WTC Demolition Conspiracy

Was the WTC disaster an inside job?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 35.7%
  • No

    Votes: 9 64.3%

  • Total voters
    14

Heckler

The unspeakable mass
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
5,289
Reaction score
2,223
Points
219
techybloke666 said:
IMHO
1. a plane did hit the Pentagon , I think the NIST report is flawed mind.
2. two planes hit the towers and their poor construction was their down fall with respect to fire
3. The act was carried out by some Hijackers , I still don't think we know exactly all the names but its close enough.
4. Some of the US government new about the plan and used it as an excuse to attack Iraq etc. to gain control over OIL and further their goal of a US Empire.
Hmmm I'm with you on all of these apart from 4.) where I'd have to agree that it was definitely used as the long awaited excuse for a pre-determined plan but the extent to which this was known about and/or allowed to happen is the big conspirital question. I'm still very tempted to conclude that the attack was a very fortuitous cock up in the intelligence. They may have had intel of a attack with no clue who would perform it (hence the arse covering with names produced from thin air post the attack) or when it would happen.

Further I think oil in Iraq was a secondary consideration to having a secure country under puppet regime control from which to build a solid base in the area.
 

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
11,412
Reaction score
11,243
Points
309
Jerry_B said:
jimv1 said:
But I still find it amazing that the best security system the Pentagon had at the time was the camera on the Gas Station across the street.
And so how do you actually know that this is the case? And does this also mean that you believe that something other than an airliner hit the Pentagon?
Because I believe the tapes were taken from the gas station and there are not that many official shots considering it is the most important building in the world defencewise.
As to your second question, I don't see from my statement how you can extrapolate that into my meaning something else hit the pentagon...unless you are jumping to conclusions and prejudging.
 

crunchy5

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
1,754
Reaction score
10
Points
54
Whitley Strieber rambles on about 9.11 and all that. ;)

http://www.unknowncountry.com/journal/?id=250

Five years ago today was the worst day of most of our lives, akin to the day the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor for our parents’ generation. I was half asleep in bed in San Antonio when I suddenly heard on the radio that a plane had struck the World Trade Center. I threw off the covers and headed for the TV, saying to Anne that I thought I’d heard that a commuter plane had hit one of the twin towers.

My immediate thought was that the tower might come down. I had two reasons to fear this: the first was that, when the towers were being built, I had flown over them in the company of an engineer who was working on them, who happened to be my seatmate on a business trip. When I commented on how I had read that there was so much wire in them that the construction job had actually driven up the price of copper, he merely muttered that he wouldn’t want to work in one of them, not ever.

I was surprised, and naturally asked him why. “They’re deathtraps,” he said. He went on to explain that they couldn’t withstand much force because the curtains were load bearing, meaning that the outer walls bore the weight of the structure, or part of it.

He said that if a jet like the one we were in were to hit one of the towers midway down, it would almost certainly collapse. Given that one of LaGuardia airport’s main approaches goes down the Hudson and doglegs around the tip of Manhattan, many hundreds of flights a week would be taking turns around the towers. I know statistics: I realized that the probability of an accident was there.

I was so struck by this possibility that I wrote a story about a 747 crashing into the towers and causing both of them to fall over. Where that story is now, I don’t know. It’s been at least 30 years since I laid eyes on it.

The second thing that crossed my mind was that somebody had told me at some point that buildings in which US intelligence agencies have secret devices and classified information are routinely mined, so that they can be demolished if there is any chance that the secrets might be compromised. Understand, I don’t know this for a fact, but it certainly seems possible that at least the areas where such secrets are kept would be capable of being destroyed if necessary.

I turned on the TV and saw smoke and flame pouring out of the first tower. My heart just broke, to think of all the suffering that must be going on in that structure, and the agony of friends and family on the outside. Then the second plane hit and I thought, ‘this isn’t an accident.’ Then I thought of the National Security Agency assets in the Twin Towers and the CIA
 

Analis

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
1,624
Reaction score
355
Points
99
Quote:
"1.a plane did hit the Pentagon. I think the NIST report is flawed mind.
2. two planes did hit the towers and their poor construction was their downfall with respect to fire.
3 The act was carried out by some Hijackers, I still don't think we know already all the names but it's close enough.
4.Some of the US government knew about the plan and used it as an excuse to attack Iraq etc. to gain control over OIL and further their goal of a US Empire."

I believe that most probably the newly-elected US government intended to use terrorist attacks as a motive to enforce their aggressive and ruthless policy. It has been showed that it lowered the guard against terrorism soon after the new president was installed. Quite surprizing from people with a war mentality, and already seeing themselves as in conflict with whole parts of the world. Notably the muslim world. The greatest and most immediate danger from it being Al Qaida and other terrorists. Those certainly not peace-loving rulers knew that better than anyone else. Now, it is not easy to ascertain what level did exactly. At the summit, it was maybe more of a wait-and-see attitude, they lazzily awaited an attack by creating the right conditions for it. On a more hidden level, some people had maybe a more active behaviour. The two are not mutually exclusive. Levels and agencies are so disjointed that it allows a great number of scenarios. But it is indisputable that some US officials had an extended knowledge that something was afoot. They knew that terrorists intended to hijack planes in the US airspace, and that civilian buildings (including the WTC) were potential targets. Their hierarchy impeded the investigators' progress. Was it by stupid conformism, or by will of let it happen? The truth is often complex, I think it depended on people. That it was a mix of LIHOP and cock-up. And that we will probably never know what exactly happened.

The truth could be even more complex. Other possibilities for a cock-up, but below full Al Qaida-US services cooperation, are:
1)Investigations were delayed at least partially because of Saudi protests (or fear of them). It would explain why so many Saudis were quickly evacuated from the USA.
2)Mohammed ATTA being a double agent for CIA and Al Qaida, but loyal only to the latter. He deceived his "employers" by assuring them that he intended only to perform harmless hijackings at their request. And perhaps other people in the US services knew of his true intents anad gave him a hand (see FT176, p.54).
3)Negociations were undertaken between OBL and the US security services in 2001 to reach a kind of peace agreement. So investigations were disregarded because the situation was believed to be under control. But OBL intended only to deceive them, or was sincere but lost control of an operation already in process (the commando deciding to carry on at all cost). It would explain a number of oddities at the time. Why OBL was so relunctant to take responsabilty, and the US government to attack Afganisthan at first. And why there is still no US federal warrant against OBL...
4)A combination of 2) and 3): the negociations including the perpetration of limited attacks, such as mere hijackings or car bombings. It would be rather funny if OBL truly believed in his first video that he had been deceived by his negociating partners...
 

crunchy5

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
1,754
Reaction score
10
Points
54
A list of some highly placed dissenters to the official line on 911.

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

Many well known and respected senior U.S. military officers, intelligence services and law enforcement veterans, and government officials have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report or have made public statements that contradict the Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This website is a collection of their public statements. It should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.

Listed below are statements by more than 90 of these senior officials. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed. These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their decades of service to their country, demonstrate that criticism of the Report is not irresponsible, illogical, nor disloyal, per se. In fact, it can be just the opposite
 

Pietro_Mercurios

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
12,019
Reaction score
186
Points
114
Possible motives for the events of 9/11? There may be several. What about Larry Silverstein, the lease holder of the WTC, who took out a $3.5 million insurance policy on the WTC, only a couple of months before the attacks? He even tried claiming twice for the two separate plane attacks?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6687239.stm

World Trade Center claims settled
BBC Business News. 24 May 2007

A lengthy legal dispute over insurance claims for the old World Trade Center has been settled, clearing the way for the site to be rebuilt.

Seven insurers have agreed to pay an extra $2bn (£1bn) to the group seeking to redevelop the site, destroyed by the 11 September terrorist attacks.

The deal was brokered by New York state officials and Larry Silverstein, who held the lease to the Twin Towers.

Mr Silverstein has now secured more than $4.5bn in insurance payouts.

Five-year battle

This is less than the property developer, who held a $3.5bn insurance policy on the World Trade Center at the time of its collapse, was awarded following a 2004 trial.

The settlement ends once and for all a five-year legal battle between Mr Silverstein and insurance companies over claims for replacing the Twin Towers.

According to a statement from New York state Governor Eliot Spitzer and state insurance superintendent Eric Dinallo, the companies involved in the settlement included Allianz, Swiss Re, Travelers and Zurich Financial Services.

"I do not think anyone thought it would ever end," Mr Dinallo said of the settlement.

"I am most proud of an industry that stepped up. The rebuilding would not be possible without the insurers."

Mr Spitzer said the agreement removed the "last major barrier to rebuilding" while New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg described it as "a major step" in the area's regeneration.

The proceeds of the settlement will be split between the Port Authority of New York, which owns the site and Silverstein Properties, which is spearheading its rebuilding.

The end of legal proceedings will make it easier for the group to raise finance for the massive project.

Work on the new flagship World Trade Center Freedom Tower began last year.
$4.5 billion, not quite the $7 billion Silverstein was after, but a tidy sum for the destroyed, asbestos infested, buildings, nonetheless.
 

Mike_Pratt33

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
624
Reaction score
3
Points
49
What were the grounds on which the insurance company were refusing to pay or were they just haggling over the amount? I bet it wasn't a suspision that he had anything to do with it.

I might as well post this link here as well as the pentagon thread http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono. Just because someone benefits it cannot be taken as proof if involvement.

Silverstein is lucky in one way, he was first. Most insurance companies have added exclusion clauses for terrorism to their policies. I know mine did.
 

ted_bloody_maul

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
May 23, 2003
Messages
4,586
Reaction score
10
Points
69
Mike_Pratt33 said:
What were the grounds on which the insurance company were refusing to pay or were they just haggling over the amount? I bet it wasn't a suspision that he had anything to do with it.

I might as well post this link here as well as the pentagon thread http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono. Just because someone benefits it cannot be taken as proof if involvement.

Silverstein is lucky in one way, he was first. Most insurance companies have added exclusion clauses for terrorism to their policies. I know mine did.
As I recall it was something to do with the number of times the WTC was attacked ie whether or not the two planes constituted two separate attacks or were part of the same incident.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Benefit does not necessarily prove involvement, although motive can lead to intent.
 

ted_bloody_maul

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
May 23, 2003
Messages
4,586
Reaction score
10
Points
69
crunchy5 said:
I'm sure I recall some of the deriders mocking those who even believed such a flight took place, now it looks like Bin Laden may have paid for it, good job the FBI were on the case.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/usattackssa ... Dh0BzMWM0F
As I recall it no-one was disputing that the flight took place only that it took place during the period of restrictions on flights. This article actually confirms the mockers and deriders point. Also there's no evidence prevented here which backs up the claim that Bin Laden chartered it.
 

waitew

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
312
Reaction score
4
Points
34
Well,I can tell you this.During those few days after 911 when NO planes were to be flying there was at least one plane flying!I know it flew over my house.I live under the approach to LAX & planes are constantly flying over..one every couple minutes..it's just 'background' noise to us...it's all ways there.When the planes stopped flying it was defening silence!Quite unusual.Anyway either the night of 9/11 or 9/12 a plane did fly over the LA area..in fact it woke me up!Who or what was on that flight I can't tell you.Other than to say it was a large jet & that it was going from east to west.
 

Timble2

Imaginary Person
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Messages
5,924
Reaction score
1,997
Points
234
Location
In a Liminal Zone
I thought it was just civilian flights that were grounded. I'd guess it was something military.
 

crunchy5

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
1,754
Reaction score
10
Points
54
Well worth a look, some very interesting new angles covered, including some very suspicious family groupings. 8) If the link opens halfway down the page scroll back up to the top to start reading.

http://tinyurl.com/29vmse
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,238
Reaction score
9,119
Points
284
crunchy5 said:
Well worth a look, some very interesting new angles covered, including some very suspicious family groupings. 8) If the link opens halfway down the page scroll back up to the top to start reading.

http://tinyurl.com/29vmse
Well, yes.

It only took about four hours to read this, but some important questions have been raised.....

8)
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,238
Reaction score
9,119
Points
284
Robert Fisk: Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11
Published: 25 August 2007

Each time I lecture abroad on the Middle East, there is always someone in the audience – just one – whom I call the "raver". Apologies here to all the men and women who come to my talks with bright and pertinent questions – often quite humbling ones for me as a journalist – and which show that they understand the Middle East tragedy a lot better than the journalists who report it. But the "raver" is real. He has turned up in corporeal form in Stockholm and in Oxford, in Sao Paulo and in Yerevan, in Cairo, in Los Angeles and, in female form, in Barcelona. No matter the country, there will always be a "raver".

His – or her – question goes like this. Why, if you believe you're a free journalist, don't you report what you really know about 9/11? Why don't you tell the truth – that the Bush administration (or the CIA or Mossad, you name it) blew up the twin towers? Why don't you reveal the secrets behind 9/11? The assumption in each case is that Fisk knows – that Fisk has an absolute concrete, copper-bottomed fact-filled desk containing final proof of what "all the world knows" (that usually is the phrase) – who destroyed the twin towers. Sometimes the "raver" is clearly distressed. One man in Cork screamed his question at me, and then – the moment I suggested that his version of the plot was a bit odd – left the hall, shouting abuse and kicking over chairs.

Usually, I have tried to tell the "truth"; that while there are unanswered questions about 9/11, I am the Middle East correspondent of The Independent, not the conspiracy correspondent; that I have quite enough real plots on my hands in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Iran, the Gulf, etc, to worry about imaginary ones in Manhattan. My final argument – a clincher, in my view – is that the Bush administration has screwed up everything – militarily, politically diplomatically – it has tried to do in the Middle East; so how on earth could it successfully bring off the international crimes against humanity in the United States on 11 September 2001?

Well, I still hold to that view. Any military which can claim – as the Americans did two days ago – that al-Qa'ida is on the run is not capable of carrying out anything on the scale of 9/11. "We disrupted al-Qa'ida, causing them to run," Colonel David Sutherland said of the preposterously code-named "Operation Lightning Hammer" in Iraq's Diyala province. "Their fear of facing our forces proves the terrorists know there is no safe haven for them." And more of the same, all of it untrue.

Within hours, al-Qa'ida attacked Baquba in battalion strength and slaughtered all the local sheikhs who had thrown in their hand with the Americans. It reminds me of Vietnam, the war which George Bush watched from the skies over Texas – which may account for why he this week mixed up the end of the Vietnam war with the genocide in a different country called Cambodia, whose population was eventually rescued by the same Vietnamese whom Mr Bush's more courageous colleagues had been fighting all along.

But – here we go. I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11. It's not just the obvious non sequiturs: where are the aircraft parts (engines, etc) from the attack on the Pentagon? Why have the officials involved in the United 93 flight (which crashed in Pennsylvania) been muzzled? Why did flight 93's debris spread over miles when it was supposed to have crashed in one piece in a field? Again, I'm not talking about the crazed "research" of David Icke's Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster – which should send any sane man back to reading the telephone directory.

I am talking about scientific issues. If it is true, for example, that kerosene burns at 820C under optimum conditions, how come the steel beams of the twin towers – whose melting point is supposed to be about 1,480C – would snap through at the same time? (They collapsed in 8.1 and 10 seconds.) What about the third tower – the so-called World Trade Centre Building 7 (or the Salmon Brothers Building) – which collapsed in 6.6 seconds in its own footprint at 5.20pm on 11 September? Why did it so neatly fall to the ground when no aircraft had hit it? The American National Institute of Standards and Technology was instructed to analyse the cause of the destruction of all three buildings. They have not yet reported on WTC 7. Two prominent American professors of mechanical engineering – very definitely not in the "raver" bracket – are now legally challenging the terms of reference of this final report on the grounds that it could be "fraudulent or deceptive".

Journalistically, there were many odd things about 9/11. Initial reports of reporters that they heard "explosions" in the towers – which could well have been the beams cracking – are easy to dismiss. Less so the report that the body of a female air crew member was found in a Manhattan street with her hands bound. OK, so let's claim that was just hearsay reporting at the time, just as the CIA's list of Arab suicide-hijackers, which included three men who were – and still are – very much alive and living in the Middle East, was an initial intelligence error.

But what about the weird letter allegedly written by Mohamed Atta, the Egyptian hijacker-murderer with the spooky face, whose "Islamic" advice to his gruesome comrades – released by the CIA – mystified every Muslim friend I know in the Middle East? Atta mentioned his family – which no Muslim, however ill-taught, would be likely to include in such a prayer. He reminds his comrades-in-murder to say the first Muslim prayer of the day and then goes on to quote from it. But no Muslim would need such a reminder – let alone expect the text of the "Fajr" prayer to be included in Atta's letter.

Let me repeat. I am not a conspiracy theorist. Spare me the ravers. Spare me the plots. But like everyone else, I would like to know the full story of 9/11, not least because it was the trigger for the whole lunatic, meretricious "war on terror" which has led us to disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan and in much of the Middle East. Bush's happily departed adviser Karl Rove once said that "we're an empire now – we create our own reality". True? At least tell us. It would stop people kicking over chairs.

http://news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article2893860.ece
 

Jerry_B

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
8,054
Reaction score
59
Points
129
It doesn't seem as if any of them have offered up their findings for peer review - if their evidence and analysis was clear then that's the first thing that they should do. And saying that Frank A. DeMartini is on their side is somewhat dodgy IMHO. He was killed on 9/11 and it's presumptive to say that he'd actually agree with anything on that site.
 

ted_bloody_maul

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
May 23, 2003
Messages
4,586
Reaction score
10
Points
69
And again most of them have qualifications that make them no more or less qualified to speak on the subject than anyone else. The fact that somebody is an expert in Feminist Theology or a professor of theatre doesn't sound half as convincing as the letters that accompany their name, imo.
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,238
Reaction score
9,119
Points
284
For UK viewers tonight:

C4, 8.00pm

9/11: The Miracle of Stairway B

The story of how 12 firefighters, a police officer and an office worker survived inside the North Tower of the World Trade Centre as it collapsed on top of them on September 11, 2001. The people shared what they assumed to be their final thoughts and endured burial under half a million tonnes of debris before finally managing to contact the outside world.

Might be grist to someone's conspiratorial mill! ;)
 

Jerry_B

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
8,054
Reaction score
59
Points
129
9/11 demolition theory challenged

An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

The study by a Cambridge University engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.

One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition".

The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell.

Over 2,800 people were killed in the devastating attacks on New York.

After reviewing television footage of the Trade Center's destruction, engineers had proposed the idea of "progressive collapse" to explain the way the twin towers disintegrated on 11 September 2001.

This mode of structural failure describes the way the building fell straight down rather than toppling, with each successive floor crushing the one beneath (an effect called "pancaking").

Resistance to collapse

Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localised failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures.

In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.

"The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website.

Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.

His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.

This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.

'Fair assumption'

The University of Cambridge engineer said his results therefore suggested progressive collapse was "a fair assumption in terms of how the building fell".

"One thing that confounded engineers was how falling parts of the structure ploughed through undamaged building beneath and brought the towers down so quickly," said Dr Seffen.

He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behaviour of the buildings.

The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronised rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center.

This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.

Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble.

Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse.

Dr Seffen's research could help inform future building design.

Source

Now let's hope the pro-demolition theorists offer up their ideas for similar peer review.
 

crunchy5

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
1,754
Reaction score
10
Points
54
And here's a guy from MIT with a pro demo view :D very indepth and well presented as you'd expect from an MIT engineer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8XToX7aSdg

Some other good vids along side, while reading some of the comments I learned that ephedra based diet pills could help burn off body fat by raising the body's metabolic rate without exercise.
 

Jerry_B

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
8,054
Reaction score
59
Points
129
MIT engineer in what discipline(s)? And has he offered up his work for peer review, or is it just another case of thinking that posting it on the internet, public speaking, etc. will suffice? I really wonder why the various allegedly qualified people who are pro-demo aren't offering up their theories peer-reviewed. To do so would really get the ball rolling, and we could see whether what they say has any weight, based on the review.
 

Dr_Baltar

Left Foot of God
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
2,662
Reaction score
1,060
Points
169
Jerry_B said:
MIT engineer in what discipline(s)?
Quite.

"...a 60 year old former electrical engineer and more recently a Family Practice physician. I graduated from MIT with an SB degree in 1974, with a combined Biology-EE major (this was before a Bio-Medical Engineering Department existed), and before settling down to do clinical medicine I worked for about eight years in electronics and electro-mechanical engineering. For the past 27 years I have been working full time as a family physician, doing office-based primary care here in the rural San Joaquin Valley of central California."

Highly qualified in the science of building collapse. Obviously.
 

escargot

Disciple of Marduk
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
32,264
Reaction score
38,899
Points
309
Location
HM The Tower of London
Before the conspiracy theorists start to wonder where Techy is at this significant time, I'd like to point out that it is still the evening golf season. Normal paranoid service will be resumed in the autumn.

He may be seen in action in 'Rate My Swing' on youtube.
 

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
11,412
Reaction score
11,243
Points
309
For those who want the blueprints of the relevant buildings, there's a fine selection of resources in the downloads section of

http://www.ae911truth.org/

This site is run by professional architects and engineers who question the official line on the collapse of the towers and the NIST report.

There are also video presentations and technical articles. Be aware that NONE of them are acceptable as evidence or are up for further discussion however, as we are now to discount anything that comes from the internet ;)
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,238
Reaction score
9,119
Points
284
9/11 third tower mystery 'solved'
By Mike Rudin
BBC, Conspiracy Files

The final mystery of 9/11 will soon be solved, according to US experts investigating the collapse of the third tower at the World Trade Center.

The 47-storey third tower, known as Tower Seven, collapsed seven hours after the twin towers.

Investigators are expected to say ordinary fires on several different floors caused the collapse. [Surprise, surprise!]

Conspiracy theorists have argued that the third tower was brought down in a controlled demolition.

Unlike the twin towers, Tower Seven was not hit by a plane.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, based near Washington DC, is expected to conclude in its long-awaited report this month that ordinary fires caused the building to collapse.

That would make it the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse because of fire.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology's lead investigator, Dr Shyam Sunder, spoke to BBC Two's "The Conspiracy Files":

"Our working hypothesis now actually suggests that it was normal building fires that were growing and spreading throughout the multiple floors that may have caused the ultimate collapse of the buildings." [may?]

However, a group of architects, engineers and scientists say the official explanation that fires caused the collapse is impossible. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth argue there must have been a controlled demolition.

The founder of the group, Richard Gage, says the collapse of the third tower is an obvious example of a controlled demolition using explosives.

"Building Seven is the smoking gun of 9/11. A sixth grader can look at this building falling at virtually freefall speed, symmetrically and smoothly, and see that it is not a natural process.

"Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance", says Gage, "they don't go straight down through themselves."

There are a number of facts that have encouraged conspiracy theories about Tower Seven.

Although its collapse potentially made architectural history, all of the thousands of tonnes of steel from the skyscraper were taken away to be melted down.
The third tower was occupied by the Secret Service, the CIA, the Department of Defence and the Office of Emergency Management, which would co-ordinate any response to a disaster or a terrorist attack.
The destruction of the third tower was never mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. The first official inquiry into Tower Seven by the Federal Emergency Management Agency was unable to be definitive about what caused its collapse.

In May 2002 FEMA concluded that the building collapsed because intense fires had burned for hours, fed by thousands of gallons of diesel stored in the building. But it said this had "only a low probability of occurrence" and more work was needed.
But now nearly seven years after 9/11 the definitive official explanation of what happened to Tower Seven is finally about to be published in America.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology has spent more than two years investigating Tower Seven but lead investigator Dr Shyam Sunder rejects criticism that it has been slow.

"We've been at this for a little over two years and doing a two or two and a half year investigation is not at all unusual. That's the same kind of time frame that takes place when we do aeroplane crash investigations, it takes a few years."

With no steel from Tower 7 to study, investigators have instead made four extremely complex computer models worked out to the finest detail. They're confident their approach can now provide the answers. Dr Sunder says the investigation is moving as fast as possible.

"It's a very complex problem. It requires a level of fidelity in the modelling and rigour in the analysis that has never been done before."

Other skyscrapers haven't fully collapsed before because of fire. But NIST argues that what happened on 9/11 was unique.

etc...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7485331.stm
 

jeff544

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
300
Reaction score
59
Points
44
I was just about to post that. Rynner, you just beat me to it.

Well, they seem to have cleared that little mystery up - haven't they? :lol:
 

Bigfoot73

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
1,117
Reaction score
11
Points
44
Me too !

fire fighters could not fight the fires in Tower 7, because they didn't have enough water and focused on saving lives.
Presumably everyone is familiar with Larry Silverstein's oft-YouTubed 'pull it' remark, interpreted by conspiracists as referring to controlled demolition and by sceptics as meaning the firefighting operation.
What construction can be placed on that remark now that it seems there was no firefighting operation? Saving lives probably means evacuating the occupants, which wouldn't have taken long and isn't going to be stopped on anybody's order. Silverstein was very vague about what the fire chief actually said to him.
Hmmmm.........
 
Top