Rosie O'Donnell: WTC 7 Demolished on 9/11
Talk show host Rosie O'Donnell suggested that World Trade Center 7 was not destroyed by fire on 9/11 in a post on her personal weblog Thursday evening.
Writing in the poetry-like style she's adopted on her blog, O'Donnell took part of her post -- the list of reasons to suspect the building was demolished -- directly from a page on the conspiracy-minded site WhatReallyHappened.Com.
at 5 30 pm
9 11 2001wtc7 collapsed
for the third time in history
fire brought down a steel building
reducing it to rubblehold on folks
here we go
- The fires in WTC 7 were not evenly distributed, so a perfect collapse was impossible.
- Silverstein said to the fire department commander “the smartest thing to do is pull it.”
- Firefighters withdrawing from the area stated the building was going to “blow up”.
- The roof of WTC 7 visibly crumbled and the building collapsed perfectly into its footprint.
- Molten steel and partially evaporated steel members were found in the debris.
[WTC 7] contained offices of the FBI, Department of Defense, IRS (which contained prodigious amounts of corporate tax fraud, including Enron’s), US Secret Service, Securities & Exchange Commission (with more stock fraud records), and Citibank’s Salomon Smith Barney, the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management and many other financial institutions. [Online Journal]
The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed [by the collapse of WTC 7]. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency’s major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. …”Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive,” said Max Berger of New York’s Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. “This is a disaster for these cases.” [New York Lawyer]
Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking [about WorldCom] was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center, one of the buildings that collapsed in the aftermath of the attack. The bank says that back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack. [TheStreet]
Inside [WTC 7 was] the US Secret Service’s largest field office with more than 200 employees. …”All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building,” according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran. [TechTV]
lets start here
ok…go slow
remember 2 breathe
use google
Update: This position puts O'Donnell at odds with Penn and Teller.
Comments
bless rosie, we need more people like her.
That's right. We need more people like that... were she to be flayed she would feed countless starving families
It's a conspiracy, maaaaaaaaaaaaan.
The only 9/11 conspiracy I find plausible is the one that says Rosie O'Donnell ate WTC7.
Rosie has shown a real need for mental health treatments for a long time. This is more evidence. When young, the dog didn't eat her homework, she ate it.
U fucking retards attacking her...hope u r the first ones to get on the FEMA bus when it rolls through your city.
Yes, how dare you attack Rosie O'Donnell, the voice of reason and noted engineer/demolition expert. Now I understand: 9/11 was all a plot to keep Ken Lay out of jail!
I forgot to say that the least Rogers could do is put a picture of Rosie hanging upside down with the eye-tracking thing in this post. I'm betting it's a reverse image of Jason Kottke's pattern.
Uh, Ya we blew up the WTC with US Citizens and Firefighter inside. Just like we blew the Levy in New Orleans. Everybody knows that all skyscrapers in the US are wired with explosions for just such an occasion.
Rosie O is another idiot celebrity who thinks we should care what she says. As for FEMA, you get what you ask for. As a New Orleanian who knew to flee the storm, I didn't expect staying would be a good thing, even with all the free hotdog promises for the superdome. If you ask for Government to solve your problems, then you will be waiting a long time to get unsatisfactory results.
Rosie needs to pour herself a nice tall cup of STFU.
Haha. The official story is just another conspiracy theory. Just as wacked as Rosie's. Anyone who doesn't see that trusts uncle sam a bit too much.
Rosie brings a new status to the term "dumb shit"! What an idiot! What a dis-service she brings to all the brave men and women who died on 9/11. She suffers from far more than depression. She suffers from terminal dumbness! Her "View" is all fogged up!
Doug
rosie is a big fat idiot!
funny how everyone attacks rosie but no one discusses the point she has made. what one thinks of rosie irrelevent. an official, sensible explanation of the collapse of wtc 7 is still pending... i hope we hear one soon!
Just more static to make serious questions look stupid. wtc 7 the owner of the buildings admitted to NPR that the building was "pulled".
According to evidence the choices aren't good.
1. Elements in the government were so incompetent and unprepared there was no way to prevent 9/11
2. Elements in the government allowed 9/11 to happen to gain money and power.
3. Elements in the government triggered the events on 9/11.
4. Screw Osama, the Reptilian/Alien/Plasma clouds and the Legion of Doom are really to blame.
I wish all the people that agree with crap like this would move to a different country. All you do is make up false lies and you are un-patriotic Americans who need to reside in a 3rd world country.
I'm no fan of Rosie's. But, why is everyone attacks her weight? Is that the best you can do to argue your point? Or the "everyone should move" attitude. What a bunch of idiots.
With a name like Rosie, you'd think she had a better outlook on life.
come on people... no one is suggesting that 9/11 was a conspiracy. What's being suggested is that in light of what happened that day, Silverstein, who owned that building and served to profit from the insurance proceeds, decided to demolish WTC bldg 7 that day because the opportunity presented itself. There's no insurance payout if you actively choose to demolish your building. But if it looks like it was part of the larger disaster, here comes the $$. Please inform yourselves before you criticize
I am no fan of Rosie, but I do admire her courage in coming out of the closet for a second time. This time as a 9/11 truther.
come on people... no one is suggesting that 9/11 was a conspiracy.
If only that were true.
Once more the demented one speaks out. What is she on?
Rosie should wear a bhurka!!!!
To all the Rosie bashers:
Didn't all of you believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? If you can believe the likes of bush and cheney, your credibility is hugely suspect. So lay off your Rosie bashing and your shameless attacks on her weight. Should you all be as caring, concerned and well informed as Rosie
Didn't all of you believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?
Yeah. So did both Clintons, John Kerry, Howard Dean, every liberal of note, every conservative of note, every intelligence agency, the UN, and yo mama. And if you'll research a bit, you'll find that all the prominent libs had been talking about war with Saddam since the late '90s, and not on the basis of existing stockpiles of WMDs, either. At the time, it was the flouting of UN resolutions and the unknowns concerning what was actually going on there in the absence of cooperation from Iraq or meaningful intel. A subtle but distinct difference; at the time, preventing the building or distribution of WMDs was as or more important than atually finding them on the ground.
"If I knew then what I know now, I would have voted differently." - Hillary Clinton
No shit, sociopath. Everyone would do things differently with the benefit of hindsight. The problem is that she's lying in both directions. She won't take her vote back because she never would have voted otherwise no matter what she thought she knew then, and she will pretend to be against the war retroactively but won't renounce her first poll-driven position. Obama's the only one who isn't being an asshole about this.
Caring and concerned? Maybe. Well-informed? Please.
My personal investigation of the arguments and evidence surrounding 9/11 led me to this site. I don't know what happened, but I want to. The clear disdain for independent thought, and its absence from the posts here are truly discouraging, and a good measure for the intelligence of the readership.
I won't be back. If you respond to this post, I'll never know it.
Good bye.
So, what does this Penn and Teller link have to do with wtc7? your Penn and Teller link doesn't mention wtc7, so why are you using it as a way to convince us that what Penn and Teller says about the two towers is also applicable to wtc7 and Rosie when they are in fact two different buildings.
Its dishonest, its slander, and its also fallacious. A Red Herring: to be specific its Guilt by Association. read up on it.
I don't care for Rosie, but you cant link crazy conspiracies of how the the two towers fell to the wtc7, when the wtc7 wasn't hit by planes but instead fell many hours later for a different reason. You should really fix your argument drudge.
9/11 was so obvious how could anyone miss it? Way to go Rosie. Thanks for having the courage to speak out. To the rest of the country, WAKE UP MORONS!!!!
The absolute best basketball skill developing workout system for kids is at: www.basketballworkout.com<>
Rosie is a crackpot, how is she on tv still?
Enrons tax fraud,cmon rosie that was clintons deal,bush wouldnt bail them out like the dems did and they went under.
all you have to do is take 2 hours of your day, set it aside, and google "terror storm" by alex jones and you will all know the truth about our world and the direction it's heading....the only question is should we do something about it or plan accordingly.....simple as that....
BD
"Enrons tax fraud,cmon rosie that was clintons deal,bush wouldnt bail them out like the dems did and they went under."
got a link? or are you just pissing in the wind.
Like Rosie or not...The truth is that wtc 7 came down on 9-11 without being hit by a plane.... by controlled demolition...watch the videos of the day...decide for yourself...no other steel frame building before or since has collapsed because of fire...this is a fact.
Once that fact is clear to all, then we, as patriotic citizens, can decide what happened on that life changing day.
ask questions...educate yourself about the facts
Rosie is a pig......
She's a twisted sister -- hanging upside/down in an attempt to emulate her cousins -- the bats in the belfry. There -- there -- Rosie have another danish and leave the "big boys" alone. You don't have the equipment to be "one of the boys".
You've given the "I am woman hear me roar" a whole new dimension. We women won't claim you -- you're in that "weird zone of misfits" who screech and scream for attention.
Puuuuhzzz.........
"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists" - J. Edgar Hoover
Some of you people should get off your lazy asses and investigate 911 yourself instead of the spoon fed version the media is giving you. The internet is a very useful tool and should be taken advantage of while it is still available. Start with WT7. Use your own brain. Not the one you use to watch American Idol and Fox News..
"He who quotes J. Edgar Hoover on the topic of government conspiracies to justify his paranoid fantasies has become the butt of his own joke." - Common Sense
'hahahaha, she's so fat!, were so much better than her!, lets not even discuss the facts she has presented, no, because we already know every thing!' DIE YOU FUCKING SHEEP, YOU DESERVE WHATS COMING YOUR WAY.
I love the "true Amerikans" who think that being a patriot means swearing blind allegiance to the criminals who have co-opted our once-great Republic.
Rosie shows true courage and merit in questioning the cause of WTC 7's collapse.
Are you all so satisfied with the official explanation that the freefall symmetrical collapse of WTC7 was caused by minor fires and damage from falling debris?
"I love the "true Amerikans" who think that being a patriot means swearing blind allegiance to the criminals who have co-opted our once-great Republic."
I didn't think Bosnia, involving the USA in a Balkan civil war, was a good idea. However, as a patriot, I didn't attempt to gain political capital by disgracing all of the United States in vilifying Democratic foreign policy; especially when are troops were fighting in the field there. For that matter, when the "war" there was "victorious" and our troops remained "policing" the continuing fighting between Serbs and Bosnians, conservatives and patriots did not continue to heap scorn and libel-after-slander-after-lie on Democratics, in order to gain political profit from that broken promise to have our troops home by Xmas.
That is in sharp contrast with the Democratic party, now, and ever since before the start of this war; backbiting calumny and a constant effort to defame Bush, this administration, Republicans and conservatives. A program reminiscent of pre-WWII Nazi Germany and their intent to make a pogrom of Jews and use them as the scapegoats of history; responsible for all of Germany's troubles.
I have to laugh, because when Democratics were building-up the Cold War, they used the "K" to mock communists and other socialists; e.g., Germany. Now, the Democratics attempt to vilify fellow Americans by leading the inference that the United States resembles a socialist tyranny like the USSR or the NAZI of Germany!
"Rosie shows true courage and merit in questioning the cause of WTC 7's collapse."
It is easy to exercise your freedom of speech, and any dunce can do it. Speaking out certainly isn't "patriotic" on its own or for its own sake, but rather for the content of that speech. If it is supportive of the United States, then I suppose it can be considered patriotic. However, if it attempts to embarrass the US, then it isn't patriotic, at all. Democratics have to take responsibility for the content of their speech ...
... I know you don't like that ... but it is reality. Run away all you want, but you can't escape responsibility for your speech.
"Are you all so satisfied with the official explanation that the freefall symmetrical collapse of WTC7 was caused by minor fires and damage from falling debris?"
Why would it fall to the side? The initial impact did not "tilt" the building, but it can be seen obviously that the collapse started where the impact took place, not below it!!!
Plus the indisputable fact that the collapse DID start to fall off to the front as the building collapsed.
However, Rosie and the Democratics who believe this tripe do think of the USA as "AmeriKa."
"Why would it fall to the side? The initial impact did not "tilt" the building, but it can be seen obviously that the collapse started where the impact took place, not below it!!!
Plus the indisputable fact that the collapse DID start to fall off to the front as the building collapsed."
You have just proven the fact that most people who try to shoot the truth movement's arguments out of the water, are shooting blind folded. Figure out which building you are talking about before you speak. Watch the REAL WT7 collapse and then if you STILL have questions about why we consider it suspicious, just go back into your media induced coma.
If building 7's collapse doesn't jive, the whole story falls apart.
It's funny how people consider this a democrat vs republican, or conservative vs liberal issue.. It isn't. Look at all the damage the Bush administration has done to the constitution in the past 6 years based on 911. Look at all that they already wanted to do, that they have been able to do BECAUSE of 911. And then realize it started before this administration and for the past couple of decades we've been in a downward spiral towards this "new world order". And people like you are who will be to blame when it's too late. You are letting what you fear actually happen and you don't even know it and are too stubborn to even take the time to see for yourself with a few open minded clicks of the mouse.
Go read 1984. If you know how to read, that is.. They DO have a movie out in case you can't handle the big words..
By the way.. Here are some very high profile and highly educated people and government insiders who question 9/11. Surely we must all be insane.
Misterian-
Your first mistake is to assume I'm a Democrat because I question 911. I will be supporting Ron Paul (R-Texas) in the next presidential election because he is an intelligent Constitutional conservative and a true patriot.
The leftright paradigm in America is a media-constructed hoax, akin to the "less filling- tastes great" debates of past beer commercials.
Your second mistake is to confuse WTC 7 with either Tower 1 or Tower 2 (both of which were struck by airplanes).
Please, for your own sake and the sake of our nation, start asking questions and stop consuming without question the lies that the corporate-controlled media is spoon-feeding you.
It is not only your god-given right to question the official story of 911, it is your responsibility as an American citizen and sponsor of our criminal foreign policy.
Your second mistake is to confuse WTC 7 with either Tower 1 or Tower 2 (both of which were struck by airplanes).
...and the crazy person's first mistake is to "forget" that WTC 7 was hit by a whole crapload of stuff that fell off of the other towers, making a giant hole in it that ended up being a major contributor to the final collapse, along with the flaming diesel fuel from one huge tank and a bunch of small ones.
Of course, the crazies also try to pretend that it was some sort of "symmetrical collapse," when the videos show quite clearly that it wasn't. The fall started with the penthouse, then the whole thing came apart in an inward collapse (towards the weak part of the building that bridged the electrical substation under the building).
Here are some of the other ultra liberal, wackjob, freedom hating kooks that think 9/11 was something other than what the government said it was:
What could these losers possible know?
I can't believe it took Rosie this long to figure out the truth- Problem for her is that all roads lead back to Tel-Aviv aka: Hollywood/Washington DC on the Mediterranean... Google "the Dancing Jews" or 911truth or the USS Liberty. Here is a trivia question for you: Who was the first US President to warn, publicly, about the pernicious influence of the Jews. Hint: Who was the first US President? I am NOT Anti-Semitic-I am a Patriotic American. Very soon, however, when the truth finally comes out, the American people will have to choose, because it will be impossible to be both. And the Jews will have no one to blame but the Zionists. But the world does not understand the difference between the two. I feel so sorry for all my Jewish friends, because they have been conned by a faction of their own people. I'm sorry Joel, and Beatrice, and Sally. But it's true.
All of you people slinging ad hominems are missing the forest, you keep shouting to this tree or that shrub. You are blissfully ignorant (perhaps willfully?) of the larger picture.
This isn't about liberals or conservatives, that's just the game they play to divide the American people. Looks as if they've done a fine job of it, you're all blindly jumping on one sinking ship or another.
9/11 is no longer in doubt to those who have taken to time to research. We have long sinced moved beyond the 'reasonable doubt'. Now it is the 'proponderance of evidence' with which informed individuals busy themselves.
Personal attacks only serve to reveal the attackers abject ignorance and the lack of valid scientific or logical basis of their juvenile and malformed opinions.
Unless you lazy American pseudo-patriots stop all your brow-beating and flag-waving, we will never unite against the threat rapidly destroying our republic.
Put down the potato chips, turn off the TV, and research the evidence - or just shut the fuck up.
"It's funny how people consider this a democrat vs republican, or conservative vs liberal issue.. "
I posted the link to the pictures of wtc7 and the explanation(s) surrounding the accusations.
Since the whole issue has been used, from the start, to cast doubt on this administrations claims that the attack was done by al Qaeda, I literally wince when someone tries to misdirect that fact and attempt to blame those who notice reality and hold it as more believable than insane conspiracies where the USA attacks itself in order to start war!
"Go read 1984. If you know how to read, that is.. "
No, I can only type and absorb inane, stupid insults by osmosis. Some people are just naturally schlemiels.
But, wasn't that book about a socialist tyranny?
"Your first mistake is to assume I'm a Democrat because I question 911."
Are you actually this self-centered? No one said you had to be that which I characterized! You could be an everyday nut and apolitical!
"The leftright paradigm in America is a media-constructed hoax, akin to the "less filling- tastes great" debates of past beer commercials."
This cant is equivalent to liberal double-speak! And, you say you are a Ron Paul Libertarian? In a porker's eye!
"Your second mistake is to confuse WTC 7 with either Tower 1 or Tower 2 (both of which were struck by airplanes)."
Perhaps you missed the point? Those towers fell straight down, except for a small inclination to the "front" as both buildings collapsed. That is equivalent to wtc7's collapse, on fire, and with or without explosives.
However, you go ahead and believe what you want, no one is stopping you; however mistaken. The link I posted has testimony from the firechief who fought that fire ... but of course, to you anyone who disagrees in IN on the conspiracy, isn't that right?
"Please, for your own sake and the sake of our nation, start asking questions and stop consuming without question the lies that the corporate-controlled media is spoon-feeding you."
LOL! You ASSUME that the "corporate-controlled media" is lying, automatically, but I'm a dufus for what?
"It is not only your god-given right to question the official story of 911, it is your responsibility as an American citizen and sponsor of our criminal foreign policy."
Yeah, you're a conservative ... in another dimension. Why you libs think you can lie like this, I'll never know!
Bill O'Reilly? Is that you?
"LOL! You ASSUME that the "corporate-controlled media" is lying"
Reality called. They said they couldn't get through to you and wanted me to ask you to put your phone back on the hook.
Oh those wacky, know-nothing, 9/11 conspiracy nutters:
Senator Max Cleland
Senator Bob Graham
Senator Mark Dayton
Congressman Ron Paul, MD
Congressman Curt Weldon
Louis Freeh Director of the FBI
Edward L. Peck Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism
Morton Goulder Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Warning
Norm Mineta - U.S. Secretary of Transportation
John Loftus Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special
Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice
Fred Burks Former State Department Interpreter for Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton
General Wesley Clark, U.S. Army
Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army
Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps
Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force
Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force
Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps
Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army
Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force Former Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years, flying 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 's. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines airplanes that were hijacked on 9/11
Barbara Honegger, MS Senior Military Affairs Journalist
Lt. Col. Stephen L. Butler, EdD, U.S. Air Force
Capt. Scott J. Phillpott, U.S. Navy
Major Erik Kleinsmith, U.S. Army
James D. Smith - Former Able Danger Program Manager for Orion
Scientific Systems, a Department of Defense contractor
Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army (ret) Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency
Major Scott Ritter, U.S. Marine Corps Former Marine Corps Intelligence Officer
Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, U.S. Army Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer
Capt. Eric H. May, U.S. Army (ret) Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer.
Wayne Madsen Former U.S. Navy Intelligence Officer, specialist in electronic surveillance and security.
David L. Griscom, PhD Research physicist
Raymond L. McGovern Former Chairman, National Intelligence
Estimates, CIA, responsible for preparing the President' Daily Brief
William Christison Former National Intelligence Officer and Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis. 29-year CIA veteran.
Robert David Steele (Vivas) U.S. Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer for twenty years.
Melvin A. Goodman, PhD Former Division Chief and Senior Analyst at the Office of Soviet Affairs
Robert Baer Former CIA Case Officer, Specialist in the Middle East, Directorate of Operations. Awarded Career Intelligence Medal. 21-year CIA veteran.
Michael Levine Former Senior DEA investigator. 25-year DEA career.
Coleen Rowley Former Special Agent and Minneapolis Division Counsel, FBI. 24-year FBI career.
Sibel D. Edmonds Former Language Translation Specialist, performing translations for counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations, FBI. Witness before the 9/11 Commission.
Bogdan Dzakovic 14-year Counter-terrorism expert in the Security Division of the Federal Aviation Administration
Steve Elson Former Special Agent with the U.S. Navy, DEA and FAA. Specialist in Counterterrorism, Intelligence, and Security
William G. Weaver, JD, PhD Former U.S. Army Signals Intelligence officer.
Morgan Reynolds, PhD Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Labor
Paul Craig Roberts, PhD Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury
patriotsquestion911.com
Go Rosie. The truth is out there.
Wake Up America!
Anyone who does not believe WTC 7 was demolished with explosives probably has not even ever heard of WTC 7 before Rosie talked about it.
My first instinct a few months ago when I first started reading about all of the STRANGE, STRANGE Events preceeding, during and following 911 by our government I was a little freaked out. To be honest I still am a bit.
But once people actually look at the building collapse and read all the supporting evidence they will see obviously it was demolished with explosives. Now that does not implicate the government explicity.
Larry Silverstein could have planted them, the "terroists" could have planted them. Any number of things could have happened but the fact that a this building fell so UNUSUALLY and there was NO INVESTIGATION. The commision report still could not even make up a LIE because it is so weird. The 911 Commision report does not even say that building 7 fell by fire. THEY SAY THEY DON'T KNOW WHY IT FELL.
Hmmmm....and the government immediatly sent all of the rubble and molten steel overseas to be recycled. IMMEDIATLY. NO INVESTIGATION. PERIOD. A little weird? That is why I think it was the government.
Because they are obviously covering something up. Why would the government help cover a demolition up that terroists made happen.
The government would have been better off saying yeah building 7 was planted with explosives by the terroists. But they didn't.
So that is the tip of the iceberg by the way. Anyone who doubts this. I understand. The media has reported on this oh about 0 times except to say anyone who questions anything is retarded. Hmmmm....a little defensive are we?
Seriously any doubters. Don't bother insulting me or anyone else.
Just do yourself a favor. Go to google. Type in 911 truth. read it with an open mind. Hell, read it with a closed mind. Just read it....your mind will open.
Sorry to wake you out of your slumber. I do admit it does feel better to deny or not know that the government appears to be EXTREMELY GUILTY.
Ignorance is Bliss.
It seems as though the majority of comments on this page were written by Bush/war supporters that think corruption in government is impossible. There was no reason for trade center bldg. 7 to collapse other than it being brought down by demolition. Conspiracy is a tough thing for any American to swallow when we're made to believe we're a democracy bent on freedom and God. However, politicians can be as corrupt and as evil as anyone and to rule out the possibilty that conspiracy might have been a factor in the deaths and destruction on 9/11 is turning a blind eye to human nature itself. Realistically speaking, one in thirty Americans have been in jail, prison or are on probation for committing crimes. Are we to believe that polititions are above wrong doing, or are we really just too affraid to deal with the possibility that anyone representing this great country could be so evil? People that don't believe, there should be checks and balances in this country, that the government should answer to the people and that we should have the right to think and speak freely as provided by our constitution, are not a true Americans. I commend Rosie for speaking her mind, raising questions and not just blindly following as do the closed minded.
It's far easier to accept what the goverment tells us to believe then to believe as the evidence points, that we have lost control of our corrupted government. Those that cannot evaluate the facts of 9/11 and this war with Iraq are simply affraid of the truth. Instilling fear is what terrorism is all about and so we are terrorized to understand what our government involvement was on 9/11 and what our sons and daughters are dying in Iraq for.
God save this country from its complacencey and bring us back together as a nation under God, not under party affiliation.
Complete garbage. Rosie O'Donnell is the biggest piece of human filth on American TV today.
Her bird brain is awash in stupidity and flase claims.
Anyone who calls this "complete garbage", hasn't seen the initial hole in the pentagon that clearly wasn't caused by a 757 or WT7's impression of "stop, drop and roll", without the roll because a few scattered fires. Anyone who has seen the footage a few times and doesn't think the official version is totally bogus, is the birdbrain. You go back to watching your American Idol and Fox News.
"All great truths begin as blasphemies" - G.B. Shaw
Other "bird brained peices of filth" who don't believe the government's story:
www.patriotsquestion911.com
Senator Max Cleland
Senator Bob Graham
Senator Mark Dayton
Congressman Ron Paul, MD
Congressman Curt Weldon
Louis Freeh Director of the FBI
Edward L. Peck Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism
Morton Goulder Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Warning
Norm Mineta - U.S. Secretary of Transportation
John Loftus Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special
Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice
Fred Burks Former State Department Interpreter for Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton
General Wesley Clark, U.S. Army
Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army
Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps
Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force
Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force
Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps
Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army
Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force Former Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years, flying 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 's. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines airplanes that were hijacked on 9/11
Barbara Honegger, MS Senior Military Affairs Journalist
Lt. Col. Stephen L. Butler, EdD, U.S. Air Force
Capt. Scott J. Phillpott, U.S. Navy
Major Erik Kleinsmith, U.S. Army
James D. Smith - Former Able Danger Program Manager for Orion
Scientific Systems, a Department of Defense contractor
Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army (ret) Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency
Major Scott Ritter, U.S. Marine Corps Former Marine Corps Intelligence Officer
Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, U.S. Army Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer
Capt. Eric H. May, U.S. Army (ret) Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer.
Wayne Madsen Former U.S. Navy Intelligence Officer, specialist in electronic surveillance and security.
David L. Griscom, PhD Research physicist
Raymond L. McGovern Former Chairman, National Intelligence
Estimates, CIA, responsible for preparing the President' Daily Brief
William Christison Former National Intelligence Officer and Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis. 29-year CIA veteran.
Robert David Steele (Vivas) U.S. Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer for twenty years.
Melvin A. Goodman, PhD Former Division Chief and Senior Analyst at the Office of Soviet Affairs
Robert Baer Former CIA Case Officer, Specialist in the Middle East, Directorate of Operations. Awarded Career Intelligence Medal. 21-year CIA veteran.
Michael Levine Former Senior DEA investigator. 25-year DEA career.
Coleen Rowley Former Special Agent and Minneapolis Division Counsel, FBI. 24-year FBI career.
Sibel D. Edmonds Former Language Translation Specialist, performing translations for counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations, FBI. Witness before the 9/11 Commission.
Bogdan Dzakovic 14-year Counter-terrorism expert in the Security Division of the Federal Aviation Administration
Steve Elson Former Special Agent with the U.S. Navy, DEA and FAA. Specialist in Counterterrorism, Intelligence, and Security
William G. Weaver, JD, PhD Former U.S. Army Signals Intelligence officer.
Morgan Reynolds, PhD Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Labor
Paul Craig Roberts, PhD Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury
www.patriotsquestion911.com
That's right you peons.. just call Rosie names... not one of you can address a real issue... youre all labotomized freakin labrats... get an education... 911 was an inside job...Do you know what Bush was doing at the time? He was sitting in a school reading about a 'goat'... and he just sat there... like a moron... look it up!!! Danny Jowenko Controlled demolition expert says wtc7 is absolutely, no question, a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION! Jimmy Walters is offering $ONE MILLION DOLLARS to prove the 911 Commission Report holds water... if you know something... why arent you rich yet? Youre the idiot if you dont research for yourself, instead of listening to corporate news, (who should be behind bars also!!!)... but instead of calling Rosie names... i dare one of you to debate the issue rather than attack somes character. Obviously you dont know the first thing about 911... if you did... youd be arresting your govt... but your nothing but sheep!!!
earthica*
To the ones who know 911 was an inside job... I'll bet you're reading this post.. thank you
to the others... (the sheeple) why even bother addressing you?... you dont read anything at all... you just spout off at the mouth with no knowledge of what you are talking about. you dont even know what you stand for... much less what youre refuting!
click... change channels..
dont miss your 'program'
earthica *
My old buddy Fat Joe had a saying. How is that when I am wrong it is because I am stupid...but let me be right and then I am just FAT!
Truth is the ultimate defense. Today I became a fan of Rosie.
Rosie has to be a brave person. Anyone with a thought crime against our Bush - Fascist Gov't. is in great danger. As all despotisms the U.S. will use its secret gestapo to cause those who question to vanish. As the Nazis used "night & fog" to silence disenters so too does this "New Order." Its very dangerous to use the 1st Amendment!!!
LOOSE CHANGE 2 recut
interesting facts on an alternative version of events
1.5 hrs, good sountrack, good facts
steel does not melt at jet fuel burning temps
World Trade 1 and 2 were designed for airliner impacts and hurricanes
near the beginning of the video is a description of a "false flag" operation that would have been instigated by a former chair of the joint chiefs had McNamara and Kennedy allowed it. They didn't. Bush, Cheney and Rove have lower standards obviously.
Rosie is disgusting and ABC is worse for allowing it.
Quit attacking Rosie's weight. You can be skinny and be just as stupid, look at G-W-Bush. To all the people that Keep saying the building was "pulled"...you're not way off base. When rescue personnel say to "pull" or it's been "pulled" it means the people have been pulled out because it's a loss and not worth the risk of life.
To say they took advantage of the fires to blow the building is soooo flawed. It takes WWWEEEEKKKSSS to properly prepare a building to implode and nobody is going to wire a building weeks in advance, in the hopes that something like this would happen and they would be prepared. Duh....just think of how stupid that is.
Rosie just likes to blow hot gas to draw attention to herself so she can stay in the headlines and make a living. Everything else she has done has been a complete failure until she started attaching people and made headlines.
Our government has some nasty secrets and has done some terrible things, but this isn't one of them. I take our government over any other in the world...any day.
Why do you attack Rosie? Is it because it is safer and less scary to believe what the govt. has told you? Do you take everything that is told to you from the govt. with no questions asked? I suppose it is easier to make fun of someone than to think about what if. Makes you feel better than her, smarter than her. Keeps you safe in bed believing what is easier to believe. But what if?
Is it not our job to ask questions and to expect answers? But we take the easier route. Whatever is told to us, we believe. The govt. said it, so it must be so.
Thank you Rosie,
Thank you for having the guts to confront serious questions!
Rosie has researched building 7 and states what she has seen.
It's simple, watch the building come down and you realise that the insides of the building (all the support colloms) were simitainiously and precisely demolished.
Why should anybody think different? Even the govenment appointed "experts" dont have an answer for building 7.
Check out the research, and once you've done your homework, ask yourself this question. Was it a coincidence that Marvin Bush (George W.s brother) was in charge of security for the twin towers and building 7 on 911?
Oh those wacky, know-nothing, 9/11 conspiracy nutters:
wake the fuk up, these people have!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Senator Max Cleland
Senator Bob Graham
Senator Mark Dayton
Congressman Ron Paul, MD
Congressman Curt Weldon
Louis Freeh Director of the FBI
Edward L. Peck Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism
Morton Goulder Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Warning
Norm Mineta - U.S. Secretary of Transportation
John Loftus Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special
Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice
Fred Burks Former State Department Interpreter for Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton
General Wesley Clark, U.S. Army
Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army
Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps
Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force
Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force
Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps
Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army
Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force Former Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years, flying 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 's. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines airplanes that were hijacked on 9/11
Barbara Honegger, MS Senior Military Affairs Journalist
Lt. Col. Stephen L. Butler, EdD, U.S. Air Force
Capt. Scott J. Phillpott, U.S. Navy
Major Erik Kleinsmith, U.S. Army
James D. Smith - Former Able Danger Program Manager for Orion
Scientific Systems, a Department of Defense contractor
Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army (ret) Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency
Major Scott Ritter, U.S. Marine Corps Former Marine Corps Intelligence Officer
Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, U.S. Army Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer
Capt. Eric H. May, U.S. Army (ret) Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer.
Wayne Madsen Former U.S. Navy Intelligence Officer, specialist in electronic surveillance and security.
David L. Griscom, PhD Research physicist
Raymond L. McGovern Former Chairman, National Intelligence
Estimates, CIA, responsible for preparing the President' Daily Brief
William Christison Former National Intelligence Officer and Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis. 29-year CIA veteran.
Robert David Steele (Vivas) U.S. Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer for twenty years.
Melvin A. Goodman, PhD Former Division Chief and Senior Analyst at the Office of Soviet Affairs
Robert Baer Former CIA Case Officer, Specialist in the Middle East, Directorate of Operations. Awarded Career Intelligence Medal. 21-year CIA veteran.
Michael Levine Former Senior DEA investigator. 25-year DEA career.
Coleen Rowley Former Special Agent and Minneapolis Division Counsel, FBI. 24-year FBI career.
Sibel D. Edmonds Former Language Translation Specialist, performing translations for counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations, FBI. Witness before the 9/11 Commission.
Bogdan Dzakovic 14-year Counter-terrorism expert in the Security Division of the Federal Aviation Administration
Steve Elson Former Special Agent with the U.S. Navy, DEA and FAA. Specialist in Counterterrorism, Intelligence, and Security
William G. Weaver, JD, PhD Former U.S. Army Signals Intelligence officer.
Morgan Reynolds, PhD Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Labor
Paul Craig Roberts, PhD Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury
WHO THE FUK ACTAULLY HATES SOME ONE WHO SPEAKS OUT FOR THE BETTER GOOD? IT BLOWS MY MIND , ROSIE IS A HERO!!
BLOGS ARE ALWAYS FUNNY ....SERIOUSLY, TAKE A QUICK OVER VIEW OF THIS ONE....PEOPLE WHO SAY ''ROSIE IS A WACKO" ( THE RETARDS) V.S. PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY KNOW THE FACTS AND THE ISSUES.
SO........... AGAIN "ROSIE IS A LOONIE" V.S ALL OF THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE! FUKING TAKE A GOOD LOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB SAYS ME, HALF OF THE WORLD, AND.................................................................................................
.............................................. KNOW WHAT A CONSTIRACY THEORY IS BEFORE YOU CLAIM TO HAVE MORE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE ISSUE THAN THESE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Senator Max Cleland
Senator Bob Graham
Senator Mark Dayton
Congressman Ron Paul, MD
Congressman Curt Weldon
Louis Freeh Director of the FBI
Edward L. Peck Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism
Morton Goulder Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Warning
Norm Mineta - U.S. Secretary of Transportation
John Loftus Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special
Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice
Fred Burks Former State Department Interpreter for Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton
General Wesley Clark, U.S. Army
Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army
Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps
Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force
Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force
Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps
Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army
Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force Former Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years, flying 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 's. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines airplanes that were hijacked on 9/11
Barbara Honegger, MS Senior Military Affairs Journalist
Lt. Col. Stephen L. Butler, EdD, U.S. Air Force
Capt. Scott J. Phillpott, U.S. Navy
Major Erik Kleinsmith, U.S. Army
James D. Smith - Former Able Danger Program Manager for Orion
Scientific Systems, a Department of Defense contractor
Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army (ret) Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency
Major Scott Ritter, U.S. Marine Corps Former Marine Corps Intelligence Officer
Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, U.S. Army Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer
Capt. Eric H. May, U.S. Army (ret) Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer.
Wayne Madsen Former U.S. Navy Intelligence Officer, specialist in electronic surveillance and security.
David L. Griscom, PhD Research physicist
Raymond L. McGovern Former Chairman, National Intelligence
Estimates, CIA, responsible for preparing the President' Daily Brief
William Christison Former National Intelligence Officer and Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis. 29-year CIA veteran.
Robert David Steele (Vivas) U.S. Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer for twenty years.
Melvin A. Goodman, PhD Former Division Chief and Senior Analyst at the Office of Soviet Affairs
Robert Baer Former CIA Case Officer, Specialist in the Middle East, Directorate of Operations. Awarded Career Intelligence Medal. 21-year CIA veteran.
Michael Levine Former Senior DEA investigator. 25-year DEA career.
Coleen Rowley Former Special Agent and Minneapolis Division Counsel, FBI. 24-year FBI career.
Sibel D. Edmonds Former Language Translation Specialist, performing translations for counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations, FBI. Witness before the 9/11 Commission.
Bogdan Dzakovic 14-year Counter-terrorism expert in the Security Division of the Federal Aviation Administration
Steve Elson Former Special Agent with the U.S. Navy, DEA and FAA. Specialist in Counterterrorism, Intelligence, and Security
William G. Weaver, JD, PhD Former U.S. Army Signals Intelligence officer.
Morgan Reynolds, PhD Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Labor
Paul Craig Roberts, PhD Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury
WOW!!!!! WAKE UP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JOIN THE LIST!!
Guess what, I AM a professional structural engineer. Both the buildings were designed to collapse that way if they were to ever be attacked. This was done so surrounding buildings (we are in NY!) would not be harmed. Steel itself probably didn't fail first, but the connections and bolts. They don't need to melt, any large amount of heat will reduce their strength enough for failure. And it only takes a couple of failed beams to create instability throughout the whole structure. The rest is like dominos.
I like how all of the conspiracy folks are only concentrating on the WTC buildings. How about the Pentagon attack?, or the plane that miracously didn't make it to the White House? I'm guessing those too were part of some elaborate scheme to cover up something.
And for the person who listed all of the "non-retards," I saw not one sturctural expert on your holier than thou list or anyone that would know the first thing about structural failure. As in, someone who has actual experience dealing with failure. In fact, 90% of your list consists of political science/business "experts." You might as well say that since I have a PhD (in CE), that I could be a credited source on a medical issue. Rosie is a loud mouth who speaks of what she has no experience in. She has no mind of her own, she is just repeating what somebody else has said. She is weak and easily influenced by fanatical ideas (of others, of course).
It's amazing to think people still believe in Conspiracies. Conspiracy theories are for people who are too naive to accept that there is a religion that hates all other relgions.
That religion is Islam.
Not all islamic people are bad, but it only takes a few to ruin a religion.
Take a look at this web site.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
It is a true unbiased look at the "religion of peace"... Islam. Where they cut off your ear if they don't like your face.
Where it's illegal to be Christian in our "allies" of Saudi Arabia.
Where they expect our culture to adapt to them coming here.
Where they think they can have Sharia law in this country.
Where are the moderate Muslims telling the fanatics to stop? They are scared. And rightly so. Any moderate muslim will be killed if he stands up to his fantatical brother.
THE MUSLIMS committed 9/11. They openly admit it. THE MUSLIMS HIJACKED THE PLANES. THE MUSLIMS BOMBED SUBWAYS AND BUSSES.
They are happy to die for their Allah.
They riot when someone makes fun of their prophet.
DEATH TO THE (fanatical) MUSLIMS
oh yeah... WTC 7 myths can be answered by this website.
www.911myths.com<>
Popular mechanics responds to Rosie
Rosie needs to talk to the real heros of that day, the firefighters that were actually there.
I'm sure that Chiefs Boyle, Haden and Visconti would be happy to discuss what they saw and heard.
Rosie,
I'm glad that you brought attention to building seven. There is so much information out there to support the fact that 9/11 was an inside job. Congratulations for being brave enough to bring it up. I support you wholeheartedly!
God Bless you.
Marlee
Rosie,
I'm glad that you brought attention to building seven. There is so much information out there to support the fact that 9/11 was an inside job. Congratulations for being brave enough to bring it up. I support you wholeheartedly!
God Bless you.
Marlee
Rosie,
I'm glad that you brought attention to building seven. There is so much information out there to support the fact that 9/11 was an inside job. Congratulations for being brave enough to bring it up. I support you wholeheartedly!
God Bless you.
Marlee
Rosie,
I'm glad that you brought attention to building seven. There is so much information out there to support the fact that 9/11 was an inside job. Congratulations for being brave enough to bring it up. I support you wholeheartedly!
God Bless you.
Marlee
Beep beep, this just in: Hurricane Katrina was caused by a top secret satellite owned by the government that can control weather patterns. It was used because the government thought there should be less black people...
Rosie is entitled to say any stupid thing she wants, whenever she wants. However that ends when her statements embolden our enemies and affects the lives and freedoms of others. When that happens there will be a reckoning! You can guarentee it!
Rosie is my hero!
You idiots that think that religeous fundamentalists are responsible for 9/11 (The Box Cutter Theory) are a product of the corporate media. You are the reason why this country has lost it's greatness.
If you wanted to see the truth you could. It's right in front of your nose.
You are too scared to question authority. You are "Good Germans".
There is a very real, very true, very simple answer to why WTC7 came down. My husband worked in that building and I have several friends who worked there also. The Secret Service and CIA had offices in that building and they had large stores of ammo for their agents. In fact, in the basement was a shooting range for practice, also with large stores of ammo. Ammo and fire do not mix. The firefighters will tell you that they could not get close enough to fight that fire because the stores of ammo kept going off and bullets were flying. They had to let it burn plus, they were afraid of an explosion from the stores. I know this firsthand. That's why they let it burn, and it burned for hours unchecked and then collapsed. Any explosions heard were the ammo stores. There were other agencies in there as well, among them the EEOC. I guess they blew up the building too.
In the days following 9/11 I stayed at a hotel in NJ. Also staying there was a woman from the architectural firm that built WTC7. She had driven non-stop to get there to determine why it had collapsed. What she found out was it was permitted to burn down with stores of ammo (explosives) inside.
All of this has said been before about our government. Remember the Oklahoma City Bombing? Clinton was President then and some nutbuckets blame him for it with exactly many of the same reasons people are blaming Bush. Read the conspiracy websites on that one. The 9/11 conspiracy theorists are taking stuff from them verbatim. The only difference is that it was the right doing the blaming that time. How odd. I guess politics DO make strange bedfellows. I was not a Clinton fan but I never, in my wildest dreams, would blame the government of my country or its President for blowing up their own building. Yes, I work for the government and so do my husband and other relatives. I guess that makes us culpable in the "9/11 Conspiracy". All I know is my husband suffers greatly to this day because of both OKC and 9/11 and what he went through because of those incidents. I'm sick to death of these self-serving conspiracies. We've lived it in our family. I think this nonsense gets way too much attention from the media. The answers have been given before for those who care enough to do more than "Google".
Angel Lady... You are either an operative or incredibly naive. If ammo explosives went off due to fire, it wouldn't cause the building to fall symetrically and at free fall speed. If it did, it would have been used as an explanation by NIST. Also, if it could, controlled demolition companys are overcharging and wasting a lot of time spending weeks if not months planning and preparing buildings to fall the way WTC7 fell. The same goes for the erroneous claims about the stock piles of deisel fuel for Guiliani's command bunker. They can not account for the physics that WTC7 displayed upon it's destruction.
The woman from the architecural firm that built WTC7 was puzzled and curious because she would have known that the building was over built to allow future tenants to remove every other floor and have double height floors and still withstand 100 mile per hour winds.
From this NY Times article from 1989 about the Salomon Brothers Building (WTC7)...
''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need.
Link to article...
That is why WTC7 is the smoking gun. Wake up already!!!
Please get the facts straight.
It is true that WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane. It was, however, hit by and severely damaged by debris from the collapse of WTC 1. In fact, the damage was so severe that early on in the afternoon, the NYFD decided to pull back and establish a collapse zone around the building for safety reasons.
The building burned for 7 hours. There is evidence that the fires were fed by diesel fuel leaking from the emergency generator system piping which was in the area of known damage along the south face of the building. 7 hours. Even passive fireproofing systems are only rated for 4 hours.
There is ABSOLUTELY no credible evidence anywhere, ANYWHERE, of molten steel. There is only one third hand report, "a friend of a friend" in mythology parlance.
There is credible data regarding the erosion of the steel. The process is known as "hot Corrosion" and was observed on steel beams that had been buried in the hot, burning rubble pile for several weeks. There is no evidence that this had anything to do with the building collapse.
There is NO credible evidence indicating the presence of any explosives of incendiary devices (i.e. thermite). Any claims to the contrary are not based on sound, valid science or data.
The claim that "never before in history has any building collapsed from fire." Conveniently ignores some major points.
1- Buildings, even steel buildings, have indeed collapsed from fires.
2- All three buildings were structurally damaged, either by the airplanes or by debris.
3- All three buildings had unique structural designs that do not correlate well with other high-rise fires.
4- The materials used, the fire loads and the level of firefighting all have a major influence in how a building responds to a fire. There are no valid comparisons to 9/11, thus the statement "never before in history," is nonsensical.
There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of structural engineers, architects, scientists, etc, world wide who seem to be completely satisfied by the explanation that the structure collapsed from damage and fire. Why should we listen to a handful of people who don't even have formal training in the relevant fields and who consistently and demonstratively distort or misstate the facts?
Palpitane... Just saying these things doesn't make it so. Where is your proof?
No one has proven that explosions of ammo and/or deisel fuel caused the symetrical collapse of the building. These are wild suggestions by people grasping for an explanantion.
There is indeed scientific evidence, however, that Thermate (special brand of thermite) was used. You can't just ignore the things that don't fit into your paradigm. There is no explanantion for thermite being there unless it was used as part of a controlled demolition.
Just because the coporate media hasn't reported on the number of serious professionals (military, intelligence and Universtity Professors) that have raised serious questions about 9/11 doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
I'm not saing I have all the answers. But I'm not claiming the case is closed either. You should be asking for an independent investigation to clear up these inconsistencies along with me.
It is a fact that the building was struck by and damaged by the debris from WTC 1. It is a fact that many of the firemen on site that afternoon witnessed this. Are you calling them liars ????
It is a fact that WTC 7 had an unusual structural design. It is a fact that the building had numerous diesel fuel systems serving a number of emergency generator systems. It is a fact that these systems were activated a few minutes before the collapse of WTC 1 when ComEd took the electrical substation UNDER THE BUILDING off line.
It is a fact that two of the underground storage tanks, which were normally maintained full were later found to be empty, and undamaged. Where did that fuel go?
It is a fact that the film clip that the "troothers" show of the collapse of WTC 7 is highly edited and does not, in fact show the entire collapse sequence.
It is a fact that there is no scientifically valid data that proves thermite or thermate or even Rosie O'Donnell's farts were present at ground zero.
NONE WHATSOEVER.
Those that claim otherwise are lying to you.
Ask to see the sample data. Ask to see the chain of custody of the sample matrix. Ask to see what type of controls were made to prevent cross contamination of the sample. Ask to see the QAQC data on the analysis. Ask what kind of combustion byproducts and residues are produced by burning common building materials, people and office products. Ask to know how representative the data is of the site as a whole.
Ask these things and you will find that they have NOTHING. Steven Jones is full of it. He is trying desperately to justify tossing his teaching career in the dumpster. Oh, wait, was that Fetzer and Woods, instead? Maybe there were top secret energy beams from outer space. Isn't that their claim? Which was it?
All of the wild claims by "troothers" is garbage, and you know it. Maybe you should have studied science a little harder in high school.
Ryan wrote:
"Check out the research, and once you've done your homework, ask yourself this question. Was it a coincidence that Marvin Bush (George W.s brother) was in charge of security for the twin towers and building 7 on 911?"
EEEEEEERNNNNNNCH
Wrong.
He had left the company a year earlier and had no association with it on 9/11/01.
Try again.
Dave wrote:
"The same goes for the erroneous claims about the stock piles of deisel fuel for Guiliani's command bunker."
There were numerous fuel storage systems in the building. No one has ever made the claim that the 3,000 gallon fuel tank of the Mayor's office had anything to do with the collapse.
I was the Solomon Brothers system. Their system used a battery powered, pressurized fuel line to deliver the fuel from the USTs to the generator sets. One probable scenario is that this line was damaged where it crossed the south face of the building. The generator sets would have all shut down shortly after WTC 1 collapsed when their intake filters clogged with dust. In any case, the battery powered fuel pump would have continued to pressurize the fuel line. A leak in this line would explain why the two 6,000 gallon fuel tanks were found to be empty when they were excavated months later. A leak in this line would explain the copious amounts of black smoke pouring out of the gash in the south face of the building.
Dave also wrote:
"''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need."
That has nothing to do with the transfer trusses in the lower part of the building that spanned the ComEd electrical substation.
Dave also wrote:
"They can not account for the physics that WTC7 displayed upon it's destruction"
What physics is that, the fact that the building took up to 13 to 18 seconds to collapse, not the 6 seconds that CTers use to deliberately lie to people with.
Why do CTers keep showing the video of the collapse that only shows the last half of the collapse? Why is it that they never show the entire sequence? Why can't you be honest?
The dumb fat fuckin cunt should be moved to a deserted island....she is a fucking disgrace to all americans....FUCK THAT IGNORANT BITCH....
Luckypenny posted:
"come on people... no one is suggesting that 9/11 was a conspiracy. What's being suggested is that in light of what happened that day, Silverstein, who owned that building and served to profit from the insurance proceeds, decided to demolish WTC bldg 7 that day because the opportunity presented itself."
Totally impossible.
Maybe you should have studied critical thinking a little harder. You ask for proof and then you character assassinate people like Steven Jones who has already documented his scientific research. Did you learn the character assassination trick in Nazi school, or were you just raised that way?
And no one is saying it's all been answered, but we are saying there is enough inconsistencies with the box cutter theory to warrant an independent investigation. Clearly, this is something you are afraid of.
LOL, and you think the wtc 7 video was "highly edited"? Was that before or after the networks ran them? Who's the conspiracy theorist now? Where's your proof that it was edited? Can you post a link to the original unedited version? Please!!! I'd love to have a reason to believe this isn't the result of the military industrial complex.
And as for directed energy weapons, I don't know enough about classified military technology to determine if there is any weight to their argument. But since you know it all, why don't you explain to us how The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), commonly called Star Wars, technology physically works.
Now be a "Good German" and practice your character assassination. This story is breaking bigger than ever and you have your work cut out for you.
"Popular mechanics responds to Rosie: www.popularmechanics.com"
Popular Mechanics is perpetrating fraud through the use of strawman arguments that are so transparent you'd have to be a blithering idiot not to see through them.
They are a Hearst publication. If you look up "yellow journalism" in an encyclopedia you'll see Hearst mentioned right that top.....LITERALLY. Go look it up wikipedia for example. Or ANYWHERE on internet. They basically invented yellow journalism.
Then we have the fact that Benjamin Chertoff, a senior researcher at Popular Mechanics who was responsible for a previous Popular Mechanics article attempting to debunk alternative 9/11 theories, is Michael Chertoff's cousin. The cousin of the head of Homeland Security is NOT an objective source for such debunking. So you can just go ahead and wake up now and start trying to think for yourselves instead of believing every little thing your government tells you as if you were it's helpless little children.
"There is a very real, very true, very simple answer to why WTC7 came down. My husband worked in that building and I have several friends who worked there also. The Secret Service and CIA had offices in that building and they had large stores of ammo for their agents. In fact, in the basement was a shooting range for practice, also with large stores of ammo."
LOL. So you and your husband are somehow the only people in the world that know about this? Nothing about it in any of the investigations, nothing about it in the 9/11 commission report. There's a very simple explanation for this: You're MAKING IT UP. The only question is why would you come on here and make up some nonsense like this? I'm really curious. I hope you reply. I can see why the poster above thinks you're a paid propaganda operative. You sure as hell LOOK like one posting that peice of tripe. Whoever you are you should feel ashamed of yourself.
"All of this has said been before about our government. Remember the Oklahoma City Bombing? Clinton was President then and some nutbuckets blame him for it with exactly many of the same reasons people are blaming Bush."
That's an extreme mischaracterization of the general dissent around the official 9/11 story. The vast majority of the serious scholarly discussion, research, and debate on this subject doesn't even MENTION Bush. You can see that for yourself very quickly right here:
Only a couple of the senior government officials on that site point the finger at Bush specifically. The other 90 or so are pointing at OTHER elements within the government or are simply saying that the 9/11 commission report doesn't make sense and a new, uncomprised investigation needs to take place.
"I never, in my wildest dreams, would blame the government of my country or its President for blowing up their own building"
Why on earth not??? Governments have ALWAYS done this in order to promote other agendas. Crack a history book. Even the US government has been caught dead to rights conducting (or attempting to conduct) false flag, reichstag types of operations. One very similar case in point was Operation Northwoods, which you can easily go look up yourself, where the US government was planning on shooting down US planes, attacking US soil and even killing US civilians in order to promote the cold war agenda. The only reason it didn't get implemented was because Kennedy wouldn't sign off on it. Thank God.
"Yes, I work for the government and so do my husband and other relatives. I guess that makes us culpable in the "9/11 Conspiracy"."
Well if you're on here knowingly fabricating completely bogus stories about how the WTC7 came down (because of gun ammo in the basement - LOL) then yeah, that would pretty much put you in that camp. Ya dumbass.
"All I know is my husband suffers greatly to this day because of both OKC and 9/11 and what he went through because of those incidents. I'm sick to death of these self-serving conspiracies."
Well, I'm sick to death of people like YOU who don't understand how governments work, don't read history books, spew obvious propaganda about WTC7, strut around like a nazi trying to get people to stop questioning their own government, and living like a tick off of the rest of us by being a government employee. What exactly is it that you do anyway when they aren't paying you to visit discussion forums and post nonsense about WTC7?
"I think this nonsense gets way too much attention from the media."
LOL. Wow. I know you're not talking about ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN or Fox!
"The answers have been given before for those who care enough to do more than "Google"."
Google isn't a valid research tool? That's news to me. Anyone else here aware of this remarkable new revelation?? How on earth did their stock get up to $600 per share if you can't use google to do research??!! Isn't the government's official 9/11 Commission report available through google? It was the last time I checked. But I guess somebody better go inform all the top universities, government think tanks, world class research scientists, etc. that google just isn't cutting it for them. Lady, you're a real peice of work. If you even ARE a lady.
"There is ABSOLUTELY no credible evidence anywhere, ANYWHERE, of molten steel. There is only one third hand report, "a friend of a friend" in mythology parlance."
Beeeeeeeep! Wrong.
"Why should we listen to a handful of people who don't even have formal training in the relevant fields"
Physics, intelligence, aviation, communications, defense systems, weaponry, counter-terrorism, accident investigation, and criminal justice are not relevant to 9/11?
The people on this website (patriotsquestion911.com) are veteran experts in these areas with PhDs and decades of experience. What sort of additional formal training did you have in mind?
".......and who consistently and demonstratively distort or misstate the facts?"
Example?
Dave wrote:
"You ask for proof and then you character assassinate people like Steven Jones who has already documented his scientific research. Did you learn the character assassination trick in Nazi school, or were you just raised that way? "
Talk about the pot calling the kettle a frying pan... .
Steven Jones is a Kook. (with a capital K)
His so called proof of thermite/themite doesn't stand the slightest bit of scientific scrutiny. His deliberate ignoring of Ocham's razor is an insult to everyone that has ever studied and practiced the scientific method.
But enough of him, what about Dr. Judy Woods? Are you going to leap to her defenses also when I call her an ignorant moron who must have slept her way to a PhD? (That is the only explanation that can account for her astounding lack of physics knowledge.)
Do you agree with her claim that "beam weapons" from space destroyed the towers?
You have to choose. Woods or Jones. Which one, Dave? Their theories are mutualy exclusive. There is a bitter rift between the two camps.
Who's side are you on?
Bighead wrote:
"Popular Mechanics is perpetrating fraud through the use of strawman arguments that are so transparent you'd have to be a blithering idiot not to see through them.
They are a Hearst publication. If you look up blah, blah, blah (long and rambling post)"
According to you, everyone is in on it but you. You sound like the kid in the playground who is mad because the other kids won't let you play with them.
Bighead wrote:
"Physics, intelligence, aviation, communications, defense systems, weaponry, counter-terrorism, accident investigation, and criminal justice are not relevant to 9/11? "
They are not relevant to the question of the nature and cause of the collapse of any of the WTC buildings.
How come there are no structural engineers with steel building experience in there?
As to your molten steel site, I counter it with this.
poor Steve Jones. everyone picks on him.
LOL
Palpitane...
If Steven Jones' research "doesn't stand to slightest bit of scientific research," where is the proof? What do you base this opinion on?
Despite the evidence of thermite or not (and there is more evidence than not), it's clear from the video that these buildings were control demo'd. Where are all the "real" scientist that have studied and supported what you suggest?
I find that most people cannot accept the obvious because of the implications of that reality.
As for Fetzer and Woods, I don't care what unofficial investigation sparks a real investigation. I don't have to figure out what happened, I just have to figure out what didn't happen. And what didn't happen is the official story. Beyond that, it doesn't matter to me how they actually did it. It doesn't matter if it was a controlled demo with thermite, directed energy beams that they use to shoot down missiles with, a UFO using holographic technology while destroying the building with their own energy beam, David Blaine using mental telepathy or a combination of any or all of them. What I can say is that they are lying. And that's enough.
Dave, you state:
"it's clear from the video that these buildings were control demo'd."
What is your background that allows you to make that claim? can you even begin to estimate (on your own) the amount of force a falling object has?
Are you a strucutral engineer?
Have you ever studied strucutral dynamics?
Do you understand fire science? How hot can a typical structure fire get?
If you have no formal training in the subject, why do you ignore those who do?
A little research will bring to light numerous papers published in peer reviewed journals that deal with various aspects of the collapses and their implcations to building design.
(no, I'm not going to do your research for you)
You really need to open yourself up to the possibility that "Hey, maybe there is no evil secret fraternity trying to control my life."
Feel the power of the paranoia-free side. Life is so much healthier.
Dave: "What I can say is that they are lying. And that's enough."
Enough! Seriously. Do you have a clue just how insane that sounds?
Get some help, Dave.
See a doctor, get laid, get out of the basement, do something.
Later dude, it was nice, but i'm not going to waste any more time on you.
I have extensive experience googling controlled demos on Google video. I have the experience of observation. I have the ability to see the difference between a controlled demo and destruction due to fire.
I can see you are a conspiracy theorists because you actually believe in the box cutter theory. Where is the proof that Islamic Fundamentalists had the ability to hijack 4 planes and crash three of them into high profile targets? Not even the FBI believes Bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11.
Why was the president not removed from the public school building after it was apparent we under attack after the second plane hit. The Secret Service is required to move the president and protect him from any threats. Clearly they weren't concerned for his safety because they knew what was going down that day.
Where is your proof that these were not controlled demolitions? There should be numerous sites hosted by prestigious scientists proving what you say you believe.
You have proven yourself to be either ignorant or part of this bullshit. Do you Satan worship too? Did you get some special energy feedback from the holocaust of 9/11? Are you closer to Moloch now?
"How come there are no structural engineers with steel building experience in there?"
Hugo Bachmann, PhD Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
"In my opinion the building WTC 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane] was, with great probability, professionally demolished,"
Jrg Schneider, emeritus ETH - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction:
"......building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."
Jack Keller, PhD, PE Professor Emeritus, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University. Member, National Academy of Engineering. Selected by Scientific American magazine as one of the world's 50 leading contributors to science and technology benefiting society (2004).
"Research proves the current administration has been dishonest about what happened in New York and Washington, D.C. The World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government's official story about the attack on the Pentagon."
Rosie O'Donnell needs to either shut her mouth, or stuff it with a Quarter Pounder with cheese as she usually does nine times a day. Since when did she become an expert in engineering, history or anything. She thinks that just because her hideously fat face is on TV she is informed and that we should all blindly listen to her antics. Bullshit. For every lunatic engineer she can find to support her blasphemous claims there are 10,000 others who say she is wrong. The WTC was destroyed by Islamic Terrorist from the Al Qaeda organization, end of story. There were no demolitions, there was no conspiracy by the United States. She is a crackpot and should not be allowed to be on television. She belongs in a mental asylum or a dank cave. Screw Rosie Boycott the View.
God Bless America
"For every lunatic engineer she can find to support her blasphemous claims there are 10,000 others who say she is wrong"
Prove it.
"The WTC was destroyed by Islamic Terrorist from the Al Qaeda organization, end of story."
Where's your evidence? Even the FBI is now saying that they don't have enough evidence to connect Bin Laden, the head of Al Qaeda, to 9/11 which is why, to this day, they never added 9/11 to his wanted poster. Read it and weap:
And here's the wanted poster:
www.fbi.gov
Dan... Why do you hate America? Why do you want to take away our freedoms? Why do you believe Bin Laden did it when the FBI doesn't? Are you a Christian soldier or something? Fake patriots like you are destroying this country.
If you don't like Rosie, pick another real patriot that you can trust.
www.patriotsquestion911.com - they come in all flavors!
Because real Americans favor our country over the government. We value the Constitution, not the corruptable people that fail to protect it.
I think both Dan and Palpitan may have permanently left the room having just gotten their asses handed to them in those last few posts. There's just no getting around some of the basic facts surrounding this issue that clearly show SOMETHING is seriously awry with our government where 9/11 and the war on terror are concerned.
It seems so Big Head. Nice work there btw!
Thanks. This isn't my first rodeo, if you know what I mean.
I was going to leave this thread alone, but you had to throw out more crap.
Old Hugo. Poor old guy. Suckered in by the same highly edited video that has everyone else fooled.
"In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished," says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also Jrg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."
So this clown make this statement after just watching the video, without any knowledge of the extent of the structural damage or fires, huh?
Nice try, but no cigar.
Deputy Chief Peter Hayden was a 30+ year veteran on 9/11 this is what he has to say about WTC 7:
"By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."
ARE YOU CALLING THIS MAN A LIAR?
Deputy Chief Nick Visconti, another 30+ year man.
"I don't know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side. I looked up at the building and I saw smoke in it, but I really didn't see any fire at that time."
... .
"Now, World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself, how come they're not trying to put this fire out? I didn't realize how much they had because my view was obstructed. All I could see was the upper floor. At some point, Frank Fellini said, now we've got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds and hundreds, and that's on the West Street side alone. He said to me, Nick, you've got to get those people out of there. I thought to myself, out of where? Frank, what do you want, Chief? He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we've got to get those people out of there."
ARE YOU CALLING THIS MAN A LIAR, ALSO?
How about Captain Chris Boyle? What thirty pieces of silver are you going to claim that he sold out 343 of his fellow fire fighters for?
"So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.
Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. 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 coming out of there, so we just stopped.
There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it."
ARE YOU CALLING HIM A LIAR?
ANSWER ME, YOU CHICKEN DIRT!!!
ARE THESE MEN LIARS?
Now I'll leave you two losers alone.
You two wouldn't have the guts to go to New York and espouse your theories in the firehouses.
'cause you know you'd get your asses handed to you in a bucket.
Fools.
"Old Hugo. Poor old guy. Suckered in by the same highly edited video that has everyone else fooled."
Where does that site indicate that he was suckered in by highly edited video? I don't see that anywhere.
"So this clown make this statement after just watching the video, without any knowledge of the extent of the structural damage or fires, huh?"
What do you mean "THE" video? There's obviously more than one. I've personally seen at least three. It clearly says he watched all of the available video recordings of WTC7. Were they ALL highly edited? Who is doing all this editing you keep refering to? And where does that quoted statement (or anything on that site) say that he had no knowledge of the structural damage or fires? And why on earth WOULDN'T he have knowledge of the structural damage or fires when anyone can find information about that on google in 5 seconds. You're grabbing at some pretty loose straw there.
And then, since you're cherry picking my posts, you conveniently ignored Jack Keller, one of the worlds greatest structural engineers who says that not only was WTC7 a controlled demolition but so were WTC1 and WTC2. What's your made up excuse for him? He watched the wrong videos? He's the only guy in the world that has no idea of what sort of structural damage occured? One of the worlds 50 greatest scientists according to Scientific American? Perhaps you just don't like his tie - it is sort of funny looking.
You're dismissed. Bye.
Yes. They are Liars. Like You!!!
I live in NYC and the firefighters in the city know the truth.
I'm also saying that the BBC are liars too!
Admit it! You are afraid of a real investigation!!!
And Danny Jowenko, a dutch controlled demolition expert is telling the truth when he says that Building 7 was a controlled demolition.
Listen to a phone call to him in February where he reconfirms this notion.
What a slaughter.
YAWN
You looney tunes conspiracy goofs bore me.
I see this attempt at trying to get some mature discussion here that isn't to immature name-calling and fingerpointing is fruitless. Let me just have you go back and read again what I wrote as a prime example of misunderstanding. I never said the ammo stores brought down the building. I said that it made it difficult for firefighters to get close to fight the fire because they kept exploding and going off. One reason they let it burn. I know this firsthand but I'm sure it's written somewhere. And, yes, there was a shooting range in the basement also. You guys are so good at research I'm sure you can find it somewhere on the web. Do some real reading in books of those who were there that day doing the job. THAT is what I said, not that the ammo stores brought down the building. They let it burn. And yes, there were emergency stores of fuel for generators in the Emergency Services Offices as well as Secret Service and I believe also Smith Barney. This was to allow those offices to still operate in a power outage. I don't know where you got the information that the tanks were found empty but it would make sense that they empty because they burned off and fueled the fire.
None of your arguments make sense, they just go around and around and repeat all the misinformation over and over again, and failing that, you revert to personal accusations. I feel sorry for you, I really do. I'm done here, there's no reason to stay and try and reason. Oh, and I do have that big report to file on all of you. You said it, so it must be true.
Just remember one thing, if nothing else. Any fool can put up a website with foolish information, and most fools do.
OK Angel Lady...
My apologies for the misunderstanding. And so name calling aside and regardless of the ammo storage, I have to ask... Have you really looked at the information we've been posting.
There are many accounts of professionals making their case based on their expert opinion.
In particular, this little 13 min documentary on WTC7 ends with showing the footage of WTC7 to a highly regarded president of a Dutch Controlled Demolition company. You can see he is reaction of disbelief as he is told this building fell the same day as the towers.
Does this give you any pause? Do you even look at the information everyone is citing?
Regardless of which polls you look at, you have to admit there is a significant % of the people that don't agree with you. Do you really think that this many people would question this if there weren't something to it?
I know I'm a rational person. I've got some college and I work in a field that requires critical thinking, analysis and problem solving on a daily basis. If I really lost all of these critical skills upon coming to these revelations about 9/11 a few years back, I would have been let go some time ago. The market place would have ensured that.
As you classify it as foolish information, I'm just curious if you really know what the information is that you seem to be systematically disregarding. I would think you would be at least a little curious as more and more serious people are risking evrything to go public on this.
"Any fool can put up a website with foolish information, and most fools do."
Are these people fools too then:
Louis Freeh - Director of the FBI
Edward L. Peck - Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism
Morton Goulder - Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Warning
Norm Mineta - U.S. Secretary of Transportation
John Loftus - Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special
Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice
Fred Burks - Former State Department Interpreter for Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton
General Wesley Clark, U.S. Army
Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army
Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps
Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force
Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force
Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps
Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army
Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force Former Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years, flying 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 's. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines airplanes that were hijacked on 9/11
Barbara Honegger, MS Senior Military Affairs Journalist
Lt. Col. Stephen L. Butler, EdD, U.S. Air Force
Capt. Scott J. Phillpott, U.S. Navy
Major Erik Kleinsmith, U.S. Army
James D. Smith - Former Able Danger Program Manager for Orion
Scientific Systems, a Department of Defense contractor
Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army (ret) - Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency
Major Scott Ritter, U.S. Marine Corps - Former Marine Corps Intelligence Officer
Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, U.S. Army - Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer
Capt. Eric H. May, U.S. Army (ret) - Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer.
Wayne Madsen - Former U.S. Navy Intelligence Officer, specialist in electronic surveillance and security.
David L. Griscom, PhD - Research physicist
Raymond L. McGovern - Former Chairman, National Intelligence
Estimates, CIA, responsible for preparing the President' Daily Brief
William Christison - Former National Intelligence Officer and Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis. 29-year CIA veteran.
Robert David Steele (Vivas) - U.S. Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer for twenty years.
Melvin A. Goodman, PhD - Former Division Chief and Senior Analyst at the Office of Soviet Affairs
Robert Baer - Former CIA Case Officer, Specialist in the Middle East, Directorate of Operations. Awarded Career Intelligence Medal. 21-year CIA veteran.
Michael Levine - Former Senior DEA investigator. 25-year DEA career.
Coleen Rowley - Former Special Agent and Minneapolis Division Counsel, FBI. 24-year FBI career.
Sibel D. Edmonds - Former Language Translation Specialist, performing translations for counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations, FBI. Witness before the 9/11 Commission.
Bogdan Dzakovic - 14-year Counter-terrorism expert in the Security Division of the Federal Aviation Administration
Steve Elson - Former Special Agent with the U.S. Navy, DEA and FAA. Specialist in Counterterrorism, Intelligence, and Security
William G. Weaver, JD, PhD - Former U.S. Army Signals Intelligence officer.
Morgan Reynolds, PhD - Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Labor
Paul Craig Roberts, PhD - Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury
Senator Max Cleland
Senator Bob Graham
Senator Mark Dayton
Congressman Ron Paul, MD
Congressman Curt Weldon
patriotsquestion911.com
Dave writes:
"Yes. They are Liars. Like You!!!
I live in NYC and the firefighters in the city know the truth.
I'm also saying that the BBC are liars too!"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Repeated in bold so that everyone can see just how insane you are.
Have you ever spoken to NYC firemen? Why don't you make some random calls to firehouses in the city and ask them for yourself? Ask them if they are satisfied with the official story. Why don't you go to Ground Zero on the 9/11 anniversary and see how they support the truth movement?
Oh wait, if GE TV doesn't show it, it must be a conspiracy.
BBC announced that Building 7 collapsed 23 minutes before it actually collapsed. And their response was that they couldn't comment on it because they lost all of their footage from the most important news day in recent history. So you tell me Ol' Wise One... Are they liars, or imcompetent fortune tellers? It seems to me that they went a little too early with their scripted "breaking news" story and claimed that their dog ate their backup servers.
So what's your explanation for Building 7?
Why are you afraid of a real investigation?
truth is stranger than fiction. anyone read the final dark tower book by stephen king. well maybe u should.
cynic hater
video.google.com watch this if u want the truth!!!
Kyle:"Will you shut up about 9/11!"
Cartman: "Kyle, why are you so afraid of the truth?!"
Kyle: "Because anybody who thinks 9/11 was a conspiracy is a retard!"
Cartman: "Oh really? Well did you know that over one-fourth of people in America think that 9/11 was a conspiracy?
Are you saying that one-fourth of Americans are retards?"
Kyle: "Yes. I'm saying one-fourth of Americans are retards."
Stan: "Yeah, at least one-fourth."
Kyle: "Let's take a test sample: There's four of us, you're a retard, that's one-fourth."
anyone say this yet? plane from washington came back to hit pentagon. plane from new york started to come back to new york but crashed in pennsylvania. this was flight 93. now, put this together with silverstein telling the fireman(chief,whatever) "the smart thing to do would be to pull it". it seems to me that flight 93 was suppose to hit building 7 but passengers did find out about it. 5 locals reported another unmarked jet near 93. seems when things got out of hand, 93 was ordered shot down(for the moles could now be sure this jet wouldnt hit 7). silverstein learns of this and his fire guy asks him if the detonation should still go ahead as planned. silverstein thinking about it says in essence that he thinks it is still necessary to pull the building, even without the false spectacle of a plane crash. does anyone know when silverstein said to pull? other than the firefighters(minus maybe some upper level rogues), the people on 93 were the REAL HEROS of 911
cynic hater
what about the UFO?
did any of u see the video with the ufo?
The UFO video is what you call disinformation. It's a straw man argument that's designed to discredit the truth movement and planted by the very people that are trying to prevent the truth from coming out.
If you noticed, none of the serious truthers are suggesting anything like that on the comments of all these 9/11 posts..
It's about as valid as the box cutter theory.
i heard that the planes were fake, like holograms and the towers were disintegrated by a beam from outer space
maybe by the aliens in the ufo
i mean, how do u know that the orb/ufo isnt a top secret military craft built with area 51/alein technology?
Like I said before...
I don't care what unofficial investigation sparks a real investigation. I don't have to figure out what happened, I just have to figure out what didn't happen. And what didn't happen is the official story. Beyond that, it doesn't matter to me how they actually did it. It doesn't matter if it was a controlled demo with thermite, directed energy beams that they use to shoot down missiles with, a UFO using holographic technology while destroying the building with their own energy beam, David Blaine using mental telepathy or any combination of any and all of them.
If the government hasn't been held acountable to explain what really did happen that day, then why hold us to a higher standard?
Investigate Now!!!
i mean, how do u know that the orb isnt a top secret military craft built with area 51/alien technology?
See what I mean? A tool used to discredit the truth movement.
911scholars.org is a tool used to discredit the truth movement???????
I'm saying that the reference to unverifiable, classified military technology is a distraction to the fact that we already know they lied about the official story.
A rudimentary understanding of physics is enough to recognize a controlled demolition.
The scholars for truth were very instrumental in spreading the word and it's easy to see why they would need to be discredited to help stop the truth movement.
Divide and conquer is as old as war. And it seems to me that they have been infiltrated.
Fortunately, the truth is already out there and spreading fast.
How do you feel about UFOs Buzz?
Helloooo? Earth calling Buzz!
many statements have been made about america, democracy, republic, etc. You should know that before we invaded Iraq without international consensus, I called it a black, very black period in american history. Historians will prove me out. we were all brainwashed into a frenzy of patriotism and believed without question the "facts" about WMDs in Iraq. Something didn't feel right about the whole situation.
GW Bush put people in the adminstration that would only tell him and the america public what he wanted to hear. CIA fed bullshit to all of us.
I watched the movie "trial at nuremburg" in which Burt Lancaster and many others gave a commanding performance. You should watch it too. The Germans all followed Hitler without question, just like we followed GW. It was "un patriotic" to question our leader. GW lacks the genocide factor, but invading and occupying a country makes us too similar to old German and Russia than I can stomach.
The parrallels between America today and the rise of facism in Germany in the 1930's are really shocking. You should listen (or watch) Thom Hartmann read an article he wrote about the rise of Hitler.
If this doesn't bring it home, I'm not sure what will.
And btw, I would think that the estimated hundreds of thousands Iraqi citizens killed by "collateral damage" would be considered genocide by the Iraqis.
ufos are real. i was abducted by one. so was rosie o'd. she was there with me. 9/11 is jusst a figment of your imagination.
the government has ufo technology they can do anything they want.
Nanu Nanu!
9/11/01 --- The joooooooos did it!
And the Christians, and the Muslims and the Atheists!
You Bastards!
Rose is a pile of vile human filth!
Rose is a pile of vile human filth!
Sign the petition. They're getting about 5000 signatures per day. Let's pass this around and get it up to 50,000 per day.
We must have a REAL investigation.
What if a "real" investigation comes to the same conclusions as the previous investigations? What then, another REAL- "real" investigation?
Actually I don't beleive in any of this 9/11 crap, I just want to see how many people I can get to fall for it.
"What if a "real" investigation comes to the same conclusions as the previous investigations? What then, another REAL- "real" investigation?"
^^^ That was an imposter. (I must have really struck a chord with someone)
LOL, What a loooooser!
I'm no fan of Rosie's....but, she IS speaking the truth. Look it up yourself....the hole in the pentagon was so small NO plane could have gone through it....building 7 WAS demolished (which takes days to prepare a building for this).....flight 93 WAS shot down (plane parts were strewn for 8 miles because of the two blasts it received). Wake up America and at least investigate this for yourself....it is NOT unAmerican to ask questions and search for the truth!!!!
Just click on this link ( http://video.google.com ) and look at the ACTUAL footage and proof.
Search:
- William Rodriquez (worked in the towers and was the last person to get out alive that day)
- World Trade Center 7 (if you want to see the British T.V. newscast that reported the collapse of 7 BEFORE it fell, add the word "British" to your search....you can actually see W.T.C. 7 still standing in the background while the reporter is reporting the collapse....proof that the whole day was scripted and planned ahead).
- Pentagon (proof that it was hit by a missile....not a plane)
- Flight 93
- Stephen Jones (Dr. of Physics who has done 5 different evaluations of 5 differently acquired samples from the remains of the W.T.C. and found definitive proof that bombs and explosions were used to bring them down.....he set out to prove the "conspiracy theories" wrong and was a HUGE Bush supporter....but, ended up proving that 9/11 was an inside job).
Why are so many of you AFRAID to learn the truth? Knowledge and truth are powerful.....fear is weakness!!!!
Apparently, the official explanation as to why 7WTC collapsed is due to an internal fire caused by wreckage from one of the collapsing twin towers that happened to land on the roof of 7WTC. My question is how did this wreckage travel the required horizontal distance in order to reach the rooftop of 7WTC? Both sides of this debate agree that both twin towers collapsed into their own respective footprints. Certain "debunkers" emphasize that there is nothing strange or unusual about this due to the constant force of gravity pulling the wreckage straight down. 7WTC was not located next to either twin tower. According to "WTC 7 Tribute ~ 9/11 Truth Movement ~ World Trade Center #7 Compilation Footage", at the 06:12 mark, the video shows a computer generated model of the WTC Plaza as it was just prior to Sept. 11, 2001. In this model, the viewer can easily see that 6WTC stood between 7WTC and the closer of the two twin towers. Although 6WTC was clearly damaged by the wreckage that fell on it from the adjacent twin tower, the building still remained intact and did not collapse. I think it is safe to assume that considerably more wreckage fell on 6WTC than on 7WTC, not only due to the fact that 7WTC was located at a greater distance from the closer of the two towers than was 6WTC, but also because 7WTC was a much taller building than 6WTC, allowing the falling wreckage far less time to travel the required horizontal distance. If there is reasonable explanation for this, I would certainly like to hear it.
It isn't reasonable that the twin towers fell as they did. They fell at "free fall" speed.....you don't have to be a brain surgeon to figure out that even if they collapsed from the weight of the floors above, it's take at least minutes if not hours for each floor to collapse....not seconds. They were brought down in the same way as building 7 and were planned in advance.
Both of the twin towers had sections closed down during the weeks before the attack and the power off, no security in these areas and they also "claim" that the security cameras ALL malfunctioned in the weeks before and on 9/11....also they "claim" that the security cameras on the roof malfunctioned and they have no tapes from them either.
Too many lies.....too many suspicious oddities surround that day.
They obviously think the American people are extremely stupid and gullible and too patriotic to question our leaders.
To want to know the truth about that day is extremely patriotic and showing great love for keeping America the land of the free.
Those who say that there is no scientific evidence that thermite or thermade were used need to look up:
Stephen Jones (he has PROVEN that these were used)....he is a very well respected, renowned doctor of physics and is currently traveling around the country speaking at many different universities, etc. with his proof to educate anyone who is brave enough and patriotic enough to search for the truth.
HOW MANY FREEDOMS HAVE YOU WILLING GIVEN UP SINCE 9/11 THAT YOU WOULDN'T HAVE IF IT HADN'T HAPPENED.....JUST THINK ABOUT THE AIRPORT SCREENING FOR ONE....
WAKE UP!!!!!
I was just re-reading ALL of the above comments and there's a common thread:
The comments that are "pro" Rosie and "pro" having a new investigation into 9/ll are very intelligent and are full of actual fact, helpful links with actual footage of 9/ll and written by intelligent people.
For the most part, comments written "anti" Rosie....are unintelligent, vulgar, and resort to name calling. The only argument is to insult Rosie personally....pretty lame!!!!
I agree with Karen ^
That's pretty much what I'm seeing on ALL such internet comments sections like this and I've been to quite few. It's pretty clear who the more literate, educated, astute, patriotic, and responsible people are.
I dissagree. The "pro-rosie" posters are ignoring basic science.
Sorry but just because you hate Bush, doesn't meant that he had anything to do with this.
The building fell becaue of the damage caused by the collapse of WTC 1 and the subsequent fires. All the conspiracy fantasies in the worlds won't change that fact.
It would seem that the point that was made over and over agian that you are ignoring is that even if you accept the NIST preliminary report of damage to WTC 7 from Tower 1 and the small fires on the south side as being damaging enough to take down a 47 story building, it wouldn't result in a symetrical collapse which generally kept within the footprint.
Just because you are among the 29% still clinging to a War mongering president, doesn't mean every lie he spews erases all logic and overcomes physics. Despite the corporate medias attempt to remain within the 29% with you.
Why are you afraid of an independent investigation? If the truth were on your side, you'd have nothing to worry about.
Sorry, George.....do your research. Go to the above links and read for yourself. There were very few SMALL fires in Building 7.....not hot enough to melt steel or do a complete demolition of the building. Why didn't any of the buildings between 7 and the twin towers fall when they sustained MORE fires and damage than building 7? Why did the British Broadcast System report that Building 7 had fallent BEFORE it actually did (this is on tape....the reporter is reporting the fall of Building 7 and it's STILL standing in the background....look it up). This HAD to be planned in advance.
And....I'm NOT a Bush hater! I voted for him twice and I'm a staunch republican. I'm not saying that Bush did this....I only know that we weren't told the truth on 9/11 and things don't add up...anyone who really investigates, looks at the actual footage and reads any reports from experts can see that we were lied to.
We only want a new investigation and the truth!
In the official 9/11 Report, Building 7 isn't even dealt with or discussed.....WHY????
It seems like there are three areas at issue here.
1) The extent of the physical damage to the building from the collapse of WTC 1.
Granted there aren't many good photos of the damage, most are obscured by the tremendous amount of smoke pouring out of the building, but they are out there and they do indicate that there was considerable structural damage to the south face. There are eye witness accounts of the structural damage. Since I have no reason to doubt the veracity of these accounts, I think that it is reasonable to accept that there was structural damage to the south face of the building.
2) The extent and nature of the fires.
I see and read the claim that the fires were isolated and small, yet there is a video of the building with huge billowing clouds of black smoke pouring out of the side of it.
We know that the there was fuel oil in the building. We know that it was an occupied office building. We know that, according to the firemen, the water pressure was critically low after the towers collapsed. We know that the fires burned for seven hours unchecked.
I'm sorry, I just can't see how the fires in that building could be classified as small and inconsequential. The very fact that there are no clear photos of the south face due to the smoke, in itself, refutes the claim that the fires were small and isolated.
3) The nature of the building structure's performance in response to the damage and fires.
By this I mean, why did this building collapse when another building might not have. Even NIST lists this as a "disportionate global collapse." Considering that the building had an unusual and unique structural design (it was built on top of a preexisting electrical substation), I think that it is reasonable to look at the structural design first and evaluate weather there was an unanticipated weakness in that design. If I am not mistaken, that is exactly what NIST is in the process of doing right now. The report has not been released yet. Furthermore, I don't think it is reasonable to compare this building with any other buildings because it was so unique.
If you can completely eliminate any design and construction shortcomings, then, maybe you might have a point, but until that possible explanation has been thoroughly explored and invalidated, all you are doing is pissing in the wind.
George... Thank you for the discussion.
Here's a little wind back in your direction.
Aside from the fact that previous to 9/11 no steel framed building in history had ever collapsed due to fire damage, Building 7, otherwise known as the Salomon Brothers building, was intentionally designed to allow large portions of floors to be permanently removed without weakening the structural integrity of the building.
In 1989 the New York Times reported on this fact in a story covering the Salomon leasing of the building which had been completed just two years earlier.
The Times reported:
BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space...
In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project.
''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need...
MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station.
The entire article can be read here.
So. You are talking about floors, not columns. if you remove a floor, the floor below it will still only be carying the live loads of a single floor, you won't be doubling the loading on that floor.
All this just illustrates the fact that this is a unique building strucutraly. If one of the transfer trusses was damaged, then the structure would no longer be able to transfer and redistribute the loads as designed.
Furthermore, how do you know that it wasn't this capability that cuased the entire building to collapse if a single column line failed?
Unless you have an advanced degree in structutal engineering, you don't, so you can't really say one way or the other.
I don't know, but I am willing to listen to experts that do. Real experts, not self proclaimed know-it-alls.
What do you say to the experts that say that even if it fell due to structural damage, it would not have fallen the way the video shows? It would have fallen over towards the south side where the damage was. Not straight down.
George,
Just go to googlevideo.com and type in "Building 7 British" and see the video of the British News woman broadcasting that the "World Trade Center 7" has just collapsed. This was obviously scripted and fed too early to them because WTC 7 is still clearly standing in the background and hasn't fallen yet.
How on earth would she be reporting it would fall before it did, if it wasn't planned in advance?
Then also watch the most recent videos on Building 7 demolition.
Also, do a search for "Stephen Jones" if you want scientific proof.
another conspiracy... when will you people stop thinking the government is always behind everything. I guess its for the best to doubt what the gouvernment tells use, thats what the forefathers gave us the ability to do but, what ever the reason they still fell and lives of thousands of people changed forever
thats what matters
Zane....of course, the loss of lives matter and are heart breaking and that's why we deserve to know the truth. I for one, don't like being lied to or deceived or treated like I'm stupid and gullible....do you? I wasn't won over easily. I researched and read every single undisputed fact (I ONLY looked at the facts and not the opinions or conspiracy variations), I only looked at actual footage and only read papers and opinions written by those who didn't have a political or a personal agenda. I researched on both sides of the issue. I had to know the truth for myself. The truth was so very obvious. Things don't add up and there are too many lies and too many inconsistencies. There needs to be a REAL investigation, if that's even possible.
I am a devout Republican and was a huge Bush supporter.....and, personally, I don't believe he was behind 9/11, but, I do believe he knew in advance. I don't believe he's evil, but, we elected him to work on our behave....not to sell out, go along with or be part of an event that changed all of our lives.....and not for the better.
I don't like giving up my freedoms because of an attack on our country and I definitely don't like being deceived by the very people who work for us and our leaders who are supposed to protect us.....THAT is unforgiveable.
So....yes, those who died and their poor families left to grieve are those who have been hurt and betrayed the most....but all of America was hurt and betrayed that day. All of our armed forces, who are incredibly brave and who so willingly risk their lives to protect our freedoms because of their love for this country, are being used and deserve to know the truth. They and all of America will only have power instead of fear if they know who their true enemy is.
"what ever the reason they still fell and lives of thousands of people changed forever
thats what matters"
You don't want crimes investigated? If someone murders your family or friends you don't care who did it or why? Wow. Those certainly aren't MY values or the values of anyone I care to know. Maybe you should move to Afghanistan.
Zane,
If someone came up on the street and shot one of your family members, would your feelings be:
"Whatever the reason, they still shot them and my life changed forever and that's what matters....who cares why they did it or who did it." ????
Worship the state, you friggin' half asleep neocon worshipping pricks. Your day is coming. They'll supress and loot you too. I hate you cowards.
Since NIST cannot explain the collapse of WTC building 7 and have not yet ruled out controlled demolition...
It amazes me that some on this thread think they know more and can provide the proof which rules controlled demolition out?
Maybe we should have these people working for NIST? :Rolls Eyes:
It amazes me that there are some on this thread who will never accept any evidence whatsoever that the building was not a demo. It is the classic "Dragon in my Garage" syndrome. (google it if you are unfamiliar with the term).
What standard of evidence will you accept as proof that WTC 7 was not an intentional demolition?
Howard,
You brought up a good point. I can only answer that question for myself. For me, I would like to see video evidence of other buildings collapsing in a similar fashion due to fire damage alone. I would think that it is safe to assume that in the last 100 years there have been many buildings all over the world that have been completely destroyed as a result of fire damage alone. I would also be willing to bet that the majority of these disintegrations were caught on film; especially those that occured within the last 50 years considering the video technology that has been universally available since then. All that I request is just 3 videos of 3 seperate buildings collapsing in the same fashion as 7WTC's collapse due to fire damage alone. If you could please provide this visual evidence to everyone, then I, myself, will be much more inclined to believe that the collapse of 7WTC was the result of fire damage alone and not brought down by a controlled demolition.
Thanks
Congrats Rosie! Good job! Keep-up the strong fight to help those who can not think on their own think for themselves (for once). Keep expressing your freedom of speech. This is still American...isn't it? You have said nothing wrong...only the truth.
Harleybones: "Fire damage alone?" Why are you ignoring the fact that the building was severely damaged by debris from the collapse of WTC1?
First You have to find a building with a similar design and construction. For instance, the Windsor tower building suffered a partial collapse a few years back. The only reason that it didn't totally collapse is that it had a concrete core. WTC 7 did not have a concrete core.
Please find me another building that has a similar structural design as WTC 7. Any 40 story pluss building with an all steel frame, with large transfer trusses on the lower floors will do.
Then find one that was involved in a fire for 7 hours with the sprinkler system disabled and no efforts to put out the fires.
Get back to me when you find one.
With all the Imus brouhaha, Rosie's going to have to go all out and accuse Collin Powell of pushing the button to stay in the news. LOL
What standard of evidence will you accept as proof that WTC 7 was not an intentional demolition?
Howard,
Even most "non-conspiracy theorists" know that Building 7 was a demolition. Watch the video clips of Silverstein (owner of the building who made millions on this) stating his decision to "pull" building 7 (a term only used to mean planned demolition.....something that takes many days if not weeks to prepare).
Also watch the actual news footage from Great Britain with the anchor woman announcing the falling of Building 7. This was obviously scripted in advance and fed to the news media. Somehow it got to the British too early and the building is still standing in the background as she's talking about how it fell. If you keep watching her she goes on for about 10 minutes (or so.....) you'll see the building actually falling behind her long after she already announced that it fell.
There really isn't much of a fight over how building 7 went down....that's why it's mostly ignored or avoided by those who believe in the governments 9/11 version and also why it wasn't even discussed or evaluated by the 9/11 commision nor was it in their report. This is because this one is a "no brainer". Why don't you spend your time elsewhere or at least come up with some viable arguments that haven't already been completely disproven.
Go to: Googlevideo.com to watch these videos and others on building 7 .... I can't believe that anyone can watch these and still believe that this building completely turned to dust because of some debris and a few fires.
Erika
The building was significantly and severely damaged. The fire department knew it early on, that is why they "pulled." They didn't want any more guys killed trying to fight a fire in a vacant building. This is clearly evident from the published remarks from the fire department personnel on the scene that afternoon.
(BTW, demolition people do not use the term "Pull" when talking about building demolition using explosives, and it is certainly not a term only used by demolition personnel. Any claim to the contrary is completely and knowingly disingenuous and false.)
There is clear photographic evidence of the damage to the south face of the building. There is plenty of video evidence that the building was fully engulfed in fire. Do you honestly thing that a fire in a 40 story building will not continue to get worse as time goes on?
There is also the very strong possibility that the fuel oil delivery system for the generator sets may have contributed to the fire. There is no disputing the fact that the pressurized pipe system that was installed was a workaround to avoid building codes that would have prevented the installation of additional generators on the floor because the total fuel storage capacity for that floor had already been reached from pre-existing generator sets already in place. If you don't know what I am talking about, then you don't know all of the facts, now, do you?
Unless you are a qualified structural engineer with a working knowledge of the specifics of the WTC 7 design, you have absolutely no basis to make any statements regarding the stability of the building. Are you a licensed structural engineer? If not then what is the extent of your knowledge of design and construction.
The fire department was worried about additional building collapses, because that is what happens to building when they burn without any attempt to fight the fires.
That is why they told everyone in advance that there were other buildings in danger of collapse.
You claim that "this building completely turned to dust." That is the most ridiculous thing I have read on this comment thread. On what do you base this silly claim? The building did not "turn to dust." It collapsed into a pile of rubble. Some dust was generated during the collapse, sure, but the entire building did not "completely turn to dust."
When you state: This is because this one is a "no brainer," does that mean that you have to have "no brains" to believe this controlled demo crap?
BTW you didn't answer my question. I'll rephrase it for you.
What evidence will it take for you to accept the fact that the building was not destroyed by a "controlled demolition?"
BTW, I'd like to see one example of a demolition person using the word "pull" to describe the explosive demollition of a building.
Howard,
Your response shows a complete lack of knowing the facts surrounding the collapse of WTC Building 7. But before I get into the undisputed facts, let me say that ALL demolition experts (check some of their websites and the meaning of their terms) are resolute in stating that "to pull a building" means to demolish it. I'm not going to waste anymore time on that one.
Now the correct facts (different from many you listed):
1. Building 7 was a whole block away from the Twin Towers and was only hit by a SMALL amount of debris. In many reports and in many witnesses statements it states: "WTC7 was barely scratched by the collapse of the Twin Towers. Photographic evidence shows that a FEW small fires and not very hot fires burned for some time on the 7th and 12th floors."
2. Any argument that tanks of diesel fuel in the basement of the building caught fire and caused the collapse have nothing to base this on. The problem with this contention is the fact that NONE of the photos taken or videos taken of the actual damage and collapse (from many angles and views) show ANY evidence of smoke or fire from the area this fuel was being stored in the building. Also NO witnesses smelled burning fuel coming from WTC 7.
Even according to FEMA's (Federal Emergency Management Agency) report: "The notion that diesel fuel leaked, burned and heated the building's steel supports to the point of failure has only a LOW pobability of occurance".
3. WTC-7 is a 47-story building. When it collapsed, it fell at "free fall" speed, 6.5 seconds (as did the Twin Towers). This would only happen (check out physic's laws of residence) in a controlled demolition.
4. Molten metal (flowing and in pools) were present in all three buildings that day (video, photographic, and witness evidence). This molten metal was STILL red hot weeks after 9/11. A statement by a Ground Zero worker "In the first few weeks, sometimes a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage and the end of the beam would still be dripping molten steel". This is only one of many similar statements made. No one can deny (if they look at the undisputed evidence) that liquid, molten metal existed at the Twin Tower disaster and the collapse of Building 7.
They've tried to explain this in regards to the Twin Towers by stating that the jet fuel burned hot enough to turn the steel to liquid (this has been disproven because jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to do this), but Building 7 wasn't hit by a jet....so the 9/11 Commission handled this by only mentioning WTC-7 only a few times and NEVER refers to its demise.
I could go on and on.....but I won't because YOU need to take the time that others have to REALLY look at the facts here. Why do you get "hung up" on what the term "pull" means????? And "no-brainer" means, if you have any brains, it won't take much investigating to see that the evidence doesn't match the "official" story we've been told.
On September 22, 2006, a group of sixty Mechanical Engineers, Civil Engineers, Electrical Engineers and experts in Physics met and evaluated ALL the evidence and scientific arguments for and against the controlled demolition theory. The discussion was vigorous and heated and went on for hours. Finally, at the conclusion, only ONE person disagreed that the evidence supported controlled demolition and that further investigation of the WTC collapses was called for.
The next day, the dissenting professor reported that after further thought, he had changed his mind and agreed with the other 59.
Do you really think you're smarter than these professionals and experts???
Quit being so lazy and look some of this up yourself.....the evidence is all there.
Uh, Sorry Howard, look "to pull" up!
Here's a typical definition given by demolition experts:
"To pull means to demolish; destroy: or pull down an old office building. To pull down or break up so that reconstruction is impossible: demolish, destroy, dismantle, dynamite, knock down, level, pulverize, raze, tear down, wreck."
You're using the common technique that most use when trying to disprove the truth by avoiding the real evidence and getting distracted with useless, unimportant arguments.
Sam
Howard,
Your facts are not current. You must be going off the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report which has been proven incorrect with new photos (authenticated) coming out of the South face of Building 7 after the Twin Towers fell. In these photos, you can see that there wasn't the damage done to the south side which was stated in the NIST report (this report was never based on actual photos).
Here's a direct quote on this:
"The collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 features prominently in research and debate concerning the possibility of 9/11 being an inside job. This 47-story building, located approximately 350 feet north and east a little of World Trade Center Building 1, imploded smoothly and completely into a neat pile in 6 to 7 seconds, which is the same time an object in free fall would take to reach the ground if dropped from the top of the building. This implies that WTC7 collapsed with no or negligible resistance from the support members and assembly connections of the structure, something that has never before been observed in a steel-framed building outside of controlled demolition.
In 2002 the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was tasked with studying and explaining the collapse of WTC7 after FEMA, previously charged with the task, openly stated they could not produce any realistic hypothesis. Now, four years later, the NIST report on WTC7 is more than a year overdue and still NIST has only produced low-content, preliminary reports. The institute's current working hypothesis proposes that damage to the building caused by falling debris from the collapse of WTC1, possibly combined with thermal load from the resulting fires, somehow caused a failure in the eastern portion of the building. This localized failure, the hypothesis proposes, then progressed horizontally and vertically through the entire structure resulting in a rapid and global implosion of the entire building.
Photographic evidence, including new images of the south face, previously unknown to NIST shows their damage estimates are likely drastically erroneous, making the institute's current hypothesis invalid."
Again, Howard, as others have suggested, you haven't done a very thorough job of researching any of this. If you had, you'd have the correct facts for yourself and would agree with most of Americans.
Oh, by the way, Howard,
Please, oh please, give us the link to the many videos showing Building 7 on fire since you state:
"There is plenty of video evidence that the building was fully engulfed in fire"
Howard,
You ask....
"What evidence will it take for you to accept the fact that the building was not destroyed by a "controlled demolition?"
Why don't we start (as Allie suggested) with just one of the "plenty of videos" showing Building 7 "fully engulfed in fire".
This ought to be interesting since every single video of Building 7 falling to the ground starts out showing an almost fully intact building and if any fire, only a couple of small, isolated fires in the building.
We'll be waiting, Howard......
Contex is everything in language, Sam, Context is everything. I caould just as easily say that to a firefighter "pull" means to get out, get back, i.e. to pull out.
Who was Silverstein talking to, a demolition person or a firefighter? Context is everything.
Oh, and BTW, here is a little proof that the conspiracy theorists are deliberately lying and distorting and omitting facts to serve their own ends.
Do you remember the in-famous clip of the construction/demolition worker where he states: "we're getting ready to pull building six?."
Here is a direct quote from the prison planet web site:
"We know that the term 'pull it' means to bring the building down by means of explosives because in the same documentary a cleanup worker (in December 2001) refers to the demolition of WTC Building 6 when he says, "...we're getting ready to pull the building six."
Do you see that? They make the direct assumption that the fact that the worker used the term "Pull" (not "pull it") to mean the explosive demolition of a building. They say it right there.
But what Prisonplanet or Alex Jones doesn't tell you is that in the VERY next scene of the documentary the same worker says
"We've got the cables attached in four different locations going up. Now they're pulling the building to the north. It's not every day you try to pull down a eight story building with cables."
So clearly they were literally "Pulling" down the building with steel cables and excavators. NOT USING EXPLOSIVES!!!
So you apparently agree that this particular use of the term "pull" by a construction worker when he is describing the physical act of pulling on a building with steel cables means that when a fireman says "pull" he means to explosively demolish a building.
Yeah right.
Here is a good site with videos and photos of the fires and damage.
"Howard,
Your response shows a complete lack of knowing the facts surrounding the collapse of WTC Building 7. But before I get into the undisputed facts, let me say that ALL demolition experts (check some of their websites and the meaning of their terms) are resolute in stating that "to pull a building" means to demolish it. I'm not going to waste anymore time on that one.
Hi Erika, Have you read This paper yet?
Erika, you claimed:
"2. Any argument that tanks of diesel fuel in the basement of the building caught fire and caused the collapse have nothing to base this on. The problem with this contention is the fact that NONE of the photos taken or videos taken of the actual damage and collapse (from many angles and views) show ANY evidence of smoke or fire from the area this fuel was being stored in the building. Also NO witnesses smelled burning fuel coming from WTC 7."
First of all the main fuel tanks were actually underground, not tin the basement and as far as I know, they were not even damaged by the collapse of the building. You obviously are not familiar with the details of the emergency generator systems (yes there were numerous systems) in the building. Here is a nice overview of the overall systems.
Since you are claiming to know more than me about the building and the collapse, let me ask you this. What was the total quantity of fuel oil stored in every underground and above ground storage tank in the building? How much and from where was any of it recovered afterward?
Are you willing to admit that you might be wrong about the fuel oil situation in the building if you are presented with data that contradicts the conspiracy theorists assertions?
Well are you?
BTW, FEMA did not have all the data regarding the fuel oil systems when they made that statement. It is true, anyway. The probability that the fuel tanks themselves leaked is low, but the probability that the fuel oil distribution system leaked is high considering the damage in the vicinity of the generator sets.
They are two very different things and it would behoove you to understand that.
Erika's third point:
"3. WTC-7 is a 47-story building. When it collapsed, it fell at "free fall" speed, 6.5 seconds (as did the Twin Towers). This would only happen (check out physic's laws of residence) in a controlled demolition."
Erika, Erika, Erika, you poor thing. How they have lied to you and you have fallen for it. Don't worry Howard is here to help.
The claim that the building collapsed in 6.5 seconds is false. Just like in the "Pull" video above, they don't show you the entire collapse video. Why? Because you will se that from the time the first exterior indication of collapse reached the north end of the building (the roof kinks, windows pop out and the east penthouse disappears into the structure) to the end of the collapse is over twice that long. They only like to show the last few seconds of the collapse when most of the structure had already failed. Of course at that point it is in near free fall. That is because of something called gravity. Any moment resistance by the remaining steel frame at that point is rather trivial compared to the total kinetic energy due to gravity. That is what physics and structural engineering are all about.
Erika's fourth comment is a multi parter. So here goes:
"4. Molten metal (flowing and in pools) were present in all three buildings that day (video, photographic, and witness evidence)."
Oh Really?
Well I will agree that molten metal was seen flowing out of the corner of WTC 2 shortly before it collapsed. Erika, how much aluminum is there in a Boeing 767? Most of this material was still in the building.
Erika, are you aware that aircraft grade aluminum alloys will melt well under the maximum temperatures that can be obtained in a typical structure or an aircraft fire? (not just one that was a combination of a structure and an aircraft fire)
Even if the temperatures on a fire floor were hot enough to melt steel (and no one has ever claimed that other than conspiracy theorists), the aluminum debris from the plane would have melted long before that.
A Boeing 767 weights around 175,000 lbs or so empty. Subtract the weight of the mostly flammable interior and engines and you still have a considerable amount of aluminum.
Please tell me where there is photographic or video evidence of molten steel in WTC 1 or 7 on 9/11? You can't because there is none.
"This molten metal was STILL red hot weeks after 9/11. A statement by a Ground Zero worker "In the first few weeks, sometimes a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage and the end of the beam would still be dripping molten steel". This is only one of many similar statements made. No one can deny (if they look at the undisputed evidence) that liquid, molten metal existed at the Twin Tower disaster and the collapse of Building 7."
I won't deny that the statements were made. I will, however, question their accuracy. How does the worker know that it was steel and not a mixture of aluminum, or glass or debris?
Are you familiar with underground coal fires? They happen occasionally and can burn for decades, even centuries. Temperatures in these fires have been measured at well over the temperature of the melting point of steel.
Anyway, there is no physical evidence of molten steel. There is that one photograph with the hydraulic grapple pulling out a glowing mass, but the colors and contrast of that photograph are so oversaturated, that I can only assume that it has been digitally manipulated. If it were truly molten steel, then the hydraulics on the end of the grapple would have begun to boil and burn.
Then there is the so-called "meteor" that Steve Jones claims to be a mass of molten steel and slag. A closer look at it indicates that the photograph the Jones uses has also been color shifted to make it appear to be more reddish then it actually was. Furthermore there are pieces of paper and plastic embedded in it. This is hardly something that you would expect to see if Jones contentions about its formation were correct.
"They've tried to explain this in regards to the Twin Towers by stating that the jet fuel burned hot enough to turn the steel to liquid (this has been disproven because jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to do this), "
You never took any science classes in school, did you? Are you familiar with thermodynamics? Chemical energy?
The above claim is typical of those who do not or don't care to understand the fundamental difference between heat and temperature. A given chemical reaction such as the combustion of a fuel and air will release a certain amount of heat energy. This is fixed by the nature and energy of the molecular bonds within the fuel. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the temperature released by that fuel. It really is a sad comment on the state of science education in this country that so many people are unaware, unable or unwilling to understand this fact.
The common claim is that jet fuel can not burn hotter than 800C or so. This is mased on the energy release in the lab when the reactants are both at an initial, STANDARD temperature of 20C. It is expected that the scientist knows to take the initial temperatures of his reactants into account. It the fuel and air are much hotter than that, say because they are in a burning building, then the temperature release will be higher.
Even a simple fire of burning wood pallets in an enclosed area can produce temps in excess of 1000C. So the claim that burning jet fuel can not get hot enough to cause a structural failure is B.S.
Please remember that it was not necessary for the steel to melt for the structure to fail. Steel loses over 50% of its strength at temperatures around 600 C or so.
"but Building 7 wasn't hit by a jet."
But it did have a huge gash ripped in the side of it by falling debris.
Once again I will ask my question, because I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.
What evidence will it take for you to be convinced that the building did not collapse due to controlled demolition?
FIRST, Howard, your link doesn't work....but I did find the site where you claim to find the video showing Building 7 "fully engulfed
in fire"....and....nope....not even ONE video showing that!!!!
SECOND, Silverstein FINALLY responded to all of the questions regarding his famous "pull it" comment (almost FOUR years after 9/11). The best he could come up with (remember he had FOUR years to think of this) was that he "meant something else" but refused to elaborate any further....WHY???? And, if he was talking to the firefighters or anyone else in the building (as in "pull out" or evacuate), the firefighters were already out and he DIDN"T make sure the building was evacuated because there were still secret service personel in the building who died in the collapse (they weren't told to evacuate).
Your "cable" theory is also rediculous. If it had been pulled down with cables, the building would have been pulled down to one side....it fell straight down in its own footprint....something that only happens in controlled demolitions.
THIRD, yes, I've read the paper written by Brent Blanchard. Great fiction. Blanchard works for Protec who was a hired Ground Zero contractor and is a recipient of other contracts from government entities that have a HUGE interest in maintaining the "official" story....Protec and their employees are hardly disinterested or unbiased parties.
I'm not going to waste much time or effort (again, look it up yourself) on this, but here's some key points on the paper....Blanchard:
- Provides NO evidence to support most of his assertions
- Repeatedly invokes a privileged body of evidence and completely ignores the vast body of public evidence.
- Excludes possibilities out of hand, cherry-picking a few issues to address.
- Relies on flat denials, such as his assertion that there is no evidence of explosives use.
- Promotes common misconceptions, such as that the demolition must proceed from the ground up.
- Mentions only I-beam columns when discussing what caused the Twin Towers to fall, seemingly unaware that all of the tower's perimenter columns and all but the top stories of their core columns were box columns, not I-beam columns.
- States that the three buildings did not fall into their own footprint, but that they followed the path of least resistance when they in fact did fall into their own footprint and of course, followed the path of MOST resistance.
- Uses incorrect information when discussing the seismic data and their recordings differ greatly from other documented seismic data collected that day. He also gives false information from other seismic recordings to attempt to make them support Protec's data.
- Claims Protec hasn't "come across any evidence to support" claims of the presence of molten steel when there are Satellite images showing temperatures well above the melting point of aluminum ON THE SURFACE of the rubble pile FIVE DAYS AFTER the attack, not mention, the many, many eye witness accounts and photograph documentation of molten steel being present.
- States that the steel debris was properly examined which is directly contradicted by actual testimony given by the Committee on Science in the U.S. House of Representatives.
- States there was no evidence of explosive residue on the steel collected when the steel was never examined for this and the vast majority was recycled before the completion of FEMA's investigation whose final Report called for "further research investigation and analysis".
- States: "The fact is, many steel structures have collapsed due to fire", the ACTUAL fact is that no one has produced even a SINGLE example outside of 9/11 of a steel-framed high-rise building (even one of faulty construction or damaged) that has collapsed due to fires or even as a combination of structural damage and fires.
- Concludes by stating he's disproven EVERY theory when in fact he completely failed to articulate, let alone answer, even ONE single compelling argument by ignoring the six physical features that were present which are unique to controlled demolition.
- Completely dismisses the factual evidence, while highlighting the most absurd arguments, all of which have been disproven by many others much more knowledgeable and credible who don't contract with the government.
Oh....also.....your Brent Blanchard "expert" has been described in the media (not by the 9/11 Truth seekers) as:
"A spokesman who often lacks substance but speaks with much "bluster", and this paper appears to fit that pattern."
FOURTH, on the fuel in building 7.....guess you didn't know that "basements" WERE underground?????
And...if they were "not even damaged by the collapse"...you just proved MY point.
If they weren't a factor in the demolition, WHO CARES about the "total quantity or how much was recovered afterward"?????
Again, you're skirting the facts and using REDICULOUS questions to avoid dealing with the truth.
FIFTH, "Howard is here to help" me???? What a joke!!!! The buildings didn't free fall????
Poor, Poor, Howard can't even count to 6.5 seconds at the same time he's watching a video of the actual complete fall of building 7.
You're going to have to do much better than that....oh yes, how about that video (we're just asking for ONE of "many") that shows Building 7 "fully engulfed in fire"???????????????????????????? :)
Yes, Howard,
We're
All
Still
Waiting!!!!
Where's the video?
Also, you're arguments about aluminum and steel melting use incorrect information or at the very least, incomplete information.
But, even if they were right, this wouldn't bring three buildings down like the towers and 7 came down on 9/ll.
Good job, Erika and excellent post.
But the best were your comments on the "basement".
No, the best were Howards comments on the "basement". Hee Hee!
Here's Howards quote:
"the fuel tanks were actually underground, not in the basement"
Here's the definition for "basement":
"the part of a building that is below ground level"
Kinda makes you shudder when Howard thinks WE need HIS help (another classic Howard quote: "Don't worry Howard is here to help").
Howard, Now, Where's That Video?
Hee Hee!!!!
Howard,
This is in response to your comments/data on molten steel:
Can a fire inside a steel building get hot enough to to melt the steel and make it collapse?
Also here is just SOME of the many reports of molten steel being present at WTC 1 AND BUILDING 7 (you claimed it was only present at WTC 2).
Flame temperatures in room fires
"There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test goes up to 1260C, but this is reached ONLY in 8 hrs. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093C."
-Fire Science and Technology Inc
What's the melting point of steel?
"Most steel has other metals added to tune its properties, like strength, corrosion resistance, or ease of fabrication. Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500)."
-Jefferson Lab
An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7
"A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
ANALYSIS
Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000C, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a "blacksmith's weld" in a hand forge."
-JOM (12/02)
"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."
-New York Times (11/29/01)
"But for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal -- everything from MOLTEN STEEL beams to human remains were found at ALL THREE cleanup locations."
-Waste Age (04/01/02)
American Free Press has learned of pools of "molten steel" found at the base of the collapsed twin towers weeks after the collapse. Although the energy source for these incredibly hot areas has yet to be explained, New York seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy, which caused unexplained seismic "spikes" at the beginning of each collapse.
These spikes suggest that massive underground explosions may have literally knocked the towers off their foundations, causing them to collapse.
In the basements of both collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of "literally molten steel" were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, in an oxygen starved environment, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed.
Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center.
The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was ALSO FOUND AT WTC 7, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon."
-American Free Press (9/03/02)
Howard, I'm not going to waste anymore time with your easy to prove false arguments. YOU, again, need to look at the REAL facts all together. Not just bits and pieces that are taken out of context or twisted to serve your purpose.
Maybe we'd take you a bit more seriously if you had known that "basements" were underground (snicker) and, if....you'd give us the link to the "many".....no, just ONE.....video showing Building 7 "full engulfed in fire".
You keep asking your question and we keep answering your question.
KAAAAA-BOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(The sound of "Howard the basement expert" being blown out of the water)
Er, and, Howard?
Why are you ignoring the requests for your promised many videos of Building 7 falling from being fully engulfed in fire?
Maybe, just maybe, we'd put some validity in your comments, if you would supply us with that link.
You keep asking for what proof we want?
Well, that's it!
And, right from your own post.
Howard,
You still haven't done your homework nor have you become current on the information about the collapse of Building 7.
You're still stating that there was more damage than we now know was done to the south side of building 7 (look up the most recent photos). No way could this damage and the few small fires have caused building 7 to fall like it did.
Also, here's some interesting info on your "report" by Protec (their webside is ImplosionWorld):
"ImplosionWorld has issued some clarifications and changes in their paper on WTC-7:
- Steven E. Jones apparently does not have a doctorate degree, so Implosion World changed the text to refer to him as "Professor Jones"
-They also clarify what they mean by "pancaking" - don't take the term too literally! The term is meant as a general visual description to help readers understand the more advanced concepts.
-ImplosionWorld also updates about their portable seismographs, saying that because these are far less technologically advanced, they can't be taken on their own as evidence. To supplement this, they refer to Columbia University seismograph readings, which they interpret "clearly indicate explosives were not used".
Update: 9/20/2006
Sources confirm that Steven E. Jones indeed earned a Ph.D. from Vanderbilt in 1978.
Also, by the way, Columbia University's seismic readings support that explosions took place."
Corrections such as these above made by Protec add so much to their credibility, don't they?!!!!
Hey, Howard -
Where's that video we're all waiting for?
There's so much out there that discredits
"Brent Blanchard" and "Protec" and his website "Implosionworld".
Here's a direct quote from a REAL demolition expert copied/pasted from an industry publication:
"Brent Blanchard is to the implosion industry as the Chickenhawk is to Foghorn Leghorn. 'Quit Bothering me boy'.
There was an ABC Documentary on Explosives demolition where they referred to Blanchard and his sidekick as the 'Beavis and Butthead of the Implosion industry'.
I wouldn't read Blanchard's garbage. He has no experience with explosives, blasting or demolition. He is not an engineer either. He maintains an implosion website and during the day he monitors vibrations on pile driving jobs.
He is just a self proclaimed 'expert'."
(Blanchard was contacted to give him a chance to respond to these comments, but he did not return any of their calls.)
His paper has pretty much become a joke and an embarrassment (not many will even use it anymore to discredit opponents because Blanchard's been discredited himself).
If that's the best you have, Howard.....
I guess you can still try to pull that "fire fully engulfing building 7" video out of your ***
God damn you people are foaming at the mouth insane.
Ha Ha Ha.
BTW, I like how whenever someone comes up with any evidence or data or professional opinion that differs from yours you immediately label them as complicit in the deaths of 3,000 people.
Typical no-class move of a brain-dead paranoiac.
Later Losers
I don't have the time to waste arguing with idiots.
There are two types of people regarding this matter: those who want to know the truth and those who don't.
Yes...and those who DON'T want to know the truth usually resort to name calling ("no-class", "brain-dead paranoiac", "losers", and "idiots") when they have nothing intellegent to say.
And, just when did any of us label you (Howard) as being complicit in the deaths of 3,000 people?
Also, who came off as angry, "foaming at the mouth", and "insane"?
Quite unbelievable. We completely proved him wrong so he just gets mad and leaves.....too bad he can't just take a step back and try to find the truth that affects him as much as it affects any American.
I guess he couldn't find that video after all......
It's sad when people feel "they don't have time to waste" learning the truth.
Howard just used the typical "scripted" arguments that, unfortunately for him, and, as he found out, aren't based on the real facts.
We have the truth on our side and it's hard to combat the truth.
People either are smart enough to see it for themselves and start working to help others see it, or they get angry and turn their backs on what actually happened.
Some would rather live their lives not knowing or accepting.
OK, since you have all the facts, answer this?
What happened to all the diesel fuel in the building?
A significant amount was missing from the underground storage tanks when those were finally removed. It didn't spill from the tanks, Where did it go?
Any ideas?
Speculations?
Thoughts?
When did ComEd cut the power to the substation under the building?
What would have happened to the emergency generators when that happened?
They would have automatically turned on, right? That is what they were designed to do, right?
How many gallons per minute was the pressurized piping loop that fed the Solomon Bros. system designed to pump?
You know all the facts, lets see you come up with that one.
How was the fuel pump powered? By the building electrical system? No that power was cut. By the emergency power system? How would the emergency power system start up with no fuel pressure? By a stand alone battery system? BINGO!
How many gallons per minute would the generator sets have used if they were running?
You have all seen the picture of WTC 7 enveloped in the cloud of dust from the collapse of WTC 1. Tell me, how long do you think the diesel engines would have been able to run before the filters clogged up from all that dust?
Once again, I ask you people, who have all the facts and who know everything.
What happened to the fuel in the Solomon brothers tanks?
While we are on the subject of diesel fuel, what happened to the fuel in the Mayor's OEM tank? Where was that tank, how much fuel did it hold and what do you think happened to it and the fuel in it when the building collapsed?
Oh, great ones who know all, please answer this question, oh wise ones and benevolent ones.
When you talk about the collapse time of WTC 7, why don't you start timing the collapse from the point when the east penthouse starts to fall? Why do you always start the clock when the west penthouse falls? This is several seconds later. This seems dishonest to me.
Why oh why is that?
Can you enlighten me?
Getting back to the "pull" issue.
I take it that since no one has responded to that particular point that I raised earlier that you all agree with, and accept, the fact that when the construction worker stated "They are getting ready to pull building six." He was talking about the fact that they were going to actually pull on it with heavy steel cables attached to four excavators and not that they were going to use explosives on it.
Agreed?
Why do Alex Jones and Prisonplanet make it seem like this means that he meant that they were going to use explosives on building six?
WHY OH, WHY?
Oh, and btw, don't you think that the building must have been very near to collapse if all they had to do was pull on it with excavators to bring it down?
What is a transfer truss and what is its pupose?
How many were in WTC 7 and where were they located?
What are the facts here?
What is that black area in the middle of the south face of the building?
By what percentage is the yeild strength of typical strucutral steel reduced if it's temperature reaches 600C?
Wow, lay off the coffee Howard.....you sound like a raging lunatic!!!
What a slew of absolutely "useless" questions that have absolutely nothing to do with Building 7's controlled demolition.
Read the facts in the above posts. You might learn something about the pertinent information regarding this subject.
And, maybe we'll answer your questions (but, probably not since the answers would prove nothing one way or the other), but....
maybe we'll take you seriously when you provide the link to the video you promised....
Remember?
The one of "many" showing Building 7 "fully engulfed" in fire.
Thought you'd distracted us from the REAL issues, huh?
Not a chance!
Howard,
What does the fact that PART of the penthouse (which was only a portion of the roof), on top of building 7, fell 10 seconds before the implosion started have to do with the 47 story building falling in just over 6 seconds? You think by adding 10 seconds to the 6, means it didn't free fall? That's stretching it!
Watch the many videos. It (the whole building) fell at free fall speed AFTER the piece of the penthouse fell in....better? Technical enough for you?
Or are you trying to say that the small penthouse (in comparison) started the collapse of the whole, huge building?
Your arguments are becoming rediculous along with your questions not being applicable.
We just want to see the video of the engulfing fire which caused the building to fall.
I agree that most of Howard's questions have nothing to do with whether Building 7 fell from a controlled demolition, but he can't even get his facts straight in the irrelevant questions.
Howard asks:
"When did ComEd cut the power to the substation under the building?"
Sorry, Howard, ComEd didn't supply the power to the substation, unless it was in Chicago (where ComEd supplies power).
Just tell us where that darn video is, ok, Howard?
Sorry, Howard, ComEd didn't supply the power to the substation, unless it was in Chicago (where ComEd supplies power).
Oops you are right. It was Con-Edison.
See I can admit when I make a mistake, can you?
Looks slike a good portion of the building was on fire to me.
Notice the smoke pouring out of the lower portions?
To the casual reader of this thread, notice how the conspiracy theorists run and refuse to answer any questions that might put their faith in jeopardy?
Notice how they refuse to even answer my questions? You claim that they are irelevent, yet you do not explain why.
Yes, Allie, the start of the penthouse falling in was the start of the collapse. By the time the west penthouse fell in the south and interior of the building had already fallen, that is why he penthouses disappeared. Where do ou think they went?
They are both parts of the same event. Any attempt to separate the two is intellectual dishonesty at its most duplicitous.
What do you think is happening behind the curtain walls when the penthouses fell? What part of the building do you thin was still structurally sound at that point?
One more time.
How does the fact that building six was pulled down by attaching heavy steel cables to the frame and pulling it over with large excavators prove that Silverstein meant to blow up the building when he said pull to a fireman?
Does anyone here deny the fact that building six was pulled down with cables?
Does anyone here deny the fact that Silverstein was talking to a fireman?
The logical torture exhibited here in connecting the two would have made Torquemada proud.
"Oh, dear, Howard is asking questions that I can't answer.
I'll just ignore him and hope he'll go away"
Nope, I've decided to stay and pummel you with logic and facts.
Answer the question please:
How much fuel was stored in WTC 7 and how much was recovered afterwards?
What happened to the missing fuel?
One more tme with that link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U
Cut and paste if you have to
How many buildings are there that have the same strucutral design as WTC 7?
What is the difference between the structural design of WTC 7 and say the Windsor Tower in Madrid?
Allie wrote"
"Also, by the way, Columbia University's seismic readings support that explosions took place."
Er no they don't.
But hey don't let anything like science get between you and the your faith based beliefs.
Yea, you got us Howard. We're all just wowed by how well you can "pummel".
Sorry, but, looks like you've lost it! Your so called "facts" are so distorted and rediculous, I can't decide whether to even take the time to answer, but I will.
I'm going out, now for the evening, but will get to you later or tomorrow!
(I did look at the clip....what a joke!!!!! Is that the best you can do?)
Please Erika, Enlighten me as to the "distortions."
Did they or did they not attach steel cables to Building six and pull it over using excavators?
Was Silverstein talking to a Fireman when he used the term "Pull?"
What floor were the Solomon Brothers Emergency Generators located on?
How were they fueled?
How long do you think that an emergency generator can run before its intake air filter clogs up from the WTC 1 collapse dust cloud?
Was there or was there not deisel fuel in the building?
If so how much was there before the attacks and how much was recovered?
What happened to the missing fuel?
How could the east penthouse collapse into the building without affecting the structural integrity of the rest of the building?
When a fireproofing system is rated for 4 hours, what does that mean?
Who was Louis DeBono and why was his bullet riddled body found in the WTC parking garage. (back in the early 1980's I believe)
Who should I believe, Steve Jones or Judy Woods?
Please enlighten me by answering my questions.
Howard,
I just got in and it's late.....and as others have stated, the majority of your questions aren't even relevant to why Building 7 collapsed as it did or they've already been answered (read from beginning).
You Ask:
1. Did they attach steel cables to Building 6 and pull it over using excavators?
Answer:
What does this have to do with the controlled demolition of WTC-7? But, WTC-6 (only and eight story building) was much closer to the North Tower than was 7 and was severely damaged (there are eye witnesses who reported explosions going off in building 6) and fires REALLY DID RAGE through WTC-6.
BUT (this is why I'm answering this....and thanks for the chance), although it was considerably smaller than WTC-7, sustained considerably more massive structural damage and suffered fires much more severe than those in WTC-7......magically it didn't collapse, but WTC-7 did.
WTC-6 wasn't demolished until December 18th. It was brought down by "precutting each remaining column and then attaching cables to excavators".
Still don't know who you think THAT proves WTC-7 wasn't a controlled demolition......
2. Was Silverstein talking to a Fireman when he used the term "Pull"?
Answer:
This was already answered. If he was, he wasn't too bright (if he was telling firemen to pull out of the building)....because they had done so hours earlier.
3. The questions on the fuel are rediculous because there aren't too many (maybe just you???) who still believe they had anything to do with the building completely collapsing. Because:
- Diesel fuel doesn't burn easily
- It would be VERY difficult to get a diesel fuel tank to implode
- Even if it did, it would NOT have endangered the steel frame
- The fuel was stored in fire-resistant containers
- FEMA's report NEVER says whether any burned
- 20,000 gallons (of a maximum of 23,000 gallons....no documentation has been supplied as to how full they were) were RECOVERED INTACT from the two 12,000 gallon tanks.
- The fuel recovered (20,000 gallons) was most likely ALL of the fuel in the tanks.
- Since the fuel tanks survived, one can surmise that ther was no fire on the ground floor and also the fuel didn't contribute to the fire.
Oh....thanks so much for bringing up the penthouse imploding (on the roof of WTC-7) just seconds before the building actually fell at free fall speed.
As one demolition expert puts it (referring to the penthouse):
"This sort of collapse is precisely what would be expected from a classic controlled demolition".
Let me as you.....about the penthouse....
- What do you contend caused the penthouse to implode since this structure was far from any of the small areas of fire observed?
- Even if there HAD been a fire in the penthouse....what are the odds that a fire could implode the east penthouse on top of the WTC-7 before it implodes the complete rest of the building?
Your video link only showed VERY SMALL fire areas and VERY FEW of them (not even close to showing a building "fully engulfed" in fire) and you have shown nothing that proves there was extensive damage to the south side of the building. But.....EVEN IF you had, no amount of damage can account for:
- WTC-7 falling vertically with great precision like it did.
- WTC-7 falling nearly the rate of free-fall
- WTC-7's pile of rubble was confined almost entirely to the city block on which the building stood.
But....the above three characteristice ARE exactly the goals of a well done, precise, contolled demolition.
There's no amount of fluff questions you can keep asking that will change the above facts.....and there's SO much more.....
Erika,
Pull & Building Six
OK, you agree that building 6 was "Pulled" down with cables. This is a normal, everyday use of the term pull, Is it not?
So when the construction/demolition worker says: "We're getting ready to pull building six," he was literally talking about the fact that they were going to pull on it with steel cables, do you agree? It's right there in the video.
He wasn't talking about the use of explosives he was talking about pulling on the frame with cables. That is what pull means, to tug on something.
So, please explain to me how you get from this use of the word pull to the conclusion that this is a common industry term meaning to explosively demolish a building.
2. Was Silverstein talking to a Fireman when he used the term "Pull"?
"Answer:
This was already answered. If he was, he wasn't too bright (if he was telling firemen to pull out of the building)....because they had done so hours earlier."
So, are you stating here that Silverstein was NOT talking to the Fire Chief in that conversation? Then who was he talking to?
Please provide some back up to your timeline of "hours earlier."
Are you agreeing with the fact that the FDNY did "Pull" its men from around the building?
Howard,
Ever heard the phrase:
"Can't see the forest for the trees?"
That's exactly what you're doing.
You WON'T answer ANY of the questions or arguments put to you (because they completely destroy or discredit yours). You WON'T
back up what you say was the "cause" of WTC-7 falling (extensive damage to the building, the building being fully engulfed in fire), you just keep coming up with rediculous questions that are beside the point and will prove nothing.
Who cares what Silverstein REALLY meant? Even HE doesn't admit to know. It's just one small piece and not even close to being the most damning evidence.
The firemen were evacuaded from the building by 11:30 am and the building didn't implode until 5:20 pm.....so if you believe that he was dumb enough to be referring to evacuating the firemen (when they'd been out of the area for almost 5 hours), knock yourself out and keep deceiving yourself.
And, again, who cares if 3 months later, WTC-6's remains were removed in part with the help of cables????? What's your point?
AND, what does this have to do with the controlled demolition of WTC-7????
Why don't you explain where the molten steel came from that was even still there weeks after 9/11 (too many witnesses saw it THAT day and later in the WTC-7 rubble for you to even try to argue that it wasn't there)?
Why did BBC and other networks broadcast that WTC-7 had collapsed/fallen over 20 minutes before it actually fell? This is also undisputed and there are too many videos WITH the time stamp on them to disprove this one.
How would ANYONE have known in advance that it would completely collapse as it was reported (before it actually did) if someone hadn't scripted it to the networks, and, in error, was read over the air too early?
Answer ALL the other questions we've asked you too. You sure can ask them, but can't answer ours.
Where's the video of the "extensive" damage that was enough to collapse a WHOLE building from the roofline down at free fall speed?
Where's the video of WTC-7 building "fully engulfed" in flames?
Actual photos and videos taken just seconds before the building fell (even of the damaged south side) shows there were no fires burning at that time. So....how about a video showing fires as it fell?????
Your turn to answer some questions.....
Erika wrote:
Diesel fuel doesn't burn easily
Please, It burns quite readily, especially when you spill it all over the place.
- It would be VERY difficult to get a diesel fuel tank to implode
No one ever suggested that any of the diesel fuel tanks imploded, or exploded for that matter.
What I am suggesting, and what I do believe is a working hypothesis in NISTs investigations is that fuel was spilled on the floors where the generator systems were located. This fuel subsequently burned (producing the huge cloud of black smoke seen pouring out of the building). The heat released by this fire would have been tremendous, far exceeding that of a typical structure fire.
- Even if it did, it would NOT have endangered the steel frame
Unless you have a degree in structural engineering, and are familiar with all the details of the building's structure, you simply can not make that assertion.
If you learn anything from our discussions, please learn this. Steel loses strength when it heats up. Steel bolts can lose their temper. Steel beams sag and change the force vectors, Steel columns squash and shorten which also disrupts load paths. Any one of these things has the potential to fatally weaken a building structure.
- The fuel was stored in fire-resistant containers
The containers are not the issue here, the piping system is. This system was designed with fire safety in mind, but that would not have protected it from leakage due to severe shock, impact, movement or vibration. Engineers who have studied how the system was designed have identified at least one weak point where the piping was especially vulnerable.
All containers and piping systems are vulnerable to damage, especially if they are in a building that has just been struck by debris and had a huge gash ripped into it.
- FEMA's report NEVER says whether any burned
- 20,000 gallons (of a maximum of 23,000 gallons....no documentation has been supplied as to how full they were) were RECOVERED INTACT from the two 12,000 gallon tanks.
- The fuel recovered (20,000 gallons) was most likely ALL of the fuel in the tanks.
- Since the fuel tanks survived, one can surmise that ther was no fire on the ground floor and also the fuel didn't contribute to the fire.
That was only the base building tanks. There were three other bulk storage tanks as well, not including the numerous day tanks. The total fuel storage capacity of all the emergency generator systems in the building was 43,283.8 gallons. Thus if they only recovered 20,000 gallons, that leaves 23,000 gallons of diesel fuel unaccounted for!!!!
Where did all that fuel go?
Howard,
WHY WON'T YOU ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS?
By the way, diesel fuel IS the least flammable of all fuels and is extremely safe to store, so Erika's comment is right on.
Also, please don't even try to use anything based on FEMA's report. It ignored countless eyewitness accounts, video footage and photo evidence to fit their report around the "official version" fed by the government.
We don't even have enough space here to list ALL the countless proven errors and outright lies that are in the FEMA report.
Answer all of the questions that have been asked.
Produce links to videos of the WTC-7 fully engulfed in flames.
Show us some photos that show the damage of WTC-7 that could have made it fall in the manner it did.
Quit asking useless, beside-the-point-questions, to avoid answering our pertinent ones.
I'm with Erika on not wasting any more time responding to you, until you do.
Yes, Howard I have some questions I'd love to hear you answer.
1. Why would the 9/11 Commission not mention in one single sentence the destruction of the third skyscaper (WTC-7) resulting from the terrorist attack on 9/11?
2. FEMA turned the investigative work over to NIST (which has again been postponed until this year) for a report on what caused WTC-7 to fall. In a March, 2006 interview with the NIST lead investigator, he stated, "NIST did have some preliminary hypothesis, but, truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7." NIST is now saying that it is investigating the hypothesis that explosions initiated the collapse.....WHY WON'T YOU, HOWARD???
3. WTC-7 "dropped" rather than "collapsed. It came down as if only air had seperated the roof of the building from the street below.
WTC-7 fell on average of 7 floors per second. This closely matches the rate of gravitational free fall, which combined with the uniformity of the descent - is irrefutable evidence of controlled demolition. Can you explain how some isolated fires and damage to the face of ONE side of the building could also cause this?
4. 20 demolition experts all agreed independently that: The symmetry of WTC-7's descent means that all of its steel supports - 25 central and 58 peripheral columns - were destroyed almost simultaneously. Any asymmetry in the damage (as was the case in building 7) to the building would have led to asymmetrical collapse (which didn't occur to WTC-7).
There is no way that local fires and structural damage here and there could have weakened all the central and peripheral support structures in a way that would have caused all of them to give in at the same moment. This could only have happened with exlosives which explains the rapid succession of explosions several witnesses and rescue crews heard.
But, how do you think all the steel supports were destroyed almost simultaneously?
5. In the pictures of WTC-7, the fires are limited to small areas and almost all windows are intact, and no red heat indicative of temperatures capable of softening steel is visable. This is true even in the pictures taken in the late afternoon. According to several reports from many reliable sources and also documented by photographs, molten metal was found under the debris pile of WTC-7. To melt structural steel, temperatures exceeding 1500 degrees Celsius are required. Such temperatures are never achieved in office fires.
In addition to molten metal, partly evaporated steel beams were found in the debris of WTC-7. As many experts pointed out, the fires in the building could not have produced temperatures capable of evaporating steel.
However, the use of explosives like thermite (which several independant tests have found present at all three WTC's from 9/11) can produce temperatures of up to 3,000 degrees Celcius that can melt and even evaporate steel.
How do you explain the presence of thermite?
If you don't think thermite was there (even though it's been proven it was), how do you explain how the fire reached temperatures high enough to produce molten metal and to have been capable of evaporating steel?
Howard, you get so hung up on "what does the word 'pull' mean", etc., but you need to look at the hard, factual evidence that exists. None of us want this to be true, but it is here looking us right in the face and I for one don't like being lied to.
Answer the questions in the posts above, and then answer mine before you ask any more of your own.
Jerod
Jerod:
"1. Why would the 9/11 Commission not mention in one single sentence the destruction of the third skyscaper (WTC-7) resulting from the terrorist attack on 9/11?"
I don't know, I wasn't sitting in on the commission meetings. What does this have to do with how the building collapsed?
"2. FEMA turned the investigative work over to NIST (which has again been postponed until this year) for a report on what caused WTC-7 to fall. In a March, 2006 interview with the NIST lead investigator, he stated, "NIST did have some preliminary hypothesis, but, truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7." NIST is now saying that it is investigating the hypothesis that explosions initiated the collapse.....WHY WON'T YOU, HOWARD??? "
They are investigating the hypothesis to shut up all the conspiracy kooks that won't leave them alone. When they find that no explosives were used, will you accept that result?
"3. WTC-7 "dropped" rather than "collapsed. It came down as if only air had seperated the roof of the building from the street below. "
From the north point of view, perhaps, but if the south and interior of the building collapsed first (as evidenced by the disappearance of the penthouses several seconds before the north wall came down), then all you are looking at is the curtain wall of the building collapsing. In that case, there really would have only been "air" holding up the north walls.
"WTC-7 fell on average of 7 floors per second. This closely matches the rate of gravitational free fall, which combined with the uniformity of the descent - is irrefutable evidence of controlled demolition. Can you explain how some isolated fires and damage to the face of ONE side of the building could also cause this? "
Did you include the collapse of the penthouses into your calculations? By looking at only a part of the collapse, you are biasing your results. If the collapse was already well underway when you started to time it, then your conclusions are in error. Please justify how looking at only a fraction of the total collapse event proves your conclusion. What are your assumptions about the structural conditions on the inside of the building at that time? You aren't assuming that the structure is intact, are you? Clearly it was not, as the penthouses had already collapsed.
"4. 20 demolition experts all agreed independently that: The symmetry of WTC-7's descent means that all of its steel supports - 25 central and 58 peripheral columns - were destroyed almost simultaneously. Any asymmetry in the damage (as was the case in building 7) to the building would have led to asymmetrical collapse (which didn't occur to WTC-7). "
The central framing collapsed several seconds earlier, but not simultaneously as evidenced by the collapse of the east penthouse, then the west penthouse as the failure propagated westward.
There are a couple of picture s (Pic1 and http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7f2.jpg") of the building just as the collapse started and halfway into the collapse. From the perspective of those pictures the building can be seen leaning significantly to the south.
"There is no way that local fires and structural damage here and there could have weakened all the central and peripheral support structures in a way that would have caused all of them to give in at the same moment. "
Please tell us where you received you degree in structural engineering. What type of analysis did you do on the structure to come to that conclusion? What numbers did you use? What formulas, what software?
"This could only have happened with exlosives which explains the rapid succession of explosions several witnesses and rescue crews heard. "
What witnesses and rescue crews? I have never seen any credible evidence of this.
"But, how do you think all the steel supports were destroyed almost simultaneously?
5. In the pictures of WTC-7, the fires are limited to small areas and almost all windows are intact, and no red heat indicative of temperatures capable of softening steel is visable. This is true even in the pictures taken in the late afternoon. According to several reports from many reliable sources and also documented by photographs, molten metal was found under the debris pile of WTC-7. "
Unsupported speculation. Absolutely no hard evidence has ever been presented that liquid steel was present in any location in ground zero. There is a lot of hearsay evidence that has been presented, but that is worthless.
"To melt structural steel, temperatures exceeding 1500 degrees Celsius are required. Such temperatures are never achieved in office fires. "
Structure fire temperatures can easily reach well into the 1100 to 1200 C range. Lots of stuff melts at this temperature. I can think of some right now, can you?
"In addition to molten metal, partly evaporated steel beams were found in the debris of WTC-7. As many experts pointed out, the fires in the building could not have produced temperatures capable of evaporating steel. "
The so-called evaporation was actually the result of a process commonly known as "hot Corrosion." A quote from a technical analysis of the steel from WTC 7: (see the next post for the link)"These observations indicate that steel had experienced temperature between 550 and 850C." 550 and 850C is well within the range of a building fire, and is within the range of probable temperatures for the smoldering debris pile as well. Remember that the "evaporated" steel samples were not recovered from the debris pile until several weeks after.
"However, the use of explosives like thermite (which several independant tests have found present at all three WTC's from 9/11) can produce temperatures of up to 3,000 degrees Celcius that can melt and even evaporate steel.
How do you explain the presence of thermite? "
No evidence has been presented that proves thermite was present.
"If you don't think thermite was there (even though it's been proven it was), "
No it has not been proven to have been there. No one has ever presented any "poof" of the presence of thermite that has been able to withstand any sort of critical review. If you want, provide a link to your so-called proof and I will show you the errors.
"how do you explain how the fire reached temperatures high enough to produce molten metal and to have been capable of evaporating steel? "
You have yet to prove molten steel. I will, however be willing to accept the presence of molten aluminum.
Your theory about the "evaporation" of the steel has already been proven worthless by real scientists.
"Howard, you get so hung up on "what does the word 'pull' mean", etc., but you need to look at the hard, factual evidence that exists. None of us want this to be true, but it is here looking us right in the face and I for one don't like being lied to.
Answer the questions in the posts above, and then answer mine before you ask any more of your own."
I'm not the one hung up on it, conspiracy theorist are.
It is a central point to every WTC 7 conspiracy argument. Just look at the Rosie O'Donnell blog at the top of this page.
Are you willing to admit that when Silverstein was talking to the fire chief and used the term "pull" that he wasn't talking about hooking up steel cables to the building and pulling it over with a bunch of fire trucks?
If you can admit that, then how hard can it be to admit that he probably wasn't asking the fire chief to blow up the building either.
Microstructural Analysis Of The Steels From Buildings 7, & 1 or 2 From The World Trade Center
Allie wrote:
"Howard,
WHY WON'T YOU ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS?
I thought I did. I can't help it if you don't like my answers.
You asked for a video of the building on fire, I provided that. Remember that all that smoke wasn't produced by a "few small isolated fires." Furthermore, that smoke was pouring out of the building all afternoon.
You asked for images of the south face damage. I provided them. If you choose to use your extensive training as a structural engineer to dismiss the damage as trivial, then that is your issue.
"By the way, diesel fuel IS the least flammable of all fuels and is extremely safe to store, so Erika's comment is right on."
I never said that diesel was unsafe to store under normal conditions. It is, however unsafe to store in a burning building. The flash point (the temperature at which a pool of liquid will ignite in the preens of a flame) of diesel is 62C (143 F). The autoignition point (the temperature at which it will spontaneously burst into flame) of diesel is 210C (410 F). Both of these temperatures are well under the typical temperature of a structure fire.
"Also, please don't even try to use anything based on FEMA's report. It ignored countless eyewitness accounts, video footage and photo evidence to fit their report around the "official version" fed by the government. "
Have I mentioned the FEMA report at all?
"Produce links to videos of the WTC-7 fully engulfed in flames. "
I provided images of smoke and flames coming from the building. By what basis do you conclude that the fires were insufficient to damage the building structure? Are you an expert in this field? If so, then please tell me where you received your degree in Fire Science or Structural Engineering.
Otherwise just admit that it is strictly a matter of your unqualified opinion that the fires were insufficient to affect the structural integrity. Just as I am willing to admit that it is my opinion that they were sufficient.
The difference between us, however, is that I am willing to listen to real experts in this field, not self proclaimed ones like Jones, Fetzer, et all.
"
Show us some photos that show the damage of WTC-7 that could have made it fall in the manner it did. "
I did. See my comment above.
"
Quit asking useless, beside-the-point-questions, to avoid answering our pertinent ones.
These are only "besides the point" questions to those who are unwilling or unable to understand all of the factors involved in the collapse of WTC 7 (and the other buildings as well).
If you want to talk about usless and beside the point ramblings, what about the long diatribe by Rosie O'Donnell regarding the tenants of the building. Talk about unconnected diversionary rants. . . . .
Allie wrote:
"Howard,
WHY WON'T YOU ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS?
I thought I did. I can't help it if you don't like my answers.
You asked for a video of the building on fire, I provided that. Remember that all that smoke wasn't produced by a "few small isolated fires." Furthermore, that smoke was pouring out of the building all afternoon.
You asked for images of the south face damage. I provided them. If you choose to use your extensive training as a structural engineer to dismiss the damage as trivial, then that is your issue.
"By the way, diesel fuel IS the least flammable of all fuels and is extremely safe to store, so Erika's comment is right on."
I never said that diesel was unsafe to store under normal conditions. It is, however unsafe to store in a burning building. The flash point (the temperature at which a pool of liquid will ignite in the preens of a flame) of diesel is 62C (143 F). The autoignition point (the temperature at which it will spontaneously burst into flame) of diesel is 210C (410 F). Both of these temperatures are well under the typical temperature of a structure fire.
"Also, please don't even try to use anything based on FEMA's report. It ignored countless eyewitness accounts, video footage and photo evidence to fit their report around the "official version" fed by the government. "
Have I mentioned the FEMA report at all?
"Produce links to videos of the WTC-7 fully engulfed in flames. "
I provided images of smoke and flames coming from the building. By what basis do you conclude that the fires were insufficient to damage the building structure? Are you an expert in this field? If so, then please tell me where you received your degree in Fire Science or Structural Engineering.
Otherwise just admit that it is strictly a matter of your unqualified opinion that the fires were insufficient to affect the structural integrity. Just as I am willing to admit that it is my opinion that they were sufficient.
The difference between us, however, is that I am willing to listen to real experts in this field, not self proclaimed ones like Jones, Fetzer, et all.
"
Show us some photos that show the damage of WTC-7 that could have made it fall in the manner it did. "
I did. See my comment above.
"
Quit asking useless, beside-the-point-questions, to avoid answering our pertinent ones.
These are only "besides the point" questions to those who are unwilling or unable to understand all of the factors involved in the collapse of WTC 7 (and the other buildings as well).
If you want to talk about usless and beside the point ramblings, what about the long diatribe by Rosie O'Donnell regarding the tenants of the building. Talk about unconnected diversionary rants. . . . .
Howard,
Your lack of having kept current on this is obvious in pretty much all of your answers and is appalling to me (especially when you try to come off as some "know all"). Get going and do your research. All your answers lack the knowledge you should have if you're really and fairly investigating this. You apparently don't even come close to knowing all the recent (as well as past) facts.
Also, go look at the video: "How Fast Did WTC-7 Fall?"
On YouTube.com
A video that quickly becoming a huge joke. It's trying to add onto the time of the building falling the penthouse implosion. Ok, (and this IS mentioned on pretty much ALL the 9/11 Truth sites) part of the penthouse imploded before the actual planned demolition of WTC-7. But that only adds more evidence that it was a demolition.
Who cares if the penthouse had damage before the complete demolition began? It only proves there were explosives because there were NO fires anywhere near the penthouse at the time it imploded.
I'm done with answering your nit-picky, irrelavant questions until you get yourself current on the facts. Your answers show you haven't.
And, answer the other posters questions.
Show us the video, as you promised, of the WTC-7 fully engulfed in fire.
Jerod,
The penthouse was not "imploded" all by itself. It sunk into the building because the support for it at the transfer truss level failed.
Your deliberate miss interpretation of this just proves to me that your mind is closed to everything but your predetermined conclusions.
"And, answer the other posters questions.
Show us the video, as you promised, of the WTC-7 fully engulfed in fire."
I provided video of the building on fire. Where did all that smoke come from?
Do "small and isolated" fires produce the huge quantities of smoke that poured out of the "gash" all afternoon?
I've answered your questions, now answer mine.
Since you have conceded that the Silverstein use of the word "pull" is immaterial to the discussion, and proves nothing, I'll focus on a different issue.
What happened to all the diesel fuel in the building?
As we have seen, there was over 43,000 gallons we need to account for.
Approximately 20,000 gallons was recovered from the Base Building tanks. So let's just stipulate that all of the fuel in these tanks was recovered. That leaves us with about 20,000 gallons.
Now when Con-Edison cut the power to the building shortly before the collapse of WTC 1, the transfer switches would have cut in and all the generator sets in the building would have automatically fire up.
Now there was approximately 1,000 gallons of fuel in various day tanks and piping throughout the upper floors. Was some of this fuel spilled when the debris crashed through the south face of WTC 7? I have no doubt that it was. Was all of it spilled, of course not. All of it would have been spilled when the building collapsed, though.
Next we have the mayor's OEM tank on the first floor. This was a 6,000 gallon tank located in a room off the core. Was this tank impacted by the debris and fires? I don't know. It is possible, but based on the evidence so far, no one can say for sure.
On the other hand, There is no doubt that this fuel would have spilled when the building collapsed. What happened to it then? Remember those "hot spots?" Remember the hot corroded steel? It does' take fantastic leaps of the imagination to see that the fuel spilled from the OEM tanks probably contributed to the burning subsurface debris. Being diesel fuel, it would have been rich in sulfur compounds. Hot sulfur rich combustion gasses. Hmm, why does that sound familiar? Oh, yeah. It is the same as the hot corrosion process where steel is attacked and "eroded" by sulfur rich gasses at fairly low temperatures.
Let's talk about the Solomon Brothers system. There were two fiberglass underground storage tanks of 6,000 gallon capacity each, a pump system on the first floor designed to circulate fuel from the tanks to the generators on the 5th floor.
Now when they finally excavated down to the UST location, they found that the Salomon Brothers tanks were damaged and appeared to be empty. Neither the UST's (underground storage tanks) nor their associated piping contained any residual petroleum product. No residual free product or sludge was observed in either UST." The tanks were installed on a concrete slab over existing silty sand. A layer of bedding gravel on the slab provided a foundation for the tank. Examination of the gravel below the tanks and the sand below the slab showed some fuel contamination but none was observed in the organic marine silt/clay layer below. Also, the sand and soil below the slab was continuous below the adjacent base system tanks, which contained a total of 24,000 gal of fuel. Thus, it is likely that a fuel leak in any of the tanks would result in fuel contamination in this soil. Now if 12,000 gallons of diesel fuel had spilled into the subsurface zones, it would have sat on top of that silty clay layer as free product. The clean up ofthat fuel would have been a monumental and expensive task.
So what happened to the fuel in the tanks?
Howard,
I've been following this thread and you've given me a few laughs. No one can say that you're not persistant, too bad it's in areas that have already been (even by NIST) disproven.
Just read what you seem to believe:
Power to the Twin Towers was wired from the substation in WTC 7 through two separate systems. The first provided power throughout each building; the second provided power only to the emergency systems. In the event of fire, power would only be provided to the emergency systems. This was to prevent arcing electric lines igniting new fires and to reduce the risk of firefighters being electrocuted. There were also six 1,200 kW emergency power generators located in the sixth basement (B-6) level of the towers, which provided a backup power supply. These also had normal and emergency subsystems.
Previous to the collapse of the South Tower, the power to the towers was switched to the emergency subsystem to provide power for communications equipment, elevators, emergency lighting in corridors and stairwells, and fire pumps and safety for firefighters. At this time power was still provided by the WTC 7 substation.
Con Ed reported that "the feeders supplying power to WTC 7 were de-energized at 9:59 a.m.". This was due to the South Tower collapse which occurred at the same time.
Unfortunately, even though the main power system for the towers was switched off and WTC 7 had been evacuated, a design flaw allowed generators (designed to supply backup power for the WTC complex) to start up and resume an unnecessary and unwanted power supply.
Unfortunately, debris from the collapse of the north tower (the closest tower) fell across the building known as World Trade Center Six, and then across Vesey Street, and then impacted WTC 7 which is (at closest) 355 feet away from the north tower.
Unfortunately, some of this debris penetrated the outer wall of WTC 7, smashed half way through the building, demolishing a concrete masonry wall (in the north half of the building) and then breached a fuel oil pipe that ran across the building just to the north of the masonry wall.
Unfortunately, though most of the falling debris was cold, it manages to start numerous fires in WTC 7.
Unfortunately, even with the outbreak of numerous fires in the building, no decision was made to turn off the generators now supplying electricity to WTC 7. Fortunately, for the firefighters, someone did make the decision not to fight and contain the fires while they were still small, but to wait until the fires were large and out of control. Otherwise, many firefighters may have been electrocuted while fighting the fires.
Unfortunately, the safety mechanism that should have shut down the fuel oil pumps (which were powered by electricity) upon the breaching of the fuel line, failed to work and fuel oil (diesel) was pumped from the Salomon Smith Barney tanks on the ground floor onto the 5th floor where it ignited. The pumps eventually emptied the tanks, pumping some 12,000 gallons in all.
Unfortunately, the sprinkler system of WTC 7 malfunctioned and did not extinguish the fires.
Unfortunately, the burning diesel heated trusses one and two to the point that they lost their structural integrity.
Unfortunately, this then (somehow) caused the whole building to collapse, even though before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire.
You must agree, it is absurd, isn't it?
Yet, you've chosen to believe this over the simple explanation of controlled demolition.
Steve, you do understand that the tenant's emergency generator systems have nothing whatsoever to do with the base building's life safety emergency power (i.e. lighting for exit signs, stairwells, etc.)?
The tenant's emergency power systems were designed to provide power to the tenant's facilities, (ie. servers, phone banks etc.) in the event of a power failure. These would have been automatically activated when the main power to the building was deactivated. That is hardly a design flaw.
Please consult with a qualified electrical engineer if you do not understand what I am talking about.
"Unfortunately, the sprinkler system of WTC 7 malfunctioned and did not extinguish the fires."
Well it's kind of hard to pump water that isn't there. The firefighters had to run pumps on the retired fireboat the Harvey to operate hoselines that afternoon.
"Unfortunately, debris from the collapse of the north tower (the closest tower) fell across the building known as World Trade Center Six, and then across Vesey Street, and then impacted WTC 7 which is (at closest) 355 feet away from the north tower. "
Steve, how tall was WTC 1? 900+ feet?
I guess that just proves that the tower didn't fall into its own footprint like some CTers claim
"Unfortunately, some of this debris penetrated the outer wall of WTC 7, smashed half way through the building, demolishing a concrete masonry wall (in the north half of the building) and then breached a fuel oil pipe that ran across the building just to the north of the masonry wall"
You must have missed this part of the link above:
" At the time WTC 7 was designed and built there were no seismic design requirements for buildings in New York City much less for piping systems. More recent research into the failure of fire sprinkler systems in earthquakes has resulted in seismic design requirements for critical piping systems in seismic zones. The research on sprinkler systems has shown the need for lateral bracing to prevent the failure of the piping systems due to differential movement between the pipes and the building in an earthquake.
A working hypothesis is that the impact sustained by WTC 7 from the collapse of WTC 1 resulted in fractures in the fuel piping system (both the fuel pipe and the containment pipe) especially at the point where the pipes entered the valve box, which was rigidly mounted to the underside of the floor slab. With the base system and all of the modifications thereto, such a fracture would result in a small leak of residual fuel in the pipes at the point of the fracture. A fracture of the pipe at the valve box would release fuel under pressure that, if ignited, could produce a spray fire and/or a pool fire very near column 79."
That makes more sense to me than some paranoia fed conspiracy fantasy.
Going back to a post by Erica:
"Why don't you explain where the molten steel came from that was even still there weeks after 9/11 (too many witnesses saw it THAT day and later in the WTC-7 rubble for you to even try to argue that it wasn't there)?"
What witnesses? All I have ever seen is third hand reports and examples of poetic license.
True, there was molten aluminum pouring out of WTC 2 shortly before it collapsed, but that isn't the same as molten steel.
What witnesses claimed to see molten steel in the WTC 7 rubble?
Sources please.
Going back to a post by Erica:
"Why don't you explain where the molten steel came from that was even still there weeks after 9/11 (too many witnesses saw it THAT day and later in the WTC-7 rubble for you to even try to argue that it wasn't there)?"
What witnesses? All I have ever seen is third hand reports and examples of poetic license.
True, there was molten aluminum pouring out of WTC 2 shortly before it collapsed, but that isn't the same as molten steel.
What witnesses claimed to see molten steel in the WTC 7 rubble?
Sources please.
Jordan Maxwell!!!!!!!
Howard,
Molten metal flowed underneath ground zero for months after the Twin Towers collapsed. Here is just a partial list of the many statements from witnesses:
New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."
A NY firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a "foundry" or like "lava".
A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.
An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing and molten steel flowing in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."
The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."
An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "fires would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures". Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.
A rescue worker "crawled through an opening and down crumpled stairwells to the subway five levels below ground. He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glowmolten metal dripping from a beam"
A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."
A structural engineer who worked for the Trade Center's original designer saw "streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)
An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."
An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."
A witness said "In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel"
According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."
A retired professor of physics and atmospheric science said "in mid-October when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December."
A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.
Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires."
A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."
New York mayor Rudy Giuliani said "They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days."
As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."
Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history", even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001 and again on September 21, 2001, and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands, and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."
Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."
Structural Engineer, Dr. Keith Eaton stated what he saw: "molten metal which was still red-hot weeks after the event".
Kenneth Holden, Commissioner of New York testified to the 9/11 Commission about seeing "molten metal" during a walkthrough.
Alison Geyh, Ph.D., a Public Health expert at Johns Hopkins wrote, "In some pockets now being uncovered we are finding molten steel".
Leslie E. Robertson, a structural engineer who helped design the WTC, stated in a speech "as of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel still running".
Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction, a contractor hired by New York City to handle the cleanup, stated "Most all of the workmen have seen the molten pools of steel".
A president of one the of the demolition companies working on the cleanup stated, Yes, hot spots of molten steel were seen in the basements. Molten steel was also seen under WTC 7".
Howard - I could go on and on, but you can see that there are too numerous statements from reliable sources, to think that there wasn't any molten steel present.
This is why it's ridiculous for you to keep worrying about "the fuel"!
Even if it had ignited (which very few believe anymore), it would never have burned hot enough (not even close) to have caused molten steel.
You need to spend your time researching "thermite" or "thermate" instead of "fuel", because that's what was present and that will cause temperatures up to 3,000 degrees c. and will create molten steel.
Thermite is commonly used in controlled demolitions.
How much more proof do you need?
Wow! Thanks to whoever posted all the sources for "Howie" for molten steel statements/ witnesses. Saved me the time!
I'm done with you, Howard, until you start coming up with legitimately pertinent questions (no, not what does the word "pull" mean or "where's the fuel" that is questionably missing and even if it is, isn't relevant).
Either you're bright enough to get it, Howard, or your not....but even more than that, either you have enough common sense and know how to use it, or you don't.
And, no, you never did come up with a video showing "WTC-7 fully engulfed in fire"......
But, then we all knew you couldn't do it,
Because.....there ISN'T one!!!! And, no, you haven't come up with ONE shred of evidence that shows WTC-7 came down any other way but with a controlled demolition. But we've given you more proof than you should have needed that it did fall this way.
See ya!
Howard, how are you doing?
I watched the video that you provided at the above link showing 7WTC on fire. I noticed two things:
1 - There was a considerable amount of smoke coming out of the
building.
2 - Clearly, most of the building (at least the part captured on
video) was not on fire.
I watched it a three times just to make sure my bias wasn't interfering with what I was seeing. I sincerely believe that you made a big mistake by providing this link. This video does much more towards damaging your argument than supporting it. It is at:
I strongly encourage everyone reading this to watch this video. It is just under 4 minutes long. I don't understand how you could provide this video as evidence to support the claim that extensive fire damage was the main contributor to the building's collapse. Please, Howard, watch this video once again and then ask yourself the following question:
"Does most of the building appear to be on fire?"
Also, I personally never regarded Larry Silverstein's use of the word "pull" as immaterial to the discussion. In fact, you insisted that somehow you knew that he meant to pull 7WTC down using cables. I have three problems with this assumption. They are as follows:
1 - I cannot recall Larry Silverstein ever stating this.
2 - 6WTC was 8 stories tall. 7WTC was 47 stories tall. I
didn't realize that cables were used to bring down buildings
that tall.
3 - (And this is the most obvious) 7WTC wasn't pulled down with
cables, it collapsed.
Yeah, Howard,
I am going to have to agree with everyone on this one. I have been doing some searches to find all I can (videos, photographs, etc.) to try and see what damage was done to WTC-7.
The link you put up to the video makes the fires look as bad as they get (Most I saw didn't even look near this bad), but it is still just a "tiny" fire in comparison to the size of this very huge building.
I counted that the fire was across 6 - 7 windows at the most and only on one floor and affecting a few windows on the one floor above it. This fire wasn't even hot enough to break out the windows right next to the flames, let alone turn steel to liquid or concrete to dust. Explosives are the only thing that would do that.
Your saying that this video shows WTC-7 "fully engulfed in fire" has got to be one of the biggest exagerations I've ever heard. You can't be serious!
How can you possibly believe (I mean, come on, Howard, are you just the type of person that can NEVER admit your wrong, or what?) that WTC-7 totally collapsed due to this small fire and a small amount of damage(I know you like to say "massive" damage, but that's like you say "fully engulfed in fire"). You guys always talk about "all the smoke" too, but you've got to know that many times means the fire is burning out. Also there was smoke coming from all over that day, not just from that small fire in the building.
Is that video really the best you have? Even where you can hear someone saying something like "a big circle, with a globe in the middle of the crater", it's been proven they're talking about WTC-6 which was by WTC-7 - they're not referring to any damage done to building 7.
I can see why everyone feels you haven't answered their questions.
I've been reading the posts the past few days and you just can't seem to tell the difference between facts and what you want to believe.
You also can't seem to tell the difference between what really is important, what really contributed to the collapse and what are insignificant details that even if they're true, wouldn't ever cause the complete destruction of this building in the manner WTC-7 was destroyed.
Stop thinking with your stubborn pride, admit you're wrong (most all of us were fooled until we figured it out and opened our eyes to the obvious), and start using your time and efforts to find what out what actually happened so you can work hard to make sure we never let this happen again.
If you can't do that....why don't you tell us how that big plane fit through that small hole in the pentagon without breaking windows on either side?! That oughta be fun!
New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."
I need more attribution than this. Who said this, what film, what time frame were they talking about? (Since none of the fire fighters who actually reached the fire floor in the towers survived, I assume that this was some time afterwards.). How do they know this was molten steel and not some of the millions of pounds of aluminum on site?
A NY firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a "foundry" or like "lava".
Same comment as above
A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.
Same comment as above
An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing and molten steel flowing in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."
This one is self debunking. How could she possibly know what was happening in the rubble pile beneath her feet. Was she standing in the flowing, molten steel? Trite hyperboles do not make good evidence.
The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
Steel or maybe some other metal? If it was hot enough to melt the steel, then what about all the aluminum? Since the melting point of aluminum is well below that of steel and well within the normal range of a structure fire, I would not at all be surprised at the presence of molten aluminum. Yet no one mentions that. I wonder why? Maybe they just assumed that it was all steel. Were they close enough to tell the difference? Did the try to pick up the metal to gauge the density? Did they hold a magnet to it to see if it would stick?
According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."
Building 6? Are you now including Building six in your little thermite fantasy? Oh, wait. That quote is about molten metal not steel. Sorry.
An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "fires would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures". Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.
I've already debunked this lie twice before in this thread. Repeating it one more time will not make it true this time either.
A rescue worker "crawled through an opening and down crumpled stairwells to the subway five levels below ground. He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glowmolten metal dripping from a beam"
Again, he was obviously not close enough to see what it actually was. How do we know that it wasn't glass or aluminum?
A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."
And he made it out alive? Please, once again what proof does he ofer that it was indeed molten steel? Who believes anything a reporter say anyway?
A structural engineer who worked for the Trade Center's original designer saw "streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)
Metal? Like aluminum?
An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."
Aluminum maybe? If it was only "red hot" then it wasn't liquid, now was it?
An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."
{Sarcasm}So they put thermite in the fire trucks as well? Those bastards!!! {/sarcasm}
A witness said "In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel"
Or something else. Another unatributed witness.
According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains.
Third party hearsay.
Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."
So the pile was hot. Big deal.
A retired professor of physics and atmospheric science said "in mid-October when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December."
Not hot enough to melt steel, though.
A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.
Underground fires are really good at retaining heat.
Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires."
Like I said, underground fires fed by two 100 story office buildings full of paper, wood, plastic, etc. What did ou expect?
A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."
But did he actually see the "molten steel" If it was molten, how did they handle it? I'm pretty sure that department of sanitation trucks don't come lined with refractory bricks.
New York mayor Rudy Giuliani said "They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days."
Is that Fahrenheit, Celsius or Kelvin? Did he take the temperature himself, or is he simply speaking in political hyperbole?
Did you know that there are underground coal fires that have temperatures in excess of 1700 C?
As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."
So the thermite was still burning five months later? Is that what you are suggesting?
Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history", even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001 and again on September 21, 2001, and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands, and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."
It was also a huge fire. Did you think that they would be able to put it out in a day or two? There are underground coal fires that they have been trying to put out for decades. China just extinguished one. It had been burning for over 100 years.
Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."
Even a million gallons would wave been less than a quarter of an inch deep spread across the whole site.
Structural Engineer, Dr. Keith Eaton stated what he saw: "molten metal which was still red-hot weeks after the event".
You already mentioned him, and he didn't see it directly himself.
Kenneth Holden, Commissioner of New York testified to the 9/11 Commission about seeing "molten metal" during a walkthrough.
Good thing he didn't step in it. Molten metal? Aluminum maybe?
Alison Geyh, Ph.D., a Public Health expert at Johns Hopkins wrote, "In some pockets now being uncovered we are finding molten steel".
That is a misquote. She actually said "They" not "we" indicating that this my not be direct first hand knowledge. If you can't quote properly, then how can I trust your version of these claims?
Leslie E. Robertson, a structural engineer who helped design the WTC, stated in a speech "as of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel still running".
Leslie Robinson stated of the quote attributed to him "I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge." So that quote is out
Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction, a contractor hired by New York City to handle the cleanup, stated "Most all of the workmen have seen the molten pools of steel".
A president of one the of the demolition companies working on the cleanup stated, Yes, hot spots of molten steel were seen in the basements. Molten steel was also seen under WTC 7".
That quote has gone through more changes than a 50 year old drag queen. First it was Loizeaux that supposedly said it, then it was Tully. Oh, wait, Chris Bollyn reported it, no wonder it is screwed up.
Let me ask you all a question. If you believe that thermite is responsible for the mlten steel, then how come the steel was still hot weeks later? Do you think that the thermite was burning for months afterward?
On the other hand, if two towers filed with plastic and paper were compacted down and set on fire, how can you be sure that the temperatures could not get that hot?
So, does anyone care to address the "Mystery of the Missing Fuel?"
Harley bones wrote:
Also, I personally never regarded Larry Silverstein's use of the word "pull" as immaterial to the discussion. In fact, you insisted that somehow you knew that he meant to pull 7WTC down using cables.
Wow, Harley, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. LOL
Go back and reread my posts. I never suggested anything like that. ROFLMAO
Howard (& others too!),
Here's some helpful information on thermite/thermate:
I've seen a video of a firefighter describing seeing molten "steel" flowing at ground zero after 9/11 that can be seen on Google video (I'll try to find the link so I can post it). This fireman states that it was like a foundry or "lava in a volcano". This is an extremely important piece of footage because it highlights the fact that something other than jet fuel fires, or in the case of building 7, office material fires, was responsible for the collapse of the buildings.
There are lots of accounts that rescue workers saw molten steel. Debunkers (like Howard, who I don't think could have come up with more excuses/reasons not to believe ANY of the many above listed witnesses) have often asked the question whether these witnesses know the difference between incandescent and molten, i.e. the fact that glowing steel was pulled out of the rubble doesn't mean it was molten.
The firefighter in this video specifically says the steel was flowing. Howard, are you now going to say a firefighter doesn't know what "flowing" looks like?
Molten metal found in the basement of the WTC suggests that the commonly used explosive THERMITE may be responsible for the collapse. Physics experts (Phd. degrees) have conducted extensive research to prove that if the WTC buildings had not been destroyed by explosives, there would not have been sufficient directed energy to produce the large quantities of melted metal that was discovered. The molten steel was found five days after the collapse, on Sept. 16, when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) used an Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) to locate and measure the site's hot spots.
It requires temperatures of at least 5,000 fahrenheit to melt steel. Diesel jet fuel does not reach these temperatures and the fires in the buildings were short lived. Firefighter tape recordings prove that only small pockets of fire were still burning in the buildings seconds before their collapse.
The USGS Spectroscopy Lab produced images which showed dense thermal hot spots days and weeks after the attacks (as attested to by many of the statements and witnesses in the post above). ABC News reported that, "the temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to."
In perfect conditions the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons such as jet fuel burning in air is 1520 F (825 C). When the World Trade Center collapsed the deeply buried fires would have been deprived of oxygen and their temperatures would have significantly decreased.
Why was the temperature at the core of "the pile" nearly 500 F hotter than the maximum burning temperature of jet fuel a full seven days after the collapses? There were no infernos in either of the twin towers before they collapsed, so what caused the hot spots deep in their wreckage?
Dr. Frank Gayle, Metals Expert stated about the jet fuel fires which burned in the WTC buildings:
"Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it didn't, the steel did not melt."
Molten steel did not exist in the WTC buildings prior to the collapses, but...
Molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed from WTC's 1, 2, and 7.
One of the more unusual artifacts to emerge from the rubble was a rock-like object which has come to be known as "the meteorite". It is a fused element of molten steel and concrete all fused by the heat into one single element. (there are many pictures of this object online.)
What caused the steel to melt? How did it stay molten for weeks after the collapses? How did fires in the WTC wreckage manage to burn for more than three months?
According to The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, a thermite reaction generates extraordinarily high temperatures in excess of 2,500C. This provides a credible explanation for the fires, hot spots and molten steel (a by-product of the thermite reaction) found in the collapsed buildings.
Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen, and does not require any external source such as air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn just as well while underwater, for example, and cannot even be extinguished with water, as water sprayed on a thermite reaction will instantly be boiled into steam (this explains why the firefighters weren't able to use water to cool it or extinguish it).
Thermite grenades are used by the military as incendiary devices to quickly destroy items or equipment when there is imminent danger of them being captured by enemy forces. Because of the difficulty in igniting standard iron-thermite, plus the fact that it burns with practically no flame and has a small radius of action, standard thermite is rarely used on its own as an incendiary composition. It is more usually employed with other ingredients added to enhance its incendiary effects. Thermate-TH3 is a mixture of thermite and pyrotechnic additives which have been found to be superior to standard thermite for incendiary purposes. Its composition by weight is generally thermite 68.7%, barium nitrate 29.0%, sulphur 2.0% and binder 0.3%. (traces of these components have been found on the remains of the WTC's 1, 2, and 7).
Scientist have learned that thermite devices could be set off at will using thermite electrical matches commonly used for CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS.
They also point to evidence of a dark grey thermite residue on recovered steel columns from the towers.
In August 2006 the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) responded to questions of controlled demolition and thermite use by dismissing all the evidence outright in two incredible sentences.
In response to the thermite theory, NIST Stated:
"Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions." (sulfur was found on the steel columns after the collapses in all three buildings.)
NIST also contends that the suggestion is irrelevant because they had already ruled out controlled demolition (how were they able to do that???).
NIST then stated about the molten metal:
"The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing." (Irrelevant????)
Thermite/Thermate can stay hot, and continue burning for 3 months (backs up the statements from the MANY witnesses).
Also there are many pictures of ground zero cleanup where partial columns from the buildings are still coming out of the ground. They look to have been cut cleanly and at a diagonal angle. There are also numerous pictures/ videos showing pieces of columns on the ground cut diagonally like this too. When thermite/thermate is used in controlled demolitions, they wrap a "tube" of it diagonally around the beams or columns. When ignited for the collapse, the beams are cut diagonally so they'll slide/fall nearly straight down. In pictures of columns/beams left in other buildings that we know were intentionally demolished, you can see the same type of diagonally cut columns left after the building collapses. THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE! Why else would these columns be cut so cleanly and on the diagonal from the collapsed WTC's?
Hope this helps clear up some questions and clarify what thermite/thermate is and how it works.
Thanks for the great info, Jeff!
I'd love to see that video you mentioned. I'll look on google and I'll also post it if I find it.
Your explaination of thermite and thermate clears up most of the mystery as to why the temperatures were so hot (which makes any discussion on fuel completely unimportant....but, we already knew that the fires were too hot for them to be fuel fires) and why they burned for so long and why water didn't work to extinguish them like it would with a fuel or office material fire.
Very interesting about the diagonally cut columns too. I know I've seen them in photos, but I'm also going to look for them. I'll post a link for everyone when I find them.
I also had read that scientists had discovered evidence of thermite/thermate in the remains (along with seeing the gray residue on the columns).
Thanks, again.....I'm off to find the video!!!
I'll let you know if I find it, Jeff!
There's an example of a diagnollay cut column in the 10th pic of this document...
Hi Jeff & All!
Here's what I found on: http://www.googlevideo.com
"911 Firefighters Describe Molten Steel in the WTC Rubble" (this is very short)
"9/11 Conspiracy: A Wake Up Call To America" (this is good and I'm pretty sure it's one of the videos that shows the columns cut on the diagonal....I watched a bunch, but, I think it's the one.... :)
"9/11 What Convinced Physics Proff. About Inside Job" (good video)
"Proof thermite was used on 9/11" (another good video)
"Ground Zero Ironworkers on 9/11 Anomalies" (shows the molten steel)
"WTC Ground Zero Molten Steel" (another one that shows the molten)
These are all pretty short....I think less than 5 minutes each. Just type the name into the search. I'm not too good at posting links, so if anyone else can post them to these or other videos they recommend, please do!!!!
Erika
Thanks for the photo link, Dave!
It shows the diagonal cut made by the thermate perfectly!
Thanks again!
Erika
Jeff Williams wrote:
"In perfect conditions the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons such as jet fuel burning in air is 1520 F (825 C). When the World Trade Center collapsed the deeply buried fires would have been deprived of oxygen and their temperatures would have significantly decreased."
I'm glad you brought up that point, Jeff. Let's just explore this claim a bit.
You claim that the maximum temperature that can be reached by a jet fuel (or kerosene) fire is only 825 C. This is a common claim made by many CTers and it is just plain wrong.
This bit of miss-information has been floating around for a bit, so it is difficult to pin down the ultimate source of it.
It seems to be a repeated around the conspiracy set like a mantra without anybody bothering to check just ho accurate it is.
Even a few moments of contemplation should indicate to even the most casual observer that this number is wrong.
If the temperature of a typical structure fire (burning paper, wood and plastics) can routinely exceed 1000C, then it seems a little absurd to claim that the maximum temperature reachable by a jet fuel fire is only 825 C.
The problem lies in the concept of adiabatic flame temperature. Some CTer took the adiabatic flame temperature of kerosene (STP) and then reduces this temperature by factoring the energy needed to heat the air, not understanding, of course that this value is already factored into the Adiabatic flame temperature of the combustion of a fuel in air.
In general the commonly cited value of the adiabatic flame temperature for kerosene is 1,727 C. Two things should be noted about this value. First, while it is true that this value represents and ideal combustion situation, it should also be understood that this value represents the Adiabatic Flame Temperature under Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP) conditions. In other words, the starting values for the fuel and air are at 1 atm and 20 C. This is fine for comparing the energy available from different types of fuels, or plugging numbers into mathematical models. In these cases you want to start at a standard value. The issue here is that in real world conditions, especially in a structure fire, the standard temperature no longer applies as the fuel and combustion air are pre-heated by the ongoing fires.
Thus the claim that a jet fuel fire can only reach a maximum temperature of 825 C is just ludicrous and scientifically illiterate.
Jet fuel is a type of aviation fuel designed for use in jet-engined aircraft.
JET A-1
Flash point: 38 C
Autoignition temperature: 210 C
Freezing point: -47 C (-40 C for JET A)
Open air burning temperatures: 260-315 C (500-599 F)
Maximum burning temperature: 980 C (1796 F)
EVEN NIST REPORTED MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES OF ONLY ABOUT 1,000 DEGREES CELSIUS IN THE WTC TOWERS.
In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit).
It's obvious thermate was used.
Dave posted:
There's an example of a diagnollay cut column in the 10th pic of this document...
www.scribd.com
Right back at you, Dave. Here is a good picture of how they cut the column, with a close up of the column cut.
Posted by "visitor"
Jet fuel is a type of aviation fuel designed for use in jet-engined aircraft.
JET A-1
Flash point: 38 C
Autoignition temperature: 210 C
Freezing point: -47 C (-40 C for JET A)
Open air burning temperatures: 260-315 C (500-599 F)
Maximum burning temperature: 980 C (1796 F)
OK, obviously you failed (or are unwilling) to understand what I was trying to tell you. Let me try to explain this one more time.
Those values, are not correct for this situation. A structure fire should never be confused with open air burning.
I don't know where you got those numbers from, since you did not provide a reference, but I can tell you that there is no real "maximum flame temperature" of any fuel. The values presented in reference books are standardized to the standard temperature and pressure. Thus if you have a situation, such as in a structure fire, where the fuel and or the air is preheated prior to combustion, the combustion gasses produced can easily exceed 1000 C, and for a typical structure fire will usually peak at 1200 C. The WTC fires were not typical by any means. Therefore I have no doubt that extremely high temperatures were reached in the building.
BTW, What happened to all the aluminum from the airplanes in the fires?
Five days after 9/11, NASA did thermal imaging from an airplane flying over the WTC site. Thermal imaging measures temperature; hot spots show up as red, orange, or yellow.
The ground where WTC-7 stood showed temperatures at approximately 730 degrees (this is after FIVE days and nights of cooling). Temperatures deeper in the rubble had even higher temperatures than on the surface.
Molten steel was found in the rubble at WTC-7. Temperatures of 2500 degrees Fahrenheit (1370 degrees Celsius) or more are needed to melt steel. This is a problem, since building fires do not get anywhere near that hot.
The steel in these buildings is very well connected to thousands of tons of steel and if you pour heat on to one portion of it (as were the few fires in WTC-7 - individual, seperate portions), it will simply conduct the heat away. So it's very hard to get columns in such a building heated up anywhere near the temperatures of the actual fires.
A company, Corus Construction, conducted extensive fire tests in steel-framed car parks, which were uninsulated, in multiple countries, and measured the temperatures on the steel frames throughout these structures for the duration of these fires, which went on for hours, and the highest temperature they recorded in any of these tests was a mere 360 degrees Celsius. Now, at 360 degrees Celsius structural steel only loses about one percent of its strength.
No jets flew into WTC-7, and it was not doused with jet fuel. It did contain tanks of diesel fuel for backup generators, etc., but diesel fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. If WTC-7 collapsed through normal means, in the absence of explosives, how does one explain the evidence of extremely high temperatures, especially given that the fires were small?
Explosives, however, can easily produce such temperatures.
Thermite, for example, can reach temperatures of 3000 degrees Celsius
EVEN NIST REPORTED MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES OF ONLY ABOUT 1,000 DEGREES CELSIUS IN THE WTC TOWERS.
If I recall correctly, NIST never reported a flat out maximum temperature in the building.
They did try to determine the temperatures by paint crazing, but that method was limited to only two samples, I believe. Furthermore, that method is only good for low temperature exposures. All of the other steel samples from the fire floors did not have an paint on them. Gosh, I wonder why? What happens to paint on steel if you heat it up to around 1000 C?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
They did model the fires, but they were very conservative in doing so and kept the models at "best case" scenarios.
In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit).
So I guess that means that they did not find any valid evidence of molten steel.
It's obvious thermate was used.
Er, no that is not a valid conclusion. But if it makes you happy to believe it, go right ahead.
There's a picture (might be the same one Dave posted, not sure) of the diagonal cut that was present in columns after 9/11. This picture also shows the residue that was left from the thermite/thermate.
You can click on the picture to enlarge it.
I've also seen actual pictures of columns cut like this after other buildings were brought down by thermite and it's pretty much identical.
Anyone have a link to that picture?
I'll look too.
So, what happened to the 12,000 gallons of deisel fuel in the Solomon Brothers USTs?
December 2001: Scientific Journal Describes Eutectic Mixture' in WTC Steel.
A sample of WTC steel eroded and corroded due to eutectic formations. [Source: FEMA]
The examination of a beam from the remains of WTC Building 7--which collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11 has revealed "unexpected erosion" of the steel.
The article states: "The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel.
The New York Times will call this "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." [New York Times, 2/2/2002]
FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study, released in May 2002 (see May 1, 2002), will add that the same "unusual erosion patterns" have been observed in a sample of the remaining structural steel from one of the Twin Towers.
It will state, "This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion."
FEMA is unable to explain this phenomenon, saying, "The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion ... are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified." [FEMA]
Despite FEMA's call for further research,
NIST MAKES NO MENTION OF THE EUTECTIC FORMATIONS in its final report into the WTC collapses, released in late 2005, following its three-year investigation. [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 13 ]
Hmmmmmmm....
"sulfur-rich liquid" that....
"severely weakened the beam making it susceptible to erosion."
"unusual erosion patterns" Diagonal, maybe???
.....the source of the sulfur has not been identified.
Let me see....
Thermate has sulfur in it, doesn't it????
BINGO
And, right from FEMA's own mouth!
But....NIST just happened to delete that fact from THEIR findings.
Hmmmmmmm.....
Naw......there's been no cover up.
There's a picture (might be the same one Dave posted, not sure) of the diagonal cut that was present in columns after 9/11. This picture also shows the residue that was left from the thermite/thermate.
portland.indymedia.org
You can click on the picture to enlarge it.
I've also seen actual pictures of columns cut like this after other buildings were brought down by thermite and it's pretty much identical.
Anyone have a link to that picture?
I'll look too.
Like I already posted, the claim that that picture shows the results of a thermite cut has been DEBUNKED for quite some time, now.
It's sad that you keep clinging to the same old crap and never learn.
Here is a WORKER MAKING AN ANGLED CUT IN A STEEL COLUMN
Here is a CLOSE UP OF THAT CUT
So please stop with the picture already. You are just making yourself look like an ass.
Howard, Sweetie......listen very carefully (I'll talk slowly if this will help). Now, pay attention.....
IT
DOESN'T
MATTER
WHERE
THE
FUEL
WENT!!!!
A
FUEL
FIRE
DOESN'T
BURN
HOT
ENOUGH
TO
MELT
STEEL
OR
COLLAPSE
BUILDINGS!!!
AND,
PLEASE
DON'T
GO
BACK
TO
ASKING
WHAT
THE
WORD
"PULL"
MEANS!!!
Just try something new....
and use your "real" brain, not your "sheep" brain....
You'll find that it can be refreshing to think for yourself!
Got a close up of this one, Howard????
A
FUEL
FIRE
DOESN'T
BURN
HOT
ENOUGH
TO
MELT
STEEL
OR
COLLAPSE
BUILDINGS!!!
Wow, I have never seen a stupider statement.
Got a close up of this one, Howard????
You don't pay attention much, do you?
It is clearly a cut made during the cleanup operations, just like the one that I posted.
Why Can't I go back to the "pull" statement?
You have avoided answering the question.
Do you, or do you not, agree that when the worker that said "they are getting ready to pull building six" he was talking about the fact that they were attaching cables to it and literally pulling the frame over?
YES or NO
Answer the question, please.
Haven't been on here for a few days, there's some great reading here. Thanks for all those who took the time to share the great information and their resources!!
I see that Howard is still senselessly hunting for his "missing fuel"! Hey, Howard, maybe you should put as much time and energy into hunting for your missing video of WTC-7 "fully engulfed in fire" that you promised us ages ago! I guess you're on here for comic relief, huh?!
Now, back to reality. Here is something that I found extremely interesting on the thermate cuts found on the columns which were in the remains from 9/11. It shows a close-up picture and the regular picture that has already been posted, but it also shows diagrams of how thermite is used in controlled demolitions and how these diagonal cuts are made.
Here's the link (and I hope it works):
dirk-gerhardt.homepage.t-online.de
I'll fix that link, if it doesn't work.
Later!
Getting back to the fuel.
What happened to the 6,000 gallons in the Mayor's OEM fuel tank located on the first floor of WTC 7?
Do you think that the tank and fuel survived the collapse?
YES or NO.
If "NO," do you think that the fuel burned in the debris pile or not?
YES or NO.
Does diesel fuel contain sulfur?
YES or NO.
How many weeks elapsed between the building collapse and the recovery of the eroded" steel?
HOW MANY?
I'm back! Can't resist responding to old Howard!
He states:
"Wow, I have never seen a stupider statement."
"stupider"?????????? Now THAT's funny!
Then, referring to the picture of the column cut diagonally, he again, shows his great intelligence:
"It is clearly a cut made during the cleanup operations, just like the one that I posted."
Ok, Howard, you show us or provide us with just ONE source/welder/cutter/etc. who could cut a beam that straight and perfectly on the diagonal. And, even if they could, what would be the purpose? Would this have made clean-up easier????
Next, we (predictably) see Howard asking:
"Why Can't I go back to the "pull" statement?" (sounds like my 3 year old.....)
Answer: Ok, go ahead, ask it, if you have to. But, it's been answered several times on here. You just won't accept truth as an answer, so you keep on asking it (maybe it's a diversion tactic of yours to try to avert attention from the REAL issues and the actual damning evidence).
Sorry, guys......couldn't resist it!
Now.....
Later!
So, Sam, are you sating that workers with years of torch experince are unable to cut of a straight line?
Why on a diagonal? to control the way the column comes down/off the base.
Now answer my questions.
Sam, thank you for that great link to the thermite paper and pictures. Great explaination of how and why those columns from the WTC's were cut on the diagonal.
I'd love to see Howard tell us how the missing fuel could have done that.
Thanks again.
Another one avoiding the questions.
LOL
Sam, thanks for the absolutely hilarious posts. I needed to come home and have a great laugh after the day I've had!
But, Sam, answer Howard's question -
"So, Sam, are you sating?"
Ok, now, seriously, I do also want to thank those who've posted the great information and links to the websites. I've printed it out and can tell there's some really good reading on thermite, etc.
I know we can joke around some and have fun, but, I also know that none of us take this whole subject lightly.
I'm off to do some reading. Thanks again.
Rosie have you seen United 93, and you think the christian right areas bad as the muslim extremist. What is wrong with you. As a member of the NYPD I remembered Rosie running to the west coast when this happened as far away as possible from the destruction of the trade center. You coward New Yorker I am positive your parents are ashamed of you.
Kenny,
"United 93" is a Hollywood story of what people wished had happened. My husband is in the Air Force and was on duty on 9/11 and saw the orders himself to shoot 93 down. He also saw the "mission accomplished" message come in when it had been shot down. Then 3 weeks later, the FBI show up, call a manditory meeting with all that were on duty that day and in so many words say "You saw nothing...You know nothing".
You obviously aren't up on your facts. Pieces of Flight 93 were found as far as 8 Miles away from the crash site (one was an engine....heat seeking missiles.....get it?). How did the 9/11 Commission handle this and other important facts? They claimed the motor, seats and other items found 8 miles away "bounced" there from the crash site (against the wind that was blowing that day and over a mountain).
Still think Rosie is a coward?
She's one of the bravest people in America right now if you knew what she was up against because of this in her personal life (threats, etc.) and yet, she won't let them shut her up! Most in Hollywood believe as she does, but don't have the guts to come out about it because of what it'll do to their careers (think Charlie Sheen's smear).
I don't agree with Rosie on all her views on different topics, but you shouldn't judge her, when you very obviously haven't researched to find for yourself what really happened on 9/11 if you believe the fictional movie "Flight 93".
GO ROSIE!!!!!
Kenny,
You have a right to your opinion, of course, and I respect that. But, I am a bit surprised, if you are actually with the NYPD, that you aren't a little more informed.
"Flight 93" doesn't have too much that's factual in it. No one really knows, of course, what actually went on in that plane on 9/11 (except those who are no longer with us). The movie was just based on the "fairytale" that our leaders wanted us to believe so we'd have some "heros" from that day.
In my opinion, they were heros anyway as were the other victims and now their families who are left behind to live with the nightmare everyday.
But, many (some say the majority) of the victim's families know they've been lied to and are some of the leaders and some of the most vocal for the truth movement.
Don't get you knowledge of that day from a Hollywood, embellished movie. Read, search, and dig to find the information for yourself so you can decide on your own what you believe.
But, don't criticize Rosie because she has the courage to talk publicly about what she believes happened. That's her right, just as it's your right to believe "Flight 93" is the truth.
Sara,
Thanks for what you wrote. I believe you're painting a very accurate picture because I've read similar accounts and talked to some in the Air Force who tell the same account.
Tell your husband "Thank You" for serving our country and thanks to you too!
Karen
THIS CAME OUT YESTURDAY. IT'S LONG, BUT ALL AMERICANS SHOULD READ IT,
ESPECIALLY ANYONE STILL RESISTING LEARNING THE TRUTH ABOUT 9/11
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Military Leaders Question 9/11
Numerous high-level U.S. military leaders have publicly questioned 9/11. The following is just a small sample*:
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan said that the official story of 9/11 is "the dog that doesn't hunt" (if you suspect he is a closet liberal, take a look at his bio)
Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions, stated that 9/11 was an inside job (he also said "If our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the twin towers would still be standing, and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason")
U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal stated that "there is no way that an aircraft ... would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth. It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.'"
President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals, is a member of a group which doubts the government's version of 9/11
20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer stated that "9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war", and it was probably an inside job (see Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).
U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart said "We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I've seen that for a long time."
Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official finds various aspects of 9/11 suspicious
Lieutenant colonel, 24-year Air Force career, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at the Defense Language Institute said "Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism."
Two-Star general questions the attack on the Pentagon
U.S. Air Force fighter pilot, former instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons School and NATO's Tactical Leadership Program, with a 20-year Air Force career said the following:
"I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government ....
Those of us in the military took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it.
We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders that were given us had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate definition of treason!"
U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, a fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown and a 21-year Marine Corps career, believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and said:
"This isn't about party, it isn't about Bush Bashing. It's about our country, our constitution, and our future. ...
Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.
If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, or ... to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you? ....
Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can't handle it? ..."
Former army captain and intelligence officer said this:
"As a former Army officer, my tendency immediately after 911 was to rally 'round the colors and defend the country against what I then thought was an insidious, malicious all-Arab entity called Al-Qaida. In fact, in April of 2002, I attempted to reactivate my then-retired commission to return to serve my country in its time of peril...
Now I view the 911 event ... as a matter that implies either
A) passive participation by the Bush White House through a deliberate stand-down of proper defense procedures that (if followed) would have led US air assets to a quick identification and confrontation of the passenger aircraft that impacted WTC 1 and WTC 2, or worse ...
B) active execution of a plot by rogue elements of government, starting with the White House itself, in creating a spectacle of destruction that would lead the United States into an invasion of the Middle East ..."
Additionally, numerous military leaders from allied governments have questioned 9/11, such as:
Canadian Minister of Defense (the top military leader of Canada)
Assistant German Defense Minister (the number two military leader from Germany)
Commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force
Chief of staff of the Russian armed forces
The chief of NATO, a high-ranking general (discussing explosions in the Twin Towers; in Danish)
In addition to the numerous military leaders who question 9/11, hundreds of high-level government officials, such as senators and congressmen, the head of the FBI and other high-level intelligence officers, the presidents of allied governments, U.S. government scientists, terrorism experts, legal experts and even 9/11 Commissioners question 9/11.
Thanks for the information David and thanks for serving our country. It's amazing how many military know the government is hiding something (especially those from the air force, pilots, etc., who say there's "no way" inexperienced pilots could have performed the manuevers that those planes performed on 9/11. Even the experiences pilots using simulators, programming the flight paths ahead of time, can only hit the WTC's 1 out of 20 times at most, and no one could do what was supposedly performed at the pentagon). And that they'd been ordered to perform practice exercises THAT very morning (9/11) of planes flying into the World Trade Towers.....not too hard to figure that one out because, of course, that completely confused the air traffic controllers who they then made look like fools along with trying to make NORAC and the air force look completely incompetant. Also, the pentagon has their OWN air traffic controllers in the basement of the building and they would have let any plane within miles of it without shooting it down.
Too many impossibilities, but the biggest "smoking guns" are the pentagon and, DEFINITELY WTC-7.
WTC-7 had to have been a controlled demolition!!!!
There's new videos of John Kerry saying that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition (in a recent newsconference in Austin, Texas). Pretty good....go google it on http://www.video.google.com
I think it's great that so much is starting to finally break and come out. Too many know the truth and too many won't cover-up and lie anymore!
I see that Rosie O'Donnell is quitting The View.
OMG, I wonder if THEY got to her.
"Military Leaders Question 9/11
Numerous high-level U.S. military leaders have publicly questioned 9/11. The following is just a small sample"
I've posted this list at least twice already in this thread. It's even longer than the list shown above. I have found this to be the most valuable tool for refuting claims that everyone who doesn't beleive the government's official story of 9/11 is a whackjob, CT nutter, know-nothing that needs medicated and educated, etc. etc. etc.
I strongly encourage everyone to visit www.partiotsquestion911.com.
But what about Rosie, God Damn it!
I've read that the network is devastated about Rosie not renewing her contract. Despite her controversial comment, she was good for ratings and they've ("The Views" ratings) improved greatly since Rosie joined the show.
The story is that the network wanted her to sign a three year contract and Rosie didn't want to commit to that.
If you want a more trusted, accurate account of what is really going on....go to http://www.prisonplanet.com or
http://www.infowars.com
From what I can tell they keep in touch with her and others behind the scene.
One thing's for sure....we haven't heard the last from Rosie and she'll continue to be a strong voice for getting the truth about 9/11 out.
There are supposed to be some victim's from the clean up of 9/11 (suffering and dying from lung problems) on "The View" this Friday and I guess it got pretty emotional. Try to watch if you can....I'm going to.
Allie, if Rogers bought Alex Jones' stuff, he'd not laugh at Rosie, don't get it?
If Rosie is wrong, that means every Skyscraper is in danger of Collapsing killing everyone inside.
And anyone who thinks they should NOT be torn down is a murderer. What the Government seems to be saying, is that a small plane can crash into the Sears Tower, the impact can remove all the fireproof coating on the steal beams and the fuel can make it melt and the Building collapse. The WTC is suppose to handle a impact from a plane. All skyscrapers are, according to code. Planes crash into tall Buildings. They are called accidents. Now that they know that the Sear tower can collapse, what are they doing to dismantle all the skyscrapers? And what Happened to all those Airport Surveillance videos showing the terrorist getting on the planes? How come none of the 911 calls supposedly made from the planes, had no people screaming or talking in the back ground? You would think there would at least be a terrorist yelling "get the fock off the phone." Why would anyone hang up a phone if they were being Hijacked and kidnapped? Why are seven of the 19 hijackers, claiming to still be alive? Why did the plane hit the only part of the Pentagon that had the new Two inch think Bomb Proof Glass on it? The test was a successes, the glass did not break. Unfortunately the building did not handle the impact. www.protectingpeople.org home.att.net
The Employes at Selfidge fied Airforce Base In Michigan, said that they had two armed aircraft, in the air, at the time of the hyjacking. The Gov lied and said they didn't.
I am GoTimothy on Myspace.
here is an interesting take on why Rosie is gone from the View.
It has nothing to do with the 30 million dollar salary they offered her.
Outre,
Yeah, Gibson from FOX news channel is going to be objective in his "opinion" piece. Right.....
If you read unbiased, factual reports, Rosie wanted to leave because she was being told "no" every time she turned around. "No" to experts guests on 9/11 that she'd invited to "The View". "No", you can't say that....etc. She was letting them know that they weren't going to shut her up on a subject that was important to her.
Rosie had brought "The View's" ratings way up and the network wanted her to stay.
Rosie has already been offered her OWN show on another network, not owned by Disney, who will allow her more FREEDOM OF SPEECH.....we do still live in America, don't we?
Here's More On Rosie:
"Fox News Lies, Claims Rosie Was Fired
Trump also jumps on the bandwagon
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Talking heads, Donald Trump and even some 9/11 truth activist groups are erroneously claiming that Rosie O'Donnell was fired by ABC in an attempt to strip her of her status as a crusader for free speech. The truth is that Rosie was sick and tired of ABC's deliberate attempts to censor her and had already decided to leave The View several weeks ago.
As we reported yesterday, prominent 9/11 truth sources close to O'Donnell revealed weeks ago that Rosie had refused to have her first amendment rights restricted and was likely to quit on her own terms after she was asked to stay on the show by ABC with the provision that she tone down her stance on the issue of 9/11.
In addition, The View wanted O'Donnell to sign a three year contract when Rosie just wanted a shorter commitment of 12 months. Many have heralded this as a huge mistake on the part of ABC.
Despite this the establishment media, once again caring little for facts or bothering to find out the truth, has surmised that Rosie was fired for talking about the 9/11 cover up.
Fox News' John Gibson has concocted his own conspiracy theory about why O'Donnell will no longer appear on The View:
'Was it the grabbing the crotch and shouting "Eat me"? Probably not. As grotesque as that command was, as awful as that image may be, it was probably just a gag-inducing moment that only confirmed what the ABC suits and Barbara Walters had already decided. They had to have decided she must go because of one reason: her insistence on pushing 9/11 conspiracy nutter theories on national network television, a deeply embarrassing thing for any self-respecting network, especially one that is vying for the top spot in the evening news wars.'
Once again we get the half baked and ill informed "this is what 9/11 conspiracy theorists think" trash and then Gibson goes on to say how anyone who suggests building 7 was "pulled" is saying "George Bush did it" - thus both WTC owner Larry Silverstein and most recently John Kerry must be saying that then?
In addition Bill O'Reilly has written a slime covered piece in which he announces himself as an oracle for predicting O'Donnell would be pushed out at ABC:
'As predicted here last January, Ms. O'Donnell is leaving "The View." She made the announcement today, making me an oracle. Truthfully, that wasn't a very hard prediction to make. In corporate America, there are boundaries. People who make money for corporations can stretch the boundaries. But sooner or later, the corporations, in this case Disney, has to decide what's best for the shareholders.'
O'Reilly also claims that the American public dislikes O'Donnell on The View and that is why Disney essentially severed relations with Rosie. In truth it is O'Reilly himself that the American public dislikes. As O'Donnell's ratings have sky rocketed, his own have plummeted. ABC's The View averages over twice as many viewers as O'Reilly's show, reaching a total of around 30 million viewers throughout the course of the entire show.
O'Reilly's viewership has been in freefall since his October 2004 sex scandal, dropping from a height of around 3.1 million to just over 2 million in October 2006 and leveling of at that rate to the present day. O'Reilly has lost over a third of his audience in two years, yet has the gall to continually announce that he has his finger on the pulse of America and "knows the American people".
In a further series of lies, un-truths and total ignorance, Donald Trump has weighed in on the issue.
O'Reilly "interviewed" Trump on his radio show whereupon he had this to say:
'O'REILLY: Do you have any inside information about Disney?
TRUMP: I don't want to say what I have, Bill. I can just tell you that this was a deal that was not going to happen. And she --most likely -- I mean the straw that broke the camel's back was what she did at the Waldorf- Astoria.
O'REILLY: Yes, that's what I believe, too. But let me just get this straight. You don't have to burn any sources, but you are convinced that Disney threw her over the side.
TRUMP: I am convinced that Disney threw her over the side, absolutely.'
People magazine checked in with Trump to get his expert opinion about O'Donnell leaving the show. When asked Trump told them, "Well, she didn't leave The View, ABC fired her. They couldn't take it anymore. Her ratings, frankly, were good during the month of January when she and I were going at it, but they've been falling very steadily ever since. Her other show her talk show was canceled because of low ratings."
Not one iota of this statement is true. O'Donnell has ensured that The View's ratings have risen by 17% in the time she has been on the show, introducing 600, 000 new viewers, the primary reason as to why she was offered a new contract.
Given the success of her outspoken approach on The View, there is no doubt that O'Donnell will now be offered her own syndicated show, and it will be on her own terms. Therefore we expect her pledge of allegiance to exposing 9/11 truth to only intensify in the coming months."
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Hermann Goering
"If Rosie is wrong, that means every Skyscraper is in danger of Collapsing killing everyone inside"
Sure, if you damage the fireproofing, damage the structure, then ignite a couple thousand gallons of fuel inside.
"What the Government seems to be saying, is that a small plane can crash into the Sears Tower, the impact can remove all the fireproof coating on the steal beams and the fuel can make it melt and the Building collapse. "
Are you saying that Boeing 767's are small planes?
You would think there would at least be a terrorist yelling "get the fock off the phone."
What the fock are you babbling about?
LOL
To Visitor:
You're showing you complete LACK of knowing the facts surrounding 9/11 in your messages. Especially the one regarding the fuel. Even NIST admits all the fuel burned off within minutes. There was molten steel (liquid) at all three WTC (1,2 & 7). Fuel fires don't burn hot enough (not even close) to turn steel to molten. Thermite/thermate does, though.
If you're going to post messages, do it with some factual proof, otherwise you just look foolish.
It doesn't matter how long the jet fuel took to burn off. Do you hae any idea just how much heat is released if you burn off 5,000 gallons of fuel in a few minutes?
You simply do not have the scientific background to understand just how much heat that relaeases.
Furthermore, The fuel ignited most of the office furnishings and paper, etc almost simultaneously.
Office buildings are simply not designed to withstand a heat load being released like that.
There is NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of liquid steel being present at WTC.
It doesn't matter how long the jet fuel took to burn off. Do you hae any idea just how much heat is released if you burn off 5,000 gallons of fuel in a few minutes?
You simply do not have the scientific background to understand just how much heat that relaeases.
Furthermore, The fuel ignited most of the office furnishings and paper, etc almost simultaneously.
Office buildings are simply not designed to withstand a heat load being released like that.
There is NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of liquid steel being present at WTC.
Dear Visitor,
There are hundreds (over 500 statements) of witnesses on record stating the presence of molten (liquid) steel. There are videos showing it and photos showing it.
If that's not physical evidence, what is? Go spend some time reading and researching and then maybe come back and post something intelligent. Until you do, you're only looking completely ignorant and foolish.
Hearsay and third hand accounts do not represent valid data. Furthermore, unless any of your witnesses can provide expert testimony that they were able to physically verify through a valid test method that they encountered liquid steel, all they are offering up is uninformed opinion.
Photographs and videos do not prove anything. You could just as well be looking at molten aluminum.
Where is the physical evidence, the chunk of resolidified steel?
There is none. Therefore your claim that there was liquid molten steel is nothing more than your opinion.
The only photo that I have seen purporting to be liquid steel has been highly manipulated digitally (the hues are clearly over saturated and the contrast has been maximized). Furthermore, the photograph is self debunking. It is impossible to pick up liquid steel with a hydraulically operated steel grapple.
In addition, without data on the shutter speed that the image was captured at, you can not judge wheather you are looking at an accurate image or not. Thus there is no proof that this is a picture of liquid steel.
I suppose that it was GWBush that caused the freeway to collapse in the SF bay area last weekend. Everyone knows fire can't cause steel and concrete to fail.
Visitor,
You're a complete idiot. Listen to yourself. Actual photos and videos (that have been authenticated) aren't physical evidence? Police officers, firemen, rescue workers, demolition expert's testimonies too? What do you need?
You're in denial. You just don't want to know the truth. Which is fine, but don't distort the truth and look like a fool in the meantime.
Ok, yeah, now you're using your head. Let's see.....a bridge collapsing is very comparable to the twin towers (which each of their floors was the size of an acre) and a 47-story building collapsing in free-fall speed on 9/11.
Get real or quit embarrasing yourself.
Do you honestly think that a photoshopped image is valid evidence?
Unless the image is supported by other evidence, like and actual sample of the so-called melted steel, it don't mean squat.
The same thing for all of your third hand quotes. Unless the person can explain just how he or she knew that they were looking at steel and nothing else, then they are just opinion.
THERE IS NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF POOLS LIQUID STEEL.
Stop being a paranoid loser. Conspiracy theories are not "cool," they are just dumb.
Visitor,
Photoshopped???? Are you kidding? Where do you get your information? These are official pictures, used for the official reports on 9/11. There's no "photoshopping" going on....
I'm not wasting my time responding to someone like you, who obviously doesn't have a clue about the actual facts.
Hey George,
Guess this visitor has never heard the saying,
"Better to remain silent and thought an idiot....rather than to open your mouth and remove all doubt!"
Yes, photo shopped. Even the NIST images were adjusted in intensity, contrast and saturation level. The difference is that they tell you up front that they did that, while the CT'ers photos are never identified as having been adjusted. A classic example is the infamous "meteorite" photo that Steven Jones has in his reports. Based on the Jones image the block of debris is a bright orange mass, the color supposedly indicating that it is mainly iron oxide. An unadjusted image of the same object shows it to be a grayish brown, with pieces of paper embedded in it.
CTers need to be more honest about the quality and reliability of thier so-called evidence.
BTW, does anyone care to defend Judy, "beam me up Scottie" Woods and her space based ray gun claims?
What about "No-Planes-No-Brains" Fetzer?
Visitor,
You're an idiot and you're wasting your time. You're using the typical "pick the most extreme theories" to try to debunk those who don't believe all that (and who are the majority of truth seekers), but just want the truth to come out. We were all deceived on 9/11. I can't believe you've looked at ALL the evidence and don't know that. If you have looked at all of it and you still believe the "official story", you're either not using your brain and common sense, or you're not too bright, or you work for the government. No other explaination works.
WOW!!!!!
This is far deeper and scarier than we thought!
Tom,
Glad you find this whole thing funny. I'm sure the 9/11 victim's families would love to laugh with you poking fun at something that has caused them so much pain.
You call yourself a Patriot?
Most in American, wouldn't, but there are many other names that would better describe what you are.
How DARE you accuse me of making fun of 9/11!!!!
It is clear that there is a vast conspiracy here, Mr. "Visitor," if that is really your name.
What alphabet letters do YOU work for, disinformation speciallist?
Open your eyes people, the circumstances of the freeway collapse were specificly engineered to attack the 9/11 truth position.
It was a set up. Freeways don't just collapse
This poll was in late 2006 (I Believe). Most feel the percentage of those who believe the government isn't telling the truth is even higher today.
NEW YORK TIMES/CBS POLL: "Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story:
Only 16% now believe official fable.
Truth Movement has the huge majority of opinion."
"Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?"
Results:
Telling the truth 16%
Hiding something 53%
Mostly lying 28%
Not sure 3%"
Here's a great website on the Military Industrial Complex...
www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com
You can follow the links on the corporation list to see how much money they get in contracts.
If anyone had any doubts that Rosie is an idiot,
Arthur Scheuerman is a retired FDNY battalion chief. While his analysis may not be 100% correct in all details, He makes a lot more sense than Rosie does.
Rosie is back at it!
Rosie is my Hero! Thanks for spreading the word on Main Stream TV!
O'DONNELL: Remember the Jim Jones thing? I'm five seconds away from drinking the Kool Aid singing, "Kumbaya," you know. Honestly, it's like I have a little bit of that.
Down the hatch!
rosie should be tried for treason!!!!
Poor, poor Rosie. (snicker)
She has made an ass of herself and has left the View in a huff.
ABC pulled the plug on her 9/11 moonbat show with "Willie the Keymaster," Dylan and company.
She got mad because she looked like a fool, and she blames "White men in power" for that. What a loser.
BTW, rumor has it, Charlie Sheen is backing away from the "Loose Change, Charlie's edition" project.
I do not see any validity in Rosie or her uneducated comments. There was no controlled demolition. Those idiots that do not have any education in structural engineering do not understand what they are seeing. WTC1 collapses due to the impact and fire damage the floors fall and the outer support beams literally collapse inward behind the floors implosively then tear loose as they collapse under their own weight.
BTW #7 was hit by debris as was 5 and six seven fell covering the road between the federal building it is funny how you believe a overweight loud mouth comedian over educated professionals.
www.jod911.com
www.jod911.com
Reality check for the profiteers of 911truth.org
They do not care about the Victims they car about profit and making money off of video sales. Theses people are not about the truth why else would they use the same Nazi tactics as targeting the mentally weak to keep their cause going. Jones was fired for academic fraud and the BYU structural engineering professor already has proven him wrong.
Just to close out this thread.
A new paper on the gravity driven collapse of the two towers The math is fairly complex. Too complex for most of the CTers.
Another nail in the conspiracy theory coffin.
Oh, No! Those pesky Purdue science shills are at it again.
I'm so glad Rosie is smarter than these people. (snicker)
Anyone with a brain in their head (and is using it for something other than just to repeat what the mainstream media feeds them), knows that the twin towers didn't come down due to gravity, or an airplane hit.
Even if someone doesn't agree that there were explosives used to bring them down (there are dozens of eyewitness testimony stating there were explosives, plus undisputable evidence of explosives found in the clean up process), you'd really have to be an idiot to believe that WTC-7 wasn't a demolition / inside job. Just watch with your own eyes the videos on youtube and other websites of this massive building crumbling into it's own footprint.
Read this entire thread, you'll see that Rosie is the one speaking rationally and with intelligence.
Those opposing her, give absolutely NO valid, intelligent evidence to dispute her, but rather digress to name calling, poking fun at her, etc.
OVER 85% OF AMERICANS BELIEVE WE'VE BEEN LIED TO ABOUT 9/11 (NEW CNN POLL).
THE OTHER 15% HAVEN'T TAKEN THE TIME TO REALLY LOOK AT THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE AND HAVEN'T THEN USED THEIR BRAIN TO DICIPHER IT.....PERIOD.
REGARDING STEVEN JONES, PHD.
He was NEVER fired from BYU, but took a leave of absense as to not involve the University (out of respect) and also to take the time to travel around, speaking, and spreading the truth.
Pretty much ALL of his fellow scientists and professors at BYU agree with him and support him.
Here's just a bit about him:
"THE EVIDENCE OF THERMITE AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
Christopher Bollyn
American Free Press
A highly-respected physicist explains how Thermite may have been used to cut the critical core columns and produce the large amounts of molten iron seen at the World Trade Center, but the controlled media and scientists refuse to look at the evidence.
PROVO, Utah " "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act," said the British writer George Orwell. Orwell's words aptly describe the situation of Steven E. Jones, a soft-spoken professor at Brigham Young University (BYU), who has turned his attention to the unanswered questions of 9-11.
Provo, the home of BYU, is America's most conservative city in its most Republican county. With more than 85 percent of the population supporting President George W. Bush, Provo seems an unlikely place for any "revolutionary act" " unless that act meant simply "telling the truth."
On the picturesque campus of the private Mormon university, surrounded by snow-capped peaks, Jones teaches physics and carries out research in the fields of metal-catalyzed fusion, solar energy, and archaeometry.
As an archaeometrist, Jones applies physics to explain events in the past. Since last year when he became aware of the unanswered questions of 9-11, he has focused his attention on the available data and evidence.
The unexplained presence of large amounts of molten iron at the WTC puzzled Jones and he contacted this writer to confirm the reports first published in American Free Press in 2002. These reports came directly from two men closely involved in the removal of the rubble: Peter Tully of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., and Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, Md.
Tully told AFP that he had seen pools of "literally molten steel" in the rubble.
Loizeaux confirmed this: "Yes, hot spots of molten steel in the basements," he said, "at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels." The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," he said. He confirmed that molten steel was also found at WTC 7, which mysteriously collapsed in the late afternoon.
Last November, Jones first presented his ideas in a draft which has since evolved into a 52-page scientific paper. His paper begins with a clear appeal for "a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down ... through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges."
Jones presents photographic and scientific evidence that an aluminothermic process called Thermite was most likely used to weaken and sever the 47 massive core columns that held up the towers. The official version utterly fails to explain how these critical columns failed.
Thermite, however, a combination of finely ground aluminum and iron oxide (rust), cuts through steel like a "warm knife through butter," Jones said, especially when mixed with 2 percent sulfur. The resulting eutectic combination, called Thermate, lowers the melting point of steel.
Thermite was patented in Germany by Hans Goldschmidt in the late 1800s. Extremely high temperatures are produced when the aluminum and iron oxide react. The reaction produces temperatures of more than 2,500 degrees Celsius (4,500 degrees F) as the ferric oxide is reduced to molten iron. Iron melts at 1,535 degrees C.
The reaction causes the oxygen from the ferric oxide to bond with the aluminum, producing aluminum oxide, molten iron, and approximately 750 kilocalories per gram of Thermite. The aluminum oxide is a whitish smoke, which was also observed in large amounts on 9-11.
American Free Press recently attended a presentation of Jones' 9-11 research at BYU. Jones began with footage of the unexplained collapse of Larry Silverstein's 47-story building, WTC 7, at 5:25 p.m. When Jones was interviewed by Tucker Carlson of MSNBC, the producers refused to air this short but crucial video segment.
AFP observed Thermite reactions in Jones' physics class. As a colleague combined the powdered rust and aluminum in a mounted ceramic flower pot, Jones filmed the reaction. A paper wick with magnesium ignited the sand-like mixture.
The reaction was intense, nearly explosive, and white flames and pieces of metal flew out of the pot. From the bottom poured a white-hot liquid " pure molten iron. After a few seconds a glowing yellow-hot piece of iron was lifted with tongs and shown to the students.
Because Thermite does not require air, it can react underwater or in an oxygen-starved environment, which may explain the persistent hot spots that existed for weeks in the rubble completely unaffected by the continuous dousing with fire hoses. The scientific literature on Thermite says that the white-hot molten iron and slag it produces can itself prolong and extend the heating and incendiary action.
"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running," Leslie Robertson, structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, told fellow engineers.
Footage taken by WABC-TV of the burning South Tower at 9:53 a.m., immediately before the building collapsed, reveals large amounts of white-hot molten metal, presumably iron, pouring from the 81st floor of the east corner. The amount of spilling molten metal suggests that a pool of molten iron was produced in that area of the building.
While some have suggested that the molten metal was aluminum, this is easily disproved by the fact that molten aluminum appears silver-grey in daylight. The only possible explanation is that the white-hot metal gushing from the South Tower was molten iron and had been produced by a very large amount of Thermite.
The amount of molten metal seen falling would indicate that tons of Thermite had been used on that floor. From the video footage it appears that several cubic meters of molten metal fell, which, if iron, would have weighed about 8.65 tons each.
Jones' explosive paper is accessible on his webpage and will be published in a forthcoming book by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott. Reading Jones' paper on-line allows the reader to review the photographic and video evidence.
"I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports," Jones writes, which claim "that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings." He challenges the official explanation and provides evidence to support the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which, he says "is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable."
Jones notes that the hypothesis that the towers were demolished by explosives "has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the U.S. government."
Ignoring the evidence of the controlled-demolition hypothesis, the FEMA-sponsored study of 2002 concluded, "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown." Furthermore, the official report found that the fire-induced collapse hypothesis "has only a low probability of occurrence."
"Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue," the engineers concluded.
"That is precisely the point," Jones says, "further investigation and analyses are indeed needed, including serious consideration of the controlled-demolition hypothesis which is neglected in all of the government reports." The fact that the 9-11 Commission report does not even mention the collapse of WTC 7 "is a striking omission of data highly relevant to the question of what really happened on 9-11," he said.
Further investigation is what Jones is trying to get other scientists to do. One would think that the mainstream media would be interested in a highly-respected physicist answering questions about 9-11, but that has not been the case. The controlled media and supporters of the official version completely avoid Jones.
Like a modern-day Galileo, or Luther, Jones has exposed the flaws in the official version, "a myth," he says, "which has taken on religious proportions."
"There is a clear disconnect between what the official reports say happened and what actually happened," Jones says. "A scientific theory has to be falsifiable. It must be able to be tested and challenged.
"The data stands on its own. Where are the honest scientists?" Jones asks. "Take the blinders off and find out what happened."
The official 9-11 reports are what Jones calls "pathological science," in which investigators ignore all evidence that contradicts the conclusion they have been asked to prove. AFP contacted three scientists who support the official theory to ask if they would review Jones' paper.
Thomas W. Eagar of MIT refused to even look at the paper and said there is no evidence of molten metal pouring from the WTC. Challenged with the evidence, he hung up the phone.
Zdenek P. Bazant of Northwestern University submitted his fire-induced collapse theory to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) two days after 9-11, without examining any evidence. Asked if he would review Jones' paper, Bazant also refused, "I have seen Jones' fiction before. If you want my private opinion, it is nothing but sensationalism," he said. "His purported refutation of my analysis is baseless."
Asked to simply look at 5 photos in an e-mail showing the cascading molten metal and core columns which appear to have been cut with Thermite, Bazant responded, "I do not have time."
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, an Iranian-born professor at Berkeley, who was a member of the ASCE team studying the WTC collapse, also refused to look at Jones' paper, saying, "I will not be able to find time to review the material that you have sent me."
Finis
Photo: The amount of molten metal, presumed to be iron, pouring from the 81st floor of the South Tower immediately before it collapsed suggests that tons of Thermite had been placed around the core columns on that floor and used to sever the columns in order to precipitate the collapse.
If this is molten iron, which is appears to be, then the amount which is seen falling here is about one cubic meter. One cubic meter of molten iron weighs more than 8.5 tons!
Thermite was evidently used to initiate the collapses in both towers plus the 47-story WTC 7, which collapsed for no apparent reason at 5:25 p.m.
I ask, at what point is it clear that the offical 9-11 report is nothing but a pack of lies and that the controlled media is conspiring to hide the evidence from the public?"
There are too few brave Americans like Rosie and Steven Jones, who have the courage to speak out.
We owe a lot to both of them and the others who are telling the truth!!!!!
"The roof of WTC 7 visibly crumbled and the building collapsed perfectly into its footprint."
Obviously the building was not demolished, then, because if anyone has ever seen a professionally demolished building they'd know that the bottom crumples and most of the top stays in tact until it hits the ground. Not to mention that, even though George Bush may be an Idiot, he's not an Idiotic Murderer.
"The roof of WTC 7 visibly crumbled and the building collapsed perfectly into its footprint."
Obviously the building was not demolished, then, because if anyone has ever seen a professionally demolished building they'd know that the bottom crumples and most of the top stays in tact until it hits the ground. Not to mention that, even though George Bush may be an Idiot, he's not an Idiotic Murderer.
"Thermite was evidently used to initiate the collapses in both towers plus the 47-story WTC 7, which collapsed for no apparent reason at 5:25 p.m."
Of course, because bein in intense fire and bombarded by debris falling from hundreds of feet up would in no way comprimise a building or damage its structure. Good God, what are all you people thinking? (sarcasm)
There were No huge, intense fires in ANY of the wtc (1, 2 or 7).
There is no other explanation than controlled demolition for these three enormous buildings to have completely collapse in their own footprint.
Only three buildings have collapsed like this in one day.
They are:
WTC 1
WTC 2
WTC 7
A recent New York Times poll results showed:
THREE out of FOUR Americans now believe that the government lied to us regarding 9/11!!!!
That's 75% of Americans.....the rest of you get off your butts, start reading and researching and wake up to the facts and evidence showing we've been lied to!
What is the difference between fire or explosives taking out support columns? Either way the building isn;t going to magically jump over fifty feet. And of course they covered up some information. Personally, i hate the Bush administration but it's not like they could immediately release sensitive information to the general public. This kind of fact twisting is exactly how things get out of hand.All of us were lied to, but not to the degree of mass murder.
And, of Course,
"There were No huge, intense fires in ANY of the wtc (1, 2 or 7)."
There's no way that a huge fireball that blew off all the fireproofing could cause any structural weakness. And, of course, the victims stuck in the tower, including my father's best friend, just set all of those papaers on fire that rained down over the city. And you call yourselves americans? I'd rather george bush be in power 4 more years than any of you traitors.
Being a 9/11 survivor (I worked on the 61st floor of the second building, was inside of the building when the plane hit, and had a front row seat as Tower two came down) I can assure you, with a fair amount of certainty, that actual planes hit both buildings and were responsible for their subsequent collapse. As I read some of the above comentary from left wing, misinformed, ignorant people, I am ashamed for you. Your own hatred for your native country to me is as damaging and murderous as the actual attacks themselves. Perhaps if you saw friends and colleagues of yours dismembered and burned beyond believe, or in some cases, much, much worse, you would think twice about your baseless accusations at our government. For the record, Rosie O'Donnell is a talentless poor excuse for a human being who would never have made her fame and fortune anywere else but this wonderful, blessed, Nation. Wake up, stop listening to actors and actresses who make their living playing make believe and taking your money, start realizing that there are people out there who look upon your every day freedoms with very envious eyes and would love nothing more than to kill you and your family.
Bill, It seems you may be too close to the event to be objective. I haven't seen any evidence that people who call the official 9/11 story into question are unpatriotic. Are the people who questioned the JFK assassination unpatriotic? How about the gulf of Tomkin, The USS Maine, the Pearl Harbor event? I'm afraid you are unwilling to consider the facts that show this government is lying and covering up information.
Add a Comment
All comments are moderated before publication. These HTML tags are permitted: <p>, <b>, <i>, <a>, and <blockquote>. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA (for which the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply).
Social Media
Subscriptions
Blogroll
Projects
Statistics
This blog has been published since Nov. 7, 1999 (a span of 9,148 days).
Thank you for visiting Workbench.
