Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Sid Walker]

CTists can only point to a handful of large office fires in steel framed central core buildings, none of the collapsed but none of them had pre-fire structural dammage or thousand of gallons or jet fuel or disel in them. In one case in Philadelphia the FD and the structural engineers they consulted feared a "pancake style structural collapse". There have been several cases of lowrise steel framed buildings that have collapsed that collapsed due to fire. In one case a theater fireproofing similar to the WTC's was used. http://debunking911.com/firsttime.htm (see the 2nd half of the article based on my research)

Interestingly "isde jobbers" like to point to the Edifico Windsor fire in Madrid but it was basiclly a concrete building, the unprotected steel outter columns collapsed after about an hour.

How about this crash, Len?

[Sid Walker]

Just to add to Len's post -

The WTC Towers were not a "concrete towerblock" design. The outer walls formed one part to the vertical support system, with the central steel core the second.

The design of the central core is one of the faults in the WTC Tower design, as noted in the various studies of 9-11. The central core consisted of vertical steel columns, cast in place floors with sheetrock walls. Some believe that if there had been concrete or concrete block walls, many of the people trapped on the upper floors might have been able to escape.

Sid – before you decide that the collapse of the Towers can only be explained by a controlled demolition (CD) I would suggest that you become familiar with the design and construction of the towers, as well as with the methods, techniques and physics involved with CD’s. You also need to fully understand the respective roles of explosives and gravity in a CD.

Once you fully understand these things, it’s really not hard to understand why the Towers and WTC-7 collapsed the way that they did. Unless, of course, you simply want to believe that it had to be a CD – if that’s the case then we’re all wasting our time here.

So, once I fully understand the official account of WTC 1, 2 & 7's construction, and the official account of what happened on the day of 9-11, it'll all become clear.

And what do these official "inquiries" have to say, for example, about WTC-7?

Hmmm. not fully understood at this time (or words to that effect, if I recall correctly).

In other words, trust us!

Yet millions don't... and we're growing in number very day.

[Ron Ecker]

It is still not clear to me why, based on the official story, no significant portion of a single one of the 47 steel core columns was left standing in either tower. Indeed it is alleged that the columns were found broken into sections conveniently short enough to be hauled away in trucks.

Whether the allegation is true or false, and clearing away the mountain of verbiage that exists about the collapses, can someone point out simply the explanation for the no core column left standing effect?

[Sid Walker]

It is still not clear to me why, based on the official story, no significant portion of a single one of the 47 steel core columns was left standing in either tower. Indeed it is alleged that the columns were found broken into sections conveniently short enough to be hauled away in trucks.

Whether the allegation is true or false, and clearing away the mountain of verbiage that exists about the collapses, can someone point out simply the explanation for the no core column left standing effect?

I'll second that.

We also need adequate, science-based, peer-reviewed explanations for hot spots at ground zero weeks afterwards - and for "the longest-burning structural fire in history".

[Jack White]

{bolding added}

Rodney King said it well:

"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?

Meanwhile, at the risk of being tiresome, I would like to ask my question again:

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?

Any takers?

If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition.

The probability that the official story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero.

Len's question:

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?

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

Any takers?

If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition.

The probability that the Controlled Demolition story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero.

By the way Sid - I'll be easy on you - find me just one.

My Point:

Sid's question may sound impressive and relevant but it is rhetorical nonsense. I can no more find an example of a building collapsing the same way as the towers, than he can find an example of a building surviving the same amount of damage as the towers and not collapsing.

The reason is simple - 9-11 was unprecedented. The scope of the terrorist attack was unprecedented. The method of attack was unprecedented. The construction and scale of the targets was unique.

Given all that, is it really all that surprising that the resulting damage was unprecedented?

Your point, Len, is obfuscation.

A steel framed concrete towerblock is a rather resilient structure. That's why they are common in modern cities.

No steel framed concrete towerblock, to my knowledge, has ever been known to collapse - straight down and at near free-fall velocity - because the steel framework effectively melted due to internal fuel fires.

There ARE cases of tower block collapse that are similar to what was observed on 9-11. Those are cases of controlled demolition, in which high-temperature explosives were stragically deployed.

There are NO cases - I understand - of such collapses that did NOT involve controlled demolition.

If there are such cases, please let us all know.

If there aren't, this extraordinary co-incidence affecting THREE buildings in Manhatten on that day and only on that day is one heck of a smoking gun...

No you're refusal to answer my question is obfuscation. There never were collapses like 9-11 before or after 9-11 because never before or since have buildings like them been subject to what they were. 1 WTC and 2 WTC were near identical buildings struck by near identical planes in similar ways thus the similarity of their collapses is hardly coincidental. 7 WTC was also a steel frame central core building which suffered extensive impact dammage (from falling debris) and was filled with large quantities of fuel (disel). It's fire were uncombatted for several hours. Numerous firemen said it was poised for collapse hours before it did.

CTists can only point to a handful of large office fires in steel framed central core buildings, none of the collapsed but none of them had pre-fire structural dammage or thousand of gallons or jet fuel or disel in them. In one case in Philadelphia the FD and the structural engineers they consulted feared a "pancake style structural collapse". There have been several cases of lowrise steel framed buildings that have collapsed that collapsed due to fire. In one case a theater fireproofing similar to the WTC's was used. http://debunking911.com/firsttime.htm (see the 2nd half of the article based on my research)

Interestingly "isde jobbers" like to point to the Edifico Windsor fire in Madrid but it was basiclly a concrete building, the unprotected steel outter columns collapsed after about an hour.

Just to add to Len's post -

The WTC Towers were not a "concrete towerblock" design. The outer walls formed one part to the vertical support system, with the central steel core the second.

The design of the central core is one of the faults in the WTC Tower design, as noted in the various studies of 9-11. The central core consisted of vertical steel columns, cast in place floors with sheetrock walls. Some believe that if there had been concrete or concrete block walls, many of the people trapped on the upper floors might have been able to escape.

Sid – before you decide that the collapse of the Towers can only be explained by a controlled demolition (CD) I would suggest that you become familiar with the design and construction of the towers, as well as with the methods, techniques and physics involved with CD’s. You also need to fully understand the respective roles of explosives and gravity in a CD.

Once you fully understand these things, it’s really not hard to understand why the Towers and WTC-7 collapsed the way that they did. Unless, of course, you simply want to believe that it had to be a CD – if that’s the case then we’re all wasting our time here.

ALL DISINFORMATION.

Jack

[Jack White]

Rodney King said it well:

"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?

Meanwhile, at the risk of being tiresome, I would like to ask my question again:

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?

Any takers?

If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition.

The probability that the official story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero.

Len's question:

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?

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

Any takers?

If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition.

The probability that the Controlled Demolition story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero.

By the way Sid - I'll be easy on you - find me just one.

My Point:

Sid's question may sound impressive and relevant but it is rhetorical nonsense. I can no more find an example of a building collapsing the same way as the towers, than he can find an example of a building surviving the same amount of damage as the towers and not collapsing.

The reason is simple - 9-11 was unprecedented. The scope of the terrorist attack was unprecedented. The method of attack was unprecedented. The construction and scale of the targets was unique.

Given all that, is it really all that surprising that the resulting damage was unprecedented?

Your point, Len, is obfuscation.

A steel framed concrete towerblock is a rather resilient structure. That's why they are common in modern cities.

No steel framed concrete towerblock, to my knowledge, has ever been known to collapse - straight down and at near free-fall velocity - because the steel framework effectively melted due to internal fuel fires.

There ARE cases of tower block collapse that are similar to what was observed on 9-11. Those are cases of controlled demolition, in which high-temperature explosives were stragically deployed.

There are NO cases - I understand - of such collapses that did NOT involve controlled demolition.

If there are such cases, please let us all know.

If there aren't, this extraordinary co-incidence affecting THREE buildings in Manhatten on that day and only on that day is one heck of a smoking gun...

No you're refusal to answer my question is obfuscation. There never were collapses like 9-11 before or after 9-11 because never before or since have buildings like them been subject to what they were. 1 WTC and 2 WTC were near identical buildings struck by near identical planes in similar ways thus the similarity of their collapses is hardly coincidental. 7 WTC was also a steel frame central core building which suffered extensive impact dammage (from falling debris) and was filled with large quantities of fuel (disel). It's fire were uncombatted for several hours. Numerous firemen said it was poised for collapse hours before it did.

CTists can only point to a handful of large office fires in steel framed central core buildings, none of the collapsed but none of them had pre-fire structural dammage or thousand of gallons or jet fuel or disel in them. In one case in Philadelphia the FD and the structural engineers they consulted feared a "pancake style structural collapse". There have been several cases of lowrise steel framed buildings that have collapsed that collapsed due to fire. In one case a theater fireproofing similar to the WTC's was used. http://debunking911.com/firsttime.htm (see the 2nd half of the article based on my research)

Interestingly "isde jobbers" like to point to the Edifico Windsor fire in Madrid but it was basiclly a concrete building, the unprotected steel outter columns collapsed after about an hour.

ALL DISINFORMATION.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

ALL DISINFORMATION.

Jack

So are we to take that as to mean you are unable to prove them wrong?

[Len Colby]

ALL DISINFORMATION.

Jack

So are we to take that as to mean you are unable to prove them wrong?

LOL this from the guy who says he`only arguees facts' or something to that effect. Go ahead Jack show what in my post is disinformation

[Steve Ulman]

Just to add to Len's post -

The WTC Towers were not a "concrete towerblock" design. The outer walls formed one part to the vertical support system, with the central steel core the second.

The design of the central core is one of the faults in the WTC Tower design, as noted in the various studies of 9-11. The central core consisted of vertical steel columns, cast in place floors with sheetrock walls. Some believe that if there had been concrete or concrete block walls, many of the people trapped on the upper floors might have been able to escape.

Sid – before you decide that the collapse of the Towers can only be explained by a controlled demolition (CD) I would suggest that you become familiar with the design and construction of the towers, as well as with the methods, techniques and physics involved with CD’s. You also need to fully understand the respective roles of explosives and gravity in a CD.

Once you fully understand these things, it’s really not hard to understand why the Towers and WTC-7 collapsed the way that they did. Unless, of course, you simply want to believe that it had to be a CD – if that’s the case then we’re all wasting our time here.

So, once I fully understand the official account of WTC 1, 2 & 7's construction, and the official account of what happened on the day of 9-11, it'll all become clear.

And what do these official "inquiries" have to say, for example, about WTC-7?

Hmmm. not fully understood at this time (or words to that effect, if I recall correctly).

In other words, trust us!

Yet millions don't... and we're growing in number very day.

Sid-

Before you jump horses, lets forget WTC-7 for the moment and first focus on the Towers.

Do you understand that the Towers were NOT of “concrete towerblock” construction as you implied earlier?

Do you have any evidence that the “official” version – the most comprehensive being the NIST Study and Report – cannot be possible?

Do you fully understand the respective rolls that the explosives and gravity play in a CD? (This is very important because it explains why the NIST explanation of the Towers’ collapse might look like a CD)

You also posted a link to an article discussing the accident involving an Israeli cargo jet into an Amsterdam apartment complex. What exactly was the point you were trying to make? How in the world could you think it had any relevance to what happened on 9-11? I ask because the accident involves a building complex 11+/- stories tall, constructed in a completely different manner than the Towers, and where the building completely collapsed where it was struck by the aircraft.

Now –About WTC-7 – The investigation is on-going – it never has had the priority in the investigation as has the Towers, because no one should be surprised that a building with almost ½ of one of its sides destroyed, and significant fires allowed to burn for several hours with no fire suppression, would collapse. As the CT’s always say, “Isn’t it obvious?”

From the NIST World Trade Center site.

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions About the NIST Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster

14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

· An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

· Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

· Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

A draft report is due out early this year and I will be reading it to see if it makes sense to me. I’m sure Jack and other CT's have already concluded it's wrong - how about you?

Edited January 31, 2007 by Steve Ulman

[Sid Walker]

Just to add to Len's post -

The WTC Towers were not a "concrete towerblock" design. The outer walls formed one part to the vertical support system, with the central steel core the second.

The design of the central core is one of the faults in the WTC Tower design, as noted in the various studies of 9-11. The central core consisted of vertical steel columns, cast in place floors with sheetrock walls. Some believe that if there had been concrete or concrete block walls, many of the people trapped on the upper floors might have been able to escape.

Sid – before you decide that the collapse of the Towers can only be explained by a controlled demolition (CD) I would suggest that you become familiar with the design and construction of the towers, as well as with the methods, techniques and physics involved with CD’s. You also need to fully understand the respective roles of explosives and gravity in a CD.

Once you fully understand these things, it’s really not hard to understand why the Towers and WTC-7 collapsed the way that they did. Unless, of course, you simply want to believe that it had to be a CD – if that’s the case then we’re all wasting our time here.

So, once I fully understand the official account of WTC 1, 2 & 7's construction, and the official account of what happened on the day of 9-11, it'll all become clear.

And what do these official "inquiries" have to say, for example, about WTC-7?

Hmmm. not fully understood at this time (or words to that effect, if I recall correctly).

In other words, trust us!

Yet millions don't... and we're growing in number very day.

Sid-

Before you jump horses, lets forget WTC-7 for the moment and first focus on the Towers.

Do you understand that the Towers were NOT of “concrete towerblock” construction as you implied earlier?

Do you have any evidence that the “official” version – the most comprehensive being the NIST Study and Report – cannot be possible?

Do you fully understand the respective rolls that the explosives and gravity play in a CD? (This is very important because it explains why the NIST explanation of the Towers’ collapse might look like a CD)

You also posted a link to an article discussing the accident involving an Israeli cargo jet into an Amsterdam apartment complex. What exactly was the point you were trying to make? How in the world could you think it had any relevance to what happened on 9-11? I ask because the accident involves a building complex 11+/- stories tall, constructed in a completely different manner than the Towers, and where the building completely collapsed where it was struck by the aircraft.

Now –About WTC-7 – The investigation is on-going – it never has had the priority in the investigation as has the Towers, because no one should be surprised that a building with almost ½ of one of its sides destroyed, and significant fires allowed to burn for several hours with no fire suppression, would collapse. As the CT’s always say, “Isn’t it obvious?”

From the NIST World Trade Center site.

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions About the NIST Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster

14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

· An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

· Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

· Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

A draft report is due out early this year and I will be reading it to see if it makes sense to me. I’m sure Jack and other CT's have already concluded it's wrong - how about you?

Did I say 'concrete towerblock', Steve? You don't provide a reference - but it's possible I did. If so, I retract the phrase. I usually uswe the term 'steel-framed towerblock'. Do you object to that?

You ask: Do you have any evidence that the “official” version – the most comprehensive being the NIST Study and Report – cannot be possible?

For me, this is like an experience in a Kafka novel where the subject is asked the same questions all over again after 20 interrogations. I think that the official versions of the THREE WTC collapses are not plausible in the least. I've tried to explain why, not going into every detail but addressing major problems with the official story. Ron also provided an excellent query (unanswered, as far as I'm aware). I threw in a couple more: lingering hot spots at ground zero and fires that lasted for months.

I do not propose to become an expert in the nuances of this aspect of 9-11 (one false flag event out of many, IMO) - any more than it appears you and your team intend to address the strongest points of the case against the official version of events.

You apparently find all the official reports most pursuasive and very plausible, Steve. That's your prerogative. We may just have to differ on this.

I was struck by the qualitative difference between the response of FEMA to a real disaster (Hurricane Katrina) as opposed FEMA's response to 9-11, which I, at any rate, believe was a staged disaster.

In the case of 9-11, FEMA was so well prepared it actually had a team in place in NYC the day before. Whatever other stories came out of the 9-11 mediafest, FEMA inefficiency was not one of them, as I recall. FEMA seemed to know what to do with eerie precision - right down to controlling the flow of information from the disaster areas from the first few hours.

By contrast, in the case of Hurricane Katrina, FEMA's pathetic reponse was an international scandal, it's inadequacies the butt of jokes around the planet.

Holding the beliefs I do about 9-11, the fact that the official reports back up the official story is more than a tautology - it requires explanation.

Folk, such as I, who believe 9-11 was a conspiracy not masterminded in the mountains of Afghanistan will - when the time comes - have hard questions to ask of all those who backed up the official account with deliberate lies. I trust that's understood now.

In the first few years after 9-11, academics who spoke out against the official story did their careers no favours. A small number have lent their names and credibility to backing up the official story. If, over time, they are shown to be liars who could not possibly have been making an innocent mistake, people will certainly look into who these authors are and their probable motivations. As that time, they may some to share the view of my father that "honesty is the best policy".

As to the crash of a near Schipol, did the 'steel framed tower block' really collapse?

On the photo I linked to, the impacted section is severely damaged, but the bulk of the towers have clearly survived - as one would expect of a building resting on a large steel matrix.

So... I posted that reference as an example of a building that did NOT collapse after impact by a large aircraft - just as the Empire States building in the 40s did not collapse when hit.

You wrote: "the building (in Amsterdam) completely collapsed where it was struck by the aircraft" Did it, Steve? It doesn't look like that to me (but I wasn't there, thanks God - so I missed out on a free spray with Israeli WMDs as well as a very nasty bang).

I agree the buildings in Amsterdam are morphologically different from the much taller WTC towers. There may have been major architectural and structual differences. So what?

Every building on earth is unique.

But only THREE buildings have ever colapsed, in entirety, without a single column standing, at near free fall velocity - allegedly as a consequence of fuel fires.

Those three buildings all came down on the same day in the same city - on the day that "changed everything".

If you don't believe that requires explanation, then so be it.

Edited January 31, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Steve Ulman]

Sid-

Thanks for your reply. I’ll try to address each point, and you’re correct, we may have to agree to disagree.

Concrete towerblock – I accept your explanation. (whew – that was easy!)

As to you’re statement “I think that the official versions of the THREE WTC collapses are not plausible in the least.” – I do not look at them as a single event. The engineer in me wants to review each event separately and then play “connect the dots” once I understand each event. This is the only way to understand the mechanics behind the failures. For instance, if WTC-2 had been the only tower hit, then, IMO, WTC-1 and WTC-7 would not have collapsed.

As for the fact that the pile smoldered for about 90 days, remember that the pile was several stories high. If the fire officials on the scene, and other experts in relevant fields, don’t find that inexplicable, why should you or I. I do not have the expertise myself, so I rely on those that do.

I have asked those who think the collapses were the result of a controlled demolition (CD) a very basic question – “Do you fully understand the respective rolls that the explosives and gravity play in a CD?”. No one has ever given me an answer. A CD is nothing more that the judicious and precisely timed removal of load bearing members so that gravity will cause the building to collapse in what is hoped a “controlled” manner. The explosives are used to finish the job of removal of the load bearing members. Most of the time the load bearing columns are pre-weakened so that the amount of explosives use can be minimized. Theoretically, a CD could be achieved without the use of explosives at all, if the building is small enough and you are willing to be close enough to initiate the removal of the columns. The other major benefit of using explosives is that you can control the timing of individual explosions. By adjusting the timing, it is sometimes possible to control the directionally of the collapse. Note, this is a fairly exact science and takes a great deal of pre planning and work ahead of time before you even consider placing the explosives.

Why the long dissertation on CD? What we see in the collapse of the Towers does resemble a CD. I freely admit that. But the engineer in me says just because it looks like a CD doesn’t necessarily mean it was a CD. Remember, in order to initiate a collapse, first the load bearing support must be eliminated. What the NIST study found is that as one of the floors sagged, it pulled the outer wall of the tower inward. There came a point where the forces involved cause the system to fail, now the upper portion of the building had no vertical support at that wall. (the same as removing the support by explosives). Now you essentially have a 10-20 story building, with compromised support, above a taller building. Now gravity takes over and the unsupported building starts to tip in the direction of the failed wall because there is no vertical support. This tipping now causes the vertical supports along the remainder of the building to overstress until they fail. Now you have a 10 to 20 story office building falling onto the top floor of an other office building. That floor is designed to simply withstand the dead load of typical office uses. The floor fails, and the smaller office tower picks up momentum and continues downward. Looks just like a CD, but isn’t. Based on my education in engineering, discussions with structural engineers and real life experiences, the “official” version is plausible, without the need to add the complexity of a CD, so why add it?

As to the response of FEMA to 9-11 and to Katrina. One major difference you are overlooking – NYC had an intact and competent (for a most part) emergency response system operating that did not need to rely on the federal government in the first days after the event. New Orleans had almost ZERO. Of course the fed’s looked better in their response immediately following 9-11, they didn’t really have to do anything. In New Orleans, their gross incompetence was out front and center. FEMA did not have anything to do with the control of information regarding the WTC – New York officials (City and State) were the ones most obviously in control at the very beginning.

You obviously don’t believe the official story that 19 hijackers were responsible for 9-11. Fine. However, do not accuse me of lying, which is the only inference I can make from this statement of yours – “…have hard questions to ask of all those who backed up the official account with deliberate lies.”

The Schipol accident has no bearing on 9-11. There were no “towers”. What the photo shows, is an large apartment complex , where a plane impacted near the middle. The entire section where the plane impacted collapses – the sections that did not collapse were along side of the section that did, not underneath the impact site. This is a comparison of apples and oranges at best, more like apples and carrots.

Every building is not unique. WTC-1 and WTC-2 were almost identical. Why then, is it surprising that when damaged in the same manner they both collapsed the same way.

You also keep harping that three buildings in the same city, all collapsed on one day is somehow suspicious. WHY. 9-11 saw two of the tallest buildings on the planet, adjacent to one another, impacted by fuel-laden airliners and collapse. The magnitude of the forces involved in the collapse are almost unparalleled (Hiroshima and Nagasaki excepted), and then an adjacent building, with a unique design, severely damaged by the collapse of the first two collapsed hours later. Why is that so incredible? If there had been three buildings of dissimilar construction, destroyed in three different cities, then you might have a point.

Now- the above is totally based on the facts and engineering of what happened to the WTC on 9-11. The “false-flag” aspects or some other conspiracy are a different matter. While I do not believe that there was an organized conspiracy by the US government prior to 9-11, I remain open to discussion and evidence of such. However, when such evidence involves planting explosives, or remote controlled aircraft, or both, and a large number of people “in on it” – I am completely unimpressed.

If you tell me that there was a concerted effort post 9-11 (conspiracy if you will) to cover gross incompetence prior to 9-11, that’s plausible. I’m not convinced it happened, but I do not discount it either.

Sorry for the length of this post – but I think trying to be brief on this subject has sometimes led to confusion.

PS – Sid, I’ve posted personal info about myself as it relates to 9-11 in many other threads that you may have missed – in order not to repeat it here I’ve PM’ed you.

[Len Colby]

Sid the B-25 bomber which hit the ESB was about 1/9th the weight of and the 767’s which hit the Empire State Building and probably was going ½ - ¼ the speed and thus struck with 1/18 – 1/36 the force and 1/36 - 1/144 the kinetic energy. It also was carrying a small fraction of the fuel. The ESB was a much stronger building with columns every 30 feet and significantly with its steel elements encased in concrete.

Its like comparing a body builder being shot with a 22 and a 98 pound weakling being shot with a 44 Magnum

Also as has been pointed out before the towers didn't collapse in free fall time which would have been 9 seconds but in 14 - 16 according to one of the leading and best researched "inside job" sites

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/times.html

From your own link it looks like the very unphallic building in Amsterdam collapsed completely to the ground in the area hit by the plane.

As for the hot spots they can easily be explained by debris pile fires but not so readily by thermite reactions which normally last only a few seconds.

For B-25 and 767 stats

http://web.archive.org/web/20060427161844/...e.com/b25.shtml

http://uboat.net/allies/aircraft/b25.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92525&page=1

http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=103

“Ron also provided an excellent query (unanswered, as far as I'm aware)”

I missed that, what was it

“FEMA seemed to know what to do with eerie precision - right down to controlling the flow of information from the disaster areas from the first few hours.

By contrast, in the case of Hurricane Katrina, FEMA's pathetic reponse was an international scandal, it's inadequacies the butt of jokes around the planet.”

Please provide details and references. They were very different disasters relatively few people need goverment help after 9-11 and the destruction was concentrated in one spot it not comparable to a situation where most of a region’s infrastructure was destroyed or damage and tens (or hundreds) of thousands of people were homeless or without food, water and basic services.

Edited January 31, 2007 by Len Colby

[Sid Walker]

Sid the B-25 bomber which hit the ESB was about 1/9th the weight of and the 767’s which hit the Empire State Building and probably was going ½ - ¼ the speed and thus struck with 1/18 – 1/36 the force and 1/36 - 1/144 the kinetic energy. It also was carrying a small fraction of the fuel. The ESB was a much stronger building with columns every 30 feet and significantly with its steel elements encased in concrete.

Its like comparing a body builder being shot with a 22 and a 98 pound weakling being shot with a 44 Magnum

Also as has been pointed out before the towers didn't collapse in free fall time which would have been 9 seconds but in 14 - 16 according to one of the leading and best researched "inside job" sites

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/times.html

From your own link it looks like the very unphallic building in Amsterdam collapsed completely to the ground in the area hit by the plane.

As for the hot spots they can easily be explained by debris pile fires but not so readily by thermite reactions which normally last only a few seconds.

For B-25 and 767 stats

http://web.archive.org/web/20060427161844/...e.com/b25.shtml

http://uboat.net/allies/aircraft/b25.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92525&page=1

http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=103

“Ron also provided an excellent query (unanswered, as far as I'm aware)”

I missed that, what was it

“FEMA seemed to know what to do with eerie precision - right down to controlling the flow of information from the disaster areas from the first few hours.

By contrast, in the case of Hurricane Katrina, FEMA's pathetic reponse was an international scandal, it's inadequacies the butt of jokes around the planet.”

Please provide details and references. They were very different disasters relatively few people need goverment help after 9-11 and the destruction was concentrated in one spot it not comparable to a situation where most of a region’s infrastructure was destroyed or damage and tens (or hundreds) of thousands of people were homeless or without food, water and basic services.

Thanks for your detailed maths, Len, on the relative kinetic energies of the plane that hit the Empire States v the planes that hit the twin towers. Rather beside the point, however. I never claimed these events were comparable.

I note your explanation for the hots spots. Or rather your statement that they can be easily explained.

Ron's query, Len, was contained in his last post on this thread. Do you have difficulty reading? Or do you just enjoy seeing if I'll agree to work as your unpaid personal secretary?

As for the crash of a floating Israeli WMD cache in residential Amerstam, it looks to me the building is still upright on both sides of the crash. Such a commonplace spectacle does not fall into the category of "shock and awe". It looks like a normal plane crash (notwithstanding its very abnormal cargo).

Incidentally, I bet few folk these days remember that crash of an Israeli plane in Amsterdam.

Anyne care to predict how memorable it would be, on the other hand, if an IRANIAN plane crashed into residential towerblocks in a western city, spewing traces of illegally transported WMDs?

Media bias? Surely not!

[Ron Ecker]

It is still not clear to me why, based on the official story, no significant portion of a single one of the 47 steel core columns was left standing in either tower. Indeed it is alleged that the columns were found broken into sections conveniently short enough to be hauled away in trucks.

Whether the allegation is true or false, and clearing away the mountain of verbiage that exists about the collapses, can someone point out simply the explanation for the no core column left standing effect?

Back to the top.

[Steve Ulman]

It is still not clear to me why, based on the official story, no significant portion of a single one of the 47 steel core columns was left standing in either tower. Indeed it is alleged that the columns were found broken into sections conveniently short enough to be hauled away in trucks.

Whether the allegation is true or false, and clearing away the mountain of verbiage that exists about the collapses, can someone point out simply the explanation for the no core column left standing effect?

Back to the top.

Ron-

I do not have an answer right now because I've never really thought about it. I've never found it incongruous that the center cores didn't survive considering that a 20 and a 10 story office tower fell on each of them respectively. Also remember, the pile was several stories tall, I don't know for sure, but based on some photos I've seen, it looks like some might have remained upright within the pile but not significantly higher.