9/11 Conspiracy Solved?: Names, Connections, Details Exposed...

[SFC Ollie]

Gee, during your compilation I noticed that they simply cut out the falling into the building of the first penthouse, 9 seconds of the collapse that your truther video didn't bother to show.... Why is that?

And here are some video of the fires that you normally do not see on truther sites....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U]WTC 7 fires and south side hole - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SFC Ollie]

You can attack me all you want. It doesn't make your stupidity any better......

 

[ERGO]

I seriously doubt he was lying. Things were pretty fucked up that day...

Larry Silverstein bought WTC 1 & 2 6 weeks before the false flag attack on 9-11-2001 and he took out insurance specifically for terrorism.
Buying WTC 1 & 2 was not a good investment because the building needed to have the asbestos removed that would have cost millions of dollars to have removed.

Six months before the 9/11 attacks the World Trade Center was "privatized" by being leased to a private sector developer. The lease was purchased by the Silverstein Group for $3.2 billion. "This is a dream come true," Larry Silverstein said. "We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights."

But the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe.

From an economic standpoint, the trade center, subsidized since its inception, has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace.

How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?

Also, the towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built.

It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings.

Other New York developers had been driven into bankruptcy by the costly mandated renovations, and $200 million represented an entire year's worth of revenues from the World Trade Towers.

Under a pending agreement, a developer and his investors will get back most of the down payment that they made to lease the World Trade Center just six weeks before a terrorist attack destroyed the twin towers. Developer Larry Silverstein and investors Lloyd Goldman and Joseph Cayre are nearing a deal that would give them about $98 million of their original investment of $124 million, The New York Times

Instead of renovation, Silverstein is rebuilding, funded by the insurance coverage on the property which 'fortuitously' covered acts of terrorism. Even better, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy, based on the two, in Silverstein's view, separate attacks. The total potential payout is $7.1 billion, more than enough to build a fabulous new complex and leave a hefty profit for the Silverstein Group, including Larry Silverstein himself.

As reported in The Washington Post, the insurance company, Swiss Re, has gone to court to argue that the 9/11 disaster was only one attack, not two and that therefore the insurance payout should be limited to $3.55 billion, still enough to rebuild the complex.

Larry Silverstein is a lying PIG!

Source link:Silverstein Makes a Huge Profit off of the 9/11 Attacks

 

[ERGO]

You can attack me all you want. It doesn't make your stupidity any better......

Gee...that has such special meaning for me coming from a DOLT like you.

Good Night hammer head

 

[SFC Ollie]

So? Let the lawyers battle it out in the courts, And of course he would purchase terrorism insurance on a building that had already been a target of terrorism. You guys don't use common sense a lot do you?

 

[SFC Ollie]

You can attack me all you want. It doesn't make your stupidity any better......

Gee...that has such special meaning for me coming from a DOLT like you.

Good Night hammer head

By the way, I'm sorry, but they just can't cure stupidity...........

 

[GuyPinestra]

Ergo obviously is as stupid as the rest of the truthers. Anyone with any sense knows that Pull it has nothing to do with explosives.

Anyone with any EXPERIENCE knows that is EXACTLY what it means. The term is common nomenclature in the CD field.

Lying pussball!

 

[GuyPinestra]

Fires that burn uncontrolled for 7+ hours are not sporadic nor really scattered...

And the building did not fall all at the same time it was a progressive collapse as anyone can see. first the penthouse fell into the inside of the building, then the supports gave way from east to west if my understanding of how the building sat is correct.

Most truther videos leave out the penthouse falling.....

Did the penthouse sit directly above the core columns? Yes.

Are the core columns the strongest vertical load bearers? Yes.

How did scattered fires, that never got hotter than 1,000 degrees, cause the strongest beams to give out first?

Hmmm?

 

[Capstone]

Your videos have been around forever they will not disappear,[...]

Oh, I know the videos are out there; it's just a matter of finding a YouTube account that's reliable enough for the purpose of citation (if you click on several of the links on this webpage ...you can see what I mean).

[...]Because they prove nothing, just TV correspondents talking and reporting before the facts are known, or getting the story wrong. [...]

True to form, I see you're ignoring the eyewitness videos, most likely because highly credible reports of numerous "secondary explosions" (prior to the collapses) on or near floors well below the impact zone ...might actually be evidence of something, opting instead to focus on the premature reporting of WTC7's "collapse". No surprise there.

Even so, what the erroneous CNN/BBC reports might corroborate are the numerous stories of emergency medical personnel and ground zero workers (Singh, McPadden, the 3 NJ EMT's, ETC.) who reported of being told to move away from building 7 (and even to relocate their triage area) because the building was going to "be brought down" (according to Indira Singh this happened early in the afternoon). With a bunch of unwitting reporters running around trying to outdo each other, it's easy to see how somebody may have jumped the gun. Granted, potentially corroborative evidence doesn't necessarily amount to "proof", but it's still noteworthy ...to say the least.

 

[paulitician]

Authority-Worship is rampant in this country. It's all most Americans know. And it crosses Democrat/Republican Party-lines. Many consider themselves 'Rebels', but in reality most are just run-of-the-mill Authority-Worshippers. Our Government lies on a daily basis. So it shouldn't be surprising they lied about 9/11. Lying is just what they do. But Authority-Worshippers will never accept that. It is what it is.

 

[Capstone]

Authority-Worship is rampant in this country. It's all most Americans know. And it crosses Democrat/Republican Party-lines. Many consider themselves 'Rebels', but in reality most are just run-of-the-mill Authority-Worshippers. Our Government lies on a daily basis. So it shouldn't be surprising they lied about 9/11. Lying is just what they do. But Authority-Worshippers will never accept that. It is what it is.

The two-party system in America is a fucking joke. BUT, until an outsider has a reasonable shot at slaying that double-headed dragon, all I can do is vote for the head that pisses me off the least.

 

[daws101]

Sporadic fires that burned out of control for 7 hours or more? Really, sporadic? Something there doesn't pass the smell test.....

The point I was making is that the fires were scattered throughout the building.
Steel melts at 2800 F degrees. The steel columns in WTC 7 were thick steel. Those fires didn't get hot enough, nor could they have, to cause those thick columns to give out. The way the building collapsed all the thick steel columns gave out simultaneously and symmetrically (What could cause that?). All of WTC 7 was not ablaze. The fires were scattered throughout the building. Hot did scattered (sporadic) fires cause ALL the columns to give out simultaneously when a lot of the columns in WTC 7 weren't even exposed to fire? Again those fires weren't capable of causing the thick steel columns to even give out to begin with.
You just lack the intelligence to understand that the SCATTERED fires in WTC 7 could not have got hot enough to cause ALL the columns to give way simultaneously and symmetrically.

as always twoofers cherry pick and minimize.
1. steel does not need to melt to lose it strength...misreprsenting are we?
2. What caused the fires in WTC 7?
Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors-7 through 9 and 11 through 13-burned out of control. These lower-floor fires-which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed-were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.

How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

 

[Mr. Jones]

Sporadic fires that burned out of control for 7 hours or more? Really, sporadic? Something there doesn't pass the smell test.....

The point I was making is that the fires were scattered throughout the building.
Steel melts at 2800 F degrees. The steel columns in WTC 7 were thick steel. Those fires didn't get hot enough, nor could they have, to cause those thick columns to give out. The way the building collapsed all the thick steel columns gave out simultaneously and symmetrically (What could cause that?). All of WTC 7 was not ablaze. The fires were scattered throughout the building. Hot did scattered (sporadic) fires cause ALL the columns to give out simultaneously when a lot of the columns in WTC 7 weren't even exposed to fire? Again those fires weren't capable of causing the thick steel columns to even give out to begin with.
You just lack the intelligence to understand that the SCATTERED fires in WTC 7 could not have got hot enough to cause ALL the columns to give way simultaneously and symmetrically.

as always twoofers cherry pick and minimize.
1. steel does not need to melt to lose it strength...misreprsenting are we?

As always you reply with the very thing that is the basis of the debate, as if regurgitating the NIST lies and inconclusive, and inconsistent bullshit is somehow going to be different
just because you repeat it.
And as always your answer is a disingenuous repeating pile of Dawgshit and one and leaves out any detail or substance or original thought process or that explains of steels properties and the effects of fire/heat upon it.
How about trying to explain how YOU think the NIST theory and guesses are correct?

You see,
In order to cause massive steel components to even be weakened by fire to the point of failure, the high temps have to be elevated and sustained for durations needed to effect the steels critical failure point.
No proof of such temps has been provided by NIST or anyone else during the actual fires in the buildings. NIST actually discredits any high temperatures regarding the WTC fires.
Steel, when heated spreads the heat that is applied to it from the contact point, down its length and to other attached parts. This is why fireproofing is sprayed on steel members, not only to protect the actual steel from melting/weakening, but to protect whatever it may come into contact with, or in the vicinity of it.

How does one know about fires and heat and its effect on steel constructed buildings?
There have been tests conducted on steel used in building construction.
In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).


In contrast, The physical tests NIST and Underwriters Laboratories performed for the investigation on the towers did not support the predetermined conclusions that NIST sought to maintain.

Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads.
Regarding the Twin Towers, they were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings.

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center, and he stated-
Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there.

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

If a steel structure would ever experience any sort of collapse due to extreme temperatures, the collapse would tend to remain localized to the area that experienced the high temperatures.
The kind of low-carbon steel used in buildings bends rather than shatters. If part of a structure is compromised by extreme temperatures, it may bend in that region, conceivably causing a large part of the structure to sag or even topple. However, there is no example of a steel structure crumbling into many pieces because of any combination of structural damage and heating, outside of the alleged cases of the Twin Towers and Building 7.
There is a picture of a large steel member of one of the buildings involved bent into a large horse shoe. It did not crack in half and this is testament to the flexibility of steel, heated or not.

So in summary, hi rises constructed of steel spread the heat around like a huge heat sink.
Steel can withstand much hotter temperatures then what was involved at the WTC buildings without collapsing. This is also verified in historic records of other hi rise fires
around the world, and one that occurred in a WTC tower in 1975.
Any collapse would have initially started at the source of this extreme heat, and then would be signified by first bending, moving or toppling over in relation to these weakened parts reaching the critical point of failure.

Massive buildings constructed of high grade low carbon steel that was treated with fire retardant like the WTC complex was, simply do not give way and fail due to heat that is below its critical failure point, from office combustibles, and collapse in on themselves while having the effected collapsing parts go right through the unaffected, thicker more robust middle and lower sections of the buildings and descend anywhere close to free fall acceleration.

There are no temps on record that would in any way suggest this. There are no historic record that suggest this is even a possibility, but there is significant factual testing that proves this CAN NOT happen even at temps above 88 C (1472 F).

After initially saying the steel must have "melted" it is now fully understood and excepted
even by you idiots, that this was impossible because the temps were too low for this to have occurred.
Weakened steel still does not account for the way any of the hi rises collapsed. Massive steel components do not simply lose all their strength and let go.
Because of what is widely known about fire, and its effect on steel, through testing, and historic record we know that
It takes extreme heat, above the critical failure point of steel, applied for long durations of time, at critical load bearing points to cause a complete global collapse, that would allow the falling mass to go right through the parts that were unaffected by fire and heat.
Those are the scientific and physical facts.
Lying about them or ignoring them altogether wont change them, dufuss. Even if the source is an agency like NIST, according to you idiots, the higher the authority the more likelihood that laws of physics and facts can be discounted and the more believable the lie?

2. What caused the fires in WTC 7?

Indeed, what did cause the WTC 7 fires that NIST admitted burned themselves out in parts of the building, but seemingly caused the still improperly explained "collapse"?
They have ruled out jet fuel, and diesel tanks. According to NIST "the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."
If the buildings were so vulnerable to collapse due to regular fires of unknown origin alone, wouldn’t they also be equally vulnerable to failure with just a small number of explosives? Seemingly, just one strategically placed on or near the column you and NIST stated was responsible, should have been sufficient.

The New York Times, quoting WTC 7 building owner Larry Silverstein explained that like most modern structures, WTC 7 was reinforced to survive structural damage: "We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity."

But office fires causing "thermal expansion" a "new phenomena" is being justified as the primary reason as causing a rapid, total, global collapse...Sure.

This explanation still does not take into account the above mentioned effects of fire/heat on treated high grade steel components, but apparently is enough to fool people into thinking it is possible, while circumventing the principles and laws of physics, and caused 8 stories consisting of tons of steel and building components to dissapear and allow the upper part of the building to descend weightless for 2.25 seconds.

Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors-7 through 9 and 11 through 13-burned out of control.

Other buildings that were within close proximity to the towers were hit by debris and were approximately the same distance away from WTC 1 include the World Financial Center buildings across West Street, the Deutsche Bank building across Liberty Street, and the Millennium Hotel across Church Street, and none of these other buildings caught on fire, though some of them sustained severe damage but did not collapse.
Only Silverstein controlled buildings experienced the strange, 'collapses".

The damage to WTC 7 was asymmetric, confined to the tower's south side, and any weakening of the steelwork from fires would also be asymmetric.
Thus, according to what we've learned about fire and its effect on steel, any physical or damage by fire sufficient enough to cause the whole building to collapse, would have caused it to fall over asymmetrically, towards the south. But WTC 7 fell straight down, through the fortified parts quoted by Silverstein above, and through the path of most resistance.

These lower-floor fires-which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed-were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings.

That's very true, and yet non of the other buildings in other instances that were essentially towering infernos, experienced collapses that included period of free fall. No thermal expansion, or magical scenarios
no collapses period.

The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.

So the reported physical damage after WTC 1 collapsed-
Southwest corner damage extended over Floors 8 to 18
Damage was observed on the south face
Apparently the fires in WTC 7 traveled upwards according to different sources.
One would think that a fire wouldn’t travel upwards very fast in a building with concrete floor slabs, but these fires had burned out by early afternoon on Floors 19, 21, 22, 29, and 30 along the west face near the southwest corner.
However, even in the Twin Towers, which were obviously damaged a lot worse than WTC 7, the fires didn’t travel up very far from the impact zones.

So allegedly, the fire had already reached floor 30 and burned out there before 2 p.m.
Around 2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
some fires are observed on the east face, Floors 11 and 12 at the southeast corner.

3:00 to 5:00 p.m.
Around 3 p.m., fires were observed on Floors 7 and 12 along the north face. The fire on floor 12 appeared to bypass the northeast corner and was first observed at a point approximately one third of the width from the northeast corner, and then spread both east and west across the north face.
Some time later, fires were observed on Floors 8 and 13, with the fire on Floor 8 moving from west to east and the fire on Floor 13 moving from east to west. Figure L–24b shows fires on Floors 7 and 12.
At this time, the fire on Floor 7 appeared to have stopped progressing near the middle of the north face.
The above observations are from NIST.
The fire on Floor 7 was moving west to east along the north face and stopped somewhere in the middle. The fire on floor 7 apparently did not find its way to the east side.

By mid-to-late afternoon, the fires seem to be on lower floors only, no higher than floor 13. The fires on upper floors all seem to have burned out and not traveled up any further.

The fire on Floor 8 continued to move east on the north face, eventually reaching the northeast corner and moving to the east face.
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

The fire on Floor 12 has burned out by this time, but the fire on Floor 7, which has been constant from almost the very beginning, still has not burned out. Nor has the fire yet reached all parts of the 7th floor either. It never seems to have reached the east side, at least not any place visible from outside. It seems to have stopped somewhere in the middle.

It has been hypothesized that a very long-lasting fire on floor 7 could have caused the collapse of the building.
As the FEMA report says, “It is important to note that floors 5 through 7 contained structural elements that were important to supporting the structure of the overall building. The 5th and 7th floors were diaphragm floors that contained transfer girders and trusses. These floors transferred loads from the upper floors to the structural members and foundation system that was built prior to the WTC 7 office tower. Fire damage in the 5th to 7th floors of the building could, therefore, have damaged essential structural elements.”

Why did the fire on Floor 7 (and, to a lesser extent, the fire on Floor 6) last so long? The FEMA report notes, on page 5-23, that this is at least a little bit odd: “It is currently unclear what fuel may have been present to permit the fires to burn on these lower floors for approximately 7 hours.”

However, when WTC 7 collapsed, the east penthouse dropped first, suggesting that something happened to the easternmost core columns. Some experts believe, furthermore, that a failure of just column 79, the northeastern most core column, could have triggered a failure of all the other core columns and then the entire building.
But, the fires on floors 6 and 7 apparently never progressed to the east side.

So then, what could have done in the easternmost core columns?

It can be argued that WTC 7 was more vulnerable because it had already suffered some structural damage due to the debris from WTC 1. But that structural damage, was pretty much confined to the south face.
It might also have affected a core column or two, but, apparently, not any of the easternmost core columns that are believed to have started the collapse. (See the NIST preliminary report, Figure L-23c, on p. L-23.) In particular, column 79, believed by some to have been the most likely culprit, was far away from any structural damage due to debris.
So even the damage and the fires don't exactly explain the way the 47 story building came down with the trade marks of a CD. A straight, smooth descent that included free fall time.
There doesn't appear to be anything that makes sense when one takes the time to acquaint themselves with steel and hi rise construction, and the effects fire has on it. Including historic and testing data and information. Thermal expansion isn't even a high priority in regards to heat or cold.

Remarkably in only 10 days Controlled Demolition, Inc. submitted a plan to remove the remains of Ground Zero.

HOWEVER, the company makes no claims for the demolition records that would have been established on 9/11. Their website claims the Detroit Hudson Department Store at 439 feet dropped in October, 1998 is the tallest structural steel building ever imploded.
IN ADDITION, CDI, Inc. is MUCH SLOWER than the NYFD that Silverstein claimed 'pulled' WTC7.

Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI's 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the (Hudson Store) complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI's implosion design.
CDI's 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

Highly unlikely, and not scientifically proven. The fires and damage are not consistent with the observed results. Even the computer simulation is not consistent with the observed results. Besides if this building was seemingly so vulnerable to an instance of fire and heat on just one column, wouldn’t it also be equally vulnerable to failure with just a small number of explosives or cutting agent?

According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

Again not consistent with the fire, fuel loads, or placement, physics and momentum of massive steel structures and components. Uncontrolled fires in other buildings have never caused them to collapse.

Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

EVENTUALLY is a word that needs to be stressed here. The weakening of massive steel parts takes time. The steel bends and moves as the critical failure point is slowly reached. The mass of this building does not seemingly just get out of the way and allow the upper parts to fall in it, in a straight down descent.

The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

This wild hypothesis is not supported by any evidence. Their computer simulation of it is a joke, and does not match the observed results. The fuel loads, fire travel, and temperatures do not coincide with the steels critical failure point. NIST CONDUCTED A FRAUDULENT INVESTIGATION. An outcome of arson, or pre planted devices could not be allowed to come to light as the ramifications were considered a national security risk and
resulted in mass upheaval and unrest in American society. This is why the reports and investigations were severely hampered, falsified, and most of the evidence was destroyed immediately. There were people in positions of authority to allow this to take place, and coincided with pre arranged planning to take this nation to war.
People have come forward from different fields including military, government administration, science, construction, physics and others

The WTC 7 hinges on one cloumn, with wild hypothesis on never before occurring scenarios. Evidence of fore knowledge is available, including reports of Silverstein asking his insurance company for permission to CD WTC 7. Witness testimony available to the American public, that was suppressed, officials caught in lies and laughing about non existant WMD's while your people died in vain looking for them.... and the list goes on and on

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

Bullshit nonsensical wild guesses of the most improbable imaginable.

Forget about the diesel fuel,
Oh, and forget about the damage caused by the falling towers, too
Molten metal? What molten metal?
Paper thin steel and sulfidation? What paper thin steel and sulfidation?
Explosive thermite? What explosive thermite?


In order for the NIST theory to even be considered plausible, they would have to acknowledge the extremely high temperatures that were found underneath all 3 WTC buildings. You know the ones they acted so incredulous about.
So lets get this straight.
They have to assume that the fire temps were indeed of high temperatures for the needed durations and at the critical load bearing points to cause the collapses, BUT, they don't even acknowledge the ridiculously high temps withing the 3 buildings rubble piles that took 3 months to extinguish..That could possibly explain the high temperatures to begin with.....But then if they did acknowledge the high temps in the rubble piles, they then would have to explain the source of them....in all 3 WTC building complexes wouldn't they? So knowing that there are morons like you and others that are either easily duped, and or terrified cowards about the consequences...they just said fuck it...
Here ya go...fires and "thermal expansion"...feel better?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

The point I was making is that the fires were scattered throughout the building.
Steel melts at 2800 F degrees. The steel columns in WTC 7 were thick steel. Those fires didn't get hot enough, nor could they have, to cause those thick columns to give out. The way the building collapsed all the thick steel columns gave out simultaneously and symmetrically (What could cause that?). All of WTC 7 was not ablaze. The fires were scattered throughout the building. Hot did scattered (sporadic) fires cause ALL the columns to give out simultaneously when a lot of the columns in WTC 7 weren't even exposed to fire? Again those fires weren't capable of causing the thick steel columns to even give out to begin with.
You just lack the intelligence to understand that the SCATTERED fires in WTC 7 could not have got hot enough to cause ALL the columns to give way simultaneously and symmetrically.

as always twoofers cherry pick and minimize.
1. steel does not need to melt to lose it strength...misreprsenting are we?

As always you reply with the very thing that is the basis of the debate, as if regurgitating the NIST lies and inconclusive, and inconsistent bullshit is somehow going to be different
just because you repeat it.
And as always your answer is a disingenuous repeating pile of Dawgshit and one and leaves out any detail or substance or original thought process or that explains of steels properties and the effects of fire/heat upon it.
How about trying to explain how YOU think the NIST theory and guesses are correct?

You see,
In order to cause massive steel components to even be weakened by fire to the point of failure, the high temps have to be elevated and sustained for durations needed to effect the steels critical failure point.
No proof of such temps has been provided by NIST or anyone else during the actual fires in the buildings. NIST actually discredits any high temperatures regarding the WTC fires.
Steel, when heated spreads the heat that is applied to it from the contact point, down its length and to other attached parts. This is why fireproofing is sprayed on steel members, not only to protect the actual steel from melting/weakening, but to protect whatever it may come into contact with, or in the vicinity of it.

How does one know about fires and heat and its effect on steel constructed buildings?
There have been tests conducted on steel used in building construction.
In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).


In contrast, The physical tests NIST and Underwriters Laboratories performed for the investigation on the towers did not support the predetermined conclusions that NIST sought to maintain.

Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads.
Regarding the Twin Towers, they were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings.

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center, and he stated-
Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there.

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

If a steel structure would ever experience any sort of collapse due to extreme temperatures, the collapse would tend to remain localized to the area that experienced the high temperatures.
The kind of low-carbon steel used in buildings bends rather than shatters. If part of a structure is compromised by extreme temperatures, it may bend in that region, conceivably causing a large part of the structure to sag or even topple. However, there is no example of a steel structure crumbling into many pieces because of any combination of structural damage and heating, outside of the alleged cases of the Twin Towers and Building 7.
There is a picture of a large steel member of one of the buildings involved bent into a large horse shoe. It did not crack in half and this is testament to the flexibility of steel, heated or not.

So in summary, hi rises constructed of steel spread the heat around like a huge heat sink.
Steel can withstand much hotter temperatures then what was involved at the WTC buildings without collapsing. This is also verified in historic records of other hi rise fires
around the world, and one that occurred in a WTC tower in 1975.
Any collapse would have initially started at the source of this extreme heat, and then would be signified by first bending, moving or toppling over in relation to these weakened parts reaching the critical point of failure.

Massive buildings constructed of high grade low carbon steel that was treated with fire retardant like the WTC complex was, simply do not give way and fail due to heat that is below its critical failure point, from office combustibles, and collapse in on themselves while having the effected collapsing parts go right through the unaffected, thicker more robust middle and lower sections of the buildings and descend anywhere close to free fall acceleration.

There are no temps on record that would in any way suggest this. There are no historic record that suggest this is even a possibility, but there is significant factual testing that proves this CAN NOT happen even at temps above 88 C (1472 F).

After initially saying the steel must have "melted" it is now fully understood and excepted
even by you idiots, that this was impossible because the temps were too low for this to have occurred.
Weakened steel still does not account for the way any of the hi rises collapsed. Massive steel components do not simply lose all their strength and let go.
Because of what is widely known about fire, and its effect on steel, through testing, and historic record we know that
It takes extreme heat, above the critical failure point of steel, applied for long durations of time, at critical load bearing points to cause a complete global collapse, that would allow the falling mass to go right through the parts that were unaffected by fire and heat.
Those are the scientific and physical facts.
Lying about them or ignoring them altogether wont change them, dufuss. Even if the source is an agency like NIST, according to you idiots, the higher the authority the more likelihood that laws of physics and facts can be discounted and the more believable the lie?

Indeed, what did cause the WTC 7 fires that NIST admitted burned themselves out in parts of the building, but seemingly caused the still improperly explained "collapse"?
They have ruled out jet fuel, and diesel tanks. According to NIST "the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."
If the buildings were so vulnerable to collapse due to regular fires of unknown origin alone, wouldn’t they also be equally vulnerable to failure with just a small number of explosives? Seemingly, just one strategically placed on or near the column you and NIST stated was responsible, should have been sufficient.

The New York Times, quoting WTC 7 building owner Larry Silverstein explained that like most modern structures, WTC 7 was reinforced to survive structural damage: "We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity."

But office fires causing "thermal expansion" a "new phenomena" is being justified as the primary reason as causing a rapid, total, global collapse...Sure.

This explanation still does not take into account the above mentioned effects of fire/heat on treated high grade steel components, but apparently is enough to fool people into thinking it is possible, while circumventing the principles and laws of physics, and caused 8 stories consisting of tons of steel and building components to dissapear and allow the upper part of the building to descend weightless for 2.25 seconds.



Other buildings that were within close proximity to the towers were hit by debris and were approximately the same distance away from WTC 1 include the World Financial Center buildings across West Street, the Deutsche Bank building across Liberty Street, and the Millennium Hotel across Church Street, and none of these other buildings caught on fire, though some of them sustained severe damage but did not collapse.
Only Silverstein controlled buildings experienced the strange, 'collapses".

The damage to WTC 7 was asymmetric, confined to the tower's south side, and any weakening of the steelwork from fires would also be asymmetric.
Thus, according to what we've learned about fire and its effect on steel, any physical or damage by fire sufficient enough to cause the whole building to collapse, would have caused it to fall over asymmetrically, towards the south. But WTC 7 fell straight down, through the fortified parts quoted by Silverstein above, and through the path of most resistance.

That's very true, and yet non of the other buildings in other instances that were essentially towering infernos, experienced collapses that included period of free fall. No thermal expansion, or magical scenarios
no collapses period.



So the reported physical damage after WTC 1 collapsed-
Southwest corner damage extended over Floors 8 to 18
Damage was observed on the south face
Apparently the fires in WTC 7 traveled upwards according to different sources.
One would think that a fire wouldn’t travel upwards very fast in a building with concrete floor slabs, but these fires had burned out by early afternoon on Floors 19, 21, 22, 29, and 30 along the west face near the southwest corner.
However, even in the Twin Towers, which were obviously damaged a lot worse than WTC 7, the fires didn’t travel up very far from the impact zones.

So allegedly, the fire had already reached floor 30 and burned out there before 2 p.m.
Around 2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
some fires are observed on the east face, Floors 11 and 12 at the southeast corner.

3:00 to 5:00 p.m.
Around 3 p.m., fires were observed on Floors 7 and 12 along the north face. The fire on floor 12 appeared to bypass the northeast corner and was first observed at a point approximately one third of the width from the northeast corner, and then spread both east and west across the north face.
Some time later, fires were observed on Floors 8 and 13, with the fire on Floor 8 moving from west to east and the fire on Floor 13 moving from east to west. Figure L–24b shows fires on Floors 7 and 12.
At this time, the fire on Floor 7 appeared to have stopped progressing near the middle of the north face.
The above observations are from NIST.
The fire on Floor 7 was moving west to east along the north face and stopped somewhere in the middle. The fire on floor 7 apparently did not find its way to the east side.

By mid-to-late afternoon, the fires seem to be on lower floors only, no higher than floor 13. The fires on upper floors all seem to have burned out and not traveled up any further.

The fire on Floor 8 continued to move east on the north face, eventually reaching the northeast corner and moving to the east face.
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

The fire on Floor 12 has burned out by this time, but the fire on Floor 7, which has been constant from almost the very beginning, still has not burned out. Nor has the fire yet reached all parts of the 7th floor either. It never seems to have reached the east side, at least not any place visible from outside. It seems to have stopped somewhere in the middle.

It has been hypothesized that a very long-lasting fire on floor 7 could have caused the collapse of the building.
As the FEMA report says, “It is important to note that floors 5 through 7 contained structural elements that were important to supporting the structure of the overall building. The 5th and 7th floors were diaphragm floors that contained transfer girders and trusses. These floors transferred loads from the upper floors to the structural members and foundation system that was built prior to the WTC 7 office tower. Fire damage in the 5th to 7th floors of the building could, therefore, have damaged essential structural elements.”

Why did the fire on Floor 7 (and, to a lesser extent, the fire on Floor 6) last so long? The FEMA report notes, on page 5-23, that this is at least a little bit odd: “It is currently unclear what fuel may have been present to permit the fires to burn on these lower floors for approximately 7 hours.”

However, when WTC 7 collapsed, the east penthouse dropped first, suggesting that something happened to the easternmost core columns. Some experts believe, furthermore, that a failure of just column 79, the northeastern most core column, could have triggered a failure of all the other core columns and then the entire building.
But, the fires on floors 6 and 7 apparently never progressed to the east side.

So then, what could have done in the easternmost core columns?

It can be argued that WTC 7 was more vulnerable because it had already suffered some structural damage due to the debris from WTC 1. But that structural damage, was pretty much confined to the south face.
It might also have affected a core column or two, but, apparently, not any of the easternmost core columns that are believed to have started the collapse. (See the NIST preliminary report, Figure L-23c, on p. L-23.) In particular, column 79, believed by some to have been the most likely culprit, was far away from any structural damage due to debris.
So even the damage and the fires don't exactly explain the way the 47 story building came down with the trade marks of a CD. A straight, smooth descent that included free fall time.
There doesn't appear to be anything that makes sense when one takes the time to acquaint themselves with steel and hi rise construction, and the effects fire has on it. Including historic and testing data and information. Thermal expansion isn't even a high priority in regards to heat or cold.

Remarkably in only 10 days Controlled Demolition, Inc. submitted a plan to remove the remains of Ground Zero.

HOWEVER, the company makes no claims for the demolition records that would have been established on 9/11. Their website claims the Detroit Hudson Department Store at 439 feet dropped in October, 1998 is the tallest structural steel building ever imploded.
IN ADDITION, CDI, Inc. is MUCH SLOWER than the NYFD that Silverstein claimed 'pulled' WTC7.

Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI's 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the (Hudson Store) complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI's implosion design.
CDI's 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.


Highly unlikely, and not scientifically proven. The fires and damage are not consistent with the observed results. Even the computer simulation is not consistent with the observed results. Besides if this building was seemingly so vulnerable to an instance of fire and heat on just one column, wouldn’t it also be equally vulnerable to failure with just a small number of explosives or cutting agent?

Again not consistent with the fire, fuel loads, or placement, physics and momentum of massive steel structures and components. Uncontrolled fires in other buildings have never caused them to collapse.
EVENTUALLY is a word that needs to be stressed here. The weakening of massive steel parts takes time. The steel bends and moves as the critical failure point is slowly reached. The mass of this building does not seemingly just get out of the way and allow the upper parts to fall in it, in a straight down descent.

The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

This wild hypothesis is not supported by any evidence. Their computer simulation of it is a joke, and does not match the observed results. The fuel loads, fire travel, and temperatures do not coincide with the steels critical failure point. NIST CONDUCTED A FRAUDULENT INVESTIGATION. An outcome of arson, or pre planted devices could not be allowed to come to light as the ramifications were considered a national security risk and
resulted in mass upheaval and unrest in American society. This is why the reports and investigations were severely hampered, falsified, and most of the evidence was destroyed immediately. There were people in positions of authority to allow this to take place, and coincided with pre arranged planning to take this nation to war.
People have come forward from different fields including military, government administration, science, construction, physics and others

The WTC 7 hinges on one cloumn, with wild hypothesis on never before occurring scenarios. Evidence of fore knowledge is available, including reports of Silverstein asking his insurance company for permission to CD WTC 7. Witness testimony available to the American public, that was suppressed, officials caught in lies and laughing about non existant WMD's while your people died in vain looking for them.... and the list goes on and on

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

Bullshit nonsensical wild guesses of the most improbable imaginable.

Forget about the diesel fuel,
Oh, and forget about the damage caused by the falling towers, too
Molten metal? What molten metal?
Paper thin steel and sulfidation? What paper thin steel and sulfidation?
Explosive thermite? What explosive thermite?


In order for the NIST theory to even be considered plausible, they would have to acknowledge the extremely high temperatures that were found underneath all 3 WTC buildings. You know the ones they acted so incredulous about.
So lets get this straight.
They have to assume that the fire temps were indeed of high temperatures for the needed durations and at the critical load bearing points to cause the collapses, BUT, they don't even acknowledge the ridiculously high temps withing the 3 buildings rubble piles that took 3 months to extinguish..That could possibly explain the high temperatures to begin with.....But then if they did acknowledge the high temps in the rubble piles, they then would have to explain the source of them....in all 3 WTC building complexes wouldn't they? So knowing that there are morons like you and others that are either easily duped, and or terrified cowards about the consequences...they just said fuck it...
Here ya go...fires and "thermal expansion"...feel better?

these paid shills are going to have to go to their handlers to try and think up some clever lies to try and get around this post so expect them to be gone a long time before they come back.You just know they are spending hours on the phone with them sicussiin what kind of propaganda to post to try and get around this post of yours.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

by the way Jones,you really dont need to go into all that detail.All you got to do is post this below and watch them run off with their tails between their legs acting like it was never posted.


something else not covered in that video that should be mentioned is not one of these agent trolls that have penetrated this site ever have an explanation for these facts.In that video they say-the 9/11 commission acted like this guy didnt even exist.

they of course are talking about Barry Jennings.One thing NONE of these agent trolls that have penetrated this site has EVER been able to address and wont is bld 7 which is the crux of the 9/11 commission in the fact that the towers neighbors were MUCH closer to the towers so they had far more extensive damage done to them and far worse fires than bld 7 yet those towers did not collapse but bld 7 did even though it was MUCH further away from them.

NONE of these paid agent trolls here ever have an answer for that and never address that because they know they are cornered and cant counter it so they act like I never even posted this fact just like you will because it proves there was an inside job since barry jennings, that man they are talking about the 9/11 commission said didnt even exist,immediately that day in an interview with reporters, talked about hearing explosions in the basement of bld 7 and they occured before the towers fell which shreads to pieces the lies of the NIST report that the debris from the towers caused bld 7 to collapse.

Nobody here has ever been able to get around that fact.thats why Barry Jennings died mysteriously two days before the NIST report came out because his testimony shreads to pieces their lies.The pattern is the same as the kennedy assassination,just like in that case,many people who gave versions different than the governments ended up dying in mysterious deaths.


Never fails they do that EVERYTIME.watch.

however if you posted that for the truthers who WILL actually read it,then thanks.good information there.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Once again, One person who claims to have heard these explosions before the towers fell.....

And the person with him at the time gives a different timeline, and a different story.

No audio recordings of these explosions and no recordings of these explosions in any means, just one guy.....

 

[Mr. Jones]

Once again, One person who claims to have heard these explosions before the towers fell.....

And the person with him at the time gives a different timeline, and a different story.

No audio recordings of these explosions and no recordings of these explosions in any means, just one guy.....

Bullshit. Now you're stuck on stupid about explosions. The things you argue about and deny, in no way substantiate AGAINST the things I posted about the "collapses" or validate anything else about the 9-11 attacks as told to you by the state. Fucking nimrod.

 

[daws101]

the point i was making is that the fires were scattered throughout the building.
Steel melts at 2800 f degrees. The steel columns in wtc 7 were thick steel. Those fires didn't get hot enough, nor could they have, to cause those thick columns to give out. The way the building collapsed all the thick steel columns gave out simultaneously and symmetrically (what could cause that?). All of wtc 7 was not ablaze. The fires were scattered throughout the building. Hot did scattered (sporadic) fires cause all the columns to give out simultaneously when a lot of the columns in wtc 7 weren't even exposed to fire? Again those fires weren't capable of causing the thick steel columns to even give out to begin with.
You just lack the intelligence to understand that the scattered fires in wtc 7 could not have got hot enough to cause all the columns to give way simultaneously and symmetrically.

as always twoofers cherry pick and minimize.
1. Steel does not need to melt to lose it strength...misreprsenting are we?

feel better?

edited for wall of text and fictional content!
When reading twoofer posts keep in mind the longer the post the deeper the bullshit!

 

[GuyPinestra]

as always twoofers cherry pick and minimize.
1. Steel does not need to melt to lose it strength...misreprsenting are we?

feel better?

edited for wall of text and fictional content!
When reading twoofer posts keep in mind the longer the post the deeper the bullshit!

Denial, more than just a river in Egypt...

 

[daws101]

feel better?

edited for wall of text and fictional content!
When reading twoofer posts keep in mind the longer the post the deeper the bullshit!

Denial, more than just a river in Egypt...

true! and you're drowning in it!