Lerxst

Please show me one instance in history where a steel framed skyscraper was hit by a jet airliner full of fuel and traveling several hundred miles per hour and iddn't collapse. WTC7 had sufficient structural damage, based upon it's architectural design, to understand why it collapsed the way it did. NIST explained this.

Anyway, regarding 1 & 2, it was not just burning, it burning and structural damage. The intense heat with combined with the severe weakening of the structural integrity brought those buildings down. Once they started to go there was no way the lower floors were going to withstand that kind of weight coming down...not to any discernible level the naked eye could tell. Further much of the structural give taking place on the interior of the building prior to the collapse could not be seen from the exterior.

There were no squib charges detonating, there was no physical evidence of thermite recovered. Even if there had been the level of conspiracy it would take to mastermind such a plot would have been too huge to keep secret. Somebody would have had to gotten into all three buildings and spent dozens of hours secretly rigging them with explosives without raising a single eyebrow.

Now for the theory of the buildings being dropped by cutter charges to be at least remotely feasible, the triggering mechanisms integrity would have had to be able to withstand a massive impact as well as thousands of gallons of burning fuel pouring down through the building. And it would have had to withstand this intense inferno for hours until it was time to drop the buildings. Please explain how this could be done.

Further it makes no sense to go to all that trouble of rigging the buildings. If there was a conspiracy to use these attacks as a catalyst for military action then the attacks alone would have been enough. There is no significance to the towers actually falling as opposed to the just the attacks. The deed would have been done. The whole premise for this conspiracy is too just stupid to take even remotely seriously.

Al Qaeda did this, period. They flew jetliners full of fuel into the buildings at several hundred miles an hour. End of story.

The rest of this stuff is just unsubstantiated lunacy. Skepticism is fine, but don't confuse it with evidence or even credibility.

__________________
Obama/Biden in 2008!

Jray

First, Heller's comments and mine were in reference to buildings 1 and 2. Second, Jowenko also says that 1 and 2 were NOT controlled demolitions. So either Jowenko is wrong about 1 and 2 and they were all controlled demolition, he's wrong about 7 and none of them were or he's right on all of them (unlikely).

But on WTC 7:

The final collapse of the building took over 8 seconds. The entire collapse sequence took between 13 and 16 seconds, more than twice the 6 second free fall speed.

Where are the blast points? If this was a controlled demolition then the blast points would be clearly visible.

Finally see Ramon Gilsanz and William Ng's article in Structure Magazine on how the failure of one column could have cause WTC 7 to collapse.

Chanda

WTC7 wasn't hit by an airliner. It had minimal debris damage on one side, and relatively small office fires which makes the straight-down collapse into its own footprint suspect. NIST has yet to release its wtc7 investigative report and at last update, was still considering possible causes for the collapse after 6 years of investigation. Maybe you should offer your expertise, since you seem to know exactly how it happened. NIST needs you, Jeff.

Entirely speculation. We have no frame of reference to determine exactly what would happen under these circumstances.

What substantiated proof has our government offered that members of Al Qaeda conspired to commit the 9/11 attacks? You are the conspiracy theorist, Jeff. I don't have a theory, and I've made no conclusions, but I'm skeptical of the official conspiracy theory, because it is the kookiest one yet.

__________________
"...what is it exactly that the VP does every day?"--Sarah Palin, July 2008

Chanda

Irrelevant. If wtc7 collapsed by controlled demolition, then the entire official conspiracy theory is bogus.

Experts disagree.

There are several videos online that appear to show demolition charges.

The explanation for Silverstein's "pull it" order is unconvincing. According to several sources, there were no firefighters in the building to evacuate. There are numerous witnesses who heard explosions, even a countdown.

Lerxst

Ummmm...Chanda, I'm not trying to be mean here. But you might want to read this. NIST Part IIC - WTC7. You are deliberately mischaracterizing the nature of the NIST report to seem "unsure or speculative." This report is much more than that. Relatively small office fires? Is that your professional opinion? Maybe you are the one who needs to talk to NIST because they don't seem to agree with your findings.

Then there is this NIST WTC7 news relase. This must be the last update you are referring to. Reading it makes me think you are again being slightly dishonest in your characterization of it. For those who are undecided the certainly aren't shy about stating what they believe the cause is (see bolded).
This is also interesting...and I think a big part of what is fueling your speculation. How you stretch this to read "NIST hasn't made up their mind, they are still considering the causes" I have no idea. They are working all possible hypothesis just to be sure...at least that is what it sounds like to me. Oh and notice the bolded part...interesting huh? No, NIST doesn't need me, they are doing quite well on their own.

Well since you are being deliberately difficult here I'll just counter what I think you are getting at here.

Regarding the WTC 1 & 2 collapse...what I posted was not speculative at all. NIST agrees with me. NIST latest findings PR from 2005 on WTC 1 & 2.
I dunno...but that sure seems to support what I said.

Or are you talking about the scope of the conspiracy theory being to large to keep secret? Well all we have to do is look at the many large government conspiracies from the past to see how they were unable to keep them secret. Northwoods is a good example of this, Bay of Pigs, Watergate, various assassination plots, massive embezzlements, etc. There are plenty of examples of conspiracies that were uncovered or leaked during the effort to keep them quiet before, during, or immediately after their execution. All because someone talked at some point. But this one is different? Historically this would have to be the greatest known conspiracy in history as far as scope and boldness...but every conspirator is silent, told nobody. Speculative? Sure, but no more so than yours and I have history on my side. You have nothing comparative to at least reference back to. I'm just going by common sense.

Lol...yeah, it's kooky alright. With known hijacking complete with distress calls from passengers, video of the hijacked planes hitting the buildings, no evidence of cutter charges anywhere, a very detailed series of reports from NIST that explain why the buildings fell, and the leader of Al Qaeda admitting they were involved. Man that is just as bizarre as it gets, I can see why you woulnd't believe it, especially since none of the alternative theories have been proven or presented a shred of evidence to support them.

You are more than just skeptical Chanda.

Lerxst

Present ANYTHING credible that supports it was a controlled demolition or other type of deliberate destruction.

Experts disagree on a lot of things about this, they disagree with each other in fact.

Hmmm...appear? And there are explanations to those puffs of smoke that have debunked them as squib charges.

Nor were there demolitions experts in there to "pull the building" either. Nor was there a shred of evidence of cutter charges or any type of explosive. In fact there is a very detailed working hypothesis of exactly why the building collapsed the way it did. But hang on to "pull it" and "witnesses" who "heard things." The evidence stands against them. And their lack of evidence damns them.

Jray

Your entire argument is about how this "expert" says something. He only agrees with you halfway. So either an expert can be wrong or for some reason WTC 7 was a controlled demolition and 1 and 2 weren't.
See the Structure Magazine article or the NIST report, they both say the final collapse took over 8 seconds for the final collapse.

Jowenko says that WTC 7 looked like a controlled demolition. Since an interior failure would give that same appearance he is most likely wrong about WTC 7 being a controlled collapse.

They show the charges on WTC 7? I'd like to see those videos.

See Skeptic magazine about the "pull it" order.

Blanchard is Senior Editor at ImplosionWorld.com

Chanda

The wtc7 NIST investigation began in 2002 and has yet to release a final report. Even the NIST lead investigator admits:

“We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors… but truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7.” - Dr S Shyam Sunder, NIST’s lead WTC investigator

Why do you think NIST is the ultimate authority? Do you really believe the possibility of controlled demolition would be considered for one moment by a government agency?

Has it been kept secret? There are oral histories of 503 firefighters and medical responders, and many of them corroborate controlled demolition. These have been suppressed for some reason.

The bizarre part is this: PNAC, which has members including Cheney and Wolfowitz currently in the Bush administration, published a blueprint in the 90's for a "series of simultaneous wars in the ME" which could be precipated by a "Pearl Harbor event." After Bush was selected, voilà! the Pearl Harbor event, 9/11, occurred and made possible all manner of Bush policies and was used to promote him as the war president. Also, the fact that there were numerous pre-9/11 warnings that were ignored by the administration. Condoleezza Rice lied when she said no one could have imagined that a hijacked plane would used as weapon, and what a phenomenal coincidence that war games and drills for just such an event were being conducted on the very morning of 9/11. Add to that, crime scene evidence that was immediately loaded up and shipped out of the country indicating a coverup. Bush stonewalled an investigation until a year later, then refused to testify under oath.

I ask you again, where is a shred of evidence to support the official conspiracy theory?

True, I'm very skeptical. Is there something sinister about that?

Present evidence that a building can fall straight down into its own footprint at nearly free-fall speed for any other reason.

roguenuke

So you don't consider the video's of the airplanes, the people who were on those planes, the eyewitnesses that saw the planes, the fact that AQ confessed to the crime and they have last testament videos from the hi-jackers that they show on the 9-11 anniversary, and the time, cost and overwhelming amount of coverup that would have to occur in order for most, if not all, of the "inside job theories" to be true to be evidence?

Do you yourself have any knowledge of structural engineering, demolitions, or metallurgy to actually hold this many doubts about what brought down any of the WTC, not counting what has been told to you concerning the WTC by claimed experts from either side? I have some knowledge on the properties of metals, weight distributions, and temperature and pressure effects. Sailors in my rate are required to learn this stuff so that we understand why we have to maintain certain pressures and temperatures within the reactor systems. It is very important to not change temperatures of metals too quickly, because this will weaken them, and in the case of nuclear technology, weak pipes are bad juju. I would say the same probably applies to building construction as well. Add to that massive damage to a couple of floors of a building from a plane hitting it, I'd say that it is highly likely that building could collapse. As for 7, well, I'd say a fire that was burning for some 8 hours could easily weaken the steal in that building, and when you add to that the debris from one of the towers on the roof of the building, then I'd say it's a good possibility that tower 7 just could no longer hold up.

As for the witnesses who might have believed it was a controlled demolition, I would love to see some actual proof that they said this. You don't think that conspiracy theory promoters couldn't just be taking words such as "it sounded like an explosion" out of context? Since I personally have never heard an actual explosion, including that from a building being demolished, I don't think I could tell you a difference between the sound of a building coming down due to intentional charges being set rather than being due to internal failures in the structure. But hey, who knows, perhaps these "witnesses" you mentioned have all heard explosions before and can automatically recognize the difference, even amidst all the other chaos that was happening in the area on that day.

Chanda

None of these things are proof of the official conspiracy theory. Just because we saw videos of planes, that doesn't mean they caused the complete destruction of the towers. Bin Laden initially denied involvement in 9/11, but even if AQ was involved, that doesn't mean hijackers were able to suspend the laws of physics. There WAS a coverup. Crime scene evidence was immediately and illegally disposed of. There has never been an independent investigation, and Bush stonewalled the government investigation for a year and refused to testify under oath.

Weakened columns would bend and fall haphazardly; they would not plunge straight down.

For the first time in the history of steel structure buildings? Debris damaged one side of WTC7. For a building to collapse straight down, the damage would have to be equally distributed throughout the building, and supports would have to fail simultaneously.

I didn't say witnesses "believed it was a controlled demolition." I said their statements corroborated controlled demolition.

Video of witnesses describing explosions:



Oral histories of witnesses describing exposions:

9-11 Research: Explosions