Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Peter McKenna]

The purported \"gravitational\" collapse (video) of World Trade Center building 7, which was hit by zero aircraft, and which also vertically collapsed in within a second of free-fall-time-in-a-vacuum later that same day, similarly fails this same conservation-of-energy analysis.

The explanation for how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so miserably failed to check the \"pancake collapse\" theory, by giving it this basic reality check, is beyond the scope of this simple physics discussion.

I\'m no physicist, Jack, but I feel you are pursuing a key point here.

I understand that the collapse of a steel framed tower block at near free-fall velocity has only ever occured under the circumstances of a controlled demoliion.

If anyone disagrees with that and has evidence to the contrary, please post a reference.

If it\'s true, that alone is key to disproving the official theory of 9-11.

I wonder if you noticed - as I did - that all the \'9-11 conspiracy first responders\' - that is, the folk who first blew the whistle about 9-11 and suggested it might be not what it was purported to be - deflected attantion away from that aspect of the case.

I\'m thinking of characters such as Mike Ruppert, Jared Israel and Greg Szymanski.

I believe this was part of the conspirators\' gameplan.

It helped ensure that those who doubted the official story were directed away from the tower collpase issue. In the weeks and months following 9-11, that was crucial.

They had to get the forensic evidence cleaned up and out of reach ASAP. Any calls - such as those of the NYC firemen who complained bitterly through their in-house journal - that the forensic evidence (eg. the steel from the buildings) NOT be shipped off, would have been an embarrassment. It was crucial that the \"9-11 conspiracy movement\" looked in other directions for the first few months.

That was achieved, partly through their efforts.

Unless the matter is ultimately dealt with via a \'Truth and Reconciliation Commission\' (my prefered option), obvious disinfo agents who helped throw us off the trail should, IMO, be put on trial for complicity in crimes against humanity. At the risk of stating the obvious, it\'s a most serious crime to help the real perpetrators of mass murder escape justice.

The author of the Popular Mechanics beat-up is a case in point... a certain Mr Ben Chertoff, as I recall.

So are those responsible for the 911myths website.

I remember reading about the design of the World Trade Center Bldgs. A while ago, so I looked it up and it’s corroborated on Wikipedia and several other sites, just Google it; anyway:

The WTC bldgs. Are curtain wall design, which means that the floors are supported by the outside walls instead of interior columns like almost all high rise buildings. This was the method the architects used to provide the great height of the buildings since, what is known as the “radius of inertia”, would be the greatest possible value, that is, the structural supports are the farthest distance possible from the building centerline, making the building strong as possible against side loading, such as from wind.

This also means that the walls would shear off from the floors prior to collapse and fall straight down, different from the collapse of a standard column and pier design, which must be imploded to make way for the inward collapse of the structure. I’m not a demolition expert, but I do know something of structural design.

Provided the walls sheared off from the floors prior to falling, which they would have to, the floors would be (for all intensive purposes) unsupported, and would collapse (just like a stack of pancakes, as someone referred to it). The walls would fall straight downwards quickly, like a dropped knife.

This would explain the timing and mode of the WTC collapses.

The third, 47 story bldg., would be another story, however, like Wallace identified. I don’t know how this Bldg. was designed, but it sounds like a demolition job.

I guess the term "Curtain Wall design" can apply to Core supported design also, so I amend my prior post to state that the WTC was "exterior wall supported" Vs. core or interior (Column and Pier) supported. This info is available at Wikipedia for reference.

[Ron Ecker]

The WTC bldgs. Are curtain wall design, which means that the floors are supported by the outside walls instead of interior columns like almost all high rise buildings. This was the method the architects used to provide the great height of the buildings since, what is known as the “radius of inertia”, would be the greatest possible value, that is, the structural supports are the farthest distance possible from the building centerline, making the building strong as possible against side loading, such as from wind.

This also means that the walls would shear off from the floors prior to collapse and fall straight down, different from the collapse of a standard column and pier design, which must be imploded to make way for the inward collapse of the structure. I’m not a demolition expert, but I do know something of structural design.

Provided the walls sheared off from the floors prior to falling, which they would have to, the floors would be (for all intensive purposes) unsupported, and would collapse (just like a stack of pancakes, as someone referred to it). The walls would fall straight downwards quickly, like a dropped knife.

This would explain the timing and mode of the WTC collapses.

I'm certainly no engineer, but it sounds to me like if what is described above is how it happened, at least a few of the 47 steel core columns would have been left standing.

[Sid Walker]

The purported \\\"gravitational\\\" collapse (video) of World Trade Center building 7, which was hit by zero aircraft, and which also vertically collapsed in within a second of free-fall-time-in-a-vacuum later that same day, similarly fails this same conservation-of-energy analysis.

The explanation for how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so miserably failed to check the \\\"pancake collapse\\\" theory, by giving it this basic reality check, is beyond the scope of this simple physics discussion.

I\\\'m no physicist, Jack, but I feel you are pursuing a key point here.

I understand that the collapse of a steel framed tower block at near free-fall velocity has only ever occured under the circumstances of a controlled demoliion.

If anyone disagrees with that and has evidence to the contrary, please post a reference.

If it\\\'s true, that alone is key to disproving the official theory of 9-11.

I wonder if you noticed - as I did - that all the \\\'9-11 conspiracy first responders\\\' - that is, the folk who first blew the whistle about 9-11 and suggested it might be not what it was purported to be - deflected attantion away from that aspect of the case.

I\\\'m thinking of characters such as Mike Ruppert, Jared Israel and Greg Szymanski.

I believe this was part of the conspirators\\\' gameplan.

It helped ensure that those who doubted the official story were directed away from the tower collpase issue. In the weeks and months following 9-11, that was crucial.

They had to get the forensic evidence cleaned up and out of reach ASAP. Any calls - such as those of the NYC firemen who complained bitterly through their in-house journal - that the forensic evidence (eg. the steel from the buildings) NOT be shipped off, would have been an embarrassment. It was crucial that the \\\"9-11 conspiracy movement\\\" looked in other directions for the first few months.

That was achieved, partly through their efforts.

Unless the matter is ultimately dealt with via a \\\'Truth and Reconciliation Commission\\\' (my prefered option), obvious disinfo agents who helped throw us off the trail should, IMO, be put on trial for complicity in crimes against humanity. At the risk of stating the obvious, it\\\'s a most serious crime to help the real perpetrators of mass murder escape justice.

The author of the Popular Mechanics beat-up is a case in point... a certain Mr Ben Chertoff, as I recall.

So are those responsible for the 911myths website.

I remember reading about the design of the World Trade Center Bldgs. A while ago, so I looked it up and it’s corroborated on Wikipedia and several other sites, just Google it; anyway:

The WTC bldgs. Are curtain wall design, which means that the floors are supported by the outside walls instead of interior columns like almost all high rise buildings. This was the method the architects used to provide the great height of the buildings since, what is known as the “radius of inertia”, would be the greatest possible value, that is, the structural supports are the farthest distance possible from the building centerline, making the building strong as possible against side loading, such as from wind.

This also means that the walls would shear off from the floors prior to collapse and fall straight down, different from the collapse of a standard column and pier design, which must be imploded to make way for the inward collapse of the structure. I’m not a demolition expert, but I do know something of structural design.

Provided the walls sheared off from the floors prior to falling, which they would have to, the floors would be (for all intensive purposes) unsupported, and would collapse (just like a stack of pancakes, as someone referred to it). The walls would fall straight downwards quickly, like a dropped knife.

This would explain the timing and mode of the WTC collapses.

The third, 47 story bldg., would be another story, however, like Wallace identified. I don’t know how this Bldg. was designed, but it sounds like a demolition job.

I guess the term \"Curtain Wall design\" can apply to Core supported design also, so I amend my prior post to state that the WTC was \"exterior wall supported\" Vs. core or interior (Column and Pier) supported. This info is available at Wikipedia for reference.

Peter.

I\'ll make three points.

1/ I don\'t want to get into a detailed debate that, in truth, requires architectrual / engineering expertise.

I don\'t have that expertise and I suspect you may not either.

There are \'experts\' on both sides of the debate regarding how THREE WTC towers collapsed, on 9-11, symetrically and in their own footprints, at near free fall velocity.

I don\'t propose to get into evaluating these competing experts with you. It\'s a little like Len Colby and myself discussing the finer points of Farsi. But I do know who I believe is credible (eg. Steven Jones) and who is not.

2/ In my earlier post, I asked a simple minded question.

Perhaps no-one noticed?

This is the question, rephrased: Apart from the THREE collapsing towers on 9-11, have steel-framed tower blocks EVER collapsed in the manner observed on that occasion - in the absence, that is, of controlled demolition.

As there appears to be a defeaning silence on this, I infer the answr is no.

If that\'s the case, what\'s the chance that on 9-11 this remarkable phenomenon occured to THREE buildings - but has never happened on any other day, before or after?

Does that seem a stretch hard to believe to you?

It does to me.

3/ You admit, rather off-hand, that WTC 7 does indeed appear to be a case of controlled demolition.

But that is NOT a minor concession.

It changes the official 9-11 story in a FUNDAMENTAL way - because it indicates foreknoweldge.

I\'ve never seen it claimed that it\'s psossible to rig a building for controlled demolition in a few hours; it simply could not have been done on 9-11 as a reactive measure. Nor do the US Government\'s official reports on 9-11 state that WTC 7 was demolished deliberately (although leaseholder Silverstein seemed to admit it in an extraordinary radio interview soem years ago).

Do Larry Silversteain, Westfied America and the NY Port Authority make a habit of rigging buildings for controlled demolition - just in case they happen to catch fire and it turns out to be convenient to \"pull them\"?

If so, which other buildings are pre-rigged for controlled demolition?

New Yorkers - and other city dwellers - have a right to know!

If not, WHY was WTC 7 rigged in advance of 9-11?

The collapse of the three towers - and especially WTC 7 - point to a HUGE lie at the center of the official account of 9-11.

It cannot be brushed aside and should be faced squarely.

IMO Mr Silverstein and others should face trial for conspiracy to commit mass murder.

If the US Justice Department won\'t press charges, a civil suit is appropriate.

[Peter McKenna]

The purported \\\"gravitational\\\" collapse (video) of World Trade Center building 7, which was hit by zero aircraft, and which also vertically collapsed in within a second of free-fall-time-in-a-vacuum later that same day, similarly fails this same conservation-of-energy analysis.

The explanation for how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so miserably failed to check the \\\"pancake collapse\\\" theory, by giving it this basic reality check, is beyond the scope of this simple physics discussion.

I\\\'m no physicist, Jack, but I feel you are pursuing a key point here.

I understand that the collapse of a steel framed tower block at near free-fall velocity has only ever occured under the circumstances of a controlled demoliion.

If anyone disagrees with that and has evidence to the contrary, please post a reference.

If it\\\'s true, that alone is key to disproving the official theory of 9-11.

I wonder if you noticed - as I did - that all the \\\'9-11 conspiracy first responders\\\' - that is, the folk who first blew the whistle about 9-11 and suggested it might be not what it was purported to be - deflected attantion away from that aspect of the case.

I\\\'m thinking of characters such as Mike Ruppert, Jared Israel and Greg Szymanski.

I believe this was part of the conspirators\\\' gameplan.

It helped ensure that those who doubted the official story were directed away from the tower collpase issue. In the weeks and months following 9-11, that was crucial.

They had to get the forensic evidence cleaned up and out of reach ASAP. Any calls - such as those of the NYC firemen who complained bitterly through their in-house journal - that the forensic evidence (eg. the steel from the buildings) NOT be shipped off, would have been an embarrassment. It was crucial that the \\\"9-11 conspiracy movement\\\" looked in other directions for the first few months.

That was achieved, partly through their efforts.

Unless the matter is ultimately dealt with via a \\\'Truth and Reconciliation Commission\\\' (my prefered option), obvious disinfo agents who helped throw us off the trail should, IMO, be put on trial for complicity in crimes against humanity. At the risk of stating the obvious, it\\\'s a most serious crime to help the real perpetrators of mass murder escape justice.

The author of the Popular Mechanics beat-up is a case in point... a certain Mr Ben Chertoff, as I recall.

So are those responsible for the 911myths website.

I remember reading about the design of the World Trade Center Bldgs. A while ago, so I looked it up and it’s corroborated on Wikipedia and several other sites, just Google it; anyway:

The WTC bldgs. Are curtain wall design, which means that the floors are supported by the outside walls instead of interior columns like almost all high rise buildings. This was the method the architects used to provide the great height of the buildings since, what is known as the “radius of inertia”, would be the greatest possible value, that is, the structural supports are the farthest distance possible from the building centerline, making the building strong as possible against side loading, such as from wind.

This also means that the walls would shear off from the floors prior to collapse and fall straight down, different from the collapse of a standard column and pier design, which must be imploded to make way for the inward collapse of the structure. I’m not a demolition expert, but I do know something of structural design.

Provided the walls sheared off from the floors prior to falling, which they would have to, the floors would be (for all intensive purposes) unsupported, and would collapse (just like a stack of pancakes, as someone referred to it). The walls would fall straight downwards quickly, like a dropped knife.

This would explain the timing and mode of the WTC collapses.

The third, 47 story bldg., would be another story, however, like Wallace identified. I don’t know how this Bldg. was designed, but it sounds like a demolition job.

I guess the term \"Curtain Wall design\" can apply to Core supported design also, so I amend my prior post to state that the WTC was \"exterior wall supported\" Vs. core or interior (Column and Pier) supported. This info is available at Wikipedia for reference.

Peter.

I\'ll make three points.

1/ I don\'t want to get into a detailed debate that, in truth, requires architectrual / engineering expertise.

I don\'t have that expertise and I suspect you may not either.

There are \'experts\' on both sides of the debate regarding how THREE WTC towers collapsed, on 9-11, symetrically and in their own footprints, at near free fall velocity.

I don\'t propose to get into evaluating these competing experts with you. It\'s a little like Len Colby and myself discussing the finer points of Farsi. But I do know who I believe is credible (eg. Steven Jones) and who is not.

2/ In my earlier post, I asked a simple minded question.

Perhaps no-one noticed?

This is the question, rephrased: Apart from the THREE collapsing towers on 9-11, have steel-framed tower blocks EVER collapsed in the manner observed on that occasion - in the absence, that is, of controlled demolition.

As there appears to be a defeaning silence on this, I infer the answr is no.

If that\'s the case, what\'s the chance that on 9-11 this remarkable phenomenon occured to THREE buildings - but has never happened on any other day, before or after?

Does that seem a stretch hard to believe to you?

It does to me.

3/ You admit, rather off-hand, that WTC 7 does indeed appear to be a case of controlled demolition.

But that is NOT a minor concession.

It changes the official 9-11 story in a FUNDAMENTAL way - because it indicates foreknoweldge.

I\'ve never seen it claimed that it\'s psossible to rig a building for controlled demolition in a few hours; it simply could not have been done on 9-11 as a reactive measure. Nor do the US Government\'s official reports on 9-11 state that WTC 7 was demolished deliberately (although leaseholder Silverstein seemed to admit it in an extraordinary radio interview soem years ago).

Do Larry Silversteain, Westfied America and the NY Port Authority make a habit of rigging buildings for controlled demolition - just in case they happen to catch fire and it turns out to be convenient to \"pull them\"?

If so, which other buildings are pre-rigged for controlled demolition?

New Yorkers - and other city dwellers - have a right to know!

If not, WHY was WTC 7 rigged in advance of 9-11?

The collapse of the three towers - and especially WTC 7 - point to a HUGE lie at the center of the official account of 9-11.

It cannot be brushed aside and should be faced squarely.

IMO Mr Silverstein and others should face trial for conspiracy to commit mass murder.

If the US Justice Department won\'t press charges, a civil suit is appropriate.

I have over thirty years experience in engineering, of which approximately eight were spent on structural related engineering.

I was pointing out that, based upon the design of WTC 1 and 2, being of a wall supported design, that the building collapse (falling of the walls) must be predicated upon the shearing of the floors from the walls, which would leave the floors unsupported. Columns installed interior to the walls would have been used for local floor loading, to spread the foot print for large local loads (like equipment, which could exceed a ‘per square foot’ local floor load allowable).

Once the floors sheared from the walls, there would be no intrinsic support for the floors. It stands to reason that nothing would be left standing interior to the walls.

Concerning the effect of fir on structural steel; Fire loading for steel beams and columns, especially with jet fuel, can be sufficient to ignite steel, in a building. Combustible loading and fire suppression design assumes that. I have seen photographs of beams which have ignited and spread fire through walls.

My point is, based upon the design of the WTC 1 and 2, the mode of collapse is plausible. This is not only consistent with the structural design of the buildings, but common sense. I am not familiar with the design of the 3rd, 47 story building which collapsed. If it was design via interior, core, loading of floors, then it does appear unlikely that an uncontrolled collapse would result in this building collapsing inside its own footprint. You point out that I made an “off handed” remark to this effect. That is because I am not familiar enough with the specifics of this building’s design to come to any conclusions.

I assume that you would desire theories concerning the 9/11 attack to be founded in plausible argument. Some verbiage has been spent addressing the WTC 1 &2 towers’ ‘strike’ in the attempt to draw out anomalies about the mode of collapse. The mode of collapse can be explained based upon the building design. Typically, following a large building failure or collapse, computer modeling of the failure is performed to verify that no negligence, design errors, or sabotage played any part. I have not heard any results of this type of investigation.

[Jack White]

The purported \\\"gravitational\\\" collapse (video) of World Trade Center building 7, which was hit by zero aircraft, and which also vertically collapsed in within a second of free-fall-time-in-a-vacuum later that same day, similarly fails this same conservation-of-energy analysis.

The explanation for how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so miserably failed to check the \\\"pancake collapse\\\" theory, by giving it this basic reality check, is beyond the scope of this simple physics discussion.

I\\\'m no physicist, Jack, but I feel you are pursuing a key point here.

I understand that the collapse of a steel framed tower block at near free-fall velocity has only ever occured under the circumstances of a controlled demoliion.

If anyone disagrees with that and has evidence to the contrary, please post a reference.

If it\\\'s true, that alone is key to disproving the official theory of 9-11.

I wonder if you noticed - as I did - that all the \\\'9-11 conspiracy first responders\\\' - that is, the folk who first blew the whistle about 9-11 and suggested it might be not what it was purported to be - deflected attantion away from that aspect of the case.

I\\\'m thinking of characters such as Mike Ruppert, Jared Israel and Greg Szymanski.

I believe this was part of the conspirators\\\' gameplan.

It helped ensure that those who doubted the official story were directed away from the tower collpase issue. In the weeks and months following 9-11, that was crucial.

They had to get the forensic evidence cleaned up and out of reach ASAP. Any calls - such as those of the NYC firemen who complained bitterly through their in-house journal - that the forensic evidence (eg. the steel from the buildings) NOT be shipped off, would have been an embarrassment. It was crucial that the \\\"9-11 conspiracy movement\\\" looked in other directions for the first few months.

That was achieved, partly through their efforts.

Unless the matter is ultimately dealt with via a \\\'Truth and Reconciliation Commission\\\' (my prefered option), obvious disinfo agents who helped throw us off the trail should, IMO, be put on trial for complicity in crimes against humanity. At the risk of stating the obvious, it\\\'s a most serious crime to help the real perpetrators of mass murder escape justice.

The author of the Popular Mechanics beat-up is a case in point... a certain Mr Ben Chertoff, as I recall.

So are those responsible for the 911myths website.

I remember reading about the design of the World Trade Center Bldgs. A while ago, so I looked it up and it’s corroborated on Wikipedia and several other sites, just Google it; anyway:

The WTC bldgs. Are curtain wall design, which means that the floors are supported by the outside walls instead of interior columns like almost all high rise buildings. This was the method the architects used to provide the great height of the buildings since, what is known as the “radius of inertia”, would be the greatest possible value, that is, the structural supports are the farthest distance possible from the building centerline, making the building strong as possible against side loading, such as from wind.

This also means that the walls would shear off from the floors prior to collapse and fall straight down, different from the collapse of a standard column and pier design, which must be imploded to make way for the inward collapse of the structure. I’m not a demolition expert, but I do know something of structural design.

Provided the walls sheared off from the floors prior to falling, which they would have to, the floors would be (for all intensive purposes) unsupported, and would collapse (just like a stack of pancakes, as someone referred to it). The walls would fall straight downwards quickly, like a dropped knife.

This would explain the timing and mode of the WTC collapses.

The third, 47 story bldg., would be another story, however, like Wallace identified. I don’t know how this Bldg. was designed, but it sounds like a demolition job.

I guess the term \"Curtain Wall design\" can apply to Core supported design also, so I amend my prior post to state that the WTC was \"exterior wall supported\" Vs. core or interior (Column and Pier) supported. This info is available at Wikipedia for reference.

Peter.

I\'ll make three points.

1/ I don\'t want to get into a detailed debate that, in truth, requires architectrual / engineering expertise.

I don\'t have that expertise and I suspect you may not either.

There are \'experts\' on both sides of the debate regarding how THREE WTC towers collapsed, on 9-11, symetrically and in their own footprints, at near free fall velocity.

I don\'t propose to get into evaluating these competing experts with you. It\'s a little like Len Colby and myself discussing the finer points of Farsi. But I do know who I believe is credible (eg. Steven Jones) and who is not.

2/ In my earlier post, I asked a simple minded question.

Perhaps no-one noticed?

This is the question, rephrased: Apart from the THREE collapsing towers on 9-11, have steel-framed tower blocks EVER collapsed in the manner observed on that occasion - in the absence, that is, of controlled demolition.

As there appears to be a defeaning silence on this, I infer the answr is no.

If that\'s the case, what\'s the chance that on 9-11 this remarkable phenomenon occured to THREE buildings - but has never happened on any other day, before or after?

Does that seem a stretch hard to believe to you?

It does to me.

3/ You admit, rather off-hand, that WTC 7 does indeed appear to be a case of controlled demolition.

But that is NOT a minor concession.

It changes the official 9-11 story in a FUNDAMENTAL way - because it indicates foreknoweldge.

I\'ve never seen it claimed that it\'s psossible to rig a building for controlled demolition in a few hours; it simply could not have been done on 9-11 as a reactive measure. Nor do the US Government\'s official reports on 9-11 state that WTC 7 was demolished deliberately (although leaseholder Silverstein seemed to admit it in an extraordinary radio interview soem years ago).

Do Larry Silversteain, Westfied America and the NY Port Authority make a habit of rigging buildings for controlled demolition - just in case they happen to catch fire and it turns out to be convenient to \"pull them\"?

If so, which other buildings are pre-rigged for controlled demolition?

New Yorkers - and other city dwellers - have a right to know!

If not, WHY was WTC 7 rigged in advance of 9-11?

The collapse of the three towers - and especially WTC 7 - point to a HUGE lie at the center of the official account of 9-11.

It cannot be brushed aside and should be faced squarely.

IMO Mr Silverstein and others should face trial for conspiracy to commit mass murder.

If the US Justice Department won\'t press charges, a civil suit is appropriate.

I have over thirty years experience in engineering, of which approximately eight were spent on structural related engineering.

I was pointing out that, based upon the design of WTC 1 and 2, being of a wall supported design, that the building collapse (falling of the walls) must be predicated upon the shearing of the floors from the walls, which would leave the floors unsupported. Columns installed interior to the walls would have been used for local floor loading, to spread the foot print for large local loads (like equipment, which could exceed a ‘per square foot’ local floor load allowable).

Once the floors sheared from the walls, there would be no intrinsic support for the floors. It stands to reason that nothing would be left standing interior to the walls.

Concerning the effect of fir on structural steel; Fire loading for steel beams and columns, especially with jet fuel, can be sufficient to ignite steel, in a building. Combustible loading and fire suppression design assumes that. I have seen photographs of beams which have ignited and spread fire through walls.

My point is, based upon the design of the WTC 1 and 2, the mode of collapse is plausible. This is not only consistent with the structural design of the buildings, but common sense. I am not familiar with the design of the 3rd, 47 story building which collapsed. If it was design via interior, core, loading of floors, then it does appear unlikely that an uncontrolled collapse would result in this building collapsing inside its own footprint. You point out that I made an “off handed” remark to this effect. That is because I am not familiar enough with the specifics of this building’s design to come to any conclusions.

I assume that you would desire theories concerning the 9/11 attack to be founded in plausible argument. Some verbiage has been spent addressing the WTC 1 &2 towers’ ‘strike’ in the attempt to draw out anomalies about the mode of collapse. The mode of collapse can be explained based upon the building design. Typically, following a large building failure or collapse, computer modeling of the failure is performed to verify that no negligence, design errors, or sabotage played any part. I have not heard any results of this type of investigation.

Peter...I am compelled to say that you have not made a thorough study

of the engineering of the three WTC buildings. Such is available in detail

on several websites. DO NOT RELY ON WIKIPEDIA. Go to the sources.

You say the building was supported by the curtain walls. Not so. The steel

center core of massive size was tied to the curtain wall in sturdy fashion.

Even had the floors "pancaked" the center core should have REMAINED

STANDING. And it is fundamental that pancaking floors CANNOT FALL AT

FREEFALL SPEED. A floor cannot fall at freefall speed IF EACH FLOOR

ENCOUNTERS RESISTANCE FROM THE FLOOR BELOW. Each floor turned

to powder, so there was no resistance. How can a floor turn to powder

before an upper floor hits it?

Building Seven was not curtain wall construction, but conventional. Yet

it too, without damage, fell into its own footprint at free fall speed. This

cannot be explained.

Please do your homework and get back to us.

Jack

[Jack White]

The purported \\\"gravitational\\\" collapse (video) of World Trade Center building 7, which was hit by zero aircraft, and which also vertically collapsed in within a second of free-fall-time-in-a-vacuum later that same day, similarly fails this same conservation-of-energy analysis.

The explanation for how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so miserably failed to check the \\\"pancake collapse\\\" theory, by giving it this basic reality check, is beyond the scope of this simple physics discussion.

I\\\'m no physicist, Jack, but I feel you are pursuing a key point here.

I understand that the collapse of a steel framed tower block at near free-fall velocity has only ever occured under the circumstances of a controlled demoliion.

If anyone disagrees with that and has evidence to the contrary, please post a reference.

If it\\\'s true, that alone is key to disproving the official theory of 9-11.

I wonder if you noticed - as I did - that all the \\\'9-11 conspiracy first responders\\\' - that is, the folk who first blew the whistle about 9-11 and suggested it might be not what it was purported to be - deflected attantion away from that aspect of the case.

I\\\'m thinking of characters such as Mike Ruppert, Jared Israel and Greg Szymanski.

I believe this was part of the conspirators\\\' gameplan.

It helped ensure that those who doubted the official story were directed away from the tower collpase issue. In the weeks and months following 9-11, that was crucial.

They had to get the forensic evidence cleaned up and out of reach ASAP. Any calls - such as those of the NYC firemen who complained bitterly through their in-house journal - that the forensic evidence (eg. the steel from the buildings) NOT be shipped off, would have been an embarrassment. It was crucial that the \\\"9-11 conspiracy movement\\\" looked in other directions for the first few months.

That was achieved, partly through their efforts.

Unless the matter is ultimately dealt with via a \\\'Truth and Reconciliation Commission\\\' (my prefered option), obvious disinfo agents who helped throw us off the trail should, IMO, be put on trial for complicity in crimes against humanity. At the risk of stating the obvious, it\\\'s a most serious crime to help the real perpetrators of mass murder escape justice.

The author of the Popular Mechanics beat-up is a case in point... a certain Mr Ben Chertoff, as I recall.

So are those responsible for the 911myths website.

I remember reading about the design of the World Trade Center Bldgs. A while ago, so I looked it up and it’s corroborated on Wikipedia and several other sites, just Google it; anyway:

The WTC bldgs. Are curtain wall design, which means that the floors are supported by the outside walls instead of interior columns like almost all high rise buildings. This was the method the architects used to provide the great height of the buildings since, what is known as the “radius of inertia”, would be the greatest possible value, that is, the structural supports are the farthest distance possible from the building centerline, making the building strong as possible against side loading, such as from wind.

This also means that the walls would shear off from the floors prior to collapse and fall straight down, different from the collapse of a standard column and pier design, which must be imploded to make way for the inward collapse of the structure. I’m not a demolition expert, but I do know something of structural design.

Provided the walls sheared off from the floors prior to falling, which they would have to, the floors would be (for all intensive purposes) unsupported, and would collapse (just like a stack of pancakes, as someone referred to it). The walls would fall straight downwards quickly, like a dropped knife.

This would explain the timing and mode of the WTC collapses.

The third, 47 story bldg., would be another story, however, like Wallace identified. I don’t know how this Bldg. was designed, but it sounds like a demolition job.

I guess the term \"Curtain Wall design\" can apply to Core supported design also, so I amend my prior post to state that the WTC was \"exterior wall supported\" Vs. core or interior (Column and Pier) supported. This info is available at Wikipedia for reference.

Peter.

I\'ll make three points.

1/ I don\'t want to get into a detailed debate that, in truth, requires architectrual / engineering expertise.

I don\'t have that expertise and I suspect you may not either.

There are \'experts\' on both sides of the debate regarding how THREE WTC towers collapsed, on 9-11, symetrically and in their own footprints, at near free fall velocity.

I don\'t propose to get into evaluating these competing experts with you. It\'s a little like Len Colby and myself discussing the finer points of Farsi. But I do know who I believe is credible (eg. Steven Jones) and who is not.

2/ In my earlier post, I asked a simple minded question.

Perhaps no-one noticed?

This is the question, rephrased: Apart from the THREE collapsing towers on 9-11, have steel-framed tower blocks EVER collapsed in the manner observed on that occasion - in the absence, that is, of controlled demolition.

As there appears to be a defeaning silence on this, I infer the answr is no.

If that\'s the case, what\'s the chance that on 9-11 this remarkable phenomenon occured to THREE buildings - but has never happened on any other day, before or after?

Does that seem a stretch hard to believe to you?

It does to me.

3/ You admit, rather off-hand, that WTC 7 does indeed appear to be a case of controlled demolition.

But that is NOT a minor concession.

It changes the official 9-11 story in a FUNDAMENTAL way - because it indicates foreknoweldge.

I\'ve never seen it claimed that it\'s psossible to rig a building for controlled demolition in a few hours; it simply could not have been done on 9-11 as a reactive measure. Nor do the US Government\'s official reports on 9-11 state that WTC 7 was demolished deliberately (although leaseholder Silverstein seemed to admit it in an extraordinary radio interview soem years ago).

Do Larry Silversteain, Westfied America and the NY Port Authority make a habit of rigging buildings for controlled demolition - just in case they happen to catch fire and it turns out to be convenient to \"pull them\"?

If so, which other buildings are pre-rigged for controlled demolition?

New Yorkers - and other city dwellers - have a right to know!

If not, WHY was WTC 7 rigged in advance of 9-11?

The collapse of the three towers - and especially WTC 7 - point to a HUGE lie at the center of the official account of 9-11.

It cannot be brushed aside and should be faced squarely.

IMO Mr Silverstein and others should face trial for conspiracy to commit mass murder.

If the US Justice Department won\'t press charges, a civil suit is appropriate.

I have over thirty years experience in engineering, of which approximately eight were spent on structural related engineering.

I was pointing out that, based upon the design of WTC 1 and 2, being of a wall supported design, that the building collapse (falling of the walls) must be predicated upon the shearing of the floors from the walls, which would leave the floors unsupported. Columns installed interior to the walls would have been used for local floor loading, to spread the foot print for large local loads (like equipment, which could exceed a ‘per square foot’ local floor load allowable).

Once the floors sheared from the walls, there would be no intrinsic support for the floors. It stands to reason that nothing would be left standing interior to the walls.

Concerning the effect of fir on structural steel; Fire loading for steel beams and columns, especially with jet fuel, can be sufficient to ignite steel, in a building. Combustible loading and fire suppression design assumes that. I have seen photographs of beams which have ignited and spread fire through walls.

My point is, based upon the design of the WTC 1 and 2, the mode of collapse is plausible. This is not only consistent with the structural design of the buildings, but common sense. I am not familiar with the design of the 3rd, 47 story building which collapsed. If it was design via interior, core, loading of floors, then it does appear unlikely that an uncontrolled collapse would result in this building collapsing inside its own footprint. You point out that I made an “off handed” remark to this effect. That is because I am not familiar enough with the specifics of this building’s design to come to any conclusions.

I assume that you would desire theories concerning the 9/11 attack to be founded in plausible argument. Some verbiage has been spent addressing the WTC 1 &2 towers’ ‘strike’ in the attempt to draw out anomalies about the mode of collapse. The mode of collapse can be explained based upon the building design. Typically, following a large building failure or collapse, computer modeling of the failure is performed to verify that no negligence, design errors, or sabotage played any part. I have not heard any results of this type of investigation.

Peter...I am compelled to say that you have not made a thorough study

of the engineering of the three WTC buildings. Such is available in detail

on several websites. DO NOT RELY ON WIKIPEDIA. Go to the sources.

You say the building was supported by the curtain walls. Not so. The steel

center core of massive size was tied to the curtain wall in sturdy fashion.

Even had the floors "pancaked" the center core should have REMAINED

STANDING. And it is fundamental that pancaking floors CANNOT FALL AT

FREEFALL SPEED. A floor cannot fall at freefall speed IF EACH FLOOR

ENCOUNTERS RESISTANCE FROM THE FLOOR BELOW. Each floor turned

to powder, so there was no resistance. How can a floor turn to powder

before an upper floor hits it?

Building Seven was not curtain wall construction, but conventional. Yet

it too, without damage, fell into its own footprint at free fall speed. This

cannot be explained.

Please do your homework and get back to us.

Jack

[Len Colby]

The purported \\\"gravitational\\\" collapse (video) of World Trade Center building 7, which was hit by zero aircraft, and which also vertically collapsed in within a second of free-fall-time-in-a-vacuum later that same day, similarly fails this same conservation-of-energy analysis.

The explanation for how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so miserably failed to check the \\\"pancake collapse\\\" theory, by giving it this basic reality check, is beyond the scope of this simple physics discussion.

I\\\'m no physicist, Jack, but I feel you are pursuing a key point here.

I understand that the collapse of a steel framed tower block at near free-fall velocity has only ever occured under the circumstances of a controlled demoliion.

If anyone disagrees with that and has evidence to the contrary, please post a reference.

If it\\\'s true, that alone is key to disproving the official theory of 9-11.

I wonder if you noticed - as I did - that all the \\\'9-11 conspiracy first responders\\\' - that is, the folk who first blew the whistle about 9-11 and suggested it might be not what it was purported to be - deflected attantion away from that aspect of the case.

I\\\'m thinking of characters such as Mike Ruppert, Jared Israel and Greg Szymanski.

I believe this was part of the conspirators\\\' gameplan.

It helped ensure that those who doubted the official story were directed away from the tower collpase issue. In the weeks and months following 9-11, that was crucial.

They had to get the forensic evidence cleaned up and out of reach ASAP. Any calls - such as those of the NYC firemen who complained bitterly through their in-house journal - that the forensic evidence (eg. the steel from the buildings) NOT be shipped off, would have been an embarrassment. It was crucial that the \\\"9-11 conspiracy movement\\\" looked in other directions for the first few months.

That was achieved, partly through their efforts.

Unless the matter is ultimately dealt with via a \\\'Truth and Reconciliation Commission\\\' (my prefered option), obvious disinfo agents who helped throw us off the trail should, IMO, be put on trial for complicity in crimes against humanity. At the risk of stating the obvious, it\\\'s a most serious crime to help the real perpetrators of mass murder escape justice.

The author of the Popular Mechanics beat-up is a case in point... a certain Mr Ben Chertoff, as I recall.

So are those responsible for the 911myths website.

I remember reading about the design of the World Trade Center Bldgs. A while ago, so I looked it up and it’s corroborated on Wikipedia and several other sites, just Google it; anyway:

The WTC bldgs. Are curtain wall design, which means that the floors are supported by the outside walls instead of interior columns like almost all high rise buildings. This was the method the architects used to provide the great height of the buildings since, what is known as the “radius of inertia”, would be the greatest possible value, that is, the structural supports are the farthest distance possible from the building centerline, making the building strong as possible against side loading, such as from wind.

This also means that the walls would shear off from the floors prior to collapse and fall straight down, different from the collapse of a standard column and pier design, which must be imploded to make way for the inward collapse of the structure. I’m not a demolition expert, but I do know something of structural design.

Provided the walls sheared off from the floors prior to falling, which they would have to, the floors would be (for all intensive purposes) unsupported, and would collapse (just like a stack of pancakes, as someone referred to it). The walls would fall straight downwards quickly, like a dropped knife.

This would explain the timing and mode of the WTC collapses.

The third, 47 story bldg., would be another story, however, like Wallace identified. I don’t know how this Bldg. was designed, but it sounds like a demolition job.

I guess the term \"Curtain Wall design\" can apply to Core supported design also, so I amend my prior post to state that the WTC was \"exterior wall supported\" Vs. core or interior (Column and Pier) supported. This info is available at Wikipedia for reference.

Peter.

I\'ll make three points.

1/ I don\'t want to get into a detailed debate that, in truth, requires architectrual / engineering expertise.

I don\'t have that expertise and I suspect you may not either.

There are \'experts\' on both sides of the debate regarding how THREE WTC towers collapsed, on 9-11, symetrically and in their own footprints, at near free fall velocity.

I don\'t propose to get into evaluating these competing experts with you. It\'s a little like Len Colby and myself discussing the finer points of Farsi. But I do know who I believe is credible (eg. Steven Jones) and who is not.

2/ In my earlier post, I asked a simple minded question.

Perhaps no-one noticed?

This is the question, rephrased: Apart from the THREE collapsing towers on 9-11, have steel-framed tower blocks EVER collapsed in the manner observed on that occasion - in the absence, that is, of controlled demolition.

As there appears to be a defeaning silence on this, I infer the answr is no.

If that\'s the case, what\'s the chance that on 9-11 this remarkable phenomenon occured to THREE buildings - but has never happened on any other day, before or after?

Does that seem a stretch hard to believe to you?

It does to me.

3/ You admit, rather off-hand, that WTC 7 does indeed appear to be a case of controlled demolition.

But that is NOT a minor concession.

It changes the official 9-11 story in a FUNDAMENTAL way - because it indicates foreknoweldge.

I\'ve never seen it claimed that it\'s psossible to rig a building for controlled demolition in a few hours; it simply could not have been done on 9-11 as a reactive measure. Nor do the US Government\'s official reports on 9-11 state that WTC 7 was demolished deliberately (although leaseholder Silverstein seemed to admit it in an extraordinary radio interview soem years ago).

Do Larry Silversteain, Westfied America and the NY Port Authority make a habit of rigging buildings for controlled demolition - just in case they happen to catch fire and it turns out to be convenient to \"pull them\"?

If so, which other buildings are pre-rigged for controlled demolition?

New Yorkers - and other city dwellers - have a right to know!

If not, WHY was WTC 7 rigged in advance of 9-11?

The collapse of the three towers - and especially WTC 7 - point to a HUGE lie at the center of the official account of 9-11.

It cannot be brushed aside and should be faced squarely.

IMO Mr Silverstein and others should face trial for conspiracy to commit mass murder.

If the US Justice Department won\'t press charges, a civil suit is appropriate.

Perhaps we should debate the specifics of 9-11 in the threads related to those specific issues. Most of the issues brought up here (Silverman's "pull it" remark, the rate at which the towers collapsed etc) have already been discussed elsewhere here.

I have 2 questions for Sid:

How many center core buildings have been struck by jetliners before and NOT collapsed?

How many buildings with thousands of gallons of diesel stored in them have had 500,000 TON 1368 foot tall buildings collapse next to them and had uncombated fires burn in them for several hours and not collapsed?

Also saying the experts are divided is not accurate. I know of no engineers with expertise in high-rise construction who backs the CD theory. Jones is a particle physicist, Woods an unemployed dental filling expert they have called each the other's theories crap. The only structural engineer to back the CD theory spent his entire career working on oil rigs. The only person who seems remotely qualified to back the CD theory is a Texas architectural engineer (he claims to have design a few office buildings but declined to name them) who also happens to be a Rightwing religious fanatic who doesn’t accept evolution (among many other odd beliefs but they aren’t related to science).

Edited January 24, 2007 by Len Colby

[Ron Ecker]

The only person who seems remotely qualified to back the CD theory is a Texas architectural engineer (he claims to have design a few office buildings but declined to name them) who also happens to be a Rightwing religious fanatic who doesn’t accept evolution (among many other odd beliefs but they aren’t related to science).

Engineers are rather famous for rejecting evolution. (As one engineer has put it, they are "infatuated with arguments from design.") That said, the late Henry Morris was a Baptist fundamentalist, biblical literalist, young-Earth creationist (in short, a "religious fanatic") who almost singlehandedly founded the "creation science" movement in America. He was also a respected hydraulic engineer who wrote a textbook on the subject and was chairman of the engineering department at Virginia Tech. IOW religious views or other "odd beliefs" have nothing to do with a person's qualifications as an engineer.

[Len Colby]

The only person who seems remotely qualified to back the CD theory is a Texas architectural engineer (he claims to have design a few office buildings but declined to name them) who also happens to be a Rightwing religious fanatic who doesn’t accept evolution (among many other odd beliefs but they aren’t related to science).

Engineers are rather famous for rejecting evolution. (As one engineer has put it, they are "infatuated with arguments from design.") That said, the late Henry Morris was a Baptist fundamentalist, biblical literalist, young-Earth creationist (in short, a "religious fanatic") who almost singlehandedly founded the "creation science" movement in America. He was also a respected hydraulic engineer who wrote a textbook on the subject and was chairman of the engineering department at Virginia Tech. IOW religious views or other "odd beliefs" have nothing to do with a person's qualifications as an engineer.

You may have a point Ron can you name any other engineers who are creationists? The point was that he let his religious beliefs color his judgment of a scientific question, could let his political ones do so as well?

Even if you're right he is the ONLY engineer (that I’m aware of) with a possible background in high rises who publicly backs the CD theory. From his internet postings it doesn't sound like he read the NIST report (forgot to mention that) and makes basic mistakes (like saying “In relative terms, they [the 767s that hit the Twin Towers] were no larger than the B-25 BOMBER that smashed into the Empire State Building in 1946.”). He also claimed to be a pilot but doesn’t show up in the FAA database. I said “possible background” because he declined to identify any buildings he designed.

On the other hand hundreds of structural engineers with proven backgrounds support the collapse theory. Thousands more even in places like Cuba, Iran and Venezuela have kept silent if they have any doubts.

Len

Edited January 24, 2007 by Len Colby

[Peter McKenna]

The purported \\\"gravitational\\\" collapse (video) of World Trade Center building 7, which was hit by zero aircraft, and which also vertically collapsed in within a second of free-fall-time-in-a-vacuum later that same day, similarly fails this same conservation-of-energy analysis.

The explanation for how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so miserably failed to check the \\\"pancake collapse\\\" theory, by giving it this basic reality check, is beyond the scope of this simple physics discussion.

I\\\'m no physicist, Jack, but I feel you are pursuing a key point here.

I understand that the collapse of a steel framed tower block at near free-fall velocity has only ever occured under the circumstances of a controlled demoliion.

If anyone disagrees with that and has evidence to the contrary, please post a reference.

If it\\\'s true, that alone is key to disproving the official theory of 9-11.

I wonder if you noticed - as I did - that all the \\\'9-11 conspiracy first responders\\\' - that is, the folk who first blew the whistle about 9-11 and suggested it might be not what it was purported to be - deflected attantion away from that aspect of the case.

I\\\'m thinking of characters such as Mike Ruppert, Jared Israel and Greg Szymanski.

I believe this was part of the conspirators\\\' gameplan.

It helped ensure that those who doubted the official story were directed away from the tower collpase issue. In the weeks and months following 9-11, that was crucial.

They had to get the forensic evidence cleaned up and out of reach ASAP. Any calls - such as those of the NYC firemen who complained bitterly through their in-house journal - that the forensic evidence (eg. the steel from the buildings) NOT be shipped off, would have been an embarrassment. It was crucial that the \\\"9-11 conspiracy movement\\\" looked in other directions for the first few months.

That was achieved, partly through their efforts.

Unless the matter is ultimately dealt with via a \\\'Truth and Reconciliation Commission\\\' (my prefered option), obvious disinfo agents who helped throw us off the trail should, IMO, be put on trial for complicity in crimes against humanity. At the risk of stating the obvious, it\\\'s a most serious crime to help the real perpetrators of mass murder escape justice.

The author of the Popular Mechanics beat-up is a case in point... a certain Mr Ben Chertoff, as I recall.

So are those responsible for the 911myths website.

I remember reading about the design of the World Trade Center Bldgs. A while ago, so I looked it up and it’s corroborated on Wikipedia and several other sites, just Google it; anyway:

The WTC bldgs. Are curtain wall design, which means that the floors are supported by the outside walls instead of interior columns like almost all high rise buildings. This was the method the architects used to provide the great height of the buildings since, what is known as the “radius of inertia”, would be the greatest possible value, that is, the structural supports are the farthest distance possible from the building centerline, making the building strong as possible against side loading, such as from wind.

This also means that the walls would shear off from the floors prior to collapse and fall straight down, different from the collapse of a standard column and pier design, which must be imploded to make way for the inward collapse of the structure. I’m not a demolition expert, but I do know something of structural design.

Provided the walls sheared off from the floors prior to falling, which they would have to, the floors would be (for all intensive purposes) unsupported, and would collapse (just like a stack of pancakes, as someone referred to it). The walls would fall straight downwards quickly, like a dropped knife.

This would explain the timing and mode of the WTC collapses.

The third, 47 story bldg., would be another story, however, like Wallace identified. I don’t know how this Bldg. was designed, but it sounds like a demolition job.

I guess the term \"Curtain Wall design\" can apply to Core supported design also, so I amend my prior post to state that the WTC was \"exterior wall supported\" Vs. core or interior (Column and Pier) supported. This info is available at Wikipedia for reference.

Peter.

I\'ll make three points.

1/ I don\'t want to get into a detailed debate that, in truth, requires architectrual / engineering expertise.

I don\'t have that expertise and I suspect you may not either.

There are \'experts\' on both sides of the debate regarding how THREE WTC towers collapsed, on 9-11, symetrically and in their own footprints, at near free fall velocity.

I don\'t propose to get into evaluating these competing experts with you. It\'s a little like Len Colby and myself discussing the finer points of Farsi. But I do know who I believe is credible (eg. Steven Jones) and who is not.

2/ In my earlier post, I asked a simple minded question.

Perhaps no-one noticed?

This is the question, rephrased: Apart from the THREE collapsing towers on 9-11, have steel-framed tower blocks EVER collapsed in the manner observed on that occasion - in the absence, that is, of controlled demolition.

As there appears to be a defeaning silence on this, I infer the answr is no.

If that\'s the case, what\'s the chance that on 9-11 this remarkable phenomenon occured to THREE buildings - but has never happened on any other day, before or after?

Does that seem a stretch hard to believe to you?

It does to me.

3/ You admit, rather off-hand, that WTC 7 does indeed appear to be a case of controlled demolition.

But that is NOT a minor concession.

It changes the official 9-11 story in a FUNDAMENTAL way - because it indicates foreknoweldge.

I\'ve never seen it claimed that it\'s psossible to rig a building for controlled demolition in a few hours; it simply could not have been done on 9-11 as a reactive measure. Nor do the US Government\'s official reports on 9-11 state that WTC 7 was demolished deliberately (although leaseholder Silverstein seemed to admit it in an extraordinary radio interview soem years ago).

Do Larry Silversteain, Westfied America and the NY Port Authority make a habit of rigging buildings for controlled demolition - just in case they happen to catch fire and it turns out to be convenient to \"pull them\"?

If so, which other buildings are pre-rigged for controlled demolition?

New Yorkers - and other city dwellers - have a right to know!

If not, WHY was WTC 7 rigged in advance of 9-11?

The collapse of the three towers - and especially WTC 7 - point to a HUGE lie at the center of the official account of 9-11.

It cannot be brushed aside and should be faced squarely.

IMO Mr Silverstein and others should face trial for conspiracy to commit mass murder.

If the US Justice Department won\'t press charges, a civil suit is appropriate.

I have over thirty years experience in engineering, of which approximately eight were spent on structural related engineering.

I was pointing out that, based upon the design of WTC 1 and 2, being of a wall supported design, that the building collapse (falling of the walls) must be predicated upon the shearing of the floors from the walls, which would leave the floors unsupported. Columns installed interior to the walls would have been used for local floor loading, to spread the foot print for large local loads (like equipment, which could exceed a ‘per square foot’ local floor load allowable).

Once the floors sheared from the walls, there would be no intrinsic support for the floors. It stands to reason that nothing would be left standing interior to the walls.

Concerning the effect of fir on structural steel; Fire loading for steel beams and columns, especially with jet fuel, can be sufficient to ignite steel, in a building. Combustible loading and fire suppression design assumes that. I have seen photographs of beams which have ignited and spread fire through walls.

My point is, based upon the design of the WTC 1 and 2, the mode of collapse is plausible. This is not only consistent with the structural design of the buildings, but common sense. I am not familiar with the design of the 3rd, 47 story building which collapsed. If it was design via interior, core, loading of floors, then it does appear unlikely that an uncontrolled collapse would result in this building collapsing inside its own footprint. You point out that I made an “off handed” remark to this effect. That is because I am not familiar enough with the specifics of this building’s design to come to any conclusions.

I assume that you would desire theories concerning the 9/11 attack to be founded in plausible argument. Some verbiage has been spent addressing the WTC 1 &2 towers’ ‘strike’ in the attempt to draw out anomalies about the mode of collapse. The mode of collapse can be explained based upon the building design. Typically, following a large building failure or collapse, computer modeling of the failure is performed to verify that no negligence, design errors, or sabotage played any part. I have not heard any results of this type of investigation.

Peter...I am compelled to say that you have not made a thorough study

of the engineering of the three WTC buildings. Such is available in detail

on several websites. DO NOT RELY ON WIKIPEDIA. Go to the sources.

You say the building was supported by the curtain walls. Not so. The steel

center core of massive size was tied to the curtain wall in sturdy fashion.

Even had the floors "pancaked" the center core should have REMAINED

STANDING. And it is fundamental that pancaking floors CANNOT FALL AT

FREEFALL SPEED. A floor cannot fall at freefall speed IF EACH FLOOR

ENCOUNTERS RESISTANCE FROM THE FLOOR BELOW. Each floor turned

to powder, so there was no resistance. How can a floor turn to powder

before an upper floor hits it?

Building Seven was not curtain wall construction, but conventional. Yet

it too, without damage, fell into its own footprint at free fall speed. This

cannot be explained.

Please do your homework and get back to us.

Jack

Jack,

The design of the WTC 1 and 2 towers were such that the EXTERIOR WALLS SUPPORTED THE INTERIOR LOADS. I have quoted one of many sources I've found stating this, as follows:

"World Trade Center tower construction

In terms of structural system the twin towers departed completely from other high-rise buildings. Conventional skyscrapers since the 19th century have been built with a skeleton of interior supporting columns that supports the structure. Exterior walls of glass steel or synthetic material do not carry any load. The Twin towers are radically different in structural design as the exterior wall is used as the load-bearing wall. (A load bearing wall supports the weight of the floors.) The only interior columns are located in the core area, which contains the elevators. The outer wall carries the building vertical loads and provides the entire resistance to wind. The wall consists of closely spaced vertical columns (21 columns 10 feet apart) tied together by horizontal spandrel beams that girdle the tower at every floor. On the inside of the structure the floor sections consist of trusses spanning from the core to the outer wall."

Also I did not dispute the 3rd building was not exterior wall supported.

Since the WTC 1 and 2 towers were exterior wall supported, what do you suppose supported the floors once they had sheared from the walls and exterior connecting supports? I wasn't there to observe it but I suppose many of the floors collapsed PRIOR to the walls falling and not in one big simultaneous collapse as you propose.

As for doing my homework (after reading some of your posts) I would suggest same, but that would suppose you would be capable of reaching a sensible conclusion.

[Peter McKenna]

The purported \\\"gravitational\\\" collapse (video) of World Trade Center building 7, which was hit by zero aircraft, and which also vertically collapsed in within a second of free-fall-time-in-a-vacuum later that same day, similarly fails this same conservation-of-energy analysis.

The explanation for how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so miserably failed to check the \\\"pancake collapse\\\" theory, by giving it this basic reality check, is beyond the scope of this simple physics discussion.

I\\\'m no physicist, Jack, but I feel you are pursuing a key point here.

I understand that the collapse of a steel framed tower block at near free-fall velocity has only ever occured under the circumstances of a controlled demoliion.

If anyone disagrees with that and has evidence to the contrary, please post a reference.

If it\\\'s true, that alone is key to disproving the official theory of 9-11.

I wonder if you noticed - as I did - that all the \\\'9-11 conspiracy first responders\\\' - that is, the folk who first blew the whistle about 9-11 and suggested it might be not what it was purported to be - deflected attantion away from that aspect of the case.

I\\\'m thinking of characters such as Mike Ruppert, Jared Israel and Greg Szymanski.

I believe this was part of the conspirators\\\' gameplan.

It helped ensure that those who doubted the official story were directed away from the tower collpase issue. In the weeks and months following 9-11, that was crucial.

They had to get the forensic evidence cleaned up and out of reach ASAP. Any calls - such as those of the NYC firemen who complained bitterly through their in-house journal - that the forensic evidence (eg. the steel from the buildings) NOT be shipped off, would have been an embarrassment. It was crucial that the \\\"9-11 conspiracy movement\\\" looked in other directions for the first few months.

That was achieved, partly through their efforts.

Unless the matter is ultimately dealt with via a \\\'Truth and Reconciliation Commission\\\' (my prefered option), obvious disinfo agents who helped throw us off the trail should, IMO, be put on trial for complicity in crimes against humanity. At the risk of stating the obvious, it\\\'s a most serious crime to help the real perpetrators of mass murder escape justice.

The author of the Popular Mechanics beat-up is a case in point... a certain Mr Ben Chertoff, as I recall.

So are those responsible for the 911myths website.

I remember reading about the design of the World Trade Center Bldgs. A while ago, so I looked it up and it’s corroborated on Wikipedia and several other sites, just Google it; anyway:

The WTC bldgs. Are curtain wall design, which means that the floors are supported by the outside walls instead of interior columns like almost all high rise buildings. This was the method the architects used to provide the great height of the buildings since, what is known as the “radius of inertia”, would be the greatest possible value, that is, the structural supports are the farthest distance possible from the building centerline, making the building strong as possible against side loading, such as from wind.

This also means that the walls would shear off from the floors prior to collapse and fall straight down, different from the collapse of a standard column and pier design, which must be imploded to make way for the inward collapse of the structure. I’m not a demolition expert, but I do know something of structural design.

Provided the walls sheared off from the floors prior to falling, which they would have to, the floors would be (for all intensive purposes) unsupported, and would collapse (just like a stack of pancakes, as someone referred to it). The walls would fall straight downwards quickly, like a dropped knife.

This would explain the timing and mode of the WTC collapses.

The third, 47 story bldg., would be another story, however, like Wallace identified. I don’t know how this Bldg. was designed, but it sounds like a demolition job.

I guess the term \"Curtain Wall design\" can apply to Core supported design also, so I amend my prior post to state that the WTC was \"exterior wall supported\" Vs. core or interior (Column and Pier) supported. This info is available at Wikipedia for reference.

Peter.

I\'ll make three points.

1/ I don\'t want to get into a detailed debate that, in truth, requires architectrual / engineering expertise.

I don\'t have that expertise and I suspect you may not either.

There are \'experts\' on both sides of the debate regarding how THREE WTC towers collapsed, on 9-11, symetrically and in their own footprints, at near free fall velocity.

I don\'t propose to get into evaluating these competing experts with you. It\'s a little like Len Colby and myself discussing the finer points of Farsi. But I do know who I believe is credible (eg. Steven Jones) and who is not.

2/ In my earlier post, I asked a simple minded question.

Perhaps no-one noticed?

This is the question, rephrased: Apart from the THREE collapsing towers on 9-11, have steel-framed tower blocks EVER collapsed in the manner observed on that occasion - in the absence, that is, of controlled demolition.

As there appears to be a defeaning silence on this, I infer the answr is no.

If that\'s the case, what\'s the chance that on 9-11 this remarkable phenomenon occured to THREE buildings - but has never happened on any other day, before or after?

Does that seem a stretch hard to believe to you?

It does to me.

3/ You admit, rather off-hand, that WTC 7 does indeed appear to be a case of controlled demolition.

But that is NOT a minor concession.

It changes the official 9-11 story in a FUNDAMENTAL way - because it indicates foreknoweldge.

I\'ve never seen it claimed that it\'s psossible to rig a building for controlled demolition in a few hours; it simply could not have been done on 9-11 as a reactive measure. Nor do the US Government\'s official reports on 9-11 state that WTC 7 was demolished deliberately (although leaseholder Silverstein seemed to admit it in an extraordinary radio interview soem years ago).

Do Larry Silversteain, Westfied America and the NY Port Authority make a habit of rigging buildings for controlled demolition - just in case they happen to catch fire and it turns out to be convenient to \"pull them\"?

If so, which other buildings are pre-rigged for controlled demolition?

New Yorkers - and other city dwellers - have a right to know!

If not, WHY was WTC 7 rigged in advance of 9-11?

The collapse of the three towers - and especially WTC 7 - point to a HUGE lie at the center of the official account of 9-11.

It cannot be brushed aside and should be faced squarely.

IMO Mr Silverstein and others should face trial for conspiracy to commit mass murder.

If the US Justice Department won\'t press charges, a civil suit is appropriate.

I have over thirty years experience in engineering, of which approximately eight were spent on structural related engineering.

I was pointing out that, based upon the design of WTC 1 and 2, being of a wall supported design, that the building collapse (falling of the walls) must be predicated upon the shearing of the floors from the walls, which would leave the floors unsupported. Columns installed interior to the walls would have been used for local floor loading, to spread the foot print for large local loads (like equipment, which could exceed a ‘per square foot’ local floor load allowable).

Once the floors sheared from the walls, there would be no intrinsic support for the floors. It stands to reason that nothing would be left standing interior to the walls.

Concerning the effect of fir on structural steel; Fire loading for steel beams and columns, especially with jet fuel, can be sufficient to ignite steel, in a building. Combustible loading and fire suppression design assumes that. I have seen photographs of beams which have ignited and spread fire through walls.

My point is, based upon the design of the WTC 1 and 2, the mode of collapse is plausible. This is not only consistent with the structural design of the buildings, but common sense. I am not familiar with the design of the 3rd, 47 story building which collapsed. If it was design via interior, core, loading of floors, then it does appear unlikely that an uncontrolled collapse would result in this building collapsing inside its own footprint. You point out that I made an “off handed” remark to this effect. That is because I am not familiar enough with the specifics of this building’s design to come to any conclusions.

I assume that you would desire theories concerning the 9/11 attack to be founded in plausible argument. Some verbiage has been spent addressing the WTC 1 &2 towers’ ‘strike’ in the attempt to draw out anomalies about the mode of collapse. The mode of collapse can be explained based upon the building design. Typically, following a large building failure or collapse, computer modeling of the failure is performed to verify that no negligence, design errors, or sabotage played any part. I have not heard any results of this type of investigation.

Peter...I am compelled to say that you have not made a thorough study

of the engineering of the three WTC buildings. Such is available in detail

on several websites. DO NOT RELY ON WIKIPEDIA. Go to the sources.

You say the building was supported by the curtain walls. Not so. The steel

center core of massive size was tied to the curtain wall in sturdy fashion.

Even had the floors "pancaked" the center core should have REMAINED

STANDING. And it is fundamental that pancaking floors CANNOT FALL AT

FREEFALL SPEED. A floor cannot fall at freefall speed IF EACH FLOOR

ENCOUNTERS RESISTANCE FROM THE FLOOR BELOW. Each floor turned

to powder, so there was no resistance. How can a floor turn to powder

before an upper floor hits it?

Building Seven was not curtain wall construction, but conventional. Yet

it too, without damage, fell into its own footprint at free fall speed. This

cannot be explained.

Please do your homework and get back to us.

Jack

I wish to add a statement from Minoru Yamasaki's site, the architect of the World Trade Center:

"The structural system, deriving from the I.B.M. Building in Seattle, is impressively simple. The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. Office spaces will have no interior columns. In the upper floors there is as much as 40,000 square feet of office space per floor. The floor construction is of prefabricated trussed steel, only 33 inches in depth, that spans the full 60 feet to the core, and also acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the outside wall against lateral buckling forces from wind-load pressures"

Note that for a very tall bldg., in a zone of fairly high seismic accelerations, as is New York City, the live loads will be many times the dead load (i.e. the gravity load), which is all the core structure was designed to support. Ultimately, if the dead load is exceeded in many of the floors, and the trusses sheared from the exterior supports, the interior would collapse. This is only common sense, if you know anything about structural design.

Once the walls separate from the floors, they would drop like a knife.

[Ron Ecker]

You may have a point Ron can you name any other engineers who are creationists?

A significant number of the leaders of the "creation science" movement have been engineers. These include the late Henry Morris, his son John (geological engineer, now president of the Institute for Creation Research), the late Luther Sunderland (electrical engineer), and Walter Brown (mechanical engineer, head of the Center for Scientific Creation).

My favorite was the late creationist Harold Hill, an electrical engineer who wrote an anti-evolution book entitled From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo. The book says among other things that intelligent radio signals are being received from outer space, shoe leather can be turned into gold, and Hill's friend Dr. Donald Liebman ("a completed Jew") has "a scientific instrument" - Hill calls it "a glory meter" - that can detect whether or not you've been born again.

Hills' book has a foreword by the late Wernher von Braun, one of the world's most famous engineers.

[Jack White]

The purported \\\"gravitational\\\" collapse (video) of World Trade Center building 7, which was hit by zero aircraft, and which also vertically collapsed in within a second of free-fall-time-in-a-vacuum later that same day, similarly fails this same conservation-of-energy analysis.

The explanation for how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so miserably failed to check the \\\"pancake collapse\\\" theory, by giving it this basic reality check, is beyond the scope of this simple physics discussion.

I\\\'m no physicist, Jack, but I feel you are pursuing a key point here.

I understand that the collapse of a steel framed tower block at near free-fall velocity has only ever occured under the circumstances of a controlled demoliion.

If anyone disagrees with that and has evidence to the contrary, please post a reference.

If it\\\'s true, that alone is key to disproving the official theory of 9-11.

I wonder if you noticed - as I did - that all the \\\'9-11 conspiracy first responders\\\' - that is, the folk who first blew the whistle about 9-11 and suggested it might be not what it was purported to be - deflected attantion away from that aspect of the case.

I\\\'m thinking of characters such as Mike Ruppert, Jared Israel and Greg Szymanski.

I believe this was part of the conspirators\\\' gameplan.

It helped ensure that those who doubted the official story were directed away from the tower collpase issue. In the weeks and months following 9-11, that was crucial.

They had to get the forensic evidence cleaned up and out of reach ASAP. Any calls - such as those of the NYC firemen who complained bitterly through their in-house journal - that the forensic evidence (eg. the steel from the buildings) NOT be shipped off, would have been an embarrassment. It was crucial that the \\\"9-11 conspiracy movement\\\" looked in other directions for the first few months.

That was achieved, partly through their efforts.

Unless the matter is ultimately dealt with via a \\\'Truth and Reconciliation Commission\\\' (my prefered option), obvious disinfo agents who helped throw us off the trail should, IMO, be put on trial for complicity in crimes against humanity. At the risk of stating the obvious, it\\\'s a most serious crime to help the real perpetrators of mass murder escape justice.

The author of the Popular Mechanics beat-up is a case in point... a certain Mr Ben Chertoff, as I recall.

So are those responsible for the 911myths website.

I remember reading about the design of the World Trade Center Bldgs. A while ago, so I looked it up and it’s corroborated on Wikipedia and several other sites, just Google it; anyway:

The WTC bldgs. Are curtain wall design, which means that the floors are supported by the outside walls instead of interior columns like almost all high rise buildings. This was the method the architects used to provide the great height of the buildings since, what is known as the “radius of inertia”, would be the greatest possible value, that is, the structural supports are the farthest distance possible from the building centerline, making the building strong as possible against side loading, such as from wind.

This also means that the walls would shear off from the floors prior to collapse and fall straight down, different from the collapse of a standard column and pier design, which must be imploded to make way for the inward collapse of the structure. I’m not a demolition expert, but I do know something of structural design.

Provided the walls sheared off from the floors prior to falling, which they would have to, the floors would be (for all intensive purposes) unsupported, and would collapse (just like a stack of pancakes, as someone referred to it). The walls would fall straight downwards quickly, like a dropped knife.

This would explain the timing and mode of the WTC collapses.

The third, 47 story bldg., would be another story, however, like Wallace identified. I don’t know how this Bldg. was designed, but it sounds like a demolition job.

I guess the term \"Curtain Wall design\" can apply to Core supported design also, so I amend my prior post to state that the WTC was \"exterior wall supported\" Vs. core or interior (Column and Pier) supported. This info is available at Wikipedia for reference.

Peter.

I\'ll make three points.

1/ I don\'t want to get into a detailed debate that, in truth, requires architectrual / engineering expertise.

I don\'t have that expertise and I suspect you may not either.

There are \'experts\' on both sides of the debate regarding how THREE WTC towers collapsed, on 9-11, symetrically and in their own footprints, at near free fall velocity.

I don\'t propose to get into evaluating these competing experts with you. It\'s a little like Len Colby and myself discussing the finer points of Farsi. But I do know who I believe is credible (eg. Steven Jones) and who is not.

2/ In my earlier post, I asked a simple minded question.

Perhaps no-one noticed?

This is the question, rephrased: Apart from the THREE collapsing towers on 9-11, have steel-framed tower blocks EVER collapsed in the manner observed on that occasion - in the absence, that is, of controlled demolition.

As there appears to be a defeaning silence on this, I infer the answr is no.

If that\'s the case, what\'s the chance that on 9-11 this remarkable phenomenon occured to THREE buildings - but has never happened on any other day, before or after?

Does that seem a stretch hard to believe to you?

It does to me.

3/ You admit, rather off-hand, that WTC 7 does indeed appear to be a case of controlled demolition.

But that is NOT a minor concession.

It changes the official 9-11 story in a FUNDAMENTAL way - because it indicates foreknoweldge.

I\'ve never seen it claimed that it\'s psossible to rig a building for controlled demolition in a few hours; it simply could not have been done on 9-11 as a reactive measure. Nor do the US Government\'s official reports on 9-11 state that WTC 7 was demolished deliberately (although leaseholder Silverstein seemed to admit it in an extraordinary radio interview soem years ago).

Do Larry Silversteain, Westfied America and the NY Port Authority make a habit of rigging buildings for controlled demolition - just in case they happen to catch fire and it turns out to be convenient to \"pull them\"?

If so, which other buildings are pre-rigged for controlled demolition?

New Yorkers - and other city dwellers - have a right to know!

If not, WHY was WTC 7 rigged in advance of 9-11?

The collapse of the three towers - and especially WTC 7 - point to a HUGE lie at the center of the official account of 9-11.

It cannot be brushed aside and should be faced squarely.

IMO Mr Silverstein and others should face trial for conspiracy to commit mass murder.

If the US Justice Department won\'t press charges, a civil suit is appropriate.

I have over thirty years experience in engineering, of which approximately eight were spent on structural related engineering.

I was pointing out that, based upon the design of WTC 1 and 2, being of a wall supported design, that the building collapse (falling of the walls) must be predicated upon the shearing of the floors from the walls, which would leave the floors unsupported. Columns installed interior to the walls would have been used for local floor loading, to spread the foot print for large local loads (like equipment, which could exceed a ‘per square foot’ local floor load allowable).

Once the floors sheared from the walls, there would be no intrinsic support for the floors. It stands to reason that nothing would be left standing interior to the walls.

Concerning the effect of fir on structural steel; Fire loading for steel beams and columns, especially with jet fuel, can be sufficient to ignite steel, in a building. Combustible loading and fire suppression design assumes that. I have seen photographs of beams which have ignited and spread fire through walls.

My point is, based upon the design of the WTC 1 and 2, the mode of collapse is plausible. This is not only consistent with the structural design of the buildings, but common sense. I am not familiar with the design of the 3rd, 47 story building which collapsed. If it was design via interior, core, loading of floors, then it does appear unlikely that an uncontrolled collapse would result in this building collapsing inside its own footprint. You point out that I made an “off handed” remark to this effect. That is because I am not familiar enough with the specifics of this building’s design to come to any conclusions.

I assume that you would desire theories concerning the 9/11 attack to be founded in plausible argument. Some verbiage has been spent addressing the WTC 1 &2 towers’ ‘strike’ in the attempt to draw out anomalies about the mode of collapse. The mode of collapse can be explained based upon the building design. Typically, following a large building failure or collapse, computer modeling of the failure is performed to verify that no negligence, design errors, or sabotage played any part. I have not heard any results of this type of investigation.

Peter...I am compelled to say that you have not made a thorough study

of the engineering of the three WTC buildings. Such is available in detail

on several websites. DO NOT RELY ON WIKIPEDIA. Go to the sources.

You say the building was supported by the curtain walls. Not so. The steel

center core of massive size was tied to the curtain wall in sturdy fashion.

Even had the floors "pancaked" the center core should have REMAINED

STANDING. And it is fundamental that pancaking floors CANNOT FALL AT

FREEFALL SPEED. A floor cannot fall at freefall speed IF EACH FLOOR

ENCOUNTERS RESISTANCE FROM THE FLOOR BELOW. Each floor turned

to powder, so there was no resistance. How can a floor turn to powder

before an upper floor hits it?

Building Seven was not curtain wall construction, but conventional. Yet

it too, without damage, fell into its own footprint at free fall speed. This

cannot be explained.

Please do your homework and get back to us.

Jack

Jack,

The design of the WTC 1 and 2 towers were such that the EXTERIOR WALLS SUPPORTED THE INTERIOR LOADS. I have quoted one of many sources I've found stating this, as follows:

"World Trade Center tower construction

In terms of structural system the twin towers departed completely from other high-rise buildings. Conventional skyscrapers since the 19th century have been built with a skeleton of interior supporting columns that supports the structure. Exterior walls of glass steel or synthetic material do not carry any load. The Twin towers are radically different in structural design as the exterior wall is used as the load-bearing wall. (A load bearing wall supports the weight of the floors.) The only interior columns are located in the core area, which contains the elevators. The outer wall carries the building vertical loads and provides the entire resistance to wind. The wall consists of closely spaced vertical columns (21 columns 10 feet apart) tied together by horizontal spandrel beams that girdle the tower at every floor. On the inside of the structure the floor sections consist of trusses spanning from the core to the outer wall."

Also I did not dispute the 3rd building was not exterior wall supported.

Since the WTC 1 and 2 towers were exterior wall supported, what do you suppose supported the floors once they had sheared from the walls and exterior connecting supports? I wasn't there to observe it but I suppose many of the floors collapsed PRIOR to the walls falling and not in one big simultaneous collapse as you propose.

As for doing my homework (after reading some of your posts) I would suggest same, but that would suppose you would be capable of reaching a sensible conclusion.

If you check, you will find that the floors were tied to BOTH THE EXTERIOR WALLS

AND THE CENTRAL CORE; therefore, it is not correct to say that only the exterior

walls were load bearing. Look at photos of the core being constructed...it was

far more substantial than the exterior walls, and bore its share of the gravity load

in both towers. There are several websites which explain all this from an engineering

standpoint.

You misstate what "I propose" about the falling. It is all documented on video.

Look at the videos.

Jack

[Sid Walker]

Len answers my question with another question.

You are a natural politician, Len.

Unlike (apparently) most of the folk on this thread, I am not an expert.

I am not an engineer (with or without a degree in Engineering).

I am not privy to inside info.

I'm just a stubborn guy with my crap detector switched on.

On Jan 23rd I wrote:

I understand that the collapse of a steel framed tower block at near free-fall velocity has only ever occured under the circumstances of a controlled demoliion.

I invited people to show that statement is untrue (if it IS untrue).

That's when Len, in the manner of John Howard, asked another question (instead of giving a direct answer).

I later repeated my question, somewhat rephrased:

Apart from the THREE collapsing towers on 9-11, have steel-framed tower blocks EVER collapsed in the manner observed on that occasion - in the absence, that is, of controlled demolition?

OK, I'll have a third go...

On 9-11, according to the official version of events (and taking into account the extensive video documentation from the day), THREE steel framed tower blocks collapsed, in their own footprint, at near free-fall velocity.

Again, according to the official version of events, this occured in the absence of controlled demolition.

Has such a thing ever occured anywhere else in the history of humankind?

If not, I humbly submit, the promoters of the official version of 9-11 suffer from a rather large credibility gap.

Filling this this gaping hole with verbiage, huff and puff may fool a few folk some of the time, but hard questions can be evaded for only so long.

Edited January 24, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Sid Walker]

There was a time, in Britain, when intelligent people might refer to The Guardian or The Independent for informed news and current affairs analysis.

These days, apparently, it's Morecambe Today.

That's where you'll find a photo of Hillary Clinton and her future Vice-Presidential running mate, William Rodriguez.

Hillary is sure to pick Rodriguez.

He's young, articulate, good looking and will help garner the growing Hispanic vote.

He also speaks for the 50+?% of Americans who have a vague idea they've been had (yet again, and again and again) over Pearl Habor, Gulf of Tonkin, JFK assassination, RFK assassination, MLK assassination, First Gulf War, OKC, 9-11, Iraq War... or one of many, many other crimes either sponsored within government or covered up through control of official channels).

Here's an extract from Morecambe Today:

Arriving at 8.30am on the morning of 9/11, (Rodriguez) went to the maintenance office located on the first sub-level, one of six sub-basements beneath ground level.

Fourteen people were in the office at that time. As he was talking with others, he says there was an incredibly loud and powerful explosion which seemed to emanate from between sub-basement B2 and B3.

There were 22 people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first explosion.

At first William thought it was a generator that had exploded, but the cement walls in the office cracked from the explosion.

"When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and everything started shaking," said William, who was crowded together in the office with 14 other people, including Anthony Saltamachia, supervisor for the American Maintenance Company.

Just seconds later he says there was another explosion high above which made the building oscillate momentarily. This, he was later told, was a plane hitting the 90th floor.

Then he says there were other explosions just above B1 and individuals started heading for the loading dock to escape the fires caused by the blasts.

Unlocking doors for the firefighters as he went, William got to the 39th floor before he was turned back by the firefighters. As he began his descent he heard a plane hit the south tower.

Down at ground level he saw the mangled and bloodied bodies of people who had jumped. William says he will never forget the anguish that hit him, or the sight of the senseless carnage.

The Twin Towers were the only known steel frame buildings in history claimed to have failed because of fire. Other steel frame buildings have been known to burn for hours and hours and not collapse. The cause of the Twin Towers' failure is not known because the evidence was rendered unavailable for investigation.

Independent investigators said both towers suspiciously fell "like a house of cards," claiming that William probably heard pre-arranged detonated bomb blasts, strategically placed and timed to make it appear that the plane was the cause of the collapse.

After the trauma of losing many of his close friends and the sheer horror of the events of 9/11, William looked forward to his appearance at a closed-door hearing of the 9/11 Commission.

But he started changing his opinion as he saw how the commission worked, and also when the American media edited out his testimonies about hearing bomb blasts in the buildings, whilst the Spanish media reported his claims unedited.

William was one of the last people to testify to the commission and spoke behind closed doors, unlike other witnesses. His testimony was not included in the final report

He said the commission didn't answer his questions and avoided the issues he was presenting. When the administration started to link the 9/11 attacks with the preparations of the 2003 Iraq war, he said he felt "manipulated and used".

He also sought out the National Institutes of Technology, which was investigating the collapse of the WTC, but was sent packing. And the FBI was not interested in his claim that he'd met one of the hijackers 'casing' the buildings several months before 9/11.

In October 2004, William filed a civil lawsuit directed against George W Bush, Richard B Cheney, Donald H Rumsfeld and others, including a total of 100 defendants, together with Ellen Mariani and lawyer Phil Berg.

The RICO Act is normally used by the US government to nail organised crime as a conspiracy, but this time it was used against the government itself, claiming a conspiracy on its part.

The government filed a motion to dismiss, or at least transfer, the case on grounds of national security. Berg answered by filing an affidavit that alleged the defendants "had knowledge that the attacks were impending... but they failed to (take countermeasures), not by reason of mere negligence, confusion, or ineptitude, but because they affirmatively desired such attacks to occur."

William said: "I have tried to tell my story to everybody, but nobody wants to listen. It is very strange what is going on here in supposedly the most democratic country in the world. In my home country of Puerto Rico and all the other Latin American countries, I have been allowed to tell my story uncensored. But here, I can't even say a word."

Edited January 25, 2007 by Sid Walker