Saturday, June 17, 2006

WTC 7

I'm not going to get into any extensive structural analysis focusing on the column structure and the collapse of the building; I'm not an engineer and unlike a lot of the folks in the 9-11 "Truth" movement I'm not going to play one on the Internet.

First, let's take a look at WTC 7 as it looked prior to 9-11:



This shows the relative locations of the buildings:



When you hear that they were 300 feet apart, that sounds like quite a ways, until you remember how immense these buildings were. This photo (from the South Tower) should give you a better idea of the proximity:



This one might give you vertigo, but it certainly shows that tall buildings are closer together than one might think:



How was the building damaged?

It was damaged largely by the collapse of World Trade Center 1 (the North Tower). It may have also been hit by debris from the initial crash of the plane into the South Tower, as this film hints:



Update 12/9/07: I no longer believe it likely or possible that WTC-7 was hit by a significant amount of debris from the crash of Flight 175 into the South Tower. There are no accounts to indicate this and Barry Jennings' story just seems to be off on the times involved.

See also this article:

After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said.


Was the building severely damaged?

Yes, as you can see from the photo below, WTC 7 was severely damaged:



Here's a graphic estimate of how much of the building was actually damaged by the impact of Tower One:



I have not found a good picture of the south side of World Trade Center 7 prior to its collapse but after the collapse of the Twin Towers. But I think you can see that it was quite extensively damaged.

Update: Here is a picture that was posted on Democratic Underground that purports to be a vidcap of what appears to be a San Francisco Bay Area TV station's coverage of the disaster. This picture certainly seems to match up with the other photos we've seen. If you're a WTC 7 person, this would appear to be the holy grail:



Update Again: Here's the video that was taken from:



This is not a surprise when you look at this picture:



As you can see, WTC 7 is clearly in the debris field for the collapse of WTC 1; indeed in this picture it looks as though some debris might have gone over the WTC 7 building.

Here's a terrific aerial oblique:



Be sure to click on that one to see it full size.

Of course, as the North Tower continued to collapse, it would eventually be below the roofline of WTC #7, which would mean what? That's right, that the debris would be hitting the side of the building. Which side? Looking at the site map, it appears obvious that the south side of WTC #7 would sustain the most damage.

Here are some looks at the fires raging in WTC 7:





Of course, again, these are pictures from the north side. Here's one I was able to obtain looking roughly east, which shows how much smoke is billowing out of WTC 7 on the south side. It is apparent that the building is experiencing a great deal of distress that is not evident from the north. Note particularly that the dust from the collapse of the two towers has already settled--the smoke is definitely coming from the fires in WTC 7. WTC 7 is the building at the far top left, which we glimpse just behind the white building.



Update: See also this terrific photo at Debunking911 of the damage to WTC7. Good scoop for Debunking 911!

In connection with the fires bear in mind that WTC 7 was build with substantial tanks of diesel fuel to power generators, and that when the power went out after the collapse of the South Tower, those generators and the pumps that fueled them started operating. If one of those fuel lines was broken by the collapse of the North Tower or the fire, it could have been pumping fuel steadily into the building.

Did its collapse come as a complete surprise? Not according to accounts of firefighters at the scene:

Richard Banaciski of Ladder 22:

They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on.

Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there.

Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down. That's when they let the guys go in. I just remember we started searching around all the rigs.


Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters in the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark them off?
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.


A transit is a surveyor's instrument; the idea here is that you fix its sight on an identifiable spot and then check it periodically to see if the building has moved at all. Incidentally, note that the fact that the fire department fixed a transit on the building undermines the claim that nobody expected the building to fall, because after all it was a steel building and none of those had ever collapsed.

Update: A good point has been raised on this. If the southwest corner had a chunk out of it as in the photos, why didn't Hayden mention that instead of talking about a bulge?

By the way, that whole bit about WTC 7 collapsing neatly into its own footprint? Typical nonsense from the Loosers. Here's a picture of the damage to 30 West Broadway from the collapse of WTC 7:



Here's a picture of the damage to the Verizon Building from the collapse of WTC 7:



Here's the damage to the building adjacent to WTC 7 to the North (White building with terraced roof).



Incidentally, there were seven World Trade Center buildings in all; can you guess how many of them are still standing? Answer: Zero. Four buildings were destroyed on 9-11 (nobody ever mentions WTC 3, which was a 22-story hotel), and the other three (WTC 4-6) all partially collapsed and had to be demolished.

We also hear how far WTC 7 was from the WTC 1, but how many know even farther away buildings to the west suffered enormous damage? Here are the Winter Garden and World Financial Center #3:



You can see their relative positions here:



So we combine massive damage from the collapse of the North Tower, plus fires burning for hours with no attempts at firefighting, plus the fact that the fire department knew the building was doomed hours before it fell, and what's left for the CT crowd? Larry Silverstein's comment about "pulling" it.



Note in particular that the CTers always focus on the "Maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it", but they never parse "and so they made the decision to pull". Since he was talking to a Fire Department Commander, doesn't that indicate that the Fire Department actually made the decision? What techniques does the Fire Department use to pull down buildings? How many buildings had the Fire Department pulled down in recent years? Why, when the building was impeding rescue efforts, did they not pull it earlier in the afternoon, instead of waiting until 5:20?

The good news is that the rebuilding of WTC 7 was completed last month (no, Silverstein didn't take the money and run, he rebuilt):



Update: In the comments, Inside Job says:

the building fell straight down FASTER than freefall speed.


There are some things so stupid only a Truther could believe them. Let's pause for some elementary physics here. The only way a building could fall faster than freefall speed is if some force other than gravity were bringing the building down, because gravity is what causes an object to fall at freefall speed. For example, suppose a giant were to push down on the building as it started to fall; then presumably it would come down in freefall or faster speed. But controlled demolition does not result in buildings coming down in faster than freefall speed.

More important, the amount of time that it took WTC 7 to fall was significantly longer than either of the two towers, at least according to the seismic readings that the Truthers cite as the source for the information that WTC 1 and 2 fell in 10 and 8 seconds, respectively. WTC 7 was a much smaller building than the two towers and yet it fell in 18 seconds according to seismic readings.

Labels: ,

73 Comments:

At 17 June, 2006 04:32, Blogger Unknown said...

Nice Pics.

Here's a recent interview with Tim Russert that touches on 9/11 Truth issues. No great revelations, but you can see Jack Blood pushing for the truth.

 
At 17 June, 2006 04:42, Blogger Unknown said...

More pics and a vid that contradicts your conclusion.

What are the odds that a fire could implode the east mechanical penthouse on top of the WTC 7 before it implodes the rest of the building?

 
At 17 June, 2006 04:54, Blogger Unknown said...

Regarding "what really happened" and discussion of the "9/11 Truth Movement" here

(http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com/2006/06/june-2006-updates_16.html)
Nico Haupt's new Blog

Most other commenters (not to mention this blog's posters) will find some of Haupt's claims laughable and without merit. To that I say: "Everybody's gotta learn sometime".

 
At 17 June, 2006 05:27, Blogger Unknown said...

This video gives background to 9/11, the Middle East, and the Iraq Wars
Ralph Schoenman: The Category of Terror

Another short video I [Nimmo] produced, an audio excerpt from Schoenman’s talk, 911 and Other False Flag Operations of the Terror State. 9 minutes, 51 seconds, 18 MB, wmv format. Right mouse button click here and “Save as…”

 
At 17 June, 2006 05:50, Blogger telescopemerc said...

What are the odds that a fire could implode the east mechanical penthouse on top of the WTC 7 before it implodes the rest of the building?

What do you mean? "What are the odds?" The penthouse sank iunto the building that had little to no internal structural integrity left as a result of the fire? Just what the heck does that question prove? It certainly doesn't contradict the conclusion.

Seriously, do you guys have any any idea about the effects of fire and the nature of structures, or do you just swallow the crud that kooksites give you?

 
At 17 June, 2006 07:11, Blogger Alex said...

"What are the odds that a fire could implode the east mechanical penthouse on top of the WTC 7 before it implodes the rest of the building?"

Come ON BG. You're scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Time to take a good, unbiased look at your motivations for beleiving this nonsense.

To answer the question though:

Answer 1: The odds are "1", since it happened. Odds are only relevant with future events. Onece something actually occurs, or fails to occur, the odds for that even having occured become either "0" or "1".

Andswer 2: What are the odds that the government blew up a penthouse before demolishing the rest of the building? Do you realize how retarded such a suggestion sounds?

 
At 17 June, 2006 07:50, Blogger telescopemerc said...

The NIST report said the penthouse sank in the roof because truss #1 on floor 7 failed. How the @%!#$ did that happened?!

? The NIST report (which is very much preliminary states it was a failure in columns 79, 80 or 81. As to 'how that happened', you might want to actually try reading the report.

Its called vetical progress. Look at pages 31-36 of the report rather than getting spoon fed bits and pieces from conspiracy sites. Engineers understand this kind of failure, why do you think so much of yourself that you spot what they missed?

Pretty arrogant of you to think that way.

 
At 17 June, 2006 08:10, Blogger Alex said...

Arrogance? In the CT movement? No! NEVER!

 
At 17 June, 2006 08:47, Blogger shawn said...

"What are the odds?"

Do you guys understand probability? There are no odds to discuss - it happened. The probability of it happening is 1.0.

Question for you: Did the 9/11 Commission even consider controlled demolition as a mechanism for the collapses?

No, because it's a ridiculous idea. You want them to examine if lasers did it? How about holographic planes?

 
At 17 June, 2006 13:26, Blogger shawn said...

Here's a paper that says the NIST worked with only one hypothesis: the official version.

What's your point with this? Only one hypothesis makes sense.

 
At 17 June, 2006 13:29, Blogger shawn said...

After all, bombs had been successfully exploded in the WTC once before

Uh yeah from a parked van at the bottom that did nothing to harm the building. Horrendous point.

and there had been no steel frame buildings to collapse from fires before

First off, NONE OF THOSE BUILDINGS WERE HIT BY PLANES. Stop being a fucking moron and get that through that wall you call a skull. And what you fail to report is the steel portion of the Madrid tower DID INDEED COLLAPSE. THE CONCRETE PORTION DID NOT.

A hypothesis that bombs were involved was obvious.

No it isn't! It's utterly preposterous. The bombs wouldn't have survived the crash and subsequent fires. Just because you idiots think it's likely doesn't make it so. You shouldn't expect professional organizations to go on a wild goose chase for your stupid ideas.

 
At 17 June, 2006 15:19, Blogger telescopemerc said...

please read the article, which says the NIST examined only a fraction of 1% of meaningful steel.


They examined the steel that they could identify and that was relevant. From an Engineering standpoint, there was little need to examine steel that was nowhere near the collapse point, and unidentified pieces really could not do much for them.

Ergo, "no evidence?"

Yes. Explosives leave many telltale signs that they have been employed. This isn't Hollywood.


And the models they did only looked the government's hypothesis.

Incorrect. They examined models from an Engineering standpoint, and they have looked at other engineering solutions to the problem. Wild CTer fantasies do not enter the picture.

Remember that NIST's WTC work was not done to satisfy cranks who claim there were bombs. NIST's work was done so that in the future, Engineers can know how it failed and what could be done about it.


After all, bombs had been successfully exploded in the WTC once before,


From a Van, in the parking basement. There were many tell-tale signs that explosives had been employed.

and there had been no steel frame buildings to collapse from fires before.

I'll assume what you meant to say was that there have been no collapses of steel framed skyscrapers because there have been examples of steel framed buildings that collapsed from fire.

A hypothesis that bombs were involved was obvious.


Not really. There is little to no evidence. A few quotes mined by CT's, some pictures of 'squibs' shown in stills after the building has started to collapse, and the gross ignorance of the CT crowd with regards to Engineering, Metallurgy, and Structures is all that there is in the way of 'evidence'.

 
At 17 June, 2006 19:59, Blogger nes718 said...

LMAO! Question, WTC1 fell right on top of building 6 how come it didn't go down as well? Also, that photo you show of the damaged corner, why didn't the building tip over like the leaning tower of Pisa? heheh.. Oh yeah, that doesn't fit the offical story, okay..

 
At 17 June, 2006 20:01, Blogger nes718 said...

And what about those squibs?

Yeah, those are photographed near the top of the structure so the "children of the matrix" cannot squeal "collapse pressure."

 
At 17 June, 2006 20:06, Blogger telescopemerc said...

LMAO! Question, WTC1 fell right on top of building 6 how come it didn't go down as well?

Are you seriously comparing an eight story, concrete framed building with a steel framed skyscraper.


Also, that photo you show of the damaged corner, why didn't the building tip over like the leaning tower of Pisa? heheh.. Oh yeah, that doesn't fit the offical story, okay..


The damaged corner was not where the critical structural failure took place. Do you always fail to pay attention?

 
At 17 June, 2006 20:22, Blogger nes718 said...

Are you seriously comparing an eight story, concrete framed building with a steel framed skyscraper.

No, I am seriously questioning why a huge hole, crater described by many, didn't implode it on the spot. Try again slick...

 
At 17 June, 2006 20:24, Blogger nes718 said...

The damaged corner was not where the critical structural failure took place. Do you always fail to pay attention?

Ah, so why include that in this piece anyway? The building was demolished via CD, everybody knows that except you guys. Stop trying to “make it fit.”

 
At 17 June, 2006 20:28, Blogger nes718 said...

no, Silverstein didn't take the money and run, he rebuilt

Yeah! He's going to make triple in rents now that the building is up. Pretty nifty that that 9/11 happened and all the old tenants had to move out, huh?

Regardless, if there is any real "heat" from his collusion with this whole incident, all he has to do flee to Israel and he'll be safe and sound.

 
At 17 June, 2006 20:31, Blogger nes718 said...

Funny how these "raging" fires were so seletive in the floors they burn. How come that mail truck on the ground isn't burning up like the building above?????

 
At 17 June, 2006 20:59, Blogger telescopemerc said...

No, I am seriously questioning why a huge hole, crater described by many, didn't implode it on the spot. Try again slick...

No, you try again. Come back when you have a clue about structures and how they stand ( or fail). You are trying to use your ignorace in this field as a weapon. Its rather emabrassing for you.

Ah, so why include that in this piece anyway?

Because CT'ers would have us beleive that WTC7 was never on fire, was barely touched by the collpase of the Twin Towers, and that nobody had any idea that the building was in danger. It is included to note that, among other things


The building was demolished via CD, everybody knows that except you guys. Stop trying to “make it fit.


"everyone knows it" conspicously does not include every structural engineer in the whole world, every structural demonlitionist, and that vast, vast majority of mechanical and civil enginers as well as architects.

 
At 17 June, 2006 21:02, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Funny how these "raging" fires were so seletive in the floors they burn. How come that mail truck on the ground isn't burning up like the building above?????

Why should it burn? Its a small target for any flaming debris, and a vehicle has few flammable portions on its exterior. By comparison, any burning debris that makes entry into an office building is going to have plenty of fuel to work with.

 
At 17 June, 2006 21:06, Blogger telescopemerc said...

If you want to say it's smoke from fires, then goes read the FEMA or NIST reports. The highest the fire got was the 28th floor. We're talking about the 30-47th floor here guys.

To add to what scottsl stated:

What you have written is not true. The NIST report states plainly:

"Fire in SW corner near floors 10 or 11
Fire on floors 6, 7, 8, 21, 30
Multiple fires observed on floors numbered 20’s and 30’s
Heavy black smoke coming out of south face gash; no fire observed"

 
At 17 June, 2006 21:56, Blogger shawn said...

small fires can make lots of smoke.

They can't make it come out of most of the floors, dumbass.

God, you and jack...there aren't words to describe the idiocy of your points. EVERYTHING you guys mention have been debunked. And you both keep saying that "pull it" line like it defends your stance at all.

 
At 17 June, 2006 22:41, Blogger shawn said...

Hi Mr. Logical Fallacy!!

I see you didn't use you favorite word yet. Good for you!!


So you're continuing with the defense that it's ridiculous for me to point out yours (and others) logical fallacies when you use them? How retarded are you?

I can imagine you back in school (or judging by your points, still in school):

You: Uh, why do you keep marking these answers incorrect?

Teacher: ...because they are.

You: Yeah, what's your point? You mark them incorrect EVERY time they're incorrect, that's ridiculous!


BTW, when did I use the "pull it" line in this thread?

By the way, when did I say you used in this thread? I didn't. I was pointing out how your moronic duo continue using the line like it supports your point.

 
At 17 June, 2006 22:42, Blogger shawn said...

Hell, it's not my fucking fault you idiots continue to use them. But throw the blame elsewhere, right, pal?

 
At 18 June, 2006 05:36, Blogger telescopemerc said...

the building fell straight down FASTER than freefall speed.

That is a very foolish statement. To make it demonstrates a massive ingorance beyond the pale.

The rest of your comments are just assertions that have been debunked or are just claims requiring a level of Engineering skill you obviously do not posess.

 
At 18 June, 2006 07:11, Blogger shawn said...

Yeah, as it's impossible to fall straight down faster than free fall speeds (unless the debris had rockets attached to them), it's pretty hilarious statement. Hell, they buildings didn't even match free fall speeds, let alone surpass them.

 
At 18 June, 2006 08:03, Blogger Alex said...

Momma also use to beat me with a rubber hose and call me a retard.

Doesn't surprise me in the least. I'm just surprised she let you live. You must have been a REALLY strong baby to crawl out of the abortion bucket like that...

I posted a lot of the real evidence on this blog just 2 weeks ago, complete with sources, but all those threads have 'conveniently' disappeared.

Now we know you're a liar. Posts don't dissapear around here.

the building fell straight down FASTER than freefall speed.

Prrof positive that the CIA used a special satelite based gravity laser to temporarily distort the gravitational field around WTC7. Good job man! Now if you can track down that satelite for us, we can take it down with slingshots and spitballs.

 
At 18 June, 2006 10:10, Blogger telescopemerc said...

LOL. How was this accomplished? Did the the BushCo. Cabal, Inc. use their supa-dupa, uber-sekrit gravity enhancement generators underneath the buildings?

Haven't you figured it out? Gravity is a conspiracy to keep us down.

 
At 18 June, 2006 10:26, Blogger Alex said...

congratulations, you win the "pun of the month" award :)

 
At 18 June, 2006 11:00, Blogger Alex said...

The report he received was more like “your brakes are failing and useless you do something about it you're going to have car accident in the next few weeks.”

Yeah, meanwhile 5 other mechanics are saying "nope, everything's fine", while another 50 are advising you of 50 other potential problems.

Anything but sit there like a deer staring into headlights thinking "What do I do now master?"

That's the difference between me and you, and I've seen good examples of this throughout my military career. Some people will hear of a disaster, will carry on with their current task, and wait for more intel before acting. Others will immedately jump up, abandon whatever they were working on, and run in circles like chickens with their heads cut off, making stupid assumptions, debating rumours, and otherwise getting nothing at all done. We've even got a saying for it:

When in Danger
When in Doubt
Run in Circles
Scream! And Shout!

Frankly I'm very glad Bush didn't fall into that category. It doesn't surprise me at all that you do.

The Gen quits a month after when the transfer is discovered, news looks into it. Nothing is heard about. Just another day. And by the way, I bet Ahmad doesn't even wipe his own ass, why would he do the transfer himself?

Ah, the old "he had the opportunity, so he MUST have done it" argument. Right. Good luck with that one.


The connection is the Jews had the most to gain. You have to remember that most the "leader" and powerful people in the world belong to secert groups that you don't know much about.


:D

Oooook buddy. That's enough beer for you. Time to go home.

 
At 18 June, 2006 11:12, Blogger shawn said...

And you don't see the connection between the two. The real world work differently then what you think.

No, pal, it works different than what you think. You conspiracy theorists are such children you can't understand that the world isn't orderly. There aren't these governmental groups planning these dastardly deeds so the whole order of things falls into place and history is created in some bubble. Life is chaos. The world is chaos.

In the words of Penn: "Don't the conspiracy nuts realize that sometimes something simple, and small, and crazy, and mean can destroy something big and beautiful?"

 
At 18 June, 2006 13:12, Blogger telescopemerc said...

So if we knew that for so long previously, why didn't Clinton build a big catcher's mitt in front of the World Trade Center?

He did. The dang thing was recruited by George Steinbrenner and went five seasons with the Yankees.

 
At 18 June, 2006 14:38, Blogger shawn said...

He did. The dang thing was recruited by George Steinbrenner and went five seasons with the Yankees.

The devil wears pinstripes.

 
At 18 June, 2006 14:41, Blogger James B. said...

Hmm... I heard that FBI insider John O'Neill and Yankee outfielder Paul O'Neill were cousins...

 
At 18 June, 2006 19:07, Blogger shawn said...

well, first let me point out that WTC7 DID fall faster than freefall speed, because the implosions of the demolition sucked the successive floors downward.

Uh that's not how demolitions work. They don't set one large bomb in the middle and set it off (which is how you'd cause any type of vaccum).

And do you know how fast something falls in a vacuum?

That's right, professor - free fall!

 
At 19 June, 2006 03:51, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Until you consider 1, you are a slave to the power that be.

We've (or at least I've) considered '1' but have rejected it since its a house of cards. It requires rejection of scientific and engineering principles, is supported by quotes taken out of context, and is wishful thinking on the part of CTers who want there to be a sinister powere controlling their lives.

I loathe Bush, but I am not about to abandon centuries of science and engineering just to blame him for something he is too clumsy to have pulled off.

Consider this: Have you considered #2 or the posibillity that you are completely wrong about there being a conspiracy? If not than you are a slave to your political stripes.

 
At 19 June, 2006 05:46, Blogger Alex said...

well, first let me point out that WTC7 DID fall faster than freefall speed, because the implosions of the demolition sucked the successive floors downward.

:D

Why are we're arguing with this clown again? This is the first time I've heard someone claim that explosives IMplode instead of EXploding. I guess from now on I'll be refering to my C4 charges as "implosives". Thanks inside. Your parent's really did a job with ya....

 
At 19 June, 2006 08:20, Blogger shawn said...

What all of this boils down to is, like it or not, what happened on 9/11 lead us to war and a lost of our freedoms.

Where did we lose freedoms? I can still assemble, I can say whatever I want, the press can write what it wants. I've lost no freedoms. Or are you going to talk about those people who forfeited rights on the battlefield?

1) Did neocons thirsting for power and control did it.

Do you know how ridiculous it is to claim in nine months they could pull off the largest terrorist attack in history?

Considering that Bush said something along the lines of "catching Osama isn't important" should make you question number 2 and start looking at number one, because the evidence is pointing to number 1 being far more likely.

You don't even think al-Qaeda did it, so why do you care? You morons should be consistent. And no, it isn't "far more likely" only an irrational person would say that. The utter ridiculousness of just say "omg the neocons wanted power" as your SOLE evidence (and yes it is) isn't good enough.

2) A small group of crazies did it.

Like I said, you children are too scared to live in a world where you might be snuffed out in the next minute by a religious fanatic with a bomb strapped to himself. You need an ordered world where the big bad government is behind everything and there's structure everywhere.


And quoting song lyrics won't get you anywhere.

 
At 19 June, 2006 09:37, Blogger telescopemerc said...

well, first let me point out that WTC7 DID fall faster than freefall speed, because the implosions of the demolition sucked the successive floors downward.

Demolition charges do not 'suck'. The vacuum created when explosives detonate is tiny, and the force of pressure is miniscule in comparison to the effect of the expanding gasses, etc. It takes nuclear levels of explosives to see any such 'vacuum fill' effect and the detonation of such a device would be rather noticable.

This is unbelievebaly bad science on your part.

 
At 19 June, 2006 09:54, Blogger nes718 said...

I loathe Bush, but I am not about to abandon centuries of science and engineering just to blame him for something he is too clumsy to have pulled off.

Well then, this is you main obstacle to seeing this for what it is. Bush was in no way shape or form the mastermind that pulled this off. He was simply put in place to react the way he did because of his stupidity.

So apply those "centuries of science and engineering" to figure out who really did this deed. It surely wasn't the fictional "1Al Qaeda."

 
At 19 June, 2006 10:07, Blogger telescopemerc said...

So apply those "centuries of science and engineering" to figure out who really did this deed. It surely wasn't the fictional "1Al Qaeda."

None of the evidence obtained via science & engineering points to anything else. The claim that

Proof by bald assertion doesn't impress me. Tossing on more and more conspiracy theories does not improve your poor situation.

 
At 19 June, 2006 10:57, Blogger Alex said...

Tossing on more and more conspiracy theories does not improve your poor situation.

The idea is to make the CT as complicated as possible, so that no matter what points are debunked, you've got 5 million more to fall back on. Idealy, if you make it complex enough, your opponents won't even know where to start and will simply give up in disgust, allowing you to claim that they're somehow inferior because they "won't discuss things logicaly".

That's certainly how insync operates. If he's having trouble backing up his conspiracy theory, he simply blames yet another overnment organization, or some secret jewish documents, or zionist CIA space aliens trying to take over the world.

 
At 19 June, 2006 10:57, Blogger Alex said...

Tossing on more and more conspiracy theories does not improve your poor situation.

The idea is to make the CT as complicated as possible, so that no matter what points are debunked, you've got 5 million more to fall back on. Idealy, if you make it complex enough, your opponents won't even know where to start and will simply give up in disgust, allowing you to claim that they're somehow inferior because they "won't discuss things logicaly".

That's certainly how insync operates. If he's having trouble backing up his conspiracy theory, he simply blames yet another overnment organization, or some secret jewish documents, or zionist CIA space aliens trying to take over the world.

 
At 19 June, 2006 10:57, Blogger nes718 said...

Proof by bald assertion doesn't impress me. Tossing on more and more conspiracy theories does not improve your poor situation.

The "Al Qaeda" did it IS the conspiracy theory in that there is no solid evidence that they were involved. Funny thing is, YOU BELIEVE THAT FAIRY TALE! It would be comical if this situation wasn't so serious. I absolutely awed how the Government can get away with straight up lying to you guys and how easily you guys fall for it. Not only that, but then try to draw rationalizations built on those lie. Talk about Cognitive dissonance!!!!

 
At 19 June, 2006 11:19, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Again, all assertions, no evidence. What a surprise.

 
At 19 June, 2006 11:22, Blogger Alex said...

Yep, passports found in the wreckage, video surveilance evidence of them boarding the aircraft, voice recordings of arabs in the cockpits, flight school records, DNA evidence from a hotel room, and a confession by Bin Laden....none of that is good enough for our insync.

Israelis on a van though? DA JOOOOOOS DID IT!

 
At 19 June, 2006 18:14, Blogger telescopemerc said...

as I've already explained, it is possible for a building to fall faster than freefall speed when successive demolition implosions suck floors downward.

No, they cannot! This is physical impossibility. No demolition project has ever fallen faster than Freefall. It does not happen.

You've made this assertion three times now, it is simply and completely untrue and there is no physics to support it even in theory. You claim to 'explain' it, but with no backing at all whatsoever beyond your asserting it multiple times.

 
At 19 June, 2006 22:47, Blogger shawn said...

The "Al Qaeda" did it IS the conspiracy theory in that there is no solid evidence that they were involved. Funny thing is, YOU BELIEVE THAT FAIRY TALE!

Yeah, only a boatload of confessions. One from the mastermind of the attack itself.

Did they give birth or something? Were did the nine months come from?

Hmm because the neocons were in power for nine months? Are you really this stupid?

Try protesting sometime.

Just went to an antiwar protest in Boston. Third one I've been to in the past year. You do realize they happen all the time, right?

If you really want to know what I'm claiming, I'm claiming the plan for a one world government has been around since the birth of this nation.

And you'd be wrong. You know most of these secret socities are really just frats for grown males, right?

I personaly think Al-CIA-Duh did it.

Then you're both wrong and you statement about Osama holds absolutely zero water.

And that sir, is something I wish you could understand.

I'd understand it if you could understand how the world actually worked.

Thanks, bud! But that's a logical Fallacy! You conlusion IS COMPLETELY WRONG!

Being wrong isn't a logical fallacy. So you wrote a poem to me? Oh, I'm flattered.

 
At 04 August, 2006 00:07, Blogger PerpetualYnquisitive said...

Update: Here is a picture that was posted on Democratic Underground that purports to be a vidcap of what appears to be a San Francisco Bay Area TV station's coverage of the disaster. This picture certainly seems to match up with the other photos we've seen. If you're a WTC 7 person, this would appear to be the holy grail:

Seeing as I posted that pic at DU, I will vouch that it came from a screenshot of footage from September 11, 2001. Read the rest of the thread at DU and you can get the footage and verify it for yourself.

 
At 06 August, 2006 11:23, Blogger Emily said...

The "relative damage" chart shows 30 W Broadway as having suffered "no damage," yet one of the images appearing in this entry is of extensive damage to that building?

 
At 16 August, 2006 23:38, Blogger Pat said...

Thermate was not found on the steel. What Jones claims is that residue of elements consistent with Thermate was found on the steel. And Jones did not say anything about Thermate on WTC 7 steel, for the very simple reason that he has no idea which building his steel sample came from.

 
At 23 August, 2006 16:59, Blogger StevenWarRan said...

I’ve been studying this for a while now, and I’ve never seen that photo credited to the New York City Police Department, 2001 All Rights Reserved before, the one looking down at WTC#7 with a whole corner of the building’s base gouged out, and with all that purple spectral light surrounding it. It sure looks Photoshopped to me, and if it is faked, it would constitute a smoking gun implicating your side of the debate, and be a real stupid mistake on such an obviously well-funded web effort.

 
At 28 August, 2006 23:51, Blogger Pat said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 28 August, 2006 23:56, Blogger Pat said...

Stone, to refute your points in the order presented:

1. WTC 7 did not fall from one cause but from two--debris damage and fire. The fire was particularly devastating, fed by thousands of gallons of diesel fuel that was pumped to the building when the power went out.

2. Damage to the Verizon Building shown was on the east face of that building, i.e., the side that the WTC 7 would have hit, but that WTC 1 would be unlikely to, except a glancing blow. 30 West Broadway was likewise damaged on the side facing WTC 7. WTC 7 did generally fall to the south (the weak side) but it was not into its own footprint.

3. Silverstein did not OWN the WTC except for WTC 7. He owned a leasehold interest in WTC 1-6, which is not quite the same thing.

4. Nonsense, it was well-reported that he received about $861 million in insurance money for WTC 7. If you can present evidence that the amount awarded was $2.2 billion I'd be very impressed, but I don't expect it to happen.

5. I know about the video. It's in the post. That's all you're left with, and it doesn't mean what you think it does. Read the post before replying.

6. Read Judy Wood's billiard ball analogy. Read the 9-11 Commission Report. Check the seismic record. All sources give 18 seconds or so as the time of collapse.

7. What about Deutsche Bank, finally slated for demolition? What about St. Nicholas' church? Nobody says that every building that was close to the WTC was destroyed, but a hell of a lot more of them were destroyed or heavily damaged than you think.

 
At 06 September, 2006 12:39, Blogger StevenWarRan said...

Hi-- I just noticed, the photo credited to the New York City Police Department, 2001 All Rights Reserved, the one looking down at WTC#7 with a whole corner of the building’s base gouged out, that is the south-east corner, not the SW as marked, and it then doesn't correspond to steve spak's photo, or your diagram. Perhaps the police printed the negative in mirror image, but I'm just trying to be charitable. Best...

 
At 11 September, 2006 04:46, Blogger The Parallax View said...

That was f@#king INCREDIBLE!! I certainly am impressed with that Herculean effort. You really "debunked" the crap out of that myth. You have restored my faith in the veracity of our government's conduct. Besides, every sane and reasonably well-read individual knows that if there were any irregularities surrounding the events of 911, the "relentless" media of ours would have surely reported it. A truly stultifying piece of work you have produced! If you please excuse me, my head is now going to explode.



"What is it that men cannot be made to believe?"~Thomas Jefferson

 
At 18 September, 2006 06:57, Blogger StevenWarRan said...

The interview with Richard Banaciski of Ladder 22 does provide damn good evidence of major structural damage to Building #7, and it even supports "pull it" to reference pulling the firefighting operation. It's just unfortunate for Screwers that it front loads with this juicy tidbit:

"We were there, I don't know, maybe 10, 15
minutes and then I just remember there was just an
explosion. It seemed like on television when they blow
up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the
way around like a belt, all these explosions. Everybody
just said run...."

Oh well, nothing's perfect.

 
At 18 September, 2006 08:59, Blogger StevenWarRan said...

A great 20-minute radio interview with Devon Coburg, a 9/11 editor at Popular Mechanics, is on "The Charles Goyette Show." Mr. Coburg mentions the photographic evidence credited to the NYC Police Department, showing structural damage to WTC #7, saying that while PM editors were allowed to see the evidence, they were not allowed to publish it, which sounds strange. I’m glad you acquired a copy of at least one picture, however unclear the details. Are there more photos of WTC #7, and could you post them as a public service please?

 
At 26 September, 2006 23:16, Blogger Pat said...

Stevewarran, I'm not holding back any cards here. These are the photos I could find other than the one linked to at Debunking911, which I'm respecting his right to an exclusive on.

As for the explosion there were several; I have seen the short video of the firemen calling their families, with the rather dramatic and loud explosion. I suspect a transformer in that particular instance.

 
At 28 December, 2006 21:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lets not forget that the term "Pull"
has nothing to do with explosive demolition. It's a so called "term" made up by the conspiracy theorist. They literally Pulled this one out of their asses.

In fact if you look at info on building implosions written before all the truthers hype you will see the proper term use in the implosion industry is...DROP. These people knock out the legs out from under a building and let it DROP.

You can not find any reference to "Pull" being synonymous with controlled explosive demolition BEFORE 9/11. NONE.

Now if Silverstein has said "Drop It" you may have something.

 
At 28 December, 2006 21:16, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fact that people heard "explosions" from a building that was falling apart from the inside is no big surprise.

As structural steel heats and expands or bends rivets and bolts will fail. welds will pop. This is big stuff here and it will make lots of noise, explosive noise.

Ever hear a car crash? Sounds like a bomb going off but no explosive there either.

 
At 24 January, 2007 22:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did I miss something? What about the PBS vidoe of Larry Steinberg admitting he "pulled the building"(WTC7?
http://www.pullitlarry.com/

 
At 24 January, 2007 22:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oops..I meant Silverstein-Larry Silverstein.

 
At 18 April, 2007 10:37, Blogger Ken D. Webber said...

You say there is damage to the south side? You then show a NIST photo showing a scoop to a corner. However, other photos taken that day show NO SCOOP. I believe the NIST photo is photoshopped to support a lie. Sort of like the lie that DEVOUT Muslims were found getting drunk in a strip bar... before going off to meet their maker... an obvious lie about Muslims. If there's one lie, why not two, why not three and some photoshop? The lies begin to pile up. Lies about cool fire temps being able to "weaken" hardened steel in hours. Lies about no motive and yet we all know money and power ARE a motive, especially in light of Operation Northwoods, which suggests the government carry out fake terrorist attacks and then LIE TO US. So give me a bit of authenticity. Why is the NIST photo NOT photoshopped? Why is the new video of this gash NOT a work of digital trickery? If all you have is your word and the word of the government, who already have been caught in numerous lies then aren't you just someone gullible enough to believe this round of lies?

 
At 24 June, 2007 21:30, Blogger Unknown said...

If it was damaged on the lower side as you illustrate in that simulation then logically wouldn't it have fallen to the side instead of directly down into the path of MOST resistance as is seen time and again in demolitions..?? Why does it not seem odd to you that the building fell in this manner? Is anyone who thinks that it fell for unknown reason(s) and would want it seriously investigated and corroborated a "NUT"? Also if you're theory is so sound, why didn't you give the 911 whitewash.. I mean the 911 commission the evidence? what do you know that they don't?
The commission stated in their report that it fell for unknown reasons...and that even their best summations were UNPROBABLE??

 
At 24 June, 2007 21:31, Blogger Unknown said...

Hey, I have a question. If it was damaged on the lower side as you illustrate in that simulation then logically wouldn't it have fallen to the side instead of directly down into the path of MOST resistance as is seen time and again in demolitions..?? Why does it not seem odd to you that the building fell in this manner? Is anyone who thinks that it fell for unknown reason(s) and would want it seriously investigated and corroborated a "NUT"? Also if you're theory is so sound, why didn't you give the 911 whitewash.. I mean the 911 commission the evidence? what do you know that they don't?
The commission stated in their report that it fell for unknown reasons...and that even their best summations were UNPROBABLE??

 
At 21 May, 2008 21:50, Blogger Geezer Power said...

Fox News shoots themselves in the foot with a smoking gun..G:

 
At 04 September, 2008 22:17, Blogger RedMeat said...

I like to take this opportunity to thank all of you for the time and expense you have devoted to this informative and interesting blog. Getting both sides of an issue is always helpful and many times vitally necessary if the truth is ever to be known.

Along this same line I have a question that would, for me anyway, and I'm sure many others, clear up this whole controversy once and for all.

I will attempt to keep this as simple and as short as possible.

Fact #1. The first WTC building hit was struck, more or less “head on”, by a large aircraft with lots of fuel.

Fact #2. The second WTC building was hit, more or less, at an angle, towards a corner of the building (demonstrated by the flames that shot out the other side of that corner) by a large aircraft with lots of fuel.

Fact #3. WTC 7, a building that in no way resembling the first 2 buildings in architecture or engineering, was damaged by debris and fire thrown off when the first 2 buildings fell.

Fact #4. WTC 1, 2 & 7 fell into their own footprint.

Conclusion: Hurling enough flaming debris, with sufficient force, into most any concrete & steel building in the New York area, will cause that building to eventually fall into it's own footprint.

Please, take a few minutes and straighten this out. I'm sure that after u post the links to the dozens of other building that have fallen in this matter we can stop hearing about all this left-wing conspiracy crap and move on with our lives.

BTW, those folks that were asking u about the “odds” on something like this occurring. I looked it up, and your absolutely right. Odds only work for things in the future. So, let me re-phrase.

The governments explanation is fraught with cover-ups, lies, inconsistencies, scientific improbabilities, dozens of coincidences, 1,000's of ignored questions and ten's of millions of disbelievers.

On the other hand u have folks that can think for themselves, that know a little bit about our history, are familiar with the governments overriding imperative: That the ends always justify the means. They understand that this was their government doing what it is they do best.....

So, what are the odds you guys can take the white house & continue the neocon agenda without murdering thousands more men, woman and children on the US Homeland?

 
At 05 March, 2009 05:59, Blogger DaveG said...

alright, listen folks... in the so-called "kook" sites you mention, they tend not to refer to their opposition as being "retarded", such derissions are childish... What makes this site so legitamate that it can't fall under the label of "kook site" itself? I've noticed that *the most convincing arguements* are gleened over- such arguements include, but are not limited to: The haet at which hardened structural steel melts vs. the temperatures at which both jet-fuel and deisel burn, the *facts* that many buildings of a lesser-quality design have withstood raging top-to-bottom infernos that decimated the building in total- and *still survived and were able to be rebuilt using the ORIGINAL STILL-STANDING STEEL FRAME!*, and this pages comments about the narrative in 'Loose Change' being "snippy" is entirely hypocritical considering that you routinely refer to 9-11 truthers in highly derogatory and insulting terms either through insinuations like "Loosers" (losers) or directly by just calling them nuts, kooks, etc... you'll kindly notice that most REAL 9/11 truthers do NOT use such derissions when refering to skeptics because we want to win their minds through FACTS rather than through *intimidation*... thanx for your time, have fun with your derivative Grade School counter-comments to my post ; )

 
At 01 June, 2009 13:06, Blogger James said...

Yay! War!

 
At 01 June, 2009 13:07, Blogger James said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 21 August, 2009 22:20, Blogger sheldon1010101 said...

Had Privilege to listen to Craig presentation as to why it wasn't explosives OR thermite/thermate.

Amongst reasons, NO, none explosive type injury to ANYONE. No explosive type damage to ANYTHING. Thermite/thermate doesn't work because analyzed samples did not have any type of oxidizer.

But back to WTC 7. Afterward, had discussion of one of my favorites with some CTers.

What's the motive that links WTC1, WTC 2 and WTC 7. CTers didn't seem to understand.

There has to be a single motive for controlled demolition of all 3 buildings. You've got to pick a primary target.

If WTC1 and/or WTC2 or specific people/offices in WTC 1 and/or WTC 2 real target, why bother with WTC 7?

If WTC7 or people/offices in WTC 7 then why bother with WTC1 and WTC7?
This one could be we want to hide that our primary target is WTC 7.
But that's an extraordinary amount of work to do.

It's possible there was a common motive for all 3 buildings -- but I've never heard of one.


The reason WTC7 is important to CTers is this: If WTC 7 isn't demolition then there's proof that at least one building can be brought down by physical damage and fire.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home