FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Maggie Hansen]

But Michael - and now Maggie - say that I didn't adequately answer the question. I asked why, or in what respect. Neither Michael nor Maggie seems to have told me. I thought Len covered it pretty well.

If someone - anyone - would like to tell me what more they'd like to know, I'll do my best to answer. As I have said repeatedly.

Okay Evan.

Why did the Hanjour plane do the turn? I understand that planes in normal circumstances need to make approaches to certain runways and will also depend on weather conditions like wind also.

In the case of Hanjour it is not a normal situation. It is a disposable plane landing on a vertical runway with out traffic control in pretty perfect weather. He doesn't need any one else's permission for anything he can do what he likes. He is apparently in control of the plane since at least 9.24 am when the FAA knew for sure that his flight was missing and by some accounts notified the NORAD At 9.29 am he is flying at 7,000 feet and is about 38 miles west of the Pentagon. He can drop altitude any time from here and just cruise in to the side of the Pentagon or in the middle or where ever he wants to park it. Point and aim. No need for any tricky maneuvers. He does not have to stay high and then drop 1 mile out (or what ever it was) and do the turn to get down. He was heading towards the pentagon anyway he just needed to adjust a few degrees and drop down along the way. Impact at 9.37am. Eight minutes is plenty of time to descend.

The reason for the turn as I understand it and Evan tried to explain is that Hanjour who was not a good pilot was too high up to hit his target. Making a steep dive from that altitude and hitting the Pentagon would have almost certainly been beyond his abilities.

Do you have proof of this? Where is the documentation? One minute you seem to be saying that he was actually quite a good pilot or better than others may think and yet you are also seem to be saying he wasn't such a good pilot. Consistency not your forte? As Craig Lamson would say.

Making a long turn gave him greater distance to loose altitude. This is roughly analogous to mountain roads and trails zigzagging along a steep slope rather than going straight up/down it. As to why he didn’t descend earlier as Matthew pointed out the only person who can answer that is dead.

Indeed. As Matthew Lewis has clearly stated in his response and what is known for an absolute fact is that it was entirely possible for this plane to descend in a straight line over a 9 minute period and reach its target without the need for any turning. Hanjour had the skills to do this but didn't.

More experienced pilots have made similar errors. For example the pilots of Wellstone’s plane where too high and too fast in there initial approach and this was while they were still in radio contact, not even Fetzer (AFAIK) has disputed this. Strawman.

Speaking of unanswered questions, I previously asked you why the plane made the turn if it was being flown remotely by the plotters?

Moderators please note the red herring by Len Colby. I made no mention of remote controls in any of my writings here. This is a diversionary tactic that I have seen Len Colby use many times. Putting word into my mouth that I did not speak.

The easiest thing in that case would have been to have it fly straight. Whoever was flying made the turn it seems because they screwed up. Who was more likely to have done so, Hanjour who by all accounts was a poor pilot or the plotters who had years to plan there elaborate almost perfect scheme?

I cannot answer your question. I have no idea what you are talking about Len or why you ask me. Who are these plotters you refer to? I know nothing about remote controlled planes. I suggest you ask someone who does know about remote controlled planes. I do not pretend to be an expert or 'advisor'.

Edited August 12, 2008 by Maggie Hansen

[Evan Burton]

Okay Evan.

Why did the Hanjour plane do the turn? I understand that planes in normal circumstances need to make approaches to certain runways and will also depend on weather conditions like wind also.

In the case of Hanjour it is not a normal situation. It is a disposable plane landing on a vertical runway with out traffic control in pretty perfect weather. He doesn't need any one else's permission for anything he can do what he likes. He is apparently in control of the plane since at least 9.24 am when the FAA knew for sure that his flight was missing and by some accounts notified the NORAD At 9.29 am he is flying at 7,000 feet and is about 38 miles west of the Pentagon. He can drop altitude any time from here and just cruise in to the side of the Pentagon or in the middle or where ever he wants to park it. Point and aim. No need for any tricky maneuvers. He does not have to stay high and then drop 1 mile out (or what ever it was) and do the turn to get down. He was heading towards the pentagon anyway he just needed to adjust a few degrees and drop down along the way. Impact at 9.37am. Eight minutes is plenty of time to descend.

Oh, fine - I thought I had answered but I'll go into greater detail. Firstly, no-one can be sure. I'll give you what I consider to be the most likely explanation.

Secondly, I haven't checked your distances / heights / locations against records, but I'll accept them as accurate unless shown otherwise.

Now, a rough guide for a normal approach wants to put you overhead at about 1000 feet. You then work out your descent point based on your cruising altitude and expected ground speed. A normal descent will be at 1000 feet per minute, though often people use a higher rate of 1500. Let's say you are at Flight Level 310 (31,000 feet). You want to be at 1000 feet, so you have to lose 30,000 feet. At 1000 feet per minute rate of descent, it will take you 30 minutes. Next we apply the ground speed. I don't know the actual ground speed during descent, but let's say 300 knots for this example. 300 knots is 5 nautical miles per minute. You are going to need 30 minutes to descend, so 30 minutes x 5 nautical miles per minute = 150 nautical miles away is when you start your descent.

Other people use the 3-6 rule: 3 times your altitude (in 1000s of feet), 6 times your ground speed. Using that in my example: 30,000 feet = 30 x 3 = 90 nautical is your descent point, and a ground speed of 300 knots is 300 x 6 = 1800 feet per minute. As you can see, this has a greater rate of descent and so descends closer.

Now, you say he was at about 7000 at 0929. The record supports that. However, 7 minutes before that they were at 25,000 feet. They lost 18,000 feet in 7 minutes - about a descent rate of 2500 fpm at a steady rate. Then, for the next 5 minutes (0929 - 0934), the aircraft waivered between about 6000 feet and 9000 feet (Reference: NTSB analysis). At around 0934 it was at 8000 feet.

Between 0928 and 0935 the aircraft had an airspeed of about 300 knots. I'll use a similar groundspeed although it is not 100% accurate; there are a few knots difference. 300 knots is 5 nautical miles per minute.

So at 0929 he is 38 nautical miles away at about 7000 feet. At 0934 he was about 13 nautical miles away (5 mins x 5nm/min = 25 nm; 38nm - 25nm = 13nm) and at 8000 feet. At this point he increased speed up to about 450 knots (7.5nm per min) but let's look at this time.

13 nautical miles away at 8000 feet at at least 300 knots (5nm per min). That means he is now 2.6 minutes away from the Pentagon. 8000 feet in 2.6 minutes is over 3000 feet per minute.

Therefore Hanjour realises he is far too high for his experience level, and concerned that he might miss his target by making a too steep approach, makes a descending turn in order to make a much flatter approach to the Pentagon.

I hope this makes things clearer for you.

[Len Colby]

Your reply is one of someone who has nothing to add to the discussion. If and when you can state what doubts (if any) remain about Hanjour’s ability to have flown the 757 into the Pentagon get back to us.

Len,

Michael has contributed constructively to this discussion.

I respectfully disagree I think you added to the discussion so did Evan, Matthew and I. All that Michael added was insults and saying your question remained unanswered without being able to explain why he felt that way.

I find your response to be rude and a personal attack on a member.

No my reply was not very polite, but then as even he acknowledges he was quite rude to me as well. If you failed to take that into consideration it must be because of your bias. He claims I “started it” but I don’t think saying someone’s position is “nonsense” is insulting. John made it clear that one of the reasons for this forum is for people to debate controversial ideas about which they disagree. He said a member's position was nonsense, was that an insult?

[Len Colby]

The reason for the turn as I understand it and Evan tried to explain is that Hanjour who was not a good pilot was too high up to hit his target. Making a steep dive from that altitude and hitting the Pentagon would have almost certainly been beyond his abilities.

Do you have proof of this? Where is the documentation?

Documentation for Hanjour being a poor pilot? I don't think that's in dispute. As for a steep dive being difficult, Evan who is a pilot already commented on that, I've been told this on aviation forums by other pilots. Here's another reference:

"Striking a stationary object -- even a large one like the Pentagon -- at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon's lawn."

Patrick Smith, Airline Pilot in his Salon column http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/0...askthepilot186/

One minute you seem to be saying that he was actually quite a good pilot or better than others may think and yet you are also seem to be saying he wasn't such a good pilot.

The 1st part of the sentence is a strawman leading to a false contradiction. My position is that he wasn't as bad as "truthers" make out nor was hitting the Pentagon which was almost 1500 wide as difficult as they claim.

Consistency not your forte? As Craig Lamson would say.

I doubt he'd say that about me AFAIK he never has and we've "virtually" know each other for about 3 years. As noted above there is no inconsistency in my position. He was good enough to do something relatively easy poorly, he probably wasn't good enough to do something difficult.

Making a long turn gave him greater distance to loose altitude. This is roughly analogous to mountain roads and trails zigzagging along a steep slope rather than going straight up/down it. As to why he didn’t descend earlier as Matthew pointed out the only person who can answer that is dead.

Indeed. As Matthew Lewis has clearly stated in his response and what is known for an absolute fact is that it was entirely possible for this plane to descend in a straight line over a 9 minute period and reach its target without the need for any turning. Hanjour had the skills to do this but didn't.

And since he is dead and apparently the CVR tape was useless we will never know exactly why he didn't. Matthew provided one reasonable explanation as to why he might have done this noe Evan has as well. The exact reason for the error is not that important. I've read quite a few NTSB accident reports it is not uncommon for them to be unable to determine why certain mistakes were made. It's not really a conundrum. He was a bad inexperienced pilot and he made error. It would have been more suspicious if he'd managed to do everything as perfectly as a veteran airline pilot with decades of experience flying 757's to Washington National.

More experienced pilots have made similar errors. For example the pilots of Wellstone’s plane where too high and too fast in there initial approach and this was while they were still in radio contact, not even Fetzer (AFAIK) has disputed this.

Strawman.

No, quite relevant for reasons I thought obvious. You seem to think it is a mystery that a poor inexperienced pilot made a blunder. I was pointing out that far more qualified pilots have done like wise and worse. An Eastern flight crashed near Miami because the flight crew failed to notice the autopilot disengaged and the plane was descending. They were distracted by a landing gear light which didn’t come on but there were 4 people on board to deal with this, the pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer and an Eastern mechanic who was flying jumpseat. An Avicana flight crashed because the crew didn’t tell the control tower they were low on fuel till it was too late. I can go on and on about accidents caused by flight crews exponentially more skilled than Hanjour making far more serious errors.

Speaking of unanswered questions, I previously asked you why the plane made the turn if it was being flown remotely by the plotters?

Moderators please note the red herring by Len Colby. I made no mention of remote controls in any of my writings here. This is a diversionary tactic that I have seen Len Colby use many times. Putting word into my mouth that I did not speak.

Perhaps I misunderstood your position. You don’t seem to believe Hanjour was the pilot. The most common alternate explanations are that the 757 was remote controlled or that it was really a remote controlled drone/missile/UAV etc. The only other alternate theory is that it was flown by an Israeli kamikazee.

The easiest thing in that case would have been to have it fly straight. Whoever was flying made the turn it seems because they screwed up. Who was more likely to have done so, Hanjour who by all accounts was a poor pilot or the plotters who had years to plan there elaborate almost perfect scheme?

I cannot answer your question. I have no idea what you are talking about Len or why you ask me. Who are these plotters you refer to? I know nothing about remote controlled planes. I suggest you ask someone who does know about remote controlled planes. I do not pretend to be an expert or 'advisor'.

As above perhaps I misunderstood what you were driving at. Do you think Hanjour was flying or not? If not what alternate theories do you think likely?

Please note that I’m not responding with the hostile tone of your post. I don’t remember ever displaying such hostility to you. Take this into consideration in your reply.

[Evan Burton]

Could people stop arguing and return to the thread, please.

Len: I don't consider Michael's answer to me to be an insult, so no need to treat it as one. Thank you.

[Len Colby]

Evan see my reply elsewhere

[Paul Rigby]

My favourite: in part 2, approximately 17 minutes from end, the enormous moving bridge!

http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice

[Peter McKenna]

My favourite: in part 2, approximately 17 minutes from end, the enormous moving bridge!

http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice

Haven't got to the end yet, but the out of synch visual and sound streams between ABC and CBS may be due to the digital delay in one or more of their satellite feeds or the difference in either digital delay or compression between the two signals being slightly out of adjustment. News steams that are digitally broadcast have built in digital delays to allow for signal multiplexing and compression, and then decoding and synching with other streams, like at an anchor desk in a different location. The digital delay should also require adjustment during a new broadcast, or an out of synch conditon may result (just as observed). The digital delay also allows for signal encryption and communications protection. This is a normal condition in digital communications.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=113590

I haven't looked at the 17 minutes from the end piece yet.

[Mike Williams]

My favourite: in part 2, approximately 17 minutes from end, the enormous moving bridge!

http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice

Haven't got to the end yet, but the out of synch visual and sound streams between ABC and CBS may be due to the digital delay in one or more of their satellite feeds or the difference in either digital delay or compression between the two signals being slightly out of adjustment. News steams that are digitally broadcast have built in digital delays to allow for signal multiplexing and compression, and then decoding and synching with other streams, like at an anchor desk in a different location. The digital delay should also require adjustment during a new broadcast, or an out of synch conditon may result (just as observed). The digital delay also allows for signal encryption and communications protection. This is a normal condition in digital communications.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=113590

I haven't looked at the 17 minutes from the end piece yet.

Peter,

You should never have mentioned the audio and video synch issue.....Rigby would never have noticed.

Mike

[Peter McKenna]

My favourite: in part 2, approximately 17 minutes from end, the enormous moving bridge!

http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice

OK, now that I've seen it, I think it's safe to say, the accusation of "video trickery" in the video feeds of the WTC 1 and 2 attack and collapse, is one of the more desperate and imaginative claims made. Which is saying something.

The Verrazano Bridge is said to be about 2-1/2 miles away from the WTC (in the feed). The bridge is about two miles long (roughly). That means that pretty much any change in perspective in the video streams for 9/11 will provide a different view of the bridge. The youtube presentation tries to imply that the bridge is far enough away that these changes in perspective (along with others images in the screen) prove "image layering", when all that it should mean is a change in the location of the camera.

I'm not a photography expert, but I think its safe to say that minor changes in perspective, keeping the WTC in full frame, would result in the observed changes, instead of being, as these people claim, proof of fakery. Besides, what would be the point? That the whole attack was a put up job? That the tens of thousands of people who saw the second plane hit were deluded? That the masses of film on the second strike were all faked? And everyone involved is in on it? Sure, great, In that case, you should know that the Verrazano Bridge does move, and you can purchase it, take it home with you, and enjoy it, for a very reasonable fee.

This is definitely one of the more entertaining of the 9/11 claims.

Edited August 15, 2008 by Peter McKenna

[Mike Williams]

My favourite: in part 2, approximately 17 minutes from end, the enormous moving bridge!

http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice

OK, now that I've seen it, I think it's safe to say, the accusation of "video trickery" in the video feeds of the WTC 1 and 2 attack and collapse, is one of the more desperate and imaginative claims made. Which is saying something.

The Verrazano Bridge is said to be about 2-1/2 miles away from the WTC (in the feed). The bridge is about two miles long (roughly). That means that pretty much any change in perspective in the video streams for 9/11 will provide a different view of the bridge. The youtube presentation tries to imply that the bridge is far enough away that these changes in perspective (along with others images in the screen) prove "image layering", when all that it should mean is a change in the location of the camera.

I'm not a photography expert, but I think its safe to say that minor changes in perspective, keeping the WTC in full frame, would result in the observed changes, instead of being, as these people claim, proof of fakery. Besides, what would be the point? That the whole attack was a put up job? That the tens of thousands of people who saw the second plane hit were deluded? That the masses of film on the second strike were all faked? And everyone involved is in on it? Sure, great, In that case, you should know that the Verrazano Bridge does move, and you can purchase it, take it home with you, and enjoy it, for a very reasonable fee.

This is definitely one of the more entertaining of the 9/11 claims.

Peter,

Im starting to like you more and more all the time!

This is about as hokey as the claims get....but some...ah hem......will still believe them....its that keen observation and deduction we spoke of earlier you see?

Mike

[Len Colby]

September Clues is such rubbish that is widely discredited even with in the so called “truth movement”.

One example is this point by point refutation of the video from Nick Irving who I’d never heard of before. He addressed the “moving bridge”, his analysis was basically the same as Peter’s and is obviously correct to anyone with minimal understanding of photography and/or perspective something which the maker (and Paul) seems to lack. The distance to the Verrazano Narrows Bridge to the WTC was 7.6 miles according to Google Maps

“This effect is caused by the camera being a fair distance from the Towers, with a collapsed depth of field and zooming-out whilst moving to the left. The Towers - look pretty much the same as the camera is moving gradually to the side. But the effect of the collapsed depth of field is to make the background scenery (including the bridge) which is much farther away than the Towers, appear to move to the left. This is an optical illusion. In any case, it has not been proven that the Towers are on a separate layer to the background imagery as part of a composite.”

http://truthaction.org/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf *

Another example is “September Clues - Busted!” a debunking video from Anthony Lawson who also made “This is an Orange” cited by Fetzer. Lawson makes a good case that the maker of “documentary” was intentionally deceptive. For example he asked how the woman on 16th St. and 8th Av. could have seen the crash but edited out were she explained her building was the tallest in the area and her apt faced south. Lawson did make a small error, according to Google maps it was 2.05 miles (not 2.8) from that intersection to the WTC site.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=82...LHVDYPi4gK-vZQR **

The towers were clearly visible in this video shot on 6th Av around 4th St. about 1.45 miles from the WTC I.e 7 /10 the distance from the woman’s building.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2UyGQ-6yKbU&...feature=related

I haven’t listened to it yet but here is an interview with Lawson and Jim Hoffman, who is perhaps the best respected researcher in the truth movement, talking about “September Clues - Busted!” and “September Clues”.

http://www.archive.org/download/TruthRevol...20080105TRR.mp3

Here’s is Arabesque another leading truther’s blog entry about the Lawson video http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/s...s-debunked.html

For a debunker POV here is Screw Loose Change’s take on September Clues and the Lawson video.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/searc...ptember%20Clues

Though not about September Clues per se this Eric Salter essay demolishes similar claims made by Ace Baker (who Jack acknowledged faked a photo)

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/Fox5analysis.html

Len

* At one point yesterday the site was down, if its not working try the Google cache version:

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:fyaqQ...temberclues.pdf

Or this version

http://twilightpines.com/images/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf

** If the video doesn’t play see the Screw Loose Change page.

[Evan Burton]

Just a small point, but a number of 9/11 researchers have often relied totally on Google, etc, for distances. This is fine if they are going to be indicative or illustrative, but when that distance forms a key part of the argument, I would strongly recommend they (or people relying on that research) check distances using more authoritative sources such as surveyed maps or charts.

Google, though a wonderful tool, has been shown to be inaccurate at times.

[Peter McKenna]

NIST issues new reort- Fire took out WTC-7

By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer

GAITHERSBURG, Md. - Federal investigators said Thursday they have solved a mystery of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories.

The 47-story trapezoid-shaped building sat north of the World Trade Center towers, across Vesey Street in lower Manhattan in New York. On Sept. 11, it was set on fire by falling debris from the burning towers, but skeptics long have argued that fire and debris alone should not have brought down such a big steel-and-concrete structure.

Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology say their three-year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of WTC 7 was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a modern skyscraper.

"The reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," said Dr. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the NIST team.

Investigators also concluded that the collapse of the nearby towers broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water.

The building has been the subject of a wide range of conspiracy theories for the last seven years, partly because the collapse occurred about seven hours after the twin towers came down. That fueled suspicion that someone intentionally blew up the building in a controlled demolition.

Critics like Mike Berger of the group 9/11 Truth said he wasn't buying the government's explanation.

"Their explanation simply isn't sufficient. We're being lied to," he said, arguing that there is other evidence suggesting explosives were used on the building.

Sunder said his team investigated the possibility that an explosion inside the building brought it down, but found there was no large boom or other noise that would have occurred with such a detonation. Investigators also created a giant computer model of the collapse, based partly on news footage from CBS News, that they say shows that internal column failure brought down the building.

Investigators also ruled out the possibility that the collapse was caused by fires from a substantial amount of diesel fuel that was stored in the building, most of it for generators for the city's emergency operations command center.

The 77-page report concluded that the fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure.

"When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain," said Sunder.

The NIST investigators issued more than a dozen building recommendations as a result of their inquiry, most of which repeat earlier recommendations from their investigation into the collapse of the two large towers.

In both instances, investigators concluded that extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structure succumbed.

The recommendations include building skyscrapers with stronger connections and framing systems to resist the effects of thermal expansion, and structural systems designed to prevent damage to one part of a building from spreading to other parts.

No one was killed in the collapse of building 7 because it had been fully evacuated. A new, slightly taller World Trade Center 7 opened in 2006.

A spokesman for the leaseholder of the World Trade Center, developer Larry Silverstein, praised the government's work.

"Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day," said Silverstein spokesman Dara McQuillan.

In discussing the findings, the investigator Sunder acknowledged that some may still not be convinced, but insisted the science behind their findings is "incredibly conclusive."

"The public should really recognize the science is really behind what we have said," he said, adding: "The obvious stares you in the face."

___

[Mike Williams]

NIST issues new reort- Fire took out WTC-7

By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer

GAITHERSBURG, Md. - Federal investigators said Thursday they have solved a mystery of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories.

The 47-story trapezoid-shaped building sat north of the World Trade Center towers, across Vesey Street in lower Manhattan in New York. On Sept. 11, it was set on fire by falling debris from the burning towers, but skeptics long have argued that fire and debris alone should not have brought down such a big steel-and-concrete structure.

Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology say their three-year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of WTC 7 was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a modern skyscraper.

"The reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," said Dr. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the NIST team.

Investigators also concluded that the collapse of the nearby towers broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water.

The building has been the subject of a wide range of conspiracy theories for the last seven years, partly because the collapse occurred about seven hours after the twin towers came down. That fueled suspicion that someone intentionally blew up the building in a controlled demolition.

Critics like Mike Berger of the group 9/11 Truth said he wasn't buying the government's explanation.

"Their explanation simply isn't sufficient. We're being lied to," he said, arguing that there is other evidence suggesting explosives were used on the building.

Sunder said his team investigated the possibility that an explosion inside the building brought it down, but found there was no large boom or other noise that would have occurred with such a detonation. Investigators also created a giant computer model of the collapse, based partly on news footage from CBS News, that they say shows that internal column failure brought down the building.

Investigators also ruled out the possibility that the collapse was caused by fires from a substantial amount of diesel fuel that was stored in the building, most of it for generators for the city's emergency operations command center.

The 77-page report concluded that the fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure.

"When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain," said Sunder.

The NIST investigators issued more than a dozen building recommendations as a result of their inquiry, most of which repeat earlier recommendations from their investigation into the collapse of the two large towers.

In both instances, investigators concluded that extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structure succumbed.

The recommendations include building skyscrapers with stronger connections and framing systems to resist the effects of thermal expansion, and structural systems designed to prevent damage to one part of a building from spreading to other parts.

No one was killed in the collapse of building 7 because it had been fully evacuated. A new, slightly taller World Trade Center 7 opened in 2006.

A spokesman for the leaseholder of the World Trade Center, developer Larry Silverstein, praised the government's work.

"Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day," said Silverstein spokesman Dara McQuillan.

In discussing the findings, the investigator Sunder acknowledged that some may still not be convinced, but insisted the science behind their findings is "incredibly conclusive."

"The public should really recognize the science is really behind what we have said," he said, adding: "The obvious stares you in the face."

___

Peter,

Good article. Of course those with even a micro of common sense would have known that the Government, had it blown 7 by demolition would not have waited 7 hours to do so.

But of course that would require the conspiracy extremists to have a micro of common sense, asking a bit much obviously!

Best to you Peter,

Mike