9/11 Bombshell:WTC7 Security Official Details

[phunk]

Thermate is thermite with additives that make is burn cooler, slower, and splatter more, it's used as an incendiary weapon, not for cutting. It would be hard enough to cut vertical columns with plain thermite, using thermate instead would make it even harder with no added benefit.

Steven Jones did not find thermate, he found sulfur, which is just one of the additives. He didn't find the other main ingredient, barium nitrate. The sulfur he found was present in huge quantities in the drywall, he's making a huge leap to declare that sulfur is evidence of thermate.

[sirfiroth]

Hey sirfiroth, in response to your question, here is what I posted earlier in this thread: -

It is interesting you raise the topic of people involved not being identified. Most people know that a number of the named 'hijackers' have been found alive. So who were the men on the airliners? The only ‘evidence’ we have of Bin Laden being involved is an obviously faked video tape supposedly found by US troops in Afghanistan. Then the FBI themselves have stated “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” This also backed up by then director of the FBI Robert Mueller who said in a speech “The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper” So, whether you follow the official story or the conspiracy theory, the people involved have not been identified to a degree that would stand up in court.

With 9/11 as an inside job it is safe to say that the perpetrators wanted absolutely to cover their tracks. Therefore why is it surprising there is no hard direct evidence linking anyone to the operation? There is though plenty of circumstantial evidence linking the likes of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney to the operation. Check

and Cheney’s “the orders still stand” episode to get interested. Read up on their PNAC involvement and Rebuilding America’s Defences document for their motives.

If you do not like Loose Change for its presentation techniques, you could always go to YouTube and type in “secondary device”. There you will find a multitude of news reports and interviews detailing how the firefighters and federal authorities believed secondary devices were placed within the Towers. Also worth a read is the Explosive Testimony article which is a compilation of actual firefighter and EMT oral histories collected by the FDNY.

Thermate exists and is a variant of thermite, sirfiroth. I do not see the relevance in which incindiaries/explosives/cutting charges may have been used but I believe there has been evidence for thermate found in the Towers by US physicist Steven Jones, though ask Sunofone - he knows more about it than me.

Your stupid and incredulous claims are unfounded! You are quick to place the blame on the American Government and give the real perpetrators a free pass. I am sure in your mind the American Government bombed Pearl Harbor using the Japanese Navy as a disguise. You are being duped by your own self-interest in making the government look bad.

My Father always said you can reason with ignorance, but not stupidity.

Believe as you wish, there is nothing I can say or do to convince you otherwise.

Have a nice life

Regards.

[Sunofone]

EXCELLENT EYE WITNESS TESIMONY

this video is an awesome reference when it comes to eye witness testiomny although there have been at least three major small clips that have emerged since this was completed that further remove any doubt

[Sunofone]

Your stupid and incredulous claims are unfounded! You are quick to place the blame on the American Government and give the real perpetrators a free pass.

historical record proves that not only was the target and date known but a skeleton crew moved into place to dramatize the severity and increase casualties

[Q24]

Your stupid and incredulous claims are unfounded! You are quick to place the blame on the American Government and give the real perpetrators a free pass. I am sure in your mind the American Government bombed Pearl Harbor using the Japanese Navy as a disguise. You are being duped by your own self-interest in making the government look bad.

I did not really make any claims; I just linked to a lot of facts. It took me 6 months of studying 9/11 before I accepted the event as a false flag op... that is hardly being quick to place blame. Your assumption of "blame on the American Government" is too broad as I believe only a handful of government and other influential figures within the US, plus intelligence agencies home and abroad need be involved in an inside job. I have no opinion on Pearl Harbor. I have no interest in making anyone 'look bad'.

My Father always said you can reason with ignorance, but not stupidity.

Believe as you wish, there is nothing I can say or do to convince you otherwise.

Have a nice life

Regards.

I am quite open minded so of course you can convince me otherwise sirfiroth - simply present logical and likely alternative explanations for everything pointing 9/11 out to be a false flag op. Though I would say by the negative way you are taking what are obviously revelations to you about 9/11, it might be best for you to give forums like this one a miss.

Edited August 23, 2007 by Q24

[Q24]

The loads redistribute every time an element fails. The loads cannot redistribute to an element that has already failed. Where is the contradiction?

The contradiction I spoke of in your theory is basically, when talking about the penthouse, you find it acceptable that the grouping of columns and structure below can collapse independently of the main building. Then when describing the main building collapse, the simultaneous failing of columns across the building required for the virtually symmetrical, freefall collapse, is due to loads transferring one after another across the entire structure. It is a contradiction to say the penthouse can collapse independently through the building then claim it is natural for the rest of the main structure to collapse as one piece. Why does the entire building not fall piecemeal? Or put another way, if piecemeal collapses are possible, then why would the rest of the main building fall at once in its entirety? You are using one rule for the penthouse and another rule for the rest of the building.

We are not dealing with solid steel, we are dealing with a steel framework, and by the time it reaches the ground it is in a lot of pieces. These pieces can easily bounce around and hit the remaining outer columns. By your argument no debris from WTC1 could have hit and damaged WTC7.

By my argument there is an awful lot of difference between WTC1 pulverising itself and ejecting debris through the air and a small percent of internal columns failing within the confines of WTC7.

Now you are claiming that not only did the columns all the way up to the top of WTC7 beneath the penthouse somehow tear free of the main structure but they also chopped themselves into pieces as they did it. But there is more, the steel columns then ‘bounce around’ at the bottom of the ‘tunnel’ they have burrowed through the building. Now the official story is relying on the bouncing qualities of steel and further, massive steel columns, bolted together and secured by horizontal beams forming a strong framework, acting like toothpicks!

The fact that you have to ask about that shows that you have no mental picture of how a structure works.

I still see no contradiction with what I said earlier. Perhaps it did not collapse this time because the damaged area had been stabilised since 9/11 and, unlike WTC7, the situation never got bad enough for the firecrews to pull out.

It seems having no mental picture of how a structure works applies better to you than to me. After all, you claimed the Bankers Trust building may collapse if it caught fire, whilst I claimed it had no chance of coming anywhere near to collapse. It is evident whose mental picture was clearest, is it not.

As far as I can tell from reading up on the Bankers Trust building, the damaged area had not been reinforced in any way since 9/11, with only netting being placed to cover the ‘wound’. I would say the fire was bad – 7 hours to extinguish, at least 3 floors ablaze, 250 firemen on site, 2 of those killed and a further 16 injured.

Perhaps the Bankers Trust building did not collapse as the date was not 9/11 and the building was not rigged for a controlled demolition?

Edited August 23, 2007 by Q24

[Sunofone]

The contradiction I spoke of in your theory is basically, when talking about the penthouse, you find it acceptable that the grouping of columns and structure below can collapse independently of the main building. Then when describing the main building collapse, the simultaneous failing of columns across the building required for the virtually symmetrical, freefall collapse, is due to loads transferring one after another across the entire structure. It is a contradiction to say the penthouse can collapse independently through the building then claim it is natural for the rest of the main structure to collapse as one piece.

what an eloquent translation of thoughts that were eluding me due to utter frustration...bravo

[flyingswan]

The contradiction I spoke of in your theory is basically, when talking about the penthouse, you find it acceptable that the grouping of columns and structure below can collapse independently of the main building. Then when describing the main building collapse, the simultaneous failing of columns across the building required for the virtually symmetrical, freefall collapse, is due to loads transferring one after another across the entire structure. It is a contradiction to say the penthouse can collapse independently through the building then claim it is natural for the rest of the main structure to collapse as one piece. Why does the entire building not fall piecemeal? Or put another way, if piecemeal collapses are possible, then why would the rest of the main building fall at once in its entirety? You are using one rule for the penthouse and another rule for the rest of the building.

No, you are still trying to reconcile your flawed understanding of structures with my statements. The speed at which damage propagates can vary enormously, from a slow one-element-at-a-time to an almost instantaneous collapse. The former is what is happening with the slow spread due to fire, with load redistribution not actually overloading the next critical element until the fire weakens it, the latter once the damage gets to the stage where each load redistribution results in one or more of the remaining elements being immediately overloaded. A collapse can affect only part of the structure if the horizontal elements connecting it to the rest of the structure are overloaded before the columns in the remaining structure - what you call "tearing away".

As I've said above, I'm suggesting that the first collapse spread upwards rather than outwards in this way, and that the fall of the inner part of the building did sufficient damage to the lower part of the outer structure to bring it all down as seen in the video. The outer structure falls almost simultaneosly because it was damaged almost simultaneously by the same initial collapse event. If you think that this is not possible, I suggest that you find some support for that opinion. Not just more of your own ideas, but something more qualified. I've been suggesting for several pages that you ask a structural engineer if my ideas are reasonable - why are you afraid to do this?

By my argument there is an awful lot of difference between WTC1 pulverising itself and ejecting debris through the air and a small percent of internal columns failing within the confines of WTC7.

Now you are claiming that not only did the columns all the way up to the top of WTC7 beneath the penthouse somehow tear free of the main structure but they also chopped themselves into pieces as they did it. But there is more, the steel columns then ‘bounce around’ at the bottom of the ‘tunnel’ they have burrowed through the building. Now the official story is relying on the bouncing qualities of steel and further, massive steel columns, bolted together and secured by horizontal beams forming a strong framework, acting like toothpicks!

Why do you think that the initial penthouse collapse would only involve a small percentage of the structure? How do you imagine that a collapsing structure is not going to end up in pieces? This is what I've been talking about all along - overloading, failing, collapsing, they all mean that the bits are getting broken. It is exactly the same principle as the WTC1 collapse and pieces are going to be ejected sideways in exactly the same manner. The only difference is that in WTC7 the initial collapse is hidden because the outer walls are still standing.

It seems having no mental picture of how a structure works applies better to you than to me. After all, you claimed the Bankers Trust building may collapse if it caught fire, whilst I claimed it had no chance of coming anywhere near to collapse. It is evident whose mental picture was clearest, is it not.

As far as I can tell from reading up on the Bankers Trust building, the damaged area had not been reinforced in any way since 9/11, with only netting being placed to cover the ‘wound’. I would say the fire was bad – 7 hours to extinguish, at least 3 floors ablaze, 250 firemen on site, 2 of those killed and a further 16 injured.

Perhaps the Bankers Trust building did not collapse as the date was not 9/11 and the building was not rigged for a controlled demolition?

And perhaps the building wasn't as badly damaged as WTC7. I still don't see how my "wouldn't have been surprised" is falsified by what happened.

I claimed it had no chance of coming anywhere near to collapse

When did you claim that?

Edited August 24, 2007 by flyingswan

[MasterPo]

You're right. The 9/11 conspiracy has been a dramatic success! GWB's popularity is at an all-time high. The world loves us. We detered anyone from every even thinking of harming us again. America has setup new colonies around the world, exploited cheap and conscripted foreign labor. The Bush family is the undisputed monarchs of the U.S.

A brilliant plan.

(that's sarcasm for those who don't get it)

[Sadonis]

Didnt read every post...just going to debunk this one entirely.

The WTC7 had several diesel fuel tanks that helped power generators along with a steam line that did the same.

Now what does fire to when it comes into contact with a lot of diesel fuel? Geee....I don' know, aye!....

[Sunofone]

Didnt read every post...just going to debunk this one entirely.

The WTC7 had several diesel fuel tanks that helped power generators along with a steam line that did the same.

Now what does fire to when it comes into contact with a lot of diesel fuel? Geee....I don' know, aye!....

it doesnt burn concrete or melt steel-- you should probably read the thread

[flyingswan]

it doesnt burn concrete or melt steel-- you should probably read the thread

Read the thread and find out how it doesn't need to burn concrete or melt steel.

[Sunofone]

Read the thread and find out how it doesn't need to burn concrete or melt steel.

fire from dispersed jet fuel cannot induce the type of integrity failure recorded on three seperate events on 9/11--it has been admitted the buildings withstood the impacts and common sense is all that is needed to conclude that the collapses had to be assisted by explosives to drop at the rate of ree fall-- again i will ask you to post the data that you accept as theoretically possible that will obviously come from a structural engineer as you love to tell everyone how they are not qualified to make certain assuptions please enlighten us with the expert and his/her data concerning the freefall collapses-- im still waiting

[ubi_di_nunc]

I cant beleive there are people still trying to prove that the American Government was behind 911........

The one simple fact that most of the conspirates are forgetting is there has to be between 500 and 2000 people if not more covering up and lieing about what they ****REALLY**** know is the so called truth......

I have heard so much of this nonsense that if i were not as sane and realistic as most American's, i could see how all these lie's would generate a few so called red flags...

But Please, get a grip, Im sure there is something else that you, what 00.8% percent of the population who think's BUSH was behind this could find another subject to believe in....

Dont get me wrong, i love reading and watching the stories about these lie's but is just to imaginary to believe....

Try and put some of your money and effort to good use and do something positive for the 9/11 victim's and there Families....

***

Re posting by the14u2cee of Jun 22 2007, 12:12 PM:

You state, "The one simple fact that most of the conspirates [sic] are forgetting is there has to be between 500 and 2000 people if not more covering up and lieing [sic] about what they ****REALLY**** know is the so called truth."

1. What are you basing this figure on? First, intelligence operations are carried out on a "need to know" basis. Many people participating in an actual staged terror event will not know their actual role. So again, where did you determine the number of people in the know to be "500 and 2,000"? Here is an actual calculation for you:

Based on data available to anyone who cares to look at Controlled Demolition, Inc.'s web site, a team of TWELVE demolition experts would need roughly 10 weeks to ready each tower, 1 and 2, for controlled demolition. Building 7 would take three additional weeks, for a total time for all three buildings of roughly six months. This demolition team of twelve men would also need end-to-end total access to the buildings: Securacom [stratasec] was in complete charge of WTC complex security during 2001. NORAD stood down, but with the hijacking drills and exercises going on that morning of September 11 chaos was prevailing for most of FAA and NORAD - so this suggests only another TWELVE 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 faked phone messages were sent that's another SIX. The government obviously knew (Bush's goat book appearance, Cheney's hijinks in his bunker) - put that figure at TWELVE. If one entertains the speculation in the film September Clues that elements of the US Media were complicit (Operation Mockingbird) then the additional number of conspirators increases by roughly another TWELVE. Add TWELVE more for logistic support behind the scenes and another TWELVE pulling the government's strings. Everyone else, no matter how many, could have been kept ignorant by being told cover stories in line with the "need to know" compartmentalization of information. That makes NINETY-FOUR people.

Ninety-four, not 500 or 2,000.

2. And here is another calculation for you: WTC buildings 2 and 7 fell at free-fall speed. The relevant classical physics equation is: Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared), (S = gt^2/2). This is the standard classical physics equation for any free-falling body ignoring air resistance. WTC 1 and 2 were about 1,355 feet tall. Using the English system (feet) as units, their free-fall time is given as:

t^2 = 2S/g

= 2,710/32

= 84.7

t = 9.2 seconds

The math shows 9.2 seconds as the calculated free-fall time for building 2 (ignoring air resistance); building 2 fell in 10 seconds according to the official 911 commission report. Using the same equation gives 5.97 seconds (6.0 seconds) as the calculated free-fall time for building 7 (ignoring air resistance); building 7 fell in 6.2-6.7 seconds. Building 7 of course is the building whose very existence [and free-fall collapse] the official 911 commission report completely ignores so there's no official collapse time. But NIST still is puzzling five years later how to explain building 7's collapse. That is, without invoking controlled demolition. These complete, symmetrical, free-fall collapses are physically impossible without controlled demolition. Otherwise, you're suggesting upper floors fell through lower floors as though those lower floors weren't there, as though they offered all the resistance of thin air.

As you say, "Try and put some of your money and effort to good use and do something positive for the 9/11 victim's [sic] and there [sic] Families [sic]".

Your serve.

Edited August 27, 2007 by ubi_di_nunc

[ubi_di_nunc]

You're right. The 9/11 conspiracy has been a dramatic success! GWB's popularity is at an all-time high. The world loves us. We detered anyone from every even thinking of harming us again. America has setup new colonies around the world, exploited cheap and conscripted foreign labor. The Bush family is the undisputed monarchs of the U.S.

A brilliant plan.

(that's sarcasm for those who don't get it)

***

Re posting by MasterPo of Aug 25 2007, 12:31 PM:

One thing about sarcasm, (which you mention using) is one doesn't have to argue rationally. Just imply. So what's your point? Plainly stated? That Bushco wanted to be popular? That was their master plan. And their failures as leaders and their proven record of lying also disprove their ability to be culpable in false flag terror? New theory of geopolitics you have there.

But then maybe you're making a different argument? Again, what's your point.

My point is that Philip Zelikow, the appointed head of the 911 commission, has an academic background in creating what he calls "public presumption" and "public myth" - ideas assumed to be true but not known to be true that nevertheless drive national agendas. Zelikow also wrote a 1998 article in Foreign Affairs (published by the Council on Foreign Relations) titled Catastrophic Terrorism, in which he plainly states that had the 1993 bombing of the WTC complex succeeded then the US would have become a militarist state abroad with draconian Precrime destruction of civil liberties at home. THAT is the man chosen to head the 911 commission.

My next point: NeoCon Douglas Feith wrote white papers for years arguing for the invasion of Iraq. Feith headed the OSI and OSP (Office of Strategic Intelligence and Office of Strategic Plans) whose entire function was to "cook" intelligence to justify preemptive war on Iraq. Feith then used his influence as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy (number three position at the Pentagon) to award "no-bid" contracts to his old business clients Northrup Grumman and Lockheed-Martin.

My next point: A recent US government report shows that every day for the last four years about ten million dollars worth of oil a day has been unaccounted for from Iraq. That comes to 14 billion dollars "missing" since our occupation.

Next point: Paul Bremer, formerly the US special consul to Iraq, "lost" nine billion dollars of twelve billion dollars of US taxpayers' money he was entrusted with by the US Treasury. What happened? When he returned to the US the president awarded Bremer a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

There are plenty more points, but perhaps you'll think on those, and other readers too, when wondering why we went into Iraq.

The reality is pretty plain, MasterPo.

[MasterPo]

it has been admitted the buildings withstood the impacts and common sense is all that is needed to conclude that the collapses had to be assisted by explosives to drop at the rate of ree fall

No, that's what common sense says.

Withstood the initial impacts, yes. But the impacts plus the structural damage plus the burning fuel plus the buring internals, not.

An engineered structure like the Towers is all based on each piece resting and relying on the other. One piece looses it's integrity and strength and it all collapses. That's basic engineering. Sure it's designed to withstand some damage. But not of such magnitude. We know the terrorists choose those flights because of the huge quantities of fuel the planes would be carrying.

Common sense clearly concludes that the force of the plane's impacts, plus the internal structural damage the impacts caused (knocking out pillars and supports etc), plus the burning fuel, plus the burning of the internal materials all adds up to the inevitable structural failure. Don't be lured by fictional images from movies and TV that show a burned out skeleton of the towers after some disaster or cataclismic event. Maybe in a regular fire without a massive impact or explosion that might happen.

BTW, if you look at the news footage you can clearly see the South tower bent at the point of the impacts well before the towers fall.

[Sunofone]

No, that's what common sense says.

Withstood the initial impacts, yes.

you dont have a clue about what you are talking about-- here are real experts that have never had their analysis questioned-- i challenge you to refute these presentations

ret BYU PHYSICS PROF STEVEN JONES DEMOLITION EVIDENCE

IRAQI WAR VETERAN AND DEOMITIONS EXPERT TORIN WOLF DEMOLITION EVIDENCE

[TK0001]

Based on data available to anyone who cares to look at Controlled Demolition, Inc.'s web site, a team of TWELVE demolition experts would need roughly 10 weeks to ready each tower, 1 and 2, for controlled demolition.

Care to guess at what entails "readying" each tower? From what I understand it means significantly cutting support beams and wiring them up with explosives. This, of course, would render the buildings unsuitable for use of any sort and would be cordoned off from the public.

This demolition team of twelve men would also need end-to-end total access to the buildings:

These, of course, are 12 men who would have to be not only demolitions experts, but also willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands of innocent people. Unless you would have us believe that these people innocently believed the towers were scheduled for demolition. But then of course they would want to blab about it to everyone they knew, so a government gag order would have to be imposed. That's when they would know that this was a hush-hush operation and it would be very likely that the demolition would happen when innocent people were in the buildings. Now we come full circle. This team of 12 people were willing to murder thousands of innocent people. Is this what you would have us believe?

Securacom [stratasec] was in complete charge of WTC complex security during 2001.

Provide proof of this claim. I'm of the understanding that Securacom was only one of several companies who secured the WTC.

NORAD stood down, but with the hijacking drills and exercises going on that morning of September 11 chaos was prevailing for most of FAA and NORAD - so this suggests only another TWELVE 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 faked phone messages were sent that's another SIX. The government obviously knew (Bush's goat book appearance, Cheney's hijinks in his bunker) - put that figure at TWELVE. If one entertains the speculation in the film September Clues that elements of the US Media were complicit (Operation Mockingbird) then the additional number of conspirators increases by roughly another TWELVE. Add TWELVE more for logistic support behind the scenes and another TWELVE pulling the government's strings. Everyone else, no matter how many, could have been kept ignorant by being told cover stories in line with the "need to know" compartmentalization of information. That makes NINETY-FOUR people.

By your calculations, which are obviously guesstimates. Still, 94 people who were willing to take the lives of 3,000 innocent people.....for what? 94 people. How many people did it take to expose President Clinton in the Lewisnky scandal? 2, by my calculation. You're suggesting that not one of 94 people would be willing to expose the government? Not one of these people would be consumed by guilt and just have to come forward? Not one of these 94 people would seek a massive muti-million dollar book deal to spill the beans?

2. And here is another calculation for you: WTC buildings 2 and 7 fell at free-fall speed.

According to whom? Building 7 took somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 seconds to fall. Look up the seismic data. Better yet, count out loud from the second the penthouse begins to fall. And don't forget that internal collapse counts factors into global collapse.

[TK0001]

you dont have a clue about what you are talking about-- here are real experts that have never had their analysis questioned-- i challenge you to refute these presentations

ret BYU PHYSICS PROF STEVEN JONES DEMOLITION EVIDENCE

Are you seriously trying to tell us that Stephen Jones has never had his analysis questioned?

Maybe you should do a search for him on this forum. Every time his name is brought up he is questioned.

[frenat]

building 2 fell in 10 seconds according to the official 911 commission report.

Nope. the commission report says it took about 10 seconds for the first debris to hit the ground but not for the full collapse. Video evidence directly refutes 10 seconds for building 2. Why would you believe the Government for this (although it is not what they really said) when you think they are lying about the rest of it?

This site has an analysis of the collapse times.

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/times.html

[Q24]

The speed at which damage propagates can vary enormously, from a slow one-element-at-a-time to an almost instantaneous collapse. The former is what is happening with the slow spread due to fire, with load redistribution not actually overloading the next critical element until the fire weakens it, the latter once the damage gets to the stage where each load redistribution results in one or more of the remaining elements being immediately overloaded.

That is all very good and confirms you are using separate ‘rules’ for the penthouse collapse and the main building collapse. Official story has to make the physical evidence fit to certain rules, so how do we do it? Change the rules mid-collapse.

A collapse can affect only part of the structure if the horizontal elements connecting it to the rest of the structure are overloaded before the columns in the remaining structure - what you call "tearing away".

Ok, you believe the force of gravity acting on a failed column is enough for it to tear free of every single horizontal support through some 40 floors.

As I've said above, I'm suggesting that the first collapse spread upwards rather than outwards in this way, and that the fall of the inner part of the building did sufficient damage to the lower part of the outer structure to bring it all down as seen in the video. The outer structure falls almost simultaneosly because it was damaged almost simultaneously by the same initial collapse event.

So those columns below the penthouse chopped themselves up, bounced around the bottom of the tunnel they made, simultaneously striking the outer structure on all sides with enough force to cause a virtually symmetrical, freefall collapse of the main structure.

If you think that this is not possible, I suggest that you find some support for that opinion. Not just more of your own ideas, but something more qualified. I've been suggesting for several pages that you ask a structural engineer if my ideas are reasonable - why are you afraid to do this?

I have actually been ignoring you for several pages as your idea is plain unrealistic. It is not so simple to collar a structural engineer willing to sit down and go over this for a couple of hours with anyone who asks. Do you suppose I should phone around construction companies asking if they have a structural engineer spare for a couple of hours who can assist me free of charge with a random query? Or maybe a retired structural engineer who now teaches at a university? I can just imagine the conversation now – “Are you one of my students? You’re not? Then why the hell are you phoning me!?”

Why do you think that the initial penthouse collapse would only involve a small percentage of the structure?

If the East penthouse collapse had involved a large percentage of the building, I would expect to see the centre of the roof and the East wall fall along with it. What percentage of the internal structure do you believe was ‘hollowed out’ by the penthouse collapse?

How do you imagine that a collapsing structure is not going to end up in pieces?

We are not talking about a collapsing structure though, we are talking about a limited number of columns below the penthouse failing. With columns bolted together top and bottom and secured together by horizontal beams, forming a strong grid of steelwork, the weakening of said columns at a low level in the building does not mean the entire structure chops itself into bits during any collapse.

It is exactly the same principle as the WTC1 collapse and pieces are going to be ejected sideways in exactly the same manner. The only difference is that in WTC7 the initial collapse is hidden because the outer walls are still standing.

I can hardly believe that someone who professes to understand buildings just came out with the above. Flyingswann, the collapse of WTC7 was absolutely not like the collapse of the Twin Towers and the two cannot be compared if we are going by the official story. The Towers were ‘crushed’ by the top of the falling structure, whereas WTC7 simply fell.

And perhaps the building wasn't as badly damaged as WTC7. I still don't see how my "wouldn't have been surprised" is falsified by what happened.

When did you claim that?

You thought the Bankers Trust building may have fallen on 9/11 if it had caught fire. I believed the building had no chance of falling had it caught fire. When the building, already damaged by the collapsing Towers, did suffer a severe fire, it did not fall. That is all I am saying on the subject. Just remember to add this as another precedent to WTC7's situation.

[Sunofone]

Are you seriously trying to tell us that Stephen Jones has never had his analysis questioned?

Maybe you should do a search for him on this forum. Every time his name is brought up he is questioned.

the integrity of the analysis has NOT been questioned-- if you can provide a structural engineer(only because you have implyed that structural eng would be "more" qualified than a physics prof which is rediculous as a background in physics is practically a prerequisate for being a structural eng-please dont hesitate to recruit a physics prof willing to accept the challenge though) that teaches at a university or who has taught at one in the past willing to debate or rebut prof jones paper please do so as jones retired shortly after authoring his analysis for the sole purpose of having all the time necessary to deal with the uneducated and outright liars

Edited August 27, 2007 by Sunofone

[flyingswan]

Q24, I have set out my picture of the collapse of WTC7 as clearly as I can, but you show no sign that you understand what I am saying. I am using the same "rules" throughout - my basic engineering understanding of how structures work. Read it again: I am not saying that "a failed column" causes a substantial section of the interior to tear free, you clearly can't picture what would happen as this interior collapse occurs, yet you dismiss my arguments on the basis of "what you expect" not happening.

You ask me what percentage of the interior structure was involved in the penthouse collapse. I would guess at least a quarter to a half of the inner "tube" of the building to bring down the whole penthouse at once. This is certainly enough to resemble the towers collapse. As to being "crushed by the top of the falling structure", where do you think the original collapse-initiating failure was? Somewhere at the levels of the damage and fires would seem likely, leaving the structure above that level to fall and crush the structure below.

I presume you are now withdrawing your claim to have predicted the results of the fire in the Bankers Trust building. You asked my opinion on the matter, but you never gave your own.

I have actually been ignoring you for several pages as your idea is plain unrealistic. It is not so simple to collar a structural engineer willing to sit down and go over this for a couple of hours with anyone who asks. Do you suppose I should phone around construction companies asking if they have a structural engineer spare for a couple of hours who can assist me free of charge with a random query? Or maybe a retired structural engineer who now teaches at a university? I can just imagine the conversation now – “Are you one of my students? You’re not? Then why the hell are you phoning me!?”

You are still trying to argue structural engineering from a position of complete ignorance of the subject. If you will not take the trouble to educate yourself, and you clearly do not believe pericynthion or myself who have rather more expertise in the subject, what is the point of continuing this thread?

The key question here is : what does it take to convince you that you are wrong? Your answer appears to be "nothing will". I suggest you check out any text on the philosophy of science for the value of an unfalsifyable hypothesis.

Edited August 27, 2007 by flyingswan

[MasterPo]

***

Re posting by MasterPo of Aug 25 2007, 12:31 PM:<SNIP>

The reality is pretty plain, MasterPo.

My point is that if 9/11 was a grand conspiracy by GW, Chenny et. al. it's sure been a whopping success - not!

Edited August 28, 2007 by MasterPo

[Q24]

Q24, I have set out my picture of the collapse of WTC7 as clearly as I can, but you show no sign that you understand what I am saying.

I understand what you are saying, it just happens that I disagree with most of it. You are saying that: -

WTC1 debris, including external steel columns (unsubstantiated), broke through the façade and into the interior core (unsubstantiated) of WTC7, cutting several structural columns (unsubstantiated and highly improbable). Fire, started by the falling debris (unsubstantiated), reached temperatures high enough to one by one severely weaken structural columns below the penthouse (impossible). This damage and fire weakening caused up to half of the interior of the building to collapse (unsubstantiated and highly improbable) with no immediate external effect except for the penthouse collapse (highly improbable). During the collapse, structural columns up to the roof level broke apart (unsubstantiated), bounced around the lower level of the building (unsubstantiated and highly improbable) and simultaneously damaged the North, South and East walls plus the remaining internal structure (impossible). Despite the very irregular damage, the entire remaining building was then overloaded and descended virtually symmetrically, vertically, at freefall speed to the ground (impossible).

Meanwhile, Mossad agents celebrating the Tower collapses and arrested with a van full of explosives were innocently passing by (highly improbable), explosions witnessed before WTC1’s collapse were a mistake (highly improbable), explosions captured on video were falling debris (highly improbable), Larry Silverstein did not convey his message in the clearest way (highly improbable), CIA offices and emergency command bunker in WTC7 were just chance (highly improbable) and all the features of a controlled demolition were simply coincidence (impossible).

So you see flyingswann, all you have are unsubstantiated ideas with most of them improbable or impossible. Looking up the definition of “FAIRYTALE” you will find - “An interesting but highly implausible story; often told as an excuse”. I can think of no more fitting word to describe your ‘picture of collapse of WTC7’.

I presume you are now withdrawing your claim to have predicted the results of the fire in the Bankers Trust building. You asked my opinion on the matter, but you never gave your own.

In post #169 of this thread, I stated “the towers should not have fallen at all.” In another thread, even as the Bankers Trust building was burning, I stated “Q24 placing his bets now that the building does not collapse.” I thought you would have picked up that my whole problem with WTC7 is that the building should not have collapsed. Did you think I raised the subject of the Bankers Trust building in your support? Did you think I was agreeing with you that the Bankers Trust building would collapse? I know, you know, anyone following the thread knows, that you were way off the mark with the Bankers Trust building.

The key question here is : what does it take to convince you that you are wrong?

As I am correct, a better question would be: what does it take to convince you that you are wrong? I can dispute your fairytale all day long. You cannot with an open mind dispute that a controlled demolition would cause the collapse of WTC7 we see.