Wtc 7, It Own Story Of Controled Demolition And Cover Up.

[Ryan2065]

Didn't you notice that the excuse "NATIONAL SECURITY" has been used to refuse to release informations except to the 200 trusted scientists and engineers in NIST??

Er... And if they really did need to keep some information secured?

Scientists will not like this implication or this view, but you are pretty safe stating this in RF, as I do not see many scientists participating in RF

I meant from the government =p As long as the government doesnt outlaw what they are doing, I don't see many scientists wanting anything else but money from the government...

The Purdue statement also is misleading, 27% can be considered as 'much of the mass'?

Usually only if the other parts of the plane make up less than 27% of the mass...

 

[greatcalgarian]

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

This is completely blatant and irresponsible and unscientific way of answering the question.
It is avoiding the question. It is telling anyone who dig deeper the way the answer is phrase simply could mean:

We know there are explosive residue in these steel, however, we did not want to test it so that we do not have to explain why these residues are there. We can have all the other reasons to substanciate our stand that the tower is not brought down by explosives, so why do we want to contradict ourself by doing an analysis on the metal and find evidence to show we could be wrong?
Please watch Dr Jones lecture, and see the cartoon he used to demonstrate his point, the no two snow flakes are identifical
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586&q=steven+jones
Ryan, I really hope you will spend two hours watching this seminar, or at least read his published paper.
http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=4026202000118&lang=en-CA&mkt=en-CA&FORM=CVRE3

 

[Ciscokid]

The difference is wether you can proove any of those "conspiracies" false. are you trained on science? University or High School?

The burden is on Paul to prove them to be true.

 

[anyscientologist]

An hypothesis was made, the person who made the hypothesis offers evicence that it is true. If you say it is not true, then you have to proove the hypothesis as false. That's the way hypothesis are dealth with, that's science.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Let us now read what Professor Jones has written as a scientific paper on the 9/11 WTC7 collapse. Professor Jones has included reference to othe theories (supporting Government story of collapse due to fire and impact alone):

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

ABSTRACT
In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the
Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11
Commission reports that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, and can be tested scientifically, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.
Introduction
We start with the fact that large quantities of molten metal were observed in
basement areas under rubble piles of all three buildings: the Twin Towers and WTC7. A video clip provides eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero:
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/red_hot_ground_zero_low_quality.
wmv . The photographs below by Frank Silecchia show chunks of the hot metal being
removed from the North Tower rubble on September 27, 2001 (according to
photographer's aid). Notice the color of the lower portion of the extracted metal -- this tells us much about the temperature of the metal and provides important clues regarding its composition, as we shall see.

 

[greatcalgarian]

REFERENCES
Baker, Jeremy (2005). “Contrary to Popular (Mechanics&#8217 Belief,” Global Outlook, Issue 10, p.
14 (Spring-Summer 2005).
Barnett, J. R., Biederman, R.R. and R.D. Sisson, Jr., "An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36
Steel from WTC Building 7," Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society,
53/12:18 (2001).
Bazant, Z. P. and Zhou, Y. (2002). “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Simple
Analysis,” J. Eng. Mech. 128:2, January 2002.
Bazant, Z. P. and Zhou, Y. (March 2002). “Addendum to ‘Why Did the World Trade Center
Collapse? Simple Analysis,” J. Eng. Mech. 128:369, March 2002.
Bollyn, Christopher (2002). American Free Press, September 3, 2002, available at:
http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html.
Chertoff, B., et al. (2005). “9/11: Debunking the Myths,” Popular Mechanics, March 2005.
Commission (2004). The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, Authorized Edition, New York: W.W. Norton.
Cote, A. E., editor, Fire Protection Handbook 17th Edition, Quincy, Maine: National Fire
Protection Association, 1992.
De Grand Pre, Donn (2002). “Many Questions Still Remain About Trade Center Attack,”
American Free Press, February 3, 2002, available at:
http://www.americanfreepress.net/02_03_02/Trade_Center_Attack/trade_center_attack.html
Dwyer, James (2005). “City to Release Thousands of Oral Histories of 9/11 Today,” New York
Times, August 12, 2005, with quotes of eyewitnesses available in New York Times archives
at
Journal of 9/11 Studies 47 September 2006/Volume 3
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_hi
stories_01.html and
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WT
C_histories_full_01.html.
Eagar, T. W. and Musso, C. (2001). “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science,
Engineering, and Speculation”, Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society,
53/12:8-11 (2001).
FEMA (2002). “World Trade Center Building Performance Study,” released May 2002,
available at: http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm.
Field, Andy (2004). “A Look Inside a Radical New Theory of the WTC Collapse,” Fire/Rescue
News, February 7, 2004. Available at
http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId=46&id=25807
Gartner, John (2005). "Military Reloads with Nanotech," Technology Review, January 21, 2005;
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14105&ch=nanotech
Glanz, James (2001). “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have
been partly evaporated,” New York Times, November 29. 2001.
Glanz, James, and Lipton, Eric (2002). “Towers Withstood Impact, but Fell to Fire, Report
Says,” Fri March 29, 2002, New York Times.
Glover, Norman (2002). Fire Engineering journal, October 2002.
Greening, Frank (2006), unpublished. Available at:
http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf and
http://8real.proboards104.com/index.cgi?board=phony&action=display&thread=1155285629 .
Griffin, David Ray (2004). The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush
Administration and 9/11, Northampton, Massachusetts: Interlink.
Griffin, David Ray (2005). The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions,
Northampton, Massachusetts: Interlink. See also papers here: www.st911.org .
Grimmer, Derrick (2004). Calculations on the Possible Use of Thermite to Melt Sections of the
WTC Core Columns, http://www.physics911.net/thermite.htm, also, Mike Rivero at
www.whatreallyhappened.com raises the notion of thermite reactions in the WTC
demolitions (the earliest reference found).
Harris, Tom (2000). “How Building Implosions Work,” available at:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm, ca. 2000.
Hoffman, James (2005). “Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth,” Global Outlook, Issue 10,
p. 21 (Spring-Summer 2005).
Hufschmid, Eric (2002). Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack, Goleta,
California: Endpoint Software.
Jones, S. E., et al. (2006). "Experiments Testing Greening’s Hypothesis Regarding Molten
Aluminum," in preparation.
Kuttler, Kenneth (2006). "WTC 7: A Short Computation," Journal of 9/11 Studies, 1:1-3 (June
2006).
Lane, B., and Lamont, S. (2005). “Arup Fire’s presentation regarding tall buildings and the
events of 9/11,” ARUP Fire, April 2005. Available at:
http://www.arup.com/DOWNLOADBANK/download353.pdf
Manning, William (2002). “Selling out the investigation,” Editorial, Fire Engineering, January
2002.
Journal of 9/11 Studies 48 September 2006/Volume 3
Manning, William (2004). “The Tainted Brush of 9/11 Politics,” Editorial, Fire Engineering,
September 2004.
Meyer, Peter (2005). "Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11,"
http://serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm, March 2005.
Mooney, Chris (2005). The Republican War on Science, New York, NY: Basic Books.
NIST (2005). http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf (“Final Report of the National
Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers (Draft)&#8221,
Sept.-Oct. 2005.
NISTb (2005). http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-
%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf (Part
IIC – WTC 7 Collapse, preliminary), 2005.
NOVA (2002). "Why the Towers Fell," originally broadcast Tuesday, April 30, 2002; see
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/.
Parker, Dave (2005). "WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation," New Civil
Engineer, October 6, 2005.
Paul, Don, and Hoffman, Jim (2004). Waking Up From Our Nightmare : The 9/11/01 Crimes in
New York City, San Francisco: Irresistible/Revolutionary.
Penn Arts and Sciences (2002). Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002 , available at
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/summer2002/k911.html.
Risen, James (2001). “Secretive CIA Site in New York Was Destroyed on Sept. 11,” New York
Times, November 4, 2001.
Ryan, Kevin (2004). Letter to Frank Gayle, available at
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451.
Ryan, Kevin (2005). “A Call for a Personal Decision,” Global Outlook, Issue 10, p. 96 (Spring-
Summer 2005). See also papers here: www.st911.org .
Swanson, Gail (2003). Behind the Scenes: Ground Zero, World Trade Center, September 11,
2001, New York: TRAC Team, Inc., 2003.
Walsh, Trudy (2002), "Handheld APP eased recovery tasks," GCN, 9/11/02 issue.
Williams, James (2001). “WTC a structural success,” SEAU NEWS; The Newsletter of the
Structural Engineers Association of Utah, October 2001, p. 1,3.

 

[greatcalgarian]

That approach was, understandably, abandoned in the next effort, that by FEMA (FEMA, 2002). The FEMA team largely adopted the theory of Dr. Thomas Eagar (Eagar and Musso, 2001), which was also presented in the NOVA presentation “Why the Towers Fell” (NOVA, 2002). Eagar expresses the view that "the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001) Instead of having the columns fail simultaneously, FEMA has floor pans in the Towers warp due to fires, and the floor connections to the vertical beams break, and these floor pans then fall down onto the floor pans below, initiating “progressive collapse” or pancaking of one floor pan on another. Very simple. But not so fast – what happens to the enormous core columns to which the floors were firmly attached? Why don’t these remain standing like a spindle with the floor pans falling down around them, since the connections are presumed to have broken away? This interconnected steel core is founded on bedrock (Manhattan schist). FEMA does not totally ignore the core:
As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and
possibly central core columns. As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased [no mention of the huge central core anymore!], they buckled at the bolted column splice connections and also collapsed.” (FEMA. 2002; emphasis added)
This approach finally fails to account for the observed collapse of the 47 interconnected core columns which are massive and designed to bear the weight of the buildings, and it has the striking weakness of evidently requiring the connections of the floor pans to the vertical columns to break, both at the core and at the perimeter columns, more or less simultaneously.
That didn’t work out, so NIST goes back to the drawing board. They require that the
connections of the floor pans to vertical columns do NOT fail (contrary to FEMA’s model), but rather that the floor pans “pull” with enormous force, sufficient to cause the perimeter columns to significantly pull in, leading to final failure (contrary to objections of ARUP Fire experts, discussed above). Also, NIST constructs a computer model -- but realistic cases do not actually lead to building collapse. So they “adjust” inputs until the model finally shows collapse initiation for the most severe cases. The details of these “adjustments” are hidden from us, in their computerized hypotheticals, but “the hypothesis is saved.” NIST also has Underwriters Laboratories construct models of the WTC trusses, but the models withstand all fires in tests and do NOT collapse. (See above for details.)
We are left without a compelling fire/impact-damage model, unless one blindly accepts the NIST computer simulation while ignoring the model fire-tests, which I’m not willing to do. NIST did not even do the routinely-used visualizations to validate their finite-element analysis model (point 13 above). And none of the “official” models outlined above accounts for what happens to the buildings AFTER the building is “poised for collapse” (NIST, 2005, p. 142) – namely the rapid and nearly-symmetrical and complete collapses. Reports of explosions, heard and seen, are not discussed. And they ignore the squibs seen ejected from floors far from where the jets hit – particularly seen in WTC 7 (where no jet hit at all). Finally, what about that molten metal under the rubble piles of all three WTC skyscrapers and the yellow-white hot molten metal seen flowing from the South Tower just prior to its collapse?

 

[anyscientologist]

This is the language of science.

 

[anyscientologist]

Hehe, Al Qaeda was made up by the government and they pined this on a fake terrorist organization? That is rich.

Shure. Look:

Former Leader of the House of Commons Robin Cook, who admirably resigned in protest of the 2003 Iraq invasion, penned a piece in the London Guardian shortly before his death that shed light on the true genesis of the name.

"Al-Qaida," states Cook, "literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."

Former French Military Intelligence official Pierre Henry Bunel expands, noting that "Al-Qaeda," was an early form of intranet, which was used by Islamic nations and influential families to communicate with each other. It was also used by the "American agent," Osama bin Laden to send coded or covert messages back to his CIA handlers from Afghanistan.

And so:

The origins of the name "Al-Qaeda," and its real arabic connotations prove that every time the Bush administration, Fox News, or any individual who cites the threat of "Al-Qaeda," as a mandate for war and domestic authoritarianism, they are propagating the myth that such a group ever existed.

The link:

Existence of "Al-Qaeda" Is Crap; Quite Literally
Did Osama really choose to name his terror network after potty humor or was it a computer database he used to chat with his CIA handlers?

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | October 6 2006

The origins of the name "Al-Qaeda," and its real arabic connotations prove that every time the Bush administration, Fox News, or any individual who cites the threat of "Al-Qaeda," as a mandate for war and domestic authoritarianism, they are propagating the myth that such a group ever existed.


http://prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/061006alqaedacrap.htm

 

[anyscientologist]

More evidence of explosions before the wTC-7 colapse, and Silverstein in its way to make big money...

Explosions Before WTC 7 Collapse?

You Tube | October 26 2006

Suspicious explosions heard before the collapse of WTC Building 7 - which imploded on the late afternoon of 9/11 but was not hit by a plane. Firefighters also discuss the imminent collapse of the building, saying it is "about to blow up".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M47EakvagQ

​

 

[nutshell]

More evidence of explosions before the wTC-7 colapse, and Silverstein in its way to make big money...

Explosions Before WTC 7 Collapse?​

You Tube | October 26 2006​

Suspicious explosions heard before the collapse of WTC Building 7 - which imploded on the late afternoon of 9/11 but was not hit by a plane. Firefighters also discuss the imminent collapse of the building, saying it is "about to blow up".​

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M47EakvagQ​

that's right. a building will be perfectly silent before it falls apart.

 

[anyscientologist]

that's right. a building will be perfectly silent before it falls apart.

Excuse me, but no single iron structure building has before been destroyed by a fire. And reinforced concrete buildings habe been known to crack before they fall apart.

 

[nutshell]

Excuse me, but no single iron structure building has before been destroyed by a fire. And reinforced concrete buildings habe been known to crack before they fall apart.

Excuse me, but I thought we were talking about the sound the building made before it collapsed, not iron and cracked concrete.

 

[anyscientologist]

The sound you hear in the video is an explosion.

Iron structure buildings, like the WTC-7, do not get destroyed by fires. They do not have several cracking stages, like the concrete and iron buildings.

 

[anyscientologist]

Molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed [from WTCs 1 & 2],” Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Maryland is on record as saying. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

http://www.infowars.net/articles/november2006/171106molten.htm

 

[McBell]

The difference is wether you can proove any of those "conspiracies" false. are you trained on science? University or High School?

I disagree.
Unless he can present enough real evidence, he has nothing.
It is not my job to prove the conspiracy false.
It is HIS job to prove it true.
And until he does so, he is merely talking out his @$$.

 

[Ryan2065]

Iron structure buildings, like the WTC-7, do not get destroyed by fires. They do not have several cracking stages, like the concrete and iron buildings.

I thought we were talking about buildings hit by planes... Not ones that just got a little fire in them.

Molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed [from WTCs 1 & 2],” Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Maryland is on record as saying. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

So they made bombs that would continue to go off for 3 days? Im sorry but saying this only furthers the idea that the molten steel chemically bonded with another material which would give it a lower melting point... Blacksmiths have done this same thing for hundreds of years. I linked people who studied the metal from the WTC and said that is exactly what they found but I don't remember where the link is and frankly I don't care to find it... Kinda silly when debunked arguments keep being brought up.

 

[anyscientologist]

I disagree.
Unless he can present enough real evidence, he has nothing.
It is not my job to prove the conspiracy false.
It is HIS job to prove it true.
And until he does so, he is merely talking out his @$$.

What are you talking about?

 

[anyscientologist]

I thought we were talking about buildings hit by planes... Not ones that just got a little fire in them.

But this thread is about Building 7 at the WTC. The one that was told to have fallen by fire.

So they made bombs that would continue to go off for 3 days?

Thermite bombs go off in fractions of a second. The molten iron resulting from the reaction is the stuff that is being discussed here.

Im sorry but saying this only furthers the idea that the molten steel chemically bonded with another material which would give it a lower melting point...

That's not what is being said. The bombs were thermite or thermate, and they give molten steel after the reaction.

Blacksmiths have done this same thing for hundreds of years.

There were no Twin towers for blacksmiths to bring down before.

I linked people who studied the metal from the WTC and said that is exactly what they found but

Show the links please. Be scientific.

I don't remember where the link is and frankly I don't care to find it...

How sorry...

Kinda silly when debunked arguments keep being brought up.

Kinda silly when this bombs and its evidence are the stuf which will send Bush to jail.

 

[Ryan2065]

That's not what is being said. The bombs were thermite or thermate, and they give molten steel after the reaction.

Alright... give evidence that thermite bombs are known for making molten steel last in its molten state for 3 to 4 weeks.

Show the links please. Be scientific.

I don't remember where the link is and frankly I don't care to find it...

How sorry...

I was already scientific on another thread. Show me scientific studies that prove thermite bombs are known for leaving molten steel up to 3 to 4 weeks after the explosion and I will gladly use the search feature on this forum to find the links I posted a month or two ago.