attack was 'foolishness, just a part of finger pointing.
See, no one that is a refuter can touch my cia proof? I think the tower falls being wrong, etc, is all a distraction, so ppl don't look at the facts that actually damn those responsable.
the most important step in the scientific method is observation. observation completely shapes how initial conditions are formed and therefore how any theories will be shaped in order to explain whatever the phenomenon it is that is being observed. clearly the building experiences free fall, en masse, for a given amount of time. zero resistance to gravity occurred, there is no other explanation for this. demanding anyone explain how many explosives there were or how they got there does not negate this. the shill is strong in this thread
Nobody knows why or how it collapsed and the official story has changed about a half dozen times or more since 2001. First they said it was a raging inferno and the fires collapsed it. But no building in history has collapsed from fire.
Then they said that it was structural damage, that it was so wounded by shrapnel that its basic structure couldn't support itself and collapsed in on itself. But then a few photos of it were released showing that it had nothing more than cosmetic damage. The government has since cracked down on people posting footage or photos of building 7 from sept 11th.
Ok then they said that the vibrations from the first 2 towers falling caused it to shake loose and collapse? Like an earthquake I guess.
I think the current story is that in the 1970s, before Tower 7 was built there was a power substation on that spot. It was to integral to the NYC power grid to just tear down so they build building 7 around it and thus had to sacrifice its structural integrity to accommodate the substation. Kind of weird considering that tower 7 was also supposed to serve as the mayor and chief of polices headquarters during a natural disaster, riot or terror attack and was stocked like a bunker.
OK also there is the fact that several people in tower 7 said that bombs were going off in it and they were stepping over dead bodies before they got out and the building fell. These people who are on tape on the day of 9/11 saying what happened have either died or are just being ignored... because.
Also the footage looks like a controlled demolition, or at least it looks like one of the thousands of controlled demos that we've seen over the years. We can't compare it to what a building collapsing from fire or earth quake looks like because... that like never happens.
An insurance investigation separate from NIST revealed Building 7 had several elements that violated NYC building codes and had insufficient or non existent fireproofing on critical structural supports.
That same investigation did their own collapse modeling and found that the collapse likely began at column 79 and spread throughout the building, just as NIST concluded, leaving the facade an unsupported shell before it came down.
There is some disagreement as to the role the Salomon Brothers generator played in the fires, but the mechanics of the collapse are consistent between both investigations and back up what can be seen visually.
False. The collapsed model used was based on NIST's ridiculous model, which makes zero sense.
Also the main cause of the Aegis insurance claim, that the diesel fuel tanks were part of the problem in regards the fires, is polar opposite of what the NIST claim, that diesel fuel tanks had NOTHING to do with the fire. You have proved yourself wrong lol
So you either believe one or the other, on faith alone, because WTC7 is the perfect example of controlled demolition, everyone else knows that.
I thought NIST was keeping their investigation into the collapse secret. Where are you getting your info? I'm not doubting you I'm just pointing out that for a long time the information on how they collected their data, built their models and came to their conclusions was sealed for "national security."
Did these insurance investigators cross reference their private investigation with the top secret sealed investigation from NIST? If so... how? Was the information published in a form that could be peer reviewed in a public forum? i'm curious because I've heard different official stories for 14 years now. They're always proven impossible and then completely change. Each time we're told "the evidence for this theory exists somewhere, we promise." And each time it doesn't.
When they said that it was tremors from WTC 1 &2 and when they said it was falling debris and when they said it was a raging inferno and when they said it was the result of the 50 year old substation... Each of these stories were smugly trotted out as the official version with this condescending air of "don't question us, we got science on our side." This is why I'm doubtful about the latest version, and mark my words... this is just the latest version. Not the final version. And I guarantee that future revisions will have nothing to do with previous versions.
In an abstract sense - science is fluid. As new data becomes available previous theories must evolve to reflect the new information. This is why I distrust so much of the official story. The changes don't have anything to do with one another. It's not like they say "our previous model didn't account for this new information but now we can actually say with more certainty that it probably happened this way." I would respect that.
What actually happens is that they never admit they discovered new info or were wrong. They shit out all of these contradictory theories that don't have anything to do with each other and are never backed up with any science that can be verified by 2 qualified, public independent sources.
I don't think any of this was put forward for peer review as it is evidence in a court case (just like you'd never submit a ballistics test for peer review)
The most interesting thing I came away with from reading their statements is the number of ways the building was improperly protected and constructed, which would have led to collapse in a normal office fire if it was severe enough.
The most interesting thing I came away with from reading their statements is the number of ways the building was improperly protected and constructed, which would have led to collapse in a normal office fire if it was severe enough.
Weird that would go noticed during the 15 million dollar face lift to the 23rd floor of WTC7 when it was converted to an emergency bunker. Thanks for these links though, I'll check em out. But if you want to know why the idea of an official story still doesn't impress me, check out popular mechanics.
The 23rd floor wasn't the source of the problems. Unless the facelift went through floor by floor, I can see how it would get missed.
IIRC, the issues were with the Salomon brothers generator on the 5th floor, the unrestrained floor assembly over the ConEd substation, and the fireproofing on structural members from floors 10-13.
Well, it takes longer than 9 minutes to read through the statements, but here are parts that I'm talking about:
Colin G Bailey
Based on my work to date, including computer models by the University of Edinburgh, it is my opinion that if there had been a diesel fuel fire on September 11 involving between 7,350 and 9,300 gallons of diesel fuel on the fifth floor of 7WTC in the area of the transfer trusses, such a fire would have compromised the strength of the transfer trusses, and could have caused them to fail, resulting in the collapse of columns 79 and/or 80.
The computer modeling completed to date supports the conclusion that 7WTC would have collapsed as a result of typical office contents fires because of several design/construction failures, including the failure to adequately fireproof the flutes of the metal floor decking for 7WTC and the failure to ensure that a restrained floor system was constructed.
When a steel beam supports a composite deck, comprising a fluted (trapezoidal shaped) steel deck, concrete and mesh reinforcement, a cavity (or void) is formed between the top flange of the beam and the fluted deck. For fluted decks, such as those used on 7WTC, this cavity (or void) is large. Leaving the cavities between the fluted deck and top flange of the beam unfilled or inadequately filled with fire protection material results in:
an increase in temperature of the top flange and web;
an increase in temperature of the shear studs;
reduction in load capacity of beams during a fire; and
reduction in overall fire resistance.
In the UL Fire Resistance Directory for 1983 and 1985 the need to fill the voids is covered by the following statement: “Cavities, if any, between the upper beam flange and floor or roof units shall be filled with the fire protection material applied to the beam, unless stated otherwise on an individual design.”
The photographic evidence shows that the cavities were either not filled with fire protection at all, or were so inadequately filled as to have been unfilled for all practical purposes. See Exhibit A. An example of flutes in the process of being filled with fire protection on a different building is shown in Exhibit B. Exhibit C, which appears in the American Institute of Steel Construction Design Guide, shows another example where the flutes have been filled with fire protection.1 Failure to construct the building with adequate fire protection by filling the voids reduced the fire resistance below building code requirements.
The structural fire protection was specified by the 7WTC architect based on a restrained system. However, the main girder from Column 79 to 44 was not designed and constructed as restrained. The girder did not have a sufficient number of shear studs2 and the connections were not constructed to allow the adequate transfer of thermal thrusts to the supports as specified in the UL Fire Resistance Directory for 1983 and 1985. Specifying a level of fire protection based on restrained systems to a constructed unrestrained system resulted in a reduction of fire resistance for 7WTC.
The combination of very large floor bays, transfer trusses, cantilevered girders and unusual angles at which beams, girders and columns joined created a building that required careful examination and construction to ensure structural integrity. Such an examination and construction would include, but not necessarily be limited to:
...and on and on.
I'll end up copying Bailey's whole statement just to start, never mind the 5 other statements.
The failure to adequately fireproof the composite deck, combined with the unrestrained construction would have drastically reduced resiliency in a fire.
The other 5 statements say pretty much the same thing in more detail.
After the World Trade Center bombings of February 26, 1993, New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani decided to situate the emergency command center and associated fuel tanks at 7 World Trade Center. Although this decision was criticized in light of the events of 9/11, the fuel in the building is today not believed to have contributed to the collapse of the building.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25]
There is disagreement between the Aegis investigators and NIST as to whether the diesel tanks played a role in the collapse.
Even if the tanks were not a factor, the building had enough issues that it would have been a collapse risk in a normal office fire. NIST and the Aegis investigation both agree that the collapse started as a local failure around column 79 and progressed throughout the building.
I'd imagine they took the structural information of the building, complete with known issues and irregularities, and ran it through a variety of different fire scenarios, but that would be just a guess.
There is no one correct set of data points in investigating a scenario like this. You construct your model and see how plausible a fire induced collapse is given a wide variety of different conditions.
All 5 of the investigators have email addresses online. You could contact them if you were curious.
I'd imagine they took the structural information of the building, complete with known issues and irregularities, and ran it through a variety of different fire scenarios.
Isn't that what engineers are supposed to do when building and designing buildings? You don't think it's weird that this one building that collapses in that manner on that day happens to be the only building that has this weird death star like flaw in its design?
Isn't that what engineers are supposed to do when building and designing buildings?
Supposed to do being the key phrase.
WTC7 was designed in 1983. They didn't have the kind of advanced computer modelling available then that they do now. Plus, with something like fireproofing, engineers aren't involved and are relying on subcontractors to do the job. The state of fireproofing in WTC1 and WTC2 was a disaster too. I imagine a lot of buildings have similar flaws.
You don't think it's weird that this one building that collapses in that manner on that day happens to be the only building that has this weird death star like flaw in its design?
Well, the ConEd substation was unique to WTC7. I'd bet there are other buildings with similar problems, but we'll never see them tested like WTC7 was. Multiple floor fires burning for over 7 hours without a drop of water from fire suppression systems, no attempt from firefighters to mitigate the fires, plus all the design and protection flaws in the building.
To answer your question, sure it's weird that WTC7 collapsed. That's why it was investigated not once but twice. When 2 separate investigations come to very similar conclusions as to the cause of the collapse, supported by every codes organization involved in construction and fireproofing of buildings in the US, at that point I consider the question answered.
I should also point out this absolutely didn't convince me of anything. They can't come to terms on whether or not 5k gallons of diesel fuel might have had something to do with the damage? Why not?
I should also point out this absolutely didn't convince me of anything.
I'm not stupid enough to think that it would.
They can't come to terms on whether or not 5k gallons of diesel fuel might have had something to do with the damage? Why not?
They disagree on whether smoke coming from the Salomon brothers generator area was in fact indicative of the generator burning.
Either way, the 2 investigations agree on the most critical point. The building collapsing was a progressive failure caused by fire and not a result of controlled demolition.
Oddly I'm not arguing for controlled demo by a long shot, I myself just posted an article that did a better job discrediting that theory than this. My beef is with the 'official story' dogmatism people seem to have even in light of how shaky and fluid it is.
Do you consider the Aegis investigation a part of the "official story"? I don't. They do corroborate a good deal of what NIST concluded, but they came at it completely independently.
IIRC, the issues were with the Salomon brothers generator on the 5th floor, the unrestrained floor assembly over the ConEd substation, and the fireproofing on structural members from floors 10-13.
I couldn't care less about you, but i am extremely glad you do not agree with the official reports, you too understand they are illogical and the most pathetic pieces if shit ever produce by the US government.
By proxy you also agree the three WTC skyscrapers were controlled demolition
Nobody knows why or how it collapsed and the official story has changed about a half dozen times or more since 2001.
Plenty of people claim to know, including organizations like NIST and organizations like AE911 truth.
But no building in history has collapsed from fire.
This is just untrue.
Then they said that it was structural damage, that it was so wounded by shrapnel that its basic structure couldn't support itself and collapsed in on itself.
I believe that was an initial assumption, but further testing led to the conclusion that structural damage played little in the collapse, aside from initiating the fires that eventually led to its collapse.
But then a few photos of it were released showing that it had nothing more than cosmetic damage. The government has since cracked down on people posting footage or photos of building 7 from sept 11th.
Considering the prevalence of 9/11 conspiracy sites and resources on the web, I find that extremely hard to believe.
Ok then they said that the vibrations from the first 2 towers falling caused it to shake loose and collapse? Like an earthquake I guess.
I have never once heard that argument before. source?
I think the current story is that in the 1970s, before Tower 7 was built there was a power substation on that spot. It was to integral to the NYC power grid to just tear down so they build building 7 around it and thus had to sacrifice its structural integrity to accommodate the substation. Kind of weird considering that tower 7 was also supposed to serve as the mayor and chief of polices headquarters during a natural disaster, riot or terror attack and was stocked like a bunker.
I was under the impression it had some offices of some official agencies. Source for the "stocked like a bunker" comment.
OK also there is the fact that several people in tower 7 said that bombs were going off in it and they were stepping over dead bodies before they got out and the building fell. These people who are on tape on the day of 9/11 saying what happened have either died or are just being ignored... because.
People report hearing explosions. Consider the events occurring around them, these explosions could have come from a variety of sources. Controlled demolition explosions tend to occur rapidly in sequence followed immediately by the building collapse. People hearing explosions hours before hand is hardly evidence of a controlled demolition.
Also the footage looks like a controlled demolition, or at least it looks like one of the thousands of controlled demos that we've seen over the years.
How does it look like a controlled demolition? How many controlled demos involved bringing down the interior of a building collapsing first?
Only three steel framed building have EVER completely collapsed due to fires (WTC1,2&7)
He's doing the normal debunker thing. OP meant steel framed buildings but only says "building" so debunker jumps on a little semantic issue and is technically right.
The point is that no building that was built like WTC7 has ever been demolished from fire.
The point is that no building that was built like WTC7 has ever been demolished from fire.
Now explain to me how that is at all relevent to the collapse mechanics of this particular collapse. Buildings are different, conditions are different. If it makes you more skeptical of the claims, that is one thing, but to try to use it as postive evidence of a controlled demolition is absurd.
Why did you get that idea? I am arguing my opinion, which is based on evidence that I am aware of. If anyone would like to present evidence to the contary they are welcome to.
The fact that I am here discussing this is evidence of my interest in opposing opinions. I discuss because I like to learn views that oppose mine and consider them. It just so happens that no one here has brought anything remotely new or convincing to the table yet, at least from my perspective.
I get this type of reaction a lot here. Curious how a community supposedly dedicated to truth and free speech react so hostile to those who present differing opinions.
I'm sorry you're just being ignorant to some things... NIST might say certain things but look at the video and decide for yourself, then ask if it's physically possible, or plausible. You keep referencing science but don't seem to use it. You just keep referencing NIST and their claims that they used science but whether or not it really make sense is out of the question. It's like someone telling you the bible is fact because the bible says so.
Bldg 7, for example is indistinguishable form a controlled demo, unless you take into account what NIST claims and go at it from that predetermined conclusion, which requires a lot of faith and their account has changed quite a few times. How do you explain the free fall that is even admitted by NIST? How does it fit in with their other claims?
The reaction you get is because there's not a single reply from you saying "Hmm, I've never heard that." If something is mentioned that you can't reply to it's just ignored. You focus too much on semantics. You ask questions with the answer already decided in your head.
I don't think you understand my arguments, and you seem intent on accusing me of things that not only am I not doing, but numerous truthers in this thread are guilty of. Let's focus on this claim.
Bldg 7, for example is indistinguishable form a controlled demo,
Seeing as you are accusing me of coming into this with a pre-determined conclusion, I assume you think you are not guilty of this. So, In what way, exactly is this collapse indistinguishable from a controlled demolition? You can see clearly that the interior levels on the left side fall first, as evidenced by the collapsing penthouse and breaking windows all the way down that side. Then, if you look at the penthouse on the top, you can glimpse the destruction moving along the top of the building, progressively moving along until the entire building, including the facade comes down. Explain to me how exactly this fits the profile of a controlled demolition? What demolitions require interior portions of the building to fall before the facade? Why do I not hear the numerous consequtive explosions directly preceding a collapse in any of these videos?
You could strengthen your point by showing me some of the modelling done by CD proponents to demonstrate the details of their conclusions. You know, analysis of the collapse, theories on charge placement, etc. I know there is an organization that claims a couple thousand engineers with plenty of resources that could work on presenting this. Where is their model?
In other words, put up or shut up. Don't come into this conversation accusing me of being ignorant, intellectually dishonest or whatever else you are implying if you aren't going to bother supporting you claims.
Why exactly is the building 7 indistinguishable from a controlled demo?
The physical characteristics are the same as a controlled demo unless coming at it with the assumption that there is a different cause. What should we expect to happen when core columns are cut? Would it not look the same, with the interior of the building collapsing briefly before everything else comes down. That's the whole point.
NISTs science is like Jeopardy, everything is backwards. They assume that fire damage caused the collapse and frame everything in that light.
If you start at the collapse and just analyze it as if it you had no idea what building it was, you'd come up with tons of evidence for demolition and very little for other options. To put in simply, no other method can bring a building down uniformly, into it's own footprint, turning concrete to dust, dismantling steel beams, within the timeframe.According to science those buildings should have, worst case, toppled or crumpled in onto the weak points. Scientifically there is no other answer. You aren't going by science, you're going by NIST.
Explain to me with physics how fire can do these things. Not NIST. Science. I don't care if there are no sources or links. I want to hear you actually express how that could happen. Explain the pulverized concrete, the broken beams, the speed of the fall, and the uniformity. Forget all of the coincidences, the money made, the incentives, forget all of that. Just tell me with your own brain how that could have happened looking at it as if it is just a random building you're analyzing.
The physical characteristics are the same as a controlled demo unless coming at it with the assumption that there is a different cause. What should we expect to happen when core columns are cut? Would it not look the same, with the interior of the building collapsing briefly before everything else comes down. That's the whole point.
This isn't an answer. I know your "truth" websites have programmed you to only attack the scientifically verified story and avoid actually substantiating your claims, but I'm going to have to insist in this case.
You claimed the collapse was obviously a controlled demolition. I asked you to explain how.
Using knowledge of controlled demolitions, explain to me how you believe that this collapse is so obviously an example of a controlled demolition. Or are you just saying: Building falls down, must be controlled demolition?
Explain how the way WTC fell resembles a demolition. Do other demolitions use techniques that you can see at play here? Do you hear explosives that I don't? Substantiate your claims or stop attempting to participate in this discussion.
Dude, if you can't see how a building suddenly collapsing at a near free fall speed (admitted 7+ seconds of actual free fall) through the path with most resistance doesn't fit fire then you're on your own. I'm not wasting my time with you. I've stated my opinion and it's utterly stupid to debate this. The building collapsed, all at once, through the path of most resistance. The only way for that to happen is for ALL of the support columns to be cut simultaneously.
It was, admitted by NIST, 2.25 seconds absolute freefall, but the whole collapse of WTC7 was at near freefall that makes not much difference, the only way a skyscraper could have collapsed through itself that fast, is controlled demolition.
Ok so i was wrong on the number, but that's exactly my point.... Did they change it to 2.25? Because i remember hearing 7.9, maybe that's something else.
Very close to what you are saying that makes no difference. The point of the 2.25 seconds admitted freefall, is that they actually admitted it officially.
I can get my computer to average at least 5 seconds of freefall on model, who cares though, they already admitted freefall for it to make no difference.
Wow. Where else is the building supposed to go? You cant be serious.... It should go anywhere other than through a solid structure. It should have toppled or crumpled. This is insanity. Btw even NIST admits free fall now.
And I doubt you've done anything but, so we'll leave it at that. When it strikes you that even broken buildings can't fall through themselves get back to me
That is a demolition that was timed incorrectly. Care to explain how fire can cause naturally what a team of trained professionals can't do 100% of the time?
It doesn't matter what the report says, and I have read a few versions of NISTs "findings". It doesn't fit the characteristics of a progressive collapse. We are asked to have faith that what they claim happened when it doesn't look a thing like a progressive collapse due to fire or due to structural damage. it is a uniform collapse into the buildings own footprint. It collapses through solid steel and concrete. It defies physics. It defies many other examples of steel structures with much larger fires/similar damage. It makes no sense.
it is a uniform collapse into the buildings own footprint
If you can say this, you haven't read it. The rest of your comment is just as dumb, but this stands out. You can watch the video and see it isn't a uniform collapse
Your problem is you watched the videos the truthers edited that didn't show the penthouse fallin multiple seconds before the rest. You can see the interior collapse (on that side) before the facade collapses.
Keep going please, you appear desperate, you have not offered anything to the discussion, you appear to be apologizing for the government and every single one of your replies are illogical, this is good for truthers and the truth movement.
How does that make it not uniform? that's exactly like a CD. The center buckles and then the rest falls. The problem has nothing to due with the penthouse and how many seconds it fell before the rest of the building. It has to due with the building collapsing into itself, through solid structure.
Because the interior is collapsing on that side before the rest of it. You can see the windows blowing out on the floors underneath just after the penthouse collapses. Its really obvious that the floors are collapsing on that side early.
You clearly have no idea on even the basics of what happened. Your lack of familiarity with anything leads me to believe you are obviously lying about having read the NIST reports. You are clueless. I will no longer respond to your comments.
Provide a source that a STEEL FRAMED BUILDING can decouple from itself, thus making what you say in regards this "facade" collapsing, even though it makes no engineering sense (I am an engineer) a possibility.
Why exactly is the building 7 indistinguishable from a controlled demo?
Because it looks EXACTLY like other known bottom down controlled demolitions and the fact that the official government conspiracy theory, which you appear to be defending, can not scientifically be correct and has been proven false.
You talk about a facade, on a STEEL FRAMED SKYSCRAPER, you prove yourself wrong making your baseless assumption, that has to be based only on faith. LOL!
You have ZERO evidence that a steel framed skyscraper completely collapsed, at freefall for 2.25 seconds, into itself, because "fires" no evidence at all, all the evidence suggests otherwise.
Because it looks EXACTLY like most other bottom down demolitions, it even went into freefall, you are clutching at straws and it is hilarious.
It doesn't collapse from the bottom down? and the Face falls in free fall, but not the entire structure.
Can you can it with the insults as well? Do you think this is how adults discuss things? If you want to discuss the mechanics of the collapse I can provide my best understanding of the evidence. If you'd rather throw out insults then just hurry up, call me a shill or whatever and lets end this conversation now.
If claiming to know means changing your story constantly then I'm gonna say no - they don't know.
Explanations change as evidence is discovered or becomes available. It is how science works.
Cool, show me five examples of a building the same size and condition of WTC7 collapsing from fire. Hell - show me one.
You said "But no building in history has collapsed from fire." Which is wrong. Now, if we are talking buildings the same size as WTC7, then there is significantly less, maybe even none. Of course, this has no bearing on the legitimacy of claims made regarding this collapse. It may cause you to be more skeptical, but in the end, what matters is the evidence presented.
You're buying into every changing version of the story without question... believing it every time it changes and then questioning the people who doubt it.
Science changes when it finds better explanations. That is how it works. The NIST report analyzed the collapse and corrected previous assumptions.
That one is 14 years old. It was being talked about on the news in like 2001.
Then it shouldn't be hard to source then, should it.
Google the 23rd floor. Even if you check the wiki, it had a 15 million dollar overhaul after the 1993 attacks to be a command center for future attacks.
Alright, but really, that has little to do with the conspiracy. The WTC complex housed plenty of important offices.
You missed a few of my points there. Care to address this one, I believe it is the most important one. (Changed the wording slightly from the original comment for clarity)
How does it look like a controlled demolition? How many controlled demos involved bringing down the interior of a building first in a progressive collapse, followed by the exteriors walls?
How does it look like a controlled demolition? How many controlled demos involved bringing down the interior of a building collapsing first?
Nailed it. This is a huge reason the "Truther" movement failed. Everyone was so caught up in saying "It looks like a controlled demolition!" that they never realized it really doesn't. From there, they've wasted time and money searching for explosives and other things that are painfully obviously imaginary.
He nailed nothing, there is no evidence that the "interior" of the building collapsed, in fact, it is an engineering impossibility in a steel framed building and there is literally no proof you can provide that says otherwise.
I've never heard that it's physically impossible for a building to collapse.
Greg Roberts never claimed this so I don't know why you are asking him. Well I do know why, because you spend your days trying to disrupt conversations on this sub. But my point is that you're asking him to explain something he never said.
I've seen plenty of video of it falling. I'm familiar with the event, and the theories surrounding it. Considering your post, I was hoping to spur some discussion about why you feel it is such strong evidence.
Where were they placed that would allow the building to collapse in the manner that we see. (interior columns collapsing on one side, leading to a progressive interior collapse before the facade comes down a few seconds later). Is this a common type of controlled demolition? If so, source?
How were the explosives placed? Demolitions take months of preparation. What about this operation allowed them to complete it without gutting the building?
I would at least expect an estimate. Thermite is the general suspected agent, correct?
How much would be needed per column? Which columns would require charges to achieve the collapse that we see, in which the interior collapses progressively and the unsupported facade follows? I've never seen a controlled demo collapse like that?
We need to know more about the charges because we need to know how a charge could be applied with no one noticing, without access to the steel columns (most CD's drill holes for the charges in the beams themselves). We also need to know how these charges somehow survived being triggered by fires that raged for hours beforehand.
This is how scientists and engineers come to conclusions. Where are the controlled demolition collapse models?
Where are the controlled demolition collapse models?
Well as far as I know NIST never tested the demolition theory and it was illegal to even take pictures at ground zero let alone collect samples or take measurements or anything else of that nature.
How exactly is this data supposed to be obtained by people who want to test the controlled demolition theory? We do not have access to the data needed to even begin doing this.
That's why I said we have no way of determining that, so asking it is really a red herring. We can only speculate on the data that is actually available.
WTC 7 went into free-fall (click for a compilation), literally gravitational acceleration (the official reports even admit this) which is impossible in a steel framed building, there is nothing in science or engineering that would explain how every single supporting column would disappear within mere fractions of a second, the only explanation, within the realms of science, is explosives of some description, taking out the columns in a timed sequence.
This violates basic Newtonian physics, IF, you choose to believe the official report that fires caused the collapse, obviously it is impossible for a building to go into freefall in any other scenario, this explains why NIST refuse to release there data for independent validation, the only relevant documents that support their theory that fire brought down a steel framed building (first time in history, still to this day) are classified for public safety, they will not even release them to a licensed NYC architect in regards a FOIA request
Oh, here we go with this claim again. No it doesn't, because that excerpt you linked only refers to the North Face (as seen in the common videos), not the entire building. NIST's collapse modelling details how the interior collapsed many seconds before. You can see this clearly in the video as the Penthouse collapses and windows begin to break out from the force of the collapse behind it. Once the facade looses the support of the interior, it falls and eventually reaches freefall speed.
The entire building did not reach freefall, Just the North facade. This is mentioned directly in the image you linked, and described further in the body of the report not included in that image. It was a progressive collapse.
They did show inputs. They just limited the release of certain files used to detail specific elements of the collapse. Plenty of engineers can, and have, analyzed the conclusions of NIST without this data. All of the raw data (the inputs) was taken from analysis of video of the collapse. You can actually see the interior collapse on video before the exterior. The penthouse falls and and you can see the breaking of some exterior windows from the force of the collapse. Anyone with the means and motivation can conduct their analysis and compare it to NIST's conclusions. And they have.
The idea that these files are the lynch-pin of NIST's conclusions is a myth put forward by "truth" advocates like AE911, likely to mask the fact that in the years since the collapse they haven't even bothered to attempt a model of the controlled demoltion (despite taking in millions in donations and having 2500 "experts" on their side).
The raw data was available. Read the report instead of letting AE911Truth explain it to you.
The data that was excluded were some resources used for a very specific part of the analysis. During the peer review process, these files were available to reviewers.
So, using the raw data, engineers can model the collapse on their own and compare their conclusions to NIST's conclusions.
Read the report instead of letting AE911Truth explain it to you.
I am a qualified civil and structural engineer, that is licensed and is employed in NYC
The raw data was available...
This is a complete lie, NIST have never let anyone see their data, ever, this is a fact.
The data that was excluded were some resources used for a very specific part of the analysis.
Again, a complete lie, you have just made this up, but entertain me, how would YOU know what parts they emitted? NIST have never said.
During the peer review process, these files were available to reviewers.
The NIST report has never been peer reviewed, thus it is not considered science and is not even legally binding, this is a fact.
So, using the raw data, engineers can model the collapse on their own and compare their conclusions to NIST's conclusions.
Another complete lie, there isn't any "raw" data, this "raw" data exists only in your head, regardless of this fact, the NIST report simply can not be correct, as in an engineering impossibility, it is nothing more than pseudoscience, an utter joke.
While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.
Before we discuss further, can you provide any evidence at all that a steel framed building can be distinguished by it's structural outer and inner core and a "facade" Where are you getting this from?
How does this "facade" descend faster than the rest of the building?
Nobody knows why or how it collapsed and the official story has changed about a half dozen times or more since 2001.
Plenty of people claim to know, including organizations like NIST and organizations like AE911 truth.
But no building in history has collapsed from fire.
This is just untrue.
Then they said that it was structural damage, that it was so wounded by shrapnel that its basic structure couldn't support itself and collapsed in on itself.
I believe that was an initial assumption, but further testing led to the conclusion that structural damage played little in the collapse, aside from initiating the fires that eventually led to its collapse.
But then a few photos of it were released showing that it had nothing more than cosmetic damage. The government has since cracked down on people posting footage or photos of building 7 from sept 11th.
Considering the prevalence of 9/11 conspiracy sites and resources on the web, I find that extremely hard to believe.
Ok then they said that the vibrations from the first 2 towers falling caused it to shake loose and collapse? Like an earthquake I guess.
I have never once heard that argument before. source?
I think the current story is that in the 1970s, before Tower 7 was built there was a power substation on that spot. It was to integral to the NYC power grid to just tear down so they build building 7 around it and thus had to sacrifice its structural integrity to accommodate the substation. Kind of weird considering that tower 7 was also supposed to serve as the mayor and chief of polices headquarters during a natural disaster, riot or terror attack and was stocked like a bunker.
I was under the impression it had some offices of some official agencies. Source for the "stocked like a bunker" comment.
OK also there is the fact that several people in tower 7 said that bombs were going off in it and they were stepping over dead bodies before they got out and the building fell. These people who are on tape on the day of 9/11 saying what happened have either died or are just being ignored... because.
People report hearing explosions. Consider the events occurring around them, these explosions could have come from a variety of sources. Controlled demolition explosions tend to occur rapidly in sequence followed immediately by the building collapse. People hearing explosions hours before hand is hardly evidence of a controlled demolition.
Also the footage looks like a controlled demolition, or at least it looks like one of the thousands of controlled demos that we've seen over the years.
How does it look like a controlled demolition? How many controlled demos involved bringing down the interior of a building collapsing first?
WTC 7 went into free-fall (click for a compilation), literally gravitational acceleration (the official reports even admit this) which is impossible in a steel framed building, there is nothing in science or engineering that would explain how every single supporting column would disappear within mere fractions of a second, the only explanation, within the realms of science, is explosives of some description, taking out the columns in a timed sequence.
This violates basic Newtonian physics, IF, you choose to believe the official report that fires caused the collapse, obviously it is impossible for a building to go into freefall in any other scenario, this explains why NIST refuse to release there data for independent validation, the only relevant documents that support their theory that fire brought down a steel framed building (first time in history, still to this day) are classified for public safety, they will not even release them to a licensed NYC architect in regards a FOIA request
I would at least expect an estimate. Thermite is the general suspected agent, correct?
How much would be needed per column? Which columns would require charges to achieve the collapse that we see, in which the interior collapses progressively and the unsupported facade follows? I've never seen a controlled demo collapse like that?
We need to know more about the charges because we need to know how a charge could be applied with no one noticing, without access to the steel columns (most CD's drill holes for the charges in the beams themselves). We also need to know how these charges somehow survived being triggered by fires that raged for hours beforehand.
This is how scientists and engineers come to conclusions. Where are the controlled demolition collapse models?
An insurance investigation separate from NIST revealed Building 7 had several elements that violated NYC building codes and had insufficient or non existent fireproofing on critical structural supports.
That same investigation did their own collapse modeling and found that the collapse likely began at column 79 and spread throughout the building, just as NIST concluded, leaving the facade an unsupported shell before it came down.
There is some disagreement as to the role the Salomon Brothers generator played in the fires, but the mechanics of the collapse are consistent between both investigations and back up what can be seen visually.
135 comments
16 last1ofthejedi 2015-03-17
I think the most damning evidence about 9/11 comes in the form of Norad's response + CIA admission to a drill exactly like the attacks taking place at the exact same time as the attacks. I mean, the CIA came out, and literally confessed and no one cares -.- http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0903_plane_exercise.htm
6 George_Tenet 2015-03-17
Til
13 SatansAliens 2015-03-17
There is no official story.
The biggest sign that the official story is untrue is the official story. The official story is fluid. It has changed constantly from the beginning. For example when you say "the official story" ask yourself what that term means to you, what you think happened. Remember the official story used to include the terrorist passport falling out of the towers while they burned. The official story used to include Osama living in a giant under ground bunker that looked like something out of james bond. The official story used to say a lot of things that it doesn't anymore. Write down what you think the official story is then do some googling. See if you can find 2 independent sources that verify that story. Then see how long either of them have been trumpeting that version of the story. Then wait a year or so and check again, tell me if the story has stayed the same.
Personally what changed my mind was reading the issue of popular mechanics that is supposed to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories. Before that I didn't pay much attention to 9/11 or any of the conspiracy around it. I now think the official story is full of shit because of popular mechanics. Their descriptions of what happened are absolutely interplanetary. I can't remember it exactly but they said the plane at the pentagon vaporized and the plane in Pennsylvania just punched itself straight down into the ground and the wings folded up behind it and then - you guessed it - most of it vaporized. See, that is why there is no wreckage. Their theory of building 7 has since been dismissed and abandoned as well but you'll still find that issue being trotted out to silence dissent.
5 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-17
The rubbish Popular Mechanics published has actually helped the truth movement, it is funny because you still get denialist's linking to it
8 SatansAliens 2015-03-17
Honestly one of the most enlightening experiences of my life. once I read it I knew TPTB weren't even trying. They didn't have too. It was as if they were like "you wanna know what happened on 9/11? the planes turned to vapor... now get outta here you bother me."
3 shadowofashadow 2015-03-17
Was this recanted at some point?
6 SatansAliens 2015-03-17
Not officially more like.... we just don't talk about that anymore.
7 shadowofashadow 2015-03-17
Amazing. I still see people vehemently defending the idea that the passport fell to the ground and was found by LE virtually unscathed and within hours of the crash.
Funny, looking into the story we find that a mysterious man found it and then ran off after giving it to LE. And thankfully this mystery man somehow knew it was the terrorists and gave it directly to the chief of the terrorism task force.
3 materhern 2015-03-17
I would like passports that are so durable that they stay completely intact in a building supposedly burning so hot that the metal beams holding it up melted. I could make a fortune with a material like that.
5 Ambiguously_Ironic 2015-03-17
If only they'd built the towers out of passport paper, they obviously would still be standing today.
9 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-17
nano-thermitic materials were found in the ruble, there is even a peer reviewed paper that documents this.
Molten metal at all three collapse sites and molten metal pouring out the WTC building prior to collapse.
Red Hot Ground Zero
Demolition squibs
Dust Cloud Expansion Energy Sink Vastly Exceeded Gravitation Energy Source
Insider trading
Much of the evidence establishing who did the crime is dubious and miraculous. Alleged Hijackers are even reported to be alive.
Investigators found Satam al-Suqami's(one of the hijackers) passport on Vesey Street following the planes crashing into the Twin Towers. How could a paper passport have survived the impact and subsequent blast, when the Black Boxes were allegedly destroyed? How did it come to be just laying on the sidewalk?
Why were all members of the Bin Laden family living in the U.S. flown out of the country on chartered planes on the morning of 9/11?.
The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York.
Why Did the Air Force's Top Officials at the Pentagon Delay Responding to the 9/11 Attacks?
Cell phones didn't work at 30,000 feet in 2001, hell not even 4000 feet. If this was in a criminal court, this piece of information alone would be considered a smoking gun
Disposing of the Crime Scene, the rapid and illegal scrapping of the WTC ruins at Ground Zero disposed of almost all of the structural steel indispensable to any investigation of the collapse mechanics.
Mailings of weapons-grade anthrax were traced back to US military stock.
Project for a New American Century
Operation Northwoods
Authenticity of the Bin Laden tapes are dubious, at best.
Media Published Fake Passenger Lists for AA Flight 11
Bin Laden died in 2001, there are many sources that confirm this
2 DwarvenPirate 2015-03-17
The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11
2 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-17
That is a good read, thanks.
9 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-17
I will preface this all with saying, I do not intend for any bullet point list to effectively prove an inside job. Instead, this list will serve as evidence for the necessity of an independent Citizens Investigation into 9/11. The totality of circumstances are too great to ignore.
Continuity of Government.
Now THIS is some crazy shit. Verification here, CBS, Wikipedia here.
Building 7
Watch a compilation of Building 7 collapsing from different angles here
Compare the fires of building 7 to other major skyscraper fires that did not result in a collapse (Thanks /u/classh0le)
No plane hit building 7
The National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded in their report on Building 7: "While debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7."
NIST admits that Building 7 is the first time a building over 15 stories tall has EVER collapsed due to fires.
NIST admits to a free fall acceleration over 2.25 seconds.
The official 9/11 Commission Report does not discuss Building 7 NIST refuses to release data inputs for their computational collapse model, saying it "...might jeopardize public safety."
The model was built without physical evidence. "In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the [FEMA] BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S." -Joseph Crowley, U.S. Congressman, Committee on Science, 2002.
NIST declined to test for chemical explosives used in demolition BBC reported the collapse hours before it happened, twice.
Experts such as Danny Jowenko agree it is a textbook case of controlled demolition, before being told the building collapsed on 9/11.. Danny Jowenko, shown in the linked video, would die later in a suspicious car crash after his comments received mass attention.
Barry Jennings, the Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority, was trapped inside Building 7 when the first plane hit. He has repeatedly told his story of hearing explosions on the 20th and 22nd floor while trapped inside. He did mysteriously in 2008, days before the release of the final NIST report. The cause of death has not been made public.
With rare exceptions, the media does not discuss building 7.
Multiple reports made by professionals of molten steel beneath the rubble that lasted for weeks.
Secret Service Agents were inside Building 7 shortly before collapse.
Building 7 contained SEC case files, including some major corruption cases.
Fishy Timeline
NORAD scrambled jets 67 times between September 2000 and June 2001
When the Lear jet of golfer Payne Stewart didn't respond in 1999, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched within 20 minutes
Flight 11 crashed into the north tower 26 minutes after controllers lost contact
Flight 175 crashes into the south WTC tower 23 minutes after NORAD was notified, 43 minutes after air traffic control lost contact with pilots
Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon 42 minutes or more after contact was lost, one hour after NORAD notification of first hijacking Wiki timeline of events
Flight 77 crossed major military bases and airports on its flight back to DC
High profile people like John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial airlines leading up to the attacks
The heightened security level at the WTC was lifted right before the attacks
"On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."
FEMA removed the steel from building 7 immediately, even though it ought to have been studied, seeing it was the first skyscraper to ever have collapsed due to steel fires
Silverstein Properties had planned to meet on September 11 on the 88th floor of one of the towers to "discuss what to do in the event of a terrorist attack," but canceled the meeting late on September 10 "because one participant could not attend." -NYT
NORAD policy on responding to aircraft piracy was changed in June 2001, resulting in slower response times
"So many unconnected dots, contradictions and implausible coincidences. Like the fact that NORAD was running an imaginary terrorist-attack drill called "Vigilant Guardian" on the same morning as the real-world attacks. At 8:40 a.m., when a sergeant at NORAD’s center in Rome, N.Y., notified his northeastern commander, Col. Robert Marr, of a possible hijacked airliner—American Flight 11—the colonel wondered aloud if it was part of the exercise. This same confusion was played out at the lower levels of the NORAD network." - New York Observer
Larry Silverstein was conveintly absent from his office in the North Tower
More sections are in the comments. Here I would like to link to some writing I have done regarding the nature and prevalencey of psychopathy, and the history of abuses by covert institutions, to provide important context for 9/11.
Psychopathy, Power and Politics
Operation Gladio: A History of the CIA and False Flag Terrorism
Operation Mockingbird: The CIA and Domestic Propaganda
MKULTRA: The CIA and Mind Control
COINTELPRO: The FBI's Campaign of Psychological Warfare, Assassinations, and More
Iran/Contra as a case study in the Shadow Government
Contras and Cocaine: Anything Goes for 'National Security'
A Detailed History of how the West has Actively Proliferated Radical Islam
The Petrodollar: Understanding the Necessity of Western Hegemony in the Islamic World for Maintaining the Empire
6 Rocket_Admin_Patrick 2015-03-17
When I see comments here, it's normally one of these:
Building 7
No wreckage at Pentagon
Bush's reaction from that school
How fast the towers fell
My favorite (that no one probably says anymore): Jet fuel can't melt steel beams.
EDIT: It would appear that my last point was in questioning. The final one was satire, it's often used as a strawman by truthers and the opposition. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
6 Estamio2 2015-03-17
Even if the MSM story was true, this reveals what a performer/puppet the USA "President" must be.
0 Intrepyd 2015-03-17
The steel doesn't have to melt, it just has to get hot enough to weaken. There are clear photos of sagging steel superstructure prior to collapse.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/911-conspiracy-debate-part-ii/
7 CatastropheJohn 2015-03-17
Yeah, the engineers who built it factored that in. Same with every other steel building on the planet. They don't collapse when they burn. Ever. These three buildings are the only three. Strange, no?
3 AlwaysTurning 2015-03-17
I think the real issue is where the molten metal came from. Not whether or not melted metal is required for it to collapse.
-2 George_Tenet 2015-03-17
Can jet fuel melt them? Can u link to video of the first tower falling
4 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-17
That isn't the point.
Jet fuel obviously can not melt steel beams and NIST claim they found no melted steel beams, they only claim the steel needed to be hot enough to weaken them.
But, there is photo and video evidence of melted steel, you also have several credible eyewitness testimony, saying they saw melted steel.
6 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-17
WTC 7 went into free-fall (click for a compilation), literally gravitational acceleration (the official reports even admit this) which is impossible in a steel framed building, there is nothing in science or engineering that would explain how every single supporting column would disappear within mere fractions of a second, the only explanation, within the realms of science, is explosives of some description, taking out the columns in a timed sequence.
This violates basic Newtonian physics, IF, you choose to believe the official report that fires caused the collapse, obviously it is impossible for a building to go into freefall in any other scenario, this explains why NIST refuse to release there data for independent validation, the only relevant documents that support their theory that fire brought down a steel framed building (first time in history, still to this day) are classified for public safety, they will not even release them to a licensed NYC architect in regards a FOIA request
Why are they hiding this data? Likely because it is not based on any known science and engineering principles, if we have to go on what they have released so far, a collapse model that bores no resemblance to the observed collapse
Thus their findings cannot be replicated or falsified due to the withholding of data and so if anyone outside of NIST believes what they say, they believe it on pure faith.
Page 3 and the architect's appeal over the remaining 3370 files
The acceleration of gravity in New York City is 32.159 ft/s2. WTC7 had 2.25 seconds of literal freefall, this is equivalent to approximately 8 stories of fall in which the falling section of the building encountered zero resistance. The collapse was complete in 6.5 seconds. Free-fall time in a vacuum, from Building 7's roof is 5.96 seconds
For any object to fall at gravitational acceleration, there can be nothing below it that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance. If there is anything below it that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance, then not all of the potential energy of the object would be converted to motion and so would not be found falling at gravitational acceleration (where did every single structural supporting columns go, instantly, at the exact same time?)
There's no exception to that rule, those are the conditions that must exist for gravitational acceleration to occur for the entirety of the duration of the time it occurs, this is basic Newtonian physical principles.
You either agree with this very basic concept, or you need to start making a case for a new realm of science that has never been witnessed before.
Remember also that the BBC even reported that the building had collapsed 20minutes before it had, remarkable.
The tilting of the south tower, just before collapse.
According to Sir Isaac Newton’s law of the conservation of momentum, it should have kept tipping over, but it didn't, it fell through the path of greatest resistance. The top was tilting at approximately 20 degrees or so, how could it be exerting a uniform, symmetrical pressure on the floors below? it didn't and couldn't.
Watch a compilation of the collapse what you are observing is approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east.They begin to topple over, not fall straight down.The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives?
[Video evidence also shows that the lower sections of the Towers do not even begin to start collapsing until the upper sections are completely destroyed]([Imgur](http://i.imgur.com/Ag88tNY.jpg\)) This is an impossibility if we are to believe the official reports
NIST's global collapse theory, in regards the complete collapse of two 110 story skyscrapers violates Newton's laws of motion.
It is scientifically impossible and completely illogical that these two buildings, which had an upper block exerting a force of only 36% of its static weight, could crush the larger, stronger, undamaged lower section of the building to the ground, when the building, at any level, was designed to support several times the weight above it, while it maintains its downward acceleration.
The persistent acceleration of the top section of the building is direct evidence that some other source of energy was used to remove the structure below it,
Videos show that the section of the building above the plane impact point was the first section to disintegrate
The Pentagon attack does appear of some sort of Red herring but there is not a single bit of evidence that a 757 airliner crashed at the Pentagon (the alleged photos of tiny scraps of the plane on the lawn are easily disproved by basic physics), in fact, all available evidence suggests the exact opposite.
Before roof collapsed
After roof collapsed
Make up your own mind here, but ponder
How would it even be possible that the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation”s capital?
and the above is just scratching the surface, the official account is truly bizarre, the probability that it can be true, really is zero.
All evidence suggests that flight 93, which crashed over at Shanksville, broke up before impact, there were debris fields miles and miles apart to support this conclusion, Donald Rumsfeld even said the plane was shot down
But still, we are led to believe that the ground literally consumed the plane! That’s right, the government claims (without a shred of proof or any evidence at all offered to the world) that the plane ended up completely underground. Remember though, they found the drivers license of one of the alleged hijackers, a bit burnt and found ABOVE ground, i am not making this up, this is the official story.
"Hi Mom, This is Mark Bingham"
Perhaps the most compelling evidence in favor of the demolition theory is that the NIST WTC Reports, which took up to seven years to produce, exhibit all six of the characteristics of politically motivated pseudoscience
Lack of experiment - NIST performed no physical experiments to support its conclusions
The results of experiments were ignored or contradicted in the conclusions - steel temperature tests performed on the few steel samples saved suggested that the steel reached only about 500 degrees Fahrenheit. This is more than a thousand degrees below the temperature needed to soften steel and make it malleable—a key requirement of NIST’s hypothesis
There was no peer review and public comments from peers were ignored - NIST published its own WTC reports and therefore its work was not subject to peer-review as is the case for all legitimate science.
The findings cannot be replicated or falsified due to the withholding of data - NIST will not share it computer models with the public. A NIST spokesman declared, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, that revealing the computer models would “jeopardize public safety.”
False conclusions are supported by media or marketing propaganda - NIST’s pseudoscience was fully and uncritically supported by the mainstream media, many journalists have since stated they were under pressure from management to not report 9/11 stories if they were critical of the official narrative.
Hypotheses that are supported by the evidence were ignored - Throughout its seven-year investigation, NIST ignored the obvious hypothesis for the destruction of the WTC buildings—demolition
To conclude, the WTC reports produced by NIST represent the most obvious example of politically motivated pseudoscience in history. The physical experiments NIST performed did not support its conclusions. The reports were not peer-reviewed and public comments that challenged the findings were ignored. NIST will not share its computer models (the last supposed evidence that supports its conclusions) with the public and therefore its conclusions are not verifiable.
.
6 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-17
THE CALLS
There are 2 calls that contradict the offical version of events; the before mentioned Todd Beamer call and Jeremy Glick's.
Todd Beamer:
>Flight 93 hijack occurred at 9:28
>Todd Beamer's call describes the hijack about to happen at 9:43
>Flight 93 crashed at 10:03
>Todd Beamer's call made with an airphone last for 3925 seconds. It last 45 minutes after the plane had already crashed.
>Lisa Jefferson also confirms that the call was not lost: "We didn’t lose a connection because there’s a different sound that you use. It’s a squealing sound when you lose a connection. I never lost connection, but it just went silent."
Jeremy Glick:
>Call starts at 9:37
>Flight 93 crashes at 10:03
>Call lasts for 7565 seconds, placing the end of the call at 11:41. It last for 1 hour and ~38 minutes after the plane had already crashed.
These calls were made from the airplane's airphone destined to two different interfaces: One was to the GTE's assistant landline telephone, the other was to a cellphone.
These calls could not have remained connected by a system mistake because airphones charge per time, the system was built to only count the time the client is connected in order to avoid overcharging him by allowing calls to "stay connected" when they were not. The fact that they also disconnected at different times rules out any possible system fault which, if possible, would at best disconnect both calls at the same time since they would have "disconnected" at the same time, the time of the crash.
The ACARS data also corroborates the above, seen that the only possible explanation for the calls to remain connected after the airplane crashed is that the airplane from where the calls came from never crashed in the first place.
THE TOWERS' COLLAPSES
SOUTH TOWER
The section above the airplane impact zone tilted and then fell vertically, violating Newton's First Law of Motion in which a body in motion (rotation in this case) tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force. In this case this was the expected movement of the top if it was simply collapsing.
Despite the fact that the top section tilted and was only ~30%(33floors) of the building it was still capable of destroying the remaining ~69%(76 floors) completely, directly violating Newton's third law.
NORTH TOWER
A problem with this collapse is that despite the fact that the top section fell vertically and almost symmetrically, it can be clearly identified a concentrated destruction almost as fast as the debris fall occurring on the right face of the building.
Sharing the exact same result as the South Tower, the North tower also violates Newton's third law by an even larger margin. The top section was only 15.45%(17 floors) destroying the intact
93%83% (92 floors).According to NIST, WTC1 fell only 28% longer than pure free-fall:
>"The upper section of the building then collapsed onto the floors below, within 12s, the collapse of WTC 1 had left nothing but rubble."
NIST file NCSTAR1 section 2.9
If it was free fall it would have been 9.32s without air resistance, meaning that -according to NIST- all floors provided a resistance that add up to 2.77s (12s - 9.32s).
Below the collapse area there were 95 floors.
2.77s / 95 floors = each floor being destroyed in 0.029s
29/1000ths of a second.
According to NIST, each floor -composed by concrete and steel- was being destroyed as fast as the impact between a stick and a cue ball.
Despite the top being only ~16% of the building (weaker and lighter), the result was still a perfect vertical gravity assisted downfall destruction of the remaining
93%83% perfectly intact structure (stronger as well) defying yet again another law of physics -Newton's third law- in which a smaller and weaker body cannot destroy a bigger and stronger body.For example: for every floor of the
93%83% destroyed another floor of the 16% has to be destroyed. If Newton's third law had been respected, the building would be standing with ~75 floors, not 0. A better explanation of the laws of physics violation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPwwcXF_V0c&t=2329TOWER SEVEN
Building 7 was hit by the debris from one of the collapses which caused fires and facade damage, one easily identified top to bottom gash.
Despite the presence of large quantities of smoke, there was never discovered any floor completely engulfed by fire, only partial fires and only on a few floors. The presence of soot in the windows are the indicator of fires that were already extinct.
The only fires that last long enough and could be responsible for the building to collapse were only on 3 floors and they were only partial small fires.
For a better comparison on the dimensions of WTC7's small office fires, here you have an example of normal office fires (or just plain office fires) and extreme office fires (or infernos).
By the time that the collapse initiated there were no more fires near the vicinity of the section that was appointed as the collapse failure initiation. This means that the building started the collapse for a reason other than fire.
Despite public belief, the building did in fact collapse with sudden onset of free-fall (18 visible stories in 3.9s), there were no stages. A better explanation is provided below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPwwcXF_V0c&t=4536
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/07/11/video-analysis-of-nists-claim-of-a-5-4-s-collapse-time-over-18-stories-for-wtc-7/
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=207&MMN_position=616:616
There was also a loud explosion that occurred right before the penthouse collapse. That explosion cannot possibly be from any structure "snapping" or "failing" because you would hear in that same video the rest of the building collapse as well, which you do not. If you cannot hear the entire building collapse then that explosion couldn't possibly be from a column failing.
In contrast with the WTC7 building, here you can see the other buildings that were hit with exponentially bigger forces (hit directly by the towers' debris), some which under larger fires and did not globally collapse:
WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, WTC6, Deutsche bank building
And here are buildings that suffered extreme office fires and did not turn into a pile of ruble:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
5 METATRON713 2015-03-17
This is the biggest sign
7 -SPIRITUAL-GANGSTER- 2015-03-17
M'pancackecollapse
4 KnightBeforeTomorrow 2015-03-17
Our main intelligence officers, Porter Goss and Bob Graham, were sitting at a friendly breakfast with the man most instrumental in paying the hijackers, as the planes hit the towers. Graham and Goss investigated themselves for colluding with the enemy and reported that they were not looking for specific culprits that any such search would be 'foolishness, just part of finger pointing.
The most official links have been re-written to tell a different story now , one in which it was Saudi Arabia who did the paying, However, the attack was paid for with at least one $100,000 check and that check was signed by Ahmad Umar Sheikh who was the assistant of General Mahmoud Ahmad of Pakistan's ISI. Ahmad was with our top intelligence officers as the planes hit the towers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_J._Goss Goss and Graham investigated themselves and decided that looking for specific culprits in the 9/11 attack was 'foolishness, just a part of finger pointing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_J._Goss
Here's a drastically re written link about the investigation of the meetings between Ahmad and a list of government executives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Inquiry_into_Intelligence_Community_Activities_before_and_after_the_Terrorist_Attacks_of_September_11,_2001
A few other links.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/afp101001.html
http://www.american-buddha.com/911.mystersept11breakmeecapitomichel.htm
http://www.nndb.com/people/425/000044293/
3 redditeditard 2015-03-17
Ae911truth.org
3 last1ofthejedi 2015-03-17
See, no one that is a refuter can touch my cia proof? I think the tower falls being wrong, etc, is all a distraction, so ppl don't look at the facts that actually damn those responsable.
3 metal_up_your_ass 2015-03-17
the most important step in the scientific method is observation. observation completely shapes how initial conditions are formed and therefore how any theories will be shaped in order to explain whatever the phenomenon it is that is being observed. clearly the building experiences free fall, en masse, for a given amount of time. zero resistance to gravity occurred, there is no other explanation for this. demanding anyone explain how many explosives there were or how they got there does not negate this. the shill is strong in this thread
1 bedoot 2015-03-17
Do doo be-do-do
1 George_Tenet 2015-03-17
Theres plenty others. Like a Plane hitting Pentagon??evidence,
0 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
What is it about building 7 that is so suspicious?
7 SatansAliens 2015-03-17
Nobody knows why or how it collapsed and the official story has changed about a half dozen times or more since 2001. First they said it was a raging inferno and the fires collapsed it. But no building in history has collapsed from fire.
Then they said that it was structural damage, that it was so wounded by shrapnel that its basic structure couldn't support itself and collapsed in on itself. But then a few photos of it were released showing that it had nothing more than cosmetic damage. The government has since cracked down on people posting footage or photos of building 7 from sept 11th.
Ok then they said that the vibrations from the first 2 towers falling caused it to shake loose and collapse? Like an earthquake I guess.
I think the current story is that in the 1970s, before Tower 7 was built there was a power substation on that spot. It was to integral to the NYC power grid to just tear down so they build building 7 around it and thus had to sacrifice its structural integrity to accommodate the substation. Kind of weird considering that tower 7 was also supposed to serve as the mayor and chief of polices headquarters during a natural disaster, riot or terror attack and was stocked like a bunker.
OK also there is the fact that several people in tower 7 said that bombs were going off in it and they were stepping over dead bodies before they got out and the building fell. These people who are on tape on the day of 9/11 saying what happened have either died or are just being ignored... because.
Also the footage looks like a controlled demolition, or at least it looks like one of the thousands of controlled demos that we've seen over the years. We can't compare it to what a building collapsing from fire or earth quake looks like because... that like never happens.
-2 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-03-17
An insurance investigation separate from NIST revealed Building 7 had several elements that violated NYC building codes and had insufficient or non existent fireproofing on critical structural supports.
That same investigation did their own collapse modeling and found that the collapse likely began at column 79 and spread throughout the building, just as NIST concluded, leaving the facade an unsupported shell before it came down.
There is some disagreement as to the role the Salomon Brothers generator played in the fires, but the mechanics of the collapse are consistent between both investigations and back up what can be seen visually.
3 Cats_Love_Me_ 2015-03-17
False. The collapsed model used was based on NIST's ridiculous model, which makes zero sense.
Also the main cause of the Aegis insurance claim, that the diesel fuel tanks were part of the problem in regards the fires, is polar opposite of what the NIST claim, that diesel fuel tanks had NOTHING to do with the fire. You have proved yourself wrong lol
So you either believe one or the other, on faith alone, because WTC7 is the perfect example of controlled demolition, everyone else knows that.
-1 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-03-17
Nowhere in any of the Aegis investigators statements do they say they used the NIST models.
Whether the diesel tanks played a role or not, both organizations agreed that the collapse started at column 79 due to fire and progressed internally.
3 SatansAliens 2015-03-17
I thought NIST was keeping their investigation into the collapse secret. Where are you getting your info? I'm not doubting you I'm just pointing out that for a long time the information on how they collected their data, built their models and came to their conclusions was sealed for "national security."
Did these insurance investigators cross reference their private investigation with the top secret sealed investigation from NIST? If so... how? Was the information published in a form that could be peer reviewed in a public forum? i'm curious because I've heard different official stories for 14 years now. They're always proven impossible and then completely change. Each time we're told "the evidence for this theory exists somewhere, we promise." And each time it doesn't.
When they said that it was tremors from WTC 1 &2 and when they said it was falling debris and when they said it was a raging inferno and when they said it was the result of the 50 year old substation... Each of these stories were smugly trotted out as the official version with this condescending air of "don't question us, we got science on our side." This is why I'm doubtful about the latest version, and mark my words... this is just the latest version. Not the final version. And I guarantee that future revisions will have nothing to do with previous versions.
In an abstract sense - science is fluid. As new data becomes available previous theories must evolve to reflect the new information. This is why I distrust so much of the official story. The changes don't have anything to do with one another. It's not like they say "our previous model didn't account for this new information but now we can actually say with more certainty that it probably happened this way." I would respect that.
What actually happens is that they never admit they discovered new info or were wrong. They shit out all of these contradictory theories that don't have anything to do with each other and are never backed up with any science that can be verified by 2 qualified, public independent sources.
-1 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-03-17
The insurance investigation didn't rely on NIST in any way.
Here is a link containing the statements of the Aegis investigators:
http://np.reddit.com/r/8chan/comments/2y39kh/polack_proves_using_science_that_jet_fuel_can/cpbqr62
I don't think any of this was put forward for peer review as it is evidence in a court case (just like you'd never submit a ballistics test for peer review)
The most interesting thing I came away with from reading their statements is the number of ways the building was improperly protected and constructed, which would have led to collapse in a normal office fire if it was severe enough.
3 SatansAliens 2015-03-17
Weird that would go noticed during the 15 million dollar face lift to the 23rd floor of WTC7 when it was converted to an emergency bunker. Thanks for these links though, I'll check em out. But if you want to know why the idea of an official story still doesn't impress me, check out popular mechanics.
-1 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-03-17
The 23rd floor wasn't the source of the problems. Unless the facelift went through floor by floor, I can see how it would get missed.
IIRC, the issues were with the Salomon brothers generator on the 5th floor, the unrestrained floor assembly over the ConEd substation, and the fireproofing on structural members from floors 10-13.
3 SatansAliens 2015-03-17
I'm still not finding much in your linked post that proves anything.
-1 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-03-17
Well, it takes longer than 9 minutes to read through the statements, but here are parts that I'm talking about:
Colin G Bailey
Based on my work to date, including computer models by the University of Edinburgh, it is my opinion that if there had been a diesel fuel fire on September 11 involving between 7,350 and 9,300 gallons of diesel fuel on the fifth floor of 7WTC in the area of the transfer trusses, such a fire would have compromised the strength of the transfer trusses, and could have caused them to fail, resulting in the collapse of columns 79 and/or 80.
The computer modeling completed to date supports the conclusion that 7WTC would have collapsed as a result of typical office contents fires because of several design/construction failures, including the failure to adequately fireproof the flutes of the metal floor decking for 7WTC and the failure to ensure that a restrained floor system was constructed.
When a steel beam supports a composite deck, comprising a fluted (trapezoidal shaped) steel deck, concrete and mesh reinforcement, a cavity (or void) is formed between the top flange of the beam and the fluted deck. For fluted decks, such as those used on 7WTC, this cavity (or void) is large. Leaving the cavities between the fluted deck and top flange of the beam unfilled or inadequately filled with fire protection material results in:
an increase in temperature of the top flange and web;
an increase in temperature of the shear studs;
reduction in load capacity of beams during a fire; and
reduction in overall fire resistance.
In the UL Fire Resistance Directory for 1983 and 1985 the need to fill the voids is covered by the following statement: “Cavities, if any, between the upper beam flange and floor or roof units shall be filled with the fire protection material applied to the beam, unless stated otherwise on an individual design.” The photographic evidence shows that the cavities were either not filled with fire protection at all, or were so inadequately filled as to have been unfilled for all practical purposes. See Exhibit A. An example of flutes in the process of being filled with fire protection on a different building is shown in Exhibit B. Exhibit C, which appears in the American Institute of Steel Construction Design Guide, shows another example where the flutes have been filled with fire protection.1 Failure to construct the building with adequate fire protection by filling the voids reduced the fire resistance below building code requirements. The structural fire protection was specified by the 7WTC architect based on a restrained system. However, the main girder from Column 79 to 44 was not designed and constructed as restrained. The girder did not have a sufficient number of shear studs2 and the connections were not constructed to allow the adequate transfer of thermal thrusts to the supports as specified in the UL Fire Resistance Directory for 1983 and 1985. Specifying a level of fire protection based on restrained systems to a constructed unrestrained system resulted in a reduction of fire resistance for 7WTC. The combination of very large floor bays, transfer trusses, cantilevered girders and unusual angles at which beams, girders and columns joined created a building that required careful examination and construction to ensure structural integrity. Such an examination and construction would include, but not necessarily be limited to:
...and on and on.
I'll end up copying Bailey's whole statement just to start, never mind the 5 other statements.
The failure to adequately fireproof the composite deck, combined with the unrestrained construction would have drastically reduced resiliency in a fire.
The other 5 statements say pretty much the same thing in more detail.
3 SatansAliens 2015-03-17
The wiki says the fuel there had nothing to do with the collapse:
0 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-03-17
There is disagreement between the Aegis investigators and NIST as to whether the diesel tanks played a role in the collapse.
Even if the tanks were not a factor, the building had enough issues that it would have been a collapse risk in a normal office fire. NIST and the Aegis investigation both agree that the collapse started as a local failure around column 79 and progressed throughout the building.
3 SatansAliens 2015-03-17
What data did they base their models on?
0 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-03-17
I'd imagine they took the structural information of the building, complete with known issues and irregularities, and ran it through a variety of different fire scenarios, but that would be just a guess.
There is no one correct set of data points in investigating a scenario like this. You construct your model and see how plausible a fire induced collapse is given a wide variety of different conditions.
All 5 of the investigators have email addresses online. You could contact them if you were curious.
2 SatansAliens 2015-03-17
Isn't that what engineers are supposed to do when building and designing buildings? You don't think it's weird that this one building that collapses in that manner on that day happens to be the only building that has this weird death star like flaw in its design?
0 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-03-17
Supposed to do being the key phrase.
WTC7 was designed in 1983. They didn't have the kind of advanced computer modelling available then that they do now. Plus, with something like fireproofing, engineers aren't involved and are relying on subcontractors to do the job. The state of fireproofing in WTC1 and WTC2 was a disaster too. I imagine a lot of buildings have similar flaws.
Well, the ConEd substation was unique to WTC7. I'd bet there are other buildings with similar problems, but we'll never see them tested like WTC7 was. Multiple floor fires burning for over 7 hours without a drop of water from fire suppression systems, no attempt from firefighters to mitigate the fires, plus all the design and protection flaws in the building.
To answer your question, sure it's weird that WTC7 collapsed. That's why it was investigated not once but twice. When 2 separate investigations come to very similar conclusions as to the cause of the collapse, supported by every codes organization involved in construction and fireproofing of buildings in the US, at that point I consider the question answered.
1 SatansAliens 2015-03-17
We'll see what they say in a year or 2.
1 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-03-17
The NIST report was done in 2008, the Aegis investigation (not materially different from NISTs conclusions) done in 2011.
I'm not sure what you're expecting to change.
1 SatansAliens 2015-03-17
I should also point out this absolutely didn't convince me of anything. They can't come to terms on whether or not 5k gallons of diesel fuel might have had something to do with the damage? Why not?
0 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-03-17
I'm not stupid enough to think that it would.
They disagree on whether smoke coming from the Salomon brothers generator area was in fact indicative of the generator burning.
Either way, the 2 investigations agree on the most critical point. The building collapsing was a progressive failure caused by fire and not a result of controlled demolition.
1 SatansAliens 2015-03-17
Oddly I'm not arguing for controlled demo by a long shot, I myself just posted an article that did a better job discrediting that theory than this. My beef is with the 'official story' dogmatism people seem to have even in light of how shaky and fluid it is.
1 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-03-17
Do you consider the Aegis investigation a part of the "official story"? I don't. They do corroborate a good deal of what NIST concluded, but they came at it completely independently.
2 Cats_Love_Me_ 2015-03-17
So, you disagree with the official reports.
Good.
You are a truther now.
-1 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-03-17
If you say so.
3 Cats_Love_Me_ 2015-03-17
I couldn't care less about you, but i am extremely glad you do not agree with the official reports, you too understand they are illogical and the most pathetic pieces if shit ever produce by the US government.
By proxy you also agree the three WTC skyscrapers were controlled demolition
0 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-03-17
If you say so.
1 PhrygianMode 2015-03-17
Please educate yourself before speaking on such matters. Saves everyone time.
-3 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
Plenty of people claim to know, including organizations like NIST and organizations like AE911 truth.
This is just untrue.
I believe that was an initial assumption, but further testing led to the conclusion that structural damage played little in the collapse, aside from initiating the fires that eventually led to its collapse.
Considering the prevalence of 9/11 conspiracy sites and resources on the web, I find that extremely hard to believe.
I have never once heard that argument before. source?
I was under the impression it had some offices of some official agencies. Source for the "stocked like a bunker" comment.
People report hearing explosions. Consider the events occurring around them, these explosions could have come from a variety of sources. Controlled demolition explosions tend to occur rapidly in sequence followed immediately by the building collapse. People hearing explosions hours before hand is hardly evidence of a controlled demolition.
How does it look like a controlled demolition? How many controlled demos involved bringing down the interior of a building collapsing first?
2 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-17
Typical faither illogical reply
-3 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
Thanks, glad you've endeavored to add so much to the conversation. If you'd like to address my points I'd be glad to discuss them.
5 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-17
Only three steel framed building have EVER completely collapsed due to fires (WTC1,2&7)
Because it looks EXACTLY like most other bottom down demolitions, it even went into freefall, you are clutching at straws and it is hilarious.
5 shadowofashadow 2015-03-17
He's doing the normal debunker thing. OP meant steel framed buildings but only says "building" so debunker jumps on a little semantic issue and is technically right.
The point is that no building that was built like WTC7 has ever been demolished from fire.
0 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
Now explain to me how that is at all relevent to the collapse mechanics of this particular collapse. Buildings are different, conditions are different. If it makes you more skeptical of the claims, that is one thing, but to try to use it as postive evidence of a controlled demolition is absurd.
4 AlwaysTurning 2015-03-17
You clearly don't want to consider changing your opinion so why are you even here?
-3 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
Why did you get that idea? I am arguing my opinion, which is based on evidence that I am aware of. If anyone would like to present evidence to the contary they are welcome to.
The fact that I am here discussing this is evidence of my interest in opposing opinions. I discuss because I like to learn views that oppose mine and consider them. It just so happens that no one here has brought anything remotely new or convincing to the table yet, at least from my perspective.
I get this type of reaction a lot here. Curious how a community supposedly dedicated to truth and free speech react so hostile to those who present differing opinions.
3 AlwaysTurning 2015-03-17
I'm sorry you're just being ignorant to some things... NIST might say certain things but look at the video and decide for yourself, then ask if it's physically possible, or plausible. You keep referencing science but don't seem to use it. You just keep referencing NIST and their claims that they used science but whether or not it really make sense is out of the question. It's like someone telling you the bible is fact because the bible says so.
Bldg 7, for example is indistinguishable form a controlled demo, unless you take into account what NIST claims and go at it from that predetermined conclusion, which requires a lot of faith and their account has changed quite a few times. How do you explain the free fall that is even admitted by NIST? How does it fit in with their other claims?
The reaction you get is because there's not a single reply from you saying "Hmm, I've never heard that." If something is mentioned that you can't reply to it's just ignored. You focus too much on semantics. You ask questions with the answer already decided in your head.
-1 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
I don't think you understand my arguments, and you seem intent on accusing me of things that not only am I not doing, but numerous truthers in this thread are guilty of. Let's focus on this claim.
Seeing as you are accusing me of coming into this with a pre-determined conclusion, I assume you think you are not guilty of this. So, In what way, exactly is this collapse indistinguishable from a controlled demolition? You can see clearly that the interior levels on the left side fall first, as evidenced by the collapsing penthouse and breaking windows all the way down that side. Then, if you look at the penthouse on the top, you can glimpse the destruction moving along the top of the building, progressively moving along until the entire building, including the facade comes down. Explain to me how exactly this fits the profile of a controlled demolition? What demolitions require interior portions of the building to fall before the facade? Why do I not hear the numerous consequtive explosions directly preceding a collapse in any of these videos?
You could strengthen your point by showing me some of the modelling done by CD proponents to demonstrate the details of their conclusions. You know, analysis of the collapse, theories on charge placement, etc. I know there is an organization that claims a couple thousand engineers with plenty of resources that could work on presenting this. Where is their model?
In other words, put up or shut up. Don't come into this conversation accusing me of being ignorant, intellectually dishonest or whatever else you are implying if you aren't going to bother supporting you claims.
Why exactly is the building 7 indistinguishable from a controlled demo?
3 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-17
You do not even understand your own arguments.
Thanks for the laughs
2 AlwaysTurning 2015-03-17
The physical characteristics are the same as a controlled demo unless coming at it with the assumption that there is a different cause. What should we expect to happen when core columns are cut? Would it not look the same, with the interior of the building collapsing briefly before everything else comes down. That's the whole point.
NISTs science is like Jeopardy, everything is backwards. They assume that fire damage caused the collapse and frame everything in that light.
If you start at the collapse and just analyze it as if it you had no idea what building it was, you'd come up with tons of evidence for demolition and very little for other options. To put in simply, no other method can bring a building down uniformly, into it's own footprint, turning concrete to dust, dismantling steel beams, within the timeframe.According to science those buildings should have, worst case, toppled or crumpled in onto the weak points. Scientifically there is no other answer. You aren't going by science, you're going by NIST.
Explain to me with physics how fire can do these things. Not NIST. Science. I don't care if there are no sources or links. I want to hear you actually express how that could happen. Explain the pulverized concrete, the broken beams, the speed of the fall, and the uniformity. Forget all of the coincidences, the money made, the incentives, forget all of that. Just tell me with your own brain how that could have happened looking at it as if it is just a random building you're analyzing.
-2 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
You did not even attempt to answer the question.
This isn't an answer. I know your "truth" websites have programmed you to only attack the scientifically verified story and avoid actually substantiating your claims, but I'm going to have to insist in this case.
You claimed the collapse was obviously a controlled demolition. I asked you to explain how.
3 AlwaysTurning 2015-03-17
I did explain.
-1 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
No you didn't.
Using knowledge of controlled demolitions, explain to me how you believe that this collapse is so obviously an example of a controlled demolition. Or are you just saying: Building falls down, must be controlled demolition?
Explain how the way WTC fell resembles a demolition. Do other demolitions use techniques that you can see at play here? Do you hear explosives that I don't? Substantiate your claims or stop attempting to participate in this discussion.
2 AlwaysTurning 2015-03-17
Dude, if you can't see how a building suddenly collapsing at a near free fall speed (admitted 7+ seconds of actual free fall) through the path with most resistance doesn't fit fire then you're on your own. I'm not wasting my time with you. I've stated my opinion and it's utterly stupid to debate this. The building collapsed, all at once, through the path of most resistance. The only way for that to happen is for ALL of the support columns to be cut simultaneously.
Characteristics that lead me to CD:
-Sudden and complete collapse
-Collapse into it's own footprint
-Pulverize/dustified concrete
-Broken steel beams
-Black smoke = weak fires
-First responders report molten metal
-Near free fall speed
-Employees saying explosions heard while inside
-squibs
-Falls through path of most resistance.
Edit. Formatting.
3 Cats_Love_Me_ 2015-03-17
It was, admitted by NIST, 2.25 seconds absolute freefall, but the whole collapse of WTC7 was at near freefall that makes not much difference, the only way a skyscraper could have collapsed through itself that fast, is controlled demolition.
1 AlwaysTurning 2015-03-17
Ok so i was wrong on the number, but that's exactly my point.... Did they change it to 2.25? Because i remember hearing 7.9, maybe that's something else.
2 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-17
Very close to what you are saying that makes no difference. The point of the 2.25 seconds admitted freefall, is that they actually admitted it officially.
I can get my computer to average at least 5 seconds of freefall on model, who cares though, they already admitted freefall for it to make no difference.
1 AlwaysTurning 2015-03-17
Exactly, any amount of freefall proves what was obvious to begin with.
-1 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
Thank Fucking God.
literally wrong.
It wasn't sudden
Where'd you expect a building to fall?
I wonder what happens to concrete when a whole fucking building falls on it?
I wonder what happens to steel when a whole fucking building falls on it?
Completely false.
What does that have to do with a controlled demolition?
Only the facade fell at free fall speed for roughly 2 seconds. What evidence do you have that a controlled demolition is required for this to occur?
Where the fuck else is it going to go? Pop up and flip on its side?
It's clear you know almost nothing about controlled demolitions and are intent to parrot whatever your truther sites told you.
3 AlwaysTurning 2015-03-17
Wow. Where else is the building supposed to go? You cant be serious.... It should go anywhere other than through a solid structure. It should have toppled or crumpled. This is insanity. Btw even NIST admits free fall now.
0 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
Not 7 seconds it doesn't and it is referring to the North facade. You should try reading it.
3 AlwaysTurning 2015-03-17
Which version should I read? The original or one of the other several? I have read them regardless of which one.
0 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
I sincerely doubt that.
2 AlwaysTurning 2015-03-17
And I doubt you've done anything but, so we'll leave it at that. When it strikes you that even broken buildings can't fall through themselves get back to me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAdoAHsNyvE
That is a demolition that was timed incorrectly. Care to explain how fire can cause naturally what a team of trained professionals can't do 100% of the time?
1 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
Because a controlled demolition is different from a progressive collapse. Read the damn report.
2 AlwaysTurning 2015-03-17
It doesn't matter what the report says, and I have read a few versions of NISTs "findings". It doesn't fit the characteristics of a progressive collapse. We are asked to have faith that what they claim happened when it doesn't look a thing like a progressive collapse due to fire or due to structural damage. it is a uniform collapse into the buildings own footprint. It collapses through solid steel and concrete. It defies physics. It defies many other examples of steel structures with much larger fires/similar damage. It makes no sense.
1 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
If you can say this, you haven't read it. The rest of your comment is just as dumb, but this stands out. You can watch the video and see it isn't a uniform collapse
2 AlwaysTurning 2015-03-17
They can tell me whatever they want.... What I read is not what I see... That's my problem.
0 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
Your problem is you watched the videos the truthers edited that didn't show the penthouse fallin multiple seconds before the rest. You can see the interior collapse (on that side) before the facade collapses.
3 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-17
What evidence do you rely on, that the interior collapsed first?
Source it.
2 AlwaysTurning 2015-03-17
I saw exactly that. It doesn't matter, that's not the problem.
1 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
You called it a uniform collapse. The fact that this happens means it isn't.
Can we stop now? For fucks sake this is ridiculous.
3 Cats_Love_Me_ 2015-03-17
Keep going please, you appear desperate, you have not offered anything to the discussion, you appear to be apologizing for the government and every single one of your replies are illogical, this is good for truthers and the truth movement.
2 AlwaysTurning 2015-03-17
How does that make it not uniform? that's exactly like a CD. The center buckles and then the rest falls. The problem has nothing to due with the penthouse and how many seconds it fell before the rest of the building. It has to due with the building collapsing into itself, through solid structure.
0 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
Because the interior is collapsing on that side before the rest of it. You can see the windows blowing out on the floors underneath just after the penthouse collapses. Its really obvious that the floors are collapsing on that side early.
You clearly have no idea on even the basics of what happened. Your lack of familiarity with anything leads me to believe you are obviously lying about having read the NIST reports. You are clueless. I will no longer respond to your comments.
2 AlwaysTurning 2015-03-17
except when you look at videos of the other side(s)
2 Cats_Love_Me_ 2015-03-17
Source? you appear to be deviating from the official narrative now
2 Cats_Love_Me_ 2015-03-17
Provide a source that a STEEL FRAMED BUILDING can decouple from itself, thus making what you say in regards this "facade" collapsing, even though it makes no engineering sense (I am an engineer) a possibility.
Good luck with that.
2 Cats_Love_Me_ 2015-03-17
It is absolutely a uniform collapse, into it's own footprint no less, at near freefall for the whole demolition (reaching freefall for 2.25 seconds)
2 Cats_Love_Me_ 2015-03-17
...which NIST provide zero evidence for, but you still believe them, why?
3 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-17
How do you explain any freefall in a steel framed building?????????
2 Cats_Love_Me_ 2015-03-17
Because it looks EXACTLY like other known bottom down controlled demolitions and the fact that the official government conspiracy theory, which you appear to be defending, can not scientifically be correct and has been proven false.
You talk about a facade, on a STEEL FRAMED SKYSCRAPER, you prove yourself wrong making your baseless assumption, that has to be based only on faith. LOL!
You have ZERO evidence that a steel framed skyscraper completely collapsed, at freefall for 2.25 seconds, into itself, because "fires" no evidence at all, all the evidence suggests otherwise.
1 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
It doesn't collapse from the bottom down? and the Face falls in free fall, but not the entire structure.
Can you can it with the insults as well? Do you think this is how adults discuss things? If you want to discuss the mechanics of the collapse I can provide my best understanding of the evidence. If you'd rather throw out insults then just hurry up, call me a shill or whatever and lets end this conversation now.
1 [deleted] 2015-03-17
[deleted]
-1 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
Explanations change as evidence is discovered or becomes available. It is how science works.
You said "But no building in history has collapsed from fire." Which is wrong. Now, if we are talking buildings the same size as WTC7, then there is significantly less, maybe even none. Of course, this has no bearing on the legitimacy of claims made regarding this collapse. It may cause you to be more skeptical, but in the end, what matters is the evidence presented.
Science changes when it finds better explanations. That is how it works. The NIST report analyzed the collapse and corrected previous assumptions.
Then it shouldn't be hard to source then, should it.
Alright, but really, that has little to do with the conspiracy. The WTC complex housed plenty of important offices.
You missed a few of my points there. Care to address this one, I believe it is the most important one. (Changed the wording slightly from the original comment for clarity)
How does it look like a controlled demolition? How many controlled demos involved bringing down the interior of a building first in a progressive collapse, followed by the exteriors walls?
-3 Drytruth 2015-03-17
Nailed it. This is a huge reason the "Truther" movement failed. Everyone was so caught up in saying "It looks like a controlled demolition!" that they never realized it really doesn't. From there, they've wasted time and money searching for explosives and other things that are painfully obviously imaginary.
4 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-17
He nailed nothing, there is no evidence that the "interior" of the building collapsed, in fact, it is an engineering impossibility in a steel framed building and there is literally no proof you can provide that says otherwise.
-2 Drytruth 2015-03-17
Can you cite your beliefs, please? I've never heard that it's physically impossible for a building to collapse.
5 shadowofashadow 2015-03-17
Greg Roberts never claimed this so I don't know why you are asking him. Well I do know why, because you spend your days trying to disrupt conversations on this sub. But my point is that you're asking him to explain something he never said.
-3 Drytruth 2015-03-17
How about you stop trying to disrupt the conversation and let people speak for themselves?
5 shadowofashadow 2015-03-17
Nope. I'd rather call you out on your strawman argument. You've misrepresented Greg's words and I wanted to point it out.
-2 Drytruth 2015-03-17
Fair enough. He seems to be away, anyway. I doubt he'll continue the conversation, as I called him out on his wacky belief.
3 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-17
All my beliefs are based on science, as a qualified engineer, that is what i tend to do.
0 Drytruth 2015-03-17
Ok. So no citations, then?
1 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
Thanks, although I'm afraid you quoting me has brought attention to the weird grammatical error I made in that sentence.
2 George_Tenet 2015-03-17
Can you link me to a video? Then watch it
0 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
I've seen plenty of video of it falling. I'm familiar with the event, and the theories surrounding it. Considering your post, I was hoping to spur some discussion about why you feel it is such strong evidence.
6 George_Tenet 2015-03-17
Because it was a controlled demolition
-2 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
How so?
What explosives were used? How much?
Where were they placed that would allow the building to collapse in the manner that we see. (interior columns collapsing on one side, leading to a progressive interior collapse before the facade comes down a few seconds later). Is this a common type of controlled demolition? If so, source?
How were the explosives placed? Demolitions take months of preparation. What about this operation allowed them to complete it without gutting the building?
4 shadowofashadow 2015-03-17
How would anyone know this? And why would they need to know these specifics in order to say it was a demolition?
0 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
I would at least expect an estimate. Thermite is the general suspected agent, correct?
How much would be needed per column? Which columns would require charges to achieve the collapse that we see, in which the interior collapses progressively and the unsupported facade follows? I've never seen a controlled demo collapse like that?
We need to know more about the charges because we need to know how a charge could be applied with no one noticing, without access to the steel columns (most CD's drill holes for the charges in the beams themselves). We also need to know how these charges somehow survived being triggered by fires that raged for hours beforehand.
This is how scientists and engineers come to conclusions. Where are the controlled demolition collapse models?
3 shadowofashadow 2015-03-17
Well as far as I know NIST never tested the demolition theory and it was illegal to even take pictures at ground zero let alone collect samples or take measurements or anything else of that nature.
How exactly is this data supposed to be obtained by people who want to test the controlled demolition theory? We do not have access to the data needed to even begin doing this.
That's why I said we have no way of determining that, so asking it is really a red herring. We can only speculate on the data that is actually available.
-1 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
Where do you think NIST got it?
They analyzed blueprints (publicly available) and collapse footage. It says so right in the damn report.
So, anyone who was actually interested in scientifically validating a controlled demolition theory could do the same thing.
2 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-17
WTC 7 went into free-fall (click for a compilation), literally gravitational acceleration (the official reports even admit this) which is impossible in a steel framed building, there is nothing in science or engineering that would explain how every single supporting column would disappear within mere fractions of a second, the only explanation, within the realms of science, is explosives of some description, taking out the columns in a timed sequence.
This violates basic Newtonian physics, IF, you choose to believe the official report that fires caused the collapse, obviously it is impossible for a building to go into freefall in any other scenario, this explains why NIST refuse to release there data for independent validation, the only relevant documents that support their theory that fire brought down a steel framed building (first time in history, still to this day) are classified for public safety, they will not even release them to a licensed NYC architect in regards a FOIA request
0 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
Oh, here we go with this claim again. No it doesn't, because that excerpt you linked only refers to the North Face (as seen in the common videos), not the entire building. NIST's collapse modelling details how the interior collapsed many seconds before. You can see this clearly in the video as the Penthouse collapses and windows begin to break out from the force of the collapse behind it. Once the facade looses the support of the interior, it falls and eventually reaches freefall speed.
The entire building did not reach freefall, Just the North facade. This is mentioned directly in the image you linked, and described further in the body of the report not included in that image. It was a progressive collapse.
3 shadowofashadow 2015-03-17
Are you referring to the model that NIST refuses to show the inputs and data for?
-1 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
They did show inputs. They just limited the release of certain files used to detail specific elements of the collapse. Plenty of engineers can, and have, analyzed the conclusions of NIST without this data. All of the raw data (the inputs) was taken from analysis of video of the collapse. You can actually see the interior collapse on video before the exterior. The penthouse falls and and you can see the breaking of some exterior windows from the force of the collapse. Anyone with the means and motivation can conduct their analysis and compare it to NIST's conclusions. And they have.
The idea that these files are the lynch-pin of NIST's conclusions is a myth put forward by "truth" advocates like AE911, likely to mask the fact that in the years since the collapse they haven't even bothered to attempt a model of the controlled demoltion (despite taking in millions in donations and having 2500 "experts" on their side).
3 Cats_Love_Me_ 2015-03-17
How can anyone analyze the data, without having access to the data? Never mind make a conclusion.
Ridiculous logic.
-1 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
The raw data was available. Read the report instead of letting AE911Truth explain it to you.
The data that was excluded were some resources used for a very specific part of the analysis. During the peer review process, these files were available to reviewers.
So, using the raw data, engineers can model the collapse on their own and compare their conclusions to NIST's conclusions.
2 SovereignMan 2015-03-17
NIST refuses to release the raw data:
http://wayback.archive.org/web/20140415115126/http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf
Here is the NIST report (PDF): http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
And here is what's wrong with it: Fraud Exposed in NIST WTC 7 Reports
2 Cats_Love_Me_ 2015-03-17
I am a qualified civil and structural engineer, that is licensed and is employed in NYC
This is a complete lie, NIST have never let anyone see their data, ever, this is a fact.
Again, a complete lie, you have just made this up, but entertain me, how would YOU know what parts they emitted? NIST have never said.
The NIST report has never been peer reviewed, thus it is not considered science and is not even legally binding, this is a fact.
Another complete lie, there isn't any "raw" data, this "raw" data exists only in your head, regardless of this fact, the NIST report simply can not be correct, as in an engineering impossibility, it is nothing more than pseudoscience, an utter joke.
1 AutoModerator 2015-03-17
While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
3 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-17
Before we discuss further, can you provide any evidence at all that a steel framed building can be distinguished by it's structural outer and inner core and a "facade" Where are you getting this from?
How does this "facade" descend faster than the rest of the building?
0 TotesMessenger 2015-03-17
This thread has been linked to from another place on reddit.
If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote. (Info / Contact)
0 throwawaynameday 2015-03-17
Well, technically it is the third biggest sign.
2 George_Tenet 2015-03-17
Ive seen more.videos of seven falling. Can u link me.them pls
-3 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
Plenty of people claim to know, including organizations like NIST and organizations like AE911 truth.
This is just untrue.
I believe that was an initial assumption, but further testing led to the conclusion that structural damage played little in the collapse, aside from initiating the fires that eventually led to its collapse.
Considering the prevalence of 9/11 conspiracy sites and resources on the web, I find that extremely hard to believe.
I have never once heard that argument before. source?
I was under the impression it had some offices of some official agencies. Source for the "stocked like a bunker" comment.
People report hearing explosions. Consider the events occurring around them, these explosions could have come from a variety of sources. Controlled demolition explosions tend to occur rapidly in sequence followed immediately by the building collapse. People hearing explosions hours before hand is hardly evidence of a controlled demolition.
How does it look like a controlled demolition? How many controlled demos involved bringing down the interior of a building collapsing first?
2 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-17
WTC 7 went into free-fall (click for a compilation), literally gravitational acceleration (the official reports even admit this) which is impossible in a steel framed building, there is nothing in science or engineering that would explain how every single supporting column would disappear within mere fractions of a second, the only explanation, within the realms of science, is explosives of some description, taking out the columns in a timed sequence.
This violates basic Newtonian physics, IF, you choose to believe the official report that fires caused the collapse, obviously it is impossible for a building to go into freefall in any other scenario, this explains why NIST refuse to release there data for independent validation, the only relevant documents that support their theory that fire brought down a steel framed building (first time in history, still to this day) are classified for public safety, they will not even release them to a licensed NYC architect in regards a FOIA request
4 shadowofashadow 2015-03-17
How would anyone know this? And why would they need to know these specifics in order to say it was a demolition?
0 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
I would at least expect an estimate. Thermite is the general suspected agent, correct?
How much would be needed per column? Which columns would require charges to achieve the collapse that we see, in which the interior collapses progressively and the unsupported facade follows? I've never seen a controlled demo collapse like that?
We need to know more about the charges because we need to know how a charge could be applied with no one noticing, without access to the steel columns (most CD's drill holes for the charges in the beams themselves). We also need to know how these charges somehow survived being triggered by fires that raged for hours beforehand.
This is how scientists and engineers come to conclusions. Where are the controlled demolition collapse models?
-3 Drytruth 2015-03-17
How about you stop trying to disrupt the conversation and let people speak for themselves?
-2 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-03-17
An insurance investigation separate from NIST revealed Building 7 had several elements that violated NYC building codes and had insufficient or non existent fireproofing on critical structural supports.
That same investigation did their own collapse modeling and found that the collapse likely began at column 79 and spread throughout the building, just as NIST concluded, leaving the facade an unsupported shell before it came down.
There is some disagreement as to the role the Salomon Brothers generator played in the fires, but the mechanics of the collapse are consistent between both investigations and back up what can be seen visually.
1 dennabebotnoos 2015-03-17
You called it a uniform collapse. The fact that this happens means it isn't.
Can we stop now? For fucks sake this is ridiculous.
1 AlwaysTurning 2015-03-17
Exactly, any amount of freefall proves what was obvious to begin with.