September 11th: The History of 9/11

[hokum6]

It was missing a big chunk out of one side and was on fire. Or was it ?

Yes, yes it was. You can plainly see it was on fire in pictures and videos, and people who were there stated it was on fire. Are you an idiot?

And it was probably the same of the big missing chunk, mentionned by noone this day.

Mentioned by no one except people who aren't loony 9/11 truthers. Look, the Fire Department is in on it too!

From an interview with NY firefighter Pete Castellano:

We were ordered down from the tower ladder because of a possible collapse at Tower 7.

And another, from Captain Ray Goldbach:

There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse

And so on. There is no shortage of interviews with firefighters who stated they were ordered to move out the building and set up a collapse zone.

 

[Zilch5]

Well, Bldg 7 was damaged and on fire - no argument there. And yes, the fire fighters were ordered out of there.

But that doesn't answer the main concern - why did it collapse?

It survived the towers collapsing, it didn't have planes crashing into it - so, did it collapse or was it "pulled"? Well, according to the owner, they decided to "pull" it, didn't they?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3E-26oVIIs

And if they had the charges in place to "pull" it - then that opens up a number of interesting questions, doesn't it?

 

[hokum6]

Well, Bldg 7 was damaged and on fire - no argument there.

But that doesn't answer the main concern - why did it collapse?

Er, because it was damaged and on fire?

It survived the towers collapsing, it didn't have planes crashing into it - so, did it collapse or was it "pulled"? Well, according to the owner, they decided to "pull" it, didn't they?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3E-26oVIIs

And if they had the charges in place to "pull" it - then that opens up a number of interesting questions, doesn't it?

Oh not this one again. It only opens up interesting questions if you're a tinfoil hat-wearing lunatic.

Silverstein's PR guy issued a statement saying that what he meant by 'pull it' was 'get all the firefighters away'. The fire department knew they couldn't contain the fire and they knew the building was structurally unsound and they told him so, he made the decision to leave it to the fire.

Does it make any sense to you at all that he would have the building wired for explosives? Why? How would they have setup the explosives without anybody noticing? It would have taken weeks to plan a demolition of a building that size. And why have none of the firefighters who lost friends on 9/11 come forward to say 'uh actually that Larry Silverstein guy had filled WTC 7 with explosives and we knew it was going to be blown up'? Where are the demo experts who would have set it up?


What's funny about all this is that these conspiracies assume that the American government was both extremely smart and capable yet incredibly careless and stupid at the same time. Somehow they managed to make it look like a devastating terrorist act and silenced all the thousands of people who would have had to be involved, yet they left enough evidence lying around that a bunch of excitable internet detectives could uncover this huge plot with nothing but their web browser and YouTube. Never mind all those scientists and engineers and firefighters with their degrees and years of experience, here is what really happened!

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

It was missing a big chunk out of one side and was on fire. Or was it ?

Yes, yes it was. You can plainly see it was on fire in pictures and videos, and people who were there stated it was on fire. Are you an idiot?

And it was probably the same of the big missing chunk, mentionned by noone this day.

Mentioned by no one except people who aren't loony 9/11 truthers. Look, the Fire Department is in on it too!

...

Less of the personal insults, please, hokum6.

If you want to play in this discussion, play nice and treat other Posters with some modicum of respect. That goes for other Posters too.

P_M (A Moderator)

 

[Zilch5]

Well, Mr Hokum, not all damaged and burning buildings do collapse onto their own footprints now, do they? In fact, no one has ever seen another building doing quite that... Nor has any other building collapsed due to magnetic whatevers that I know of.

Oh, and a good way to get to the bottom of a news story is to always believe what the PR guys say, right? Come on, you can't be serious!

No, I am not a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nut. I am not even certain that there was a conspiracy behind 9/11.

But some things here just don't add up - especially when it comes to Bldg 7 and the Pentagon attack. Keep an open mind, and you might understand what I mean.

And I've never said the US government was behind it - I truly don't think the current mob there is anywhere near smart enough.

What I am saying is that the official story has too many holes in order for me to swallow it. Other than that, I offer no answers nor theories simply because I don't have any.

 

[Analis]

Yes, yes it was. You can plainly see it was on fire in pictures and videos, and people who were there stated it was on fire. Are you an idiot?

Well, the point was not that there were fires or not, but of the kind described by Cassidy and Meyers. I should have been more precise. There were a number of quite ordinary arsons, office and furniture fires. But the building was not ravaged by fire, as they tried to suggest. It was a far cry from the case of the Caracas fire in 2004, for example. Which resulted in no collapse.

And so on. There is no shortage of interviews with firefighters who stated they were ordered to move out the building and set up a collapse zone

Yes, but the enigma lies there : how did they know that there would be a collapse ? There was no precedent. No arson, how gigantic it could be, could put such a building down. And especially not in such a symmetricall, vertical way.

 

[hokum6]

Well, Mr Hokum, not all damaged and burning buildings do collapse onto their own footprints now, do they?

It didn't exactly fall into its own footprint.

There was a debris field of roughly 70 feet radius, and the buildings surrounding it were heavily damaged and had to be destroyed later on.

And if it was bought down by an explosion, where was the bang? Go watch some videos of controlled demolitions, you can distinctly hear the boom of explosives, with more going off up the inside of the building at vital points. Nothing at all like WTC 7. The whole idea is ludicrous to the extreme.

In fact, no one has ever seen another building doing quite that... Nor has any other building collapsed due to magnetic whatevers that I know of.

"Magnetic whatevers"? Your own ignorance of the science behind it does not mean there's a conspiracy. The metal got hot, it lost structural integrity, and it collapsed. We've known for a long, long time that steel gets soft at lower temperatures than its melting point, how do you think blacksmiths work with it? They certainly don't smelt it all down.

Oh, and a good way to get to the bottom of a news story is to always believe what the PR guys say, right? Rolling Eyes Come on, you can't be serious!

So you don't want to believe Silverstein's spokesperson, fair enough. But what about all the fire fighters? Were they lying? Have they all been paid off? How did nobody notice the explosives being set up weeks before? How did nobody hear the explosions? Why would they have even bothered at all?

And really, do you actually think that if Silverstein had been involved he would then admit it on camera?

But some things here just don't add up - especially when it comes to Bldg 7 and the Pentagon attack. Keep an open mind, and you might understand what I mean.

Ah yes, the classic 'you're too narrow minded' defense. What you really mean is 'ignore all the evidence, don't believe what the experts say, listen to a bunch of crazies on the internet, and then you'll see where I'm coming from'.

Yes, but the enigma lies there : how did they know that there would be a collapse ?

Because they are experts and they knew the signs.
From Captain Chris Boyle, NYFD:

We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises

Time and time again fire fighters have stated that the building was ablaze, the fire was not fought and they could hear and see signs that it was about to come down. The building was creaking and sagging and was too dangerous to enter.

There was no precedent. No arson, how gigantic it could be, could put such a building down. And especially not in such a symmetricall, vertical way.

It never happened before, so it can't be possible! Genius logic, there.

 

[Zilch5]

"Magnetic whatevers"? Your own ignorance of the science behind it does not mean there's a conspiracy. The metal got hot, it lost structural integrity, and it collapsed. We've known for a long, long time that steel gets soft at lower temperatures than its melting point, how do you think blacksmiths work with it? They certainly don't smelt it all down.

Hokum, you are not only rude but also unskilled in the art of debating!

Yes, I DID know that, but I've really had enough of you and will not argue further. Cheers. 8)

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

My understanding of the science in question, is that engineers and scientists were presented with a fait 'a compli, in the form of the official version and then were given the near impossible task of working backwards from that to a plausible explanation of the multiple collapses.

Novel solutions were not encouraged.

As to the 'magnetic whatevers', that theory seems to have much more to do with research into super strong steel alloys, for use in future fusion reactors, than it does with a plausible solution to the bendy towers puzzle.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...s-to-blame-for-911-tower-collapse-924509.html

Magnetic forces to blame for 9/11 tower collapse

Independent Online. By Steve Connor. 10 September 2008

Scientists can finally explain why the Twin Towers collapsed on September 11, despite the temperature of the fires being well below the 1,500C melting point of the steel girders holding up the buildings.

The discovery that unusual magnetic forces within the girders made them weak at temperatures of about 500C explains away the conspiracy theories that have spread like wildfire since the disaster.

Sergei Dudarev, of the UK Atomic Energy Agency, found that steel loses its strength above 500C because its molecules undergo a physical transition from one state to another due to magnetic fluctuations. "The steel didn't melt, it just became soft. It is an unusual state and the temperatures in the Twin Towers were high enough to cause it because the thermal insulation was knocked off the girders through the impact with the aircraft," he said.

"Understanding how materials behave means we can find the right 'medicine' to make steel stronger at high temperatures... and if our work can be used for other applications, such as safeguarding tall buildings against disasters, so much the better," he said.

" It is an unusual state and the temperatures in the Twin Towers were high enough to cause it because the thermal insulation was knocked off the girders through the impact with the aircraft,"

It is an unusual state indeed. No doubt, funding for Sergei's research into fusion-plasma proof, super-steel alloys, is already winging its way towards him.

 

[Analogue Boy]

And so on. There is no shortage of interviews with firefighters who stated they were ordered to move out the building and set up a collapse zone.

There is also no shortage of firefighters who reported explosions within the affected buildings that day.
There is also the tangible evidence of seismic spikes of over 2 magnitude at the point where the buildings began to collapse and not at the point of their impact.
It's also worth pointing out why building 7 should have been worth saving.
Not only was it the reinforced Mayor's Office of Emergency Management, it also housed the IRS, The US Secret Service, the CIA, the Federal Home Loan Bank and other major financial institutions.

But this is old ground.
I'm not a tin-foil hat wearer either but like others here, I find there are too many coincidences relating to this incident to swallow the official version without question.

 

[hokum6]

There is also no shortage of firefighters who reported explosions within the affected buildings that day.

I've seen them say "it sounded like an explosion". Something sounding like an explosion is not evidence of a bomb. And if the firemen could hear it, why didn't it show up on the videos? Watch some demolition vids, you can distinctly hear the sound of explosions, and that is on buildings smaller than the towers. In the Naudet brothers documentary 9/11 you can hear what sounds like small explosions - it's debris and bodies impacting on the floor.

There is also the tangible evidence of seismic spikes of over 2 magnitude at the point where the buildings began to collapse and not at the point of their impact.

This is false, the seismic readings were misrepresented and misunderstood. PM spoke to the observatory, who had this to say:

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

It's also worth pointing out why building 7 should have been worth saving.
Not only was it the reinforced Mayor's Office of Emergency Management, it also housed the IRS, The US Secret Service, the CIA, the Federal Home Loan Bank and other major financial institutions.

It may have been worth saving, but that doesn't mean it could have, not with everything else going on that day. Would it have been better that they had tried and lost more fire fighters?

 

[Analis]

It never happened before, so it can't be possible! Genius logic, there.

Well, that's called experimental method. If, for example, in better suited conditions, i.e. longer exposure to fire and hotter arsons, buildings with a classic steel structure did not collapse; as in, say, Caracas in 2004; then the conclusion is that in less suited conditions, as with, say... WTC 7, there would be no collapse. So another factor was at play.

And the "magnetic whatevers" ? Maybe it's an interesting study of the way steel softens. But that steel softens at 500°C is no discovery at all, it loses app. 20% of its strenght. Maybe you don't know that, but metalurgists have documented steel resistance at any temperature, for more than a century. Especially of the kind used for buildings. Structural steel loses app. 80% of its strenght only at 730-800°C. 50% at 650°C (1202°F) It is highly unlikely that the girders of WTC 7 reached only 500°C (932°F). But if so, it would retain enough of its initial strenght, and this would result in no collapse.

I've seen them say "it sounded like an explosion". Something sounding like an explosion is not evidence of a bomb.

It depends, some said "sounded like an explosion", others said "heard an explosion". In any case, what caused them ?

There is also the tangible evidence of seismic spikes of over 2 magnitude at the point where the buildings began to collapse and not at the point of their impact.

This is false, the seismic readings were misrepresented and misunderstood. PM spoke to the observatory, who had this to say:

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

Seismic readings? Well, there's something intriguing with them. Difficult to analyse because of uncertainties in the timing when it comes to the collapse. But there were two small quakes when the planes crashed into the buildings, at 0.9 and 0.7 Richter. The crashes were not coupled with the ground. The Pentagon crash caused no seism, and it was at ground floor. So what caused them? It seems that it confirms the recordings of two explosions at the time, as well as William Rodriguez's testimony.

 

[hokum6]

Well, that's called experimental method. If, for example, in better suited conditions, i.e. longer exposure to fire and hotter arsons, buildings with a classic steel structure did not collapse; as in, say, Caracas in 2004; then the conclusion is that in less suited conditions, as with, say... WTC 7, there would be no collapse. So another factor was at play.

Never mind that it's a totally different building, so not really comparable, but that extra factor was possibly the 20-story chunk missing from its side. Caracas did not have a massive part of its structure missing, it didn't appear to have a generator fuel line feeding the blaze and there were firefighters dousing the flames. They didn't fight the fire at all on WTC 7, and they heard creaking coming from it that indicated a possible collapse.

But maybe all that was just coincidence and served as a handy cover for the stealth demolition of a huge building. Bigger than any demolition before, in fact.

Oh, and here's a little snippet about the Caracas building:

Earlier in the day, officials expressed fears that the building might collapse.

"There is a problem because the building is made of steel. Because of the high temperatures, the structure could collapse," Interior minister Jesse Chacon told President Hugo Chavez during his weekly radio and television show.

Ha, those fools! Of course it wouldn't collapse, how stupid they are. They should have asked your advice.

But if so, it would retain enough of its initial strenght, and this would result in no collapse.

Structural engineers all over the world disagree with you. But if you have some stunning new evidence you should write a book and get rich.

It depends, some said "sounded like an explosion", others said "heard an explosion". In any case, what caused them ?

They probably did hear explosions. Generators exploding, computers going bang maybe, perhaps lots of other combustible items going up in smoke. But explosion does not equal bomb. And who knows whether those sounds were even audible over the noise of a building falling to bits. Debris falling was making loud bangs that could and almost certainly were mistaken for an explosion.

And again: a demolition would have been noticeable, completely unmistakeable. There would have been no way to hide a demolition of that size. Perhaps the New World Order has invented silent explosive.

I would love to know why the conspiracy nuts think 'they' would have gone through all this trouble to demolish one building. Was it offensive to them or something?

Seismic readings? Well, there's something intriguing with them. Difficult to analyse because of uncertainties in the timing when it comes to the collapse. But there were two small quakes when the planes crashed into the buildings, at 0.9 and 0.7 Richter. The crashes were not coupled with the ground. The Pentagon crash caused no seism, and it was at ground floor. So what caused them? It seems that it confirms the recordings of two explosions at the time, as well as William Rodriguez's testimony.

It doesn't confirm anything. The quote above is from the scientists at the observatory that published the readings, and they don't agree. No other seismologists seem to have a problem with it either. Yet again you appear to have some amazing in depth knowledge of this event that nobody else has been able to see.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

Oh, and here's a little snippet about the Caracas building:

Earlier in the day, officials expressed fears that the building might collapse.

"There is a problem because the building is made of steel. Because of the high temperatures, the structure could collapse," Interior minister Jesse Chacon told President Hugo Chavez during his weekly radio and television show.

Ha, those fools! Of course it wouldn't collapse, how stupid they are. They should have asked your advice.

...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/world/main649824.shtml

Since the fire in the Caracas building took place, in 2004, perhaps Chacon based his fears on what he knew of the events of 9/11/2001? How wrong he was. The Caracas building fire seems to have burned for over 17hrs, before it was brought under control.

Please try and moderate your tone, hokum6, or people will make up their own minds about who the real 'nuts' are, around here.

 

[hokum6]

Since the fire in the Caracas building took place, in 2004, perhaps Chacon based his fears on what he knew of the events of 9/11/2001?

Yup, very probably.

The problem with these kinds of comparisons is that not all buildings are identical and the situation is fairly unique. I am aware that no steel-framed tower has ever collapsed from fire, but it wasn't just because of a fire that the building collapsed.

Please try and moderate your tone, hokum6, or people will make up their own minds about who the real 'nuts' are, around here.

I apologise, sometimes it is hard to hold the sarcasm in check when you hear the same tired theories being bought up again and again.

 

[Analis]

Never mind that it's a totally different building, so not really comparable, but that extra factor was possibly the 20-story chunk missing from its side. Caracas did not have a massive part of its structure missing, it didn't appear to have a generator fuel line feeding the blaze and there were firefighters dousing the flames. They didn't fight the fire at all on WTC 7, and they heard creaking coming from it that indicated a possible collapse.

But maybe all that was just coincidence and served as a handy cover for the stealth demolition of a huge building. Bigger than any demolition before, in fact.

Oh, and here's a little snippet about the Caracas building:

Earlier in the day, officials expressed fears that the building might collapse.

"There is a problem because the building is made of steel. Because of the high temperatures, the structure could collapse," Interior minister Jesse Chacon told President Hugo Chavez during his weekly radio and television show.

Ha, those fools! Of course it wouldn't collapse, how stupid they are. They should have asked your advice.

Well, each bulding is unique. But all, WTC 7, Los Angeles (May 1988), Caracas or Philadelphia (Feb. 1991) were based on the same principles (Madrid in 2005 was steel-concrete). Still, you're saying that WTC 7 was ravaged by fires similar those buildings. There is no tangible evidence of them. All tangible evidence we do have points towards their non existence. And the only evidence you have of this big, 20 storey missing chunk is a testimony from a firefighter, whose claims about ravaging arsons is contradicted by this same evidence. Very dubious. And yes, still the same question : why, if firefighters fought much stronger arsons at Caracas or Philadelphia (some say more than 18 hours), didn't they fight much weaker ones on WTC 7 ?

But if so, it would retain enough of its initial strenght, and this would result in no collapse.

Structural engineers all over the world disagree with you. But if you have some stunning new evidence you should write a book and get rich.

????? No, not all structural engineers. If buildings with a steel frame are endangered at 500°C, then the whole science of structural engineering must be revised immediately. Like the science of building demolition.
And yes, Pietro_Mercurios has a point : after 9/11, many people (including I) were afraid that more buildings would be put down by arsons. It never happened.

It depends, some said "sounded like an explosion", others said "heard an explosion". In any case, what caused them ?

They probably did hear explosions. Generators exploding, computers going bang maybe, perhaps lots of other combustible items going up in smoke. But explosion does not equal bomb. And who knows whether those sounds were even audible over the noise of a building falling to bits. Debris falling was making loud bangs that could and almost certainly were mistaken for an explosion.

Explanations evolved. First it was gas conducts. Then generators exploding; maybe it could explain some of them, but so many ? Then burning kerosen flowing from upper storeys; but would it explode, and it seems that there were no important fires at lower levels. Then the cracking of beams - much below the damaged storeys ? Now, the falling of debris - audible inside the building ?

And again: a demolition would have been noticeable, completely unmistakeable. There would have been no way to hide a demolition of that size. Perhaps the New World Order has invented silent explosive.

Well, there is a new technology of electronic detonators. An example of a patent, the product was released in 1999:
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA= ... LAY=STATUS
Contrary to electric detonators, those electronic detonators do not produce any seismographic pike. So their sounds are less easy to discriminate from the crumbling.
An example here (in french):
http://www.oricaminingservices.com/file ... 042007.pdf

The collapse of the twin towers was not a classic controlled demolition. They usually begin from the lower floors, there the goal was to suggest that the building collapsed from the damaged storeys. When the building structure was weakened by a series of isolated explosions, difficult to notice, the collapse was initiated by a short sequence of explosions (heard by some). The sound of the collapse covered the sound of explosions as they destroy level after level. And indeed, it was a bigger demolition than before.
As for WTC7, it was an ordinary controlled demolition, from the basement.

It doesn't confirm anything. The quote above is from the scientists at the observatory that published the readings, and they don't agree. No other seismologists seem to have a problem with it either. Yet again you appear to have some amazing in depth knowledge of this event that nobody else has been able to see.

Nobody else ? That's only your opinion.
Well, I studied seismology, but that's not the point. No need to be a Nobel Prize to understand that official assertions do not add up. The Pentagon deflagration shook buildings. It was just above ground level. But it didn't generate a noticeable earth tremor. To be compared with the WTC: there we have two crashes at more than two hundred meters above ground level ; a good example of a decoupling with the ground. But, they supposedly caused a noticeable tremor. So a crash 1 m above ground level, no tremor ; two crashes much above ground level ; two tremors. This does not hold water.
And official seismologists sometimes lie. For example, on 6 october 1999, a 4.6 Richter eartquake occured off Fécamp (Normandy). The official explanation, validated by Anne-Marie SOURIAUX from the OMP at Toulouse, was that it was caused by... the explosion of four 300 kg (200 pd) bombs from 2nd World War ! I don't know what caused this tremor, and why French authorities tried to cover it up. But the assertion that it was 1.2 t of explosives does not make sense.
http://www.azf-10h18.com/NEW_FABIUS.html#IV-4

 

[hokum6]

Still, you're saying that WTC 7 was ravaged by fires similar those buildings. There is no tangible evidence of them. All tangible evidence we do have points towards their non existence. And the only evidence you have of this big, 20 storey missing chunk is a testimony from a firefighter, whose claims about ravaging arsons is contradicted by this same evidence. Very dubious.

So, let me get this straight. You don't think there was a big chunk of the building missing, and you don't believe there was a fire? Is that really what you're going with?

Yup, nothing strange about that. WTC 7 always had scorch marks and the corner of the building missing.

And there is more than one statement from witnesses talking about the fires, the creaking, the buckling of the building and the big chunk missing from it. Where on earth did you get the idea that only one person was saying this??

What next, are you going to claim that there were no planes, that they were actually missiles fitted with holographic projectors?

And yes, still the same question : why, if firefighters fought much stronger arsons at Caracas or Philadelphia (some say more than 18 hours), didn't they fight much weaker ones on WTC 7 ?

Because of the signs the building was in danger of collapsing, which they ascertained from the noises and the visible buckling in its structure.

If buildings with a steel frame are endangered at 500°C, then the whole science of structural engineering must be revised immediately. Like the science of building demolition.

This isn't what anybody is saying at all. I can't tell if you are deliberately taking things out of context, or just don't understand. Other buildings with steel frames are endangered...if they are hit by planes or other skyscrapers.

Explanations evolved. First it was gas conducts. Then generators exploding; maybe it could explain some of them, but so many ? Then burning kerosen flowing from upper storeys; but would it explode, and it seems that there were no important fires at lower levels. Then the cracking of beams - much below the damaged storeys ? Now, the falling of debris - audible inside the building ?

Yes, theories change. There is nothing unusual about this. That's how things work, as we gather new evidence or come up with new ideas you adapt and change a theory.

You know who you sound like? A creationist trying to disprove evolution. "But, but, you said this, and now you're saying this and so in that case everything you say must be completely wrong!!"

But then that is the truther's conspiracy theories in a nutshell. It's 'God of the gaps'. No evidence or logic, just poking holes and pointing out inconsistencies and mistakes as though that proves what you're saying.

Well, there is a new technology of electronic detonators. An example of a patent, the product was released in 1999:
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA= ... LAY=STATUS
Contrary to electric detonators, those electronic detonators do not produce any seismographic pike. So their sounds are less easy to discriminate from the crumbling.
An example here (in french):
http://www.oricaminingservices.com/file ... 042007.pdf

Uh, that's a detonator. It is attached to explosives to set them off. It doesn't prevent an explosion from making a noise or perform any magic that would explain the total lack of evidence for a controlled demolition.

The collapse of the twin towers was not a classic controlled demolition. They usually begin from the lower floors, there the goal was to suggest that the building collapsed from the damaged storeys. When the building structure was weakened by a series of isolated explosions, difficult to notice, the collapse was initiated by a short sequence of explosions (heard by some). The sound of the collapse covered the sound of explosions as they destroy level after level. And indeed, it was a bigger demolition than before.

Really. Well, never mind that nobody heard, saw or recorded any bombs (remember, explosion does not equal bomb), and that from videos it's clear that the tower buckled at the point where the planes hit...how would they have fitted these bombs without any body knowing? Who was responsible for putting them there? Why didn't they say anything when thousands of people died? There'd have be an awful lot of people involved, and not one of them spoke up?

As for WTC7, it was an ordinary controlled demolition, from the basement.

An ordinary controlled demolition that made no sound whatsoever, and didn't require any additional explosives along the rest of the structure. Interesting. Must have been those magical electronic detonators.

Nobody else ? That's only your opinion.

Except, it's not an opinion. By 'nobody else', I mean 'no other experienced, qualified scientists with expertise in this area'. It's ridiculous that I'd even have to make that distinction.

Well, I studied seismology...blah blah

And yet no other seismologists, geologists or anybody have spoken up about these mysterious discrepancies? It's only been noticed by people on the internet? The arrogance is quite amazing though. The idea that you have spotted something which has been missed by people who do this as career. It'd be funny if it wasn't a bit sad.


You're getting sillier with every post.