Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Jack White]

The point that 'amazed' me was that with all the hoopla concerning the planes a very simple and efficient way to reveal the planes reported to have crashed did indeed do so would be to publish bona fide information regarding the planes serials, recovered debris etc. irrespective of whether there is a legal requirement to do so or not in crash investigations.

Don't be so sensible!

I agree with both of you. IF THEY HAVE WRECKAGE WITH THE SERIAL NUMBERS, THEY WOULD

HAVE IMMEDIATELY SHOWN THEM AS PROOF! From this we may infer THE NUMBERS DO NOT

MATCH.

Same with the hundreds of surveillance videos of the Pentagon. IF THEY HAVE A SINGLE VIDEO

SHOWING A JETLINER HITTING THE PENTAGON, WE WOULD HAVE SEEN IT THE NEXT DAY.

From this we may infer that the videos do NOT SHOW a jetliner hitting the Pentagon.

Jack

PS...I cannot give cites on the warehousing of the wreckage and the requests to see it.

I read about it on the internet four or five years ago. As I recall, the wreckage is in a hanger

in New Jersey, and the request to see it was from a 911 survivors group.

[Peter McKenna]

"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. "

NOBODY HAS PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE THAT BUILDING SEVEN WAS "ALREADY SEVERELY DAMAGED".

Jack

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."

Edited June 29, 2007 by Peter McKenna

[Jack White]

"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. "

NOBODY HAS PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE THAT BUILDING SEVEN WAS "ALREADY SEVERELY DAMAGED".

Jack

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

[Jack White]

What Caused Building 7's Collapse?

This question would appear to be the greatest in engineering history. In over 100 years of experience with steel-framed buildings, fires have never caused the collapse of a single one, even though many were ravaged by severe fires. Indeed, fires have never caused the total collapse of any permanent steel structure.

What was done to answer this most important question? The only official body that admits to having investigated the curious collapse of Building 7 is FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), which blamed fires for the collapse but admitted to being clueless about how fires caused the collapse.

People who have seen buildings implode in controlled demolitions are unlikely to be as challenged as FEMA's team in understanding the cause of Building 7's collapse. They will notice, upon watching the videos, that Building 7's collapse showed all of the essential features of a controlled demolition.

Despite having the appearance of a controlled demolition, is it possible that Building 7 could have been destroyed by some combination of damage from tower debris, fuel tank explosions, and fires? Let's consider the possible scenarios.

NIST released a photograph in 2005 showing a large gouge in the lower portion of the southwest corner of Building 7, and its collapse scenario deviates significantly from FEMA's in emphasizing alleged structural damage from the collapse of the North Tower. That photograph is notable for its lack of corroboration, and NIST's claims of other regions of damage to the building's south face lack substantiating evidence. Even if NIST's claims about structural damage from North Tower debris were true, it would not begin to explain the precipitous, symmetrical manner in which Building 7 collapsed. Structural damage to the south side -- particularly to the lower stories -- would have made any kind of vertical collapse all the more unlikely.

The idea that diesel fuel stored in Building 7 is to blame for the collapse was promoted by The New York Times in late 2001 and by FEMA's 2002 Building Performance Study. 1   This idea is also untenable. Fires were observed in Building 7 prior to its collapse, but they were isolated in small parts of the building, and were puny by comparison to other building fires. Let's imagine, contrary to the evidence, that debris from the tower collapses damaged Building 7's structure, that diesel fuel tanks exploded, and that incredibly intense fires raged through large parts of the building. Could such events have caused the building to collapse? Not in the manner observed. The reason is that simultaneous and symmetric damage is needed to produce a collapse with the precise symmetry of the vertical fall of building 7. This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to sink into its footprint, all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second.

Any debris from the towers impacting Building 7 would have hit its south side, and any columns damaged by it would almost certainly be perimeter columns on its south side. Any fuel tank explosion would only be able to damage nearby structure. The rapid fall-off of blast pressures with distance from the source would preclude any such event from breaking all of the columns in the building.

Building 7 was about 5 times as tall as it was deep. (Furthermore the very idea of a tank of diesel fuel exploding taxes the imagination, since diesel fuel does not even begin to boil below 320º F. 2   ) Fires have never been known to damage steel columns in high-rise buildings, but if they could, the damage would be produced gradually and would be localized to the areas where the fire was the most intense.

No combination of debris damage, fuel-tank explosions, and fires could inflict the kind of simultaneous damage to all the building's columns required to make the building implode. The precision of such damage required to bring Building 7 down into its footprint was especially great, given the ratio of its height to its width and depth. Any asymmetry in the extent and timing of the damage would cause such a building to topple.

[Jack White]

On 9/11 a THIRD Skyscraper Plunged to Earth:

The Sudden Implosion of WTC Building 7

By David R. Kimball

July 30, 2005

“It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth … For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.”

-- Patrick Henry

“The important thing is to never stop questioning.”

-- Albert Einstein

Everyone remembers the Twin Towers exploding at 9:59AM and 10:28AM EDT on September 11, 2001. Comparatively few people can recall that there was a third massive skyscraper, also a part of the World Trade Center, which fell very rapidly to the ground on that day. This was World Trade Center Building 7.1

One reason that few remember WTC Building 7’s collapse is that after September 11th it has been treated, both in the media and in The 9/11 Commission Report, as if it didn’t happen.

“The total collapse of the third huge skyscraper late in the afternoon September 11th was reported as if it were an insignificant footnote... most people never saw video of Building 7’s collapse… Incredibly, it is virtually impossible to find any mention of Building 7 in newspapers, magazines, or broadcast media reports after September 11th.” 2

“The Commission avoids another embarrassing problem – explaining how WTC 7 could have collapsed, also virtually at free-fall speed – by simply not mentioning the collapse of this building.” 3

The collapse of Building 7 at 5:20PM EDT was in itself a major event; the sudden and unexplained fall to earth of a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper is certainly news. Why has there been almost no mention of this in the U.S. media, and why was there no mention of Building 7’s collapse in The 9/11 Commission Report? These are questions of great significance, and they cry out for answers. To be able to approach any kind of explanation, however, first some pertinent and verified facts of the Building 7 aspect of 9/11 need to be scrutinized.

The following eleven facts have been compiled from the research of reputable sources – those who have dared to question and have devoted innumerable hours into discovering what really happened on 9/11.

FACT 1: WTC Building 7 was one of the largest buildings in downtown Manhattan. It was 47 stories tall, about half the height of the Towers, and took up an entire city block. It was 300 feet from the closest Twin Tower (the North Tower, WTC 1), and was a steel-framed, concrete structure.4

FACT 2: WTC Building 7 – on its 23rd floor – housed an Emergency Command Center for the City of New York that Mayor Rudolph Giuliani had built in the mid-1990’s. On the morning of September 11th, Mayor Giuliani did not go “to his Command Center – with its clear view of the Twin Towers – but to a makeshift, street-level headquarters at 75 Barkley Street.” WTC 7 also held the offices of numerous government agencies, including the Department of Defense, the CIA, the Secret Service, the IRS, and the Security and Exchange Commission.5 Late 2001 was the time of “the height of the investigation into Enron, so the majority of Enron’s SEC filings were likely destroyed when World Trade Center 7 came down.”6

FACT 3: WTC Building 7 was not hit by airplane or significant debris on September 11th. It had been evacuated after the planes hit the towers. By the afternoon of September 11th, there were a few small fires of unknown origin evident in the building, and these small fires could be seen in only a few of the hundreds and hundreds of windows in the building.7

FACT 4: On September 11, 2001, at 5:20PM, EDT, World Trade Center Building 7 suddenly and rapidly collapsed. Beginning with the penthouse, all 47 stories of it imploded into its own footprint in less than seven seconds. Three different videos of Building 7’s vertical collapse – two from CBS video broadcasts, and one from an NBC news camera – can be seen online at http://wtc7.net/videos.html.

FACT 5: On September 16th, NASA flew an airplane over the World Trade Center site, recorded infrared radiation coming from the ground, and created a thermal map. The U.S. Geological Survey analyzed this data, and determined the actual temperature of the rubble. This map shows that five days after the collapse of Building 7, the surface temperature of a section of its rubble was 1,341º F.8 This high a temperature is indicative of the use of explosives.

“WTC 7’s rubble pile continued to smolder for months.”9

FACT 6: Fire Engineering magazine is the 125-year-old paper-of-record of the fire engineering community. Bill Manning, editor-in-chief, wrote an Editor’s Opinion in the January, 2002 edition. His editorial, $elling Out the Investigation, pointed out that destruction of evidence – the hurried removal of rubble which should be examined by investigators – is illegal. He also issued a “call to action”. To quote excerpts:

“For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions … is on the slow boat to China …”

“I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.”

“Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the ‘official investigation’ blessed by FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half baked farce [emphasis mine] that may have already been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members – described by one close source as a ‘tourist trip’ – no one’s checking evidence for anything.”

“The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.”

“Firefighters, this is your call to action. …contact your representatives in Congress and officials in Washington and help us correct this problem immediately.” 10 11

FACT 7: In May of 2002, FEMA published their report #403 titled World Trade Center Building Performance Study. This report claims that the fires caused the building to collapse, but that the specifics of how this is supposed to have occurred “…remain unknown at this time.”12

FACT 8: The collapse of WTC Building 7 shows five characteristics of a controlled demolition:

1.

It “dropped directly into its own footprint in a smooth, vertical motion”;

2.

It “collapsed completely in less than seven seconds”;

3.

“Dust streamed out of the upper floors of Building 7 early in its collapse”;

4.

“WTC 7’s roof inverted toward its middle as the collapse progressed”; and

5.

“WTC 7’s rubble was mostly confined to the block on which the building stood.”13

FACT 9: “Larry Silverstein is a rather large player within the realms of 21st Century real estate, finance, and politics.”14 He “…had taken out a long lease on the World Trade Center only six weeks before 9/11. In a PBS documentary entitled ‘America Rebuilds’, originally aired in September of 2002, Silverstein made the following statement about Building 7:

‘I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse.’” 15 16

FACT 10: “It is inconceivable that anyone could be running around placing explosives in exactly the right places all within seven hours. In fact, implosions take a minimum of two weeks and up to two months to plan and place the charges. The fire department of New York does not even train their personnel to do controlled demolition. They are done by highly skilled experienced specialists who plan and test far ahead.”17

FACT 11: “… [George W.] Bush’s brother, Marvin Bush, and his cousin, Wirt Walker III, were principles in the company [stratesec, formerly named Securacom] that was in charge of security for the World Trade Center, with Walker being the CEO from 1999 until January 2002.”18

In summation: A major aspect of 9/11 has been excluded from the entire U.S. media after September 11th, and was also omitted from The 9/11 Commission Report. This was the sudden fall to earth, on September 11th, 2001, of World Trade Center Building 7. Not hit by airplane or significant debris, 300 feet from the closest Twin Tower, and with just a few small fires burning within it, at 5:20PM EDT this massive concrete and steel-framed 47-story skyscraper imploded into its own footprint in less than seven seconds. Its rapid implosion had all of the characteristics of a controlled demolition, and the World Trade Center leaseholder, Larry Silverstein, stated in so many words that the building had been collapsed by demolition. It takes weeks, if not months, to prepare the demolition of a building as large as WTC 7; this implosion could not have been engineered and implemented in seven chaotic hours on September 11th. Therefore, a question emerges:

Who had the means and expertise to engineer such a demolition and acquire needed materiel, and who had access to WTC Building 7 PRIOR TO September 11, 2001 in order to place the explosives?

An inquiry into the answer to this question might be a good place to begin a search for the real perpetrators of 9/11. Do we, the citizens of the United States, have the courage and honesty necessary to initiate an actual investigation, or will we continue living a Lie – and reap the consequences?

“Why do you notice the sliver in your friend’s eye, but overlook the timber in your own?”

-- Jesus

The following books, resources, and websites are recommended, in addition to the material listed in the footnotes:

The Secret Team – The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World, by L. Fletcher Prouty, Col., U.S. Air Force (Ret.), Copyright 1973, 1992, 1997 by L. Fletcher Prouty (Available from Len Osanic at www.prouty.org, or online at http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/ST.html )

Understanding Special Operations – And Their Impact on The Vietnam War Era – 1989 Interview with L. Fletcher Prouty, Colonel USAF (Retired), by David T. Ratcliffe (rat haus reality press, 1999) www.ratical.org

9/11 Synthetic Terror – Made in USA, by Webster Griffin Tarpley (Progressive Press, 2005) www.tarpley.net

Global Outlook magazine, available at many book and magazine outlets www.globaloutlook.ca

Peace Resource Project, P.O. Box 1122, Arcata, CA 95519 www.peaceproject.com (707)822-4229

Questioning the War on Terrorism – Carol Brouillet’s website: http://www.communitycurrency.org/9-11.html

Copyright © 2005 by David R. Kimball

1 Jim Hoffman, http://wtc7.net

2 Jim Hoffman, http://wtc7.net/silence.html

3 David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report – Omissions and Distortions (Olive Branch Press, 2005), 28

4 Don Paul and Jim Hoffman, Waking Up From Our Nightmare (Irresistible/Revolutionary, 2004), 5-20

5 Don Paul and Jim Hoffman, 18

6 Barry Zwicker, The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw, Global Outlook magazine (Issue 9, Fall/Winter 2005), 19

7 Eric Hufschmid, Painful Questions – An Analysis of the September 11th Attack (Endpoint Software, 2002), 62-65

8 Eric Hufschmid, 69-70

9 Don Paul and Jim Hoffman, 10

10 Eric Hufschmid, 5-6

11 Fire Engineering magazine, January 2002

12 Eric Hufschmid, 7-8

13Don Paul and Jim Hoffman, 8-10

14 Don Paul and Jim Hoffman, 20

15 David Ray Griffin, 28

16 For video footage of Silverstein’s statement, see Eric Hufschmid’s video Painful Deceptions, edited and narrated by ReOpen911.org (911busters.com, www.EricHufschmid.net)

17Narration from Eric Hufschmid’s video Painful Deceptions, edited and narrated by ReOpen911.org

18 David Ray Griffin, 31-32

[Jack White]

For a slide show on WTC 7, click on

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/introduction.html

There you will see the photo of the minor fire on two floors

which is blamed for the collapse.

You will see that the alleged debris which damaged the

building came from more than 350 feet away.

Check it out.

Jack

[Peter McKenna]

"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. "

NOBODY HAS PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE THAT BUILDING SEVEN WAS "ALREADY SEVERELY DAMAGED".

Jack

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.

[Peter McKenna]

What Caused Building 7's Collapse?

This question would appear to be the greatest in engineering history. In over 100 years of experience with steel-framed buildings, fires have never caused the collapse of a single one, even though many were ravaged by severe fires. Indeed, fires have never caused the total collapse of any permanent steel structure.

What was done to answer this most important question? The only official body that admits to having investigated the curious collapse of Building 7 is FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), which blamed fires for the collapse but admitted to being clueless about how fires caused the collapse.

People who have seen buildings implode in controlled demolitions are unlikely to be as challenged as FEMA's team in understanding the cause of Building 7's collapse. They will notice, upon watching the videos, that Building 7's collapse showed all of the essential features of a controlled demolition.

Despite having the appearance of a controlled demolition, is it possible that Building 7 could have been destroyed by some combination of damage from tower debris, fuel tank explosions, and fires? Let's consider the possible scenarios.

NIST released a photograph in 2005 showing a large gouge in the lower portion of the southwest corner of Building 7, and its collapse scenario deviates significantly from FEMA's in emphasizing alleged structural damage from the collapse of the North Tower. That photograph is notable for its lack of corroboration, and NIST's claims of other regions of damage to the building's south face lack substantiating evidence. Even if NIST's claims about structural damage from North Tower debris were true, it would not begin to explain the precipitous, symmetrical manner in which Building 7 collapsed. Structural damage to the south side -- particularly to the lower stories -- would have made any kind of vertical collapse all the more unlikely.

The idea that diesel fuel stored in Building 7 is to blame for the collapse was promoted by The New York Times in late 2001 and by FEMA's 2002 Building Performance Study. 1   This idea is also untenable. Fires were observed in Building 7 prior to its collapse, but they were isolated in small parts of the building, and were puny by comparison to other building fires. Let's imagine, contrary to the evidence, that debris from the tower collapses damaged Building 7's structure, that diesel fuel tanks exploded, and that incredibly intense fires raged through large parts of the building. Could such events have caused the building to collapse? Not in the manner observed. The reason is that simultaneous and symmetric damage is needed to produce a collapse with the precise symmetry of the vertical fall of building 7. This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to sink into its footprint, all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second.

Any debris from the towers impacting Building 7 would have hit its south side, and any columns damaged by it would almost certainly be perimeter columns on its south side. Any fuel tank explosion would only be able to damage nearby structure. The rapid fall-off of blast pressures with distance from the source would preclude any such event from breaking all of the columns in the building.

Building 7 was about 5 times as tall as it was deep. (Furthermore the very idea of a tank of diesel fuel exploding taxes the imagination, since diesel fuel does not even begin to boil below 320º F. 2   ) Fires have never been known to damage steel columns in high-rise buildings, but if they could, the damage would be produced gradually and would be localized to the areas where the fire was the most intense.

No combination of debris damage, fuel-tank explosions, and fires could inflict the kind of simultaneous damage to all the building's columns required to make the building implode. The precision of such damage required to bring Building 7 down into its footprint was especially great, given the ratio of its height to its width and depth. Any asymmetry in the extent and timing of the damage would cause such a building to topple.

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 White]

another excellent study of WTC 7 with lots of good graphics.

http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/

[Jack White]

Now...a very plausible THEORY about building seven:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc7_dud.htm

[Peter McKenna]

Now...a very plausible THEORY about building seven:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc7_dud.htm

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).

Edited June 29, 2007 by Peter McKenna

[Michael Hogan]

If it happened that way, why would the 911 commission say the cause of the collapse (WTC 7) was unknown?

Jack, I wasn't aware they said that.

David Ray Griffin writes in his new book Debunking 9/11 Debunking:

The 9/11 Commission Report also acknowledged the difficulty of explaining this collapse by silence -- that is, by simply not mentioning it. This was clearly a major omission in a report that, according to its preface, was written "to provide the fullest possible account ot the events surrounding 9/11." WTC 7 was a huge building, which in most locations would have been the biggest building in the city, even the state. Its collapse was remarkable, however, primarily because it demonstrated, contrary to the universal conviction prior to 9/11, that large steel-frame buildings could collapse from fire alone, even without having been struck by an airplane. This apparent demonstration should have meant that building codes and insurance premiums for all steel-frame buildings in the world needed to be changed. And yet the 9/11 Commission, in preparing its 571-page report, did not devote a single sentence to this historic event. Given the 9/11 Commission's behavior with regard to other matters (as discussed in the previous chapter), a reasonable supposition is that the Commission, having seen that FEMA had no plausible explanation for this collapse, decided it was simply best not to mention it and hope that most readers, including members of the press, would not notice or at least would not comment. And the press did not disappoint.

[Evan Burton]

It's just the 9/11ers game. Nowhere will you find in the report that the aircraft's engine had last undergone an overhaul on such & such a date; you won't find results of post-crash testing of the port outboard aileron hydraulic actuator; nor will you find any mention that it was confirmed that the aft cargo bay hatch was closed & locked at the time of impact. Why? Because they are not relevant.

The remains aren't viewable because of the significance of the incident. Can you go see the remains of the CHALLENGER? COLUMBIA? Apollo 1? No. Relatives have been allowed to view them, but the general public - including researchers - cannot. Can you view the remains of TWA800? I'm guessing not.

In the case of 9/11, even publishing the information about part numbers would serve no purpose because the "truthers" would just claim the information had been faked. It's typical of them - if the data does not fit your conclusions, ignore the data or claim it's wrong. Think about it - if, for instance, the NTSB provided the serial numbers of the engines fitted to the aircraft, showed those serial numbers on recovered parts, and showed maintenance logs showing they had been fitted to the said aircraft, do you honestly believe the majority of the "truthers" would say 'oh well - there goes that theory'?

Edited June 30, 2007 by Evan Burton

[Michael Hogan]

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 original 7 World Trade Center building was 570 feet tall. The tallest structural steel building ever imploded was the Hudson Building in Detroit, according to Controlled Demolition Inc:

CDI’s implosion of Hudson’s set three new records:

At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest building ever imploded, eclipsing the record held by CDI since 1975 with the felling of the 361 ft. tall Mendez Caldiera Building in Sao Palo, Brazil.

At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest structural steel building ever imploded, eclipsing the record CDI set in 1997 with the felling 344 sq. ft. tall #500 Wood Street Building in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

At 2.2 Million square feet, Hudson’s is the largest single building ever imploded.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030225133807

[Michael Hogan]

It's just the 9/11ers game.....

In the case of 9/11, even publishing the information about part numbers would serve no purpose because the "truthers" would just claim the information had been faked. It's typical of them - if the data does not fit your conclusions, ignore the data or claim it's wrong. Think about it - if, for instance, the NTSB provided the serial numbers of the engines fitted to the aircraft..... do you honestly believe the majority of the "truthers" would say 'oh well - there goes that theory'?

Evan, what exactly is a 9/11er? What exactly is a "truther?"

Do you feel that anyone/everyone who doubts or seriously questions the government's version of 9/11 belongs in the above categories?