9/11 Bombshell:WTC7 Security Official Details

[flyingswan]

?? The east penthouse and its supporting structure didn't fall through the rest of the building. Even NIST doesn't suggest that occurred. More important, neither does any of the evidence (photos, videos, etc.).

Where do you suggest that it went, then? The videos certainly show it descending some ten seconds before the rest of the building starts to fall.

[turbonium]

Where do you suggest that it went, then? The videos certainly show it descending some ten seconds before the rest of the building starts to fall.

What happens when a building is demolished? It's flattened, leveled to the ground. It doesn't fall down into a big hole in the ground.

[flyingswan]

What happens when a building is demolished? It's flattened, leveled to the ground. It doesn't fall down into a big hole in the ground.

What's that got to do with anything?

The penthouse was on the roof, it disappeared into the building. Where are you claiming it went?

[flyingswan]

I can easily state in my opinion the façade damage and fires in WTC7 were not nearly enough to cause a collapse imitating a controlled demolition but it does not change those 2 facts which do support the official story. Same as your interpretations do not change the many facts which do support an inside job.

What exactly about the eyewitness statements is inconsistent with the NIST interpretation? Why do you omit the other facts that are also consistent with the NIST work, namely the laws of physics. And where are these "facts" that support CD - you've yet to produce any. So far we've got loud noises not associated with the collapse and Bartmer's statement that shows no loud noise immediately before the collapse.

One more note – I would seriously question the interpretation skills of anyone who does not find relevance in a group of Mossad agents in New York on 9/11 who were seen celebrating the collapse of the Twin Towers and were subsequently arrested with a van full of explosives.

...and you have still to explain what a van-full of explosives well outside the building has to do with the CD theory. Were they chasing aircraft around so they could plant the explosives in the next building to get hit?

[Q24]

What exactly about the eyewitness statements is inconsistent with the NIST interpretation? Why do you omit the other facts that are also consistent with the NIST work, namely the laws of physics. And where are these "facts" that support CD - you've yet to produce any. So far we've got loud noises not associated with the collapse and Bartmer's statement that shows no loud noise immediately before the collapse.

The eyewitness statements support the NIST theory in so far as there was damage to the building façade. Indeed, as I pointed out, this is actually one of the two facts supporting the official story of WTC7. Eyewitness statements do not though support the NIST theory that damage to the building interior caused by falling debris was severe, that damage to columns 69, 72 & 75 occurred or that any damage/fire combination was severe enough for the building to mimic a controlled demolition. All of that was ‘made-up’ by NIST – they admit so much in their report.

If there are other facts NIST are working on in addition to the two I have mentioned (debris damage to South facade and limited fires on a dozen floors) please add them to my list. I would be careful about raising “the laws of physics” though, as these clearly fit with evidence supporting an inside job.

Scroll up and read again as I have listed the facts for an inside job which by far outweigh your two facts for the official story if you remember.

...and you have still to explain what a van-full of explosives well outside the building has to do with the CD theory. Were they chasing aircraft around so they could plant the explosives in the next building to get hit?

I am not sure what you mean by "well outside the building". They and the van were within filming and photographic range of the WTC complex. And not just “a van full of explosives”; a group of Israeli secret service agents who were seen celebrating the destruction of the Twin Towers and were subsequently arrested with a van full of explosives. To point out the obvious - it is highly likely this was a part of the team which rigged the Towers and WTC7 for demolition. But as it is not suspicious in the slightest to you flyingswan, I have a couple of questions: -

• Why were the Israelis celebrating, giving high fives and congratulating one another as they filmed the collapse of the Twin Towers?
• What were they doing, as employees of a ‘moving company’, with explosives in their van?

Really, you should read the full story here so you get the picture. Edited August 8, 2007 by Q24

[flyingswan]

I would be careful about raising “the laws of physics” though, as these clearly fit with evidence supporting an inside job.

This from someone who clearly has no understanding of how a structure works or how one could fail. Have you asked one of your local structural engineers yet?

Scroll up and read again as I have listed the facts for an inside job which by far outweigh your two facts for the official story if you remember.

I've already said that I find your fact list less than convincing, and on some points actually evidence against a CD.

I am not sure what you mean by "well outside the building". They and the van were within filming and photographic range of the WTC complex. And not just “a van full of explosives”; a group of Israeli secret service agents who were seen celebrating the destruction of the Twin Towers and were subsequently arrested with a van full of explosives. To point out the obvious - it is highly likely this was a part of the team which rigged the Towers and WTC7 for demolition. But as it is not suspicious in the slightest to you flyingswan, I have a couple of questions: -

• Why were the Israelis celebrating, giving high fives and congratulating one another as they filmed the collapse of the Twin Towers?
• What were they doing, as employees of a ‘moving company’, with explosives in their van?

Really, you should read the full story here so you get the picture.

Come on, the CD theory says the buildings were rigged with explosives before the attacks, not after. Whatever they were doing with the explosives, they could not have been planting them in the WTC.

As for celebrations, I heard several times in the days after 9/11 people in the UK saying things like "Serve the New Yorkers right for supporting the IRA all those years, see how they like being hit by terrorists".

[Q24]

This from someone who clearly has no understanding of how a structure works or how one could fail. Have you asked one of your local structural engineers yet?

I've already said that I find your fact list less than convincing, and on some points actually evidence against a CD.

You have missed the main body of what I was saying and gone off on a waffle again. The main point was: -

If there are other facts NIST are working on in addition to the two I have mentioned (debris damage to South facade and limited fires on a dozen floors) please add them to my list.

If we do not have anymore than two hard facts NIST are dealing with then they are outnumbered by the controlled demolition facts. And once again, it does not matter that you make strange interpretations of the facts, they are still facts supporting controlled demolition.

Come on, the CD theory says the buildings were rigged with explosives before the attacks, not after. Whatever they were doing with the explosives, they could not have been planting them in the WTC.

As for celebrations, I heard several times in the days after 9/11 people in the UK saying things like "Serve the New Yorkers right for supporting the IRA all those years, see how they like being hit by terrorists".

Perhaps the Israeli’s had finished rigging the Towers and WTC7 only recently and were waiting out to view the attacks. Maybe, [sarcasm]shocking as it is[/sarcasm], they had some explosives left in their van after completing the job. How about instead of wriggling about, you answer the questions: -

• Why were the Israelis celebrating, giving high fives and congratulating one another as they filmed the collapse of the Twin Towers?
• What were they doing, as employees of a ‘moving company’, with explosives in their van?

While we are at it...

• Why did the owner of the 'moving company' close shop and return to Israel in a hurry shortly after the attacks?
• In a TV interview back in Israel, why did one of the men arrested say they had been in New York to document the event?

What is the betting no official story believer will be willing to seriously answer these questions. Edited August 8, 2007 by Q24

[flyingswan]

You have missed the main body of what I was saying and gone off on a waffle again. The main point was: -

If we do not have anymore than two hard facts NIST are dealing with then they are outnumbered by the controlled demolition facts. And once again, it does not matter that you make strange interpretations of the facts, they are still facts supporting controlled demolition.

You may think they support CD, but as I've said, most of your fact list applies equally well to the standard interpretation and some of it - loud noises at the wrong time, "pull it" - conflicts with CD.

Perhaps the Israeli’s had finished rigging the Towers and WTC7 only recently and were waiting out to view the attacks. Maybe, [sarcasm]shocking as it is[/sarcasm], they had some explosives left in their van after completing the job. How about instead of wriggling about, you answer the questions: -

• Why were the Israelis celebrating, giving high fives and congratulating one another as they filmed the collapse of the Twin Towers?
• What were they doing, as employees of a ‘moving company’, with explosives in their van?

While we are at it...

• Why did the owner of the 'moving company' close shop and return to Israel in a hurry shortly after the attacks?
• In a TV interview back in Israel, why did one of the men arrested say they had been in New York to document the event?

What is the betting no official story believer will be willing to seriously answer these questions.

Perhaps you missed the point of my last post: celebration does not mean responsibility. It can mean just the normal dislike of the US felt by much of the world's population.

I have no idea what they were doing or whether it was legal, but I don't see any evidence for your CD theory in the incident. Wriggle as much as you like, whatever they were doing with their explosives, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time for a WTC CD. "finished rigging recently" long after the aircraft impacts - very funny. It takes a long time to rig a CD, in fact no building that size has ever been CDed, and the picture of a bunch of Israelis rushing explosives up the stairs as everyone else evacuates is ridiculous.

[Sunofone]

but I don't see any evidence for your CD theory in the incident.

no but many experts do-- more importantly they are people willing to back up their theories in public debates unlike your imaginary list of scholars-- who can refute torins power point presentation??

Iraq war veteran and experienced demolitions expert blows the cover on 9/11 inside job

Meet Torin Wolf. He has a broad and varied background as a US Army Combat Nurse during Operation Iraqi Freedom,....

...building construction contractor, certified structural welder, certified asbestos and hazardous materials worker, experienced demolitions expert, teacher, radio show host, and well studied 9/11 truth activist. Torin knows how to put a building up, and bring the same building down in its own footprint. Torin's free presentation, “Taking the Red Pill” .....

.....

While saving over 120 lives, Torin earned the Combat Medical Badge by providing medical care to US, allied, enemy soldiers, and civilians under combat conditions. Torin's arms display Samoan life saving tattoos, each line and symbol representing a group of lives saved. The army would like you to think he wasn't in Iraq, but unfortunately for them, Torin appears in a recent documentary filmed there. A true hero helping save lives in the middle east, Torin can be seen in section 4 of a PBS documentary called “Life and Death in the War Zone.”

With Torins impressive list of qualifications, his unwavering voice holds a power that shatters the lies of 9/11 sold to us by the government and mainstream media, “The official story we've been told about 9/11 is absolutely, physically impossible.”

Those words are not just backed up with his qualifications because his presentation goes through the hard physics as well. The presentation starts out with a serious warning that reminds us the state our country is in after the false flag attack and ensuing tyrannical hijacking of the government on that September morning. A hijacking not by Bin Laden, not by Al Qeada, but by a group of tyrants that orchestrated and benefited from 9/11. “Unless you want to be charged as a terrorist, I suggest you leave the room now. This is technically seditious material and you can be charged under section 802 of the Patriot Act just for being here.”

This upsets a few people near the front row. Everyone looks around to see if that will scare anyone off but luckily no one leaves and the presentation continues. The bookstore is now filled with former American citizens, now terrorists, simply because they want to learn the truth of what happened on 9/11. If you think the patriot act only applies to foreigners or dehumanized muslims with brown skin, you are very wrong. Torin rubs the effect in even more, “We [American citizens] don't even have to be charged – foreigners do.” Then tells us that the patriot act was written prior to 9/11, “This is admitted.” Also admitted is the fact that the patriot act has been used to come after American citizens over eight hundred times.

The presentation moves on and goes through some of the just plain crazy theories of why the towers fell, such as space beams, holograms, missiles, orbs, pterodactyls, etc., and easily debunks them. Torin then adds, “There is evidence most of these are put out by the government as disinfo.” Then explains how the White House, in violation of the law, has bought 28 billion, “Billion with a B” in fake news.

“But the craziest, most truly unhinged conspiracy theory for the towers falling on 9/11?” Torin asks rhetorically. “Fire.” The official story cannot be recreated by any experiment. NIST is the government agency involved in attempting to model what happened to the world trade center on 9/11, and they fail horribly. NIST never models what happens after the collapse initiation, and even what they do model before that is easily debunked. NIST created 16 separate physics programs to simulate the WTC 1 & 2 collapses and only got 1 to collapse partially. Torin adds, “When they did, [in the computer model] they removed 40% of the structural support.” The cross trusses that the towers received a significant amount of their strength from had to be removed to have a collapse in the computer simulation. Torin then mocks the official story, “There's no such thing as a 'pancake' collapse, but there is a progressive collapse”

A few slides are shown of progressive collapses throughout the world. None of them are anything like what happened to the world trade center with its pulverized concrete 100 microns or smaller just seconds after the start of collapse, and then its complete destruction. Torin uses his expertise to explain to the audience how and why a real progressive collapse occurs and subsequently why the WTC was not a progressive collapse. “The biggest problem with the argument,” Torin explains. “Time.”

Several slides are then presented that show the hard physics and observed time of WTC 2 falling. Worst-case scenario would require 0.5 seconds per floor for collapse. “The absolute minimum amount of time for a progressive collapse would be 43 seconds.” How long did it take for the building to fall in reality? About 8.6 Seconds.

“For the towers to fall at so close to free fall speed, over 110,000 separate and independent structural support points had to fail simultaneously. 'Pancake theory' does NOT explain the failure of the cores.” Torin explains passionately, obviously upset with the lies being told to the American people. "Nothing is holding the building up - No resistance. 110,000 structural failures at the same time."

Torin: "Nothing is holding the building up - No resistance. 110,000 structural failures at the same time."

Next, we are shown an incredible bit of detective work on Torins part. He shows a sequence of 12 different pictures of the collapse initiation of the North tower, WTC 1. Torin explains that the antenna on the top of the world trade center is a perfect guide of measurement for height, as there is a standard of changing the paint color of antennas once per fifty feet. The part of the antenna on the roof of WTC 1 appears black, then white alternated every fifty feet. There is a guide wire in the bottom left of every picture that shows that the camera does not move. Why is this picture so interesting? It shows the antenna, which is held up by the core columns, fall before the rest of the building while the fire line on the 78th floor doesn't move. Torin then goes through the hard physics of the scene we're looking at and explains how it directly contradicts the official story, “This building is not collapsing on the 78th floor. The antenna falls 56 feet before the 78th floor falls.”

Torin then gives his expert analysis on building 7 for about five minutes. For those that are new to this information, building 7 was the third building to collapse on 9/11. After a thirty second countdown was given by firefighters, it collapsed perfectly into its own footprint at 5:20 in the afternoon. It housed the IRS, Department of Defense, CIA, Secret Service, and the Security and Exchange Commission among many others. While I can't cover all of the hard hitting information Torin brought up about building 7, the highlight was his analysis of the collapse, which played over and over again on the screen behind him, “There is no doubt about it, this is a controlled demolition profile” then Torin directed everyone to view the kink, which is characteristic of a controlled demolition.

link

[turbonium]

What's that got to do with anything?

The penthouse was on the roof, it disappeared into the building. Where are you claiming it went?

It only "disappeared" inasmuch as the structure collapsed/flattened onto itself, and most of what remained couldn't be seen from our ground level view, looking upward to the top of the building.

Or are you suggesting that it plummeted 47 floors down to the ground, through a perfectly sized "tunnel" that bored all the way down to the ground level floor? I sure hope not....

[flyingswan]

It only "disappeared" inasmuch as the structure collapsed/flattened onto itself, and most of what remained couldn't be seen from our ground level view, looking upward to the top of the building.

Or are you suggesting that it plummeted 47 floors down to the ground, through a perfectly sized "tunnel" that bored all the way down to the ground level floor? I sure hope not....

I am suggesting that the penthouse movement is not a local collapse, for which there is no obvious cause, but a major failure which would leave a large hole in the building structure. The damage and the fires were well below the penthouse, so why would it move unless there was a collapse in the structure many floors below it?

[flyingswan]

no but many experts do-- more importantly they are people willing to back up their theories in public debates unlike your imaginary list of scholars-- who can refute torins power point presentation??

Whatever his qualifications, he is not a structural engineer and displays the same ignorance of what happens in a structural failure as you and Q24, probably because he got his information from the same websites. Just one example: if structures cannot fail rapidly, how did the airliners enter the towers? On his argument, they'd bounce off.

[Q24]

Perhaps you missed the point of my last post: celebration does not mean responsibility. It can mean just the normal dislike of the US felt by much of the world's population.

You started off sensibly and raised the point that celebration does not necessarily mean responsibility – I can respect that. I am struggling for reasons why any Israeli would “dislike” the US though (no other country in the world supports another in the way that the US supports Israel with billions of dollars of foreign/military aid each year from the taxpayer and unconditional political backing). A nice try but let me pinpoint it for you – the Israeli Mossad agents were happy; they were delighted for some reason to witness the collapse of the Towers.

I have no idea what they were doing or whether it was legal, but I don't see any evidence for your CD theory in the incident. Wriggle as much as you like, whatever they were doing with their explosives, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time for a WTC CD. "finished rigging recently" long after the aircraft impacts - very funny. It takes a long time to rig a CD, in fact no building that size has ever been CDed, and the picture of a bunch of Israelis rushing explosives up the stairs as everyone else evacuates is ridiculous.

Perhaps it is my fault for not being more specific, but you are being absurd when you assume, “Israelis rushing explosives up the stairs as everyone else evacuates”. When I said, “Perhaps the Israeli’s had finished rigging the Towers and WTC7 only recently”, I meant “recently” as in perhaps throughout the previous night, finalising the setup. This actually fits in very well with my earlier description of how the demolition/cutting charges could have been placed in the building, where I suggested a cover of maintenance or security teams, I think a “moving team” would be equally as plausible.

So, as I predicted, after unsatisfactorily answering the first questions regarding the Mossad agents arrested in New York, no official story follower has even attempted the second two.

Or are you suggesting that it plummeted 47 floors down to the ground, through a perfectly sized "tunnel" that bored all the way down to the ground level floor? I sure hope not....

This was on my subjects to raise list too, Turbonium. I think how you describe it above actually is how official story followers believe the penthouse collapsed! It is quite ridiculous - fitting in with the rest of the official account in that way.

I am suggesting that the penthouse movement is not a local collapse, for which there is no obvious cause, but a major failure which would leave a large hole in the building structure. The damage and the fires were well below the penthouse, so why would it move unless there was a collapse in the structure many floors below it?

That would be to say the penthouse “fell through” the whole of WTC7, ripping and tearing adjacent structural columns at every level, without instantaneously bringing down the rest of the structure? You are suggesting the interior of the building had lost a large portion of its structure and actually what we see collapsing of WTC7 is a hollow shell? The only way this would be remotely possible would be if the penthouse was built as an individual structure in its own right, running through the height of the building, which so far as I am aware it was not. This is an area NIST have not even dared venture into so I hope you know where you are going with it flyingswann.

The most obvious explanation and likely cause of the penthouse collapsing at the top, followed after a period by the main structure at the bottom, would be that they were due to separate damage events. This would again be consistent with controlled demolition where a series of explosive/cutting charges would go off in intervals at numerous points in the building.

[Sunofone]

Whatever his qualifications, he is not a structural engineer and displays the same ignorance of what happens in a structural failure as you and Q24, probably because he got his information from the same websites. Just one example: if structures cannot fail rapidly, how did the airliners enter the towers? On his argument, they'd bounce off.

the only ignorance here is in your analogy-- using that rationale when a skateboarder falls and his arm bends in a 90 degree angle at the midpoint between his wrist and elbow it would be undeterminable that his arm was broken until he saw a doctor that could verify it with x-rays-- i'll be waiting for the rebuttal from any structural engineer willing to counter torins presentation

[ubi_di_nunc]

Not out of our imaginations. George Bush and Dick Cheney are making BILLIONS on the gullible stupidity of Americans.

Alex Jones is fantastic. Check out his site at www.prisonplanet.com

There's been a lively debate about WTC 7 at amazon.com's politics forum, WTC 7 and the 911 Conspiracy. This (and a few other things) is what we've come up with:

1. DEBRIS

Controlled demolition (CD) can be timed to start slow and immediately accelerate (or immediately accelerate and pause briefly). Obviously, a slow start means ejected debris initially begins free-fall descent 1-2 seconds before the building itself. This free-falling debris with its 1-2 second head start does two things: One, it creates the ILLUSION the building is falling "slower than free fall"; two, if sufficiently thick it CLOAKS the building's free-fall collapse. Restated, GRAVITY ACCELERATES objects. Even one second delay significantly affects rates of fall to the ground, and therefore perception of relative rates of fall.

2. DEMOLITION

Crudely, based on the Loizeauxs' Controlled Demolition Inc's website, 0.25 to 3 pounds of explosives are required for each detonation point in a building. Painstaking study of building plans (and/or the building) is necessary to get a building to collapse completely into its own footprint. It is hard therefore to escape the conclusion there's a reason for such painstaking study - that vertical collapse does not just happen; it has to be carefully and ingeniously devised. When exact building plans are available - again, judging crudely by CDI's website - a month's planning is sufficient to precisely lay charges for a typical CD. CD can be done either with wires or remotely via radio signal. Compared to the 439 feet tall JL Hudson Department Store demolition (mentioned on CDI's website), if buildings 1 and 2 (roughly 1,355 feet tall) were to be demolished, a crude calculation would be buildings 1 and 2 each would require three times as many locations and three times as much explosive as used in the JL Hudson Department Store: 3,300 locations and 8,184 pounds of explosives. WTC 7 would be comparable to the JL Hudson Department Store demolition. Likewise, since it's stated, "CDI's 12 person loading crew took twenty four days" to ready the JL Hudson Department Store for CD, a crude calculation would be a dozen people would need roughly 10 weeks to ready each tower, 1 and 2, for CD. They would also need end-to-end total access to the buildings.

3. ACCESS

It is reported that Securacom [stratasec] was in complete charge of WTC complex security during 2001.

4. PARTICIPANTS

We've seen a dozen men can plant the explosives in roughly six months. We know Stratsec provided "end to end" security, suggesting half a dozen of those employees in the know. We know NORAD stood down, but with the exercises going on chaos was prevailing for most of FAA and NORAD, so this suggests a dozen people in the know. Clearly aircrews were involved to some degree; that estimate depends on your theory (0-4 planes, one shot-down plane, so on). That's 4-20, call it ten. If false phone messages were sent, that's another half dozen. The government clearly knew (Bush's goat book appearance, Cheney's hijinks in his bunker) - put that figure at 12. If one entertains the idea speculated on in the film September Clues, the additional number of conspirators increases by roughly another dozen. Add another dozen for logistic support behind the scenes and another dozen pulling the government's strings. Everyone else, no matter how many, could have been kept in the dark by being told cover stories, in line with the "need to know" practice and compartmentalization of information. That gives 94 people.

We've also focused on the fact that 9.2 seconds is free fall collapse for buildings as tall as WTC 1 and 2. The official government 911 commission report states building 2 fell in 10 seconds. And WTC 7's collapse also works out to free fall - steel and concrete offering all the resistance of thin air.

Edited August 11, 2007 by ubi_di_nunc

[flyingswan]

the only ignorance here is in your analogy-- using that rationale when a skateboarder falls and his arm bends in a 90 degree angle at the midpoint between his wrist and elbow it would be undeterminable that his arm was broken until he saw a doctor that could verify it with x-rays-- i'll be waiting for the rebuttal from any structural engineer willing to counter torins presentation

It doesn't appear that any structural engineers are posting here, which is why I keep suggesting that Q24 finds one to ask. You could do the same.

[flyingswan]

You started off sensibly and raised the point that celebration does not necessarily mean responsibility – I can respect that. I am struggling for reasons why any Israeli would “dislike” the US though (no other country in the world supports another in the way that the US supports Israel with billions of dollars of foreign/military aid each year from the taxpayer and unconditional political backing).

The UK comments I mentioned earlier were also from citizens of a country that supports the USA. I am sure that plenty of Israelis dislike the USA, just as plenty of the British do.

That would be to say the penthouse “fell through” the whole of WTC7, ripping and tearing adjacent structural columns at every level, without instantaneously bringing down the rest of the structure? You are suggesting the interior of the building had lost a large portion of its structure and actually what we see collapsing of WTC7 is a hollow shell? The only way this would be remotely possible would be if the penthouse was built as an individual structure in its own right, running through the height of the building, which so far as I am aware it was not. This is an area NIST have not even dared venture into so I hope you know where you are going with it flyingswann.

The most obvious explanation and likely cause of the penthouse collapsing at the top, followed after a period by the main structure at the bottom, would be that they were due to separate damage events. This would again be consistent with controlled demolition where a series of explosive/cutting charges would go off in intervals at numerous points in the building.

Sorry, I thought I had made my picture of the WTC7 final collapse plain many posts ago. I am saying that the penthouse moving was a sign of a structural failure many floors below the penthouse. This resulted in a large portion of the structure, at very least the penthouse and everything below it, falling through the building. This fall caused sufficient extra damage for the outer part of the building to follow a few seconds later. This does not imply that the penthouse supports were separate from the rest of the structure, just that the structural failure that initiated the collapse was below the penthouse rather than close to an outer wall. The short interval between the penthouse and the main collapse strongly suggests that they were part of a single sequence of structural failures. Perhaps you didn't realise the events were so close in time, as you have to search around on the web for a "WTC7 collapse" video that starts before the penthouse goes. Most just show the main building collapse.

[flyingswan]

2. DEMOLITION

Crudely, based on the Loizeauxs' Controlled Demolition Inc's website, 0.25 to 3 pounds of explosives are required for each detonation point in a building. Painstaking study of building plans (and/or the building) is necessary to get a building to collapse completely into its own footprint. It is hard therefore to escape the conclusion there's a reason for such painstaking study - that vertical collapse does not just happen; it has to be carefully and ingeniously devised. When exact building plans are available - again, judging crudely by CDI's website - a month's planning is sufficient to precisely lay charges for a typical CD. CD can be done either with wires or remotely via radio signal. Compared to the 439 feet tall JL Hudson Department Store demolition (mentioned on CDI's website), if buildings 1 and 2 (roughly 1,355 feet tall) were to be demolished, a crude calculation would be buildings 1 and 2 each would require three times as many locations and three times as much explosive as used in the JL Hudson Department Store: 3,300 locations and 8,184 pounds of explosives. WTC 7 would be comparable to the JL Hudson Department Store demolition. Likewise, since it's stated, "CDI's 12 person loading crew took twenty four days" to ready the JL Hudson Department Store for CD, a crude calculation would be a dozen people would need roughly 10 weeks to ready each tower, 1 and 2, for CD. They would also need end-to-end total access to the buildings.

Just a couple of comments: first, the CD time estimates are for an empty building. Moving the furnishings, doing some work, then putting everything back so the workers in the building don't notice next morning is going to be a much longer task; second, the higher a building the more likely it is to fall vertically, as it will lack the bending strength required to fall sideways.

[DigitalSentinal]

What scares me even more than the probability that a rogue element within the United States government did this to its own people is what people will do they finally wake up and make the perpetrators pay for crimes against humanity. Far scarier scenario.

[Sunofone]

It doesn't appear that any structural engineers are posting here, which is why I keep suggesting that Q24 finds one to ask. You could do the same.

or you could just post the relavent data since you have obviously made a decision based on something you have read somewhere-- or are you just making up possibities and wild scenarios to protect your fragile version of reality? i dont have to ask a structural engineer anything because my intellect and common sense are not flawed-- you you make rediculous assertions and jump to unrational conclusions and never support your theories or conjecture with hard data-- you endlessly spout nonsense about structural engineers this and the establishment that but you NEVER provide anyhting to back it up-- you sir are a poor excuse of a human being

[flyingswan]

or you could just post the relavent data since you have obviously made a decision based on something you have read somewhere-- or are you just making up possibities and wild scenarios to protect your fragile version of reality? i dont have to ask a structural engineer anything because my intellect and common sense are not flawed-- you you make rediculous assertions and jump to unrational conclusions and never support your theories or conjecture with hard data-- you endlessly spout nonsense about structural engineers this and the establishment that but you NEVER provide anyhting to back it up-- you sir are a poor excuse of a human being

No, I am making stements based on what I learned of structures during my aerospace engineering education, which was admittedly a long time ago. I suggest that you actually ask a structural engineer because you obviously do not believe me, nor did you believe the link I posted which showed how to calculate how much the towers' collapses would be slowed by the structure below.

I don't see why I should bother with people who attempt to argue technical matters of which they are wilfully ignorant. Until you realise that your "intellect and common sense" are inadequate for the situation, this discussion is pointless.

[Sunofone]

this discussion is pointless.

your right when you refuse to look at the eye witness testimony,video cooberation and the criminal actions of a corrupt administration covering it up and waging false flag instigated wars-- all that is needed is the video of bldg 7 collapsing and the govt's official explanation to prove we arent in kansas anymore

[flyingswan]

your right when you refuse to look at the eye witness testimony,video cooberation and the criminal actions of a corrupt administration covering it up and waging false flag instigated wars-- all that is needed is the video of bldg 7 collapsing and the govt's official explanation to prove we arent in kansas anymore

I have looked at, indeed quoted, eyewitness statements and I have looked at the video evidence. I have yet to see any evidence that supports you. I am not alone in this. To quote someone else's response to your techniques on another thread:

This aspect is pure opinion on your part and does not constitute evidence.

and:

It seems, sunofone, that you still can not differentiate between opinion and fact.

[Q24]

The UK comments I mentioned earlier were also from citizens of a country that supports the USA. I am sure that plenty of Israelis dislike the USA, just as plenty of the British do.

I can only describe as ‘uneducated’ anyone who tries to draw a comparison between Israel and Britain in regard to their relationship with the United States. There is a very interesting and thorough study entitled The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, written by two leading American political scientists. Anyone interested in better understanding the relationship between Israel and the United States will find this a more than worthwhile read. Excerpt from the introduction: -

This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries is based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperativs. As we show below, however, neither of those explanations can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States povides to Israel.

Instead, the overall thrust of U.S. policy in the region is due almost entirely to U.S. domestic politics, and especially to the activities of the “Israel Lobby.” Other special interest groups have managed to skew U.S. foreign policy in directions they favored, but no lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical.

If we want to find the truth of 9/11, then best to look at all groups' motives and those agendas most furthered by the attacks.

That would be to say the penthouse “fell through” the whole of WTC7, ripping and tearing adjacent structural columns at every level, without instantaneously bringing down the rest of the structure? You are suggesting the interior of the building had lost a large portion of its structure and actually what we see collapsing of WTC7 is a hollow shell? The only way this would be remotely possible would be if the penthouse was built as an individual structure in its own right, running through the height of the building, which so far as I am aware it was not. This is an area NIST have not even dared venture into so I hope you know where you are going with it flyingswann.

Sorry, I thought I had made my picture of the WTC7 final collapse plain many posts ago. I am saying that the penthouse moving was a sign of a structural failure many floors below the penthouse. This resulted in a large portion of the structure, at very least the penthouse and everything below it, falling through the building. This fall caused sufficient extra damage for the outer part of the building to follow a few seconds later. This does not imply that the penthouse supports were separate from the rest of the structure, just that the structural failure that initiated the collapse was below the penthouse rather than close to an outer wall. The short interval between the penthouse and the main collapse strongly suggests that they were part of a single sequence of structural failures. Perhaps you didn't realise the events were so close in time, as you have to search around on the web for a "WTC7 collapse" video that starts before the penthouse goes. Most just show the main building collapse.

Would you say the way in which WTC7 fell was normal? Let us say as an experiment we took a number of steel framed, high rise buildings. We then cut a few structural columns and started random fires in each of them. In the majority of our buildings, would you expect this characteristic where a section of the roof plummets down breaking supports at every floor of the structure to ground level, leaving a hollow shell before the outer walls of the building fall straight downwards? Or would you say that was more a one off; a peculiarity of WTC7’s collapse?

[flyingswan]

Would you say the way in which WTC7 fell was normal? Let us say as an experiment we took a number of steel framed, high rise buildings. We then cut a few structural columns and started random fires in each of them. In the majority of our buildings, would you expect this characteristic where a section of the roof plummets down breaking supports at every floor of the structure to ground level, leaving a hollow shell before the outer walls of the building fall straight downwards? Or would you say that was more a one off; a peculiarity of WTC7’s collapse?

Read my post again. I am not saying that the failure starts at the roof, but in a part of the structure some way below. The penthouse moving is the visible sign that a collapse has started somewhere in the structure that supports the penthouse, not that the penthouse sytucture itself has failed.

If the final failure starts well inside the building this could easily happen again in your tests, but if the final failure is near an outside wall then the collapse would look different. It would all depend on how the fire and damage progressed through the building, it turn depending on the details of the structure and where the fire found the best sources of fuel and oxygen.