Wtc7?

[fred]

Sorry Fred. I must be missing something too. It says in the FEMA report that WTC7 was hit by debris from the collapsing towers and the ensuing fire burned for 7 hours before the building collapsed. Please excuse my ignorance but what was WTC7? and why is it giving you concern?

Oh there are a lot of things that are giving me concern, a lot of things that don't add up. Like why when it took FEMA a week to get to New Oleans after Katrina hit they were at the WTC site so promptly for 9/11, they arrived with all their equipment on the evening of the 10th.

WTC7 is important because all the other highly suspicious circumstances can be explained away somehow even though the explanations are far fetched to say the least. WTC7 can't be explained, there is only one possible explanation for it, that the American government knew about 9/11 in advance and let it happen.

[scotsboy]

Fred firstly have you read the ENTIRE report or ONLY the Executive Summary you posted?

I still want to know what laws of physics you question? Can you ellaborate?

Also please provide a definition of ORDINARY FIRE in your context and a reference to this in terms of WTC7.

Alternatively please get to the point you are trying to make......yawn.

[pultneytooner]

Researchers now support the hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated.

There was physical damage to the south face of building 7 on about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom approximately 10 stories.
About 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.
Also discovered were previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks or kinks in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other.
An unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor and this could have caused a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section came down.
Trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another and with columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would have likely been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
A fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours and there was no firefighting in WTC 7.
The fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators.
Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line which was supplying fuel to the fire for a long period of time.
Those combined factors along with the building's unusual construction was enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

[fred]

Researchers now support the hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated.

Which researchers?

I don't see anything new in there, it looks to me like the various hypotheses put forward by FEMA in their report (yes scotsboy I did read it), which even they admitted had a low probability, strung together and exagerated.

It completely ignores the fact that even if the building had been a raging inferno there wouldn't have been enough heat to weaken the supports and there was no raging inferno. Ever see a car burn out? Modern cars are crammed full of foam and plastic and have tanks of petrol, they burn fierce, they burn hot and they burn for a long time but did you ever see one where the very thin steel bodywork had melted? It doesn't happen which is why in over a hundred years of high rise buildings all over the world and many fires some with the entire building a roaring inferno the only buildings which collapsed were at the WTC.

There would be one way to tell for sure, that would be to take the steel supports and analize them, test if they had indeed been weakened by the heat of a fire or not. Unfortunately that isn't possible, they started shipping all the evidence from the crime scene off to Asia to be melted down almost immediately after 9/11, before the necessary tests could be done.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm

[mareng]

Fred firstly have you read the ENTIRE report or ONLY the Executive Summary you posted?

I still want to know what laws of physics you question? Can you ellaborate?

Also please provide a definition of ORDINARY FIRE in your context and a reference to this in terms of WTC7.

Alternatively please get to the point you are trying to make......yawn.

"I still want to know what laws of physics you question? Can you ellaborate?"
I suspect that Fred is actually referring to what people naturally "feel" is the expected reaction. I also suspect that you realise this also, but for some reason seem intent on needling.

"Also please provide a definition of ORDINARY FIRE in your context and a reference to this in terms of WTC7."
Once again, I suspect Fred meant a non-hydrocarbon fed fire (which I also suspect you thought) - the "needling" criticism applies here also. (yawn)

[scotsboy]

I still see nothing that challenges the laws of physics. Maybe you can enlighten me Mareng.

If you consider I am needling then there is little I can do to convince you otheriwise. I simply think Fred has a different agenda than challenging the laws of physics in relation to the collapse of WT7. Let me postulate a challenge to the laws of physics as alluded to by Fred, in the controlled demolition bypothesis........I didn't hear a bang beofre the collapse, nor do any of the reports make reference to one...that I have read.........which to be honest is not a lot.

[scotsboy]

Fred wrote:

There would be one way to tell for sure, that would be to take the steel supports and analize them, test if they had indeed been weakened by the heat of a fire or not. Unfortunately that isn't possible, they started shipping all the evidence from the crime scene off to Asia to be melted down almost immediately after 9/11, before the necessary tests could be done.

Appendix C of the report covers limited Metallurgical Examination of the metal support beams Fred.
Appenidix D details how the metal sections/pieces were chosen for analysis.

The Report conclusion in Chapter 8 also indicate that:

The loss of the east penthouse on the videotape suggests that the collapse was initiated by the loss of structural integrity in one of the transfer systems. Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analysis are needed to resolve this issue.

[scotsboy]

Fred wrote:

There would be one way to tell for sure, that would be to take the steel supports and analize them, test if they had indeed been weakened by the heat of a fire or not. Unfortunately that isn't possible, they started shipping all the evidence from the crime scene off to Asia to be melted down almost immediately after 9/11, before the necessary tests could be done.

Appendix C of the report covers limited Metallurgical Examination of the metal support beams Fred.
Appenidix D details how the metal sections/pieces were chosen for analysis.

The Report conclusion in Chapter 8 also indicate that:

The loss of the east penthouse on the videotape suggests that the collapse was initiated by the loss of structural integrity in one of the transfer systems. Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analysis are needed to resolve this issue.

[scotsboy]

Fred wrote:

There would be one way to tell for sure, that would be to take the steel supports and analize them, test if they had indeed been weakened by the heat of a fire or not. Unfortunately that isn't possible, they started shipping all the evidence from the crime scene off to Asia to be melted down almost immediately after 9/11, before the necessary tests could be done.

Appendix C of the report covers limited Metallurgical Examination of the metal support beams Fred.
Appenidix D details how the metal sections/pieces were chosen for analysis.

The Report conclusion in Chapter 8 also indicate that:

The loss of the east penthouse on the videotape suggests that the collapse was initiated by the loss of structural integrity in one of the transfer systems. Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analysis are needed to resolve this issue.

[fred]

The Report conclusion in Chapter 8 also indicate that:

The loss of the east penthouse on the videotape suggests that the collapse was initiated by the loss of structural integrity in one of the transfer systems. Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analysis are needed to resolve this issue.

"the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurence".

But then they didn't include controlled demolition as a hypothesis. They just assumed that because no one could possibly have known about the attack before it happened that it would have been impossible but if they had looked they would have seen that there is very strong evidence that many people did know about the attack in advance. The Pentagon obviously knew because their Generals were warned not to fly on September 11th, Wall street obviously knew because a lot of people were dumping shares in the airline and the insurers of the WTC before September 11th.

[Rheghead]

If WTC7 was demolished intentionally, wouldn't there be plenty of witnesses? I mean, it would take a lot of planning and execution.

[wickerinca]

So........the US Government thought that the two planes flying into the WTC wouldn't cause enough damage and outrage so they decided to blow up the odd surrounding building or two just to make the whole disaster a bit bigger? Are you seriously suggesting that Bush and his cronies knew that these planes were going to fly into the towers and just let it happen and, in fact, helped in the destruction?

I firmly believe that there are many conspiracies undertaken every day at all levels of government but honestly....??!!

[fred]

If WTC7 was demolished intentionally, wouldn't there be plenty of witnesses? I mean, it would take a lot of planning and execution.

Well yes, there were plenty of witnesses, half the world has seen the building collapse in a manner entirely consistent with a controlled demolition.

It would have taken quite a bit of preparation, experts would need detailed plans and specifications and would run computer simmulations to decide on the best places to plant the explosives. Then a team would need access to the building without being seen, ideally the building would have been completely evacuated for several hours, such as in a training exercise for a terrorist attack. The team would then have to conceal thermite and explosive charges capable of being detonated by radio. Yes, I would say that the organisation which planned such a thing would need to have their members in key positions in the Government.

Now what about the terrorists attack, wouldn't that need a lot of planning and execution? First you would need to get a large number of known terrorists into the United States unnoticed. Then you would need to send them for flying lessons without the FBI realising. Then on the morning of 9/11 you would need to get all these known terrorists on planes at the same time without anyone noticing. You have to do all this when the American government has been warned by just about every intelligence service in the world that something like 9/11 is about to happen and will be wathcing your every move. Even after you've done all that the standard procedure when a plane is hijacked is to scramble fighters, how on earth did the people who planned 9/11 think they were going to deal with the fighters?

[wickerinca]

I'm waiting for a reply to my comments fred. Your response to rheghead's last post indicates that you consider the US government to be responsible for the deaths of many of their own people along with many ex-pats.

I was under the impression that these young men that hi-jacked the planes did not become terrorists until after the had seized control of the flight decks.....and I am sure that some of them had been trained to fly in the UK as is normal for some would be pilots from countries that do not have their own accredited flying schools.

And as for the 'team' that would have sneaked into WTC7 on some pretext or other and planted the explosives etc,....don't you think that in this day of whistle-blowing just one of them would have let something slip.........or have they all been silenced???

Come on fred.....answer. I believe that Robert Ludlum and Tom Clancy et al are following this thread to get ideas for their next novel!!

Off to read about the non-existant Apollo Moon landings and the US Governments latest plans to put a man on the dark side of the moon....I hear another lp (or should I say cd/dvd?) in the making.

[fred]

I'm waiting for a reply to my comments fred. Your response to rheghead's last post indicates that you consider the US government to be responsible for the deaths of many of their own people along with many ex-pats.

Well yes I do consider some people in the US government to be responsible for the deaths of many of their own people, 2318 military personel in Iraq for a start and who knows how many in New Orleans. What makes you think they would lose any sleep about the deaths on 9/11 when it would make the entire Neocon manifesto possible?

Take a look at the Neocon plans for the world at http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf

It was written in September 2000 before 9/11 and before the invasion of Iraq, take a look on page 51 where it says:

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

Then take a look at the end at the list of people who wrote that report and see how many names you recognise.

If you are asking me if I think those people would sit back, let 9/11 happen and see all their dreams come true rather than prevent it to save American lives I'm telling you now I'm damned sure they would.

[scotsboy]

Whilst I disagree with you on many things Fred, it is very difficult to see exactly what Paul Wolfowitz brings to the World Bank!!

[fred]

And as for the 'team' that would have sneaked into WTC7 on some pretext or other and planted the explosives etc,....don't you think that in this day of whistle-blowing just one of them would have let something slip.........or have they all been silenced???

We know that Hitler did something similar when he helped with the burning of the Reistag Building and plenty of patriotic Germans who believed passionately in the supremicy of the Fatherland were in on it.

We also know that in 1962 the American Chiefs of Staff planned to do just the same sort of thing to give them an excuse to invade Cuba, they called it Operation Northwoods, they obviously thought they could get away with it.

We also know that it would have been extremely unlikey even for one of the buildings hit by a plane to collapse as a result yet three buildings collapsed, no other steel framed building has ever collapsed as a result of fire and here we have three in one day one of which wasn't even hit by a plane.

Have you been following the Moussaoui trial by the way? Have you read the testiomony of the FBI agent in the past couple of days?

[squidge]

Crikey Fred

i should watch my back if i was you! You are single handedly unmasking a whole range of theories and the information you are intent on suggesting are facts are bound to annoy key political figures. You might be targeted by a hit squad of secret american agents intent on silencing you - after all if 9/11 was a plot by the politicians then some wee mannie living in Caithness isnt going to be too much trouble for them to finish off.

Lock your doors, assume a new identity, dye your hair and change your accent and dont answer the door to strangers.

Be afraid

[sjwahwah]

fred knows what he's talking about.

wtc7 was "pulled" that's obvious. if only fred dibnah were here.

wtc1 & 2 we're also "pulled" after the planes hit them.

their collapse defies a law of physics indeed.. the law of falling bodies.

if you pull buildings of these sizes.. it takes months of planning... so did the gov know about it? just think about that for a min. georgey boy didn't exactly look so surprised did he? he also stated, " I saw the first plane hit on TV and thought, boy what a terrible pilot". NOBODY saw the first plane hit on video unless of course you watched a simulated rehearsel of some sort.

how did that concrete pulverise the way it did? mini-nuclear devices.

this subject is so huge... one cannot elaborate on a forum... try infowars.com

wealth... and I mean wealth of documented and researched EVIDENCE...

but why? read the patriot act that was enacted months after 911.. makes EVERY criminal a " terrorist "

not to mention it violates almost every amendment in the bill of rights.

it was only a small hurdle in the race for total enslavement of the people.

freds right about the Project for the New American Century. read it.... it's scary really. Nae muckin' aboot.. they just come right out and tell you what they are planning. for more good info try Joan Veon.

[obiron]

dunno about wtc7 but did watch a prog on the telly explaining how the towers collapsed. i thought all the conspiracy theories were to do with the pentagon.