That would be impressive if we were discussing controlled demolition of airliners or collapsing space shuttles. As it is, the only education you have of building structures appears to be a fraction of a course you took however many years ago. With respect, going by what you have stated above, there are bricklayers with more specific building construction qualifications than you have and bin men with as much hands on experience of steel framed structures.



You are the only one saying I have no experience.

And being honest, construction and/or engineering are one of the simpler specialities; not exactly on the level of brain surgeon or nuclear physics. It really does not take a genius for example, to understand that buildings will not collapse at near freefall speed without controlled demolition.

Go on, humour me with your most convincing alternative story. I will do better than simply point out where it is based on guesswork; I will show it to be not as logical as the theory I have put forward.



It seems now you are accepting that my theory does have a level of validity.



There you go again – isolating a single piece of evidence and throwing it away because it does not show the full picture. I bet you are terrible at jigsaw puzzles. No, I agree, of course we cannot leap to the conclusion Mossad were involved in 9/11 just because Israel do not generally get along with the Arabs.

We can though take the small step necessary towards that conclusion when taking into account the whole body of evidence. Very shortly put that is, the circumstances of Israel’s creation, the many frequent wars they have fought with their Arab neighbours, the purpose of the Mossad and their involvement in operations such as the Lavon Affair amongst others, the special relationship between the US and Israel and the close work of their intelligence agencies, how the US ‘War on Terror’ has benefited Israel, AIPAC's role within the US Congress and White House and indeed that Mossad agents were arrested in New York on 9/11 for celebrating the demolition of the Towers and were reported with explosives. As a side note - Larry Silverstein 'happened' to have a host of Jewish connections.

All the means and motive in the world are present implicating Israeli/Mossad involvement in 9/11, plus a healthy dose of circumstantial evidence. All you have to do is put the pieces together.

Which is why I keep suggesting you ask someone more qualified than me. All the effort you've spent explaining why you can't would have been better spent actually contacting a structural engineer. You'll find them in Yellow Pages or at your nearest engineering college.

You are the one who thinks "Real structures aren't rigid" is somehow funny. I'll leave the rest of the engineers here to judge what that says about your expertise in the matter.

Ah yes, anyone can design a building, no experience necessary. If it starts to wobble, just add a few more struts.

You are the one claiming in the face of the expert opinion that near a free-fall speed collapse is suspicious. It is up to you to provide the evidence to back this up.

I said that, like yours, any story I could provide would be based on limited information, guesswork and opinion. Take whatever level of 'validity' you want from that.


I wasn't isolating a single piece of evidence, it was a general comment covering the points of motive and circumstantial evidence you have brought up before.

Feel free to criticise my jigsaw-solving prowess, but I could equally ask whether as a child you were prone to gathering various pieces of jigsaw (possibly from different puzzles, definitely with the majority of pieces missing) and jamming them together until they looked a bit like what you thought the picture should be


Well what's wrong with the scenarios I mentioned in my last post that informationclearinghouse were suggesting? As I mentioned you still get the aspects of Mossad agents, possible involvement with US agencies, (in)actions allowing Arabs to look bad, any inappropriate behaviour and following suspicious behaviour with kicking them out of the country if you look at the 'knew Arabs were about to attack and didn't tell' story.

Perhaps a point you are missing is that I am already quite satisfied with my own understanding of structures and the controlled demolition on 9/11. Even if a structural engineer told me the Tower collapse characteristics were natural occurrences, unless he could explain it precisely and logically (which he would not be able to), I would say nonsense is nonsense whoever it comes from. Equally, if a structural engineer supported the controlled demolition (which some do), you would dismiss their claims.



I think the statement is largely misleading. Steel framed structures consisting of many interlocking grids are for the most part rigid... certainly more so than they are flexible or floppy.



I will return the favour by leaving your 'bounce' theory for engineers here to judge what it says about your expertise in the matter. Bouncing columns within one side of WTC7 spread out and simultaneously damage the perimeter columns thus causing the building to fall as in a controlled demolition has to be the worst theory I have ever heard.



No, as we are being dragged on this 'War on Terror', it is up to the official story to prove that structures can completely break apart, collapsing virtually symmetrically, at near freefall speed due to limited and irregular damage. This has not been achieved using any logic.

That was quite funny It is not a good analogy though. First, there is no need for any ‘jamming together’ of pieces, as the evidence we have of a false flag operation falls neatly into place by itself. Second, I did not have a prior idea of what the picture ‘should be’ - I just put the pieces together and the conclusion was self evident.

You know, I used roll my eyes at conspiracy theories; I would not give them even a second of my time. The only pre-conceived conclusion I ever had without looking into the events of 9/11 for myself, was that promoted by the official story. I was told I had a jigsaw of an Arab and I ignorantly believed that, but when I took the time to complete the puzzle, it revealed something entirely different.



I actually think the ‘Mossad had prior knowledge of the attack and let it happen’ theory is quite reasonable and well supported using some of the evidence. Do you find this version acceptable, even perhaps likely, ifisurvive?

None so blind as those that will not see.

So every bit of structural steel that falls is going to stop dead where it first hits the bottom? Only if it hits something it can penetrate - if it hits another piece of steel it is going to bounce. This is because steel structural elements aren't rigid and their initial deformation is elastic. Another example of your flawed understanding of structures.

You seem to misunderstand the concept of "burden of proof". You are the one in disagreement with the structural engineering community, it's your job to provide proof. Personally, your record to date suggests that whatever the "official story" came up with, you would dismiss it. There is a peer-reviewed paper in a major engineering journal that lays out the collapse process for the two towers, but does that mean that conspiracists accept that it happened without CD?
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/b...hou%20(2001)%22

My jigsaw-analogy reply was more specific to the Israeli discussion. I had picked up in previous posts you'd made that you weren't originally a believer in a 911 conspiracy but changed your mind due your own investigation. My analogy was more specific to the fact that you were already certain in the 911 CT so that made you more likely to fit the Israeli story pieces together to fit your established view. This is why a couple of times I have countered your 'look at the bigger picture' posts by saying even if you are right about the rest of the 911 CT it still does not follow that the Israelis have to be involved.


I think it is possible. Though I also think 'they were investigating but didn't figure out what they were up to' is also possible too. And many other potential stories. As I've said we have very limited information so it's difficult to determine an exact story and both you and I have to make our minds up on what we think is most likely. The reason I originally got into the debate with you was because you seemed to be presenting a story of Mossad agents being caught with a van full of explosives as fact and intimating that they were directly involved with the WTC attacks. More recently you are saying you are 95% certain of that story in your own opinion. That's fine, the purpose of my investigation was to clarify points for my own knowledge. Debate is interesting in it's self and allows me to see things in different ways, but I have no overwhelming desire to change your mind. For myself I am satisfied your original 'fact' was not a fact at all and I have built my own opinion that your story is more like a 5% likelihood.

i once watched a show that showed how things were done, it was a long time ago, i don't remember the name, but it was on cable.

one of the episodes was how tall buildings are demolished without causeing damage to surrounding buildings. demolition experts came in and showed exactly how they do it and why. it was really a cool show.
they were demolishing a building a few floors shorter than wtc7.

the guy in charge of the team explained things as they were done.

1. charges were set on all of the support posts.
2. smaller charges were set on support points a few floors up.
3. the smaller charges had to be set off first, then the larger charges to allow the building to collapse in on its self.

he said the smaller charges would weaken the upper supports and allow the top part to begin the collapse, and the main charges would allow the building to finish collapsing. if the charges were not set at the right points and set off with correct timing, the building would fall over and not collapse.

they then showed him setting off the charges and the building falling.


I watched the live news coverage from just before the second plane flew into the building. I saw the buildings collapse.

they did so in the same manner as the building in the show i watched. as they fell, i immediately thought of that show and how that building fell.

based on the information provided in that show by proffesional CD's, it is my opinion that controlled demolitions occured.
saying that mid east terrorists could not have done it, is false as we know that they have training camps set up, and some of those people are college educated. could mossad have been behind it. yes. they knew we would go on the attack, and could have arranged to have the blame put on bin ladden, leader of a group whose main purpose is to wipe out israel.
reports that we knew before hand were reported in the news. a quick 30 second mention, then on to other things, asking only if it was true.
could the gov't have had a hand in it? sure. even if they did not set it up themselves, they saw an opportunity to use it to further their own goals, and did so.
are our leaders consumate liars? absolutely-ie.(emphatic pubic statements, proven to be false)"I did not have relations with that woman"B. Clinton 2nd ie-Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and are a threat to the U.S. G. Bush jr.

Wow, I hope your opinion that CD was involved is actually based on more than 'I once saw a program about controlled demolition, the way the building fell looked the same'.

The trouble with the CD theory is that no-one has a plausible explanation for how a CD set-up can survive in a building that has been burning for hours, there is no report of explosions immediately before the collapse from the witnesses at the scene. Also, the firemen were saying well before the collapse that the building wasn't safe, so the collapse was not unexpected given the damage to the building and the fire.

The key to understanding what happened is the penthouse that fell down into the roof of the building a few seconds before the main collapse. This, apart from being utterly unlike any CD, indicates a major structural failure somewhere in the inner structure of the building. In a two-stage process the collapse of the inner structure caused enough damage to the outer structure at low level to bring that down in turn. The fact that the final part of this two-stage process visually resembles a CD is coincidental - the first stage is nothing like.

you are completely disconnected from reality-- one of the planes completely missed the core and the fuel was completely spent leaving a gaping hole that was cool enough for a woman to actually approach and be caught on film along with another victim clearly not among any fires--



absolutely false to the point that i wonder about your true motives as i know youve been informed about prof steven jones,insider trading,uninvestigated anthrax attacks,outright lies about the foreknowledge of terrorists using commercial aircrafts as weapons as drills were taking place on 9/11 that coincidentally mimicked the exact attack scenario,the naturalgas pipeline and insurance scam perpetrate by silverstein-- here is video of a ground tremor "immediately" beofre the collpase--
*******************************************************************
tremor before collapse
this video shows the collapse of WTC 1 .The camera was not hand held, it was directly connected to the ground via a tripod, and this allowed the camera to visually capture a ground shake which occurred ~13 seconds before the building collapsed. The video also shows an object fall from the right hand side of the building moments before the camera begins to shake. The close timing of these two events indicates they are linked.
*******************************************************************
also the firemen were saying it wasnt safe because they were hearing explosions and even found secondary devices!! where is your common sense??
FIREFIGHTER TESTIMONY ONLY:
this video actually records an EXPLOSION as well as one of the firefighters exclaiming "WE GOTTA GET OUTA HERE! SEVEN IS EXPLODING"

"There's a bomb in the building - start clearing out"..."We got a secondary device in the building"

"Floor by floor it started popping out."

"It was if they had detonators and they planned to take down a building."



coincidental??? you have got to be a complete loon to accept the notion that a collapse could "coincidentally" resemble a controled emolition-- the fact that the east penthouse collpased in a demolition manner is highly suspect as there would be no reason it-- none of the "alledged" damage was near the penthouse-- this article does an awesome job of explaining why that could not have occurred without demolition charges--


one last thing-- here is one of the best video clips proving demolition-- it is of an interview with a firefighter-- as soon as the demolition pops begin it startles the individuals on camera and causes the cameraman to persue the commotion at which point he captures the moment of a collpase where pops are clearly heard at which point everyone starts to run for their lives and the video ends with a HUGE explosion that causes everyone in ear shot of the cameraman to gasp in fear --
UNBELIEVABLE DEMOLITION EVIDENCE

Sonny, what on earth does a picture of one of the towers have to do with the fires in WTC7? Or are you just working on the basis that if you throw enough at random, some will hit the target?

As to your blogger claiming no damage to the SE, everyone agrees on that, the major damage was to the middle of the S face. What point are you trying to make?

If you think that there is evidence for a witness saying that explosions immediately preceded the collapse, please provide it. Once the building starts collapsing of course there are going to be all sorts of loud noises - I want noise first, collapse next - noises without collapse don't count, nor do 13 second delays in a different building.

Just to remind you, there is a witness statement (Bartmer) to the effect that he heard someone shout, looked up and the building was coming down. Seems to rule out explosions.

True… I suggest you take an urgent trip to your nearest SpecSavers No seriously, I read every word of your theories and those such as of the Bazant and Zhou papers you promote. I then put myself in the position of the official story and, you may not believe it, I attempt extremely hard to make the ideas fit reality. The theories fail every single time.



Not stop dead, but certainly not ‘bounce’ far outward in every direction with enough force to simultaneously damage the entire building perimeter. The idea the penthouse independently fell straight through the entire WTC7 structure is unbelievable anyway. The penthouse collapsed due to local damage at the top of the building caused by initial demolition charges is far more reasonable.



I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not being intentionally misleading with that statement. The “community” sounds as though you are inferring that every structural engineer supports the official story. I would suggest that the vast majority of structural engineers have never even looked in any detail at the WTC collapses and further, the vast majority of those who have done, were only looking for reasons as to why the Towers collapsed due to the airliner crashes.

As we know, structural engineers struggle and argue amongst themselves over the exact process of the Towers and WTC7’s demise using the rules of the official story. It is though safe to say that, if the study was ever carried out, every single structural engineer on the planet would concur without question that the results witnessed on 9/11 were possible using demolition techniques.



This is the study containing 12 x “estimate”, 11 x “approximate(ly)”, 6 x “probably” and 2 x “possibly”. Making this many admitted assumptions there is no reason it should not have got through a peer review. It does not however mean those assumptions are correct.

For instance, as I asked before without receiving a reasonable reply, why is it within the realms of reality to assume that the energy of the entire falling mass of the building above the impact zone will directly channel into the cross sections of the columns?

No, let me save you the work, I know your reply: because that gives the structure most likely chance of survival.

My follow up: the assumption does not give the most likely survival of the structures. How can slamming the main structural supports of the Towers with more energy than could ever have hit them, give the building most chance of survival?!

Same response being specific to the Israeli discussion – the pieces fit perfectly.



If you think the ‘Mossad knew the attacks were coming’ theory is possible or even likely, it is not a great jump to reach the ‘Mossad assisted with the attacks’ theory. All we need do is consider the additional evidence: -

• 9/11 was not an event that Mossad would be passively uncaring one way or the other whether the attacks were achieved or not – they would have wanted it to be successful as it was to Israel’s advantage.
  
  
• The Lavon Affair shows that Mossad in the past, to benefit Israel, have intentionally planted explosives on foreign soil and attempted to blame an innocent party.
  
  
• It was reported (is that better? ) that Mossad agents arrested in New York on 9/11 for celebrating the collapse of the Towers, were driving a van of explosives.

Were we not going to draw a line under this a few posts back?

I absolutely agree, Christian. But not only was US government and Mossad involvement in 9/11 possible, it was also likely. Combine that with the untenable official story and we have a clear false flag operation.



Exactly. When you put it bluntly like that Sunofone, it does bring into focus exactly how far fetched the official story is.

In any other situation you would regard the report of explosives as being a mistake by the press. You say that the circumstantial evidence around this case leads you to believe that the report was actually true and somehow hushed up.

I've been discussing how that circumstantial evidence can be explained many other ways without the Israelis being directly involved and even you have said that that is supported by some of the evidence. So the rest of your evidence that points to the reports of explosives being true are "Mossad would have wanted the 911 attacks to be successful" and a link to a firebombing operation over 50 years ago? Yes that's still a giant jump.

.... and of course that the Twin Towers and WTC7 had just been brought down in controlled demolitions.


When it is evident that Mossad had all the motive, we know they have a history of covert operations including pulling a similar stunt before, their agents working undercover in the US are arrested at the scene of the crime after celebrating the Tower collapses and to top it off are reported with explosives, it really is not a ‘giant jump’ to suggest they likely had a hand in 9/11.

And that is all I have ever suggested by the way – that the Mossad agents detained were likely involved in 9/11. I do not state they absolutely must have been involved; only that they are a picture perfect match of part of a team tasked with covertly demolishing the Towers.

This is absolutely sound logic to all but the most narrow minded of skeptics.

If you study the role of AIPAC and their influence on US foreign policy, fully endeavour to understand the relationship between the US and Israel, research the Mossad and realise what these people are all about and then view the Israeli implications to 9/11 with an open mind, you may be more receptive to the likelihood of what I am saying, ifisurvive.

That is all I have to say for now on the five dancing Israelis arrested on 9/11.

Flyingswan, there is one more quick question I meant to add in my last post to you. The ‘bouncing penthouse’ theory... are there any studies/papers that back this up, or is it a creation all of your own?

I would just like to have a read of the technical version of this theory but am having trouble finding anything specific.

In your own words, what is it exactly that does not fit reality?

Not just the penthouse falling, but most of the interior structure. What purpose in your CD theory does locally destroying the penthouse several seconds before the main collapse have? You have yet to give any remotely plausible reason for this.

As you refuse to ask even one structural engineer you are completely unqualified to make those suggestions. That is not reality, that is what you want to be reality.

You completely miss the point on this and clearly do not understand the idea of a conservative assumption. How can the main columns of the top and bottom sections passing each other by and hitting more minor structural elements that will provide less resistance give the building most chance of survival?

All my own work. I'm not aware of any published analysis.

Anyone here with engineering qualifications who cares to comment?

You said it was a CD because it looked like a CD. When I produced a list of ways in which it didn't look like a CD, you said it was a special sort of CD involving tertiary explosives which simultaneously acted exactly like thermite and involved a sequence of events spaced over several hours to mimic a building failing through fire-spread damage. In other words, you said it was a CD because it didn't look like a CD.

Whose story is far-fetched?

from what i gather he stated it resembled a controled demolition because of the symetrical collapse into its own footprint at the rate of freefall which has nothing to do with the techniques used--

what is your opinion of the testimony of Barry Jennings?
barry jennings damning testimony

For heavens sake, Sonny, keep up with the thread. I was talking about an exchange Q24 and I had several pages back. His "controlled demolition spread over several hours" idea is in post #335.

The Barry Jennings statement was what started this thread off, and you'll find my opinion of it in several of my posts. In particular, in post #189 after the last time you asked me that same question.

bldg 7 was demolished-- the evidence is empirical

jennings made no mistakes just view the video clip-- you are in denial and sound about as rational as two year old trying to justify the load in his diaper as the result of a doodie vandal who put it in his pants when no one was looking-- you dont have the luxury of brushing this off as a mistake in his judgement so you better try again-- you have to remember the fact that his testimony verifies the the eye witness testimony,the freefall collapse caught on video,the script that the bbc was reading from when it announced the collapse of bldg 7 while it was right behind them and the insurance scam that included bldg 7

Yeah, that insurance scam where he ended up with way less than the cost of rebuilding and bought way less insurance than he could have gotten in the first place! Oh wait, that doesn't fit.

in the first place no insurance company would have touched that scenario with a ten foot pole,second the payoff istantly propelled him to the top of the worlds richest men list regaurdless of the cost of rebuilding

He may have technically been one of the world's richest men but the money has to be used to rebuild. He can't get around that. He can't just take the money and run. And there is still the fact that he got way less than it will cost to rebuild. Since when is negative money a good thing in an insurance scam? Then there is also the fact that he tried to buy less insurance at first, had to be talked up by his investors, and still bought less than he could have gotten. That just points to him not knowing what was going to happen.

Who sounds like a two year old? Do you always resort to this sort of abuse when you don't have a rational argument?

please the entire scam revolves around him even PURCHASING the complex at all!! the wtc had been subsidized from the beggining and belonged to the taxpayers more than anyone else

Let's think here. What kind of scam involves losing money? A bad one or none at all. It is still a fact that the insurance companies are paying out less than it is costing to rebuild. Negative profit does not make for a good scam no matter who you are. It is also still a fact that he bought less insurance than he could have after having been talked up by his investors. Why? Wouldn't it have made a lot more sense if he knew what was going to happen to buy at least as much as the investors wanted? Nobody could blame him then for taking out too big a claim and he might actually make something on it. Instead, he cheapskates it, loses money, is still losing money and somehow it is a scam?

Frenat, I notice you did not get back to posting on the Flight 93 thread after you asked what my points were here. Maybe you can do better this time around.

I know he has strong Israeli links but I had never really looked into the Silverstein insurance claim; only viewing it in passing where official story followers say he lost out whilst others say he made a healthy profit. Researching the situation, this is what I found: -

After contesting the events on 9/11 were two separate attacks, Silverstein sought payment of $7.1 billion. Though, with the case being decided as a single attack, Silverstein was originally awarded $3.55 billion. Silverstein, then took the insurance companies to court and was awarded a further $1.1 billion. Therefore, in total Silverstein was awarded $4.65 billion.

To date Silverstein has put $1 billion into part funding of the Freedom Tower. With having to continue rental payments on the WTC site of $10 million each month, this would have cost Silverstein approximately $0.75 billion to date. Total of these expenses to Silverstein has then been $1.75 billion.

The question I cannot find an answer to as yet - where is the remaining $2.9 billion???
Edit: I should add, I am not saying this money is in Silverstein's back pocket or even that it is an exact amount that has not yet been invested (it is based on the figures I have available) but the total claim awarded in court must be paid out in some form eventually. All suggestions welcome.

There does seem to be some controversy over how Silverstein is handling the issue of rebuilding, some prominent figures even suggesting “greed” and a “profit motive” on his part, highlighted in the news article here. To quote some points: -

• According to the Empire State Development Corporation, Silverstein came to the table with a last-minute offer that was both “unexpected and unacceptable.”
  
  
• The Port Authority called Silverstein’s last-minute proposal “outrageous.”
  
  
• "It was clearly an indication of the greed involved and not really in the public interest," said Port Authority Vice Chairman Charles Gargano.
  
  
• "This rebuilding project is unlike any other in the history of New York City and our nation, and must be treated as such,” said Pataki. “Our ardent desire to move forward expeditiously must not be used as leverage by Larry Silverstein for his financial demands."
  
  
• “Larry Silverstein is a fine developer and a good New Yorker, but he must now put aside his individual profit motive,” added Senator Charles Schumer.

Have you been following the thread? Practically everything the official fairytale states (and in too many places declines to state) regarding the collapse process of the Towers and WTC7 does not fit reality.



Yes, you believe “most of the interior structure” was gone and what we view of WTC7 collapsing is mainly just the external walls. If ever it was possible for a structure to hollow itself out like that, I would expect this to be immediately and largely visible outside the building, ie external walls buckling (especially the east façade), floors falling, windows breaking, etc. Also, the external structure, now unsupported by the interior of the building, would topple outwards or inwards, rather than follow a near symmetrical path downwards.

Danemburke posted this graphic showing how in a controlled demolition, charges are placed throughout the building. Note the points at the building top. These are what would cause the east penthouse structure to collapse. The penthouse did not drop all the way through the rest of WTC7; it is reasonable to believe it failed due to local damage at the top of the building.





Are you saying I am wrong? You wish to dispute what I said by claiming that in fact every single structural engineer has carried out their own study into the collapse of the Towers and WTC7? That all have come without doubt to the conclusion the collapses were due to impacts and/or fire? That they all agree on the process of collapse? And that absolutely the collapse characteristics we see could not be reproduced using demolition techniques?

No, the whole structural engineering ‘community’ does not support the official story... only a fringe group in reality, furthermore mostly affiliated with the government and only looking for a collapse theory due to airliner impacts and/or fire.



From my understanding, the core columns of each Tower supported 60% of its total load, with the external columns supporting the remaining 40%. The floors supported only their own individual loads. Therefore, stating the obvious, internal and external columns are the main structural supports of the Towers - floors are not.

How is it then in any way a “conservative assumption” for the Bazant and Zhou paper to base their calculations on all the energy of the falling building mass channelling into the most structurally vital section of the Towers? Not only is it impossible for this to occur but it is also giving the structural columns of the Towers least chance of survival.

So there is my view that I am very clear on. Please do explain flyingswan, how you see the scenario gives the Towers most chance of survival.



That is what I was afraid of.



I have always said there is much evidence that the demolitions of the Towers and WTC7 were unconventional but share many characteristics with regular controlled demolitions - as Sunofone mentioned, virtually symmetrical and near freefall collapse.

I was asking specifically about your comments on B&Z. You claim to have read and understood it, so in your own words, what is wrong with it?

Gravity acts downwards, for something to topple it has to have a hinge to topple about. Where exactly would that hinge be?

Look at the graphic again. The top charges are the last to go, not several seconds before the rest. What possible CD reason is there to take down the penthouse at that time?

The structural engineering community expresses its views in peer-reviewed papers like B&Z. If they read and agree with such a paper, they do not need to do their own calculations. Where is any such paper supporting CD? The one or two structural engineers who dispute the official story have not published any papers to justify their views, and as far as I'm aware, no-one with experience of tall buildings is among them. You are the one with the fringe.

If the energy of the falling part goes into the columns, that gives the best chance of stopping a fall. If the most "structurally vital" bits can't stop a fall, what can? If the energy goes into breaking away floors and other secondary structure you will be left with bare columns as the only thing standing. Columns are not designed to stand without their cross-bracing structure, so they will fall too. In the actual collapse there is obviously too much debris to see which option happens, though a large piece of the outer wall did remain standing briefly.

Only the final few seconds, starting after the collapse of the penthouse, the preceding hours are nothing like any CD ever, hence my incredulity about your theory in post #335.

Just because only $1 billion has been put out so far, doesn't mean the rest won't be. The estimated cost of rebuilding is $6.3 billion as of April 2006. He got $4.6 billion. Where is the extra $1.7 billion going to come from? How is being $1.7 billion in the hole considered an insurance scam?


Ohmigosh! He's a businessman and he's greedy? Must be a conspriacy!!1!

no hes a criminal worthy of capital punishment for the demolition of the wtc bldgs 1,2 and 7 with people inside-- the complex never should have been sold to him-- half of the the construction cost was covered by the taxpayers as the budget could not be met...THEN the there was the the taxpayer money that subsidized the rent when the towers could not reach a self sustaining occupancy-- even on 9/11 the towers were only at about 70% occupancy which was the highest it could attain and was in fact considered a white elephant as it never ptofitted and was a bottomless money pit-- that sure was some business deal that illegally sold a complex that belonged to ny'ers to a man that owns a 47 story building who is either an idiot or a prophet for accpeting a deal that was going to destroy him absent some million to one odd bet that not only will some "foolish" insurance company protect his new investment but that the absolute worst case scenario would actually occur you frenat have had long enough to mull over the facts and your true motives and actions of aiding and offering comfort to the enemy of america is absolutely disgusting

Easy enough to make accusations, but if they are true why does no-one take him to court?

$6.3 billion is the estimate for the entire WTC rebuild project which it is apparent Silverstein is only part funding. A large portion (most) of the funding seems to be coming from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in bonds, ultimately through the taxpayer.

Total cost of the new WTC7 was $700 million of which only $225 million was funded by Silverstein. Total estimated cost of the Freedom Tower is $3 billion of which only $1 billion is being funded by Silverstein. So between just those two buildings is already a saving on the entire rebuild estimate of well over the $1.7 billion you claim Silverstein is out of pocket.

I wonder, of the remaining structures planned, how much will Silverstein invest and if it will reach the $4.65 billion mark he was awarded. What I know for sure is that a hell of a lot of money is flowing around Silverstein and if say a few hundred million or more did find its way outside of the reconstruction efforts and into Silverstein’s other ventures, this would not be surprising or even noticed by most.



There is the motive that Silverstein was doing his Israeli connections a great service, which I know some people would not agree with and claim his background is pure coincidence. But it seems we can all agree that he has motive at least in that he is a greedy businessman.



The insurance policy and subsequent claim are legal and his case carried out through court. To charge Silverstein with a crime would involve proving that the Towers and WTC7 were intentionally demolished and that Silverstein had knowledge of this. Basically it would involve proving that 9/11 was an inside job and nobody but nobody is going to take that risk in a court under the jurisdiction of the US government.

In your ‘bouncing penthouse’ theory the ‘hinge’ would occur low down at the damaged area - the intact external structure above tilting, with the structure below acting as a pivot. View footage here for what should occur if a high-rise building is to completely collapse from irregular damage.



The graphic was to illustrate that demolition/cutting charges are placed toward the top of buildings. Would the building not collapse if some of the higher charges were set off shortly before the lower? Of course it still would. If you put yourself in the position of planning a covert demolition of WTC7, you are not going to do everything conventionally as this would give the game away completely. I dare say even you would figure out the inside job had they carried out a demolition ‘by the book’, flyingswan.

The purpose of the demolition charges at the top of WTC7 was to assist in the weakening of the structure ensuring that, after the main charges are set off closer to ground level, a complete collapse occurs. See here what can happen if the building is not weakened sufficiently before the base structure is removed.

There was no reason for demolishing the penthouse; its collapse was simply a by-product of the structure weakening local to the top of WTC7. I can imagine the perpetrators of the controlled demolition gulped hard when they saw the penthouse fall.



No, B&Z express their views in B&Z. The peer review process is flawed in that if an assumption is admittedly made, the calculations based on that assumption can be correct, therefore no reason to fail the paper. This does not mean the base assumption itself is not absurd, as B&Z aptly demonstrate.

The large majority of structural engineers likely will not even know this paper exists. You see, structural engineers are not god-like entities with superpowers; they are human beings who will believe what they are told to believe as much as the next person, especially with no inclination to look into something they find irrelevant, ie “terrorists did it didn’t they, why do I need to bother looking at the engineering of the collapse?”

Well done for spotting that 9/11 Truthers are a fringe group. Though at least a growing group, unlike the fringe of government affiliated structural engineers who support the official story.



I do not know why you are theorising over one of two options, ie all energy into columns or all energy into other sections, when it is clear that neither happened. In the actual collapse of the Towers if we go by area, most of the energy would impact on the open floor space, a smaller amount would impact on the building cores and some of the mass falling outside of the buildings must be removed from the collapse calculation altogether. But what do B&Z do? They assume “all the impact forces go into the columns”. That is plain wrong.

Then, despite what B&Z would have us assume, if the Tower columns are not instantly slammed with more energy than could ever have impacted them, the resistance of the cores, support structure, floor trusses and all their connections will slow the fall, force more of the debris outside the building footprint and halt the collapse completely, far before it reaches ground level.

Of course all of the above, both mine and B&Z’s theories, apply only if the building begins a virtually symmetrical collapse in the first place... which it could do through demolition techniques but not through irregular damage.

But in my theory the falling interior structure damages the outer structure low down, that's why the outer structure falls, so no hinge.

Now you're back to arguing it's a CD because it looks like a CD, and it's a CD because it doesn't look like a CD.

Look at any real CD which has charges at more than one level. The bottom charges go first for the excellent reason that you don't want debris from the top falling and damaging your set-up. For exactly the same reason, the time off-set between charges is much shorter than the several seconds between the penthouse and main collapses.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the reviewers don't question whether any assumptions in a paper are reasonable or not.

If you think structural engineers are not interested it the details of how buildings collapse, you're completely out of touch. All engineers are interested in failures, they are valuable aids to doing things better next time.

You still miss the point completely. Of course what really happens is intermediate between the two extremes of the columns taking the impact and the columns falling past each other. However, none of the intermediate options gives as much chance of stopping the fall as the columns taking it all. If the columns can't stop the fall, nothing can. Impact of a column on a floor would simply result in the column going straight through the floor and continuing down. The energy required to punch through a floor is miniscule compared with the energy required to break a column.

What about Morgan Reynolds?

these globalists have demolished three buildings with americans in them killing thousands of innocent people and then turned around and lied about it reaping trillions in exchange all the while sitting in the highest position of authority in our country-- so not only do they have the means to bribe whoever they want they also have the authority to murder anyone they want and as long as the mainstream media is weaving a false tapestry to blindfold the masses it will continue-- until people wake up,spread the word and GET MAD nothing will be done

So you say, but I have yet to see you back that up with anything substantial. And in my honest opinion, it is completely wrong assertion.



Again, a completely unfounded statement.



On false pretenses?! On your completely unsubstantiated and unfounded accusations? You gotta be kidding, dude..(pardon my candor in this matter)..

Best,
Badeskov

other than incriminating facts,eye witness testimony,video and the laws of physics

If any of these were substantial, you could go to court with them. The fact that you don't speaks for itself.

Hmmm, the incriminating facts which are highly disputed and some not even even facts, eye witness testimony by eye witnesses who by no means are experts in this field, video analyzed by non-experts in demolition and civil engineering and the laws of physics, which by experts in civil engineering is said to fully explain why a catastrophic collapse due to the loss of structural integrity could (and would) occur....

Very telling. As flyingswan mentioned, it speaks volumes that neither you nor anybody else have taken this to court - that would be the right thing to do. Instead, the people with the time and means to do so write a book or make a "documentary", which they sell for hard cash. Very telling, indeed

Best,
Badeskov

I did specifically state the 'hinge' would be low down at the damage area. Well, it is your own unsupported theory so you get to decide if it involves a hinge, pivot or toppling of the external walls as reality would dictate.



No, I am still arguing it is an unconventional demolition exhibiting characteristics of standard demolitions, ie visible ‘squibs’ and quick onset of a virtually symmetrical, near freefall collapse.



Cutting selected columns to weaken a structure will not cause debris to fall through numerous floors and damage the demolition set-up. Regarding the time offset, you prove your complete bias by claiming fires can progressively weaken columns over a number of hours thus causing a collapse, yet assert that demolition charges for some reason cannot achieve the same outcome.



The B&Z paper shows you are under the misapprehension that they do question the assumptions. All impact forces into the column cross-sections indeed – what nonsense – it did not and could not happen. With the whole official story operating this way from start to finish, I do understand that you would consider an impossible assumption to be reasonable.



Many structural engineers will never work on a high-rise, steel framed building in their entire career, therefore it is unlikely they will take a great interest in the WTC collapses. It is highly likely that any random structural engineer if questioned on the B&Z paper, would not even have a clue what it was. With this, I would call half a dozen structural engineers to prove the point, but I doubt y