And WTC 7 was build on a con edison substation, which also meant the building was less stable because it had to have a smaller foundation built around the substation. ______ Ah this would intensify the shock waves from the fall of the twin towers even further -- the seismic event... As the appalling events of September 11 unfolded, we found that we had recorded numerous seismic signals from two plane impacts and building collapses from the two World Trade Center (WTC) towers, often at times different than those being reported elsewhere. Collapses of the two WTC towers generated large seismic waves, observed in five states and up to 428 km away. The North Tower collapse was the largest seismic source and had local magnitude ML 2.3. link
WTC 7 Collapse CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one." FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner. NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse. According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down." There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities. Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time." WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse. link FIRE STORM: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse. PHOTOGRAPH BY NEW YORK OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
To be fair I would ask if you have listened to Professor Steve Jones lecture on the collapse of the wtc buildings? Since I don't really know what happened on 9-11; I have to believe the official report. But the alternate viewpoint should not be dismissed or shouted down. I find it highly unlikely that an inside job could be kept quiet. But I also understand that things just aren't always what they seem. That is why I enjoy reading the incredulous investigations. Another execellent work is Ruppert's book Crossing the Rubicon. Watching Professor Jones' lecture is worth the two hours. link
People, we can argue this all day, but what I want to know is why, in the biggest disaster in the history of the USA, there was no investigation done. Tell me that please.
Because the errors of omission and commission committed by the administration would come to light. And we certainly couldn't have had that at any time that might create bad press for the administration, and certainly not before the 2004 election. Thankfully, we had the Republican Congress completely abdicating their Constitutional responsibilities for 6 years.
I dont think it was an inside job at all... however, i can understand why some people feel that way when you see some of the stupid things that come out of people's mouths like that new century group or whatever it's called.
I still don't get why you keep on saying there was no investigation done. There were several investigations done. There was the 9/11 Commission report looking at the lead up to what happened, there was the ASCE report looking at how the buildings fell down, there were a few more done too that I don't recall their names but there were several done.
usually, when people are reasonably happy when determining who is guilty, they don't want to investigate further. Let's say, for example, that a neighborhood kid is raped and killed. The first suspect is shady old man mckeever, who was always described as a weird and possibly a pedophile with some angry tendencies. The police find child p*rn on his computer as well as pictures of all the neighborhood kids. They put him to trial, rule that he is guilty and stick him in jail. Because Old man Mckeever fit the profile so well and because people were disgusted no one wanted to defend him. He fit the face of evil, so why look elsewhere. Later, evidence pops up that the kid's father might have done it, but it is quickly dismissed because the father is a prominant reverand in the community, and besides, saying the father did it would be saying McKeever didn't do it, and no one wants to support a pedophile, right? So, regardless if Old Man McKeever did it, its already too late to double check our facts because we already made up our minds. We'd rather have the right villain in our stories than bring true justice. That's a fact of human nature.
I've heard some of it but not the whole thing and will do so when I get the chance. On a related note I've watched some of the videos that were posted and I still don't see anything tht would seriously challenge the idea that the buildings were brought down due to the plane strikes and the ensuing fire. The lines regarding hearing an explosion would makes sense given the sive and energy released by the collapse of the floor plates. Remember each floor in the towers was about an acre in size. When of those comes down you are displacing a lot of air rapidly A lot of the comments also seem likely to be due to the confusion of the day. A disaster, even a home fire, in general is chaotic and it takes awhile to get a sense of what is exactly happening also given the size of the WTC many people have different POV's and while things are happening things get distorted and rumors easily fly. If many of you will remember during that morning and early afternoon there were reports that a truck bomb had blown up outside the State Department or that there were hi-jacked planes heading towards LA. Skepticism is important and the official report shouldn't be accepted on face value, that said though if all the known facts are taken into account it makes sense. While alternate viewpoints shouldn't be dismissed out of hand they should also be looked at skeptically. As I've said before on a few other subjects. Just because an opinion is a minority opinion doesn't mean its likely to be more true. The problem I have with the conspiracy theories is that in many cases they rely on a selective reading of the facts and also misunderstandings about the nature of construction. This to me is by far the biggest problem as such a large scale conspiracy to both have planes hit, plant charges ahead of time, and then cover up that evidence seems fantastical that such a thing could be pulled off. I haven't read that book but what I've heard of it is that it mostly deals with the political machinations. I'm primarily speaking regarding my own knowledge of construction and am far less qualified to speak about what sort of political machinations. Their may have been somesort of political machinations and to me if there was a conspiracy the conspiracy would've been advance knowledge that 9/11 was going to take place and was allowed to rather than trying to engineer the demolition of the towers. I'm still very skeptical of that and the 9/11 Commission report seems more likely. There are huge inherent difficulties in pulling off 9/11 and even with foreknowledge many things could've gone wrong and 9/11 never happened. For that matter those who might've been conspirators 9/11 could've blown up in their face. What if UA93's target was the White House and the passengers never rose up and they succeeded in killing Cheney? What if the plane struck the Pentagon in a more critical area and it crippled our military leadership? What if the collapse of the WTC was more powerful and it devestated lower Manhattan including the NYSE? There just seem to be too many things that don't make sense for a conspiracy. IMO the most rational explanation is that this was carried out by fanatics who hated the US and were fanatical enough to not care that much about the consequences. For all of the potential benefits to neo-conservative conspirators there just seems to be so many things that could go wrong and could be gained through easier means.
As time moves forward, more and more people will realizes they have the freedom and voice to say whatever they want, whenever they want. Now you add an incredible venue like the internet, well, these opinions are going to get a lot of playing time. So I will acknowledge your opinion ROCKET RY, but not your Poll. What I fear most is the extreme pursuit of individuals freedoms. If the good ol' USofA falls, this pursuit will be the main reason...bet on it. Wake up, history is repeating itself. RR
I certainly agree with everything you posted. I just don't like the 'conspiracy' label. Like I said, I don't know, nor do I honesty believe I could know if there was any complicity to the attack. I certainly don't want to get into any contention over it. Ruppert's book is not the all inclusive evidence, his implication is complicity on Cheney's part. There now you don't have to read the end of the book anyways. It's his investigative approach that makes it a good read. He gives enough of a overview of the circumstances of Sept. 11, 2001 and they are well footnoted, that you can see the opportunity for the govt. to at least 'allow' the attacks. His book isn't about physical evidence, because as he points out physical evidence is the worst thing to argue about. I would suggest you read the first part of the book (duh- part1) if you ever get the chance. I have studied this administration since reading the book, did my homework, and that has moved me in the position of not trusting them at all. I don't like conspiracy because it implies a large group of conspirators who are sworn to secrecy. I like the use of complicity, a small group working in concert to orchestrate events. Now whether that included a demolition of any kind, I have no convincing proof. But I have not read in all the debunking back and forth any convincing proof for anything really- there are always these holes that are filled with someone's best guess. The real key to understanding the so called conspiracy views is founded in a few good researshers going into the original construction of the WTC. It is overlooked that FEMA and the ASCE report had this wrong and later had to go and change the diagrams. One of the most interesting histories I've read on the construction of the towers was that the inner core was a steel reinforced cast concrete tubular core - link I've read and seen lots of other pictures of the original construction and studied it. I have built commercial buildings, but nothing like this, my father is a commerical contractor by trade and worked for years for Tellepsen Construction here in Houston building some of the skyscrapers in downtown. He also was the Construction Manager over the Astrodome renovation right before Bud Adams fled town. I have personally worked on no more than a 6 story building for SW Bell in Houston when I was working for my father, but I have enough knowledge of structural engineering to understand what I am reading on the internet. I certainly understand the explanation of the intense fire and the pancake scenario with regards to the WTC buildings. I didn't want to go point counter point on the structural scenarios because most of that should be based on a common understanding of the actual core construction of each tower. I did not know how much you have read up on its actual construction. I know one thing, if it was brought down by demolition it was a remarkably successful one. And if it was a pancake scenario, it was even more remarkable based on the two best designs I have found as to the original construction. I believe the govt. was complicit in the attack. I don't have any way of making up my mind on demolition except to say it seems absurd that it could have been pulled off. So take my comments with a grain of salt, I'm not losing sleep over conspiracies. BTW- NIST did not support the pancake theory either. That was FEMA. and the Popular Mechanics story. NIST just ended up saying they didn't consider the controlled demolition hypothesis because they already concluded that the plane and the fire did it. The problem is if you look at their drawing it is not compatible with the original construction drawings if you take the time to study them. And that really proves nothing. here is the site 2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis. NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers. Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse. Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower. NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
I've read a lot of the conjecture regarding opportunities to allow the attack which is why I think if there is conspiracy or complicity it would be in allowing the attack rather than in taking down the building. Again as I stated in my earlier post while I find this might be possible it strikes me as unlikely given that there are many things that would be difficult to predict and the gains that conspiracists might want could be reached much easier. I have a very hard time seeing that people primarily interested in money and power would be willing to sacrifice a major financial and military centers. The risk of something going wrong just seems to great. You might not trust them but without further evidence its a stretch that they are then part of a conspiracy of this nature. I'm not sure with your definition what is the difference. "Conspiracy" my understanding is orchestrating the event. "Complicity" would be foreknowledge of the event and either working to bring it about or not working to stop it. I've studied the original drawings and that was addressed in the ASCE report. One other thing that was addressed in the report is that the construction differed somewhat from the original design. This isn't unusual in construction as contractors will try to cut costs or things will arise in construction that couldn't be predicted in the original design. One thing that changed in the core design was that when the towers were built there was less concrete used in them than was originally designed. This was primarily a costs savings measure but also had to do with problems of weight and instead of encasing the core steel in concrete drywall was used to provide the fireproofing. Looking at the link you provided much of whats in it seems to be questionable conjecture such as claiming that a black line viewed from 100's of yards away is 3" rebar or that a grey triangular viewed is a concrete shear wall. Further it needs belief in another conspiracy that the construction drawings were faked. Since it claims that other drawings with later dates don't match the original drawings. I find that highly skeptical as of course drawings with later dates wouldn't match original designs as they are revisions based upon change orders during construction which happens all the time. I read the link and I'm not sure why NIST doesn't as support the "pancake" theory as its very obvious that the floors are failing and falling on top of each other. What I gather they are saying is that the external vertical structure failed initiating the collapse and not the initial failure of the floor plates. So while the buildings do pancake down it started with a failure of the wall and not the floor. Either way though neither approach would disagree with the idea that the strutural steel was weakened in a prolonged fire and that the explosions of the plane strikes blew off the gypsum fireproofing. Its just a disagreement of what went first, walls or floors. In the link you post though it sounds like NIST did consider a controlled demolition and found some severe problems with that. Given the complexity of the 9/11 its true that we might never know exactly what happened but the most logical explanations still are the official versions. The alternative theories either don't match with known facts, rely upon even more conjecture, or belief in further conspiracy that the original or later design documents were faked. Its not beyond the realm of possibility that those could be true but it strikes me as very unlikely.
Perhaps I missed it somewhere in this thread, but in the conspiracy scenario, what is the motive for the government in destroying WTC7. It seems superfluous. Would it have been any less of a disaster in the national consciousness if the destruction had been limited to the two towers? As an iconic symbol, WTC7 is little more than an afterthought. Or is there another conspiracy scenario besides 'shock the public into supporting imperialistic wars' scenario?
