[QUOTE=MrSelfDestruct]Just to clarify, are you suggesting part of that this might be the biggest insurance fraud in history?

Yes, that's one part of it.

In my opinion this has to be so much more than just insurance fraud. He literally had to have FAA, NORAD, and who knows what other government agencies ignore protocol to allow the planes to crash into buildings. Then have a 9/11 cover-up commission propose legislation that does little to protect us. 3,000 people on 9/11 die and 3 million Americans become the prime suspects, yet the borders allow 3000-4000 people across the border illegally everyday according to Time magazine.

QUOTE]

I beg to differ, actually. The government has put out an entirely reasonable theory. Those who claim it is poorly reasoned seem primarily to point to two specific factors:

1) To them, it sure looks like a controlled collapse (and some claim to see evidence of detonation charges in the smoke coming out during the collapse, but that seems thin), so they don't buy the "it collapsed on its own" theory.

2) They look at pictures and don't seen much - if any - structural damage before the collapse, and the fires don't seem all that major. But the government's explanation for the collapse, as I understand it, is that the building suffered structural damage on the south facade after the towers collapsed, and it was that damage plus the fires that burned for a very long time (fed by deisel fuel stored - ironically - for the city's emergency command center).

Everything else is circumstantial:

Silverstein makes a reference to telling the fire department to "pull it" before it came down, which I think can be interpreted both as an order to demolish, and an order to pull efforts to save the building.

People make spooky references to a secret CIA installation in WTC7, and suggest that somehow the CIA wanted to demolish it, but that just doesn't make sense (why would they demolish an entire building when they could presumably simply take whatever they wanted to hide out of the building?)




So those seem to be the 2 key factual issues, unless I am mistaken.

On the first ("it sure looks like a controlled collapse"), I submit that most of us are not experts in building demolition and/or collapse, so we are arguing based on uneducated guesswork or are pointing to the opinion of someone else who claims to be an expert. Some experts are saying it was a structural collapse and not a demolition. Does any of us have the expertise to determine which is right? Do we have a bias one way or the other that leads you to find one expert credible and the other not? Probably so. My bias is to think it's not a conspiracy, so I tend to believe the experts that agree with me. Others have a bias towards thinking it was a conspiracy, so they tend to believe the experts who support that idea. Point? It's a wash.

On the second ("I don't see all that much damage, so it can't have been a structural failure"), all the photos I've seen of the building after the towers collapsed have been of the north side. Obviously, since the towers fell on the south side, that's where the damage would be. Concluding that the damage was not that extensive based on a review of only one side of the building is like concluding that a car can still drive after a head on collision by looking only at the rear end. To quote South Park's parody of Johnnie Cochran (and thus destroy my own credibility) "It does not make sense."

Obviously, if you have pictures of the south facade after the towers collapsed that show very little damage, please share.

Most of us aren't experts. I happen to be (thanks to a great deal of research brought on by this very question). I've explained several times why it was not a collapse due to the extreme structural damage and fire.

Fire is an amazing thing. It's a chemical reaction that has a specific set of behaviors that it follows in a specific situation. In this situation, we have a gaping hole in the side of a building, and a great deal of jet fuel burning quite hot. Now the ways for the heat from the fire to escape are:

1. The elevator shafts. These were the only possible exhausts on the inside of the building, but there is no evidence that they were channeling any amount of heat or smoke.
2. The gaping hole caused by the impact of a plane. This is by far the single largest exhaust for the heat and smoke from the fire.
3. Broken windows and holes in the walls caused by debris.

The main escape routes are visible from the outside of the building. Each of the buildings werre photographed and videotaped a great deal between the initial strikes and the eventual collapses. Of those many, many visual pieces of evidence, do you remember any warping of the aluminum on the outside of the building? Do you remember seeing the fire that was (supposedly) able to easily melt steel, warping the aluminum at all? I'll answer that question for you with said evidence.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid.../woman_wtc.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid..._blackhole.jpg

This person would not be able to stand here if the fire was burning hot.

Look very carefully at the first picture. What you are looking at is the aluminum exterior of the WTC bent in by the initial strike of the plane. Why is it that a fire able to do so much damage to one of the best steel reinforments in history that it would collapse straight down has no visable effect on the aluminum? It should be glowing red. The heat from the fire being able to warp the reinforcment so that it would cave all at once straight down is one of the least likely scenereos. They are counting on people being distraced by wars and propoganda so that this becomes hard to see.

I have a question for you. This is the only "conspiracy theory" I've ever bought into, mainly because I am very skeptical by nature. I've debunked several conspiracy theories including the moon landing, Hitler's death, and the attempted assasination of Regan. Am I a conspiracy theorist? Am I a credible source? Do you automatically not believe me because you assume I am proned to believe that a conspiracy is involved, and therefore are paranoid?

Nice try, but this thread is about WTC7, not the towers themselves. I don't happen to think you are right about the twin towers either, but that's a different thread.

And with all due respect, you declare yourself en expert b/c you have researched this issue in connection with this specific topic. I don't think that makes you an expert. I think it makes you someone who has studied one specific scenario extensively, and, frankly, I have no reason to think you did not go into your research with a desired outcome.

That's an interesting opinion. Just a few points:
1. Is it not reasonable to assume that the fates of WTC North and South are intertwined with the fate of WTC7? Therefore isn't it reasonable to assume that if there was foul play with one, there was foul play with the other? It would be the largest coincedence in history if one was an unexpected terorist attack, and the other was a controlled demolition on the same day. I realize this particular thread is about WTC7, but WTC7 has so many connections to the twin towers they shouyld not be omitted from the conversation.

2. My relative expertise (I say relative because I am comparing myself to the average person) comes from studying plane crashes, structural engineering, and building fires. Each of those studies is very important to this, don't you agree?

3. You assume that I desire the outcome that America is being lied to? Go the the Dissapearing 747 and truth about 9/11 threads and read my posts. Several times I plead with people to give me a better explaination. It would be sick of me to want to find out that we have all been lied to in the supposed largest terrorist attack in history. I am not sick, balderdash. As a matter of fact, I am still hoping that someone will be able to get their heads around this better than I could, and give me a perfectly logical explaination.

You should be careful assuming people are wackos. I'm both looking for and presenting facts.

Ah, but you are still assuming it was a controlled demolition. I question that assumption, so I doubly question your conclusion

Regardless of whether or nor the twin towers were taken down as part of a conspiracy, I still believe that WTC7 came down due to damage and fire resulting from the attacks on and collapse of the twin towers.

Do you see the distinction here? Let me show you:

Replace "WTC7" with "nearby fire engines." Were fire engines destroyed as part of a conspiracy? No, a building fell on them. Ditto for WTC7.

Of course, but again you miss the point. You have self-described experts on both sides of this issue. Why should I believe you?

And you say above you studied these things because of this very question, correct? Can you honestly say that you had no opinions on whether or not there was a conspiracy before you began your research? My point is that I am sure you now know a great many things about melting steel, fire temperatures, etc., but so do lots of other people who disagree with you. Why should I believe you over them? Why should I trust your research over theirs?

Of course, you can reverse the question, too: why should I believe them over you? Because I am biased, obviously. But - and here's the kicker - you probably are too!

I have no idea what your motives are. In fact, I think you are probably quite sincere in thinking there is something fishy going on. I choose not to agree with you, and I jumped into this thread to point out a different interpetation of the facts.

Hmm.... searching text for wacko..... nope.

I think you are wrong about WTC7, but I don't think you are, as you so colorfully put it, wacko.

Look, will... you've built quite a reputation for yourself as the resident expert on the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. I have no intention of changing your mind or of trying to tear you down. I don't have the knowledge of the event that you do, so you could run circles around me asking questions I can't answer.

However, I see testimony and findings by people who are very very smart and very very experienced and they disagree with you. So, when forced to choose between the credibility of "anonymous TFP person" and "expert in architecture and disaster investigation" I generally go with the latter unless there is some very compelling reason not to. I don't see such a reason here.

I think it would be fascinating to see a discussion between you and another expert on this subject, even though I think I'd quickly get completely lost.

Just out of curiosity, though, when it comes to all the others who say 9/11 was a terrorist attack and that WTC7 collapsed because of fire and structural damage, do you think they don't understand the facts, or that they are themselves involved in the conspiracy? Either answer, I think, would collapse under logical scrutiny.

Check out the video on the first page in my first post. It's a copy of what was shown on tv when WTC7 collapsed. Just watch it a few times and draw your own conclusions. I've obvciously drawn mine.

How much of North Tower and/or South Tower did fall on them? It's hard to tell. The FEMA report is all we really have to go on besides the footage and pictures.

That's a judgement call. I'll understand if you want to err on the side of the norm. That's certianally a safer side to be on. Just remember that just as you are not alone on your side, I am not alone by any means on mine. There are several groups out there trying to raise awarness of the facts I've shared with you guys on this board in order to give people a more complete picture. You know how freedom comes with a price of eternal vigelance? To many people this is part of the vigelance. If there waas some foul play, people deserve to know about it.

Sounds perfectly fair.

While I don't have any provabae credentials (I can't post any personal information about myself, including diplomas), how sure are you that the people on the other side of the argument are so trustworthy? By "expert in architecture and disaster investigation", you probably mean someone who has either written for the FEMA report, worked for the 9/11 Commission, or who has been called as an expert in the media. If we're talking about FEMA, we're talking about a pretty respected organization. The problem is that several parts of their report are wrong. Check out
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/...ut-trusses.htm
I know it's not a reputable site, but check it out and consider it seriously before dismissing it.

The 9/11 commission was a joke. Several people on the commission actually were profiteers of the 9/11 attacks. They never addressed any of the logistical problems with 9/11 (even the ones that have noi connection to the conspiracy here).

As for media experts, well if you want to trust CNN or MSNBC, that's your call.

Just consider that perhaps neither side deeserves your trust. Perhaps you shoul do the research yourself before deciding, just like I did.

me confused, im sorry

If you have any questions, feel free to ask (or PM) people on either side of this discussion. I would be glad to try and answer any questions you might have.

according to these articles, this was planned in 1989!!!

ever hear of galvanic corrosion?
http://www.rense.com/general60/scrap.htm

--and--

http://www.rense.com/general47/pulled.htm

While Rense is a very interesting site, you can't take it all very seriously. I've proven dozens of them wrong. At the same time, you shouldn't discount everything on there. Every once in a while it hits something that mgith be true. I didn't know fluoridization was dangerous until I read an article on there. After confirming it's claims, I found it to be true.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah...framed 'em...fight the power dude...

NOTE: most of the information I used in the 9/11 consipracy theory threads comes from:
http://www.elchulo.net/files/pentagon.swf
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/cover911.htm
http://physics911.org/net/modules/ne....php?storyid=3
http://www.wtc7.net/
http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/collapse.htm
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/27_1-mcintyre.swf
http://911research.wtc7.net/

I guess that my post from the Madrid Highrise fire belongs here, too:

NIST is still conducting the most comprehensive
forensic investigation of the WTC towers. At their meeting in
Oct. 2004, the NIST investigators results so far do not support the jet fuel fire or heat from it, being the cause of the
collapse of either tower.
<h2>The NIST Investigators so far, cannot find the reason why either WTC Tower collapsed !</h2>

While 9/11 is deeply and obviously a tragedy, it is at the same time a major boon for some interested parties.

I see this as our Reichstag. Not only did tower 7 fall cleanly (Explosives being prewired in buildings seriously doesn't raise any concerns, Carn/DJmala?), north and south fell straight down. This lead STRAIGHT into Bush's new war.

Could someone really argue that Cheney was selected as Bush II's vp for any other reason than to run this war?

This all seems so straightforward to me.

I must not watch enough cable news.

Just before the election didn't OBL appear on Al Jazeera and admit that he ordered the attacks on 9/11 and the reasons why?

From what I remember seeing on the news, yes. It reminded me of the Regan election, when the hostages were released right after the election. That hardly counts as proof (of course, much in this thread is speculation at best). What strikes me is that no one is mentioning that Osama was wroking for the Central Intelligene Agency as recently as 10 years ago. Perhaps that fact requires more scruteny, under the circumstances. I certianally think that fact bares a direct connectrion to his taking direct and total responsibility for the attacks that served the current administration so very well. It would be one hell of a coincedence that the administration planned for a Pearl Harbor type of catastrophy in order to move fourth plans on the Middle Esat, including the domination and rebuilding of several oil producing powers under totalitarian or religious rule, just to have 9/11 happen and a former CIA spy take credit for the attacks in an attempt to demonize Arab nations for supporting terror.

Hmm. When he says "pull," it can also be taken in the context of "pull the firefighters/crew out of there." Or "pull the emergency force out of there." That's another decision that would be made at the same time, in the same context, in the same tone.

-Lasereth

The steel just melts, riiiiight . Wonder why barbeques and car exhaust systems can be made from it? The 1989 rebuilding plan seems to be just too much or a coincidence.

Please, please, please tell me you are joking. Even willravel can tell you that the heat in your engine and the heat from a grill are nothing compared with the heat from a building fire.

By your logic, highrises should be at no risk of collapse from a fire. Ever.

Well of course steel melts, I mean otherwise it would be very diffficult to use steel in production. And the steel industry would be pretty pissed too. The question is could a fire caused by airplane fuel in the World Trade Center buildings was able to not only able to compromise the steel reinforcement of WTC 1 and 2, but it was able to compromise the buildings steel frame at once. I could have understood if the building snapped at the center, but it simply didn't. The building started a cascade effect very similar to a controled demolition by the top floor caving, then the second to the top, all the way to the bottom. Steel that was still cold, uneffected by the fire, caved completly and straight down.

The official story is the least likely possibility.

I should clarify my last post. So how about... The steel just melts at low temperature... riiiiight.

Jet fuel is not some high explosive, being that a plane crashed to cause it to spill it was not sprayed or under pressure for more than an instant. It may have burned quite a while as a puddle. Try an experiment, take a tin can (steel is OK, weird eh?) and put kerosene in it, light it on fire and lay a piece of angle iron or even a coat hanger across it... wait till it melts or you die of old age.

Not to say it's impossible, in a car gasoline fire the springs will collapse and drop the car on to the frame. It won't melt the frame though.

I promised myself I wouldn't get sucked back into this....

...sigh

To be clear: as far as I know, nobody is claiming that the fire melted the external structural steel on the WTC towers. The contention, as I understand it, is that the fire weakened the steel on the internal floor supports, causing some to collapse onto the floors below, which resulted in greater strain on the structure.

The outer structure collapsed because it was unable to support the additional strain put on it, not because it was melted by the fire.

As I am sure you are aware, the WTC towers are unusual in that the structural support was distributed between the center core (housing elevators, stairwells, etc) and the outer skin, with a wide space around the central core with no structural steel (the floors were hung across the gap between the central core and the outer skin).

The planes crashed through the outer skin, then were largely unopposed until they hit the central core (yes, they had to plow through the mass of furniture, the suspended floors, drywall, etc, but no structural steel). The impact weakened the central core and the severing of the outer skin forced weight to be distributed around the hole, adding strain to the remaining supports.

I'm going through all this to make clear that NOBODY is saying that the fire alone caused the collapse.

Hey, look, a link to a quick and easy guide to WTC collapse. From the good people at NOVA. Are they part of the conspiracy too?

Linky

Hey, neat. Fake science! How about if I just hold the hanger over this straw man?

I read in the Toronto Star some time around Sept 12 or 13 of that year, that the towers collapsed because the momentum of the airplanes impacted and severed/severely damaged the internal core structure of the two towers. That is, the structural support from which the rest of the build was hung.

Also, that the planes exploded, and burned inside the building, not outside, which would explain why the internal support structures further degraded, and why the aluminium on the outside does not look warped or hot, and why somebody could/would stand at the opening. it was probably the coolest area with the freshest air.

Once the impact and fire damage had taken it's toll, the support of the building above the impact zone gave way, and then what you would have is what is in effect the equivalent of any normal sized office building (from the point of impact to the roof) being dropped ontop of the building below. To my eye, that's exactly what it looked like, a heaveyload falling and causing increasing damage as it gathered spead and mass downwards.

But to get back on topic, I would love to see pictures of WTC7 from the side facing the two towers, to see how much damage it sustained when the big ones collapsed. (as first pointed out by balderdash). Then we can really talk about WTC7.

Both North tower and South tower were designed to take a direct airplane hit. Did you see the limited damage the 757 did to the Pentagon? Also, how does that explain the top floor caving first? It should have collapsed from near the center, not the very top. Not trying to be argumentative, but I wrote into the Star about their shotty work and they never responded.
Where did the heat from the fire go? A fire inside of a building would creat some heat that would want to escape. That same heat that was able to meraculously melt and warp the steel frame, but was unable to effect aluminum, which ahs a much, much lower melting temperature.
I can understand some of the supports giving way between the impact and the fire, but why did the top floors of both towers collapse straight down first? There was no smoke coming from the top of the building as most of it was coming from the blown out windows and the crash holes in the buildings. It is logical to assume that the heat was following a similar path to escape the building. The heat was traveling upwards along the frame, but the initial collapse was at the very top floors. It doesn't fit.
I'm still looking.
Try:
http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html
http://www.wtc7.net/collapsecause.html

well in Alias, 24, and MI-5 (Spooks) and other spy type shows... they do rig the buildings with explosives...

:lol: I'm not surprised. the Star tends to be a paper that puts some of their (more shoddy) work behind them. My quick answers (and I am a lay-person) to your questions are basically common perspective: I read that the towers were built to withstand a Boeing 707 hit. Which they did (well not a 707, but close). But the floors around the crash did collapse first, and they basically pancaked downwards in growing momentum (pulling the top downwards with them). Apparantly the way the floor struts were attached to the centre column and the outer frame were the weak points, plus the heat involved (i did read that it was varied heat from about 900 to 1300 F) was enough to weaken the strength of the steel thingies so that they also warped.

Apparantly the aluminum from the plane did melt in places. The steel frame did bend and warp, but it had not only heat from a fire, but significant heat from a significant fire, plus the stresses of a building load.

Those towers are very heavy (i read about 500,000 tons each?) the only way they could fall would be straight down. nothing would be strong enough to push them sideways. I presume the collapse seen from the inside, would be initial pancaking of the floors around the crash site, due to the extreme damage and heat, followed by a subsidence of the remaining floors above, as their support below gave way. The view from outside, before the final collapse became evident would be of the top of the build falling in much like a sink hole appears to form. (of course I'm just picturing this in my mind, and typing out of my ass...)

As for smoke escape, i don't see anything strange. and I think that subsidence collpse (yes i like that term, ithink I will go with it) still covers the behaviour.

I don't know what to think in regards to the conspiracy theories. I'll listen to them but don't really know who to believe.

However - I do feel compelled to comment on the melting point of steel. I'm not sure what type of steel alloy we are discussing here. Steel is Iron composed with other metals in order to make frabrication easier or to reduce the speed of corrosion. The alloys make a big difference in the melting temperature. The melting temperature of Steel is usually at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F). I am aware that the steel structure of the WTC buildings was coated with fire retardants to prevent the meltdown that happened.

Primarily when metal is heated to a liquid so that it can be formed there are often other metals added. Often the process and other metals cause the final product to be tempered and more resistant to heat. Saying that it has to be easily melted or they would use it to make things because of it's low melting temperature does not hold a lot of water. When metals are combined they retain different melting points that the original separate metals.

When you say melts at a low temperature - how low were you thinking?

A piece of steel wouldn't melt but if the central core of the tower was badly damaged the building could fall. The plane struck from one side and you'd think it'd topple the floors above in that direction such as when chopping down a tree.

The chance of both buildings failing due to fire and then the whole buildings falling like that just seems so unlikely. The one building was struck so much higher up that the other...

I agree with Fastom

I don't. From what I understand, it was pretty much inevitable that the building would collapse straight down, absent an ENORMOUS force pushing the top so far as to put the center of gravity outside the shell of the building.

The tree analogy is, IMO, not a good one. Trees fall because the support on one side is taken out, and the axe ultimately cuts deep enough into the tree that what remains is unable to hold up the trunk.

WTC's collapse was ultimately the result of a structural failure within the building. Imagine, if you will, a tree having a gash in the side, and then the center of the trunk collapsing. That tree is falling down on itself, not to the side. At least, that's what happens for the first instant, which brings me to my second point.

When a tree falls, it doesn't crumble on itself. It stays as one big log. So when a tree falls, the trunk drops until it hits an imovable object (either the still-standing bottom half of the trunk or the ground), and then tips over based on where the center of gravity is. (I suppose it is theoretically possible for a tree to fall at just the angle at which it balances on the cut end of the trunk, but.....)

WTC, however, crumbled as it fell. So it fell collapsed upon itself.

Bringing it back to the thread topic: this is also a pretty good explanation of why WTC7 collapsed as neatly as it did.

I agree with balderdash111

Imagine that you crash a firey piece of metal into a tree and the very top collapses. Watch the video. The top floor collapses, then the second from the top and so on. There were cutter jets, or smoke/debreis clouds, shooting out of each floor. The fire damaged floors did not collapse first. All 47 coulumns could not have given at once (as was shown when the antenna on the North Tower collapsed first), that is simply impossible.

The explaination given would have easily excused the building falling if the floors were collapsing over a period of time. The fact is that they collapsed simultaneously. That rules out the fire damage or plane damage theory. Wiht those two theoryies ruled out, you must develope a new theory.

Gah!!!

I am so sick of this, so I am not going to bother trying to figure out what you are saying here.

FYI, the NIST is going to release a new report this spring in which it explains the WTC7 collapse in greater detail. Among their findings (surprise!) there was more damage to the South facade of WTC7 than was originally realized

Wait....of course they'll say that now b/c they are part of the conspiracy!

I just re-read the NOVA piece and the Popular Mechanics piece on the WTC attacks. These address and refute each of the points you endlessly repeat to support this conspiracy theory, and ni my opinion they do so convincingly.

Nevertheless, it is quite clear will that you have no interest whatsoever in giving up this theory.



*EDIT* So I don't have to take the last word away from will a few posts below.

I read about the upcoming NIST report on the Popular Mechanics site.

This is what I hope will be my final post in this thread, unless I see an opportunity to clear up an obvious misunderstanding.

Good luck all!

I just noticed something cute...

will, I thought you claimed that it wasn't a 757 that hit the Pentagon? Do you choose to believe certain elements when they are convenient to making another point?

actually no it doesn't rule out anything. This collapse from the top down is justs the visible portion of subsidence (like i said earlier as in a sink hole). the tree is a bad analogy. it is physically solid. plus, it's easy to geta piece of metal massive enough to knock a tree over.

The WTC buildings are 1) not solid but constructed of interdependant structures with mostly air in between & 2) very massive. again read my previous post. at about 500,000 tons, how massive an object do you require to knock it over???? An aircraft is simply not up to the job. It is, however up to the job of exploding, causing structural damage and a chain reaction collapse, which would have to be 'straight down'.

Steel is iron with a certain concentration of carbon. Carbon is the main "ingredient" that determines the mechanical and thermal properties of a given steel.

What should have logically happened is the jet fuel and combustibles in the building would have burned themselves out or those firemen douse the fires and the building gets left standing with some floors burnt out.

Oh, a multi-thread attack. Okay.

While I believe that something besides a 757 hit the Pentagon, I recognise that most people believe that a 757 did hit the Pentagon. I was trying to say that for their hypothesis to work, the Pentagon story would be wrong. That would open them up to recognising that something odd did happen on 9/11 with the Pentagon. Obviously the attacks on the Petnagon and the WTC were linked, so therefore it would be fishy be association. I hope that was cute enough for you.