Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
darkbreed

911: Professional experts says it was staged

512 posts in this topic

911Truth: Architects & Engineers agree it was staged controlled demolition

Experts Speak Out. Altogether more than 1,500 Architects & Engineers that have signed the calling for a new investigation of the destruction of the 3 buildings in WTC , 911.

Source:

http://conspiraciesforums.com/YaBB.pl?num=1315022038

VIDEO EMBED

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=player_embedded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't be surprised if there was more to it that the government has been telling us. To me it looked like a missile went through the pentagon instead of a plane. They got their patriot act though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just what we need... yet another 911 conspiracy thread. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a decade now... screw it! The "Man" might have lied to us *GASP!".

Edited by BiffWellington

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

911Truth: Architects & Engineers agree it was staged controlled demolition

Experts Speak Out. Altogether more than 1,500 Architects & Engineers that have signed the calling for a new investigation of the destruction of the 3 buildings in WTC , 911.

Source: *Snip*

VIDEO EMBED

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=player_embedded

The following excerpted, copy-pasted information, appears on dozens of websites.

What are opinions concerning the destruction of WTC 7, as presented in this video? Posters who disagree with "the facts" as described in the video, your reasons for disagreement would be welcome.

Karlis

-=-=-=-

Architects & Engineers: Solving the Mystery of WTC 7

AE911Truth's new 9/11 documentary Solving the Mystery, the destruction of World Trade Center Building #7, WTC 7 on 9/11/01. Join actor, Ed Asner and
Architect Richard Gage, AIA and Architects and Engineers as they narrate an unfolding story that decimates the official account ("collapse due to normal office fires") of this 47 story high-rise which was destroyed on the afternoon of 9/11 in record time: top to bottom in under 7 seconds - and at free-fall acceleration for a third of its fall.
...

...

The documentary includes several of the dozens of technical and building experts that were interviewed and that appear in our forthcoming full length documentary - 9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out. Altogether of course there are more than 1,500 Architects & Engineers that have signed the AE911Truth petition calling for a new investigation of the destruction of all 3 high-rises at the World Trade Center on 9/11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTC 7 may have been the control center from which the two towers were demolished and operated from. Getting rid of the evidence while at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the following factual, or "Conspiracy Fiction"?

Karlis

-=-=-=-

The Mysterious Leveling of Building 7

At 5:20 PM on 9/11/01 the only building with a World Trade Center address that stood on a different block from the rest of the complex, 47-story steel-framed 7 World Trade Center, underwent a sudden total collapse. Officials and all government reports published since the attack that mention the building blame its collapse on a combination of structural damage and subsequent fires. However, the available evidence on the condition of Building 7 prior to its collapse fails to document more than superficial structural damage (from the "collapses" of the Twin Towers) and small isolated fires.

The official explanations of WTC 7's collapse are problematic for several reasons:

  • Fire has never caused any steel-framed high-rise building to collapse in any manner, let alone with the vertical precision of Building 7's destruction. 1 Other steel-framed skyscrapers have experienced far more serious fires than Building 7.
  • WTC 7 fell straight down, which necessitated that all of the load-bearing columns be broken at the same moment. Inflicting such damage with the precision required to prevent a building from toppling and damaging adjacent buildings is what the science of controlled demolition is all about. No random events, such as the debris damage and fires envisioned by the official reports, or explosions from fuel tanks proposed by some, could be expected to result in such a tidy and complete collapse.
  • WTC 7 fell precipitously, at a rate closely approaching the speed of gravitational free-fall. That necessitated the sudden removal of structure near ground level that would have impeded its descent.
  • The collapse of WTC 7 exhibited all of the features of a standard controlled demolition. To suppose that a cause other than controlled demolition could produce an event with all of the features uniquely characteristic of controlled demolition defies logic.

Source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wtc7collapselgiy8.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wtc7collapselgiy8.gif

It appears there was a plan discussed at some stage to bring the building down: -

“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”

~Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, Fox News

“We had first reports that the building was unstable and that it was best for it to come down on its own or it would be taken down, I would imagine that it came down on its own.”

~FDNY Lieutenant Rastuccio

“The Fire Department, and they did use the words, we’re gonna have to bring it down. And, for us, there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility.

~Indra Singh, EMT

“[sound of explosion] It’s blowin’ boy.”

“Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.”

“The building is about to blow up, move it back.”

“Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up.”

~WTC emergency responders

One only has to decide if it was this plan or office fire that brought the building down.

Look at the above gif image again.

Not hard is it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in the slightest. It was definitely a magical sword cutting through the spanned support.

Or maybe, it could have been a fire weakening the spanned support.

Or heck, you know, it could even have been explosives exploding the spanned support.

Hmm...Actually, yeah, it is pretty hard to tell by just looking at the picture...after all, no matter how the spanned support got cut, the building would have still fallen in the exact same way.

Personally, I'm leaning towards magic sword.

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a decade now... screw it! The "Man" might have lied to us *GASP!".

If it wasnt driving the force of both our foreign and domestic policies, Id probably say the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Experts Speak Out. Altogether more than 1,500 Architects & Engineers that have signed the calling for a new investigation of the destruction of the 3 buildings in WTC , 911.

Yawn... why can't truthers never look for counterarguments BEFORE posting some old b******s as it it was totally new and unanswered?

Have you ever

a ) checked to what extent these Architects and Engingeers actually have experience with the structural analysis of such buildings?

b ) wondered what percentage of ALL Architects and Engineers those 1500 represent and if all others are too lazy, too dumb or too evil to join?

As for WTC7:

- Why would one need a building as a controlcenter in the first place? Is this some Noplaner-Hologram BS?

- if, as the quotes say, people already expected WTC7 to come down, why would anyone who isn't frakking insane or dumb, prepare a demoliton in a FEW HOURS in an already UNSTABLE building?

- why are truthers in sentences like "Fire has never caused any steel-framed high-rise building to collapse in any manner" totally ignoring the documented previous damage from the WTC1+2 debris?

Edited by rambaldi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for WTC7:

- Why would one need a building as a controlcenter in the first place? Is this some Noplaner-Hologram BS?

There were CIA, Department of Defense and Secret Service offices along with a custom built emergency command bunker in WTC7. Any one of these locations could have been used for control of the tower demolitions, guidance of the planes, planning of the wider operation - if the theory is true, it had to be carried out from somewhere.

Why are you appealing to the most ridiculous theories, e.g. hologram planes?

- if, as the quotes say, people already expected WTC7 to come down, why would anyone who isn't frakking insane or dumb, prepare a demoliton in a FEW HOURS in an already UNSTABLE building?

There was no prior evidence the building was unstable; the “extraordinary” sequence of events NIST say caused failure only occurred in the moments before collapse. The foreknowledge that WTC7 was going to come down originated very early in the day from anonymous individuals who warned off/influenced the firefighters and other responders on scene. It was a cover to remove firsthand witnesses and potential casualties of the demolition.

Why do you assume the demolition was setup in only a few hours?

- why are truthers in sentences like "Fire has never caused any steel-framed high-rise building to collapse in any manner" totally ignoring the documented previous damage from the WTC1+2 debris?

Because NIST have confirmed the damage was superficial, i.e. had no bearing on the collapse which was induced entirely by plain old office fire… officially.

Why are you claiming the WTC1 debris damage, which affected other buildings too, had anything to do with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the extraordinary” sequence of events NIST say caused failure only occurred in the moments before collapse. The foreknowledge that WTC7 was going to come down originated very early in the day from anonymous individuals who warned off/influenced the firefighters and other responders on scene.

hmmm...

this is a bit of an epiphany for me. I had never thought about this.

The official story and its beleivers tell us that "everyone was expecting the building to collapse", which contradicts the official explanation of collapse - that a beam fell off it's seat due to thermal expansion causing a rapid cascacde of failure - a series of events which occurred over a period of seconds.

The official technical explanation for collapse is inconsistent with the official foreknowledge explanations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmm...

this is a bit of an epiphany for me. I had never thought about this.

The official story and its beleivers tell us that "everyone was expecting the building to collapse", which contradicts the official explanation of collapse - that a beam fell off it's seat due to thermal expansion causing a rapid cascacde of failure - a series of events which occurred over a period of seconds.

The official technical explanation for collapse is inconsistent with the official foreknowledge explanations.

My god, I think Q24 has actually persuaded you to doubt the official story on WTC 7, laugh :-)

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- why are truthers in sentences like "Fire has never caused any steel-framed high-rise building to collapse in any manner" totally ignoring the documented previous damage from the WTC1+2 debris?

Because NIST have confirmed the damage was superficial, i.e. had no bearing on the collapse which was induced entirely by plain old office fire… officially.

Why are you claiming the WTC1 debris damage, which affected other buildings too, had anything to do with it?

Perhaps he read it from wikipedia, as I just did:

As the North Tower [aka WTC 1] collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing damage to the south face of the building.[29] Structural damage occurred to the southwest corner between Floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage includes a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between Floors 24 and 41.[8]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#9.2F11_and_collapse

I added the WTC 1 comment.

If you look up the [29] link, you'll see that it's supposed to link to a NIST appendix. I imagine they've changed the address of that file, however, as it doesn't currently link to a pdf file. [8]doesn't currently link to the indicated NIST pdf file either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

911Truth: Architects & Engineers agree it was staged controlled demolition

Experts Speak Out. Altogether more than 1,500 Architects & Engineers that have signed the calling for a new investigation of the destruction of the 3 buildings in WTC , 911.

Source:

http://conspiraciesforums.com/YaBB.pl?num=1315022038

VIDEO EMBED

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=player_embedded

I wish you would actually post a source instead of saying "source" and then linking us to a quack website and a youtube video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, 1,500 out of MILLIONS said this.

1,500 Architects and Engineers want a new 9/11 investigation. How many Architects and Engineers are satisfied with the one that's been done? If you can give me 15 who'd go on a list saying that they're completely satisfied with the investigation, I'd be impressed, let alone 1,500. I think the reason that AE911 (the abbreviation of this organization's name) is so successful in persuading people is that these are recognized experts in their field. The best official story believers can do is scoff at the number, whilst ignoring the fact that there is no opposing group that's anywhere near that number. All you have is the mass media stating again and again that they're wrong. But recently, even characters in the mass media have begun to have doubts. The example that comes to mind the most is Geraldo; for years, he believed the official story, but I saw him not too long ago do a broadcast with a member of AE911 as well as a father who lost one of his children, in one of the towers I believe, and he's begun to wonder himself if perhaps the official story isn't the truth after all. I mention him because he was one of the first TV personalities who began to question the official story on JFK as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why are truthers in sentences like "Fire has never caused any steel-framed high-rise building to collapse in any manner" totally ignoring the documented previous damage from the WTC1+2 debris?

Alright, I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Are you trying to say that the main reason for the collapse of WTC 7 was debris that allegedly hit it from WTC 1 and 2? Or are you saying something else? By the way, truthers say that no fire has ever caused a steel framed high rise building to collapse because it's true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The official story is a conspiracy theory; one that makes no sense when you look at the evidence in depth, but it still fits that bill. And as a matter of fact, there are many families who have lost people in 9/11 who are still fighting for the truth to come out. It seems all you wanted to do here was insult me, so I've reported your post.

Edited by Karlis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmm...

this is a bit of an epiphany for me. I had never thought about this.

The official story and its beleivers tell us that "everyone was expecting the building to collapse", which contradicts the official explanation of collapse - that a beam fell off it's seat due to thermal expansion causing a rapid cascacde of failure - a series of events which occurred over a period of seconds.

The official technical explanation for collapse is inconsistent with the official foreknowledge explanations.

Yes, the official collapse theory is not a drawn-out process whereby the WTC7 condition deteriorated over time - the event alleged to have brought collapse initiation occurred, and failures progressed, rapidly. This type of event could not have been predicted ahead of time.

After being struck by the tower debris, there is no evidence the WTC7 condition altered at all over the following seven hours. The fact, in that timeframe, there were fires and ‘creaking’ heard from the building (probably expansion and/or sagging of trusses) are expected in any severe building fire - they do not reasonably indicate imminent collapse.

NIST have confirmed the WTC7 fires could have spread until the whole building was gutted and still had no effect on the primary structure: “None of these columns was significantly weakened by elevated temperatures; temperatures did not exceed 300oC in the core or perimeter columns in WTC7.”

So why did an anonymous member of the OEM seek to convince the FDNY that the building was a “lost cause” as early as 11:30 a.m.? How did an anonymous engineer around mid-day inform the FDNY they had “about five hours” until the building would come down? This was before the firefighter decision to withdraw.

1. Individuals on scene possessed foreknowledge that could not reasonably be determined by observation alone.

2. They wanted the FDNY out of the building.

Regarding the second point, it is notable that the FDNY did try to engage the WTC7 fire on numerous occasions, the will was there, but they were turned back from the building each time.

My god, I think Q24 has actually persuaded you to doubt the official story on WTC 7, laugh :-)

:rofl:

It’s just useful to hear what you already know put in a different way sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good points Q. However, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that wikipedia isn't apprised of the information that you are mentioning; they clearly seem to be out of date (even 2 of their links to NIST are out of date). Could you source the NIST report that says that the debris and ensuing fire did negligible damage to WTC 7? I do remember NIST's computer model of WTC 7s deterioration; it looked nothing like what the building looked like pre-collapse; instead of essentially looking like a building that wasn't going anywhere, in the computer model, the building was severely deformed. I was just seeing some live footage from the expert panel on September 11 in Toronto, Canada, the other day, and Kevin Ryan, who had worked for Underwriter Laboratories, the company that certified the steel assemblies of the Twin Tower buildings, explained how the computer models for the Twin Towers were also divorced from reality.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rofl:

It's just useful to hear what you already know put in a different way sometimes.

And... snap. I got Little Fish confused with Aqua -.-

Little Fish and me go way back and we've both been on the truther side for a while; a familiar name not seen in a while and look what happens, laugh :-p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good points Q. However, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that wikipedia isn't apprised of the information that you are mentioning; they clearly seem to be out of date (even 2 of their links to NIST are out of date). Could you source the NIST report that says that the debris and ensuing fire did negligible damage to WTC 7?

NIST redesigned their website a few weeks back. The Wikipedia links have likely not been updated. A lot of the WTC reports and appendices disappeared for a while. They all seem to be back up now: -

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/

See ‘Publications’ link on the left-hand side.

The information I provided is from NIST NCSTAR 1A: Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NIST redesigned their website a few weeks back. The Wikipedia links have likely not been updated. A lot of the WTC reports and appendices disappeared for a while. They all seem to be back up now: -

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/

See ‘Publications’ link on the left-hand side.

The information I provided is from NIST NCSTAR 1A: Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7

I downloaded the PDF of that article from the link you provided. It's 130 pages long though; could you cite where it specifically states that the damage from the WTC debris was "confirmed [to be] superficial, i.e. had no bearing on the collapse which was induced entirely by plain old office fire… officially"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.