Peter McKenna

From the bio of Bernardine Dorn: Living underground as a fugitive in San Francisco and Chicago for 11 years, she and her husband turned themselves in by 1980. Federal charges for conspiracy to bomb buildings had been dropped due to illegal evidence gathering by J. Edgar Hoover's COINTELPRO-style infiltration of the Weathermen organization. Dohrn got away with it all, paying a $1500 fine for a minor bail-jumping offense and later doing a little time for refusing to testify against a cohort, Kathy Boudin. Dohrn's adopted son Chesa is the biological son of Boudin, incarcerated for armed robbery when the child was 14 months old.

Now, please back on topic. For some reference info. http://www.geocities.com/southernscene/edu3.html

If I'm not mistaken the Weathermen, a quite violent group, were an offshoot of the SDS, who splintered off to pursue a more radical agenda.

What's a SLOTUS? Sec. of Labor? Len, OK with the no SAMs (I did read it though), but if there was what's the difference between a SAM and scrambling a fighter and shooting it down? If the plane was observed soon enough, the missile could take it out well away from downtown Manhattan, and a well timed strike could probably ensure it went into the East River, No?.

Are these statistics accurate? I get the feeling that you might be making the above statements in sarcasm, but if not; Per the Hudson Institute and the Economist, Putin, former high ranking KGB officer, has filled most of the Russian Government posts with former KGB and FSB officers and agents. Criticism of Putin is quite typically met with retribution, often violent. From the Hudson Institute (Irwin Stelzer): From the Wall Street Journal: From The Daily Mail: From the Daily Mail, ex-Spetznaz commandos have formed a secret 'Persuasion' organization: Putin spends the eqyuivalent of tens of millions of dollars each year to shine his public image. Critics of Putin are arrested, violelently persuaded to change their views, or outright murdered. Putin has systematically nationalized (which is another word for 'seized') foreign interests in Russian business, such as British Petroleum's investments in Russian oil. By the way, Boyle is incorrect when he says that the US is continuing its first strike nuclear policy. The US has always taken a defensive position with respect to Nuclear weapons. It was the former Sovite Union that had a first strike policy. Concerning the murder of Anna Plitovskaya, a critic of Putin's genocidal treament of Chechnya: The US hasn't had the best record on human rights recently, RE Gitmo, interrogation methods in secret CIA camps overseas, etc., but by comparison to Putin and company, the US is a soft touch. Some of the silenced critics of Putin's Kremlin (from The Independent) Note that this is only a partial list, the entire list is quite a bit longer: It goes on and on. Peter, Putin's a hard case with a tough record and plenty of enemies. You should hear what Gary Kasparov thinks of him. But the fact is that Russia has the oil and America wants it. Provoking Russia into a cold war won't benefit the people of Russia or America, or anywhere else. If you can tell me how it will, I would love to know. It would benefit the armaments industry and the oil conglomerates. You’re right Mark. Establishing another cold war would not benefit the US, Russia, and especially not the European countries that would be caught in the middle of such paranoid policy administration. The US has been following carefully constructed foreign policy with respect to Russia, avoiding blatant human rights abuses (e.g. Chechnya) seemingly in the hope that democracy would take hold and an elected government could right the ship, at least until the proposed installation of the missile defense shield. Despite the turning of blind eyes and the tip-toeing about by US policy masters, paranoia seems to be creeping back into the chambers of the US policy and intelligence gurus. Putin has installed security service agents and officials in most key government positions. He has asserted the right to install puppet governments in all former Warsaw pact countries, and he has apparently authorized acts of retribution against his critics on foreign soil (not Litvinenko. And not that the US hasn’t committed human rights abuses against its enemies on foreign soil). Apparently the mystics and major policy analysts feel that Russia may be re-forming a totalitarian government. This will likely stand in the way of nuclear disarmament, and the success of Reagan’s military buildup and threats of a missile defense shield is being dusted off and copies made for distribution. The best approach in light of such behavior is to behave like the polar opposite and uphold human rights, to stand for Democracy, and not to re-visit the late 1960s with its divisive policies. A Russian friend of mine, who came to the US under the Helsinki agreement in 1972, told me once that the US had been viewed abroad as a country that stood for human rights and equanimous justice. That the US was a symbol of hope to the oppressed nations of the world. That has changed. We should try and find those sentiments again, and not act out of paranoia.

Duplicate post,

Are these statistics accurate? I get the feeling that you might be making the above statements in sarcasm, but if not; Per the Hudson Institute and the Economist, Putin, former high ranking KGB officer, has filled most of the Russian Government posts with former KGB and FSB officers and agents. Criticism of Putin is quite typically met with retribution, often violent. From the Hudson Institute (Irwin Stelzer): From the Wall Street Journal: From The Daily Mail: From the Daily Mail, ex-Spetznaz commandos have formed a secret 'Persuasion' organization: Putin spends the eqyuivalent of tens of millions of dollars each year to shine his public image. Critics of Putin are arrested, violelently persuaded to change their views, or outright murdered. Putin has systematically nationalized (which is another word for 'seized') foreign interests in Russian business, such as British Petroleum's investments in Russian oil. By the way, Boyle is incorrect when he says that the US is continuing its first strike nuclear policy. The US has always taken a defensive position with respect to Nuclear weapons. It was the former Sovite Union that had a first strike policy. Concerning the murder of Anna Plitovskaya, a critic of Putin's genocidal treament of Chechnya: The US hasn't had the best record on human rights recently, RE Gitmo, interrogation methods in secret CIA camps overseas, etc., but by comparison to Putin and company, the US is a soft touch. Some of the silenced critics of Putin's Kremlin (from The Independent) Note that this is only a partial list, the entire list is quite a bit longer: It goes on and on.

Provide evidence on one of the appropriate threads that unreleased videos exist. The debris secret? Already explain crash debris is not normally publicly available provide examples of when it has been previously and that peple have asked for and denied such access. The NORAD facts secret? What facts? All BS claims as indicated elsewhere on this forum It has generally been my policy not to even comment on Leninisms.....but I drank too much wine... The building is [by their own boasts] the best protected building in the world...it has anti-aircraft missles on the roof and around it, satelites trained on it, radar and other high-tech protetction and cameras up the yazoo watching it. How could something hit it [and large]..without being: photo'd; anti-aircraft missle fired at; intercepted by fighters UNLESS the senario called for just what happened to happen. Len-in, I don't really think you are as naive as you pose to be....but a foil for those wh o do these things. If I'm wrong, my humble apologies...if not ....[deleted] I have read rumor of a Stinger missile (is this a rumor?) installed in WTC 7, for use in a scenario for Presidential protection, where a SAM type defense would be appropriate. If true there likely would have been a number of SAM missiles installed and launch ready. This would have been a similar scenario to the WTC 1 and 2 aircraft attack. Was this only a rumor? If not why indeed was the stinger missile(s) not made ready for use against, at least, the second (south tower) attack? I haven't read anything addressing this. Could it be that the potential civilian toll, were the plane brought down earlier than the crash, have been too great? Or, and more likely, it wasn't even considered for this situation, and if not why not? If a conspiracy existed, is it possible that it included the destruction of this evidence (SAM defenses) provoked the destruction of WTC 7? This is possible IMO.

In this article the writer states that OEM men re-entered WTC 7, proceeded to the seventh floor, then the 12th floor, ostensibly to light fires in order to surreptitiously cause the collapse of WTC 7. The article supposes that the CD charges had to have been placed prior to 9/11. The prior article identifies the building damage extending from the 18th floor down. Were the OEM people observed re-entering WTC-7? If so, how does the writer conclude their purpose is to light fires to collapse the building? If these people were experts in demolition, it seems a very remote possibility that they would consider the lighting of the fires as being anywhere close to effective in demolishing WTC 7. Is it just possible that they entered the building to place charges? In researching the subject of 'emergency' and 'expedient' demolitions, I found that many state OEMs, the Department of Homeland Security, and certain branches of the military, have included in their emergency response scenarios 'Expedient Demolition' for reasons varying from mitigation of earthquake damage in large cities, mitigation of flood damage (ad hoc dams), and strategic or tactical destruction of targets (bridges, large buildings, etc). In all of these scenarios, the tactical expertise required is extremely high, due to the handling of dangerous explosives, and due to the expediency required in performing and expedient demolition. Unfortunately, no specific criteria (or training results) of the scenario time element was available, so I couldn't say how fast it would take to plan, place and set up a controlled demolition. However, it is apparent that these disciplines are trained for, and are capable of, expedient demolitions of large structures, FWIW. Now, I would fathom that the destruction of WTC 7 might have been commissioned to cover up or destroy something related to the events of 9/11. If so, if the motive in the destruction of WTC 7 can be traced back to the events of that day (other than just a physical consequence), then the predicate for a conspiracy definitely exists, and all that goes with it. Like Sid suggests, just the fact that no one admits that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition goes a long way towards that end. All the theories for the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 don't come close to being as salient as this one point (IMO).

I don't disagree with any of this. In fact I heartily agree. The only postulate I insert is, could the demolition have been accomplished AFTER the attack on WTC 1 and 2. I think that it is possible. Since the theory that the controlled demolition of WTC 7 is key to establishing a conspiracy theory concerning the WTC 1 and 2 collapse, this aspect must be examined. If WTC 7 was set up before 9/11 at 09:00, for a controlled demolition, then the next step, to establish that a conspiracy existed (other than the conspiracy of the hijackers to attack the WTC 1 and 2 with aircraft) is not a great leap of faith.

Jack please read the following in answer to your question. The link below provides references for all statements and a description of the damage to WTC 7. I posted this in a prior post on this thread. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity....&startpos=0 From the Complete 911 Timeline "Note on June 8, 1999: New York Emergency Command Center Opened in WTC Building 7" "Giuliani’s emergency command center. [source: CNN]New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani opens a $13 million emergency Command Center on the 23rd floor of World Trade Center Building 7. [NEWSDAY, 9/12/2001] The center is intended to coordinate responses to various emergencies, including natural disasters like hurricanes or floods, and terrorist attacks. The 50,000 square foot center has reinforced, bulletproof, and bomb-resistant walls, its own air supply and water tank, beds, showers to accommodate 30 people, and three backup generators. It also has rooms full of video monitors from where the mayor can oversee police and fire department responses. It is to be staffed around the clock and is intended as a meeting place for city leaders in the event of an act of terrorism. [CNN, 6/7/1999; LONDON TIMES, 9/12/2001; GLANZ AND LIPTON, 2004, PP. 233] The center is ridiculed as “Rudy’s bunker.” [TIME, 12/22/2001] Most controversial is the 6,000-gallon fuel tank. In 1998 and 1999, Fire Department officials warn that the fuel tank violates city fire codes and poses a hazard. According to one Fire Department memorandum, if the tank were to catch fire it could produce “disaster.” Building 7 will be destroyed late in the day on 9/11; some suspect this tank helps explains why. [NEW YORK TIMES, 12/20/2001]" Entity Tags: World Trade Center, Rudolph ("Rudy") Giuliani Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline" "Peruggia grabs EMT Richard Zarrillo and tells him to pass on the message “that the buildings have been compromised, we need to evacuate, they’re going to collapse.” Zarrillo heads out to the fire command post, situated in front of 3 World Financial, the American Express Building, where he relays this message to several senior firefighters. He says, “OEM says the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get out.” (OEM is the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management, which has its headquarters in WTC 7.) Fire Chief Pete Ganci’s response is, “who the f___ told you that?” Seconds later, they hear the noise of the South Tower as it collapses." "WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE, 8/2002] According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13. [FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE, 4/2002] Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, “At the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.” [FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE, 4/2002] Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls, “A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.” Captain Chris Boyle recalls, “On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.” [FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE, 8/2002] The building will collapse hours later." This is disinformation. Photos of the building showing the Vesey Stree side of the building in the afternoon show no fire and no 20-story gash in the building. I will look for the photo. I have seen no other reference like this one. Jack Here is a photo showing damage to WTC7 in the below link entitled "SW Corner Damage Starting at Floor 18". Clearly there was visible damage to WTC 7 from the eighteenth floor down. http://killtown.911review.org/wtc7/fire.html WTC 7 had as tenants, the Secret Service, CIA, FBI (?), FEMA, and included a bunker for Rudy Gulianai. Based upon several views of the collapse, Its hard to beleive WTC 7 was not a controlled collapse (controlled demolition). With visible fires, damage to the building (as per the photos in the above link I referenced), the specific tenants, is it likely a pre-prepared demolition (prepared before 09:00 on 9/11/2001) would have been placed before 9/11 and then executed 7 hours or more after the WTC attack? By the way, Len, I apologize about implying the penthouse had not collapsed before the rest of the building. I found two sites where this was observed and cited. Well there goes my whole morning, and most of the afternoon.

Jack please read the following in answer to your question. The link below provides references for all statements and a description of the damage to WTC 7. I posted this in a prior post on this thread. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity....&startpos=0 From the Complete 911 Timeline "Note on June 8, 1999: New York Emergency Command Center Opened in WTC Building 7" "Giuliani’s emergency command center. [source: CNN]New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani opens a $13 million emergency Command Center on the 23rd floor of World Trade Center Building 7. [NEWSDAY, 9/12/2001] The center is intended to coordinate responses to various emergencies, including natural disasters like hurricanes or floods, and terrorist attacks. The 50,000 square foot center has reinforced, bulletproof, and bomb-resistant walls, its own air supply and water tank, beds, showers to accommodate 30 people, and three backup generators. It also has rooms full of video monitors from where the mayor can oversee police and fire department responses. It is to be staffed around the clock and is intended as a meeting place for city leaders in the event of an act of terrorism. [CNN, 6/7/1999; LONDON TIMES, 9/12/2001; GLANZ AND LIPTON, 2004, PP. 233] The center is ridiculed as “Rudy’s bunker.” [TIME, 12/22/2001] Most controversial is the 6,000-gallon fuel tank. In 1998 and 1999, Fire Department officials warn that the fuel tank violates city fire codes and poses a hazard. According to one Fire Department memorandum, if the tank were to catch fire it could produce “disaster.” Building 7 will be destroyed late in the day on 9/11; some suspect this tank helps explains why. [NEW YORK TIMES, 12/20/2001]" Entity Tags: World Trade Center, Rudolph ("Rudy") Giuliani Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline" "Peruggia grabs EMT Richard Zarrillo and tells him to pass on the message “that the buildings have been compromised, we need to evacuate, they’re going to collapse.” Zarrillo heads out to the fire command post, situated in front of 3 World Financial, the American Express Building, where he relays this message to several senior firefighters. He says, “OEM says the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get out.” (OEM is the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management, which has its headquarters in WTC 7.) Fire Chief Pete Ganci’s response is, “who the f___ told you that?” Seconds later, they hear the noise of the South Tower as it collapses." "WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE, 8/2002] According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13. [FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE, 4/2002] Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, “At the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.” [FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE, 4/2002] Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls, “A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.” Captain Chris Boyle recalls, “On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.” [FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE, 8/2002] The building will collapse hours later."

The first example was a seventeen story building. The Cuneo Roma structures included some failry tall structures, although I couldn't find the actual height of the buidlings which were done four in a day. The idea is that it doesn't have to take months as cited. In fact, the point is, could demolition experts, who are trained to drop a building (even a 47 story building) quickly, in an emergency, drop WTC 7 inside of 7 hours? I think yes, it is possible. Using a timeline for demolitions which were not on the clock for any reason, does not preclude the possibility. I do not have time to research demolitions to the point of finding a building of equivalent height (i.e. 47 stories) that was felled inside of seven hours, which could take days of research. The question is, is it possible? If one assumes that WTC 1 and 2 were controlled demolitions, I agree the answer is no. If WTC 7, which was already severely damaged, could have been brought down in a controlled demolition, after damage was identified, I think the answer is yes, it is possible. How could this happen without being observed, reported on, admitted, witnesses or other evidence? This was the most widely observed event in the history of the world. Wouldn't someone have noticed? If it happened that way, why would the 911 commission say the cause of the collapse was unknown? Jack Well that is a good question. Why wouldn't a seeming legitimate demolition of WTC 7 be admitted to. for the insurance? Wasn't Silverstein overheard saying 'Pull It'? I know the CT theory that the demolition was planned and set up far in advance of the first attack on 9/11. I don't have any 'proof', but is it possible that, in the event of discovery during subsequent rescue (floor to floor, room to room examinations for survivors) or inspections of the WTC 7 structure following 9/11, that there were items, devices, weapons, (don't know what may have been there but there was a reported operable Stinger Missile in that building for use during Presidential visits to NYC) that the Secret Service wanted destroyed or eliminated? This isn't my theory, I read it somewhere else. Or did Silverstein need the insurance money? Did he hatch some scheme to destroy the building for insurance purposes? I don't think so, but is it possible? If the military were involved in a covert demolition, wouldn't they be perfectly capable of pulling it off without anyone 'noiticing'? The building was evacuated very early on in the timeline of events. There should have been access from below street level, in fact, much of the preparation could have been made from the basement/sub-basement (if this postulation has any merit). FEMA personnel were the last to evacuate WTC 7 at 09:30. This building was fully evacuated before the twin towers and people were told to return to their offices in the South Tower, even as people were evacuating the WTC-7 building. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity....&startpos=0

The first example was a seventeen story building. The Cuneo Roma structures included some failry tall structures, although I couldn't find the actual height of the buidlings which were done four in a day. The idea is that it doesn't have to take months as cited. In fact, the point is, could demolition experts, who are trained to drop a building (even a 47 story building) quickly, in an emergency, drop WTC 7 inside of 7 hours? I think yes, it is possible. Using a timeline for demolitions which were not on the clock for any reason, does not preclude the possibility. I do not have time to research demolitions to the point of finding a building of equivalent height (i.e. 47 stories) that was felled inside of seven hours, which could take days of research. The question is, is it possible? If one assumes that WTC 1 and 2 were controlled demolitions, I agree the answer is no. If WTC 7, which was already severely damaged, could have been brought down in a controlled demolition, after damage was identified, I think the answer is yes, it is possible.

I never thought the day would come, but I actually agree with Jack on something. Except the 'in their own footprint' part, it's actually common for CDs to be setup to fall in a specific direction. But that's a minor detail really. Kevin, Here's another example, I don't have the building specifications, but it will give the idea; http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=11 "Controlled Demolition Incorporated's team managed over 400 employees of four Mexico City-based general contractors to prepare several structures for implosion simultaneously. Controlled Demolition Incorporated demolished 26 structures for the Mexican People, sometimes as many as 4 in 1 day in various parts of the shattered city. Working in the local language, Controlled Demolition Incorporated's team felled hanging structures that threatened rescue efforts, pulled leaning structures away from occupied buildings without a single injury to workers or contractors who supported our effort." I don't have a problem with anyone questioning the veracity of the postulation I made. That's what the forum is about. Open discourse to discuss points of view. I found these examples in about twenty minutes of searching. If I dedicated myself to the search of examples, and spent a couple of full time days, I'm sure I could provide much better examples. I didn't realize that the idea of a controlled demolition in one seven hour period would be so far fetched. I do have a problem with Jack White's unqualified projection of an opinion, not researched, but based on second hand information, and not pertinent to the specifics of the postulation I made, and to boot, making his accusaton as the central theme of a childish ad hominem attack, which he directs toward me wihtout provocation (you might have to read the thread back to the point where I began with the WTC 7 discussion). When this happened to Jack in the past (when Craig Lamson made an offhanded remark about Jack, which wasn't really even an ad hom), he went running to the moderators.

I never thought the day would come, but I actually agree with Jack on something. Except the 'in their own footprint' part, it's actually common for CDs to be setup to fall in a specific direction. But that's a minor detail really. This if from a Bechtel website. These were construction people, not military: "Half of the 17-story Sheikh A. Alakl Apartment Building in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia collapsed when portions of the new reinforced concrete facility were overloaded during final stages of construction. At the request of Bechtel, Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s team mobilized to the site in less than 24 hours, prepared the central-core, flat slab, reinforced concrete structure in another 27 hours and put the balance of the building on the ground with absolute safety " Granted, not seven hours, but its just an example I had found. It can be done. Especially with enough people trained for just such an event (like the military).

Not sure if I understand you correctly, Peter. Are you suggesting that the: - attacks on the twin towers were unexpected assaults by an external enemy (Al Qaida?) - twin towers collapsed only because of the impacts of the planes (i.e. no controlled demolition) - reason for the collapse of WTC-7 was that it was rigged up for controlled demolition, between the time of the unexpected attacks in the morning and time of its collapse in the afternoon? I agree, Sid. This guy knows NOTHING about controlled demolition. Fort Worth has had 5 controlled demolitions of skyscrapers to make room for TALLER skyscrapers. Just last year the TALLEST BUILDING IN THE U.S. EVER IMPLODED (not counting Building Seven) was in Fort Worth. It was the 30-story LANDMARK TOWER (Bldg 7 was 46 stories; some sources say 47). It took THREE MONTHS TO PREPARE LANDMARK TOWER FOR DEMOLITION. If you google LANDMARK TOWER you can find videos of the implosion online. It was done a little differently than most implosions. It was designed NOT to fall in the building footprint. Engineers calculated that the debris pile would be too tall and fall into a busy intersection in midtown, so the explosives were set to make the building tilt about five degrees and fall into a pit dug two stories deep on an adjacent parking lot. The tilt fall worked perfectly, and most of the building fell into the pit. The debris pile was still four stories tall and covered a full city block. Had the building fallen straight down, two main streets downtown would have been blocked for months, since it took three months to cut steel and load all debris for removal. Controlled demolition in an afternoon? Absurd proposal from a know-nothing. Jack Usually for someone to throw ad hom insults concerning one's knowledge level that person would have some inherent knowledge himself. But as you admit, you know a guy who knows a guy. That's how you obtain a lot of you so called information, you know a guy who knows a guy. Demolition, building design (design of the WTC), etc. Yet you are very willing to step up on your little toy soapbox and pronounce yourself an 'expert' on these (and other) subjects. Then, to try and belittle people who disagrees with you (or may just have a different point of view), by throwing out, not your own opinion, but someone else's? You know, Jack, despite your crackpot theories and pedantic tantrums, I doubt if you've ever had two original ideas in your life. Explain just how you make a living writing about people's tragedies, using other's people's crackpot ideas? Again, do some research before you start trying to belittle another's point of view. Do you really believe that post emergency (e.g. earthquake) demolitions, performed to protect lives and prevent extensive further damage take weeks to perform? If so, try talking to military/emergency demolition experts. Besides, Jack, if you read and understood my post, I was making a postulation, not establishing a fact, look up the word. Learn something for a change. I a sick ofyour ridiculous attacks on me when I refuse to get sucked into agreeing with every idiotic idea you espouse, especially whe it has nothing to do with the post I am writing. This is the US of A Jack. People are entitled to their opinions here. Even you.

Not sure if I understand you correctly, Peter. Are you suggesting that the: - attacks on the twin towers were unexpected assaults by an external enemy (Al Qaida?) - twin towers collapsed only because of the impacts of the planes (i.e. no controlled demolition) - reason for the collapse of WTC-7 was that it was rigged up for controlled demolition, between the time of the unexpected attacks in the morning and time of its collapse in the afternoon? Sid, First, the Twin Towers were no the object of the post. Second, I made a postulation, which is a possible explanation, not the only one. There have bee emergency demolitions made within hours in the past. Most significantly following earthquakes, such as the Napier earthquake of 1931, when the Navy came in and performed fast emergency demolitions to protect from further damage and to save lives. Other earthquakes have occurred where demolition specialists (usually not the typical construction demolition crews who can take up to a week setting up) use controlled demolitions to help recover from an earthquake where buildings are in imminent danger of collapse. In an emergency response, following an earthquake, checklists are available that include evaluation of emergency demolitions, and the weighing of speed against threat of damage and imminent collapse. I have been looking for such a checklist on the web, but have not had any luck thus far. Anyway, its a postulation, open to debate, despite Jack White's ridiculous attack and ignorant, infantile lack of anything close to an open mind. Did you have a chance to review the site I linked? A lot of good information there, including many eyewitness reports. One observation was severe damage to the lower floors of WTC 7. So, do you think that seven hours is insufficient time for an emergency team (the Navy has such teams, by the way) to deploy sufficent devices to cause the WTC 7 collapse? I have neither heard of nor read any qualified rebuttal to that postulation. If one exists, and you are aware of it, please let me know, I would like to see it.

Sid, From the video footage on WTC 7, I only could observe the upper floors during the collapse, maybe the top two thirds of the building. The visible outline of the building showed no collapse of the roof periphery during the descent of the building. Does this agree with your impressions? I do not have the plans of WTC 7, they were not availble nor as accessible as the twin towers. However, since the twin towers were curtain wall design (as per a Discovery Channel special on the building construction) which facilitated their tremendous height and the ratio of the towers' height over their cross section (again allowing the construction of these buildings, which were tall and not tapered, e.g. Empire State Bldg. along the height of the towers), I would assume that the WTC 7, at 47 stories tall, was constructed as a simple steel frame design. Modeling a steel frame design would include connecting elements between the columns (trusses), forming a 47 section box frame. This is of course oversimplified to a great degree. In weakening various structural members (peripheral columns and trusses in various combinations), the WTC 7 collapse would require some amount of folding inwards upon itself (at best - to contain the collapse within the smallest footprint area), a gross simplification being a house of cards. In any model manipulation, the building should not fall straight down. The only way to model this effect is to cause a complete buckling of all (or almost all) of the columns, on several of the bottom floors, SIMULTANEOUSLY. In that case the building would fall straight down (basically the legs have been kicked out from under it), and the inertia results in the subsequent buckling of the upper columns, which would act as something like battering rams experiencing loading in excess of their allowable compressive strength (which for a standard 'W' or 'I' beam section would be at least 60,000 PSI (assuming that the slenderness ratio, the L/D is not totally wrong, which would be an extremely remote possibility). Also basically all of the peripheral columns would have to fail almost simultaneously. Therefore for the upper floors to remain intact, falling in a symetrical and dimensionally stable monolithic structure, as shown in the video I saw, it would stand to reason that the lower columns were either cut, or pulled out, simultaneously. The modeling assumes that the upper part of the building did not fold inwards (I didn't see it fold inwards, did you?) before collapsing, that a portion or portions of the WTC 7 did not fail in succession instead of simultaneously. A cascading or successive failure wold have caused a structural failure in some smaller portion (a part of WTC 7 fails, the remaining loads exceed the yield strength of the remaining parts/sections of the building), and eventually lead to insufficient strength to prop up the remaining parts of the building. The video images which I viewed show the building falling as a whole, not in stages. Is that what you observed? Lastly, the building remained oriented vertically and horizontally during the first part of the fall, in the same orientation as when it was standing before the collapse. This should only happen if the lower columns were removed or simultaneously cut, such that the upper portion was quickly in an unsupported state, and subject to gravity, the building could only fall directly downwards. This is the building behavior which I observed from the video footage available. If anyone knows the type/style of building design for WTC 7, I would appreciate this information. Also if anyone had any other views of the collapse. The modeling was rudimentary, but I am fairly confident that more advanced modeling would yield very similar results. With the exception of the lower columns, demolitions would not have been necessary to produce the observed effect. High temperature exothermics, such as phosphorus, would have been very effective at significantly damaging the columns, but explosions would not have been necessary. This is a theory, based upon several unverified assumptions, so take it with a grain of salt. If I understand you correctly, Peter, then I believe what you say of WTC-7 is true of all three buildings that collpased on the fateful day. Whether the word 'explosions' is appropriate is another matter. The key point is that some form of controlled demolition techniques must have been employed. Exactly what devices, which technology etc... I leave to others, better informed than I, to debate. Controlled demolition for such large buildings takes a considerable time to set up. If some form of controlled demolition was applied, the official story collapses. 9-11 must have been some manner of 'inside job'. Mass media collusion at the highest levels must also be inferred... there's no other explanation for how the official line has been spun so vigorously from the first few hours, IMO. "Controlled demolition for such large buildings takes a considerable time to set up." That's a good point, Sid. There were at least 7 hours between the first aircraft strike and the collapse of WTC 7. Fires were visible, issuing from some of the WTC 7 windows, although from the videos, the fires were not immense. It was reported that the Secret Service began evacuating WTC 7 immediately after the first aircraft strike on the North Tower. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity....&startpos=0 WTC 7 was obviously damaged to some degree after the twin towers collapsed ("WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed (9.59AM), according to firefighters at the scene". [see the above link]), and evacuation of WTC 7 was ordered. "According to a soldier at the scene, WTC Building 7 is evacuated before the second tower is hit. [Fort Detrick Standard, 10/18/2001] The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) states, “As the second aircraft struck WTC 2, a decision was made to evacuate WTC 7.” This would be just after the Port Authority Police Department called for the evacuation of the entire WTC complex (see 8:59 a.m.-9:02 a.m. September 11, 2001). But by this time, “many WTC 7 occupants [have] already left the building and others [have] begun a self-evacuation of the building.” [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 109 ] All individuals in the Secret Service’s New York field office, located in WTC 7, were ordered to evacuate after the first attack, and they are in the process of doing so when the second plane hits the South Tower", "The Office of Emergency Management’s command center, on the 23rd floor of WTC 7, is not evacuated until later, at 9:30 a.m." “(9:04 a.m.) September 11, 2001: WTC 7 Alarms Activate; OEM Calls for Air Security and Warned of Plane Heading for New York The second plane hitting the World Trade Center (see 9:03 a.m. September 11, 2001) causes internal alarms to go off in WTC Building 7, located just a few hundred feet away from the Twin Towers. The alarms warn there is no water pressure and that the building’s emergency power generator has been activated. Office of Emergency Management (OEM) staff, based in Building 7, immediately request air security over New York. They are told that federal support is on its way, but the Federal Aviation Administration instructs them to use NYPD and Port Authority Police Department air assets to clear the airspace around the WTC. They are also warned that the Kennedy Airport control tower is reporting an unaccounted for plane heading towards New York. However, Flight 93 is still flying west at this time, and only reverses course and heads towards Washington at around 9:36 a.m. (see (9:36 a.m.) September 11, 2001). According to at least one person at the scene, WTC 7 is evacuated around this time due to the reports of this incoming third plane” Note that prior to this the WTC 7 alarms had been secured in what was termed "Test Mode" Following the evacuation firemen noted significant damage to the LOWER sections of WTC 7: "Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls, “A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.” Captain Chris Boyle recalls, “On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.” [Firehouse Magazine, 8/2002] The building will collapse hours later." I have had the opportunity to view four seperate videos of WTC 7 collapsing, from four different perspectives. In one, showing WTC 7 from several blocks uptown, along the boulevard, showed a slight bowing in the center of WTC 7 as it collapsed. Otherwise, in all of these videos, the building appeared to fall as one contiguous, monolithic, structure. The upper (at least) eight to ten floors appeared intact as the building fell. I would postulate that sufficient expertise was on site to quickly execute a controlled collapse (I could use the word demolition, but some might construe that term to imply explosions). This may have been done to protect adjacent buildings, to protect the building contents (if you take a gander at the referenced link, above, there was rumor that the Secret Service had a working Stinger missle in WTC 7 for use during Presidential visits to New York (I have no idea why or how a Stinger would be used in that scenario), or for some nefarious reason. Since the building collapsed more than seven hours after the North Tower was hit, that may explain the premature BBC announcement. http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/newsouth/newsouth.htm This link has several very good video shots of all three towers collapsing.

To label the author of the aformentioned article a 'Crackpot' is a disservice to all the bona fide crackpots out there. A crackpot is defined (per Merriam Webster) as 'one given to eccentric or lunatic notions'. Eccentrics can be entertaining and their notions can be weird and mysterious, often funny. Andy Kaufman was eccentric. So is Robin Williams. The author of this ill conceived and blatantly obtuse article hasn't advanced to eccentric level yet. He is hovering somewhere near the nonsensical region of brain activity. What I don't get; is he postulating a nuclear weapon was used to fell the twin towers? Or some kind of Star Wars weapon? He definitely likes to talk about eddy currents, although I don't see where he indicates evidence of eddy currents. One point though, the author has elevated his work to the hieghts of eccentricity with his idea that the metal core of a steering wheel and/or the engine blocks evaporated and the rest of the car (body, chassis, axles, springs, etc.) remain behind. This theory/thought is highly entertaining. Maybe this article was issued as some kind of a joke.

Hey, "Duh' Jack, You might do yourself a favor and actually read the posts which you so ham handedly attempt to castigate, before you respond. I have done a fair bit of searching for plans of WTC 7, and while there are a dearth of blueprints for WTC 1 and 2 , there seems to be something of a vacuum with respect to plans for the now gone, WTC 7. You should be aware of this if you did a little research before you open your mouth. The Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (http://www.stj911.com/press_releases/blueprints.pdf) site actually identified that 'The newly released blueprints do not include WTC 7' when 'Independent Investigators had released the blueprints for the World Trade Center buildings' . Of course knowing this would exemplify an exhibition of your 'abysmal lack of information regarding the WTC bldgs'. but, contrary to your usual practice, you might have to actually research this before you elucidate on it. Also, and again, I was talking about WTC 7, and not WTC 1 and 2, but and again, Jack, you would have to have read the post, inconvenient, I know, but if you actually wish to post pertinent information, reading the post that prompted you in the first place, would be recommended. Since you had actually directed everyone at this forum to no longer take me seriously, as I (in your uninformed opinion) had not researched Judy Woods work sufficiently (even though it was not germaine to the specific posts I was making) to satisfy you (as if people on this forum must satisfy Jack Whiote before they can offer an opinion or a statement on any subject), I find it fairly ironic that you can't even read the posts (which you attempt to castigate) properly before you begin your infantile ad homs. I have work to do, so I don't have any more time to spend right now. But if it is any consolation, your posts, and your antics on this forum (especially running out and getting Fetzer to log on to critisize my posts, which, by the way, he misread the exact same way you did), are highly entertaining. Keep them coming.

Nicely put, Michael. Sid, I read many of the linked articles on physics911. Thanks for the reference. Like many articles I have read on the events of 9/11 I found many good points, but also there are many that I am skeptical of. I liked Dave Heller's article on thw WTC collapse. He said that the WTC 7 collapse was, for him, the pivotal item that raised his suspicions. He also has some reasonable points on WTC 1 and 2, although I still disagree with much of the basis for the argument that the WTC 1 and 2 collapse were caused by other than the aircraft. Much of Dewdney's article on cellphone use in UA93 seems well thought out, but for a couple of points. If the aircraft were at, say, a 20,000 foot elevation, it does seem unlikely that a cellphone call would get through. But below 10,000 feet, it is very possible to make cellphone calls. His article basically says this. I have flown at least half a million miles, and although cellphone use is prohibited, I have observed an occasional (albeit surreptitious) successful cellphone call during an ascent or descent. Dewdney's article on Islam and its irreconcilability with suicide bombing is interesting. I wasn't aware that the concepts were diametrically opposed as in the Catholic religion. In view of the prodigious amount and omniscient presence of suicide bombings I would be interested in how this is reconciled with the Moslem faith (or if it is). The articles on WTC 1 and 2 seem to follow the same course as Judy Wood's (conservation of energy), except I didn't see any theories exposed utilizing a star wars weapon to fell the buildings. I believe (now this is my opinion) that the same flaws present in Judy Wood's theory appears here as well, in relying on the timing of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. But I won't go into that, if you feel strongly the other way, it wouldn't be productive to descend into an argument. Len says that there was some deformation along the roof (or penthouse) of WTC 7. I need to review the video again, but simple modeling indicates that the collapse which I saw on video, must have been assisted, somehow. I haven't had much luck finding information on the WTC 7 architectural plans, but based on the post collapse footage and internet descriptions, it was a steel framed building of steel beams, columns, and glass, although there were some features a bit more exotic than a simple box structure made of right angle steel sections. With a set of architectural drawings and a computer program for frame structure modeling, it should be easy work to determine if WTC 7 could have been overloaded from the WTC 1 and 2 events, to the point of collapse. I haven't seen anyything yet (I reviewed an NIST presentation doing an 'ANSYS' model of the WTC 7 collapse. 'Expected results' were projected in the presentation, but I could find no actual results of the computer modeling). Maybe there is some modeling done but I can't find it. Anyway, a computer model of WTC 7 is very do-able, which should be able to provide a very high confidence level in whatever hypothesis is the right hypothesis. I just don't understand why the NIST or ASCE, or the ASME haven't done it (or if they have where is it?). That would make too much sense.

Sid, From the video footage on WTC 7, I only could observe the upper floors during the collapse, maybe the top two thirds of the building. The visible outline of the building showed no collapse of the roof periphery during the descent of the building. Does this agree with your impressions? I do not have the plans of WTC 7, they were not availble nor as accessible as the twin towers. However, since the twin towers were curtain wall design (as per a Discovery Channel special on the building construction) which facilitated their tremendous height and the ratio of the towers' height over their cross section (again allowing the construction of these buildings, which were tall and not tapered, e.g. Empire State Bldg. along the height of the towers), I would assume that the WTC 7, at 47 stories tall, was constructed as a simple steel frame design. Modeling a steel frame design would include connecting elements between the columns (trusses), forming a 47 section box frame. This is of course oversimplified to a great degree. In weakening various structural members (peripheral columns and trusses in various combinations), the WTC 7 collapse would require some amount of folding inwards upon itself (at best - to contain the collapse within the smallest footprint area), a gross simplification being a house of cards. In any model manipulation, the building should not fall straight down. The only way to model this effect is to cause a complete buckling of all (or almost all) of the columns, on several of the bottom floors, SIMULTANEOUSLY. In that case the building would fall straight down (basically the legs have been kicked out from under it), and the inertia results in the subsequent buckling of the upper columns, which would act as something like battering rams experiencing loading in excess of their allowable compressive strength (which for a standard 'W' or 'I' beam section would be at least 60,000 PSI (assuming that the slenderness ratio, the L/D is not totally wrong, which would be an extremely remote possibility). Also basically all of the peripheral columns would have to fail almost simultaneously. Therefore for the upper floors to remain intact, falling in a symetrical and dimensionally stable monolithic structure, as shown in the video I saw, it would stand to reason that the lower columns were either cut, or pulled out, simultaneously. The modeling assumes that the upper part of the building did not fold inwards (I didn't see it fold inwards, did you?) before collapsing, that a portion or portions of the WTC 7 did not fail in succession instead of simultaneously. A cascading or successive failure wold have caused a structural failure in some smaller portion (a part of WTC 7 fails, the remaining loads exceed the yield strength of the remaining parts/sections of the building), and eventually lead to insufficient strength to prop up the remaining parts of the building. The video images which I viewed show the building falling as a whole, not in stages. Is that what you observed? Lastly, the building remained oriented vertically and horizontally during the first part of the fall, in the same orientation as when it was standing before the collapse. This should only happen if the lower columns were removed or simultaneously cut, such that the upper portion was quickly in an unsupported state, and subject to gravity, the building could only fall directly downwards. This is the building behavior which I observed from the video footage available. If anyone knows the type/style of building design for WTC 7, I would appreciate this information. Also if anyone had any other views of the collapse. The modeling was rudimentary, but I am fairly confident that more advanced modeling would yield very similar results. With the exception of the lower columns, demolitions would not have been necessary to produce the observed effect. High temperature exothermics, such as phosphorus, would have been very effective at significantly damaging the columns, but explosions would not have been necessary. This is a theory, based upon several unverified assumpitons, so take it with a grain of salt.

There you have it! Jack White can now dictate who and what is to be taken seriously, what is truth, fact, distortion, anything. Jack White is now is under the delusion that he is God. Jack, your rants are a joke, LOL, keep them coming.

Evan Can you remind me who you are disagreeing with? Sid, Although we disagree on many topics and my sometimes lack of investment of time into some topics (as I have very little spare time), I do believe that you have a fine questioning attitude on areas of the 9/11 historical perspective. I personally have found that some aspects of 9/11 have been contaminated with certain POVs that are not necessarily indicative of absolutely suspect presentation. For me this includes WTC 1 and 2, which I believe can be explained (and are, with some veracity) by the events as described in the mianstream. Even subsequent explosions can be explained by the effets of fuel air mixture, which can reach explosive detonation, once heated to flash point, and if at the appropriate fuel air mixtures (this is not to say that this is the absolute truth, just an explanation). By contrast, events such as the collapse of WTC 7, events unfolding after the arrest of Zaccharius Moussoui, the behavior of high government officials, the secrecy surrounding release of what should be public information, certain aspects of the pentagon strike, behavior I have read about the hijackers, after entering the US, pre 9/11 intel, etc. do merit further discussion and explanation. There is a huge disparity between the presntation/positions of many 9/11 'truthers' and who I believe are many, interested, parties (such as myself), and events have not been explained satisfactorily to a this majority of interseted parties. barring WTC 1 and 2 (because I think the collapse of these two structures can be explained rationally, without attaching a hidden agenda), what facets of 9/11 (list them if you don't mind) do you think bear further scrutiny, since the facts as given today remain dubious, or have otherwise been spun. I think there has been enitrely too many different theories, 'facts', POVs, accusations, and general noise handed out on both sides of the argument, tending to alienate people from the salient questions which should, but may not, remain. Which facets do you think, merit greater scrutiny (and please limit this list to those most pressing facets due to being suspicious, obvious/semi-obvious manipulation applied, most negative implications if 'spin' is applied, and the most seemingly false legends given by government or media). I think this forum would benefit from the examination of a list of the more controversial and/or abvious issues surrounding 9/11, instead of the all or nothing POV, a position that many 'truthers' have adopted. I think you would likely be able to provide a fairly objective and comprehensive list, of your suspicions and facets, and one which this site could help insghtfully edit to provide a decent base from which to debate, without getting sidetracked to more contentious facets. This will hopefully (maybe) help us avoid some of the more diametrically opposed arguments and begin a constructive bit of groundwork. I would like to read your recommendations for such a list, and then make my comments, so that we could begin to reach some consensus on some of the facets most agree need some further attention. Does this interest you? Thank you, Peter McKenna Peter...you simply are not up to speed regarding the IMPOSSIBLE COLLAPSES OF WTC 1 and 2. Go to http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html and read the studies of Dr. Judy Wood, professor of engineering, regarding the SIMPLE ELEMENTARY PHYSICS of an object in FREE FALL which can be calculated by any physics student. She calculates the time it would take a billiard ball to fall from the tops of the buildings vs the time it took the buildings themselves to fall. BOTH THE TOWERS as well as BUILDING 7 FELL WITHOUT RESISTANCE, WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE. Steel and concrete below the areas of impact and fire PROHIBIT the entire buildings from falling at free fall speed. Jack Jack, I do not wish to rehash the WTC 1 and 2 collapse. I have read the reports from various academic and engineering organizations, which explain the WTC 1 and 2 collapse to my satisfaction (at this time anyway). I have other suspicions which I would like to see explored, and which others may agree also appear suspicious. Whether or not the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 is either suspicious to you or you have convinced yourself that the 'official' (i.e. the explanation provided by bona fide engineering associations) portraying these events have been fictionalized is irrelevant to my request. I am simply trying to come up with some aspects of 9/11 that are suspicious to many to establish some common ground from which I and others may begin some of our own research and evaluation. Bldg. 7 I believe is one such aspect. There are others. I felt Sid could step back from the all or nothing POV and help come up with a set of aspects of 9/11 that more mainstream skeptics might agree with are worth further insight. Whether or not you feel some other aspects have been spun or fictionalized (that are not suspect to the majority on this site) will only detract. If you feel strongly that WTC 1 and 2 should be re-examined, perhaps it would benefit this task to first establish some common ground for others who do not feel this way. A case should be built from the bottom up, and from more obvious suspicions to those less obvious. If one establishes reasonable confidence in the fact that WTC 7 was 'Pulled' in a controlled demolition, then one might find material for a case in point concerning WTC 1 and 2. Either way it doesn't do much good to insist on focusing on WTC 1 and 2, at this time. Peter, I find your reply disingenious at best. You insist on a 'BONAFIDE ENGINEERING ASSOCIATION" doing calculations. Why? Why won't a BONAFIDE PROFESSOR OF ENGINEERING do? After all, these calculations can be done by any PHYSICS STUDENT aware of the laws of gravity. Dr. Woods' studies can be understood easily by anyone of average intelligence. A falling body accelerates at 32 feet per second per second regardless of the person or group doing the study. Or do you disagree? Did you take time to read her studies, or did you find them inconvenient to your preconceived beliefs? How about actually commenting on her studies, and then refuting them if you can. No need to consult an engineering "association". Common sense is good enough. Jack Jack, Arguing over Judy Wood's input to 9/11 is totally off the point. Not only is it counterproductive to building a consensus about any pertinent matters that might be of further interest to the run of the mill, I think her theories are a few cards shy of a full deck (e.g as the theory about the WTC being attacked by star wars particle beams, http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html). Jack, you continue to waste time and energy inserting your opinion where it adds the least value. Please read my request. I do not wish to argue over WTC 1 and 2 in this context. If you wish to, please find a willing participant. I'm sure that you can find one somewhere (maybe not). Peter The article I posted is EXACTLY TO THE POINT. IT IS SCIENCE, NOT THEORIES. You are the one who's a few cards short of a deck, not Dr. Woods. What are YOUR qualifications in engineering and physics to challenge her??? Calling her loony DOES NOT ADDRESS THE POINTS SHE RAISES. You raised the question of the falling of the twin towers, not me. I was just replying with salient answers to questions you said had been settled. Do you possess better information than a professor of engineering with a PhD? Please read her studies and refute them if they are wrong. If they are not wrong, admit it. I think you have not read the article, since you have quoted nothing from it to indicate you know what it contains. Instead, you post non sequiturs. I am not arguing. I am just presenting expert studies, not opinion. There is NO POINT IN "BUILDING A CONSENSUS" of faulty opinions. That will not help find the TRUTH! Jack "..This is science, not theories." Finding one uninformed degreed theorist to support whatever theory which you subscribe to does NOT establishes Judy Wood's theories (and that is what they are) as truth, Jack, no matter how hard you proclaim it so. Please stop wasting my time with your proclamations of what is science and truth, and who is qualified to differentiate between the two. I don't believe the Jack White 'Seal of Approval' exalts a dental orthotics designer into any kind of 'Expert' on the collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers. I'm sure you can find an 'expert' with some kind of 'pedigree' to agree with almost any of your 'opinions' (yes, not facts). I don't have time for this.