Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Evan Burton]

So far I haven't read about any. This makes me wonder about all the supposed anomalies. Why aren't they being raised by people who know what they are talking about?

Economists, atomic physicists, ad. execs, neo-Nazi journalists and water safety specialists don't count.

I refer specifically to questions as to whether the collapses of the WTC buildings can be explained by impact damage, fires and falling debris cause by the planes crashing into the towers.

Len

A good place to learn such is PHYSICS911:

http://keyword.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.j...ysics911.net%2F

Well, lets see who we have on that panel:

Kinesiology (!), Mathematics, Computer Science, Biology, Linguists, Statisticians, Activists, Web Designers....

Don't see any mechanical or structural engineers there. The aerospace engineers might have some knowledge, but exactly what background do they have?

So, Len, Jack's answer to your question is: NO-ONE.

[Evan Burton]

Having a look at Jack's recommended website, you'll find it is a mixture of anti-Bush activists and conspiracy theorists.

I had a close look at the one which claimed that an A-3 SKYWARRIOR hit the Pentegon, not a B757. Dribble, inaccuracte, misleading dribble.

Jack's credibility is up to its usual standard - none at all.

[Steve Ulman]

Jack-

Received and reviewed the animated *.gif file you emailed to me.

First and foremost - I can find no version of this clip that is longer nor can i find a version of this clip that includes audio. Also, I can find no version of this clip that was not an animated gif at one time. I’ve even gone to the CNN archive site and cannot find it there.

Jack – I think you’ve been duped. Wherever you got that animated gif file either was the creator of the hoax about explosives at WTC-6 or WTC-7, or someone propagating it. I am certain the time of the animated gif was not at 9:04 AM. The reason I am certain of this is the amount of smoke or dust at or below the roof line of Three World Financial. Smoke and dust at this elevation is only seen during and after the collapse of WTC-2, not before. The person who states that the images are at 9:04am seems to have forgotten where the impact to WTC-2 actually was. Yes it was lower than the impact area on WTC-1 but not that much lower.

Also – when you are comparing the vantage points from the two photos on page 9 you wrongly assume there are roughly from the same place. The animated gif photos were taken further to the north than the other. You can tell this by looking at the relationship of Three World Financial to the west edge of WTC1 as well as looking at the east edge of WTC1 and the relationship to the buildings to the east.

Also - an animated gif file is not a video type file – it is a way to present a series of individual gif images – like flipping through a series of cards. The way the images jump around in this animation, the file is obviously not from a continuous video file, rather a compilation of several screen shots.

In my opinion, the only way to verify the time frame of any video clip is to see more than 3 or 4 seconds of it and listen to the audio. Do you actually have a longer version of the clip (with audio) in a normal movie format (*.mov, *.mpg, *.avi, etc.)?

For everyone’s information, the animated gif file appears to have been created by Kent Steadman. And from what references I’ve found the animation has mostly been used to show evidence of the intentional demolition of WTC-7 not WTC-6.

By the way everyone – don’t just take my word for it - here is a much more in depth discussion about the clip being a hoax:

http://guardian.250free.com/wtc/seven/fake-explosion.htm

Sequence of the images from the hoax:

http://guardian.250free.com/wtc/seven/fake-explosion.htm

Same sequence from slightly different angle by Euro-News:

http://guardian.250free.com/wtc/seven/euro-news-seq.htm

The second clip shows clearly the collapse of WTC-2 and the formation of the cloud of dust at street level.

Finally, a PM is a “Personal Message” using this board’s Personal Message system. You can see if you have any messages by looking at the left side of the screen in the shaded bar showing how you are logged in at the top of every page of this forum.

[Steve Ulman]

I work for a civil engineering firm. A former division of our firm had a structural engineering contract with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and was involved with the structural analysis of the WTC after the bombing in ’93. I have spoken with engineers involved with that analysis and other engineers in our firm and no one has ever expressed disbelief in the “official” explanation of how and why the buildings collapsed.

Edited October 16, 2005 by Steve Ulman

[Jack White]

I work for a civil engineering firm. A former division of our firm had a structural engineering contract with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and was involved with the structural analysis of the WTC after the bombing in ’93. I have spoken with engineers involved with that analysis and other engineers in our firm and no one has ever expressed disbelief in the “official” explanation of how and why the buildings collapsed.

QUOTE: (contains quotes from engineers)

Eyewitness Reports Persist Of

Bombs At WTC Collapse

By Christopher Bollyn

Exclusive to American Free Press

12-2-1

Despite reports from numerous eyewitnesses and experts, including news reporters on the scene, who heard or saw explosions immediately before the collapse of the World Trade Center, there has been virtual silence in the mainstream media.

 

Television viewers watching the horrific events of Sept. 11 saw evidence of explosions before the towers collapsed. Televised images show what appears to be a huge explosion occurring near ground level, in the vicinity of the 47-story Salomon Brothers Building, known as WTC 7, prior to the collapse of the first tower.

 

Van Romero, an explosives expert and former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at New Mexico Tech, said on Sept. 11, "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse."

 

The collapse of the structures resembled the controlled implosions used to demolish old structures and was "too methodical to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures," Romero told The Albuquerque Journal hours after the attack.

 

Implosions are violent collapses inwards, which are used to demolish buildings in areas of high density, to prevent damage to surrounding buildings. Precision-timed explosives are placed on strategic load-bearing columns and beams to cause the controlled collapse.

 

Demolition experts say that towers are the most difficult buildings to bring down in a controlled manner. A tower tends to fall like a tree, unless the direction of its fall is controlled by directional charges. The WTC towers "smokestacked" neatly, falling within the boundaries of their foundations.

 

Skeptics say this could not have happened coincidentally and it must have been caused by strategically placed and precisely timed internal charges. Videotape images may reveal these internal charges precipitating the controlled demolition of the towers and WTC 7.

 

Romero is vice president of research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures, and often assists in forensic investigations into terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar explosions and studying the effects.

 

After being hit by the aircraft, the twin towers appeared to be stable. Then without warning, at 9:58 a.m. the south tower imploded vertically downwards, 53 minutes after being hit. At 10:28, 88 minutes after being struck, the north tower collapsed.

 

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said. If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," he said.

 

"One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device," Romero said. Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion, in this case the collision of the planes into the towers, which brings emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion.

 

Ten days after the attack, following criticism of his initial remarks, Romero did an about-face in his analysis of the collapse, "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," he told the Journal on Sept. 21.

 

The twin towers were struck by Boeing 767's carrying approximately 23,000 gallons of fuel.

 

However, there is other information that lends credence to Romero's controversial scenario. One eyewitness whose office is near the World Trade Center told AFP that he was standing among a crowd of people on Church Street, about two-and-a-half blocks from the South tower, when he saw "a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15." He saw about six of these brief flashes, accompanied by "a crackling sound" before the tower collapsed. Each tower had six central support columns.

 

One of the first firefighters in the stricken second tower, Louie Cacchioli, 51, told People Weekly on Sept. 24: "I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building."

 

Kim White, 32, an employee on the 80th floor, also reported hearing an explosion. "All of a sudden the building shook, then it started to sway. We didn't know what was going on," she told People. "We got all our people on the floor into the stairwell . . . at that time we all thought it was a fire . . .We got down as far as the 74th floor . . . then there was another explosion."

 

The accepted theory is that as the fires raged in the towers, the steel cores in each building were heated to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, causing the support beams to buckle.

 

A lead engineer who designed the World Trade Center Towers expressed shock that the towers collapsed after being hit by passenger jets.

 

"I designed it for a 707 to hit it," Lee Robertson, the project's structural engineer said. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity of more than 23,000 gallons, comparable to the 767's 23,980-gallon fuel capacity.

 

Another architect of the WTC, Aaron Swirski, lives in Israel and spoke to Jerusalem Post Radio after the attack: "It was designed around that eventuality to survive this kind of attack," he said.

 

Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the World Trade Center's construction manager, watched in confusion as the towers came down. "It was over-designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, high winds, bombings and an airplane hitting it," he said.

 

Brown told AFP that although the buildings were designed to withstand "a 150-year storm" and the im pact of a Boeing 707, he said the jet fuel burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit weakened the steel. Brown ex plained that the south tower collapsed first as it was struck lower with more weight above the impact area.

 

Brown told AFP that he "did not buy" the theory that the implosion was caused by the fires sucking the air out of the lower floors, which has been speculated.

 

The contractor who is reported to have been the first on the WTC collapse scene to cart away the rubble that remains is a company that specializes in the scientific demolition of large buildings, Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Baltimore, headed by Mark Loizeaux.

 

CDI is the same contractor that demolished and hauled away the shell of the bombed Oklahoma City Murrah building, actions that prevented independent investigators from pursuing evidence on leads suggesting that there were bombs set off inside the building.

 

In February 2000, a federal grand jury indicted Mark Loizeaux, Douglas Loizeaux and Controlled Demolition, Inc. on charges of falsely reporting campaign contributions by asking family members and CDI employees to donate to the campaign of Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.).

 

The Baltimore Sun reported that the illegal contributions allegedly occurred between 1996 and 1998. The Loizeaux brothers and CDI were acquitted in Sept ember 2000. Cleaning up the estimated 1.2 million tons of rubble will reportedly cost $7 billion and take up to a year.

 

Removing the debris has also been controversial. The police said that some scrap metal has been diverted to mob-controlled businesses rather than the dump where investigators are examining rubble for clues and human remains.

 

The second plane nearly missed the South Tower, cutting through a corner. Most of its fuel burned in an outside explosion. However, this building collapsed first, long before the North Tower, into which a similar plane entered completely.

 

 

[Evan Burton]

I work for a civil engineering firm. A former division of our firm had a structural engineering contract with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and was involved with the structural analysis of the WTC after the bombing in ’93. I have spoken with engineers involved with that analysis and other engineers in our firm and no one has ever expressed disbelief in the “official” explanation of how and why the buildings collapsed.

QUOTE: (contains quotes from engineers)

Eyewitness Reports Persist Of

Bombs At WTC Collapse

By Christopher Bollyn

Exclusive to American Free Press

12-2-1

Despite reports from numerous eyewitnesses and experts, including news reporters on the scene, who heard or saw explosions immediately before the collapse of the World Trade Center, there has been virtual silence in the mainstream media.

 

Television viewers watching the horrific events of Sept. 11 saw evidence of explosions before the towers collapsed. Televised images show what appears to be a huge explosion occurring near ground level, in the vicinity of the 47-story Salomon Brothers Building, known as WTC 7, prior to the collapse of the first tower.

 

Van Romero, an explosives expert and former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at New Mexico Tech, said on Sept. 11, "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse."

 

The collapse of the structures resembled the controlled implosions used to demolish old structures and was "too methodical to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures," Romero told The Albuquerque Journal hours after the attack.

 

Implosions are violent collapses inwards, which are used to demolish buildings in areas of high density, to prevent damage to surrounding buildings. Precision-timed explosives are placed on strategic load-bearing columns and beams to cause the controlled collapse.

 

Demolition experts say that towers are the most difficult buildings to bring down in a controlled manner. A tower tends to fall like a tree, unless the direction of its fall is controlled by directional charges. The WTC towers "smokestacked" neatly, falling within the boundaries of their foundations.

 

Skeptics say this could not have happened coincidentally and it must have been caused by strategically placed and precisely timed internal charges. Videotape images may reveal these internal charges precipitating the controlled demolition of the towers and WTC 7.

 

Romero is vice president of research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures, and often assists in forensic investigations into terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar explosions and studying the effects.

 

After being hit by the aircraft, the twin towers appeared to be stable. Then without warning, at 9:58 a.m. the south tower imploded vertically downwards, 53 minutes after being hit. At 10:28, 88 minutes after being struck, the north tower collapsed.

 

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said. If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," he said.

 

"One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device," Romero said. Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion, in this case the collision of the planes into the towers, which brings emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion.

 

Ten days after the attack, following criticism of his initial remarks, Romero did an about-face in his analysis of the collapse, "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," he told the Journal on Sept. 21.

 

The twin towers were struck by Boeing 767's carrying approximately 23,000 gallons of fuel.

 

However, there is other information that lends credence to Romero's controversial scenario. One eyewitness whose office is near the World Trade Center told AFP that he was standing among a crowd of people on Church Street, about two-and-a-half blocks from the South tower, when he saw "a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15." He saw about six of these brief flashes, accompanied by "a crackling sound" before the tower collapsed. Each tower had six central support columns.

 

One of the first firefighters in the stricken second tower, Louie Cacchioli, 51, told People Weekly on Sept. 24: "I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building."

 

Kim White, 32, an employee on the 80th floor, also reported hearing an explosion. "All of a sudden the building shook, then it started to sway. We didn't know what was going on," she told People. "We got all our people on the floor into the stairwell . . . at that time we all thought it was a fire . . .We got down as far as the 74th floor . . . then there was another explosion."

 

The accepted theory is that as the fires raged in the towers, the steel cores in each building were heated to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, causing the support beams to buckle.

 

A lead engineer who designed the World Trade Center Towers expressed shock that the towers collapsed after being hit by passenger jets.

 

"I designed it for a 707 to hit it," Lee Robertson, the project's structural engineer said. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity of more than 23,000 gallons, comparable to the 767's 23,980-gallon fuel capacity.

 

Another architect of the WTC, Aaron Swirski, lives in Israel and spoke to Jerusalem Post Radio after the attack: "It was designed around that eventuality to survive this kind of attack," he said.

 

Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the World Trade Center's construction manager, watched in confusion as the towers came down. "It was over-designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, high winds, bombings and an airplane hitting it," he said.

 

Brown told AFP that although the buildings were designed to withstand "a 150-year storm" and the im pact of a Boeing 707, he said the jet fuel burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit weakened the steel. Brown ex plained that the south tower collapsed first as it was struck lower with more weight above the impact area.

 

Brown told AFP that he "did not buy" the theory that the implosion was caused by the fires sucking the air out of the lower floors, which has been speculated.

 

The contractor who is reported to have been the first on the WTC collapse scene to cart away the rubble that remains is a company that specializes in the scientific demolition of large buildings, Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Baltimore, headed by Mark Loizeaux.

 

CDI is the same contractor that demolished and hauled away the shell of the bombed Oklahoma City Murrah building, actions that prevented independent investigators from pursuing evidence on leads suggesting that there were bombs set off inside the building.

 

In February 2000, a federal grand jury indicted Mark Loizeaux, Douglas Loizeaux and Controlled Demolition, Inc. on charges of falsely reporting campaign contributions by asking family members and CDI employees to donate to the campaign of Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.).

 

The Baltimore Sun reported that the illegal contributions allegedly occurred between 1996 and 1998. The Loizeaux brothers and CDI were acquitted in Sept ember 2000. Cleaning up the estimated 1.2 million tons of rubble will reportedly cost $7 billion and take up to a year.

 

Removing the debris has also been controversial. The police said that some scrap metal has been diverted to mob-controlled businesses rather than the dump where investigators are examining rubble for clues and human remains.

 

The second plane nearly missed the South Tower, cutting through a corner. Most of its fuel burned in an outside explosion. However, this building collapsed first, long before the North Tower, into which a similar plane entered completely.

 

 

Ah, the (in)famous Romero comment. What else did he have to say about it?

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

You should try reading this article:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=4&c=y

[Jack White]

I work for a civil engineering firm. A former division of our firm had a structural engineering contract with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and was involved with the structural analysis of the WTC after the bombing in ’93. I have spoken with engineers involved with that analysis and other engineers in our firm and no one has ever expressed disbelief in the “official” explanation of how and why the buildings collapsed.

QUOTE: (contains quotes from engineers)

Eyewitness Reports Persist Of

Bombs At WTC Collapse

By Christopher Bollyn

Exclusive to American Free Press

12-2-1

Despite reports from numerous eyewitnesses and experts, including news reporters on the scene, who heard or saw explosions immediately before the collapse of the World Trade Center, there has been virtual silence in the mainstream media.

 

Television viewers watching the horrific events of Sept. 11 saw evidence of explosions before the towers collapsed. Televised images show what appears to be a huge explosion occurring near ground level, in the vicinity of the 47-story Salomon Brothers Building, known as WTC 7, prior to the collapse of the first tower.

 

Van Romero, an explosives expert and former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at New Mexico Tech, said on Sept. 11, "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse."

 

The collapse of the structures resembled the controlled implosions used to demolish old structures and was "too methodical to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures," Romero told The Albuquerque Journal hours after the attack.

 

Implosions are violent collapses inwards, which are used to demolish buildings in areas of high density, to prevent damage to surrounding buildings. Precision-timed explosives are placed on strategic load-bearing columns and beams to cause the controlled collapse.

 

Demolition experts say that towers are the most difficult buildings to bring down in a controlled manner. A tower tends to fall like a tree, unless the direction of its fall is controlled by directional charges. The WTC towers "smokestacked" neatly, falling within the boundaries of their foundations.

 

Skeptics say this could not have happened coincidentally and it must have been caused by strategically placed and precisely timed internal charges. Videotape images may reveal these internal charges precipitating the controlled demolition of the towers and WTC 7.

 

Romero is vice president of research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures, and often assists in forensic investigations into terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar explosions and studying the effects.

 

After being hit by the aircraft, the twin towers appeared to be stable. Then without warning, at 9:58 a.m. the south tower imploded vertically downwards, 53 minutes after being hit. At 10:28, 88 minutes after being struck, the north tower collapsed.

 

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said. If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," he said.

 

"One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device," Romero said. Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion, in this case the collision of the planes into the towers, which brings emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion.

 

Ten days after the attack, following criticism of his initial remarks, Romero did an about-face in his analysis of the collapse, "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," he told the Journal on Sept. 21.

 

The twin towers were struck by Boeing 767's carrying approximately 23,000 gallons of fuel.

 

However, there is other information that lends credence to Romero's controversial scenario. One eyewitness whose office is near the World Trade Center told AFP that he was standing among a crowd of people on Church Street, about two-and-a-half blocks from the South tower, when he saw "a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15." He saw about six of these brief flashes, accompanied by "a crackling sound" before the tower collapsed. Each tower had six central support columns.

 

One of the first firefighters in the stricken second tower, Louie Cacchioli, 51, told People Weekly on Sept. 24: "I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building."

 

Kim White, 32, an employee on the 80th floor, also reported hearing an explosion. "All of a sudden the building shook, then it started to sway. We didn't know what was going on," she told People. "We got all our people on the floor into the stairwell . . . at that time we all thought it was a fire . . .We got down as far as the 74th floor . . . then there was another explosion."

 

The accepted theory is that as the fires raged in the towers, the steel cores in each building were heated to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, causing the support beams to buckle.

 

A lead engineer who designed the World Trade Center Towers expressed shock that the towers collapsed after being hit by passenger jets.

 

"I designed it for a 707 to hit it," Lee Robertson, the project's structural engineer said. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity of more than 23,000 gallons, comparable to the 767's 23,980-gallon fuel capacity.

 

Another architect of the WTC, Aaron Swirski, lives in Israel and spoke to Jerusalem Post Radio after the attack: "It was designed around that eventuality to survive this kind of attack," he said.

 

Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the World Trade Center's construction manager, watched in confusion as the towers came down. "It was over-designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, high winds, bombings and an airplane hitting it," he said.

 

Brown told AFP that although the buildings were designed to withstand "a 150-year storm" and the im pact of a Boeing 707, he said the jet fuel burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit weakened the steel. Brown ex plained that the south tower collapsed first as it was struck lower with more weight above the impact area.

 

Brown told AFP that he "did not buy" the theory that the implosion was caused by the fires sucking the air out of the lower floors, which has been speculated.

 

The contractor who is reported to have been the first on the WTC collapse scene to cart away the rubble that remains is a company that specializes in the scientific demolition of large buildings, Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Baltimore, headed by Mark Loizeaux.

 

CDI is the same contractor that demolished and hauled away the shell of the bombed Oklahoma City Murrah building, actions that prevented independent investigators from pursuing evidence on leads suggesting that there were bombs set off inside the building.

 

In February 2000, a federal grand jury indicted Mark Loizeaux, Douglas Loizeaux and Controlled Demolition, Inc. on charges of falsely reporting campaign contributions by asking family members and CDI employees to donate to the campaign of Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.).

 

The Baltimore Sun reported that the illegal contributions allegedly occurred between 1996 and 1998. The Loizeaux brothers and CDI were acquitted in Sept ember 2000. Cleaning up the estimated 1.2 million tons of rubble will reportedly cost $7 billion and take up to a year.

 

Removing the debris has also been controversial. The police said that some scrap metal has been diverted to mob-controlled businesses rather than the dump where investigators are examining rubble for clues and human remains.

 

The second plane nearly missed the South Tower, cutting through a corner. Most of its fuel burned in an outside explosion. However, this building collapsed first, long before the North Tower, into which a similar plane entered completely.

 

 

Ah, the (in)famous Romero comment. What else did he have to say about it?

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

You should try reading this article:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=4&c=y

The article was read and discounted. Popular Mechanics is a CIA mouthpiece.

Ben Chertoff, the chief editor of the Popular Mechanics 9/11 hit piece, is the cousin

of Michael Chertoff, the new Homeland Security Czar. Coincidence?

Only the gullible believe the PM pap.

Jack

[Matthew Lewis]

Amazing Jack! You can discount something just because an editor happens to have a certain relative. What about the facts in the article?

[Jack White]

Amazing Jack! You can discount something just because an editor happens to have a certain relative. What about the facts in the article?

Simple...I read the article. The fact that the author is related to

a Bush appointee surely is just coincidence.

Jack

Edited October 17, 2005 by Jack White

[Jack White]

SPANISH SKYSCRAPER FIRE RAISES

QUESTIONS ABOUT 9/11 COLLAPSES

By Christopher Bollyn

American Free Press

The fact that a Spanish skyscraper is still standing after an intense

fire consumed the steel and concrete tower for 24 hours provides real

world evidence that fire alone does not cause high-rise towers to

collapse.

As an intense fire consumed the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid's

business district, the press reports all began with the words "fear

of collapse." After 24 hours, however, the tower, which was a similar

construction to the twin towers of the World Trade Center, remained

standing.

The fact that an extremely severe fire did not cause the Spanish

steel and concrete tower to collapse raises serious questions about

the events of 9/11 and how they have been explained. Why did the

Windsor Building remain standing when similar towers in New York City

collapsed completely after being affected by much less intense fires

burning for considerably shorter periods of time?

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) sponsored engineers to

conduct the World Trade Center Building Performance Study (BPS) to

examine how the buildings of the WTC responded to the airplane

crashes and fires that allegedly caused the collapses of the twin

towers and WTC 7, a 47-story office building on the next block.

"Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of

fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings," the

BPS says in the chapter about the mysterious collapse of WTC 7, the

third tower to collapse on 9/11. WTC 7 was not hit by aircraft or

large pieces of debris and had only sporadic fires. At about 5:25

p.m., WTC 7, owned by Larry Silverstein, collapsed in what appeared

to be a controlled demolition.

It would be more accurate to say that no steel framed high-rise, like

WTC 7, has ever collapsed due to fire. The fact that the Windsor

Building is still standing is proof that fire alone does not cause

properly constructed steel and concrete towers to collapse.

Dr. W. Gene Corley, Senior Vice President of Construction Technology

Laboratories (CTL) of Skokie, Ill., was team leader of the engineers

who wrote the BPS.

CTL is a subsidiary of the Portland Cement Association and "provides

structural and architectural engineering, testing, and materials

technology services throughout the U.S. and internationally."

According to its website, "CTL’s expertise extends beyond cement and

concrete, encompassing virtually all structural systems and

construction materials."

WACO, OKLAHOMA CITY, AND WTC

Corley served as expert adviser during the government's investigation

of the 1993 fatal fire at the Branch Davidian complex in Waco, Texas.

In 1995, Corley led a Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT)

investigation of the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in

Oklahoma City. In September 2001, once again, Corley was selected to

head the team to study building performance after the attack on New

York’s World Trade Center.

In the executive summary of the WTC study, Corley wrote that

secondary fires caused the twin towers to collapse:

"The heat produced by this burning jet fuel does not by itself appear

to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapses.

However, as the burning jet fuel spread across several floors of the

buildings, it ignited much of the buildings' contents, causing

simultaneous fires across several floors of both buildings," Corley

wrote. "Over a period of many minutes, this heat induced additional

stresses into the damaged structural frames while simultaneously

softening and weakening these frames. This additional loading and the

resulting damage were sufficient to induce the collapse of both

structures."

In the section that deals with the collapse of the twin towers, the

BPS says: "Because the aircraft impacts into the two buildings are

not believed to have been sufficient to cause collapse without the

ensuing fires, the obvious question is whether the fires alone,

without the damage from the aircraft impact, would have been

sufficient to cause such a collapse…it is impossible, without

extensive modeling and other analysis, to make a credible prediction

of how the buildings would have responded to an extremely severe fire

in a situation where there was no prior structural damage."

The Windsor Building fire in Madrid provides an excellent real-world

model to show how the twin towers should have responded to "an

extremely severe fire" alone. The Windsor Building has central

support columns in its core section, which is similar to the

construction of the twin towers. This central core is what supported

the gravity load of the towers.

In the Windsor Building fire, the fire is thought to have started on

the 21st floor late on Saturday night, Feb. 12. The upper floors were

consumed by intense fire for at least 18 hours. The fire moved down

the building and burned the entire structure. The fire is reported to

have burned temperatures of at 800 degrees Celsius, or nearly 1,500

degrees Fahrenheit.

There was a partial collapse of parts of the top 10 floors as the

trusses, which went from the core columns to the outside walls,

appear to have failed. It is important to note, however, that the

lower floors did not collapse and the core section is still standing

with a construction crane on the roof.

The complete failure of the 47-central support columns in the twin

towers of the WTC is one of the key outstanding questions about what

caused their collapses. It would be expected that they should have

remained standing even if some of the floor trusses failed. There is

no explanation for what caused the huge box columns to fail.

Two of the contractors who removed the rubble told AFP that they had

found molten steel in the 7th basement level when they reached the

bedrock where the columns were based. There is no explanation for

what caused such intense residual heat to be found at the base of the

twin towers, although some experts have pointed to powerful

explosives.

By press time, Dr. Corley had not responded to questions about the

BPS findings and the questions raised by the Windsor Building fire.

Corley's assistant told AFP that he had just gone to the airport and

would not be returning to the office until Feb. 28.

The Windsor Building was built from 1973-1979 in an area of Madrid

where commercial property was developed on land owned by Rio Tinto,

the international mining giant. This is thought to be the reason why

the Windsor Building carries the name of the British royal family.

The WTC towers were completed in the early 1970's.

The Windsor Building housed the offices of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu,

a multinational financial services company, which occupied 20 floors

of the tower.

The area where the Windsor Building stands is a mixed residential and

commercial area known as the AZCA zone. Dubbed 'Madrid's Manhattan',

AZCA contains a cluster of modern skyscrapers. The tallest one is the

Torre Picasso, a 516-foot tower built in 1989. The Picasso Tower was

designed by Minoru Yamasaki, who also designed the twin towers of the

WTC. Unión de Explosivos Río Tinto, S.A., owns the land where the

tower stands.

Finis

The Windsor Building (Edificio Windsor) in Madrid, Spain burned "like

a torch" for more than 18 hours from Saturday night, Feb. 12. After

burning in an uncontrolled inferno the tower's core columns remain

standing with a huge construction crane on top of the roof. This

evidence supports the fact that prior to 9/11 NO steel-framed high-

rise had ever collapsed due to fire. On 9/11 the 47-story WTC 7,

owned by Larry Silverstein, collapsed at 5:25 p.m. There is no

explanation for why the WTC 7 collapsed except for the fact that

Silverstein told PBS that the decision was made to "pull it" and "we

watched it come down."

[Evan Burton]

Since your story quotes Dr Corely as an authoritive source, leader of the BPS Team, perhaps it would be a good idea to read his testimony before the US House of Representatives, where he does not get misquoted or taken out of context:

http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full...ay01/corley.pdf

***************************

Preliminary analyses of the damaged structures, together with the fact the structures remained standing for an extended period of time, suggest that, absent other severe loading events, such as a windstorm or earthquake, the buildings could have remained standing in their damaged states until subjected to some significant additional load. However, the structures were subjected to a second, simultaneous severe loading event in the form of the fires caused by the aircraft impacts.

The large quantity of jet fuel carried by each aircraft ignited upon impact into each building. A significant portion of this fuel was consumed immediately in the ensuing fireballs. The remaining fuel is believed either to have flowed down through the buildings or to have burned off within a few minutes of the aircraft impact. The heat produced by this burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapses. However, as the burning jet fuel spread across several floors of the buildings, it ignited much of the buildings' contents, permitting fires to evolve across several floors of the buildings simultaneously. The heat output from these fires is estimated to have been comparable to the power produced by a large commercial generating station. Over a period of many minutes, this heat induced additional stresses into the damaged structural frames while simultaneously softening and weakening these frames. This additional loading and damage were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures.

Studies of WTC 7 indicate that the collapse began in the lower stories, either through failure of major load transfer members located above an electrical substation structure or in columns in the stories above the transfer structure. Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why the building imploded, with collapse initiating at an interior location. The collapse may have then spread to the west, causing interior members to continue collapsing. The building at this point may have had extensive interior structural failures that then led to the collapse of the overall building, including the cantilever transfer girders along the north elevation, the strong diaphragms at the 5th and 7th floors, and the seat connections between the interior beams and columns at the building perimeter.

******************

Although they cannot identify a specific cause for the WTC 7 collapse, they do not mention explosives once, despite having reviewed the video footage extensively.

Edited October 17, 2005 by Evan Burton

[Len Colby]

Amazing Jack! You can discount something just because an editor happens to have a certain relative. What about the facts in the article?

Simple...I read the article. The fact that the author is related to

a Bush appointee surely is just coincidence.

Jack

Jack if you want to dismiss the entire PM article just because it's editor is related to a Bush appointee you should dismiss everything by Bollyn and the American Free Press, they are neo-Nazis.

Bollyn is the only person comparing the Windsor Building's construction and fire. He does not provide any references for his various claims including:

-The fires burned at 800 Celsius/1500 Fahrenheit

-The Madrid fire was far more intense than the WTC fires

-The Windsor building is supported by a central core.

-"no steel framed high-rise, like WTC 7, has ever collapsed due to fire"

-"It would be expected that they [the WTC's central column] should have remained standing even if some of the floor trusses failed."

-"WTC 7, owned by Larry Silverstein, collapsed in what appeared to be a controlled demolition."

He is wrong on some major points:

-He said "The Windsor Building has central support columns in its core section, which is similar to the

construction of the twin towers. This central core is what supported the gravity load of the towers."

However much of the WTC's gravity load was supported by its outer walls. The outer walls of course were severely damaged by the impact of the jets.

-He also insists that the official story is that the fires alone caused the towers to collapse. A combination of the fires and the damage sustained due the impact of the planes is blamed

-Again he says fire alone is blamed for WTC7's collapse. Falling debris is also blamed.

-"There is no explanation for what caused the [the WTC towers] huge box columns to fail." - This is discussed in the FEMA/ASCE report

What about the scientists and firemen quoted in the PM article Jack are they all part of the NWO too?

Edited October 17, 2005 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

The article was read and discounted.

- If you have any rebuttals to points made in the article we love to see them.

Popular Mechanics is a CIA mouthpiece.

- Do you have any evidence to back this claim?

Ben Chertoff, the chief editor of the Popular Mechanics 9/11 hit piece,

- Do you have any evidence to back this claim? There is no reference to him in the article. The only description of his job title at PM is "researcher"

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.po...GLG:en&filter=0

http://www.popularmechanics.com/specials/f...html?page=2&c=y

According to PM the article was written by "the editors" the editor is James Miegs.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1230517.html

is the cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new Homeland Security Czar.

- Do you have any evidence to back this claim?

Some people wrote into PM saying Chertoff edited the article and that he is the Nat. Sec. Director's cousin and I have seen the same claim on various CT site always with zero substantiation.

Even if true this proves nothing. Do you have any evidence that Ben C is under Michael C's sway?

Isn't it common for members of the same family to hold differing political views? - John Wilkes Booth's family supported the Union, Schartzernagger is married to Schriver, I think most of us have cousins we disagree with etc.

M. Chertoff hardly seems to be a NWO fanatic. When Clinton became President Chertoff was kept on as federal prosecutor for NJ at the request of liberal Democrat Bill Bradley, he was the only prosecutor not replaced. Sen. Charles Schumer another liberal Democrat praised him, Hillary Clinton was the only Senator to vote against his confirmation. She did so not because of ideology but because of the way he treated some White House staffers during the White Water investigation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chertoff and http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?str...intcategoryid=5

If you want to discount the PM article you will have to do a lot better than showing one of the mag's employees, who may or may not have been involved in writing it, has the same last name as a Bush appointee with widespread support among Democrats.

Only the gullible believe the PM pap.

This from a guy who cites Tom Floco who makes all sorts of ridiculous claims without any substantiation.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Jack, Len, Evan, Steve et al.

I have no points to make on the collapse of the WTC biuldings, However I do have a series of pertinent questions to ask at this juncture. (I shall flesh them out over the next couple of days.) Any debate, exchange of knowledge would be most welcome.

1,Was America taken by surprise, and if so why?

2,Where was the president at the time of the first strike?

3,Did the president see the first tower struck, and if so how?

4,Who knew what, and when did they know it?

5,What did Andrew Card tell the President?

6,What is the role of the S/S in protecting the Presidents life. (Protocol)

7,If Airforce one is under threat why go on board? (Protocol)

8, Interceptor Jets, asleep at the wheel? (protocol)

9, Hide and seek, just where did the president go?

10, Just what did happen to flight 93?

I have a whole lot more, but these will do for a start. Steve.

[Jack White]

Steve...clearly you have done your homework! All excellent

questions! All answers are embarrassing to Bush and those

promoting the official story. I am busy this afternoon, but

will respond more later when I have more time!

Jack

Jack's websites:

http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/oldftw/oldftw.htm

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies109.htm

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

http://users.skynet.be/copweb/jfk/A%20Trib...ack%20White.htm