Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Jack White]

It appears that the 911 thread is now unlocked.

Jack

[Peter McKenna]

Peter

Today I find myself very short of time. Apologies for that.

FWIW, I recommend the website physics911.net, especially articles therein by contributed by by its founder and leading inspiration, Kew Dewdney.

The website separates articles about 'What Did Not Happen' from articles speculating on 'What May Have Happened'. That's elementary - as Holmes might have said to Watson - but it's amazing how much these two approaches get mixed up in popular debate about 9-11.

Proving (or refuting) the proposition that 9-11 did not happen as per the official story is the first logical step.

If one then takes the view that the official story doesn't stack up, it would nevertheless be hard to argue that case persuasively without at least one plausible alternative scenario. That's the value of the speculative section.

I could make the list you request - not today, but perhaps another time. However, I don't consider myself an expert on 9-11. But if your interest is truly to consider the 9-11 critique in its strongest manifestation (as opposed to the intellectual dishonesty of those such as George Monbiot who chase only straw men), then I applaud you - and believe that Dewdney's articles will not disappoint.

When the story is eventually pieced together of the evolution of the '9-11 truth movement', the pivotal role of that brilliant man will become more evident.

Before Dewdney's work on cellphone calls, for example, one of the main (and seemingly irrefutable) pieces of 'evidence' in favour of the official story were the phone calls to ground allegedly made by Barbara Olsen and others. These were widely publicized in the mass media. They made it seem certain that Arab hijackers were responsible for what happened to the planes.

Dewdney punctured that bubble. Although there has never been an official retraction, babble about the cellphone calls (and Barbara Olsen) has greatly diminished since 2003. Dewdney had exposed the narrative's Achilles Heel.

Dewdney also showed how it was possible to account for the events of 9-11 without any 'real' hijackers at all. His scenario - written up in Operation Pearl - may not be correct, but it is, IMO, plausible.

These articles are several years old. They have stood the test of time. Much 9-11 disinformation and many false trails have come and gone since they were written. Dewdney's work remains, as far as I can see, unscathed.

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.

[Sid Walker]

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.

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?

[Ron Ecker]

USAF Colonel George Nelson makes some significant observations in this article about the four aircraft that crashed on 9/11. He appears to be qualified to know what he's talking about.

I'd appreciate comments on this article. If it has been previously discussed here, I'd appreciate a link to the relevant thread. I did a site search of "Nelson" but the results are endless.

Aircraft Parts and the Precautionary Principle

Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True:

Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity

by George Nelson

Colonel, USAF (ret.)

The precautionary principle is based on the fact it is impossible to prove a false claim. Failure to prove a claim does not automatically make it false, but caution is called for, especially in the case of a world-changing event like the alleged terror attacks of September 11, 2001. The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective targets on September 11 were as advertised. As I will show below, it would be a simple matter to confirm that they were - if they were. Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government.

In July 1965 I had just been commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the U. S. Air Force after taking a solemn oath that I would protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I took that oath very seriously. It was my constant companion throughout a thirty-year military career in the field of aircraft maintenance.

As an additional duty, aircraft maintenance officers are occasionally tasked as members of aircraft accident investigation boards and my personal experience was no exception. In 1989 I graduated from the Aircraft Mishap Investigation Course at the Institute of Safety and Systems Management at the University of Southern California. In addition to my direct participation as an aircraft accident investigator, I reviewed countless aircraft accident investigation reports for thoroughness and comprehensive conclusions for the Inspector General, HQ Pacific Air Forces during the height of the Vietnam conflict.

In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.

Following a certain number of flying hours or, in the case of landing gears, a certain number of takeoff-and-landing cycles, these critical parts are required to be changed, overhauled or inspected by specialist mechanics. When these parts are installed, their serial numbers are married to the aircraft registration numbers in the aircraft records and the plans and scheduling section will notify maintenance specialists when the parts must be replaced. If the parts are not replaced within specified time or cycle limits, the airplane will normally be grounded until the maintenance action is completed. Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators , pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible.

Considering the catastrophic incidents of September 11 2001, certain troubling but irrefutable conclusions must be drawn from the known facts. I get no personal pleasure or satisfaction from reporting my own assessment of these facts.

United Airlines Flight 93

This flight was reported by the federal government to be a Boeing 757 aircraft, registration number N591UA, carrying 45 persons, including four Arab hijackers who had taken control of the aircraft, crashing the plane in a Pennsylvania farm field.

Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the general public. They show a significant hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the crash site. If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have literally hundreds of serially-controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the government has not produced any hard evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that the specifically alleged aircraft crashed at that site. On the contrary, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation.

American Airlines Flight 11

This flight was reported by the government to be a Boeing 767, registration number N334AA, carrying 92 people, including five Arabs who had hijacked the plane. This plane was reported to have crashed into the north tower of the WTC complex of buildings.

Again, the government would have no trouble proving its case if only a few of the hundreds of serially controlled parts had been collected to positively identify the aircraft. A Boeing 767 landing gear or just one engine would have been easy to find and identify.

United Airlines Flight 175

This flight was reported to be a Boeing 767, registration number N612UA, carrying 65 people, including the crew and five hijackers. It reportedly flew into the south tower of the WTC.

Once more, the government has yet to produce one serially controlled part from the crash site that would have dispelled any questions as to the identity of the specific airplane.

American Airlines Flight 77

This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.

Following cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.

Conclusion

The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.

With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the WTC towers, it is only just possible that heavy aircraft were involved in each incident, but no evidence has been produced that would add credence to the government’s theoretical version of what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings, let alone proving the identity of the aircraft. That is the problem with the government’s 911 story. It is time to apply the precautionary principle.

As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country’s history.

Footnote: It will soon be five years since the tragic events of 9/11/01 unfolded, and still the general public has seen no physical evidence that should have been collected at each of the four crash sites, (a routine requirement during mandatory investigations of each and every major aircraft crash.) The National Transportation Safety Board has announced on its website that responsibility for the investigations and reports have been assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but there is no indication that mandatory investigations were ever conducted or that the reports of any investigations have been written.

http://physics911.net/georgenelson

[Evan Burton]

I've seen that post in many forms around the traps. I'm afraid I don't give it any more regard than I did a year or two ago.

[Guest Gary Loughran]

I've seen that post in many forms around the traps. I'm afraid I don't give it any more regard than I did a year or two ago.

I've not spent much time on 911 related topics - so forgive my ignorance.

Has there been a formal identification of the planes used that day from debris etc. or not as suggested in the cite in Ron's post?

Personally, I would be amazed if this had not happened.

[Ron Ecker]

Has there been a formal identification of the planes used that day from debris etc. or not as suggested in the cite in Ron's post?

Not that I'm aware of. Just things like a photo of some twisted metal on the Pentagon lawn, or a photo of part of a plane engine. All the proof we need of what the aircraft was, right? And if there aren't even any accident reports on the aircraft as required by law, why should we worry, right?

[Jack White]

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.

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

[Len Colby]

I think I showed pretty conclusively here* that the expectation that serial numbers of parts should have been provided is bogus. The evidence that Boeings were the aircraft that crashed that morning is overwhelmingly supported by eyewitness testimony and recovered wreckage in all four cases not to mention DNA from the sites of flights 93 & 77 and video of the WTC impacts.

Numerous parts from all sites were photographed albeit without AFAIK their serial numbers being disclosed. I doubt this would satisfy “no planers”. They would then ask, “how do we know the serial #’s are real?”, if photos were provided they would ask “how do we know the photos weren’t altered?” if they were give access to the parts they would ask “how do we know the parts aren’t fakes?”

“No Planers” are considered crackpots even by most “truthers” for good reason.

“This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.”

If he is really such an expert in plane crashes I wonder if he really expects the lightweight aluminum wings of a 757 to have been stronger that the limestone fronted, bomb-proofed reinforced concrete walls of the Pentagon.

"Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the general public. They show a significant hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the crash site.”

Was this guy really a USAF crash investigator? If so perhaps he could tell someone how often “private investigators” were given access to military crash sites. Access to crash sites and crime scenes is normally restricted the Shankville field was both. The local coroner was given accesses to the site volunteers searched around the site for stray wreckage and human remains.

*http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=7035&view=findpost&p=107810

[Len Colby]

Has there been a formal identification of the planes used that day from debris etc. or not as suggested in the cite in Ron's post?

Not that I'm aware of. Just things like a photo of some twisted metal on the Pentagon lawn, or a photo of part of a plane engine. All the proof we need of what the aircraft was, right? And if there aren't even any accident reports on the aircraft as required by law, why should we worry, right?

How much of a Boeing do you expect to have survived the cataclysmic crashes?

Crash reports are not required when the crashes are due to "criminal activity" I suppose you got that false info from Fetzer, he knows this isn't true from his investigation of the Wellstone crash.

[Jack White]

I've seen that post in many forms around the traps. I'm afraid I don't give it any more regard than I did a year or two ago.

I've not spent much time on 911 related topics - so forgive my ignorance.

Has there been a formal identification of the planes used that day from debris etc. or not as suggested in the cite in Ron's post?

Personally, I would be amazed if this had not happened.

Then be amazed. It has not happened, despite FOIA requests to view the warehoused wreckage.

Aircraft parts are serial-numbered for numerous manufacturing, record-keeping and safety

reasons. The govt collected alleged "wreckage" at all sites and has it warehoused. It cannot

be examined by ANYONE.

Jack

[Peter McKenna]

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.

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.

Edited June 29, 2007 by Peter McKenna

[Kevin M. West]

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.

Do you happen to know how tall any of those structures were?

[Kevin M. West]

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

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.

[Peter McKenna]

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.

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.